Talk:Jolt Online Gaming

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

Mobile[edit]

Do they have any mobile offering? Mathiastck 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Controversies[edit]

A look at the article's history shows there is a bit of a fight for public opinion going on here. Critique of Jolt has been included in some sections and was subsequently removed again. At the same time some fairly plain descriptions have been coloured with more beautiful, promotional wording.

I suggest we add a Controversies section where the issues can be documented without cluttering the individual game descriptions. To handle the other side of the issue (someone giving the article a promotzion-like wording) perhaps the entire post should be combed through and critical phrases changed to to clear and neutral wording.

I'm a bit of a newbie at Wikipedia though... Would this procedure seem acceptable to everyone, or is there some better, more standard way of dealing with this?92.225.129.105 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the criticism is; if it's about particular games, it may as well go in the existing sections. If it's about wider business practices, maybe "History" could become "Business model" and include some of the negative reactions.
From what I've seen, though, the only negative material that's been removed from the article is criticism along the lines of "fans didn't like X" or "fans were disappointed at Y", sourced only to forum threads. Quoting relevant criticism is fine, but we should be taking it from reliable sources (such as games magazines and prominent websites) rather than forums. If no reliable sources have thought the fan reaction worthy of coverage, then we shouldn't be covering it here either. --McGeddon (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forums are a primary source for information on how certain issues are received by a player community. I see no reason why they should not be used as source. Any newspaper article, etc. would be using them as sources as well.92.225.129.105 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained at WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. [...] Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
If fan forums were acceptable sources, then any article could have any opinion added to it as fact, simply by having a few people post about it on a forum. Which wouldn't make for a very good encyclopaedia.
Whether or not a reliable source has covered an aspect of something is a good yardstick for whether we should be writing about it in an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McGeddon, how about facts documenting Jolt's incompetence? A few examples (I'm not pretending to write Wiki-esque here, I know it'll need refinement):
1) Utopia's userbase has dropped by 50% since Jolt took over in July 2008
2) The game has experienced massive periods of downtime since then (can be documented through their own announcements)
3) The post on Utopia's forums (by Dylan Collins, CEO of OMAC -> Jolt) where Utopia Kingdoms was originally promoted resulted in a huge and very one-sided flame fest towards Dylan C. When we later got to see the game there was additional outrage, followed by overt attempts to suppress criticism (can also be documented, they've owned up to it)
4) Plan after plan has been rescheduled, and promises have not been kept (can be documented)
Let's say I'm not lying about any of the above, and that I can point to the relevant announcements by OMAC/Jolt documenting it. How would you go about presenting those facts? - Catwalk, Denmark (no idea how to sign this thing properly)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.53.130 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 November 2009
It's really just down to finding reliable sources that say these things (typically gaming magazines or respected blogs), and making sure that we aren't drawing any conclusions ourselves. To take the issues in order:-
1) Is there any coverage that mentions this, or a page on the Utopia site that explicitly gives the historical figures? If it's just an ongoing "current players" count that you and other players have noticed decline, we can't quote you on that.
2) That's fine, and currently in the article ("with the game currently being offline more than online") - if there's a source, a link would be good.
3) We shouldn't write up a "flame-fest" unless the media reported it, or unless Jolt themselves talked about it. If there's a coherent "owning up to" the suppression of criticism, and if it's a big story, then it might be worth mentioning, but it's hard to say without context.
4) Broken promises would have to be written about in a reliable source; it's not enough to say "here is a press release where Jolt promised magic swords, but I, as a player, cannot see any magic swords in the game right now". We need a journalist or authoritative blogger to make that conclusion, or Jolt to admit it in a press release. --McGeddon (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) there is nothing that notes this online right now, but there is data that shows the decline in players in existence. However, if the decline under the new management from 21 -11k players is to be noted, should the decline from 120k players to 21k under the old management not be noted. Selecting data to cast your view in a certain light is not something Wikipedia supports.
2) This again is subjective. This "new code" has apparently been in use since 5th August 09. Stating that the game "has been down more than it is up" is only true when selective time-frames are used. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia's neutral policy. Anon193.120.222.4 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I'm out of line on this, I'm not overly familiar with editting wiki articles other than making small tweaks here and there, but is it really appropriate to include these points, just including a "Citation Needed" tag on the end? Is it not better to remove them until an appropriate reference has been found? A lot of it reads like conjecture and venting by angry players. And I don't mean to be insulting to anyone with that, I'm sure if you're angry you have good reason to be, but a wiki article isn't really the best place to vent that anger. I just worry that a lot of the language here seems to be more emotive than it should be, talking about the "demise" of Earth:2025 and the line about Jolt admins being unfamiliar with the code, and thus deciding to shut down the game sounds like conjecture and might even suggest incompetence on their part (i.e. they couldn't figure out the game, so just decided to abandon it). If it's accurate, then it should certainly be in the article, but it does need a verifiable source. As the wiki guidlines state, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Any thoughts people have on this issue would be much appriciated. -- User:Nuckpang 11:52 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that there doesn't seem to be any third party confirmation for a lot of what's been labelled as needing citation, I'm going to remove some of the more vitriolic player speculation (which is what I assume it is) until proper references are provided. --Drmcpirate (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The downtime in the current age since the recode is verifyable. After logging in to the game you first arrive in the "Game Lobby" where it says "Start Date: Tue, 27 Oct at 00:00 GMT-08:00". When you proceed further into the game you can see that the current game-time is "April 21 of YR0". At http://wiki.utopia-game.com/index.php/Utopia_Time you can read, that one utopian month is one real world day, which means that the game has been running 4 days (Utopian January, February, March and April). A game that has been running for only 4 days between October 27 and November 10 can be described as "more down than up" since the recoding. And eventhough hardly citable, it is verifyable.92.225.150.77 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to undo some of the beautification attempts (e.g. positive reception of Playboy Manager in mainstream media documented with a Washington Post page marked as "paid content", i.e. Jolt advertisement) and re-entered some of the ciriticism that was removed in those beautifications. I tried to word it fairly neutral, but perhaps it can still be improved.92.225.129.105 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding and quoting more published reviews would be good. We shouldn't be saying that "the game has been criticized by original Utopia players for being very unlike the original Utopia", we should - like every other video game article - be quoting a published review where that's drawn as a negative comparison.
The only time we should ever quote fan reactions are when they're serious enough to start getting actual media coverage, like the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott. --McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the Washington Post article, as I believe it's a valid source. To the best of my knowledge PaidContent.org is an independant media group that reports on developments in digital media, and not a label saying that Jolt paid for the article. --User:Nuckpang 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable enough as a source, but we can't use it to source the claim that the game "recieved a relatively large amount of press coverage", because the article doesn't mention the amount of press coverage. And using it to source the claim that "the Washington Post covered the story" seems a bit of a meaningless tautology. It's fine for sourcing the existence of the game, though. --McGeddon (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, quite right. I've reinserted the line with an appropriate reference. --User:Nuckpang 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources, I think references to forum posts made by representitives of jolt are valid. Fruity foobar (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, self-published material can be used (within the confines of WP:SELFPUB), although it will depend on what "representative" means. If it's the company CEO, sure; if it's a grumpy forum admin who was officially appointed by Jolt at a few steps removed, not so much. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jolt Online Gaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jolt Online Gaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jolt_Online_Gaming&oldid=1203121234"