Jump to content

Talk:Xbox Game Studios/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

State of Decay ?

I'm pretty sure Microsoft just published the title they don't own it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:E8F9:B4:B23C:C1C8 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just A Reminder

ok just remeber to add the 4 tildes when editing. it makes life easier. thnx MasterEditor99 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

DS Games

What about the DS games that bear the Microsoft Game Studio logo??

ok?

im not sure but if i know that a game is going to be a trilogy do i list the trilogy. eg mass effect is going to be a trilogy however nobody has stated this. thnx MasterEditor99 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Burger King games

The Burger King games were not published by Microsoft Game Studios - they were funded and distributed by Burger King themselves - the games were only available from Burger King restaurants. The official Xbox.com page for Sneak King even lists Burger King as the publisher [1]. And the Microsoft Game Studios logo is not on the box for those titles. SeanMooney 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put it back because even if a game doesn't have the microsoft game studios logo on the front you can tell its a microsoft game studios game if the address on the back of the game says one microsoft way and I'm looking at my copy of sneak king and it says one microsoft way and xbox.com sometimes makes mistakes like with vampire rain it says it was published by aq interactive but it was microsoft game studios and a publisher does not always distribute a gameMarioman12 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are going to re-add it those games then find an official source that says it was published by Microsoft - a press release or interview or something. Just because the Microsoft address is listed on the back of the box does not mean they published the game. Like I said the official site says otherwise, the ESRB website says otherwise, there is no Microsoft Game Studios logo on the box, and they were only available from BK restaurants. If you can find something official and reference it then fine, but don't add it just because you think so. SeanMooney 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Why list Microsoft Corporation releases?

If this is really all about the Microsoft Game Studios brand of releases, are you not supposed to keep it that way?

The brand wasn't even taken seriously by Microsoft until 2002, in regards to it being a publishing brand at least. So why is that rather important part of the brand history all but disregarded in the supposedly accurate article that this is?

Who cares if some title has the Microsoft Corporation address on the back of the box, that does not make it a part of this brand. If that was how Microsoft and the developer intended it to be they would have slapped that logo onto the box/intro program for the product. Since you are ignoring that this is very confusing article.

Is this article really about the brand as a publisher? Is this article about that logo's history? Why have Microsoft Corporation published products in the article in the first place? Those products don't even have said logo on the product. --EMU-LMAO (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Emu, because this article is titled as "Microsoft Game Studios", not "Microsoft as a game publisher". If the article is in fact about the brand, label, and marketing of MGS, then the games that were published prior to MGS (i.e., by "Microsoft") should not be lumped in with the games that were published as MGS. They should just be moved to the Microsoft article. If you don't want this separation to exist, then the article needs to be renamed, and should not focus on MGS, but rather on Microsoft's entire history of game publishing. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive Incorporated

I thought I read a Times article somewhere that Massive Inc was purchased by the Online Business Services ( MSN ) and not by MGS. Confirmation anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.41.76 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Carbonated Games and Hired Gun?

On the Carbonated page it says that they are no longer a studio (replaced by XBLA group or some sort?). Should they be moved to "Former studios"?

Also, I heard that Hired Gun was never really a studio, just a group put together for Halo 2 PC. If so, should they be removed?

Train Simulator 2

Someone needs to move it to the cancelled section i'm too much of a noob to do it

Fact check:subsidiary

This article presents MGS as a "subsidiary" of Microsoft, which implies that it is a separate business entity owned by Microsoft. However, it seems to me that MGS is just a publishing label that Microsoft chooses to use (also see Games for Windows or even Xbox for that matter--neither of these are subsidiary companies, they're just brands and labels owned directly by Microsoft), and the operations and persons associated with it are simply organized internally as part of a games division. If MGS is actually a subsidiary, its existence should be reflected in legal documents: assignment of copyright for published titles, paychecks for employees, etc. Is there any evidence to show that MGS is a company rather than a brand? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that MGS is a studio (not just a brand). I think (as you say), this makes them legally not a separate studio. Their office is in Redmond just like MS HQ. They seem to operate similarly to how EA Canada and Crytek are studios. --Daev (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but since the studio is being represented by a different label, that still makes it a brand representing part of the same company. I'm going to edit the article to reflect this, since no one else has provided evidence to the contrary in the past five months. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why so many duplicate studios?

There seems to be LOTS of duplicates in the 3rd party studios list, and loads of 1st party studios that have never released anything (surely they need to actually RELEASE something to actually be worth a count).

