Talk:Super Street Fighter IV

Table & Flags

I believe that the table of characters should be restored with flags. Tables are a far more convenient way to view the characters being added to the game.

I have read the WPMOS, and flags are completely appropriate for a Street Fighter article, as the games themselves have always traditionally shown the country of origin for each fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.213.16 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cody and Guy

Guy was last featured in Capcom Fighting Jam and Cody was last featured in Final Fight Revenge. Not SFA3. 72.165.115.67 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they mean the last time they were featured in the Street Fighter series. Actually if you want to get techinical they were both last featured in Final Fight: Streetwise unless you're talking strictly fighting games. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Version

It says that it'll be released for Windows on the page here, but all the info I've heard on it has had no information on a pc port of any sort. Can someone cite a source for that information? I know there was a Street Fighter IV port, but the two games are going to be separate. 71.207.161.146 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone confused the two games. – Steel 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither the PC or Arcade release have been confirmed by Capcom. They have hinted that they pushing hard for an Arcade release, but a PC version is neiter currently in the works, nor a priority. They have not denied the possibility, however. --juxtapose (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Launch Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pfte7RrIc --> exact release date of Windows version: July 5th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.59.77 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't use a YouTube video for a source. It's okay, though. I got one. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection

This page should be protected. There are a bunch of anonymous users randomly guessing voice actors and adding speculation. Shadoman (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Sabishii_Kage (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hakan confirmed

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/mar/01/hakan-confirmed-nowgamercom-article/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusk83 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-order Bonuses

Aren't the pre-order bonuses something that is usually listed? Because there are several sources (I cannot access them because I'm at work) that list what items you get and where. One reason that I suggest this is that one of the costumes from some locations is for Fei Long and could link this page to Kato and other interesting facts about Bruce Lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimbear13 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if pre-order bonuses should be listed, but an alternate costume pack is available if you pre-order SSFIV on Amazon. 66.25.130.96 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GAME.co.uk gave a code out for a pack of Fei Long, Blanka, Guile, Gen and Dhalsim.86.23.54.25 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviews/Reception

Many reviews have started to pop up in mags and on the net from credible and popular sources. Isn't it about time to create some sort of "Reception" section? This may prove to be helpful for people deciding to purchase the game or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.10 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonus for both versions?

I've read somewhere, you'd get something if you have both SF4 and SSF4 on a system (like PS3). Can that be confirmed by someone? I haven't found it in the article. --88.74.52.128 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was actually here but I removed it since it was both unsourced and unspecified. --uKER (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oookay....Well, could someone specify? I can't make google spit out something useful on that matter.--88.72.218.254 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah loading up the game on my PS3 it detected SFIV's precense (I think its savedata) and it added two extra 'colors' 11 and 12 which are actually different rendering styles of color 1. 86.23.54.25 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes a simple google search will give results (possibly found on IGN as well) that if you have the original SF4 save data you will retain all DLC from that as well as gain colords 11 and 12. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

However I don't understand what this means "as well as having 2 extra packs unlocked " I'm assuming its talking about the 2 additional colors. However it makes it sound like you get 2 additional costume packs, which to my knowledge is false. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  18:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tone

ok the way this article is written is horrible. i wonder if anyone read this. it needs to be fixed.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually happen to find your edits horrible so I just reverted of them. The diff is here and following is a breakdown of the problems I find with every one of them:

• You removed "supposedly". It happens the game shown wasn't actually Street Fighter IV, you know? Perhaps you should check what you're talking about before dropping in and changing sentences' meanings.

• The source supports the original text. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You removed "much like the Super Street Fighter II logo." while I don't agree either with the "much like" wording, you're leaving the article devoid of a clue of what a metallic S is supposed to mean.

• Minor fact, but still supported by source. Lose the "very" word.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You removed ", revealing a spring 2010 release date,". Great, a game's announcement is being described and you remove the release date. Go figure.

• I don't see a source. In any case, it is redundant, especially since there are no contradictions with later facts.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You removed "Eventually, on ". This is called a connector, you know? The previous sentence implied that at first it was said an arcade release would not happen, but then it was changed. Relating sentences that talk about the same thing is supposed to be good.

• "Eventually, on " is good essay but bad wording for encyclopaedia. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whole bunch of text removed from the first paragraph in "Additions over Street Fighter IV", well here you not only remove a summary of the changes, but you also make it seem like Super SFIV dropped all characters from the regular SFIV and now only ten characters are available. Wonderful. Not only that, but you also introduced the syntactical abomination reading "Super Street Fighter IV include eight new characters". Talk about horrible writing.

• The original seemed fine and sourced.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Text removed about the "Shin" characters. For the time being, that text serves the purpose of making it clear that the game doesn't call the characters as "Shin" whoever, but they're only being called that based on their moves.

• I agree with this change, it is fancruft, source it for further detail.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removed "Lastly, the". Again, what's the purpose of removing sentence connectors? Robot talk is a synonym of poorly written text. You're making an enumeration made up of very long sentences that need to be kept cohesive.

• The sentence is perhaps less prosish, but "Lastly" was not the best prose in the first place. The whole thing needs rewrite—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removed stuff about variations of the "two ultras" rule. Although perhaps not so detailed, at least a mention of exceptions existing must be made.

• Agree with change, except not "each" but "most".—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removed ", totaling three costumes," so you're left the characteres "feature an additional custome". Good! An additional custome over which ones? Is everyone and their dog supposed to know how many costumes characters had in SFIV?

• This whole paragraph is awful. It can be shortened 5x to say new characters get 2 costumes and old get 3. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removed stuff about further costume packs not having been announced. Agreed.

If you care to contest any of my reasons, please do so here. --uKER (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

no, i removed what is just original research or independt research that was not properly sourced. My edits kept it both informal without the tone. "eventually" is not neutral tone. Do you know the mos for TOne? and no, Everyone knows when it comes to an expansion version, that they don't remove anything. Not everyone is stupid. I was planning on making a section called "additional features". If the game doesn't call him shin, then why add it in there? there's no real point. It's full of original research.

Also Sentence connectors depend, additionally are ok, but "eventually" and "supposedly" are tones of a person, we have to keep it neutral. i did the same for normal street fighter 4 but not as muchBread Ninja (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You say you removed unsourced info. Now what part of it all is unsourced? I reiterate the diff here. Then, about "eventually" not being neutral tone, that's just ridiculous. Not much else to say. About the removed characters in the expansion, it doesn't matter what people know or don't know; what you wrote effectively says the game has 10 characters, not to mention the abysmal syntax errors you introduced and have just REintroduced with your revert. And about the "Shin" characters, they were not called that in my edit, only mentioned to have the same powers as them. So there, I've refuted all the points you've just made, but I've yet to see your reasons against every one of the 9 edits you made and I justified reverting. --uKER (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sentence connectors dont help the article at all, in fact they add "personality" to the article, which is bad. thats why nuetral tone is best. again, i suggest you look over WP:TONE. also small details is whats unsourced. I agree that two ultras should be mentioned in there, but i didn not remove it completely, just gave less detail, clearly there is original research, research that people put in on there own without verification. for example, like

• Whole bunch of text removed from the first paragraph in "Additions over Street Fighter IV", well here you not only remove a summary of the changes, but you also make it seem like Super SFIV dropped all characters from the regular SFIV and now only ten characters are available. Wonderful. Not only that, but you also introduced the syntactical abomination reading "Super Street Fighter IV include eight new characters". Talk about horrible writing.

^^ this reason here, like i said before, we don't need to add the same information, all we need to do is add what's different about super street fighter for, not whats the same. Eventually hints that it was long waited. which probably was, but not verified to an extent where it can be used.

* You removed ", revealing a spring 2010 release date,". Great, a game's announcement is being described and you remove the release date. Go figure.

^^as i recall, the release dates are still there. I just removed the more general one.

• Removed ", totaling three costumes," so you're left the characters "feature an additional custome". Good! An additional custome over which ones? Is everyone and their dog supposed to know how many costumes characters had in SFIV?

^^ the number of costumes was really not necessary to put in is trivial, it's only to state that it's an additional feature in the game.

* You removed "much like the Super Street Fighter II logo." while I don't agree either with the "much like" wording, you're leaving the article devoid of a clue of what a metallic S is supposed to mean.

^^don't you think that's original researchBread Ninja (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why you unnecessarily quoted parts of my message that you weren't going to discuss, but there. Anyway, so connectors add personality to the article? Now that is new. See, in that sentence "eventually" says nothing about it being long awaited. It just says that in the end it came to be after it was previously questioned by the game's makers. Removal of connectors makes the article sound like you're reading from a bulleted list, which needless to say is VERY poor writing. About the costumes, if you assume it's OK to say a costume was added, I don't see how it's not relevant, or even harmful to the article going by your actions, to mention how many costumes you're left with. About the release date, yes, the release date is there, but you unilaterally dropped the info about when the release date was set. About the metallic S, the sole mention of it implicitly assumes its similarity with the SSF2 logo. If you are to question the similarity, then what are your grounds to even mention it? Finally, I have to let you know that your actioning on this subject doesn't go by the guidelines. There's something called the bold-revert-discuss cycle that says that if you perform a bold edit like you did and someone has a problem with it, they are to revert it and start a discussion about it, which I did. Your reverting the article before reaching an agreement constitutes edit warring, which is against the rules even before breaking the 3-revert rule. --uKER (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

problem is i'm not use to replying in piece by piece. but anyways, is the giant metallic S is there just to compare to ssf2, then even more reason to remove it. i don't care whether i see it or not, it has to be verified. "Eventually" implies more than you know. We could that in the end, they decided to make it. And number of costumes just sounds trivial. it disrupts the flow of the sentence and holds no real point, that's why i removed it. but i see i shouldn't have reverted right away, but i' going to go get third party on this one. most likely we'll get a 50-50 or a 60-40 agreementBread Ninja (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussing point-by-point becomes necessary if you're to establish proper justification for a revert that comprises several different removals. Take it as a token of respect from me to your opinion that I'm not getting back. About the S, it was mentioned there because it's the main reason this game was first known to ever exist. Your questioning its similarity with the SSF2 logo can be denied by anyone who has the slightest clue on the context of the article. Also, about the sentence connectors, you're plainly mistaken. I'd be glad to have a third party come in. Just watch that you don't break the rules by inviting selected non-neutral people. --uKER (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that point-by-point discussion is necessary for multiple differently contested edits.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I just mentioned it in the WP:VG discussion page, i did not select anyone specifically, so your not really assuming good faith. Anyways, you have yet to deny whether the metallic S was part of the super version, although i do believe it is true myself, the article makes it sound much like original research plus needs to be verified. The sentence connectors are not necessary at all. i don't see why it's a big deal. If i removed to make the article sound more neutral it shouldn't be a problem, and adding them will not make the article any better, you could use other words that sound more neutral.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not good. Somehow we're now down to discussing two points out of the ten I exposed, which don't particularly happen to be the most relevant ones, and I fear resolving these two points will make it look like the whole issue is resolved, which it isn't. About the big S, problem is the information comes from a source that is an insider on the subject, so to them (as it is to me), that S can only be a "SUPER" sign, but that's only because of an implicit assumption that it is identical to the one in SSF2. If it wasn't for that assumption, the S could well be any other word beginning with S. Problem is, Wikipedia readers may not understand why the S is so assertively implied to mean "SUPER" even if it comes from a trusted source. And by the way, giving advice is not failing to assume bad faith. Don't try to turn it against me. --uKER (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It will not "look resolved" if only two point are addressed. The fact that Bread Ninja mentioned this in VG Talk will improve the article.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

you agreed to one, and the other one you "denied" in the WT:VG, so there are 8. Also an assumption citation for S isn't helping, i think we need to find another source for it to make it better, otherwise we will only prove that the metallic S was assumed to be super, not that it is. Some IP already seems to agree on the removing shin, so that's a consensus right there, so now it's 6 (and don't say i pinned the IP to edit it, i was just waiting on the watchlist to see your next comment.) Plus, let's not get all jumpy about the rules, you were extra sarcastic in your first comment, your lucky I'm still replying back. So on about removing two ultras, and costumes, I'm not really into it. Plus that section still needs work by using the word "you" in it. i'll probably add back the ten characters but in a much more summarized version, but other than that. we have what we are discussing now.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I denied nothing at the WT. The 9 points still stand. 2. The S is deemed relevant for its similarity with the SSF2 logo and that's a fact. Now what do you expect as proof of it being similar? An algorithmic image comparison result? 3. So you and and anonymous IP puts consensus on your side? Yeah, right. Again, about the "Shin" thing, you seem incapable of seeing that my edit you last reverted only said that the new bosses (which are undeniably different from regular Akuma and Gouken) have the powers the Shin versions have. Not implying they're actually them. 4. I don't think I understand what you said about 'using the word "you" in it' but I don't think it's any good. --uKER (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1. yes you did when you said "no one in the right mind would defend supposedly" but it's the first point in your comment against me. 2.again it doesn't matter whether i think they look alike or not, they need to be cited for significance. do you know what Original research means? and no an assumption isn't going to help out a lot. The Source is unreliable, and needs additional sources for Super street fighter 2 to be mentioned in this article. they didn't even officially unveil super street fighter 4 logo it's just a glimpse. Also what I'm saying is that shin doesn't belong in there, they are just characters in the game, we don't need to add more information about them in here, we can put that in the list of Street fighter characters. That's why i removed it. 3. If an anonymous IP does something I'm in favor of without me saying, i would call that consensus yes. But I'm not really counting it too much, just for that point. 4.That article holds the word "you in, in a manner as if it was talking to the reader personally, rather than just informing them, I'll fix that in a bit, and don't worry, I'm sure his edit won't affect too much.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says the game was SUPPOSEDLY SFIV because that's what Capcom said they'd be showing, but it turned out NOT to be SFIV. It's not me supposing anything. Now what's your issue with that? --uKER (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole "supposedly" and "S" thing is a complete speculation from an unreliable (no editorial oversight, user suggested addition) source. Unless there are at least one notable source for this - it merits nothing but removal. I do not care if it is true or false or whatever Capcom "said" they will be showing; this is not an acceptable source for any of these facts.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why we need 3 pages on this. Some changes were decent, some were questionable, some were bad. That's called bold, revert, discuss. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk 

I agree, my edit wasn't perfect, but at the same time, it wasn't completely bad.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats what bold, revert, discuss is for, but after I reverted and tried to discuss you only jumped in and reverted again to your revision. In any case, with the current removals, the article isn't worth contributing to anymore, so I'm removing it from my watchlist. Good luck with it. --uKER (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that suppose to mean? because unreliable information or trivial information is removed, theres no point editing this article? you could add a plot or some reception in here too.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe UKER is no longer interested in participating in this article's improvement because of the removal of material. I do have to point out that after the removal of 1 paragraph of poorly sourced speculation, 1 outdated reference not supporting the statement, 6 redundant (4 of which fancrufty) sentence blocks and minor copyedits, the article has in fact improved. Admittedly, this could have taken far less time. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's great now. "Super Street Fighter IV includes the original 25 characters from the previous Street Fighter games". So the previous Street Fighter games had 25 characters? Yeah, just great. And that's without even getting started. Good luck again. --uKER (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's one mistake down! I'm more than glad to correct any other mistakes that you are willing to point out. I'm pretty sure the whole "Shin" section is incorrectly worded.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I still feel adding the number of costumes isn't so good, because now it says that 3 costumes are the new feature when it's only one new costume each. that's why i removed the number of costumes. Is it really necessary to add shin if the game itself doesn't call them by that? it sounds like original research.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So "Each returning character from the original version of Street Fighter IV features an additional third costume, whereas newly introduced characters have only two available." Is that what we're looking for?

Apparently Shin is important to differentiate character from boss character with a special move. I really have no idea what that means, as I haven't played the game. "Akuma and Gouken are also available as secret bosses with special moves."? Does that sound any better? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"I guess, i thought to remove it completely because it wasn't really noted well. but i guess this works too.Bread Ninja (talk)

Well, it's not really that notable, but it's not really a contested fact, I mean I don't doubt it true. So no real point in removing it. It is also pretty clear now on the numbers. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt whether it's true or not but I'm simply saying if it's important enough to even have it in. it's just mentioning additional features, but if it doesn't affect the article too much, then it should be fine.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned to further removed some issues including redundancy.The Phantomnaut (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Steam ban

I have added the ban Steam applies to the poeple from countries which GFWL don't support but it is deleted as there is no source for the information it says. How am I to give source about this? You open your Steam account and type the game's name and if you are in one of these countries it doesn't show up and if you open the page's URL it will say "The game is unavailable in your region". But you can buy it from D2D. So, as a source, should I give the Steam's page for the game and D2D's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gross indecency (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a completely normal thing to have games unavailable to a region? And is the fact that it's possible to buy it on D2D really that notable. If no reliable source can be found, then it probably isn't that big of a deal. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not normal. If it was normal I wouldn't mention it. The game is not normally restricted. Everyone can buy it from everywhere. Steam applies this ban on their own initiative, and that's odd and they even do not say the reason. And most people who learn that the game is released in Steam will hit the Steam page for the game but will see the same error and will search like mad the reason for that. If you want I can give a link to the Steam forum page where this is discussed. You still say "if no reliable source can be found" but I repeat, there can be no source for a thing that happens when you do something. I mean, do you want a book talking about the Steam ban? And why are you the one who decides what is necessary and what is not? People go crazy out there because they cannot buy the game from Steam. And they search for the reason. Would it be bad to find the reason why they can't reach the game at Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gross indecency (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. No one said anything about me deciding what stays and goes. I'm just following Wikipedia policy. And on the contrary, there should be a source like this. I don't really get your example of "a thing that happens when you do something", since you could look around on Wikipedia and finds tons of stuff. Maybe you could give an example of something that you can't find a source for. And no, I don't expect a book. Is it so hard to get an article from a gaming news site or a comment from Valve? Heck, there's the possibility that this shouldn't be included per WP:NOT#NEWS, specifically the second item in that section. Unusual-ness doesn't equal notability. Is the unavailability of this game on Steam in some regions a big deal? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon further research, it doesn't seem so strange after all. This definitely seems to occur often. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't know why people know about this habit of Steam, I searched for an answer for days. I guess my anger about Steam I tried to take out from you. Sorry for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gross indecency (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's cool. At the very least we didn't have an edit war, which is what seems to happen often on this site. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Arcade Edition?

I propose that a separate page be created for Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition since the revised version makes this current game obsolete, therefore it being featured under this page may misinform some readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unstable ISOtope (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How exactly will it misinform readers? Besides, I don't think that there's enough of a difference between Super and AE to warrant a separation. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I vote for the separate page for Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition, we did 7 different pages for each version of Street Fighter II so we can do a different page for this new edition too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.11.97.226 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I still have doubts about the splitting of the SFII articles. Second of all, I don't think that a "other stuff exists" rationale works here. Besides, the differences between Super and AE are relatively minimal at best. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah i agree with stick man. unless theres a significant change, i'm not so keen on the idea of splitting.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the characters have a different balancement, there is a replay management feature and four all new characters, and the cover image on the box is different (it features the new characters). It think that for completeness we should do a new page for the arcade edition, so it will appear also in the box at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.11.97.226 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's enough information backed up with 3rd party view than maybe. it's just not that strongBread Ninja (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's it? The only difference you have listed is the new balancing and a different box art. That's not enough. You also didn't mention the addition of the twins, Evil Ryu, and Oni, as well as the new online features. But even that isn't enough to separate it. That's hardly anything compared to the difference between vanilla and Super. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but why a separate page for the Handheld 3D Edition for the Nintendo 3DS? It's the SAME game (SSFIV) and it's an handheld port so it's not relevant (there is no article for SF2 version for the GameBoy, so why a page for the 3DS port?) I'd like a separation of Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition and a merging of Super Street Fighter IV 3D Edition in the Super Street Fighter IV main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.228.104.210 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

the difference is that the arcade version has minor changes while the 3D handheld has enough development abnd reception info to separate. Its significantly different from the console version.20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Source for expansion on PC Arcade Edition

No time to do it myself. Will do later, but perhaps someone can get on it for the time being. Link. --uKER (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PC Version DRM

Today, many video game news sites say the DRM SSFIV: AE will require a constant Internet connection, and limited installations, and the inability to create a local profile.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/16524-capcom-asking-for-super-street-fighter-iv-ae-drm-feedback-suggestions/ http://www.gamespot.com/news/6315525/super-street-fighter-iv-arcade-edition-slapped-with-always-on-pc-drm http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/219685/pc-super-street-fighter-iv-arcade-edition-features-super-strong-drm/ http://www.3djuegos.com/noticias-ver/117850/ssfiv-arcade-edition-para-pc-incluira-proteccion-drm/

This is a big bullshit. For example, Bulletstorm -another title used G4WL- uses SSA (Server Side Authentication), ZDPP (Zero Day Piracy Protection) and MA (Module Authentication). MA involves having to use an online profile to play if or if. On this page, we emphasize that Bulletstorm is the only one who uses this technology. There is nothing said about SSFIV:AE. Sven also said he would have unlimited installations.

Http://www.capcom-unity.com/sven/blog/2011/05/25/stuff_you_want_to_know_about_ssfiv:ae_for_pc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.110.124.154 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the DRM stuff would be worth mentioning, but it would be biased to say that it's "bullshit". The DRM other games have is irrelevant. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant that game sites saying you need to be connected to play is bullshit. --uKER (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. He was. I thought he was comparing it to Bulletstorm. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Street Fighter IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723140918/http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/AC/ to http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/AC/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)