Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Wrong about creature editor

The paid version of the creature creator contains 100% of the parts, not 50-75% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

all parts have a function, not purley decorative. i.e: detail feathers are not only decorative, but will also add charm to the creature. Whiteshark12 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore is gold

Posted the item in the article - however, it should be removed once the game is released. JAF1970 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Release date

EA posted the press release: will be available for the Mac and PC at retailers September 5 in Europe and September 7 in North America and Asia Pacific. Spore(TM) Creatures for Nintendo DS(TM) and Spore(TM) Origins for mobile phones will also be available globally September 7. That's final. JAF1970 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd. Here in Scandinavia, i've checked every store in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. All of them says 4th of September, and has said so since January. Not sure it's of any importance to the article though. Same with Australia. Serio (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's September 4 for Australia at least (sources in an above section are more than enough proof). However if anyone adds it to the article: JAF will remove it and complain that they aren't right sources or whatever. I guess we will have to prove him wrong if the game does come out on that date, it's only weeks away now. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the shops say 23:59 4th in order to appear early compared to the other shops, while EA says 00:01 5th to avoid people going in vain.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stores usually get the actual product several days in advance, but if they sell it before the official release date then its at their own risk. The latest Harry Potter book had that kind of retailer vs. publisher spat. Depending on the clout of the publisher, the retailer may find himself not selling that product anymore. Also there is truth to what Per Abrahamsen says, a retailer may stay open past midnight on the 4th to sell the product. So while its technically the 5th, the retailer will concider the sales as part of their reciepts on the 4th. Thus making it a release date shell game not unlike movies that officially come out on Fridays, but have "sneak peeks" showing one or even two days before. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about online stores. Specifically the one i mentioned sends the game a day or two before release, in order for the customer to have the game on the release date mentioned on the site, which in this case is 4th of September. Serio (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that AU's EA states 7th Sept for Spore release. People need to stop changing it. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also noting that Asia Pacific includes Australia. No need for the redundant mentioning of it. (not like the anons go in here and look at this) ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, I can tell you that those dates are rarely updated, and are usually incorrect. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The page currently says "Spore will also be available for direct download from Electronic Arts on September 7." In the UK the date for direct download is September 5. I'm pretty certain the dates for direct downloads from the EA Store are no different to the dates listed previously, so this line should be removed. AdamBristol (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough - just remove the release date for a download - already says "download" in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Phase goal

I've seen in recent videos that the ultimate goal of the space phase is to reach the center of the galaxy. I don't have sources to site so I made no changes Vulture12 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That information used to be in the article, including the Grobb being the race you had to get past to reach the center of the galaxy. When or why it was removed I am not sure. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

how would you get your planet to the center of the galaxy? i dont think that is the goal of the space age. i dont think that it needs to be in the article.Al1012 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the goal to get your planet there, it's more to discover and explore the center of the galaxy. The Grobb would be the technologically unified race that stands in your way of reaching this goal. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"it's more to discover and explore the center of the galaxy" when you get to the space age you will be able to see the center of the galaxy so cant you just go their and look at the planets that are their? or do you mean like look around the whole galaxy... go to every planet make friends with them or try and kill them? that what i think the goal is.Al1012 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"do you mean like look around the whole galaxy" - is pretty much what I had meant, the ability to navigate freely around in the galactic environment. However, this is starting to become borderline Forum talk and should either be taken to talk pages or dropped entirely as it doesn't seem to pertain to the page. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT becoming forum talk. You are discussing the directly relevant content and structure of the game, as it pertains to the content of the article. please, let's not become burdensome in our attention to rules here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

their might not even be a goal to the space age. it might just be their so

1 you can inter act with other peopls creations/planets

2 just to keep you busy with the game

3 to show that you have srived the conquest mode(?)

and it could be so you will not get borded and start over but most people will do anyways.Al1012 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I don't think speculation about the game is directly relevant to content and structure. What Al1012 and I were discussing our opinions of what we feel the end of the game will be like and that to me seems like forum talk. I'm not arguing the fact that the end goal of the game shouldn't be added to the article, it should be as long as it is cited, but the part where people are expressing personal opinion should be stopped and the focus should be aligned with the topic at hand. If anything [1] should be a good cite. It states that the space phase can last forever, but there can be an ending if the player decides to go that route. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this right, but this [2] is the exact diff where the Grobb are removed from the article. It was done by an IP, fwiw198.161.173.180 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a goal that's why it's called a simulation game.Skele (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does have a goal. You're allowed to play after the goal is achieved, just like, say, Civilization. JAF1970 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Spore does have a win condition: reach the center of the galaxy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF is right, i've seen it in numerous videos by developers. They seem to be intentionally vague, probably so as not to spoil it. I'm not sure about the Grobb, though. I saw that in an early video of design art, but does anybody have any recent sources confirming the Grobb? Elisk (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT remove sourced info

When did people remove the win condition of the game?

