Talk:Rockstar North/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DMA vs. Rockstar

This page is really misleading.

DMA Design is not Rockstar North, and although all the history for DMA seems to be right, it's completely wrong to lump it together on the same page with Rockstar.

It makes no sense to give the history of DMA on this page, I suggest you split them into two separate pages.

Even though RSN bought DMA, they shut the Dundee studio and most of the original employees left.

RobertAnderberg 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockstar North didn't buy DMA -- DMA became Rockstar North. As MobyGames explains (citing the company itself) at http://www.mobygames.com/company/rockstar-north-ltd : "Rockstar North, formally DMA Design, has been part of the Rockstar Games family of companies since September 1999 when it was acquired by the parent company Take 2 Interactive Inc." So, while the spirit of the studio may have changed significantly, DMA Design and Rockstar North are (at least officially) the same company. It would be interesting to include more information about the changes that occured along with the rebranding, but you'd need a source for that info.
There was a very short period between when they where called "Rockstar Studios" and had a Tartan R* logo. I was actuality looking for that logo if anyone knows where I can find it. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

can anyone put on a trivia section that rockstar north did say that DMA means "doesnt mean anything"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.150.67 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That was a retro-fitted acronym. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dundee Modern Arts

I am completely mystified about the name of DMA being "Dundee Modern Arts". If so, this must have taken place after 1997. Does anyone have a citation for this? I was an employeed of DMA up to that point and whilst it was a joke to begin with "Doesn't Mean Anything" definitely became official. - snap2grid

Some also claim it was "Direct Mind Access" 86.111.162.127 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is a bit of editorial comment in this article, ranging from "monumentally successful" to "undetailed retro graphics and tongue-in-cheek humour." It either needs to be cited or cleaned up. Pairadox 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the occurance of "undetailed...". The other portion "monumentally successful" was not found in the article anymore. I removed the NPOV tag after correcting this as there seemed to be no other editors voicing concern in the last eight months. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DMA Design.png

Image:DMA Design.png 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 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DMA Design.png

Image:DMA Design.png 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 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Middleware?

I'm not sure the following sentence is really accurate. "It was the first high profile game to use middleware technology." Does using a licensed game engine really count as middleware? I personally don't think so, as middleware is usually a form of connection software, such as legacy mainframe to web-infrastructure apps, etc. Further, this would hardly be the first instance of licensing a game engine from one company to another. So, either way I feel that entire sentence is wrong. I don't think game engines are middleware, and even if they are, this is not the first time for this type of arrangement. burnte 07:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd never before heard the term "middleware" used to mean "a third party game engine", but the linked article reveals that the term is at least used in a few places around Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.213.156 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish?

Is North officially Scotish? Because I know its based there but reading the "key" people are English. Given its diversity, wouldn't it be "British"? Stabby Joe (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you havent read it correctly since the key people are in fact the key people in relation to Rockstar Games not Rockstar North.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.108.214 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to be smug and remove it without hearing me out. I was simply asking given that the key people have a major role in the development of these games and are not Scotish, Dan being a producer AND writer and Sam being an Executive Producer, which aren't minor roles so I think me just asking seems perfectly valid. I'm not saying ITS NOT, I am just asking for clarification. PLUS you've changed both of them to British RIGHT AFTER editing here so I'm I have to ask why? Its somehwat suspicious. If they are suddenly British, why not North hmmm? And now its been changed to British? Stabby Joe (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

it is a scottish company because they are based in Scotland and that is more specific than 'British' and just because the 'key people' are english or whatever does not change that.Andrew22k (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted but is is registered? I mean if it makes money does Scotland only get it? I'm not trying to change its status BTW, I'm not setteling it before it started. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

R* North is Scottish. It's based in Scotland and its roots are Scottish. That R* Games [or R* New York] is based in the US or Dan & Sam Houser are of English origin doesn't change that. Dan & Sam live in the US nowadays and work directly for the New York HQ. That they have influence on R* North is quite normal because it is a subsidiary of R* Games. That such large teams like R* North are of many nationalities is also quite normal in games dev. business [cf. Crytek → german developer but international team]. –(de)jello ¿? 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, thank you for clarification. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a British company, because they are a registered British company, operating in the UK, based in Edinburgh, a city in Britain. If Scotland becomes independant then fine, call it a Scottish company, but isn't this supposed to be a factual encyclopedia? Rhetorical question obviously, legally it is British, in the name of FACTS and because this is a FACTUAL ENCYCLOPEDIA it should be called a British company.... Avae010


