Talk:Intellivision Amico

Games target release dates

I don't understand the opposition to having the manufacturer's target release dates for games. It's helpful for people to know what games are expected at launch and what is expected after. Primary sources like official manufacturer's websites, are valid Wikipedia sources and often the best source of information. These are target dates and of course subject to change. Someone said, nobody know when they are coming out. How do you know what the manufacturer knows? It's the target date that they have on their official web site. This Wikipedia article looks worse without them as people have no idea which games are in development and which announced titles are not.

You'll have to pardon if people are slightly doubtful of the manufacturer speaking the truth if they've missed three release targets and counting. Especially when said manufacturer has blatantly lied about the status of their employees, completion status, and more. Also, sign your posts. 2601:540:8200:92A:BEB4:D82A:EC1C:EEE0 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make if they get delayed. Game release dates are relative to the console release. Collecting those estimated release dates here gives people a good idea of what is expected at launch and what's expected later, what's in development and what's not. The wikipedia article was made worse by the removal of that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.75.54 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to include "release dates" which keep changing every time the wind blows; it creates management issues for the article because every time they miss a release date on the console, it requires updating literally dozens of other dates that are supposedly based on the console release date. Once the console is actually released, possibly the release dates for games will become more stable and known. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't create a problem at all. A missed date is a missed date. Wikipedia just shows that they missed their date, which is also relevant information. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of reliably-sourced content

I must insist that 76.70.75.54 stop removing reliably-sourced information merely because they don't like what it says - this is not a fan page for the proposed console, and information which is critical of the product is just as valid as any other information. Attempting to whitewash this article suggests that you may have a conflict of interest in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is not reliable and the kotaku article rebuts itself saying things like "It seems very unlikely that these games will feature any new content or modes". It doesn't even know what it's saying. Every Amico game has exclusive content according to this article ( http://gametyrant.com/news/intellivision-amico-presentation-lets-meet-our-new-friend ). Another is stating games are ported from Flash and that they can be played right now. Well modern browsers don't support Flash so they can't possibly be Flash games. Again rebutting itself. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, Kotaku is an established reliable source for video game content, and your nitpicks of what you think "rebuts itself" is merely your opinion. That a game may have "exclusive content" does not mean it's not a port, and when reliable sources are in conflict, generally the solution is to present both claims and allow readers to decide. We include Intellivision's press release statements about "exclusive content," and we include Kotaku's reporting that many of the games are ported. Readers can decide who they believe. You want us to only present Intellivision's press releases and marketing materials, and that's simply not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there are no ports, this wikipedia article already has points elsewhere about ported games and exclusive content elsewhere. Right now this Wikipedia article has wrong information regarding Flash games, and links to an article that has more wrong information. Facts are not opinion and wikipedia shouldn't present an author's opinion as fact, especially when they are wrong. Further there is nothing relevant in the paragraph added. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source says it is wrong, and why should we take that source as gospel truth to the exclusion of all other sources? As I said, when presented with conflicting sources, generally we present both statements and allow readers to decide which they believe, unless there is an unambiguous consensus of reliable sources as to the truth of the matter. I strongly disagree that there is nothing relevant about discussing the truth of the company's claims and marketing. That you don't like a source which challenges Intellivision's corporate PR suggests you have a conflict of interest here. As I said, we aren't here to simply regurgitate corporate marketing statements about a product - we include a variety of viewpoints, including opposing and negative ones. If you can't deal with that, then Wikipedia isn't the site for you. We're not here to be a fansite for any product. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make a point about the CEO's behaviour, it should go in the controversy section because that has nothing to do with the development history of the products. Otherwise what's relevant with saying a writer is critical regarding "transparency about its ongoing issues with delivering the product," when all the source says on the matter (besides the pandemic) is "it seems apparent that other factors are at work here too." What factors? Is it because they say "A “new” trailer released in 2021 seemed to be mostly the same trailer that was released in 2019, with only a few minor edits." The fact is most of the gameplay segments are different than the 2019 video. Anyone can look at the two videos and see for themselves. Is it because it is only as powerful, as the 2016 Android phone mentioned in an ArsTechnica article. The fact is the ARSTehnica article actually identified a second chip, correctly specified here in Wikipedia, that's newer and has double the graphics power. Is it because it says developers are getting a bad revenue share and the CEO did not deny it in a NintendoLife article. The fact is, they fail to mention that the NintendoLife article says they pay the developers to make most of the games. Royalties are a nice bonus when development is paid for. I love the source it's a good laugh and people who like he said she said gossip should like it too, but it should go in the controversy section. If you want to leave the part about the one Flash game fine, it's only one Amico game out of dozens. And yes they did say that new exclusive content has been created for it, just as they demonstrated exclusive content for the few other games that have been ported from other systems. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the Kotaku article information reads as if it's being posted with the intention of having someone go and read the article rather than adding information to the wiki. I removed the original entry because of this and it feels like its been posted in the same way again. Does this feel like a legitimate addition that adds development info to the wiki? Thanks! Jrose724 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to that, the paragraph says there are games ported from the Flash platform, where the source referenced says those games (the Sesame Street games) are not using the Flash platform. It says they were Flash at some point. This is correct because years ago they were rewritten using Html5. The Amico Sesame Street games are ports of Html5 games not Flash games. The paragraph also says the writer of the source reference is a journalist but he doesn't call himself a journalist nor does anyone else. A76707554 (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so while the semantics of a game that was in Flash later recoded into HTML5 are argued pointlessly, are the road apples that fall from the mouth of Tommy Tallarico himself considered a reliable source? He's said a lot of things, that lies or otherwise, are statements from the self-purported CEO of Intellivision Entertainment. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The "road apples" document, is, of course, filled with out-of-context hyperbole, sensationalism and exaggeration, so it is road apples itself.Daltonsatom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what the CEO says. A 2018 company press release says the version of a game on Amico is to be exclusive. Meaning other versions of the same game can exist. As Jrose724 said, the kotaku paragraph says nothing relevant and even has incorrect facts. It is merely a link to an external article A76707554 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A76707554 (talk), let's read the section header again. To wit: Removal of reliably-sourced content. In pushing aside a lame edit war over games that once were Flash and are now HTML5, the question was asked if Tommy's own words were considered a reliable source, irrelevant of the natter. Especially since the CEO has been proven as self-contradictory, flippantly changing words as the winds blow. Here's an article from 2018 citing that there were going to be no ports, dating back to the original press release, from Comicbooks.com If even the veracity of this press release is to be doubted, has a single true word been said about the Amico? 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Another example of why you just can't blindly reference web articles. These aren't journalists, these aren't journalistic news sites. Besides the company is more than the CEO. There are four founding partners and the company has used consultans including a marketing firm from the beginning. A76707554 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The web article contains a link which leads to their press release (via ResetEra), including a PDF directly from the company and videos directly from Intellivision itself. Which also contains lies such as the employment status of several founding members, including J. Allard. Who was namedropped numerous times in spite of having never worked for or with Amico. Just how far does one have to go to make a point about how nothing Intellivision has said as a company can be considered true without second guessing it? We're not in school, one is allowed to do a little research for themselves. And that research shows them talking out both ends of their mouths. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If the kotaku writer read the press release they would know that exclusivity refers to the game version. The writer would also know from the ten commandments image that specifically mentions ports on Amico with exclusive content. Amico games have exclusive content, it's not a lie. How can you say Allard never worked on Amico. Perhaps you're referring to this quote from Fig's lawyer to SEC, " considering his contributions overall, Mr. Allard has not played a material role in Amico product development." Well it obviously says he made contributions to Amico. "during that time, Mr. Allard served as a full-time advisor to Intellivision, helping Intellivision in the final stages of Amico hardware development." You're out of line saying Allard didn't work on Amico. A76707554 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthbysouthBaranof stated above that original research is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia, so this "research for themselves" that 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE keeps slipping in is, in fact, prohibited here. His additions also include misinformation, such as saying the Playdate has launched as of Dec. 29, 2021, when it has not, that COVID-19 has hardly affected other businesses and that J Allard never worked for or with Intellivision and, ironically, repeatedly stating that missing a target date or changing business direction was the CEO lying. This editor appears so misinformed or prone to adding misinformation that his additions to Wikipedia seem untrustworthy. Daltonsatom (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

All the following are not trustworthy resources, is this what this omnishambles of a talk page wishes to imply?

• https://kotaku.com/the-new-gaming-console-thats-become-a-giant-car-crash-1847699027
• https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/intellivision-amico-game-lands-tommy-tallarico-in-hot-water
• https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-10-11-intellivision-amico-games-go-on-sale-for-console-still-without-launch-date
• https://www.cbr.com/intellivision-amico-things-ruined-excitement-console/
• https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/amico-games-are-available-now-despite-the-console-not-having-a-release-date/
• https://www.looper.com/482697/intellivision-amico-release-date-games-list-specs-pre-order-info/
• https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/10/the-intellivision-amico-has-a-unique-approach-to-physical-media-and-digital-ownership
• https://www.ign.com/articles/intellivision-amico-delayed-for-a-third-time-to-end-of-2021
• https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/intellivision-amico-games-go-on-sale-despite-console-having-no-launch-date-3067591

The Amico has a few problems. Which it is felt fair to report on them, with just a few in mind being:

• The six pack in games are incomplete. The console was announced in 2018, as a gentle reminder.
• The app store is still incomplete and beholds itself to no style guidelines.
• RFID cards have yet to be demonstrated in function.
• The NFT aspect of the console mysteriously vanished. This was harped on about as a feature for several months on Atari Age by the CEO (post #29519 for example); to the point of even claiming to have gotten a grant for the technology.
• Account management in the cloud hasn't been mentioned.
• How did a man whose job it is to oversee the well being of the entire company manage to overlook lifted assets?
• FCC certification has yet to show. The console cannot ship internationally if this is missing.
• None of the ten box games were completed; many containing copyediting errors and poor proofreading.
• Moon Patrol's intro text was a placeholder lifted from Star Fox 64.
• Earthworm Jim 4 is currently MIA.
• No serious investor updates for 3+ months after monthly updates all year.
• No real marketing campaign despite (allegedly) having a CMO.
• Retail box design not completed.
• Deleting reasonable questions on corporate social media and banning many.
• "Anonymous" social media accounts used to praise the CEO's self-aggrandizing.
• Finnegan Fox title screen showed "press A", when Amico has no button labels whatsoever.
• CEO claims transparency regarding the console and functions, yet this talk page is in this state. Plans may change, but it is typically in the interest of an unproven company to be open about these.
• The involvement of Angels & Entrepreneurs and Palm Beach Research Group leaves a concern shaped hole. Is Tommy complicit, or unaware of the problems these two groups have?
• All of this. Especially anything relating to the phrase net loss.

Dissect the frog how it may be desired, but this is a choice of a swamp to decide to die on. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • I must add I did not make any of the Jan4, 2022 comment but simply replaced it after undoing the deletion of the entirety of the discussion above the "Removal of reliably-sourced content" header that was deleted by 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE. So, we can add what seems like moderate vandalism to his list of infractions. Although, Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not fan pages, they are also not venues for soap-boxing or "public service announcements" against the subject of the article or those associated with it, especially those still living as spelled out in talk page guidelines Daltonsatom (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange and confusing edits coming from yet another guy 2601:540:8200:89f:c576:2539:3ea0:a09b trying to use the same hate soap-boxing reddit forum moderated by a user named "Tommy Poopypants" for citations as if it could be deemed in any way reliable. More of the same dubious intention possible.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• No idea what this massive wall of text argument is all about, but you can check and see WP:VG/S to see that most of these sources are deemed reliable, though a few aren't. (Looper, Tech, CBR is extremely iffy I think.) That said, a ton of past content or proposals have had all sorts of tone and POV-pushing issues, so it takes more than the sources just being usable too, it has to do with how you use them, if there are WP:UNDUE issues, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Practically all his sources are either already already used for citations in the reference section (so illogically in his list) or unreliable and his list of comments is ambiguously cited as a format.Daltonsatom (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What user 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE said in that last comment are either wrong or irrelevant. For example, there's no evidence that the six packins aren't ready, what the original target release date is irrelevant to that. And in their physical games introduction video, their software director did say each physical game is an NFT on the blockchain. Doesn't matter as Wikipedia should stick to facts. And it doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times, if the cited article gets something wrong it shouldn't be in wikipedia. A76707554 (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Massive cleanup due

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI, an editor has alerted the video games Wikiproject of the state of the article. And rightfully so, this article is in atrocious state. And I don't believe it's just one party's fault either. On one hand, we appear to have an editor editing on behalf of the company. On the other hand, we seem to have some sort of Reddit or online congregation of sorts that's also going out of it's way to portray the company/product in a negative light. Honestly, both sides are out of line, and it's resulted in a mess of an article. Expect some big changes to the article soon, as it's current state is unacceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some notes:

