Talk:Rockstar Games/Archive 1

Merge RAGE
RAGE should be merged into this page (ZookPS3 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm going to say lave it. RAGE is going to be used more often now and it would make sense for it to have it's own page. -Gamerzworld 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather then merge the articles, leave them separate but expand on the information on this page about the RAGE engine so people can get an understanding of the engine.--- RockstarWatch.net Global 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could be worth mentioning
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13172

­­Matt714 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies?
There's alot of suits explained in other articles against Rockstar Games... why not put them here? IronCrow 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Rockstar London into Rockstar Games
I have never heard about Rockstar London before but I think that it should have it's own page for now, at least until they produce more games or until we know more about them.

Thank you. Ore4444 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a redirect from R* London to R* Games should do very well, because the London studio is - as of what I know - only responsible for quality assurance and localization for the European market. –jello &iquest;? 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * post scriptum: The same with R* Lincoln. –jello &iquest;? 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are making a game right now, Manhunt 2.Gamerzworld 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Manhunt 2 was 99% made by Rockstar Vienna before its closure. London is just doing localization and porting for Manhunt 2, plus slight adaptation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.230.77 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, with this knowledge an own article for R* London would make sense. –jello &iquest;? 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there isn't really a need, Rockstar London is still a large company in itself and should be allocated its' own page as well. Plus this keeps everything in the same format, ex. all games get there own pages same as studios. --- RockstarWatch.net Global 06:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Conteversial?
I had the right to remove "Rockstar is a conteversial ect." I'm not a Rockstar member, but I don't think they would appreciate that. Though their are known to be Conteversial. If anyone wants to put it back up, okay with me.--70.57.196.81 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) HeavyWikiMetal

I think it's entirely fair to include any controversy on this page. Manhunt, Bully and Grand Theft Auto are all Rockstar creations and you will find substantial controversy sections in each. I think you're wrong when you say Rockstar wouldn't appreciate having such a section - they are clearly an unethical company who rely on this kind of sensationalist stuff to sell their games. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting in a controversy thing would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.117.13 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
Could we perhaps merge all the articles on Rockstar Games studios (except Rockstar North) into one big article (List of Rockstar Games studios)? Because they are all quite small and are unlikely to get much bigger, so a merge might be better. Obviously Rockstar North is a big article so it could just have a "main article: Rockstar North" link on it. .:Alex:. 15:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquissiton by Sony
I heard Sony was aquiring Rockstar, Is this true? Starwarsrulez 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Put simply, no. --81.157.38.150 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fan site links?
i think maybe we could remove a few, 4 seems to many in my view, even considering the fact that this article documents many rockstar games subdivisions, the fan sites seem to be about rockstar games as a whole.-- Kerotan Talk  Have  a nice day :) 08:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Max Payne 3
What about max payne 3? should that be included? It's stated that the game is coming out in the fiscal year of 2009 along with red dead revolver 2. Look at the Max Payne page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.235.68 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

American?
"United States video game companies." What do you base the nationality of the company on? Where its headquarters are? Not even a single mention of its British roots is fairly odd, I would say. Bloodloss (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Started by English persons, mostly based in the UK. Whoever wrote it obviously thought that it is American because the parent company is.--88.106.202.0 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you see lots of debates about headquaters and parent companies and all that. It should be were the founders and/or leaders are from. You have to remember a games company does not gain a citezenship like a person would. Tukogbani

Change it to British/American then? 78.145.30.131 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar Games is a corporation, right? (Might be wrong) Aren't corporations, by definition a distinct legal identity separate from the people who run it? Therefor, does the company inherit the nationality of it's owner(s), does it have it's own nationality completely seperate, or do they even have a nationality? (Because if it is one of the last two, it should be left the way it is) DTHCND (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (EST)


 * Take-Two Interactive is American Company, and Take-Two Interactive possesses all Rockstar Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.156.100 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The British news/media/government see Rockstar Games as a 'British video game developer and publisher based in New York City' It often features on the news and news papers magazines etc,voted as a British icon etc,they are very rpoud Rockstar Games is British. The offical EU Rockstar games website has it down as 'Rockstar Games is a major British video game developer and publisher based in New York City, owned by Take-Two Interactive'

sources... Rockstar EU site...http://rockstarspot.eu/r-studios/

Grand theft auto voted British icon...http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/6506/t647088-gta-voted-british-icon/

British games industry has never looked so healthy...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/8188063/Britains-booming-video-games-industry-risks-a-brain-drain.html

BBC News celebrating Rockstar Games and Grand Theft Auto being British (tour of the studio 1996 and 2008 plus history of GTA) (video)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smsUcmOawEI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.240.99 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Section: External Developer -->
"Bungie, of Halo fame, developed the game Oni. Before Bungie was bought by Microsoft, Halo was to be released on Mac, PC and PlayStation 2 with Rockstar as the game's publisher."

Halo was never Released on PlayStation 2!!!!! I think it was ONI what you mean. I corrected yesterday but it was undo today! Halo was ported on PC from gearbox! see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_%28video_game%29

--Deficiency (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, before Microsoft bought Bungie. They even confirm it on their site. http://www.bungie.net/inside/history.aspx?link=billiondollardonut Gamerzworld (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay i have undo this. Sorry i have never heard about this.--Deficiency (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Should we ask the admin to protect this article? To much vandalism!--62.225.150.98 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthworm Jim 3D
Should be on the list of games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.189.244 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eminem & Rockstar games
Just pointing out the resemblence of Rockstar logo and letter "R" on Eminem's Relapse album cover. Wasn't there some problem between the two a while ago? 80.221.43.118 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Evel Knievel
I'm not much good at editing Wikipedia pages, but I noticed that the game "Evel Knievel" for the Game Boy Color is omitted in this page. This is also a Rockstar game. I think someone should add it to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.120.126 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unannounced games
People need to stop adding "Grand Theft Auto V", "Manhunt 3", and "Bully 2" to the list of games. None of these games have been announced and thus DO NOT belong in the page. 98.207.148.253 (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As of this posting (January 29th, 2011) Max Payne 3 is listed in the Social Club as "Coming Soon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.131.99 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rockstar Bogota?
Is this an actual studio under development by Rockstar Games? I would really appreciate a link to this claim. I cannot seem to find anything on any major gaming websites and doing a Google Search for "Rockstar Bogota" yields no official results. 144.131.28.246 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was registered along with GTA: Tokyo by Rockstar Games before the announcement of GTAIV. There have been rumors that it was merely to throw fans off so as to keep the true location of GTAIV, the fictional 'Liberty City', a secret. But this is just speculation. Either way, no official announcement has been made by Rockstar Games, so Bogota and Tokyo don't belong in this article. F4M !! 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the top-right of the official website. They aren't studios, they're regional offices.

