Talk:Xbox Live Arcade/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I added a citation to the official Xbox Live Arcade site showing that id Software is officially recognized as the developer of the game. Any discussion of who shared in the development or port process would be better suited on the individual game page. Unless id Software or Microsoft acknowledges another developer we should use the official stance on the topic. Per Wikipedia standards, burden of proof is on the person making the change and sources should be rated for expertise and authority. Since who is named as developer is up to id Software, please provide documentation from the developers, not from a news blog, if you are going to change the data. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on reliable sources. Big Merl 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Both developers are right. id Software made the original game and Nerve did the XBLA port. The official press release for Doom XBLA says "Originally created by id Software, and developed for Xbox Live Arcade by Nerve Software" : http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/doom/news.html?sid=6158825 . Just about every single review (including reputable sites like IGN and Gamespot) mention Nerve Software as well. I've got the game and even the splash screen (and game credits) say Nerve - you can download the demo and see for yourself. SeanMooney 07:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the new link. I would say change it to show both developers and leave my reference and add a new one with your gamespot link. That should settle any questions about validity of the item. That sound like a good answer to you?Big Merl 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Either the developer could be listed as "id Software / Nerve" (like those upcoming Atari games are listed) or just one developer can be listed with a footnote thing at the bottom of the chart mentioning the other one (such as "original game by id Software" or "XBLA conversion by Nerve Software"... kind of like how the pricing of Totemball and Hexic was handled. it's up to you how to do it. SeanMooney 08:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would list both, that way we avoid a weekly edit by someone that doesn't notice the footnote. Thanks for the great find! Big Merl 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Today a link was put in for Snakeball showing screen shots from a web survey. We need to follow Wikipedia standards of being an encyclopedia, not a news channel. If there are no objections, I think the best way to move from here on out is to flag new games that don't have a solid confirmation as Speculation and leave it one week for someone to find a source before we take it off the table. Also, I have moved two games to unannounced because there is ample evidence the game is being made but there is no formal announcement. Does anyone else have any feedback on this? Big Merl 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about snakeball since it's based off of a forum post from a unknown person (as opposed to a dev or producer) so there's alot of concern there. However, as you said, SG&G is confirmed on XBLA release but not a date. That's a different story and since there's proof of it's eventual existance that's totally usable here. Someone had posted on a different section of this discussion a new table for unconfirmed games with factual referrences and perhaps we should approach it as the creation of a new wikitable. I think we should have a vote on the creation of a new table or the use of new language as you have Merl in the pre-existing table on games like these. Aspect Of Shadows 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My thought is there should be four categories:

• Confirmed which are games that Microsoft has confirmed for release through press releases, which there would be nine current titles (02/07/07).
• Announced would be games where either the developer, publisher or Microsoft have confirmed the game is in development but it is not yet confirmed for final release. Periodically someone should review these titles to update the reference and verify the game is still in development.
• Unannounced Would be games that we have concrete evidence the game is being developed, such as Toy Wars where there are reputable sites with screen shots or Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts where the ESRB has confirmed that they have rated the game. These games have not been announced by the developer, publisher or Microsoft, so they should not be marked as announced. These games should be regularly reviewed for announcement, improved reference or possible deletion.
• Speculation, which I picked as a word because it better describes these then rumored does, would be the last category. Someone has provided a link showing the game may be being developed but it cannot be confirmed to be in development. After one week if no reliable source has shown this to be worthy of Announced or Unannounced then the item should be removed. We should keep a list in discussion or as a noinclude of titles that are deleted in this manner. Titles included from recent deletions would be:
  • Crash Dummy Vs the Evil D-Troit
  • Darwinia
  • Go
  • Moonstone: A Hard Days Knight
  • Streets of Rage
  • Zombies Ate My Neighbors

A noinclude should be added to the article explaining whatever rules we come up with on the edit page. Due to the nature of the subject, it is prone to edits that would not read the discussions or follow the established norms. This would allow any editor to better understand what is going on with the list and make needed changes. For sorting purposes, I propose we begin using the wikitable class "sortable" for all tables in the page, it will take a rework of the tables, I'll put something together in the next day or so as a new section that includes a new outline for the article that I think will flow better.

Shall we open the table for discussion for two weeks? I would love to hear some more input on this topic. I feel it is an important topic to tackle due to the nature of the subject and that a review of similar services (Playstation 3, Virtual Console, GameTap and Steam) did not reveal an established rule for this kind of topic. - Big Merl 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Crash dummies vs Evil Detroit was announced by the developer not MS http://www.xblarcade.com/node/249 Go was from a job posting looking for a developer to produce Go for XBLA by an unnamed developer in the UK Streets of Rage can be found at http://ilovexbla.blogspot.com/2007/01/rumor-streets-of-rage-this-summer.html --SoundOfLight 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Still hoping for input before I start making changes, I don't want this to be "Xbox Live Arcade, presented by Big Merl."  :) Anyways, If anyone has seen the video floating around, I wanted to link it into the conversation and see if we want to consider this a valid source to add some games as "unannounced". [1] This highlights the problem we face with this kind of list, where do we want to draw the line? Big Merl 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a simular problem on the Wii VC talk page about screen captures as sources from a firefox hack as sourcing...I think this falls under the same issue...but I'm not sure how the resolved that. I'll have to check it out and get back to you on that. Aspect Of Shadows 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - It doesn't appear that the VC talk page came to any resolution on this either. They stuck with unknown status and suggested they would make a reference to the captures but never did for some reason. Looks like they might of gave up on this. That doesn't bode well for what you're suggesting Merl as I'm not sure there's a precidence on this and language is an issue here.Aspect Of Shadows

I'll tell you what, I'm going to make the change and see what happens. The XBLA article does seem to be a little slower then the VC article, so it is a good test ground. If it doesn't work, at least we can say we tried. Big Merl 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We have 10 links in the external links section, I think it is time to open discussion on what is and what is not an appropriate link for this article. Wikipedia is not a link depository and I'm sure some of this can be handled by improving the article. I would love to see us build this up to an A article status and I think this may be our next area of focus. Does anyone have some input on this? Big Merl 14:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been 10 days with no input, I am going to clean up the list. Please feel free to reopen the discussion if you disagree with this move. Big Merl 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking over this, I've noticed alot of unsupported claims on games. Rather then asking individually for each one I thought I'd rather just post on here a list of what I've seen (and have been unable to confirm independently). If anyone could respond back with links to substantiate these games please do so.

Moonstone: A Hard Days Knight

Megaforce

Battlestar Galactica

Zombies Ate My Neighbors

Red Baron (wiki page was edited there with no source)

The Incredible Machine (reference to XBLA is uncited)

I'll give it a week and then I'll start deleting them from the list. Thank You. Aspect Of Shadows 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

the only title that comes up on the ESRB rating list is bugs of war. it says it was done by Wahoo Studios, so i added the link to there site, but it being a game site, its blocked @ my work thebiggameover 21:00 23 January 2007

Thank You Big, I looked up Wahoo from your company site for Bugs Of War, and while they dont have any talk about the game itself, if it's on the ESRB then it has to mean something. Assuming it's not a mistake there, I'll leave it alone for now. Also, the rumor confirmation is still going to ninjabee....so just post again when you've changed that. Again, thank you for the help. I'm just trying to make this small corner of wiki world a better place ^_^. Aspect Of Shadows 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Added the link from xblarcade.com Thebiggameover 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks to whoever fixed the confirmation on Butterfly Garden. Aspect Of Shadows 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ninja Bee is a division of Wahoo Studios and the acutal developer of the game. Throughout the rest of the page we have the Ninja Bee titles listed as Ninja Bee and not Wahoo Studios. I'm changing this link back to Ninja Bee as such. SoundOfLight 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I linked all of them but 3. N+ was listed as confirmed, but I could not find anything on it other then a review of the original game saying it would be nice to see it on XBLA. Moonstone is frequently listed in articles that have Xbox Live Arcade listed somewhere on the page, that could be the cause of the one. I have never seen a confirmation on Zombies Ate My Neighbors. I believe that one started when one of the guys making Dead Rising talked about it being an influence. I am ready to vote that all three of those be deleted from the list. For now I put a request for citation on them so we can give people a few more days to look for them. I also think it might be a good idea to seperate the rumored games from the confirmed ones, but I was not going to make that change without input from others. Now a quick list for those skipping the reading :)

N+

Moonstone

Zombies Ate My Neighbors

Big Merl 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Big Merl for providing all of those cites. I've found the cite for N+ on XBLArcade and provided it on the main page. Additionally, there were some mistakes on it's listing (It has a release date and different publishers/developers then what was listed) that I corrected. So now we need confirmations on the latter two. Aspect Of Shadows 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombies ate my Neighbors rumor I believe was started by forum goers who always say I want to see that game on XBLA. I spent about about 3 hours once trying to find the source of that rumor and never could. I say that should be removed. I have no clue how Moonstone ever got rumored except by someone sticking it on this page. The other games are good though as they are actually coming (like Battlestar). --SoundOfLight 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to wait till tomarrow to remove it to give them a full week chance to confirm. But I agree, I find these unlikely myself. I'll get rid of them start of business tomarrow. Aspect Of Shadows 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombies and Moonstone have been deleted. No one was able to find a cite for these two so they have been deleted after the week long grace period. Aspect Of Shadows 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While updating the links to use the REF command I am having trouble with the rumored releases. I honestly feel that they do not have an appropriate place on a site like Wikipedia. If they do belong here, I think they should be split off onto a new section of the article and only leave confirmed games on the upoming games lists. That way we can seperate fact from speculation and rumor. Big Merl 07:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the "Sales and Downloads" section is a mention of the top sales, including UNO as the #1 game in terms of sales. The cited article doesn't mention UNO at all. Where does this information come from and could somebody please provide a correction?

The link for the game currently on this page is pointing to a different topic of the same name (currently to a discussion of an episode on the animation "Justice League"). Perhaps someone could start up a new wiki page on this game and re-link? Also, while it has been confirmed, there still doesn't seem to be a web site specific to this game...so perhaps someone should keep an eye out for it. Aspect Of Shadows 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found a webpage for the PC version of it....http://www.warworld.net....but I'm not sure if you would want to use it as the main link or not once a page is up. Aspect Of Shadows 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

http://ilovexbla.blogspot.com/search/label/war%20world and http://www.xblarcade.com/taxonomy/term/107 have a bunch of links related to this release SoundOfLight 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll start up at least a Stub/Pre-Start level page on this and post those links there. I dont play this game (yet) but at least we can get it off the books page and the anime page that way. I may also download the PC version and tinker around on it for a bit so that I can talk a bit more intelligently on this subject later on. Thanks for the link Sound. Aspect Of Shadows 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Page is up now, please stop by and peer review if you're interested. Aspect Of Shadows 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I added these and listed them as Rumor because they are only being rated by the ESRB and what ever the ESRB in th UK is. User:thebiggameover 20:30, 16 January 2007

For some reason, I cant get the Street fighter link to go to the sf2 page. Can some one fix that?

Changed the release date to December -- Fortdeath 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, since we're in Late January and no game, the date has become 2007 and not 2006. Since it also seems like it wont make even January anymore, I suggest we keep it to 2007 only till we get something more definitive (all we know at the moment is that the game is in testing or final touches stage of release). Aspect Of Shadows 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

review by xbox mag, sites reporting 3/1/07 http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/alienhominidhd Thebiggameover 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Thebiggameover

Metacritic, while being an awesome review site, is nortorious for using filler dates to fill in their gaps. Are you sure this is reliable enough to post as fact? Aspect Of Shadows 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

crap. didnt know that. fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebiggameover (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

MS once again had a slip out on their XBLA listings briefly, showing AHHD as the next game to be released (their description page still exists on the Xbox site, though they are still showing it as TBD date). We should see if we can find a confirmational stance on this and release timing if possible. Aspect Of Shadows 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Hexic HD is installed on hard drives purchased seperately from the Xbox 360 unit so I have edited the section title where Hexic is located on the list of games available with Xbox Live Arcade. --Msc44 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was told somewhere that it comes with stand alone hard drives. I dont know for sure tho because I bought a premium system. Can some1 confirm this? 007craft 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3] from a quick google search it seems they do. --Chroniclev 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I purchased a hard drive seperately with my Core Pack, and it came with Hexic. All HDD's, whether or not they're purchased seperately, come with Hexic. ferrarimanf355 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I know eb games / Gamestop formats traded in harddrives to remove questionable content... I believe this would erase Hexic. --User:Lelek

I like the table, but I think it seems somewhat redundant to have two that list all the games. Perhaps we can turn the latter into prose or something? --Chroniclev 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of consolidate them somehow. We just need to make sure we keep it easy to read (avoid lists, don't crowd information,etc). Any ideas? Defkkon 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea I know its getting tight on the one table. Perhaps we could add a column that gives the initials of what features it supports with a key at the bottom, or something of that nature. --Chroniclev 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Using letters with legend/key is a good idea. Feel free to take a shot if you want, I'm done my editing for the night. :) Defkkon 03:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I added it. I'm not sure about it though. What do you guys think? --Chroniclev 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty Good. I like it, but what about the upcoming games? (Fedding Freenzy and Astropop are on the Live Featues table) Maybe you can add it to upcoming games. JDUDE 07:20, 10 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, Chroniclev. I'm going to go ahead and remove the features table. Personally, I think we should leave the features table out of the upcoming games. Once the game comes out and we know 100% what the features will be, we can add it to the current games. Sound good? Defkkon 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was going through the history, one December 10, 2006 an unregistered user changed it from the codes to the spelled out titles. I would like to reopen discussion on if we should bring the codes back since they make for a nicer looking table or to leave it as it is today since you don't have to look up what the code is. Is there any opinion on this? Big Merl 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no input, I will make the change later this week. this should make for a cleaner, easier to read table. Big Merl 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have an image for this. The logo here is pretty nice (if you crop out the "Wednesdays"), but it has a background. (That's the most current logo, by the way - I think we should avoid using the old Xbox one, which isn't as nice looking anyway.) What do you think? Tophtucker 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I was going to put that in but I wasn't sure if it was an official logo or not. --Chroniclev 02:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok its in, perhaps I could have cropped it a bit more though. --Chroniclev 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, where'd you find that? It's huuuge! :) I cropped it some so that it doesn't have so much white space. Tophtucker 03:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the file suddenly seems to be over twice as big. Whoops. I'll try to fix that... Tophtucker 03:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a compilation of games coming out under this moniker according to gamespot.com. Where in the article should I add it or should I even add it? guitarhero777777 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add it, because not everyone has internet on their homes, and this is a good option to play Xbox Live Arcade. Best Buy has it for $40, and it includes a 1-month membership for Xbox Live Gold. --MarioV 00:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to add it as well, but do we need to have points cost added to this table? I dont think it's relivent to the actual unplugged disk itself do you? Aspect Of Shadows 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I've not seen any response on this issue, I've just removed the points list off of the Unplugged Content List. No points change hands between the purchaser and Microsoft. The disc includes what's specified on the list at no additional cost. Therefore, it was removed to avoid being misleading to readers. Aspect Of Shadows 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of splitting 'Card and Board' into 'Card' and 'Board' as well as splitting 'Strategy and Sims' into 'Strategy' and 'Sims'.

It would be wise to add a Console Classics category with the upcoming release of Castlevania: SOTN.

No splitting. The lists of categories is what is on Xbox Live Arcade. Microsoft made it up, not us. These are official categories. We can't change them. guitarhero777777 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Castlevania isn't a coin-op game. Microsoft was smart enough to not put doom under that category, I think they'd be smart enough to make sure Castlevania is atleast somewhat put in the right category. Especially when it's a major arcade game. It's breaking the 50mb limit, afterall. --71.218.28.76 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Until Microsoft changes them we should not change them. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site.Big Merl 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for edits made by 65.188.148.23 I just had to revert the blanking made by him/her. They have blanked this page twice so far.

I'm sorry, but the upcoming releases section is strictly Or. There are no refrences. So I believe that like the List of major commercial failures in computer and video gaming article. The upcoming releases section should have you cite sources before adding games because most of these games we really can't verify. guitarhero777777 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We could, but at the moment we simply choose not to. Almost everything on the list has come from a website or official announcement. It's true that they aren't currently cited, but adding reference could negatively impact the appearance of the table. If you have a good way to add references without making the table look cruddy, please feel free. But in any case, it's not "Original Research". --Slordak 14:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I ddin't even think about the table. While I know that its not OR yet, I'm just trying to stop the temptation of adding games that are rumored or games not announced but will probably end up on the service. I just wamt announcements. Maybe something on the external links section would be a good idea? guitarhero777777 15:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I took what you were looking for and reworked the page a bit adding a "status" category that we can put in references and such to these games. Also, I made the section look more like the current games list. Added a few missing games too. --SoundOfLight 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed and it was exactly was I was looking for. Some of the other confirmed ones should have links, but otherwise I like it. guitarhero777777 04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there really 2 different versions of Pinball? We have Pinball by Freeverse (which I think is the same as Pinball FX by Zen) and then Pinball Fantasies by 21st century. Are these 2 or 3 different games?--SoundOfLight 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a little concerned that Pinball Fantasies is the only game without a status at all. Is a new version a rumor or has it been confirmed? It doesn't say. The trouble is, it's the game I'm looking forward to most (IF it comes out)." Matthew Daniels, 10:12, 11th November (UTC)

Honestly I can't even find the original source of this rumor. Is Pinball FX different than Pinball Fantasies? --SoundOfLight 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If source of rumor or confirmation isn't found, delete it. guitarhero777777 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Baron was never a "coin op classic".JAF1970 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Microsoft is going to have to change their categories soon. Sonic the Hedgehog never was a coin op classic either (among others). Maybe a retro category will be coming to the arcade soon? --SoundOfLight 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sonic was a coin-op arcade game in 1991. Used a trackball instead of a gamepad. However, Red Baron, The Incredible Machine... those were PC games.JAF1970 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and Castlevania was on PS1, but that doesn't change the fact that MS hasn't made a category yet, so should we? If we do what should we call it?--SoundOfLight 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed many titles which seem to fall under the category of "re-releases of older games", but which were never actually coin-op. Perhaps we should simply list these under "Unknown" for the time being? --Slordak 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds likes a good idea. Anyone against that idea or with a different idea?--SoundOfLight 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. Put them in the categories that Microsoft has specified and if there are any changes, make them when announced. guitarhero777777 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've talked about at the top of this page, I'm unable to find any source for a rumor or confirmation nor date thereof. Has anyone been able to confirm this yet? I'll be deleting this next week if not. Thank You. Aspect Of Shadows 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just reformatted the "games released" and "upcoming games" tables, hopefully making them a bit easier to read. I changed the Category column to be a full colspan row, which gives a lot more room horizontally for the rest of the columns. Feel free to roll it back if you like, but I think it's better. Cpc464 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job. They are much easier to read and page thru. guitarhero777777 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears some people are confused on the Double Dragon developer for XBLA. Technos was the original developer and Taito was the original publisher. Technos is no longer around, so they will not be the developer of Double Dragon for XBLA, since this is the XBLA version we're talking about in terms of developer... I put back the changes to the Developer to Taito (the publisher), since the developer at this time is not known. This kind of points out that maybe we should include publishers and developers in the list of game as this would resolve some confusion that, for instance, popped up on this title.--SoundOfLight 16:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a confirmation on the new March release date? The link only confirms it's existance and not a date. Aspect Of Shadows 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Either a lot of the predicted 2006 release dates are wrong, or they're going to release multiple games within the 10 days. Anyone know anything? That is a lot of games to be releasing in a short time. Also, perhaps someone ought to go and check all released games are in the list. I know that Novadrome is now out, and that hasn't been updated. --RabidZombie 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Novadrome is in the correct list. I put it there. Just don't know its Live Features.

That's why I didn't do it myself. :P I see that someone changed all the dates to 2007. Although I can only guess that this person guessed. --86.137.5.97 12:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Bah, wasn't logged in... --RabidZombie 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone source the name "Worms: Defeat"? Martyn Brown, Creative Director of Team17, always refers to the game as "Worms Live Arcade" in his blog, and other known names for the game are Worms HD and just Worms. If a source can be found that would be great as I actually maintain Dream17 and would love to know if this is the actual title so I can amend my Softography+ entry accordingly. --Squirminator2k 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst chatting with Martyn Brown on T17 forum, he confirmed that 'Defeat' is NOT the name of the new worms, and it will just be called 'Worms'. --yilez 03:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the advantages of Points instead of money is heavily slanted and not remotely NPOV. The advantages are almost all from the point of view of the supplier, in this case Microsoft. This needs to be cleaned up, so at least the other point of view is put, i.e. these are possible disadvantages to the gamer. Better would be to rewrite the section completely from a genuinely NPOV.

