Talk:Square Enix Europe

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New new controversy

Now there are reports that Eidos was demanding that reviews of the new Tomb Raider game that were less than 80% be held until the Monday after release (today) http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/11/21/uk-tomb-raider-underworld-reviews-under-810-silenced-until-monday/. DarkAudit (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Move/Rename Page?

Now that Eidos Interactive's name is soon defunct should we move the page to Square Enix Europe? KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias contain many articles about historical events. Eidos plc, which constructed Eidos Interactive, was a notable company in its own right. For example it was reported in the business press as being the fastest growing company in the world over the 1990s decade (I'll see if I can find a cite for that). By all means add content to the other article though. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are there no references to Hitman in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.211.117 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This approach is what happened when NTL was bought by Virgin Media. Defunct companies still have a place in Wikipedia. See NTL for the trouble involved in reinstating articles after they're merged. Retaining separate articles means that as much or as little as required can be included at Square Enix. Moving all content and then paring it down does not IMO serve the encyclopedia well. If Eidos is regarded as important enough for separate discussion at Square Enix, a summary can be included under a subheading, with a {{Main}} tag used. --Trevj (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Final fantasy has anything to do with EIDOS?

Final fantasy is by no means related to EIDOS, although EIDOS is now part of Square Enix, but attributing final fantasy to EIDOS is not justified since they are developed by square, not EIDOS. The games listed on this page should be those which is actually developed or published by EIDOS.

a) please sign your comments with 4 tildes b) FF VII was published by Eidos MrMarmite (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wimbledon Bridge House

Photos if you want them. [[2]] and [[3]] --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Eidos logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eidos logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Eidos Interactive → Eidos – While the word "Eidos" refers to a portion of the Theory of Forms, this is only refers to a fraction of it, mentioned only once in a list of similar words. While Theory of Forms gets more page views, traffic from the redirect Eidos is clearly more in line with traffic of Eidos Interactive. Meaning, although more people are looking at Theory of Forms in general, people that go to Eidos are expecting Eidos Interactive. There is no need to prevent this article from being at the proper name, just so we can keep a redirect to a page where that word is barely featured. That is what hatnote links are for. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I would suggest Eidos becomes a disambiguation page instead. MrMarmite (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is not an English dictionary nor a Greek-English dictionary. The readers will be best served by getting to the sought article from Eidos. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - eidos is not a candidate name for Theory of Forms and no alternative article presents itself for this title; thus Eidos Interactive is the primary topic and the page should be moved there, or Eidos redirected to Eidos Interactive (either of these schemes is equally acceptable to me). --MegaSloth (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak Support - The rename of this page to Eidos ; Support the redirection of Eidos to Eidos Interactive, the primary topic. Salvidrim! 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  I went ahead and modified Eidos to redirect to the intended primary topic. Salvidrim! 05:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  And someone went ahead and reverted that non-consensual edit in the midst of a discussion, Salvidrim. Quite correctly. Noetica^Tea? 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. This discussion is about a RM, not where the Eidos redirect points, and I did not expect opposition. I was bold, reverted, now we're discussing. That's the plan, no? :) Salvidrim! 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for noting your edit here, too. Noetica^Tea? 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see no evidence that Eidos Interactive is the name of this company (though it may have been in the past). The website simply refers to "Eidos" and Square Enix Europe. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  While it is not incorrect to say that recently, the public use of the name has been a simple Eidos, I have found evidence from 2009 that a joint press release refers to the company as Eidos Interactive (itself a shortened version of the full Eidos Interactive Ltd.. I have found no reliable source indicating that the full name has changed, despite the widespread use of the shortened form. If you do find such a source, I will be happy to revise my position. In the meantime, I cannot support a RM that seems to be based on synthesis of the "public" name used to refer to the company. Salvidrim! 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  FWIW, Hoover's has it listed as "Eidos plc" and notes that SCi Entertainment changed its name from "Eidos Interactive" to "Eidos plc" in December 2008, but Hoover's primarily refers to the company simply as "Eidos". US Fed News in November 2010 noted that the owner of the Kane & Lynch 2 Dog Days trademark is "Eidos Interactive Limited". The LA Times called them "Eidos Interactive" in a photo credit in September 2010. "Eidos" is probably best as WP:COMMONNAME, and the others can be redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Modified my position after reading through WP:COMMONNAME. Please note that moving the redirect Eidos to redirect to Eidos Interactive was reverted by an editor claiming Theory of Forms is the primary topic. The editor is surely unaware of this discussion, but let this be a forewarning -- there may be opposition amongst those following the Philosophy article (but not the video game article). Salvidrim! 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  I added a note at Talk:Eidos, since that redirect could be affected by the discussion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term eidos ("form, shape", but meaning far more than that in philosophy) is of fundamental importance in Western philosophy since ancient times. It is connected with such universal notions as "idea". It is ludicrous to suggest that a computer game company [amended; see below] should supplant such an ageless topic; it would, in fact, risk bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. If I were a journalist wanting to lampoon Wikipedia as representing the stupidity rather than the wisdom of crowds, I would be delighted if this RM were successful.