“ But it looks like it’ll be the Space Phase where Spore fully blossoms, which changes your goal from world domination to taking on the entire galaxy. It’s here where the game’s scope explodes into 4X proportions with tons of systems and planets populated with foreign races to forge friendships with or crush with your iron fist. The biggest win condition in Spore will be reaching a quasar placed in the center of the galaxy. But you’ll need to figure out how to deal with the largest NPC race whose giant empire blocks the way. (The Grobb) ”

Unless you've played the game, do NOT remove sourced content. JAF1970 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't playing the game fall under "original research"? Joshuagross (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF, stop being bossy. Perhaps the information was removed by mistake, or for a good reason? Don't go storming onto the talk page with that attitude. Also, with your most recent edit: you were re-adding back game guide content. Just because it's sourced, doesn't justify it being in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being bossy - you are. If you're going to remove that, it's time to head to the Civ articles and remove all the win conditions, too. Oh, and also, let's remove the factions from the Civ articles, too. JAF1970 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's time for consensus - who's in favor of keeping vital information about the game that's fully sourced from a reliable source, and who's not? JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Honestly, it's less information than each of the detailed Phase descriptions in the game. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Reputable source of information that is directly related to the game play of the article. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a big deal EVERY TIME someone deletes information from the article. I recall a Wikipedia note about "don't edit articles if you don't want your work changed around" or whatever. You simply can't handle the fact the article changes. Then you use this talk page as the place to attack people and be uncivil. Anytime someone does an edit you think is "wrong" you revert, and/or make a rude comment here about it. It needs to stop. Stay away from my talk page. I have every right to remove comments that I've read, it's not a crime.RobJ1981 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:RobJ1981 Request for mediation filed. You can't use that logical fallacy - you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. You constantly remove valid edits with excuses they're against policy when they're not, you post the same "nonsense" on my talk page - and I've been attacked worse than you and have been forced to restore. You accuse me of being "bossy" and having "article ownership" while you are actually doing it. The fact that you refuse consensus on the issue speaks volumes. JAF1970 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this escalates any further, I don't see any reason why the section was removed. I support it being added as it seems like very worthwhile information that comes from a reputable source. I don't think JAF is out of line here really as I am interested in why it was removed myself. Sitting here arguing over the article isn't helping without declaring justifications. Just my two cents. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It smacks of wishful thinking, ClosedEyesSeeing. A lot of people want to believe it's like SimCity and has no resolution at all - when it does. However, like other Civilization-type games, you are permitted to continue after the main goal is completed. There's nothing being made up here. Heck, I didn't even name them in the article (Grobb) It seems to have occurred during the tons of anon IP edits. JAF1970 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was already found. It's the IPs only edit and it was to remove the resolution. Strange that it's been missing for two months. ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd stopped keeping an eye on Spore for a while and missed it, myself. JAF1970 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting sucks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite what Joystiq says

It was not a quote from Maxis, and it was quite wrong. SimIsle had many win conditions as a goal of the game, as did the Sims "Stories" games. Even SimCity had win scenarios. Furthermore, I don't see the need to include trivia (policy). What does that information have to do with the game itself? JAF1970 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding a few things - Joystiq is a verifiable source. The line said "most Maxis", not "all Maxis". SimCity's scenarios were not win conditions. WP:TRIVIA applies to lists of trivia, not individual pieces of trivia within a sentence. Quoting the start of the article: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. I've made a point of noting your conduct on WT:VG. Fin©™ 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Joystiq is a blog that is verifiable because they name their sources. It's actually better policy when they give a source to use the source and not the Joystiq article itself. Did the article they take the source from actually state that Spore would be the first Maxis developed game to have a win condition? The statement they made was not a quote from their source; it was their own opinion. Trust me, I know the guys there. They've been wrong a few times, which is why they have to slap that [UPDATE] tag on a lot of their articles. :) JAF1970 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, you're confusing the word "most" with "all" or "first". Fin©™ 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confused about trivia, though, and saying something like "Spore is the first game developed by Maxis to not have a win condition" or something like that is trivia. JAF1970 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is trivia, but trivia is allowed under WP:TRIVIA, lists of trivia are discouraged under the same guideline. Quote: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia.". Fin©™ 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For one, it's wrong - SimIsle and other Maxis games do have a win condition, or a series of win conditions. For another, it's trivia. Want me to contact Ross and tell him he made a mistake? JAF1970 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the article would look like properly if you include it, by the way:

Gameplay

stuff stuff stuff

The game is won by reaching a quasar placed in the center of the galaxy, and facing "the largest NPC race whose giant empire blocks the way."

article article, near the bottom:

Trivia

Unlike most Maxis games, Spore is the first game to feature an absolute win condition.

