![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please stop removing my entry on Command and Conquer. If you bother to research the patches cited, you will discover that indeed they were promised but have failed to materialize after often years without being mentioned by the developers despite inquiry by interested parties. This entry belongs exactly where it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.135.85 ( talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have added the 'confusing' cleanup tag as I have been using computers and have had a deep interest in how they work (i.e. learning how to program in various languages and keeping up with various GPL software and building my own computers rather than just typing the odd letter) for approx 17 years and I really don't understand what this article is all about. The way it is laid out is as if people are trying to add to a list the most recent or the most unique example of vapourware they can find in order to prove they are the only person who was clever enough to find that particular example. I believe this alienates the reader and doesn;t rally provide an explanation. What hope does average joe wikipedian hsve? Pigeonshouse 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Vaporware really a type of software distribution? That whole template at the bottom seems to be more about "Words ending in -Ware" Ayumbhara
A recent edit makes minor corrections in a sentence which I question altogether. The article says "A widely cited example of this is Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2." How was this vaporware?
It has been widely asserted (and I happen to believe it to be true) that Microsoft executed what was called a "head-fake" in connection with OS/2 and Windows 3.0 (not Windows 95). That is, publicly they told the press—and also told developers in at least some meetings—that OS/2, which they were jointly developing with IBM, was the OS which developers should be targeting, the future of GUIs on the PC, etc. When Windows 3.0 came out, Microsoft seemed to be giving it far more attention and promotion than expected. Developers were caught unprepared. At least some major developers had targeted major efforts toward OS/2 and were not ready for the emergence and mainstream success of Windows 3.0. Microsoft, in particular, was ready with Excel when Windows 3.0 launched, while Lotus's release of 1-2-3 was greatly delayed.
This was, however, the exact opposite of vaporware. Windows 3.0 existed and so did OS/2. Furthermore, OS/2 was shipping, and, if I remember correctly, was up to at least version 1.2 when Windows 3.0 was announced (it was established and modestly successful, not embryonic or easily killed). And neither Windows 3.0 nor Windows 95 was vaporware. Windows 95 shipped in, IIRC, 1995—late 1995 but 1995.
The deception, if there was a deception, on Microsoft's part was to minimize the importance of Windows 3.0 in order to secure a headstart for their own application development for the system.
Anyway, if nobody gives a rationale as to why "Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2" was an example of vaporware, I think I'm going to remove that sentence.
Comments and discussions welcome. Dpbsmith 11:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a "List of vaporware" reference table article might supplement this one? -- LGagnon
I don't know if the recent addition of the Phantom console should count. Many people suspect it of being vaporware, but in all fairness we should wait until it is proven to be such. -- LGagnon
Really? Can anyone from a Commonwealth country confirm this spelling? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Why is the article at vapourware and not vaporware? Does british english trump american english? I think the article should be at vaporware. -- DannyBoy7783 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does American English trump Commonwealth English? I don't think there is any reason any spelling is superior to the other.-- Sonjaaa 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the comment that it can also be called "airware" because
If anyone wants to reinsert it they should provide some kind of source citation that shows that it is really in widespread use as a synonym for "vaporware." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK - I'll go along with that. I remember hearing the term "airware", but I guess it has fallen out of use, like so many other short-lived innovative terms. By the way, the reason Google turns up so many commercial hits has to do with who pays them for product placement. Try submitting a new webpage to them - it's not free the way it was in the early days. Cbdorsett 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At what point is it safe to call Spore (video game) vapourware? There is a lot of talk about it, and a lot of demos, but no release date ever announced.