User talk:Mmachinecodev

Hello, I am reverting this change: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Hades&type=revision&diff=1287503&oldid=1279588

IMO historical availability should be kept documented, as per https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/Availability guidelines.

Happy to discuss :)

Alright, if you're happy to discuss, then let's discuss:

1. Xbox Game Pass is not a PC storefront like Steam or Epic, nor is it a third-party provider like Humble or Amazon. All XGP games are played through the Microsoft/Xbox store and former titles remain available for sale through that PC storefront.

2. If you decide to document Hades' former availability on XGP, then you've set a precedent where EVERY former XGP title ought to be documented for their delistings. Hades was not the only game to be delisted in August 2022; to otherwise grant only Hades this particular distinction, when other titles fall under the exact same criteria, communicates partiality and bias, which is neither the purpose nor is it encouraged in a community-driven Wiki.

3. Details regarding Hades' former availability on XGP are not very helpful for current users. The fact that Hades was formerly available through a subscription service does not inform a consumer's choice regarding where they can currently play or purchase the title.

4. Documenting a game's former availability on a subscription service is unimportant. We primarily document a game's historical availability in a previous storefront because users can still access and play the game through that original storefront (ie. when a user redeems a Steam key). Because details regarding a game's DRM prove useful in those circumstances, we leave such information as be. By comparison, a game becomes impossible to access, install, redeem, or play through a subscription service once it's delisted, so we find little reason to preserve those details.

Frankly, we decide to omit details regarding a game's former availability on XGP because they prove unimportant and unhelpful for current users. But as a fellow contributor, I respect your point of view and perspective. I will therefore wait two days for a response, so as to offer you a chance to rebuke my argument. Otherwise, I will revert the edits you've made.

Thanks for the details. If indeed this is not how it's usually done, my bad, I have misinterpreted the bit about historical availability from the public guidelines. I have no stake in this and am not looking to argue anything, I was merely under the assumption this was to be kept documented because of how I interpreted the guidelines. I am reverting the changes right away, and would suggest amending the public guidelines to clarify this is not covered.

One thing would like to mention though: I think you could have done the exact same answer without the condescending tidbits. As a small time contributor, I must say I did not find this to be really welcoming, especially since your message would perfectly stand on its own without them... :/

For purposes of clarity, proper assertion, and professionalism, it is my regret that I wrote my response in a certainly patronizing manner. The Wiki attracts contributors from around the world, many of whom English is not their first language. As such, contributors ought to perform their due diligence in ensuring their writing, edits, and messages are as clear and unambiguous as possible, so as to not cause confusion among editors and fellow users. I drafted my response in that manner, as such; but I am very keen that such a tone can very well come off as aggressive and unwelcoming.

I, therefore, apologize for my patronizing and condescending tone. It is neither my intention nor is it the intention of the wider PCGamingWiki to alienate its users, contributors, and enthusiasts with disdainful language. In fact, I'd like to thank you for your transparency, as well as the numerous, constructive edits you've graced the Hades main article.

As per your suggestion, I'll also look into improving the 'Availability' guidelines so to ensure proper clarity for future contributors.

No worries, I understand. Thanks for looking into making the guidelines better.