Talk:Entropia Universe/Archive 1

Note

Just a note that the article is a little out of date, the 5th bank was added in the 9.1 VU, as mentioned in the VU 9.1 content list. I don't have the link on me at the moment :( 58.170.129.214 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why

Why does this article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality ? --85.186.135.114 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this reads in most parts like a press release from MindArk. --Gregor Kopka 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(note: Please sign your comments with "--~~~~" (without the quotes). Thanks.)
(use progressing colons ":" if you want to indent your message to make threads easier to read.)

correct 1 small error

I tried to add in 1 small thing but it got deleted. The article states that you can withdraw money from MindArk at any time but this is not true. You can only withdraw money if you have over 1000 peds in your account, which is 100 dollars. User:iforgotmyhandlecauseeverytimeieditsomethingyouguysjustdeleteit(UTC)

220 countries ??

What ?? They claim to have users from 220 countries ? The thing is that only 195 countries EXIST on the world so how are they having users from 220 countries ?

As far as I am aware there are 195 OLYMPIC countries and at least 230 countries in total. Nightwolf 08:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Entropia seems to work in a way very similar to online gamblingPonzi_scheme. 'Mindark' (the company) questionable ethics?

Wow. The buyer could make a killing by converting virtual profits from this into real money. But couldn't the devolpers just use inflation of goods and resources to make the purchase worthless? --66.177.33.232 (Talk), 22:40, 8 January 2005 (UTC)

As an experienced player I will say that the company does not hold many business scruples. This game is driven by the same power as that which keeps the casinos intact, there is always a chance, no matter how small to hit it big suddenly. --68.4.223.196 (Talk), 02:07, 8 April 2005 (UTC)

Project Entropia is indeed like gambling... when you mine, hunt, or craft items there is a large chance you will get poor returns and a small chance to get a very large return (like a jackpot). This said, it is a very fun and addicting game to play. --141.158.229.166 (Talk), 20:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

One thing you have to remember is all the real money is all in the game company's pockets, if they gave out more than they earned they would not be profitable.

Unfortunately this means tactics like trying to delude users that it's easy to get money -from- the system rather than lose it. --86.132.35.147 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so much online gambling as it is a form of legalized global Ponzi_scheme.--Megachan (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Too true, too true... DarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New all time high sell : 1.000.000 PEDs for the new space resort. Collect site news, forum threads and slashdot article...

That means a powerful economical expansion and room for more players.

http://www.project-entropia.com/news/Index.ajp

The ASTEROID SPACE RESORT was today, 24th of October 2005, bought by avatar "Jon NEVERDIE Jacobs" for a sum of 1,000,000 PED (100,000 US Dollar)!

The public auction offering the Space Resort started Friday 21st of October at a staring price of 1 PED, and with a buyout price of 1,000,000 PED. The response to the news of the Space Resort was immediate – just during the weekend eight parties approached MindArk expressing serious interest in purchasing it. Just three days after the launch, the buyout price was met by Jon NEVERDIE Jacobs, before the competition.

Cleaned up

I've cleaned this article up now, it seems mostly satisfactory but if a player could go over it and make sure it's up to date... --Kevin 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin

Looks nice. Thanks. I'll remove the cleanup needed tag. --Usbserial 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From the "In The News" section

'On 12 April 2005, actor/director "Jon NEVERDIE Jacobs" (aka: DJ Hound Dog, John London) erected a virtual memorial within the Project Entropia game for his wife, Tina Leiu (aka: Island Girl, Gamer Chick) who died from complications due to the flu. This memorial resides on an island within the virtual game environment and is regularly visited by game characters played by people from all around the world.'

Can someone clarify which parts of the above paragraph belong to the real world, and which belong to the "game world" of PE?

I can't fathom whether this John Neverdie Jacobs is a game character, and/or an actor/director in real life, and/or if his (real/fictional?) wife died in the game... gah, my head hurts! 217.155.20.163 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the front page article in a recent Broward City Link was about the whole asteroid purchase, and NeverDie himself. From what I recall, he's a (somewhat unsuccessful) independent film-maker/actor, who had been seriously involved with Tina Leiu for quite some time. Eventually, she got unusually ill, and while confined to her hospital bed, she experienced a sort of freedom through playing online games, of which Project Entropia/EU was the chief mentioned. Online gaming was a favorite hobby of Jon, who shared in the gaming experience with her up until her death. Since then, he has become an influential member of the Entropia Community through the asteroid purchase and to his recent marriage to his new girlfriend, which supposed became the first wedding to be simultaneously performed in real life and in an online game (Entropia, obviously). His wedding was sincere, but also an obvious publicity stunt for Club Neverdie, where the online wedding occured.

It should be noted that, according to the article in City Link, it's implied that the Tina Leiu memorial was done through the goodwill of the Entropia team, rather than through a memorial purchase by NeverDie.

--72.148.136.13 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon is a DJ/actor is real life. Tina was a singer/actress. Tina's death was real. The island and memorial are in-game. I do not know if both Jon and Tina are stage names (which is common in the industry). you can obtain some information on him at http://www.realityport.com

One more thing... the very first paragraph states that there are no "levels" within PE. This is not true. The game actually has an extensive and complex skill system. These skills have direct effect on your chance of success with in-game activities. an analogy would be to say that your avatar "learns" to be better. in my opinion, this negates the gambling/casino comparisions - for example, if I know to play one hand of roulette is the same as all other hands of roulette. --216.9.243.111 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

News Bit

I added a newsbit (below, indented) and it was removed by (apparently) a first-time user. Is this not something that should be noted, as it _was_ in the BBC International Web-feed yesterday?

On 2 May 2006, it was announced that Project Entropia had launched a real-world cash card attached to the user's account within the game that would allow game players to use their online credit in the real world. As reported on the BBC newsfeed [1] users could sell items online and then go purchase a dinner for themself down the street with this cash card technology. In the same article it was stated that $165 million had "passed through the game" in 2005 and that this figure was expected to double in 2006.

Please let me know what y'all think. Bo-Lingua

Rewrite time

I was adding some clarifications to address others' concerns in the 'Cost to Play' section, when I realized I really want to rewrite about 75% of this article. Which deed I'll boldy do, tonite or tomorrow prolly. Which reminds me.. I haven't played PE since my HD crashed a month ago.. I bet my soc thinks I'm dead or something.. ps - Oh ugh, I thought that stuff sounded familiar; a lot of the more recent changes are lifted straight from MA's website. Surprise surprise. To whom it may apply: (ie, Marco, Jan, Jon, etc), please note that Wikipedia is a very, very, very, very smart community (present authorship excluded), and you simply aren't going to get away with injecting your expensive marketing jargon - like the annoying repetitions of "Real Cash Economy (RCE)". It's a "real cash economy" -- quotes included. And it's a game, regardless of what your legal dept. tries to tell you (and us) - a game with players. Get over it, ok? I do hope you won't become vandals by the terms of Wikipedia. I promise I'll be gentle -- I'm a sympathetic soul, after all. But this is not an ad forum, it's an encyclopedia. :) Eaglizard 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is merely paranoid and irrelevant ranting by a user keen to put a negative slant on the article. The article should remain neutral, balanced and free from bias. - JR

Added a quick sentence detailing the commision charged for the currency exchanges. Also removed any Real Cash Economy (RCE) entries and replaced them with "real cash economy" as per the post above 86.142.52.116 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Great someone reverted my edit stating that it was vandalism! :-( I might say that the alterations are not only mentioned here (see above post) but also are substanciated and mentioned again further in the article 84.9.77.64 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are contradicting with yourself, maybe a new rewrite is in order, following on some of the other MMORPG articles and some official (scarse usually) information, along with heaps of inside information from the community that enjoys Entropia Universe in all aspects, and not just press trolls or dissapointed peeps. Thank you! --62.231.117.235 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never did rewrite this article the way I wanted to (I did try, tho). Funny how much a half-year hiatus from the net has changed the things I think are important. Eaglizard 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

EntropiaDirectory.com

Entropia Directory is a wiki based site set up to support player based business's in the Entropia Universe, and attempt to create a Complete Directory of everthing EU. We would love to get some more players with wiki knowledge into our webteam, drop by from time to time, its a massive task but we are progressing nicely!

We also do an article on the latest from each VU as the news comes to hand. VU sneak Preview We will also make sure our Snr Editors keep things up to date here. --EntropiaDirectory.com 06:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Add Corporate Site

I added the link to MA's corporate site www.mindark.com to the Official Links.

In the News + Making Headlines

Was that really necessary? --62.231.117.235 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance and bias in this article

It's annoying that I always find my additions to this page reverted or near reverted by an anonymous user claiming to be 'undoing vadalism / bad rap / something". It seems that any remotely negative information on this article gets targetted. It smells to me that they are either someone who works for MindArk or who has a vested interest in the game? Who are they and why do they keep doing it? AvanniaRayzor 10:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to claim some kind of conspiracy theory and maintain irrelevant and unnecessary negative comments in this article? The article should remain neutral, balanced and free from bias. I wonder what your agenda is. - JR

I have no agenda with regard to this Entropia Universe article except accuracy. Please feel free to list here in this talk section any well sourced relevant encyclopedic fact that should be in this article and is not. WAS 4.250 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being so paranoid; but I guess that's just the way I am :-S I was looking more on the fact that the article had positive and negative things said about the game; it's just that a lot of negative additions (all in the history and whatnot) were editted out again by an annonymous user. I use wikipedia a lot more than I contribe to it (save for maybe a spelling error or two) so it seemed strange that they weren't using an account. My agenda is identical to your own :-) that is creating a decent article (without any promo lingo and with as fair a view as possible) :-) AvanniaRayzor 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see _how_ Avannia's comment was POV; it was stating fact. I myself am part of the statistic! I registered for an account with EU, played with it for about a week and then dropped my account. I'm one of the 70% that's _not_ "in continuous use". I think that's fairly common for a "pay-ware" game, like ANY MMORPG, for people to sign up, then stop playing in very short order, with only avid gamers continuing beyond an initial period. I think it's a useful statistic, and frankly, _not_ having it seems to me more POV as it makes this an Advert for Entropia, which is _NOT_ something that Wikipedia espouses. I'm sure that if either of you bothered to compare the statistics with other games, you'd find very similar trends. Bo-Lingua 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that edit and its delete and I feel that its inclusion is not anti-EU; but on the other hand if its so typical then what makes it worthy of inclusion - we don't note that the Atlantic Ocean is wet. So I said "Please feel free to list here in this talk section any well sourced relevant encyclopedic fact that should be in this article and is not." That is still the right approach. Identify what is claimed to be missing and its sources. Then identify the pros and cons of including it. Then see if there is a meeting of unbiased minds on the items in dispute. I see no disputed sourced items listed here. WAS 4.250 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that those whom did not experience the game know so much about it and write stupid stuff about casinos and "the world is comming to an end" rants about EU. There are good parts and bad parts. Yes, there are addicts and there are casual players. Those that love the game, hate it and love to hate it. Why can't this article be a constructive one, unbiased and without discreet slants!? My respect to AvanniaRayzor and for the rest, register and edit as a user! And stop deleting whatever you feel like. Use the talk page first!

