Talk:Rockstar Games

Bully 2? Sources?

Was this officially announced, or even hinted at? And also who ever added it, didn't add it correctly (I would fix it, but I don't know if it should be there to start with)... DTHCND (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (EST)

On the Nationality

It has been established as a 'fact' that Rockstar Games is multinational, however, the roots of that are vague. The reasoining behind the multinationality is "see talk"; looking through the archive there is "American?", a discussion started by now-retired user Bloodloss in 2008. The discussion was held by five anonyomous IP (one of them fakely under the name "Tukogbani") and two temporary accounts. All six part-takers had only one comment each, and none were actually constructive: "Started by English persons, mostly based in the UK." — It was started by two Englishmen (living in America) and two Americans, and was, since its 1998 inception, based in New York City. "It should be were the founders and/or leaders are from." — No, companies are registered in and legally bound to a position somewhere on Earth (all kinds of office movement must be granted). In response: "Change it to British/American then?" — Clearly, it was not clear to this person that Rockstar North is not an operating headquarter, but a subsidiary studio. "Rockstar Games is a corporation, right? [...]" (read in full at linked discussion) — This comment goes in the right direction, "does it have it's own nationality completely seperate" is the correct question, where the answer is yes. "The offical EU Rockstar games website has it down as 'Rockstar Games is a major British video game developer and publisher based in New York City, owned by Take-Two Interactive'" — False, there never was an official EU site for Rockstar Games, the linked rockstarspot.eu was a fan site, now defunct. Further two source this user claims are articles claiming the GTA series to be British—and that is perfectly right! All entries in the series so far have either been developed by Rockstar North (Scotland) or Rockstar Leeds (England).

After the initial question posted in 2008, the first comment had been written in 2008, the second in 2009, two following in 2010, and the final two in 2011. The discussion came to no real end after 3.5 years, and there is no established consensus whatsoever on changing or keeping a multinational attribute. Fact is: The company in question is and was always based in New York City, making it an American publisher, which has international development subsidiaries (not divisions!), and the marketing subsidiary (again, not division) based in London; this is enough evidence that this company is an American publisher, not a multinational publisher/developer. If this is changed again, I will refer to this entry. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There's significantly more discussion further down the archive page, where a level of consensus is reached. Reverting. Will Bradshaw (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, however, even there no clear consensus was reached, the discussion just went off. Reverting my edit will likely cause edit warring again. See my final two sentences, the company is American, as it has no international divisions. It was founded in American, based in American, owned in America. The fact that it acquired international studios is irrelevant, as they are merely their own legal entities now tied to their parent, not divisions. Lordtobi (✉) 08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Rockstar Games is multinational?

I recently tried to edit the page and change Rockstar Games is an American company to a Multinational company. I even provided several sources. Only for it to be reverted back to American and told my sources are not reliable.

Could someone please explain to me why exactly these sources are not reliable? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/company-results-forecasts/revenues-profits-up-grand-theft-4741016

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/18/dan-houser-grand-theft-auto

Also, if you look up lists of multinational companies in the US, Rockstar Games is on those lists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Multinational_companies_headquartered_in_the_United_States

If you search for multinational businesses in the US, anywhere you can search, Rockstar Games is on those lists.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.168.162 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This topic was under discussion multiple times. The two sources you provided might be valid, though the former is not reliable. The latter might be reliable, but a side-note is not proof enough against all sources station that it is American. Note also that the Guardian article referse to it as "publisher and developer". Rockstar Games, Inc. is not a developer, and such entitlement is misleading, as are multiple such articles on the Guardian. Rockstar Games as a label is sometimes considered a multinational label, as studios are all around the world, but the publisher - Rockstar Games, Inc. (based in NYC) - is not the label. In fact, all subsidiaries are handeled by Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., rather than directly by Rockstar Games, Inc. Furthermore, Rockstar Games, Inc. has no international divisions; no divisions at all. All its subsidiaries (that are already not covered by Rockstar Games, Inc.) are properly incorporated in their respective country. So to conclude: Rockstar Games, Inc. is an American publisher, Rockstar North Limited is a British developer, and the "Rockstar Games" label could, but should not, be considered multinational, which would not be included here regardless. Lordtobi (✉) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Just before reading this i sent out and email and a Tweet to Rockstar Games themselves and asked them directly. They are yet to respond as i just sent them out. See what response they give, if any. That should solve the the debate. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.168.162 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically, no. You see the problem is that we do not know how reliable a support team can be, e.g. the controversy around Rocket League's Nintendo Switch port was such a case. Furthermore, we cannot tell if it is directly affiliated with target (in this case Rockstar Games[, Inc.]), or just a third-party support vendor that many companies use because it is cheaper, hence we cannot say if it is a primary source (should be avoided) or a tertiarry source (may not be used in any case whatsoever), neither of which is a secondary source, e.g. gaming magazines, that concretely state that the publisher (not developer-publisher hybrid that actually does not exist) is not American, but rather multinational, which it really is not. Lordtobi (✉) 17:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nowrap

At my zoom level (180%) and resolution (1440), "present" is shifted to the bottom, but it does seem like at default it is as intended. Just FYI. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It feels like there is a lot more that could be on this page

Rockstar Games is a big and profitable company, but this page seems small. Would adding cancelled games, income stats, or Leslie Benzie's incident, be noteworthy? Citationhelper ^(talk) 02:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)