• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Problem with Game Release Date Listings

(edit: The problem in question is the inaccuracy and incomplete nature of the release date listings on all major gaming websites that have game data listing components.)

Here's an example of the issue, using a game I've been looking up recently, the DC/PS2/PC Europe-only Ubisoft 3d platformer Evil Twin. (My comments are between sections and at the end of the post)

GameFAQs:

Dreamcast
--
Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles Ubisoft 04/12/02 EU

PlayStation II
--
Evil Twin Ubisoft Canceled US
Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles Ubisoft 12/07/01 EU

PC
--
Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles Ubisoft 2002-03-01 EU

Mostly looks good... that PC date is clearly wrong because there are, on the game's GameRankings page, some reviews of the PC game from October 2001, but the PS2 and DC release dates are backed up by other references I found.

(As an aside, though the GameFAQs page links it and claims that 8 reviews or articles are listed there, GameRankings has no page for the PS2 version, only the PC and DC versions. Odd.)


MobyGames:

Dreamcast
Published by
Ubi Soft Entertainment Software
Developed by
In Utero
Distributed by
Bigben Interactive GmbH
3D Engine by
4X Technologies
Country
United Kingdom flag United Kingdom
Release Date
May 10, 2002
EAN-13
3 499550 207576


PlayStation 2
Published by
Ubi Soft Entertainment Software
Developed by
In Utero
3D Engine by
4X Technologies
Country
United States flag United States
Release Date
Oct 27, 2002


Windows
Published by
Ubi Soft Entertainment Software
Developed by
In Utero
3D Engine by
4X Technologies
Country
United States flag United States
Release Date
Oct, 2001

Published by
1C Company
Developed by
In Utero
Localized by
Logrus
Country
Russia flag Russia
Release Date
Dec 21, 2001
Comments
"1C:КОЛЛЕКЦИЯ ИГРУШЕК" ("1С: Game Collection") series
EAN-13
4 601546 012920

Published by
Ubi Soft Entertainment Software
Developed by
In Utero
Distributed by
CyPress GmbH
Country
Germany flag Germany
Release Date
Mar 01, 2006
Comments
PC Powerplay 3/06 covermount

Now this has some problems... first, there was no US PC release. That must be an incorrect reference to the UK Windows release.

Second, it agrees with the October 2001 UK PC release date.

The Dreamcast version release date is a month different from the GameFAQs release date, but that's a minor difference really.

However, it's got a completely weird European PS2 release date... late 2002? Reviews and other sites confirm that no, it was October 2001. Unless there were some European markets where it came out later?

I have no idea about that German PC release.

IGN
--

In the main listing when you load the game's main page said:
PlayStation II
--
Unreleased

Dreamcast
--
US: Europe-only

PC
--
Release Date: June 12, 2001

In the sidebar release-date listings each game has in its review/article pages said:
Dreamcast
--
US: Europe-only
Japan: Unreleased
Europe: Released

Playstation II
--
US: Unreleased
Japan: Unreleased
Europe: July 1, 2001

PC
--

US: June 12, 2001
Japan: Unreleased
Europe: Released
Australia: Released

In the "Editions" tab of the box on the main page for each game said:
Dreamcast
--
Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: Dreamcast
Release Region: United Kingdom

Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: Dreamcast
Release Region: Japan

Playstation II
--
(There is no 'Editions' tab for this version)

PC
--
Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: PC
Release Date: June 12, 2001
Release Region: United States

Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: PC
Release Region: United Kingdom

Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: PC
Release Region: Japan

Evil Twin: Cyprien's Chronicles
Publisher: Ubisoft
Platform: PC
Release Region: Australia

Now, the most obvious thing here is that IGN contradicts itself. If the main 'Release:" listing is meant to show US releases, then all three games should say "Unreleased". If it also includes European ones, then all three should have their European release dates. Instead it's a mishmash of both.

Second, they incorrectly list there as having been Japanese PS2 and PC and American PC releases, which there were not.

Third, the release dates they do have disagree with any others. October seems to be when the PS2 and PC versions came out, not June.

Digital Press (digitpress.com):
Dreamcast: 12/04/02

PS2: 12/07/01

Digitpress has a great setup with separate listings for each region's release of a game. Great feature! But... um, are they saying that the DC version came out in December, or is that European month order? Same for the PS2... July, or December? December? If that's december, then the DC one should be too, right? But that game was not released in December, it was released in April... hmm. I'll bet that whoever added the DC one just accidentally used European month order, while the rest of the site uses standard US order.


I could go on and list more sites, but I think that proves the point... and many other games' release date info is even less complete.


Other issues: How about how in GameFAQs, in game company page listings often games are double or even triple listed, random later releases are used as the date to put on the company-list page instead of the first release. Oh yeah, and I'd really, really love to see the ability to sort games by release date and region -- so you could say 'list by release dates in Europe' or 'in the US' instead of the system most sites have, which is just to select one release date and only list that one for such purposes... Digitpress goes partway towards this, but having to have multiple listings for each title is a clumsy way to do things, and Digitpress doesn't list PC games in their database, which is a big issue.

I know that knowing exact release dates for old game releases can be very difficult. For most older systems, a year is all you'll get...For instance, on the Turbografx-16, it is unknown as to the months and days of the releases for most of the last US releases for the system in 1993... which isn't rare. However, the release YEAR isn't even clear either -- for several games, it's not absolutely certain as to whether the games in question came out in '92, '93., or maybe even early '94... which matters because the system's main publisher (TTI) went bankrupt in mid '93, so the issue of 'what were their last releases' is a natural one to ask.

It is known that their successor, TZD, released the system's last US release in late 1994 with the CD version of Bonk's Adventure, but that seems to have been the only new release released by TZD... probably.

But those questions are hard to answer. For games where we DO, or should, know the release dates, is it really so hard to get them right? I guess so, sadly... most people probably just don't care how far off GameFAQs' or IGN's or anyone elses' release date listings are. I do though, and it's annoying... oh well.
 

fernoca

Member
"Wat" indeed.. :p
I mean..
The title says:
The Problem with Game Release Date Listings
Then inmediately starts with:
Here's an example of the issue
Without explaining any "issue"....

Then proceed and starts giving examples of changed/not revised final release dates...
And then says..
I could go on and list more sites, but I think that proves the point...
Without any point.. :p ..then followed by:
and many other games' release date info is even less complete.
Still, not mentioning the point?

Then again, I'm dumb..so I may need a few pointers.. :p
 

-PXG-

Member
I thought this was going to be another thread about "ship dates" vs "street dates". Or is it? I don't. I R AM CONFUZD.... :/
 

RBH

Member
20qm91v.jpg
 

Haunted

Member
I think the real question here is why there isn't an Lttp for Evil Twin.

I kinda liked that game. Similar to Voodoo Vince, I'd say.
 
Haunted said:
I think the real question here is why there isn't an Lttp for Evil Twin.

I kinda liked that game. Similar to Voodoo Vince, I'd say.

Heh... I used the game as my example because I recently got a copy of the game, actually, which got me interested in its release history as well as the gameplay itself (like the Dreamcast release... a new DC title released in early 2002, in the West, from Ubisoft? Huh!).

(On that note, I should say that Rayman 2 is one of my favorite 3d platformers ever, and I liked Tonic Trouble and Rayman 3 too. So "Ubisoft 3d platformer" alone was enough to get me to definitely want to play the game.)

Based on the first couple of levels, I'd agree that it's a pretty good game... the camera is frustrating sometimes, but that's such a common problem in 3d platformers that I can't mark it down too much for that. Great graphics and art design, lots of levels, good controls... good stuff so far. It could have used a better enemy lock-on feature, though, for the slingshot and such... oh well, it's not hard to hit enemies.

If it'd had an American release on any platform at all it'd probably be a lot better known. It's definitely bad it didn't get one, on PS2 and PC at least.

fernoca said:
"Wat" indeed.. :p
I mean..
The title says:

Then inmediately starts with:

Without explaining any "issue"....

