Talk:Atari Interactive

Merge proposal with Atari Interactive page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Hasbro Interactive into Atari Interactive with re-organization as proposed by User:IceWelder in February 22. Klbrain (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose for the Hasbro Interactive and Atari Interactive pages to be merged into a single page, because the company formerly known as Hasbro Interactive, Inc. was renamed to Infogrames Interactive, Inc. and later Atari Interactive, Inc.. The Atari Interactive, Inc. subsidiary that was once held by Hasbro and Infogrames was a different business who merged with Infogrames Interactive during the parent company's rebrand as Atari in 2003. Also, the Atari Interactive mentioned above was a subsidiary of Atari Corporation and had nothing to do with Hasbro nor Infogrames, as it was closed when JT Storage purchased Atari Corporation.

Another reason why I am requesting the merger of both pages was because of the successful merger of the GT Interactive page into Atari, Inc. (publisher) many years ago, as both are the same company/business as well.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed Atari Interactive covers the history of this name in use by multiple division/subsidiaries over a complex series of acquisitions. Originally a division of Atari Corporate, it was sold/merged with JTS. JTS then sold assets to Hasbro's HIAC XI Corporation, under Hasbro Interactive. HIAC XI was renamed Atari Interactive, the second iteration, still a subsidiary of Hasbro Interactive. Hasbro then sold Hasbro Interactive and all subsidiaries to Infogrames SA (Now Atari SA), who put it under Infogrames, Inc. Infogrames, Inc renamed Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames Interactive, with Atari Interactive (HIAC XI) still under it. A couple years later, Infogrames SA completely reorganized internally, and renaming itself to Atari SA. Infogrames, Inc. became Atari , Inc and Infogrames Interactive (previously Hasbro Interactive) became Atari Interactive, essentially a third iteration of the name's use. It's unclear what happened to HIAC XI (known as Atari Interactive previously) during that reorg, but presumably was dissolved. Atari Interactive remains an active company under Atari, Inc, but it is not, strictly speaking, the subsidiary HIAC XI that had the name previously. This isn't a great article structure, by any stretch, but they should not be merged as the exact history of mergers and reorgs isn't clear and "Hasbro Interactive = The Current Atari Interactive" is not demonstrated. Secondly, the fact that GT Interactively was merged years ago is immaterial to this discussion. GT Interactive was merged to Atari, Inc. (publisher), formerly Infogrames, Inc, which was formerly GT Interactive. That was the parent company and a whole separate topic. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if I’m confusing, but I sorta know all of this already. I’m trying to explain that the current Atari Interactive is what was formerly Infogrames Interactive/Hasbro Interactive, and that the Atari Interactive company (the HIAC XI holding company) that Hasbro held continued to operate as a subsidiary of the renamed company. Some titles like Atari Anniversary Edition list down both Infogrames Interactive and Atari Interactive, and that was released in July 2001, two years before the rebranding. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it for your benefit alone, but for all participants. Either way, the fact that HIAC XI survived the original purchase by Infogrames just furthers my oppose. -- ferret (talk)

  Can I see the source you got it from? Luigitehplumber (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  You're the one who said they did with an example of a game having both companies attached to it. -- ferret (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The "Atari Interactive" article currently conflates the older entity (a subsidiary of Hasbro Interactive) and the current one (formerly known as Hasbro Interactive). The older one, the one originally known as HIAC XI, was established with the asset sale from JTS to Hasbro. Infogrames/Atari SA bought Hasbro Interactive whole and renamed it Infogrames Interactive, then Atari Interactive. The older Atari Interactive was merged into the new one in 2003 as part of the latter rebrand. As such, the content pertaining to the current Atari Interactive should be in the same article as Hasbro Interactive, which is currently not the case. This merged article should be called "Atari Interactive". Additionally, I do not find that Hasbro Interactive's former subsidiary is notable, and neither is the former Atari Corporation division. We also do not need a separate brand article just for "Atari Interactive"; Atari already serves this purpose for the whole "Atari" name and "Atari Interactive" (as a brand name only) is not particularly notable either.

Given the above, I would support a merge as long as:

1. The active Atari Interactive and the former Hasbro Interactive are merged and become the "Atari Interactive" article, with the former Atari Interactive subsidiary and their renaming histories covered as part of that.
2. The content about the Atari Corporation division is moved to that company's article.
3. The general name history is covered at Atari.
4. The new "Atari Interactive" article contains a hatnote pointing to #2 and #3.