Nationality of Rockstar
Hi,

I tried to add that Rockstar Games is a major 'British' games developer and publisher based in New York City.

The official European Rockstar website has it down as British,"Rockstar Games is a major British video game developer and publisher based in New York City, owned by Take-Two Interactive"

source... http://rockstarspot.eu/r-studios/

In Britain the British media,government,news all say its British,its even been hailed as a British icon,often features on the news and they are very proud of it being British.

Everytime i try to add the fact its British it gets vandalized. Would you be able to add its British with my source/link beside it to verify this fact please. maybe semi lock the page also.

Thank You!


 * I've been watching this edit war from the sidelines for a while, but I haven't taken the time to research the answer myself. However, I can tell you that rockstarspot.eu is definitely not an official site. Why can't we just remove the word "British/American" altogether? Is it really worth the time to be fighting over this? --Iritscen (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Iritscen mentioned above, rockstarspot.eu is not an official Rockstar website, it is a fansite/blog. Regarding the British angle: Its Rockstar North, Rockstar Leeds, Rockstar Loncoln and Rockstar London that are British; and hailed for their work. Rockstar North being the most famous of them, for the Grand Theft Auto series . Grand Theft Auto IS a 100% British product, but the parent company Rockstar Games is an American company that was started by the British staff who used to work for BMG Interactive, which was a British Software publisher that Take Two purchased and moved to America. Rockstar Games was founded in American and then Take-Two merged the BMG Inetractive business into it. - X201 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, it seems pretty clear now that the head company is American. I appreciate your efforts to keep this info correct, X201, but you might end up getting a 3RR warning too. I would suggest just leaving out the word "American", as the phrase "based in New York City" pretty much says what needs to be said without ruffling any feathers. --Iritscen (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is done? if not, use another  Chzz  ►  22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen a closed discussion, but saying its American, do you have a source for that? MisterShiney   ✉    18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See discussion below. - X201 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality of Rockstar Games
Rockstar Games is headquartered in the United States, controlled by its two British chiefs, but is based in USA, not in Britain, plus it is also controlled by an American company, so why not you can place an American citizen to Rockstar Games?, So as Rockstar North is a British based, because it has its headquarters there, so why Rockstar Games can not add "AMERICAN" if based in the United States? sorry for my bad English, I'm from Venezuela.

greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.13.60 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rockstar is based in America, is run by Britons, started life as a British company and makes its games in numerous countries around the world. Calling it American is an over-simplification, that is why multinational is used and then followed by an explanation of the company history and its location. In a single sentence we have explained a complex company, putting American at the start would make readers think that Rockstar is a solely American company, which would be a big inaccuracy. - X201 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

186.95.71.128 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Rockstar Games was founded in the United States, and has always been there, Dan Houser and Sam Houser are their bosses, both British, but Rockstar Games is controlled by another U.S. company, which is Take-Two Interactive, remember that with the purchase of BMG interactive, everything changed.
 * and Rockstar North is based in Britain (controlled by Rockstar Games) and Rockstar Games New York-based (controlled by Take-Two Interactive), you can add the "American" to the company that was founded in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.71.128 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Rockstar Games was founded in the United States", sorry, but you're incorrect, it was a new name for the relocated BMG business. - X201 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

190.78.20.155 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC) clear that no friend, Rockstar Games was founded in the United States when there existed BMG, then followed that was purchased, now controlled by another American company.

--- WOW! Some Americans really dont like the UK founding a games company that actually produces good games! Point is the brits responsible decided to be really awkward. So they founded a games company, but with the development market being in America, and therefore all the contacts being there, they started over there (Purely original research/Personal opinion until proven otherwise). It was just easier for them. But they did have a UK branch for some of its development projects (Giving you the Grand Theft Auto (series)). It was eventually bought came a part of Take Two banner and as far as I know, stayed under the same management, as is common with these sorts of acquisitions. Giving it more money, more market contacts and thus able to make more of those amazing games we all like to play. Why cant we call it American? Because it's run by Brits. Why cant we call it British? Because it's headquarters is New York. Why cant we call it Multinational? Oh wait we do! Multinational is a nice compromise and middle ground of which we all agree. MisterShiney   ✉    07:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

190.78.20.155 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Rockstar games is a American company based in new york,that's all.

While I think Multinational Corporation is a good description, we might want to use something that can be cited like the following:

''Rockstar Games is a video game developer and production company. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take Two Interactive headquartered in New York City, New York.''

Sources! http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/43961/business.html#/?lb=corpinfo http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=2827000&p_corpid=2804759&p_entity_name=Rockstar%20Games&p_name_type=A&p_search_type=BEGINS&p_srch_results_page=0 http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDc1NzM2fENoaWxkSUQ9NTA4MDQ4fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Information about its history including its buyout as BMG should be added in a history section. I would remove this (owned by Take-Two Interactive following its purchase of British video game publisher BMG Interactive) because Rockstar Games has an established history on its own and the buyout and other useful information can be covered in greater detail in the history section. I decent example of this is GEICO--ChadH (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw nothing wrong with it before hand. Multinational was a good description of what the company is and is a good middle ground given its British roots. Long as it has "multinational" (or an alternative) rather than pointi MisterShiney   ✉    21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

186.95.0.100 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Why Rockstar Games article is protected? Does the article suffered from vandalism?

and why Rockstar North may have the "British" and Rockstar Games cant have the "American".


 * Because Rockstar North, is a British subsidiary of the Multinational Company Rockstar Games, which in turn is a subsidiary of Take Two Interactive. It is all explained on their wiki pages. MisterShiney    ✉    07:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

186.95.0.203 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Exactly! and Rockstar Games is an American company, based in New York, a subsidiary of another American company, i mean, Take Two Interactive. or am I wrong?
 * Rockstar Games is a multinational corporation, not specifically an American company. A multinational company "is a corporation that is registered in more than one country or that has operations in more than one country". Yes, they may have their headquarters in New York City, however Rockstar Games serves other countries, for example, Rockstar North. It is a subsidiary of Rockstar Games and is based in the United Kingdom. --   LuK3      (Talk)   03:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~
 * you're wrong, an example is Microsoft, is an multinational corporation and is a American, because it was founded only in the United States, and works globally.

And Rockstar North also should not have the "british" because only is based there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.66.248 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

63.141.199.67 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) You're right.

No. Microsoft has always been American. It was founded by an American. In America. There is no dispute as to it's origins. Look at it like this. A British man moves to America and lives there. Is he American or British? He is British I hear you say. But he lives in America. So surly that makes him American? He is still British. Rockstar Games is a similar concept. It was founded by Brits living in America. It has British roots. It has a British subsidiary. The British are VERY proud to have part of an internationally known company within it's borders. As far as the British media are concerned it is a British company. Potentially it is only registered in America as a UK TAX dodge, although good luck finding an official source to say that. A good and reasonable compromise in this is to say that it is a multinational company.

