Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Rose

  1. Making an exception to the wiki stance on documenting issues specific to piracy is not acceptable, irrespective of whether it is hard to obtain the game legally. Unless and until proven that there are legitimate copies that are affected, the information should have no place on the wiki. A precedent of the opposite can be used to justify documenting issues specific to pirated copies of many other old games.

  2. There were multiple other issues with the edits, such as the length and format of the section title ("tested in 2021" right in the title?) or the style being very informal, featuring constructions and words like "basically", "worked for me.", "was the easiest", "That's all", "If you have problems" and so forth. We are open to valuable additions by anyone but it's important to understand that the wiki is not a personal blog to share your feelings or address the reader directly. Please read through the rules.

  3. 2 minutes ago, finnpalm said:

    I said "may". A court of law has to decide before we know. I am way too aware of how timestamps can trick you to assume anything just by looking at them.

    You are conflating two subjects here.

    One is the claim of the version being old and having no DLC, which is now debunked not only by me but also by all the screenshots and posts I linked, and by Frogwares themselves.

    The other is Nacon vs Frogwares in court, which is just briefly touched on in this thread, and there is no question that it will be up to the court to decide what to make of the parties' actions. The last known ruling from October 29, 2020 was in favor of Nacon but it's obviously not the end of it.

  4. 13 minutes ago, finnpalm said:

    It's very interesting to see how you're talking about truths after looking through some game files, while the truth is seldom that easy to come by and I'm talking from the perspective of a DFIR expert. Before a court of law has decided what is true in this case you throwing around such terms is just as bad mouthing as the review bombing on steam.

    Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you realize that my findings are now also supported by Frogwares' own statements made in the video you linked? They say it's the Deluxe Edition of a recent version of the game. What is your evidence to the contrary?

  5. 40 minutes ago, The lost said:

    Nacon have stated they do not have the rights to the DLC

    What is the source for this?

    40 minutes ago, The lost said:

    purchases already honoured have not been revoked

    This is nothing out of the ordinary. All the past games with licensing and other issues I can think of have remained in the users' libraries - the Telltale games, Deadpool, Alan Wake, Ducktales, Monster High and more.

    40 minutes ago, The lost said:

    those that have been removed from sale by the publisher usually keep a Store page

    We already know it was Valve that took it down in response to a DMCA request from Frogwares though, as documented in our wiki article.

  6. 7 hours ago, Expack3 said:

    Well-put, Rose. Technicality may be dry, but, hilariously, sometimes it really is the best kind of correct.

    Thanks! The wiki article has all the technical 🙂 I can post the tiny Manifest text files containing the creation / build dates of both versions but at this stage of the Steam discussions being filled with screenshots of the two free outfits added in the last Epic update, as well as screenshots of the Fool's Gold and Mystic Tomes quests exclusive to DLC, they are hardly relevant or more valuable than the reports from actual owners with hours of playtime. For anyone still in doubt, I would recommend just buying the game and checking it out. The two hours before refund are enough to reach the hotel and check for the Mystic Tomes starting quest.

    6 hours ago, Mastan said:

    To summarize about this new Steam version:

    • Old game - false
    • Missing DLCs - false
    • Steam Cloud not working - true
    • Achievements missing - true


    Yes, though I would still add that the Gamesplanet and Frogwares launcher versions offered by the developer likely do not have achievements or cloud saves either, and it's unclear for the Origin version.

    As for DLC, based on the reports and official store pages, the DLC content is identical to the Deluxe version sold by Frogwares through Gamesplanet and Origin, though the Origin version allows to additionally purchase the smaller DLC unrelated to side quests, but that would cost more than the base game with DLC from Nacon. The best part is that we have this choice.

  7. It all began with the recent release of The Sinking City on Steam. Some users quickly noticed the lack of achievements compared to the previous version available for a few hours of January 5. As the discussions began, some also noted the lack of cloud saves and DLC to purchase. Shortly after, the developer of the game made a post on the store page news feed to recommend against buying this version published by Nacon despite the publisher having been allowed to resume selling the game after a court ruling deeming the Frogwares' publishing contract termination "unlawful" and ordering "to refrain from any further action".

