Talk:Development of Grand Theft Auto V

Should this article cover all platforms?
A discussion relevant to this article can be found On the Grand Theft Auto V article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-release merge
Hey, I see a number of revert on this page but I don't know what the dispute is about—can you summarize it for me? Your edit summaries mention discussion on the talk page but I don't see any discussion here. czar 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for the edit summary it was actually discussed on my and Rhain1999's talk pages. To fully understand the dispute you'd need to look at the diffs and the talk pages, but I will try to summarize here. Mostly the dispute is about Rhain1999's misleading coverage of the PC, and current generation console versions as well as his attempts to keep them separate from the previous generation console versions and generality keep the article the same (he actually undid my edits adding any coverage at all initially! []) For instance his version of the article says "Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" and then makes no mention of this under the dedicated sub-heading. When the PC version was actually developed in parallel with those versions (see sources in current version of article). He also removes any mention of PC exclusive radio stations and removes the word most in "Like most previous games in the series, Grand Theft Auto V also contains licensed music tracks..." which is ofcource incorrect as GTA 1, London 1969, L1961 and 2 do not contain licensed music tracks.


 * A few other disagreements have also arisen. I compromised on many minor things and we appeared to be in agreement as he responded "I agree that the warring should stop, so thank you for compromising. I might go through and copy-edit your additions to the article in the near future, but it looks pretty good at the moment. I hope to still see you on Wikipedia in the future, and that any hostility between us is gone. Thanks!" But that "copy-edit" proved to just be a revert. So when I noticed I reverted the revert until we both had reverted 3 times at which point he just signed out and reverted again (proven to be him). Really he should be blocked form editing GTAV articles in my opinion but as I'm involved in the dispute I'm not exactly in position to report him. Mainline421 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of moving forward, I trust that we can agree to put prior disputes behind and just talk the current changes on the table. What is your objection to the items in the last reverted revision? My understanding is that the revert contains several objections so perhaps we can discuss them individually. czar  14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To start with there are the changes I mentioned in my first paragraph above. But really I think the real question is: What improvements does Rhain1999's version bring to the article? Because right now I can't see any. He's just very good at talking like he wants the project but his edits here don't. Mainline421 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So comments like that last sentence are generally unhelpful—we're focused on de-escalation right now. We assume good faith of each other here until proven otherwise. I would prefer that you strike it, actually. To stick to the point, my understanding is that the edit you reverted is not actually a change but the status quo. Per BRD, we keep the most recent, stable version of an article and discuss changes whereof—which is to say that if you are proposing a change from the existing version (which, to be fair, was already put to the highest level of WP scrutiny through a featured article review), that said change would be what we discuss here and not the preexisting version. Then you can make a case for your change and we can discuss calmly. czar  17:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think Rhain199's version of the article is the status quo and I have assumed good fiath in my correspondence until now but after an editor has violated Wikipeida policy, used sock puppets, obscured information, and pretended to reach a compromise just to revert back to his preference a couple of weeks later I think we can safetly say his edits are not helping the project. The current version of the article is stable and I think we should get back on the topic of resolving this, so can you please explain the case for your version. Mainline421 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This diff is the comparison between the current version and the August 3rd version, prior to the dispute. So the diff on the left would be the stable version and the diff on the right would be the proposed changes. What is the case for the revisions to the right (of the diff), and what is the case against them, in brief? I still don't know what part of the content is disputed. czar  22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll explain each of my changes to the article individually. I've done this beforehand, but I'll expand:
 * The change of "PC, PS4 and Xbox One" to "Re-release" in the "Editions" table is simply due to restricting the use of abbreviations (PS4 instead of PlayStation 4), though I'm apathetic about this.
 * Moving the information regarding the PC delay to the end of the paragraph about the other delays is to avoid having such a small paragraph about the PC delays. It's also just nicer (and makes sense) to group related information. We've also previously agreed to make a compromise here.
 * Adding "as was the Microsoft Windows version" at the end of "Overview" seems pointless and poorly worded to me.
 * Removing a link to Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) makes sense, since the article does not exist.
 * Adding a link to Trevor Philips in the Further template also makes sense, because there is more information about the development of the character on the article.
 * It makes more sense to me that the "re-release" section is placed below "Music production", and Mainline has already said that he "[doesn't] care that much" about it, so I guess that's clear.
 * I don't have a source, but I'm certain that the early Grand Theft Auto games contain licensed music on an in-game radio. The articles certainly seem to suggest so.
 * "and a radio station for custom audio files on PC" is unsourced.
 * As for the "Re-release" section itself:
 * Placing the image on the right and the quote on the left looks much better and cleaner (in my opinion).
 * The section immediately starts with information about the development, and the second sentence talks about the announcement. Switching this makes more sense.
 * Writing "Xbox 360" and then "PS3" is inconsistent.
 * "announceed" is a typo.
 * Mainline's edit removes some information about the PS3/360 versions (regarding the activities, weapons, vehicles, radio, multiplayer).
 * The organisation doesn't make too much sense to me. Splitting the paragraph in two leaves both paragraphs without a reference at the end.
 * Admonish me if I wasn't supposed to do this, or if I chose a bad time to respond. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 23:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's much clearer that way and as you're apathetic about this it can remain using the abbreviations.
 * We did compromise to have it under the same subheading (an agreement you did not honour!) and I would not be willing to compromise any further than that as they are separate events.
 * Its much better than your misleading wording I mentioned above.
 * OK we can agree to remove it.
 * You have point, so we can re-add that.
 * As I've already said music production continued after the current generation games console launch and the PC and PS4 versions are much more notable than the music production.
 * They did not.
 * OK I'll add a source.
 * Enhanced versions subheading:
 * OK I'll do that.
 * This is an article specifically about the development of Grand Theft Auto V and information should be presented in chronological order in my opinion.
 * I'll change that to PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 then.
 * Fixed.
 * It doesn't.
 * I've created a draft copy fixing the above in my sandbox [] please tell me if you still have any problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding individually. I still have a few problems.
 * Putting the PC delay information in the first paragraph of "Delays and leak" still makes more sense to me. I guess it's a personal preference, though.
 * The sections aren't really ordered by notability, or chronologically. It still makes more sense to me to place "Re-release" under "Music production". Again, probably personal preference.
 * Thanks for providing that source. It looks like the first GTA (and maybe Advance) was the only one not to contain licensed music, but that confirms your claims.
 * I understand that the article is about development, but to the average reader, having the section begin with the announcement information is more logical and fluent.
 * I think you should take another look at your edit; it removes the following information from the "Re-release" section:
 * Speaking of which, I'd appreciate an explanation regarding your layout of the "Re-release" section. By splitting the first paragraph, not only is it removing the information above (in addition to the "as well as a new on-foot first-person view option" sentence), but it also leaves two short paragraphs with no references at the end. Two larger paragraphs still makes more sense to me.
 * Thanks again. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all thanks for removing the copyrighted images, my bad. I have restored the ""as well as a new on-foot first-person view option" and have re-merged the two paragraphs. I have also replaced the section about returning players as here again is an example of your misleading wording. The PC, PS4 and XBO versions feature the new music for everyone and returning player content is also available to people stupid enough to buy the current generation console version and then transfer to PC. Please tell me what you think. Mainline421 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those changes; it's certainly looking a lot better. One thing I wanted to bring up is the "as was the Microsoft Windows version" in the third "Overview" paragraph. This is later mentioned in the "Re-release" section with the same references, so I find it rather pointless (and awkwardly worded). I'm certainly okay with having "Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" at the beginning of the paragraph, though. Thanks for the information about returning players, too; my edit was basing this off information that was already in the article and the reference, but I guess Rockstar have changed a few things since then. Also, do you have a problem with changing the section "Enhanced versions" to "Re-release"? It's not a huge difference, but it hasn't been brought up yet, so I figured I'd ask. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" is incorrect as all three versions were developed in parallel. The "as was the Microsoft Windows version" is needed in my opinion so as not to mislead the reader but if you have a less "awkward" way of phrasing it please do suggest it. Also since the main Grand Theft Auto V article has (against my personal opinion) reverted to using "Re-release" that can be used here for consistency so I have changed that. Mainline421 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take another look at the source. It states that the team "started development of the PC version quite early", but they mainly focused on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, followed by the PS4 and Xbox One versions, followed by major PC development. In this case, "early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" is accurate. As for the "as was the Microsoft Windows version": I find it really unnecessary. The paragraph is about the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, and the final sentence is referring to the negligible differences between the two versions, so suddenly mentioning the PC version seems irrelevant and unnecessary. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" is incorrect as all three versions were developed in parallel. The "as was the Microsoft Windows version" is needed in my opinion so as not to mislead the reader but if you have a less "awkward" way of phrasing it please do suggest it. Also since the main Grand Theft Auto V article has (against my personal opinion) reverted to using "Re-release" that can be used here for consistency so I have changed that. Mainline421 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take another look at the source. It states that the team "started development of the PC version quite early", but they mainly focused on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, followed by the PS4 and Xbox One versions, followed by major PC development. In this case, "early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time" is accurate. As for the "as was the Microsoft Windows version": I find it really unnecessary. The paragraph is about the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, and the final sentence is referring to the negligible differences between the two versions, so suddenly mentioning the PC version seems irrelevant and unnecessary. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Might it be worth updating the sentence to say exactly that? czar 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like "early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time, but core development was focused on the console versions until the game's release on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in November 2014"? Probably needs reworking. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 05:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something more like but I didn't read for what fits best.  czar  05:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely sounds better to me. I was struggling to find the right way to phrase it, but I think you got it. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 05:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do hate to sound counter-productive, but this still incorrect the PC version was developed in parallel with the last generation games console versions as can be seen in the other source [] and even the source Rhain1999 used says development of the PC version started "on day 1". There was no additional focus on the the previous generation console versions until late in the development cycle. Mainline421 (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That source simply refers to a leaked bug log for the game, which is not reliable by any means (WP:OR, maybe?). If you look at the other source, it says that PC development began "quite early", but that Rockstar focused on the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions "first"; the "day 1" quote that you mentioned is referring to Rockstar's plans for a PC version from the beginning of development, not necessarily the development of the PC version. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 13:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not original research merely a primary source which can be verified by anyone who owns a GTA V PS3 disk (I don't) and is much more reliable than whatever lines Rockstar Games's PR department come up with. We are supposed to be concerned with the actual facts, not the official version of events, and even your source says "early development was done in parallel with the console versions". We have discussed this already. Mainline421 (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You must understand that it is a "leaked" bug log; even if it is on the code of the PS3 disc, I still don't believe it can be deemed reliable. As for the "in parallel" part: it says "early development" was done in parallel with the console versions, which Czar's suggestion above clearly states. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 13:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored the August 3rd draft (the last stable version) as mentioned above. The article can build out from there with consensus. Please find consensus on this talk page before committing any further changes. czar  05:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even Rahin1999's biased incomplete version is better than a version that outdated so I have very temporarily reverted to that as I do not think that will be disputed. Mainline421 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We are supposed to be concerned with the actual facts Not to be too blunt, but WP is more concerned with verifiability than truth. When we say we trust a secondary source, it means that we trust in its ability to discern what content is worth knowing and we trust their fact checking (not to be infallible but) to bear responsibility for the way they put stories. So we would always prefer a secondary source account (even if you personally think of it as spoonfed "PR") over a primary ("official") source account precisely for its layer of quality control. Our job is to present the vetted sources, not to find the truth—if one of the many secondary sources covering the development finds that leaked bug log point important or makes a more conclusive statement about overlapping development timelines, only then should we cite such a claim. czar  15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of WP:VNT and I have never seen it used where it could have been and it's plainly ridiculous, my comment was wrong apparently. But nonetheless that does not affect this case. The exact same source is used for the bug log [] and the other source does not contradict this. Mainline421 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Mainline421 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here seems to have grind to a halt, we need to reach a consensus as the article cannot remain in its current state. So would any editor have any objections if I was to put the revised version [] as the actual article? Mainline421 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There would be a discussion if there was a proposal—I recommend suggesting new edits here one at a time. This article went through a featured article review process so it is unlikely to need massive or wholesale revision. czar  21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not this version of the article that went through a featured article review and it does need a lot of editing as the version that did would now be very outdated. Do you have any specific problems with this version: [] as I have outlined my problems with the current version already above. Mainline421 (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm peripheral to this discussion. Both of your edits were contested and the agreement was to discuss each proposed change one by one here. czar  18:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement, discussion was and is being attempted but is going nowhere, many individual issues were discussed above. If no editor can name any problems with the version that has been constructed through this discussion then a consensus has been reached and the new version will be introduced. Mainline421 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't work by edict. Your numerous changes were contested and they shouldn't be added back without discussion, which is normally done in parts. Can you please supply a diff for the changes you propose? czar  22:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I can supply a proper diff without introducing the changes but I have attempted on my sandbox. The old edit is the Status quo and the new edit is the proposed changes, obviously if this were introduced the featured article notice categories images etc. would still be unchanged.  [] Also please ping me when replying in the future and note that  also has a version he created after my original version. Mainline421 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

, here's a comparison. , do you have any feedback? Not sure how much is left over from your earlier response. czar 23:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the removal of "Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; early development for the Microsoft Windows version also took place around this time", as well as the addition of "as was the Microsoft Windows version", from the "Production" section. They basically describe the same thing, but I find the former to be much more readable and coherent. Similarly, the sentence "Development of the Microsoft Windows version of the game began in parallel with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions" in the "Re-release" section is just repetition of this, and I find it a very unusual way to begin the section. I should also mention that I think the information regarding the PC delay should be placed at the end of the first "Delays and leak" paragraph; that way, we just have one paragraph discussing all delays, instead of splitting this into two smaller paragraphs. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "as was the Microsoft Windows version" we could rephrase that (e.g "...because they were developed in tandem along with the Microsoft Windows version." as I have said before, but I do not think it should be removed. The two delays are separate events and so I'm not sure what is wrong the current paragraph structure. Personally I think the "Re-release" section begins perfectly and does not need to be altered. As I have already said the first sentence is incorrect, Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Your sentence is basically just your made up version of events which not supported by the sources. I know we're supposed to assume good faith but really it just seems you want to suppress information about the Microsoft Windows, PS4 and XBO versions as much as possible, you want all information about them to be at the bottom of the article for no reason other than "preference", you want to remove information about them from the entire rest of the article except one made up bit of information, and you initially didn't want it covered at all! You've done some good work in the past, but now after 8 months, I have no idea what your motivations are, but I'm not convinced any of your edits here are done in good faith. Mainline421 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding.
 * You seem very adamant about stating that the PC version was developed in parallel with the PS3/360 versions, but the source states that they only started PC development around this time, and then focused their attention on the console versions. As such, I think we should alter the third "Overview" paragraph to open with the following, as suggested above:  This makes it clear that the team started PC development early, which is something that we both want included in the article.
 * Similarly, it seems redundant to open the "Re-release" section with information regarding the time frame of PC development, since it's already mentioned in the "Overview" section above.
 * The "as was the Microsoft Windows version" becomes more unnecessary the more I look at it. The sentence states that differences between the PS3/360 versions are negligible, because they were developed in tandem, as per the immediate source provided; mentioning the PC version after this doesn't quite fit, and seems to be throwing it in for the sake of mentioning it.
 * While the two delays are certainly separate events, they are very similar events. The Japanese release of the game is a separate event to the original delays, but that doesn't mean it should get it's own paragraph. In fact, I could go so far as to say that the first PC delay was a separate event to the second PC delay, yet they belong together in a paragraph. It just makes more sense to group related information.
 * Thanks again. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That source states "...early development was done in parallel with the console versions. In fact, some of the early preparations we made for PC, like 64 bit & DX11 support, paid off very handsomely when the PS4 and Xbox One architectures were announced. That early work made the process of transitioning to the new consoles a lot easier and allowed us to hit the ground running. The artists also prepared for PC by authoring their source art at PC-ready resolutions, even though we had to use massively reduced versions for the PS3 and XB360." at no point does that say they focused on previous generation games consoles more than PC and if you look at the other source you will see development did not strongly focus on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions until late in the development cycle.
 * We've got to think about this from the reader's point of view. Very few readers will read the entire article and people looking for information about the PC, PS4 and XBO versions will look in that section.
 * As I have already in this very discussion The "as was the Microsoft Windows version" is needed in my opinion so as not to mislead the reader but if you have a less "awkward" way of phrasing it please do suggest it. To not include it would mean that sentence was very misleading imlying only the PS3 and XB360 versions were in development at first.
 * Your version places "On 23 August 2013, reports said that some European PlayStation 3... below the Microsoft Windows delays which doesn't really make sense to me.You're right it does make more sense to group related information hence why all PC delays are in the same paragraph.
 * Mainline421 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This source states the following (my emphasis): That's not to say that "they focused on previous generation games consoles more than PC", as you said I was suggesting, but it clearly says that they initially focused on PS3/360. I'm not even looking at the other source, since that references a leaked bug log, which should not be trusted to any extent. I'm not even a big fan of including the reference in the article in the first place, but one step at a time.
 * While I don't personally think that we should be repeating things for the sake of readers skipping earlier sections (pretty much the basis of WP:DUPLINK), I totally understand that it makes sense to briefly repeat the information. I'd still prefer for the sentence about the E3 announcement to come first, though. Personal preference, I suppose.
 * If we stick to what we discussed, and include information about PC development at the beginning of the third "Overview" paragraph, then "as was the Microsoft Windows version" is completely unnecessary. Not to mention that it reuses the references anyway.
 * I'm not going to try and argue about the PC delays anymore. I just figured it was logical to group them with the other delays, since it results in shorter paragraphs, and it's all very closely related.
 * Thanks. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even looking at the other source is ridiculous and not constructive, both sources use PC Gamer and the bug log comes from the most trustworthy reliable source possible on this subject and is verifiable by anyone. I don't recall a consensus to include information about PC development at the beginning of the third "Overview" paragraph. Nonetheless although I still disagree with this I have removed the "as was the Microsoft Windows version" from  the version on my sandbox], and I have also altered the end of the paragraph so it won't be misleading. "The development team mainly focused on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions before their work on the releases for other platforms" is incorrect however so do you have alternative suggestions for beginning that paragraph? Mainline421 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making those changes. I wasn't being completely serious about not looking at the source—I've read the article multiple times—but I still find it unreliable. While I trust PC Gamer (it's listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS), I do not trust the source that they are citing: I'm unsure if there's any guidelines to support me, but I really don't trust a leaked bug list. Even if I had the capability to read the actual bug list, I don't think I'd cite it in the article (then again, that might just be personal preference). However, I don't understand your reluctance to admit that the development team mainly (not entirely) focused on the PS3/360 versions, followed by PS4/XBO, followed by PC. It's clearly stated in the source (as I quoted above), yet you still refuse to believe it. I'm confused by this. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The bug log states otherwise, and it's not our place as editors to decide whether reliable source's sources are themselves reliable. Rockstar Games have also stated on Twitter they develop there games in parallel across all platforms. Rockstar Games did not mainly focus on the console versions and the PS4 and XBO versions are ports of the PC version! While reliable sources may not be available for all of this, that is the actual truth yet you still refuse to believe the truth. For clarification all content I have attempted to add to the article was however back up by a reliable source. Mainline421 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making those changes. I wasn't being completely serious about not looking at the source—I've read the article multiple times—but I still find it unreliable. While I trust PC Gamer (it's listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS), I do not trust the source that they are citing: I'm unsure if there's any guidelines to support me, but I really don't trust a leaked bug list. Even if I had the capability to read the actual bug list, I don't think I'd cite it in the article (then again, that might just be personal preference). However, I don't understand your reluctance to admit that the development team mainly (not entirely) focused on the PS3/360 versions, followed by PS4/XBO, followed by PC. It's clearly stated in the source (as I quoted above), yet you still refuse to believe it. I'm confused by this. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The bug log states otherwise, and it's not our place as editors to decide whether reliable source's sources are themselves reliable. Rockstar Games have also stated on Twitter they develop there games in parallel across all platforms. Rockstar Games did not mainly focus on the console versions and the PS4 and XBO versions are ports of the PC version! While reliable sources may not be available for all of this, that is the actual truth yet you still refuse to believe the truth. For clarification all content I have attempted to add to the article was however back up by a reliable source. Mainline421 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely think it is our place as editors to determine whether sources are reliable on a case-by-case basis, especially when regarding leaked information. If Rockstar once said on Twitter that they develop their games in parallel, then that is irrelevant unless they said it specifically about GTA V. By saying that "reliable sources may not be available for all of this", this is supporting my point: we do not add information to articles unless reliable sources report on it. Also, I never claimed that Rockstar mainly focused on the console versions, I simply quoted the source in saying they were initially focused on the PS3/360 versions. In case you don't believe that, then I will again repeat the quote from the source, with added emphasis: If you still don't believe it after reading the source, I'll be very confused. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Please read the full comment before responding I already said "For clarification all content I have attempted to add to the article was however back up by a reliable source" If you read the images of the bug log on the source you will see that over a month before the release of the previous generation games console versions the PC version was already in a fully playable state with all content. If you read through the bug log itself you will see that the no major emphasis was placed on the PlayStaion 3 and XB360 versions until late in their development cycles and that the PS4 version is a port of the PC version. I'm very confused you don't believe a bug log straight from Rockstar North themselves which clearly show the Microsoft Windows version was developed in parallel with the PlayStation 3 and XB360 versions. Also you seem to misinterpreting what I'm saying when I said "at no point does that say they focused on previous generation games consoles more than PC" and "Rockstar Games did not mainly focus on the console versions" I'm referring to specifically to at the beginning of development. Really though we need to focus on how we should begin the third paragraph of the "Overview" section. Sorry about the typos I type fast and don't really bother checking for talk pages. Mainline421 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * : If I can be helpful here, the primary purpose of the bug log article is to report that a primary source (a bug log) confirms a PC release in development. It's good enough on face value as a report that "their work on the Windows release started early in the development cycle" but I wouldn't push it further than that (ostensibly you can use another source that says the same line as a basic fact without relying on the pretense of the primary source). I don't see the contention with "mainly focused", per the Rockstar talk 4K article quoted above. An alternative could be "prioritized" if you don't like that specific phrasing. czar  19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say anything about a fully playable PC port at the time, so to conclude that from leaked images alone is at best a rumor and, at worst, straight-up original research. We present the sources and right now I don't see any source countering the "Rockstar talk 4K" interview that says they focused on previous gen first, next gen next, and PC last, building on each port's improvements. I would even go further to say that this statement is uncontroversial seeing as they were released in that order too. czar  22:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the images in the bug log article which are part of the article and would counter the other source. The statement would extremely controversial if made in certain places and is still wrong. I must mention The PC version is not a port! Mainline421 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , to cite the image directly is to use it as a primary source. PC Gamer is a secondary source because it reports on the primary sources (that is, its text). The image on the page (reputable or not) is not itself edited by PC Gamer. In any event, this is not nearly strong enough evidence to say the PC version was "fully playable" and that sort of inference would constitute a form of original research. (And "port" doesn't necessarily mean rewritten from the ground up—it can be just a release for a different platform.) czar  00:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is cited as the source and the text contained in the images files is part of the article text merely presented using an image file. By your logic the quote in the other source would be a primary source as is is not itself edited by PC Gamer. Here's another source which meets WP:VG/RS and agrees  (Oh and port means to convert a video game to run on a different platform, Rockstar Games don't do this anymore the core engine is designed to be multi-platform and every game is built from the ground up on each platform sharing assets.) Mainline421 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't see what the source "agrees" with—it reads quite noncommittal to me.
 * I also don't see what part of the bug log images affirm that the game was "fully playable". The dev interview can be used as a self-published, primary source about self—it is direct from the developer's mouth—while the bug log as a primary source requires some sort of original interpretation to get to the claim that the game was "fully playable" (by which I imagine you mean developed completely in parallel with the others). Furthermore, if you're saying that the bug log goes against the dev's own word, the short answer is that we go with what the developer reasonably says about their process until a secondary source says otherwise and then we either discard the former for the latter or display both claims side by side. For the sake of moving this along, let's only discuss specific quotes, ideally from RS, that counter Rhain's bolded quotes above. Otherwise I see nothing new to discuss. czar  17:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking quotes out of full context doesn't change anything (The King James bible has the quote "there is no god" on numerous occasions)
 * We should discuss anything relevant to this case and as long as a source meets WP:RS I will discuss it unless it is contrary to any other policy. Also I'm not saying the bug log goes against the dev's own word, just that you and Rhain1999 are seeing more into that quote then there is, as the quote can be interpreted as not contradicting anything I have said although it's probably deliberately worded misleadingly.
 * These two are taken from the PC Gamer article and both show the game was in a playable state. Mainline421 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , the operative phrases in that whole passage are "It’s only a theory" and "that’s pure speculation on my part". We don't cite rumor on WP, even when they come from "RS", especially when we have more definitive sources. Think about it: What kind of statement or claim would you like to make based on that third-person speculation? And that the game was in a "playable state" does not mean it was "fully playable", but either way, it's still original research. I see no reason to not take the dev's own word over the bug log speculation. czar  00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "It’s only a theory" and "that’s pure speculation on my part" are referring to PC being "the lead platform" for GTA V (which it wasn't). It's not at all original research for it to be original research I would have had to have gone through the game files on the PS3 disk myself (which I don't even own!), perhaps you should re-read original research.
 * The above taken from the PC Gamer article and come straight from the developers. To repeat myself again, I'm not saying the bug log goes against the dev's own word, just that you and Rhain1999 are seeing more into that quote then there is, as the quote can be interpreted as not contradicting anything I have said, although it's probably deliberately worded misleadingly. Mainline421 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , the operative phrases in that whole passage are "It’s only a theory" and "that’s pure speculation on my part". We don't cite rumor on WP, even when they come from "RS", especially when we have more definitive sources. Think about it: What kind of statement or claim would you like to make based on that third-person speculation? And that the game was in a "playable state" does not mean it was "fully playable", but either way, it's still original research. I see no reason to not take the dev's own word over the bug log speculation. czar  00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "It’s only a theory" and "that’s pure speculation on my part" are referring to PC being "the lead platform" for GTA V (which it wasn't). It's not at all original research for it to be original research I would have had to have gone through the game files on the PS3 disk myself (which I don't even own!), perhaps you should re-read original research.
 * The above taken from the PC Gamer article and come straight from the developers. To repeat myself again, I'm not saying the bug log goes against the dev's own word, just that you and Rhain1999 are seeing more into that quote then there is, as the quote can be interpreted as not contradicting anything I have said, although it's probably deliberately worded misleadingly. Mainline421 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above taken from the PC Gamer article and come straight from the developers. To repeat myself again, I'm not saying the bug log goes against the dev's own word, just that you and Rhain1999 are seeing more into that quote then there is, as the quote can be interpreted as not contradicting anything I have said, although it's probably deliberately worded misleadingly. Mainline421 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above taken from the PC Gamer article and come straight from the developers. To repeat myself again, I'm not saying the bug log goes against the dev's own word, just that you and Rhain1999 are seeing more into that quote then there is, as the quote can be interpreted as not contradicting anything I have said, although it's probably deliberately worded misleadingly. Mainline421 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , it is straightforward OR to synthesize claims about the state of development based on leaked images of a dev log—I don't think that's debatable. We don't source rumor and we don't do that kind of synthesis.
 * I'm really only interested in discussing specific proposals at this point. The working draft was: How are you suggesting that that sentence be rephrased/sourced? I don't follow, as is.  czar  18:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The bug log is not a rumour but is part of Grand Theft Auto V on PS3, the data is on every (original) disk! Also my claims are not based on "leaked images" you can view the full bug yourself by clicking the link at the top of this article. In fact it's quite likely it isn't even leaked but is left there to be found, as after the Hot Coffee mod Rockstar Games are likely to be very cautious about such things. Information about a product that comes from the product itself isn't rumour! (Even if hidden) Furthermore I would say the quote is self serving as Rockstar Games have a conflict of interest as they want people to purchase the product twice and purchase GTAVI twice. I would even go as far as to say your claim would be considered an exceptional claim in certain ares of the net. Now in regard to the beginning of the third paragraph of the Overview section (which we really need to focus on) I'd say we need to go back to the drawing board as in it's current state it's entirely incorrect. Mainline421 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rockstar obviously have a conflict of interest; that goes without saying, since it's their game. But that doesn't really have anything to do with WP:COI, which refers to how editors edit Wikipedia. (Even then, I've no idea how the information about what platform they focused on in development would help their sales in any way.) The sentence is not "entirely incorrect" at all. I fail to see how it's possible to misinterpret the source: they clearly moved on from one version of the game to another throughout development. I also fail to see why you're so adamant about rejecting this. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 23:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They did not move on from one version of the game to the next as (even discarding the information in the product) can be seen by how the Rockstar Editor was announced at the same time as the Microsoft Windows version and how the Microsoft Windows version was continually delayed. I'm "so adamant about rejecting this" as information in the PS3 version clearly says it isn't true!


 * , feel free to propose a different sentence if you feel strongly. Again, the longer this goes on, the more I think the point is moot. czar  01:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In an effort to reach a compromise here is a suggested alternative wording I still don't like it much though. (I think this isn't strictly accurate as in fact I think most of the PC build specific code development at the time of the previous generation games console release was being done at Rockstar Leeds, with the console build specific code at the time being worked on at Rockstar North, but I'd have to re-check the credits) Mainline421 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't see what reliable source substantiates the claims that (1) dev was in parallel and that (2) dev priority was about meeting release dates. czar  22:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For parallel development: Rockstar talk 4K, PC performance and more GTA 5 bug log lists PC version and DirectX 11 effects, and GTA 5 on PC - why the evidence is too strong to ignore. As for development later focusing on meeting the release date of the seventh generation console versions I have no reliable source other than your and Rhain1999's interpretation of the former article. Mainline421 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , those sources say a PC port exists, not that all three versions are being produced in parallel (implied as exactly in sync)—I'm skimming unless you have a quote? czar  23:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all none of those sources confirm the existence of a PC port as there is no PC port of Grand Theft Auto V! To qoute the first article "We were always going to bring GTA 5 to PC. We planned from day 1 for a PC build and we made technical decisions based off the fact that we would be doing a PC version of the game." "we started development of the PC version quite early" Also further down the article: PC Gamer: "How did the process of bringing GTA 5 to PC compare to previous Rockstar games on PC, like GTA 4, LA Noire and Max Payne 3? Was there anything different this time around?" Kevin Hoare—president of Rockstar Toronto: "The process of bringing GTA 5 to PC was most similar to our last PC title, Max Payne 3." [Rockstar Games have publicly said many times that Max Payne 3 was developed in parallel across PC and console [].] "Our process of bringing titles to PC has evolved over the years... early development was done in parallel with the console versions. In fact, some of the early preparations we made for PC, like 64 bit & DX11 support, paid off very handsomely when the PS4 and Xbox One architectures were announced. That early work made the process of transitioning to the new consoles a lot easier and allowed us to hit the ground running. The artists also prepared for PC by authoring their source art at PC-ready resolutions, even though we had to use massively reduced versions for the PS3 and XB360.''" To repeat for emphasis "early development was done in parallel with the console versions" - Kevin Hoare—president of Rockstar Toronto.


