Talk:Big Fish Games
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is there a point to the 'Games Published by Big Fish Studios' section? It's clearly not comprehensive, since they put out a game every day, and there's no rhyme or reason to what games are listed and what aren't. The majority of those listed do not have Wikipedia entries at all.
While there is actual information provided in listing the games developed by BFG, I don't see any use in listing every game published on the portal. You may as well just go to the site. Adding a wiki category of 'games published on BFG' for the games that actually DO have pages might be more appropriate, maybe? - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aveyond 2 (December 11, 2007)
- Forgotten Riddles - The Mayan Princess (September 14, 2007)
- Plant Tycoon (September 7, 2007)
- Venice Mystery (August 25, 2007)
- The Stone of Destiny (July 6, 2007)
- Virtual Villagers: The Lost Children (February 16, 2007)
- Chicken Chase (February 2, 2007)
- Word Web Deluxe (January 12, 2007)
- Teddy Tavern: A Culinary Adventure (January 5, 2007)
- Virtual Villagers: A New Home (July 14, 2006)
- Aveyond I: Rhen's Quest (June 16, 2006)
- Mah-Jomino (May 5, 2006)
- Master of Defense (March 11, 2006)
- Tino's Fruit Stand (February 29, 2006)
- Fish Tycoon (November 9, 2005)
- Alien Shooter (June 9, 2003)
Dispute in History section
There is a dispute over the following text:
October 2006: Big Fish Games abruptly lays off 10% of its workforce, creating turmoil and a caustic backlash by its former employees (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/107586.asp).
The article's creator insists on removing it, but it's a relevant statement if you're going to have a History section; the item is sourced. I've tried rewriting it slighty to a NPOV. Now I'm not sure if Lucky Luc works for Big Fish Games or not, but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. Marasmusine 07:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The text should definitely be more neutral than its original incarnation. Lucky Luc needs to accept that negative information is valid and has a place on Wikipedia, regardless of his personal feelings. It's clear from his editing history that he has an interest in the company, and I have confirmation from someone inside Big Fish Games that there is a Luc in their marketing department (draw your own conclusions). Luc, while your efforts to improve Wikipedia by adding content are appreciated, you have to accept that the changes people make are for Wikipedia's benifit, not BFG's. Fusion 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a news article - put in the external links with the other news articles if you believe it simply MUST be on this page. This all started as an attempt from said former employees to slander the company. Personal feelings don't belong in a company history.
- If the news article is slanderous, shouldn't the company take that up with the newspaper? If Big Fish Games has an official response, particularly one disputing the facts of the article, then that probably deserves a place on the page to balance the link in question. Fusion 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The tone in which the information was being provided was slanderous, not the article. If you look on other corporate pages, especially Boeing, which is infamous for lay offs, you won't see a single mention of such events. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox User:Lucky_Luc
- That article has whole sections on unethical conduct and other disputes. If someone were to add a section on such layoffs (if they, as you say, were infamous, I don't know) which was properly cited there wouldn't be much fuss. On the subject of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox it's interesting to see that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been to create and link to BFG-related articles. Marasmusine 08:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Though I see your point and I'm beginning to consider the item as trivial anyway, so I'll leave it. As mentioned above, it can go in external links. Marasmusine 11:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If the bad news can't be in the Company History and can only be in the External Links, then the same should apply to the good news such as the awards and honorable mentions in different magazines. It's the same type of information, and both should be in the same section--either both in Company History or both in External Links. Snydley (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also a tremendous amount of unsupported and unreferenced superlatives used in this article that is reminiscent of marketing fluff. If Big Fish Games intends to try to control the content of this page as a source of free advertising, and undermine the spirit of wikipedia's global information exchange, I recommend that this topic be locked from further edit. Snydley (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute beginning over the number of external links going to Big Fish Games. Is there an official Wikipedia policy on this matter? Lucky Luc, please realize that this page is not your personal property. Other contributions may be valid even if you don't like them. Fusion 18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:External links is the guideline here, but here are my thoughts: What is the point of linking to non-English sites from the English wikipedia, especially when information on those sites is repetition from the main company site. The remainder of the Big Fish links are directly accessible from that site also, so that's basically 5 uneeded links. Point 4 from WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. Marasmusine 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a number of external links, inlcuding the blog link, as per WP:External links. Only one link to the official site is necessary. I've also restored the the link to the Seattle PI article which was removed by an anonymous user. Please remember WP:NPOV, thanks. Marasmusine 09:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- In response to Marasmusine's comment above: yes, NPOV is important; however, the PI blog link should be used as a reference for the article not just plunked into the external links section to satisfy NPOV requirements. The external links "Important points to remember" section states "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum." Because this dispute is two years old and the blog link has not been used as a reference in the article, I am moving it and the other article links from the external links section to this page. That way the links are available for editors to use as article references but not cluttering the external links section. --momoricks talk 09:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem!
