Talk:Atlus USA

Atlus USA origin date

With the differences in origin dates and sources, I feel as though that a mutually agreed discussion is required to solve this predicament about Atlus USA's origin dates. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is as unclear as it is, with different sides of Atlus stating different years, we should rely on sources that have no influence but works purely automatical. As you might guess I am—again—talking about Kepler, the company filings service of California' Secretary of State (where the company is located). Sadly, the page does not have direct links, so you will reach there yourself. Note that California sets up a new filing for every new company name, and does not sort multiple names into one filings. On the page, select "Corporation Name" and search for Asuka, then proceed to Asuka Technologies, Inc. There, you will find its former address: "17145 Von Karman Avenue, #110". Now head back and search for Atlus, our first stop is, as detailed in the article, Atlus Software Inc. (yes, without comma); and voilá, comparing the address, although written in a different manor (as "17145 Von Karman Ave., Suite 110"), it is the exact same, meaning it is the same company. But we already knew it was, it says so in our own article. However, now it is made clear where to find the date, and the Asuka entry is older, depicting the given February 27, 1989 date currently correctly in use. The anon. user has debated the date with the company section from the official website; it is not a bad thought, but also not well researched. 1991 was the year the name Atlus became a thing as an American company, with the inception of the aformentioned Atlus Software Inc. company name. But here is the thing: The website reads "ATLUS was founded in Southern Calfornia in 1991 as Asuka"—Atlus Software Inc. was filed on 18 January 1991, so I sincerely doubt that a company would use its name for (maximum) 17 days, and consider it noteworthy enough to put it there. In another thing, the official Japanese website states a 1999 date, which also is not really incorrect, because: Atlus U.S.A., Inc. (the current name) was filed on March 19, 1999. I expressed it before: Atlus is not good with dates, especially with founding dates, and we should use what we have here, as nothing more precise with dates than an automated system. One thing that was bugging me is that I found no filing for the temporary name, Index Digital Media, Inc. My suspicion is, seeing that the original Atlus U.S.A., Inc. from 1999 is still active by filing, that Index Digital Media(, Inc.) was just a trade name of the company, as it was directed from another country (Japan), and the name was omitted when it was sold back. But that last part really is just a possible possibility. Lordtobi (✉) 18:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

1) You know why Kepler did not sort Asuka Technologies, Atlus Software and Atlus USA on the same filling? Because they are legally different companies. Yes they have the same address and yes they succeed each other. But legally, they are not the same company which is why they are not on the same Kepler page. After all, Kepler still lists Atlus USA's founding year as 1999 despite being renamed Index Digital Media in 2010. So Kepler would have done the same with Asuka Technologies if Atlus USA was really the former Asuka Technologies of 1989.

2) What you're currently doing is a personal analysis that comes to a conclusion that Atlus USA is Asuka Technlogies because they have the same adress "17145 Von Karman Avenue, #110" and therefore must be the same company. This is called original research. While original research is desirable in schools/colleges assignments, it is totally forbidden on Wikipedia and there's even a page that discuses about this: Wikipedia:No original research. If Asuka Technologies was really Atlus USA, then how comes Kepler says that Asuka Technologies is dissolved? Saying that Asuka Technolgies is Atlus USA because they were both located on the same address is nothing more than your personal opinion that you're trying to impose on Wikipedia. And your last sentences where you're speculating about Index Digital Media is also original research.

3) Saying that Atlus is not good with dates is an opinion, not a fact. With all due respect, Atlus is in a way better position than you are to know what is its founding year. You may not agree with Atlus's dates and that's fine. But don't come out here saying that you know better than Atlus just because you don't like what Atlus reveals to be its founding year.

4) You've added a claim that the company was founded in 1989 and you didn't ever bothered adding a source for it despite being asked twice to provide it directly on the article instead on the edit summary. That is totally off track from Wikipedia's guidelines. I understand that Kepler doesn't have direct links but you still could have sourced the general Kepler page.

5) What Kepler is telling us is that Asuka Technologies, Atlus Software and Atlus USA are three different companies. They may de facto be the same company. But officially they are in fact three different companies.

I don't want to totally exclude Asuka Technologies from the article because it does play a role in Atlus USA's history and does deserves to be mentioned on the article. But as it is, there is no sources to support the claim that Asuka Technologies is anything else than just the precursor of Atlus Software and Atlus USA. Same location and same corporate identity does not mean same company if the Business Law does not say so. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not taking sides as to who is right, I just created this topic to sort this dispute with the date factually and objectively. However, Lordtobi (✉), you format dates incorrectly. For instance, it should always be (1989-1999) not (1989-99) Iftekharahmed96 (talk)

"it should always be" is an objective term sourced through which guideline? Shorter, abbreviated dates clutter the infobox less and seem way more useful to me. Lordtobi (✉) 19:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the guideline was changed over the summer to prefer full range of dates, but condensed one like these are still allowed in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I've seldom seen condensed dates on any article on Wikipedia so my apologies for not being aware that such a format was even used. If the rules say that they're acceptable then I can only give it a pass, however, even taking that into consideration, you only placed Atlus Software Inc. as (1991–99) in your previous edit yet maintained (1999–2010) for Atlus U.S.A., Inc. and (2010–2014) for Index Digital Media, Inc. The lack of consistency in the format would have resulted in an edit regardless. At the very least, a mutually agreed compromise has been agreed upon for now so that's all that matters. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I think all this business mumbo jumbo means nothing to the casual reader, and should be kept out of the infobox and lead unless notable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagree Dissident93. It's the former names used by the company so it holds significance. As the page is a "company" infobox first and foremost, the page and infobox should inform the entity as a company before presenting the products that it provides. After all, the products a company sells is subject to change (Index Corporation used to be a mass media conglomerate before being changed to an I.T. company as iXIT Corporation) but a company's history and former identity remains intact. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, articles should explain why they are notable and their influence in the industry and such, and not have all this corporate info jammed into the first few sentences. Ask any casual reader if they care about this and I'd guess that most wouldn't. Founding date and former names are needed yes, but I feel like all this edit warring about hard to source info is a bit too much, but that's just my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Atlus USA is subsidised under Sega of America

Despite Atlus USA functioning as the core translator and publisher for Atlus games, the job application for Sega/Atlus PR Manager in Europe clearly states that Atlus USA is subsidised under Sega of America and not Atlus. Here's the full quote: "Atlus (USA) forms part of SEGA® of America, Inc.; the American arm of Tokyo, Japan-based SEGA Games Co., Ltd., a worldwide leader in interactive entertainment both inside and outside the home. The company develops, publishes and distributes interactive entertainment software products for a variety of hardware platforms including PC, wireless devices, and those manufactured by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc." Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

http://careers.sega.co.uk/careers/sega-europe-limited/pr-manager-segaatlus-emea

• I mean, I thought this was common sense, just from a common language connection. The new Atlus EU division will also be subsidized under Sega of Europe as well, running out of their London headquarters. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So with that knowledge, shouldn't the parent company of Atlus USA be Sega of America as opposed to Atlus of Japan for the infobox?

Probably, the article also states (albeit unsourced) "The current president is Naoto Hiraoka (who is also the Senior Vice President for Sega of America publishing)", so it seems they share some key staff too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I was personally aware that Atlus USA was governed under Sega of America ever since Sega of America relocated to Irvine (after the Index Corporation acquisition by Sega Sammy). It's just that there wasn't a definitive source from Sega of America nor from Atlus USA that stated that Atlus USA was governed under Sega of America. Now that I found it (through a job application out of all places), I think an infobox edit should reflect this. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it's official and nothing contradicts it otherwise, I don't see why it shouldn't be. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ATLUS West name change

ATLUS USA has rebranded all it's social media to ATLUS West because it now publishes in Europe. Can someone change the page name? TJjeremiah (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Are we sure the corporate name changed as well? If this is just a social media rebranding, then changing the entire page is misleading. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at their official website, it's also been re-branded as Atlus West so I think it's a soft re-branding of the subsidiary. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Right, but that's still just a part of their social media (branding). Ideally, I'd like to see a proper source before we go and change the page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion pointer

See Talk:Atlus#Proposed_merge_of_Atlus_USA_into_Atlus -- ferret (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)