Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Spore (2008 video game). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Creature Creator

Will the creature creator be included in the main game? Someone told me it wasn't so that the game designers/development team could make more money. 124.121.98.228 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Short answer no. Spore uninstalls it when you install it. But you can access the one inside spore which is the same. Wasgood1 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Small warning: not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Street date broken!!

A store chain in Australian broke the street date, forcing other chains to break the street date as well. link WikiMurph912 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EB listed it as 2nd... and had it like that for a while. Doesn't seem like EA would've missed that. Perhaps they wanted a test market? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried at our EBGames, but sadly they refused and said "Come back 23;59 tomorrow, and we can talk!". Oh well, was worth a try! Seems the Scandinavian date stays 4th. Serio (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EA is pretty angry at that store chain in Australia - could have serious repercussions for later major software releases in that region. JAF1970 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Spore.com talks about celebrating launch of the game being Wednesday - with is the 3rd.. I spoke to EA rep, and made sure these were the correct release dates:

Australia: September 4, 2008
Europe: September 5, 2008
Japan: September 5, 2008
US: September 7, 2008

You also have to mention in the article that the street date was broken on September 1, but not in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this article unprotected now? Not only was it protected to stop an edit war between one person and everyone else (which should've had a warning or a blocking to stop it instead of fully protecting an article from being edited), but it's now a fact that it's coming out on the fourth. This whole protection idea was silly, and completely violated consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also just to note it seems that Scandinavia/Nordic has September 4th as the release date of the game. Stated on EA's official Scandinavian/Nordic sites. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Game has also been leaked onto the net as SPORE-RELOADED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.182.175 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think talking about piracy on Wikipedia is worth mentioning in the article. Although it is interesting to note that EA disabled temporarily the online registration servers, meaning that for a while there, people who bought the game legit from a local store in Australia, with EA's blessing, could not play the game, but the people who pirated it were completely unphased -- there is already a crack for the infamous Spore DRM. KiTA (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My game ordered off play.com (UK) arrived this morning... think it was a slight error! --217.206.76.10 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (samtheboy really!)

Some have released early due to the Australian release. JAF1970 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Japan

Isn't Japan supposed to be in the infobox? Falcon9x5 claims it doesn't belong, but that just doesn't seem correct to me. Oh, and even the British con't consider themselves part of the Euro Union, not being on the continent. heh JAF1970 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the UK is part of Europe, and the do share the same release date with the rest of the continent. What's wrong there exactly? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think JAF may be confused about Great Britain - but GB is part of the UK, which is an EU member state. But, even ignoring that, EU can stand for European Union and Europe - the article is referring to Europe, of which GB definitely is a member. Joshua Gross ^{(talk • contribs • signature)} 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed this discussion yesterday. As I stated on JAF's talk page, the syntax guide states "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available", which is why I removed the JP release. No idea what he's on about with the UK not being an EU member. Fin ©™ 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a joke. I know a lot of Brits, and Brits don't like being a part of the EU, and despise the Euro. JAF1970 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My copy of Spore arrived today, so either EA screwed up or we're part of Europe. What a surprise! Smurfy 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore on OSX utilises Cider

This Transgaming press release indicates that EA used Cider to bring Spore to OSX. This might explain why OSX Spore has higher requirements than Windows Spore (it has to translate Directt3D calls into OpenGL etc). 87.114.152.205 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been known for awhile, and it's been the norm for EA's recent OS X releases. It's interesting that it's not noted at all in the article though; anyone think it should be? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's more Development of Spore fodder. JAF1970 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's more relevant than most of the information in that article, but it's not mentioned in there either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong about creature editor

The paid version of the creature creator contains 100% of the parts, not 50-75% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

all parts have a function, not purley decorative. i.e: detail feathers are not only decorative, but will also add charm to the creature. Whiteshark12 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. 92.21.225.35 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Phase goal

