vu games site no longer works

[abyss]

VU and the sierra sites are no longer active and just go to the activision site. Why does activision own sierra in the 1st place. Activision will most likely just get rid of sierra eventually. I couldn't even find pages for the hoyle games on the horriable activision layout.

[Andy Roark]

I think that's as close as you get to a formal, final death. Sierra On-Line no longer has an official webpage.

RIP Sierra.

[DeadPoolX]

Technically, Sierra hasn't had an official website in years. Except in name only (where Sierra existed), VU isn't doing anything different than Activision.

[Tawmis]

Bored, I wanted to see what Wiki had to say... and if this ain't a slap in the face. Someone needs to edit this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Online

[DeadPoolX]

It seems that the real Wiki page to Sierra is under the Sierra Entertainment heading.

[Collector]

DPX beat me to it.

[Tawmis]

I always see the classics under the "Sierra Online" title... Sierra Entertainment to me was the later years, where they had ceased the classics...

[Collector]

I always see the classics under the "Sierra Online" title... Sierra Entertainment to me was the later years, where they had ceased the classics...

Me too, at least with the hyphen: "Sierra On-line"

On-line Systems (~1979 ) -> Sierra On-line (~1980 ) -> Sierra (~1985). After CUC's 1996 buyout (the beginning of the end), Sierra limped along with the old Oakhurst facility becoming Yosemite Entertainment in 1998. Sierra Entertainment (~2001) is post Chainsaw Monday (1999), which to any classic Sierra fan means Sierra Entertainment is postmortem Sierra.

[Rudy]

Have to correct you there, Collector. Despite the fact that Roberta and Ken moved to Oakhurst in late 1980, the name "Sierra Online" started only in late 1981, following an issue that "On-Line Systems" was already in use by another company. Plenty of titles of On-Line Systems were published in 1981.

[Collector]

I was drawing from memory. That is why I was using approximate dates.

[DeadPoolX]

The only logical (and useful) thing to do in this case would be to modify the Wikipedia article to explain this in greater detail. That way the information we know is there and clearly defined.

[Almirena]

I do not bother editing articles in Wikipedia anymore - there are Wiki-Gestapo groups or individuals more intent on presenting what they say is the truth than in presenting factual and balanced articles. The hate in some of the pages and their associated discussion pages is almost palpable, with edits trying to fix up some of the most heavily slanted language being immediately edited back by the groups, and with certain individuals on the Frankish history pages whose political/historical agenda is so biased that they refuse to accept the most esteemed scholarship at all, in favour of an obscure publication by a Dutch linguist whose views are seen as fringe... I haven't the energy to engaged in a word-by-word all-out battle defending real historical research - or to exhaust the efforts of a virulent group on some of the science-based pages, particularly when the group is so well co-ordinated and its members are prepared to stay awake each and every night and to haggle over every proposed change...

... but I suspect that in the Computer Games sections, there's less of that sort of violent word-crime going on.

You can tell, though, that I do not hold Wikipedia in high esteem, and I simply cannot believe it when people use Wikipedia as a source of support for their conclusions, in lieu of real source material or published works by qualified experts in the field.

Go to it, though, with the Sierra information. You will be unlikely to be the target of hate-posts in the Wikipedia report page as a result, thank goodness!

[DeadPoolX]

I doubt any info on Sierra (On-Line or Entertainment) would be the source of "hate posts," Al. There aren't enough people who remember or even know of the Sierra games to even cause problems.

[Almirena]

That can only be a blessing...!

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmmm. I suppose wikipedia can be trusted on indisputable historical matters, though? *wonders* For instance, I used wiki a while back when writing a biography of Ludwig II, but only to get some information about his palaces - for everything else, I did some real research. *smile* I assume even the most committed of fanatics can't deny that Ludwig built some of the most fantastically beautiful castles - Neuschwanstein, Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee...

I might use wikipedia to get rudimentary information about the castles or rooms in those castles, but I'd certainly want to back up that information with what I might find in actual, physical books. And I certainly wouldn't base my conclusions about historical matters on what I find in wikipedia - particularly when it comes to a case as interesting and controversial as Ludwig's...

Just why there are some people who persist in falsifying history, particularly in the most blatant and ridiculous ways, is something I have never been able to figure out. Sigh...