-- Sonjaaa 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Would Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun qualify for this page? I remember they announced it years before it actually came out and everyone was upset at all the delays. Papercrab 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Both were considered "vaporware" for many years (HL took 7 years to be released, TF2 even longer.) There's also Prey. My point is that there are some software which were initially considered "vaporware" but were pleasant surprises. JAF1970 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How about non software works of intellectual property which never got finished? Sibelius's 8th symphony was a masterpiece of vapour. - Zimriel ( talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Guns N' Roses Chinese Democracy is one of the biggest examples of non-software based vaporware, but one that finally materialized, albeit perhaps 8 or so years later. Under "Types" of Vaporware, I think we'd have to add a section for "Striving for Perfection" or something like that. Someone care to do a little writeup? -- Fshafique ( talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include the PS3 console in the Overambitious Hype category. Sony has been promoting sales for the console since 2006 by brandishing screenshots and trailers of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has only JUST received a july 2008 release date, itself a vaporish product on its own. In effect, Sony promised vapor software to sell existing hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.186.98 ( talk) 12:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is just me but it seems the article is rather extreme on both sides of the spectrum when describing companies delaying products anyone else think so as well? -- Sin Harvest ( talk) 07:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Hoaxes section, at least as it exists now, really doesn't seem to fit into this article. To me, the definition of vaporware is clear enough, but if the contrast between it and a hoax is needed, it could be done in one sentence integrated in the introductory section of the article. If a hoax section was to be maintained then it needs actual computer hardware or software examples, as right now it sends people off to read about perpetual motion machines which really isn't that helpful to the article. I'll leave it as is for a day or so just in case there is a strong objection to changing it. Mantisia ( talk) 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Types" section lacks focus, as evidenced most clearly by the "Lack of focus" section. Reasons for software being labeled vaporware fall into a spectrum. On the one end, typical over-promised and under-delivered due to underestimating engineering realities. Most of the "Types" of vaporware listed fall into this category, but this is too common, and not exactly what the term vaporware means. The middle of the spectrum is marketing hype, which is usually where the term vaporware is applied. It can include anticompetitive practices, but it is also attached to good ideas released as "marketing hype" in an attempt to build customer/client and contributor/investor support for something that might never be built otherwise. The far end of the spectrum might include hoaxes that nobody ever intended to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.52 ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
May I just point out that these two games could be designated as vapour/vaporware? Timsplitters has passed to new developer, apparently, yet there is nothing to confirm that it is being worked on. The port of The Witcher is believed to be on "indefinite hold", but that was quite a while ago, and there is little to show that the developers are busy. Otherwise, a promising article despite the many issues it has.
This game is in beta now, so it really is no longer vaporware. 74.69.251.170 ( talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Stargate Worlds be considered Vaporware since it has yet to be released or put into beta testing? Andy5421 ( talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been researching this topic off and on for a while now, and I'm ready to start expanding the article. Most of the information here will probably stay, its just going to be rearranged, reworded, elaborated on, and cited with reliable sources. I have the outline and organization planned out, and most of the content is ready to be written, but you are welcome to help. — Sebquantic ( talk) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
some of the info that was in the article is sourced, but I think goes into took much detail, or provides examples that are redundant. I'm going to move them to their respective main articles per WP:SS: — Sebquantic ( talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Vaporware/Archives/2012/GA1
Just happened to read this article. Although interesting, the section about "antitrust allegations" presents a hopeless systemic bias. The entire section is written as if US legislation was the only in the world. Given that this article is looking for GA status, this must surely be fixed up. Is there violations of antitrust or similar problems in other jurisdiction, or is this only illegal in the US? If the latter is true, then that in itself is worthy of mention. Otherwise, discussion of other geographic areas must be discussed, such as for instance EU or Japanese legislations, two large software manufacturing entities. Arsenikk (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some occasional research on this, but still not sure what to do. Most country's competition laws seem to be based on the Sherman Act. For instance, Japan's Antimonopoly Act is an almost verbatim copy of it drafted after WWII, and apparently it's Section IV is very similar to the Sherman Act's Section II. The economic and social pillar of the EU's laws also cover monopolies. The problem is that I'm not finding any discussions about how those laws have been interpreted to include preannouncements by non-American computer companies. I get the impression from reading some of these source that they aren't. This would make sense if true, because even in the US I don't think there have been any high profile cases since the 90's (US V. Micorsoft) because it's so hard to prove a company did it on purpose.
I can think of two ways to take care of it:
1.
2.
I'm leaning toward 1, but what do you think? —
Sebquantic (
talk)
00:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but nearly seven years of "Development" makes it clear that the Dev team cannot get this done. Hell, go to their forums. They're more interested in banning and trolling the forum goers more than posting media updates. This whole project is a joke.-- FlareKitsune ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Im removing this, reading the manifests of Ted Nelson its clear "Xanadu" is suposed to be a worldspawning network based hypertext system. Xanaduspace is just something that happens to have the same letters, but its just a static 3d engine with the same static 3 texts. To call it "surfaced" is like to calling a broken ligher the rocket you promised so long ago. --16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that DNF has made it into the list of former (surfaced) vaporware. All we have seen the last 24 hours is a demo. 3d Realms has released both screenshots and demos before, and then postponed the game. Untill we actually see a finished, released game, I propose that we remove DNF from the list, and let it remain vaporware. TheIncredibleNix 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIncredibleNix ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I apologize if this is not the correct place to mention this, but in:
A promotional screenshot of Duke Nukem Forever shown in 2007. The game's early announcement in 1997, continued promotion, and apparent abandonment 12 years later made it synonymous with the word vaporware in the software industry. Its latest release window is "in 2011".[15]
Isn't "...and apparent abandonment 12 years later..." a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.36.151 ( talk) 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please add this to the games section? I don't know how to do it properly. Thanks. 174.5.11.131 ( talk) 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I would hardly call it vaporware its just a console port of battlefield 254Jackson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
Im adding it to the games list seeing as though it has no release date and many aruing if it was a real game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254Jackson ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that it's a flash game, but it's development cycle has been questionable since 2003. 161.184.228.14 ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the extensive series of delays for AMD's Bulldozer chips, should they not be included in this article? It seems like a massive omission.
Irazmus ( talk) 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
They said that they would have it commercially available in 2010 [1], now it's 2 years since then and it's not even available. Would this be considered a perfect example of Vaporware? -- Adam the silly ( talk) 03:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
While Square Enix has continued to confirm the development of Final Fantasy Versus XIII, the game does fit as vaporware under one of the article's definitions that "the term also generally applies to a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking". It was announced back in 2006, along with Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (now Type-0), and both of these games have been released, as well as a sequel to FFXIII and a second sequel in development. The last major official announcement regarding the game was back in January 2011 when the 1st Production Department Premiere trailer was shown. Square has been notorious for sparsely revealing information on the game and its development over these past 6 years that it's been in development.-- Appledoze ( talk) 22:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
A notable omission to be sure. Announced almost half a decade ago, a single concept trailer, some leaked media, no date, no platforms, nothing remotely concrete. I don't think anyone would object at this point to BG&E 2 being included on this list, if you do, please elaborate. No matter how much I may personally love the game and hope for it to surface, it's definitely vaporware, so it should be placed on this list. 2602:306:BC19:6100:61E:64FF:FEF7:FA98 ( talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please stop removing my entry on Command and Conquer. If you bother to research the patches cited, you will discover that indeed they were promised but have failed to materialize after often years without being mentioned by the developers despite inquiry by interested parties. This entry belongs exactly where it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.135.85 ( talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have added the 'confusing' cleanup tag as I have been using computers and have had a deep interest in how they work (i.e. learning how to program in various languages and keeping up with various GPL software and building my own computers rather than just typing the odd letter) for approx 17 years and I really don't understand what this article is all about. The way it is laid out is as if people are trying to add to a list the most recent or the most unique example of vapourware they can find in order to prove they are the only person who was clever enough to find that particular example. I believe this alienates the reader and doesn;t rally provide an explanation. What hope does average joe wikipedian hsve? Pigeonshouse 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Vaporware really a type of software distribution? That whole template at the bottom seems to be more about "Words ending in -Ware" Ayumbhara
A recent edit makes minor corrections in a sentence which I question altogether. The article says "A widely cited example of this is Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2." How was this vaporware?
It has been widely asserted (and I happen to believe it to be true) that Microsoft executed what was called a "head-fake" in connection with OS/2 and Windows 3.0 (not Windows 95). That is, publicly they told the press—and also told developers in at least some meetings—that OS/2, which they were jointly developing with IBM, was the OS which developers should be targeting, the future of GUIs on the PC, etc. When Windows 3.0 came out, Microsoft seemed to be giving it far more attention and promotion than expected. Developers were caught unprepared. At least some major developers had targeted major efforts toward OS/2 and were not ready for the emergence and mainstream success of Windows 3.0. Microsoft, in particular, was ready with Excel when Windows 3.0 launched, while Lotus's release of 1-2-3 was greatly delayed.
This was, however, the exact opposite of vaporware. Windows 3.0 existed and so did OS/2. Furthermore, OS/2 was shipping, and, if I remember correctly, was up to at least version 1.2 when Windows 3.0 was announced (it was established and modestly successful, not embryonic or easily killed). And neither Windows 3.0 nor Windows 95 was vaporware. Windows 95 shipped in, IIRC, 1995—late 1995 but 1995.
The deception, if there was a deception, on Microsoft's part was to minimize the importance of Windows 3.0 in order to secure a headstart for their own application development for the system.
Anyway, if nobody gives a rationale as to why "Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2" was an example of vaporware, I think I'm going to remove that sentence.
Comments and discussions welcome. Dpbsmith 11:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a "List of vaporware" reference table article might supplement this one? -- LGagnon
I don't know if the recent addition of the Phantom console should count. Many people suspect it of being vaporware, but in all fairness we should wait until it is proven to be such. -- LGagnon
Really? Can anyone from a Commonwealth country confirm this spelling? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Why is the article at vapourware and not vaporware? Does british english trump american english? I think the article should be at vaporware. -- DannyBoy7783 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does American English trump Commonwealth English? I don't think there is any reason any spelling is superior to the other.-- Sonjaaa 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the comment that it can also be called "airware" because
If anyone wants to reinsert it they should provide some kind of source citation that shows that it is really in widespread use as a synonym for "vaporware." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK - I'll go along with that. I remember hearing the term "airware", but I guess it has fallen out of use, like so many other short-lived innovative terms. By the way, the reason Google turns up so many commercial hits has to do with who pays them for product placement. Try submitting a new webpage to them - it's not free the way it was in the early days. Cbdorsett 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At what point is it safe to call Spore (video game) vapourware? There is a lot of talk about it, and a lot of demos, but no release date ever announced.-- Sonjaaa 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Would Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun qualify for this page? I remember they announced it years before it actually came out and everyone was upset at all the delays. Papercrab 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Both were considered "vaporware" for many years (HL took 7 years to be released, TF2 even longer.) There's also Prey. My point is that there are some software which were initially considered "vaporware" but were pleasant surprises. JAF1970 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How about non software works of intellectual property which never got finished? Sibelius's 8th symphony was a masterpiece of vapour. - Zimriel ( talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Guns N' Roses Chinese Democracy is one of the biggest examples of non-software based vaporware, but one that finally materialized, albeit perhaps 8 or so years later. Under "Types" of Vaporware, I think we'd have to add a section for "Striving for Perfection" or something like that. Someone care to do a little writeup? -- Fshafique ( talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include the PS3 console in the Overambitious Hype category. Sony has been promoting sales for the console since 2006 by brandishing screenshots and trailers of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has only JUST received a july 2008 release date, itself a vaporish product on its own. In effect, Sony promised vapor software to sell existing hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.186.98 ( talk) 12:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is just me but it seems the article is rather extreme on both sides of the spectrum when describing companies delaying products anyone else think so as well? -- Sin Harvest ( talk) 07:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The Hoaxes section, at least as it exists now, really doesn't seem to fit into this article. To me, the definition of vaporware is clear enough, but if the contrast between it and a hoax is needed, it could be done in one sentence integrated in the introductory section of the article. If a hoax section was to be maintained then it needs actual computer hardware or software examples, as right now it sends people off to read about perpetual motion machines which really isn't that helpful to the article. I'll leave it as is for a day or so just in case there is a strong objection to changing it. Mantisia ( talk) 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Types" section lacks focus, as evidenced most clearly by the "Lack of focus" section. Reasons for software being labeled vaporware fall into a spectrum. On the one end, typical over-promised and under-delivered due to underestimating engineering realities. Most of the "Types" of vaporware listed fall into this category, but this is too common, and not exactly what the term vaporware means. The middle of the spectrum is marketing hype, which is usually where the term vaporware is applied. It can include anticompetitive practices, but it is also attached to good ideas released as "marketing hype" in an attempt to build customer/client and contributor/investor support for something that might never be built otherwise. The far end of the spectrum might include hoaxes that nobody ever intended to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.52 ( talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
May I just point out that these two games could be designated as vapour/vaporware? Timsplitters has passed to new developer, apparently, yet there is nothing to confirm that it is being worked on. The port of The Witcher is believed to be on "indefinite hold", but that was quite a while ago, and there is little to show that the developers are busy. Otherwise, a promising article despite the many issues it has.
This game is in beta now, so it really is no longer vaporware. 74.69.251.170 ( talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Stargate Worlds be considered Vaporware since it has yet to be released or put into beta testing? Andy5421 ( talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been researching this topic off and on for a while now, and I'm ready to start expanding the article. Most of the information here will probably stay, its just going to be rearranged, reworded, elaborated on, and cited with reliable sources. I have the outline and organization planned out, and most of the content is ready to be written, but you are welcome to help. — Sebquantic ( talk) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
some of the info that was in the article is sourced, but I think goes into took much detail, or provides examples that are redundant. I'm going to move them to their respective main articles per WP:SS: — Sebquantic ( talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Vaporware/Archives/2012/GA1
Just happened to read this article. Although interesting, the section about "antitrust allegations" presents a hopeless systemic bias. The entire section is written as if US legislation was the only in the world. Given that this article is looking for GA status, this must surely be fixed up. Is there violations of antitrust or similar problems in other jurisdiction, or is this only illegal in the US? If the latter is true, then that in itself is worthy of mention. Otherwise, discussion of other geographic areas must be discussed, such as for instance EU or Japanese legislations, two large software manufacturing entities. Arsenikk (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some occasional research on this, but still not sure what to do. Most country's competition laws seem to be based on the Sherman Act. For instance, Japan's Antimonopoly Act is an almost verbatim copy of it drafted after WWII, and apparently it's Section IV is very similar to the Sherman Act's Section II. The economic and social pillar of the EU's laws also cover monopolies. The problem is that I'm not finding any discussions about how those laws have been interpreted to include preannouncements by non-American computer companies. I get the impression from reading some of these source that they aren't. This would make sense if true, because even in the US I don't think there have been any high profile cases since the 90's (US V. Micorsoft) because it's so hard to prove a company did it on purpose.
I can think of two ways to take care of it:
1.
2.
I'm leaning toward 1, but what do you think? —
Sebquantic (
talk)
00:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but nearly seven years of "Development" makes it clear that the Dev team cannot get this done. Hell, go to their forums. They're more interested in banning and trolling the forum goers more than posting media updates. This whole project is a joke.-- FlareKitsune ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Im removing this, reading the manifests of Ted Nelson its clear "Xanadu" is suposed to be a worldspawning network based hypertext system. Xanaduspace is just something that happens to have the same letters, but its just a static 3d engine with the same static 3 texts. To call it "surfaced" is like to calling a broken ligher the rocket you promised so long ago. --16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that DNF has made it into the list of former (surfaced) vaporware. All we have seen the last 24 hours is a demo. 3d Realms has released both screenshots and demos before, and then postponed the game. Untill we actually see a finished, released game, I propose that we remove DNF from the list, and let it remain vaporware. TheIncredibleNix 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIncredibleNix ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I apologize if this is not the correct place to mention this, but in:
A promotional screenshot of Duke Nukem Forever shown in 2007. The game's early announcement in 1997, continued promotion, and apparent abandonment 12 years later made it synonymous with the word vaporware in the software industry. Its latest release window is "in 2011".[15]
Isn't "...and apparent abandonment 12 years later..." a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.36.151 ( talk) 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please add this to the games section? I don't know how to do it properly. Thanks. 174.5.11.131 ( talk) 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I would hardly call it vaporware its just a console port of battlefield 254Jackson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
Im adding it to the games list seeing as though it has no release date and many aruing if it was a real game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254Jackson ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that it's a flash game, but it's development cycle has been questionable since 2003. 161.184.228.14 ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the extensive series of delays for AMD's Bulldozer chips, should they not be included in this article? It seems like a massive omission.
Irazmus ( talk) 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
They said that they would have it commercially available in 2010 [1], now it's 2 years since then and it's not even available. Would this be considered a perfect example of Vaporware? -- Adam the silly ( talk) 03:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
While Square Enix has continued to confirm the development of Final Fantasy Versus XIII, the game does fit as vaporware under one of the article's definitions that "the term also generally applies to a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking". It was announced back in 2006, along with Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (now Type-0), and both of these games have been released, as well as a sequel to FFXIII and a second sequel in development. The last major official announcement regarding the game was back in January 2011 when the 1st Production Department Premiere trailer was shown. Square has been notorious for sparsely revealing information on the game and its development over these past 6 years that it's been in development.-- Appledoze ( talk) 22:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
A notable omission to be sure. Announced almost half a decade ago, a single concept trailer, some leaked media, no date, no platforms, nothing remotely concrete. I don't think anyone would object at this point to BG&E 2 being included on this list, if you do, please elaborate. No matter how much I may personally love the game and hope for it to surface, it's definitely vaporware, so it should be placed on this list. 2602:306:BC19:6100:61E:64FF:FEF7:FA98 ( talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)