Talk:Gameloft

More wiki

Needs more wiki. First mover sounds like ad text. I'm not impartial though. Mathiastck 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like much of the text was lifted from their official website. Mobilegamer 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Company infobox

I added a company infobox. Please feel free to fill in the missing fields. Mobilegamer 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Games developed by Gameloft

This article is misleading. Gameloft developed adaptations of the games in the list. Not the original titles. And that's not clear from the article.. Can someone fix it? My english sucks. :) -- 201.9.21.174 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the games are originally developed, some of them are under licence of an existing product (but not existing game), and some of them are mobile versions of existing games.

Developed is less missleading i think.--Helixdq 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whose Rainbow Six?

Should the Rainbow Six titles in the game list (with the Rs) in fact be Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six? —Frungi 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No References missing

I removed the "citation needed"-Flag because all facts seem to be clearly comprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.210.85 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Profitable?

>Founded in 1999, Gameloft has expanded to employ a staff of 4,000 at the end of 2007, up 59% over the end of 2006. Gameloft has posted consolidated revenues of $92m in 2006, $140m in 2007, and $147m for the year 2008.[1] Gameloft has been profitable since 2003.[1]

This does not add up. 140mil/4,000 employees = $35,000 per salary (which is far lower than any salary quoted here), with no money left to pay the electricity bill. It stands to reason that either the number of employees is wrong, the total revenue is wrong, or they are in fact not a profitable company.

The footnoted link (http://www2.gameloft.com/financial_ir.php) seems to no longer exist - in fact their entire Gameloft Corporate site (google cache here) is no where to be found.

I did find this link which contains the basic numbers that seem in line with the numbers quoted in the article - but it makes no mention of profitability.

Also, one possibility is if they are paying 2nd world developer prices (which in China would seem to be about 100,000 CNY or $15,000, according to various websites) - but the numbers still don't add up. This page lists offices "in New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Montreal, Mexico, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon, Milan, Cologne, Vienna, Bucharest, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Casablanca, New Delhi, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and Sydney" - and only a few of those locations sound cheap. Although it does list Gameloft Beijing as having 600 employees.

Do we have a valid source to back up the claim of profitability (and perhaps a way to explain those peculiar numbers), outside of a press release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubEd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

The additional mentions of Auckland changing their acts has no citation or reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.34.95 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ubisoft

Can you elaborate more about the relationship with Ubisoft? --MK (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the omission of the 'controversy' section.

It is reliably sourced and passed the general notability guideline. Ging287 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no fucking "controversy" - people complained about their job like the do at all jobs. these guys went to court and were told "nothing to see here". for us to cover the non event at all is WP:UNDUE - but to call it out in a stand alone section -- AND THEN to claim it as some kind of "controversy" is pathetically non encyclopedic and against policy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and not the place to fight some type of workers socialistic manifesto.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

There is no "controversy"

There is no "controversy". People complained about their job like they do at every job. these guys wen to court and the court said "nothing to see here." we dont then call out a whole section to a non event. That is rubbish of the worst type. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than attempting to inject original research, please elaborate on why the sources were not suitable. Ging287 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no injection of "original research." There is application of policy : WP:NPOV we dont give non-events a full section in a tabloid headline . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the sources and the added and deleted story and apart from disagreeing with the language and attitude of User:TheRedPenOfDoom as on this page, quote,(There is no fucking "controversy", rubbish of the worst kind) I agree, there is no controversy worthy of reporting in this story. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Say what?

"Gameloft has expanded to employ a staff of 5,000 in which only a handful are reliable at the end of 2011."

Either someone's English is bad, or someone inserted a very subtle piece of vandalism there (what does "a handful of employees are reliable" could mean?). Removed it. If you find a meaning to this, add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:388:410:150::1:62 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Studios

The studios in New Orleans and Madrid have been closed recently. There is no way to check Gameloft's claim of "21 studios". The "Gameloft – Corporate" page has not been changed for more than 2 years, so the studio count should probably be removed.--87.173.213.215 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)