Talk:Forspoken#rfc 8DBE228

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1747936871}}

Should we add Square Enix's (the game's publisher) comments that Forspoken{{'}}s sales were "lacklustre" to the lead? The proposed wording is to add "{{xt|Square Enix described the game's sales as "lackluster".}}" at the end of the third paragraph in the lead. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:

Reviews of [Forspoken], which we released on January 24, 2023, have been challenging. However, the game has also received positive feedback on its action features, including its parkour and combat capabilities, so it has yielded results that will lead to improvement of our development capabilities of other games in the future. That said, its sales have been lacklustre, and while the performance of new titles with February and March release dates will be the ultimate determinant, we see considerable downside risk to our FY2023/3 earnings.{{cite web|url=https://www.gamesradar.com/forspokens-lackluster-sales-are-a-considerable-risk-to-square-enixs-financial-results/|title=Forspoken's "lackluster" sales are a "considerable risk" to Square Enix's financial results|first=Dustin|last=Bailey|work=GamesRadar|date=March 11, 2023|accessdate=April 18, 2025}}

:For easy reference, I've added Square Enix's president Yosuke Matsuda statement, made during financial results briefing session for the company, above. {{strikethrough|It is pulled from 2 sources as most sources are quoting smaller chunks of the statement.}} Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC) OceanHok found the full statement quoted in a single source & condensed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Include SE's statement: In the absence of actual sales information, SE's comments on sales is most representative of the game's commercial performance, and having it here meets WP:SS than any other possible sales information we have. It also provided important context that supplement information regarding the game's sales (ranking in sales chart). Square Enix is the game's most significant stakeholder which directly benefits from the sales of the title, so it was only of due weight to address their concerns regarding the game's commercial performance. This info is also supported by multiple secondary reliable sources. [https://www.ign.com/articles/square-enix-forspoken-sales-were-lackluster-and-its-reception-challenging] OceanHok (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Rehashing a bit of what I said in the discussion above, this is pretty similar to a movie studio's comments on box office results where the studio creating the project spent X and they need to make Y for it to be successful. For SE, this game didn't meet their sales expectations which is important context. Unlike movies, this game didn't get the same level of robust secondary coverage; so echoing OceanHok, what we know about the game's commercial performance is primarily the game studio's comments at an investor briefing. Using a WP:PRIMARY is not original research as long as we stick with the exact statement made by SE (we do have a lot of reliable sources highlighting the statement but none doing in-depth analysis of the statement). At the end of the day, we're limited to our sources. I also don't think it is WP:UNDUE to include this in the lead as part of the summary of the reception section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes: Using information from the game’s publisher offers a more neutral view of its global performance. Focusing on just one country, whether it is the home country or not, gives undue weight.Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. This is due in Sales section, not the lead. The "lacklustre" is relative to an internal target that is often revised, and not the objective amount of sales. Halo missed publisher expectations, and yet undue details from finance calls are not shoved into the lead because they have not been targeted in a culture war as Forspoken has been. These attempts to turn the lead into a POV battleground do not happen with the vast majority of games on Wikipedia. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. Lets not forget how this started, which was the topic starter who was just freshly topic banned by ArbCom for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1281708164 discriminatory comments] on another game targeted by "anti-woke" types[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&diff=prev&oldid=1284870516#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction], going around to games targeted by GamerGate for perceived diversity and/or featuring LGBT main characters, to portray them in a negative light. He already admitted that his intention with this proposal was basically working backwards from an OR conclusion to portray the game negatively.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forspoken#c-FMSky-20250321035200-BMWF-20250321033600]

:Super Mario Sunshine also vaguely did not live up to publisher expectations, but in the article's 23 year history not a single person has tried to do the same or imply it a flop or commercial failure in the lead (which would be incorrect), because it is not entangled in culture wars and LGBT topics. In a few minutes I found even more examples:

:* Tomb Raider - Missed sales expectations, is a best seller, no drive to put vague investor statements in the lead

:* The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker - Same as above

:* Halo - Halo, just mentioned above, is one of the best selling games of all time, and it also missed publisher expectations. And yet mysteriously editors aren't spending 10,000 words doing this over there.

