Talk:Devolver Digital

Shadow Warrior Classic
I would like to clarify here that Shadow Warrior Classic as published by Devolver was not released in 1997. It refers to a free-to-play digital re-release in 2013 that is distinct from both the original 1997 DOS release and their for-pay re-release, Shadow Warrior Classic Redux. Hendricks266 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Games as displayed in "published" list mention the original date of release. Since the game has not been changed in anway, just with a DOSBox added, the original release is stuck on 1997. The Redux of the game, created by Generel Arcade, however, was indeed made in 2013. It might aswell been to mention that the Steam Store page you linked even refers to "1997" in it's title. Also I could see you immediately unded my undo on your revision before having talked out anything, just pointed out.
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Displaying SWC with 1997 in this article is inherently misleading for two reasons: One, Devolver had no involvement with Shadow Warrior before 2012, when their iOS Shadow Warrior port was released. "1997" implies Devolver published the original release, which is false. Two, most critically, Shadow Warrior Classic is a distinct release from the original 1997 Shadow Warrior. Hendricks266 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The iOS port of Shadow Warrior had no Devolver involvement whatsoever, because it was developed and released by General Arcade, implied by the "General Arcade" developer tag on it.
 * To get to your points: 1. Displaying 1997 as it's release year might be misleading but will be put away if not concerened about. On visiting Shadow Warrior's Wikipedia page you can aswell see why how and when Devolver did what to the game, therefore not causing any confusion as of original information and statement on linked page.
 * 2. The reason it is called "SW Classic" is because Flying Wild Hog's "Shadow Warrior" was already hooked to Devolver on re-release. So they did what they did to the pre-HD Serious Sam's; renamed them to "Classic".
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You make several assumptions about the clarity of the article to the average reader. Perhaps Shadow Warrior Classic, the pre-2009 Serious Sam games, and Mark Ecko should be split into a second table that concerns IP that Devolver has acquired at some date after the initial release, in contrast to the majority of the games for which they are the initial and sole publishers. It should stand to reason that Devolver should not be credited for publishing releases that they had no involvement in, which is implied by listing dates and supported platforms such as MS-DOS, Palm OS, and GameCube that predate the company's existence. Hendricks266 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The platforms in case of a publisher do not imply consoles the publisher published the games to, but the platforms the game exists on.
 * You might be right in saying that I make assumptions about a normal reader's thoughts about the pre-foundation release but I still hold on to the facts and rules, stating the original release date.
 * The secondary table might aswell be a good idea, still keeping in mind what I said above.
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we have reached a good compromise. Thanks. Hendricks266 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment
Came here via the reassessment request in the video games talk page template. Knocking this down to Start/Low- as per WikiProject Video games/Assessment, to reach "mid" level, a company article must be about "Most other well-known companies in the industry" (that are not the top companies in the industry) like IGN, GameStop, Bethesda. Digital Devolver isn't that big/well-known of a publisher. As to the quality rating: this article has numerous issues keeping it from being a "B-class" article; to start off with, there's nothing at all about the company's start, or even anything they did in their first 3 years- the very first sentence starts of with "after they did blah blah", without ever discussing what they did when they weren't indie publishers. There's not a lot of information about the in what is there, beyond talking about what game won what award, and the discussion of their film distribution business is buried beneath the tables. The film section is entirely unreferenced, and several bits of the indie section are too. The tables themselves are nice, though almost completely unreferenced. They should also be sortable. The acquisitions table doesn't explain what it means by that- when they first published a new franchise? When they bought the rights to a new franchise? When they first signed on a developer?

Basically, the article is at a good starting place (thus, "Start-class"), but it has a ways to go. To be B-class, an article needs to contain in some form or another all the information you'd expect to be there, mostly referenced, with perhaps some prose and organization issues keeping it from being nominated for GA. This isn't there yet- I don't know who founded the company, when, what they look for for publishing, what companies they work with, how large they are, etc. Examples to look to for improving this article include: thatgamecompany, Bungie, ABA Games, Action Button Entertainment - all developers, but it's an idea for where to start off on a publisher's article. -- Pres N  18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons to other labels/publishers
I would like to find a place in the article for the comparison to Sub Pop/Death Row/Epitaph Records/Image Comics. The comparison has been drawn in several articles cited in the edits, and I believe reflects Devolver’s presence in the gaming industry and creator-focused philosophy. Whether it’s it’s own section or not is much less important. DreadInertia (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , previously your inclusion was sourced as follows: Sub Pop, Death Row Records, Epitaph Records, Image. Please review this sourcing again, Sub Pop and Image only appear in quotes from Mike Wilson, the Epitaph mentions is not included in the source provided. This only leaves Death Row Records properly sourced. However, none of these are provided with any context, and sound mostly like puffery rather than neutrally presented information. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2013-present
I would like to find what the content is or the 2013-2019 section of the history. Whether it is a more compressed description noting highlights of high-selling or award winning games, and a small section about their HD remakes and ports, or whether it is something else that represents that period. DreadInertia (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , please provide sources that outline a release's significance to Devolver's corporate history. Just including every game seems overkill here, as there are close to 20 games every year. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Founding date
Thanks for adding this source. In it, Wilson says that "We turned 10 this year. We had our birthday party Sunday night, which happened to be the night of our E3 press conference." (which would be June 9). Do you gather from this that the founding date is actually June 9, 2009, rather than June 25, the date of their first announcement? Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not read that from that source. People - and corps - often have bdays not on their actual bdays. Or maybe that's when they got an office, or got their cert of incorportion in the mail, or something. I would leave as is.--M asem (t) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tips about making an article about EITR game
Hello! I uploaded a draft about the game EITR and it got declined due to the lack of reliable sources. I understand now that I should have discussed the topic on this talk page first, so I'm sorry for getting ahead of myself. I wonder if anyone has any reliable sources that could be good enough for making an article possible. If there aren't, I understand that an article is not possible as of now. Thank you in advance! Zandor 15:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariuZzandor (talk • contribs)
 * Hi . You can try our (WikiProject VG's) custom Google search engine linked from WP:VG/SE to find more sources. Note, though, that the decline reason given is lack not significant coverage, i.e. sources that go in-depth with the subject. It was not declined strictly for having too few sources. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! I will definitely try that out! I understand that, sorry for being unclear in my statement. I will try to find some other sources now that has more significant coverage of the subject, thank you very much! Zandor 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Games list innaccurate
There is a serious discrepancy between what is listed in the publications list on the Wikipedia here, and what Devolver itself claims to have published. There is 133 games listed here not including re-releases, www.devolverdigital.com only lists 103, including games not available on windows/steam, and their steam page also only lists 103 (obviously a slightly different list). I think an authoritative source should be selected to avoid games being added by a developer as a way to garner free advertising and good publicity given Devolvers track record. 2607:FEA8:9540:16B0:A0C0:16D8:CC66:44B1 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * All current entries are accurate. Devolver does not list all of its former games as for some the publishing contracts have expired. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)