Talk:PUBG: Battlegrounds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notability

There are multiple guidelines this violates (I will link to every one if asked), but I think this game isn't notable to begin with, so I'm likely to nominate it for AfD. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes can you link to guidelines you deem are affected and require deletion. Also you removed again developer interview without giving a reason. There are literally hundreds of articles for that game since around a year, the developer recently was significant responsible for H1Z1 King of the Kill, Arma 2 & 3 Battle Royale mod, and something with DayZ, games which sold millions of copies. While this game here is currently still in development there are no indication that it won't be notable, again post issues you have with the article here. prokaryotes (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines this article violates are many, which can be seen at MOS:VG and the documentation of the video game infobox. Just to name a few: listing Steam as a publisher (they are a storefront), listing PC instead of the actual OS, the entire unsourced features section (which is WP:GAMECRUFT anyway), WorthPlaying.com is an unreliable source (see WP:VG/S). This isn't even including how bare bones and badly written the entire article is. And literally hundreds of reliable sources? Maybe if you included them into this, this article wouldn't be up for deletion. Also, the creator of this game working on other known games does not give this game any notability by default, so that's an invalid argument. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The feature section was sourced by a unique Twitch.tv interview source, as for your other complaints please see WP:COMPETENCE, and in particular see WP:BATTLE (since you made 3 reverts in a short time, and AfD on top of it). I could report you for edit warring but i won't since i spent way too much time already to improve Wikipedia and are busy elsewhere. You are disrupting the process of creating a new article, for a genre defining video game title. prokaryotes (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

AFD by Editor Dissident93

For the record User:Dissident93 tried to delete the article within hours of creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Playerunknown%27s_Battlegrounds prokaryotes (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wrong, I brought it up for deletion, with my reasons given on the nomination. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Another issue with User:Dissident93. He stated that the game has 'little of info' for the Wiki page which makes him put the page up for deletion. While I added info, an about section, faq, wiki image and more and he keeps reverting the changes to info that shows 'little info' about the game. This is clearly vandalizing a Wiki page which is against the ToS. He was been reported.Azgoodaz (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)azgoodaz

The game's notability isn't in question anymore (more reliable sources have written about it since the nomination), but that doesn't change the fact that it still has tons of other issues (you bring up the "ToS", but fail to see where the article fails WP:MOSCAPS, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:ELNO, and possibly you with WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:SPA, and WP:PUPPET). Everytime I attempt to explain them to you, you ignore them and claim I'm "trolling' or "vandalizing". Your actions have also been brought up with members of WP:VG, which include a few admins, by the way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dissident93's edits appear to follow the guidelines, while Azgoodaz reversions appear unwarranted. There's a lot of policies and guidelines to cite for individual changes, but they all are supported from WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:PROMO, WP:WAF, MOS:TM to WP:LEAD and WP:EL, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Features

Repeatedly removed, similar content can probably be better sourced in the future, for now the summary here, per source https://twitter.com/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/status/836062034953289729

• In an February 2017 Twitch interview with DasMehdi, the creative director mentioned:
• In-game shop with skin crates
• Modding
• Different game modes on release
• Leaderboards
• Player progression/customization
• Different maps
• Kill cam
• Spectator cam
• Match replay
• Hardcore servers (No crosshair, first person view)
• BattlEye (Anti cheat software)
• Weather system prokaryotes (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT info like this does not belong, and is Twitter the only source you could find? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is correct, "feature lists" like this should not be in an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release, advertisement, or "the back of the game's box". If you want to write out an actual paragraph, explaining what some of these things are (your average "non-gamer" wouldn't understand what a "skin crate" would be, for example), with sources, go for it. But not in list form like this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just got done removing further stuff like a FAQ section (really?), as well as stuff that was clearly copy pasted. Not sure why people don't seem to realize that articles need to follow guidelines to not be total crap. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I'm planning to flesh this article out properly some time this week. Sam Walton (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks. I didn't really want to maintain this article alone (I don't even have a personal interest in the game or genre). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Updates