As IP users with few edits, may I suggest that you create an account if you wish to be taken seriously in future, as it can be the general view among registered editors that you are only here to cause trouble. MisterShiney   ✉    22:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

190.72.2.153 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) and what is the problem, which was founded by the British? what matters is that it was founded in the United States, and is now under the control of another U.S. company. What do you mean UK subsidiary? Rockstar North? is a subsidiary more, as in Canada are Rockstar Toronto and others, as, Rockstar Leeds, Japan, among others. You have to accept that the company Rockstar Games is an American company that was started by the staff who worked for BMG Interactive, or am I wrong? Take Two purchase BMG and moved to the United States, I was wrong again? Rockstar Games was founded in the United States, and Take-Two bought BMG and then moved to the U.S., and now Take-Two is a "American", because are in the United States, not Great Britain.

So MisterShiney, I hope your answer.Mervin1234 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mervin1234 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC) MisterShiney!u die?
 * Can I just point out, the correct place to sign your posts is at the end. Like this - X201 (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that MisterShiney died. or I won, then I think that the nationality should now change to American. Mervin1234 (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First off I should point out how in appropriate those comments are for Wikipedia and you should make yourself aware of the Policies and Guidlines. Secondly, it is not about "Winning" and just because an editor doesn't reply for a few days because he has other things to do other than argue of the nationality of a company it is no reason to change an already established fact within the article. Thirdly, If you wish to have it changed then up need to first off get other editors involved in the discussion and come up with reliable sources to support your claim. I for one will not go around in circles in a pointless discussion. You have your view, I have mine (and already established comprimise I might add as I was pro it being called a British company). Neither of us will change, so I open it up to the floor for further discussion. MisterShiney   ✉    08:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

then what I need to do to change the nationality?Mervin1234 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to build a consensus that supports a change to the article's present form. - X201 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which I feel obliged to point out that without other editors (not just IPs but registered users also) you do not have. To help build this consensus you should find a Reliable Source to back up your claim. MisterShiney    ✉    18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I offer up my suggestion again which has sources.

''Line Breaks seem to not work with the quotation template. There are two, one after BMG and the other after countries. Sorry...''

Initial Sources
 * http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/43961/business.html#/?lb=corpinfo
 * http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=2827000&p_corpid=2804759&p_entity_name=Rockstar%20Games&p_name_type=A&p_search_type=BEGINS&p_srch_results_page=0
 * http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDc1NzM2fENoaWxkSUQ9NTA4MDQ4fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Other sources for supporting commercially successful and controversial are in the games' articles and can be copied in. Also I would like to work back in open world and free roaming settings but I'm not sure where.

Maybe we can start here and reach a consensus. Also, there needs to be a history section in this article. ChadH (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, we can start the consensus, also agree, the article need have "History" to know what their origins, BEFORE from BMG, and after.Mervin1234 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My offering:

The article needs a Present Day style section for the location and studio info,and it needs a History section as previously mentioned. - X201 (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I like I think what you have X201 is great. I can help provide some other sources later today. ChadH (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its basically a re-edit of yours, although I've almost worked out an addition to explain the British/BMG/British founders bit in a better way. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

i want start a consensus for the nationality, i agree 190.72.13.88 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

New lead discussion
We seem to be getting near so I've created this sub-section for discussion of the actual wording, other complaints/discussions should continue in the main section above.

Current favourite:

Addressing the "founded by Britons" issue (changes from above are in bold)

Have also changed "commercially successful" as it sounded like they just broke-even, instead of the cash cows that they really are. - X201 (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about the word hugely as a description... I understand why but it just doesn't read well to me. But I can't think of a better alternative than just commercially. Also do we know if the entire BMG interactive staff was British? (The staff that founded Rockstar Games, not the entire company) Can we source that? --ChadH (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The founders of Rockstar were all British. "Hugely" is the wrong word, but you can see what I was getting at. "commercially successful" has become a synonym for "sold enough to break even and didn't wow the critics" - X201 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. What about the word exceptionally instead of hugely? --ChadH (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

thats the correct

Everyone here knows that Rockstar Games was founded in the U.S., is headquartered in New York, and works in headquartered  American personnel. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.95.2.41 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 December 2012‎


 * You're missing the point of this part of the discussion. We get it that you want to push the "Its 100% American" standpoint, but you are incorrect in taking that stance. This part of the discussion is about being open and adaptable to solving the problem, not being dogmatic and entrenching your belief.- X201 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Although can we keep the "multinational video game developer" part please as it better shows that it has subsidiaries accross the world. It's great that a mention of the British owners founding it in the US. It is of this users personal opinion that SOME editors seem to think that America owns the world. Not just on this article, but some of the other "discussions" I have come accross are crazy! Those changes look great though. MisterShiney   ✉    00:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ahh, I thought this was dead but I still have my opinion, this also sounds good

lol MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the while discussion. You will see that the dispute was because it was listed as an American company which is not 100% correct as it was founded by British people. Please take consideration when it comes to using talk pages as this could be considered antagonistic and designed to deliberah create tension. I shall take a momnent to post an official welcome on your talk page so that you are better able to aquatint yourself with the Wikipedia Guidlines. MisterShiney    ✉    18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

who founded the company does not matter. The company was founded in the United States, and is headquartered in the United States, follow the rules of the country. Some days ago I was watching on CNN, that the National Rifle Association named the GTA series and Rockstar Games, for violence in the game, among others, if they delete the GTA saga, it would only be in the U.S.? no, in the world, because Rockstar Games is in America, and Take Two, also in the USA, and that show us U.S. power over the company.MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

and a question .. Rockstar North, why can have the "British" and Rockstar Games not the "American"? whats the difference?, both are from a different country, with the same owner. MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rockstar Games is based in America, with it's headquarters in New York.. However the founders Dan Houser and Sam Houser is from London, England. Also you must understand that Rockstar Games is not a studio developing games or anything, but moreover a studio where they handel PR, develop trailers and such, Rockstar Games is more an umbrella for other studios such as Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar North, and that is the studios that develop the games, and also that this is an under studio department for Take-Two Interactive. But in a strange way operating on it's own. I'll get to my point now, Rockstar Games is based in New York but Rockstar North witch develop Grand Theft Auto is based in Scotland, and this is in the UK. BUT Rockstar Games usually called Rockstar NYC, is based in America as it was founded there, to be a umbrella for the rest of the studios, so you cant set a main nationality for Rockstar Games as they got studios all over the world... I hope this clears up the air a little. Zionnomonus (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Zionnomonus. Said it much better than I could of. MisterShiney    ✉    11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course not, Rockstar Games is a game DEVELOPER and publisher, with headquarters in New York, USA, was created in the United States, under the laws of that country, no matter who created the company, was founded under the laws of usa, any company that has its headquarters in the United States, is considered American. Even if the owner no is american.