• We use the wording "upcoming" for future releases. We only use "unreleased" for things that have been cancelled. While its been delayed indefinitely, it has not been cancelled outright. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• We don't need sources in the intro per WP:LEAD. They need to be trimmed out or moved to the body, depending on whether or not they're also present in the body. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• As the tag currently suggests, there's far too many primary sources being used. We are not a mouthpiece for Intellivision. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ferret: I wouldn't have thought it was policy to be able to use the Talk page as a podium for the sort of final smear campaign against the article topic that would not be allowed in the article itself. But, whatever.Daltonsatom (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's 100% within the purpose of an article's talk page to question whether sources are valid. In this case, they're dead wrong, but it's within the scope of discussion. -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've ran into a few policies that were counter-intuitive, but that's life. I wouldn't think of using the Talk page of the XBox One article to go on a long 800 word rant about something like dropping the Kinect and Kinect Fitness and the obscure groups that have spoke out against them for it and still exist, like the Dance Central super-fans. That's why I've said before I've seen why Wikipedia is not considered a primary source by educational institutions.Daltonsatom (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are largely unseen by the general public and average reader, and a lot of the prior discussions are almost unreadable walls of text, so there's really nothing to worry about here. (Though it's stuff like this that probably keeps giving everyone COI-vibes honestly.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm done with this joke of a site and my five years of donating to it. Have fun. Let the trolls come and have it once you get bored and find other things to do like the big shots who dropped by in the past to "make big changes" . They can vandalize this article to their hearts content and you won't get anymore FALSE reports of me having a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, I've got it from here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. Saves me $50 a year and hours a month better spent elsewhere than this thankless volunteering. You can do all this and then the trolls can come and undo it. Bye.Daltonsatom (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup discussion

Space for discussion on the ongoing cleanup happening. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I just took a crack at remaking the entire history section for the article... it's a doozy of a history, but would love some more sets of eyes on it. Nomader (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It's already better than it's ever been. I'll try to work through it further later in the week. Sergecross73 msg me 04:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to take a gander (maybe if I have time) later this week at syncing up all of the references-- I used visual editor and updated a lot of the old ones, so there's probably some duplicates between the sections. Nomader (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Read through the entire article this morning and could find only one issue with a statement from a source, which I edited. Well done, I am in agreeance with Serge, you went above and beyond. This page is in far better shape than it was just 5 days ago. Be sure to take some (or all) credit for recreating this page, you definitely deserve it. 72.188.152.89 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Great catch on the source, thanks! Nomader (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

It's not bad, a few minor mistakes. My suggestion is to leave writer's opinions out of wikipedia and stick to the facts. Here are my comments.

Intellivision Entertainment was founded by four people, David Perry, Nick Richards, Steve Roney, Tommy Tallarico. (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/intellivision-entertainment) The wikipedia article makes it sound like the company was built by one person. Minor point is that although Keith Robinson passed in 2017 it's not known when or if Tallarico purchased a stake in the company. A new company was created and assets transferred. Steve Roney is the surviving owner of Intellivision Productions and a founding partner of Intellivision Entertainment. Robinson and Roney's company Intellivision Productions has been renamed Blue Sky Rangers Inc and remains an independent entity.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Crunchbase is not a reliable source, and the reliable sources have only named Tallarico from what I've seen. If you have access to a source that meets WP:VG/RS, I'm all ears here. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to list the four founding partners but you should say it is the new company Intellivision Entertainment who is planning to launch a new console. A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Tallarico did not announce in May 2018 that he is re-launching Intellivision (hyperlinked to the 1979 console). Rather he announced that in October his company Intellivision Entertainment will announce the name and other details of a new family home video game system.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fair point here, clarified that he wanted to launch it as a "re-launch as a new, retro branded console". The source clearly states relaunch -- even in the title of the piece. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It still reads like they're re-launching the 1979 Intellivision like an Intellivision mini console that plays classic Intellivision games.A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Earthworm Jim license was not announced until more than six months after Amico was announced, and no it was not announced to be in development at that time. The initial console target prices were not rumours they were in the press release.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I placed it here because I felt it makes sense with the prose. On the target prices-- fixed. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine but it's not correct history unless you say "On May 1 2019, ...", because the way it is written it sounds like it was in the initial announcement in October 2018." And it was an announced licensed title, people are sensitive to saying a title is in development if programmers are not actively programming the game. A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The insominia source is not correct as Amico was never planned for a worldwide launch. Launch limited to North America and Europe, and Middle East now included at that time. A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure how you'd personally know that, but either way we have to follow what the reliable sources say, and Gulf News is clearly a reliable source here. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I know? Primary sources. You can get simple facts off of their website. As that article was written in 2019, you should know that they since pulled back from launching in the Middle East and went back to a North America and Europe launch before moving to other markets, per the company web site. Of course now they are looking at a softlaunch.A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear it is Venture Beat that wrote 10k preorders, not an announcement of Intellivision Entertainmnet. And it should be preorders not orders, as Venture Beat wrote 100k in purchase orders.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Changed orders to preorders. Intellivision Entertainment revealed the preorder numbers to Venture Beat, so we note here that Intellivision Entertainment announced it, not that Venture Beat did-- Venture Beat isn't in the business of selling consoles. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Fig campaign raised about $11.5M when it closed. The amount was likely around $5.5M with eight months to go when that article was written. It should be clarified that the Fig campaign was a revenue investment program to distinguish it from kickstarter style crowdfunding.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The source says "The device has since raised a further $5.5 million via a Fig crowdfunding campaign." Because the reliable source said that it was a crowdfunding campaign, that's what I put in here. I haven't seen an updated reliable source with the 11.5 figure, but if you have one, would be happy to add it in. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You know that Wikipedia does not forbid the use of primary sources especially when it is about simple facts. I'm not suggesting you use a primary source here. But the fact is that the Fig campaign closed in April 2021 and this source was written on August 5, 2020. So for Wikipedia to be correct you'd have to write that "as of August 5,2020, the company had raised $5.5 million dollars through Fig revenue sharing investments." You can't say they received the money because they don't receive it until after the campaign closes.A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To put in context what Fakhruddin said, Shark Shark is not played with the touchscreen, so he did not experience lag when playing the game. His complaint was only when selecting his fish and colour on the touchscreen, the controller display lagged not the TV display. To be clear he also said "we found the console, and its games, to be fun and engaging". Wikipedia only takes a negative opinion here. Wikipedia should stick to the facts.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith among editors, I'm just trying to write as neutral an article as I can. I cleaned up the IGN pieces here and also added in the second part of your added quote, which is "... but came away less than impressed with its controller, and questioned its price point of $250 when the Nintendo Switch is already leading that market segment." Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your intentions, my comments would be pointless if that were the issue. Again the writer did not say playing Shark Shark was laggy. He actually said the game had no lag on twitter to clarify his article. If you want to write what he said in his article, you can say, "he felt the touchscreen was not very responsive when selecting the fish and LED colour in Shark Shark". A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Later this Wikipedia article says "They noted that older presentations had shown 'large' amounts of lag", the Ars source actually says "Older Amico videos have shown apparent lag". Where did "large" come from?

