Talk:Rockstar North/Archive 1

Archive 1

DMA vs. Rockstar

This page is really misleading.

DMA Design is not Rockstar North, and although all the history for DMA seems to be right, it's completely wrong to lump it together on the same page with Rockstar.

It makes no sense to give the history of DMA on this page, I suggest you split them into two separate pages.

Even though RSN bought DMA, they shut the Dundee studio and most of the original employees left.

RobertAnderberg 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockstar North didn't buy DMA -- DMA became Rockstar North. As MobyGames explains (citing the company itself) at http://www.mobygames.com/company/rockstar-north-ltd : "Rockstar North, formally DMA Design, has been part of the Rockstar Games family of companies since September 1999 when it was acquired by the parent company Take 2 Interactive Inc." So, while the spirit of the studio may have changed significantly, DMA Design and Rockstar North are (at least officially) the same company. It would be interesting to include more information about the changes that occured along with the rebranding, but you'd need a source for that info.

There was a very short period between when they where called "Rockstar Studios" and had a Tartan R* logo. I was actuality looking for that logo if anyone knows where I can find it. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

can anyone put on a trivia section that rockstar north did say that DMA means "doesnt mean anything"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.150.67 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That was a retro-fitted acronym. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dundee Modern Arts

I am completely mystified about the name of DMA being "Dundee Modern Arts". If so, this must have taken place after 1997. Does anyone have a citation for this? I was an employeed of DMA up to that point and whilst it was a joke to begin with "Doesn't Mean Anything" definitely became official. - snap2grid

Some also claim it was "Direct Mind Access" 86.111.162.127 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is a bit of editorial comment in this article, ranging from "monumentally successful" to "undetailed retro graphics and tongue-in-cheek humour." It either needs to be cited or cleaned up. Pairadox 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the occurance of "undetailed...". The other portion "monumentally successful" was not found in the article anymore. I removed the NPOV tag after correcting this as there seemed to be no other editors voicing concern in the last eight months. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DMA Design.png

Image:DMA Design.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DMA Design.png

Image:DMA Design.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Middleware?

I'm not sure the following sentence is really accurate. "It was the first high profile game to use middleware technology." Does using a licensed game engine really count as middleware? I personally don't think so, as middleware is usually a form of connection software, such as legacy mainframe to web-infrastructure apps, etc. Further, this would hardly be the first instance of licensing a game engine from one company to another. So, either way I feel that entire sentence is wrong. I don't think game engines are middleware, and even if they are, this is not the first time for this type of arrangement. burnte 07:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd never before heard the term "middleware" used to mean "a third party game engine", but the linked article reveals that the term is at least used in a few places around Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.213.156 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish?

Is North officially Scotish? Because I know its based there but reading the "key" people are English. Given its diversity, wouldn't it be "British"? Stabby Joe (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you havent read it correctly since the key people are in fact the key people in relation to Rockstar Games not Rockstar North.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.108.214 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to be smug and remove it without hearing me out. I was simply asking given that the key people have a major role in the development of these games and are not Scotish, Dan being a producer AND writer and Sam being an Executive Producer, which aren't minor roles so I think me just asking seems perfectly valid. I'm not saying ITS NOT, I am just asking for clarification. PLUS you've changed both of them to British RIGHT AFTER editing here so I'm I have to ask why? Its somehwat suspicious. If they are suddenly British, why not North hmmm? And now its been changed to British? Stabby Joe (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

it is a scottish company because they are based in Scotland and that is more specific than 'British' and just because the 'key people' are english or whatever does not change that.Andrew22k (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted but is is registered? I mean if it makes money does Scotland only get it? I'm not trying to change its status BTW, I'm not setteling it before it started. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

