Talk:Cities XL

message: I regularily check Cities XL . com , so , there is some stuff that should be updated it.  I would put it under game discussions.  Should I do it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.90.227 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Development 

message: Is there a refence to the new release data in the info bar? The original release data has not been changed in intro section. Is there anyway to confirm either one? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the FAQ on the official website, the release date is first quarter, any more info on this? DocVM (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: GameFaqs says Q2 for a US release, and has no information of an EU release. Judging by the information revealed on the official site so far, I'd say that Q2 sounds about right. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Q1 is official, Q2 is on GameFaqs, there are some speculations about September and the end of 2009 - but the fact is, we don't know. So I edited release date to '2009 (unknown date)'. Should be updated after new OFFICIAL announcement from Monte Cristo. Peter.Hozak (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am generally satisfied the article presently fairly reflects the current situation until Monte Cristo give an update. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Data

message: Is it already confirmed that the GEMs will require one-off payment to be played in the MMO mode? -- 10:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they will, the devs have said so many times. Warll (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so now this statment can be cited since there is now a promo image on the main site about discounts to planet offer payers Warll (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEM 

message: If no one objects, I will add new information from the Cities XL site to update this article. Of course it would not be possible for me to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement because I am not in the Beta and therefore I have nothing to disclose thus I was not given the NDA to sign. Azemocram (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sure, go ahead, just make sure you source your new informtation per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 08:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating this page 

message: Unfortunately Monte Cristo have re-worked the Cities XL website breaking a lot of the references in this article. I will try and fix these later. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Monte Cristo have also removed a lot of content from the game in relation to what was announced one year ago. For example it was just confirmed that mass transit will not be included in the single player mode (with the exception of buses) and no mass transit will be included in the game at all at launch. It will be a later add-on instead. The same goes for the Game Extension Modules. There will be none of them released together with the game. --05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass Transit will be in single player. But the player must pay extra for it (exept busses). But if they instead pay the fee for the Planet Offer (Multiplayer) they get it for free. I also think its the same for the GEMs. Just to be clear. --Christoffre (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually GEMs will cost extra over and above the planet offer: http://citiesxlsimple.com/Cities-XL-News/gems-will-be-sold-separately-with-discount-planet-offer-pricing-confirmed.html If the trains and hte like is going to be sold as a GEM then it will cost more, I actually have not seen anything writen by monte cristo aobut mass transit though, only the short mention in the image found in my link Warll (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and I should also mention that I don't think the cities XL site even has any of the broken links anymore, they seem to have no problem with breaking links and removing content. Warll (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not particularly impressed by the make over to the Cities XL website given there now seems to be less information on it than there was. I'm probably going to have to use other website to replace all the broken links. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: I am getting a little concerned over the reliability of sources being added to the article. Under the linked guideline Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources. The sources used in this article are:
* Monte Cristo - From the official site so almost certainly reliable, though it is a primary source so it should not be relied upon too much.
* Philippe Da Silva - Use of the blog for historical purposes, and he is a game developer, so probably okay.
* Simtropolis - A fansite whose article was deleted at AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis (3rd nomination) for lack of reliable sources to pass WP:N, so hence seems unlikely to pass the requirement of having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However the site seems to have a special deal with Monte Cristo e.g. is doing pre-ordering and statements direct from Monte Cristo staff which appear on the website perhaps could be considered reliable even if the wider site isn't.
* Cities XL, Simple - Seems to be an enhanced blog of an individial, I am far from convinced that this is reliable.
* Gamesindustry.biz - Reliable per WP:VG/S.
* IGN - Reliable per WP:VG/S.
* GamingShogun - Listed at WP:VG/S but currently reliability has not been decided, could be reliable.
* MMOHUB - Listed at WP:VG/S as non-reliable, not extensively discussed so still open to debate.
* SIMphoni - Not sure, seems to be a fansite, which are usually non-reliable.
Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 11:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the author of Cities XL simple and you are correct in that it is really just my blog or at most a fansite so yes it is not suited as a citation. Should you find a better source then by all means cite it. It might be a bit hard to find other sources though, what with MC's destroying their blog posts and forums. Warll (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the article should stabilise after the game is released, once that has happened more attention will probably be given to sourcing. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fansites aren't considered reliable, but what about when they were given exclusive interviews, as was the case with both Simphoni and Simtropolis? Both sites have relationships with Monte Cristo's staff (and Simphoni was the first major city-gaming site to do so). Both sites had staff members invited to Monte Cristo's offices in Paris to preview the game several months before release. Both were involved in beta-test giveaways as a direct result of their staff's relationship with Monte Cristo's staff.  Etc.  75.135.193.122 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am willing to allow the Simtropolis and SIMphoni articles sources through for the time being with the direct link with Monte Cristo, though I would be surprised if the article would get Good article or Featured article status with them in, and non-Monte Cristo staff forum posts would never be acceptable as reliable sources. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources 

message: I have tried to create a reception section, though the reviews don't appear to be out yet according to MetaCritic  and GameRankings , which such sections are usually based on. Once the reviews are out and a score exists a balanced reception section should be created. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviews are beginning to drip through now, so far they are mostly positive. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: Correct me if im wrong but isnt the bug in the Early-Bug-section fixed? I know that there was one but I didnt notice it at the end of the Beta.--Christoffre (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this section entirely as no sources have been provided and it doesn't seem likely any will be added, and its accuracy is in question. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah leave it out, there were a ton of bugs some of them really bad. it would be silly to add them all. Yes that bug did exist, but it was not the worst. one bug even replaced your entire city with an open field like map if the city got big enough, say >11M. 174.0.171.197 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Bug 

message: I've noticed things about a new deluxe version of the game, and rumors are that it comes out in march. The rumor can be tossed aside for now, it is oficcial that it exists. I suggest either adding it to cities xl page or making a a child page to the Cities xl page. Stuart 75.169.115.128 (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search does not bring-up very much on Cities XL: 2011, with most hits on it from articles declaring the end of the MMO service. Since reliable sources seem to confirm plans for it, it could be mentioned somewhere in this article, however more solid material will need to be available before a new article can be justified. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities XL: 2011? 

message: The Cities XL website has been relaunched yet again, resulting in a lot of dead links that will need to be fixed. The Internet Archive does not appear to have worked in this instance annoyingly. It would be good to avoid removing content just because its source has gone dead, so I will look into replacing the dead links. CT Cooper · talk 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Erhm, I'm not too sure what falls under the purview of 'Original Research' exactly, but I noticed mention of 'Focus Home Interactive' acquiring the license to Cities XL. There's one problem with this: as the game's publisher, Focus already had the license to the game to begin with. Essentially, the idea that Focus 'acquired' the license seems to be little more than spin intended to suggest that Focus wasn't involved with Cities XL (and part holder of the License) in the first place.
While commenting on that specifically isn't exactly encyclopaedic, would it be out of place to note in the article that Focus Home Interactive was in fact involved with the game from the start and did, thusly, not acquire the license only recently as their press release makes it appear? Robrecht (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the late reply. According to the present article, it was both developed and published by Monte Cristo originally. I have the box of the original game and it has no mention of Focus Home Interactive. For all sources I have seen, Focus Home Interactive only became involved for Cites XL 2011. CT Cooper · talk 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Acquired the License'? 

message: Hello. This is AzemOcram the primary contributor to the Wikia wiki (Wikia is some sort of sister company to Wikimedia or something like that, both are ran by that J Wells character). I was wondering whether I should mention the fact that Monte Cristo partnered with a lot companies to make revenue from the presence of certain buildings (Novotel, TransAm Pyramid, Tokyo Tower, Empire State Building, commercial and residential buildings designed by 2 architectural firms, etc) and advertising (Novotel, Ford, Mini, itself; Cities Unlimited had Coca-Cola advertisements but Coke dropped Monte Cristo). Is this a good idea? There is a lot of information that should be only on citiesxl.wikia.com and not en.wikipedia.org but a small section or a sentence might be good. This information was available at Monte Cristo's website and both the Cities Unlimited and Cities XL sites (both down now). I have not checked the Cities XL 2011 site for advertising partners but I know that the articles and blog posts are not officially hosted by Focus. -- Azemocram (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be briefly mentioned, though some links to reliable sources, which would probably not include Wikia itself would be preferred for more detailed coverage in the article. Content on Wikia is generally licenced on the same licence as Wikipedia, so content from there can be copied here and vice versa if appropriate, as long as appropriate attribution is given in the edit summary. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising within Cities XL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cities XL. 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/20080807160200/http://www.simphoni.net/2007/09/cities-unlimited-even-more-revealed/ to http://www.simphoni.net/2007/09/cities-unlimited-even-more-revealed/
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) 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified