# Talk:Eidos Interactive

Recently both the Domark and Eidos Interactive pages have been removed and redirected here, albeit with some of the information contained in the original articles retained. Should something as drastic as this not have been discussed first? WE have not lost significant parts of the history of two major UK games companies. MrMarmite (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue has already been addressed at WT:VG#Domark Software: Domark and Eidos are both what is now Square Enix Europe, and are the same legal entity, as well as sharing many characteristics before and after their renamings (Ian Livingstone as executive from the 80s until 2013 (through both renamings), or the "Eidos" label being retained for many years after it became Square Enix Europe.
Furthermore, Domark, apart from being a giant mess, was not at all notable to Wikipedia standards: having a few notable games does not make you notable on Wikipedia, and the issuing user was only able to bring up two sources on the company, which I currently plan to incorporate here, but are not enough for an own article. I couldn't find any more on-the-fly either.
Eidos, on the other hand, was very notable, but the content here and there was, except for a different style of writing, almost identical; it does not make sense to have two articles saying the same just holding a different name and infobox [image]. All relevant information from both pages is now included here and can easily be expanded on in a clean manor.
Similarly, my Big Red Software redirecting you just reverted was valid, as I could so far not find any source covering the company itself, just its games. Article does not meet WP:GNG or any other article notability guideline you could find. This article appears as a logical target for the redirect, but we can also have it deleted if you think that fits the case better. Lordtobi (✉) 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It is absurd that the canonical reference for Eidos on Wikipedia is a page whose history section starts with the foundation of "the company" as Domark - apparently acquired by Eidos - and practically omits all of Eidos' history prior to 1995. --PaulBoddie (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is solely about Eidos Interactive, hence lacking detailed information about Eidos PLC, which was the parent company. Are you aware of sources that would make Eidos (sans Interactive) notable for Wikipedia? IceWelder [✉] 14:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what is notable. Eidos was known for its video editing solutions, and there is definitely some interesting history documented, particularly in the Acorn-related press but maybe also in specialist publications related to broadcasting and video production. I wouldn't argue that it needs its own page, but I would argue that the early history should at least get some treatment. Again, given that Eidos basically expanded by buying games companies, it is misleading to frame the origins of the company in terms of Domark. The history should reflect the actual history, not oversimplify it in a misleading way. And, having seen disambiguation attempts related to Eidos somehow referencing an unrelated Italian company, I think it would help to add something, even if it is cursory, as a target for linking. --PaulBoddie (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SCi Games which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alakagom: Beautiful Game Studios does not have to appear in annual reports because it is merely a division, not an incorporated subsidiary. Furthermore, it only ever appeared in the 2009 report, similar to Square Enix London Studios, which was never mentioned in any annual report. Yet, BGS was active until at least July 2011, so a lack of presence in annual reports is not a good indicator for the studio to have dissolved. We should seek to handle SELS and BGS in the same way, meaning that we should seek for a source that outlines that has actually shut down, in opposition to those that confirms that BGS remains operational. Lordtobi (✉) 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose renaming the article to "Square Enix West" or something similar as it appears more fitting with SE's current consolidated structure. The current logo in the infobox also appears outdated. IgelRM (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have good sources that SEE and SEW are the same, or are they just related? IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The credits of Life is Strange 2: Episode 5 - Wolves list the following (Both people are currently listed in the infobox):
Square Enix West:
- CEO Phil Rogers
- CMO John Heinecke
(...)
Other sections include, "Square Enix External Studios Project Team", "Square Enix West Digital Sales", "Square Enix West Business & Legal Affairs", "Square Enix Europe Analytics Team", "Square Enix West Digital Platform", "Square Enix Europe Operations".
I think the few mentions of SEE can be categorized as below SEW in the company structure. The linked material policy describes a Western divison. IgelRM (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If Square Enix Europe is under Square Enix West, and that can be sourced, then that should be mentioned in the article. I think it would be inaccurate to move the article since it is primarily about the London-based company formerly known as Eidos Interactive, not just Square Enix's Western operations. Weirdly enough, their corporate strucutre (p. 9, numbered 7) indicates no shared parent for Square Enix Europe and Square Enix America other than Square Enix Holdings itself. I might be reaching, but I think "Square Enix West" is just a collective term for the Europe/America offices, which have the same management team. I will try to scope out some sources regarding this, but initial searches have not been fruitful, unfortunately. IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Right. I suppose the history of SQUARE ENIX, INC. (SEA) should be added to the original Square Enix article. Maybe it would be better to merge SEL activities after the Eidos acquisition into the original article too, but SEL appears to have separate notability and autonomy.
