Talk:Major League Baseball 2K9

We really need to add a criticism section. This game is being universally panned by the internet community for its glitches, home-run durby style play and stripped-down features. It's a mess and it's becoming a big controversy, especially for people without XBox Live, who basicly have an unplayable game.

The statements from Ben Brinkman on MLB 2K9 may no longer apply. He walked away from the 2K series after 2K8 due to the utter failure of the project (most likely to avoid being fired. His comments should probably be removed. Jwjkp (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

So... it ISN'T Charlie Sheen from Major League? (smirk) JAF1970 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

News JAF1970 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Ended up being no more than just images of Lincecum doing some stuff for the game and a commercial. I would never take anything that Ronny dude on those forums says however. He has been wrong MANY times in the past. Jwjkp (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was an article released on the SF Giants home page that states "March" as the release date. However this article is clearly just speculating as 2K Sports has not released a release date for this game. Also, no other major gaming sites has verified any such information. Users adding this bit of detail of this article are violating the Speculation guideline of this unreleased game. Jwjkp (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Prove that it's speculation. Prove it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further, here is the article. Per WP:VERIFY:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Even if you think MLB.com isn't a reliable source, it is reliable enough for this encyclopedia. Major League Baseball licenses 2K to make the game, and they state the release month as fact, not speculation. You are simply assuming it's speculation and that the source is unreliable, but you have no proof and your assumptions have no place in the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I see here is a user with a source and a user without a source, so let's go with the one with a source which means the winner here according to me is Chrisjnelson but if Jwjkp can come up with a source other than 2K that says the release date is unofficial then let's put the release date as March 2009. --Iamawesome800 22:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

March 1st, 2009 according to IGN: http://ps3.ign.com/objects/142/14299424.html Jwjkp (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that's right since games aren't usually released on Sundays, but it passes WP:VERIFY so it should remain for now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Might be just the date its "shipped out". Meaning it might be available that day online and stuff, probably not till the 2nd or 3rd in stores. Jwjkp (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is shipped on a Sunday. And the ship date is always just one day prior. March 1, 2009 is the beginning of the fiscal quarter. JAF1970 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This should be the final say: Take 2 has no listing yet. Just say 2009. JAF1970 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's not how it works.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. Unless a publisher gives one, it's all speculation. According to many sites, Spore was coming out March 1, 2007 2008. JAF1970 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS. March 1, 2009 is a Sunday. Are you going to tell me MLB 2K9 is coming out on a Sunday? (laugh) Little hint: March 1 is the beginning of Q1 2009. JAF1970 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

IGN now says March 2009, not March 1. JAF1970 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nope, March 1st: http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/142/14299423.html ... Its about half way down the page. Jwjkp (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to bet you anything that the game is not being released on a Sunday. You're confusing the date of Q1 with a release date. Shall I contact Hilary Goldstein and have him tell you? JAF1970 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wrote Hilary, he wrote back the quote from the article:

So, please, stop using speculation. JAF1970 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• VG Releases says "Q1 2009". GameSpy [March 2009] Fancy that. JAF1970 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Hilary added, "It says March 2009

but there's really nothing else I can do for you. I am on vacation and I don't handle anything to do with our objects. And it's noted on the site that not date is final." JAF1970 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The edit war has become boring. I could kill block you all for edit warring, but it seems better to protect the page in a version that none of you like. When you've come to some kind of agreement on the talk page, I'll unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obviously we all need to agree on one source for this part of the article. As of right now there are many sites reporting many different things. This includes March 1st, March 2nd, Early 2009, Q1 2009, March 2009, and so on.

Who is reliable and who is not I guess?

Me personally, I think we should go with either 2K or Visual Concepts. More than likely we should go with 2K. They still say "Early 2009". That's all I have to say about this. I'm requesting a third opinion on this also. Jwjkp (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Every major site says March 2009. (GameSpy, IGN, VG Releases, TeamXbox, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yet you yourself said nothing was set in stone. Jwjkp (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the record, no one is saying they BELIEVE the game will come out on March 1. I'd bet anything it will not. However, per WP:VERIFY, if that information can be cited from a reliable source (and IGN clearly is that) we have to put it until new information becomes available. There is no rule that a release date can only be sourced from the game publisher itself, and that is not the way it works. You can believe something to be speculation all you want, and you may very well be right, but that does not change the fact that according to Wikipedia policy the information should be added to the article. There's nothing to debate here, there is only what is right by policy and what is not.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In response to the third opinion request, I would like to suggest the following, which I believe accurately reflects Wikipedia's policies. The release date in the text should indicate that there is ambiguity, based on discrepancies between sources of equal weightiness. May I suggest something like the following:

1. According to the game developer's website, MLB 2K9 is scheduled for release in "Early 2009".^[1] Other gaming sites indicate a that it will be in March 2009,^[2][3][4][5] while IGN has specified March 1, 2009.^[6]
2. As for the infobox, if you are unable to reach consensus, my suggestion is that it say "Unreleased".

For a better understanding of my reasoning, please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I hope you find my opinion useful. Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well I originally thought "2009" should be in the info box since that is really all 2K has given us. Jwjkp (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's no need for a compromise. WP:VERIFY shows the most specific info available can be added and cited.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've changed my post to number the two proposals. Do you agree with either suggestion? Furthermore, I was unable to find a part of WP:V that stated or implied that the most specific information available should be used. (EhJJ)^TALK 01:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have to say that, it's obvious. If something is specific and verifiable, it should obviously be included over something vague and verifiable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just want to state that I don't give a care about this anymore. My opinion though is nothing is reliable. No date has been set, 2K has not said anything, and no articles claiming dates and or months give any source to justify their claim. My point of view is this: if 2K has decided on a date (which is the -only- way IGN, MLB.com, or any other site could make any claim with facts behind it) it would be on their web site. Since its not, nothing has been announced. Based on past releases it should come out in March. Claims of that are probably accurate, but still speculation. I also think WP:Verify conflicts with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball in this case. Yes we can cite sources for making claims, but without any date coming from 2K its speculation (no matter how "creditable" whatever the source is). Maybe an administrator should help clear this issue up with us. Which one wins, the speculation rule, or the verify? I'll leave it to the rest of you to battle it out. I'm done. Jwjkp (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add this one last comment, taking from this page Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Nothing is certain because 2K has not said anything. Therefor, I think the Crystal ball rules wins over WP:Verify in this case. Meaning the only thing we currently have to put in that follows wiki guidelines is "Early 2009" which is from 2Ksports website. Of course, the term "early" I believe also violates some rule on clearness. Jwjkp (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Crystal Ball is about making assumptions and predictions. If it's verifiable, it cannot violate WP:CRYSTAL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

From 2K Sports Forum Admin (who works at 2K): "Until 2K announces a release date, all dates shown at other web sites are just speculation. IGN lists March 2009, but their countdown timer would suggest the beginning of March. EBGames has Mar. 2nd listed. All speculation and educated guesses until something official is announced. " This includes, but is not limited to, MLB.com, IGN.com, and any other sites making "claims" which are pure speculation. (http://2ksports.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199473) This means it does violate WP:CRYSTAL as this is rock solid proof that MLB.com and IGN.com ARE making assumptions and predictions. Its not verifiable, it does violate WP:CRYSTAL Jwjkp (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now that we have a source that proves it is speculation, then yes, we can remove the release date. However, none of us that added release dates with sources before now were not in the wrong for doing so. It may have been speculation, but you had no source for that at the time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't need to be removed, just needs to be set as "2009" which is what 2K provides. Actually 2K sports says "early 2009" but there is some policy against using words like "early" because they are not very clear on the meaning... What is early? Therefor, until 2K Sports changes their website (or announces something, which surely would be on their website when they do) it should stay as: 2009. Jwjkp (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone seen any useful previews? It seems to me there's been zero info on MLB 2K9 and what changes (if any) the game will have. JAF1970 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't expect them anytime soon. Game was released like around March 1st last year. We had no pictures till like February and no videos until like th end of February. Jwjkp (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I do not expect much info at all really about features and stuff till around the end of January maybe. May not get any at all till close to the release. Keep in mind that this game -might- be a complete rewrite since it has a new developer. If this is the case, the game is obviously going to take longer to make. We'll see what happens, but if its like last year ... 2K is very secretive about their MLB games until they are released. Jwjkp (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Considering the mega-preview that just hit for MLB 09: The Show, I think it's a bad strategy. JAF1970 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yea, but last year MLB 08 had hundreds of images out, tons of movies, and even their demo and 2K8 had nothing but a few worthless screens. Maybe after the 1st of the year, but don't expect anything till then. Jwjkp (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

PastaPadre.com received the full 2K Sports promotional material, and the press release included stated the release date as March 3, 2009. JAF1970 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scratch that. March 2nd is the official release date [1] Jwjkp (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

One note... Pastapadres says it will be in stores on March 3rd. That is true, it probably wont be in stores till then, but it ships out (will be released) on March 2nd. At least this debate can now fully be put to rest as no one can argue the facts coming straight from 2ksports. Jwjkp (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC).Reply

We do not list the ship date of a game. We list the date in which the game is on store shelves, which is always Tueday. See WP:VG. 2K Sports lists the ship date all the time - they did with NBA 2K8, 9, etc FOM etc. JAF1970 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

2K reports it as the release date, and that's what it is. Jwjkp (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

They list it as the ship date. I defy you to find any games being released on a Monday. WP:VG. Go check it out. JAF1970 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Go get a mod. I received a press release from 2K today stating a March 3 release date. As did PastaPadre.com. As did every reseller. JAF1970 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mediation filed JAF1970 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/142/14299423.html <--another one if you still are not satisfied. Jwjkp (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

We go by what is referenced from reliable sources. Jwjkp appear to has multiple references to back the date. WP:VG and PastaPadre (a blog) does not trump other reliable references. The359 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

PadrePadre is not a blog. If you knew ANYTHING about the sports video game world, PastaPadre is no more a "blog" than Operation Sports is. When MLB 2K9 is released on March 3, will you apologize? Hm? JAF1970 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

PastaPadre.com is a blog. It's all written by a single person, which automatically fails it as a reliable, referenced source.

I quite honestly don't care when MLB 2K9 comes out, the problem here is that you fail to understand Wikipedia policy on references. We put what can be referenced on the article, not what you feel is "right". Jwjkp currently has two references from a primary and secondary source which state March 2, possibly more. The date stays. The359 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's an ad for MLB Front Office Manager stating "MLB Front Office Manager - Out on January 27!" on CNNSI.com. The official site says otherwise. Which is right? Here's the answer: BOTH. Because January 26 is the ship date and January 27 is the release date. Now, if the ad for MLB FOM says January 27 and the site says January 26, even though the ad is by 2K Sports, will you go with the "official" Jan 26 date? JAF1970 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to explain to everyone here why all gaming sites and online stores refer to the "release date" of a video game, including the sites who make the games, as the date you refer to as "ship date". Release date could refer to either what you call "ship date" or "in-store (available) date" but it appears all video game publishers and stores that sell the games refer to the "release date" as your "ship date". Either way, as The359 stated to you earlier. We go by what can be most verifiably referenced. When the people who make/release the games state clearly that the "release date" is what you claim is the "ship date" we go by the source; NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT. No one here, including myself, is doubting you that it wont be in-stores until the day after the "release date". Again, however, that does not matter. As The359 suggested, please refer to WP:Verify. JeremyWJ (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Release date = store shelve date. Ship date =! release date. I've been active in the industry for 15 years since my days with Computer Games Magazine and UGO.com. This is MLB FOM's release date It says Jan 27, not 26. Saying March 2 is the release date is disseminating wrong information. Some people take a trip to GameStop on March 2 and ask them for MLB 2K9, and the employee says, "Sorry, it comes out tomorrow." JAF1970 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not know what you guys in the "video gamin industry" refer to release dates as. Like I said though it does not matter. 2KSports (and everyone else online) seems to refer to the "ship date" as release date. That is what can be most verifiably sourced, and that is what belongs in Wikipedia. Again, it doesn't matter what you feel is right. Once again though, why do places like IGN and even 2KSports (and really just every other gaming site) refer to the "release date" as the "ship date". Since they do, Wikipedia shall also. JeremyWJ (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not what I believe is "right", it's the fact that everyone in the industry goes by. Release date = on store shelves. Stating otherwise is called "dissemination of wrong information", and people who think the game will be released on March 2 are going to be very very disappointed when they take a trip to GameStop and find it's not in. JAF1970 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

