Talk:Paradox Interactive

message: Voice chat is included in Diplomacy for treaty/negotiation purposes as of six months ago... Patch v1.3
Paradox Interactive was a division of Paradox Entertainment, but the companies have now separated. I am not exactly sure what P-E does (I believe they publish non-computer games). Jordi·✆ 09:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice Chat Now Included 

message: I made the last few edits not under my new user name.
There seems to be a trend towards the highly subjective within any article associated with Paradox Interactive. Their games may be popular and many may enjoy them - but Wikipedia isn't a platform for their advertisement. --- Brheas 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last few edits. 

message: :Image:Paradoc Interactive.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Paradoc Interactive.png

message: Apparently this isn't allowed in the main article because it's not praise. Here's what I wrote, though. Despite what some claim, it is fact. If you think it isn't, feel free to register and find out. 
"It should be noted that the Paradox Forums have several restrictions for posters. For example, any discussion glorifying the Holocaust or Naziism is strictly prohibited. Users may be banned for bringing up these topics in such a manner. The purpose is two-fold. First, Paradox wishes to continue selling its games in Germany, Austria, and Italy, where glorification of Naziism or the Holocaust is strictly prohibited. Secondly, such discussions can cause unnecessary hurt for users.
  	
 	
Paradox also has several restrictions that can cause immediate banning, resulting in some animosity from current and past posters. Asking for any information on when a future patch may be released will result in banning. Any mention of certain rival forums, such as The Tomatoforum, may result in immediate banning. According to some members, anti-Americanism is allowed, and encouraged in some cases, while anti-European or anti-socialist talk can result in immediate banning. Personally insulting mods or questioning them can result in immediate banning as well.
  	
	
The forums do offer a good resource for information and tips on Paradox games, but posters must tread lightly. Ask intelligent questions and avoid certain topics and a new poster should be fine and have a fun time."
:As an American member of the Paradox forums, I don't get a sense of anti-Americanism anywhere in the forum. There are a good number of American members and I doubt they'd continue to participate in forum discussions if there was general dislike of Americans.  Panzer V Panther 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules about what is and isn't allowed aren't determined by the individual editors who work on this page. your edits were probably removed as they contain, in part, original research. see Wikipedia:No_original_research. if you can find independent verification of your points, and persist against any that edit against you in spite of this, then you'll get the section in--Mongreilf (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not allowed in main article 

message: The article mentions that Paradox continues to support their games long after release, which is great, but fails to mention that most of the games they release demand patches because they are so buggy in the first place. Conventional wisdom is to wait to buy a Paradox Game until the first patch. thezirk (talk)
"We had this vision of people buying a Paradox game without knowing what the game was; that 'Paradox' should be a guarantee for a type of game experience" 
Yeah, i sure know that experience, wait until the second patch and don't spend 20 dollars on three mechs. Not to mention it's 1.3 and the game still is buggy crap with seemingly one voice actor.speaking all women.i would have known that HBS gets bought by PE I wouldn't have Kickstartet battletech.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.119.77 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patches 

message: What's the company's stock symbol, if it's publicly traded? I looked everywhere, and couldn't find it. --66.191.125.140 (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public? 

message: Is GamersGate limited to people residing in certain regions/nations? Thanks! SharkD (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GamersGate regions 

message: I undid an edit that added a 'shortcomings' section talking about forum discussion of games requiring patches for bugs etc.  Though I do agree that the 'Forum' section is a bit too sticky-sweet in its tone, the added section seemed to just point to a rant-like forum thread to back up a contention that Paradox games require patches, which unfortunately is an issue with nearly every game publisher and developer.  I would suggest that if the author would like to add this point, he/she back it up with some details on if and how this problem is unique to Paradox. --GGG65 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This general concept (patches, expansions) is discussed in the fourth paragraph under the Games section.  I'll reword that section a bit to be a little more NPOV, but it is covered there.  To highlight this further, you would need to point out how this is different for Paradox compared to other publishers that use patches (and expansion packs).  A search of forums and update histories shows Paradox's patching frequency and free fixes history to be equal or superior to that of many other strategy game developers such as Firaxis and Creative Assembly.  If you have more third-party references or citations I would suggest adding them into the existing paragraph in the Games section. --GGG65 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That kind of forum posts would not be admissable as sources for this. You would need third party sources like game reviews and articles from gaming sites etc. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: They do generally not live up to the Wikipedia rules about verifiability and adhering to a neutral point of view (You could also find forum posts that expresses the opposite view). For a more detailed explanation you might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forum threads.. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the documents you quoted but please consider that my intention is not to assess/review Paradox games. My intention is sic et simpliciter to report the opinion of some customer. --Calgaco (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intention is irrelevant in this matter as it is the material you add to the article that is the problem. The fact that a single customer is quoted from a forum thread is (besides the reasons I stated above) fringe theory. Please do not add the material once more as you do not have established consensus for this material, and you would also break the 3RR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It does not matter if it is one or several users, the point is that forum threads with very few exceptions (of which this is not one) are not permissable as sources in wikipedia articles. I have provided you with enough links for you to understand that fact. I can see that you do know what edit warring means from previous experience, and as such you should know that you will need to establish consensus before adding disputed material to an article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Shortcomings' 