:As we can see there is no relationship between publisher estimates and sales performance. It's even worse than that, because an estimations miss can be a huge hit. It doesn't make sense to give undue weight or inflate the weight of such statements, especially to imply conclusions that don't exist. I also agree that they are okay for the sales section but they aren't due for the lead. BMWF (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, include statement. It's clearly relevant and WP:DUE. Also, the opposition should probably review WP:OCON. "But it's written so in [insert other wiki article]" does not hold very much weight in the community without a much better, broader argument. We're solely concerned with the individual merits of this page and this statement. We should be purely going off of what relevant RS says, and in this case it's due. Just10A (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Gamergate tripe. I just checked over 100 games from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_video_games#January–March and didn't find any similar examples. They all have big publishers like Forspoken. They only mention critic reviews, awards won, and sometimes big sales thresholds. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per others, lead summarises body. This being part of a culture war is no justification for excluding negative information, completely the wrong approach, potential WP:RGW or WP:SEALION issues. Also not sure why sales in Japan are in the lead but not others? Looks WP:Cherrypicked. I don’t like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an essay because there’s usually merit to convention, but OceanHok's comment below addresses this well by listing games that include similar info in their leads. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. While we should closely scrutinize the neutrality of articles likely to targeted by frothing culture-war turds, this seems like a neutral and factual statement to include per WP:LFB. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• No While true, adding a direct quote like this is highly unusual. Ledes usually paraphrase the article, and it can simply say something like "sales were lower than expectations". Putting in a shock quote is clearly Gamergate-motivated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. What is this Gamergate talk about? Googling 'Forspoken Gamergate' shows precisely zero results. Why would this game be controversial in the first place? As for the sales information, that should of course be included in the lead as not doing so would be disingenuous. It doesn't have to be the quote from Square Enix, some form of paraphrasing would be fine also. The sales info is currently featured prominently in the article's body, so it should be included in the lead as well. 2A00:FBC:EED4:8471:0:0:0:2 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• No Not lead worthy and cherrypicked per games like Resident Evil 7: Biohazard with the same circumstances that don't place it there. 80.221.41.20 (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• No Not in the lead. Worthwhile for discussion in the body but not really relevant to readers in the lead. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - the overall performance of a commercial product is absolutely lead-worthy, particularly when we have documented, reliable source commentary on it. I have no interest in including any of the culture war stuff in there, only third party sources objectively reporting on the their own goals and performance related to them, which is easily available. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• No No per Zxcvbnm. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - Sergecross73 has nailed it, the sales performance of a product is lead worthy when reliable source commentary exists on it.Halbared (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• No Lead summarizes important things and this is not due. Koriodan (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This RfC is the follow-up to Talk:Forspoken#Lead. Let's forget about the part about Japanese sales, or the part about downsize risk. Let's only handle the "lacklustre" remark from Square Enix for this RfC to keep things simple and direct. OceanHok (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|OceanHok}} Thanks! That source didn't pop when searching with a news filter; it doesn't look like many sources in English are quoting the full statement (see {{Cite web |last=Rousseau |first=Jeffrey |date=2023-03-10 |title=Square Enix has called Forspoken's sales lackluster |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/square-enix-has-called-forspokens-sales-lackluster |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=GamesIndustry.biz |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Ivan |first=Tom |date=2023-03-10 |title=Square Enix says Forspoken's launch sales were 'lacklustre' |url=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/square-enix-says-forspokens-launch-sales-were-lacklustre/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310151948/https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/square-enix-says-forspokens-launch-sales-were-lacklustre/ |archive-date=2023-03-10 |access-date=2023-03-10 |website=Video Games Chronicle |language=en-GB}}). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarification requested: It is not clear to me what the Rfc question is, or what a Yes or No vote means. After reading the Rfc initial sentence, I assumed the question was about using the word lacklustre rather than some other word, so for example, a Yes vote would mean we would add "Sales were lacklustre" rather than "Sales were slow", or "Sales were less than expected" to the lead. After reading the next paragraph ("Reviews...earnings.") it seemed like you are proposing the addition of a summary, or some words, or all words, from that paragraph.