R* North is Scottish. It's based in Scotland and its roots are Scottish. That R* Games [or R* New York] is based in the US or Dan & Sam Houser are of English origin doesn't change that. Dan & Sam live in the US nowadays and work directly for the New York HQ. That they have influence on R* North is quite normal because it is a subsidiary of R* Games. That such large teams like R* North are of many nationalities is also quite normal in games dev. business [cf. Crytek → german developer but international team]. –^(de)jello ¿? 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, thank you for clarification. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a British company, because they are a registered British company, operating in the UK, based in Edinburgh, a city in Britain. If Scotland becomes independant then fine, call it a Scottish company, but isn't this supposed to be a factual encyclopedia? Rhetorical question obviously, legally it is British, in the name of FACTS and because this is a FACTUAL ENCYCLOPEDIA it should be called a British company.... Avae010

Scotland is a nation, whether you like it or not, its part of the UK, but the FACT is that it is still a nation. Nar Matteru (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look in an encylopedia facts are important, legally Rockstar North is not a Scottish company, it may be based in Edinburgh, but the fact is that it is A LEGALLY REGISTERED BRITISH COMPANY with the UK INLAND REVENUE. Check out the legality yourself, http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/81373b689c3aa7bf631db49e0ef30be5/compdetails . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.52.171 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A: Calm down, and stop with the caps locks. Even if you are right, the world will not end because someone confused the two.

B: don't paste temporary links as a source, all that gives is a blank page.

I did however search the company on the same site again, and it doesn't say anything at all about it being registered in Britain. As a matter of fact, The only British address given was their mailing address, which is actually their parent company's (Take Two, which is American)) British location. A mailing address doesn't mean anything as for as registration. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

hahhaa irony, I just read an article about how Leslie Benzies is upset at the Scottish government for not promoting grand theft auto enough http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=188104 Nar Matteru (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Im not sorry for pointing out the obvious to you, but by the very fact that it is registered in the British Governments' Companies House, it is by definition a British business, if you actually looked then you would have seen that it's legal country of origin is the United Kingdom, not Scotland, not Turkmenistan, not Narnia, but the United Kingdom. Additionally, in response to your assertation that the only address that is registered is a 'mailing address' this is quite simply misleading, legally they must specify the location of their administrative headquarters, that is quite seperate however from the reality that Rockstar North is a registered British company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. for the last time. Scotland is a country. It doesn't have to be independent from the United Kingdom to be a country. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It is not a "state" or any other such lesser thing. It is STILL a country. As are all the other constituent countries of the UK. It is headquartered in Edinburgh Scotland. Because Scotland is a country, I can call it a Scottish company very damn well. There wouldn't be a 'Scottish' page to link to If I couldn't. It is, a scottish company. If you want to change every single page that has the word 'Scottish' in it to British you will be changing a very large portion of wikipedia. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS.

Regarding the so called "registration". It has an English mailing address that has absolutely nothing to do with its "registration" as the mailing address belongs to its parent company which is an American company and aside from being parent, is a separate entity altogether. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is frankly becoming rather bizzarre and I find your attitude frankly unwarranted. Now im not embarrassed or ashamed to be wrong, I have researched this and you claim to have done likewise, yet you continue to mislead. Im not argueing over the existance of Scotland, what im argueing with you is that your now completely ignoring the facts about this. Rockstar North is legally a British company, it is a British company because there is not registration agency for doing so in Scotland, there is only one such agency, it is Company House, an executive agency of the United Kingdom government. If you find Rockstar North's name in the database of Company House, it is THEREFORE A BRITISH COMPANY. It is not registered under it's parent company, it has to register with its legal trading name. Addittionaly, in regards to WP:UKNATIONALS, that has nothing to do with businesses, it is in relation to the nationality of the peoples of the UK, though I assume you knew this already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, maybe im coming across too strong and it's absolutely not my intention to offend you, really its not, I respect your opinion. Im only debating so vehemantly, not as an English person who wants to steal Rockstar North and claim it as British because it operates in Scotland (believe it or not I live in Scotland), but because of the fact that it is indeed a British company, though its offices are in Edinburgh. I wanted to clear the air, I hope you are not offended, though i'm standing by my guns and not giving an inch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_Scotland All of those must not exist. Start changing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_House#Scotland Apparently, Scotland does do its own registrations, which are subject to its own laws and regulations. Whether those registrations are folded into the UK's main registry, I could care less. The point of the location in this article is to show where the company is based, not necessarily whose house and country it was legally registered into. And to be as specific as possible, it is clearly based in Scotland.

