Jump to content

Talk:Interplay Entertainment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Games List

[edit]

Should we include games Interplay has developed or at one time published but no longer has the rights to OR should we only put down games that Interplay owns on the right right bar for known products. Clearly Fallout/Planescape are the most known Interplay products of yester year but Interplay does not own either one now days. If we include things Interplay does not own -- would we include Star Trek in the games list? See the problem. Of course we could just leave it as it is and go with whats associated w/ Interplay at a glance. If so we need to add IceWind Dale back to that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.75 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Frymuchan (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I think we should include all games that Interplay has previously published and then include a list of current, known IP's.[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Shouldn't the article's title be "Interplay Entertainment Corp."? The "Corp." is part of their name (eg.), and using Apple, Inc as precedent for the use of abbreviations in a title for companies' names. That title on the Apple article drops the period at the end of the abbreviation, but it's still valid precedent. Should this be moved to the correct namespace? DKqwerty (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most succinct common version is preferable over the "correct" version. Apple, Inc was moved only because Apple Computer is less commonly-used now that said company's primary revenue stream is no longer personal computers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of products severely incomplete

[edit]

And does the list only include internally developed games or as games published?--Craigboy (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which list are you referring to? The list in the article (which is just announced upcoming games) or the list provided via the wikilink? The list just includes games that other editors thought to add, or games that already have articles. Obscure games are unlikely to make it on the list, since they had very little impact. You can always augment the list if you like. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still generate income?

[edit]

Wow, they managed to generate net income ($1.03 million) in 2010? They must be selling some game rights for hefty sums --Infestor (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sell a lot of the old titles via Steam, Good Old Games, and they have a few newer products out like MDK2 remastered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.70 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interplay just released Descent 1 and Descent 2 on Steam. They sell most of their back catalog games on Good Old Games... They are also working on a role playing game, PV13 and are close to completing a remake of Battle Chess. Frymuchan (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPs problems

[edit]

A few things for Niemti to ponder.

  1. Why delete the companies location? They are a U.S. based company.
  2. Why delete that the owners are a public company? They trade on the OTC under IPLY. The information is rather redundant being they are a public company and the exchange is listed. Also, glancing at the INTC page it appears to be the standard not to include the owner field. When the article unlocks I am going to delete the owner field. Done
  3. Concerning the Products are, unorganizing the products list from alpahabetical to random does little to help the article.
  4. Revenue/ NetIncome and such, currently Interplay does not report w/ the SEC 10-K's or 10-Q's thus we do not know the revenue. This is in stark contrast to a private company where we would not know the revenues and such usually. Being public and traded on the OTC normally one would know. Thus putting unknown is fitting.
  5. Homepage, Maybe blackisle should be given its own header under a division or something and not homepage. Self corrected.
  6. I'm pretty sure no one thinks of Interplay and Wasteland comes to mind. If you asked 1,000 gamers what Interplay makes you will get Fallout, Descent, maybe Icewind dale or EWJ but its very doubtful Wasteland (cira 1988) would come to mind.
  7. Your going to have to reference this statement "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it." Without a Reference that is just an opinionated statement or hearsay. If Interplay lost such a huge amount of money why did Black Isle spend 5 years making a sequel Stonekeep: Godmaker?[1] (It was never released fyi)
  8. Body of work - Titus invested 25 million then 10 million in Interplay at a later date once Interplay blew through the 25 million. This is important to the timeline history as it shows Titus tried to keep them floating. See References in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.87.8 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Read WP:LEAD. (You obsessively keep deleting most of the lead.)
  • Read WP:OR.
  • Read WP:Citation needed.
  • Read Wasteland (video game)#Reception.
  • Cite the exact references if you invoke something.
  • What "my statement"? (It's "you're going", not "your going".)
  • The list's not "random", but chronological.
  • Learn how to properly edit Wikipedia in general, including wikification. (Things like a separate paragraph for "In early February 2014 Descent 1 and 2 were released on Steam," which btw is trivial information.)

reply - I do not know if I would call the release of Descent 1 and 2 on steam trivial. It is the biggest release they have had in years revenue wise. It should replace a lot of lost revenue from losing the Fallout series (Dec 31, 2013 revenue stopped per the settlement)

In a meantime, you can now wait for any other watchers here to agree with you. (That's including but not limited to me.) --Niemti (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more w/ the above. Please include your references in your hearsay concerning Stonekeep. Please cite the exact references.

~~50.83.87.8~~:Cronological list makes little sense. If you can not provide that Wikipedia has a standard of chronological over alphabetical then you have no grounds for disorganization. Looking at Activision and others they are chronological yet EA is alphabetical. Generally speaking people can find a product list faster in alphabetical format as not everyone knows the exact release date of products spanning over 20 years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.87.8 (talk • contribs)

Wait, 50.83.87.8, who are you agreeing with, yourself? Always sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). It helps keep who's talking in order.
I don't want to jump in the middle of a fight, but I don't know what list you guys are talking about. If you're talking about the List of Interplay games, I would think you would discuss issues there. And while that list is in alphabetical order, it can easily be made chronological just by sorting it by date.
Okay, looking over the history, I see which list you guys are talking about--the one in the infobox. Either chronological or alphabetical is fine with me. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second paragraph of the Lead, I think it should be put back in. Interplay is experiencing huge losses and it bears mentioning in the lead. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of SEC documents we really do not know any financial details after the summer of 2011. They did however settle with Bethesda for $2 million a few years back and currently are trying to collect judgement against TopWare (200k) for the Battle Chess lawsuit (source = Pacer legal system). Maybe instead of unknown we could list the revenues and losses from the 2011 10-Q's?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.87.8 (talk • contribs)

50.83.87.8, it's not that hard. You insert 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. The wiki software automatically converts it into your signature. If you use the "Show preview" button before hitting "Save page", you'll see your signature converted for you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://bisgames.wordpress.com/unreleased-games/

Assessment comments

[edit]

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

Added WikiProject Companies and WikiProject California banner, rated start class and mid importance. The problem is that the lead section needs expanding. The section Becoming a publisher are unreferenced and needs to add citations, in including the Descent was released in 1995. "The company then reported several years of losses, as titles such as Descent 3 and FreeSpace 2 had lackluster sales" is unreferenced at the section Financial troubles. Some of the red links need to be removed to improve the article. JJ98 (Talk) 02:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear statements

[edit]

" ...the company altered its licensing agreement with Bethesda Software..." This line has no context, since this is the first time in the article that even mentions Bethesda or a licensing agreement. And without even a citation it's completely meaningless. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1998, Interplay's financial issues went under dire with the company threatened to be placed under bankruptcy due to status in the banktruptcy court." This statement feels unnatural; almost as if it were written in another language and translated with low-quality software. Jacob p12 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interplay Entertainment. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interplay_Entertainment&oldid=1226186958"