Scotland is a nation, whether you like it or not, its part of the UK, but the FACT is that it is still a nation. Nar Matteru (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look in an encylopedia facts are important, legally Rockstar North is not a Scottish company, it may be based in Edinburgh, but the fact is that it is A LEGALLY REGISTERED BRITISH COMPANY with the UK INLAND REVENUE. Check out the legality yourself, http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/81373b689c3aa7bf631db49e0ef30be5/compdetails . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.52.171 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A: Calm down, and stop with the caps locks. Even if you are right, the world will not end because someone confused the two.
B: don't paste temporary links as a source, all that gives is a blank page.
I did however search the company on the same site again, and it doesn't say anything at all about it being registered in Britain. As a matter of fact, The only British address given was their mailing address, which is actually their parent company's (Take Two, which is American)) British location. A mailing address doesn't mean anything as for as registration. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
hahhaa irony, I just read an article about how Leslie Benzies is upset at the Scottish government for not promoting grand theft auto enough http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=188104 Nar Matteru (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Im not sorry for pointing out the obvious to you, but by the very fact that it is registered in the British Governments' Companies House, it is by definition a British business, if you actually looked then you would have seen that it's legal country of origin is the United Kingdom, not Scotland, not Turkmenistan, not Narnia, but the United Kingdom. Additionally, in response to your assertation that the only address that is registered is a 'mailing address' this is quite simply misleading, legally they must specify the location of their administrative headquarters, that is quite seperate however from the reality that Rockstar North is a registered British company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. for the last time. Scotland is a country. It doesn't have to be independent from the United Kingdom to be a country. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It is not a "state" or any other such lesser thing. It is STILL a country. As are all the other constituent countries of the UK. It is headquartered in Edinburgh Scotland. Because Scotland is a country, I can call it a Scottish company very damn well. There wouldn't be a 'Scottish' page to link to If I couldn't. It is, a scottish company. If you want to change every single page that has the word 'Scottish' in it to British you will be changing a very large portion of wikipedia. Please read WP:UKNATIONALS.
Regarding the so called "registration". It has an English mailing address that has absolutely nothing to do with its "registration" as the mailing address belongs to its parent company which is an American company and aside from being parent, is a separate entity altogether. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is frankly becoming rather bizzarre and I find your attitude frankly unwarranted. Now im not embarrassed or ashamed to be wrong, I have researched this and you claim to have done likewise, yet you continue to mislead. Im not argueing over the existance of Scotland, what im argueing with you is that your now completely ignoring the facts about this. Rockstar North is legally a British company, it is a British company because there is not registration agency for doing so in Scotland, there is only one such agency, it is Company House, an executive agency of the United Kingdom government. If you find Rockstar North's name in the database of Company House, it is THEREFORE A BRITISH COMPANY. It is not registered under it's parent company, it has to register with its legal trading name. Addittionaly, in regards to WP:UKNATIONALS, that has nothing to do with businesses, it is in relation to the nationality of the peoples of the UK, though I assume you knew this already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, maybe im coming across too strong and it's absolutely not my intention to offend you, really its not, I respect your opinion. Im only debating so vehemantly, not as an English person who wants to steal Rockstar North and claim it as British because it operates in Scotland (believe it or not I live in Scotland), but because of the fact that it is indeed a British company, though its offices are in Edinburgh. I wanted to clear the air, I hope you are not offended, though i'm standing by my guns and not giving an inch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.220 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_Scotland All of those must not exist. Start changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_House#Scotland Apparently, Scotland does do its own registrations, which are subject to its own laws and regulations. Whether those registrations are folded into the UK's main registry, I could care less. The point of the location in this article is to show where the company is based, not necessarily whose house and country it was legally registered into. And to be as specific as possible, it is clearly based in Scotland.
oh and I know the policy really only applies to people, but it can still apply to this case (a company after all, is made up of people) Nar Matteru (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, firstly Companies House has registration offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and London, all of these offices are merely offices of the UK agency itself. Secondly, the point of this debate is whether or not it is a UK company based on Edinburgh, I quote the original article "...is a Scottish developer based in Edinburgh,Scotland.", surprisingly you seem to be deviating from this. Addittionally, Scottish business have to comply with the UK Companies Act 2006, this superceedes Scottish Law, fact. All incorporated or limited businesses legally must register with Companies House, making any business registered with Companies House UK businesses. This is an important legal distinction, since there is no sovereign entity called Scotland, nor one called England or Wales, the only sovereign legal entity here is the UK. So forgive my earlier statements, it should be called a UK company.

OR since the wording had nothing to do with any legality and was just a descriptive word to show where the company was located, Scottish works fine. Or what it is now. If you want to add ", UK" after "Edinburgh, Scotland", feel free to do so. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

++ Furthermore, I quote the Companies Act 2006 Chapter 46 "...provides for a single company law regime applying to the whole of the UK, so that companies will be UK companies..." ++

So again, your simply not providing factual points and your relying on user generated wikipedia articles.


Well, A.G. Barr, makers of Irn-Bru have on the front page of their website "A.G.Barr p.l.c., Westfield House, 4 Mollins Road, Westfield, Cumbernauld, G68 9HD Registered in Scotland (Reg No SC5653)". I don't know the legal basis of this but certainly suggests that they are registered, in Scotland, and that there is a distinction between a Scottish company and a British one. Neilgravir (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Clear as mud, then. The constant petty squabbling and distinctions between English/British, Scottish/British and English born Australian (etc, etc) on Wikipedia is reaching such a petty heights that it's almost reminiscent of the former Yugoslavia here. The arguments and vandalism are exposing some very insecure xenophobes. Guv2006 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to wade into this argument, but if you look at any other company who is based in the UK, they are referred to as a British company. Even the Royal Bank of Scotland has British and United Kingdom mentioned in it.

Also, I'd like to point out that WP:UKNATIONALS says

"1.Look at what others have done in comparable articles."

What others have done is label any company based in any of the constituent countries as British, although infoboxes may sometimes use "Scotland, UK" in them. In the interests of fairness, would it not be better to say "...is a British company, based in Edinburgh, Scotland."?TomB123 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rockstar North is an English registered company (company number 03312220; its registered office is in Windsor, Berkshire) which is based in Scotland. The reason for the distinction is that there are three separate legal systems within the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. That's why Scottish companies have the "SC" prefix in their company numbers and Northern Irish companies have an "NI" prefix. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be registered in England and have a few key English employees, but it still should be called a Scottish company. As most of the creative employees working there are Scottish. Making most of what Rockstar North produces Scottish creations. 95.151.33.143 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the article for "Agent" directed to this one?

The article for the PS3 exclusive Rockstar North developed game, is gone. Why?... because it seems to be directed to this article instead. There really needs to be a good reason for this, because the original article gave information worth knowing about the game & could be updated heavily in the future. The arctile for Rockstar North doesn't even list the game, let alone mention it. - Someone needs to come up with a good reason for the direction, or otherwise I'll change it back myself. Jas315 (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You have right, I`ve done it. --Artur, 10:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason it was redirected here is that the article was nominated for deletion and the result of that debate was to merge it into this article. See the notice at the top of this page. I have reverted the recreation of that article as per the ADF debate. Keith D (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockstar North Origin Problem

Sorry for the inconvenience, I kept on clicking on the wrong talk page hyperlink and nothing would appear (also I made this account). Now to the main point, I have had a Problem with the origin of the Rockstar North Head Quarters, it is clearly in the heart of Scotland, Edinburgh but it states it is on British land which is also true but misleading and not giving enough credit to the country it is located, Scotland. I know this problem has gone on for many years, for example, Andy Murray is a famous Tennis player, he is known as a British Tennis player when he succeeding in his career and he is known as a Scottish Tennis player when he is preceding in his career. With the launch of Rockstar North's new installment to Rockstar Games' "Best-Selling" franchise, Grand Theft Auto V , Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts like myself would like to learn something new from its developers. I know it states it is located in Scotland but I could be more specific since the majority of the world thinks that Scotland is a County in the country Great Britain. I could come to an agreement if we let visitors of the page know that it was located in the Country Scotland and the sovereign state Britain instead of them thinking that Scotland is a County in the Country Britain. - MisterFR3SH 01 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Answering your points separately:
1) "British" is misleading. Doesn't give credit to Scotland: The article clearly states in the first line and in the infobox, that the company is in Scotland. This is not a question of what land it is on. British is a non-governmental term that refers to anywhere in the British Isles. It is akin to calling a person from Nigeria and a person from Zambia, both Africans. People and companies from The British Isles are called British and Britons, this is totally independent of any notion of a nation. If Scotland votes for devolution, people from Scotland will still be British because they live on the Island of Great Britain in the British Isles. The disagreement seems to stem from the use of Britain as a short-form synonym for The United Kingdom, which is a nation state made up of its constituent parts. Scotland is part of the UK so the term British is correct. Scotland is also part of Great Britian, so again British is correct. The article then explicitly avoids confusion by stating the location of the company offices is Scotland.
2) Andy Murray is British when he wins and Scottish fails: I can only suggest you stop reading the tabloids and head down south where you will find that loads of non-Scots support him regardless of his birth place. The only time you may find people not liking him is when they don't know that his "anyone but England" statement was a misquoted private joke.
3) "The World thinks that Scotland is a county in Great Britain:" Like I said, Great Britain isn't a country. "The World" may be getting confused with the fact that Scotland along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal partners in the country that is The United Kingdom, but short of putting an explanation of the UK, Britain, British etc on the front page of Wikipaedia, I'm not sure how we solve the World ignorance that you mention.
4) Agreement if we let visitors know location is Country Scotland and the sovereign state Britain instead of them thinking that Scotland is a County in the Country Britain: The article already lets people know that the company is located in Scotland.
This debate raises the question of how do you define the nationality of a company? Which of the following apply?:
"Its in Scotland" - "Rockstar North is a Scottish video game developer..."
"Its in Great Britain" - "Rockstar North is a British video game developer..."
"Its in the UK" - "Rockstar North is a British video game developer..."
"Its American owned" - "Rockstar North is an American video game developer..."
"Its staff are from numerous countries" - "Rockstar North is a multinational video game developer..."
The present form is a long standing consensus that covers all the information that a reader needs. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK then, you win but Rockstar Toronto Head Quarters is located in Canada but on its Wikipedia page, it states it is a Canadian based company, not a North American company. I do not read tabloids, I watch Wimbledon when it is on, and it normally states that Murray is British when he is succeeding and Scottish hen he is preceding giving Scotland a bad name, an unfortunately, that is shown around the world, making watchers think that Scotland is a bad place even though it has one of the finest game developers in the world and a beautiful landscape. I just think that it is unfair but I am not everyone. - MisterFR3SH 01 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I am of the opinion that Rockstar North is a British video game developer based in... is the appropriate way of phrasing it. Firstly, currently Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales make up the United Kingdom. When you register a company within any of these countries, you register it within the United Kingdom, not the individual companies. The location/headquarters etc can be based in a country but the company is based in the United Kingdom. People and entities from the UK are referred to as British, ergo, they are a British Company. Looking at other articles (such as Id software) they tend to start with X is a <american/british/iranian> video game company based in <city/state/country> etc. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Why don't we focus off nationality and focus on it as an entity of Rockstar Games? For example:

Rockstar North is a video game development studio of Rockstar Games located in Edinburgh, Scotland. Then the rest of the lead

--Edit I didn't purposely leave off formally DMA and the VGD link, I just paraphrased and forgot the link

This way the Rockstar Games has "credit" of ownership of Rockstar North. Also in the opening sentence, it doesn't really matter where Rockstar Games is located but what does matter is where Rockstar North is located since that's what this article is about. As as side note, the lead really needs to be rewritten to fit the guidelines of a lead

Anyway, just my opinion. ChadH (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is of my opinion, that it is fine the way it is. It is just various political nationalistic views coming across. It's fine the way it is. People need to get over this "I'm not British, I'm Scottish, I'm English blah blah blah" Point is, the world mostly knows the UK as the UK. they already get confused with "Oh you live in England, how wonderful, do you know the Queen?" As long as it shows that it is based in Scotland then it should be fine, but is still British (It will be registered with the companies people in London). As for the American, well American is, one could argue, made up of countries (states) to form a United States (lets face it, some are bigger than Scotland) just like the UK which in turn is made up of different states/countries. MisterShiney ✉ 07:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottish company rather than British?

"Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design Ltd) is a British video game developer based in Edinburgh, Scotland"

I think the new text should read "Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design Ltd) is a Scottish video game developer based in the Capital City Edinburgh"

The reason for this is that Scotland is a more specific location and recognised internationally easier than "Britain". With all due respect to non-Brits reading this, it is a well known fact that people living outside of Britain are often unclear about what Britain is actually made up of. I think calling it Scottish and identifying Edinburgh as the Capital City will make the location instantly recognisable.

I'd like to hear your views on this.

