Talk:Xbox Live Arcade/Archive 2

Use the Image:Microsoftpoint.gif now for Microsoft Points - looks better, saves space, and is more accurate. JAF1970 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, your change makes the games table look a lot nicer and saves a bunch of space. SeanMooney 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use non-free images like that. See WP:NONFREE. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was granted permission, number one. Number two - don't vandalize. Number three, you're going to have to go to a LOT of pages which list MSRP for stuff, and price references, and Microsoft Points, and... JAF1970 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONFREE I must agree with Ned Scott. If you review the policy, point 3a states we should use the non-free image as little as possible. Point 8 states it should not be used for cosmetic reasons in lists. I personally feel that if the image tag were improved upon it could be used as a header, but not 68 times in the article. Big Merl 02:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cosmetic. JAF1970 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As listed on the Band of Bugs oficial Xbox.com site. JAF1970 06:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the XBLA page was getting unwieldly, so it makes sense to just keep the CURRENT stuff (ie. games already released) on the XBLA page, and move the upcoming stuff to its own page. This is only to keep the main XBLA article clear with some more brevity. Besides, having to update is now a little easier as well. The new page is at Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade, and I added the two spinoff pages to the Xbox nav box. JAF1970 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing - I made Confirmed, Announced, Unannounced and Rumored defined categories now. They were categories already, and just about self-defined, but it's nice to have a slightly more structured definition (ie. Confirmed means Microsoft put it on the Xbox.com page, Announced means they may have announced it (or other publishers have), but it's not "officially official" yet.) So on and so forth. JAF1970 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a PS - the references list shrunk by almost FIFTY when Upcoming games were given their own page, which probably justifies the move entirely unto itself. (laugh) JAF1970 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xblalogo.jpg 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 12:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used to be able to get a sortable list of current releases. I thought this was very useful (and updated the content to a format that sorted correctly) because a casual Xbox owner could come see what had updated since they last checked (which might be greater than the Xbox Arcade's 2 week or so what's new cycle). What happened to it?

Kirkjerk 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of marketing trivia that serves the promotional interests of Microsoft rather than the reader’s interest in a concise encyclopedia article on the Xbox Live Arcade Service, including:

1. An entire section on “Xbox Live Arcade Wednesdays,” a promotions scheme run by Microsoft to create excitement for new video games.

2. Re-hashing a 48-hour promotion for Xbox Live Arcade, the giveaway of Texas Hold ‘Em, in the “Sales and Milestones” section. This promotion is both outdated (August 2006) and trivial.

3. Again, a few paragraphs later in “Sales and Milestones,” the discussion of Microsoft’s recent 48-hour promotional sale, including prices. History of sales promotions is trivial and does not deserve inclusion, even history of the service's “first” 50%-off sale.

4. Again, advertising in the “Sales and Milestones” section that Lumines Live received a permanent (contributor’s emphasis) price drop.

Note: A section on “Sales and Milestones” is appropriate discussing sales as in revenues, not sales as in promotional events.

5. An entire section called “Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged” which is basically a promotion for a game disc that “also comes with a code for a 30 day trial of Xbox Live Gold.” Insert exclamations instead of periods and this section even more clearly reads like an advertisement.

BlueCroc 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. For one, these are all important landmarks/milestones for the service. Your reasoning is curious, sounding a lot like anti-Microsoft fanboyism. "Marketing"? Shall I remove all "marketing" references from all video games when a "Game of the Year" or "Special Edition" version pops up?

Furthermore, you did NOT bring up the issue in the talk page. You arbitrarily made deletes without discussing it here. Feel free to request Wikipedia Arbitration, and stop instigating an edit war.

Three words: cease and desist. JAF1970 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no... These are NOT all important landmarks or milestones for the Xbox Live arcade. That one of 95 total available titles, Lumines Live, received a price cut is hardly a significant milestone. Also, your sarcastic question about having to remove any and all marketing references because some marketing references are not noteworthy is a sophism.

