Contact

Getting a question answered shouldn't feel like submitting a support ticket to a faceless corporation. This page explains how to reach the editorial team at Video Game Authority, what information makes a message useful, and what kind of response timeline is realistic. Whether the question is about a factual error, a topic gap, or a collaboration inquiry, the right details upfront make the difference between a fast answer and a prolonged back-and-forth.

What to Include in Your Message

A message that arrives with context gets answered faster than one that arrives without it. The editorial team handles questions about video game history, platform comparisons, genre definitions, industry data, accessibility, ratings and age classification, and the full range of topics covered across this reference. Before writing, it helps to know which category the message falls into.

There are 4 broad types of contact that come through:

1. Factual corrections — If something on a page is wrong, name the specific page URL, quote the sentence in question, and cite the source that contradicts it. Named public sources (ESRB policy documents, NPD Group reports, Entertainment Software Association annual data) carry the most weight.
2. Topic requests — A gap in coverage is worth flagging. The most useful topic requests name the specific question a new page should answer, not just a general subject area. "More on indie games" is harder to act on than "no page explains how Steam's early access model affects indie studio revenue."
3. Data or citation questions — If a statistic looks off or a source link is broken, include the page, the figure in question, and what the correct source appears to be.
4. Partnership or editorial inquiries — Press, licensing, or editorial collaboration questions should identify the organization, the nature of the inquiry, and a contact name. Anonymous partnership requests tend to sit at the bottom of the queue — not by policy, but by physics.

One thing that rarely goes well: messages asking for personal gaming recommendations or tech support. This is a reference site, not a help desk. The how to get help for video game page is a better starting point for those situations.

Response Expectations

The editorial team reviews messages on a rolling basis, not on a fixed daily schedule. Straightforward factual corrections with solid sourcing tend to move fastest — a well-documented correction can be reviewed and applied within 5 to 7 business days. Topic requests and partnership inquiries take longer because they involve more than one person and more than one decision.

Messages that require no reply — meaning a correction was submitted, reviewed, and found accurate but requires no further exchange — may not receive a confirmation response. That's not dismissal; it's editing. The update to the page is the acknowledgment.

What doesn't get a response: unsolicited link insertion requests, bulk outreach, and messages that read like they were composed by a template. The signal-to-noise ratio on those is low enough that they're triaged out quickly.

Additional Contact Options

For readers who prefer to engage through published channels rather than direct message, the video game frequently asked questions page addresses the most common questions about site content, sourcing methodology, and scope. The video game glossary covers terminology questions that often arrive as standalone inquiries.

For industry-facing questions — particularly those touching esports, video game careers, or video game business models — citing the relevant page when writing in helps route the message to whoever last worked on that section of the reference.

How to Reach This Office

The primary contact method is email. The address is verified in the site footer, which is consistent across all pages and injected by the publishing template — look there for the live address rather than a static provider here, which could drift out of date if it ever changed.

For editorial corrections with supporting documentation, email remains the clearest channel because it creates a written record on both ends. A message with a specific claim, a cited source, and a page URL attached is exactly what the review process needs to move efficiently.

Response windows by message type, as a general benchmark:

• Factual corrections with sourcing: 5–7 business days
• Topic requests: 2–4 weeks, depending on editorial calendar
• Data or citation questions: 7–10 business days
• Partnership or editorial inquiries: 10–15 business days for an initial response

These are working estimates, not guarantees. Volume, complexity, and whether the inquiry requires external verification all affect actual timing. A message that arrives clean, specific, and well-sourced is genuinely easier to prioritize than one that requires a follow-up round of clarifying questions before the actual work can begin.