Talk:Stardock

Untitled
The litigation section seems to be biased, and an attempt to cast Apple and TGTSoft in a bad light. The litigation portion of the article should be removed. Everything else seems to be okay. --Konfab user 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that the facts would cause a significant proportion of people to view TGTsoft in a less than positive light (particularly the sock puppet incident, which is a little hard to explain away), but that may just be me. :-) GreenReaper 04:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as online flame wars go, BOTH Stardock and TGTSoft are equally wrong to do something as unprofessional as engage in online flame wars. --Konfab user 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When you know employees of one company are posting on public newsgroups under false names, stating incorrect facts, and customers are reading their posts and thinking better of their products than yours as a result, what are you meant to do? Not respond? Being professional is one thing, but letting people get away with posting under false identities seems just plain wrong. If I'm not afraid to let people know who I am when I say something (and to be assumed biased as a result), why should I expect any less from others? GreenReaper 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just me, but I take whatever "facts" people provide in forums, chat rooms, blogs, news groups, etc. with a grain of salt. I prefer to try looking up product reviews from legitimate sources that strive to be fair and balanced.  For example, I will look to game reviews written by the editors at GameSpot and reviews in gaming magazines such as EGM and Game Informer when considering the purchase of a game.  I digress.  Konfab user 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * *chuckles* - Well, just be aware that a lot of game reviewers are simply the same people you find on forums - they just manage to write well enough to get a job doing it (one of the people at Stardock actually ran such a website, he knows how it works). I'm sure you've come across the odd review that made you wonder whether the reviewer had actually played the game or was just looking at the screenshots - well, the developers are often thinking that, too. And yet, a lot of people do take their information from there, so we have to try to keep them happy with pretty screenshots. But you're right, this doesn't have a lot to do with this article - maybe GameSpy. :-) GreenReaper 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Corporate Machine = Entrepreneur?
From a thread at Talk:Entrepreneur, I added a "for the computer game previously known as Entrepreneur, see The Corporate Machine" line at the top of that article and wrote a little stub article for The Corporate Machine. But after researching it a bit, I'm not so sure this is the same game, as it kind of implies at Stardock. Anyone more familiar with Stardock able to clear this up for me? BryanG(talk) 22:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Corporate Machine is a later version of the same game. Entrepreneur Magazine threatened to sue Stardock for the use of the name - although it might not stand up in court, Brad simply didn't have the money to fight the case at that point. GreenReaper 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Fair enough, then. BryanG(talk) 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Worth Mentioning?
Stardock is named after a place in the Riftwar Saga by Raymond E. Feist, and many planets in Galactic Civilizations 2 were named after places in the same series (Midkemia and Kelewan, just to name two). I don't really know much about the other software, but this seems worth mention in this article or GalCivs2's page. --AM-2091 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

JoeUser?
Cant see why http://www.joeuser.com/ is added at external links? Spam? 122.169.69.228 (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the blogging system run by Stardock? Not sure it has the coverage to justify an page for itself. GreenReaper (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DRM and Stardock
Just letting you know - Stardock's position is, AFAIK, not totally anti-DRM. From what I can tell, they merely think that punishing customers by making them feel like criminals even when their copy is legit is not a good way to minimize piracy. More information on their position can be found in a recently published report. —CobraA1 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Space Hack redirect
Why does Space Hack redirect to this article? There's no mention of it in the article. Kouban (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask the author? If you want to make a stub there, I don't think anyone will stop you. It's probably because it was a game redistributed via Totalgaming.net and mentioned in that article, but that article was merged here and much information was removed. GreenReaper (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox News, Glenn Beck, & UPS
The CEO of Stardock stated that Stardock would be boycotting UPS over the fact that UPS pulled its advertising from the Glenn Beck show. Since there already is a litigation section, is this worth mentioning? It got a lot of attention in the blogosphere, after all.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.96.90 (talk • contribs)
 * I moved it to Brad Wardell. The blogosphere read an awful lot into a friends post on Facebook. At the time, the impression was that UPS's advertising was being pulled from the entire Fox News channel; I don't think he cares about that particularly show. GreenReaper (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of LightWeight Ninja?
Why not, fantastic game! --194.83.82.3 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * GameStop and IGN tend to disagree. The general opinion is that it might be a nice game for young kids. You are welcome to create an article and cite these sources in it, of course. As the lead external tester of this title, I have some affection for it – but as the first professional game by junior members of a tiny game development team; it limited goals, and it shows. GreenReaper (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Trials of Battle - spin aplenty on that one
I have a fair bit of time for Brad, but expecting a million selling game on Trials of Battle was pure fantasy. citation?

It was nothing to do with the size of the OS/2 marketplace. Yes, at the time OS/2 was in moderate to serious decline, but the game simply did not compare to DOS/Windows games at the time. It was boring and graphically inferior. A few hundred copies sounds about right, sadly.

Brad's argument was that it was expensive to create, and that they did not have the resources to e.g. compete with Quake. I'm not disagreeing, but it was a poorly planned project, where they budgeted on the wrong things. They created some fantastic, polished strategy games. Links Golf was by all accounts a decent port, but you're either a golf fan, or you're not.. Avarice was a great technical experiment, but lacked focus, testing and final polish.

So, admittedly, a million copies of anything at the time would have been optimistic regardless of the game, but a decent game would have sold more than a few hundred copies.

Elves
Is there any reference for this title even existing? I have not been able to find anything on it. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)