Furthmore, you did NOT... I DID bring up my edit on the talk page, to give further explanation than available in the short edit comment section, as recommended by Wikipedia policy: “The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so.” Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. EXACTLY what I did.

Three words: cease and desist. ... Watch the quasi-legal threats, JAF1970. Wikipedia’s own words in their own bold: “Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia.” Wikipedia:No_legal_threats . As for immediately suggesting Wikipedia Arbitration, from Wikipedia again: “Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed.” Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

For now, a reasonable compromise is to put the promotions, as we disagree on whether they are trivial or important landmarks/milestones, into a clearly marked section on some of Xbox Live Arcade's various promotional efforts. BlueCroc 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JAF1970. While I understand that things such as Lumines Live! receiving a price drop ("going on sale") may not be notable in the grand scheme of things, most of the other information here is indeed notable. Major events, promotions, sales numbers, and information about free titles all seems to be newsworthy. The information doesn't necessarily endorse or claim that, say, "Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged" is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it merely explains that there is such a product and provides information about what the product includes, which is a necessary part of an encyclopedia entry about the topic. --Slordak 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it IS important. Microsoft had stated flatly for the first year that the prices of games were set, and would never have a drop, ever, especially permanently. This is a major shift in their policy. JAF1970 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blig Merk, stop editing articles on Wikipedia. JAF1970 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert my edits without providing a fair reason on the talk page. If you revert again it will be the 3rd time in less than 24 hours, which is the Three-Revert Rule maximum, as well as your third revert to my editing overall.

After you disputed my first edit as having “no real justification,” I provided my justifications on the talk page when I made my (smaller) second edit. You disagreed with my second edit and reverted again with no effort at accommodation. On my third edit I tried to temporarily accommodate the dispute over the relevancy of the various promotional campaigns to the article by placing them in their own section, as outlined above on this talk page. You did your third revert without giving any reason why these promotional campaigns should not be placed in their own section.

I am not Blig Merk, and don't know who he/she is.

You also threaten me with being blocked from participating in Wikipedia on my user page, after your earlier quasi-legal cease & desist threat on this talk page. Your threats are neither effective nor appropriate. BlueCroc 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're altering the article unnecessarily - and this is the only article you've seen fit to edit. You have not reached a consensus here to change the article that drastically. Once you can convince editors who have worked long and hard on this article that what you're doing is appropriate, feel free. But since you're obviously new (this is the only article you've even touched), you may not know this. Persist, and I'll request a temporary full protection for cooldown. JAF1970 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order:

Altering unnecessarily… My edits are not unnecessary – I believe they benefit the article and therefore Wikipedia’s readers.

Consensus to change drastically… In my last two edits, I simply moved the promotional material to a new section rather than deleted it wholly, as an effort to “try to reach a compromise” while this issue is disputed. Recommended at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Informal_mediation. Hardly drastic. You have undone my edits with no effort to reach compromise.

Convince editors who have worked long and hard… You are not plural editors, but more fundamentally, “Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.” See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles for more detail.

New/only article you’ve even touched… Please see Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Also, my posts on this talk page show that this newcomer has responsibly attempted to learn and follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Persist, and I’ll request full protection … Your decision to request. BlueCroc 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SeanMooney and other editors helped build this article. You are making massive changes without consensus. If you like, I'll request arbitration if you cannot abide by other editors. And furthermore, your belligerence and impatience are tiring. JAF1970 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, two persons responded to you - and even though it's not enough for a consensus, they both said no, which is hardly a consensus for you to change anything. JAF1970 12:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the article

Let’s try to focus on the article. Cease & desist type threats, questions about people’s right to edit this article, and then responses to those sort of thing, are not making this a better article.

I believe that removing information on the promotional programs run by Xbox Live would make this a more concise, more relevant article. The particulars on some 48-hour sales giveaways and price-cut history on a single game title out of 96 do not seem noteworthy.

That said, because there is not consensus between us over the noteworthiness of these promotional programs, in my 3rd and 4th edit I simply moved them to a new section that is clearly marked “Xbox Live Arcade Promotional Programs.” I did not delete them. I will put them in this new section again – you can check it out if you reverted my previous two edits assuming that the promotional programs had been completely deleted rather than simply moved. Please explain why it is inappropriate to put these promotional programs in their own section if you continue to so believe. BlueCroc 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image Xbla360.jpg is no longer a current screenshot of the Xbox Live Arcade from within the Xbox Dashboard. The New Xbox Experience update, released on November 15, 2008, replaces the old "blades" interface with an entirely new Dashboard content presentation system. I would like to suggest that someone with an HD capture card and experience in the nuances of the fair use of images add an updated screenshot of the XBL Arcade interface, as it appears in the current Xbox 360 Dashboard. —The Berzerk Dragon (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Xboxlivearcade.jpg‎, also isnt relavent. It is simply a picture of the games marketplace on the NXE dash. Actually, no arcade game even appears in this picture, all that appears are full retail games. A more approprate pic would be one of two things: 1) A pic of someones list of arcade games. Go to Game Library, than Arcade. 2) A pic of the game marketplace, then arcade. this would be similar to what Xboxlivearcade.jpg‎ is, but two submenus further into the marketplace, and actually in the arcade.Xcalibur27 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of this article is a sales catalogue, something Wikipedia is not. Except in exceptional circumstances, listing the price of a product is not good per Wikipedia standards.

Those exceptional circumstances arise when the price of a product is significant in relation to the subject matter of an article. For example, the comparison section of Xbox 360. Lists of products do not list prices, irrespective of their standalone or embedded status. See: List of Nintendo 64 games .

I request removal of all tables of games in this article, to be replaced by a single "List of of Xbox Live Arcade games". That list would not include price, nor the current "Live features" column which is redundant and does not explain jargon per WP:JARGON.

Note that a project consensus for the above exists at WP:VG (per WP:VG/GL) - I am seeking local consensus here before going WP:BOLD. User:Krator (t c) 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; this article is not a sales catalog. A sales catalog would include enticing photos, would hawk the merits of the title (such as its amazing graphics or realistic phystics), and would include information about where to buy the title. The list of the supported features is not promotional, but if you feel it's jargon, perhaps you'd like to add an explanation for the terms, rather than proposing removal?

The discussion on whether or not to include points or not has previously been conducted, and I believe the result was either "Keep" (the points) or "No consensus" in this context. The result was a little different for Wii Points, since all Wii Virtual Console games for a given emulated system are priced the same, and so the consensus there was to remove. --Slordak 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No one is selling anything, and there has to be SOME way of comparison of titles in terms of price, because, LIKE IT OR NOT, there is a big difference between a 400 point, 800 point, 1200 point and especially free title. It's mere information. JAF1970 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator - also see discussion on the inclusion of Promotional Programs run by Xbox Live, like 48-hour sales and so on, if you have not done so. The ongoing discussion was prematurely archived here: Talk:Xbox_Live_Arcade/Archive_2. In general, this article includes a variety of promotional/marketing material of dubious value to Wikipedia readers. BlueCroc 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious value? Because gamers (who would be a large percentage of the people reading this page) hate to know what games are available for their console and how much said games cost? I can't think of anything of more value to Wikipedia readers who want to read about Xbox Live Arcade than some comprehensive list of the titles. Individual details may be negotiable, but a request to remove all sales/milestone information, and now all game feature/pricing information leaves not much of an article. As far as value to the users of Wikipedia... I read this page every week to see what's happening on Xbox Live Arcade; how about you? --Slordak 19:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I said nothing about the comprehensive list of available titles and their cost, nor discussed this list at all. (2) I’ve never suggested removing all Sales/Milestone information. What I did do was alert Krator and others to also see the discussion of other disagreements of a sales/promotional nature on the prematurely archived talk page. My 1st post there outlines five items I believe are of dubious value. Hope that resolves your response to my comment, if not please start a new area so we don’t drag Krator’s concern further off topic. BlueCroc 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was just expressing my view that information is valuable, and that I hate to see valid information removed if it is sourced and/or accurate. This applies both to the list of games itself and to the sales/milestone information. I cringe anytime meaningful content (or even an entire article) gets deleted because of, essentially, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Slordak 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:ANTIMICROSOFT or WP:IMNOTASELLOUTDAMMIT!!!! Please - information is just that - information. It's not like Microsoft put a brain slug on my noggin. JAF1970 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There are other articles which discuss pricing on certain subjects, so it isn't new. JAF1970 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing/Promotional Trivia

This article is full of marketing trivia that serves the promotional interests of Microsoft rather than the reader’s interest in a concise encyclopedia article on the Xbox Live Arcade Service, including:

1. An entire section on “Xbox Live Arcade Wednesdays,” a promotions scheme run by Microsoft to create excitement for new video games.

2. Re-hashing a 48-hour promotion for Xbox Live Arcade, the giveaway of Texas Hold ‘Em, in the “Sales and Milestones” section. This promotion is both outdated (August 2006) and trivial.

3. Again, a few paragraphs later in “Sales and Milestones,” the discussion of Microsoft’s recent 48-hour promotional sale, including prices. History of sales promotions is trivial and does not deserve inclusion, even history of the service's “first” 50%-off sale.

4. Again, advertising in the “Sales and Milestones” section that Lumines Live received a permanent (contributor’s emphasis) price drop.

Note: A section on “Sales and Milestones” is appropriate discussing sales as in revenues, not sales as in promotional events.

5. An entire section called “Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged” which is basically a promotion for a game disc that “also comes with a code for a 30 day trial of Xbox Live Gold.” Insert exclamations instead of periods and this section even more clearly reads like an advertisement.

BlueCroc 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. For one, these are all important landmarks/milestones for the service. Your reasoning is curious, sounding a lot like anti-Microsoft fanboyism. "Marketing"? Shall I remove all "marketing" references from all video games when a "Game of the Year" or "Special Edition" version pops up?

Furthermore, you did NOT bring up the issue in the talk page. You arbitrarily made deletes without discussing it here. Feel free to request Wikipedia Arbitration, and stop instigating an edit war.

Three words: cease and desist. JAF1970 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no... These are NOT all important landmarks or milestones for the Xbox Live arcade. That one of 95 total available titles, Lumines Live, received a price cut is hardly a significant milestone. Also, your sarcastic question about having to remove any and all marketing references because some marketing references are not noteworthy is a sophism.

Furthmore, you did NOT... I DID bring up my edit on the talk page, to give further explanation than available in the short edit comment section, as recommended by Wikipedia policy: “The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so.” Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. EXACTLY what I did.

Three words: cease and desist. ... Watch the quasi-legal threats, JAF1970. Wikipedia’s own words in their own bold: “Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia.” Wikipedia:No_legal_threats . As for immediately suggesting Wikipedia Arbitration, from Wikipedia again: “Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed.” Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

For now, a reasonable compromise is to put the promotions, as we disagree on whether they are trivial or important landmarks/milestones, into a clearly marked section on some of Xbox Live Arcade's various promotional efforts. BlueCroc 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JAF1970. While I understand that things such as Lumines Live! receiving a price drop ("going on sale") may not be notable in the grand scheme of things, most of the other information here is indeed notable. Major events, promotions, sales numbers, and information about free titles all seems to be newsworthy. The information doesn't necessarily endorse or claim that, say, "Xbox Live Arcade Unplugged" is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it merely explains that there is such a product and provides information about what the product includes, which is a necessary part of an encyclopedia entry about the topic. --Slordak 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it IS important. Microsoft had stated flatly for the first year that the prices of games were set, and would never have a drop, ever, especially permanently. This is a major shift in their policy. JAF1970 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blig Merk, stop editing articles on Wikipedia. JAF1970 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert my edits without providing a fair reason on the talk page. If you revert again it will be the 3rd time in less than 24 hours, which is the Three-Revert Rule maximum, as well as your third revert to my editing overall.

