Jump to content

Talk:Gearbox Software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The Duke Nukem Forever project was not "abandoned" by 3DRealms. 3DR's lost the IP during a legal battle --94.214.176.248 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the intro? It sounds like some PR person from Gearbox. It's not objective and it doesn't site any of the claims it makes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.175.244 (talk • contribs) 02:50, February 12, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds too much like PR. I edited the intro and condensed it down to try and make it more objective. I'm also removing the neutrality tag as a result. Voracious Reader 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article needs a total rewrite and then a lock from editing. If gearbox wants to let people know how awesome it is that they made expansion packs for Half Life and that they haven't gone bankrupt doing mercenary work for various publishers or making budget level WW2 shooters, they should inform them on their own website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.182.253 (talk • contribs) 09:42, November 7, 2007

Gearbox's best game ever!- Half-Life: Opposing Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.24.191 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems be a PR piece - their recent troubles haven't been documented on here yet for some reason

[edit]

The Aliens: Colonial Marines wiki page has a lot of not-so-positive stuff on Gearbox Software, which appears to have plenty of problems since the Duke Nukem Forever controversy. This page really should be edited to better reflect reality (as demonstrated on their own products' pages which documents the various issues at hand). Just sayin'. Balst32 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited 'Brothers in Arms' section

[edit]

I have removed the last sentence from the 'Brothers in Arms' section. It was mere speculation, which does not belong on Wikipedia. 'Brothers in Arms: War Heroes' was never announced. Gearbox DID copyright the name 'War Heroes' and 'War Hero' in 2011, but have never announced anything related to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.70.175 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users deleting controversies

[edit]

All the criticism that GearBox Software has received post Duke Nukem has been deleted from the article.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gearbox Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gearbox Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gearbox Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gearbox Software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: Combat Evolved

[edit]

We are missing Halo CE’s PC port, which was done by gearbox Software around the same time they were making Half-Life expansions and ports.

Since Halo is a massive franchise, that’s a big oversight.

Not sure if Halo 2 was also ported by Gearbox, but I think it was if I recall reading a while back. We’d need to find a credible and citable source, of course.

I can add the info, insha’Allah, but wanted to get feedback first in case it was already discussed before and for any other opinions. NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of games completely messed up

[edit]

It lists the actual developers as publishers, when Gearbox's involvement in half these games is as the publisher, not developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.124.213.242 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Lordtobi (✉) 15:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands 3 Bonuses Controversy

[edit]

So there is breaking news of Gearbox employees not getting promised bonuses (specifically getting much smaller ones). What section would that go in? Frohike14 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trover Saves the Universe redirect

[edit]

Why does Trover Saves the Universe redirect to the Gearbox page? Seems like it should have its own page. Developed by Justin Roiland, on major platforms, plenty of press coverage...what's the deal? Tactical Fiend (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gearbox Entertainment

[edit]

A minor detail the stuck with me in the recent acquisition announcement: Embracer Group did not acquire "Gearbox Software", it acquired "Gearbox Entertainment" (specifically, "The Gearbox Entertainment Company, Inc."). The latter was incorporated on 2019-05-01.[1] The acquisition presentation (on pg. 6) lists Gearbox Software (and Gearbox Publishing) as subsidiaries of Gearbox Entertainment. The press release only goes as far as saying "Gearbox Software, the game development unit, [of Gearbox Entertainment]". Do we have any sources that confirm this apparent corporate structure and when it was created? Pinging @Masem who usually has the right sources for everything. IceWelder [✉] 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice in the pressers that it was "Gearbox Entertainment" but obviously everyone considers that "Gearbox Software". I can't tell when yet this distinction was made, though it's clear if you look at Pitchford's bio on the Gearbox site. I'm looking now for more. --Masem (t)
This is obviously not "usable" yet, but here's what I can find: when they formed Gearbox Publishing in 2016, there was also the formation of two additional TX companies at the same time: "GEARBOX ENTERPRISES, LLC" and "GEARBOX DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC" (both which have Pitchford as President, and which have the same registering agent) via [2]. Start poking around the "Gearbox Enterprises" and that looks to be what is dba as the parent company to Gearbox Software and Gearbox Publishing: [3] is the transfer of the Gearbox trademark from Software to Enterprises right after 2016, for example. Same with the Borderlands trademark [4]. Same with the SHIFT code stuff (legal banner at bottom) [5]
That said, that led me to this that asserts that "The Gearbox Entertainment Company, Inc." was founded in May 1, 2019 (when it registered in TX).
Unfortunately this is unusable but in a lawsuit Gearbox is involved in [6] they filed motions to assert Gearbox Entertainment as the parent to Software and Publishing in a February 2020 action.
So I am pretty confident that we can at least state with these new Embracer things that Gearbox Entertainment was formed in May 2019 to be the parent company to Software + Publishing. --Masem (t) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Would it suffice to cite OpenCorporates for the incorporation date? [7] IceWelder [✉] 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As another data point to add, from this article [8] Pitchford says "In that time — rewind to when I was thinking we were going to need to raise capital. That’s when I reformed Gearbox as a “C” corp. from an LLC and created an employee stock option program. I gave 30 percent of the company away to the employees." That said, I can't immediately verify this with any of these corp sites. --Masem (t) 04:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to reflect new corporate structure

[edit]

This account is the official Wikipedia account of The Gearbox Entertainment Company. Given our updated corporate structure, we are requesting that this page be renamed to “The Gearbox Entertainment Company” and the content of this article be updated to reflect these changes. As has been discussed in this Talk page previously, Gearbox Software is no longer an LLC and is now a subsidiary of The Gearbox Entertainment Company (along with Gearbox Publishing). Accordingly, much of the language used in this page is now appropriate for and attributable to Gearbox Entertainment, not Gearbox Software. Please reach out to Communications@Gearbox.com if you have any questions regarding this request or if there is any other information or updates we can provide to make sure this page is as accurate and up to date as possible. Thank you! GearboxOfficial (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Gearbox Entertainment Company[reply]

Note: The above account is under a username policy soft block. Pending a rename, they will be unblocked. Carrying on the discussion above and in relation to this request, we need to discern which company is the topic here. I'd argue that this article is about Gearbox Software, the development subsidiary of Gearbox Entertainment Company. The entirety of the article is about the Software subsidiary and it's work, with the holding company only being established in 2019 two years ago. This is analogous with the holding company Activision Blizzard and the subsidiaries Activision and Blizzard Entertainment. As such, this article should remain as is, though it needs some minor adjustment and fixes (The parent of "Software" is not Embracer, but Gearbox Entertainment, for example). Whether Gearbox Entertainment Company passes WP:NCORP is a separate topic. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post about WP:COMMONAME here too, though I noticed when using Tiny Tina's Wonderlands announcement at E3 as a point of reference "Gearbox Entertainment" comes up enough to be a term of interest. I still think Common Name applies and we shouldn't change this from Gearbox Software, but we certainly can explain "The Gearbox Entertainment Company" as its immediate parent (with appropriate redirects). I do agree that the parent company likely would fail NCORP and even then, if it did, a better quality comprehensive article is had by discussing the parent, G. Software, and G. Publishing in one group at this time. --Masem (t) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ferret. This is Dan Hewitt, Chief Communications Officer at Gearbox Entertainment. I’m following up here individually because the account above was blocked, despite disclosing it was an official Gearbox-affiliated account and not attempting to make direct edits.

Gearbox is aware that paid editing by or on behalf of a company is against Wikipedia’s COI policies, so I would like to clarify that our previous attempt to reach out was to request edits to a few inaccuracies we see on this Gearbox Software page. Some of the “Software” vs. “Entertainment” distinctions have since been cleaned up by others, which is great. That said, we want to keep a transparent line of communication open regarding additional edits we still think need to be made to make this page more accurate, including any WP:NCORP and WP:COMMONAME issues.

If we can suggest edits with reputable sources on this talk page for you or others to make, would that comply with Wikipedia policies? @Ferret, @IceWelder, @Masem and any other frequent editors: please let us know if that would meet your requirements. -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

Hi @DanHewittGBX:. The account above was provided information and instructions on how to be unblocked, but never replied or took further action. Accounts can not be used to act as a "group" account, and must clearly represent a single individual. Your account name, "DanHewittGBX", is perfectly fine. It's not the "officialness" or "association" with a COI that was the issue, but the "individualness".
We're more than happy to assist with edit requests. Most importantly, you should treat this specific page as explicitly pertaining to the "Software" subsidiary, which is the most well known of the corporate entities and the longest existing. Changes you want made to this article should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, well regarded publications, and their online counter parts. The easy examples from a video game perspective are outlets like IGN, PC Gamer, etc. The Video Game Wikiproject maintains a list of known reliable sources within the topic area at WP:VG/RS. It's not exhaustive, but is a good starting point. Of course, non-video game publications are perfectly fine, such as the New York Times, most business publications, CNN, ​ABC, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc. One thing to be particular about though is you need sources that are discussing Gearbox (Software and/or Entertainment), and not simply reposting or publishing a press release. A press release is not independent.
On the topic of WP:COMMONNAME: This really doesn't come into play here, except for the early confusion of "Entertainment" versus "Software". These are two distinct topics, so we aren't really dealing with a name conflict.
On the topic of Gearbox Entertainment (currently redirected here), the (relatively) new holding company that owns Gearbox Software (this page), WP:NCORP sets forth the basic guidelines for showing that any given company is notable enough to have an article. This is shown by finding the reliable secondary sources that give indepth independent coverage to the company, much as you'd have to do for any edits you want to make about Software. IceWelder and Masem are probably a fair bit more versed in showing WP:NCORP than I am, but I want to hazard that there's probably not a great deal of information said directly about the parent company. That may change over time. You can however, even with a COI, create a draft article at Draft:Gearbox Entertainment (Or, Draft:Gearbox Entertainment Company, as you prefer, but I think we'd drop "Company" probably). The content should focus specifically on what the holding company is doing, it's formation, it's properties, etc. There will, of course, be some overlap with Gearbox Software, but it's important to differentiate. For example, the Entertainment page shouldn't talk in terms of "Gearbox is developing a new game...". The holding company is not developing a game, the Software subsidiary is.
I hope this helps set a stage for us to work further together. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret, thanks so much for your detailed and thoughtful response. We appreciate the ability to have an open line of communication. As Gearbox continues to grow and evolve as a company we anticipate there will be a number of opportunities to collaborate and ensure that the information here and on future pages is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. We look forward to working with you @IceWelder, @Masem and any other relevant editors/moderators/administrators. -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

Randy Pitchford just tweeted this today [9] which gives a good picture of the current company structure, so once its reflected in news sources soon, we can be very clear about the company structure using those alongside this Tweet to support that. --Masem (t) 18:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem,

Thanks for flagging Randy’s tweet and updating this page. If you are still looking to make edits to reflect Gearbox’s new corporate structure, I was wondering if this article [10] and this article [11] would work.


In particular, would it be possible to change the “holding company” language in the intro and the “Restructuring and acquisition” section? The Gearbox Entertainment Company is not a holding company, which is usually defined as existing solely to control stock in other publicly-traded companies [12]. Gearbox Entertainment functions as a unified organization with three different business units. For that reason, could you use “parent company” instead? That is how we refer to Gearbox Entertainment in all internal and external materials.


Thanks for all your help! Please let me know if there is any further information or sources I can provide. -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

Removing "Holding" from GBox Entertainment Co is completely fair, and has been done. --Masem (t) 19:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DanHewittGBX: by the way, while your attention is here, I'd like to suggest to you if you can think if there are any images related to Gearbox that you would be able to offer under free licenses (like Creative Commons or Public Domain) of Randy Pitchford, other named individuals on this article still at the company, the staff overall, etc. as to help spruce up this article. This is not required at all and you may not be able to do so, but it would be nice to have such images similar to how we have that for Epic Games and Valve Software. If you can provide images, we can give you a couple ways to do that easily, but that's a step to worry about if this is a possibility. --Masem (t) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A pic of the HQ would also be nice. :) IceWelder [✉] 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem,:@IceWelder, Great ideas, Masem and IceWelder. I'd love that and we can absolutely do that. Please let me know the best way to share images! If you have other thoughts, I'm absolutely open to any suggestions. -- DanHewittGBX (talk)
@DanHewittGBX: Because you have a Wikimedia account, you should be able to use the same account (user/password) over at Commons [13]) There you can upload images that you know you (as a representative of Gearbox) have the ability to upload and have them used in a free licensed manner (make sure this is legit on your corporate side!). There's a simple wizard there for that here [14]. However, because there have been problems with others in the past (overall) of false claims of ownership/representative, there is one additional step you'll need to do, which is to notify our Ticket System with your concent that you are allowing these photos to be used freely; they will confirm with you through email to make sure you are who you say you are. See c:COM:CONSENT for the form or sample text to start this process after you upload the images.
The other way is that there appears to be an official Flickr account for Gearbox at [15] If you upload photos there and make sure they are tagged with a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license or even public domain (though I'd recommend one of the first two), then we can easily import those over to Commons (We'd be working on the assumption that that is the company's official Flickr account and thus that's the same way of getting consent). --Masem (t) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem,:@IceWelder Hi both. Just wanted to give you an update since the last time we spoke that we're in the process of adding some images of the studio to Wikimedia Commons to spruce up the page. We're also working with legal to clear some photos involving Gearbox IP.

Separately, with Gearbox Publishing now recognized on this page as a distinct business unit from Gearbox Software, I want to inquire about creating a separate page for Gearbox Publishing. I know the content would be up to your discretion, given COI rules, but we've drafted up some initial copy that could serve as the basis for a built out page. Let me know what the best way to move forward with that request would be. -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

Great news on the images. In regards to Publishing, a better solution would be likely to have a "Corporate structure" or similar heading here so that the current redirect that is Gearbox Publishing can point directly to that (similar to the section on Activision Blizzard). We can try to use any points on text you have but we do have to be careful about overreliance on first-party sources. --Masem (t) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can also upload a picture of the HQ exterior. These are the kind we usually include in the infobox. IceWelder [✉] 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem The way Activision Blizzard's Corporate Structure section is set up, with the internal links directed to separate pages, is exactly what I was envisioning. In our case, the pages would be Gearbox Entertainment, Gearbox Software, and Gearbox Publishing. I also understand the restrictions on first-party sources, so the content I would send is just suggestions for a Publishing page. How can I send those through to you? Wikimedia, as well? -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

@Masem @IceWelder: Just wanted to check in here and let you know that we have uploaded images of the Gearbox HQ in Frisco to Wikimedia. Those images can be found here (interior lobby) and here (exterior). Let us know if there is anything else we can provide.


I also wanted to follow up in regard to the questions about corporate structure. I think the way Activision Blizzard's Corporate Structure section is set up, with the internal links directed to separate pages, is perfect for Gearbox as well — with separate pages for Gearbox Entertainment, Gearbox Software, and Gearbox Publishing. Would it be helpful to share some draft content via Wikimedia Commons for a Gearbox Publishing page to get that process started? -- DanHewittGBX (talk)

On Perfect World

[edit]

Perfect World, when the acquisition is finished, will be under the Gearbox Entertainment group - the parent company of Gearbox Software, per the press release. PW will be a sibling company to Gearbox Software, not under Gearbox Software. Press release "Through the acquisition of PWE, Gearbox Entertainment will onboard PWE Publishing and Cryptic Studios, which will both remain independent within Gearbox Entertainment." Gearbox Software is NOT Gearbox Entertainment. --Masem (t) 01:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Gearbox Entertainment Company

[edit]

@Masem:, @IceWelder: Hi! Dan Hewitt from Gearbox here. Thank you again for your help updating Randy Pitchford’s page. The Gearbox Entertainment Company has had a restructuring over the last few years, and as a result, I’d like to revisit developing Wikipedia pages for Gearbox Entertainment and Publishing as to accurately represent the changed corporate structure. I’m happy to take the first pass at drafting appropriately sourced content for these pages to post with your review. Let me know. Thanks and I appreciate your help! DanHewittGBX (talk)


@Masem:, @IceWelder: Hi, wanted to follow up on the message above in regards to creating new pages for Gearbox Entertainment and Publishing. I can provide content and sources for those pages for your review. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you! DanHewittGBX (talk)

@DanHewittGBX: Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get any of your recent pings (it appears you are signing your posts with 3 tidles, but it should be 4) and just saw this by chance. I am currently on the go and will look into the matter later today. Courtesy ping @Masem, who likely wasn't notified either. IceWelder [✉] 09:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, as far as I can see, TGEC does not really satisfy notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage of it; it only appears in news bits (e.g. acquisition by Embracer, acquisition of Lost Boys, reorganization). Gearbox Publishing might be a more viable article given coverage like this. You may feel free to write up drafts for both that would be checked by other editors before publication. Another option I was thinking of is a list of Embracer Group operative groups, which would allow for room to address all 10 groups, including TGEC, in at least some detail. Would love to know what you think, and also get second opinion from Masem. IceWelder [✉] 19:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: Hi, thanks again for your help and discussion on this. I wanted to revisit this conversation as increased coverage from GamesRant, and GamesIndsutry.biz, and others, continue to highlight Gearbox Entertainment as a separate entity from Gearbox Software. Given reliable resources in line with notability guidelines, do you think we can remake the case to add this new page? Looking forward to your thoughts! DanHewittGBX (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: Hi, Dan Hewitt from Gearbox Entertainment here! Adding you to this chain as I saw you responded to the Gearbox Publishing page submission. The Gearbox Entertainment Company has had a restructuring over the last few years, and as a result, Gearbox Publishing is separate from Gearbox Software. If possible, can you provide additional context as to why the page was redirected? Happy to make edits if needed, let me know. Thanks and I appreciate your help! DanHewittGBX (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick answer is that in comparison to Gearbox Software, Gearbox Publishing lacks the separate coverage to make it notable under our guidelines (particularly WP:NCORP). But its activities should clearly be documented so covering it here makes sense. Masem (t) 21:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gearbox_Software&oldid=1207372857"