Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 38

Find video game sources: "Mr. President!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Wikipedia:Source assessment/Mr. President! states that the PC Gamer and Kotaku pages on Mr. President! are reliable, but does not state that the Entertainment.ie source is reliable so i starting this discussion. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any about us or such explaining their editoria policies. The review for Mr. P. is signed by a full name but the author page has no bio: https://entertainment.ie/author/brianlloyd/ . As such I am not seeing how this is better than a blog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "PlayStation Blog" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I've been doing work on the Horizon Zero Dawn article in my sandbox and noticed a fair amount of refs from the PlayStation Blog. It currently has no kind of category for its reliability, so I feel like it would be a good one to add to the reliable sites list considering the news posts are directly from people involved with whatever game is being written about, or if it isn't about a game announcement, the info is from SIE people.

In short, based on who writes the posts/articles, I feel it should be considered a reliable video game source. -- ZooBlazer 01:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be usable within what's explained at WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, true. My bad. Disregard this. -- ZooBlazer 04:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, this already has an entry here too, in case anyone questions its usage. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Nintendo Life (Database)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Find video game sources: "Time Extension (Database)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · [[Special:Linksearch/[https://www.timeextension.com/games/gameboy/donkey_kong#overview%7CLinkSearch]] · [https://www.timeextension.com/games/gameboy/donkey_kong#overview LinkTo

I've seen Nintendo Life and Time Extension used as a source for release dates articles. While I have little hesitation about the site's editorial content. Their database appears to have the same issue as many other sites that pull from GameFAQs. Lets look at Donkey Kong for the Game Boy on NintendoLife and Time Extension. Their information appears to duplicate that of The Internet Game Database, a site where all its information is generated by its users. This makes sense as all three sites are owned or associated with Gamer Network.

As they all seem to have exact release dates for the material, I have gone through extensive magazine and newspaper work for 'Donkey Kong' for the Game Boy and have yet to find a specific date beyond a month. As Jeremy Parish (who has written about video games for the past 25 years and has gone above and beyond to clarify information and misinformation) states (ironicly enough, in an interview with Nintendo Life in 2015) that pinpointing exact release dates is hard. "For Japanese games, it's a cinch. The Japanese games industry has tracked the precise release dates of every game back to the Famicom launch for every system, and these dates are readily available. I can read enough Japanese to parse all but a handful of titles [...] Western dates are harder. Nintendo of America has a complete database of official U.S. launch dates for all Game Boy releases, but they're generalized to the month. Meanwhile, European dates - even for latter-day Game Boy Color titles! - often get no more specific than the year." Personally, on trying to find sources on my own through third-party sources or contemporary ones, this has generally been my own experience from looking up information about games before the year 2000. I propose we do not use the database information for sites associated with Gamer Network, which include the page I've linked to above and the side bars in articles, as the information is pulling from user-generated data. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with not using their database per reasons mentioned. Timur9008 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

all three sites are owned or associated with Gamer Network − IGDB is linked to Gamer Network, how so? Jean-Fred (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I may have jumped the gun, they are not related by ownership but use their data. Per Gameindustry.biz's about page "GamesIndustry.biz is owned by Gamer Network Limited" and "Games metadata is provided by IGDB." The other Gamer Network material also states this Eurogamer, VG247, etc. Time Extension, Push Square, Pure Xbox and Nintendo Life are also all connected with via Hookshot Media who are all part related to the scope within Gamer Network. ("Hookshot is an online media publishing company formed in 2010 (as Nlife Media) [...] In 2010, Nlife Media was formally established to represent the business interests of the network, and the three founders would go on to enter a commercial partnership with Gamer Network in 2011.") As for their editorial policies, it only applies to to their editorials (per NintendoLife) and Time Extension, etc. Very frustrating that the state of online video game journalism is all established by one conglomerate, but that's the state of these things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware NLife and Time Extension release databases were sourced from IGDB. I agree they're likely inappropriate to cite in that regard. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m not quite convinced that this is the case though. At this point IGDB does power a lot of metadata around the internet, but isn’t it usually stated so somewhere? Like Andrzejbanas found from GamesIndustry.biz, and eg on every Kotaku page. (I would not be surprised if basic attribution is part of these deals with IGDB). Do we have any such acknowledgement for NLife and Time Extension? That release dates match for some games is not exactly a smoking gun − for all we know, whoever put the dates in IGDB (created in 2O14) got it from NintendoLife (created in 2005). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

On trying to examine further, NintendoLife was not part of Gamer Network until 2011. Looking at archive posts from their site in the past, they had no game database of such grand scale in the past from that era. Site in 2006, Their old database here in 2008 does not go into titles before they started covering games (i.e: no 20th century titles for Nintendo, just the Wii, DS and GameCube and occasional retrospective reviews on digital store fronts such as the Wii and 3DS digital shops.)

Some information has changed over their time. Lets take a look at Ocarina of Time

• NintendoLife in 2010 This is before they partnered with Gamer Network (then Eurogamer Network) in 2011.
  • These dates here seem to correspond with the games release for the Wii Virtual Console in 2007 as the game came out in 1998.
  • In 2021 new dates are pulled through that meticulously go through N64, and other re-release dates.

Similarly, lets look a bit more at Donkey Kong (1994) for the Game Boy

• Donkey Kong (1994) Game Boy page on NintendoLife in 2011 similarly, only contains dates which relate to its 3DS re-release.
• Same review, but archived to 2013 This before the advent of the IGDB and still contains the 3DS re-release dates only.
• in the current version they note in their review that they have re-posted the review originally in 2011 for the Nintendo Switch Online Game Boy Library addition. This one has the new dates which I have not been able to confirm with any secondary source.

Per IDGB's wikipage, it only had about 200 game entries in 2014, so its unlikely to have been used at the time. Similarly, Gameindustry.biz did not use IGDB as their source for metadata prior to [2021. To clarify this, per this article IGN Entertainment bought the Gamer Network sites, which include "GamesIndustry.biz, Eurogamer (including six local language editions), Rock Paper Shotgun, VG247 and Dicebreaker. The business also holds shares in Outside Xbox, Digital Foundry and Hookshot (which operates Nintendolife, PushSquare, PureXbox and Time Extension)." Also per this Gameindustry.biz article, it would make sense for these sites to take advantage of deal as the API that IGDB used to be a pay service, but since their buyout from Twitch.tv in 2019, it has become free to use. I've reached out to NintendoLife and Time Extension about how their metadata information is gathered, but as you might expect, I have not heard from them yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "The Loadout" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I know that there were concerns about AI writing done by authors here in a prior discussion that caused it to be listed as unreliable, but I am of the opinion that these concerns are misplaced. As someone who has written for rinky dink websites before, the editorial process is not necessarily done on a per-item basis (i.e. *writes article, article gets reviewed, article gets posted* vs. *writes multiple articles, articles get reviewed, articles get posted*, which I believe the latter may be the case). I could understand if the authors cited—Kyle Wilson and Echo Ansley—were unknown, but they're definitely not. While freelance writers, both have a lot of experience with multiple reliable sources. Wilson has written for Wired, Vice, Nature, The Verge, and Kotaku, while Ansley has written for Rolling Stone, NME, Space.com, Polygon, Inverse, Nintendo Life, Push Square, PC Gamer, PCGamesN, and IGN. As far as editorial policy goes, I don't know if the lack of an editorial policy was actually the case then, but it now does have one: Even if there's possible suspicions of AI, I don't think the suspicions are strong enough to label this source unreliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliable per the above, unless someone sees an issue I'm not they look fine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliable per KFM. Unless there's something I'm missing this looks decently reliable at a glance, and they do seem to have some credentials. There should be a tag to keep an eye out for potential AI usage per the prior discussion but otherwise I see no issue. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable, and do not use AI content/rumours: Their editorial page looks legitimate, and the honesty of reporting on rumours is respectable. Wikipedia obviously shouldn't be using sources that discuss rumours, unless the article or section is about the rumour itself. LLM articles should never be cited. I would say it is probably marginally reliable, but more reliable than other blog-type sources such as Destructoid. 11WB (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: Konbini (website) [fr] – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Here's a french website, that I used for Baldi's Basics aticle, it was founded in 2008 at Paris by David Creuzot and Lucie Beudet. It was acquaired in 2024 by DC Company, and it have a publisher: Gorafi.

I'm not sure if it's an unreliable source. If so, should I remove it from the article? SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello? Do anyone respond? Grubisz440 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I plan on improving The Witcher Adventure Game (board and video game combo), and there are some additional sources (reviews) about its digital version that I found online byt I don't see in the list here, that I'd like your thoughts on whether they are reliable or not (and in either case, they should be added here to either reliable or unreliable):

Find video game sources: "Radio Times" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Radio Times covers a range of topics, including gaming. They also have an about page. This is my first request of this kind, so I'm not very experienced in judging its reliability. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

haha my comment got deleted when the title got added. I believe this one to be a totally okay source per the Radio Times (long running BBC related magazine in the UK). I've used them a few times for album reviews. They are also already used in various featured articles like David Bowie, The Simpsons and other assorted media articles. They would be good for interviews or reviews of content. I don't know if I'd bank on them as experts to like, give more historical details on stuff, but I don't think they'd approach that kind of material either. I'm presuming this is mostly for content like the above mentioned reviews, release, and other technical details? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I want to use it for general coverage of games, releases, or reviews. I've used this source before, but I only noticed today that it isn't listed yet. It seems I had mistaken it for something else. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've used it in music articles in the past without issue. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt they would have anything beyond reviews, but that's still solid. It's also a useful site as I feel they have *knock on wood* kept most of their older material online, which is grand for writing about older material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably fine, at least for things related to video games and music. If it has been used in several featured articles which go through a rigorous vetting and improvement process, then I think it must be reliable. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Based on everyone's answers, I assume the source is suitable to add to the reliable list? I would probably add it to Games industry-related/academic/other then. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No problems using this. Seems reliable. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per others. They are a strong reliable source for entertainment with good standards and authors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Nookgaming" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

What is the reliability of NookGaming? Its a site that has a focus on Japanese-centric games, I've seen it used in some articles This search says about 38, but it does not appear to be covered here. +2 here. It's used in relatively high-traffic articles like Umamusume: Pretty Derby.

• Their editorial policy here.
• Their "Join Us" page says: "We do have a strict application process that assesses the quality of work and we would expect a strong familiarity with any areas that you would want to write about. That said, whether you have written for several websites in the past or even if you have no more experience than writing a few reviews on Steam, you are welcome to apply." and "there is no payment for any positions, which is the case with most small to medium websites. We generate a small amount of revenue to pay for hosting costs and other related costs, but this all goes back into the website."

While they do seem to have interesting content, specifically some interviews (here and here) or overviews of material, I'm not sure if their editorial policy with unpaid writers is applicable. On looking at through the "Find Sources" above, they don't appear to be used by others or anything either. While I'd love to give something niche and independent support, I'm going to presume its not permissible. Thoughts?Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest they're reasonably reliable for their niche even if I'd use a more mainstream source if one was available. Admittedly, I would've thought there'd be better sources for Umamusume: Pretty Derby since that is so well-known now.

I’m generally familiar with them as they often pop up for visual novel coverage when not many others do, but when I was working on the visual novel articles I looked into their background before deciding to use them. It’s a good sign that they’re linked by places like Ars Technica, Engadget, and Digitally Downloaded, all explicitly listed reliable sources, so I feel they're good enough for non-controversial uses. They also have a clear editorial policy and a listed Head Editor. They are an approved outlet on OpenCritic, which usually implies at least a certain level of professional standard and editorial oversight even if it's not a pass by itself. The fact that they’ve presented at a VN conference suggests they actually have some expertise in the field that's respected by the industry. Those factors especially being linked by at least three reliable sources at least somewhat offsets the fact that their staff doesn't also work for existing reliable sources. Having been judged to be reliable enough to report accurately enough to be granted an interview with some big names in the Japanese gaming industry doesn't hurt either. Also, I’ve mentioned this with other independent sites on occasion, but I haven't ever found any policy stating a source has to be a commercial operation to be reliable, even if some editors tend to use it as an argument again the reliability of a source.

They specialize in visual novels and obscure titles which don't get covered on most websites, so I sometimes go to them for niche stuff like that. Their news posts usually link back to the original source, which gives me some confidence there. They mostly write reviews so they'd mostly be a source of opinion anyway.

In short, while they don't have all of the green flags, they have quite a few and I've not found any problems in their accuracy as I have with some other sites in the niche, so I feel they're good enough for some basic use within their niche, especially just as a source of opinion.

That said I'm guessing the question came up because of the interview I mentioned for the visual novel article rewrite? Either way, I would have thought that usage should be fine under WP:Interviews depending on how you use it since the policy allows interviews to be used as primary sources as long as it's about themselves and that's about them and the company they're a CEO of. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Darkeru! I did find them in regards to the interview you shared with me, but also a few other articles I looked at or stumbled upon. Agreed for Umamusume: Pretty Derby article which (i haven't researched at all), but probably could find a better source for whatever its stating. I'm a bit back and forth on what we could use this site for. I'm not too familiar with WP:Interviews. What part of it are you specifically applying them makes them acceptable? (Also, I did find some other content for the AI part of the VN re-write, was going to ping you but haven't had time to really focus on it specifically). As for reliable on their niche, I don't know. They seem to be happy to take anyone with no pay and just presume you know what you are talking about. I know we'd like to apply it for some more difficult to research topics, but even the sites you mention don't seem to cite this website by name which kind of makes me feel a bit on the fence still. :/Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

On WP:Interview, I'd read it as a fairly low bar to pass in this instance, as long as it's being used as a primary source about the person or their company. It states "as long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies" and "While primary-source material from interviews is treated the same as other primary-source materials, it is necessary to verify that the comments attributed to the interviewee were actually made by them". We're looking at a website which is on OpenCritic and appears to have been getting early game codes including from the connected publisher to some of those interviews. On the Ono Wasabi one, you have to scroll back ages since it's not a quote retweet but the publisher retweeted it. The creator of Disgaea tweeted about their interview with him so no doubt that happened. It's a minor connection but a little digging shows another connection with them mentioned on a Disgaea 7 press release so them interviewing the creator of Disgaea seems further supported. I'd argue there's little room for doubt the interviews happened.

I would again say that I've never seen a policy that connects a source's reliability to its payment structure. On top of that, through a lot of source checking in the past, I can tell you many websites don't state either way whether they do pay, including some on the reliable list. If anything, I think the focus should be on a lack of noted issues in facts published and on their vetting process, which specifically looks for quality and area knowledge. The reality is that many writers at established sites don't have specific credentials or relevant career experience, with some who are still university students or never attended. If you check the hiring for even very reputable sources like Polygon, EuroGamer, or Aftermath for example, they're mostly looking for strong writing, SEO skills, and subject-matter passion. Experience is asked for in some but not all cases, but it seems they'll take anyone who they assess as having the skills even at professional websites with plenty of reputation and experience.

On citing by name, the Digitally Downloaded source does. The others don't, but one example links them as a source for a fact (on cut content), one for fact and opinion (weight and similarity), and the other for opinion (described as one of the "prominent people from independent game publications"). I'd suggest even if they're not mentioning them by name as if it were an academic source, linking them as the source of those facts they have published as true without further comment shows a level of trust in the reliability of the original source, as it's one of the aspects mentioned in WP:Reliable sources. I wouldn't weigh it against Polygon or Eurogamer where use as a source is much more widespread, but I think it's reasonable for items such as interviews or non-controversial uses such as opinion in absence of other sources. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I was curious what sources are listed on interwikid pl wiki equivalents of WP:VG/S and Template:Video game reviews. Here are the inconsistencies (basically, sources recognized as reliable on pl wiki but not yet listed here). For the record, many sources from other countries are not very well covered here (ex. Play (Chinese magazine) is only mentioned in a rather unclear way in our entry on Ultra Console Game - someone interested in Chinese media may want to take a look). Anyway, first batch are magazines - these should be pretty run-off-the-mill reliable, as most magazines are (large publishers, editorial boards and standards, etc.). PS. I should also clarify that all of these are defunct now, only one had a website. If you want to see archival issues, some are in IA, others at a Polish fan site . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Rolimon's" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is one of the most popular fan sites associated with Roblox, and with how Roblox coverage on Wikipedia keeps growing (multiple games getting their own articles and the expanding List of Roblox games, for instance) and this source has been cited on multiple occasions in its associated articles, I think this source should be vetted here (as unreliable).

To summarize this briefly, Rolimon's is a fan-operated site that mainly exists for other users to look up data on Roblox players and games. To that degree, it takes all of its data from the Roblox site, but it also generates multiple other statistics based on that data as mere estimations. Per the about page , it was founded by one user, and operated by moderators hired via a Discord server, which also operate a news/articles section of site. It has no editorial policy, staff experience, oversight, or anything going for it besides merely being a fan site operated by, once-again, arbitrarily hired staff. It has no qualities that we look for in a a reliable source, let alone one for video games.

I think it's obvious that this site should be labeled as unreliable, and I honestly feel silly even bringing it here, but having it here would make it easier to state that it's unreliable and shouldn't be used in articles regarding Roblox, or on articles for people that play Roblox (since a user look-up function that exists which can, in a sense, be used as a stalking tool). λ NegativeMP1 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I have gone ahead and added it to the list of unreliable sources. RedShellMomentum 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

NegativeMP1, RedShellMomentum there is a duplicate discussion occurring at WP:RSN#Rolimon's. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like that discussion started after this one, but it might get more attention. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable, for all the reasons listed above. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Collider" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I have a soft goal this year to reduce the number of sources listed at WP:VG/S#Inconclusive discussions, which currently sits at around 185 sources. I figured starting with Collider makes sense, as a Valnet source it should be slightly simpler to evaluate. It has a short about page and also follows Valnet's editorial integrity standards. Recent sources I plan on potentially using include this one, which discusses Tulkuns from the Avatar franchise. It follows a straightforward question and answer format. Collider seems to mainly focus on media, including television and film, rather than strictly video games. I would personally say they are WP:MREL, and probably shouldn't count towards notability, due to the ongoing concerns about churnalism, as detailed at WP:VALNET. The articles Collider publishes aren't outright bad though, so either MREL creeping into generally reliable would be fine with me! 11WB (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that it's generally reliable. I have used Collider articles for television and film articles with no objections to their content. –GM 07:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree I'm afraid. Per discussions at WP:FILM, which resulted in WP:RS/VALNET. We basically found topics going into depth on histories or lore of material to be poorly researched or often contradicting themselves. We basically boiled them down to usefulness if they had an interview or a review of a contemporary item that didn't sprawl into a dozen topics. The initial conversation about it can be read here here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying this to discredit your discussion, as there are some valid points made, but it comes across as though you were trying quite hard to force the unreliable consensus when that wasn't actually the case. @Adamstom.97 pointed that out here, here and in the following chain of replies. You were also corrected regarding the purpose of one the sources Collider used here.

I will read the rest of that discussion, however I don't believe Collider is as bad as was made out in the initial statement of that discussion. 11WB (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Even with Adamstom's point, the statement there stands. I'm not sure why this is being brought to WP:VG for questioning either, as it seems like WP:FILM discussion. Regardless, What exactly do you want to use from this article? This is a clearly written for hype review with no real insight on the topic that I can see and mostly speculates on material. This is the kind of churnalism that was part of the discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is to gather a consensus on Collider in general. As to why I posted here, I gave the reason in my opening comment: "I have a soft goal this year to reduce the number of sources listed at WP:VG/S#Inconclusive discussions, which currently sits at around 185 sources." 11WB (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I believe I understand your point of view. I think in this case you should probably show off their more video game related content which I'm less familiar with for the discussion to go forward. I know this is more for deletion topics, but three best examples of content would help us understand its usefulness for the project. That said, I've found their own editorial integrity standards false "We prioritize the authenticity and reliability of our content" in my previous discussion posted where someone who was an expert in Roger Ebert clearly made up stuff he said. Even prior to the ValNet purchase, there was no real consensus on whether Collider was reliable. Similarly, outside sources have also doubted it, such as this The Guardian source which states "if a report from Collider is to be believed suggesting they are not known for their journalistic integrity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Most Valnet sources are the same way: sometimes useful, but are generally not high-quality sourcing. And there's pretty much unanimous consensus on how to use them in this project: they can be used in some cases, but shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability outside of niche instances (e.g. when the source is a large WP:SIGCOV piece from an experienced author). Some of their sources may be higher quality than others, but they're pretty much one in the same. Collider is the exact same way and there's not much difference. Most discussions about Valnet sourcing boil down to this.

In accordance with status quo and my own personal use of the source, situational, with the exact same scrutiny as all other Valnet sourcing: they should be excluded entirely from WP:BLP articles (even if an interview, there is a history of Valnet sources faking quotes), they can't demonstrate notability outside of niche cases, and should be replaced with a higher quality source when possible. We know the drill at this point. λ NegativeMP1 17:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational is basically MREL right? If so, I would agree but would say they aren't quite as bad as some of the Valnet owned sources. 11WB (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational seems right for Collider & other Valnet owned properties. In general, we should trust editor discretion when evaluating specific sources from a situational outlet; if someone disagrees & can't find a higher quality replacement, then it should be discussed on a case by case basis. I haven't seen any examples that Collider interviews should be blanket mistrusted at this point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational per VALNET and above. I don't see why it can't be used, but it should probably be substituted where possible for stronger citations where applicable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding my 2 cents as I was pinged above. The consensus we came to at WP:RS/VALNET is that Valnet sources like Collider should be replaced with higher quality sources if available, and users should be especially wary of churnalism and listicles, but they are fine to use in some situations such as direct interviews and official reviews. There is no consensus at the film project that they should not be used at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Adamstom summarized fairly well. At least for film topics, most of Collider material was able to be found elsewhere. This might not be the case for games, but I'd have to see more game related content from them. Looking at their video game section,

• Collider report on Split Fiction film, which as the article states, is taken from Variety here
• Collider Report about Nintendo wanting to make a Harry Potter game is taken from Unseen64, a hobbyist website.
• What Happened to AMC’s ‘Alan Wake’ Series? is another one of their articles which has you scroll through a history of the series, again, with history bobs attributed taken from Variety and other sources to tell you "there's hardly a better time to tackle a television version than now." So uhh, thanks for the article.

I'm not sure their validity or depth you can pull from them in terms of WP:VG related content as it seems to have the same kind of issues. Regurgitating other material or barely giving anyone any meat on their bones with an overview or an opinion on a topic. I obviously haven't gone into huge depth, but from a glance, there's not much to pull from Collider on video games, what can be pulled is reported elsewhere, or questionable at best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, the issue with no consensus is that in the long run, it isn't helpful to keep adding to a list of inconclusive sources. The VG project list is now at almost 200 sources due to this. It's going to take some effort, but my goal is to gather a consensus for every source on that list. Admittedly, Collider is not on that specific list but it is still without a formal consensus, so I hope one can be established here. 11WB (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's not impossible for it to produce in-depth content. This article on The Great Ace Attorney's Kazuma Asogi goes well into depth about him as a character, with the only mistakes being the claim that he suffered blunt force trauma from a "bedpost" (when it was the floor instead) and the typo of "sane" instead of "same" at the ending paragraph. So clearly they can publish something that's not just regurgitated news. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Coming Soon Magazine!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Used by MobyGames as part of their aggregated score. I'd call them a zine (old, published from c. 1996 to 2000). The reviews don't seem to be signed, but their about about has real names. Their amateourish approach wouldn't be called reliable now, but given this is a site from 30 years ago, I wonder if we could call them situational? Particularly given that they seem to have had a real office and a legal standing (again, see their about, and again, this is easy today but we are talking about the late 90s here). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "PC Joker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo The magazine is available in IA: https://archive.org/details/pcjoker-magazine-ger De wiki has a larger article on it than our stub, and also on the editor: de:Amiga Joker. Seems like a perfectly fine magazine with one and a half decade of history (1991-2004), my only concern is that I am unable to identify the authors of individual reviews (in the issue I looked at they are signed with bylines like (mic), (mz), (md), (ole), etc. and if they are decyphered somewhere I don't know where it is). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

– "Impressum" means "masthead". "mz" is Markus Ziegler. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Thanks, I thought this might be the case (I can often ID mastheads in Polish magazines, but had trouble here). In this case this addresses my primary concern. Any thoughts about reliability of this on your end? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a mainstream magazine with a good reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Sportskeeda" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo So, not the site I would usually do, but I thought it warranted at least a revisit due to some of the findings I discovered recently. So, for background, Sportskeeda was discussed in May 2021 and has since been used as the consensus twice on this forum in September 2021 and January 2024. The discussion mainly concluded that they a low quality source, with little editor oversight and also advocates for user submitted content, which I would agree with. However, since the original May 2021, the website has been revamped to where they have clearly laid out their guidelines and ethics for making articles. They have since overhauled their About Us section in May 2024, as well as have listed their editorial policies and fact checking policy. I also believe that their non-guide content is pretty well written. Personally speaking, I would reclassify Sportskeeda as a situational source, where pre-2024 content is seen as generally unreliable whereas content after that should be judged on a case-by-case basis, adding that the content isn't just user-submitted or the typical "churnalism" style content. I'm curious to hear what others here think. CaptainGalaxy 16:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

From August 2024:

From June 2025:

I think that we should look a bit deeper in their articles. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's their prolific output of junk like that that has kept me opposed to their use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Situational, but barely: This is a trickier one to assess. None of the individuals on their editoral team seem to have any experience writing for websites and outlets considered reliable on Wikipedia. I spoke to @PL a little while ago about one of their writers, Spencer Whitworth, who has previous experience writing for Collider, but only after the site was taken over by Valnet (which as we know is its own can of mayhem).

If I pick a random recent article, such as this one, it is mostly just quotes with very little substance to it. Whereas this one about Necrozma, which I found for a draft I was recently working on, is mostly just WP:PLOTSUM. I agree with @Sergecross that their content doesn't have much substance, and I honestly cannot see why they should be used over other, more reliable, higher quality sources. I am not going to say they are outright unreliable, but I definitely cannot say that they should be used. This, to me, is the thinnest case of a situational source as is possible to get. 11WB (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Correction to the above. Only Arvind Sriram could be considered as having published anything in reliable sources (BBC and The Guardian). 11WB (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment do we have any examples of their video game related works? It seems they have authors for different sections of the sites, and it's possible their Hollywood gossip articles don't have the same standards as other parts of the site. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 See my comment below for links and my thoughts about their coverage of a game I know (TL;DR it's ok if its bylined). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy but I'm unopposed to this small subsection of articles being used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue with promoting Sportskeeda is that editors will think it is a generally acceptable source to use, when in reality, as @Piotrus has demonstrated, it really isn't. It should be made clear that it can never be used to prove notability and should always be replaced with a better source for statements of fact. 11WB (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at their description of a game I know (), and it looks to me AI generated (and not even a review with opinion, just a description). Now, their "news" articles like seem ok-ish - it reports on an upcoming feature, is bylined, and I agree it seems human written (more or less), and useful for reporting on said feature if we wanted to add that fact to some article. I also googled a review of the game itself () and I'd consider it ok-ish (bylined, with decent summary of some aspects and opinions). The pieces are bylined and the authors even have short bios (). So yes, I can see calling it situational (not unreliable for everything) - just make sure that we use their bylined pieces, not their generic possibly-AI-generated guides/overviews. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The current consensus towards Sportskeeda being unreliable was established at WP:RSP. I don't think we can overrule that, but I might be wrong.

With that said, I don't see too much of an improvement between what Sportskeeda is known for and what they may have published recently. It is still largely a landfill. Are we really considering "some of their articles are starting to resemble human writing" or "they give okay information" a major improvement? We already allow leeway towards sources that are not high-quality. Sportskeeda is low quality even by those standards. I would rather keep the status quo of unreliable. λ NegativeMP1 19:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I haven't personally heard of any one noticeboard having superiority over any other? There is also WP:NPPSG, along with others. I don't think it would be very fair for one venue to have the ultimate say over a particular source. I may be wrong, I can't of anyone in particular who would know the answer to that other than @ActivelyDisinterested. 11WB (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a project, rather than a noticeboard, some editors can get very tetchy about WP:LOCALCON and projects. NPPSG uses the RSP as one of its sources.
Ultimately though RSN or here doesn't matter, it's consensus that matters. It's not one to one, RSN to VGRS, but the editors taking part in the discussions. You can't ignore prior discussions on RSN, and RSN should take note of discussions happening here.
There's been quite a few editors who thought Sportskeeda unreliable, but that should be generally unreliable. The difference between that and "situational, but barely" is very little. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

So this is to say RS/N isn't the ultimate authority on any one source? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The 'ultimate authority' is consensus (WP:CONSENSUS). The wider ranging, and more attended a discussion is, the firmer that consensus should be considered. RSN is for third opinion, that can include for someone wanting a third opinion about a project discussion. Basically it's a place to try and find a wider audience if you think that's required.
Wikipedia is not a legal system, so ideas like 'ultimate authority' are a poor fit. RSN is a place for centralised discussions and those discussions can carry weight, but that weight comes from the editors taking part not from the fact they happen on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought. Hopefully this clears up your concern, @NegativeMP1! 11WB (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

To clear up why I thought the way I did, I've always thought on the lines of: RSN has more active editors from across the site, a discussion there likely holds more weight than a local project one (e.g. if a site-wide unreliable source such as this were ruled as situational by a single project it might be discarded). But yes, thank you for clearing that up regardless! λ NegativeMP1 23:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, outside FA (since GA reviewer quality varies greatly), this doesn't matter unless we have a bot or a live equivalent :P who would remove the links to them on-sight. Which we obviously don't, as linkto shows over 500 pages using the this source. As for LOCALCON, it can matter, depending also on participation etc., but best practice would be, if we reach a different consensus here, to report on that to RSN, ping everyone involved there (this could even be done here), and see what happens. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, the new consensus would be no consensus, as there are split opinions currently. 11WB (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Negative above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Having had a look at the site I would agree with those saying that they're unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable per comments above and per my research, as well as complaints from online users over low-quality content. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...Mothership..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Mothership is a recent website creation (subscription-only) with an extensive editorial and ethics policy. Given the pedigree of the staff, I find it believable that this extensive policy is authentically followed. As far as the staff goes:

• Nico Deyo wrote for Vice, Paste, Kotaku, and Polygon
• Nicole Clark wrote for Polygon, New York Times, and Aftermath
• Susana Polo founded The Mary Sue
• Beatrix Kondo wrote for LGBTQ Nation
• Zoë Hannah wrote for Polygon
• Maddy Myers wrote for The Boston Phoenix, The Mary Sue, Kotaku, and Polygon
• Nicole Carpenter wrote for Polygon, The Guardian, USA Today, IGN, Washington Post, VG247, Paste... like a lot of stuff

The website focuses on feminism, women's issue, and intersectionality (such as race and sexuality). The articles appear to be written by people with relevant expertise; for example, this article, in which the author interviewed queer Nigerians, is identified as a Nigerian themselves.

With how much of the staff has written for reliable sources, the expertise they have with the specific subject of their articles, and the strong editorial policy, I believe that it should be considered fully reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable they seem to have a good editorial and a strong staff backing that up. Unless there's a major stipulation I believe it passes the reliability threshold. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is the heading Mothershipg not Mothership? I checked one article, which seemed interesting but paywalled which will significantly lower the practical usability of this site (which, according to linkserch above, is not used as a source anywhere?). The author bio I checked is sparse on detail . Their editorial policies seem fine. I'd call them reliable, but if they are indeed paywalling content, not very useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I use muckrack to check experience. As for paywall, I plan on subbing in a few months (once there's more articles posted) and offering to cite articles for people. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be good to update WP:VG/LRS pointing editors to the Resource Exchange if they think a paywalled source will be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - seems similar to Aftermath (website), 404 Media, Rascal, etc in terms of being an independent outlet founded by experienced industry reporters who have worked for various reliable (or formerly reliable) websites that have gone through layoffs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "PSX Brasil" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

About page here. Brazilian Portuguese-language video game review and news website with a focus on Playstation specifically. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I see names of staff but no discussion of editorial policies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "esports.gg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo This is a site that comes up quite frequently in my searches for content, and while I'd loathe to lose it as a source for secondary confirmation, it's hard for me not to want to be safe rather than sorry. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a small bump on this, but it is important to note it is cited by a few books, but also a significant number of papers. Maybe there's some greater importance in the eSports scene I'm not noticing here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable on principle. They appear to be a well established publication with good commitments according to their About Us page. Whilst I didn't check every single staff member, a majority of the first 9 that I checked had a background with a source we already consider reliable such as Dot Esports, the Upcomer, GameSpot, Sky Sports and The Australian just to name a few. One thing I wanted to bring up though was their use of AI. According to this letter by one of the managers, the site would use AI tools for data analysis and translating. However, with these cases, they will have a human review process to make sure the information is accurate and high-quality, as well as stating they would be transparent about any text that had been generated. This is a great level of transparency for readers, although I think this may at least raise the idea that perhaps there should be caution using this website in certain cases, such as with translations. I think we should at least be fair given the day and age when it comes to AI use, we should come to expect that more sites (regardless of ones we already consider reliable or ones we haven't review yet) will eventually use AI tools, and I think we should be more nuanced when it comes to areas such as this. CaptainGalaxy 19:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable for the same reasons as Captain Galaxy. I have also used this site in the past with no issues. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable They seem to be a trustworthy, authoritative source on the subject given the sheer amount of use they have in scholarly works. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Android Police" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This was discussed once in 2015, as seen on the sources list. It was deemed "unreliable" or "situtational". However, it was purchased by Valnet in 2021 and we've seen sources like TheGamer that are now considered reliable because of that. It looks to me like they have reported on games for which there aren't that many other sources, so I see them being useful to cite. They are cited in nearly one thousand articles on Wikipedia already and in AfD discussions. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Being purchased by Valnet moves the needle further to unreliable rather than towards reliable. TheGamer itself is barely situational in my view. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. "Valnet acquisition" in no way should be seen as a move towards reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Gamers Heroes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

seems... very mildly not up to par? and i really do mean "you could just stare at the ball hard enough and it would probably fall into the hole". despite the worrisomely fast output, it seems to be doing the cooking by the book with its two editors (plus a third one who seems to be on hiatus, probably due to having three ankle biters to take care of), which i fortunately managed to find proof of existence for, which is to say that i don't think it's ai slop. really, by all metrics i can think of besides the possibility of churnalism, it seems to be reliable enough to not be unreliable, but not much more

also, this might just be something on my end, but the general review list refuses to load, so i have to look through each editor's output. how very consequential that is when it boils down to three people~ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

What in the world are you trying to say? I can't parse statements like "reliable enough to be unreliable, but not much more." Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

it's "reliable enough to not be unreliable", big difference. basically, this seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill, extremely okay source, aside from the possible churnalism (which could land it on "situational" when it comes to non-review pieces) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, you chose to use a double negative for some reason. Okay, that makes a little more sense. Still not really sure where you're coming from with your assessment though. Do they have an editorial policy with oversight? Credentialled writers? Cited by other reliable sources? We need something more concrete than "kinda looks okayish I guess". Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry, this comment blew out of proportion because i actually did find stuff, even though said stuff was of varying levels of underwhelmingness

starting backwards with citations from other outlets: several other outlets seem to routinely use their content (usually guides or walkthroughs) as points of reference in menial stuff, like polygon recently using a guide to discuss an obscure quest, inverse using one almost wholesale, and them being a partner of opencritic (which really isn't worth much for whichever valnet-shaped reason you want to point at first). this isn't much, but this whole paragraph was actually just a red herring for findings more directly related to the individual members~

• this from pre-valnet polygon, which cites lead writer #3 casey scheld's work, namely a... sandwich. weird, but thematically relevant, it is about swery
• this from unreliable source svg detailing lead writer #1 blaine smith's review of the medium, which i'm just leaving here for the sake of being able to say that i didn't forget it
• and finally, for lead writer #2 johnny hurricane, i found a grand total of... nothing of note

so still underwhelming with only one noteworthy citation from a reliable source that turned 13 just last week (which i guess could also prove some level of experience in the field?)

for credentials...

• blaine seems to be a bit of a circular case: he's apparently been doing freelance writing since 2005, but his only noteworthy stuff seems to be from his work in gamers heroes... or bird app antics i value my life too much to check. still, in the area of journalism, he seems to be somewhat trusted, even if his pre-gh work is hard to find because of his vague name
• johnny is the trio(?)'s social media guy, his only contributions seem to be related to gh and its social media account. even the site doesn't list any credentials or milestones for him beyond social media numbers. definitely the weakest link here, and probably enough to warrant the whole outlet being considered unreliable by himself
• lastly, and not actually underwhelmingly this time, casey seems to have the most monetarily useful credentials, with a master's degree and years of experience in various things. he also has a site to flex, i guess. how immediately useful those things actually are for gaming journalism seems to be anyone's guess, though

finally, for the editorial policy and oversight... i guess their review policy (boiling down to "we're not in the mood to sell scores") and scoring system explanation thingy (boiling down to "there is one in place") count, but that's probably not worth much considering the previous two

this overall means that my assessment is still a big ol' shrug, but i can confirm that they're at the very least not outright shit. maybe stuck in the early state of an outlet for about 15 years by now, but not shit. except johnny, he really needs to do other stuff consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "...Esports Insider..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Esports Insider is currently listed as reliable.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)