IceWelder [✉] 11:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a better proposal, since it addresses the notability concerns that were not brought up before. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I’ve been trying to say to avoid the confusion of the different Atari Interactive companies... At least IceWelder explained it better. We'll need to see what other users would prefer other than us three. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So, it's been about a week since this was last edited... so what have thought should happen with the pages then? Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

With no other opposition, I think you can just go ahead with the merger as described. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The distinct history of Hasbro Interactive before their purchase of the Atari assets, the fact that Infogrames received licenses to Hasbro IPs as part of their purchase, and that Hasbro bought out those licenses to regain control of those properties in the video game realm would be relegated to a lost footnote following a merge. As the Hasbro Interactive article already notes, for a brief period the company was the third-largest games publisher in the North American market. It's independently notable from the Atari-asset holding company that remains, which a separate legal entity. oknazevad (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Support Changed my mind.

Let's be honest, the Atari Corp division is not independently notable, because it wasn't a real division, just an announced label intended for publishing PC games when it became apparent the Jaguar was a failure but never actually did as they suddenly accepted the JTS merger offer a mere 6 weeks later. No games were ever released by that division/label, and the fact that it would have been called Atari Interactive is almost insignificant trivia. Coverage belongs entirely at the Atari Corp article, and doesn't even need to be mentioned at all in the combined article on the ex-Hasbro Interactive article. I'd even say that we should not even use the name in the games to discuss the planned PC versions that were either never released or released by entirely different publishers. That is to say, the sentence should read that "a PC port was planned but never released" where applicable.

As for the Hasbro/Infogrames subsidiary that still exists and is the actual legal holder of the Atari trademark, the fact that Hasbro created a subsidiary of said subsidiary to hold those trademarks and used that name as a label is not worthy of a separate article, just some explanation in the article. Creating a subsidiary to hold acquired IP is pretty standard corporate practice (for example, it's how the WWF acquired the rights to WCW in 2001). That said subsidiary of a subsidiary was folded into its parent subsidiary later as part of the rename is just administrivia of import only to the company's lawyers who had to clear the rebrand. None of that demands separate articles, and frankly renders separate Hasbro Interactive and Atari Interactive articles unneeded. Just as long as the combined article makes clear that Hasbro later ended their licenses and the company no liver has anything to do with Hasbro. oknazevad (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Oknazevad, IceWelder, and LTPHarry: it might be better if one you, who know the topic better than most, does this restructure as agreed. Klbrain (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. I’ll start merging the pages together as planned and then someone who’s more skilled at merging two different pages together would do that. I was suggesting the Atari Interactive page becomes the redirect, while the Hasbro Interactive page becomes the location. Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best title choice. While it's true the company's time as a Hasbro subsidiary was the period where it was most independently notable in the sense that it was when it was a significant publisher in its own right and had a fairly distinctive identity, unlike now where it just exists on paper to hold trademarks for its parent company, that was a relatively short period and a couple of decades ago. If we keep WP:COMMONNAME in mind, the current common name is Atari Interactive. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the close states that it should be organized per IceWelder's comment, which was to put the article under the Atari Interactive name. In other words, the merge should have been performed in the other direction. I'll take care of that. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME. To be revisited if reliable sources start using the new name in line with WP:NAMECHANGES. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Atari Interactive → Hasbro InteractiveHasbro Interactive – As mentioned before on WP:VG, the article topic is about the Hasbro Interactive of 1995-2001 that published games. 'Atari Interactive' only serves as a legal name since and therefore is clearly not COMMONNAME. Sceeegt (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker, PresN, LTPHarry, Indrian, Oknazevad, Masem, and Luigitehplumber: --Sceeegt (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. We often prefer WP:NATDIS for naming, as opposed to the current name, or even the WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with the nominator that this might not even be the common name. Hasbro Interactive is at least clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, as stated in the WTVG discussion. --PresN 12:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, as it would be in line with my reasoning for the rejected proposal above. IgelRM (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose based on my reasoning in the merge discussion less than two years ago. This company still exists, and is named Atari Interactive. It belongs under its current name. oknazevad (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The legal existence of a company under that name does not make it WP:COMMONNAME. "Atari Interactive" is not a brand name or marketed. Notice how 90% of this article is about Hasbro Interactive from before 2001, because anything made since then applies to Atari, Inc. (1993-present). This article should just be named Hasbro Interactive, and Atari Interactive should redirect to Atari, Inc. 1993 since it is already that. --Sceeegt (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. How is "Atari Interactive" not a common name? I agree that reliable sources commonly called this company "Hasbro Interactive" until 2001, obviously - but what about sources since 2001? I believe that when establishing a common name, we should consider how it has been commonly called relatively recently, not some twenty five years ago. (And I understand that finding recent sources that mention this company at all might be difficult.)--Krótki (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the argument is that this subsidiary specifically has not been reported on sufficiently to justify renaming it to Atari Interactive in the first place? IgelRM (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You answered your own question at the end within the brackets. "Atari Interactive" is, today, only a legal entity of Atari. It is not a brand name, nor is it marketed to consumers - it only exists within the Atari SA and Atari, Inc. (1993-present) framework of legal companies. Hence why almost the entirety of this article consists of pre-2001 information. --Sceeegt (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Consider WP:NAMECHANGES. Even if finding sources that discuss the company after the name change is difficult, we should give extra weight to them, in order to establish the common name.--Krótki (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Editors should note that arguments based on common name (whether support or oppose) have more weight when accompanied by evidence (see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting on a requested move). Arguments based on legal name should take note of Wikipedia:Official names. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terrible decision. Now we have a company, even if it is just a subsidiary that exists for IP holding purposes, under a name that it hasn't had for over a quarter of a century and which it has no legal right to. This violated WP:NAMECHANGES significantly, and makes the encyclopedia look incredibly outdated. Plus there was zero need for a move at all, as the name was not ambiguous in the least. There is no other company or article named Atari Interactive. oknazevad (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't around for this one, but it does appear that WP:NAMECHANGES would lead us to Atari Interactive. 162 etc. (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should just move it back. The above discussion can't really be said to comply with NAMECHANGES and there wasn't much by way of consensus. It appears the closer was mistaken in their understanding that NAMECHANGES is already fulfilled and that NATDIS doesn't apply here at all. oknazevad (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's respect the process here. The community has spoken, and a consensus was reached. Moving the article back would be a serious violation of WP:PCM.

I'm also not too keen on reopening an RM when this one was closed only 4 months ago. 162 etc. (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the above consensus is particularly strong, as there's only four supporters in the whole discussion, and they ignore the NAMECHANGES guideline to do such. The current title falsely creates an appearance that the company no liger exists, when it does. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not what the closer decided. Editors cannot act against consensus simply because they decide for themselves that the consensus is wrong. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Then make a new consensus. It has now been half a year and people are speaking up about a new move discussion. The closer said "To be revisited if reliable sources start using the new name in line with WP:NAMECHANGES". Sceeegt, who is no longer active, has not addressed WP:NAMECHANGES at all. ~2025-37173-94 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There's just about enough for a consensus in favour of moving here with the rationale being that "Hasbro Interactive" isn't used to refer to the company anymore, which makes "Atari Interactive", despite also being rarely used and somewhat confusing, the best option available. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Hasbro Interactive → Atari Interactive – previous move was in error, as it completely ignored WP:NAMECHANGES. With this, the article on this company is titled with a name it hasn't used in over a quarter of a century, and has zero legal right to anymore. It's also not ambiguous at all. The present name of this company, which still exists—that it's simply an IP holding subsidiary is irrelevant—is Atari Interactive, and has been for decades. oknazevad (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The legality of the name has zero relevence. We are not beholden to maintaining a companies branding for them. What you need to provide is RS and you haven't. I looked briefly and a few things stuck out to me. 1. No one really talks about Atari Interactive anymore 2. When they do it's unclear if they know exactly which company they're talking about. Here's Ars Technica says Atari Interactive was once GT Interactive. Here's WIRED on the announcement of the Ataribox talking about Atari Interactive giving no details, when Atari Inc. made the console.

Even RS get this wrong because this subject is really confusing, not in small part because Infogrames (sorry "Atari SA") have made it confusing with their nightmare of a rebranding. Including this one, there are six Atari articles, Atari Corporation, Atari SA, Atari Inc., Atari Games, Atari Interactive, and Atari Inc. (the other one). How is the lay reader supposed to know which is the 1972 company they were presumably trying to read about. That it is just a holding company now is a great reason in my eye for WP:COMMONNAME to take precedence. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I just cannot see how a name that hasn't been valid or current for a quarter century can be considered the current common name. All of the sources used to justify the move predate the sale of the unit and the rename. Those are not the ones from after the name change that are supposed to be determinative.

But also, you speak to the plethora of Atari articles. It's a complicated situation because it's a messy history. Modern Atari consists of three companies: Atari SA, the French-domiciled (for now) parent holding company that used to be Infogrames; Atari Inc, formerly GT Interactive, the New York-headquartered subsidiary that that actually oversees most of the daily operations; and Atari Interactive, formerly Hasbro Interactive, a subsidiary which mostly exists as a IP holding company, but see below. It doesn't help that most sources just refer to them as "Atari" collectively and individually, and make little distinction between the parts, which does make it more difficult to determine which one is being talked about, but it's clear none are called "Hasbro" currently.

Now, an argument could be made that merging them into one article to streamline them and place all that into a one-stop location for readers. But the subsidiaries have independent histories and independent notability from that, so they deserve their own articles. But that doesn't change their current state.

Changing the name of this one to an outdated name does nothing to resolve that messy history, and even leaves part of that history unclear for the unfamiliar reader. Instead it makes it seem like this company is still part of Hasbro, which is of course incorrect.

Also, you mention old articles about the announcement of the Ataribox (itself an outdated working name for the Atari VCS (2021 console)), but it needs to be noted that that console, along with the more recent Atari 2600+ and 7800+ consoles and the game cartridges published for them, all credit Atari Interactive, not Atari Inc (which is not mentioned at all) on their packaging, which was verified by looking at the boxes themselves. (Yeah, I have a 2600+, and keep boxes. I also still have my Xbox box. Try saying that five times fast.) The point being that considering Atari Interactive is the publisher of record for these current products, to say that the name is not the currently used one for the company does not hold up. It is very much the current common name. oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Support By providing reliable sources that mention Atari Interactive, User:Whipmywillows kind-of proves the point: despite the RSes being erroneous about the company, they share a common thing: they no longer refer to the company as Hasbro. Hasbro is not the company's WP:COMMONNAME and it hasn't been for many years. When discussing this company, no reliable source calls them Hasbro anymore. "Routinely using the new name" is exactly what the reliable sources do.--Krótki (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. This honestly seems like a no-brainer. The current article is quite flawed as a result of the incorrect name. When an article's very first sentence includes "currently named" and "is the former" right next to each other, something has fundamentally gone wrong. This has also resulted in the article, supposedly about the company called Atari Interactive, not listing any titles published under that name. I can find no examples of sources referring to the current company as "Hasbro" against the company's wishes. Look up reviews for any game published under the Atari Interactive name - if they mention the publisher at all, they will mention Atari, not Hasbro. See, for example, Destructoid's review of Ghostbusters (2009) and Nintendo World Report's review of the RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Switch port (2024) - both name "Atari" as the publisher. Yes, the Atari brand name is a confusing mess, but that is not relevant to the question at hand. The question is whether this article about Atari Interactive should continue to use a name that the company hasn't gone by in over two decades; and the answer, in my opinion, is clearly no. Ultramoth (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move comment

This is not an objection, but I hope insightful to above: @Whipmywillows: The thing about the usage in the two example sources above is that they are technically not wrong because Atari Interactive is the trademark owner for Atari ("Atari and the Atari logo are registered trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc.") This Dealbook source from the bankruptcy illustrates this, Atari Incorporated is listed as the Lead Case but Atari Interactive filed it. So I think it is possible to stretch everything Atari to Atari Interactive legally.

Regarding Ghostbusters (2009) and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, the publisher was Atari, Inc. (formerly GT Interactive) for both games ("Manufactured and marketed by Atari, Inc.", CD backside). Only the Roller Coaster Tycoon trademark was licensed to Atari Interactive and therefore the Atari Interactive copyright notice. But now, Roller Coaster Tycoon Classics was published by Atari Interactive, so it appears things have changed. IgelRM (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: It looks like you unfortunately updated some game articles in 2022 to the wrong company. IgelRM (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you show me the edit? I don't exactly remember when I did this. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually more recently for example on Star Raiders (2011 video game), . I have changed all that I found to Atari, Inc. (formerly GT Interactive). Although I am unsure if Atari SA would have been better, it should be quite easy to change that via script now.

Edit: I found a 1996 article about an "interactive games division" that ports games to the PC. Thinking it may be more clear to rename this page to the full legal name "Atari Interactive, Inc.", thoughts? IgelRM (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That was a planned but never actually active division of Atari Corporation that was announced only six weeks before the merger with JTS that ended that incarnation of the company. Nothing really to do with this company other than being within the Atari brand history. oknazevad (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I do remember now. I went with games that used Atari Interactive as the copyright holder, mainly due to the confusing history of all the Atari publishing divisions back then. Atari, Inc. (former GT Interactive) wasn’t fully owned by Infogrames Entertainment SA at the time and I normally see their own titles from back then as their own, while games published by the European branches used simply “Atari” as the copyright holder. I linked those to Atari SA because they fully owned the overseas branches.

As this article says, the reason why is that Atari, Inc. had exclusive rights to release games from the other Atari divisions and vice versa, so it was up to either if they wanted to release a game or not. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's confusing, but I think the publishing field shouldn't be used for legal ownership here. The European publishing appears to be under Atari SA subsidiaries per List of Atari SA subsidiaries, so I suppose it would be both Atari/GT and Atari Europe to be complete. Ideally, I think we should just be able to say "Atari" as in brand but I don't know how to disambiguate then so it's not very vague. IgelRM (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the Infogrames titles commissioned by the European divisions (those with Infogrames Europe S.A. as the copyright holder) already list down Infogrames Europe as the publisher of them.

Another thing, the Hunt Valley development studio was called "Atari Interactive Hunt Valley Development Studio" on the credits for Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes, but it solely refers to the publishing side as "Atari". Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Outdated info

The info on this page in regards to Atari is outdated. Hasbro no longer owns the IP. It was purchased by Infogrames years ago. I'd do it myself, but life is getting in the way. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)