I've seen in recent videos that the ultimate goal of the space phase is to reach the center of the galaxy. I don't have sources to site so I made no changes Vulture12 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That information used to be in the article, including the Grobb being the race you had to get past to reach the center of the galaxy. When or why it was removed I am not sure. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

how would you get your planet to the center of the galaxy? i dont think that is the goal of the space age. i dont think that it needs to be in the article.Al1012 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the goal to get your planet there, it's more to discover and explore the center of the galaxy. The Grobb would be the technologically unified race that stands in your way of reaching this goal. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's more to discover and explore the center of the galaxy" when you get to the space age you will be able to see the center of the galaxy so cant you just go their and look at the planets that are their? or do you mean like look around the whole galaxy... go to every planet make friends with them or try and kill them? that what i think the goal is.Al1012 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"do you mean like look around the whole galaxy" - is pretty much what I had meant, the ability to navigate freely around in the galactic environment. However, this is starting to become borderline Forum talk and should either be taken to talk pages or dropped entirely as it doesn't seem to pertain to the page. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT becoming forum talk. You are discussing the directly relevant content and structure of the game, as it pertains to the content of the article. please, let's not become burdensome in our attention to rules here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

their might not even be a goal to the space age. it might just be their so

1 you can inter act with other peopls creations/planets

2 just to keep you busy with the game

3 to show that you have srived the conquest mode(?)

and it could be so you will not get borded and start over but most people will do anyways.Al1012 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I don't think speculation about the game is directly relevant to content and structure. What Al1012 and I were discussing our opinions of what we feel the end of the game will be like and that to me seems like forum talk. I'm not arguing the fact that the end goal of the game shouldn't be added to the article, it should be as long as it is cited, but the part where people are expressing personal opinion should be stopped and the focus should be aligned with the topic at hand. If anything [1] should be a good cite. It states that the space phase can last forever, but there can be an ending if the player decides to go that route. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this right, but this [2] is the exact diff where the Grobb are removed from the article. It was done by an IP, fwiw198.161.173.180 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a goal that's why it's called a simulation game.Skele (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does have a goal. You're allowed to play after the goal is achieved, just like, say, Civilization. JAF1970 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Spore does have a win condition: reach the center of the galaxy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF is right, i've seen it in numerous videos by developers. They seem to be intentionally vague, probably so as not to spoil it. I'm not sure about the Grobb, though. I saw that in an early video of design art, but does anybody have any recent sources confirming the Grobb? Elisk (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grobb (now actually called the Grox) are the race that try and stop you from reaching the center of the galaxy (which is the eventual goal of Space Stage). My source is Spore, the game.

I am willing to bet that EA is behind this. they have been known to advertise on wiki, they would like to keep their "hard core game ending" a secret. 82.16.95.5 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

trivia section?

shouldn't a trivia section be added? I read in "TIME" a second ago about 'sporn.' I'd say it's noteworthy, they even talked to the creator about it. --208.71.219.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. They don't really add anything to the greater understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think a mention of sporn should exist somewhere in the article. Definitely not a trivia section, though. StevePrutz (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sporn is mentioned in the Development of Spore article. I expect you will encounter some resistance to adding it to the main spore article, but the TIME link and a quote from Will Wright about it does throw some weight behind its notability and verifiability. I really like how amazed he was at the sporn... Wright says. "But I was really surprised at how good the Sporn was. Because we were doing these really pathetic looking penises, you know? And they were doing these amazing, really explicit things that would animate correctly!" 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have included the link. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1838763,00.html 198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to change the tense, I guess

Since Spore is now out in many countries, we should probably change the tense from future to present/past. Smurfy 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's done now, as far as I can tell. Zell65 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the release date should say just September 2008 (or just 2008) without listing all the regions; the intro puts way too much emphasis on each specific release dates, and breaking street date, etc...I mentioned this before, but since JAF1970 feels this is his own personal article, he erased my comments. Again I say the specific date on which a game is released is not noteworthy, especially after it has been released. The month, or even just the year, would suffice. I guess this is more of a soapbox, since there's no chance that JAF will let anyone have a say in anything. A pity, because the article could be great, but in the end, it will always really be "JAF1970's official review of Spore" 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacking other users is not the way to get your point across. Dp76764 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Awards Section For This Game WTF???

Just to Qoute it "At E3 2005, the game won the Best of Show, Best Original Game, Best PC Game, and Best Simulation Game Game Critics Awards. At E3 2006, it won Best PC Game, Best Original Game, and Best Simulation." Since when do they give out awards to games that do not exist, it is my understanding it just barely came out so i suggest this is irrelevent all of this should be taken off does anyone else dissagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to win the awards at E3 for the demo of the game. While it was in development it was winning awards at these venues. -- ClosedEyesSeeing (Speak) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Price in Canada?

Does anyone know what the price is in Canada? Zell65 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this article. Please remember that the talk page is not for general discussion of the subject but discussion of changes that need to be made to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps the article could be improved if it listed the average retail price. Is it so gosh darn important to you that I'm not provided with information that isn't mentioned on the article? Cripes, I'm just trying to ask a question here. No need to bite. Zell65 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a polite reminder of what is posted at the top of the page. Video game articles don't list average prices, they fluctuate far too much, nor are they usually notable. All games tend to come out around the same price depending on whether their a standard title or budget title. There is no need to get worked up. Spore is a high traffic article right now and video games inevitably attract discussion which isn't related to the improvements of your article. I could have just blanked your question as outlined in the guideline, but I chose to politely remind you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More reliable sources for the DRM controversy

I think this Defective by Design issue has now been covered by enough sources to warrant including more extensive coverage in this article. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You listed the FT one twice, and the slashdot article cannot be used as a reliable source. The other ones look fine. The BBC one is the strongest (though oddly missing a byline). The ft and zdnet blogs aren't really that strong. There is a reason they were created it was to give some minor attention to stuff the greater public doesn't really care about. While reliable in to source that author's opinion, not terribly good for establishing notability. We're not trying to make an article on spore's drm though. So the BBC article is sufficient to source something.--Crossmr (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the second FT link was supposed to be this Yahoo! Tech link: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/105378 (granted, another blog). Still, I'm sure that over the next few days we'll see other major news organizations like the NY Times and WSJ pick up on this story. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think there are enough sources for us to expand the coverage of the controversy in the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the latest SecuROM protection, pirated copies of Spore appeared online before its official release date." Does that line sound good? Some sources:

[3] (I think Wired is a good source)
[4] (is Kotaku a good source?)
[5] (not the best source)

I can search for more if those are not adequate. 69.182.107.94 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku is a good and reliable site and has been references before on other Wikipedia articles. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Usage in other articles doesn't mean its accepted. It means no one has challenged. Kotaku at its heart is a blog, and I seem to recall them making mistakes on information in the past (they've been known to speculate on rumours for example) that doesn't do much to establish their credibility. There are many sites being used as citations on wikipedia that don't belong here, it just means someone hasn't cleaned them up. In this case kotaku is just taking their information from another blog as evidenced by the via link. In this case a site called gameviper posted by someone who has only a first name and the about the site info doesn't profess any accuracy or guarentee for the information on the site.--Crossmr (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From the kotaku ToS[6], Gawker Media provides this content "as is" and Gawker Media shall not be held liable for your use of the information or the feeds. sounds like they are not guarenteeing the content, which means they won't stand behind the content they post, which means it can't be used as a source which meets WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources says this on Kutaku: "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced. For example, Kotaku's editor Brian Crecente has appeared on Fox News in relation to gaming topics, and his work has appeared in other publications (thus meeting the requirements of WP:SPS.)". But in any case, don't we already have plenty of other sources? BBC News hardly ever covers gaming topics, so when they do it must be relevant. JACO PLANE • 2008-09-10 05:53

Because flogging a dead horse is good family fun... here's another link. This one from Maximum PC... http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/ea_getting_slammed_spores_unntelligently_designed_drm I think that qualifies as a reliable soures, though admittedly I am not an expert on where that particular line is drawn. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Currency for Civ and space stages

The currency for civilization and space stages is incorrectly labeled as "spice", It's actually "sporebucks" which are gained by collecting and later, in the space stage, selling spice. I have the game myself, so I'm completely positive on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.81.136 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't see that. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Game Engine...

What version is used? 83.108.220.157 (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article corrections

The epic creatures do begin to appear in the Cell phase.
being a herbivore/carnivore/omnivore at the conclusion of the Cell phase grants your creature a special ebility for each of the subsequent phases (ie. being an herbivore gives you the Siren's Song in the Creature phase.)

We're getting into a dangerous area, tho. Remember, this is not a strategy guide, so you can't discuss, say, the different types of mouths. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Creature section talks about the Cell phase having asexual reproduction. This is incorrect, mating occurs at the cell phase as well. concretecold 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

MAJOR SPOILER! DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE GAME;

The "Genesis device" is actually called the Staff of Life, and is achieved by reaching the centre of the galaxy. It is the ultimate terraforming tool, but only has 42 uses. The information in the space phase section is outdated. 75.157.104.55 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected this and will continue some corrections to the article now the game has been released.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 06:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the planet buster called the "Little Doctor"? 75.157.69.196 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't achieved it yet, but it is supposedly called the 'Planet Buster'. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There Should Be A Controversy Section

Spore Uses secuROM which essentially makes your DVD game into a coaster if you have to install it 3 times and this should be in here if we want to seem impartial rather than looking like an advertisement for the game ChesterTheWorm (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

We can't add content that reliable sources don't create. See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the comments which can be viewed on amazon.com at the very least verify that there is a real public outcry and boycott going on right now. I would not be suprised to see that initial sales of this game are dramatically lower than projected. 66.218.235.199 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. User comments are not reliable. Anyone can write anything, and they are not checked for accuracy. Nothing individually created unless the individual is an expert in the field is considered reliable.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you run out of installs, a quick call to EA customer support should fix it. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the customer support a toll line that charges you more than $2 per minute or something though? I can't find their support number nor fee rate on the US site but that's what some of the other sites say. 71.170.196.194 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There will still be grounds for a controversy section, for several reasons.