The purpose was to get the reader to read the listings and realize that they are conflicting and contradictory; that's why I started by saying, among other things, "Europe only", to show how listings like IGN and Mobygames' "US release" ones are wrong, for instance.

... Yes, I was trying to encourage thought and analysis. Explain too much at the start and there's none of that left to do... but I should have said a little more, I agree. I just added a sentence to the beginning of the first post, to hopefully explain it a bit better.

Then proceed and starts giving examples of changed/not revised final release dates...
And then says..

Without any point.. :p ..then followed by:

Still, not mentioning the point?

The point that nobody seems to know what the release dates were for some games, but they just make up stuff to put on their sites anyway, or submit dates to sites like GameFAQs or MobyGames without actually being sure about the dates.

The result is confusion for anyone who actually wants to know when something was released. Which of those three or four or five dates should I believe?

Then again, I'm dumb..so I may need a few pointers.. :p

You're right, the title probably should have been "The Problem with Website Listings of Older Videogame Release Dates", or something like that.

Or how about "Game Site Release and Release Date Listings Are Often Wrong"? That's more to the point, perhaps, in stating the question...and that is the question, the issue of the high degree of inaccuracy in website listings of game release dates. There is so much conflicting information out there that you have no idea which ones are right, in some cases... and sites will misinform people who don't go to great lengths to find more information about what accurate release dates (or releases) are for some titles.

Of course, a lot of the problem is because the stuff at GameFAQs or MobyGames or other sites is player-submitted, so it's not officially checked or anything like that. Even so, professional sites like IGN seem to be even worse, accuracy-wise, and problems like the company page listing problems aren't something you can fix yourself at GameFAQs, you can only add or delete or change information like release dates (if you can provide proof that the change is more accurate than the currently displayed information).

Now for anyone who says "GameFAQs is just bad", then what is an alternative? MobyGames, often said to be perhaps the best authority on releases, particularly for PC games? I quoted them too, and from that section, it should be clear that their data is no more accurate. Some releases listed as being in the wrong region (US instead of UK for the first PC release), their listed dates are different from GameFAQs or IGN's...

So as a result, we get things like four different sites listing three different dates for the release of the same game.

Dreamcast: March 1st 2002, May 10th 2002, or April 2nd 2002?
PS2: July 1st 2001, December 7th 2001, or October 27th 2002? (Eurogamer review published February 13th 2002)
PC: June 12, 2001, October 2001, or March 1st 2002? (Eurogamer review published October 30, 2001)

People don't care about actually getting their information right, they just want to put something there to make it look good. Those dates are obviously not all correct.


Oh, and as far as Evil Twin goes, here is what Wikipedia says.

Flag of Europe December 7, 2001 (PS2)
Flag of Europe March 1, 2002 (PC)
Flag of Europe April 12, 2002 (Dreamcast)

... The same as the GameFAQs release dates, that is. So the same question -- What about all those PC version reviews from October 2001? That PC release date is hard to believe.

GavinGT said:
Who.Gives.A.Shit.

Most people don't, which is why the problem exists. If people cared, they'd try to be sure that information like this was actually correct. But they don't so... "who cares if four sites have four different release dates for the same game in the same region, I don't!"

To explain why I would care, I'll explain a bit more about one other issue I mentioned in in the original post, the GameFAQ's "repeating release dates and odd selections for the date chosen to put on the list" issue.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/10642.html

It shouldn't take long to start seeing games which are listed multiple times... NES Lode Runner would be the first such example. Sometimes released games even end up in the "Cancelled" section because one region's release was canned while others were released, and whoever put the list together randomly chose to have the cancelled one be the displayed date for the list... but why should anyone care? The listings are all there, right, and they're supposedly "correct".

But I do care, because I find it interesting to know when games were released... so you can make a list of all the games a publisher published on a specific console in order or something, for example... or "How many games did publisher X release on platform Y, and how many per year did that add up to?". Comparing how well different publishers supported specific consoles, etc. But with such bad information out there, unless you're making it for Nintendo or something (eg one where there is a lot of available information), it'd be quite a task!

