Talk:G2A

Edit re Owner

Wikimedia received an email from a representative of the company, requesting the addition of Dawid Rożek to the sidebar. However, I checked the template, and did not not see a “founder” entry. He is one of the two co-founders. I have not seen a reference identifying the owner(s). I removed the entry from the infobox, and corrected the lede.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As the keys sold were not always bought directly from the developer, sometimes the companies would not receive any money from the sales.[7]

The statement that developers not always receive some money is really false. No matter what the origin of the keys is, they always come from the developer at the end and it was developer who produced the keys in the first place. These keys are not randomly generated in Excel using =rand() or something, they are sold by developers to distributors (to be used in boxed editions), to online distribution platforms (like GMG) to be resold, to bundle selling platforms (e.g. Humble Bundle) or other places but are always sold somewhere to someone first and then they're redistributed via G2A. The very same example can be made for used cars. While a person can sell a car they owned to someone else, it was the car's manufacturer who sold the car first and that's when their money came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.30.69 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

hpHosts listing

Is it notable that G2A is blacklisted by hpHosts by their own administrator? Source: hosts-file.net/?s=g2a.com BFeely (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• G2A has been reported for selling pirated Malwarebytes keys on multiple occasions - https://forums.malwarebytes.org/topic/168469-are-these-legit-mbam-keys/ BFeely (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notable enough to be included under the 'controversies' section, yes. Chimon (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

G2A itself does not sell the keys and software on the site, the users do Should be corrected to G2A itself does not sell the keys and software on the site except for the pre-orders, the users do.

G2A currently sells all pre-order products on their website, under the same 100% feedback untraceable account That specific user is the only one who you can't either pull their profile or feedback from the product page or checkout page.

Thefinalwar (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article is biased in that it makes no mention of all the shady things G2A is known for, such as making it extremely difficult to unsubscribe from their premium "Shield" service, claiming that they offer refunds for faulty keys — but in reality simply spin the customer around in circles and never actually refund any money — and their lies about not selling stolen keys, and lies about purported "key verification" that is supposed to test whether a key is real or not but in reality does nothing.

These facts should be included in the article so as not to paint a false positive picture of the company, when such a picture is dishonest. Biglulu (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Biglulu: There's nothing stopping you from adding it yourself. There's already a controversies section, so it's not like it doesn't include anything on that. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You just need reliable sources for these things, and while I myself am fully aware of these issues, we don't really have coverage of them outside of forum posts, etc. Now, I do know there was that AMA yesterday that got reported, and which specifically highlighted the key verification issue. However, the only RSes that covered it simply noted that this came up , a user supposedly provided real-time proof, and G2A couldn't really respond well. This is not verification that the issue exists, from RSes. In other words, that AMA issue is not really helpful towards this end. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The records of major, high-traffic figures within the youtube/gaming/streaming community condemning G2A for the "shady" activities you are referencing is sufficient as reliable source --that a controversy exists-- regarding these topics. A 'reliable source' doesn't need to demonstrate whether the 'shady' activities happened, but merely that a public controversy exists among high-traffic community figures regarding the activities you are describing as shady. 02-02-2017 During a stream playthrough of "The Last Of US" the streamer 'Destiny' publicly criticized the the activities you described, in particular, and characterized G2A and their activities, as, "shady as fuck." He went on to disclose specific dollar amounts regarding financial offers made to specific streamers, including himself. All of this is permanently archive as a primary source. (Roughly 1hr50min into 02-02-2017 recording). I'm sure there are plenty of other major figures with high-traffic that are on AV record making similar comments (because there really is a controversy). Reliable sources establishing that a controversy exists don't need to show that a claim is true, merely that it is of significant prominence in the gaming community. MaximusBlack is sited as a partner with G2A, which he has been, but he has also made very critical comments along the same lines regarding 'shady business practices' which are archived somewhere. A couple of these high traffic community leaders expressing these concerns is a reliable source documenting the existence of a controversy. All you have to do is hunt down the videos and cite them with a timestamp. Print media is not intrinsically more reliable or professional than an AV recording. Chimon (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not how our reliable sourcing policy works. We can't use random twitch streams or youtube videos as they are not vetted sources that we require for RS. I am not denying that G2A is known for a lot of shady stuff, but we just can't include player reactions, we need journalistic sources. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources about the way G2A is working, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], apart from the lot of sources which popped up since the Gearbox controversy. Hervegirod (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentence Disconnected/Extraneous Information - Misleading (Save The Children)

The first sentence of the Charity section is disconnected from all other content in the article, and misleadingly introduces the following discussion of G2A charity activity as though it were associated with either "#GamingTuesday" or the charity "Save The Children" or the date 01-12-2015 with any significance, but all statements in the article, preceding or following, make no connection between G2A or any other topic discussed and the topics in this sentence. G2A supports a different charity over Save The Children, was not involved in #GamingTuesday, and has no particular association with the date. The rest of the article neither connects nor contrasts the quoted sentence. Either a connection, logically and semantically, between this sentence and the rest of the article needs to be added, or the out of place sentence needs to be removed, as it erroneously implies an equivalence between Save The Children and Gaming For Good, and G2A's respective relationships with the two disparate organizations.

On 1 December 2015, multiple Twitch.tv streamers, YouTubers, websites and gamers participated in a program dubbed #GamingTuesday in order to raise funds for the charity Save The Children.

Chimon (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017

The "awards" given to this company are not from legitimate businesses, these are PR spin companies which you pay to receive accreditation, this required a 10 minute google search at max to verify. 2604:6000:A905:2E00:3D8C:B0B7:EBF9:E06D (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)