company, example; Sony Pictures, Music, Universal Music, etc.. AND MANY more.MervinVillarreal (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have your facts wrong here Mervin. Listen to what we are saying. It is a Multinational company. Considering it American is "personal opinion" also. MisterShiney    ✉    16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

what happens if is a multinational? That has no bearing on nationality. I continue with the same, the company has to carry the "American" in the beginning, we have to solve this. There is not patriotism.MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The info box already points out that it is head quartered in the US. There is no need to add misleading information to the lead paragraph. To imply that the company completely American could be misinterpreted by the average reader. I myself will admit, before this discussion, I thought the company was American. But hearing other editors views and explanations, I realise it is not as cut/dry as that and there are other factors involved. Therefore, I am happy to leave it as Multinational. Unless other editors gets involved in this, I consider the matter on my part closed. MisterShiney   ✉    17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If we put American in the article, then everybody will think that Rockstar Games as a whole is American, and that is a fact! Also Rockstar North, Rockstar Lincoln, Rockstar London and Rockstar Leeds is based in the UK, i continue.. Sam Houser and Dan Houser is British, and it was them who started DMA (Now Rockstar North), and it was them who founded Rockstar Games (Known as Rockstar NYC) to be a umbrella for the rest of the studios, R* North, R* Leeds, R* San Diego... so on... So putting in American in the article like this "Rockstar Games is an American Video game developer" would be misleading as MisterShiney says, but doing it like this "Rockstar Games (Also known as Rockstar NYC), is based in New York, United states and works as an umbrella for the rest of the Rockstar studios" would in return put it more clear.. But again I don't realy see a need for that as the article already clearly says it in an simple way... Zionnomonus (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not know U.S. law, any company that has its headquarters there, on American soil, but its own from a company of another country, ex; Japan, Brazil, etc, the company is considered "American" why?, Easy, because it was created under the laws of usa, and now more than anything, because DMA "NO EXIST", there was a British company, now is a American. "Take-Two" you have to understand that, then ROCKSTAR NYC, it became Rockstar Games and now is owner of all the little rockstar, as: San Diego, North, Vancouver etc. I'm still the same, the company is American, is based on America, and the owner of rockstar games is also a American company!! What more proof do you need? the Constitution of america?MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I save you all a lot of trouble here? I've dealt with MervinVillarreal on Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises, he/she will not listen to any logic or reasoning and borders on the non sensical at some point. There is no point talking to him/her because they will disregard anything you have to say that doesn't end in you admitting that the current topic is 100% American. He/She has a purely jingoistic agenda on Wikipedia that they are willing to enforce to the detriment of reality and based on their own belief of what makes something American. I'm only surprised that he/she hasn't argued that James Bond is American because he once went to America, but I'm 99% sure that they are either trolling or in their mid teens. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. He is 15 according to his Spanish Wikipedia page. Can anything be done about him? It's borderline disruptive. An old version o his page said he was here to change nationalities. MisterShiney    ✉    18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents maybe? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea I get it now that he won't listen... so on that note I find this discussion closed, in my humble opinion. Also after further looking on MervinVillarreal's talk page I can clearly see that he is just going around wanting to claim everything as American.. So I myself will start to hold a closer look on what he edits around here, if nothing gets done about him (If it so be a warning) :) Zionnomonus (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we get back to the consensus building with X201's latest revision/contribution? I don't think the discussion is closed, just thread jacked/trolled. --ChadH (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

this consensus is not closed. and not is patriotism, not even i born in the USA, I'm from Venezuela, I've lived in Boston three years alone, and I love America, but I'm not patriotic, you see, my English is still bad. MisterShiney, am a man, and what's happend in "World War"?MervinVillarreal (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MervinVillarreal we are not discussing World War here, if thats what you want to discuss then go over to the World War article talk page! This is my last warning or I will then have to report you for "trolling", going off-topic and starting irrelevant discussions that have nothing to do with Rockstar Games Zionnomonus (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Would that edition work? It specifically says that Rockstar Games is headquartered in the United States, however it still says "multinational". --   LuK3      (Talk)   03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

perfect, i agree "Zionnomonus " shut up. MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, its having the nationality at the start of the sentence that started the problem. That's why multinational was put in and the nationality moved to later in the sentence. - X201 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Readers will see American and assume it is 100% American.
 * Mervin, you seriously need to change your attitude. Telling other editors to "Shut up" is immature, creates bad tension/feeling between editors and quite frankly is a personal attack. Oh and please learn what Consensus means!! MisterShiney    ✉    17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Something along this way would work more if you ask m, I've also taken the time and re-written the whole paragraph to make it even more clear, but it's not necessary to be the final edit :) What do you people think ? Zionnomonus (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

can be?


 * One, you need a source for the known as Rockstar NYC, it is not WP:CK. Two, notability should come before important historical context (See WP:LEAD). I personally still favor X201's version. Though adding multinational should be done to follow along Featured Article precedents (Microsoft and BAE Systems) --ChadH (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One, here is where I get the Rockstar NYC thing from, as this article in itself is especially talking about that department at R*. Two, yes I agree I was maybe not clear enough but what I was trying with that rewrite was just to show an example of how we can deal with the whole nationality issue going around on this talk page right now. I've also found out that Rockstar got a second department working as Rockstar NYC, called Rockstar International link:  and their job is actually the same as the NYC office, but focuses on the UK, Europe, Asia, Japan, Africa, Australia and South America market, but is nowhere mentioned in this article... Zionnomonus (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. The first one needs to be used when the rewrite happens (I've noticed we have our first IP edit since the page protection was removed). Rockstar International needs to be in there as well. --ChadH (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hot coffee link?
Why is there no link to the Hot Coffee mod from this page, since it is described on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod anyway? I believe it is a controversy often associated with Rockstar Games, so a clear navigation path to the article covering it should be available on the main page of Rockstar Games? SplatMan DK (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockstar Japan
Can we please come to a consensus to get rid of Rockstar Japan or move it into the defunct section? It plain doesn't exist anymore and never really did for that matter other than a publishing label to cooperate with Capcom and was retired long, long ago as Rockstar no longer has any partnerships with Capcom.


