I've asked question related to Battlefield 4, which indeed is a future release. However, the question wasn't about the game itself, but about videos and information already released at E3.

Why is question about what already happened in the past considered "future speculation"?

And how is that different situation than this: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/34355/extended-persistence-in-back-to-karkand?

  • 3
    I did not VTC because of future speculation. I VTC'd because, like you said, the question wasn't about a game. It was about a video. Even if BF4 were already released, I'd have still VTC'd because the question doesn't have a problem.
    – user9983
    Jun 11, 2013 at 13:23
  • It was not closed because it was "future speculation", it was closed because it was speculation. Jun 11, 2013 at 13:33
  • 1
    @RavenDreamer: how's that speculation? Either information was provided during eithe MS or EA event at E3, then that is the definite answer; or it wasn't, in that case "EA has not disclosed that information" is also an answer.
    – vartec
    Jun 11, 2013 at 13:40
  • 3
    future = if date > now. I believe this definition matches up with the dictionary definition also
    – user27134
    Jun 11, 2013 at 13:55
  • 1
    I could re-post the same answer I had on your other question, but I'll just link it. If the information doesn't exist at the time of asking, it's speculation. As a sidenote, I didn't VTC your question; I was trying to figure out if it WAS answerable.
    – Frank
    Jun 11, 2013 at 13:56
  • @fbueckert: if you're so you're absolutely sure, that the question cannot be answered based on what's been said on both MS and EA events on E3, than why didn't you post that as an answer? Otherwise, how do you know it cannot be answered now? And E3 is public event, so it's hardly insider knowledge.
    – vartec
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:00
  • 1
    Because if it's not been announced, it's speculation. "EA has not announced these details" makes for a rather crappy answer, and demonstrates why we don't allow these questions in the first place. Besides, you deleted it yourself before I had even finished figuring out if it was answerable.
    – Frank
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:01
  • But do you know that it has not been said during X1 nor EA event? Did you watch both?
    – vartec
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:17
  • I have no idea. I didn't watch either of the streams. I was querying those who were, to determine if it really was answerable. I don't know why you're arguing this point so hard; you deleted it before it could be closed, so it's somewhat of a moot point.
    – Frank
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:21
  • The question wasn't even closed. It has two close votes and was deleted by vartec.
    – user9983
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:24
  • Actually... Is E3 a public event? I always thought it was only open to press and/or people who work in the industry in some form (retailers, for example).
    – Niro
    Jun 11, 2013 at 18:47
  • Whether it has been stated at a public event or not is irrelevant, things change between announcement and release which is why we only allow questions regarding products that our users can use.
    – user27134
    Jun 12, 2013 at 9:24

2 Answers 2


I want to take a different angle at this issue. Not quite what you're getting at here, but it sorta touches on how we apply the whole rules regarding speculation and such.

News is important information to the world of gaming, and I love what other sites do with it. But to keep our strength of how we do what we do, and to prevent ourselves from doing a mediocre job at what we're not suited for, I think it's best that we let other sites deal with the domain of gaming news. When all the reporting is done and people start getting solid copies in their hands, that's when we start doing our job here. They are proactive information gathers, while we are reactive information providers, and this differentiates us greatly.

One of the reasons behind the way the Stack Exchange Network's success in how it does what it does, is in focusing our efforts at accomplishing a specific goal within specific verticals. It's what differentiates us from general Q&A sites, and what makes Arqade different from a lot of other game information sites. What makes us shine is our focus on sticking to Q&A.

Branching into this direction of coverage, to me, feels to be straying from our position and goals and mixing us up with a different kind of gaming website. Yes, if we stick to the root words in these things, we are dealing with a "question" that is asked about a "game". But that's a major abstraction of what the heart of the question is. "Oh snap, I just ran into Supreme Weapon of Extreme Hellish Annihilation - Golden Disaster, how do I kill it?" and "What platform was this game demonstrated on?" are both questions about games, but there's a different direction in how these questions are intended. The first is intending to solve a problem about gameplay. The latter is staying on top of current events and developments of the world of gaming. Due to the individual directions and designs of the approaches, we excel at the former, while a news site excels at the latter.

Which is, at heart, what I think is the target destination for this kind of information. News sites are where people dedicate themselves to tracking down every bit of developing data about the world of gaming, about new releases and especially about big events like E3. It's a completely different domain of dedication than what we do here, and for that reason I think it's important that we don't mix ourselves up as a news site. We are not intended to be a singular destination for all things gaming-related - different kinds of material require different space to host them. We can barely even store special data relevant to any individual game, being pretty limited to whatever we put in a tag wiki.

News is a different beast than the Q&A we regularly deal with. Not just in the manner of it being a different domain of knowledge than our traditional forte, but also in the approach of the content. Yes, we do tons of research and we even have to deal with developments that invalidate our earlier information, but there's a difference in the expectations of news and of our Q&A - the heart of which is captured in LessPop_MoreFizz's answer. Even though this report was done in the past, it sits firmly in the realm of news, separate from what we usually deal with. And relative to how our Q&A works, news tends to be speculative in feel.

We are a community that works off of a reactive approach - we have a bed of information waiting to be given out, and when people ask questions we provide that information. Until something happens within our domain, we don't shift. The only news we will cover is what is asked of us, and in a large scale matter, any information we provide is echoing that found at a real news site. By comparison, a news site is proactive and seeks information out to give people, even for things no one asked about. We act as a middle man, and a very inefficient one at that - our readers would be better served going to a proper news site.

This post isn't meant to change our scope - nothing of the sort, really. Rather, my intent is to point straight at our existing scope, and using a different perspective than a basic timeline, illustrate why these kinds of questions fall under "speculation". The world of our site exists as the facts of what happens in the games - what happens when you press whatever buttons at whatever time. Until this information enters this world, it doesn't matter how factual news is, it exists in our "future", and thus sits firmly as speculation. Which is a good thing - this lets us maintain the strength and authority of the information we have in our domain knowledge, whilst news sites and communities can cater far better to developing data on the gaming world. Better service to readers of all types.

If the intent to visit us instead of a news site because one is not fond of the reporters, then, well, that's what our chat service is for. That's where you get to meet our people, rather than our knowledge.


In general, here at Arqade, we deal with games that are publicly available.

Not announced games. Not possible games. Not leaks from private alphas of games.Not demos of games (unless your question is 'How do I get past the third room in the downloadable demo!').

Unless you have a reasonable expectation that 'random jerk on the internet' can play the game you're asking about (assuming they're willing to pay for it and own appropriate hardware), the question isn't on topic here. That's what we're talking about when we cite the rule about speculation regarding the future.

The BF4 demo was a pre-release version of the game, running on pre-release debug hardware, in a preview to an audience at an industry conference. If there are more words I could've put into the previous sentence that mean 'unfinished and not ready for public consumption', I'd've put them in there, because it deserves all of them.

You stated yourself, when asked why the answer to the question is of concern to you:

it does, because I wanna know if X1 has so crappy graphics. And what future? This video has already been made and released. – vartec 18 hours ago

Given the aforementioned constraints of prerelease software and debug hardware this far in advance of any actual products being complete and ready for release, it just reinforces even further how incredibly specious your reasoning here is. So let's throw a Too Localized on the pile to go with the Off Topic, and arguably Not Constructive.

It's a bad fit for this site, and deserved the downvotes and close votes it received.

(On a related note, I think your other question, which you cite as precedent, is pretty lousy as well. I've voted to close it.)

  • Technically, we could throw NARQ in there, too, because it's not even asking about the game itself.
    – Frank
    Jun 11, 2013 at 14:36
  • Eh, that's pushing it, IMO. Jun 11, 2013 at 14:37
  • OMG, you're totally proved your point closing a question from 2011 ;-)
    – vartec
    Jun 11, 2013 at 22:23
  • 8
    I'm not trying to 'prove a point'. I'm just being consistent. Sometimes stuff doesn't get closed when it's first posted. This is especially true of older questions, as our rules have solidified over time, and the number of eyeballs capable of casting a close vote has increased - older questions just weren't subject to the same level of scrutiny. But OMG, you've totally proven your point that I'm just a petty and capricious jerk who doesn't like you. ;-) Jun 11, 2013 at 22:43
  • Because there is so much gained from closing a question that has been answered 2 years ago and hasn't had activity since. Besides, having valid answer contradicts your point about these type of questions being unanswerable.
    – vartec
    Jun 13, 2013 at 14:09
  • 4
    @vartec The fact that you tried to use a 2 year old question that should have been closed to defend your question that should have been closed is why there is everything to be gained from closing it.
    – user9983
    Jun 13, 2013 at 14:37
  • @OrigamiRobot: if a question that according to you should be closed, wasn't closed for over 2 years means one of two things: either you're wrong about "should be closed" or you're right and moderators aren't good at moderating.
    – vartec
    Jun 13, 2013 at 14:55
  • 3
    @vartec 1) As LP said, our rules have changed a lot over the years. Something that was on topic then might not be on topic now. Things that old don't get noticed until someone brings them up as you did. 2) That's not what moderators are for. A mod should only be involved if it's something a non-mod can't do. It is the job of the normal community to close questions like that one.
    – user9983
    Jun 13, 2013 at 14:58
  • Oh, it's the "MODERATOOOOORS!" argument again? If you want to bicker about the system, do some research on how it works please, will ya?
    – user98085
    Jun 13, 2013 at 15:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .