Forums > News > Moby Milestone: 50,000 Unique Games (April 2015)

user avatar

MobyReed (325) on 4/18/2015 6:26 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

We now have 50,000 unique games documented in our database! Every single game was hand entered by contributors and carefully verified by our approvers.

A huge thanks to the thousands of MobyGames contributors over the past 15 years who've helped us reach this point! Including each platform release, we are currently at 94,818 total game listings for 165 platforms. You can see the full breakdown by platform here.

To help mark the occasion, we're announcing our plan to remove the MobyGames watermark from all covers and screenshots. This has been in the works for a while and we'll soon be re-processing all 675,000+ screenshots and 270,000+ covers.

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 4/18/2015 8:05 PM · Permalink · Report

Heh, I think the small print at the bottom will be seen as bigger news to most than the news item 8)

user avatar

MobyReed (325) on 4/18/2015 8:44 PM · Permalink · Report

That'll get its own news item once it's completed. :)

user avatar

LepricahnsGold (142745) on 4/19/2015 12:22 AM · Permalink · Report

I never minded the watermark on the larger covers but on some of the small covers (like Palm OS or BlackBerry) it was badly in the way.

user avatar

MAT (240968) on 4/19/2015 3:37 AM · Permalink · Report

Any chance the covers could be displayed in 800px width once the watermark is removed? 640px width is rather small for nowadays resolutions and almost anything on a typical back of box cover is unreadable in such resolution, and we can't click on them to see them in full size like we can do for shots. Sure, there are workarounds to see the original cover, but it would be nice if we wouldn't have to rely on those workarounds. 800px width would fit just nice for the current design template as well.

user avatar

Evil Ryu (66052) on 4/19/2015 5:14 AM · Permalink · Report

Great news! ^_^

user avatar

Cavalary (11445) on 4/19/2015 9:50 AM · Permalink · Report

Being able to click to see full size would be even better.

user avatar

MAT (240968) on 4/19/2015 10:00 AM · Permalink · Report

I think the bandwidth traffic plays the role on that, but yes, even full size screenshots are heavily compressed and not as clear as original uploads. That sort of covers could be nice to see, and we could quickly check if some cover need replacement or not without having to play with URLs :)

user avatar

Karsa Orlong (151834) on 4/19/2015 10:53 AM · Permalink · Report

Covers resolution at the bottom would do fine for that. As for now, access to the full size covers would break the server into pieces.

user avatar

Simon Carless (1834) on 4/19/2015 2:57 PM · Permalink · Report

Me, Nelio, and Reed have discussed this - FIRST step will be replacing all existing covers in same resolutions.

Second step (might be after we've fixed some other things) is potentially finding some way to link to original upload - but yeah, we're a bit worried about bandwidth bills cos it could send our server costs higher than our incoming $ :) But we'll work it out...

user avatar

Daniel Saner (3503) on 4/20/2015 9:54 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Simon Carless wrote--]Second step (might be after we've fixed some other things) is potentially finding some way to link to original upload - but yeah, we're a bit worried about bandwidth bills cos it could send our server costs higher than our incoming $ :) But we'll work it out...[/Q --end Simon Carless wrote--]

Great to hear that this is being considered! Maybe those links could be made visible to active/contributing members only, to prevent random scrapers from bleeding the servers dry? I do think that high-res scans are a very valuable documentation resource. In addition to the watermarks, it's also the downsampling that occasionally makes fine print unreadable, etc.

Fantastic news on both accounts by the way, re the original post! It makes me so happy to see that the project has gained momentum again, after it seemed destined to die off. Closing in on 13 years of membership, and a good while of passive browsing before that. Few sites survived in my tier-1 bookmarks for that long :)

user avatar

MZ per X (3017) on 4/19/2015 5:29 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start MobyReed wrote--]We now have 50,000 unique games documented in our database![/Q --end MobyReed wrote--] I'd rather not call it "games", but "database entries" or something less boring. On the first page of the listing alone, there's dozens of compilations.

user avatar

MAT (240968) on 4/19/2015 11:45 PM · Permalink · Report

We seem to have 4311 compilations, that means we have about 47689 original individual games. But the fact is that some of the games in compilations were not released as standalone so partially that too could count.

But you didn't count various Special, Limited, Platinum, Collector's and other editions which we probably have quite a lot. Might be we actually have around 40,000 original game entries, especially if you count all the various splits such as Tom Clancy's Advanced Warfighter having three separate entries and there are many such cases on file. Hm... okay, we might not have even 40K, lol, still, if we count individual items, then 50K is the right info :)

user avatar

Alaka (106134) on 4/19/2015 11:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

That 50,000 # also counts all the add-on non-games in the database: character skins, map & speech packs, horse armor dlc, etc...there's 2,328 add-on entries. I would personally only count gameplay expansion packs as quasi game entries.

user avatar

666gonzo666 (67770) on 4/21/2015 4:52 AM · Permalink · Report

Several entries are "complilation-only" games (like infamous Action 52). Number of "games" is still unclear.

user avatar

CalaisianMindthief (8172) on 4/20/2015 4:59 AM · Permalink · Report

I only see two compilations on the first page of the listing, actually.

user avatar

MZ per X (3017) on 4/20/2015 6:47 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start CalaisianMindthief wrote--]I only see two compilations on the first page of the listing, actually. [/Q --end CalaisianMindthief wrote--]Yeah, I viewed the page when signed in.