Talk:Infogrames

Why Infogrames?

Why is it called "Infogrames" Why not -games, since they make games? It's always bothered me. Anyone know?

And lo, an answer was added to the article. Behold the power of Wikipedia! (Short answer? They're French.) — Catherine\^talk 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Satisfaction... has been received. Thankyou.

More meaningful info

I have taken this out. It's nonsense. It would be a lot better if you improved the article in a meaningful way - perhaps you could add something about the history of the company. As it stands the article describes the company's founding, and it tells us how to pronounce its name. But there is almost nothing about what the company did after 1983. How many games did it release? Were any of them famous? How did it go from obscurity to being one of the world's largest producers of computer games? Why did it adopt the Atari name? Where did they get the money from? How is the company thought of in France? 85.210.184.79 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Atari name change

Added more info on the Atari name change, I just grabbed the sentence from the Atari wiki. Page could do with some more info and a bit of a clean-up.--BrotherEstapol 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few questions

Does Infogrames still have that Armadillo logo? Yes, they do. If you go to Infogrames.com, it is on top of their page.

Firstly I see in the opening sentence that "Infogrames Entertainment SA (IESA) was an international holding company", why the was? doesn't Infogrames still exist?

AFAICT, you're correct -- Infogrames has renamed all their subsidiaries Atari, but the corporate parent still retains the Infogrames name. So I believe this edit was mistaken, and I'm putting it back now. Without that was in the first sentence, the article seems to be consistent on this. -- jhf 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway secondly, if you look at allot of their recent games, the company calls itself "Infogrames Interactive", in this article it's being called "Infogrames Entertainment" and it used to appear on games as just "Infogrames", so what is the explanation or the significance of the apparently changing name(s)? --Hibernian 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Zboub

The founders wanted to christen the company Zboub Système.

Just for info: Zboub means dicks in Moroccan Arabic... If someone wants to make sure that the statement is correct... Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grames.png

Image:Grames.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Infogrames.jpg

Image:Infogrames.jpg 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 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 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Atari Inc

IMO those are the issues:

The Infogrames web site says repeatedly that Infogrames Entertaiment SA is a holding company acting as a parent company to Atari Group. And Atari Inc is not an entity is a a Nasdaq listed company http://corporate.infogrames.com/infogramesgb/2007/04/atari.php http://corporate.infogrames.com/MT-3.34-en/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/DOCDEREF05_06GB.pdf page 9 The infogrames web site doesn't mention, Atari interactive or changes in the ownership of Atari.

The Atari article that says that Atari Interactive is now owner of Atai Group is unsourced. I am not trying to create trouble, I am simply copying documents I find on Google, so if a better souce is found I have no problems in erasing what I've just wrote.

Atari Group is a recently created group as mentioned, your text made it seemed like it was created in 2003. Atari Inc. is a separate corporate entity that is majority owned by Infogrames, as also stated here. Here's a specific source that talks about Atari Inc. and how they license their name and properties from Atari Interactive, and another, and this one. Here's another SEC filing that lists the two separate Atari corporate entities (Atari Inc. and Atari Interactive), and this one that reports a licensing deal brokered between the two by their parent (Infogrames), as well as naming Atari Interactive's CEO at the time Frederic Chesnais. There's this page for Neverwinter nights that lists other members of Atari Interactive, Inc., and this page that talks about the history of Atari Interactive, Inc. And lastly, here's the initial filing in 2003 for setting up of the two separate entities and their stated relationship to each other and Infogrames. --Marty Goldberg 05:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Fantastic!! That's a wealth of information and sources. You have no idea how much I googled for information pertaining Infogrames, it will take a while for me to digest the information but still, the links will be very useful. I need to google no more :)

Why didn't you use the links??? EconomistBR 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because if you notice my profile, I'm game programmer currently on contract to Atari Inc. So I'm a bit busy to start looking stuff up like this normally. ;) --Marty Goldberg 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Infogrames' logo is a fictional armadillo

I also thought about reverting the edit, but his edit is correct. Infogrames' logo is a fictional armadillo, that's a fact, I checked on Google.

IMO including Infogrames on the category: Fictional Armadillo is silly and quite dumb, but we must never allow ourselves to judge the merit of information.

Therefore the category: Fictional armadillo should stay, because it's not our job to judge the worth of information. EconomistBR 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems silly to me too, but...ya never know, there might be armadillo aficionados out there who might want to look up references to armadillos in popular culture. Isn't there a comic book out there with an armadillo as thje main character? and who knows what else..... Disney character? its the mascot of at least one university i think....

Alienburrito (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the nanem change from Infogrammes to IESA in the article

In the "1996-2002 Growth Through Acquisition" section, sudeenly the references switch from Infogrammes to IESA. WHy? That needs to be explained. Did the company change their name? Get bought out by someone? buy a bunch of companies and reorganize them under a shell holding company? did one of the article authors just mess up?

Alienburrito (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, its explained in the very first paragraph. The full name of the company is Infogrames Entertainment SA, IESA for short (which is what they use as well). IESA is the proper abbreviation, "Infogrames" by itself is just slang. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marty Goldberg, he is absolutely correct.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IESA Name Change To Occur

Just a heads up, Gardner's talking about changing IESA to an Atari name now as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which has now happened. Sslaxx (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as of today literally. Though we don't know what the actual full corporate name will be yet (since Atari Inc. is already the name of the US subsidiary). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could well just be Atari Entertainment SA? 83.104.34.212 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It may also be that, if they sell Atari Europe, Atari Inc might become the parent company? Sslaxx (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just it though. We won't know until some kind of official name is formally released. When that happens we can tackle this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

http://corporate.atari.com/MT-3.34-en/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/052909PR_FY09_earnings_GB_FINAL.pdf seems to indicate that the corporate name might simply be 'Atari' - though under the "CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT TEAM" section there is a reference to Atari Comex. Sslaxx (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://corporate.atari.com/MT-3.34-en/mt-static/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/D2-072409PR_FY09_1Q_revenues_GB_FINAL.pdf - this suggests Atari S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Atari logo.svg

The image File:Atari logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Atari SA: New entry or modify this one?

As IESA is now known as Atari SA, should we keep this entry and start a new one for the new Atari? Modify the existing Atari entry? Or edit this one to reflect the change in name? Sslaxx (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't do anything yet until it's confirmed 100%. The two other things you mentioned above give two different "suggestions". When a name is confirmed, we would leave this article and change the box to a defunct status (since there will be no more Infogrames), and create another article based on the confirmed name. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that those are official company documents listing the name as Atari SA seems to be sufficient evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is simply one of several documents with various "Atari" names. Even this one states Atari SA but then later gives it's definition as Atari Group, and the previous official document gives Atari Comex. The legal notices of the website also gives several different names including Infogrames, Atari Group and Atari. This needs to be cleared up before any major changes are done. I'm doing some contract work for the American division (Atari Inc.), let me see if I can find out through them what the final settled on name is and post the result here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Inforgames is officially Atari Group. From their company overview page (corperate.atari.com) "Atari (ex-Infogrames Entertainement) is listed on the Euronext market, compartment C (ISIN code: FR0010478248, ticker: ATA)". They have removed or renamed all refernces to Inforgrames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.44.235 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. If you go to the actual page (http://corporate.atari.com/) it forwards you to http://corporate.atari.com/infogramesgb/, which has infogrames and Atari on it. And the Atari Group page isan older name from several years ago when they were managing the several different Sub-Atari's via it. I'm checking with Atari Inc. legal to see if I can find out anything it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://corporate.atari.com/ and http://corporate.atari.com/infogramesgb/ are the exact same page, except from the language. And I cannot see any Infogrames logo out there. 84.100.210.236 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is stating anything about logos - as stated both Infogrames and Atari are still being used across that pages and the pages. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO the big issue is not whether Infogrames has already rebranded itself, the big issue is what to do about it? The options:

1. Move Infogrames to Atari GB(?)
2. Change the Infogrames article to indicate that is has been succeded by Atari GB.
3. Do nothing and for now simply state that Infogrames has rebranded itself as Atari.

I found this link and this link that are useful. This 1UP link includes remarks from Atari's CEO. [1]

EconomistBR 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GB isn't part of the name, that's just the web directory for Eng vs. French (i.e. GB for Great Britain or English). Those news articles are also old, the more recent stuff included press releases and financial statements is further up this thread. As far as what to do, option three is out until again we verify what the actual atari corporate name is that they've rebranded themselves as, and the front runner appears to be Atari SA. Option 1 isn't normally what's done in these situations, usually option 2 is - and is the option that causes the least confusion for general readers who don't know about the path of changes and come here looking for Infogrames. You basically change Infogrames to a defunct company (since the actual legal corporation will no longer exist) and add info about the corporate name change after the Financial Difficulties section, that includes a Wikilink to the new corporate entity - probably just a section entitled Name Change. For discussion sake, assuming it's going to be Atari SA, we create a page entitled that with the current info and a brief section on the name change that includes a "Main article" tag pointing them to Infogrames. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Atari SA Sslaxx (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the defunct company proposal is good. I am glad we've cleared this issue out this quickly.

Although there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the rebranding has already happened I admit that I see no harm in waiting one month or more before the change is made. EconomistBR 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

New section rationale

This new section I've created doesn't mean that Marty Goldberg's observations were ignored or pushed aside. This section is in preparation for the change that will occur when consensus is established.

IMO the article right now lacks coherence and it would seem abrupt to simply add the defunct company infobox without making changes to the language and without adding information.

The information to be added will give a factual justification to the change that will be made a later date. EconomistBR 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to add the comment regarding me, we're in total agreement on the new section needing to be created. I had already mentioned the need as well above - "...and add info about the corporate name change after the Financial Difficulties section". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I too recognize that we are in total agreement.

I just wrote that because I was under the impression that any edit that confirmed that Infogrames had rebranded itself would be deemed premature, such an understanding could warrant a reversion.

It's nice to know that the edit wasn't considered to be premature. EconomistBR 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't premature at all, we certainly know there's been a name change and there's been press to show it. We just can't say what it's been changed to until it's been confirmed - which is turning in a real pain. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Atari's offices around the world closed?

This link has website links of Atari's offices around the world, some of those are now redirecting to Namco Bandai. Does that mean that those offices were sold off? EconomistBR 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A majority of them were sold to Namco Bandai, yes. Though not all of them around the world of course, Atari Inc., and various others are still part of Infogrames/Atari. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so some of the "Ataris" in the Current sub-section no longer exist. I don't know where we will find the information needed to update that sub-section. EconomistBR 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We'd have to dig up a press release of some sort regarding that Namco Bandai deal that would explicitly state which ones were part of the deal. It has to be out there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Atari

Guys, you're reading the satements to literally, when they say "Change to Atari" they're talking about an Atari branded name. As the carification on their own corporate legal page states: "The term 'Atari' refers to the many companies, joint ventures and bodies related to Atari and upon which it exercises actual control, either directly or indirectly." It would be impossible to just have it called "Atari", that's not how it works, it's always "Atari" with some legal corporate suffix attached. That's why Atari S.A. appears to be the front runner. Most of that stuff just stating "Atari" is simply older transitory material until the full name was decided, or simply refering to the brand itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert Sslaxx because of WP:OWNERSHIP concerns but I agree with your understanding that Infogrames changed its name to an "Atari branded name". IMO the quotation I added from the company's earnings report indicated that:

" This decision will enable us to make the best use of the Atari brand, capitalizing on worldwide strong name recognition and affinity."

IMO to say that Infogrames became or will become Atari is not correct. It shouldn't be suggested that there will be a rebirth of Atari. So in order to avoid confusion, it should be made clear that this company is simply adopting Atari as brand name. This adoption is happening solely because of marketing as stated on Infogrames' earnings report. EconomistBR 03:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And really, this isn't an ownership issue so I wouldn't worry. Ownership would be more like, constantly reverting edits by multiple editors so that only your own edits are "allowed". That's not what's going on here, we have an engaging ongoing discussion here talkinga bout it. And really, although Sslaxx's edit was wrong, it did promote something positive by having you add those references regarding it, which then allowed me to follow with the additional reference with the later earnings report. We're really just building up this section as it should be. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eden Games - was it included with the Atari Europe deal?