Please rewrite your Rfc question to make it clear what is being voted upon. It sounds like you are proposing adding words about sales to the lead. Please indicate explicitly what words you wish to add, e.g. 'I propose to add the following to the lead: "{{xt|{{str left|{{lipspan|1}}|123}}}}{{"'}} so I know what I am voting on. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC) {{sbb}}

:{{ping|Mathglot}} - I hoped I have clarified both my question and my response. One of the editors, BMWF, dismissed any attempt at paraphrasing "lacklustre" as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, even among editor discussion in the talk page. I think it was silly because the lead was supposed to be a general summary, but using the exact quote from the publisher should hopefully minimize further derailing of the discussion and bring us closer to the middle ground. I think using the term "lacklustre" is better than nothing, though I agree it was not the best for summary (since it was a quote). I am open to other alternatives though. OceanHok (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Yes, it is clear now; thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Zxcvbnm I would like to point you to this specific response from @OceanHok. This was never meant to be a shock quote, just to reduce potential discussions. I do agree that paraphrasing it would be the better way to do it, though! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

FMSky may show terrible behaviours elsewhere, but the diff you provided only showed him asking sales summary to meet WP:NPOV. If we are going the WP:OTHERSTUFF route, at least find games that are comparable. Forspoken is a new IP that was not received well both critically and commercially (see Immortals of Aveum, The Lamplighters League, Babylon's Fall, Anthem, The Callisto Protocol, Starlink: Battle for Atlas, Agents of Mayhem, and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, all of which have some form of comments on their disapointing sales in their lead paragraphs). Using "culture war" as a justification to remove factual content from the lead seems to be an attempt to downplay their significance (aka shoving them among walls of text so no one can see it). Even if this is a potentially contentitious topic, I see no issue with including negative things as long as they are supported by independent, secondary, reliable sources. OceanHok (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay. The games you are citing are mainly games that did release sales numbers and/or ceased operations, so they're not comparable. BMWF (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Are you serious? The examples you have provided (Halo, Wind Waker, Tomb Raider) all have sales number so they are equally not comparable (by your logic), not to mention that Forspoken is far from a household name. It is almost as if you are trying to gaslight me because none of my provided examples have actual sales figure, except Anthem, which sold 5 million (!) copies and still missed publisher's expectations. By dismissing such a common guideline, you will have a really hard time convincing anyone. OceanHok (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Correct. They're not comparable. Actual sales numbers are sometimes due for the lead, and usually if they pass a notable milestone (best seller list, series best). This is why the examples I provided cite the sales milestones, which are notable, and not random vague investor call commentary. Your examples are incorrect: Suicide Squad shut servers down, Babylon's Fall shut servers down, Anthen has real sales information, Agents of Mayhem has real sales information etc. BMWF (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Game shutdown has nothing to do with this discussion, especially if they aren't free-to-play. If it is ok to say a game reach a certain sales milestone, why is it not ok to say a game missed expectations? Anthem, in particular, highlights the importance of having publisher's comment in the lead to provide essential context for sales information. If you are advocating for only including notable sales milestone, then ranking #3 in Japan should be removed, because it is not remotely close to being one. OceanHok (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

: Comment:Not going to vote on this one. At least on Veilguard's article, editors have poured a lot of time into getting the article into a good shape. Nobody has given any real attention or care to this article; this argument has erupted over something so petty and trivial, that IMO it does feel a bit undue to include it, even on the principle of the thing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk |title=}}

{{atop|status=No|reason=Consensus is that this specific statistic is UNDUE in the lead. Toadspike [Talk] 15:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the lead contain the first-week retail sales numbers in Japan? ("In Japan, during release week, it was the third best-selling retail game in the country.")

