Talk:Digital Extremes

Epic Games

Question, how are they related to Unreal/Epic Games? Were they an outsorce developer? thx--sin-man 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, I believe they are hired to help with level design -- most of the good levels found in Unreal and the UT series are from DE's crew. By comparison, the less inspiring designs seen in the Na Pali expansion and Unreal 2 were done by Legend Entertainment. So yeah, DE deserves a lot of credit for the success of Unreal and UT. Epic, with perhaps the exception of CliffyB, mostly just builds the engine technology. I can't be sure but I think DE also did other creative work such as making the game's mutators and character models. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital Extremes fully partnered with Epic on the Unreal games. James Schmalz started the idea and Tim Sweeney started the technology that turned into the Unreal Engine. The work was primarily divided up between technology and design, with Epic doing alot of the technology and DE leading the design. With further iterations of the franchise, division of work changed depending on the title but the two companies remained equal partners throughout the franchise. After working on the same franchise for so long, they were both ready to work on other things and ultimately, moved on separately. FYI...this along with the wiki page itself is written by a long-time employee of Digital Extremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braumeri (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PC list should be updated

Dark Sector is now available on PC too. 89.123.78.217 (talk)--89.123.78.217 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Tildergaard

Developed/co-developed

Is there any information on which games were solely Digital Extremes developments, and which were co-developed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.52.251 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Article reads like an advertisement for the company.

This article contains a lot of hyperbolic language, and reads like an advertisement, promoting the company. I have edited the article to improve neutrality. In its current state, it is more or less factual, so I would be happy to remove the Neutrality flag if it is left as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyronwells (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital Extremes has reviewed your changes and are fine with them although we argue that nothing in it before was inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.18.90 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital Extremes does not own this page. If DE continue with undoing edits that they don't like, even when it is factual, I will contact a moderator to get the page locked. Khawaga (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

this page is meant for accurate, public information. Currently, the information being deleted is because it is private and not published anywhere for proper siting.

The entire History section appears to be a slightly modified version of the Digital Extremes corporate About page at http://www.digitalextremes.com/about. This is likely why Braumeri has been acting as the "owner" of this page, as she or he appears to be removing edits that don't conform with Digital Extremes' PR messaging. This page should be locked and reviewed by a moderator. Robert Langford (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Employment Standards Ruling December 2011

Someone keeps removing this from the article - but this did actually happen, and is relevant information about this company. If anyone disputes it, I am happy to email them a scanned copy of the ruling. Gyronwells (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All Ministry of Labor claims not taken to court are not public knowledge. When the Ministry rules on a claim the ruling is considered private to protect the employee's identity for future employment as well as to prevent bias toward the employer. This information will not become public record and will not be listed on the the Ministry website. This is being removed every time it is put up because it is private information and doesn't belong here unless the employee would also like his name put here along side it and the circumstances for which the claim was filed included with this paragraph. The purpose of putting this on this page is purely inflammatory and slanderous without proper citation and context, therefore will continue to be removed.

Wrong. What do you think this is:

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/enforcement/archive.php#september

The Digital Extremes conviction will appear here, when they get around to posting it. Public. So long as it doesn't reveal the name of the complainant, it is all fine.

You'll notice that only company's who were given Summons tickets or higher offenses are listed in the archives. Read your ruling, no tickets were issued to Digital Extremes and therefore this claim will not be listed (when they get around to December listings, as you mention).

When it does appear, it will be completely evident who has been trying to erase factual information. All of the information on the Digital Extremes page is unsourced, and this information is no different. Gyronwells (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's evident already, we're not hiding that we've been taking it down every time you put it up. You simply have to look at the history page.

"This is being removed every time because it is private information" and "The purpose of putting this on this page is purely inflammatory and slanderous" - a bit of a contradiction there. The first statement implies it is information that is true, but that you kindly want to protect the privacy of the employee. The second implies that the information is a lie. Which is it?67.71.140.100 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any contradiction. What you are posting is inflammatory and slanderous and there's no other reason for you to post it. Nothing good comes of it other than to satisfy your vindictive nature and to make the company look bad without giving context or resolution to the whole story. If it's posted again, we'll gladly add the full facts including the employee's name to make it accurate and complete. Everything else on this page is true and correct and can easily be sourced, you obviously don't know anything about the history of this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braumeri (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How come it is inflammatory? The case is actually somewhat of a milestone in labour relations within the videogames industry. DE is not the only company doing this; it's just the first time a case has been successfully brought forward. That is very significant and far from inflammatory. And it would be slanderous if it's not true. Seems like DE is using Wikipedia for some free advertising rather than for it simply being a dictionary entry about the company (and that includes warts and all). If DE doesn't stop undoing that edit, I will ask an editor to lock the page until the matter can be discussed properly. Khawaga (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's inflammatory and slanderous because this isn't public or sourceable information. If and when this information becomes public by a reputable published source, only then should it be included on this page so it can be properly sited. Until it can be sited it shouldn't be listed and will continue to be taken down.