A76707554 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Allard, the SEC did not send a letter to IE. It was Fig/Republic that wrote a letter to SEC clarifying the situation. The letter is available for all to see here. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001658966/000121390021015823/filename1.htm The letter states that it is a response to an oral comment by SEC staff during discussions of a prior amendment. In the letter it is clear the SEC is concerned with how Allard's status affects the development of the console. The letter explains it doesn't as Allard's involvement is minor and he remains available as an advisor.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per the reliable source, Kotaku, it says, "This is illegal and as a result, the SEC sent a letter to Intellivision asking for clarification on when Allard had left." We source the reliable, secondary source, not the primary source here. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If a source writes something that is not true than by definition it is not a reliable source

A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of truth, the primary source, the letter, will be used to present the actual facts about the letter. Please refer to Wikipedias guidance on the use of primary sources.

A76707554 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say that August 2020 delay was due to manufacturing issues.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I deleted the word "manufacturing" to better meet the source, which says, "An official release states the decision comes after efforts to "overcome the myriad of obstacles and constraints imposed by the global pandemic." It now says "The console was delayed in August 2020 to a new release date of April 2021 because of issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic." Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say Tallarico revealed at E3 hiring a number of original Intellivision creators. They were introduced back in October 2018.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The source says, "He [Tallarico] has rounded up many of the original Intellivision’s game creators. They’re remaking some of the original games for the old Intellivision, such as Breakout, but with modern designs." I don't have an earlier reliable source that I can remember that says that in 2018-- maybe I'm just missing it? If you have one, would happily put it up in the first paragraph. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The source simply said "He has rounded up many of the original Intellivision’s game creators." The source does not say it was revealed in 2021, that's because it was revealed back in 2018. A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Digital Foundry's comments were not on the E3 presentation. They were on a another video that was released shortly after. However they are mistaken because if you compare the two videos in question, while the intro is the same, most of the video footage of Amico games are different and not seen before. Actually it's not Digital Foundry that's mistaken, they are not the ones that made the comparison. They are simply repeating rumours created by others. And now wikipedia is repeating them.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per our verifiability policy, we must simply report what sources say. In this case, you were definitely right-- it was Gamescom not E3. I clarified in the prose here. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In no way does the verifiability policy say that Wikipedia must report what someone said that is wrong. And just because you don't have an acceptable secondary source to say it is wrong, doesn't change the fact that wikipedia is presenting wrong statements. A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that Kotaku is referencing a youtuber named "Goose", Goose is not an approved reliable source. Similary Ars Technica references a Digital Foundry podcast, not a written article. The podcast commentator clearly did not fact check before making the comment in the podcast. The sources for this statement about a 2021 Gamescom presentation are not approved reliable sources. A76707554 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The console being weak relative to other gaming consoles is neither a revelation or an issue, as that is how the hardware has been presented from the beginning with it's 2D focus. What Machovich writes as negatives, e.g. $10 games and no DLC are only his opinion as others consider them to be positives. His comparison of revenue sharing with what the Apple store takes is a gross misrepresentation as Apple does not share in the development work nor fund the developers during development. Apple simply takes a commission on the sale of other people's software. The zdnet article writes about the financial support Intellivision Entertainment provides its developers.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Completely fair opinion to hold, but I haven't seen anything written like that in reliable sources. Would be completely fine to add that in if someone else held a dissenting view, but I haven't seen anything. On the development front, I just scanned the ZDNet article and I don't see anything that explicitly says they're sharing in the development costs-- can you point me in the right direction here? Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

From the Znet article "To address that issue, the new Intellivision is putting its cash where its code is, paying developers to produce promising games as an advance against future royalties." This is not an opinion. Do you think Apple is sharing in the losses with apps that don't make money? As I said the comparison is a gross misrepresentation and should be removed from the article.A76707554 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither article cited says the company shipped 6000 units. And the Ars Technica does in fact say that it expects the company to ship its preorders. It's Intellivision Entertainment that stated it's initial production might only fill the earliest preorders before they move production to Asia.A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Ars Technica article states: "A completed, working "Amico" may well land in preorder customers' hands by the end of 2022, but an updated estimate from Intellivision reports only 6,000 orders in the wild." Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ars is incorrectly referencing its source heise.de. The source is simply saying that 6000 preorders will be served first. The actual source of the 6000 number is an investment page, https://www.fundable.com/intellivision. The investment page says 6000 direct preorders; preorders through third-parties (e.g. retailers) takes the total higher. To further clarify, preorders through retailers are a smaller subset of the 100k retailer purchase orders. Without the direct qualifier, Wikipedia is wrong stating that preorders are limited to 6000. The "direct" qualifier will be added using the primary source and Wikipedia's guidance using a primary sources for simple facts. A76707554 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A76707554 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You, much like all the various IPs, need to discuss things in more manageable segments. This is way too much to meaningfully discuss all at once. It's probably one of the reasons why this page has been non-stop ongoing disputes. Walls of text like that are not conducive to problem solving. One issue at a time please. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Each paragraph is a very manageable segment, take one at a time, feel free to talk about any one of them. A76707554 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@A76707554: I took a gander at going through all of your comments (made some changes to the prose and such per them too). Hopefully addressed all of your concerns here, there are a couple of areas where you mentioned things in sources that I wasn't able to find so asked you for follow-ups with them. Nomader (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nomader, you went above and beyond to address so many points at once like that. One other thing to clarify - A76707554, you keep saying things about "leaving opinions out of the article", but there is no such requirement to do so. Opinions are completely fine if they're attributed to reliable sources and given proper context and attribution. So I think you've got to adjust your mindset a bit there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion to leave out opinions not a mindset; and it's for the neutrality that Wikipedia demands. The subject here is a product that has yet to be released. Few authorised source writers have played it, leaving not much of a pool of opinions to source. Take lag as an example. An anonymous youtuber does frame analysis using other people's 30fps youtube videos of Amico games at varying stages of development; finds varying amounts of input latency most are inline with games on xbox/playstation systems. The lag complaint is repeated by other anonymous internet commentators and ends up in an Ars article, the writer having never played an Amico game not unlike the original youtuber. Since then the Amico has had more public play, and more video game writers have had time with it. Lag is not an issue by those that played it, yet the Wikipedia article reads like it is. One web site heise.de wrote "There is a lot of speculation in the Amico community about whether the latency during controller inputs is unusually high - an impression that was apparently created by misleading video scenes. In fact, we did not notice a noticeable delay between input and response; input felt just as low-latency as on other gaming consoles." A76707554 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to note here that I boldly changed the title of the "controversies mount" section in an attempt have a more neutral-sounding section header in line with WP:CSECTION. Not sure I succeeded in my goal but wanted to make the note here just to make it abundantly clear. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was having similar thoughts. On one hand, it didn't seem wrong per se, but on the other hand, guidance is generally to not have "Controversy" sections, and that was veering slightly against the spirit of that guidance. Probably best to skew more cautiously with all the strong emotions this subject seems to elicit out of some of the editors involved. So I think your section title is better for this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good with it as well on my end, thanks for the changes, Purplewowies. I wasn't really sure where or how to break them off and I feel this is a much better fit. Nomader (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of File:Intellivision Amico Controller.gif

Seeing as this image has been added and removed from the article several times, it seems that we need to have a discussion on it. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the gif adds nothing to the section while making it look incredibly promotional. The animation does not add anything that is not already covered in the image directly above it and in the accompanied prose. Why do we need an animation to see that it is wireless, has a color touchscreen, and a "proportional circle" (again, what?)? How does the animation of the controller being slightly rotated to show it has a gyroscope and accelerometer? Similar arguments for the "force feedback" and RFID. Pinging related parties: Daltonsatom Purplewowies. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there just a screenshot of the controller out there? That would be sufficient, and wouldn't look like it was supplied by Intellivision for promotion or something. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I could fairly easily to extract one from the aforementioned gif and place it on a transparent background. The image directly above it includes a controller already, however. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good compromise. I think we should do that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

All set. File:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The still image we have would seem to be sufficient. While it's wonderful that permission for these was attained and they are on Commons, the gif being literal marketing material I think crosses a link. It'll still be on Commons, in the Intellivision Amico category, for those who want to see more images from the external links templates. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your very low res extraction looks like crap. Isn't there some policy for minimum resolution of static image? But go ahead and make the page look crappy if you want.Daltonsatom (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. And a lot less like a promotional piece. It's a net positive. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's low res because the gif is low res. If resolution is a concern, the gif is bad too. -- ferret (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Making things worse already. I'd rather you just removed it like ferret suggested than turn what I got into crap. It's all fuzzy. And gifs are animated, so they can have lower graphics because the animation smooths them out. Daltonsatom (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If your negativity doesn't improve, I will improve it for you. -- ferret (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There's zero rationale or support for just removing everything entirely. Please stop. Your comments are increasingly unconstructive, and more about being mad about not doing things strictly your way. The gif can be, and probably is, somewhere on the Amico promotional website. But it's very seldom you see something like that on Wikipedia. So don't be so surprised it's not being used here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ja voll. Ugh. Good riddance. Keep your GRAY controller image. I don't remember gray being a choice color. Oh, well.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the grab was rather grey. For some reason, the controller on the left was darker; I've updated the image. Looks much whiter now. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILESIZEDaltonsatom (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't aid your argument in any way. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I removed the gif in my own revert, I did so because it read as promotional both on first glance and alongside the content on closer inspection (and I really don't appreciate that that good faith revert was met with a revert that included a wholly WP:uncivil edit summary toward me).

More to this section's actual point, anyway, since I was pinged: Just because the license was verified and filed with OTRS (or whatever it's called now, it's been awhile--probably a decade--since I've filed an OTRS ticket and I know its name has changed) doesn't automatically make it appropriate for use in an encyclopedia article (the image use policy also mentions animations should be used sparingly even when they're appropriate and it's often better to use a static image that links to the animation if an animation is appropriate). I agree that the static image is better and I think its resolution is completely adequate here for what it's being used for--in fact, the default thumbnail resolution (listed at WP:IMAGESIZE, which is different from FILESIZE to make clear) is pretty close to this images width. (That doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger but we can't just, like, magically make the gif higher resolution to have a higher resolution still cropped from it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, since I've seen Daltonsatom misquote me repeatedly on this. I agree with removal of the Gif. The still image is fine. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Same. Bizarre I need to clarify this, as I was the one who first suggested getting a still image of the controller to replace the promotional gif at the top of this very section. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a complete WP:TANTRUM, and at the completely wrong venue. Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've issued a retraction of the nomination for deletion. I don't know how long that will take. Also, If you think I am a sockpuppet I am not. I had no problem confronting you head on, even if it was five or six against one.Daltonsatom (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly referring to you. I thought you rage-quit days ago and weren't even around anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't had six people appear and form a consensus against me on Wikipedia at once in my two years of minor editing. It can make you a bit mercurial, especially when similar activities have all been done by on a smaller scale only by the reddit trolls and only reddit trolls had accused me of a conflict of interest.Daltonsatom (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

I see. Well, sometimes this is also happens when an editor contacts an active WP:WIKIPROJECT and neurally notifies them of disputes and requests experienced editors to assist, which is what has been going on for the last few days. I've been editing Wikipedia for 12+ years and have maintained and reworked a bunch of video game console articles over the years. I have no particularly strong feelings for or against the Amico. I'm just active, knowledgeable editor in the content area. It's the same with Ferret, Nomader, Purple, Pbrks, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, two years since my first edit. Time flies.Daltonsatom (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the first three times saying I wasn't a COI was just a reddit group guy posting the idea in the Amico talk page and me posting it wasn't true, this was the first time one was sent to my user page or by an admin. Probably the only thing sent there except the Teahouse invite.Daltonsatom (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Games section paragraphs

VentureBeat writes "intellivision is targeting the Amico at families for couch play". Zdnet writes "The Amico designers have rethought the dynamics around competition between players of different skill levels and are advocating games that intelligently monitor progress to dynamically change difficulty level as one player demonstrates a clear skill advantage." I write "The goal for the Amico system is couch co-op, family gaming among people of all ages and skill levels. Therefore all games will have both local multiplayer and single-player modes, some up to eight players, and a design goal for dynamic game difficulty balancing.", however my contribution is dismissed as being written by a PR guy. Kindly explain.

The dynamic game balancing idea was previously deleted due to lacking a source. I restored it with Zdnet as the source. Is that not an acceptable source?

A76707554 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just skimming, but I think the problem the reverter had was likely with the tone and phrasing sounding more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. WP:RSP says ZDnet is generally reliable for tech articles, but even with a reliable source the tone and information should be appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct on all accounts. A lot of the sentiments like focusing on family friendly and local multiplayer was already present anyways. Stuff like Intellivision Entertainment plans to offer a variety of Amico games including motion control games, sports and recreation, cards and other tabletop games, children's and educational games, reimagined classic video games, and games based on original properties reads like something out of a commercial. And is completely unnecessary- there's a game list directly below the paragraph where the reader can read all about what games are planned. It was a lot of fluff and bloat. I did miss that the zdnet source citing the dynamic difficulty. I guess that's maybe worth mentioning somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 04:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes some things were already in the games section paragraphs and still in the games section after I updated it. The list of the different types of games is not completely unnecessary. How is someone to know some games are original ideas, or some games are motion control by looking at a bunch of titles? Others may not be familiar with the retro reimagined titles or some of the traditional table games to know what they are. It's not fluff or bloat.

A76707554 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

All platform holders state their intention to have a variety of games. What do you think they're going to say, "Well there's going to be a real lack or RPGs on our console"? It's worthless PR fluff made redundant by an actual game list anyways. Motion controls should be mentioned in the hardware/controller sections, which it already is. If it has motion control capabilities, the reader will know some games will have motion control features. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the word variety, it can be taken out. If you have issue with mentioning motion controls, it can be taken out, although I would disagree as there are complaints that the system has hardware features that aren't being utilised by the games. Maybe the games section should say something about the simple nature and shorter play times of Amico games e.g. lack of RPGs A76707554 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who re-wrote the history section originally, but I wasn't the one who reverted your edit here-- although I'm inclined to agree with Sergecross73 and Purplewowies here. There's a few things that were really wonky about it (which is why I removed it from the history section):

• The exclusive games claim was accurate when ZDNet wrote it back when the Amico was first announced, but per Kotaku's reporting, it seems to be false now. The Kotaku article noted that the exclusive games were actually ports from iOS and Android in a lot of cases, and some of the games are just carbon copies from PC web releases that are still available online right now. You may disagree with this statement, but Wikipedia doesn't seek truth-- it seeks "verifiability." What do reliable sources say? In our case here, ZDNet is a reliable source, and they were reporting on what they believed to be accurate at the time, but it's become clear that over time, that situation has changed-- hence why it's best addressed in a more detailed history section in proper context (instead of being misleadingly represented here). The IGN piece that you cite for the exclusivity is actually a primary source, cited from a statement from the President of the company-- not a reliable source here.
• The design goal piece seems very aspirational, instead of saying what is directly planned from these games.
• The ratings piece seems over-detailed for what should be on Wikipedia. We've already mentioned in the History section prose the plan for the ESRB rating limits. The ZDNet source only mentions that ESRB ratings must be E or E10+ and doesn't mention other countries, while the Comicbook.com source is unreliable because only Liam Robinson articles are considered a reliable enough source per this discussion at WP:VG.

You said in a comment above, "Doesn't matter as Wikipedia should stick to facts. And it doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times, if the cited article gets something wrong it shouldn't be in wikipedia." This statement is the antithesis of Wikipedia-- we are not arbiters of truth, but we are instead accurate reporters of what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. Nomader (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Znet article does say "versions of games that appear on the Amico will all be exclusive, at least in some respect". No the situation has not changed regarding exclusive content. The Kotaku article does not say that the exclusive games were actually ports from iOS and Android in a lot of cases. It mentions two android games ported to Amico and in fact says, regarding one of them that the Amico version has exclusive content. It does not say some of the games are just carbon copies from PC web releases that are still available online right now (i.e. Sesame Street). The writer says it is unknown. Nothing in Kotaku contradicts what Znet said about exclusive content.

The design goal is a directive. We can include actual examples of its implementation but they would not necessarily have sources. Lack of sources of the examples does not invalidate the existence of the design goal which is properly sourced.

I agree the ratings can be simplified but it does belong in the games section.

A76707554 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we're on the cusp here but we're missing the mark. You just said that the Kotaku author says that "it is unknown", but the article actually says: "[...] so how these are exclusive to the Amico is currently unknown." They're using this in a pejorative turn of phrase to emphasize that these games aren't exclusive, not that there's confusion in the wording. On the design goal piece-- we shouldn't include just design goals sourced to primary sources. They should be covered as part of the coverage of the console, and even then they have to be inside the scope of what the article should actually be covering here. In the re-write of the history section, I did include a brief note about the commandments of game design and commentary from a reliable source on it, which I feel is probably the extent that it should be written about here from my perspective-- but happy to hear thoughts from other people too if I'm out of line on that. Nomader (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku writer is giving their opinion that the Sesame Street game "will" not have new content. Although they say it is currently "unknown", that is not entirely true as the company has said that they are incorporating motion control and are using the official voice actors for the new content. So it is uninformed speculation. Nevertheless, the writer says it is "unknown" and does not contradict what the Znet article says about games having exclusive content beyond some speculation. The note in the history/controversy section about design guidelines doesn't state any facts about it, only a writer's opinion on it. This is a design guideline that becomes a feature in games. Again the Zdnet article covers dynamic game balancing as an acceptable source, and discusses in the context of games which where it should be. A76707554 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I respect where you're coming from here, but I disagree with what the writer is saying in the Kotaku piece on it here. Clearly they're implying that the exclusive game piece that was originally announced in press articles hasn't come to fruition (and that's okay!). I ahven't seen any sources on the motion controls/voiceover stuff, so can't add that in here until reliable sources cover it. Nomader (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it has or hasn't come to fruition. What matters is what the writer actually wrote in this article. "It seems very unlikely that these games will feature any new content or modes, so how these are exclusive to the Amico is currently unknown." We know that Sesame Street on Amico are ports of existing games. However, the Amico game hasn't been released and nobody has played it, including this writer. The writer opines that it is unlikely, uses the word "seems" indicating doubt on the writers part, and finally says that how these are exclusive to Amico is "currently" unknown which is a true statement. The writer says currently because he hasn't seen the Amico version of the game and once the game is revealed his opinion might change. If the writer was using a pejorative, he wouldn't have said "currently". Either way, it's a speculative comment by the writer, and in no way a statement of fact. A76707554 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hrm, I've officially reached writer's block for this page for a bit, I think. @Sergecross73: and @Purplewowies:, if y'all have any ideas on how to write this sentence better, I'd appreciate it. I tried changing "Zwiezen noted that a number of the games being released were not exclusive games, but instead iOS and Android game ports for the console" to "Zwiezen noted that a number of the games being released were not exclusive games, but instead iOS and Android game ports for the console with exclusive features, like a multiplayer mode for an Evil Knievel game that was originally released in 2015." I think there's probably a middle ground between the two of them somewhere. Nomader (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what A7's suggestion would be, besides outright removal. There's clearly some sentiment that needs to be expressed out of this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just skimming through for anything that jumps out. One was "The presentation showcased games that were already available as free web games" sounds like maybe that's all there were in the presentation. So, just a grammar clarification point. Also, I believe other consoles have ports of games, such as arcade games, on them that are free on the computer, so, I'm not sure this is newsworthy.

Regarding lag: This Wikipedia article says "They noted that older presentations had shown large amounts of lag." By what scientifically accepted method did they note it. How can they be sure it is accurately determined. We're stating it as if they are experts on it. Really, the Ars Technica article referenced says: "Older Amico videos have shown apparent lag between controller input and TV display", not large amounts of lag. Is large amounts of lag stated somewhere else in the article? What is "apparent lag" anyway? It would mean they were uncertain if it is really true Merriam-Webster: "manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid"; Google Dictionary.com: "seeming real or true, but not necessarily so".Daltonsatom (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop it. That's ridiculous. Lag is noticeable by the human mind/eyes. A reliable source stating they noticed lag is sufficient. I'm trying my best to believe you when you said you don't have a conflict of interest, but the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to whitewash minor negative sentiments from the article is making it difficult. COI or not, you're clearly POV-pushing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Apparent as an adjective means what I defined it as. Are they saying something rather than what their words mean? I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm just wanting to express it accurately. If they say apparent, why is that transposed as large?Daltonsatom (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They experienced/observed lag and made note of it. That's it. Your interpretation is needlessly obtuse. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just curious, really. Some people think 90ms is large lag. Maybe it is. I'm not a hard core gamer. I know I do better on a CRT than a laptop on the same game, but I don't notice lag.Daltonsatom (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Question that's relevant for this section-- Sergecross73 has been doing a great job of adding references for all the announced games, but.... is a list this detailed something that we actually need? Or is this something that could be included in prose? The Atari VCS article doesn't have a list of games, although major consoles do. Figure I should bring this up for discussion to gut check myself here. Nomader (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's generally acceptable to have a games list for most game consoles. I think it feels awkward here because it's quite long to keep in the article, but spinning it out doesn't seem justified yet because the console isn't out, we lack release dates, and the fate of the games is interwoven with the console. So I say keep it around... I can't speak to why the VCS doesn't have a list, but plenty of odd consoles have standalone game list articles, PC-FX, FM Towns, etc. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of in that awkward in-between phase, where it's getting a bit long, but it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON to split it into its own article yet. Once it's more fleshed out it can be split out (even the Ouya has managed this with List of Ouya games) and that will rectify the concern. Sergecross73 msg me 12:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sergecross73 asks "Unclear why other sources and links were removed though?" I didn't think I deleted any other sources. Burgertime incorrectly linked to a fast food chain. And Skiing linked to the classic Intellivision Skiing 1980 game. Amico Skiing is just a skiing game, not really related to the Intellivision Skiing game other than its the same sport. Linking to classic video games is problematic in this list. This is because the section does not say that these games are new retro reimagined games. An uninformed reader will get the impression that they are classic Intellivision games emulated on Amico.A76707554 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Try to express that sort of stuff in your edit summaries. On those grounds, I'm indifferent to your edit. In my research, it seems like things have been relatively unclear on if some of these games are ports, remasters, remakes, or sequels, or something else, so it's a bit unclear if/where they should be linked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's clear they fall in the "retro reimagined" category aka reboots among the five categories reported here, although some might be closer to remakes. Emulated classic video games or ports/remasters of classic video games are not among the categories listed. A76707554 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, if that's the case, then they should be linked to whatever game it's "reimagining", and that article should have a note about it being reimagined too, ideally. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Just wanted to make sure all participants are familiar with WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET. I'm getting the feeling there are some editors violating it - there's some tell-tale signs that are generally pretty obvious to experienced editors. Please stop before this needs to be escalated. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SergeCross73. I'd like to point out the contributor Guidoman. They are quite possibly an Intellivision staff member, who is playing defense for the Amico project. Isn't that a WP:Conflict, potentially? I realize it's not entirely the issue, but it feels like one worthy of being pointed out. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To echo Serge, I also have the same sentiments. It looks like this article has multiple examples of WP:COI and WP:MEATPUPPET from what appear to be several agitated parties. The most consistent attempts at edits seem to be coming from a WP:Single-purpose account to argue against any inclusions they deem unsatisfactory. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for individual editor's opinions of an author's intent. It is simply to report what was stated by reliable sources. I also did want to note; Guidoman only appeared after this clear single-purpose account was challenged and had a WP:TANTRUM, wherein they claimed they wanted their account deleted and were done editing, but have clearly failed to stay away. If this continues, I believe this page will require arbitration and any single-purpose accounts should be barred from further discussion. I think we have all have seen that there is a very clear attempt to purge this page of potential negatives, and even the most minor nitpicks are hotly debated in an inappropriate manner. 72.188.152.89 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration is going a bit far. We've plenty of tools and options before that. You yourself would be barred if "single purpose" discussion was blocked here. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, correct. A number of experienced editors are monitoring and maintaining things now, and have things under control. Thank you for pointing the COI/SOCK issues. But to be clear, we need to maintain a neutral point of view on both sides of things. Wikipedia is not the place for a company and related parties to promote their product and whitewash negative sentiments. But this also isn't the place for fans/redditors to air their grievances or write hit pieces either. I've also seen that attempted, both here and at some Amico related pages. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup discussion part 2

Moving this out here because it'll get buried in the other section. I just finished making some adjustments to the lead-- could someone spot check the way that I ended that last sentence though? I'm a bit concerned that it comes across as not really NPOV-y. Next step will be to merge together the refs that Sergecross73 has found in the table with what I've formatted in the main body copy. Nomader (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just leave it as it was before. The added points belong in the history section. A76707554 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:INTRO, the lead should be a summary of the article and hit on its most important content -- so it definitely needed expanding from what we had before per the material that's actually cited in the article. I'm just hitting a writer's block wall again here a bit, I guess because I'm struggling to figure out how to put the pieces together properly. Nomader (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If it should be a summary of the article then being "not really NPOV" is expected. A76707554 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've already addressed your points above-- are there specific things that aren't sourced correctly? Please assume good faith, I promise that I'm just trying to write an article based on what sources say here. Nomader (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead looks great. It's very neutrally worded, and does a much better job of giving an overview of the article than any prior versions did. If anything, leaving out anything currently mentioned would be a NPOV violation - the subject has received it's fair share of criticism in recent years. Per WP:LEAD it needs to be alluded to. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In the history section it says that Kotaku "noted that previous statements on pricing had changed significantly, with games now costing up to $20 per game". That is not what Kotaku said, the source simply said "the games can cost as much as $20". While retail boxed editions of ga mes cost $20, the digital store version of the same games are still priced under $10. The prices did not change. A76707554 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing or is this (saying digital store versions are under $10) WP:SYNTH? Skimming the article, I see they say somewhere about "considering digital Amico games can only be sold for $10 or less" but they appear to be referencing a "10 commandments" image that doesn't say "digital" but "all" so these seem contradictory on the $10 front unless there's something I'm missing. I feel like there's a different way to phrase what's in the article, but I'm also trying to figure out the seemingly conflicting statements in the Kotaku source. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The $10 piece also appears in a recent Eurogamer article ([1]). Nintendolife says "up to $20 per game" ([2]). The Kotaku source is directly cited from the article's first paragraph, so they're getting it from somewhere-- but I still haven't found exactly from where yet. Nomader (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That Nintendolife article is all about the physical boxed edition of the games. "...it does have Limited Collector's Boxed Edition sets up for sale; yes, it is rather odd to sell bundles of games before the hardware is on the market"..."Though the games max out at $20 each in one sense, the lack of flexibility with the bundles shows that these are very much targeting enthusiasts and collectors only." They are clearly not talking about the version of the games being sold in the digital store. A76707554 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: FYI here, I've gone through half of the references in the games list and I am now going to go ahead and pass out-- will try to go through the rest week. The early letters I've already done, and I can't find a single reliable source on any of the sports game (football, etc.) Should we get rid of rows when we're done of things we can't find? Nomader (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Yeah, you're free to remove any that are unsourced at any point. Personally, I was trying to avoid it because I assumed that as soon as I started removing them, someone would re-add with some sketchy sources and it would start up extra arguments over all that. But as you say, some just simply aren't coming up with any sources no matter how hard you search... Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're not in a press release or listed on the company web site they can be removed. They can always be added once officially announced. MLB Baseball, Soccer, Skiing, Bowling, Basketball aka Harlem Globetrotters are definitely covered. Some titles may have been renamed e.g. Battle Tanks/Tank Battle/Armor Battle. A76707554 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless there's sourcing from elsewhere confirming it. We don't specifically need first party website or PR confirmation Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently including games that have been announced in press releases but haven't been noted anywhere else yet per WP:PRIMARY just for the list. @A76707554: I take it the Baseball game is now "Major League Baseball" from this press release ([3])? Nomader (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Added a bunch more sources. Would love another pair of eyes on the ones that I missed, but a lot of them just have non:RS sources (and not even any primary sources) that list them in a live encounter of WP:CITOGENESIS. Nomader (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted all of the ones that I couldn't find sources for. If anyone ever wants to look at the full list of games right before some were removed, please look at this old diff ([4]). I'm also going to remove the cleanup templates, because IMO the issues have generally been solved in this article. May want to bring it up to GA but I think it's generally in a much better place now. Nomader (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Good call. We've been working on it for over a week now between the two of us. And anyone is free to re-add them at any point as long as they have a reliable source verifying it. At least it should be easier to maintain moving forward - unsourced entries stick out like a sore thumb on fully sourced lists. Moving forward, unsourced entries will be removed on sight. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Reincorporation to Delaware, notable?

The SEC Edgar Archives on Fig Publishing have published new information:

"On January 21, 2022, the Company entered into an assignment agreement with Intellivision Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, which is the developer of the Amico and is subject to that certain revenue share agreement associated with Fig Gaming Shares –Amico, whereby the revenue share rights became an obligation of Intellivision Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation and corporate successor."

This is further proven by Delaware ICIS file number 6553473. The gist: Intellivision Entertainment, of the Amico console have reincorporated into Delaware. But is this noteworthy? 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It means they are growing company. Many large companies incorporate in Delaware to take advantage of favourable business laws. No, it's not noteworthy. A76707554 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Often, the test for whether or not something is worth mentioning, is whether or not any third party reliable sources take note if it. If some IGN/Polygon/Kotaku etc mentions it, it could be worth a basic sentence. If not, then leave it out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely not notable enough to be added in here (zero coverage outside of weird blog posts that I've found). Nomader (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Making this a good article

Alright, I have to admit that I've decided that I really want to bring this up to GA now after spending so much time on this thing. Serge, ferret, and Purplewowies, how are we feeling about this? I've been out of this game for awhile now and would love someone to gut check me on the things we need to do to get there. Nomader (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's in great shape but idk if it's GA eligible because it's not quite stable, as there are recent content disputes and the product isn't released yet, so it's bound for more significant changes. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 11:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Stability is an GA criteria and I'd say we need to let dust settle a bit. I'd definitely support raising it to a B for now though. Maybe put in for a peer review in the meantime? -- ferret (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Similar to the above, I think this is the type of article that you get up to a high B level now (we're probably pretty close) so that it's an easy effort to push to GA once it's released (or officially cancelled.) That's how I usually do it, anyways. I don't usually do the whole GA process, I usually get it to a B level and let other editors take it from there if/when they want to. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Executive Changeup?

According to their respective Linkedin pages, Tallarico is no longer the CEO of Intellivision Entertainment, having been superseded by Phil Adam; the man who helped see Interplay though it's dismantling. Maybe it's just an executive shuffle, so it isn't noteworthy. But it might also be worth updating this article and related articles to reflect this change.

While there are doubts that Intellivision Entertainment will announce this formality (especially if the company is due to be liquidated), this may make an interesting watchspace. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We need better sources than that to make any changes to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I take it this video from a third party source won't count, since while TheRetroBro may claim to be a source on Amico news, isn't an actual statement from the company itself; to which the onus will lie on Intellivision Entertainment to actually announce this change of leadership. Hence, watchspace instead of request to change. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)