-PXG- said:
I thought this was going to be another thread about "ship dates" vs "street dates". Or is it? I don't. I R AM CONFUZD.... :/

That should hopefully lead to a difference of only a few days though, a comparatively minor difference compared to these kinds of errors... but yeah, it would make precise accuracy a bit harder, wouldn't it. Still, that wasn't what I was talking about.
 

Concept17

Member
Not really sure about the rant, but if were talking about having solid release dates, its usually pretty easy to find out. And as I know the whole of gaf hates N4G, their new http://www.vgreleases.com/ is pretty handy, though nothing spectacular - gives you a nice easy way of tracking your anticipated games.
 
Concept17 said:
Not really sure about the rant, but if were talking about having solid release dates, its usually pretty easy to find out. And as I know the whole of gaf hates N4G, their new http://www.vgreleases.com/ is pretty handy, though nothing spectacular - gives you a nice easy way of tracking your anticipated games.

Great site, for releases from the past couple of years... I didn't know about it. Generally, I'd say that the newer the game, the more reliable the release info. That's a good site for current release info. Doesn't help with the problem of finding reliable release info for older games, though... "it's pretty easy to find out"? How so?
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Videogames releases are vague and can change. Its not so much a problem with release lists as it is an example of reality
 
On Evil Twin: *****, of all places, seems to have the most believable version of the release dates...

http://news.*****.com/press_release/1030/Ubi_Soft_At_Milia_2001 (from the sidebar)
Dreamcast: Released: Unknown (US/DE/ES/FR/GB)
12 Apr 2002 (GB)

PS2: Released: 7 Dec 2001 (GB)

PC: Released: 12 Oct 2001 (GB)
Unknown (US)

Those look right. Not exactly the site I'd have expected to have the correct information, when the major sites all have errors... you never know. :)

Evander said:
Once a game is already out, how the hell does the release date matter any more?

Yeah, who cares about anything that happened in the past, it's all happened already!

Oh wait, I love, and study, history? Right. I care a lot about what happened in the past. Videogame history is a part of that...

But besides, why should it be considered perfectly okay to post information you're not sure is right, and act like it's the truth?

I mean yeah, US-only release, UK-only release, same difference... who cares which one is right? I'm not just talking about dates, I'm talking about whole releases too.

Also this.
A Black Falcon said:
But I do care, because I find it interesting to know when games were released... so you can make a list of all the games a publisher published on a specific console in order or something, for example... or "How many games did publisher X release on platform Y, and how many per year did that add up to?". Comparing how well different publishers supported specific consoles, etc. But with such bad information out there, unless you're making it for Nintendo or something (eg one where there is a lot of available information), it'd be quite a task!

grandjedi6 said:
Videogames releases are vague and can change. Its not so much a problem with release lists as it is an example of reality

You're right, of course, and that's a big part of the problem. A release is announced and some site writes that down as the release date, but then the game is delayed as so many games are and not everyone changes their databases... or there's some re-release and some site accidentally writes it down as the actual release... or they just don't know and make up a date, to make it look like their site's information is more complete. There are plenty of understandable ways it can happen, and I certainly understand that trying to get it all right would be pretty hard.

Still, it would be very nice if more people, or sites, cared enough to try. How does it benefit anyone interested in videogame history or sales history if there isn't accurate information out there as to when a great many games were actually released, or what platforms they were released on?

The Faceless Master said:
there are many reasons, such as sales age

Indeed. It's hard enough to get sales data for older games, but it's made even harder when you don't even know which games came out when, or even if that game listed there ever came out at all, if it even existed! Sometimes I have to go search ebay to try to see if some release actually exists or not... that won't always give the answer of course, for rarer stuff that often isn't currently up for auction, but sometimes it can help. A lot of people putting stuff up on gaming websites really have no idea as to whether what they are putting up is true or not.
 
I've always wondered why is it like this for games.

Games sell more than music and DVDs, but if a DVD is set to come out on a Tuesday, it ALWAYS does, no matter what store you go to.

But for games? Complete opposite.
 
The-Switcher said:
I've always wondered why is it like this for games.