message: "Ship Simulator Extremes" is another upcoming game that Paradox Interactive will be publishing. It is currently scheduled for Q1 2010.
--RMS Gigantic (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another upcoming Paradox project 

message: According to the Paradox Website Magna Mindi is postponed until ealry 2012.
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/magna-mundi--109.91.76.29 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Mundi postponed 

message: Alright, this part of my section is just saying that I'm new to editing, and I don't actually go on the Paradox forums, but I'm making this section for the sake of getting rid of an extremely bad section. Generally, sorry for the bad redo, but that's why I'm not putting it straight into the article, and I am instead simply posting it in discussion as a request for comments.
--------------------------------
The complexity of the games often warrants player collaboration over the forums. Often, players will assist other players with the games, post modifications, and write "after action reports". Due to much of the game content being in plain text and image files, modifying the games has become very popular.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redone Forums Section? 

message: I have noticed that most games coming out now, published by Paradox but by other developers have an in-game DLC store which is never mentioned on the store page when you buy the game. Examples include:
Leviathan Warships
Game of Dwarves
War of the Roses
Showdown Effect
Starvoid
Dungeonland
Cities in Motion 2
Because they are by different developers but all published by Paradox I think there must be some kind of company policy in force here.
I'm not sure where this could be mentioned in the article or even if it should be.
94.6.250.82 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New trend: In game DLC store 

message: The learning curve being steep is something that was marked as citation needed.
the following articles / reviews mention the steep learning curves.
There are also numerous forum posts to that effect but I figured those couldn't be sources. (overall they seem to agree, though there are some that say they aren't too bad). 
this is my joystick on march of eagles
wargamer about hearts of iron III
I have no idea how to fix this in the article though, can I simply replace the citation tag with a [N] tag with footnote?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorishilhorst (talk • contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Citation needed 

message: The company has cancelled 5 games.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Paradox_Interactive_games This is important to consumers and should be noted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futomato (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled games 

message: Would criticism of Paradox's DLC practices be major enough to be worth mentioning? EditWorker (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if one were very careful to maintain neutrality in doing so.  Citing major games journalist websites or VERY popular complaints from fan sites (I.e. reddit or something like that) could count so long as one explicitly states it was them who made the complaint.  This coupled with any response the company had to these complaints would make for a relatively neutral post.  Make sure to run it by someone who is either a long time editor or an admin before you publish anything, just to be safe. Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLC 

message: I propose a paragraph be written on HBS studios, Battletech (published by Paradox programmed by HBS) and HBS acquisition by Paradox, with a link to the Harebrained Schemes LLC wikipedia page at the top of it.  With Harebrained schemes now owned by Paradox, it, and any further actions done by HBS studios, is now directly relevant to Paradox activities. Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Battletech/HBS

message: The owner of Paradox is listed as Tencent. This is misleading given they only own 5% of the shares in Paradox Interactive when WesterInvest AB and Investment AB Spiltan own significantly more shares (33.4% and 22% respectively according to the company's 2018 accounts). Should this be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.207.215 (talk • contribs) 
: We can use their latest filings to mention that, yes. It gives a better impression. I found the link to their investment breakdown and will include the top 5 --Masem (t) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: I had no idea about this, but it turns out that Penumbra: Black Plague was published by Paradox. Still, for some reason Paradox is not listed as the publisher in Steam's store page. 84.231.70.192 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox as a publisher for Penumbra: Black Plague