After you disputed my first edit as having “no real justification,” I provided my justifications on the talk page when I made my (smaller) second edit. You disagreed with my second edit and reverted again with no effort at accommodation. On my third edit I tried to temporarily accommodate the dispute over the relevancy of the various promotional campaigns to the article by placing them in their own section, as outlined above on this talk page. You did your third revert without giving any reason why these promotional campaigns should not be placed in their own section.

I am not Blig Merk, and don't know who he/she is.

You also threaten me with being blocked from participating in Wikipedia on my user page, after your earlier quasi-legal cease & desist threat on this talk page. Your threats are neither effective nor appropriate. BlueCroc 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're altering the article unnecessarily - and this is the only article you've seen fit to edit. You have not reached a consensus here to change the article that drastically. Once you can convince editors who have worked long and hard on this article that what you're doing is appropriate, feel free. But since you're obviously new (this is the only article you've even touched), you may not know this. Persist, and I'll request a temporary full protection for cooldown. JAF1970 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order:

Altering unnecessarily… My edits are not unnecessary – I believe they benefit the article and therefore Wikipedia’s readers.

Consensus to change drastically… In my last two edits, I simply moved the promotional material to a new section rather than deleted it wholly, as an effort to “try to reach a compromise” while this issue is disputed. Recommended at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Informal_mediation. Hardly drastic. You have undone my edits with no effort to reach compromise.

Convince editors who have worked long and hard… You are not plural editors, but more fundamentally, “Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.” See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles for more detail.

New/only article you’ve even touched… Please see Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Also, my posts on this talk page show that this newcomer has responsibly attempted to learn and follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Persist, and I’ll request full protection … Your decision to request. BlueCroc 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SeanMooney and other editors helped build this article. You are making massive changes without consensus. If you like, I'll request arbitration if you cannot abide by other editors. And furthermore, your belligerence and impatience are tiring. JAF1970 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, two persons responded to you - and even though it's not enough for a consensus, they both said no, which is hardly a consensus for you to change anything. JAF1970 12:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the article

Let’s try to focus on the article. Cease & desist type threats, questions about people’s right to edit this article, and then responses to those sort of thing, are not making this a better article.

I believe that removing information on the promotional programs run by Xbox Live would make this a more concise, more relevant article. The particulars on some 48-hour sales giveaways and price-cut history on a single game title out of 96 do not seem noteworthy.

That said, because there is not consensus between us over the noteworthiness of these promotional programs, in my 3rd and 4th edit I simply moved them to a new section that is clearly marked “Xbox Live Arcade Promotional Programs.” I did not delete them. I will put them in this new section again – you can check it out if you reverted my previous two edits assuming that the promotional programs had been completely deleted rather than simply moved. Please explain why it is inappropriate to put these promotional programs in their own section if you continue to so believe. BlueCroc 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I'm in the process of looking over the recent edits in response to a request for a Third Opinion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article, the history, and the discussions that led to the current situation. There are often disagreements and negotiations involved in the editing of Wiki articles. These are good, because out of such negotiation a better article emerges. When one or two editors dominate an article the article sometimes becomes stale, and doesn't see its own faults. Involving new editors is a vital part of the process. The current situation appears to be fine, and is acceptable to those involved. That the matter got heated at times is unfortunate, though sadly all too common. I would commend BlueCroc for maintaining a cool head in the face of some provocative statements from JAF1970. BlueCroc did quote all the relevant and appropriate guidelines for JAF1970 to consider and reflect upon, and I do hope that JAF1970 reads these guidelines carefully. This matter now appears to be closed. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a conversion with another editor, it seems a bit hefty to have 3 different lists for XBL games: the one on this page, Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade, and List of Xbox Live Arcade games by date. To that end, I've created a new page at List of Xbox Live Arcade games which combines the released list with upcoming released into a sortable table. This doesn't include the add-on packs for the games listed in the by-date table, but these don't make sense in the overall picture - they should be listed on individual game pages, but as they're not "full games" I would leave them out of the table.

I've got to fix something with the date sorting (using hidden spans to help with this), but I wanted to offer this as a replacement for what is currently in this article, since via this form, moving a game from , say, announced to released will be very easy to do (changing one line on the table) as opposed to editing 3 different pages. Plus it should help with this article's length. --MASEM 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the memory footprint for the live arcade games? And could you have a section on the storage options in general--that is, LA requires storage, which can either be memory cards (holds X games each) or the external HD. Thatcher131 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "The service was relaunched beginning November 22, 2005 on the Xbox 360." means Arcade games are only available for the 360, that fact should be mentioned. That would also affect the meaning of the free Arcade game promised due to the current Xbox Live outage. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what this sentence means is that the service was relaunched on the Xbox 360, after having been originally launched on the Xbox, as described further down in the article. There are indeed Xbox Live Arcade games for the original Xbox, again as the article describes in the appropriate section. --Slordak (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does mention "The following is a list of Xbox Live Arcade games released for the original Xbox:" but the use of past tense throughout the section makes it ambiguous as to whether the games are still available nor whether Arcade is still available after the 360 relaunch. Thanks for the clarification; I haven't used Arcade nor noticed citable descriptions of it so don't know how to accurately improve the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xladb.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention that Microsoft gave this game away for free, as an apology to shoddy performance during the holiday season? Seems kinda pertinant to me... [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They never specifically stated the game was an apology or compensation. Literally it was a thank you for our loyalty. Xenocidic (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention Undertow in the article, we need to mention Texas Hold 'Em, Carcassonne and possibly TotemBall (also free, but only works with Xbox Live Vision camera) too. StaticGull  Talk  11:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Xbox Live Originals are not specifically called "Xbox Live Arcade" games and therefore I think they need to be moved into the Xbox Live or Xbox Live Marketplace article, or perhaps to have their own article altogether. Thoughts? Xenocidic (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've already received treatment in the Xbox Live Marketplace article, so I've removed the section from this page. Xenocidic (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names of games are scattered about the article without much reason, and the link to List of Xbox Live Arcade games.

I believe the games should be mentioned, together, in a single section and a link to List of Xbox Live Arcade games be made there.

Wageslave (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxic JAF1970 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported that MIcrosoft will delete some live arcade games based on sale and review. xblarcadeFoxhunt99 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they keep the plan as stated (that they will be delisted from XBLM), all that we need to do to reflect this here is to add another column to indicate the date delisted. --MASEM 15:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably true, but seeing as it is digital content that's already been created, what's the point in removing it from purchase? Clutter of the Marketplace most likely. რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article of ability to back up your games or to carry them with you if you travel. What happens in the event of a hard disk death? Or in the event that you stop paying for an Xbox Live account? --136.142.214.19 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to pay for an Xbox Live account to re-download the games if your hard drive were to fail. I suppose you could backup games to a memory card, but you'd also need your gamertag on that card for them to work on a console that wasn't licensed for particular the game. –xeno (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

136.142.214.19, I made some spelling error corrections, are they right? Okay, well every single download that hasn't been deleted, drum roll please.... is saved on the internet! Every game downloaded will come with your Gamertag if you recover it on another Hard Drive! But no, if you aren't online, your games won't be saved, until the last moment you were online.

Beside the point, if you play offline because your connection is down, do not recover your Gamertag at like your friend's house or something, unless you'd like those Achievements you earned offline to be turned into digital dust and float away, or something. რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a note in the article that mentioned amateur software developers making games for Xbox 360 and getting a 70% revenue cut. This is not XBLA; this is Xbox LIVE Community Games, and if it is going to be mentioned, it should have its own article, if it does not already. Rainault (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the game was made by interns, however the referenced page has no mention of this. Ajbrooks (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Aegis Wing? Microsoft's own website doesn't specifically list this information as part of the game's details, no. However, you should read the Aegis Wing article itself. It includes the development information for the title, including the role of the interns. Are you saying that one of the references there is what should be used in the Xbox Live Arcade article? Seems reasonable. --Slordak (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm heartbroken over the matter, but the free game Yaris seems to no longer be available in the Marketplace. NightChime (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please update the Dashboard photos since the NXE has been out for a few months already? რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]