Talk:Strategy First
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
The original page read like a vantiy article put up by a strategy first PR employee, with lots of unsupported adjectives which tried to portray SF as a "groundbreaking" "leading" "well known" developer of "major industry titles", None of which are accurate characterizations for this relatively small and unknown publisher.
The last sentence also had no place in the article, being unsupported and subjective. Ie. If you're going to say SF is a "unique alternative for independant developers seeking a worldwide audience", then spend at least a paragraph outlinine why this is the case instead of just throwing it out there as though it's an objective fact.
[edit] Exploitation and bankruptcy
Something should be put in the article about SF denying to pay some developers for software it publishes. For example, they refused to pay Introversion for distributing their game Uplink in america (indeed, there is something about this in the Uplink article). They then filed for bankruptcy and still owe Introversion thousands of dollars from sales, if not much more. On a minor related note, the only reason IV has survived financially is thanks to Steam - SF nearly bankrupted them. -AthlonBoy 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relation with GameTap
There are a whole lot of SF games on GameTap, does anyone know if they have a deal with them as well as Steam? Jedibob5 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