See my point? JAF1970 (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point continuing this discussion, you're being completely unreasonable and misrepresenting my argument. The trivia was included at the start of a sentence, backed with a reference that stated it was a Maxis tradition to have open-ended games. The sentence said "most Maxis games". It did not say "all Maxis games". It did not say "Spore is the first Maxis game". I never suggested putting it into a trivia section, as you've just demonstrated, that came from you alone. Trivia is ok when included in the prose of an article Goodnight. Fin©™ 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what would be helpful? More bold! And maybe italics too. Or what about... Bold and italics? Or maybe bold, italics and caps lock? Because really, if that doesn't work then quite frankly he will never understand. I mean, who could argue with bold, italics and caps lock?198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Release

Regardless, when Spore is finally released, there needs to be a major cleanup, as references to the past should be moved to Development of SPore (ie. the GDC, etc stuff) and gameplay will be fully revealed. Especially since there's a twist ending when you reach the center of the galaxy. JAF1970 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see (after the release) that picture of the elder creature editor replaced with the current one used within the game. I'd prefer not to use a picture of the one currently released as anyone knows... things do change. :) ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any picture of the creature editor on the page. The only editor that is seen in a picture on this page is tribal clothing editor not creature editor. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, seems I didn't catch that change. Thanks! ClosedEyesSeeing (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the image. It was ancient. JAF1970 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay question

In the Space phase: "When establishing colonies on alien worlds, players have to take care of them as they would any other city and keep morale up." If anyone knows what the failure state result is, please post. (ie. does the city die? does the city form its own civ? etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The PC Gamer review mentions that they can be attacked, but says nothing about morale. I can't open it here, but GamingSteve's forum has a Spore guide that has details and walkthroughs on gameplay in each phase and each editor, you may want to check that out (I assume it was written by someone who has played the game, as it's quite specific.) 206.126.163.20 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, it doesn't mention anything about space phase, just civilization and back. Shoot. It does mention that cities are harder to convert if they're happier, but I have no idea if AI doing that to your city are affected, or whether than even can do that. Someone has to have a hold on this game by now (retailers selling early), and hopefully as the reviews trickle in more info will follow. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us know. It's important to the article. JAF1970 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Making it more of a game article

I'm removing various references to Will Wright and stuff remarking "will and should" to "is and are", because Spore is no longer a game concept or a game in development: it's a completed game. The article should reflect the game's features in relation to the player. That is, it's no longer "Will Wright says that A will be B". It's now "A will be B", period. JAF1970 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the Australian release date

I bought a copy today (September 2nd) from an EB Games store in Australia, lol.. www.ebgames.com.au states the game is out now. --123.50.153.39 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Just... stop it. The press release issued by EA 2 weeks ago is quite clear. JAF1970 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert them, explain it to them: then if they wont listen and they keep on re-adding it, report them. There is no need to complain here about it, since a majority of IP editors don't check talk pages. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request for semi-protect already. At least til the game is released worldwide on Sept 7. JAF1970 (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The US is not worldwide. It is the US, a subset of the world. Things happen at different times within the world, including the release of Spore in Australia on September 4th, 3 days before the US! In fact, by the time you take time differences into account, it is more like 3.5 days!Concretecold (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be added. Its relevant and it is correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasgood1 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about it being correct, but it might be worth mentioning. It's not very often that something like that gets announced in a paper, and the level of promotion of Spore in Australia is unusually high. Still it's all speculation, nobody can call it correct, especially since EA says something different. Soldant (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the edits, but EA Australia have confirmed in multiple places that the Australia date is Sept 4th. EA has confirmed the Sept 4 date is still on for Oz. - Kotaku AU, The street date for Spore still stands at 4th Sept. There have been no changes to the date. - YSum, EA AsiaPac Community Manager. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you do have a secondary source to back up your Sept 5th release date, considering that a) you are defending it so hard, and b) you do not actually reside in Australia, because almost every other secondary source disagrees with you. And considering that YSum is a primary source, this is verifiable, and there is no reason to dispute this date. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF refuses to allow it in the article, because it's not from the source he agrees with. Those sources are more than enough, but I can bet JAF still isn't happy. He will come here and say something such as "not in the press release! It can't be put in the article". This isn't new behavior by him either, he's been edit warring about the Australia date for a while. Plus he's used uncivil edit summaries, and been rude to editors on the talk page. Let's not forget the times where he was talking to people that apparently worked on the game, then JAF would come here and say they hated the article. Which is irrelevant, because the game makers simply didn't understand how Wikipedia articles are set up. Anyway, he needs to settle down, instead of getting so worked up over a Wikipedia article. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the date of the press release issued by Electronic Arts "Asia Pacific territories". Not only is it the most recent data, it's also the most valid. PS. I'm not the only person who is not allowing it. JAF1970 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF just proved my point: only the press release seems to be acceptable to him. Also, I see no one else constantly reverting it off the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The most recent, official information, yes, Rob. Others feel this way, too, like User:DMacks who semi-protected the article. JAF1970 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we make this fair? If you don't live in Australia, don't change the release date. Seriously, walk past any video games store here and you'll see windows full of EA produced Spore advertising material CLEARLY stating that the release date here (ie, Australia) is the 4th of September (as well as the seemingly endless supply of sources that back it up, thanks Spik3balloon). Just because one source did not explicitly say it is the 4th, doesn't discount it. What is it going to take? Shall I post a picture of me with my copy at 9am, AEST, on the 4th? In the meantime you're ruining the ability of Australian users to access information from WP that is relevant to them. Perhaps if it doesn't affect you, don't edit it. There are enough intelligent Aussies to fill in our information if you don't want to properly acknowledge us.Concretecold (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the date of both the Kotaku confirmation and the post by YSum. They are both newer than the press release. Your press release is neither the most recent, nor the most official or valid (as EA in America does not handle the release dates for Australia). Also, by not having a secondary source to back up your claims, you are not complying with All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. This article does not belong to you, and you will have to face this fact. Spik3balloon (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, I usually go to WP to find fast information about release dates and yet its not here so I have to google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasgood1 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually listen to the publisher. By the way, Spore has been shipped, and stores have instructions on when to release it: Sept 5 in Europe, and Sept 7 in NA/Asia Pacific. IF stores break the street date.... JAF1970 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Playing by the rules of WP, we can request that information be added to a semi-protected site, and it will be done once we have some level of consensus. I hereby request that the Australian release date of September 4th, 2008, be added along with the references provided by myself, Spik3balloon, and others both here and in the previously undone edits. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, I will request removal of the protection. In particular, JAF1970 requested the protection "at least until the games are released, since anonymous IPs keep insisting on posting unverified Australian release dates, which have been recently contradicted by EA in their press release. There's also silly edits being made as well". Firstly, even by your own admission, JAF1970, the game will officially be release in Europe on the 5th, thus the protection (according to your rules and ignoring the other issue for the time being) should expire on the 5th, not the 7th as it does currently. Secondly, the Australian release dates are verifiable numerous times over, even if a particular person at EA did not explicitly state the date. As for anonymous IPs, I will gladly post the release date if this is all that concerns you, and I'm sure many other authorised users here would also be glad to do the same. Finally, "silly edits" is something subjective to you and may not be deemed silly to someone else and in the absence of examples of direct malicious vandalism should not be grounds for protection. The WP guidelines for protection explicitly state "In particular, it (semi-protection) should not be used to settle content disputes". The subjective nature of your dismissal of the references to the Australian release date (and the "silly edits") is not sufficient for you to achieve semi-protection on the page to settle a content dispute. Therefore, if consensus here cannot be obtained for the Australian release date to be added, I will be officially be requesting that the semi-protection be removed as it currently is contravening WP guidelines.Concretecold (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. "Asia Pacific". I don't see how in the world Australia has migrated to Europe. Lemme go check a map. Furthermore, EA's official press release is quite explicit. The semi-protection will be removed on September 7. You know, when the game's out. JAF1970 (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We haven't gone anywhere. Oh and the Europeans get the game on the 5th. You know, before the 7th.Concretecold (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Regarding Kotaku, they've been wrong quite frequently. Like, claiming Spore Origins on the iPhone was the FULL VERSION of Spore. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I'm just wondering, but when au.gamespot.com has it as the fourth, and several Australian Wikipedians have verified that stores in their area have the date. And JAF, do you seek to prove how little weight your comments hold? The only way to assume that the combination of multiple reliable sources and Australian Wikipedians' verification is to assume that these Wikipedians are lying, and that's a blatant violation of WP:AGF. And your comment of "Asia Pacific". If a game is stated as being released in Europe, that is NOT a statement that it's going to be released EVERYWHERE in Europe. If EA announced it was coming to Europe on September 7, but there were verifiable sources saying it's coming to Spain on the 3rd, these sources do not contradict each other. It's common sense. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They also have Madden NFL 09 as an Xbox 1 game. You go with the primary source: Electronic Arts. I'm trying to figure out why you can't be patient and wait. Oh, and "Asia Pacific" means Japan, etc, and Oceania. Patrick Buechner's already told me Sept 5. (Buechner, the EA VP in charge of Maxis.) Like I said, stores already have Spore.JAF1970 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Buechner does not control EA Australia's decisions on the release date. As a volunteer moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, I have been told numerous times that the retail date for Spore in Australia is Sept 4th (with the digital download release in Australia to follow on Sept 5th). Unless, of course, every single retail outlet in Australia is deliberately misleading the public, and the posters hanging outside EB Games that state '4th September' are completely wrong, and EA Australia has been releasing bogus promotional information. Spik3balloon (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get specific: Buechner is the VP in charge of public relations. He's very aware of release dates. (laugh) He isn't in charge, but it's his job to know everything about Spore's distribution. Globally. So he'd know. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If GameSpot can't be used because of a handful of mistakes you might find, may I ask for you to find a better source? Just want you to know that I'll also hold it up to "one mistake = unreliable", your exclusion criteria. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy. EA Investor site (investor.ea.com). The fact is, the OFFICIAL press release omitted any reference to any Sept 4 release date. JAF1970 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Concrete is posting irrelevent info about Australian stores selling Spore Creature Creature for $2 at Development of Spore. Completely and utterly irrelevent. I didn't post AMazon and Gamespot giving away free copies with Spore preorders because game deals are utterly irrelevent to the article. JAF1970 (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you read what I wrote, I said nothing about stores selling it. The method of distribution in Australia for SCC was with newspaper only, and was/is not on sale here. Hence not irrelevant as it displays a distribution method unique to Australia. Kudos to you on not posting about Amazon and Gamespot, but they are not the same thing.Concretecold (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the Development of Spore? Absolutely nothing. It's completely, utterly irrelevent. I could state "Well, Gamestop and Amazon used a partnership with EA to expedite online distribution and encourage purchases of Spore" but that would be hogwash. It doesn't belong. JAF1970 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, JAF1970, if you want to suggest a better way of incorporating that information in there I'm happy to listen. I put it there because the preceding sentence is about the distribution as part of the SimCityBox. Hence, I thought it sat well with the release/distribution section. Suggest a better way of incorporating this information rather than just deleting it and running off to the admins and threatening semi-protection. Seriously, I want to see it in there and if you have a good suggestion as to where it should go, please make it. I won't undo your last change, I'll give the option to incorporate it as you would like. Fair?Concretecold (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The SimCity Box was a revelation that there was a Spore Creature Creator _at all_. Had nothing to do with the method of distribution. I may remove that soon, too. JAF1970 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be one of those situations where someone has taken the first step to a peaceful, mutual resolution...perhaps instead of fighting we can incorporate all the information in a mutually acceptable way? (This is the time for being reasonable) Concretecold (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, The SimCity Box was published and distributed by EA. That in itself validates it. JAF1970 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

