Talk:Sierra Entertainment

Homeword

No mention here of Sierra Online Inc's Homeword word processor. Homeword ran on Apple DOS (apple ][+, //e, //c) - and there is also Homeword Plus which ran on ProDos on the Apple //e and //c

I believe there was a Homeword for the IBM PC and Atari PC's too.

Some refs:

Atari: https://archive.org/details/HomewordReferenceCard

ProDos Homeword Plus: https://archive.org/details/apple_2_homewordplus

IBM: https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2014/08/homeword-sierra-onlines-easy-to-use.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.32.25 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sold to EA

I removed all reference to the "story" that Sierra was sold to EA. The original press release that was cited was just a copy/paste of the first paragraph of a fake news story making fun of Tiger Woods (http://www.bbspot.com/News/2009/12/tiger-woods-electronic-arts.html), which was posted a day earlier. I cannot find ANY other references to any information about EA buying Sierra. It's fake. --167.219.0.140 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SierraVenture

Why no mention of SierraVenture? Or InterAction magazine? This article can be expanded so much more to include Sierra's history. -- œ^™ 12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dynamix

Dynamix was not a "Short-lived music division of Sierra". Dynamix was primarily the "sim" division (A-10 Tank Killer, Red Baron, Pro Pilot), but also developed pet-projects of Jeff Tunnell like "The Incredible Machine" (and its sequels), the 3D Ultra series, Starsiege, Tribes, Trophy Bass, Ski Racing, and countless other titles. http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dynamix-inc/ Wkrick (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're right, however it appears to be mentioned within the context of "Cendant Corporation" so I'm unsure if it's referring to the same partnership Sierra originally had with Dynamix back in the Red Baron days. I'm unfamiliar with Sierra's later history in relation to Dynamix but I've commented out that line for now. -- œ^™ 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Arcanum

Where is arcanum in the list? That surely is a sierra game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.80.104 (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Arcanum, IIRC, was made by one of Interplay's Black Isle Studios based developers, probably not under the BIS name. Unless Sierra also made a game by that name. 76.119.147.254 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcanum:_Of_Steamworks_and_Magick_Obscura. Published by Sierra Entertainment. It should definitely be noted. --Sgtlion (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Added a reference to the History, and added all Hi-res adventures... What needs to be edited the most?

? Deman8899 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

six sub-brands?

There reads (in Sierra Entertainment#Other Games, subsection "Cendant Corporation"): In 1998, Sierra split up its organization into six sub-brands and corporate divisions:
However, there are only five listed. Though, strangely, fi.wiki has five; Dynamix has been added and Sierra Movies is missing from there. 85.217.43.208 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of Info about the Sierra Founding?

I believe some of the information about how Sierra was founded is incorrect...where does it say in Levy's Hackers that Ken was a programmer for IBM (according to Hackers, Ken was working as an independent consultant). Also, according to the forward to the guidebook in the Roberta Williams Anthology, Roberta first played text adventures on a teletype terminal, not an Apple II (even Hackers corroborates this, as Roberta was playing Colossal Cave before Ken bought the Apple II in Jan 1980). I wanted to throw this out there before changing it to ask if there's anything I've missed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.177.124 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirk Shelton

Kirk Shelton got jail time too, besides his fee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080302177.html Majinsnake (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The original Hoyl Card Games

I have had this game for years and years. I love it and it is my favorite PC game. I have listened to their conversation hundreds and thousands of times and would love to get an update version where the talking players say something different. I have looked everywhere I can think of and can only find--96.25.66.215 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC) the one I already have. Could you put in a request to who ever makes this one? I am 67 yrs old and us baby boomers are fastly coming on and we do have the money to buy something that is old but loveable to entertain us now that we are too old to do ....... (fill in the blank). Thank you for your time and attention.

judyquarles@gmail.com--96.25.66.215 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Judy Quarles

Is there a reasonable way to incorporate the Al Lowe interview into the article about Sierra's history?

http://www.nodontdie.com/al-lowe/ is the interview I am referring to. It makes the claim- which does accord with the evidence already in the article- that the Sierra takeover by CUC was a predatory hostile takeover, and that Ken and Roberta Williams were effectively forced out of the company. Given the follow on stories about the CUC executive being central to the Cendant scandal and lawsuits already in the article, this seems like a useful bit of information to have in it. Sappow (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should be really careful with including controversial information from sources that might be biased. Instead of incorporating information from interviews, we should rely on balanced news coverage that can be backed up from multiple verifiable and notable sources. Monni (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Relaunch

I think it's safe to rename this page as "Sierra"? As the Sierra Website implies that they're using the trademark Sierra instead of Sierra On-Line or Sierra Entertainment. Christhecoolboy (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Christhecoolboy: I think we need a more certain source. You could propose the page move (not rename) if you want. 220 of ^Borg 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Split off of History section

Just notifying that the history section has been 'split', or perhaps forked is more currently accurate, off to a new page, History of Sierra Entertainment.
Any objections or comments on this? - 220 of ^Borg 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. I have redirected it back to this article. At 36k, this article is hardly large enough to need such a split. The history sections biggest issue is a presentation issue. It's length is partially caused by the dozens of unnecessary subsections. It should be condensed here, and many of the unnecessary lists and unsourced or trivial details removed. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For example, the history section is being used to detail lots of game releases. This need to be removed except for the most important releases and put in a table under a "Games developed" subsection. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is why the issue should have been discussed here first. It was a fairly new editor. 220 of ^Borg 10:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've begun working to cleanup a lot of this. I started a Games Developed table with most of the primary series now included. I'm happy with 1980s section for the most part, but 1990s needs a lot more work. There's a lot of really minor detail that isn't all that important, and a great deal of unsourced material. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sierra Entertainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521134844/http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/phantasmagoria?q=phantasmagoria to http://apps.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/phantasmagoria?q=phantasmagoria

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, archiveurl was in error here. Wayback had a 302 error for this page on all snapshots. Webcite does not any snapshots. I tried a few variations but couldn't get a valid archiveurl. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tried a different subdomain, was able to get a valid archive. -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Sierra Entertainment Infobox is incorrect

I just wanted to let the moderators of this page know that the information about Sierra Entertainment is incorrect. As evident in the article, the current Sierra Entertainment is nothing more than a publishing label for Activision's niche titles. The Sierra Entertainment that was dissolved in 2008 was a legal entity. There is one of two solutions in order to provide the correct representation of the company. 1) Create a separate article for Sierra Entertainment as the active publishing label and rename the former Sierra Entertainment article as Sierra Entertainment Inc., or 2) Have two infoboxes in the article. The top infobox displaying the current Sierra Entertainment, and the second infobox displaying the former legal entity of Sierra Entertainment. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an issue representing this in a single infobox with necessary date ranges to denote when one status ended and a new status began. Whether its the original legal entity, or simply the label reborn to represent those products/franchises, they represent a single topic "Sierra Entertainment". -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did at first, however, User:Codename Lisa reverted my edit by stating that it was a "microformat error". I explained that "The former Sierra Entertainment and current Sierra Entertainment are two different entities.", but my edit was still reverted hence my alternate suggestions. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

That's not what you did. You did the complete opposite: You added a second foundation date, implying that the company either had changed name or was dissolved and re-founded at different times. Your edit summary ("The former Sierra Entertainment and current Sierra Entertainment are two different legal entities") reinforces that latter.

The correct course of action, IMHO, is using the |fate= field.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Except that it was re-founded at different times because they're not the same entities. The former Sierra Entertainment was a legal entity. The Current Sierra Entertainment is just a brand used by Activision for smaller Intellectual Properties, therefore, it's justified to highlight the foundation of the former dissolved legal entity and the current publishing brand. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

When a company name is recycled as a brand name, it is not called "the foundation of the former dissolved legal entity".

And I already told you: Use the |fate= field.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

We should regard here, though, that the publisher that was Sierra Entertainment, Inc. has nothing to do with today's Sierra label, as they share nothing but the name, and that even just in shortened form. We also keep different articles for Apogee Software and 3D Realms (which was formerly titled Apogee Software). Having the same brand does not imply being the same company, especially since there is no company behid the new Sierra, just the label. Iftekharahmed96 is completely correct by saying that we should keep those apart (maybe create a new "Sierra" article, or simply mention the brand revival in lede and body). Times where keeping it together would be when the same company is re-established as it was previously or with minor changes, as is Avalanche Software (shut down last year, re-established legally with the same management and majority of employees this year under a different parent company). Lordtobi (✉) 09:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: "Iftekharahmed96 is completely correct by saying that we should keep those apart". Oh, he is saying the opposite. I am the one who said they should be kept apart. I just settled for the mention of the latter in the infobox as a way of compromise. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh uh, I probably got that mixed up, pardon. Anyway, the current compromise--especially in the fate field--is sub-par, as the brand revival has nothing to do with the company's demise. Lordtobi (✉) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say "nothing", but yes. I believe you are correct enough. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

---

@24.202.55.52: First of all, I'll need to point out that the original sentence was added by you in this edit, so it would be on you, not me, to explain its in-/exlcusion. Regardless, the company closed down in 2008, and that is where the company history stops, that it was closed was the company's fate. Our documentation reads "Reason/reasons the company became defunct, or the name of the entity that acquired or merged with it."—"Brand name revived" is not such a reason. If we opted to include that in that parameter, we would also have to state the brand's re-disbandment, and it would grow longer onwards, wherefore I see no reason for exclusion. The already short lead (which I admittedly cleaned up a little to avoid redundancies and bad wording) also outlines the case already. Lordtobi (✉) 12:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really mind to disregard the brand revival on the "fate" section. Personally, I would have preferred it to be there because Sierra plays a major role in the video game industry even if it's just a label today. So excluding the brand revival from the "fate" section and treating Sierra on the infobox like something 100% gone from the landscape seem quite drastic to me. But I can live with that if that's what the consensus decides. There are things that are more important to me on Wikipedia than this.

Verb tense

Hi.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Verb tense:

By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. Articles discussing works of fiction are also written in the present tense (see WP:Writing better articles § Tense). Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.

In that light, I think "was a company" is not correct.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Washington State's company register, Sierra Entertainment, Inc. is inactive and as such does no longer exist apart from an inactivity record, wherefore it applies to the latter part "no longer [exists] meaningfully". Again, also per my above concern Sierra is a brand (that is name, image, trademark) that was established by the company, but is not the company itself. Sierra ≠ Sierra Entertainment, Inc. Lordtobi (✉) 10:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I thought we already came to a consensus regarding the layout of the Sierra Entertainment infobox? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not about the infobox, rather about the lead sentence. Lordtobi (✉) 11:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. I must have gotten this discussion confused with your revert of Codename Lisa edit. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Declaring peripheral COI

I've just added (in this diff) a few details about the fate of Sierra's original Oakhurst office. The source is effectively an opinion piece by an ex-employee, hardly a reliable source but marginally better than the nothing we had before. But it could use a better source.

That's not the reason I'm posting, though. Back in 1998 I was an employee of Cendant Corporation, the company Sierra had then-recently been acquired by, for a few months. (Literally... 7 months, to be precise.) Honestly I don't remember even being aware at the time that Sierra was a Cendant subsidiary, and I certainly possess neither allegiance to, nor inside knowledge of, either Sierra or Cendant — then or since — in any way that would influence my contributions. Still, in the interest of complete transparency I felt it best to make this declaration. In the same vein, I have placed a {{connected contributor}} notice at the top of this page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I would think that any contributions you make aren't going to a serious COI issue, given the distances in both time and your relative position then, but its good to at least declare it. I would not worry about it too much, and thus encourage you to continue to contribute. --Masem (t) 12:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks! Well, as you can see it didn't exactly deter me from editing, LOL. Nor do I imagine it will in the future... unless some sort of actual conflict arises, though I can't imagine how/what that could possibly be. But I made the declaration intending it as a statement pretty much to that effect: I'm aware of the possibility, however remote it may be, and will be sure to first consider possible COI before submitting any edits to the article. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)