Talk:PUBG: Battlegrounds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

99% of banned cheaters are from China

This part is wrong: "In February, BattlEye indicated that 99% of banned accounts were from China." I sent a mail to battleye, and here's their answer : No, we have never released such data. Our only statement including China is this one from October: (twitter 918734703183659008) It might be mistaken with what Brendan Greene said during a podcast: (youtube HFXLp2Y25CM time=2min)

• This is WP:OR, and it can't be verified unless BattlEye themselves publicly state it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You can see screenshots of the mail sent by battleye here by example: https://nofrag.com/2018/02/17/109004/ (they sent the same email to everyone who did some fact checking). If you want a proof, just contact Battleye: https://www.battleye.com/contact/. I don't understand why Wikipedia keeps an information published by a random website which doesn't give his sources. Especially when the information is not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.247.251.141 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That nofrag link has unknown reliability status, and I don't see how IGN is "a random website"; it's one of the leading sources on gaming news. That being said, I wouldn't mind the claim being removed since it does seem to be questionable, but it should be discussed by other editors than just us two. @Masem, Lordtobi, and Ferret: thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd remove the claim. While nofrag might not be reliable, they have a creditable suggestion that the interview is the source for this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFXLp2Y25CM&feature=youtu.be&t=2m), and it's been reported wrong. On the other side, we have the French IGN site, sourced to an unreliable English site, sourced to an unreliable Chinese site (http://news.17173.com/content/02082018/102157998.shtml). If you go to the Chinese site and Google translate it, it's a bit unclear but appear to me to match the interview, that the 99% is about cheats, not cheaters, as the article then goes into about how cheats are sold, etc. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • According to this Kotaku article, the numbers were released by Greene but provided to Greene by BattlEye, which was specifically clarified by Greene himself as the correction states. As such, the claim is legitamate, I'd say. Lordtobi (✉) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

        Kotaku appears to agree with what NoFrag writes, and what I said about the original Chinese source that IGN FR ultimately reported. 99% of cheats from China, not 99% of bans are Chinese players. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

        It appears to me that the IGN editor relied on a blog that incorrectly interpreted (misunderstood) the data actually published by BattlEye, which they then reposted two months later, and picked up by IGN as new fact (obviously fact-checking was lackluster there). The recent change to the sentence seems good. Lordtobi (✉) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PS4 - again

The news about PUBG from Gamescom, specifically with MS now elevated to publishing partner for the Xbox version, has raised questions in the media if PS4 versions are coming, and which they didn't get answers to there. (eg [1] ) I know we have a few sources that clearly state from the dev's own mouths that the PS4 version is in the works, but at Gamescom, none of the reporters could get a straight answer. Perhaps we should update this to reflect this, since this new MS partnership could put PS4 plans on hold? That is, we have to remove PS4 as a platform, keep that they've said it was PS4 at one point, but couldn't comment after the MS news at this Gamescom? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep the prose but remove it from infobox and lead. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I would still keep the sources we have that suggest that Bluehole was planning on a PS4 release, but as of Gamescom, its status was unclear. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

They still haven't confirmed it's not coming to PS4 since announcing it originally was, but I think it's fine now to remove it until they comment on it again, just to avoid potentially misleading people. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Graph to try to recreate

[2] It's based on SteamSpy data, so the data should be accessible somewhere. If anyone can do this before I can, that would be great, but I'll try to figure out something when I get a chance. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could a screenshot of the graph work? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, as it would be non-free (SS is free to chose what colors they want). Data cannot be copyrighted so as long as there's a means to access that published data that meets WP:V, we can recreate a free graph from it. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Also, a point with SteamSpy is that a lot of their data is not direct -- they analyze and aggregate it. The output that you see in many graphs is interpreted data. That is, they cannot copyright the data that user A played PUBG or that user B didn't play PUB, or that user C played PUBG and is a bot. But the final data that 50% real players played PUBG is SteamSpy's analysis and could be copyrighted. This is not something you could measure independently, other than to come up with your own analysis. In other words, SteamSpy comes up with non-straight-forward interpretation of data. That is, 50% players is not necessarily a fact that cannot be copyrighted, it can be a conclusion made by SteamSpy, presented as their own data. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  If they publish the hard numbers, regardless of how they got them, in a manner that meets WP:V, we can still make a free image of those numbers. Steam Spy may have some trade-secret or copyrightable mechanics for how they transform the Steam API numbers to theirs but publishing the full list still means we can take the site's numbers to make a graph. This is comparable to, say, if we had NPD sales data trends; we don't care how they come up with sales $s, but if they are available, we can graph them freely. Obviously attribution is needed but that's the only real limitation. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Technically, that very graph (and hoverable data) can be found under SteamSpy's main page at the "Steam Stats" tab, though it seems like only daily is currently available. If you are from just concurrent players, SteamDB is what you might seek. They also have an owners graph from SteamSpy's data. Lordtobi (✉) 05:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Spelling error: change 'dis' to 'did' in the "Release" section 175.45.123.98 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Y —DIYeditor (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2017