-61.8.152.180 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose: That this is even a debate is ridiculous. Since the overall sales are not listed (which were described as "lacklustre" and where heavily sourced{{Cite news |date=2023-03-10 |title=Forspoken sales "lacklustre", Square Enix says |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/forspoken-sales-lacklustre-square-enix-says |access-date=2025-05-17 |work=Eurogamer |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Wood |first=Anthony |date=2023-03-10 |title=Square Enix: Forspoken Sales were ‘Lacklustre’ and its Reception ‘Challenging’ |url=https://za.ign.com/forspoken/173944/news/square-enix-forspoken-sales-were-lacklustre-and-its-reception-challenging |access-date=2025-05-17 |website=IGN}}{{cite web|url=https://www.gamesradar.com/forspokens-lackluster-sales-are-a-considerable-risk-to-square-enixs-financial-results/|title=Forspoken's "lackluster" sales are a "considerable risk" to Square Enix's financial results|first=Dustin|last=Bailey|work=GamesRadar|date=March 11, 2023|accessdate=April 18, 2025}}{{Cite web |last=Rousseau |first=Jeffrey |date=2023-03-10 |title=Square Enix has called Forspoken's sales lackluster |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/square-enix-has-called-forspokens-sales-lackluster |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=GamesIndustry.biz |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Ivan |first=Tom |date=2023-03-10 |title=Square Enix says Forspoken's launch sales were 'lacklustre' |url=https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/square-enix-says-forspokens-launch-sales-were-lacklustre/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310151948/https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/square-enix-says-forspokens-launch-sales-were-lacklustre/ |archive-date=2023-03-10 |access-date=2023-03-10 |website=Video Games Chronicle |language=en-GB}}) in the lead, we should not have cherrypicked sales from one region (primary-sourced, too!) listed either. Consistency please.61.8.152.180 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rework at best - Singling out a single week in a single region isn't really helpful by itself, particularly for a blockbuster, global release. I think it would only make sense to include as a part of its overall commercial performance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is very unusual and undue to highlight a single week from a single country's chart. There is also no analysis from the author of the reliable source that we could use; Romano simply highlighted it as a new release. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a note-worthy statistic. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - cherry-picking a sales stat from one region is UNDUE for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Generally I'd say probably not, but Japan is the primary region which gives this a bit more relevance. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Developed by a Japanese studio, published by a Japanese publisher. How it did in its country of origin is inherently of interest. If there is any further information available on how well it did in Japan past the first week of release, that should be included as well. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :But let me guess, this should probably be excluded because it's "too negative", right? {{tq|Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda said sales of the game had been "lacklustre" and posed a "considerable downside risk to [their] FY2023/3 earnings}} 61.8.155.58 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: It was developed by a Japanese studio, but it was developed with the intent to appeal to a global audience (per SE's own comments). It is not Dragon Quest, Yo-Kai Watch, or Monster Hunter which have a large following in Japan. I would have included it there if there is no other sales information, but SE's comments on sales should be prioritized over this because it gave a more general overview. OceanHok (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose: This is fine in the body, but too nuanced and detailed for the lead. It's not essential and leaves out major gaps in knowledge. (What happened outside Japan? what happened after release week?) This just isn't what the lead is for. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk |title=}}

{{abot}}

{{ping|Wyll Ravengard|BMWF}} - Are you two seriously trying to force open a closed RfC discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forspoken&diff=prev&oldid=1293373735 diff1][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forspoken&diff=prev&oldid=1293315160 diff2])? You two are disrepecting Wikipedia procedures and are being WP:DISRUPTIVE. We have exhausted nearly every venue for dispute resolution, and I will have no choice but to take you to WP:ANI if you continue to disrupt a consensus-building process. If you want to challenge this RfC, please follow the PROPER procedure, which is going to WP:AN using the template (RfC closure review), and explaining your rationales there. OceanHok (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: Just to piggyback, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE advises first having a discussion with the closing editor and if that doesn't resolve it, then go to WP:AN to have the closure reviewed. Following, BMWF's revert I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToadspike&diff=1293319706&oldid=1293223918 reached out] to {{no ping|Toadspike}}. Here's what they said about the closure:

{{Talk quote block|Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

• The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
• The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
• The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome. |Toadspike|ts=09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)|oldid=1293363807}}

:You can disagree with consensus but an edit war as a response to disagreeing with it, instead of following the dispute resolution steps, is not going to convince anyone you're here to build an encyclopedia. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:A RfC should not be forcefully closed while discussion is still ongoing. Given that editors are still voting and/or are interested in voting, forcefully ending the discussion is disrupting the consensus building process and is at odds with WP:RFC policy. The WP:RFCNEUTRAL concerns should also be addressed prior to closure (it seems the IP editor misrepresented the status quo and has yet to correct it). Furthermore RfC closure on a topic like this definitely needs an admin closure.

:This should be closed when the discussion is finished. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:: {{ping|NutmegCoffeeTea}} Please review WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. In particular, you should note it states:

::* {{xt|Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: [...] 2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin}}

::* {{xt|After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. For reviews of requests for comment closures, you may use {{tls|RfC closure review}} to start a review (refer to instructions in that template). In your reasoning, you should give a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". (See WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS)}}

:: If you disagree with the closure, instead of edit warring, you should take it to WP:AN. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not applicable here. No one here is challenging close content, to my understanding they're simply saying that the discussion is still going on. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE explicitly says that it does not cover the scenario where {{xt|an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion}}.

:::This should be closed when the discussion runs its course. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::But discussion wasn't going on...? The last comment before the close was 9 days ago 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:54A4:5FFF:DCF1:B61B (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg While I think I've notified everyone involved, just in case I've missed someone: there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the above issue. The thread is Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)