Talk:MicroProse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MicroProse article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Tetbury

Prior to Microprose opening its UK office in Chipping Sodbury, the company was based for several years in the town of Tetbury, in Gloucestershire. Microprose occupied Unit 1 of the Hampton Road Industrial Estate.

Okay, but I don't think that is article-worthy. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MicroStyle/MicroPlay

The company seems to also have used the name MicroPlay in some jurisdictions. TMLutas 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a chapter about MicroStyle/MicroPlay. That is what I know about them. They could be development studios in their own rights, but I don't know for sure. --Frodet 08:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of games without articles

While I'm sure the intentions of Frodet were good, we shouldn't remove wikilinks to games without articles. Broken wikilinks is how new articles get created. Almost all articles on Wikipedia are the result of broken links. So removing games simply because they don't have articles really detracts from the article: including them creates a springboard for new development and contributes to the completeness of the article.

But I agree with Frodet that the list is getting rather long. Another way to fix this problem would be to create a seperate list, say called List of MicroProse games, that contains the full list of games they published. The article could then link to it as a "See also" item. However, the list as it is is organized chronologically. The new list article should have the games listed alphabetically, to be coherent with other similar lists (such as List of Electronic Arts games, List of Apple II games, etc.). So, if you feel so inclined, go right ahead. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Selected games is turning into a full list of MicroProse games. Is this a trend that should continue and Selected games would transform into the MicroProse catalog? -- Death666 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As I suggested above, we could create a list of all their games, and just keep really big hits in the "selected list." I can take care of this over the next few days if no one else steps up to the plate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple tidbits of MicroProse history NOT mentioned here

I was an ex-employee of Spectrum HoloByte, i.e. MicroProse for a while. And I also was the first one to break the news in June 1996 that Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds, and Jeff Briggs, along with most of MPS UK, are resigning. In fact, if you search Google Groups, you can still find the posts archived in there somewhere, where I got into an argument online with a journalist named David Israels, then working for C|Net Gamecenter. So I believe I know a few things that I'd contribute here. (link is http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic/browse_thread/thread/31dac413e1f58227/fc7152943cfe85c3?lnk=st&q=MicroProse+rumors+facts&rnum=1&hl=en#fc7152943cfe85c3)

  • MicroProse started as a flight-sim company, with Spitfire Ace and Hellcat Ace, which featured in-cockpit fights against intelligent (for its time) enemies. The games emphasize action over the details, hence the earliest slogan "The action is simulated, the excitement is real!" It was followed by Mig Alley Ace, which featured one of the earliest split-screen dogfight sims on a PC.
  • A story perpetuated by the founders was that "Wild Bill" Stealey was in a bar probably in 1981 challenging all comers to beat his score in an arcade game called "Red Baron" (no relations to the Dynamix PC title later). As he was an air force pilot, no one could beat his score, until this smaller, balding mousy guy did it in his FIRST attempt. Bill was flabbergasted, so he asked the guy how he did it. The guy said he's a programmer, and he spotted that the enemies always come in certain patterns, which he proceeded to exploit. Bill said if you're so good in programming, why don't you write a game? The guy said he had no capital, and Bill said, heck, I'll give you the capital. The programmer's name is Sid Meier, and the rest, as they say, is history!
    • this is documented right here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HJNvZLvpCEQC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22wild+bill+stealey%22&source=web&ots=sxUmgBeLsI&sig=sVzkBa4v0bABMkYNYx9bf9oOanA#PPA186,M1

  • In earlier 90's MicroProse spread out in so many different directions it's became an octopus. There's the arcade division, which developed TWO games, F-15 Strike Eagle: The Arcade, and BOTTS, a giant fighting robot game. Both are FULL 3-D and very advanced for their times, even though F-15 was based on the simplified gameplay introduced in F-15 Strike Eagle II. MicroProse also decided to get into the adventure game market and spent a lot of money developing a brand new adventure game engine, though only a few games were made with it Rex Nebular and Phantom of the Opera. When the company disintegrated, it was sold off to Sanctuary Woods and never heard from again.
  • MPS have always existed as a two-headed entity... The US division which manages American games, and the UK division (MPS UK) that manages all European publishing. The two have very different product lines, and only occasionally cross-publish each other's products. Many MPS UK games never crossed the Atlantic, such as Spirit of Speed, MicroProse Soccer, and more. And those that did make it across faced name changes. UFO: Enemy Unknown became XCOM: UFO Defence, for example.
  • Bill Stealey was good friends with Spectrum HoloByte president Gilman Louie. Stealey convinced Louie to acquire MicroProse as he feared that others would not "understand" the MicroProse culture and a bank would just sell off the assets. Louie agreed and bought out MicroProse, then nearing bankruptcy, in 1993. Stealey cashed out his shares in 1994 and founded Interactive Magic.
  • Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds, and Jeff Briggs did NOT resign from MicroProse until June 1996, when Spectrum HoloByte, still bleeding money after the takeover of MicroProse, announced another round of cuts in either end of May or beginning of June, 1996. The trio went on to found Firaxis Games. The exodus prompted a mass exodus of talent from various MicroProse studios. Some went to EA (Jane's Simulations group), some went to found Ensemble Studios (Bruce Shelley), and the UK crew joined Psygnosis mostly.
  • The company seems to have stabilized in 1997, but more trouble was brewing. Mid-year, GT Interactive announced plans to merge with MicroProse, as GT wants the various franchises that MicroProse has. However, the merger fell through 3 months later. Also, MPS is enbroiled in legal trouble. Civilization, basically the game and franchise keeping the company afloat, was challenged in court by Avalon-Hill, as they have the rights to the board-game (even though the computer game is unrelated to the boardgame). Activision, seizing this ambiguity, obtained a license from Avalon-Hill to produce a Civilization clone called "Civilization: Call to Power". MicroProse had to spend its final cash reserve to buy out the ORIGINAL FRENCH CREATOR of Civilization boardgame, thus nullifying Avalon-Hill's challenge. Activision was promised ONE more game, which became "Call to Power II".
  • Infogrames, which took over Hasbro Interactive in 2001, renamed itself "Atari" in 2003. That's why the article reads "funny" with no "transition" between Infogrames and Atari ownership: same company.

Let me know if you need more details, I'll be glad to help fix up the history section.

--Kschang77 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your information is great (and correct, from the ex-MicroProsers I know), but that's not the problem. The problem is that we don't have any verifiable references to cite for the information you give. Without verifiable references, it's original research, something forbidden here on Wikipedia. So, if you can find verifiable references for your information above, that would be a real boon (and then the info could be added to the article). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
the problem here is NONE of this is original research. These are all FACTS, they're just not documented somewhere in a conveninent neat citable form. I can probably find citations of MicroProse buying out Hartland Trefoil, but I can't find anything that deal with backroom deal with Activision or Avalon-Hill. --Kschang77 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I researched and wrote a subsection at the Civilization (series)'s page regarding that legal dispute over the Civilization brand.
I managed to find good sources, including the original press release from MicroProse informing about the acquisition of Hartland Trefoil. According to the sources the lawsuits were settled out of court and the key reason for the settlement was Hasbro, who bought Avalon and MicroProse a month later.
Thanks to Google, without it I wouldn't be able to write absolutely anything here.EconomistBR (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Blockbuster game!

Why isn't Pizza Tycoon mentioned in here even once?! Microprose made it around 1994 or 1996, not sure which year exactly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.54.211 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the small list in this article, but it is in full list and we also have an article on the game. Not really a MicroProse game, though. They just published it abroad. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] MicroProse should supply more information

I think we are moving a little too fast, the New MicroProse hasn't yet released any products but we didn't waste a minute is brushing aside the history of the old MicroProse.

  1. There is no information about the amount of money invested.
Answer: and there wouldn't be since its a privately held company. -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. What is meant by the expression "retail channels"? Is it Wal-Mart? Is it Amazon?
Answer: All major National Retailers as well as Distributors. -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. Will the product be available through out America or only regionally?
Answer: North America with deals being discussed in Europe. -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. Is MicroProse manufacturing the products?
Answer: Yes -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. Or are those products being imported and then rellabed as "MicroProse"?
Answer: No, all products are brand new designed by Microprose for Microprose -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. What will be the sales volume?
Answer: Not a publicly held company, such info is internal -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. What games are being developed by this so called "Red" team?
Answer: Such information will be released when deemed appropriate. -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. Where is "Red" team's development studio?
Answer: Several Independent Studios are being tapped for various projects -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  1. How many employees does the New MicroProse have?
Answer: Not a publicly held company, such info is internal -User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008

The New MicroProse turned this article into an advertisement channel in which only convenient and superficial information is given. There is no transparency.

MicroProse must supply more information.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.digitaltvdesignline.com/products/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206901859
https://www.ntiadtv.gov/cecb_list.cfm
-User:Microprose - 17:58, 17 March 2008
  • Why is the number of employees a secret? It's a simple harmless information.
  • "Several Independent Studios are being tapped for various projects", that means that as of now now actual game is under development
  • Where is MicroProse manufacturing facility?
  • " Such information will be released when deemed appropriate". Fair enough, so the article should make it clear that as of now there is no information concerning which games are under development. This information will have as source MicroProse website itself.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoah, one minute. No one is brushing aside any history of the "old" MicroProse. Its still there, just summarized in the main article and the bulk of your great work in the History of Microprose, like is done in several other game company articles. However, the company *has* restarted, *does* have a new name, *is* under new ownership, and *has* a website, etc. There is no "advertisement" going on, all the information has been garnered from their website (including the product listing and software development), with the exception of the retail channels comment that they added here. And I worked very hard in the rewrite to weed out anything with verbiage that sounded like an advertisement. All the stuff you listed above (investment, region, volume, team location, employees, etc.) amounts to a wish list of information you'd like to obtain to flesh out the article more, but is in no way required to "back up" anything currently stated in the article and is certainly not available in every other company's article here. Microprose as a company doesn't need to supply any more information, its not a publicly traded company and it doesn't run its business on the needs and wants of Wikipedia editors. No company does. We just have to work with what we currently have available. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The MicroProse website offers very little in term of specific information, it's basically a website advertising the New MicroProse and advertising its products.

Can't you see the huge conflict of interests here? This MicroProse article has as only source of information MicroProse website itself (an advertisement website). Making matters worse User:Microprose itself is editing their own article. This fact alone should have caused alarm, but you are incredibly silent about this fact.

The fact that the New MicroProse is not a publicly traded company doesn't explain this absolute lack of transparency about this whole deal and doesn't explain this information filtering to which we are being subjected too.

Now as for the "old" MicroProse I apologize. I now agree with the transfer that you made, I think there should be some distinction between MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC, I think that you could agree that although they share some of the name they are two different companies.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see a huge conflict of interests here and no scandal like you're trying to propose. The company just got done relaunching, the information you want isn't available nor required, and the only thing to currently to go by is their website and the article I wrote (which I can't put as a reference because of reference policies, but other people can). As far as issues with microprose adding to this entry, Wikipedia allows that given its not wording that comes off as an advertisement (which I already edited out or reworked), or of controversy (i.e. statements on claimed success or editing other people's statements on lack of, etc.) There is no "filtering" going on, you're claiming they have to provide things they don't right now (non-public company, an LLC), or that simply doin't exist publicly yet because the company just publicly announced itself last month. Give it a few months for stuff to start filtering out through the normal channels like with every other company, instead of having a double standard, that other non-public companies on Wikipedia and elsewhere aren't being held to. Honestly, I think the information you want is a good thing for the article. The way you're going about it and the claims you're insinuating are not.
As far a distinction, you're talking about the same issue that existed on the Atari page until I corrected it. You have a continuous flow of a brand name called "Microprose" and its properties, but multiple companies and variations using it during a length of time. I.E. for "Atari" you have Atari Inc., Atari Games, Atari Corp., Atari Interactive (under hasbro), and Atari Inc. (under Infogrames). That's why I set up the title names under the history summations like that, so it can be more easily tracked like on the Atari page. I'd say, work in the various corporations and name changes in to that like on the Atari page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your refusal to denounce the existence of conflict of interest here is disturbing. The very fact that MicroProse LLC is not supplying (I know that LLCs don't have to) information according to SEC regulation shows that MicroProse is filtering the information. We will only know what MicroProse wants us to know.

Microprose didn't waste 1 minute in pasting their entire product line on Wikipedia, but when it comes to simple questions such as: number of employees, location of factories, games being developed etc... MicroProse refuses to suppply the answers. This duality further reinforces the view that MicroProse is using Wikipedia as a simple adivertisement channel for its products.