oh and I know the policy really only applies to people, but it can still apply to this case (a company after all, is made up of people) Nar Matteru (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, firstly Companies House has registration offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and London, all of these offices are merely offices of the UK agency itself. Secondly, the point of this debate is whether or not it is a UK company based on Edinburgh, I quote the original article "...is a Scottish developer based in Edinburgh,Scotland.", surprisingly you seem to be deviating from this. Addittionally, Scottish business have to comply with the UK Companies Act 2006, this superceedes Scottish Law, fact. All incorporated or limited businesses legally must register with Companies House, making any business registered with Companies House UK businesses. This is an important legal distinction, since there is no sovereign entity called Scotland, nor one called England or Wales, the only sovereign legal entity here is the UK. So forgive my earlier statements, it should be called a UK company.

OR since the wording had nothing to do with any legality and was just a descriptive word to show where the company was located, Scottish works fine. Or what it is now. If you want to add ", UK" after "Edinburgh, Scotland", feel free to do so. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

++ Furthermore, I quote the Companies Act 2006 Chapter 46 "...provides for a single company law regime applying to the whole of the UK, so that companies will be UK companies..." ++

So again, your simply not providing factual points and your relying on user generated wikipedia articles.

Well, A.G. Barr, makers of Irn-Bru have on the front page of their website "A.G.Barr p.l.c., Westfield House, 4 Mollins Road, Westfield, Cumbernauld, G68 9HD Registered in Scotland (Reg No SC5653)". I don't know the legal basis of this but certainly suggests that they are registered, in Scotland, and that there is a distinction between a Scottish company and a British one. Neilgravir (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Clear as mud, then. The constant petty squabbling and distinctions between English/British, Scottish/British and English born Australian (etc, etc) on Wikipedia is reaching such a petty heights that it's almost reminiscent of the former Yugoslavia here. The arguments and vandalism are exposing some very insecure xenophobes. Guv2006 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to wade into this argument, but if you look at any other company who is based in the UK, they are referred to as a British company. Even the Royal Bank of Scotland has British and United Kingdom mentioned in it.

Also, I'd like to point out that WP:UKNATIONALS says

"1.Look at what others have done in comparable articles."

What others have done is label any company based in any of the constituent countries as British, although infoboxes may sometimes use "Scotland, UK" in them. In the interests of fairness, would it not be better to say "...is a British company, based in Edinburgh, Scotland."?TomB123 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar North is an English registered company (company number 03312220; its registered office is in Windsor, Berkshire) which is based in Scotland. The reason for the distinction is that there are three separate legal systems within the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. That's why Scottish companies have the "SC" prefix in their company numbers and Northern Irish companies have an "NI" prefix. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be registered in England and have a few key English employees, but it still should be called a Scottish company. As most of the creative employees working there are Scottish. Making most of what Rockstar North produces Scottish creations. 95.151.33.143 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the article for "Agent" directed to this one?

The article for the PS3 exclusive Rockstar North developed game, is gone. Why?... because it seems to be directed to this article instead. There really needs to be a good reason for this, because the original article gave information worth knowing about the game & could be updated heavily in the future. The arctile for Rockstar North doesn't even list the game, let alone mention it. - Someone needs to come up with a good reason for the direction, or otherwise I'll change it back myself. Jas315 (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You have right, I`ve done it. --Artur, 10:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was redirected here is that the article was nominated for deletion and the result of that debate was to merge it into this article. See the notice at the top of this page. I have reverted the recreation of that article as per the ADF debate. Keith D (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)