We have a problem! The link to Big Fish Games doesn't work because it is disconnected by a glitch! Is there a way to fix the Big Fish Games website, please? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Which parts need to be re-written to not sound like an advertisment?
Yes, this page is ridden with spam, but it is not unsalvagable. The company is notable for its share in the game market and its recent financial success. A quick source to prove my point can be found here. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I moved these links here from the external links section for potential use as article references. I checked them and they are still active as of today.
- Big Fish Acquires MMO Developer Thinglefin - A Gamasutra article about Big Fish Games' acquisition of Thinglefin on November 28, 2007
- Share a Game, Win Some Cash - A Business Week Article About My Big Fish Games
- Big Fish scales down some staff, hooks others - Seattle P-I reports on October 2006 layoffs
- Red Herring 100 Winners for Spring 2007 - Big Fish Games in the Red Herring top 100
I propose we create a Big Fish Games navbox (see my initial creation here: User:Addionne/Templates) for the bottom of all BFG-related pages. Let me know what you think about this - additions, deletions, changes - let me know on this page or on the talk page for the template. So far it has specific sections for the larger game series', as well as links to other games with articles. The bottom links to the BFG category, where we can show other notable games that have been published by Big Fish. If we were to list all notable games published by BFG in this navbox, it would be too large to deal with, IMO. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your feedback. - Addionne (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the scam here?
As near as I can tell, this "scam alert" is telling us that if you buy your kid an iPhone, and the log it into your iTunes account with your credit card on file, and in-app purchases enabled, your child will proceed to buy things. Because after all they're a child and there is nothing stopping them from buying what they see. Being a child and all. That's the scam? I don't get it. Seems like maybe better parenting is called for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Dennis - The section on Big Fish Games (BFG) in the NZ consumer Affairs NZ situation was the best "legitimate" source I could find to make a point about the way BFG runs their organization. My major issue is with the way the wikipage reads giving the impression that BFG is an organization that trades fairly and resolves disputes with a stellar "A+" result. Nothing could be further from the truth from my perspective.
I am firmly convinced Big Fish Games have been systematically ripping people off for several years now with unauthorized credit card charges. The BBB report listed I interpret as being an anomaly they can use to give the impression of propriety. One wonders if this is not a clever strategy to use a small localized territory that they have deliberately ensured got a good rating and broke with what I've witnessed is their usual deceitful approach, and actually and addressed complaints effectively to get this result. Everywhere else in the world I believe BFG has no compunction in deliberately misleading people and not resolving issues to ensure they keep people's money they effectively stole via unauthorized charges if they can.
I personally have been on the receiving end of this scam, and my bank told me there were literally hundreds of these cases with them when I continued to challenge their unauthorized payments which continued for over a year. Their customer service keeps promising that they will reverse charges etc and mislead people. I'm not the only one. I've come across many people in the same position. When I tried to post some of the online comments these were not accepted by wikipedia. I found many of these comments in all sorts of forums over a long period of time.
Please tell me why BFG can cite the BBB report, and I cannot cite the NZ report to balance this. How can we achieve a balanced page withe either neutrality over this, or having both perspectives represented. I was outraged when I saw the propaganda there in black and while, and also noted just how cynical they are that they would find a way to make themselves look pristine when I know they are not.
Here's a perspective for thought. I know you're trying to apply rules fairly. However, if the rulings are actually abetting a pervasive global scam artist (BFG), and allow them to conceal their unscrupulous preying on consumers world wide unchallenged, what does this say broadly about the wikipedia's moral compass? What would the founders of wikipedia say if this came out in the media?