    With statements like "Further proof that France doesn't need to exist anymore" aimed at the publisher, Steam users began to purchase the game and review bomb, never going beyond the two hours refund threshold, while making claims about the version of the game being old, having no DLC or support, or the publisher stealing from the developer.

    PC Gamer and Polygon echoed some of the statements, relying on the top rated reviews which were "mostly negative" at the time, starting around 25% approval.


    Steam users say in the mostly-negative comments that it's actually an old version of the game, without DLC, achievements, or cloud saves. 

    - PC Gamer

    SteamDB immediately sided with the developer by quoting their statement on the app page in an unprecedented manner, while ResetEra also followed suit, with the OP of the dedicated thread stating "It also apparently lacks DLC".

    On our end, there were users who edited the article and inserted all the same unverified claims, while violating the style guidelines at the same time.

    I had the latest version of the Necronomicon Edition on Epic Games Store and decided to check for some of the claims by comparing my files to those of a friend who had the Steam version.
    As it turned out, the important files of the Epic version were created in October 2019, around the time the game received its last update, while the current Steam version was built in June 2020, just prior to the game becoming unavailable on Epic, with a GOG Galaxy integration file placed in preparation for release, and also just prior to Frogwares releasing the game on Origin and other platforms. This questioned the idea of the build being old.


    Now with the Frogwares' discouraging statement removed from the store page, legitimately interested users purchasing the game and looking into it, it was found and confirmed by multiple users that the standard and only offered edition of the game by Nacon is newer than the Necronomicon Edition on Epic, and on par with the Deluxe Edition offered by Frogwares on Origin and Gamesplanet, containing all the bonus missions in the game's existence and costing only $16 compared to the $65 of the Frogwares release. At the same time, the average user score was getting better, climbing up to 48%, or Mixed, as of this writing.

    Many still remained bitter and unwilling to accept being wrong, with PC Gamer and Polygon never correcting the articles, the current top-rated Steam review being negative, containing insults and saying "No DLC.", with /r/gaming and /r/TheSinkingCity quickly taking down links to the Steam thread discussing the presence of DLC in the game.

    Sometimes the truth is hard to find or seen as the biggest enemy in the comfort of existing beliefs, and maybe that is when PCGamingWiki comes into the picture to give you the latest technical facts and details. We just have to stay vigilant, never speculate, and always double check. Here's to it!

  8. The point on registration requiring a Steam account is very important. Steam is the biggest store but there are people who don't have a Steam account. Until it's possible to sign up without Steam, it shouldn't even be discussed as a replacement for ITAD.

  9. 15 hours ago, Suicide machine said:

    they earn money from EGS sales via referral links

    So do PCGW and IsThereAnyDeal 😉
    It's hard not to defend the Support A Creator program. We promote Steam for free but get nothing in return. Epic, GOG and other platforms give back.

  10. Quote

    For games with no speech or text-only dialogue, set this field to n/a.

    No information would be lost from removing this sentence from the guidelines. Otherwise it may be best to globally change the "Subtitles" field to "Subtitles setting" for more consistency with the current guidelines until there is a more drastic and fruitful change ready to go live.

  11. Quote

    I'm... a bit confused about this one -- do you mean that the games should be listed on those companies' pages?

    Technical obstacles aside, the PC gaming focus of the wiki makes a really strong case for listing all developers wherever we can. However, increasing the infobox height even further or even having a list of studios responsible for minor tasks in plain sight is very undesirable based on the arguments raised in my first post. It does not look like the addition of a new property would address the latter. Is it possible to pack it all into a one-symbol note template and have the developers appear in the tooltip only?

  12. It is quite common for modern games to have been developed by multiple studios - in-house or outsourced. Usually only the main developers end up on the store pages and in the intro videos. The rest normally appear at the end of the end credits due to their minor or less significant roles - often unknown to the players.

    From a Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War press release:


    developed by award-winning studios Treyarch and Raven Software with additional development support from Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai and Sledgehammer Games.

    The wiki article lists all of them on equal terms.

    From an Assassin's Creed Valhalla press release:


    With development led by Ubisoft Montreal

    Associate studios are Ubisoft Sofia, Ubisoft Singapore, Ubisoft Montpellier Ubisoft Barcelona, Ubisoft Kyiv, Ubisoft Bordeaux, Ubisoft Shanghai, Ubisoft Chengdu, Ubisoft Philippines, Ubisoft Quebec, Ubisoft Bucharest, Ubisoft Pune, with additional help from external partner Sperasoft.

    The wiki article lists Ubisoft Monreal only. It is the most common approach I have seen on the wiki across many titles so far.

    I don't think it's inherently problematic to list each party involved, but it should be done in a manner that respects the developers' own practices of not giving too much prominence to the less involved studios, and it should not be distracting to the readers.

    I believe that Wikipedia handles it very well, by using the Explanatory footnotes template which is not as long and distracting as our existing {{note}} template when placed in the infobox - simply appearing as Text[a] and further down the alphabet for more notes. It can be seen in the Valhalla article:

    Another thing missing from the PCGamingWiki note template is that the games would not appear on the lists of games developed by the studios.

    My proposal is to implement a similar one-symbol template and come up with a way to tackle the issue of lists at the same time.

    Regardless of the outcome, I think it would be a good idea to at least modify the guidelines to have a stance on whether listing those "additional" developers is recommended, not recommended, and the extent of the coverage if recommended (up to 2 studios? 5? 10?).  There has to be something solid, not pure subjectivity when deciding to undo or keep this information.

  13. 5 hours ago, azulath said:

    Shouldn't it then be indicated, like only partially supported?

    Not until we globally change the definition of ultra-widescreen, as I explained to you earlier. I'm for it and I actually proposed that the wiki covers more aspect ratios a while back on Discord.

  14. Quote
    • If using Windows 8/8.1, the window border needs to be light blue (labeled as "Color 12" under the Color and Appearance menu in the Control Panel). This allows the screenshot to match the colour scheme of the wiki, while maintaining high contrast with text.
    • If using Windows 10 (v1511 and later), the window border needs to be Cool blue bright (under the Accent colour listing, which is located in the Personalization -> Colors menu in Settings. Disable Automatically pick an accent color from my background beforehand). This allows the screenshot to match the colour scheme of the wiki, while maintaining high contrast with text.

    The current recommendation to use turquoise was introduced in April 2016 even though the wiki already had its blue color scheme evident in the logo, header and footer elements, as well as the table colors used to this day.

    Apart from the Editing guide button on the front page, there is nothing in the current wiki colors I can think of that is anywhere near turquoise.


    (blue used for the site elements, Windows turquoise/blue bright, logo blue)

    Moreover, most gamers now use Windows 10, and the latest versions of the system allow to set any color for the window borders.
    As such, my proposal is to recommend using the hex value of the table color -
    #556db3 - instead of the turquoise. The new screenshot example can be this.

    While at it, we can also remove the outdated recommendation for Windows 8/8.1, as we do not recommend anything for Windows 7 despite it being the more commonly used system according to Steam Stats.

  15. It is a commendable effort but there are likely quite a few inaccuracies, as pointed out earlier on reddit.

    You should avoid setting any of the games to "yes" for native support unless you are absolutely sure about it. Otherwise you may end up misleading fellow ultrawide users into buying a game only to have to ask for a refund.

  16. 45 minutes ago, Waschbär said:

    On a sidenote: Is it really necessary for the "series" table to be replaced by the taxonomy link? Not only does it give a quick overview but also allows one to jump quickly between the titles. Now I have to visit another page - which also doesn't offer much more valuable information.

    I think this would be one case where a duplicate information is acceptable. And if it's about the number of titles for some series becoming longer and longer, maybe just make the table collapsible and only show a handful until someone clicks "expand" or something.

    One of my suggestions to incorporate both ideas was to look at the way music album chronology is done on Wikipedia, as seen here:

    It's not as much information at a glance as there used to be but it's also not as bad as having to always go to the series page to navigate the articles. The code for the template is here. I would not say I see it as the perfect solution or one I would personally enjoy the most but it's an option to consider.

  • Create New...