 * 1) Rockstar Japan isn't listed in any credits for any recent or previous Rockstar game.
 * 2) Rockstar Lincoln handles all localization, including Japanese. Even Rockstar own jobs website states as much. http://www.rockstargames.com/careers/openings/rockstar-lincoln
 * 3) Rockstar Japan isn't even listed on the Rockstar jobs website.
 * 4) The rockstargames.jp website is merely a landing page linking to localized websites for each game -- the website doesn't even state "Rockstar Japan" nor does it have the logo.
 * 5) Publishing in Japan is handled by Take-Two's Europe office (as evidenced by the legal and privacy pages for the Japan website).
 * 6) The one source cited on the Rockstar Japan Wikipedia page, IGN, makes few inaccuracies in the same paragraph as the Rockstar Japan statement -- Lincoln does both QA and localization.
 * 7) People I've talked to from Rockstar have told me there's no Rockstar Japan studio.
 * 8) Articles that mention the existence of Rockstar Japan cite or get their information from Wikipedia -- other editors here have been using the same articles as proof the studio exists, becoming a vicious cycle of misinformation. Gamerzworld (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd move to defunct rather than removing. Agree with your points, it isn't around now. I've found a few small bits to say that it was, but nothing major. As I said, I'd move it to defunct because it was something, but clearly isn't now. - X201 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

about agent
Should we add it on the game list ? Its coming "soon"/ NDA by r*/north It has its agent (game)own article so should we link it somewhere on the page ? Eminas14 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The Gamechangers
How come this page contains no reference to The Gamechangers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.169.132 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bertelsmann
This article does not need a long unsourced paragraph in the lead explaining the company Bertelsmann, it's value, and it's diverse range of labels and subsidiaries. A link to Bertelsmann is sufficient while stating that Take-Two purchased Rockstar from them is enough, the reader can click through if they want more detail. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Rockstar Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://design.designmuseum.org/design/rockstar-games

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

After the initial question posted in 2008, the first comment had been written in 2008, the second in 2009, two following in 2010, and the final two in 2011. The discussion came to no real end after 3.5 years, and there is no established consensus whatsoever on changing or keeping a multinational attribute. Fact is: The company in question is and was always based in New York City, making it an American publisher, which has international development subsidiaries (not divisions!), and the marketing subsidiary (again, not division) based in London; this is enough evidence that this company is an American publisher, not a multinational publisher/developer. If this is changed again, I will refer to this entry. Thanks! Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks for pointing that out, however, even there no clear consensus was reached, the discussion just went off. Reverting my edit will likely cause edit warring again. See my final two sentences, the company is American, as it has no international divisions. It was founded in American, based in American, owned in America. The fact that it acquired international studios is irrelevant, as they are merely their own legal entities now tied to their parent, not divisions. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.168.162 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This topic was under discussion multiple times. The two sources you provided might be valid, though the former is not reliable. The latter might be reliable, but a side-note is not proof enough against all sources station that it is American. Note also that the Guardian article referse to it as "publisher and developer". Rockstar Games, Inc. is not a developer, and such entitlement is misleading, as are multiple such articles on the Guardian. Rockstar Games as a label is sometimes considered a multinational label, as studios are all around the world, but the publisher - Rockstar Games, Inc. (based in NYC) - is not the label. In fact, all subsidiaries are handeled by Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., rather than directly by Rockstar Games, Inc. Furthermore, Rockstar Games, Inc. has no international divisions; no divisions at all. All its subsidiaries (that are already not covered by Rockstar Games, Inc.) are properly incorporated in their respective country. So to conclude: Rockstar Games, Inc. is an American publisher, Rockstar North Limited is a British developer, and the "Rockstar Games" label could, but should not, be considered multinational, which would not be included here regardless. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Well, technically, no. You see the problem is that we do not know how reliable a support team can be, e.g. the controversy around Rocket League's Nintendo Switch port was such a case. Furthermore, we cannot tell if it is directly affiliated with target (in this case Rockstar Games[, Inc.]), or just a third-party support vendor that many companies use because it is cheaper, hence we cannot say if it is a primary source (should be avoided) or a tertiarry source (may not be used in any case whatsoever), neither of which is a secondary source, e.g. gaming magazines, that concretely state that the publisher (not developer-publisher hybrid that actually does not exist) is not American, but rather multinational, which it really is not. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

It feels like there is a lot more that could be on this page
Rockstar Games is a big and profitable company, but this page seems small. Would adding cancelled games, income stats, or Leslie Benzie's incident, be noteworthy?  Citation helper  (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The history section does need to be expanded, but we really should not bloat it up with income stats and such just because so. And what incident? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 05:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Benzies v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is covered in the Rockstar North article because that is the company he worked for. - X201 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Gena Feist SVP and General Counsel of Rockstar Games
Can she be added on the table? on key people. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, she's basically a lawyer who have no major role at the company. TheDeviantPro (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I like to point out that her SVP role is with Take-Two not Rockstar. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me Deviant (just wanted to get opinions). Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar International & RAGE Technology Group
Do we really need to add Rockstar International & RAGE to their subsidiaries list? Rockstar International is just a corporate label, and RAGE is just a division of Rockstar San Diego. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that RAGE TG does not need to be mentioned, but Rockstar International is their international head office that is independently listed on their jobs page, is incorporated, and has its own name, so I see no reason not to list that one. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lordtobi. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we add 2K International to 2K Games' subsidiary list then? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it fulfill the same prequestries? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, i'd say so, considering that they're very similar to Rockstar International. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you quickly provide sources for that? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bully 2? Sources?
Was this officially announced, or even hinted at? And also who ever added it, didn't add it correctly (I would fix it, but I don't know if it should be there to start with)... DTHCND (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (EST)
 * There was no official announcement as of yet, just some teases and leaks. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Technically there has since the domain name bully2.com has been registered or updated which means they plan on doing something with it and if they dont they loose it, declaration of use has been filed.


 * It's unlikely that this is the official website domain given that Rockstar host websites for their games or their main webserver, such as rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption2/ for their upcominh game. Obviously lots of people are hoping that it will come out but considering the domain is twelve years old, it might just be a placeholder to avoid cybersquatting. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering Agent is still happening take two is still working on games with the titles listed, agent, bully 2, maybe not from Rockstar but from 2k or other subsidiaries. Therefore we shouldnt call it cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't call something cancelled if it hasn't been officially cancelled; the game is still listed on Rockstar's website as TBA and no public confirmation has been given that development was halted. However, trademarks are not an indication for active development, Take2 just tries to prevent others from releasing games under that title. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