God, I can't wait til Spore is released so a majority of this can simply go away. JAF1970 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Released on the 4th. There has been more then enough sources to support it. How many sources have you got just the one? Wasgood1 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother try to convince JAF otherwise. He will only believe the official press release. People could post more reliable sources, and he would find some reason to say they aren't true. When the game is out, I can bet he will do this same stuff I bet. Obviously it wont be about the release date, but it will be about other things. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the goal is not to convince JAF, but to achieve consensus. It appears that there are enough people here to support it. Including you RobJ? Concretecold (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be against JAF, but adding the information to the article (just to have him revert it) is pointless. Edit warring doesn't solve anything. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed, on every level. But the page is protected. The process means that an admin will have to put it there, and no one (other than an admin) will be able to revert it until unprotection. I think. Concretecold (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet, until I've gotten people to speak on my behalf. Again, there's no need to change anything til Sept 7. JAF1970 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is need to change. There's no need for you to delete content relating to Australia. If you don't live here, JAF1970, I suggest you stop changing it and find other ways to improve the content. Concretecold (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. What's the rush? JAF1970 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this falls under the heading of the insanity that occurred a year ago when everyone was giving March 3, 2008 the Spore release date because some resellers and people like Kotaku and IGN had 3/3/08 listed. If you can find official Electronic Arts or Maxis information on a third release date for a single country, feel free. JAF1970 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But they do have a point. Spore is being advertised quite prolifically here as the 4th of September, it would seem odd that such a blitz combined with confirmation of the game being shipped would result in an incorrect date. I don't find it similar to the 03/03/08 date because there was nothing to suggest Spore was finished and prepared to ship back then. This hardly counts as "insanity". In any case, it'll be settled on the 4th; if the game is released, then the article must be updated to reflect that.Soldant (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Spore is being advertised quite prolifically here as the 4th of September, Then get an official EA or Maxis press release stating so. Or wait til the 4th and say, "Hey, the stores have it out!" if they're on the shelves. I understand that these sites may be trumpeting a release date -- but they're not getting their info from the people who matter (just as Amazon and other sites with the 3/3/08 release.) Get the official notice, then it's official. JAF1970 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add here :http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/08/spore_oz_release_date_moved_to_september_11.html Wasgood1 (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But there's no link to any EA press release stating it. All it has is an IGN Australia link. Where is the official EA stuff? Like, on Spore.com, EA.com, etc? This is official, from EA itself: The wait is almost over! Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ:ERTS) and Maxis today announced that Spore(TM), the most anticipated video game of the year from the creator of The Sims(TM), has gone gold and will be available for the Mac and PC at retailers September 5 in Europe and September 7 in North America and Asia Pacific. Spore(TM) Creatures for Nintendo DS(TM) and Spore(TM) Origins for mobile phones will also be available globally September 7. I emailed Amanda Taggart at ataggart@ea.com - I plan to just so see if it's real. But until there's an OFFICIAL press release,... JAF1970 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So you have a good rebuttal for all of the Australian Wikipedians who are observing all of the stores advertising the September 4 date? You have one press release that states Asia Pacific, which *drum roll* is not a statement that "every single area in the Asia Pacific region will get this game". If it didn't come out in Iran, does that contradict the "released in Europe" statement? No, because to be released in Europe does NOT mean it has to be released everywhere in Europe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, do you really think an entire country is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? We're not. As for requiring an official press release for something to be considered factual (barring crackpot or conspiracy theories), there was no press release saying the pyramids were completed. Or that the Sistine Chapel was completed. Or that Nathan Buckley was born on the 26th of July. There is information to back these things up, just as there is to back up the Australian release date. Concretecold (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently in the Kotaku link, they claim that EA have confirmed 4th September for Australia. But I'll be a diplomat and side with JAF1970, if only because there's nothing here from EA that unquestionably, and officially states that it is the 4th. However it's looking pretty likely to be the release date. Once there's something that's unquestionably official though, the article needs to be updated. Soldant (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

YSum - EA Asia Pacific (and South Africa) Community and Promotions Manager, 25th August 2008. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the 4th would be right. I would think the official australian Spore or EA Store sites would back on that information but now they both claim it will be released on 7th. Also I would rather believe official sources than second hand sources. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Australian EA Store does not state a release date. And as I said above, as a moderator on the EA AsiaPac site, the release dates that they have are not regularly updated, and are usually incorrect. Spik3balloon (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm trying to figure out how something as small as a release date could be blown so far out of proportion. I think I will leave now, because it is now obvious after 2 separate occasions there will be no consensus reached, even when there is all evidence to the contrary. I used to believe that Wiki worked on a basis of verifiability - JAF is still yet to provide a secondary source to back up the press release, yet still continues with the argument. Spik3balloon (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to work it in the article anyway. Something like: There are rumours of a release on the 4th September in Australia. Also, http://www.ebgames.com.au/PC/product.cfm?ID=12154 its changed to the 2nd. I am starting to not trust them.Wasgood1 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just wait until the relevant release dates come to pass, and include the verifiable information then? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. -- Longhair\^talk 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what Wikinews is for. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example of the release date being the 4th. The thing is, while some game sites may occasionally have differing dates, this is a major advertising campaign with News Limited. EA and News Limited teamed up to do this, EA gaining enormous distribution and coverage and NL shifting more papers due to the discounted Spore content. They have time and time again stated the date as the 4th. They wouldn't get this wrong. As far as official goes, this is about as big as it gets because it is EA in conjuction with one of the country's biggest media companies. concretecold 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's EA's official press release then? I don't trust any source save primary, and I'm waiting for EA PR to get back to me. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the solution: Wait til Sept 4. If it's released in Australia then, feel free to let us know you have your copy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kotaku post (http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/08/spore_oz_release_date_moved_to_september_11.html) has been updated with a press release. It states the Aus release date as Sept 4th. Hopefully this is enough to end this ridiculous situation.121.44.17.218 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news, but it just sits there by itself without a link or anything else. Does that still count? In any event, only 4 days to go until it's settled. Soldant (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, why don't you be useful and add content rather than trying to maintain the page in exactly the way you want it? You obviously know a lot about Spore, so make the rest of the page better. There's no need for you to continually delete the Australian information, especially as it doesn't affect you. Everyone else is trying to contribute, and you are trying to stop them. If we were all focussed on contribution rather than deletion the whole system would work much better. You are not winning friends by carrying on the way you are, which is a shame because I'd much rather discuss other aspects of Spore with you as you seem to be quite well informed. Everyone else (including myself several times) has offered a mutually acceptable solution that you shoot down. Please, the next time you write, think of some way we can incorporate the information that is acceptable to both. If we have to put a qualifier in front of it, then lets do that. But it can't just be the "wait until it comes out" solution, as that's what you want and by that stage it is too late to inform people about the upcoming release date. Please, rather than just arguing can you please suggest a middle ground? You have rejected our offers of incorporation, so the ball is now in your court to suggest a solution to end the argument that everyone can live with. I look forward with hope to your suggestion. concretecold 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

I don't understand the rush. The problem is that EA's official press release did not list a third release date for a single country. Sept 4 is a few days from now. This is not a news site, this is an encyclopedia article. JAF1970 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And we have reliable sources for September 4, and no specific statement on Australia for your date. If there's one source for Australia and one for Asia Pacific, we do not not use the first source, because being released in Asia Pacific at one date does NOT mean that it's released throughout all of the region on that date. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those sources < Electronic Arts source. Again, I don't understand the rush. JAF1970 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "source versus source", it's a matter of "source and source". EA source does not, ever, contradict the sources provided, because it doesn't present a contradictory statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Stating a date for Asia Pacific does not contradict a separate Australian date, even if Australia is sometimes included in Asia Pacific for regional purposes. Everybody completely understands that this is not a news site. But we're not reporting news or presenting it as a news item. Shouldn't this at least be mentioned in some capacity? Soldant (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey it will be released next week so why don't we wait till then and remove the release dates from the article. Skele (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The release dates should never be removed, even after it is released. The Australian release date is not news, it is fact. People should be able to find out this fact by visiting WP. The "rush" to put this factual information is due to the fact that the release information is not as valuable to someone who wants to own Spore after the game has been released. It's like putting up a statement that there was a tornado last night, which is factual and everyone knows about it but it doesn't provide any benefit to the affected people. The warning needs to come before the fact. Just like the factual release dates. JAF, you haven't responded to any opportunities to work together. You are not being collaborative, you are being dictative. Please try to be a team player in the future. We can all learn from your knowledge, and your effort in the page is appreciated, but no one will thank you if you act so stubborn and stand-offish. We're all on the same team here, and we have the same goal. Please, try to act collaboratively. concretecold 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fact? It's Sept 4 already and you have a copy? EA has not announced a Sept 4 release date for Australia. In fact, maybe Sept 4 is the ship date (which is not the release date.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: $shipdate\neq releasedate$.JAF1970 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: Template:Quotation1

—from WP:VG/DATE. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin here...there has been some discussion on my talk-page about this content. First, please do not continue it there: "consensus" doesn't mean "one admin", and there is no reason to hide the discussion from wider audience. Second, I'll again say what I said there, and hope it sinks in:

WP:CITE from WP:RS is critical. If there is conflicting info from different reliable sources, state each along with who said it. As a tertiary source, WP policy is to report what is reported and leave it to the reader to decide how credible the reported-report is, not to second-guess or choose among different reliable sources ourselves (sin-of-omission or WP:OR). "Verifiability not truth." More importantly, I'm only involved here to kill the edit-war: page protection doesn't establish what is right or endorse any particular content, it merely forces everyone to talk on the talk page to resolve the dispute rationally. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So if there is a disagreement among reliable sources, it is not appropriate for wikipedia editors to pick one as being "more reliable" or "deciding" facts based on contradictory sources: report who said what and leave it at that. Removal of cited info because it doesn't match one editor's view of the world perspective is not appropriate. Repeatedly removing cited info will get you blocked from editing by WP:3RR and WP:OWN. JAF, I am re-adding the info because there is apparent consensus among almost everyone except you that it should be there, and it is reliably cited. DMacks (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to concern of an uninvolved party, I have undone the edit to the disputed content I made after protection. If there is consensus that it should be included or that any other content edits should be made, please discuss below. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is absurd. It's just one person demanding everyone listen to what he says, and refusing to acknowledge a significant consensus, the fact that his source does not contradict any sources provided for the release date of 9/4, and the fact that we have provided several reliable sources establishing a release date of the fourth. The fact that JAF refuses to explain why "released in Asia Pacific on the 5th" means "released in every single place that exists in Asia Pacific" shows me that full protection for ONE user edit warring against everyone else is totally unnecessary and arbitrary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch. This. Space. Irrefutable evidence will be provided within the next 24 hours. Have fun until then! concretecold 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

Australian retailers GAME and EB Games are selling the game as we speak. (EB to pre-order customers, GAME as general release) Picture of a customer holding the game, purchased from GAME (Source: OCAU) Wide release expected to be moved forward to tomorrow (2nd Sept) in Australia. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: They are selling as the stock arrives (with couriers currently sending stock from Queensland to other stores around the country) Brisbane stores are selling (source: OCAU above, EA thread. Wide release date push of 2nd Sept still stands. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Further sources: Facepunch Studios, Whirlpool. This leaves an interesting question. With the official Australian release date still on Thursday 4th, what does the Wiki release date become? Spik3balloon (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also got my copy today. I don't know why it was set as the 1st or 2nd, but it should probably be mentioned. Soldant (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I got my copy too! Snagged me the galactic edition. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to maybe help advance the subject (even though I could understand that some already got the game anyways), I've got an official release date in Denmark, for the 4th of September.[3]. It might be in Danish, but the frame on the right of the page is clear enough. 4th of September. I guess EA can be considered a reliable source? Oh, and "Udgivelsesdato" litterally means "release date". Hope that helps. 83.151.154.41 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Spore.com talks about celebrating launch of the game being Wednesday - with is the 3rd.. I spoke to EA rep, and made sure these were the correct release dates:

• Australia: September 4, 2008
• Europe: September 5, 2008
• Japan: September 5, 2008
• US: September 7, 2008

You also have to mention in the article that the street date was broken on September 1, but not in the infobox.

Keep in mind, I don't do things the internet way - I'm a journalist. I get the info before posting, especially when the date hasn't come up yet. (ie. the former release date on 3/3/08, the "Wii version", etc. JAF1970 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well JAF, as it's definitely out now, how about adding that release date? 202.139.11.11 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the article - anyone could have done it. But I updated the article. Also, it's no longer a "future game". Wow, I can't believe that futuregame template is finally gone. JAF1970 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Keep in mind, I don't do things the internet way - I'm a journalist." Just a little FYI, journalists NEVER report the official story. I read this whole talk subsection and you did nothing but obstruct progress made on the article, and condescendingly so I might add. You are a Wiki editor who is supposed to work with others, not shut out differing opinions. I applaud the others who behaved like adults.F33bs (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...who the hell cares what specific date the game came out on in each different region? I can see MAYBE if someone wanted to find out when it will be released (but in this case, all the senseless arguing has ruined any confidence anyone might have had by coming to this article seeking that info), but once the game is released, the actual release date will be completely irrelevant to the article; a month from now, it would be just as informative to say that the game was released in September 2008 (or even just 2008!); the specific date is not notable. Unbelievable, the size of this talk page over such an insignificant point...

162.136.192.1 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

OK, let's see if this isn't a good article nominee. There's not too many pics, the article is objective and precise, a lot of fat has been cut away, and its citations are uniform. JAF1970 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this article for GAN because it will change significantly once it's actually released. Please wait for it to be released and for major changes to the article to slow down before nominating it again. Gary King (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the article will change significantly, but ok. JAF1970 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased games, films, etc. do not pass the the 5. Stable criterion at Wikipedia:Good article criteria because they will change significantly after they are released. A lot more information will be available once these items are released, and there is a set date that this happens, so the article will not have to wait for an indefinite period of time before it can be submitted to GAN. Gary King (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but give the article a once-over - when it's submitted a week from now, what will it need if nothing changes? JAF1970 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume nothing will change, because it most certainly will. Just wait a week – the article is in good shape now, for an unreleased game – but the game is still unreleased. Gary King (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. Just wanted to see if that all things being equal.... JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection until 2009?

