Talk:Acclaim Entertainment

Creating a new article called Acclaim Games

Despite sharing the same logo, Acclaim Entertainment and Acclaim Games have little in common. They are not own by the same people, do not employ the same people, are headquartered in totally different locations but ,mostly, they are not even involved in the same field of activities. One was a video game publisher for various home console systems while the other is offering MMORPG games on the Internet. I think that both companies should be splitted into their own articles. Besides this article is entitled Acclaim Entertainment meaning that it should only contain infos about the company that existed from 1987 to 2004, though they could be at the end of the article a mention that the latter company was succeded by a new company called Acclaim Games. — Farine — May 19th 2006 (UTC)

PC not a platform

The article lists a great number of games as being for "PC." This is an ambigious category. While a game for the Apple II and Commodore 64 are linked to their OS, the PC is not. Is it DOS? Microsoft Windows? Linux? All those operating systems run on a "PC." Someone needs to go through and disambiguate those references. I'd do it, but I am not familiar enough with the games to know which is which. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Acclaim's Advertising Stunts

Should there be a section on some of the more "questionable" advertising stunts made by Acclaim? For example, they offered to pay for a person's funeral in exchange for rights to use the person's gravestone as a billboard to advertise Shadowman 2. Should incidents like that be included? MarkLucas 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Acclaim Entertainment's Former Headquarters

I happened to find a photo of Accliam's former headquarters in Glen Cove, NY on this page:

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2004-09/14073098.jpg

I think it would be a useful addition on the Acclaim article. However, I don't know if this photo is copyrighted. Since Acclaim no longer exists, that means that nobody owns it... right? Anyway, if anyone would like to use it, it's located on the webpage I stated earlier.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex 21 (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Name of the article

I have changed the name of the article back to Acclaim Entertainemnt for a few reasons.

First of all, Acclaim Games often refer itself to simply as Acclaim. What then would make Acclaim Entertainment be more "Acclaim" than Acclaim Games? Many people who play Acclaim Games' MMORPG games also refer to the company simply as "Acclaim" and many of them don't even know that the company's full name is "Acclaim Games" or that it's not the same entity as the former video game publisher.

Secondly, Acclaim Entertainment often operated with it's full name. Although Acclaim Entertainment generally traded only under the name "Acclaim", it wasn't rare to see some cartridges or advertisements with the word "Entertainement" attached just below the "Acclaim" logo. This isn't the case of some company where the formal name is virtually unknown; many people knew that the Acclaim video game publisher was legally called "Acclaim Entertainemnt" way before the "other" Acclaim came into existence.

Thirdly, let's not all forget that the overall population associate acclaim as form of applause, not a video game company.

Because of all these reasons, I have changed the name of the article back to "Acclaim Entertainment". However I do agree that "Acclaim" should get redirected to the Acclaim Entertainment article instead of some disambiguous page.

Farine (talk) January 8th 2007(UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Valilogo.jpg

Image:Valilogo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Acclaim.gif

Image:Acclaim.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'Controversies' section of the above Wikipedia page

My name is Steve Perry, and I was a UK employee of Acclaim hired as a Senior Executive Producer. I did not make any marketing decisions at all for Acclaim, and certainly wasn't responsible for the controversial decision cited in the article - a decision which was made by the Marketing Department in the USA. I am not aware of any other Steve Perry working for Acclaim, and would appreciate my name being removed from the article, or the inclusion of a statement that 'Steve Perry, a Senior Executive Producer in the Manchester UK studio, was NOT involved in the crass 'Turok' marketing decision'.

217.37.37.241 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Acclaim Entertainment's dissolution date

It has long be documented that Acclaim Entertainment went bankrupted in September 2004. There exist countless sources from both the video game industry and the mainstream media that tell that September 2004 is when Acclaim Entertainment filed for bankruptcy and got dissolved.

But User:Lordtobi argues that Acclaim Entertainment was dissolved in June 2004, and that September 2004 only happens to be the moment when the announcement came out that Acclaim had been dissolved apparently in June 2004. That is totally incorrect.

A respected non-video game source, CNET, mentions that in July 2004 Acclaim was still seeking a new credit to stay alive.

Acclaim in early July said it faced bankruptcy unless it could negotiate a new credit facility. The company reiterated that warning in late August.

Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/game-maker-acclaim-files-for-bankruptcy/

The New York Times reported that in August 2004, Acclaim failed to get a loan which ultimately led to its September bankruptcy.

In July, Acclaim reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $25.4 million and said it would seek bankruptcy protection if it could not get a loan by Aug. 4. Acclaim said on Aug. 23 that its line of credit from GMAC Commercial Finance was terminated as of Aug. 20, after the term of the loan was extended twice.

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E4DB1231F931A3575AC0A9629C8B63

The company terminated its 600 employees on August 27, 2004.

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/08/30/acclaim-to-file-for-bankruptcy

Acclaim Entertainment wouldn't be seeking new credits in August 2004 if it was already dissolved. And a defunct company certainly does not have 600 employees.

Lordtobi bases his claim that the company went defunct on June 30, 2004 because of the website of the New York Department of State that has the following information

Selected Entity Name: ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

DOS ID #: 1365407

Initial DOS Filing Date: JUNE 29, 1989

County: NASSAU

Jurisdiction: DELAWARE

Entity Type: FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION

Current Entity Status: INACTIVE - Dissolution by Proclamation / Annulment of Authority (Jun 30, 2004)

Source: https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.SELECT_ENTITY

Such sources, while acceptable, should never be used to replace more common sources such as the New York Times or other reliable sources. Why? Because such information can be misinterpreted. Lordtobi interpreted that Acclaim Entertainment ceased to exist and died in June 30, 2004 when the New York Department of State probably met something completely different than what Lordtobi was thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the research you have conducted. Especially the NY Times source seems reasonable and I must admit that I was wrong, however, it might shimmer that you were not correct either. See, the NY Times source led me to this source, which states that "The company will cease to exist once liquidation is completed." While I was not [yet] able to find a source outlining the completion of the liquidation process, to me it raises the question what we should consider defunct date:

• a) The legal dissolution date (June 30, 2004)
• b) The fire-all-staff,-close-doors,-and-announce-possible-bankruptcy date (August 27, 2004)
• c) The bankruptcy filing date (September 1, 2004)
• or d) The liquidation date (unknown)

Maybe you are able to find a source for the latter. Lordtobi (✉) 18:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How about these three options?

a) The status quo at 2004 without any date or month. (I'm not too thrilled about "September 1, 2004" because of this as well as the 2005 New York Times source you have provided above. Not to mention that Gerard Agoglia says on his Linkedin profile that he was with Acclaim until October 2004). But 2004 as a whole is resonnable. In addition to be the year when it filed for bankruptcy, 2004 is also the year when Acclaim stopped being a video game publisher, terminated pretty much its entire staff, closed down all locations and shutdown its website . This also the year when it lost its most important asset, its brandname, to Howard Marks and his future Acclaim Games. So 2004, while not the year the company was legally dissolved, is when, for all intent and purposes, the Acclaim everyone knew died and may be acceptable as the defunct date.

b) 2005 without any date or month as per your New York Times source. The New York Times is from Acclaim's "backyard" and the newspaper hasn't posted anything new about the company since that article whereas they would run multiple stories about Acclaim from 1988 to 2004 on a yearly basis. This can be a good indication about the demise of Acclaim. The drawback of this option is that it seriously enter original research territory as the article doesn't tell us Acclaim was liquidated in 2005.

c) August 11, 2008 may potentially be the date that Acclaim really died as this was when its SEC was revoked.[1] This may be the closer you can get to when Acclaim was really dissolved. The drawback of this option is that, again, it does not explicit tells when Acclaim got dissolved. Also this could open the door to question the actual defunct dates of other video game companies on Wikipedia. "2005" can be more easy to accept by people as Acclaim's defunct year because The New York Times uses a language that everyone understands. But the Security Exchange Government document is highly technical even for me who usually like to stay in the realm of what's official. Nonetheless it may be a good alternative to the two first two options and worth mentioning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the SEC is not to be regarded as is simply the title "Acclaim Entertainment, Inc." (among others present in the source) is revoked, as it was not done manually (depending on state this can happen between 1 to 8 years), and it is likely that they refreshed their license on a August 30, sometime before closure. Furthermore, I don't think LinkedIn is reliable either, as this fine gentleman claims to have worked for the company until December 2005. While that is unlikely we cannot tell what is true(/accurate) and what is not.

Since we don't know from the NYT source if the company actually liquidated in 2005 still, or if it took until 2006 or, heck, even longer (we can't tell!), I would not consider 2005 either. Either the doors-closed date or the bankruptcy filing date should be considered, simply using "2004" feels like a makeshift to me. (P.S.: I noticed that you tend to forget to sign your posts, and wait for your edit to be revised by SineBot. You can simply sign your messages by appending four tildes (~~~~) to your message, it would look like this, just without stylization and with your credentials and timestamp: Lordtobi (✉) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Linkedin is certainly not an acceptable reference. Not anymore than Facebook is. I was just pointing that there were things happening at Acclaim even after September 1, 2004.

Genuinely speaking, I think that 2004, while not perfect, would be the most representative and wise choice as it regroups most events about the fall of Acclaim (you'll notice that three of the four options of your original post of yesterday fall into that year). There isn't a written rule on Wikipedia that an article must have a specific date to be a good article. Some of Wikpedia's best articles are limited to only years because there isn't any (reliable) information to justify having exact dates for them. As a reader, I would much rather see something that is vague and right than something that is precise and wrong.

If you absolutely want something more precise than "2004", I would settle for September 2004 (without a specific date) as a second choice.

September 1, 2004 should be the last recourse but I guess I can live with that if this is what truly makes you feel better.

"June 30, 2004" and "August 27, 2004" are out of consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Acclaim Sports

No need for a separate article - merge any useful content in Acclaim Sports into Acclaim Entertainment and restore redirect Polyamorph (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What about the AKA Acclaim page I also made? Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about the games list

Why where games such as the first two Mortal Kombat games and various Simpsons-related games removed from the list? 137.25.148.134 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's because I am rewriting the list. They'll be added shortly. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20041011142419/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index13.shtml
• http://web.archive.org/web/20000609185447/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/97_05/02_acclaimlay/index.html