--62.231.117.235 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC) - not following his own advice

Please create an account and edit from it

I second User:62.231.117.235's advice (and recommend him to take it himself...) Please everybody create an account and log in to discuss on this page. This applies especially to "JR", editing from 88.105.73.18 and related dynamic IPs. Each of these IPs has it's own talkpage. "RP", not being an account, does not have a talkpage. It's consequently pure luck if JR happens to catch sight of a message left on one of the IPs' pages, and this makes communication difficult/impossible. Although luckily, JR, since you have in fact edited from 88.105.73.18 since I left a warning against deleting comments on its page, I do believe you have seen that warning. Please abide by it. Besides being binding site policy, it's merely elementary courtesy towards other editors to leave their comments alone. (P.S: BoLingua, you mean "POV", not "NPOV"--NPOV, neutral point of view, is good.) Bishonen | talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Eep! Thanks Bish--I fixed it. :) Bo-Lingua

Shall I edit that back in? AvanniaRayzor 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Encyclopedic Fact vs. POV

I have removed the comment on "commission" in the lead paragraph as the commission is taken by one's own individual bank and not by MindArk as implied, this type of detail also does not belong in the openning summary. I have also added the recent news of a high profile participant earning $100k USD in the last 8 months through Entropia Universe. I wonder how many of the "conspiracy theorists" posting here have any real actual experience of Entropia Universe or its community, and I'm still bemused by the fierce agenda to maintain irrelevant and unnecessary negative comments and statistics in this article.

Why are some users insisting on selecting a minority of negative statistics from the 7 page PDF file produced by the Bridge Group (http://www.shell.linux.se/dsk2293/other/Sv.pdf) to include in the article whilst ignoring all the other information and statistics contained within the article, which on the whole are positive?

Most of the dynamic IPs appearing in the edits are within the range of a major European ISP (used by literally millions of Europeans in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden) and it's wrong to assume that all these edits made by the same user (perhaps 3 or 4 different users).

Entropia Universe is also NOT a "MMORPG" nor a "game" by the very definition of its creators and user community. - 24 August 2006 - 88.105.72.254 (JR - RoHuGu)

Actually it is refered to many times as a game on Mindark's website - in the openning paragraph no less - thus it'd be pretty safe to assume that it is a 'game'. Also - why is it not an MMORPG? It seems to check all of the 'tickboxes' so to say - and it is refered to in your recent news quote by ND as being an MMORPG - "very few people really believed a turnkey virtual business inside an MMORPG could do these kind of numbers". I think that might confuse some. The commision does deserve mentioning somewhere though, as to me it implies that the exchange gives the end user a corresponding ammount of money (that is US$1 = 10PED, whereas it is more on the US$1 = ~9.70PED); *and* with the information that it is a bank charge too (can you get a source for that?). AvanniaRayzor 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

88.105.72.254 says "Entropia Universe is also NOT a "MMORPG" nor a "game" by the very definition of its creators and user community." Other sites may use words in whatever way they wish. Wikipedia uses common words in accordance with their most commonly understood meaning and technical words with their techically correct meaning. Or at least we try to. Other sites don't get to dictate how we use words. Wikipedia does not itself redefine words, nor does it use the redefinitions of others. WAS 4.250 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Virtual Universe (or Virtual World) is an already well defined and well understood concept. The most well known example of a virtual world in popular fiction is, of course, The Matrix. Second Life is not usually refered to as a "game" either. The following is a quote from the "ENTROPIA UNIVERSE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA)" which all participants must 'Accept' before they can log into the service : "2. Description: MindArk provides the Entropia Universe as a service, described as a virtual universe. The Entropia Universe is not a "game"." I believe the phrasing "MMORPG-style online virtual universe" used on the disambiguation page is sufficiently adequate. I agree that, perhaps, the "currency conversion" commission could be mentioned, although this doesn't change the fact that the value of 10PED = $1 USD, just as it doesn't with real world currency exchange. This fee also only applies to certain methods of depositing cash into the universe, namely by use of a credit card. - JR - RoHuGu, 00:24, 25 August 2006

Any particular prefered location for currency charge? And I think saying something like "Game, but mindark prefer to call it a Virtual Universe" or sometihng like that sounds appropriate. AvanniaRayzor 08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AvanniaRayzor, EU is not a game! It has no set objectives, no rules, no levels, no end state, no specific goals and it is impossible to ever "win". EU is completely open ended software (or a service), and is no more a "game" than E-bay, MySpace or an online chat room.

Anyway - where abouts shall we put this currency exchange bit? AvanniaRayzor 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If I don't hear anything from you within the next couple of days, I'll edit the currency conversion bit in. AvanniaRayzor 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AvanniaRayzor, I don't see how minor details regarding the use of Credit Cards in online transactions is of any encyclopaedic relevance to this article, and I also question your motives for wanting to include such information on how certain banks handle these kinds of transactions. This article is about the Entropia Universe, and this is merely a minor detail which applies to one particular option for depositing cash into the system, among many other options. As WAS has already previously stated we don't note that the Atlantic Ocean is wet, nor is it necessary to add other obvious or irrelevant, off topic information to support your negative stance. This information is neither relevant nor worthy of inclusion. It's like adding information such as "if you play for a long period without a break and stare at the screen too long and hard it has been shown that you may become tired"...such information simply isn't encyclopaedic nor relevant to this particular article.

Delete player resource section?

I propose we remove the entire player resource section. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and it's clearly being used to advertize individual stores and forums and so on. -- SCZenz 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Entropia Universe is presented in the following form: MindArk supplies the servers, system, facilities and features; you the player have to find out how things work, wich ways are better, how to improve, gain advantage, lose less, have more fun or whatever.

