Talk:Machinima, Inc./Archives/2014

Advertising Template

After reading the article in it's entirety, I fail to see how the article is pure advertising. Sure some of it may sound this way, however I doubt that all of it is.

Any constructive feedback would be helpful.

--DJackD (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Outdated Logo

The logo is very outdated, can someone please change it? Shameen (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-rb_pk "done" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb pk (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Machinima.com

There should really be a section in the article where artists that worked for Machinima.com or declined working for them expressed their negative feelings towards the ways of Machinima.com.

Here's some examples:

- (From Spazkidin3D, animator of Sanity Not Included) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEw8KOVngA4&list=UUcYw2GuJh1gkk5_4HM7q97Q

- (From Oney) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aTEbqBqP8Q

- (From HappyCabbie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGPpeIWoXZA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZGQbfpXr4I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngj202Poays

Wow this is out of date!

There is no mention of their YouTube network and partnership directors. Many directors sign partnership contract with Machinima that include a controversial perpetuity agreement. They are paid by Machinima to produce content and to make advertisements. These directors are often paid by the number of views a video gets after a set time period. This practice has become the model for several new unrelated networks. Here's a good article that talks a little about it: http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/06/maker-studios-goes-old-hollywood-will-it-work/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would probably be well served by having a critical eye turned to the article. I saw someone mention "Machinima Network" elsewhere and searched Wikipedia to find out what that was. Have read the article and still don't know. The terms used in the article make sense to those who already understand what "the art of creating animated videos in real-time virtual 3-D environments" is. For those who need clarification or expansion on that basic premise, the article is not at all encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.177.65 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking to expand this page as part of a university project and would like to cover Machinima's use of perpetual contracts with its contributors. Can someone clarify whether individual cases - such as the Ben Vacas/Braindeadly (discussed here: [1] can be covered? I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm being assessed on my ability to write about a topic whilst remaining neutral and unbiased. Any help would be very much appreciated! DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Arby 'n' the Chief

Why doesn't this machinima have a page or mention? This series has several million views, and was a flagship for the entire company. The series has it's own (quite large) Fan Wiki, had almost every single episode posted on Bungie.com, it's creator has teamed up with Rooster Teeth once or twice, the guy did conventions for a while and everything. I mean, a webseries like Nostalgia Critic or Spoony gets their own pages, and not this series? I think it's a bit criminal here. At least it had a ton more views than This Spartan Life which has its own page. Am I alone here? I mean tell me with a straight face this series doesn't deserve a page when PANICS has one, a series that had like, three episodes and didn't get enough views to ever get renewed.76.98.53.123 (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether other articles exist isn't valid justification for another article, since every article is considered on its own merits. Wikipedia had an article on Arby 'n' the Chief, but it was deleted because no one had shown that it had received nontrivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note that "nontrivial coverage" means more than being hosted somewhere or having a certain number of views, because we can't sustain a substantial neutrally written article without independent sources.

I'm not as up-to-date with machinima as I used to be, and I honestly don't know as to whether the situations with PANICS or Arby have changed at all with respect to independent sources, but I do know when I checked and researched This Spartan Life some years ago (2007-ish) that there was significant independent coverage, in mainstream tech-oriented sites like Wired and academic articles on machinima. This sort of coverage is what is supposed to be used for determining whether we can have an article, not popularity or mere longevity. —TKD [talk][c] 19:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But to not even have a mention for their longest running, and at one time most popular machinimas?76.98.53.123 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that states that? In my experience, "longest-running" and "most popular" are really hard to find good sources for. (Asking readers to compare YouTube views, etc., on their own to verify a claim like that doesn't cut it.) In all honesty, I'm not sure how this article should be structured in the long-term, because in reality the site has changed so much since I was familiar with it, but the best idea with respect to article writing is always to start with what good sources say, and go from there. —TKD [talk][c] 02:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the series that is still going since practically the company's creation. And every episode up to season 6 pretty much has 1 million hits each at least. I mean come on, not even to have a single mention? That's all I'm saying. You know better than I whether or not something should be posted, and I trust you. But this series HAS been hosted all over the place, with millions and millions of views, cross overs with actual companies like Rooster Teeth, and more. Plus it's been going on for years now. A single line mentioning this doesn't seem like a crime to me.76.98.53.123 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Machinima.com or just Machinima

The site doesnt present itself as "Machinima.com" the rights reserved are for "Machinima" aswell. I think we should just cut out the ".com" and just leave it as Machinima.Lucia Black (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)