SEL jobs page uses the SEE name. Maybe the article should state that SEE is not a consumer facing name if it is still used as the SE West uses the regular SE brand. And maybe rename this article to Square Enix Limited to avoid confusion when the original SE article includes SE West. IgelRM (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If "Square Enix Europe" is still used to describe this entity, I think it's fine if we leave it as it is. The company name is inherently not consumer-facing since "Square Enix" is the only label ever used, regardless of which branch of the company brings the game to stores. IceWelder [✉] 06:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 @IgelRM: I would like to return to this discussion. Checking all corners of the net, the "Square Enix Europe" does not seem to be in use anymore. What I did find was this statement from 2009, when the name was created, that it was a "placeholder". The change away from that name likely happened around 2013 when Phil Rogers took over the America branch while the company at large was being restructured. Maybe "Square Enix Limited" would be a better name for the article? IceWelder [✉] 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The SEE name was still used in credits in 2019, so it doesn't look like there was clear change around 2013. It's seems like the difference between using Japanese/Asian naming customs/style, Square Enix Inc, vs English/Western, Square Enix America (maybe also organization structure strategy not to use a branch naming scheme). Not really possible to tell via the internet. Sure, renaming if you like, but would keep the trading name in (also used even in infoboxes, which wasn't my intention). IgelRM (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The company "Square Enix Europe" may not be sold in its entirety, but this very article was formerly Eidos Interactive. I suggest there to be a separation of two, with this one getting renamed to "Eidos Interactive Entertainment" or whatever name they choose after the acquisition closes. --Merko (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This entity here will remain the same as far as we know, so no split appears appropriate at the moment. If they even choose to create a new head company for the three studios, we can create a new article for that should it become notable. IceWelder [✉] 15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with IceWelder, as this article was created to encompass Eidos Interactive. Merko is indeed correct that the article should be moved back to Eidos, with "Square Enix Europe" likely redirecting to the requisite section, or having a new page at this location.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
But this entity, Square Enix Limited/Eidos Interactive Limited, isn't being sold. The sale encompasses only Eidos Interactive Corp. (the Canadaian holdkng for Square Enix Montréal and Eidos-Montréal) and Crystal Dynamics, alonside some IPs. That's not all IPs (Just Cause, Life Is Strange are among those announced to have not been sold) and Square Enix Collective will also remain part of this business. The company is not the same Eidos Interactive it was in 2009, and moving it just because some of the IPs it was formerly known for are being sold does not make sense. IceWelder [✉] 20:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Square Enix Europe.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This article implies that "Square Enix Europe" is a subsidiary company and that it's primarily the merged company Eidos Entertainment. But after the previous discussion about renaming the article, we know "Square Enix Europe" never came to fruition as a new subsidiary and Eidos Entertainment was just under Square Enix Ltd (which already existed before the merger). I propose we split Eidos Entertainment's history into a separate article, to avoid confusion and make it clear that this article is only about the European branch of Square Enix. This will probably make it easier to rename it to something else like Square Enix (Europe). What do you think?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The history aspect is not quite accurate. As seen here (and attested by contemporary sources), the current Square Enix Limited is indeed what was formerly Eidos Interactive, while the former Square Enix Ltd. was merged into the it. The amalgamated company has since continued both operations.
In terms of aplitting, I would argue that Square Enix Limited sans Eidos Interactive would not actually be notable, as it has no publicly chronicled history outside of opening and closing studios and shuffling some executives.
I would still prefer the move to "Square Enix Limited" to be able to tell the continuing history of the subsidiary with its Eidos background on hand. The only other option I see is moving the article to "Eidos Interactive" and marking it as defunct as of the Square Enix Europe conversion. We would still be able to list where some of the studios went, but the subject would be mostly limited to that after the merger. IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that we're using the corporate structure label to make the distinguishing differences. I don't think "Square Enix Limited" is enough and will need disambiguation anyways. I'm not again splitting Eidos Interactive as if it was a defunct company.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Instead of jumping into the next debate, we should document what has been established. For example, @LTPHarry: has changed some instances of SEL back to SEE and added SEE to game infoboxes.
SEL appears to be the chosen name of the company, while SEE was publicized as a trade name in 2009.
The common name for the subsidiary is SE, but WP needs to disambiguate.
The SEE logo was likely fabricated and is pending to be deleted.
We should establish what name is consistently used in the article. In my view, the article title is for disambiguation only and should not be used within the article. IgelRM (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I did have a look at some sources and they do list them as Square Enix Europe. There is also a Twitter account I found that did have a Square Enix Europe logo on it that dates back to October 2009 (and was never updated since 2010).
I did find their old website, and their press releases use a completely different logo than the one that's displayed here, like this one. [1] But most of them just use the standard S-E logo.
Their "about" bit says this: "Square Enix Ltd., a part of Square Enix Europe business unit, is a London-based wholly-owned subsidiary of Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd., one of the most influential providers of digital entertainment content in the world. Square Enix Ltd. publishes and distributes entertainment content from the Square Enix Group including Square Enix, Eidos and Taito in Europe and other PAL territories. Square Enix Ltd. also has a global network of leading development studios such as IO Interactive, Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montréal. The Square Enix Group boasts a valuable portfolio of intellectual property including: FINAL FANTASY®, which has sold over 96 million units worldwide; DRAGON QUEST®, which has sold over 53 million units worldwide; and TOMB RAIDER®, which has sold over 35 million units worldwide; together with other well established products. More information on Square Enix Ltd. can be found on the Internet at http://www.square-enix.com."
So, I don't know what is best. Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Can we find any more up-to-date information rather than the sources that covered the initial merger. We know Square Enix Europe was a proposed name that the media took by storm during the time but never fully went through.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
After further research, proposing Square Enix (British subsidiary). IgelRM (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
How is this better than "Square Enix Limited"? IceWelder [✉] 21:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It is closer to the legal name than Blue Pumpkin Pie's Square Enix (Europe) and addresses @User:Axem Titanium above comment about confusion with Square Enix Company Limited, which may overturn "natural" SE Limited.
But if we cannot find consensus, it might be appropriate to go back to the previous Eidos Interactive name and merge later developments with the main Square Enix article. IgelRM (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@IceWelder: Because Square Enix Ltd. and Square Enix Co. aren't that different at all. My concern with this article is that it acknowledges Eidos and Square Enix Ltd are not the same entity but at the same time is organized in a way where this article is about Eidos that got merged into Square Enix. And since we know Square Enix ltd. existed before the merger, which makes this article confusing.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
My question concerned specifically the proposed unnatural disambiguator, which feels like a far inferior solution to the natural one at hand. The ambiguity of SQEX Ltd pre-merge and SQEX Ltd post-merge isn't really solved by either. The canonical timeline is that the old SQEX Ltd was merged into Eidos Interactive, which was itself renamed SQEX Ltd. The old SQEX Ltd ceased operations and nowadays only exists on paper as "Square Enix (2009) Limited". Whether or not Eidos Interactive and SQEX Ltd should be separated is deserving of a separate discussion. IceWelder [✉] 22:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@IceWelder: Just because the natural disambiguator is "natural" doesn't mean it is the most helpful for readers. COMMONNAME should be more relevant here. no one addresses this subsidiary in the media as "Square Enix limited". Disambiguators such as (Europe), (Subsidiary), or (British subsidiary) may help readers understand what they are looking into.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The European subsidiary is rarely subject to coverage, so neither is "common" in that sense. IceWelder [✉] 22:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
(Responding to ping, above) I don't have a strong stake here. I just want to remind everyone that we on Wikipedia are not beholden to "official" names (whatever that actually is in this case is unclear). Based on the evidence in this discussion, it's also not clear that sources even agree on a COMMON NAME. Thus, it's up to us to pick something that ideally makes it manifestly clear to readers what this article is about. I'm philosophically in agreement with BPP. Articles about corporations are tough because there's a ship of Theseus problem as they get bought and sold. I think returning the article to Eidos Interactive, as suggested by IgelRM, is worth considering. From a historical view, it seems to be the most well known (and distinctive) name for this corporate entity. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Axem. @Blue Pumpkin Pie, would you approve of Eidos Interactive? Going to start a move discussion if so. IgelRM (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I also support moving it back to Eidos Interactive.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@IgelRM: Square Enix ltd./Square Enix Europe is no longer associated with Eidos Interactive Corp and that SE ltd./SEE is separate. Based on both legal terms of services. Although Embracer is still owner, they seem to claim that "Eidos Interactive Corporation" is still the parent company for the subsidiaries. [2][3]. Its entirely possible that Square Enix kept some of the studios originally from Eidos, but so far, Crystal Dynamics and Eidos-Montreal acknowledge Eidos Interactive Corporation as their parent.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is in reply to my last lead edit. I didn't want to remove SEE from the first lead paragraph because I'm unsure if the move consensus covered it. But I think the way I rewrote it (and it was written before) is too confusing. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, neither Eidos-Montréal nor Crystal Dyanmics has Eidos Interactive Corp. as their parent: Eidos-Montréal is Eidos Interactive Corp., and CDE Entertainment Limited, a corporation in England, is the parent of both. Eidos Interactive Corp., Eidos Interactive Limited and CDE Entertainment Limited are three distinct companies, and this article is about the second of them. IceWelder [✉] 21:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Merko behavior to misuse above move census, while having stated otherwise above, to remove SEE Collective was unconstructive. To be correct, Square Enix Montreal would need to be remove as well if this article no longer covers SEE. Eidos Interactive Limited will always be a notable topic as zxcvbnm said above, so we should refrain from repeating a SEE topic change.
@Axem Titanium: I'm trying so say we need the Main for CDE Entertainment on another article to avoid repeating our original combining, makes sense? IgelRM (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll leave this page to you guys to sort it out, frankly it's a mess right now as @IceWelder's earlier comments about Eidos-SEE being one and the same during their merged period hold ground, and we should decide if this article is about Eidos Interactive or CDE Entertainment, and despite my earlier comments, if we can consider CDE the same as Eidos as they are legally a separate entity (CDE was briefly called Square Enix Newco Limited before Embracer buyout [4] ). Merko (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Eidos Interactive and Square Enix Limited are the same, at least legally. CDE Entertainment is a completely new company that now owns some former Eidos assets, while Square Enix Limited continues to exist. They are not the same company. IceWelder [✉] 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
(summoned by ping) I see that there's a bit of mess in the wake of the move. I don't know all the details here and frankly, I don't think I should have to. We write Wikipedia articles for humans here, not shareholders. There was a notable entity called Eidos Interactive that was known for developing video games that people played. Write an article about that. At some point, the name of the entity changed, but that doesn't matter. The name didn't develop the game, the "asset holder" didn't develop the game, the people did. The title of the article doesn't matter; it's just there for identification and disambiguation. The article can be about whatever we want, across name changes and personnel changes, as long as we agree to it and it conveys the information in an understandable and compelling way. That might mean one article, or multiple (as long as each individual article is notable). Axem Titanium (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't really like how the UK government handles company merger documentation well, as it suggests SE Ltd., SE (2009) Ltd. (which is actually the original, not the newly formed), and Eidos Ltd. are all "active". Nonetheless, after thinking about this carefully this idea may come across as unorthodox, but I hope this is given some extra scrutiny:
In my humble opinion, this would be easier to manage if we stop trying to write the history of one specific company that was once called Eidos Interactive and start treating it as the history of companies that have used/adopted/part-of the "Eidos". It would require very little organizational change, but it will require the lead to be updated. It can also answer why we refrained from using Square Enix (Europe) since the branding of "Eidos Interactive" has been dropped considering the last remaining prominent studios attached to the original company are no longer part of it. But I also believe this is a tough situation that doesn't have an easy fix.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
It feels rather misleading to pretend that all Eidos-adjacent companies are somehow the same. This, especially since most sources would never present Eidos Interactive and CDE Entertainment the same, for example. Furthermore, we would still need to differentiate between Eidos Interactive and Eidos plc, the original Eidos, as well Eidos Technologies, the division that took over the original Eidos's business when Eidos Interactive was established.
To me, focusing solely on Eidos Interactive as in Eidos Interactive Limited, the company established in a four-way merger and then absorbed by Square Enix, is the easy solution here. The company's history isn't actually that convoluted. SE Ltd. and CDE Entertainment would then be mentioned in a Legacy section. If CDE Entertainment ever becomes notable (which doesn't seem to be the case at this moment), it would get its own article. Some time back, I was also planning to write an "Embracer Group operating groups" article that could go into more detail on the individual companies, but I haven't found the time to do so. IceWelder [✉] 11:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@IceWelder Please ping me if you ever start a draft about Embracer operating group, I'd like to help that article. I'll do the same if I start one. Merko (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider it misleading to me because, at the end of the day, these companies aren't the same, but they are all "related" by this brand known as "Eidos Interactive" that is still active in some shape or form.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
No company except Eidos Interactive Limited ever traded under the Eidos Interactive brand. CDE isn't its successor, neither legally nor in name, it just happens to hold similar assets. IceWelder [✉] 11:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Your first comment just clarified how versatile the name "Eidos Interactive" has been. Not trying to be combative, but you are objectively contradicting yourself.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
How so? Eidos Interactive Corp. does not trade as "Eidos Interactive", nor has it ever. The company calls itself Eidos-Montréal, as do we. The legal name exsits mostly on paper. IceWelder [✉] 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Late comment; But if we write an article about "the people" who did something, it would be misleading to name it after a trademark of a firm and is that still encyclopedic then? I had implemented the legacy section based on IceWelder's suggestion and set the Square Enix Europe redirect to the 2009 section here. So I disagree with Merko and Blue Pumpkin Pie. IgelRM (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
well nevermind, I guess I must've read it wrong. either way, the legacy section makes sense, so that's all that matters to me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If we actually have consensus for this article now and one isn't tried of talking about SEE, I'm linking my Talk:List of Square Enix Europe games#Merger proposal. IgelRM (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@IgelRM: So I don't have time to provide a GA review, but based on what I've seen personally. A couple of things need work. For one, I noticed there's the constant verbiage "Take over". The more technical and still widely accepted term is Acquisition. I recommend replacing that word with that.
The studio list would probably be best suited as a table.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is my first GAN, thanks in advance for bearing with me. I have considered takeover, see Cambridge Dictionary. It is the technically term for a publicly listed firm in British English, but maybe too confusing for WP. (I had changed it to "acquired", but then restored it). Regarding the studio list; I agree it needs formatting work. IgelRM (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eidos Interactive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 
 Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I know it's rough, please go easy on me. Thanks. (Also see above talk section) IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Review still in progress, slowed down a bit by real-world stuff. Sorry! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, reminder ping @David Fuchs:. IgelRM (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's some comments to start.

Prose
I find the structure of the lead a bit weird. It starts off giving an overview of the company, but gives dates for acquisitions and its dissolution, and then the next paragraph is covering the same timeframes and including the same dates. It comes off as clunky and repetitive. I would restructure it to be much more high-level of an introduction and just give the history chronologically.
Yes, it is partially due to the moves figuring out what is the actual main topic (Domark, Eidos Interactive, SCi/Eidos, Square Enix Limited). Rewrote a bit.
For their first game, they designed the adventure game Eureka!, hired the Hungarian developer Andromedia, and brought in Ian Livingstone as its writer. If Andromeda and Livingstone are part of the Eureka project, they should be before, not after mentioning the game, since as part of a list it sounds like it happened afterwards.
Reworded the sentence. (The German translation of RetroGamer is on GBooks [5]; [6])
 so Domark got into contact with Leisure Genius not at all clear what Leisure Genius is. A developer, another publisher?
Apparently a C64 games publisher: [7], [8]. Aforementioned RetroGamer translation only got: „Es gab ein Unternehmen namens Leisure Genius, das sehr erfolgreich Brettspiele in Videospielform umsetzte. Beispielsweise Scrabble.“
I've got issues with the prose throughout; it's often indirect or fluffed, and that makes it hard to figure out exactly what occurred.
Changed the wordings based on what RetroGamer offers.
For example, The team at Leisure Genius believed a conversion of Trivial Pursuit was infeasible and thus gave way to Domark what does "gave way" mean? Did they hand off the project? Did they consider it and say they'd pass?
Domark brought in a German programmer who had previously brought them to the Amiga what does "brought them to the Amiga" mean?
We went from flying high on expanding the business in 1992 to financially struggling in 1994, two sentences later. What happened to get to that point?
I don't literally see financially struggling in RetroGamer, it implies they needed help on the business side. Changed wording.
The section of "Transformation into subsidiary Eidos Interactive (1994–2005)" gets rough. The second paragraph is just a "In Date X, Y happened" format that needs to get broken up somehow. Even just some context for the purchases or changes in roles would help this make contextual sense about why we're being told it as the reader.
Tried what I could find. The Next Generation source accuracy seems doubtful considering cpcrulez interview.
Ars Technica interviewed former Core Design Studio Manager Gavin Rummery in 2015, who said the studio pitched a Tomb Raider remake for the game's 10th anniversary to SCi in 2005. Unless this is contested, it's weird that there's so much background for the context of this interview, rather than saying "Core Design Studio Manager Gavin Rummery pitched a Tomb Raider remake" and going from there.
Tried to be careful because it's a difficult topic and a retrospect interview, but just reworded.
On 4 September 2007, the board of SCi Entertainment stated that the company has been approached with a view to making an offer, which has been subject to speculation A view to making an offer for what? Buying the company? It's presumably that given the following sentence, but it should be clear here.
Changed wording.
If personnel aren't being named except when they're leaving (such as Bill Ennis and Rob Murphy) they probably shouldn't be mentioned at all.
Changed wording to "and management team".
In February 2009, Square Enix reached an agreement to purchase Eidos plc for £84.3 million, pending shareholder approval, with an initial aim of fully buying Eidos Interactive on 6 May 2009 I might be missing some of the corporate name wackiness here, but Eidos Interactive is below Eidos plc, correct? In which case fully buying the former is a foregone conclusion if buying the latter?
Oops, believe I changed Interactive to plc to be more accurate and forgot to change the latter mention.
On 20 May 2022, Embracer Group stated that the announcement of this acquisition got an "overwhelming and positive response". It's nice that the company said that it heard great things about its merger, but I don't think it's relevant for Wikipedia to note that.
Media websites reporting on that might be notable again in of itself, but yes. Changed wording.
Media:
Media used (logos) look fine, appropriately licensed and tagged.
References:
The final paragraph of "Founding of Publisher Domark" has no citations at all.
Same RetroGamer citation as the whole section. Added a Tech Monitor article to Further reading to remedy a bit. Maybe could be integrated directly.
The company continued to managed its own Western Studios and Eidos Montreal retained its name. unsourced
Quote source added.
A lot of the list of studios need inline citations for their dates of operation/founding/acquisition, etc.
Mostly done?
Meaning? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
One ref for every sub, but probably to consider further what to do with the table (found primary sources for 2008-2009 operations).
Reference templates need cleanup for consistency; for example, you've got Gamasutra.com in one, but Gamasutra in another; whether sites are given by their URL or their title varies; MCV is written out a bunch of different ways, and in the further reading section it's formatted two different ways on top of that. Some sources are missing date/author info, etc.
Done, I cannot find the author of some MCV articles unfortunately.
What makes Thunderbolt and Telecompaper reliable sources?
Spotchecks not yet done.
Replaced Thunderbolt with GI.biz, was tertiary source anyway. Check Telecompaper, looks like a reliable business journal. GScholar
Current ref 67 is to a Youtube video and should either have the timecode added, or just removed (you've already got what appears to be two other sources for it?)
The YT video is specifically for "became part of Eidos-Montréal". Added timecode.
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 08:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing, replying in-line above. IgelRM (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecked statements to current refs 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25, 30, 35, 41, 42, 48, 52, 60, 63, 68, and 76:
Ref 7 is used to support The new company was floated on the London Stock Exchange as Eidos that year which doesn't mention trading on the exchange in 1995.
"Through a series of mergers, Eidos was created and floated on the stock market in 1995." The SEC 20-F explicitly says London if that works as primary source?
Ref 15 should cite the original Dallas News article instead of Blue's News.
Done, visual edit copy pasting from Ion Storm missed the ref somehow.
Ref 21 doesn't fully support In 2003, Eidos founded Beautiful Game Studios inside their headquarters, which continued its Championship Manager series after splitting with previous developer Sports Interactive (doesn't mention the split with Sports Interactive).
Done, copied from Sports Interactive.
Ref 24 doesn't fully support the last paragraph of the Eidos Interactive (it mentions the £23 million loan, but doesn't say Elevation Partners is giving them the money; it also doesn't cover the losses in the first sentences.
Good spot. Removed, probably the exact amount isn't relevant enough.
I don't see where Ref 68 covers the founding of current Square Enix External Studios in 2008, nor its name change as Eidos Game Studios?
2008 was taken from article prose, linked the reference. Maybe a bit synthesis: "the project [True Crime; Sleeping Dogs] is being managed through Square Enix London Studios, which also worked with Rocksteady Studios on Batman: Arkham Asylum and Avalanche Studios on Just Cause 2.", "Square Enix London Studios is an entity that was set up in 2008 by Eidos" (GameDeveloper) and "Square Enix External Studios have been responsible for multiple games including RPG Shooter OUTRIDERS®, the Just Cause® and Life is Strange® series, and titles such as Batman: Arkham Asylum® and Sleeping Dogs®." (PR) Eidos Game Studios could be sourced via game credits or PR but probably not relevant enough.
If it's not easy to actually source and it's so minor, I would just leave that content out. You can refer to the organization without covering every minor name change it went through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes. External Studios is also mentioned on the main Square Enix article. I left out Eidos Game Studios from the names.
Refs 68/76 don't cover Square Enix London Mobile's closure in 2022.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

IgelRM (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)