RockStar / TakeTwo lawsuit against cheaters
It has been reported in the press recently that the GTA makers and their parent company TakeTwo have filed lawsuits against some people in Australia for making cheats. The BBC reports that these people have had their homes searched and assets frozen. I think we should mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.234.173 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably belongs to the page of GTAV or GTA Online, not strictly here. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar Games is a multinational company.
Hi, other big companies, like Apple for example, are labeled as multinational companies. Rockstar Games itself is also a multinational company, so why isn't it listed as such? Here is a video of Sam and Dan Houser co founders of Rockstar Games say the company is a British run company. The company was founded by a bunch of Brits and is run by Brits. Also, like Apple, it has international companies all over the world. This makes it an multinational company. Video of Rockstar Games and the Houser brothers talking about Rockstar Games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjwaMivU2AU&lc=z22qs3zzqn3yj3s5s04t1aokgkqo3ubsfrrzmbib0pghrk0h00410.1538145917324390
 * ❌. The four founders (of which two are presently also executives) are British, yes, and that's basically why he says the company is British-run. However, the multinationality would need to be explicitly stated by a reliable, secondary source. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If a company has divisions in different countries then it is a multinational company, no? There are 4 Rockstars in Britain. Rockstar North, Rockstar London, Rockstar Leeds and Rockstar Lincoln. 1 in India, Rockstar India. 1 in Canada, Rockstar Toronto. 1 in the US, Rockstar San Diego. This makes it multinational. Your part about the 2 executives isn't quite accurate. Rockstar consists of almost 1000 people, with almost 100% of them being British.

If this stays as an American company then does the Apple page and others have to be changed? Because they say they are multinational. Both can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.250.63 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead of a company usually only takes in the company itself, in this case being Rockstar Games, Inc., which is located in NYC. On-bought subsidiaries (which is the case for all but two) with different businesses (development in this case) are usually not taken into consideration at this point, especially since the end of the paragraph already reveals that they have development studios around the world. Royal Dutch Shell is a good example for a multinational company, as it has shared headquarters between the UK and the Netherlands. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 14:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a company is multinational if they have divisions in other countries, BUT Rockstar North, London, Leeds, Lincoln, India, Toronto and San Diego are not subsidiaries of Rockstar Games. They are subsidiaries of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. They appear in Take-Two's accounts as subsidiaries of Take-Two. Rockstar Games does not have any subsidiaries, it is not a multinational company. - X201 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah well I think we shouldn't twin legal standings with management structure. E.g., Take-Two oversees subsidiaries legally (this makes it easier for filing stuff as a public company), but all studios respond to Rockstar Games and its management (e.g. through Jennifer Kolbe, who oversees the studios as head of publishing), lesser to Take-Two directly. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rockstar cancelled titles
Should we mention Rockstar's cancelled titles, such as: We Are The Mods, Spec Ops, State of Emergency 2, Smuggler's Run 3, and Midnight Club 5? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , for one, State of Emergency 2 has been released, and it wasn't Rockstar's property so it was not their job to cancel it. All other were never announced, of which Smuggler's Run 3 and Midnight Club 5 have never even been spoken off (and Wikipedia shall doubt their existence).
 * For Spec Ops, we only have the composers and the developing studio, for We Are the Mods just a bit of the story. All in all we have far too little to properly expand on the two (might become three when Agent is done for, time will tell) titles known to have been cancelled by Rockstar here, instead it'd be wise to talk about them on connection article, e.g. Spec Ops for Spec Ops and The Warriors for We Are the Mods. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean adding a "cancelled" section under the other names of their released titles, also, Smuggler's Run was mentioned here: https://www.ign.com/articles/2003/02/27/rockstar-hints-at-upcoming-games and there's this article indicating that a new Midnight Club was in development but was quickly and silently cancelled: https://www.engadget.com/2010/01/11/sources-rockstar-san-diego-not-working-on-more-midnight-club-ga/ UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , "Rockstar plans on revealing new iterations of include Max Payne, State of Emergency, Spec Ops and Smuggler's Run during this time period." is proper confirmation that there was actually and actively any game in development, just plans to make them. Same goes for We Are the Mods, and again Spec Ops only had composers and a studio attached. There could be a dozen cancelled titles but of those we can confirm there are, at best, three, all of which with not more than one sentence of info; not worth it to populate its own section with. I still believe it might be better to just incorporate the cancelled game within its immediate parent article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Related, but should we really keep Agent in the table? I think it might be better if we removed it and explained its situation in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , for all we know it is not cancelled, even though we all know it is cancelled. No secondary source has stated the game is dead and primary sources still pretend like it is still in development. I think it is thus easier to just leave it in the table. Maybe we could add an efn note? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 11:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but I think we should only use the table for games that have been released or are still in active development and plan to be released, nether of which apply to Agent. A note would work if this is not a popular enough idea though. ~ Dissident93 (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My only hesitation with removing Agent is that it is still listed on the Rockstar Games Social Club website. Rockstar's website has received significant overhauls over the years—surely if the game was actually cancelled, they'd have quietly removed it from the website by now? Perhaps they plan on reviving it with a different name (hence the trademark abandonment)? It's impossible to tell. – Rhain  ☔ 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should at least add a note explaining the game's situation in the table, which could also stop people removing it (as much). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Games published
Doesn't Rockstar deserve far better games published section than currently? It is awful layout and hard to understand. Doesn't tell much information in clearest way. I'd do it but it'd get deleted so just a suggestion for someone. It's not very helpful in my opinion in current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakagom (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most, if not all, other game pages that include a gameography list them them individually and not grouped by series. If the list ends up being too large, then we could also split it to List of Rockstar Games video games. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We used to have a list, but it was merged with List of Take-Two Interactive video games for some reason. – Rhain  ☔ 00:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd argue that Rockstar has enough games and brand recognition on their own that they did not need to be merged there. Would anybody oppose bringing this back? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 01:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't say oppose, but the table would definetly need some cleanup (e.g. years first, rowspan for years, no overlink, sources, ...). I might be able to do that later today or tomorrow. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Created a slightly revised version of the old list, now located at List of games by Rockstar Games. Might need some work and definetly needs some references still, but should be entry-complete. Related question, should we remove Rockstar-specific entries from Take-Two's games list? Also inviting, since I know you love games lists. { Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they should be kept in the Take Two lists as well, but I wouldn't really oppose if consensus goes the other way. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not going to mention that their launcher was a catastrophe?
Or that it locked millions of people out of paid content? And destroyed the launch of RDR2 with 39% of people having the launcher crash and 47% of people unable to play the game? Or that they could have fixed it with ONE character by disabling the launcher being required for a few days while they fix their shit? Or that they're flat refusing refunds to the millions of people affected? I took a day off work, and after 4 days downloading because their servers throttled us to 200 kbps and 12 hours decrypting because it crashed and hung multiple times and then 24 hours fiddling with everything to try and find the esoteric magic dance that will make the game work I asked for a refund to get a flat no refunds lol. --121.210.33.50 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can provide reliable sources that discuss it, then sure, it can warrant being mentioned here. Otherwise this is no different than a personal complaint; WP:NOTAFORUM. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Subsidiary company location consistency
Rather than get into an edit war. What are peoples thoughts regarding consistency of the location of the subsidiaries having UK as part of the location as this is the sovereign state.