By allowing the veneer of good business practices to be presented in the current vanilla wikepedia page unchallenged, this is effectively setting the bar in favor of the fraudulent party at the expense of consumers who deserve to be warned and protected. What I'm saying is this kind of ruling is making it easy for BFG to perpetrate their scam, and actively denying at minimum a call for neutrality.
Can we at least remove the BBB statement or modify it watering it down for consistency. My objective is to challenge BFG's obfuscation where they try to appear to be legitimate, and try to prevent them from ripping off more unsuspecting consumers.
What would you suggest is the best way for the page to be made more neutral, or for the truth to be told to balance this viewpoint and to warn people about how they operate? What is the best avenue to achieve either or both?
- Can you answer my question? What is the scam contained here in the report cited? When I look at what it says here in this link I can't understand what Big Fish did wrong. Can you explain it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
```` Hello Denis: This is NOT an article, this is a government warning about unscrupulous practices:
1) The heading of the page is "Scam Alert". 2) The article is about unscrupulous billing practices against consumers. 3) This is a government department tasked with informing the public/consumers about unethical/illegal/unscrupulous practices. 4) Big Fish Games are explicitly cited in the warning to consumers.
What BGF did wrong was outlined as follows: "parents have reported being charged by Big Fish Games for games that they knew nothing about. One respondent reported being billed for $150." This involved a lack of consent by the credit card holder (authorization)to make the charge. Why would a government consumer affairs organization explicitly name BFG on this warning page if they did not think their practices were in question? The fact that there is a $150 dollar charge for a trivial online game, and surely this begs the question about their charging practices. (enough it seems for BFG to be named in the Scam Alert). That's a lot of money for a dinky little game. Compare this to the leading high budget games, and compare. Is this the actions of a fair and reasonable organization? I think it's pretty clear cut.
The preceding paragraph talks about predatory behavior: "One parent, who faced a $65 bill from her children playing Tap Pet Hotel, said no warning was given of the credit card debit during the game. A Herald journalist reported getting a $1500 credit card bill over something similar. Both have been refunded by iTunes."
This is about situations where people don't know they will be charged for anything other than what they think they are purchasing (including the children/teens etc). The scam is to have a nominal number (like $2 for example), then add all sorts of charges on tip of this, sometimes citing odd fine print on hard to access web pages. Respectfully in countries like Australia and NZ this is very illegal and is well understood to be totally unacceptable. Perhaps this is a cultural perspective of what is acceptable? Perhaps in some cultures it's OK to steal money this way I suppose. The question then is what standard should be applied here?
The whole page again is a "Scam Alert" against unscrupulous activities, and Big Fish Games is clearly cited as one of these organizations included in the the alert.
Does that suffice?
- I just think if I enabled in-app purchases and then handed my iPhone to a child, the next thing I would expect to see is a big credit card bill. The whole thing seems to hinge on whether the app gives adequate warning that you're making a purchase. What kind of warning is going to stop a kid? Is the phone supposed to know a kid is playing the game and somehow find the parent and notify them?
If there were multiple sources that agree that the app gives insufficient warning, it would be much more convincing. It looks like WP:FRINGE -- an obscure thing that is blown out of proportion. These games are sold globally but I can't find any other news reports about Big Fish overcharging or misleading customers. How is that possible?
Dennis, you can see numerous postings on various sites in detail about the way these people operate. (example which gives a really good rundown on how they operate: http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/big-fish-games-big-fish-games-overcharging-overseas-customers-possibly-c9039.html ). Unfortunately your system doesn't seem to give sufficient credibility to these comments. Hence how can this be raised if people are ignored? I've talked through this with people in financial institutions who deal with complaints about BFG all the time. If you're ruling this particular NZ comment can't be cited, what criteria will allow a comment to be supported sufficiently for it to stay? Do we need a media article, statement from and official, an official statement?
Your idea of posting a (brief) note over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games seems like a good venue, how do I do that? Appreciate this idea. ```` Oh, just noticed they weren't tildes! so let's see if this works...Anti-Fraud Crusader (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the criteria for what is allowed to stay on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Post on the talk page of any page you like - there is no problem with that. If you need general assistance for beginners then go to WP:TEAHOUSE - those people will help you with anything! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)