The log says that the semi-protection expires on 7 September 2009, but the game will be released in 2008 not 2009.--SuperSecret 12:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Another Spore delay!!!! :p JAF1970 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

oops...my bad. Fixed back to 2008. DMacks (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust us, Dmacks, not a single person would be shocked by Spore being delayed til 2009 :p JAF1970 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will, since it already is being released in Australia. Wasgood1 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm?. Why was it semi-protected?.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the release-dates. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, DMacks, feel free to remove the prot. Issue is over. JAF1970 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Permission to include reception box

Would like to include the Template:VG Reviews box. JAF1970 (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Once the game comes out and there are several reviews, then yes, for sure. Gary King (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Street date broken!!

A store chain in Australian broke the street date, forcing other chains to break the street date as well. link WikiMurph912 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EB listed it as 2nd... and had it like that for a while. Doesn't seem like EA would've missed that. Perhaps they wanted a test market? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried at our EBGames, but sadly they refused and said "Come back 23;59 tomorrow, and we can talk!". Oh well, was worth a try! Seems the Scandinavian date stays 4th. Serio (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EA is pretty angry at that store chain in Australia - could have serious repercussions for later major software releases in that region. JAF1970 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Spore.com talks about celebrating launch of the game being Wednesday - with is the 3rd.. I spoke to EA rep, and made sure these were the correct release dates:

• Australia: September 4, 2008
• Europe: September 5, 2008
• Japan: September 5, 2008
• US: September 7, 2008

You also have to mention in the article that the street date was broken on September 1, but not in the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this article unprotected now? Not only was it protected to stop an edit war between one person and everyone else (which should've had a warning or a blocking to stop it instead of fully protecting an article from being edited), but it's now a fact that it's coming out on the fourth. This whole protection idea was silly, and completely violated consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also just to note it seems that Scandinavia/Nordic has September 4th as the release date of the game. Stated on EA's official Scandinavian/Nordic sites. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Game has also been leaked onto the net as SPORE-RELOADED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.182.175 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think talking about piracy on Wikipedia is worth mentioning in the article. Although it is interesting to note that EA disabled temporarily the online registration servers, meaning that for a while there, people who bought the game legit from a local store in Australia, with EA's blessing, could not play the game, but the people who pirated it were completely unphased -- there is already a crack for the infamous Spore DRM. KiTA (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My game ordered off play.com (UK) arrived this morning... think it was a slight error! --217.206.76.10 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (samtheboy really!)

Some have released early due to the Australian release. JAF1970 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article corrections

• The epic creatures do begin to appear in the Cell phase.
• being a herbivore/carnivore/omnivore at the conclusion of the Cell phase grants your creature a special ebility for each of the subsequent phases (ie. being an herbivore gives you the Siren's Song in the Creature phase.)

We're getting into a dangerous area, tho. Remember, this is not a strategy guide, so you can't discuss, say, the different types of mouths. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Creature section talks about the Cell phase having asexual reproduction. This is incorrect, mating occurs at the cell phase as well. concretecold 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concretecold (talk • contribs)

Creature Creator

Will the creature creator be included in the main game? Someone told me it wasn't so that the game designers/development team could make more money. 124.121.98.228 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Short answer no. Spore uninstalls it when you install it. But you can access the one inside spore which is the same. Wasgood1 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Small warning: not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Japan

Isn't Japan supposed to be in the infobox? Falcon9x5 claims it doesn't belong, but that just doesn't seem correct to me. Oh, and even the British con't consider themselves part of the Euro Union, not being on the continent. heh JAF1970 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the UK is part of Europe, and the do share the same release date with the rest of the continent. What's wrong there exactly? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think JAF may be confused about Great Britain - but GB is part of the UK, which is an EU member state. But, even ignoring that, EU can stand for European Union and Europe - the article is referring to Europe, of which GB definitely is a member. Joshua Gross ^{(talk • contribs • signature)} 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Piracy

Stop including items about piracy, because it's not notable - EVERY game gets pirated. JAF1970 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes its true every game gets pirated but some games, like Spore, uses unusual anti-piracy methods like EA chose to use with spore, limiting installations and so on, therefore the fact that Spore is pirated is Notable, and should be included. - Fantact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.4.44 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SecuROM is not "unusual" anti-piracy method. It's a software like any other. It's no more notable than other DRM like StarForce. Are we going to mention in every game article when a pirate cracks StarForce? JAF1970 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Games getting pirated despite DRM, that's notable in the DRM article maybe... not here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's notable for the SecuROM article. However, unless Electronic Arts actually changes DRM or makes a huge fuss about it, it's not notable. JAF1970 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is notable because the game isn't released yet. It's like when Source engine code got leaked. --Xjk238j (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Every single PC game is pirated before release. Spore is no different. The Source engine leak is completely different, it was a work in progress, nowhere near being finished. Spore was pirated a few days before it's release. Not notable in the slightest. Fin©™ 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what if it was pirated a few days before it was released. Many games have been pirated many weeks before they had been released. Skele (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)