Anmol112 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

On September 17, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds crossed 1.3 million concurrent players, beating every other game and setting a new record for Steam. The record was previously held by Dota 2. Anmol112 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

References

@Anmol112: Where in the article would you like this to be added? SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A better reliable source is needed as well -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: A more reliable source is needed and you need to specify where you would like this information to be added in an X to Y format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To add, we already have this info in the Reception section. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this info was already added into the article by me on the day it happened. Ctrl+F (or whatever search function your OS/browser has) for Dota and you will find it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"PUBG Corporation"

There are a couple reports [3] [4] that the division of Bluehole doing PUBG is now a spin-off subsidary PUBG Corporation, but these are based on what a Korean website says. I'd like to see more direct/stronger confirmation just to make sure before making said change. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: FWIW, Bluehole is based in Seoul. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I know, I'm just looking right now at only two sources, and while Kotaku is fine, I'm a bit worried that Dtoid's version is written tongue-in-cheek so it raises my doubts on the veracity of the claim. It's likely true, but this is something that Gamasutra, GI.Biz, Venture Beat, or something bigger will likely report on too. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And VB confirmed, along with GIBiz, so it's added. I also note they now report 13M sales. If they break 15M (technically 14.9M) then we need to add to List of best-selling video games. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As a word of caution, while sources are confirming the 2M concurrent player count metric, they are also reporting SteamDB/SteamSpy estimates of 15M+ sales, but we do not want to rely on those (Bluehole has regularly announced #s). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

While I agree we should use publisher-backed numbers if they exist, I thought we could use SteamSpy numbers if a reliable source mentions it. I realize this isn't the case for this article, but it is on others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would only use it in the case where the publisher has not given out numbers, and that the SteamSpy numbers are noted by a second party. As Bluehole has readily announced its sales #s several times before, we should wait for them to give us the next update. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing verb

Paragraph 3 in "Professional Competition": "[...] The Gamescom 2017 event demonstrated that the logistics of running a large Battlegrounds tournament due to the large number of players involved, [...]" is missing a verb, please fix. I cannot edit the article due to the vandalism lock.

Thanks, Narwaro Narwaro (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Demonstrated" is the verb. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it just a bit. The sentence didn't seem to have a clear subject. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Addition of images to the article

I've just now noticed how the article lacks any images outside of the infobox. We can afford at least one gameplay screenshot showcasing the HUD, and there could be some free-to-use images of a professional tournament or something (the one at Gamescom?) that would also be appreciated. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The release date of the Xbox One edition in the infobox

Why does the release date of the Xbox One edition in the infobox use the early access date, while the release date of the PC edition has to use the final edition date? Cirolchou (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the XBox date, since per infobox guidelines we don't include early access and other non-full release dates in infoboxes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

We can include early access dates as long as they are noted (it is) and the final release date isn't known (Xbox version has no announced 1.0 version date currently). For such a popular game (it has already sold over a million), we can make an exception to the usual rule. We did the same exact thing for the PC version before it was confirmed to be fully releasing in December, with nobody having any issues with it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is game's popularity a reason to have an exception to the infobox's guideline? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I already explained that EA dates are allowed in the infobox if they follow the two above rules, which is the case here. The game's popularity would just result in many trying to add it back there anyway, which is what I mean to say. The actual infobox guidelines are what should be adjusted, as this is what I've seen across many EA games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You said that, yes, but you didn't point to any guideline for it. Infobox says not to include. WP:VG/DATE doesn't say it directly, but says to use {{Video game release}}, which says no early access dates. Perhaps we should adjust infobox guidelines due to the plethora of EA games if and after we form a consensus. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, VGR should be updated not to make that statement. It was copied off an old revision of WP:VG/DATE that has since changed. VGR's doc should just point to VG/DATE, a change I am making now. -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I do agree it should be clarified in the documentation, as it can be read as no EA dates at all, no matter the context. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that PUBG released on Xbox on Dec 12

I don't think that PUBG is released on Xbox yet. If it is, it released with the full PC game as well. The game was out on Xbox during this time but it was only through the Xbox Game Preview, which is an early access program that is exclusive to the Xbox platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blod722 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is marked as being early access for the platform in the infobox, lead, and release section, so I'm not sure what your issue with it is. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mixed notes of the real users

Please add to the last section of the page that recent reviews are mixed ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/578080/PLAYERUNKNOWNS_BATTLEGROUNDS/#app_reviews_hash ) because after release users still face games crashes, lagging and "rubberbanding effect", reward failures and other problems. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Per guidelines on user-generated content, we can't add user scores. We could mention them if a reliable source (such as those here) have covered this, and we would cite that source. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Article for PUBG Corp?

