Talk:Eidos Interactive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eidos Interactive article.
Article policies
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
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:

Contents

[edit] Is this actually correct?

From the article: "Of these, Deus Ex and Thief no longer exist as franchises as their teams have been disbanded." Eidos still owns the IP to them, however; and while the original development teams have closed down shop, they could still resurrect the franchises at their whim and stick a whole new development team behind to work on them. Just think the quote should be revised or removed completely. Shadowrun 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also they forgot to mention the Braveheart game on PC

[edit] Better Business Bureau

I am not sure why some people seem to think the BBB report is so important it need to go into the opening section of this item. Remember Eidos is a European company primarily and the BBB is a US only operation. Also, Eidos has 8 complaints in 3 years, Electronic Arts has 359 [1]. I can only assume the editor has some form of grudge against Eidos.

If you really feel this is worth including in this item, then it should be in a separate heading called "Criticisms". Refer to the Electronic Arts item. Please discuss here before reverting or adding again- thanks MrMarmite 20:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo eidos.gif

Image:Logo eidos.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPL video format

A proprietary video codec created and used by Eidos in their pc titles around 97-99 it seems to be similiar to mpeg but inserts fake scanlines into the videostream instead of truly scaling the image.Atirage 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games left out

Why isn't the Gex series of games mentioned in this? I'm pretty sure that the Gex series was an Eidos game series. there are 3 installments in the series which are all for the Playstation console. Ok hold on, never mind... Only number three had the Eidos brand on it...

Gex made by Crystal Dynamics Gex: Enter The Gecko made by Crystal Dynamics and Midway Gex: Deep Cover Gecko made by Eidos

I own the games and looked at them which is my "cited" thingy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.135.28 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours and gossip

This is an encyclopaedia, not a repository for gossip and opinions. If there is any official comment from either the reviewer, his erstwhile employer of Eidos then maybe it's worth adding something, until then it is just one persons opinion on the matter. Those who keep adding it back in will be considered vandals, seeing as the first person to remove it was an admin MrMarmite 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock this article

It has come under attack by GameSpot forumers. I don't think any of us editors want to clean this shit up. Optichan 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please reamin civil. 216.37.86.10 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, lock it now and while it has been confirmed it had nothing to do with it, I've requested the same for Kane and Lynch. Stabby Joe 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly was not and is still not confirmed. Please do not lie to bolster an argument. This issue will be discussed further, and if Gamespot's integrity truly has been compromised due to pressure from Eidos, it is a notable event that must be in this article. Until then, I do agree that it should stay out for now. 216.37.86.10 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be added to Eidos' page concerning their business practices specific on advertising. http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php The article should explain items concerning the integrity of the advertising team on Eidos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.87.131 (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

- I agree. The web-advertising debacle simply happened, and at a time where Eidos wasn't exactly in public favour. That's why I added it. It's not speculative if it simply happened. Part of sharing this kind of information is identifying what's fact and what's inferred. Not saying anything is crap.--Twignificant (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kane & Lynch- new controversy

This is verifiable (unlike much over the Gamespot/Kane & Lynch controversy), and I think it should be added to the article.

Apparently, Eidos put 5 star reviews from several prominent gaming sources that were not real. The quotes were, but the sources either rated the game lower or did not give a rating. GameSpy gave a quote that appeared in an E3 preview- that was correct on the K&L site- but they did not give a score, and when they actually scored the game they gave it 3/5 (Arendt 2007). GameInformer had a quote on the K&L website, but GameInformer actually gave the game 7/10 and do not use stars or a scale of five. (Arendt 2007) Kotaku (a prominent gaming blog) had a German quote on the game during an E3 preview, which they gave no rating for. The quote appeared on the official website with a five star rating that did not exist (Plunkett 2007).

Sources:

Arendt, S (2007, December 4). http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/12/kane-lynch-site.html. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Wired Game News Web site: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/12/kane-lynch-site.html

Plunkett, L (2007, December 4). Eidos: Did we give Kane & Lynch 5 stars?. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Kotaku Web site: http://kotaku.com/gaming/eidos/did-we-give-kane--lynch-5-stars-329539.php

-JDCMAN (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One blog, one self-published source. Kotaku's self-admitting an anti-Eidos bias. Come back with more solid sources. Will (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's retarded, Kotaku didn't give them five stars are wrote an article to that effect. Bias doesn't come into this at all. 66.36.148.199 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, go see the page for Kane & Lynch -- it's documented there. Good enough for one page, good enough for the other. And it's certainly big enough news to make it onto this sparse company page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.42.12 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversy should be included but I fear Eidos has been roaming wiki to edit any negative aspects out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.48.33 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section?

I was looking through the revisions history, and it struck me as odd that the editor who deleted the "Gerstman Controversy" section has only edited articles that could potentially portray Eidos or IO Interactive in a negative light. Do you think we should add a "Criticisms" section to cover not only the Gerstman controversy, but also the mis-quoted advertising discrepincies surrounding "Kane and Lynch?" Rwiggum (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)