 * Then there is the second article referencing information included on the PS3 disk in 2013 "•632447-[PC] All the phones are very dark and hard to read" "•121610-[PC] I fell through the world at the end of the Parachute jump 'City Glide' -Robert Scmitz (SD)". and the third article "The 150-page bug log details every major change made to Rockstar’s open-world epic from April 2009 to August 2013--with reference to a ‘PC version’ from June 2012." "The bug log’s highlights include: – Mention of DX11 support, which is Microsoft’s DirectX software used to create ‘eye-popping 3D visuals and immersive sound effects’ in modern PC games. DX11 is fully supported by Xbox One. – Reference to X64, shorthand for the 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set created by PC processor firm AMD. PlayStation 4 uses an eight core custom AMD x86-64 CPU. – A ‘last-gen’ toggle used during development, with reference to ‘fixes for lastgen ped/veh population issues’ and ‘lastgen max mode code’. – A ‘smog’ weather setting in relation to DX11. ‘Blooms too much on smog weather setting’. GTA 5’s iFruit companion app contains files that list a ‘Blizzard’ weather setting, which doesn’t appear in the current version of GTA 5. – Introduction of new Michael and Franklin character models in June 2011." Really you shouldn't be making such strong judgements based "skimming" anyway you should've at least read the whole article. Mainline421 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of your reply is actually proving the point that they focused their efforts on the PS3/360 versions first. You've added multiple quotes about "early development" on Windows (note the word early; they weren't entirely focused on PC yet), and how they "planned" on bringing the game to Windows from the beginning. Well, the sentence that czar proposed above (that has been repeated multiple times) also states this: Also, I should note that mentioning the development of Max Payne 3 and the tweet from Rockstar, is irrelevant, per WP:SYNTH. Meanwhile, your second paragraph continues to prove it: by quoting parts of the bug log mentioning PC development, this confirms that early development of the PC version took place alongside the console versions. So, if you seem to agree that early development was done in parallel, what is the problem here? –  Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 17:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly because Grand Theft Auto V was initially developed for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360, not just PS3 and XB360. Secondly because "though their work on the Windows release started early in the development cycle" implies only very basic work done and that this basic work was done after beginning advanced early work on the console versions which is incorrect as they were developed in parallel. Now I know this could be interpreted differently but that's how I read it and I don't think its acceptable if readers were to interpret it this way. Mainline421 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, taking a look at the bug log source that you continue to mention, it states that the game was in development "from April 2009 to August 2013–with reference to a 'PC version' from June 2012". The term "initially developed" implies that the PC version began development near the beginning, in 2009 (maybe 2010, 2011 at the very latest; not 2012). Even then, the proposed sentence above doesn't imply "very basic work", since it doesn't say anything of the sort. I think you've interpreted it that way due to your involvement in this discussion, but it seems unlikely for the common reader to do the same. The sources show that they focused on PS3/360 first; that's not to say that they didn't do early PC work at the time too, but the sources clearly state that they focused on the other versions. – Rhain☔1999  (talk to me) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One source says they focused on those versions and no more, multiple sources don't say any such thing. Also if you actually read [the bug log] (or ctrl+f) you will see that Xbox360 is not specifically mentioned until late 2011. Generally speaking the bug log does not reference specific platforms much at all but it does enough to show development was in parallel until late in the development cycle. Mainline421 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , how about
 * I only see one phrase ("done in parallel") that I think could factor in here. As for the moralization about skimming—the burden of verification is on the editor proposing the change. It's not on me to find the needle in the haystack. By the way, you don't need to ping me as I'm following the page (only pinging you based on the request). czar  23:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Czar That is just based on assumptions on your part and is not sourced. Also the editor proposing the change here is Rhain1999 as a compromise had been reached which he later chose to ignore, and most of this version predates his. Looking at your talk page you seem to only be here because of a blatant act of Canvassing by Rhain1999. As an admin you should have known better, other than your first posts you have always assumed Rhain1999, an editor you have worked with before was right. A lot of your comments are similar to those here. While I do genuinely think you are contributions here are good faith (and I'm not just saying that because of WP:AGF) you really shouldn't have tried to take the role in this discussion you did and while you are more than welcome to continue contributing here please don't keep acting as you were, and bear in mind that more reliable sources state development was conducted in parallel than any focus was on the seventh generation game console versions. Mainline421 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not an assumption, and it is sourced. Your claim above that "one source says they focused on those versions and no more, multiple sources don't say any such thing" is irrelevant unless you provide these multiple sources that contradict the PC Gamer interview. As for czar's contribution to the discussion, I think you're being a little unfair; I contacted him, an admin, because I was unsure on how to continue with this, since we were unable to reach any sort of decision. He did not assume that I "was right": if you look at the beginning of the discussion again, he asked that I also explain my changes to the article, after which he was free to form any opinion that he believes is beneficial to the page. This has nothing to do with my previous encounters with czar (besides a few GAN and DYK reviews, we have not worked together before). He can see the facts are blatantly stated in the source, and, being the honest and genuine editor that he is, is trying to include the truth (as stated by a reliable source) in the article. – Rhain  ☔ 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've served as a third party in previous GTAV-related discussions and it's the same case here. It's not canvassing and I haven't taken a "side"—I reviewed the proposed changes (and, yes, they are proposed, and otherwise we stick with the existing, FA-reviewed version) and have explained in length why the proposed change is syncretic, original research and against WP policy. Hey, if you'd prefer to return to your stalemate, that's fine by me, but we've now written reams about a single sentence and I'm comfortable to state declaratively that my proposed compromise is the best you can do with the sources/quotes provided. You're welcome to solicit wider input at WT:VG but I highly doubt you'll find anyone with the patience that I've given this. In fact, since we're now in the realm of unsubstantiated personal aspersions, I see nothing left to discuss here. czar  06:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How should the second paragraph of the overview section begin in this draft begin? Disagreement has arisen over how this paragraph should begin, this mainly stems from whether or not Grand Theft Auto V was developed in parallel for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 as it is argued is confirmed by these articles: GTA 5 bug log lists PC version and DirectX 11 effects, Rockstar talk 4K, PC performance and more, and GTA 5 on PC - why the evidence is too strong to ignore however, it is also argued that this quote from the second article contradicts this:

while it has also been said that this merely a matter of interpretation and that this does not contradict the other sources. The reliance of a leaked bug log for the claims that development was in parallel have been criticized as well, this been contended with the fact that the bug log is present on the PlayStation 3 disk, and it has therefore been argued it is part of the product and not leaked or rumour. All the above articles meet WP:VG/RS and two are from the same publication. WP:Synthesis and WP:Inaccuracy are both relevant here. 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , Requests_for_comment—I think you'll want to rephrase the above to a simple yes/no proposal and keep all the rest to your opinion. czar  23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Czar I can see your logic there but this can't be simplified to yes or no yet as we need to reach a compromise here rather than having two options at opposite extremes. I have tried to be as neutral as possible but this is very difficult in this case, if you have any way of making it more neutral please do so. Mainline421 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't make heads or tails of what the RfC is trying to do, so I doubt it'll have much traction. I don't have any more time to dedicate to this right now, though. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the quote here contradicts the claims that the versions were developed simultaneously. Perhaps you might clarify that although started simultaneously, development gave way to focus on the console platforms? I'm not sure this is really good grounds for an RfC though. --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like this? Mainline421 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the sources support that statement, it works for me :) I don't really have much of an opinion on this, it just seemed to me that it only needs a little clarifying. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The following is more accurate, though, per the sources provided. The PC, PS3 and 360 versions were initially developed in tandem, but (as the source explicitly states) PS3 and 360 soon became the priority, followed by PS4 and Xbox One, followed again by more PC. –  Rhain  ☔ 00:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Source does not "explicitly state" any such thing! Putting a reference twice doesn't change that. Mainline421 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've quoted it once, I'll do it again. Seems pretty explicit to me. –  Rhain  ☔ 08:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "we decided to focus the bulk of our attention" Does not mean "...the team ultimately prioritised the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions ahead of the other platform releases." and "...before turning our attention to the PS4 and Xbox One versions, and then using the shared architecture underpinning the new consoles to help ourselves ramp up into the PC version" does not mean they were priortitised above PC! As you know the PC version was initially scheduled for release at same time as current generation games consoles, and the PC exclusive Rockstar Editor was announced at the same time. So your interpretaton does not even fit with Rockstar Games's version of events. Mainline421 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How's this instead? – Rhain  ☔ 06:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all its not all the same team, so that's wrong. Secondly that whole sentence structure is misleading its basically: while [the actual facts] you should ignore that and remember this. This backed up by the fact one of the definitions given for 'while' in the Oxford English Dictionary is: even though; although. So you're basically saying "Even though initial development began in parallel between the console and Windows releases, the team ultimately focused their attention on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions ahead of the other platform releases." I don't see how that is any more accurate than the sentence proposed above. Also "...ahead of the other platform releases." doesn't really fit with the tone of Wikipedia. Mainline421 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think it fits the tone of Wikipedia, and I see no problem with the "Even though" part, but I will try to reword it for you. –  Rhain  ☔ 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't like that wording, it's needlessly long and just seems to emphasize that "the team [in reality different teams were focused on different platforms] ultimately prioritised the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions ahead of the other platform releases." What exactly is your issue with the wording below?
 * Mainline421 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ignoring the fact that the team focused on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions before turning their attention to other platforms, which I believe is fairly significant. – Rhain  ☔ 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...but unfortunately simply not true! Regardless though perhaps you missed "but later gave way to focus on seventh generation console platforms." Mainline421 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true, per the interview with Rockstar; I've provided the quote numerous times. I certainly did not miss half of the sentence—it gives the impression that Rockstar developed PC/PS3/360 before turning to PS4/XONE, and then that's where development finished, which is false; as I said, it is ignoring the fact that they went from PS3/360 to "other platforms" (PS4/XONE/PC). – Rhain  ☔ 05:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rockstar Games did develop PC/PS3/360 before turning to PS4/XONE and then (presumably) returning to PC. That's what the article says and "we decided to focus the bulk of our attention on the PS3 and XB360 versions first" doesn't contradict this. The bug log states all of this as far as the point when the PlayStation 3 version went gold please read it. As I have asked before what do you actually believe (not want) when you have been presented with so much evidence, how can you actually believe based on your interpretation of one single comment that this was not the case? Mainline421 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather confused. This entire time, I've been saying that "Rockstar Games did develop PC/PS3/360 before turning to PS4/XONE and then returning to PC". But if you suddenly agree with this, why do you have a problem with my suggestion for the sentence? – Rhain  ☔ 06:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the "but the team ultimately focused their attention on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions prior to focusing on other platform releases" is still very misleading. The PC version was developed in parallel with the PS3 and XB360 versions, and they had already started porting the PC version to PS4 before the seventh generation games consoles release. Also just to clarify when I said "before turning to PS4/XONE" that is not to say PC development had stopped, it was still initially scheduled for release at the same time as current generation games consoles. Mainline421 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that the PC version was initially developed in parallel with PS3/360 (hence the first half of the proposed sentence), but Rockstar specifically turned their attention to PS3/360 at some point in development before returning their focus on the other platforms (per the source, and the second half of the sentence). – Rhain  ☔ 14:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They never "turned their attention" to PS3 merely "focused more" on them as this suggestion says I don;t understand your objection to it. Mainline421 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How's this? –  Rhain  ☔ 23:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's much better, but it basically says the same thing as I proposed above but is pointlessly longer and leans towards some info more than other info. Mainline421 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It includes accurate information that was absent from your suggestion. If you think it's too long, feel free to suggest a shorter version with the same information, but I personally think it's appropriate. – Rhain  ☔ 08:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The only piece of information your suggestion includes that is omitted by the other proposal is "before returning their attention to other platform releases" which would be needless, as it would be obvious if the other proposal was used paired with the rest of the article. Mainline421 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal fails to mention that the team focused their attention on the PS3/360 versions after development started, and does not mention that they returned their focus to the PC version afterwards ("seventh generation console platforms" does not include PC, but "other platform releases" does). We shouldn't assume that things are obvious to the reader; explicitly stating facts is usually the ideal approach. – Rhain  ☔ 21:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK you've completely misunderstood that proposal. It seems clear enough, but the seventh generation of games consoles includes PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. But if we really do need to state everything hows this?