I make 10 worthwile entries in TOTAL amongst the 1st and 2nd party list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

owned franchises and properties

Microsoft subsequently licensed the rights to produce electronic adaptations of FASA games back to Weisman, who is currently heading a venture called Smith & Tinker.


On October 15, 2007, they announced that they had licensed from Microsoft the rights for Weisman's previous creations of MechWarrior, Shadowrun, Crimson Skies and other FASA titles and would be announcing their plans for these intellectual properties at a later date.

Both from WIkipedia. I'm not good in English but Ithought, this means, that MechWarrior, Shadowrun, Crimson Skies aren't any more Microsoft????83.77.155.3 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Microsoft still owns those franchises. If you check their copyright page, all of those are still listed. Weisman licensed them, but he did not buy them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Noticed in videos from the 2011 E3 show that they have been renamed Microsoft Studios and they have a new logo. Can someone update please.Darwin-rover (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing articles of past releases

Just so everyone is on the same page, we do not go back and change articles for games released prior to the name change. We follow the name that was used when the game was released, as that is technically who published/developed it. Thanks --Teancum (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Magatama

If you press at Magatama, there doesn't come the game, it comes something different. (85.2.250.186 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Software Development Studios

If someone has the time, please clean up the development studios section. There are WAY too many studios on that list and everything just looks like a chaotic mess. Don't have much experience with massive edits and I wouldn't know what to clean up. Thanks in advance. QuantumWake (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Studios (game studio) → Microsoft Studios – "Microsoft Studios" is the full name for this game studio. Originally, Microsoft Production Studios was titled at "Microsoft Studios", but that was the wrong name, and it was moved to its actual name with a redirect. The redirect needs to be deleted for this article to be moved there. Also, "Microsoft Production Studios" is not as notable as Microsoft Studios, so the redirect should not point there anyways (see the Microsoft Production Studios talk page for more info too). - M0rphzone (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2nd Party

This whole section is incredibly innacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.169.4 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd Party isn't even a real thing (it would be something the end-user made). It should be deleted TMV943 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Minecraft

This page says they have bought Minecraft. However, this is just roumours that were started on that day. No confirmation has been made yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.253.130 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Settle down, guys.

Microsoft's deal to acquire Mojang is NOT final. Do not add these studios until it is, in late 2014 according to USA Today. Chambr (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROSE

I suggest that we'd rewrite the entire article without removing any content, this is possible by simply re-listing all the information into paragraphs and keep the section names (the years) to make it seem more encyclopedic. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the studios shouldn't have been removed

Studios like BigPark, LXP, Function and Good Scienece shouldn't have been removed, it's pure speculation as Microsoft has yet to comment on why these studios were removed. I've re-added them, please understand that rumors and speculation aren't a good reason to remove/add content, until Microsoft confirms what happens with these studios they should stay on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poklane (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

0x10c

Should this really be listed as an owned franchise and property? It was a project cancelled in a pre-alpha stage, two years before Microsoft acquired Mojang. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Blinx franchise

Microsoft Studios no longer owns the Blinx franchise as of 2015, as they discontinued their trademark of the series. And yet it is still listed as one of their own franchises on this page. This needs to be addressed.

Blinx 182 (talk) 5: 24 PM, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Microsoft Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Casual Games

Hello Readers!

Previously I wrote an article related to the developer Microsoft Casual Games, however, my article in previous days was notified as an article in discussion, with the purpose of merging it into the Microsoft article. I can admit that my Microsoft Casual Games article lacked a lot of information, I even had information ready to modify it and write more about the developer, but today I realized that it merged with the Microsoft Studios article in my humble opinion, I think It did not deserve the merger, since over the years, the content of Microsoft Casula Games could be expanded a bit, since it had already created an independent article. Also just enough with a modification in the article writing more on the subject.

If anyone wanted to comment on their opinion, I would like them to write in this little essay.

