Talk:Daybreak Game Company

message: no longer on the closed, because I believe it begin on the Freerealms page. Joe McCullough 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freerealms is opening in november 

message: There is no need to change the term success when it comes to EQ2, because it was and continues to be a success. You see product is a success if it meets or exseads the expectations of the manufaturor of said product. Saying EQ2 is not a success because a differant game from a differant company sold far more is like saying a movie is not a success unless it make like Titanic did. WoW is a phenomenon as such it can not be used as an accurate comparison to other games in the same genre. Infact I don't think another US developed MMO has even cracked the 500k mark let alone gotten open.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something needs to be changed about the "success" of EQ2. Which compared to WoW has been almost a failure with only a few hundred thousand singups compared to 9 million. 300k was big back in 2000 but 300k now is not considered a success, becayse out of those 300k that have signed up maybe 100k or less still play. EQ2 and just about EVERY Soe game since EQ has been a commercial failure if at least not a "hit" like EQ1 was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we going to add something about how lots and lots of gamers hate SOE for allegedly ruining Star Wars Galaxies?  It seems like that should be in here, because that's what SOE is most well-known for right now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Controversy section could be adjusted to be more objective.
The "horrible, unreliable and dissapointing online service" seems excessively opinionated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the point that SOE has changed "many" games drastically needs to be fixed. While all games change only SWG changed at such speed. Most other changes for games have been gradual and for the most part accepted by their respective communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section seems a bit odd to have on a corporation's wiki. I don't get why Sony Online Entertainment would be having so much about SWG, when it isn't even their primary game. I think this should be on the Star Wars Galaxies topic. SWG was published by Lucas Arts, and SOE developed it. I don't see any references or sources to issues with EverQuest, and that would be more appropriate than so much about SWG.
: Couple of questions for the criticism section  
::1) Why is it the second main point on the page? Shouldn't this be towards the bottom after Titles and the Station.com section? Seems to make more sense there.
  
::2) What is with the ridiculous amount of Matrix info it? Shouldn't it just be a sentence or two vice a unnecessarily lengthy diatribe?
::BaronJuJu 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy/criticism section? 

message: Sony Station is an online thing that they run which supports three games I believe, one is the classic online MMO 3rd person shooter Infantry and a Tank and Space shooter game.  This service is still running but most of the games original players have moved on as the game community has moved on to more advanced games in the last 5 or so years.--Exander 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sony Station? 

message: I avoid editing and meddling in pages i have had nothing to with, but recent changes look like someone has removed the contorversy section entirley and rpelaced it with an advert for 'station.com'. Can someone more familiar with this page confirm if this should be reverted? Bjrobinson 12:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok im re-inserting this, it seems clear it shouldn't have been removed. (The two users who removed it are a bit sus).Further to this, the section on Station.com looks like blatent advertising Bjrobinson 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: I tagged the article with POV because it reads like a marketing brochure and avoids mentioning any of the fiascos under Smed's management. Also, nothing is referenced. You've got a total crap article here overall. Jonawiki 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did this to the Vanguard page as well.  Not sure about the other SOE related sites.Nschubach 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also done on the John Smedley and SWG pages as well. He is on a vendetta on SOE and its products and personnel--BaronJuJu 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fear not, I will soon correct the lack of neutrality and verifiability in this article. Watch out, it's coming soon. Jonawiki 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You must also take into account that Sony is not the most liked company out there and people are quick to either vandalise or bad-mouth them without thinking first... On that note, I'd like to see a coherent nuetrality fix myself.Evilgohan2 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOE is horrid company run incompetently 

message: After reading the biased Non-encyclopedic Criticisms section I feel that this page must have protected status. It's a constant back and forth between Wiki users that want to promote fair and balnced articles and the SOE hatesquad.
Martinj63 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs protection 

message: :Image:Na-rw soe large tif 100.jpg 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 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 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Na-rw soe large tif 100.jpg

message: I came to Wikipedia looking for information on what "Verant"/"Verant Entertainment" is, and find myself redirected to the Sony Online page with only vague, off-handed references to the thing I was looking for... what gives? Obviously Verant is some sort of Sony Online related venture (though what sort, exactly, is apparently not for me to know). Was there more information in the original Verant article before the redirect was put in place? It seems that no-one living may tell. SOme things man is not meant to know... Dissembly (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell Verant didn't exist long as an independent company. It was spun off of a Sony division and then reacquired by Sony shortly later. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Verant/Verant Entertainment??

message: A lot of this article seems to be a bit biased, Can we remember NPOV? Thanks :D Gsp (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: As of August 2009 there are semi confirmed rumors that a Everquest 3 is in the early stages of devolopment. Will update as more information becomes available  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.18 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EverQuest Next 

message: Added EQOA Frontiers
Added cancelled expanion Underfoot. Not sure if it should go there since it was cancelled, but that's for you better editors to decide. I didn't cite that info, not sure if I needed to, but I don't feel like doing that much. (I also created a redirect for EverQuest Online Adventure: Underfoot to the main EQOA article. Doubt I did anything wrong, but I don't do this too often, so it's be nice if somebody checked that out to make sure.) My sources for this expansion are: http://forums.station.sony.com/eqoa/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=115600008432� posted from the at-the-time lead dev.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clint-worley/1/977/714 Scroll down and there is info there. This page also tells you why said paid is valid (he worked on the game).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added EQOA Expansions Frontiers & Underfoot 

message: Nothing important in this comment, but I just found the tag of "this section requires expansion" in the Expansions section to be hilarious.Primalmoon (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section requires expansion 

message: on 15:52, 9 June 2011, 86.72.211.119 deleted the section titled "Customer Data Breach". i restored the section since there seems to be no consensus yet, and the merge tag on the target article is intact. -badmachine 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoration of [[Sony_Online_Entertainment#Customer_Data_Breach|Customer Data Breach]] section 

message: Does anyone think maybe this should be split into separate sections (not articles)? It's a little bit confusing seeing all of SOE's games listed as being developed by Daybreak Mr. Someguy (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the lead section to say "They" instead of "DGC" where it says "known for creating..." because DGC is not known for creating them, SOE is.  By making it "They" instead of "SOE", I'm saying that the company itself (before the name change) was known for that, not the new name. Fanra (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sony Online Entertainment vs Daybreak Game Company 

message: I removed the tag  since it is supposed to be followed up with something on the talk page explaining why it is there and there is nothing here on it.  Just adding the tag is not enough, whoever puts it there has to also explain why it is there.  Since they didn't, I removed it. Fanra (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead rewrite tag removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daybreak Game Company. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808035152/http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=510206 to http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=510206
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daybreak Game Company. 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69WyMEpKR?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/star-wars-galaxies-empire-divided to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3146444
*Added  tag to http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/07/3307357/fortune-league-brings-everquest.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On four separate occasions, twice on April 6th, twice on April 9th, an employee from Daybreak Games has removed information from this article. Twice as "Daybreakpr" and twice as an anonymous account with an SOE IP address. This is frowned upon.Feldon23 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the article editing their own page? 

message: There appears to be some new information disputing who exactly owns Daybreak , saying "Daybreak Game Company has no affiliation with Columbus Nova. Jason Epstein, former member of Columbus Nova, is and has always been the primary owner and executive chairman of Daybreak Game Company."  Whether this warrants any comment in the article, I'll let you decide because I haven't been able to verify this. -- Crash demons (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind someone already added a comment about this on the article -- Crash demons (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just elaborated on it. Just as confused as they are. I left the lead open to interpretation (saying that it had been spun off to independent investors), while the body explains what's going on. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus Nova ownership confusion