A lot of people are going to be affronted that the product they paid for and physically own requires someone else's approval to function, regardless of how smoothly the approval goes. Still others will see such requirements as part of a slippery slope of DRM with potentially devastating consequence for computing and online freedom, and totally flip out.
Spore has more target countries than there are EA hotlines. Long-distance and international calls are potentially expensive and time-consuming, especially if customer support is a toll line as seventy-one says, adding non-trivial cost and effort to playing the game.
Other games with such DRM mechanisms have had problems giving the users their validations. At the moment, things seem to be going wrong badly enough for EA to give out the line "We are aware of the problem and are working on a solution."
Problems will ensue if the support staff is not consistently fast, effective and fluent in all of the many languages of the callers.
Securom breaks its users' things, though not as often or as badly as Starforce.
All of the above will be made considerably worse if they are not clearly spelled out on the game box.

We still some reliable data, but that's just a matter of time. Hope that helps. --Kiz o r 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source begins reporting on it it is a violation of WP:NPOV to create such a section.Also familiarize yourself with WP:V if you wish to restore content that was removed for lacking a citation the burden of proof is on you to provide that citation. Restoring it with a tag is not an acceptable alternative. The only grounds for a controversy section is when reliable sources write articles and content criticizing the subject. Not when an individual has an issue with a subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with listing the reasons why there will be reliable sources reporting on DRM controversy? --Kiz o r 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I should have made 2 separate comments. My comment about WP:V was to your article edit where you restored unsourced information stating it would be easier to find a citation that way. As for the reasons why reliable sources will be reporting on DRM, don't count on it. A lot of games experience "player uproars" in the forums. Rarely do anything outside of barely notable weblogs report on it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Using unreferenced but factually accurate statements together with a "citation needed" tag is good enough by my standards - especially if it's going to be temporary - but I won't contest your more rigorous ones.
We'll certainly get references for the technical facts. Referencing the public reaction will be trickier and require some fancy footwork, but I'm confident that well be able to do it, especially since it has now turned out that EA refrained from informing buyers of an account limit. --Kiz o r 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Some sources: [7], [8]. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wired is speaking in future tense and is a blog from an author only identifiable by a gmail address. He's not speaking of an existing controversy he's theorizing that there will be one. So assuming its reliable, its still only a theory, no evidence of one. The gamesindustrybiz one is from an author in which we can get no info except his name and picture, and the about page discusses nothing about their editorial oversight, simply referring to the site as a business networking tool which makes me question where the articles are coming from. Are they being written by journalists and edited or are these just random articles from random people with no oversight.--Crossmr (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Wired source points to Eurogamer, which is reliable. I'd throw caution to the gamesindustrybiz one simply as it is summing up the Amazon.com comments. However, that said, there needs to be more about the DRM to create a controversy or other section about it. A fraction of gamers hate DRM - that's a fact, and nothing different in Spore's case, thus the usual DRM nay-sayers aren't something to report on. The DRM needs to have a technical or sales impact in order to be mentioned - see how BioShock deals with that issue as there are technical faults on the DRM that made it a huge issue. So far, I've only seen people disappointed that Spore has DRM but that's true of every game so its nothing special here. --MASEM 12:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And regardless of any of that, no good article was ever written that had a "controversy" section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The eurogamer source doesn't mention a controversy, which was kind of my point. It simply reports the guys statements. The wired blog then theorizes that that will create a controversy in the future. So there is no evidence that one exists. The only thing that is evidence of is some random blogger who we can't get any info about thought 3 weeks ago there would be a controversy.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of any point of view or source issues it is entirely relevant and verifiable that a user sponsored crusade/protest to exists to give the game poor reviews on amazon.com and that this is a protest against the DRM in the game. I see no reason that this article can not include this very relevant information without running afoul of wiki policies and style. 24.248.56.59 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "regardless of pov or source issues" excuse for adding something. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Dp76764 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)