 * Not strictly accurate as development on PC was in parallel, but still... Mainline421 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; seems basically like a reiteration of my proposal, and covers all my issues, so I'm satisfied with it. – Rhain  ☔ 23:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes have been made based on the draft on my sandbox based on your interpretation of the quotes. As such I take it you would be ok with the draft constructed through this discussion now replacing the current version of the article? Mainline421 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I replaced the article with your draft, after I made a few changes. I decided to merge the sentence with the following sentence about Grand Theft Auto IV; I feel as though it fits well, as they're both talking about the early development, and avoids any redundancy. Let me know if you have any major issues. – Rhain  ☔ 00:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have discussed that first along with all the other changes you made. I'm not sure why you changed the source, but both are equally valid. As for your changes to the Re-Release section I still strongly disagree with those for the reasons I've already stated above, so I have restored the version from the draft. Mainline421 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the source from IGN to GameSpot because the former is a report about how the game would ship, whereas the latter is actual evidence of it. I'm not entirely sure what information you think I removed from the Re-release section, but all I did was move a sentence around. For the sake of peace, I'll leave it the way it is, since it's fairly minor anyway. I also didn't see the need to consult you about adding the GTA IV part to that sentence, since the sentence is almost identical to what we agreed on and still includes all the information that we discussed (and I was too impatient to wait for a response), but I apologise if I offended you by changing this. – Rhain  ☔ 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

NAT Servers
Should performance of the game via NAT servers be included? A lot of people will log off of the game due to no configuration on their consoles for NAT servers. This includes not being able to obtain access to minigames after being idle for too long. This is one of many games that is highly affected by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's sufficiently covered by reliable, independent secondary sources, then it may warrant inclusion. – Rhain  ☔ 23:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Road to TFA
This article is currently nominated at WP:TFA/R to appear as "Today's featured article" for 17 September, the four-year anniversary of the game's release. I'd like to dedicate this section as a place to audit the article to check it still fully meets all aspects of the WP:FACR, as it's been over three years since the article received any kind of formal review process. Consider this an unofficial peer review of sorts. All feedback is greatly appreciated. Cheers! CR 4 ZE (t • c) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One nitpick I noticed is that Michael, Trevor, and Franklin, are all mentioned from Research and open world design onward, but they are never properly introduced until Promotion. If the three characters can be properly introduced the first each of them are mentioned that would be great. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ This was a slight error caused by flipping the Development and Release sections over. Thanks for spotting it. CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 21:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-order story and gameplay
How would we feel about swapping "Story and character development" and "Gameplay design" over? Putting myself in the shoes of a non-player here, I think I'd like to know about the overall impact of the multiple-protagonist feature on the game's design and narrative before learning about how it specifically impacts gameplay. To my mind, it would be easier to understand in this order; the story/character info flows from the open world design better and we don't have the awkward intro for the characters that we currently have in Gameplay. (/ might be interested in commenting). —  CR 4 ZE (T • C)  05:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings from my end besides the general principle that gameplay generally goes first in our articles. The story/character section is twice the length of gameplay, so it requires more of a cognitive shift to come out of that section, but that affects any successive section. I wonder whether the "Development" level three subheads should become level twos? The "Release" level threes follow each other but the Development level threes not as much. (not watching, please )  czar  14:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The principle of having gameplay before story applies to articles about a game, not child articles on development. Even then, per VGLAYOUT we would order them the other way if it simplifies things for the reader—I think it would. Music (which immediately follows both) is actually the longest section by word count, so perhaps with flipping story and gameplay we'd have a balance of longer and shorter sections. Are you suggesting level twos with further sub-sections (ie separate level threes for story and characters)? That could work, but I wonder if it'd do more harm than good with respect to flow. On a side note, video game development seems to be a growing topic, so perhaps the project should look at coming together with some guidelines. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Flipped while retaining ; flipped with —  CR 4 ZE  (T &bull; C)  15:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was thinking headings like that "level two" link, which gives more ideological separation. And yep, no strong feelings on which section goes first. (I think I'd count as a dispassionate reader on this topic, and after reading both sections, don't feel strongly about which one I needed to see first.) The general principle of putting gameplay first is just a Wikipedia convention—if you two feel strongly, go for it. czar  01:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If I felt particularly strong about it, I would've just been bold. I've flipped sections over but retained level threes (for now). Keen to hear input from others. I think now the reader knows the who/what/when of the characters, then learns about character-switching/mission design later on. Seems more a logical ordering to me. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  03:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the section flip, I don't really feel too strongly either way; I think the awkward introduction for the characters is fixed with the flipping, so that probably makes the most sense to me. As for the level two headings, I'm leaning slightly in favour of them. The article is called "Development of Grand Theft Auto V", after all, so to immediately begin with a section called "Development" may feel a bit repetitive. Still don't feel strongly either way, though. – Rhain  ☔ 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe exchange "Development" with "Production" to fix the repetition but keep the sectioning. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't love the idea of flipping the two as it makes chronological sense to discuss the actual years of development preceding the announcement and subsequent marketing. My preference is to retain the level threes but I'd defer if or  felt strongly (nobody—not even myself—has strong feelings here! Somebody make an executive decision! ) If we went with level twos, would it make sense to move the Re-release section to the very end of the article? (Would it make sense to do that, even now?) —  CR 4 ZE  (T &bull; C)  13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think IceWelder's suggestion was to rename the "Development" section to "Production" (perhaps I'm wrong), but I don't think that would make too much of a difference. My comment was more questioning whether we really need a separate parent heading for development if the article is already called "Development of Grand Theft Auto V". At the same time, though, level threes feel a little cleaner, so I can't decide. Sorry, CR4ZE. –  Rhain  ☔ 14:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this (I suddenly have strong feelings): Swap to level two headings; move Re-release last; try Story before Development (already done). Bada bing! czar  22:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bada boom! I took the opportunity while I'm here to shuffle things around and make some prose tweaks throughout the article. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  02:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the growth of the topic, might it be worth having a wider discussion about the layout of development articles at WT:VG or WT:MOSVG and adding a new section to the MoS at WP:VGLAYOUT? There's a section there dedicated to game settings, which has fewer articles than video game development at this point, so it seems like a logical inclusion to me. – Rhain  ☔ 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and suggested as much above. I actually wrote a draft guideline the other day. I'd go further and say (on an unrelated note) we should perhaps consider guidelines on game series as well. I'll broach the subject at WT:VG/GL and publish a brainstorm page at User:CR4ZE/MOSVG-development. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  12:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)