With Namco Bandai having brought Atari Europe as well as Distribution Partners, does this include Eden Games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sslaxx (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this press release from August 10th it doesn't look like it. It's still listed as part of the "Atari Group". It also still confirms the Atari name and properties are still being held under Atari Interactive (there was previous talk about merging it with the Atar Inc. now that Atari Inc. is fully owned). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Marty Goldberg's finding settle this issue. EconomistBR 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Atari Europe, Distribution Partners and the PAL region

Evidence:

MCV link's excerpt:

"Atari’s European operation will be history within weeks, as Namco Bandai swoops to complete its acquisition of the business,"

"Atari’s US division (Atari Inc) remains active – and MCV understands that this will now become the firm’s biggest HQ."

"Atari will continue to have a presence in the UK, however, in the shape of the London studio it opened in September"

"Infogrames will continue to operate from its office in Lyon, France.

"Meanwhile, Distribution Partners will exclusively handle Atari-produced boxed titles outside of the US until 2014."

MCV II link's excerpt:

"Namco Bandai has completed its purchase of Atari’s PAL distribution company"

"the company has been re-branded Namco Bandai Partners and operates in 50 countries with 17 dedicated offices across Europe, Australia, South Korea and Hong Kong."

MCV III link's excerpt:

"Infogrames has sold its remaining stake in PAL-fulfillment arm Distribution Partners to Namco Bandai – signalling Atari's latest step in its quest to eventually become an online-led publisher."

GamesIndustry.biz link's excerpt:

"Namco Bandai has completed the takeover of Atari's distribution network in the PAL regions, and has renamed the business Namco Bandai Partners."

Atari lists websites that redirect to Namco.

Atari press release of July 2009

"The Atari group, mainly comprised of the Atari brand, Atari catalogue of IPs, Cryptic Studios Inc., Eden Games and its newly created London studio"

Per article:

"Distribution Partners was defined by Infogrames as a regrouping of Infogrames’ distribution operations in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America" or the PAL region.

Given the present inexistence of evidence showing that Atari SA still has offices and/or operations in Europe outside London and Paris and given the above evidence it would be acceptable and safe to state that although inconclusive accumulated evidence indicates that all of Atari's offices and/or operations in the PAL region were sold to Namco Brandai either during the Atari Europe buyout or during Distribution Partners buyout. EconomistBR 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the Atari group definition from their corporate page is the most convincing out of all and falls in line with what we have been talking about. It lists everything pretty clearly and shows Eden still a part of it (including Eden's new London studio). So we now have a listing of five main corporate entities comprising the "Atari group" : the main French office (Atari SA), the US subsidiary Atari Inc., the Atari brand/catalog of IP's holder (Atari Interactive), Cryptic Studios, and Eden Games. Everything else that used to be a part of it, judging by all the references you've given above and the listing on their page, have been sold off. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, it's nice to know that we are once again in agreement. Your description of Atari group's entitites is very helpful and IMO should be included in the article.

In light of this, what will be done with the Current sub-section? EconomistBR 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably keep it? The way you've structured it, it documents the procedure of the name change very well, and just needs to be completed with the final name when that's confirmed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That question wasn't meant to imply the deletion of that sub-section. The question refered to the fact that given the evidence "it would be acceptable and safe to state that although inconclusive, accumulated evidence indicates that all of Atari's offices and/or operations in the PAL region were sold to Namco Brandai either during the Atari Europe buyout or during Distribution Partners buyout."

So, should the Current sub-section reflect this understanding? EconomistBR 21:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far

Ok, what it's looking like so far then is this, let me know what you guys think:

• Atari SA is Infogrames SA. I.E. Infogrames Entertainment SA looks to have changed their name to Atari SA.
• Atari Group doesn't refer to Infogrames itself (i.e. that's not the name being changed to), but rather refers to the entire network of corporations as a whole: Infogrames/Atari SA, Atari Interactive, Atari Inc., Cryptic Studios, and Eden Games.

That would make sense then with the confusion and usage of both Atari SA and Atari Group in the press releases. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Atari press release of July 2009 page 3

"The Atari group, mainly comprised of the Atari brand, Atari catalogue of IPs, Cryptic Studios Inc., Eden Games and its newly created London studio"

In light of that, the Atari Group of today is the the Atari SA. That's because the Atari Group is now 100% owned by Atari SA, unlike the past when Atari,Inc was public traded.

Do you agree? EconomistBR 22:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Atari Group started as part of Infogrames/Atari SA about 4 years ago, I don't think that was ever a question. It was originally formed as a sub-management tool to put all the Atari branded subsidiaries under - Atari Eruope, Atari UK, Atari Australia, Atari Japan and Atari Inc. It's been redefined now though after the majority of those were sold off. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "sub-management tool" sentence.

I also agree that the Atari Group has been redefined.

Press release of 30/03/06, quote.

"Infogrames Entertainment (IESA), the parent company of the Atari Group, is listed on the Paris Euronext stock exchange (ISIN code: FR-0000052573) and has two principal subsidiaries: Atari Europe, a privately-held company, and Atari, Inc., a United States corporation listed on NASDAQ (ATAR)."

Go to: Atari.com ---> Overview--->Atari Group, quote:

"The Atari group’s main subsidiaries are Atari Inc, Cryptic Studios Inc., Eden Games. The Group main assets are the Atari brand, the Atari catalog of IPs and franchises, the assets of Cryptic Studios, Eden Studio and its newly created London studio."

Given the above, the Atari Group doesn't include Infogrames/Atari SA. Don't you agree?

IMO our definition of the Atari Group shouldn't vary too much from the site's definition. EconomistBR 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying - my only concern then is that we have to get across that they're not the same entities (Atari SA and Atari Group), because of the confusion that could arrise: people will and are wondering if Infogrames renamed itself to Atari Group, instead of Atari SA. Both are linked to each other of course, but they're two seperate entities on paper. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems then that we are interpreting the evidence differently.

My understanding is that the evidence gathered so far indicates that presently they are the same entity. This understanding is derived from the fact that after the Atari, Inc buyout the Atari Group became comprised of subsidiaries and assets 100% owned by Atari SA. Before the Atari, Inc buyout, yes, Atari SA and Atari Group were not the same entity. Also my interpretation of the evidence indicates that the Atari Group is just a nomeclature, it's not a company or an entity.

The understanding that Atari SA and Atari Group are not the same entity is based on what interpretation? EconomistBR 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're seeing it tied to the Atari Inc. buyout, one had nothing to do with the other - Atari Group was not owned by Atari Inc. Atari Group was started by Infogrames S.A. to manage all of it's subsidiaries, whether wholly owned or not. Likewise, it is defined as a seperate entity via "Infogrames Entertainment (IESA), the parent company of the Atari Group" as the press releases stated. This has not changed. All that's changed is what companies fall under the Atari Group. I have not seen any statements to the effect of Infogrames/Atari S.A. no longer being "the parent company" of the Atari Group (i.e. that they are now one in the same and have merged), unless you're trying to read that in to the current Atari Group page's wording which would be a guess unless supported by some sort of formal document discussing this redefining of the relationship. That's precisely why they also refer to Atari S.A. in the intro of their current press releases and Atari Group seperately in the end, instead of just the whole thing as "Atari Group" or "Atari S.A.". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Atari Group was started by Infogrames S.A. to manage all of it's subsidiaries, whether wholly owned or not." I agree.

"Likewise, it is defined as a seperate entity via "Infogrames Entertainment (IESA), the parent company of the Atari Group" as the press releases stated." Ok you are right, Atari Group is a separate entity.

I withdraw the argument that the Atari S.A. and the Atari Group are the same entity, I don't have evidence proving this argument.

So what is the definition of Atari Group? This is what started this discussion after all.

IMO we are on agreement on:

1. Atari Group ≠ Atari S.A.
2. Atari S.A. parent company of Atari Group.
3. Atari Group separate entity. EconomistBR 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)