MLB Front Office Manager was not in stores yesterday. It's in stores today. Hence, the release date was today (Jan 27), not yesterday. JAF1970 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shipping Info - This is why they list the ship date. Because they're accounting for online order shipping time. JAF1970 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You just don't get it do you? Even after 4-5 people have tried to explain it to you. It doesn't matter when it was in stores. I don't give a crap if it was released yesterday but not in stores until next year, the release date is still yesterday (in FoB's case). Again, this is the fourth time you have been told: We go by what can be referenced, not what you believe is right. The most reliable sources all refer to the release date as what you call the "ship date". You are going by your own interpretation of "release date". That is not how Wikipedia works. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS... nor do I give a crap what you guys in the "video game industry" refer to as release date. Because it does not matter. Our sources go by the release date as the ship date and therefor so will Wikipedia. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are surely sources for both dates, and since we know the Tuesday date is right, that's what we should go with. Do we have one source that lists the Tuesday date?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only sources for his side for this particular game is blogs. The developer of the game (2ksports) clearly states March 2nd. There is no debate as to what Wikipedia should say because of this. The problem is just his misinterpretation of "release date". If he wants it to say March 3rd, then "release date" in the article should be changed to "in stores". JeremyWJ (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Every game site that lists a release date for this game clearly states "March 2nd". IGN, Gamespot, 2KSports, the list goes on. Having the "release date" be a different date on Wikipedia than every gaming site on the internet would be incorrect, misleading, and confusing for users. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

But If we can find one notable source saying March 3, we should go with that since we all know that's correct.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chrisjnelson ... the issue here again is misinterpretation of the release date. No where on Wikipedia is "release date" for video games clearly defined one way or another. Therefor we are bound by WP:Verify. We use the most reliable source possible. A source directly from the maker of the game is really as reliable as it gets. You being a moderator on Wikipedia should already know this, so I am really lost to as why I have to explain this to you. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, we do not know that's correct. By the rules of WP:Verify March 3rd is incorrect. Again, in store and release date are clearly two different dates. If you don't believe me, do a bit of googling around on gaming sites for release dates. You'll see they ARE ALWAYS listed as the day they "ship out". JeremyWJ (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

March 2nd is the correct day, no questions about it. It will ship out on the 2nd, it will be in stores on the 3rd. IN STORES IS NOT RELEASE DATE. Release date is "ship date". JeremyWJ (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/142/14299423.html http://2ksports.com/games http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/sports/majorleaguebaseball2k9/index.html JeremyWJ (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please explain to me why all those say the 2nd Chris. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying we don't have sources for March 2. We do. So yes, by WP:V, we could have it as the release date here.

However, as I've said before, if we can find a source for March 3, which would pass WP:V just like March 2 does, then we should go with the one we know to be more accurate.

I also think another solution here is to simply add a Ship date field to the infobox. That way we can source March 2 and have the info actually be true.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, you are misinterpreting "release date". March 3 is NOT CORRECT when you say its the release date. March 2nd is the release date. Have I not made my point clear that the video game industry clearly defines release date as the day it ships out? Yes I agree with you, if we want a March 3rd date in there it should be referred to as "in stores". Referrring to a "release date" is only correct if it says March 2nd (as we know 100% that is correct). JeremyWJ (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should stay March 2nd though, cause like you said, we know it to be more accurate as the release date cause release date it the day it ships out. JeremyWJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC).Reply

I'm not misinterpreting it, the websites misinterpret it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then the burden is on you to find a reliable source that proves they misinterpret it. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

All that's needed is one source saying March 3.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you have to find a source proving every gaming site on the internet is misinterpeting "release date". One source claiming its the 3rd is not sufficient. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why not? It passes: WP:V.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If reliable sources say two different dates, then I believe it's simply a matter of consensus over which should be used. The number of sources and the "correctness" of the date do not trump one another.