Games sell more than music and DVDs, but if a DVD is set to come out on a Tuesday, it ALWAYS does, no matter what store you go to.

But for games? Complete opposite.

Yeah...

Because I don't want to give up on this, how about I take on something else, more directly connected to Sales-Age... sales numbers. Now, these are hard for older games and systems because of limited information in a great many cases. But we do know a few things... some of the numbers on some sites just make no sense. If you have no idea or know it's a guess, you should admit that instead of putting the number there with no notes as if you're confident that it's correct.

The example I'll use is the Sega Genesis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis

Units sold Worldwide: 29 million[1]
United States: 14 million[2]
Brazil: 2 million[3]

Alright, clear enough... but wait.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e0806.pdf

Super Nintendo total sales, official numbers:

Worldwide: 49.1 million
Japan: 17.17 million
US: 23.35 million
Other: 8.58 million

23 million SNESes to 14 million Genesises, when we all know that up to 1993 the Genesis was in the lead, and the SNES only managed to take it in late 1994, and the Genesis was still fairly strong through 1995? It would be very hard to believe that the SNES managed to build up a 9+ million lead over that time... it just isn't believable. It was closer than that. And that SNES number is not wrong.

The Sega numbers at Wikipedia seem to likely come from this site, because the numbers are the same.

http://www.islandnet.com/~KPOLSSON/segavid/

They say this.

1989

(month unknown)

* Sega Enterprises introduces the Genesis home video game system. It features 7.68 MHz 16-bit Motorola 68EC000 processor, 4 MHz Z80 sound coprocessor, 64 kB RAM, 512 colors in 320x224 resolution. 80 animated sprites are possible, with up to 16 colors per sprite. Price is US$189. (Total North American sales in its lifetime: 14 million. Total world sales: 29 million.) [70] [124.352] [157.44] [176.C1] [317.68] [483.64]
* Sega introduces the MegaDrive modem in Japan. [810.119]
* Sega releases the Phantasy Star II game for the Genesis. [304.132]

Year

* Unit sales of the Sega Genesis game system during the year: 400,000. [176.C1]
* Market share of US video game industry: Nintendo 80%, Sega 5%. [174.D5] [175.C1] [314.106] (Nintendo 90% [349.35])

Okay., seems clear, doesn't it? But wait. Read more and you'll find some more sales figures notes. Many sites seem to not have noticed these...

1994

*(month unknown)*

Unit sales of Sega Genesis video game systems in the US to date: 13 million. [335.116]

13 million in 1994 sometime, huh? So between the rest of 1994 and 1998, the Genesis sold ONE MILLION UNITS in the US? Uh, no way, no way at all! I know that the SNES finally passed the Genesis in sales in late 1994, but even so, the Genesis was in stores all the way until late 1998 and the Majesco Genesis 3, and it did sell systems that whole time. One million sold over four years seems like an extremely, extremely hard number to believe.

Maybe that '14 million' number refers only to the Model 1 Genesis or something? It could be something like that... or perhaps it's from some articles which missed some months or estimated... and does it include Majesco Model 3 Genesis sales too? And how about the Nomad (1995) or CDX (1994)? And should we count the legit clones like the Xeye and LaserActive module? Any or all of these things could be issues affecting, and complicating, the actual total count.

On that note, I can't find the source at the moment, but I know I read that the Genesis outsold the SNES in 1998, the year of the Majesco Genesis 3 vs. the Model 2 SNES, at $50 each (Genesis first, later SNES).

Maybe it's best to be conservative and name the lowest number you can reasonably prove, but naming that number without saying anything about the fact that it was almost certainly actually higher can deceive people, and this is certainly important for anyone interested in following videogame sales.

This thread at Sega-16 attempted to answer this question, but they couldn't find a satisfactory answer either... they just agreed, as I do, there's no way that 29 million number is correct.
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2915

And this is an important question, because the question is...

Which is the best-selling second-place major console of all time?

The answer: Genesis or N64, depending on what the Genesis' actual total numbers are. The N64 sold 32.93 million systems worldwide and is commonly mentioned as the top second-place system... but was it, actually?
 
Top Bottom