Rockstar Toronto has Canada and Rockstar San Diego and Rockstar New England have U.S. If we are to be consistent Canada & U.S. should then be removed if there is a consensus not to have UK added to the location for the British companies.

To be consistent, The infobox should either be formatted like this:

Former
or it should be formatted like this:

Former
Also, to unclutter some more, turn the Years column into a founded column that only shows the foundation year, then we can remove all of the "-present" entries. - X201 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of the above. You should stop at the first country so UK should not be present as Scotland/England is a country while in the others, for example Canada is needed as British Columbia is not a country. Keith D (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concurring with Keith D here. As I stated previously, the UK is the sovereign entity and the nation state, but on a sub-level, Scotland, England & co. are countries on their own within that nation, so the nation isn't mentioned. You wouldn't write "Nuuk, Greenland, Denmark", "Alofi, Niue, New Zealand" or "Oranjestad, Aruba, Netherlands" either. In contrast, Gibraltar is not a country, and neither are Ontario and California. All three would listed with their respective countries. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear the clutter. Just have the city and nothing else. They're all wiki-linked, if the reader wants specifics they follow the link. The table looks much cleaner with only London, Leeds, Vancouver etc on it. - X201 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with X201. List cities only; having the countries listed afterwards just bloats up the table for no benefit. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * X201 proposal sounds good to me also. Angryskies (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , would this still include disambiguatory state names as required by WP:USPLACENAMES (ex. Oakville, Ontario; but just New York City)? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think for consistency reasons, even those should be kept in piped links. The locations themselves aren't really the focus of the studios and thus this article, they just give slightly more context to them. For anybody who is actually curious enough, they can simply click on the link or see a preview tooltip about it to read more. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this would require us adding new 'acquired' columns, though. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't we discuss something similar on the SIE article? I also agree that having "-present" is redundant, as it should be assumed they still are active unless it is explicitly stated they aren't. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea too, to tidy this section. If there is no objection, when can this be implemented? Angryskies (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you could WP:BEBOLD and see if it sticks, but personally I'd like to wait around a week so other people can post their opinions. But it does seem like we have a level of consensus now. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020
SHIVAJI044444 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC) i want to add another upcoming game from rockstar studios
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

BMG Entertainment under Bertelsmann Music Group
I think BMG Entertainment is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann Music Group, and not Bertelsmann. All sources provided are false. GroupJWbackup (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When you think that BMG Entertainment is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann Music Group, you need to bring sources to the table to substantiate your claim. We have several sources in the article that confirm the existing statement, including Telecompaper, which says:
 * Our source from GameSpot reads:
 * Even outside the context of Take-Two's acquisition, one can find numerous sources confirming this, including: . This one even mentions all three while maintaining that BMG Entertainment is a Bertelsmann unit. I highly doubt that all of these are collectively false, as you claim, and you have yet to provide a single reliable source that proves otherwise. Adding an unsubstantiated claim and then stating that this claim was "proof" is just lying. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to Bertelsmann about those false news stories. They'll soon search the archives to prove that both Telecompaper, GameSpot and many others were wrong about this and that BMG INteractive and BMG Entertainment were both subsidiaries of Bertelsmann Music Group in any way.--Jostcom (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. Once they publish this information on a reliable outlet we can access, it is citable and therefore verifiable. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 18:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Any news on this? Surely, a corporation as large as Bertelsmann AG has a support team capable of responding within a month.
 * Regardless of whether a dozen independent sources got the same minor fact wrong, I think the existing wording is fine. BMG Entertainment was owned by ("a unit of") Bertelsmann AG at the time; whether or not this there were ownership layers in-between is not of concern here. Our WP:V guideline is also satisfied with this wording.
 * Furthermore, it would seem that, at least according to the Companies House, "Bertelsmann Music Group" is actually a former name of BMG Entertainment. It is possible that the name was still used thereafter, but that would be pure speculation on my part. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether a dozen independent sources got the same minor fact wrong, I think the existing wording is fine. BMG Entertainment was owned by ("a unit of") Bertelsmann AG at the time; whether or not this there were ownership layers in-between is not of concern here. Our WP:V guideline is also satisfied with this wording.
 * Furthermore, it would seem that, at least according to the Companies House, "Bertelsmann Music Group" is actually a former name of BMG Entertainment. It is possible that the name was still used thereafter, but that would be pure speculation on my part. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
Please change the number of employees from 2,000+[1] (2018) to 3428 (2020). the source is their linkedin page and is accurate.

source : https://in.linkedin.com/company/rockstar-games OrthurTheBoah (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. LinkedIn lists employees registered on the site, taking the info directly from their profiles. This includes fradulent and outdated claims and excludes people without LinkedIn profiles. Hence, LinkedIn is not reliable for such claims. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Rockstar founded date December 13, 1998 Randythomasdavila81 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
Founded exactly on December 13, Randythomasdavila81 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. No source provided. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Founded date
Exact day and date Rockstar was founded I believe was on December 13 1998. A special hidden Easter egg Randythomasdavila81 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs a proper, linkable source. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020
I will like to edit because I need to add more information to it. Bryson Johnson (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Dylsss (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
Rockstar games was founded in the SCOTLAND Uk NOT new york this is incorrect and needs to be changed as its a lie 94.10.126.103 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rockstar Games was founded in New York; you're likely thinking of Rockstar North, one of its earliest acquisitions, which is famous for Grand Theft Auto. – Rhain  ☔ 22:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

One studio is missing
I don't know if anyone knew about it, but there was another Rockstar studio, which was Rockstar Japan. It used to work in conjunction with Capcom in providing Japanese localisations of three 3D universe Grand Theft Auto games. The existence of this studio is proved by various wi kis and Giant Bomb with its existent logo used by that studio. Allistayrian (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We used to have an article for Rockstar Japan but it was deleted after some discussion; it was also as a result. Basically, there's no evidence of Rockstar Japan's existence outside of an incredibly brief mention in two IGN articles, both of which were published many years after the Wikipedia article was created in 2007 and thus is likely an example of citogenesis—Wikipedia says it's true, so press outlets say it's true, and then we use those outlets to cite our original claims. The same thing has happened with those wikis (WikiGTA in 2008, Giant Bomb at some point after that, and Rockstar Games Wiki in 2011). –  Rhain  ☔ 11:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rockstar Japan has never existed. Rockstar Lincoln has handled all localizations (including Japanese) since becoming part of Rockstar Games in 2002 (Rockstar partnered with Capcom in 2003). No "Rockstar Japan" is credited in any game, nor does such a name appear in any official documentation. The logo was traced from this website operated by Rockstar and Capcom for the Japanese audience at the time. The same site also features logos of what would be "Rockstar USA" and "Rockstar Jamaica", which also do not exist. As Rhain noted, the supposed "Rockstar Japan" spread from Wikipedia to other wikis and two IGN articles in a form of citogenesis. For this reason, I had the studio deleted on all Wikipedias back in 2016, and I wonder why this factual errors persists on external wikis to this day. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing one of the five founder in the first paragraph of History
Hello,

Rockstar Games was founded by the Houser brothers, Jamie King, Terry Donovan AND Gary Foreman. It's wrote on 4mm Games.

Thegamer1604 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The primary source used for the list of founders only lists four. I believe the current state is correct. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * David Kushner's book Jacked and quite a few other high quality VG reliable sources all list Foreman as being a founder. It could be citogenesis, it could be Sam Houser being forgetful or vindictive. Who knows? But we have got enough secondary sources to warrant checking it further. Foreman was definitely there at the beginning; but is the definition of founder consistent? Are we talking about the people who were there and founded the company, or only the people whose names were on the paperwork? - X201 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the paperwork are only Take-Two's lawyers since the publisher was created in an existing corporate structure (and only incorporated in February 2000 anyway). Contemporary sources like the original press release mention only Sam Houser, though merely as president. The secondary sources I did find on Foreman are mostly connected to self-published PR. I do not own a copy of Jacked but I will try to check that out. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. Visual of source. Seasider53 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted. This discussion is still ongoing. – Rhain  ☔ 23:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * “But I will try to check that out.” How long do we give this discussion? Seasider53 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While we're waiting for whatever it is we're waiting for: Foreman is also mentioned as co-founder in this Forbes article. It's also stated in a Bloomberg article, but that's behind a paywall. I can screenshot that preview as well, if necessary. Seasider53 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article is unreliable and, as mentioned above, that could be citogenesis and/or PR speak (i.e. based on Foreman referring to himself as a co-founder). X201 raises some interesting questions that I think should be considered, namely regarding the definition of "founder" and what that entails, and IceWelder raises the point that several reliable sources that mention Foreman are connected to self-published PR. This discussion was started less than 14 hours ago, I'd like to ask for some patience. – Rhain  ☔ 01:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The central issue that I mention is that his and King's company 4mm Games, in its very first press release, states both to be founders of Rockstar Games. So ideally, we would need to find a source older than that. You find surprisingly little on Foreman in what remains of the web from before that time; Newspapers.com has 0 hits. However, the New York magazine hit on Google Books (article version here) is in the correct time frame, even if it is the only qualifying source from that time. I have also looked into Jacked and Foreman is repeatedly said to have been involved in the founding process already in 1998. Retro Gamer notes that "Keen to progress in the industry, Gary joined Sega Europe in 1992 before ending up at BMG Interactive by 1996. Then, in 1998 BMG sold its gaming division to Take-Two and he swapped London for New York. Later that year, the idea for a new publisher arose and Gary became cofounder and CTO of Rockstar Games. He left in 2006 to pursue other projects and explore the world." Lastly, more recent sources (ex. ) state those five founders semi-consistently. So, based on this, I think it would actually be fine to include Foreman as a founder. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your research, as always. Seems like a logical inclusion; I've restored it. – Rhain  ☔ 12:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this was passed by the committee. Thank you for your time. Seasider53 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Rockstar games
This whole article is misleading it is NOT an american company founded in new york it is a BRITISH company this article is lies and misinformation and needs to be changed! 2A02:C7E:4264:3800:6DA5:E178:2C27:C76C (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in this article does it state the company was founded in New York. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is besides the point that the company was actually founded in New York. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 04:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And the process from BMG to Rockstar is detailed in the history section. - X201 (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rockstar is a Scottish company, not British. 31.205.93.181 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rockstar Games is neither. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 12:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider Changing Page Layout
The Rockstar Games page leans itself towards being the creator of the Rockstar Games franchise and its titles. More information should be provided within the first two lines giving credit to the original creator "Rockstar North" or the first line should be appropriately changed to a dual nationality of 'Scottish-American'. 31.205.93.181 (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rockstar Games Inc is an American company. It has always been an American company. Rockstar North is a separate company that is owned by Rockstar Games Inc. Rockstar North didn't create Rockstar Games Inc. There's no valid reason for giving it a dual nationality. - X201 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023
In the 3rd sentence in the film section ("When he relaid this proposal to Sam Houser, Houser said that he was not interested."), change "relaid" to "relayed".

"Relayed" is the past tense of "relay", which is the intended word. "Relaid" is an uncommon past tense word meaning "to lay again or differently". Vectorious (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023
The Cfx.re section of the "Studios" List has no Logo i suggest the Cfx.re Logo be added to the Logos Column ThatOneIrishFurry (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See thread above. It is still not clear if Rockstar have purchased the company or if they are a middleware supply partner. I've removed them from the studios section until it becomes clear that they are a Rockstar studio. This article had trouble with an incorrect Rockstar Japan entry that haunted the web for years and took a lot of work to track down and rectify as false. No one wants to go down that road again. - X201 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The obvious difference is that Rockstar Japan never existed in any shape or form and was simply misinformation. Cfx.re does indeed exist, but it seems more like an informal grouping of people than a company. Whether this is part of the "acqui-hire" trend remains to be seen, so yeah, waiting a bit feels like a good option here. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing Rockstar Japan's logo on this page years back. I never realized it was removed. 2A02:A020:4E:6A09:8985:B96D:211F:C2FC (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was what's know as Citogenesis. It appeared on this page, then websites picked it up as a truth, that was then used to justify its inclusion here. - X201 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Rockstar and Cfx.re (FiveM and RedM)
On August 11th, 2023, Rockstar announced a partnership with Cfx.re, responsible for FiveM and RedM multiplayer servers. Would this be worthy for addition in the "History" section?

2A02:A020:4E:6A09:8985:B96D:211F:C2FC (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It all depends on whether the owner of the article will permit it. If they add it themselves, it will be allowed; if it is added by someone else, it might not be granted by the committee. Seasider53 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're always welcome to make edits yourself. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a blip of information in the History about this, apologies for not noticing this talk before doing so. But I will note onto this that the Cfx.re logo on their website could probably be added to the list of Studios. It is however white (white on white) and I am not even remotely sure how to properly do one so i'm not touching that. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the best option regarding a logo is to simply wait. It's still unclear if they're actually a studio that is owned by Rockstar or a middleware supply partner, like Natural Motion with Euphoria. If they are a studio, then it won't be long until Rockstar give them their own coloured version of the Rockstar logo anyway. - X201 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lucas7yoshi (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * no need to apologise, thanks for adding it! – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)