I know it's hard to separate Greene from PUBG but I wonder if we can make a separate article on PUBG Corp, recognize that they had a prior history to PUBG . there is this recent article [5] now. --Masem (t) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note this AFD draftified Draft:Bluehole (company) article. I don't believe either would survive an (another) AFD on NCORP grounds. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if we had an article, subsistantial information (like that they were acquired by Bluehole in May 2015) would not be sourcable through English-language reliable sources, and I haven't found any Korean-language ones yet either. Lordtobi (✉) 19:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Er, we have two sources in the article that source that already. And remember sources don't need to be in English, just reliable. --Masem (t) 19:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would just add anything to the Bluehole draft, we don't need two incomplete articles when we could have one more complete one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No controversy?

There are various article sites regarding PUBG being overrun by hackers, particularly in China, along with false bans from streamers and constant server/performance problems. Why are these not added to the main page, I wonder? 70.45.242.36 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue of players from China cheating/etc. is in the article already. But we can't document things that otherwise are only documented in forums which for the false bans and server issues are only from forums. (We know they have patched to fix performance issues, but that's not seen as controversial in sources). --Masem (t) 22:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

December 21

Because this is a little of a back-and-forth, I would like to note: Although all, if I am not mistaken, reliable sources state Dec 20 as release date, the 1.0 patch changes have been published between 1:42 and 2:57 AM UTC, so the entirety of Europe, Asia and Africa received the game on Dec 21, while the Americas got it on Dec 20. The date displayed on Steam is also not bound to timezones, and it was changed to Dec 21 on Dec 21, at 8:20 AM UTC. Saying that it is a timezone issues because the developer is based in Korea is nonsense, because they are actually ahead of most other people (they are in the fourth-most advanced timezone). So how would we resolve this? Should be split it in two via NA: December 20, PAL: December 21? Which date is "official"? Let's discuss this here instead of our edit summaries, @JBJblaze and Dissident93. Lordtobi (✉) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unless sources officially separate them, we should not be going with timezones and splitting dates up. It was announced as Dec 20 worldwide, and only missed its date in some regions due to unforeseen server maintenance that pushed it back a few hours. If we were to do this here, than many games would have to be updated elsewhere; I remember that Dark Souls 3 on Steam released three hours before midnight in EST, which made it on time in Japan/EU due to timezones. Simply put, go with the official, intended release date. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• 20 appears to be the official release date, while maintenance issues caused the game to be only available on 21. So we should state 20 everywhere for release and make a note of 21 delay in dev/release history. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No issues with that, it just doesn't belong in the lead/infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I could certainly settle on that. While I didn't mean trouble by my edits... It did indeed bother me as I believed the date to be inaccurate considering when the game did actually release, but I thank both for that information. Whatever portrays PUBG's release situation more accurately suits my chicken dinners, if you get what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBJblaze (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox release

I thought break tags were what needed to be avoided? UBL is preferred per infobox documentation, the last time I checked; and there were more for removing WW when no other regions are mentioned than keeping it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated, it looks really terrible/weird on mobile devices. Have a screengrab. I feel like the consensus on WT:VG should decide how we handle this in general. Note that you can also use the Vgr template instead of line breaks (without params) to produce a HTML-conformant markup. Lordtobi (✉) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the edit I introduced didn't have the WW tags, so could this be something else? Does the date rarely, if ever, just show on a single line on mobile? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Add Steam Page Link http://store.steampowered.com/app/578080 Add Facebook Page Link https://www.facebook.com/playbattlegrounds Add Twitter Page Link https://twitter.com/pubattlegrounds EvgenijBrozmann (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Per WP:ELNO, we only include the subjects primary online representation, which is their website. Social media links are acceptable if they are the primary targeted platform (though they are not in this case), while store links (like Steam, Microsoft Store) are never a good inclusion in an encyclopedia. Lordtobi (✉) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Do they have a place in Wikidata? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, but would have to check with their guidelines (do they even have guidelines?). Lordtobi (✉) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I've just seen Twitter accounts and such linked to games before (like it is here.) EDIT: Actually, there does seem to be a |Steam Application ID= parameter, so I guess that's where they should go. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELNO doesn't apply to Wikidata. Wikidata has lots of data points that are considered inappropriate on enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware, I just didn't realize that one already existed there, as well as parameters such as subreddit. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

In § Gameplay, it currently says "8 by 8 kilometres (5.0 mi × 5.0 mi)" (wikitext {{convert|8|x|8|km|mi}}), which has annoying excessive precision. {{convert|8|xx|8|km|mi|0}} reads better: 8 × 8 kilometres (5 × 5 mi). (You could also consider {{cvt|8|xx|8|km|mi|0}} → 8 × 8 km (5 × 5 mi), but I'm less sure about that.)

Thank you! 23.83.37.241 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 10:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

add an early access release date (March 23, 2017) above the 1.0 release date on the sidebar Ryburger77 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that that was the actual date of early access. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we do not include the early access release date in the infobox once the game leaves it. We can mention the start of Early Access in the body, but it can't be in the infobox. --Masem (t) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)