Many thanks,

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelc840 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you aren't already aware, if you really are looking for views on this you could read the two lengthy discussions that have already taken place above. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the previous posts but thanks for your suggestion. I have read the previous posts and feel that the argument is in favour of having Britain changed to Scotland. If no valid argument is presented against changing the post to Scotland withihn the next 10 days, I will proceed to edit the opening paragraph to read Scotland rather than Britain and if any attempts are made to reverse this back to Britain I will have no option but to undo their change and report the user of vandalism to the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelc840 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You really haven't made any new points so far that haven't already been addressed, so I don't see how it warrants changing the stable version of the article. As has been said repeatedly, the current wording includes what is likely the nation that the company is registered under (UK), as well as where it is physically located (Scotland). Also, please don't try to preemptively threaten other editors. While it is amusing, it's not very constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the topic has been brought up multiple times already and the current lead seems to acknowledge both sides. The repeated changes can lead to unwarranted edit warring. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Joining Take-Two

Hi,

Just noticed that in the intro this states that Rockstar North has been a part of Take-Two Interactive since 2002, "Since early 2002 the company has been a part of the multinational company Rockstar Games, owned by Take-Two Interactive." which is not true.

Rockstar was initially bought by Take-Two from Infograms in September 1999 and then changed its name initially to Rockstar Studio's in March 2002 then Rockstar North in May of the same year.

Links for reference: Take-Two take over http://uk.gamespot.com/news/take-two-acquires-dma-design-2450265

Rockstar Studio's rename: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2002/03/19/scottish-developer-becomes-rockstar http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article_45659


Rockstar North Rename: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2002/05/24/e3-2002-rockstar-studios-changes-name-again


Could we get this changed? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.job99 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


Merging Topics

Hi everybody,

I was looking through this article today and I would like to propose merging some of the section headers. If we moved the DMA Arrangement into the Mid 90's section and created a new late 90's section to include the release of GTA 1 and 2, as well as Space Station Silicon Valley and Body Harvest then made a new Early 2000's section to cover the companies move from Dundee to Edinburgh as well as the focus on GTA and Manhunt after the Take Two buy it it would make the article more structured and more informative.

Happy to make these changes myself but thought I would reach out to the community here first, thanks Juno.808 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Page

Hello again,

I thought I was put in a discussion here on splitting this article into two. This split would be to create a new article based on the history of DMA Design and to then keep the current one as a history of Rockstar North. These are two separate companies that acted independently and should be represented as such.

My suggestion would be to:

1. Create a new article on DMA Design which would be able to better represent that company focusing on the people that made it and to have more focus on the early, very interesting history.

2. To change this article to a more accurate history of Rockastar North beginning from 1999 and telling the story of how this company was started from former DMA Staff and Rockstar Games.

One of the main motivations for this is that information is being misrepresented on the web at the moment. i.e. google Rockstar North and it claims that Dave Jones set up the company (via info taken from this wiki), which is untrue. Similarly it claims that Rockstar North made Lemmings which it did not, that was an early DMA Design game and should be attributed as such. Splitting this article would allow more concise and accurate information on both of these separate companies.

again more than happy to complete this work myself,

thanks, look forward to hearing peoples thoughts Juno.808 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the split, DMA and Rckstar North are the same company, just with a different name for different periods in its life. I think this is a incorrect forking of content. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying about the split. I've researched this quite deeply now and I do still believe that they should be viewed as different companies. Rockstar North operated under totally new management and ownership when the Take-Two came in and was set up as a new company. The reason for the split was also that information was incorrect or misrepresented. For instance, I don't believe that it is true to say that the founders of DMA Design also founded Rockstar North or that Rockstar North created Lemmings as this was DMA. Juno.808 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree as per X201. I don't see a reason for the split, they are both the same company just DMA Design now goes as Rockstar North I would like to point out some points to the original poster.
  1. Rockstar North have been under the same management since 1999 when the company was still called DMA Design at the time.
  2. The article states that David Jones founded DMA Design back in 1988 it doesn't say that he founded Rockstar North.
  3. Once again the article doesn't say that, the article states that Lemmings was made as DMA Design.
I don't know where you are getting this information but I suggest reading the article more closely. TheDeviantPro (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Just to address a couple of the points that TheDeviantPro pointed out. 1. That's true they have been under the same management since Take-Two purchased the company. 2. The article does say this but I was pointing out that this is not being accurately represented elsewhere on the web when this article is referenced. Therefore I put the idea that this should be made more clear by splitting the pages meaning the correct info is clearer. As my example stated above a simple Google Search will display "Rockstar North - Founded 2002 - Founders - David Jones, Steve Hammond, Mike Dailly, Russell Kay" with reference to this wiki article and is obviously incorrect. 3. Same as above.

I still think that splitting the articles would make more sense and would suggest this split: 1. The studio which became Rockstar North that was started by DMA employees in Edinburgh in 1999 and 2. The company DMA and the studio that it ran a Dundee Studio and was bought out by Take-Two for their Edinburgh studio - set up by some of its employees in 1999.

I'll put his up for discussion on the Video game project as suggested by TheDeviantPro Juno.808 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I put up a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Splitting_Rockstar_North_and_DMA_Design_pages

However nobody seems to have voiced any concerns. The argument centers around that Rockstar North should is a studio and should be viewed as such, therefore any history of North should be since its founding in 1999, when it operated under DMA until the present day owned by Rockstar Games and should not include a full history of DMA which comprised the parent company based in Dundee. thanks Juno.808 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The concern (and opposition) to it has already been raised. You made a BOLD edit and TheDeviantPro reverted it. We have both voiced our concerns with the split. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi X201, this was made in reference to the WP:VG post (which at that point had no comments) and not to the discussion we have been having here. I have replied on the WG:VG discussion. thanks Juno.808 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I've read the various discussions above about whether the company should be described as Scottish, British or whatever. Quite regardless of this, it is not necessary or helpful to refer to "Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom" in the infobox as those who do not know that Scotland is in the UK can easily find out in one click. If we were to take this line, why would we stop at the UK? We could extend it further by adding "European Union, Northern Hemisphere, Planet Earth" but we do not, as "Edinburgh, Scotland" is completely unambiguous and therefore all we need. --John (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus for the address to take that form, not just on this article but numerous articles on people, places and things in Scotland. The UK is there because Scotland is a country that is part of a sovereign state called the UK. You removed it because you think it isn't helpful, it is helpful, it clearly shows the sovereign state that the company is in. The article clearly shows that its an American owned company, based in Scotland, which is a constituent part of the UK. If there's a Yes vote on the 18 September, we remove UK on all Scottish articles like this and leave it at Scotland, because Scotland will become a sovereign state. - X201 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with anything you say, and I don't see any evidence of any longstanding consensus on this or any other article. Where do you believe this supposed consensus was formed? In what way and to whom do you believe the addition of UK is helpful? I am removing the superfluous address data until we resolve this. --John (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That a strange definition of WP:BRD you're working to there. You made the edit, it was reverted. You don't then persistently re-add your version and demand that the status quo proves it has a right to be there. Your edit summary of "no, see talk; your adition needs clear consensus , not just one person's opinion" misses the point that you are the "just one person" in this. You have looked at the article, decided that you don't like something and then changed it, and reverted any attempts to use the status quo.
I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'll ask you politely to revert to the status quo and then we can discuss resolving this. - X201 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. I'll take your failure to answer my questions as an admission that you cannot do so. If it is just to fulfil your political theories that you want the superfluous information included, I think it is better to continue to leave it out, as most articles about Scotland already do. Once again, if we were to include "Scotland, United Kingdom", why would we stop at that? The UK is a member of a supranational organisation called the European Union. If "sovereign states" are so important, wouldn't a supranational entity be even more so? If that were true, if that was how we did things, all the articles that mentioned England, Scotland, France etc. would also have to mention the EU. Clearly that is not how we do things. The location recorded in the infobox is for identification purposes, and Edinburgh, Scotland is definitely enough to unambiguously identify the location. Job done. --John (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
John, please take a step back here and stop trying to force your way through. Asking someone to respect BRD is a rational and mature thing to do; it's not an admission of failure. At any rate, I've restored the older version while the discussion takes place. Since both of you claim that most Scottish articles are doing things one way or the other I went and looked at List of companies of Scotland. Unfortunately, the articles there are pretty evenly divided on including the UK for the headquarters in the infobox, so I don't see an overall consensus there. X201, could you expand on where you believe consensus has already been reached on this? If you're referring to the archived discussions on this article's own talk, that really seems to be focused on whether to call this a British or Scottish company and I wouldn't think it has much bearing on including the UK in the infobox. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was going to use the same example; I knew the way that company infobox was used to display addresses (either Scotland, UK or Scotland) varied. The way addresses are displayed in other articles varies too; place names contain the sovereign state, articles on people vary, as do Scottish articles across the board (and articles for the rest of the UK for that matter). @Fyrael:, my claim of consensus is a combination of a misunderstanding of the "British" consensus on my part, and a long standing edit attaining consensus. I think its for the best to just put John's edit back and leave it to attain WP:EDITCONSENSUS. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. Thanks for the explanation. -- Fyrael (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Co founding Misinformation

DMA was not co-founded, it was founded by Dave Jones, and the first employee was Dailly followed by the others. https://www.google.de/search?q=Mike+Dailly+%22first+employee%22 BlitzGreg (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for clearing that up Juno.808 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The source talks about a foundation in 1989, the company was established in 1984 under a different name, I suspect it to be a joke, as it might have been that way in a legal sense, but not a logical one. Lordtobi (✉) 18:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Reassessing this two years later, I believe that this is correct. I changed it in the article. Lordtobi (✉) 19:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Scottish rather than British