also interesting that the only edits by Braumeri is to the Digital Extremes pages (and what appears to be one of their games). Wikipedia is not for advertising. Khawaga (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this interesting? It makes sense that people with the most knowledge on a subject write about it on Wikipedia. That's what it's for. To provide the most accurate information possible. With reputable source material sited.

It's good for people to have full and accurate information. Then if people are considering working for this company, they have the information that the company has been convicted of failing to abide by overtime and other employment regulations, and can make an informed decision about whether to work there. The same with people who like to make sure they buy from ethical companies - they can consider this information and decide whether to buy from this company. Go ahead and add any additional information that you feel is relevant about this Employment Standards case. We can work on it together, and continue editing until an accurate representation of the facts is on the page. That is what Wikipedia is for.67.71.140.100 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC) The employee you are referring to has nothing to hide and has no objection to his name being mentioned.

The fact that the person who keeps editing this page to remove anything negative about the company knows the details of the employee makes it obvious that it is a company employee editing this wikipedia page in order to make their company look good, rather than in the interest of providing accurate information. Is there any way to stop this sort of anti-knowledge censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.164.88 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment is interesting, but you've contradicted yourself. Your statement that "whoever keeps editing this page to remove anything negative makes it obvious that it is a company employee in order to make the company look good" ... is the exact same situation as an ex-employee adding things to make the company look "bad". Whatever the situation - I don't think there is any point in including anything without the public citation in question. Rebulast (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the difference is that the "ex-employee" if that is the editor is adding something which is true and relevant (whatever their personal motivation for doing so) whereas the company is removing something which is true and relevant. The symmetry you try to set up does not exist. From the viewpoint of an end user, if something is true, and relevant and interesting I want it left in. Whoever keeps removing this fact please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.164.88 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As for not including things without proper referencing, I suppose someone would be justified in removing the entire content of this page (placed by the company) on a daily basis as none of the rest of it has the level of citation you are demanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.164.88 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's true. I've personally added a number of citations today (from reputable sources) to verify most of the information that I found on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.164.88 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a link that opens directly onto the scanned PDF of the ruling. This is about the best citation you could have - an actual copy of the ruling. Anyone who denies that this has happened, please look at the link. This should put an end to any debate about this information being "uncited". Gyronwells (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this document violates the privacy of other employees at the company in question. Additionally, according to Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources) - as it is self published by "Giles Whitaker". This will have to be removed as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So, despite the best efforts here on the parties, there is still no published statement from a reliable source. For example, I could easily go on my blog right now and post something saying the opposite of your blog, and we would be at the same position. Some key things Wikipedia mandates for sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

In this case, the PDF mentions other employees (third parties), and has not been made public by the Government of Ontario itself.Rebulast (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly not just a claim on a blog which has been created by the editor - so your analogy is false. The document provided at http://gileswhitaker.wordpress.com/digital-extremes-employment-standards-claim/ is clearly one produced by a canadian court and not just by the blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.170.213 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While the analogy is not perfect, the main idea I was trying to get across is Wikipedia's sourcing standards and the privacy rights of other names mentioned in the PDF. It is clear that Giles whited out his personal address and number, yet did not remove the names of other employees in the document. Furthermore, consider the line "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" - right from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. This is a problem. This is a private PDF posted for self-serving reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason *why* it was posted is irrelevant. The pychological state of the author is of no interest to me. What *is* important is whether the statements made on a wikipedia page are accurate. Bringing up the motivation of the poster are irrelevant. For instance it seems to me that a lot of the content of this page came directly from the company's website and so is "self serving" as it promotes the companies interests. This only becoames an issue when the information is in fact false however. lets stop trying to second guess peoples motivations and just concentrate on whether the content of the page is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.170.213 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - But once names are brought into it - VIA PDF - it becomes another matter. This is why I suggested and implemented the blanket statement that there was a complaint filed by a QA employee in 2011. This statement is true. There is no reputable source for it, but it is true. The result of this complaint must come from a government venue or news publication. If the ex-employee in question, which the PDF revealed as Giles Whitaker, is set on adding something to Wikipedia about his experience with overtime payment, it would seem one sentence acknowledging this would suffice UNTIL there is further sources. Because apparently this is not enough, you have to stop and think about what Wikipedia deems appropriate and reliable. The PDF is problematic because it is not a public release about it, and provides no context. Do you get it? Context. Privacy. Wikipedia standards. Please reply with your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded condescending but I'm frustrated with this - it just comes down to sourcing etiquette for me and respecting privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are willing to leave in the fact that a complaint files (which you admit is true) but not leave in the result of that complaint (which is equally true). Both have the same amount of evidence. Why leave in the fact that a complaint was made but not allow the outcome of the complaint. It is this inconsistence which i find frustrating. I can see no reason not to include the additional information other than to protect the companiy's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.170.213 (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is best at present to leave off the pdf but note that (i) a complaint was made and (ii) that the court ruled in favour of the complainant. Not including the fact that the ruling went against the company might lead people to conclude that the compliant was not upheld. In order to stop a constant "undoing" of edits I think a good compromise until the government places this document on their webpage is to leave:

"In a December 2011 ruling on an Employment Standards Claim, The Ontario Ministry of Labour determined that Digital Extremes was failing to pay its Quality Assurance Testers for overtime as required by law, and also failing to abide by provincial working hour restrictions for these staff. Digital Extremes claimed that these staff were exempt from these provisions under an Information Technology Professional exemption, but the Ministry ruled that Quality Assurance Testers are not Information Technology Professionals"

In place *without* the link to the PDF file. When the govenrment places the document on their own page the link can then be placed. this seems the most unbiased way to approach this issue as it neither removes any information in order to protect the company's name, and nor does it use material which invades privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.170.213 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would agree on just having the reference to the ruling and its outcome, without the link to the PDF file, if this is acceptable. Is anyone actually in any doubt the statement about the outcome of the ruling is actually factual, now that everyone has seen the document? Gyronwells (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, I can arrange for the document to be rescanned with the names of other employees blanked out, if people can all agree this will then be acceptable.Gyronwells (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The names are still clear as day. Can you at least white them out to respect the privacy of other individuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Once your PDF is altered correctly, there are still neutrality issues. Firstly, let's look at your statement:

In a December 2011 ruling on an Employment Standards Claim, The Ontario Ministry of Labour determined that Digital Extremes was failing to pay its Quality Assurance Testers for overtime as required by law, and also failing to abide by provincial working hour restrictions for these staff. Digital Extremes claimed that these staff were exempt from these provisions under an Information Technology Professional exemption, but the Ministry ruled that Quality Assurance Testers are not Information Technology Professionals.

This obviously came from the claimant, and lacks neutrality. If you can agree, I will rewrite it to reflect what is actually in the PDF. So, what actually is in the PDF? A single claimant requested overtime pay (approx. 52 hours), and Digital Extremes paid without contest. This is true, and I can cite your PDF as a source. This statement is filled with padding to confuse people that don't know the difference between a QAT and an ITP.

To this point, since the origin of the edit comes from the claimant, I will be adding a new section called employment practices. If, as GyronWells claims, that this website is to allow people to make an informed decision about a company, why can information from eluta, London Business Awards, etc, not be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why this information should not also be included, though perhaps there should be a separate section for "Labour Disputes". Also, the fact that the company had to pay the overtime to the employee because the Information Technology Professional exemption was found not to apply to QA testers is useful information, and I have edited the statement to include it. The PDF will be rescanned in the next 24 hours with names blanked out.Gyronwells (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh! That's great the names will be gone - thank you for moving forward with that. As far as the statement about ITP and QA testers, I think that is a generalizing statement that fails to acknowledge this is a single case ruling. Nowhere in the PDF does it say this applies to QA testers everywhere - it only pertains to the descriptions of duties provided by Giles Whitaker. In short - this addition should reflect the unique nature of the ruling in a single case, not the industry as a whole. I will make the necessary edits, please read them and let me know your opinion. Rebulast (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's important that the statement makes it clear that the Ministry ruled that the duties of this employee as a QA tester did not fall under the IT professional exemption. So I have edited it to reflect this. Whether or not it is generalisable to the industry as a whole is a matter for interpretation, so I have refrained from making any such comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.35.33 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I just have to interject before I edit - here is the current posting

In 2011, a Quality Assurance tester filed a complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Labour for approximately 52 hours of overtime pay, on the basis that this Quality Assurance tester position did not fall under an "Information Technology Professional" exemption from working hour and overtime pay regulations. This exemption is described on The Ministry of Labour's website. The Ministry determined that this position did not fall under the exemption, and the complaint was upheld by Digital Extremes[9], who did not contest the ruling and paid the employee for the overtime worked.[10].

We've certainly come a long way since the initial post - the PDF is up, and in the process of being whited-out - the counter points to the claim have been posted and cited, and generally, things are looking pretty good. The problem now is the sentence "This exemption is described on the MOL's website". What this says to me is that the user is providing biased information, and using that sentence as support crutch for the bias, when the PDF doesn't reflect the full story (i.e ESA has so many exemptions, this particular case used that exemption to get the owed overtime). I think the following suffices:

In 2011, a contract employee filed a claim with the Ontario Ministry of Labour for approximately 52 hours of overtime pay which it upheld. Digital Extremes complied without contest.

It is succinct, describes all parties involvement, and explains the result. Bringing QAT into it highlights some kind of subtext goal of the claimant. I'll carry out the edit, please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't even understand the ruling. The exemption is used to prevent people from getting overtime - it wasn't used by the employee in order to get overtime. It was the fact that the employee didn't fall under the exemption that allowed him to claim the overtime. Please read over the ruling and the Employment Standards Act 2000 in order to gain some understanding of what you are (failing to) talk about. You shouldn't even be editing this page if you can't grasp what is going on. There is nothing biased about the information that was provided. The Ministry did determine that the employee didn't fall under the exemption, and there is more useful information about that on their website.129.100.62.149 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blanked out the names of the Digital Extremes employees in the ruling who wanted their privacy to be protected. And, Rebulast, please read the appropriate sections of the Employment Standards Act 2000, and carefully read through the ruling before doing any more editing. You are clearly struggling to understand the ruling and how it relates to the regulations, and this is not helping at all.Gyronwells (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the ruling related specifically to a Quality Assurance Tester position - which needs to be known. Otherwise, people might think it could be applied to other different types of position in the company. In actual fact, all the Ministry did was ascertain the this SPECIFIC position was not covered by the exemption. For the sake of maximum accuracy and clarity, this point should remain.Gyronwells (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a fair point about the QAT, but unfair to insult me directly. This is now a matter of conflict of interest at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Original_research) "The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Given the fact that all posts about this can be traced back to the person in question - Giles Whitaker, it does not belong on Wikipedia at all. I will be filing a request for mediation shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research! How is an Ontario Ministry of Labour document original research? It doesn't matter where the file is hosted.Gyronwells (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of the last invasion of Iraq. First it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it was about deposing Saddam, then it was about getting rid of terrorists. When the stated reason keeps changing, you know the real reason is being concealed. Yes, you work for Digital Extremes, and you don't want the company to get bad press. But the company shouldn't have done this if it didn't want people talking about it. It is of interest to the videogame industry in general, and also to people interested in labour relations issues in Ontario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.140.100 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Iraq, really? This is getting ridiculous. It reminds me of the story of someone who doesn't know the basic requirements of a Wikipedia edit. 1. no citation. 2. citation from blog post. 3. citation with privacy breach. 4. biased wording. End of story. It has nothing to do with bad press. It has to do with accurate information and posting standards.

Added the exemption point. Personal investment doesn't mean you're right. This did happen, not denying it's existence. Comes down to Wikipedia community standards. Rebulast (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Let's leave it there.Gyronwells (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "awards" and "industrial disputes" should be two seperate sections. The paragraph contained both does not read well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.170.213 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Employment Environment and Awards" is an inappropriate and consciously misleading title for this subsection. As well, the subsection seems to not be in the order that the subsection title suggests. The OLRB ruling should come before mention of awards in this subsection. Ideally, the "Awards" and "Employment Environment" should be two separate subsections. Also, much of this entry reads as ad copy. To avoid this, the subsection "Employment Environment" should be retitled "Labour Ruling and Industrial Dispute" so as to make a clear distinction between the awards the company has received and the negative ruling by the OLRB that the company has also received. Otherwise, this subsection reads as obscurantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.226.97 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should the OLRB ruling come first? Honest question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Engine

I've read articles and there is a lot of information available confirming the presence and information about the Evolution Enginge (DE's proprietary engine). I just noticed someone took that section down... I will be adding appropriate citations shortly... But there's no reason for it to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebulast (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Work on Halo 4

In the credits for Halo 4, it's shown that Digital Extremes did some development with Certain Affinity on the Multiplayer.

How come this isn't mentioned in this article or anywhere else?--199.106.103.55 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)