As of right now, if there's no reliable source to back the March 3rd date, then Wikipedia must state March 2nd. If there are reliable sources for both, then we need a discussion. Quite frankly, I'd recommend bringing WP:VG into this for more involvement. The359 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

None of them trump the most reliable source (the maker of the game) nor prove they are misinterpeting "release date" (which they aren't). JeremyWJ (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

My proof of the websites' misinterpretation of "Release date." Definition 4: "To make available to the public." 2K9 will be made available to the public in March 3, thus March 2 is not a release date per Webster.com. Boo-yah!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

From WP:VG

Usually, but not always, the "release date" is the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In general, a video game article should use the official release date and not the in-store date, if two separate dates are announced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Release_dates JeremyWJ (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The video game's maker is a primary source and actually should not be relied on. See WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources however back the March 2nd date as of right now, and the primary source does back these secondary sources, which is Wikipedia policy.

Debating "interpretation" is moot as we're not in a position to interpret data our own way. We can only use what is written, not what we think they really mean. If it says release date, then it's a release date. The359 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look everyone at what I just posted from the WP:VG Project. They cleary state that if two dates can be sourced you go the the "official release date and not the in-store date". That seems to back everything I have claimed, and is the policy by which video games should go by on Wikipedia. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Um, why? The entire industry calls the release date the day that the product is on the shelves. Not just the video game industry - all industry. Incidentally, www.pastapadre.com is not a blog. Again, I've written for Computer Games Magazine, etc, etc, etc. Release date is in store date. Always has been, always will be. Incidentally, 2KSports.com always readjusts the date a few weeks later to the date it was on store shelves. What does that tell you? JAF1970 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your claimed history has no bearing here. If you don't have a reference to back your claim that the "release date" listed by other websites should not be listed as the "release date" on a Wikipedia template, then your arguement is a waste. The359 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

From WP:VG

Usually, but not always, the "release date" is the date on which the publisher ships the game to retailers, resulting in an in-store date of between one and three days later. In general, a video game article should use the official release date and not the in-store date, if two separate dates are announced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Release_dates JeremyWJ (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this settles it? March 2nd stays. Why I was unable to locate this earlier I have no idea. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Big. Whoop. It should be changed. As I said before, 2K SPorts changes the date a few weeks later to the in-store Tuesday date. Guess why? Because it no longer has to worry about preorder ship dates. The WP:VG should be changed because otherwise, it's just nutty. JAF1970 (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Like it or not, we finally have a Guideline to follow here. If you don't agree with it, take that up with them here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. Also, looking at past games still on the 2KSports site though that have been released, they are all mondays. So your claim 2K changes is wrong. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you don't like/agree with the release date then get the WP:VG people involved. They are just going to tell you though what I've been trying to drill into your head for the past couple weeks. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Normally, you wouldn't go by resellers - but since 2K Sports has issued the ship date, resellers are listing the release date, like Amazon. GameStop [2] says the game ships on March 2, which means it'll be in stores March 3. JAF1970 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lets assume for one second that we can source them. Still doesn't matter. Per WP:VG/DATE if both a ship date and in-store date can be verifiability sourced as a release date, you use the ship date not the in-store date. So your point here moot (if you actually had one). JeremyWJ (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really fail to see why you are still fighting this after numerous people have tried to explain to you that you are wrong (not just me). JeremyWJ (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

They put the release date JAF1970 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major League Baseball 2K9. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606044746/http://2ksports.com/news/mlb2k9/270 to http://www.2ksports.com/news/mlb2k9/270

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) 15:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply