Talk:Volition (company)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.mobygames.com/company/volition-inc. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Volition, Inc. vs. Deep Silver Volition, LLC.?

Hey, just wanted to say, wouldn't we need to change the full legal name of the company? Since they were bought out by Koch Media, their name has changed from Volition, Inc. to Deep Silver Volition, LLC. as stated on their official website. Would we not need to change this in the article? --94.170.227.166 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, they'll probably continue to release games as Volition, Inc., and besides, the Ubisoft article isn't named Ubisoft Inc., the Coca-Cola Company article The Coca-Cola Company Ltd. etc. despite those being the full legal names. This is only named as Volition, Inc. as that's what they release games as, rather than just Volition. 83.100.233.169 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that but like shouldn't be at least mention it at the start of the article such as Deep Silver Volition, LLC. dba Volition Inc. etc. I dunno. --94.170.227.166 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

move back to Volition, Inc.

i'd like to propose we move this back to "Volition, Inc.".

• Volition will still be releasing games under the "Volition, Inc." moniker

• Once moved back, the "(video game studio)" portion of the title will become quite unnecessary as there are no other Volition, Inc.s that it can be confused with

- 83.100.233.169 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The company legal name is now Deep Silver Volition LLC, so the article title would just be wrong if it was moved back. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why's it not named that explicity? They're still using the moniker of V, Inc. anyway. So if we're not using V, Inc., which is what they're still releasing games as, it should be the actual company name, i.e. the one you specified. - 83.100.233.169 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Because Deep Silver Volition LLC doesn't make for a good article title and it would spark confusion. This is why things like Nintendo aren't Nintendo Corporation as their article title. Volition is the common name for the studio. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

EA is the common name for Electronic Arts, yet the article is named Electronic Arts. And in that case ", Inc." isn't used since EA release games as EA not EA, Inc. unlike Volition. - 83.100.233.169 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a good compromise would be to have the Article name itself as "Volition, Inc." but have the top of the infobox and the start of the article as "Deep Silver Volition LLC." Maybe explain the name change somewhere in the article? --94.170.227.166 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone disagrees, can someone do this please? - 83.100.233.169 (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Employees

Hey @Lordtobi:, my point was that the red triangle pointed downward meaning a decrease of the number of employees says nothing without knowing what the number of employees was before. Maybe it's the mobile view, but I don't see any way of knowing what the previous number is. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, no it's not a rendering issue, there is no previous number present, because we don't know or might not know how many people they formerly employed. However, the sources used to gain the number talk about layoffs, hence we can verifiably say that they were less than before. Hope this helps. Lordtobi (✉) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Outrage Games

The following discussion 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.

---

Outrage Games (a.k.a. Outrage Entertainment) was a video game developer that is notable for only a single event: having developed the critically acclaimed Descent 3. Probably best to merge the contents of this article (including the logo, which arguably does not meet the threshold of originality and if so is thus in the public domain) into the article about a company that created the FreeSpace games. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree that the company is not notable; while it is known for more than just one event (two notable games), it still fails WP:NCORP and I don't think it can be expanded greatly beyond what it currently is, as it was rather short-lived and not very popular. However, merging this here (which I assume includes merging the game tables to List of Volition games) probably does not make that much sense, as the companies are barely related except for resulting from the same split. That said, since the Parallax split is covered at lengths in this article, relevant aspects between the two companies' relations are already covered. I also included Outrage's minor relations (THQ acquisition + closure, developer of Xbox and Windows ports for Red Faction II). This only leaves mentions of Alter Echo and the canceled Rubu Tribe, which I cannot envision fitting anywhere here. Lordtobi (✉) 22:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a better merge target would be Descent 3. Lordtobi (✉) 23:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note rarding the logo (since you mentioned it): I changed it to a more modern (end-of-2003-modern) version in SVG vector format. This image is even simpler than the previous one and I do think that it qualifies for Commons, but that should be decided not in relation with this discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 23:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi, that merge is right off the bat but then needs a section. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Outrage Games should be merged with Volition due to having the same Parent Company at the time THQ 72.228.153.194 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to re-iterate that having the same parent company is not enough reason to entirely merge two articles; THQ had so many studios and Outrage was merely one in the masses. Everything where the two companies' histories crossed streams (split, Descent 3, THQ acquisition) is already mentioned. The rest of what Outrage covers (Alter Echo, Rubu Tribe) simply does not fit here withiout akwardly adding a contextless section.

@Gamingforfun365: This discussion has been open for half a year now and should be closed. If the notabiliy issue for Outrage persists, it should be taken to AfD instead. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and that the situation had yet to resolve, I have redirected it to Descent 3. I have also reviewed the file containing the company logo, and determined that it is too simple to be copyrighted and thereby in the public domain. I thought you would like to hear the latter, but the reason for the former is that I have seen no opposition to redirecting the page, although it was suggested that it be Descent 3 instead of Volition, so I moved it to that. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 07:18, 29 December 2019 (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.

Is there a source for Parallax *becoming* Volition? I think large parts of this article may be in error.

As far as I'm aware, remembering some old discussions on the Overload forums from the founders, Parallax never went away or turned into Volition, but still exists as a holding company for Descent IP, jointly owned by Kulas and Toschlog. The reason Descent Underground was never able to use the Descent setting, characters, history etc. was because Interplay, despite controlling the trademark, didn't have rights to them.

I don't believe Parallax became Volition any more than it became Outrage. All three are/were separate entities I believe. Where is the source for this Parallax becoming Volition stuff? Hurleybird (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It is in the Game Informer video. I don't recall exactly which timestamp, but the Parallax -> Volition transition is characterized as a rebranding, whereas Outrage was a new establishment. You are technically correct that Parallax still exists, but it only does so on paper. Volition, Inc. also coexisted with Deep Silver Volition, LLC for some before being dissolved on paper.

Currently, the article notes that "Formally, Volition was founded in October 1996 with twelve members", although the company has since adopted 1993 as its founding year. Whether we should split Parallax and Volition at October 1996 may be a matter of discussion. IceWelder [✉] 09:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's correct, then Parallax never became Volition in any formal way. Parallax becoming Volition (far after the fact) in the hearts and minds of Volition employees does not make it so, especially when Parallax still legally exists. While this attitude is understandable and noteable, it is an error to present it as the factual reality when the actual factual reality is otherwise. Hurleybird (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Now, 2.5 years later, I chose to amend this to actually say November 1996, per their old website, and given many more sources that explicitly talk about a split. IceWelder [✉] 21:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Volition (company)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing this; I'm interested to do so since I wrote the List of Volition games a few years ago. I review articles by making a list of issues as I read through, rather than using a template; I'll make any minor grammar edits myself.

• I think it would be helpful to put the years the games in the lede came out in, I know the timeline isn't that long but it means it's a little unclear as you read e.g. "it was founded in 1996, some games came out, how long of a time are we talking about? oh, bought in 2000, so I guess all those games were between 1996 and 2000."

  Tried my best to do this cleanly. The events in the lead aren't perfectly chronological for the sake of a better flow, but I think it works. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "The shareware version of Inferno" - could use a brief aside for what this means in this case; was it the Apogee model or something else?

  If the Apogee model was a game slice over a BSS, then I suppose so. I added an extra sentence outlining this, but I couldn't find a source that mentions the model explicitly. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "As the studio had completed its obligations to Interplay and the publisher already had sufficient titles in that genre" - I think this is implying that Decent 4 was the second title that fulfilled the obligations, but it's not clear, and if so, the tense is off- "As Decent 4 would complete the studio's obligations to Interplay"

  Y. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, Outrage Entertainment [...] began pitching two non-Descent games to publishers" - didn't Outrage also owe a second game to Interplay? Or was the idea that they'd come back to a second Decent game later to fulfill that? Oh, you say a couple paragraphs later. I think signposting a little that the proposed projects were in addition to another Interplay game would help.

  Y. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "In the subsequent years, Volition developed Summoner 2, aiming to address shortcomings of the original, and Red Faction II." - Given that the last sentence ended in 2001, and these two games came out in 2002, clearer to change to something like "The following year, Volition released Summoner 2, aiming to address shortcomings of the original, and Red Faction II."

  Y. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think the story about the Savoy center fits in this article. Unlike the Habitat bit, it wasn't done through Volition, but was instead an individual philanthropy venture by Kulas.

  True. I didn't know where to put this since Kulas doesn't have an article, but I agree that it doesn't really belong here if it never merges back into Volition's history. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Over 100 QA workers were involved." - I don't understand this sentence in the context of the previous one, which said Volition employed 75 testers.

  THQ did have QA staffers in other locations, so I assume that is where the remainder came from, but I see how this could lead to confusion. Removed. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "THQ laid off 16 employees from Volition, citing a need to adjust to the studio's requirements" - adjust to whose requirements? Volition or THQ? And what does that mean, exactly?

  Since this is generic corporate talk for "The project is done and now we don't know what to do with the people behind it, so it's easier to fire them.", I think it's better to just remove that bit and rephrase the rest. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "the ninth annual Innovation Celebration" - should mention that this is from the Champaign County Economic Development Corporation/University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, not a national award (that's a mouthful, maybe just "the ninth annual Champaign County Innovation Celebration")

  Y. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Subsequently, about 30 positions, including that of Cermak, were eliminated from the studio's previous workforce of roughly 200." - but you said 250 just a couple sentences ago, so 50 other people also vanished without acknowledgement

  I don't have a clear answer for this. People tend to come and go, sometimes they have temporary workers in the final stages of projects, etc. I think removing the second number is the easiest way to avoid confusion here. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Games developed section - I don't think it works to leave it as just a link off to the list. This should have a summary paragraph; "In nearly 30 years of operation, Volition developed 18 titles, as well as at least 6 titles that were cancelled while in development. Four of the releases were in the Descent series, seven in the Saint's Row series, blah blah." Doesn't have to be a lot, but there should be some sort of discussion of what games were made

  I usually prefer having a brief table as opposed to text, given that the lead and the rest of the body already provide the same information. Howver, this had me notice that I didn't have a table at all, which was obviously an error. IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• No source issues found.

This is a very nice deep dive into the company's history, you give a really nice sense of how the company grew and changed over the years. I don't have much, just some bits that could use clarity and that last section expansion. Placing on hold. --PresN 20:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! :) I'm a bit swamped with work at the moment, so I'll need to put this off for a few days. Hopefully I'll get around to it on Saturday or so. IceWelder [✉] 18:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No rush, whenever. --PresN 19:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Had a few minutes this morning! Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks great! I didn't say before, but I really like how you threaded how Outrage was doing as Volition went along. Could have spent more time talking about how great FreeSpace 2 is, but we can't have everything (joking). Promoting to GA. --PresN 13:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the video game developer Volition was named after a dictionary definition? Source: The Secret History of Volition, ref #1 in the article, 11:41–13:23
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Smack You

Improved to Good Article status by IceWelder (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 37 past nominations.

IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was promoted to GA on time and has no copyright issues picked up by Earwig. QPQ already done. The article says ...began searching through the books in his living room. He found "volition" defined as... - It doesn't specify dictionary and in the source itself, Kulas only says dictionaries were one of the types of books he checked when looking for the name, he doesn't remember which book the word was in, other than it was in a glossary. So an alt hook omitting dictionary should probably be used. -- ZooBlazer 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Thanks for the rev! I thought "dictionary definition" was a broader term not limited to literal dictionaries. That's my bad! Would this be an acceptable replacement?

ALT0a: ... that the video game developer Volition was named after a lexical definition?

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@IceWelder: I will approve that one. I just figured "dictionary" would get flagged at some point by the dyk coordinators. Using "lexical" is hopefully fine even though it isn't a super common word for the average reader. -- ZooBlazer

I'd be fine with a suggested alternative, including from coordinators. IceWelder [✉] 17:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)