R-Tape wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:15 pm
Let's lay out our points and Einar can decide.
Good idea. Here’s how I see the debate.
At issue is whether “Publisher” should refer to (1) the brand a game is published under (the “name on the box”) or (2) the ultimate parent legal entity responsible for publishing the game. I think (1); StooB seems to suggest (2).
I see a contradiction between listing Elite as the publisher of Critical Mass and, for example, Ultimate as the publisher of Martianoids. This is because in my opinion the former uses basis (2) and the latter basis (1).
There are four potential solutions:
(1) Change Elite to Durell for Critical Mass.
(2) Change Ultimate to ACG (?) for Martianoids.
(3) Record both brand and legal entity publishers in two separate fields for both
(4) Draw a significant distinction between Critical Mass' and Martianoids' publication arrangements.
I would argue for (1), as:
(A) It involves a lot less work. Adopting (2) would also require changing thousands of other entries in the database.
(B) It is more intuitive. Most of us know publishers by the name on the box.
(C) It’s simple to determine without having to research legal structures and agreements.
(D) It’s knowable. Many of the legal arrangements for publishing games cannot be determined. (It's not even clear that ACG is the ultimate parent in Martianoids' case.)
(E) It’s unambiguous. Legal arrangements can exist in countless forms and there can be endless debate as to what the definition of publisher is in each case.
(F) It avoids arbitrary and debatable distinctions between different legal structures, which is especially a problem for (4).
(G) It is no less "accurate". It simply uses a different definition. (Indeed, you could argue it is more accurate, because of (C)-(F).)
Hopefully I can now go and do more useful things!