Noetica^Tea? 22:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not a computer game -- a commercially successful company. And we're not undermining the historical importance of the term, we're saying readers accessing Eidos are, at the present time, more likely to be seeking information about the company than the Theory of Forms. Also please refrain from personal attack, as you seem to have implied people in favor of this demonstrate "stupidity rather than wisdom". Salvidrim! 23:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction, Salvidrim. And no personal attack intended; I speak the truth as I see it, and I regard this is as a most counterproductive move. I refer to how the media might represent Wikipedia, not to the stupidity of anyone here. For your point about historical significance, you might like to review Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?, where the matter is dealt with. (Not that I'm a fan of "primary topic" talk at all.)

  Noetica^Tea? 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  The supposed (and remote) risk of disrepute of Wikipedia for serving its readership is a counterproductive argument here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm the one who reverted at Eidos. I didn't agree with Salvidrim's edit there, but I thank Salvidrim for pointing out to me that a discussion is taking place here. I believe a good argument can be made for Theory of Forms as the primary referent of "eidos." I believe that in some cases like this one, we have to remember that we're writing an encyclopedia, not taking a census of the Google-able words that have been blathered. What I mean by this is that a good research library has shelves of books on the concept of eidos in Greek philosophy, but not so much on Eidos Interactive. Wikipedia presents the world of knowledge, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses this when it states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to historical significance, if it has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

  Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with whoever above has said that Eidos should be a disambiguation page. That, at the same time, sidesteps any controversy and provides maximal help to the real information-seeking readers of the encyclopedia, in the full range of their interests. Wareh (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  As justification for the above, let me point out that one university library catalog I consult (Harvard) has 252 items with eidos in the title. No more than 5 of these are in Greek, which to my mind speaks against JHunterJ's application of the "not a dictionary" point: this is the word to which scholars in English (and the world's languages generally) resort to discuss a set of concepts, and the record of their having done so is as long and important a knowledge-topic as the company. (As to the legitimacy of the topic eidos, let me further note that I'm the one who killed the attempt to make it an article, but I did so not because it's not a notable topic--it is--but because it was done poorly and against sound Wikipedia principles; whether the encyclopedia eventually should have a good article on eidos is another question altogether.) Wareh (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  (e/c) I don't think this would be the same discussion if we had an article on Eidos. As mentioned above, the article it links to doesn't even mention the word more than once, and it is not even a potential name for the article. Disambiguation is necessary so that readers can find the article on Wikipedia that they are looking for. I think that it is pretty clear that the page-views for Eidos correlate to the pageviews for Eidos Interactive, as that is what readers are looking for. Why on Earth is a disambiguation page needed between three articles, when one is not what readers are looking for, and wouldn't even provide coverage of that topic if they were looking for it? How would a hatnote diminish Wikipedia? How does it make us look more respectable to say "You weren't looking for this topic, but this topic is what you should have been looking for, even though we don't have coverage of this topic, so now click this link to go to the page that you shouldn't have been looking for"? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  Wareh, I'd hazard that none of those Harvard entries are Wikipedia articles. See also WP:PTM for "things that have X in the title" -- they are not ambiguous, and so are not particularly useful in determining what the primary topic for a title might be. Scholars should look up words in dictionaries, and topics in encyclopedias. The primary topic for the title "Eidos" in the encyclopedia of all the world's knowledge, including knowledge that you might deem less scholarly, is the tech company, not the philosophical term. The former "article" was rightly killed because it was an overblown dictionary entry. As I've said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a schoolmarm serving to teach readers what they ought to have been looking for, but a reference serving to give readers the information there were looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree a bit about the ideal version of the encyclopedia. To me, it would give good general accounts of most everything in the Harvard University Library, plus all the sort of topics that people have only gotten around to documenting in more ephemeral media (like Eidos Interactive). I don't know, maybe 75%/25% respectively. Yes, I realize that our job will be to disambiguate eidos in the Wikipedia we have, not the Wikipedia we want. But I think you're not fully considering that we do already have as much about what English-speaking writers about philosophy call "eidos" as about the company, in articles on subjects ranging from potentiality and actuality to Theory of Forms to predicables to Jungian archetypes to Platonic realism to Alcinous (philosopher). This eidos has a larger "footprint," both in the map of knowledge offered by the existing Wikipedia, and in the ideal Wikipedia.

This is only meant as commentary on the notability of philosphical eidos in comparison to Eidos Interactive. It's not meant as a prescription on how to write the disambiguation page. For that, we only want to direct the reader to the clearest account that will most probably illuminate them (Theory of Forms is probably the most important), and I agree the job is not as easy as it should or could be if we had a better structure (and better articles) in place.

Anyway, "Eidos Plato" edges out "Eidos Interactive" on Google Books. My point is not that Eidos Interactive is definitely not the primary topic, but that the matter is complicated and two-sided enough that making the reader go through an extra click disambiguating philosophical and corporate-nomenclature uses is not a burden. It's not that I want to wag my schoolmarm-finger and tell people they should care more about Greek philosophy; but it is an important area of knowledge, and there's a real case that the encyclopedia should unfold equally in both directions on this word. My position is clear enough by now, so I'll avoid needlessly adding to these comments, even though I can anticipate how they won't equally satisfy all.

I want to stress, again, my agreement on the point that Eidos should not redirect to a philosophy page (but should instead, in my view, be a dab page). Wareh (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding flippant, I will confide that my ideal encyclopedia doesn't have detailed articles on the types of aliens people believe have abducted them. My ideal encyclopedia wouldn't encourage every passerby to continuously add information to the article on Aaron Burr, as if new factoids on him is popping up by the minute. This may have started out as an academic website, but now it is an unreliable pop-culture juggernaut, and we can only do our best to steer it away from the cliffs. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(Disclosure -- I know absolutely nothing about the philosophical concept, its significance or history of Eidos). Salvidrim!

I also believe a hatnote on an Eidos article about the company would be sufficient. Noetica's argument lies with how the "outside", or the public/media might view Wikipedia if Eidos is an article about a company, and not a redirect to the philosophical concept. I am not sure whether Wikipedia's goal should be to "avoid disrepute in the media". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC speaks of the usage AND the historical significance -- in this case, I believe arguments for both are solid. I'm afraid my lack of insight into the philosophical weight of Eidos prevents me from forming a clear opinion on whether it should be primary topic instead of the company. However, would that tend to indicate a majority of readers would be unaware of the historical significance of the term? In that case, most readers would be, by searching for Eidos, looking for info on the company -- not the philosophical concept. Salvidrim! 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No Salvidrim, my argument is not founded on how stupid Wikipedia might look if this RM went through. That was just a way of expressing the trenchancy of the thing, and true enough in fact. More particularly, if you confess your "lack of insight", you might also like to step back and take note when others with more insight into the relevant meanings have their say. I think I now have a clear grasp of your preferred meaning; and I still dismiss it as ephemeral in the extreme, compared to the enduring significance of "eidos" in Western thought. I think I am not alone in favouring the forms over such flickerings on the cave wall.

Noetica^Tea? 01:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• No hurry: This was just mentioned on the WikiProject Philosophy talk page; let's wait for feedback from project members before making any decisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leave Eidos Interactive where it is, as that is the full and unambiguous name. However, in absence of an article on the philosophical concept, the most obvious referent for "Eidos" extant on Wikipedia is "Eidos Interactive", so for the present, change the redirect Eidos → Eidos Interactive, with a hatnote on the target reading:
  "Eidos" redirects here. For the philosophical concept, see Theory of Forms.
  If there ever is a page on the philosophical concept, then Eidos should become a disambiguation. For now, I don't think Eidos (disambiguation) needs to exist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eidos RfC

There is a RfC directly involving this article on the Eidos talk page. You may want to take part in this discussion. Salvidrim! 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert v Spam

I recently tried to revert a seemingly vandalistic section blanking but was met with the message that the reverted version could not be saved due to a spam filter rejecting www_cbronline_com/ (_ replacing . for the same reason) Anyone know why this site is being blocked? MrMarmite (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonintervention of Squire Enix

Although Square Enix said earlier that it would let Eidos Interactive remain as it is currently and not meddle in its internal affairs...

So, I bet if I try to put it in the article, you eggheads would remove it under some obscure WP rule pretense so I just leave it here, do what you want. According to Jim Sterling and undisclosed source of his, Squire Enix have virtually total control over development process of at least Eidos Montreal division youtu.be/oVbj4GuuZTA?t=2m52s. 85.176.2.95 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eidos Interactive. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923050708/http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/tombraider8/news.html?sid=6213037 to http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/tombraider8/news.html?sid=6213037
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124417/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25638028&part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6171079 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=25638028&part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6171079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eidos Interactive. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eidosinteractive.com/corporate-lo.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eidosinteractive.com/corporate/contacts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114164513/http://corporate.eidos.com/ to http://corporate.eidos.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eidos Interactive. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114164513/http://corporate.eidos.com/ to http://corporate.eidos.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Square Enix Europe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)