Scotland generally sees itself as separate to the rest of the UK and as such the vast majority of things/people on Wikipedia from Scotland are listed as 'Scottish' rather than 'British'. Couple this with the fact that 'British' is seen often as synonymous with 'English' that the game developer should be listed as Scottish rather than British to coincide with the identity of the people of Scotland as well as to coincide with typical standard of attributing nationality on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.27.150 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)‎

Not this again, as per previous discussions on this British is the nationality for United Kingdom which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Do not change the nationality unless there's a census in a discussion since we been through this many times I highly doubt the change will go through.TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference in stating the location of the company as it is rightfully in the UK but national identity is certainly not consistent throughout the UK, particulary in Scotland and N. Ireland. 62% of Scottish people do not feel British whatsoever (number has likely increased post-referendum), and very very few feel fully British enough to state 'British' as their national identity over 'Scottish'. The typical standard of attributing nationality to Scottish things and people is not 'British', it is 'Scottish' in the vast majority of cases. This page is actually one of the few I've seen where something Scottish is described as 'British'. It is different in the case of English people/things where 'British' is often the prescribed nationality as it represents the general consensus of the English people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.27.150 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Have to wait for Rockstar and the GTA series to become horribly unpopular before they'll be called Scottish rather than British I'm afraid. Running joke in Scotland being that our sportsmen are all British when they're winning and Scottish when they lose. 81.158.144.210 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Lordtobi (✉) 18:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Formal request has been received to merge: DMA Design into Rockstar North; dated: February 2017. Proposer's Rationale: Since they are the same company (including being the same legal entity), they share the same history. The latter article already includes about all of the information from the prior, just in a different writing style, so it makes no sense to keep both. The DMA Design article should be redirected, and the lede and infobox of Rockstar North be adapted to DMA Design's. @Lordtobi:. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@GenQuest: I see no opposition in two+ weeks, could you proceed? Lordtobi (✉) 10:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It was a stupid split in the first place. Don't bother waiting, be bold and do it now. I fully support the merge if it wasn't clear. - X201 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging TJD2, who split the articles in August 2015.
While I personally don't mind separate articles (I think having Ultimate Play the Game and Rare separate works well, though perhaps that's incomparable), I won't try to oppose a merge. I hope my work on the DMA Design article isn't too difficult to merge. – Rhain ☔ 13:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the big difference between Ultimate/Rare and DMA/R* North is that Ultimate was acquired, outfaded and dissolved, and a new group assembled that would found a new company to succeed Ultimate with a new direction (focus on licensed, second-party work, rather than staying indepdent). While, on the other hand, DMA simply switched parents (there were different ones before), and was eventually renamed. As I noted in my original nom, they are also the same legal entity (check the link!), so they are most definetly the same company in all terms but branding. Also, TJD2 has not been active since November, so I don't expect that he will take notice on this. Lordtobi (✉) 13:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Went ahead boldly and merged the two articles. Lordtobi (✉) 18:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LA Noire?

It is listed as developed by Rockstar North, is this correct? I didn't find info on this. Wasn't this game made by the Australian compaany?187.65.217.107 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

R* North had a minor development role in L.A. Noire, the primary work was by Team Bondi. The name in the table is accompanied by note [n] saying, specifically: "Primarily developed by Team Bondi." If this causes confusion, it could be changed, but generally, this seems to be the best short-hand solution. Lordtobi (✉) 21:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
As Lordtobi said, it was developed by Team Bondi but following its protracted development Rockstar basically took control and dragged in manpower from all of their studios in order to get it out of the door. - X201 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rockstar North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Profit shifting and tax

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch UK.

In July 2019, we published a report which revealed that Rockstar North paid £0 corporation tax between 2009 and 2018 and received £42 million in tax relief, despite GTA V grossing over $5 billion in revenues.

This report was picked up by close to a hundred outlets, including The Guardian, BBC News, and The Sunday Times.

I would like for a small section to be included on the Rockstar North Wikipedia page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks,

Alex Alex0190 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0190 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Disagreement

Change "British" to Scotland, UK for the following reason:

(Copied from revisions) British is not formal and is vague. Scotland, UK refers to the sovereign country (UK) and state country (Scotland). Instead of just "British" it is a more informal and alternative word for the UK and the UK has of course been formal since the unification of Great Britain and Ireland, sources are in the public domain.

Do you agree/disagree with my point? Thanks... Also I'm new here :). Coronaverification (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Per previous discussions, we use "British" since the company fall under UK company law and is registered with the Companies House of the UK. This is (or should be) done uniformly across all UK company articles. I fail to see how "Scotland, UK" is more concise when we primarily want to state the nationality (which is British). The vagueness (if any) should easily be cleared when the same sentence mentions a Scottish city, while the infobox lists Scotland as the country (in this case referring to the constituent country). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I concur with IceWelder's conclusion. Also changing "British" to "Scotland, UK" would not make grammatical sense (Rockstar North Limited is a Scotland, UK video game development company.... I also do not see how "British" is informal and cambridge dictionary makes no mention as such [1]. Also, welcome to WP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The natural solution to this debate would be to describe it as "Scottish", something that is not able to be disputed given the company is in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:32F7:4100:DCF4:4ADA:E2E0:EF77 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only recently had a look at this article, and it's very strange how even the very mention of the words "Scotland" or "Scottish" have been completely scrubbed from the article, with no mention of "Scotland" or "Scottish" whatsoever anywhere in the article. When editors are trying so hard to remove any mention of the words "Scotland" or "Scottish" from articles about a company based in Scotland, then that's a clear sign of WP:POV pushing. In good articles related to Scottish things or people, the term "Scottish" or "Scotland" is always mentioned in the lead section, usually the lead sentence. For example, see Andy Murray, which is classified as a good article. It starts with "Sir Andrew Barron Murray OBE (born 15 May 1987) is a British professional tennis player from Scotland." That's how it should be for game developers based on Scotland. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The article does what you want it to do. The article starts "...is a British video game development company and a studio of Rockstar Games based in Edinburgh.". The reason we ("we" as in, the whole of the Wikipedia community) don't put Scotland after Edinburgh, is because Edinburgh is deemed to be a globally known place name, that doesn't need to be disambiguated by the addition of its country name. That is why Scotland isn't in the article text, it's because Edinburgh is a globally known place. Putting "Edinburgh, Scotland" everywhere is an insult to a great city. - X201 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is not at all representative of "the whole of the Wikipedia community". Virtually every WP:Good or WP:Featured article I've seen about anyone or anything from Scotland mentions "Scotland" or ""Scottish" in the lead section. The "we" (as in a few editors involved with this article) refusing to even include the words "Scotland" or "Scottish" anywhere in this article, let alone the lead section, demonstrates clear WP:POV pushing (in this case, a pro-British-nationalist POV). Maestro2016 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Throwing around accusations like that will get you nowhere. – Rhain ☔ 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
By "the whole of the Wikipedia community" I was referring to the fact that it is the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community to not put country names after well known place names. The same applies to Dundee, disambiguating it to "Dundee, Scotland" now puts it at the same level as other disambiguated Dundee's like Dundee, Kansas or Dundee, Nova Scotia. Dundee is above those on importance, that's why the manual of style tells us to refer to it by its article title Dundee and not Dundee, Scotland. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
As X201 already pointed out, we are eliminating a redundancy. Where is Los Angeles? California. Where is Barcelona? Catalonia. Where is London? England. All of these are obvious and known to the general audience; we do not need to disambiguate them explicitly. This is, for the most part, consistent across company articles in the project.
Accusing others of POV pushing is a bit reaching, if not arguing in bad faith. This, especially when most of the editors involved are not even from the UK. IceWelder [✉] 06:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll retract my remarks about POV pushing. However, there is still a WP:Systemic bias (whether intentional or unintentional) when an article refuses to even mention the words "Scotland" or "Scottish" when the subject matter is a Scottish company. That's just extremely bizarre (hence my initial suspicions of POV pushing). But I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was simply an oversight rather than deliberate. Maestro2016 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is systemic bias. We do not term companies domiciled in a specific country (or, well, principality or province) of the UK as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish. This is not a WP:UKNATIONALS situation; the project simply consistently handles a company incorporated at the Companies House and that operates under United Kingdom company law as being 'British'. We do not need to mention subnational divisions, especially when it is rather obvious in cases like Edinburgh, Dundee, or Glasgow. Since the UK divisions are referred to as countries, this is respected in the infobox - the place where the country is mentioned in every company article. Mentioning Scotland over and over in the prose is redundant per the prior arguments and, if Scotland was independent, nothing about the article would be different except for the demonym in the first sentence. IceWelder [✉] 00:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rockstar_North/Archive_1&oldid=1142939683"