Open Registry of Game Information 

  • Release dates

  • Talk about specific features of our upcoming online game database.
Talk about specific features of our upcoming online game database.

Moderators: MZ per X, gene

 #37214  by Ultyzarus
 16 Oct 2013, 17:51
Here are a couple of suggestions of release date formats that could be used:

-1 Copyright Date: Found on the cover/title screen, should be replaced when better info is found.
-2 Announced Date: Future release dates that have officially been announced by Publisher (Source to be provided), when the game is out, the users would be prompted to verify that the game is actually release on that date
-3 Official Date: From Publisher's website, Magazine, Software shop website or other reliable source. Needs to be documented.
-4 Outside Source Date: Taken from another gaming website or wikipedia, temporary and is tagged as such and needs to be verified with better sources.

If Oregami has a missing info/most wanted feature, cases 1 and 4 would show up in the search. Actually, I think any item in the database could be tagged as temporary if the provided source is not accurate enough, or in the case of covers with creases, low-quality, etc.
 #37229  by MZ per X
 18 Oct 2013, 22:07
Ultyzarus wrote:Here are a couple of suggestions of release date formats that could be used:
Yeah, it's a good thing if we can tag unreliable release dates in order to replace them. Of course, things like an outside release date should be an exception if nothing else can be found. I implemented this in the data model (Connection 15 and Data List 25).

I omitted the announce date since that is stored at RG level, as there's no R for unreleased games per se. :)

Furthermore I split your official date case. For me, an official date can only come from the publisher or developer. The next level is other parties directly involved in the gaming business, like the press, or bigger software shops like Amazon. Then come the outsiders.

And finally, I added two more cases. Please comment and add more! :)
 #37232  by Ultyzarus
 18 Oct 2013, 22:13
Yep, even better in the wiki!

In some cases, it's good to have cross-references too, or knowing specific facts for a platform. Thus, it would be good to keep various sources on file for this purpose (when they match XD) For instance, both the Sony websites and Square-Enix official sites list the PS1 version download release for the same date for PSP, PS3 and PSVita, but PSVita actually has a later release since the feature wasn't implemented on original release date...
 #37234  by MZ per X
 18 Oct 2013, 22:24
Ultyzarus wrote:In some cases, it's good to have cross-references too, or knowing specific facts for a platform. Thus, it would be good to keep various sources on file for this purpose (when they match XD)
Not sure, if I fully understand you. But what's already implemented is more than one release date per release.
 #37235  by Ultyzarus
 18 Oct 2013, 22:29
Then that would work, there just needs to be an actual way to know that, for instance, only the second release date applies to the PSVita release group.
 #37241  by MZ per X
 18 Oct 2013, 23:15
Ultyzarus wrote:Then that would work, there just needs to be an actual way to know that, for instance, only the second release date applies to the PSVita release group.
Hmm, then the PS Vita release should be split out, I think. If it has a different release date for all regions, it's a different release.
 #37242  by Ultyzarus
 19 Oct 2013, 00:05
MZ per X wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:In some cases, it's good to have cross-references too, or knowing specific facts for a platform. Thus, it would be good to keep various sources on file for this purpose (when they match XD)
Not sure, if I fully understand you. But what's already implemented is more than one release date per release.
That would be in the case of a reprint, maybe? Otherwise I can't see how a release could have different dates.
 #37243  by Ultyzarus
 19 Oct 2013, 15:02
MZ per X wrote:I omitted the announce date since that is stored at RG level, as there's no R for unreleased games per se. :)
Well, that is not always true. Some Publishers often announce the specific releases in advance, especially for pre-order purposes:
RG level date from publisher: http://www.jp.square-enix.com/ffx_x-2HD/
R level date from gaming website: http://www.gamergen.com/actualites/fina ... s-126401-1
 #37257  by MZ per X
 20 Oct 2013, 21:20
Ultyzarus wrote:
MZ per X wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:In some cases, it's good to have cross-references too, or knowing specific facts for a platform. Thus, it would be good to keep various sources on file for this purpose (when they match XD)
Not sure, if I fully understand you. But what's already implemented is more than one release date per release.
That would be in the case of a reprint, maybe? Otherwise I can't see how a release could have different dates.
The original idea behind this was identical boxes being released in different regions at different times. Say a 4-language Euro release is published in the UK, one month later in Germany, another month later in France and Italy. All the same box.

As our data model has developed, we now can use this multiple release date facility for saving dates from different sources, too.
Ultyzarus wrote:Well, that is not always true. Some Publishers often announce the specific releases in advance, especially for pre-order purposes:
Yeah, I see. But either the game is not released, yet, or it is. In the latter case we have the exact release date which we can assign to a R, while in the former case there's no reason to allow a R into the database. So we need to put that pre-order date elsewhere, and the perfect place for this is the RG which is already there since RGs can be saved for unreleased games already.

Hope that helps and we're not talking at cross-purposes somehow here. :)
 #37261  by Ultyzarus
 20 Oct 2013, 21:45
MZ per X wrote: Hope that helps and we're not talking at cross-purposes somehow here. :)
Yeah, all clear! And I can finally see how unreleased games can make it in the Database.
 #37262  by Tracy Poff
 21 Oct 2013, 05:01
Ultyzarus wrote:-1 Copyright Date: Found on the cover/title screen, should be replaced when better info is found.
I disagree. The copyright date doesn't represent the date the game was released, but it does (partly) document when the game was created. The date is often the same as the release year, but sometimes it can help to trace a game's ancestry or point to an earlier release.

For example, there's a Tower of Hanoi game for the Commodore PET released by Brookfield Software in 1980. I can't find useful information about who exactly Brookfield Software is, or other details, but the copyright date on the game is 1978--the same year as a suspiciously similar Tower of Hanoi game by Glen Fisher.

My point is that this information is also valuable. It shouldn't substitute for a release date if we have better information, but it shouldn't be discarded, either.
 #37264  by Ultyzarus
 21 Oct 2013, 13:04
Tracy Poff wrote:
Ultyzarus wrote:-1 Copyright Date: Found on the cover/title screen, should be replaced when better info is found.
I disagree. The copyright date doesn't represent the date the game was released, but it does (partly) document when the game was created. The date is often the same as the release year, but sometimes it can help to trace a game's ancestry or point to an earlier release.

For example, there's a Tower of Hanoi game for the Commodore PET released by Brookfield Software in 1980. I can't find useful information about who exactly Brookfield Software is, or other details, but the copyright date on the game is 1978--the same year as a suspiciously similar Tower of Hanoi game by Glen Fisher.

My point is that this information is also valuable. It shouldn't substitute for a release date if we have better information, but it shouldn't be discarded, either.
That's exactly what we suggest, to have it, especially when we can't find an actual source for the exact date. But as you said, we must keep that information available, as it also helps when researching for that missing piece of info ;)
 #37275  by MZ per X
 22 Oct 2013, 20:51
Tracy Poff wrote:My point is that this information is also valuable. It shouldn't substitute for a release date if we have better information, but it shouldn't be discarded, either.
What Ultyzarus said. We won't discard the information, just show the "better" date as release date for the respective game in our data displays.

Oh, and a warm welcome to you! Glad to have you discussing with us. :D
 #37277  by Tracy Poff
 22 Oct 2013, 20:59
MZ per X wrote:What Ultyzarus said. We won't discard the information, just show the "better" date as release date for the respective game in our data displays.
I misunderstood--I thought that "should be replaced when better info is found" meant that the actual date would be replaced, rather than merely that the actual release date would replace the copyright date in the data display. That's sensible!
MZ per X wrote:Oh, and a warm welcome to you! Glad to have you discussing with us. :D
I'm glad to be here. For me, studying and documenting games usually supersedes playing games in my priorities, so I was desperately in need of a new home, after the MobyGames fiasco. I hope for a bright future, here.
 #37287  by Ultyzarus
 23 Oct 2013, 13:35
Tracy Poff wrote:
MZ per X wrote:What Ultyzarus said. We won't discard the information, just show the "better" date as release date for the respective game in our data displays.
I misunderstood--I thought that "should be replaced when better info is found" meant that the actual date would be replaced, rather than merely that the actual release date would replace the copyright date in the data display. That's sensible!
Well, as I worded it first, it was to be discarded, but we came to the conclusion that it is better to keep different date sources with a display hierarchy: Official, Third-party, etc.


On another note, while researching release info for the FF wiki, I came upon this: http://www.playonline.com/pcd/verup/ff1 ... etail.html
It has the release date displayed as JST (Japan Standard Time), which makes the actual announced date one day before the JST date.

I think we have to implement release dates by time zone ;)