Thanks for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaMEX2001 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

I believe that separating the studios by country makes the most sense as it will make it easier for the average reader to find a studio based in a specific country. For example, if the average reader is looking for a studio based in the United States, having U.S. based and Canadian based studios separated makes it easier for the reader to find a studio based in the country he/she wants to work in compared to having them organized by continent, which just makes it confusing for the average reader if they want to look for a studio based in the United States but finds that they are lumped into a section with Canadian Studios, which has a different economy from the United States. MPedits (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MPedits, several things I already stated before:
  1. You are still removing Masem's recently-added content, and restoring some unsourced employee count, both for no reason and without any comment.
  2. You are still edit warring; you initiated the disputed edit, so it is your turn to reach consensus, THEN re-insert your edit (given the consensus has been reached). See especially WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, both of which I haved linked multiple times before. Given this, your comment "... Revertion back to the continential based organization WILL result in a ban." is completely unwarranted, as are your warnings on my talk page. I ceased leaving warnings on your page as I did not feel the necessity to have you banned again for the same offence that had you banned not one month ago.
  3. Economy has nothing to do with how we categorise anything anywhere; by that logic, we would have to split up the U.S. studios by state and the Canadian studios by province, etc.; that, we wouldn't do (as I explained before). Nether is Wikipedia a place for people to seek jobs openings, we are an encyclopedia.
  4. Now to get to the actual argument. We should order the studios by major geographical body because it makes sorting, editing and navigating them very easy and keeps the content tidy. The vast majority of readers will have learned what the seven continents are. Nobody will be confused by a continent-wise listing, as it is widely understood.
Lordtobi (✉) 16:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for unintentionally removing Maseem’s edit’s, and I also apologize for edit warring, bur I still do not believe we should order the studios by major geographical body, as it is more convienent to have them laid out by country, and it is more specific. MPedits (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A note on Zenimax acq

First, the deal is not complete, it will not be done until last 2021, so please do not add studios yet to the table until that is complete. However, I do see that this will be a flat incorporation: per GameStop: The announcement from Bethesda mentions Starfield specifically: "Microsoft will grow from 15 to 23 creative studio teams and will be adding Bethesda's iconic franchises to Xbox Game Pass. This includes Microsoft's intent to bring Bethesda’s future games into Xbox Game Pass the same day they launch on Xbox or PC, like Starfield, the highly anticipated, new space epic currently in development by Bethesda Game Studios." [2] so when it is time to add them , we add as individual studios (eg Arkane, etc.) --Masem (t) 16:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

why is it that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_Media#2020_Microsoft_acquisition has mention of the acquisition but on this page we are not allowed to mention the acquisition at all? I made the change to add it not under "currently owned" but to a new section for "future acquisitions" and it was removed with no note. previous undo edits were because the change was made to the currently owned section with a note stating as such, this change was to add a new section. is wikipedia staff really that offended with the idea of promoting current events that have no relation to politics? 75.183.23.16 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Yggdrasil75
The acquisition is clearly noted in the history section. IceWelder [✉] 05:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It is expected

"Microsoft is paying $7.5 billion in an all-cash deal, which is expected to complete in the second half of 2021, subject to regulatory approval. The company was valued in 2016 for around $2.5 billion and has been the subject of takeover speculation for much of the year. A statement, published to Reddit and found by SegmentNext claimed that Sony had been eyeing up one of the biggest publishers around."


Who expects it in 2021? Microsoft. So then who expects it in 2021? Microsoft. After regulatory approval is also wrong as it is subject to approval. It is not a sure thing. Why do you want to omit who expects it? Is it joe from down the street? Is it Alanah from Inside Gaming? No. It's Microsoft.PropulsionMan (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:

"after regulatory approval" is the same as "pending approval". No acquisition of publically traded companies goes through without that, so its a necessary step. The problem is that "fiscal year 2021" means nothing to most people because that's not the same on the calendar year for most companies. Fortunately the Bloomberg article says both this AND dates the fiscal year to calendar year so that we now know this will be in the FIRST half of calendar year 2021. --Masem (t) 01:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: Pending: "awaiting decision or settlement." After: "in the time following (an event or another period of time)." Pending was the wording Microsoft used and I believe that using after violates WP:NPOV as it implies that Wikipedia expects the deal to be approved. After is not wrong. It's just not as right as it could be. Fiscal year and Calender year are not super important and I don't really care what dates we use. Probably as it's a gaming article calender year is better.PropulsionMan (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It's business-speak and art of the term. The acquisition can't go through until shareholders approve and the SEC says its okay. AFTER that happens, then the deal can complete. That's all verbally speaking "pending approvals", and no one will confuse "After approval" with that. And yes, fiscal vs calendar is VERY VERY important since these don't align for most companies. ---Masem (t) 02:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xbox_Game_Studios/Archive_1&oldid=1179975456"