This being said, the only reliable information source on what to do and how to do it, is provided via community sites. Removing those links for anti-advertising purposes is not really an option. Those sites are indeed advertising, but only because they have to survive somehow, information is free, but not at zero cost. Frankly I don't think there are other sites except those listed in that section that provide further infomation about Entropia Universe, and not some PR babble... --Mrproper 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the primary purpose fo wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a how to guide on how to play the game Nil Einne 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

News rumours

However, shortly following the end of the auction, famed avatar and owner of popular community website EntropiaForum.com, "Flerin Neomaven Flerinson" purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum.

Where can I find this piece of information: owner of popular community website EntropiaForum.com, "Flerin Neomaven Flerinson" ?

--62.231.117.235 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for you to Visit Entropia Forum, this information can be found in the news section of the forum. Nightwolf 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The fine line between stuff and fluff

Argh, wikipedia sucks me right back in, the very first time I look at an article. I love hate it. Anyways, I saw a comment on my user page in re: this 'un, and wound up editing it despite my firm intention not to. The first section I just clarified that certain things are only the claims of MA, and not actual fact (we need a cite to the Guinness Book itself, for instance, otherwise its' just MA's claim that they're in there -- see the cite). It was the last section, the 'headlines' sorta thing, that got my attention: still way too much fluff in there, so I linted it up some. Essentially, I don't think we need any fictional descriptions of the fictional land-masses, or the unremarkable (and unsurprising) statements by Jacobs that he wants to make money, etc. On the other hand, his statements about making money with the 'egg' are interesting, since its not exactly obvious that he will. The surprisingly high dollar amounts are inherently interesting. And so on. I think it reads much tighter now. I also think some MA corporate shill other editor is highly likely to come along and disagree, which is why I bothered to explain what I think should be perfectly obvious edits. I did leave in more than I actually wanted to, on the principle that EU is pretty cool, and people should get that impression from this article. It shouldn't be allowed to become a cheap marketing tool for MindArk, however. Hence, the afore-alluded-to 'fine line' Have fun with it! Eaglizard 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Time is money, the egg story is being prolonged. This allows MA to reward ND with more money than they wanted, in order to fulfill his expectations for the high purchase value. So, the story will end when MA finds a way to overpay for his hasty purchase. --Mrproper 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Virtual Universe" description just a fudge to comply with gaming laws?

Entropia Universe is described as a "virtual universe" rather than a MMORPG, and yet it has far more in common with World of Warcraft than with Second Life and its ilk.

Entropia and WoW share a vast number of common features such as killable/lootable monsters (which roam around a varied landscape and "spawn" in specific areas), PvP combat, weapons, armor, magic, potions, character skills, trades/crafts, a fantasy setting, and a backstory/plot. As far as I can tell, Second Life does not feature any of these elements (or, indeed, any "game" elements whatsoever). Entropia also gives the player far less opportunity to "shape" his/her character's appearance, and the appearance of the surrounding world, than does Second Life.

The Entropia product is so obviously a MMORPG that I have to wonder if MindArk are compelled to deny this for legal reasons. It strikes me that describing Entropia as a "game" could fall foul of anti-gambling laws in some jurisdictions. 217.34.39.123 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, but does it really matter? Nightwolf 07:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well not in the great scheme of things, but if MindArk are engaging in a kind of polite fiction to keep the lawyers happy, the Wikipedia article shouldn't really be going along with that fiction. 217.155.20.163 09:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there gaming laws that affect MMORPGS differently from 'virtual universe's? In any case, I would have to disagree this is more like a MMORPG then a virtual universe. MMORPGs don't general have ingame economies on the scale of Entropia nor do the developers go to such an extent to pretend you can make money from playing the game. The best description of this game is already mentioned above. It's comparable to gambling in many ways. It's also comparable to chain letters or pyramid schemes Nil Einne 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see a person successfully PROVE that this game is a scam in any way, shape or form in a court of law... Nytewolf2k7

I think that major MMORPGs typically have ingame economies equal or much bigger then that of EU. While RMT is not usually condoned in those games, they are typically much more profitable then EU for the average user, which is why gold farmers target them. Take the RMT behind games such as WoW or EvE online for example. I think it's pretty obvious to most gamers that EU is just a MMORPG that makes a profit from having a very harsh "money sink", which means that while some people get lucky and make a profit overall people lose more then they gain = gambling.--Helixdq (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(T|C|M) 13:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed resolution

Does anyone know if Entropia is still restricted to a screen resolution of 1024x768? I remember this being a problem when I tried out Entropia a couple of years back - it's a bit of a pain for TFT monitor users, as it wasn't possible to run the game at the monitor's native resolution. 217.155.20.163 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore, there are tons of new resolutions and even windowed mode now. Just download the client installer, install, start downloading the game, abort, and check the Client Loader options ;) --89.137.70.184 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Contracts

Is there any published information on whether those buying banking licenses and land for very large sums of money sign (real world) contracts with MindArk? It would seem surprising to me if anyone is really willing to spend $100k without a proper contract which will ensure their rights are protected and can't be taken away at any time as per the EULA Nil Einne 10:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"EU-Links"

Please stop simply readding this site to the external links. First explain here why you think that site is suitable. If concensus is reached, it can be added. In my eyes it violates WP:EL. It offers no information by itself but only provides links. This includes mainly forums and societies which are not suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. Other links don't seem to provide any relevant information to the article and what is contributed by other links. --Fogeltje 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Fogeltje perhaps we got off on the wrong foot and i'd like to apologize for repeatedly readding it, i'm new to editing anything here and it was my first "contribution" so i got mad, i also didn't get that you posted on the talk page because of dynamic ip.

When i read the WP:EL (yes i have read it) i don't see that it says a link to an external link list is bad. Any good encyclopedia provides further resources for people who want to know more about the subject. In the "Links to be considered" section it states that "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the linkfarm template." This is of course necessary because otherwise the links in the article and then the article itself would become bloated. But it doesn't say that links are a bad thing. Links are one of the major benefits of a web encyclopedia. And concerning Entropia Universe one would be hard pressed to find any useful external link that isn't a fan page, wiki, forum, blog etc. Perhaps you see that another user just deleted all other links to non-official sites giving the same reason you did for deleting the link to EU-Links. I don't think a consensus could easily be reached on which external links are relevant. Keep in mind the rules also state that "Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached". So a directory is nothing forbidden or evil according to the rules. When i recently started playing EU i found the EU Links page useful because i could easily find a lot of information on the linked sites. Surely you can have just the link to the official site but i didn't think wikipedia had an "all external links are evil" policy.

It was deleted after I posted in the discussion of WP:EL inquiring about opinions by people there, obviously there are people who know the policy a lot better than I do. In this case I don't think the EU links could be considered a good alternative as a chosen web directory since it mainly contains crap. It is unfortunate that there's hardly any unofficial site that isn't a wiki, forum or blog, but those are simply not eligible. Otherwise everyone will start adding their own forums and blogs and socieity sites and it would be impossible to stop them. I must say btw that I wasn't aware that other wiki's are to be avoided as well. I suggest you read the discussion in WP:EL, the editor explained his deletion in more detail there and I agree with him. You can voice your own opinions. I don't think we can gain concensus to re-add the EU-links but some discussion is always good. I accept your apology and offer my own as well, I should have taken it to talk page after the first revert. I'm glad you respond now. --Fogeltje 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring between Fishflop (Neomaven) and other users

Please stop this edit war. Do NOT delete anything but discuss it here before taking action. --Fogeltje 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the edits it would appear that “Fishflop” is a sock-puppet account created with the sole agenda of deleting long standing and established sections of the article regarding any controversies surrounding Entropia Universe, even where the necessary citations and evidence exist. 79.74.21.186 08:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The content submitted by Unregistered Wikipedia User 79.74.21.186 has absolutely nothing to do with EntropiaUniverse, which is the topic of this article. Comments such as:

"a notorious cybersquatter and administrator of numerous pornography based domain names based in Connecticut, USA who had previously been found guilty by WIPO on numerous accounts of “bad faith domain registration and use"

have no relationship to Entropia Universe, and are clear examples of a vicious and off-topic personal attack.

Also this comment:

"having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the original announcement of the mall sales"

is patently false. It is totally inaccurate to state that domain names related to the malls were registered before the auction of the malls. The Shopping Malls were announced on Dec. 12, 2006:

http://account.entropiauniverse.com/pe/en/rich/5078.html?newspage=26

However the domain entropiashopping.com was not registered until Dec.24th 2006:

http://whois.domaintools.com/entropiashopping.com

It seems the Unregistered Wikipedia User 79.74.21.186 is confused in his accusations, probably thinking of the registration of banking-related Entropia domain names, an accusation that was very clearly and soundly refuted by neomaven in the following responses made on an independent community website (RCEUniverse.com, formerly e-pec.info) where this conspiracy theory was first hatched:

http://rceuniverse.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=5249&view=findpost&p=16812
http://rceuniverse.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=5249&view=findpost&p=16815

In fact, many of the contributors to that discussion agreed that the explanation provided by neomaven refuted the accusation of "inside information" and the administrators of that community website even went so far as to state:

"The topic of the thread was that "Warants had advance notice of the Bank Liscense Sale"

It has been hashed and the conclusion is that neomaven purchased many domains with various names and had no advance notice of any sale."

http://rceuniverse.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=5249&view=findpost&p=18234

In light of the above inaccuracies, rumors and disingenuous character attacks posted by Unregistered Wikipedia User 79.74.21.186, I request that the following section be edited out completely:

"having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the original announcement of the mall sales.[25] This controversy was compounded by the fact that it later emerged in a MindArk press release, that the real life personality behind the new mall owner was in fact 32-year-old Jason Peterson[26], a notorious cybersquatter and administrator of numerous pornography based domain names based in Connecticut, USA who had previously been found guilty by WIPO on numerous accounts of “bad faith domain registration and use”.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33]"

and that the word "controversially" be removed from the line

"Flerin Neomaven Flerinson", controversially purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum"

so that the article reads as such:

On 28 December 2006, in conjunction with the release of Version Update 8.8, three Shopping Malls were made available for purchase through the public auction on Calypso. The Shopping Malls are located in some of Calypso's busiest trading regions: Port Atlantis, Twin Peaks and a newly discovered outpost on the Amethera continent called Emerald Lakes. After two final hours of exciting bidding, all three Shopping Malls were sold. Twin Peaks Shopping Mall was sold for $35,000 USD (350,004 PED) to avatar "Onkel RobRoy Bob", Port Atlantis Shopping Mall was sold for $70,067 USD (700,667 PED) to avatar "Epsilon Eps Vaz", and Emerald Lakes Shopping Mall was sold for $74,601 USD (746,007 PED) also to "Onkel RobRoy Bob". The owner of each mall also receives a 2.5% land owner sales tax on any items sold within their mall. However, shortly following the end of the auction, famed avatar and owner of popular community website EntropiaForum.com, "Flerin Neomaven Flerinson", purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum.

Fishflop 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fishflop, at least to the extent that this "controversy" should be deleted. It is not notable enough to be covered here on Wikipedia. Its inclusion will only encourage more edit wars among concerned Entropia insiders, while its exclusion would be of no loss to your everyday encyclopedia reader. In fact, I would like to see the entire "Making headline news & significant virtual property sales" section summarized in a paragraph or two, with references to specific news articles, rather than listing with details every single event in bullet form.
--JKeene 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to also agree with JKeene, although it does appear that Fishflop is adding a certain amount of unnecessary misdirection, distraction and confusion to the actual main points of debate here. Emotions and vested personal interests aside, we should look at the raw facts.

The only person to ever use the expressions "inside information" and "conspiracy theory" in regards to this article is Fishflop himself, however, this is not what this controversy or debate is, or ever was, actually about. The section originally appeared to be making reference to a part of the history of Entropia Universe when a well documented controversy erupted amongst the community regarding the registration of, and subsequent unethical cybersquatting on, most of the available domain names containing the word "Entropia". The controversy was compounded by the fact that it later emerged in a MindArk press release that the culprit behind this activity was in fact the new secretive owner of the "Twin Peaks Mall", who had several previous rulings made against his unethical behaviour by the Worldwide Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO. The repeated conclusions of these publicly available rulings were that such domains were being unnecessarily registered illegally and unethically, with "bad faith" use in mind, purely for personal profit at the expense of any legitimate use or development in mind (often filled with lucrative spam advertisements to be later sold on to legitimate owners with honest intentions for extortionate amounts). See Cybersquatting.

Obviously, this proved to be a major scandal amongst the passionate Entropia community, and a part of its history that has shaped the community to this day. Reference to this history appeared in the article long before this edit war ensued between Fishflop and various anonymous IP users, in fact it began when the newly created account of Fishflop started vandalising the article by deleting any previous and existing references to this history.

Now let's look at the contributions Fishflop has made to Wikipedia thus far, the only edits he has ever made using the account is to delete and try to censor parts of this article, most probably with a personal agenda. Stating that the history of the Entropia community has "absolutely nothing to do with Entropia Universe" is about as relevant as saying that reference to the Watergate scandal has "absolutely nothing" to do with the article on Richard Nixon, or that there should be no mention of the Iraq War criticism in the article on George W. Bush. Both views are obviously contrary to Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view explicitly states that: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, ‘especially on controversial topics’, representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." and also: "representing fairly and without bias all 'significant' views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." Censoring controversial information and facts for a personal agenda through the use of sock-puppet accounts is certainly not what Wikipedia is about.

Also, subjective comments made on an internet forum or fan site definitely do not constitute a reliable source, nor do they “clearly and soundly refute” anything. See WP:CITE.

My suggestion is to remove the emotive language, and unverified statements, but retain the pure facts where the necessary citations and evidence exist.

-- Skippie, 14:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Skippie, you ignore the fact that this line of the current version of the posted Entropia Universe article:

having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the original announcement of the mall sales.[25]

is completely false. Look at domain registration date in the reference provided: December 24th, 2006. Based on the author's own reference, the claim is clearly untrue, but this does not prevent 79.74.21.186 from claiming this is a "controversy" in the next sentence. Clearly this author is bending the facts to further his/her biased views and personal vendetta.

Skippy, your statement

and subsequent unethical cybersquatting on, most of the available domain names containing the word "Entropia"

is inaccurate, and laden with common misconceptions and emotions regarding domain name registrations. Cybersquatting only applies to trademarked terms. The word 'entropia' is not protected by such trademarks, thus there is no cybersquatting taking place. Perhaps you should read the references you provide as 'proof' a little more carefully. From the wikipedia entry Cybersquatting:

Cybersquatting, according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

Your hasty (misguided) judgement and unfamiliarity with basic terms and concepts regarding domain name registrations is then used to characterize neomaven as a "culrpit" (implying guilt or culpability, where in fact none exists) in your next sentence:

The controversy was compounded by the fact that it later emerged in a MindArk press release that the culprit behind this activity was in fact the new secretive owner of the "Twin Peaks Mall"

Also, what was "secretive" about the new owner of the Twin Peaks Mall? To my knowledge, the announcement that RobRoy sold the mall to neomaven was made the same day that the mall auctions ended, a few hours later in fact. Again you use deceptive and emotive language to try to strengthen your (clearly biased) points.

This misquoting and twisting of facts is used again by you here:

Stating that the history of the Entropia community has "absolutely nothing to do with Entropia Universe" is about as relevant as saying that reference to the Watergate scandal has "absolutely nothing" to do with the article on Richard Nixon, or that there should be no mention of the Iraq War criticism in the article on George W. Bush.

I have never claimed that the "history of the Entropia Community has "absolutely nothing to do with Entropia Universe"", only that the activities of its participants outside of Entropia Universe have no place in an article about Entropia Universe. The outside business activities of other participants are neither mentioned nor scrutinized anywhere else in this article, why is an exception made here, and how are such issues related in any way to Entropia Universe? Rather, this seems to be a clear case of an attmept to "dig up dirt" and mount a personal attack by jealous competitiors or envious fellow participants, which is clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines.

Finally, you claim that Fishflop is a "sock puppet account" yet the person responsible for the content under discussion here is an Unregistered Wikipedia user, identifiable only by the IP address 79.74.21.186. It is thus impossible to converse with this editor on a talk page, and he/she has yet to justify these off-topic, inaccurate and vicious personal attacks on the discussion page.

Again I submit that these biased and unrelated comments should be removed from this article, as they are in places grossly inaccurate, intentionally misleading, ill-informed, or altogether unrelated to the article topic: Entropia Universe.

Fishflop 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read all of the above, it seems pretty obvious to me that Fishflop is probably Peterson/Neomaven himself, especially given the defensive and accusative writing style of his comments that often detract away from the actual issues under debate here. It is considered very bad form on Wikipedia to edit articles regarding one’s self to reflect a favoured point of view, and any talk of “bias” is highly hypocritical here.

Secondly, it is clearly stated at www.entropiauniverse.com that “Entropia Universe is a registered trademark of Mindark PE AB. All rights reserved worldwide.” It also clearly states in the End User License Agreement (EULA) that: “MindArk, MindArk PE, Project Entropia, Entropia Universe and other marks indicated on the Entropia Universe’s website are registered trademarks of MindArk in Sweden. Any Entropia Universe design and any other MindArk graphics, logos or button icons are trademarks of MindArk.” Although, again this is another unnecessary distraction from the ethics of such activity and the issue of the validity of its inclusion in the article here.

Looking at the actual edit history of the article, the bulk of the questionable paragraph was actually added by IP user 79.66.11.209 on 6th July 2007, and then subsequently added to, amended, revised and change by numerous users after that. However, the sentence: "Flerin Neomaven Flerinson" controversially purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum, having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the announcement of the mall sales.” actually appeared in the article long before this edit. In fact, this sentence had been pretty stable in the article since it was added by IP user 80.43.62.158 on 26th March 2007 and then subsequently viewed by many other users until Fishflop began unilaterally vandalising the article on 27th July 2007. The accusations that the content was “submitted by Unregistered Wikipedia User 79.74.21.186” are therefore completely false and just a further distraction.

I propose that given the pure facts as they currently exist, and that can be reasonably backed up by evidence, that the paragraph should be amended to read:

“However, shortly following the end of the auction, famed avatar and owner of popular community website EntropiaForum.com, "Flerin Neomaven Flerinson", controversially purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum, having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the start of the auction. This controversy was compounded by the fact that it later emerged in a MindArk press release that the real life personality behind the new mall owner was in fact a known cybersquatter who had previously been found guilty by WIPO on numerous accounts of “bad faith domain registration and use”.

This leaves the facts as they exist, removes the emotive language (e.g. “notorious”) and unnecessary references to “pornography based domain names”, and also removes the personal details regarding real life names and locations.

K. Buzzo 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

K. Buzzo, you write that "given the pure facts as they currently exist", yet you continue to ignore the facts when you propose the following text:

"Flerin Neomaven Flerinson", controversially purchased the newly acquired Twin Peaks Shopping Mall from Onkel RobRoy Bob for an undisclosed sum, having previously registered several relevant internet domain names prior to the start of the auction.

Once again, the malls were announced on Dec. 12th 2006, and any domains relating to malls and shopping were registered nearly two weeks after that.

As I stated above:

It is totally inaccurate to state that domain names related to the malls were registered before the auction of the malls. The Shopping Malls were announced on Dec. 12, 2006:

http://account.entropiauniverse.com/pe/en/rich/5078.html?newspage=26

However the domain entropiashopping.com was not registered until Dec.24th 2006:

http://whois.domaintools.com/entropiashopping.com

Secondly, you are correct that the term "Entropia Universe" is covered by trademark. However, the word "entropia" is not, nor are domains such as those mentioned in this article and discussion, such as entropiamall.com etc.

Given this fact, and your comments above, why does your proposed edit include discussion of the non-Entropia Universe related business dealings of Flerin neomaven Flerinson when such information has nothing to do with Entropia Universe or this article?

This controversy was compounded by the fact that it later emerged in a MindArk press release that the real life personality behind the new mall owner was in fact a known cybersquatter who had previously been found guilty by WIPO on numerous accounts of “bad faith domain registration and use”

No other participant mentioned in this article is subjected to such scrutiny, so why is it allowed in this paragraph, and what do such comments add for a reader interested in information about Entropia Universe?

Fishflop 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, it appears that Fishflop/Neomaven is trying to intentionally cloud the issue. I think that what Buzzo was actually suggesting was to correct the inaccurate statement of “prior to the original announcement of the mall sales” to the completely factual “prior to the end of the auction”. Although the original intention to make three Shopping Malls available for purchase through the public auction was indeed announced by MindArk on 12th Dec 2006, they were not actually made available on auction until after the release of Version Update 8.8 on 19th Dec 2006 and then the actual winners of the public auction were not realised until late into the evening of December 29th 2006 (ten days later), with the winners finally being officially announced by Mindark on 4th Jan 2007.

http://account.entropiauniverse.com/pe/en/rich/5078.html?newspage=26

Given that WHOIS proves that all the related domain names were snatched up by Peterson/Neomaven on 24th Dec 2006, without him actually placing any bids during in the public auction nor possibly knowing the future outcome of the auction which wasn’t to end for another 5 days, one has to question his motives and intentions. Whether or not the word “Entropia” is covered by trademark is merely another distraction.

Amidst this controversy and uproar within the community, it later came to light after the MindArk press release that this wasn’t the first time that this individual had actually been involved in similar suspicious activity involving the unnecessary registration of numerous domain names for personal profit and that it actually reflected a well documented pattern of behaviour. The multiple rulings by WIPO of “bad faith domain registration” of numerous trademarked terms serve as a testament to this.

It’s hardly fair, moral or ethical to covertly buy up all the domains names regarding an asset on a public auction before the outcome and eventual winners are even clear, and it also demonstrates utter contempt towards the mostly open and honest community. The continual attempts to censor these facts only further demonstrate this Machiavellian attitude, and hence the controversy amongst the community is only understandable.

Guntram Graef

I agree with Guntram and think that the following evidential links speak for themselves:

http://www.domainstatute.com/domain-name-disputes/naf4/684967.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0356.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0987.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0830.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1303.html

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-1295.html

04:00, 12 August 2007 79.74.36.31

I have now amended the paragraph as suggested by "K. Buzzo" removing the inaccuracies and the unnecessary emotive language. Humanist Wikitopian 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let’s not forget here the fact that:

“This controversy was amplified further when demonstrable evidence was provided showing that Peterson was in fact already in breach of the Entropia Universe EULA for the illegal purchase and utilisation of a second avatar, "Divine Vixen Incarnate", and was exploiting his position as the owner of the largest community fan site to censor information from the international news media regarding the protection of, and collusion with, a convicted paedophile and registered sex offender operating within Entropia Universe.”

Although, any serious participant already knows that this is the case. The photographic evidence exists on most fan forums. I see no need to protect the pedophiles using Entropia for grooming purposes, like Neomaven (Fishflop) has been trying to do. 79.75.202.96 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that "Neomaven" (Jason Peterson) is using various sock-puppet and anonymous IP accounts to continually vandalise the article and delete long-standing well-sourced consensus content, often turning the sentence structure into nonsense. As he is admittedly doing this whilst visiting MindArk HQ in Gothenburg, Sweden and away from his usual base in Miami, I suggest Wikipedia's CheckUser policy is used to finally expose this violation.79.69.152.210 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Living persons

Special attention needs to be paid to WP:LIVING. In particular:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Any statement added to this article regarding a living person must include reliable sources that leave absolutely no doubt about the statement's validity.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Please read and consider this policy in regards to the latest edit war.
--JKeene 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider creating accounts and logging in, everybody

It's impossible to enforce policy, especially the three-revert rule, in the midst of an edit war between dynamic IPs. I'm not even going to bother to block anybody right now. If the unconstructive reverting continues, I will semiprotect the article. If obvious sockpuppets then proceed to edit it, their puppetmasters will be checkusered and blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Death in game

Hello (English is not my first language). I didn't find any info about death in this game. Is it possible? If so - what happen - do you spawn somewhere? Do you loose your (not so) virtual money?
TIA

You spawn somewhere, No you don't lose money when you die :-) Why would they make you lose it?DarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Project Entropia.jpg

Image:Project Entropia.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 ensure 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) 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious BLP violation

I removed an extremely serious WP:BLP violation here [2]. This makes the claim someone is cooperating with a paedophile, but there are absolutely no reliable sources to support the claim. There were a bunch of forum posts, which other then NOT being reliable sources, they don't even appear to support the claim. The only source which comes close to WP:RS is [3] which makes no mention of Jason Peterson at all Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional 'Controversy'

Hello there, I am not a regular user of wikipedia so don't wish to add to this article directly because I'm not sure of the standards for referencing/citation. However, I believe that one of the most substantial controversies surrounding Project Entropia isn't addressed in the article.

For at least two years, Project Entropia's promotional literature, as well media coverage deriving from this, has made mention of an 'ATM card' that allows users of the game to withdraw PEDs with a real-life debit card. In actuality, this card does not exist and has not in any functioning sense for approximately two years. I understand that there was a brief period when the service was available, but it was withdrawn after serious legal problems facing the Bank that supported the Cash Card - North York Credit Community Union (NYCCU.)

NYCCU lost its backing from MasterCard when they were sued for providing services in territories where they were not fully licensed. Whether or not this directly related to MindArk's Cash Card is not clear to me, but the underlying principles are certainly ones that apply to any financial service offered through the game; and appear to have hampered the company's attempt to find an alternative partner.

The fact that MindArk sold these Cash Cards that are now not functioning isn't really the controversy - owners have reported that they receive refunds in a prompt matter - it's that the publishers continue to promote the game with the promise of a service that has not been available for 2 years. The card is a 'gimmick' that features heavily in media coverage of their novel product and they continue to advertise it themselves, causing substantial controversy in the community.

In addition to this, MindArk has been notoriously reticent (and possibly even dishonest) in providing information on the status of the product - claiming 18 months ago that they were 'developing graphics' for the product (i.e. at a late stage of development) and not updating this information.

The most popular Entropia Universe forum has a long-running thread which includes official MindArk statements as well as an indicator of the displeasure of the community and background on the NYCCU scandal -

http://www.entropiaforum.com/forums/mindark-news/100817-entropia-universe-cash-card-update.html

Additionally, there have been constant complaints about the amount of time traditional (non-Cash Card) withdrawals take - between 1 and 3 months. I'm afraid I don't have any additional citation for this.

92.22.70.175 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Blake Campbell

More recent events (~1 year) worth a mention?

In the past year or so, there have been a few developments; more to do wtih the developers Mindark, but also linked with the Entropia Universe that should be worth a mention; The formation of First Planet Company, a mindark subsidary to maintain Planet Calypso; Connections to Motorhead Frontman Lemmy; Partnership with SEE Virtual Worlds, LLC, a new division of SEE Touring Attractions Inc. ; Getting down to the final 3 in a list of interested parties to host a NASA MMO; Partnership with nVidia, etc. etc. More info on the Mindark and Entropia Universe sites (www.mindark.se, entropiauniverse.com), respectively. It seems that Entropia is more of a content delivery platform, rather than the game it originally started out as now.

I apologise for throwing quite a few bits of info out here without any references (yet), but I can track the links down tomorrow and can respond with citations for each of these developments, and sort them into chronological order, etc.. just wrote them down off the top of my head so theres probably still more to add, too. Regards Agalvayne (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs to be updated. There are almost no references to going-ons in 2008 and not too many to 2007 (sorry about not signing, using my phone, I'll add sig later.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.55.131 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing.DarkNightWolf (T|C|M) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)