As for the Atari example, I think a clear distinction is required. MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC have 2 different business models, 2 different corporate structures and 2 different legal names. A same brand name can spawn very different companies, and this is the case. If the name Bear Stearns gets picked up by a bakery, we will not mix those companies histories.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're creating a lot about nothing. Your refusal to stop creating conflict where there is none is what's coming off as disturbing and bordering on WP:OWNERSHIP, as is the continued lack of understanding that a non-listed private company would have anything to do with SEC regulation or even considering that it was supposed to follow SEC guidelines when *it's a not a publicly listed company*. You're from Brazil, so maybe you're not familiar with things in the U.S. The SEC regulates publicly listed companies, not private, and in no way, shape, or form, does the SEC have anything to do with private companies. What's more you didn't even know about the SEC and SEC filings until I *showed* them to you on the Infogrames entry's talk page, now suddenly you're an expert and dictating what the SEC's jurisdiction is and how US businesses are supposed to operate?
As for the Microprose product line, *I* put that section up at the end to follow with the formats of other video game companies such as Nintendo, Atari, etc. And a listing of products does not constitute WP:COI by any stretch of the imagination. And once again, where do you get off claiming enough self-importance that if a company does not supply the exact information you want for your Wikipedia edits, suddenly its "filtering". No company in their right mind runs their company and release of private info based on the whims of a Wikipedia editor. And claiming because they won't that suddenly the entry is an advertisement is again bordering on WP:OWNERSHIP, and comes off as simply being spiteful.
As for your view that there's 2 companies and 2 different models, so there needs to be another entry, that's incorrect. There were multiple corporate entities under the MicroProse name over the years as the history shows. This is simply one in a long succession in brand name and property ownership, and all that was required was name differentiation. Likewise, hijacking the History of Microprose article and moving it MicroProse Software Inc. to re-establish your version of the MicroProse article is verifiably WP:OWNERSHIP and I will be contacting admins on this kind of conduct. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP??!!! What?!! I have accepted every single edit you, Marty Goldberg and User:Microprose made so far: the deletion of the entire article; the tranfer; the listing of the entire product line; the endless reorganization etc... I accepted it all, so your accusation carries no water.

Also I've made it clear that I understand that as an LLC MicroProse doesn't have to supply information according to SEC regulation, but that means the MicroProse is filtering information. You have a problem facing up to this fact. It's a fact.

I also don't expect to MicroProse to change their information-filtering position because of me. Now this filtering and self-editing make the conflict of interest worse, you once again have a problem admiting that.

Distinction is required, they have 2 different business models and MicroProse ceased to exit in 2001. It didn't simply change its name, it ceased to exit. That's why I think it's recommended to make those 2 companies distint from each other. I thought you would agree to that, I am shocked. If Bear Stearns becomes a bakery store will you bunddle the bank's history with the baking store's history?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not accepted things and you've simply continued to respond with more accusations and claims and then reproduce the last revision of *your version* of the article elsewhere and point all Microprose wikilinks to that. Deletion? Nobody deleted the entire article. And how is a listing of their current products, which is done in other company's entires, something that has to be accepted? Likewise with "contstant reorganizing", which is a very non-neutral way of describing the regular editing process on Wikipedia and again promotes a very WP:OWNERSHIP view of things on your end.
And again, no, all that was required was a differentiation in corporate names. Your claim that "2 different business models so another completely separate article is needed" is based purely on your perception, which constitutes WP:OR. You complain about lack of information, yet claim to know enough to state this concretely? You can't have it both ways. Their site clearly states they intend to exercise the original software properties and do game development, which has already begun. They even responded as such here. Additionally for example, Atari Inc., the arcade, console, and computer business model company ceased to exist in '84, Atari Corporation started up in '85 with a computer model of operation which later evolved to include consoles again. Atari Corp. ceased to exist in '96, then the brand name popped up in '98 under Hasbro as a division for 3d game remakes. Then an actual Atari Inc. corporation was formed in 2003 for modern games while reissuing "classic properties". All different companies and "business models", yet all under the same brand name and all in the same Wikipedia entry. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You accused me of WP:OWNERSHIP, that's incorrect because I've accepted all your changes even though I disagree with some and even though there was absolutely no DISCUSSION for the said changes. You seem to trying to silence all dissent by making accusations.
MicroProse Software Inc and MicroProse Systems LLC are 2 different companies. You are trying to make it look as if just the name changed but that's incorrect. MicroPorse Software Inc is dead, it's over. MicroPorse Systems LLC is a totally different business, that focus on hardware.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles or one?

So EconomistBR thinks there should be two articles, MicroProse and Microprose Software, Inc because he says Microprose Software, Inc ceased to exist in 2001, and Marty Goldberg thinks there should be one article, MicroProse — is that correct? Does this Microprose Systems, LLC employ any of the former people from Microprose Software, Inc? I can't really find anything in a Google News archive search for Microprose Systems, LLC. --Pixelface (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know from the interview I did, its different people, though there could be interaction with people from the previous MicroProses in the future - that's pretty common in these situations. However, each of the "Atari's" were different people as well for example, so I'm not sure if that question has a lot of bearing on the "2 articles" issue, if that's what you were asking it for? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
MicroProse Software, Inc was a company listed on Nasdaq, that had a birth (1982) and a death (2001). This company has ceased to exist, it's gone, only the name survived as all names do.
MicroProse Systems, LLC is a private company that had its foundation in 2007, it picked up the name MicroProse from Atari and will use it on its line of hardware products.
They are 2 very different companies. There have been many MicroProses and I am sure that there will be other MicroProses, but we must not pretend that we are talking about the same company. That's why distinction is important. A disambiguation page is also important.
As for the question, I really can't say although its doubtful since its a different business model.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I work with a lot of former employees of MicroProse (the one founded by Sid Meier & friends). They say that none of the original founders or former employees work for the "new" Microprose. I think all it has is the name, none of the original properties or technologies. I think the two companies should have seperate articles. They use the old MicroProse's logo and they are in the same industry, but that's about it. Besides, don't they spell the name "Microprose" (lowercase 'p') and the "historical" company spelled it "MicroProse" (uppercase 'P')? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Frecklefoot - that's not true on the properties part, a number of the original properties were purchased with the name, F15-Strike Eagle being one of them. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Senior Editor Frecklefσσt concurred that two companies should have separate articles, I edited the page in accordance to that goal. A disambiguation wiki link should be added soon.
IMO, MicroProse Systems LLC does not have notability (WP:NOTE) to be mentioned on Wikipedia because this company fails the requirement of " reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." We are mostly quoting MicroProse website itself. But whatever, I will not try to remove MicroProse Systems LLC from Wikipedia.
Current issues with the article:
  1. The corporate history of the 2 companies are still mixed in the article MicroProse.
  2. Wikilinks still point to MicroProse System LLC, even though they refer to MicroProse Software, Inc. Unless a bot assists it will be some time before this issue is corrected.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's the first time anyone has tried to use my rank as a Senior Editor as a justification for anything I've said! But I still think they are two very different companies. And as User:EconomistBR just pointed out, one is MicroProse Software (take or leave the Inc.) and the other is Microprose Systems LLC. Clearly, LLC just bought the name (and some properties of the dead MicroProse) and is trying to ride on their popularity. LLC has almost nothing to do with the historical company—it's not like the original founders are restarting it—except the name. I support EconomistBR's efforts to split this into two articles. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Frecklefoot - ".....and is trying to ride on their popularity." That's just pure speculation at this point, and certainly not NPOV. I'm also surprised at the next sentence - "has almost nothing to do with the historical company—it's not like the original founders are restarting it—except the name." which again contradicts the position over at Atari. Each new owner has had almost nothing to do with the original Atari Inc., and none of the original founders returned to form each one either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO the way you (Marty Goldberg) handled Atari's history was wrong.
The original Atari of the 70's deserved an article for itself. Instead you (Marty Goldberg) completely diluted its history of birth and death, of glory and failure for the sake of a continuum that has never existed.
Infogrames' Atari is a financial vehicle spawned after a buying spree that lasted 6 years and failed. It has nothing to do with that legendary original Atari of the 70's. The Atari of the 70's and the Infogrames' Atari are 2 very different companies.
Why must we replicate that same model on the MicroProse article?
IMO MicroProse Software Inc has a legacy and relevant history that must be properly preserved.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A) The questions were directly addressed to Frecklefoot. B) I did nothing of the sort, that article already had all 6 of the Atari's (Atari Inc., Atari Corp., Atari Games, Hasbro's Atari Interactive, Infogrames' Atari Interacive and the current GT/Atari Inc.) all run together in one large article long before. I tried to respect the previous format other editors created and clear it up by shrinking the overly large article by summarizing the "history" section and copying that over to "History of Atari" as was previously done with Nintendo by the editors there. It wasn't something *I* invented. The intent was to bring focus on the current IP owner while addressing the brand name itself as well, *not* "completely dilute its history of birth and death, of glory and failure for the sake of a continuum that has never existed" (that's actually the state it was in *before*). To compartmentalize it and isolate them as seperate for the *exact* same reasons you're giving for what you want to do. *None* of the Atari's had anything to do with each other, other than transference of name and some of the properties, yet all were listed there. The irony is that we *agree* on the need for seperation, just not the means to go about it. If you feel having 6 seperate articles on Atari corporations would better serve it, I'm all ears. c) Watch the overly personal and overdramatic format of your criticism and constant repetition of my full name and profile, it can easily come off as a problem with WP:CIVIL. We still have to play nice and work together here on Wikipedia, especially since we're both interested in improving the same articles here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about things further and thinking out loud here. Having separate articles for every corporate entity under the brand isn't a bad idea, you can compartmentalize each company's accomplishments, failures, financial history, etc. that way. The only issue is then, in going that route I feel you'd still need a separate entry for the brand name itself to tie them all together. An entry that covers the entire history of the brand itself (ownership, etc.), and is reachable by simply typing the brand name ("MicroProse", "Atari", etc.). As I believe Frecklefoot mentioned, the brand name always survives, and we could wind up having 2 or 3 more companies using it years down the line. In that case, the content relating to Microprose Systems in this article should be moved to Microprose Systems, LLC, and the MicroProse entry itself should consist of just the section of the opening paragraph discussing the line of brand ownership. Then the body should be just the summations of the brand history that are there now. I'm thinking that's the way to go with Atari as well, which should just summarize the brand history and then separate articles for Atari Inc, Atari Games, and Atari Corporation. The only issue though is you have two separate corporate entities that both use the name Atari Inc., and two privately held entities (Hasbro's Atari Interactive, and Infogrames' Atari Interactive) that use the same name as well. We could disambiguate to differentiate on those 4, such as Atari Inc (Infogrames) and Atari Interactive (Hasbro), etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for heaven's sake, let's all be civil! I've run across Marty's work in several places throughout the 'pedia (I guess we're interested in the same sort of things) and have always appreciated and been impressed with his work. This time is no exception. If I understand correctly, what you want to do is similar to what is being done to The Sims series: an introduction of the brand name (Microprose in this case) and then a brief overview of its usage, with a short overview of each company (i.e. MicroProse Software and Microprose LLC) with a link to a main History article for each company. The Microprose LLC history would be quite short at this time, but may grow over time. That way, the "MicroProse" (or "Microprose") article would be rather short, with links to longer, more in-depth articles on the specific companies.
To wit, the format would be something like this:
Lead-in
MicroProse Software
Link to "History of MicroProse Software"
History overview (1 or 2 paragraphs)
Microprose LLC
Link to "History of Microprose LLC"
History overview (1 or 2 paragraphs)
References, etc.
Do I understand correctly? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if the repetition of your name (Marty Goldberg) has offended you, I will use it between parentheses from now on. I've also correct this on my previous post. I want to make it clear that I have absolutely nothing against you (same person).
I agree with the split made by Marty Goldberg, each company has its own article and the MicroProse article stands to 'introduce the brand name' . Nice idea.
As that format of the MicroProse article I have to agree with the suggestion presented by Frecklefσσt. The format is simple and concise.
As for the Atari article, IMO the way you (Marty Goldberg) split this article would also work there. As for the Atari Inc double company problem, IMO leave Infrogrames' Atari Inc under the Atari Inc since it's the current Atari Inc and create an article called Atari Inc (1972-1984) or Atari Inc (original company) for the original Atari. But Atari Inc (Infogrames) would be nice and work as well.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atari

Ok guys, I just reformated Atari to follow the same format. Atari now covers the brand, and we have Atari, Inc, Atari Corporation, Atari Games, and Atari, Inc (Infogrames). The only issue I have a quandry with now is Atari Interactive. We have 3 separate instances of that brand name as well. 1) Atari Corp. used the brand name Atari Interactive as a label for its PC based software (the PC based Tempest 3000, and one other title). 2) Hasbro named their Atari subsidiary Atari Interactive (though the name choice was unrelated to the brief previous use). 3) Infogrames renamed their Infogrames Interactive (formerly Hasbro Interactive) in to Atari Interactive as well. Now the issue I have is not with the last 2, they can be titled easily (Atari Interactive (Hasbro) and Atari Interactive, its the 1st one, the publishing one that I'm considering. What if we create a disambig page and also put a disambig at the top of both articles that states "For additional uses of Atari Interactive, see Atari Interactive (disambiguation)"? Then you can just have a mention on that page regarding number 1, which points to Atari Corporation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I liked the new format, it's easier to read and the article feels lighter. ""For additional uses of Atari Interactive, see Atari Interactive (disambiguation)"? That's funny, but I think necessary. I didn't know Hasbro had a Atari Interactive division.
I think that a "See Also" section with links to the new pages on the Atari page is needed, Frecklefσσt's idea of including Link to "History of Atari XXX" would help as well.
One thing I don't understand is the difference between "corporate and brand name", why is this necessary? Not that I mind, I just don't understand this expression. Had the text read: "Atari is brand name owned by several...", IMO the text wouldn't be altered.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you can stop calling me a senior editor everytime you mention me. Thanks, but that's already been established. Plus, my senior status doesn't qualify any of my edits as being Good or Bad. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wish granted! Yeah, I know...the title is based on the number of edits or years of service, it only serves to show the title holder's degree of veteran-ship. I will not mention it anymore. :)
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when Hasbro bought the Atari properties from JTS in February of '98 via their subsidiary HIACXI, they reformed them as Atari Interactive, Inc. Atari Interactive, Inc. remained a subsidiary until the Infogrames purchase [1]. Hasbro even sued with its subsidiary to protect the properties. [2] Before that Atari Corporation had their own Atari Interactive as a PC publishing label. And now I just uncovered that Midway also had an Atari Interactive (two of them) [3], which I'm going to have to look in to further. So it looks more and more like I'll need a disambiguation page or a "brand" page like the main Atari, but for Atari Interactive, which in turn points to the sub pages. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is original research, but I worked for Hasbro Interactive back in '99 (and for a couple of minutes in 2000) and we were developing some Atari games (like Combat for Windows and such), but our name remained Hasbro Interactive. I guess some name changes might've happened at the corporate level, but as for us, our name was always Hasbro Interactive, right up until the minute they fired us all. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article: "Microprose returns to show Commodore how to really tarnish a brand"

Link: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/29/microprose-returns-to-show-commodore-how-to-really-tarnish-a-bra/

"As if seeing the Commodore logo slapped on a whole slew of thoroughly unremarkable devices wasn't enough to make folks of a certain age feel a little wistful for their early computing days, legendary game developer Microprose is now getting in on the action as well, and seemingly outdoing Commodore to boot."

" Microprose [...] is now set to release a bundle of new products that likely wouldn't garner a second glance if not for the brand."

I just thought it would be nice to share this with you Wikipedians. Perhaps we could create a criticism section and add some criticism about MicroProse Systems. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, was already aware of that one (you'll see I was one of the people posting comments). I could see possibly adding a sentence regarding the initial public reaction to the launch of Microprose Systems being mixed, such as the first sentence in the uWink Locations snd expansions section. Then this and the one you show above could be used as references. Both of them (endgadget and gamingnexus articles) are direct responses to my article on the subject at cg.com. I don't think there's enough history or reviewing yet to warrant its own criticism section, there's just my article and the two responses to it, and then a bunch of reviews for the digital tv box. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've already added a sentence to that article, but I was not planning on adding anything because I agree with you on the fact that we don't have enough information or stories on which to base ourselves or claim much. I just wanted to talk about it and share the article.
So if you want to remove that sentence feel free to do so. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)