I think the article could benefit from more infos on weapons/upgrades, and vehicles, and upcoming maps may be. Some content might also be improved through some editing, (Gameplay and development). For example they use a custom Unreal Engine version, and some models from the published UE launcher projects (Racing), or these https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/modular-desert-ruins. prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Lists of weapons, upgrades, vehicles, etc, is strongly discouraged by WP:VGSCOPE. That type of information is best suited for a Wikia. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh really, thanks for pointing this out. prokaryotes (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, mention of vehicles (buggies and boats could be included i guess). prokaryotes (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, as long as there's a RS, it's perfectly fine to state that the map has vehicles such as cars, jeeps and boats. We just wouldn't present long detailed lists. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input ferret, i suppose more details in those regards will be covered in the weeks and months ahead. prokaryotes (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Also take a look at Bluehole. prokaryotes (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle royal(e)

So what is the correct spelling? The existing article battle royal has both spellings, implying either is okay. Since the article name is without "e", that would be the consistent usage. The new article battle royale (gaming) uses "e" but it has exactly 2 references, both to PUBG, which doesn't make it convincing at all. Battle Royale (disambiguation) has a bunch of other uses, but mostly proper names, so not the actual term. I don't really mind either way (though I lean to consistency without "e"), but I'm not clear as to what the reasoning is otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellknowz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please join the move discussion at battle royale (gaming), I think that's the best way to get a consensus on the spelling. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh whoops. Didn't notice that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Name of the Game

Obviously the name of the game is written in capital letters (as in on the website or on Steam). I tried to fix this but the bot keeps reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.32.112 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:TMRULES. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

PlayStation 4 version arriving at a later date

On a small number of occasions, project director Changhan Kim has expressly stated that the game is also coming to PlayStation 4 after it exits Xbox game preview, such as on Twitter, and in this interview with South Korean game website Inven Global.^[1] The eventual release on both home consoles was picked-up and reported by express.co.uk^[2] and mspoweruser.com^[3] and the development was reflected in our article by way of the following paragraph:

"In a March 30, 2017 interview, Bluehole's Project Director, Changhan Kim, said the company intended to publish the game on both the Xbox One and PS4." (diff)

The text was promptly deleted with the explanation that South Korean game website Inven Global is not a quality source, but I feel that the reference is sufficiently reliable for Changhan Kim's own words, supported by other sources that have quoted him directly, and others reports that have emerged since. — TPX 12:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Here is a link to the original interview.[4] As reported by PushSquare.[5] — TPX 19:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I do think the issue is that we have no idea (broadly speaking) about who Inven are, though their founders do show some degree of reputation, so it's not immediately clear if it is a reliable source particularly for this claim (the only source that has appeared to state PS4). As Inven does seem to be an english-language website that covers esports + similar in SE Asia, it would be of potentially great us if we treated it as reliable, but right now its not; I am going to check though with the VG group to see if we can. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• A reliable source on the matter is available at this Kotaku page, who quotes the interview, including the PlayStation confirmation. Lordtobi (✉) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  @ThePowerofX and Masem: Given the Kotaku report, does it seem likely to be included in the article? Or better said, does anyone plan to include this? Lordtobi (✉) 20:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't see why we removed it from the article in the first place. The entire Xbox conference was labeled as "console launch exclusive", despite the majority of games coming to PS4 (and PC) as well. Unless it has been announced since E3 that the PS4 version has been canceled, then it should probably be re-added to the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no release date or hard plan for PS4 release. Basically this wikipedia page is lying and claiming that there is a PS4 version that may or may not ever exist. 66.193.18.10 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  If the producer for the game has said that a PS4 version is planned, we will assume it will be coming, until we are told otherwise or that it has obviously been cancelled (eg if it is 2025 and we're on PUBG 4 and there's no PS4 in sight for PUBG 1). We just need the source of his words that assures it is coming. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• No no. It's an Xbox exclusive. Which means no ps4!!! Only Xbox. Watch E3 to confirm. Exclusive only mean one console for good. Get it right Matthewmcdonald2011 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  Examine the on screen text at the beginning of the announce video (34:28). It reads "console launch exclusive". Gamespot asked Phil Spencer about the meaning of this wording:

  Spencer explained to us that "console launch exclusive" is essentially synonymous with "timed exclusive," except with a bit more specificity. "Console launch exclusive means the first console the game will launch on will be Xbox One," he said. "I don't know, honestly, anything about when those games are going to launch on another platform."^[6]

  The game is exclusive in the console space to Xbox in 2017, and will arrive on other platforms at a later point in time. — TPX 09:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Another interview with Chang Han Kim where he states much the same thing r.e. early access: Question: Are you a hard Xbox console exclusive for the foreseeable, or are you considering other platforms? Answer: So, we definitely do have plans and thoughts about other platforms… [7] — TPX 08:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I blame Microsoft for this mess. They have never said it won't be coming to PS4 before or after E3, just that it's a "console launch exclusive" like literally everything else Microsoft showed at their conference. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Microsoft used the phrase "console debut" at past events. No idea why they opted to change it. — TPX 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I suppose it's effective in getting people to buy the game on their console instead of their competitors, if the edit warring here has anything to do with it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017

In the "Design" section, the article states the following:

> Faster development was possible with the game engine Unreal Engine 4, compared with ARMA and H1Z1, which were built with proprietary game engines.

This is misleading, as Unreal is still a proprietary engine despite being free. 174.59.167.240 (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That's basically what he states in the source though. Do you have an exact change to propose? The best I can think of is to add something like "the more widely used" to Unreal, and "non-public proprietary" to the other two, to include they aren't available. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd use "custom in-house" instead of proprietary, personally. That being said, I don't think the current sentence is misleading either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

map size

the in game map is 25 square miles 64.170.21.194 (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

25 sq. miles = 5 miles x 5 miles = 8 km x 8km. We have it right. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Should it be stated in parenthesis or something? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We have the "convert" template giving "5 mi x 5 mi" right there. I don't think we need to spell that out as area. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, but I'm asking if we could manually add 25 sq. miles instead of the automatic template outputting 5 mi x 5 mi. Or perhaps we could just have it read 8 square km instead, which is how its likely to be spoken more in common usage. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe the current format of 8x8km is more accurate than 64km², as it outlines both dimensions without the need to state the map is a square. Lordtobi (✉) 11:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also the conversion is required by MOSNUM. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick bit on sales

I know there's a few RS stories that have PUBG breaking 5 million sales based on Steam Spy data. Since Bluehole has offered its sales figures in the past, I am going to suggest we do not include the Steam Spy-based stories, since we have actual numbers from the publisher. If Bluehole never reported their figures, then this would have been fine, but that's not the case. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The usual caveat besides, SteamSpy is not sales figures. It is ownership estimates based on a sampling of Steam public profiles. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not an MMO

@Masem: 100 is not a massive number of players compared to 64 which is common. Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter game give examples in the hundreds or thousands.

• I sort of agree. Normally, an MMO doesn't have a player population cap on their servers, while PUBG is strictly limited to 100 per instance. Do the sources covering the game primarily describe it as an MMO? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can find numerous sources that call it an MMO through google news (Though I recommend you exclude "tera" from search results). The problem is that there is no hard definition of the limit between "multiplayer", and in fact, one market research company includes MOBAs in their category of MMO [8], because of the large semi-connected player base. It would be nice if there was a hard definition the size, but without it, the fact that many sites call it that seem to say we should keep that. Alternatively, we just leave it as a "battle royale for up to 100 players", the "multiplayer online game" being implicit in that. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the alternative suggestion is better, as it clearly states what it actually is, rather than just giving it a generic and potentially misleading MMO tag. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

On the paid cosmetic item debate

Right now there's debate/controversy in the PUBG community with the introduction of paid-for crates. I don't think we should include this at this time only because this seems like a bit of angry by players before they knew full details. However, there are sources for this, so if others think we should add it, its certainly possible. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A mix of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING seems to apply. In the grand history of things, if multiple reliable sources cover this, then we can add a short mention to development history or may be reception (history). Something like "at the time of announcement of paid whatever, a lot of players felt whatever". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If its covered by RS, then I'd add least mention it somewhere in the reception section. Just a single sentence or two would be enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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 [9] ) 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

[10] 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 [11] [12] 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 [13] 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)