I've posted this in another thread, but I'll post back here also.
If you look in Atari's declaration of property and financials that they had to give for the bankruptcy court you'll clearly find (under I believe question 14 of the document) where the BG IP sits:
Items held for another person.
And listed under it: Hasbro, Unknown Value, Various Source Code to Computer Games.
I maintain by that document and how it's listed that Atari doesn't actually OWN any of this. It's been given distribution rights, but those rights are for Atari to release the software to the public and charge a profit for it. They do not OWN any of the IP associated with BG or the BG Universe (or the game itself).
That's why it doesn't show up as for sale in Atari's holdings. They can't sell it, they don't own it.
My suspicion: The IP won't go up for sale at all and Beamdog can't "buy" anything...there's nothing there to buy.
If Hasbro wants the BG Games to continue, they will have to find another distributor and allow that distribution through those channels.
I will further guess that production of and work on BG, BGII, BGIII, etc. is NOT at jeapordy at this point...I would guess that to even TOUCH this software Beamdog had to get an agreement with HASBRO not Atari. I suspect the restrictions for what they could and couldn't do came from HASBRO not Atari.
Further to the point, you'll note that the game hasn't gone off Steam nor has the game been taken down from GoG...which, again, would have to be another distributor with the rights to sell the game.
If I'm right, then, why aren't Beamdog/Overhaul continuing to produce the patch and continuing down the BGII Development route?
Because there's no way for them to get PAID for the software with Atari in bankruptcy. Likely, the money you're paying for the game is going to Atari first and then a portion / cut down to Overhaul...with Atari in bankruptcy, that cut CANNOT LEAVE ATARI...they're in bankruptcy, they can't pay anyone even if they owe them.
This isn't about who will buy the IP for BG...it's not for sale. It's about who has the rights to distribute the software (and thus get paid for the software) and what agreements they have with Beamdog.
The ONLY piece I can't fit at this point is why Steam can continue to sell the game. I have to assume the money obtained from the Steam sales have to come back to Atari and thus back to Beamdog...that's the only piece I feel I'm missing at this point.
Some of what you say makes sense, but if you follow through the various tweets, interviews and threads on this forum, you'll find a few items that don't fit with your theory.
- Beamdog is the publisher listed on iOS and they also sell the game via their own distribution platform. Atari is the distributor on Steam.
- The statement about why BG:EE was pulled from iOS / Beamdog platform was "at the request of a publishing partner". It was requested by the partners legal team, and has since been confirmed to be Atari.
- This explains why it's still for sale on Steam ( Atari controls that version ).
- It's been stated that Beamdog/Overhaul Games have a good working relationship with Hasbro/WOTC.
- In some of the threads in the forum, people have linked and talked about the bankruptcy proceedings, and linked court documents explaining what's going on. One of the things mentioned is that if some assets values are below certain thresholds, they don't necessarily have to be listed in the court documents and may be sold without the courts explicit permission.
- Because Beamdog isn't allowed to sell the game on the distribution platforms they are responsible for, they have no source of income from the game currently and this is why work has stopped until the situation is resolved.
- Anyone from the dev team who has said anything about it so far is pretty certain it will be resolved in the end. The only real question seems to be "when".
- From all the reading of all the info I've done so far, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the sale of BG IP etc, as you say. It sounds more like "Atari going through bankruptcy / restructuring, and so the status of work in progress contracts are suspended until it's completed".
I'm no lawyer either, I just wanted to summarise some of the main points raised so far.
So here, again, I'm in agreement with a lot of your post.
* I'm not sure I'd take Apple's iOS platform as a statement on ownership. BeamDog submitted the game to Apple for sales on their App Store, I'm not sure it goes farther than that.
* As to why BG:EE was pulled, you're absolutely right, I read that myself...but that doesn't answer the question of why pull it? It was a request, not an order. If BeamDog could continue to sell and make money off of the software, why pull it, further, why request it be pulled from sales while still being distributed by Steam through Atari? The entire thing doesn't make sense...if you're a company going through bankruptcy you don't cut off revenue streams. The only reason to pull the game (or ask for the game to be pulled for that matter) from sale through BeamDog and not through Steam is if BeamDog could not be guaranteed sales money for the software sold through it's distribution services. That would most certainly be the case with Bankruptcy...assuming the money goes through Atari first before it comes to BeamDog. My assumption then is BeamDog pulled sales because their Legal Distributor can no longer pay them...but as the developer of the software, they SHOULD be entitled to some of the sales money from Steam, which also should be unable to get it's money from Atari for the same reason BeamDog can't get it's money. With Atari being a distributor for both BeamDog and Steam it makes no sense to pull from one and not the other...there's more to this.
* I'm sure they do have a good working relationship with Hasbro, they'd have to since I assume they had to approach Hasbro to re-make the game in the first place.
* I've read the court documents (did so last night, all 79 pages of the big one) and actually linked where to obtain them in the "Patch Status" thread in "news". You are correct about assets under a certain value ($25000 to be exact according to the docs) not being directly listed...and I guess that's a possibility. However, given the location the property in their declaration of assets (Held for another person, instead of in one of the locations that would identify the BG IP as part of their actual assets), I have to assume the BG IP Is NOT an Atari asset and thus is NOT being sold. I fully admit I could be wrong here or reading too much into it, but when a corporation lists an asset as being held for someone else and not as an owned asset, I have to assume that's what that means.
* "Not allowed", is an interesting, and based upon what we've all read interpretaively wrong, use of words based upon your earlier comment about as to why BG:EE was pulled from sale. According to everything I've read they ARE ALLOWED to sell the game through their distribution channels, they've just been asked (and according to some texts "suggested") not to. As a company in and of itself, (regardless of how nice Trent is as a person) there needs to be some reason for BeamDog/Overhaul to deny themselves financial gain over this software...PARTICULARLY since Atari and Steam are still making money off of it...even though NEITHER company had anything to do with the PRODUCTION of it. This is why I keep bringing this up as an oddity. The company that DEVELOPED the game has been asked to stop making money off of it while the company in Bankruptcy and IT'S Distribution method has NOT stopped distributing the game. The ONLY winner here seems to be Steam. Why Steam is being allowed to continue to dip into the pot while the developing company is not throws me for a loop. It's not an issue with the ownership of the IP itself or GoG and Steam would have stopped distributing it and it wouldn't be "asked" it would be "told".
* At some point legal Wranglings will subside, Atari will exist (or the rights to sell BG Games will go to someone else) and, assuming Overhaul/BeamDog's doors are still open (that's questionable if they're not making money and have no projects to get paid on) they will be given a green light to continue forward. I have no doubt about this, and WHEN is certainly the largest question out there...but I don't think it's the ONLY question out there.
Really the main point of the posts I'm making is to question the widely spread concept that Overhaul/BeamDog will be buying (or even COULD buy) the IP rights to the BG Series of games. From everything I'm seeing, I don't believe that IP is even for sale. The Distribution Rights for the game MAY be up for grabs, but I don't believe the IP is on the table anywhere. Not unless there's some back room deal going on between BeamDog and Hasbro waiting on contracts with Atari to be discontinued so it can do some kind of sale. While an awesome thought, however, I am in serious doubt of it.
There are a lot of people who seem to have the opinion that BeamDog is going to come out of this owning BG. My point is I don't think that's even possible given what I'm seeing from Atari's statement of assets.
Comments
If you look in Atari's declaration of property and financials that they had to give for the bankruptcy court you'll clearly find (under I believe question 14 of the document) where the BG IP sits:
Items held for another person.
And listed under it: Hasbro, Unknown Value, Various Source Code to Computer Games.
I maintain by that document and how it's listed that Atari doesn't actually OWN any of this. It's been given distribution rights, but those rights are for Atari to release the software to the public and charge a profit for it. They do not OWN any of the IP associated with BG or the BG Universe (or the game itself).
That's why it doesn't show up as for sale in Atari's holdings. They can't sell it, they don't own it.
My suspicion: The IP won't go up for sale at all and Beamdog can't "buy" anything...there's nothing there to buy.
If Hasbro wants the BG Games to continue, they will have to find another distributor and allow that distribution through those channels.
I will further guess that production of and work on BG, BGII, BGIII, etc. is NOT at jeapordy at this point...I would guess that to even TOUCH this software Beamdog had to get an agreement with HASBRO not Atari. I suspect the restrictions for what they could and couldn't do came from HASBRO not Atari.
Further to the point, you'll note that the game hasn't gone off Steam nor has the game been taken down from GoG...which, again, would have to be another distributor with the rights to sell the game.
If I'm right, then, why aren't Beamdog/Overhaul continuing to produce the patch and continuing down the BGII Development route?
Because there's no way for them to get PAID for the software with Atari in bankruptcy. Likely, the money you're paying for the game is going to Atari first and then a portion / cut down to Overhaul...with Atari in bankruptcy, that cut CANNOT LEAVE ATARI...they're in bankruptcy, they can't pay anyone even if they owe them.
This isn't about who will buy the IP for BG...it's not for sale. It's about who has the rights to distribute the software (and thus get paid for the software) and what agreements they have with Beamdog.
The ONLY piece I can't fit at this point is why Steam can continue to sell the game. I have to assume the money obtained from the Steam sales have to come back to Atari and thus back to Beamdog...that's the only piece I feel I'm missing at this point.
- Beamdog is the publisher listed on iOS and they also sell the game via their own distribution platform. Atari is the distributor on Steam.
- The statement about why BG:EE was pulled from iOS / Beamdog platform was "at the request of a publishing partner". It was requested by the partners legal team, and has since been confirmed to be Atari.
- This explains why it's still for sale on Steam ( Atari controls that version ).
- It's been stated that Beamdog/Overhaul Games have a good working relationship with Hasbro/WOTC.
- In some of the threads in the forum, people have linked and talked about the bankruptcy proceedings, and linked court documents explaining what's going on. One of the things mentioned is that if some assets values are below certain thresholds, they don't necessarily have to be listed in the court documents and may be sold without the courts explicit permission.
- Because Beamdog isn't allowed to sell the game on the distribution platforms they are responsible for, they have no source of income from the game currently and this is why work has stopped until the situation is resolved.
- Anyone from the dev team who has said anything about it so far is pretty certain it will be resolved in the end. The only real question seems to be "when".
- From all the reading of all the info I've done so far, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the sale of BG IP etc, as you say. It sounds more like "Atari going through bankruptcy / restructuring, and so the status of work in progress contracts are suspended until it's completed".
I'm no lawyer either, I just wanted to summarise some of the main points raised so far.
So here, again, I'm in agreement with a lot of your post.
* I'm not sure I'd take Apple's iOS platform as a statement on ownership. BeamDog submitted the game to Apple for sales on their App Store, I'm not sure it goes farther than that.
* As to why BG:EE was pulled, you're absolutely right, I read that myself...but that doesn't answer the question of why pull it? It was a request, not an order. If BeamDog could continue to sell and make money off of the software, why pull it, further, why request it be pulled from sales while still being distributed by Steam through Atari? The entire thing doesn't make sense...if you're a company going through bankruptcy you don't cut off revenue streams. The only reason to pull the game (or ask for the game to be pulled for that matter) from sale through BeamDog and not through Steam is if BeamDog could not be guaranteed sales money for the software sold through it's distribution services. That would most certainly be the case with Bankruptcy...assuming the money goes through Atari first before it comes to BeamDog. My assumption then is BeamDog pulled sales because their Legal Distributor can no longer pay them...but as the developer of the software, they SHOULD be entitled to some of the sales money from Steam, which also should be unable to get it's money from Atari for the same reason BeamDog can't get it's money. With Atari being a distributor for both BeamDog and Steam it makes no sense to pull from one and not the other...there's more to this.
* I'm sure they do have a good working relationship with Hasbro, they'd have to since I assume they had to approach Hasbro to re-make the game in the first place.
* I've read the court documents (did so last night, all 79 pages of the big one) and actually linked where to obtain them in the "Patch Status" thread in "news". You are correct about assets under a certain value ($25000 to be exact according to the docs) not being directly listed...and I guess that's a possibility. However, given the location the property in their declaration of assets (Held for another person, instead of in one of the locations that would identify the BG IP as part of their actual assets), I have to assume the BG IP Is NOT an Atari asset and thus is NOT being sold. I fully admit I could be wrong here or reading too much into it, but when a corporation lists an asset as being held for someone else and not as an owned asset, I have to assume that's what that means.
* "Not allowed", is an interesting, and based upon what we've all read interpretaively wrong, use of words based upon your earlier comment about as to why BG:EE was pulled from sale. According to everything I've read they ARE ALLOWED to sell the game through their distribution channels, they've just been asked (and according to some texts "suggested") not to. As a company in and of itself, (regardless of how nice Trent is as a person) there needs to be some reason for BeamDog/Overhaul to deny themselves financial gain over this software...PARTICULARLY since Atari and Steam are still making money off of it...even though NEITHER company had anything to do with the PRODUCTION of it. This is why I keep bringing this up as an oddity. The company that DEVELOPED the game has been asked to stop making money off of it while the company in Bankruptcy and IT'S Distribution method has NOT stopped distributing the game. The ONLY winner here seems to be Steam. Why Steam is being allowed to continue to dip into the pot while the developing company is not throws me for a loop. It's not an issue with the ownership of the IP itself or GoG and Steam would have stopped distributing it and it wouldn't be "asked" it would be "told".
* At some point legal Wranglings will subside, Atari will exist (or the rights to sell BG Games will go to someone else) and, assuming Overhaul/BeamDog's doors are still open (that's questionable if they're not making money and have no projects to get paid on) they will be given a green light to continue forward. I have no doubt about this, and WHEN is certainly the largest question out there...but I don't think it's the ONLY question out there.
Really the main point of the posts I'm making is to question the widely spread concept that Overhaul/BeamDog will be buying (or even COULD buy) the IP rights to the BG Series of games. From everything I'm seeing, I don't believe that IP is even for sale. The Distribution Rights for the game MAY be up for grabs, but I don't believe the IP is on the table anywhere. Not unless there's some back room deal going on between BeamDog and Hasbro waiting on contracts with Atari to be discontinued so it can do some kind of sale. While an awesome thought, however, I am in serious doubt of it.
There are a lot of people who seem to have the opinion that BeamDog is going to come out of this owning BG. My point is I don't think that's even possible given what I'm seeing from Atari's statement of assets.