--85.210.154.210 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--I took out most of it. i mean there is a whole other page for points that has both the pros and cons Thebiggameover --Big Merl 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Microsoft Points have its own page anyway? There's even a Criticisms section, no less. JAF1970 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious where the release dates for Symphony of the Night, TMNT, and Catan came from. Someone let me know otherwise I have to delete it as being OR. Thanks. guitarhero777777 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There`s no source for them. DELETE it. 202.221.129.6 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to a release date for TMNT that the implication it would be released around same time as the upcoming game and movie. Though, Ubisoft did not specifically state anything in the press release.

I wouldn't be surprised if Luxor 2 goes up for next week since the page on Xbox.com has been sitting pretty for over a week.

Based on the fact that we are constantly having changes on the dates and little to no actual information I would propose we just remove the column and that of the points. It provides little usable information to the article and provides a potential dispute over data and verification. Big Merl 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright by me. Most release dates are highly unofficial and tentative. guitarhero777777 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the release dates. Points I think should be removed as we never know how much they will cost prior to the release. For the release dates though the Q1 2008, etc are insightful into where exactly the game is in development. I think from looking at various forums on the internet (like Xbox.com) a lot of people reference this site as the defacto for information about upcoming titles. This information is always from the developer's mouths and can be treated as fact. I don't think a few users who vandalized the boards should cause the removal of this feature.--SoundOfLight 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That table needs a cleanup badly. Nobody (ok, well I started it) ever finished changing all the links to use the ref command. As we find time we should also make a pass through the citations and possible update them with newer ones and make sure the information is still accurate. I'm still of the opinion that the points should come off, however SoundOfLight makes a really strong argument for keeping the future release dates, so I change my stance to miror his on that one. Big Merl 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and when the board was first starting to do release dates the developers were more open with when they thought they were going to be released. Lately, they've been rather tight lipped though. My guess is this is some sort of policy change on Microsoft's part about release dates. Perhaps, we should come back to the release dates issue in a month or two (after the next 10 are finished). We may find that at that point release dates are not there. At that point, I think we should remove the release dates. Any thoughts on this? --SoundOfLight 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the points are useful information and should be kept. The only change that should be made is requiring a citation for every release date/price details. (SeanMooney 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Release dates don't get sorted properly when I hit the sort button. Needs reformatting.Tehw1k1 10:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to fix it, but if someone else does, you have to change them to a format such as 2007-04-06 for them to be sortable by that. I'm sure one of the plugins can automate that, but I don't run any to know which one. I think the whole table needs a reworking possibly move the catagory to after developer and resort the default to be by title as it appears on the XBLA menu on the 360. Big Merl 06:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I put all the dates in YYYY.MM.DD format (but forgot to to do the right Edit summary, oops) I wrote a Perl script so it should be accurate, and now it all sorts correctly --Kirkjerk 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the table now makes some assumptions about user date preferences. For example, in the US, periods are never used between dates, with slashes being favored instead. Thus, "2005.12.25" looks very strange and doesn't really resemble a date. --Slordak 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the US (where I'm from) the date is never written in YYYY,MM,DD order either. (Eurupean DD MM YYYY order at least makes some logical sense, but doesn't sort) I disagree that it "doesn't really resemble a date". I use the dot as a separator specifically because it's not used by one of the other non-sorting formats. And is easier to read than straight YYYYMMDD. What separator would you have suggested for YYYY MM DD order? Or is there some other trick to get that column to sort as a date rather than as an alphanumeric value? --Kirkjerk 13:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As an American, I must say the release dates dont make any sense to me now. Why did we change it from the Month Name, Day, Year again? Since this is regarding an American product, i feel we should have American date standards on it. However, if this offends the Europeans XBLA players, then at least lets have DD/MM/YYYY. None of this dot stuff please. guitarhero777777 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why are the date standards different for the "Arcade games for the Xbox 360" section than they are on the "Ordered by release date section"? We should at least keep the same standards throughout the article. guitarhero777777 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft lists dates as M/D/Y. Please restore it as such. FURTHERMORE, you can't LINK DATES. ie. April 23, 2007. You can't do that with that inane 2007.04.11, can you? JAF1970 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. It really looks unprofessional, sterile and ugly in that state. Look at the text prior: October 31, 2006, as part of the Xbox 360 Dashboard's fall update, the Arcade menu received a major overhaul. Included in the update is instant enumeration of arcade games present on the hard drive, more sorting options (including by recently played or by category), an auto download feature for any newly released arcade trial game, and a "tell a friend" feature, which sends a message to a friend about a given game. Do you want to change those dates to 2006.10.31 as well? It's just plain silly. JAF1970 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I really hate the new table design. Everything is just lumped together in a big list. The dates are MUCH harder to read this way (and like JAF1970 said they can't be linked). I don't think it was worth it to change everything just to make the table sortable - that's just not needed especially since we have a "releases by date" section already which does exactly that. As for the games, they're already sorted alphabetically and I don't know why anyone would want to sort them backwards. None of the other columns (price, developer, category, live features) seem to sort correctly either so it's pretty much useless. The previous table design was a lot easier to find things quickly. I'd be willing to help switch things back the old way if others agree. SeanMooney 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This Wednesday: Eets: Chowdown. 800 MS Pinball FX. 800 MS Source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158915 Just FYI.

Now someone restore the categories. JAF1970 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I used the revision right before the changes (from March 31) and added the April game releases to it so everything should be up to date and in the proper categories etc. SeanMooney 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have an opinion as to whether Microsoft Points should be included in the games list on this article, you may be interested in the debate going on here: Wii Points: to list or to not list?. While the discussion currently involves Wii Points, ultimately what happens to them will happen to the Microsoft points. So, if you have an opinion one way or the other, I invite you to join the discussion. -- MisterHand 17:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove them. The discussion on the Wii page is simply about are they encyclopedic or not. I don't know enough about the Wii to answer there, but on this article I say they are needed since the concept of buying the games is key to the success of the service. The pricing is then key to having these games sold. You'll notice there are two games that have non-point requirements to play them. Other articles where price is mentioned because it is important to the subject include Ron Popeil, Ford Taurus, HD DVD and a more relevant Steel Battalion and List of Sony Greatest Hits games. Unless something more substantial can be added to the discussion I personally do not feel there is an reason to remove the points.Big Merl 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

points values should stay, it's good information. it's very interesting to see pricing patterns.209.172.115.34 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Words like "interesting" are leaning towards the I like it policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide, period. RobJ1981 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attended the event, rushed home with the press kit, added the game here, created the page here: Pac-Man Championship Edition, updated the other Pac-Man lists. All in less than 2 hours. You may thank me with gifts of money. :p hehe JAF1970 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that Pac-Man Championship Edition is a completely new game built from the ground up for Xbox 360 and should not be listed under coin-op classics. This game is currently exclusive to the Xbox 360 and has never been released in arcades.

Well, it doesn't matter where YOU think it should go, but where Microsoft says it is. HOwever, Microsoft does list it under "Action-Arcade", so its a moot point. JAF1970 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I started the article for it - it's a full stub: Prince of Persia Classic. However, I'm unfamiliar with the original PoP, so if anyone wants to give a description of the gameplay and a (brief) backstory, please do. JAF1970 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we back to one game a week now or is this just a blip?Also when is fatal fury coming out it was announced ages ago and still no sign we desparately need more fighting games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.222.28 (talk)

This post violates WP:FORUM. This has nothing to do with the article. Take it to Xbox.com and ask there. guitarhero777777 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that released game list by date was getting way too long, and it was somewhat superfluous since there's already a released games list. I've given it its own page here: List of Xbox Live Arcade games by date. It's still a necessary article since it shows stuff like downloads and empty weeks, and this is a good solution to keep that information and lessen the bulk of the main XBLA page. JAF1970 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Made the stubs for both Tetris Splash and Omega Five, so if you get new info, those pages are now open. JAF1970 17:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)