If they were to sell the Baldur's Gate IP then personally I'd hope for a bigger studio to buy it. Beamdog are great with what they're trying to do with BG:EE, but if it's to be sold off to anyone then I'd appreciate it being bought by a studio with better resources to not only take the game to a wider market, but also to potentially do more ambitious projects with the BG IP than tinkering with the old game somewhat.
ALL BEAMDOG CAN LEGALLY DO IS TINKER! IF THEY DID ANY MORE THAN THAT, THEY WOULD LOOSE THE RIGHTS TO MAKE THE EEs AND GET SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE FOR BREACH OF CONTACT!
I apologize to the rest of you for the caps lock, but it seems for some of our fellow forum-goers, it's necessary. I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be said before people start to get it?
I'm pretty sure this only applies to the original story and NPCs. I realize that this is a fairly substantial part of the game that is off limits, but, as far as I know, they can still add new NPCs, quests, areas, items, kits, subraces, as well as make graphical and GUI enhancements (and they've already done most these things to one extent or another), and probably some other things I'm forgetting or unaware of. I'd say that's enough freedom to allow changes significant enough to be considered more than "tinkering".
@Shawne You're acting like the only alternative to Beamdog picking up the IP is a mega-publisher like EA getting a hold of it. There are other options, such as medium sized comanies like inXile or Obsidian.
@Mornmagor, i have to say that i not only like but agree.
The graphic issue could be made from zero if needed, with the proper investment, maybe if BG:EE change from developer only to owner also. We can only hope as the title says.
@Shawne You're acting like the only alternative to Beamdog picking up the IP is a mega-publisher like EA getting a hold of it. There are other options, such as medium sized comanies like inXile or Obsidian.
Because I think it's highly unlikely that medium-sized companies would be interested - setting aside the fact that inXile, Obsidian and Bethesda have their hands full with their own properties, I doubt very much that they could readily afford to acquire an IP that requires splitting distribution and content rights between three or four different companies (even with Atari out of the picture, you'd still have BioWare/EA, Hasbro and WotC to contend with). inXile chose to avoid that quagmire by distancing "Torment: Tides of Numenara" from "Planescape Torment", why would they dive back in for something they didn't even make?
In 24 august 2012, Sony had renewed Legend of Dragoon Trademark, everyone then expected an HD remake or a sequel of that great game, however no news about it have been released. Sometimes get a copyright just mean that a rival can't get it or just mean a 10 years project as Big companies doesn't have any urge about the products at their hand, they got thousand of options already.
Well this was mostly done because of the American release on the PSN originals of Legend of Dragoon in North America earlier in May. Plus it's a series that there has been a major amount of demand for a remake/sequel for about 10+ years now.
Also bear in mind that it hasn't even been a year yet since it was reacquired. You are also in a phase where console developers are going through periods where they are finally completely transitioning over to the next gen of consoles. With the string of old series coming out again, I'm pretty sure we'll see another Dragoon again soon and on the PS4 no less.
Someone else mentioned Legacy of Kain. Good lord don't even get me started on that series. Most unfortunate end to a great series in the history of gaming. They ran into a few big problems though, most of the original development team moved on to other studios after Defiance and the plans they left for the last game got picked up and the game that team developed afterwards got shelved from more circumstantial problems than you can imagine. There's been more petitions and interest for that series to be picked up again than any other IP.
I will generally agree that a lot of bigger studios today have killed/exploited game series but they are getting better in some regards. Many developers and people inside the industry have gotten annoyed at this and frankly I think even a lot of corporate members have realized that they are losing by doing this. That's why I'm hoping next gen will obviously have your COD money makers and more deeper titles that stay true to the originals. Resident Evil is the best case study of how a series falls bad. The last two games have done really poorly in reception and I think the industry has finally realized why at the top end.
I'm also noticing the level of hate from many people for studios like Bethesda. To be honest I don't see it. I feel Bethesda is one of the better studios. I mean yes their modern games aren't as deep as Morrowind was, but Skyrim was pretty damn close. I find it hard to argue Skyrim was a bad game by any means. I mean I think that's more a case of it's hard to get as much detail of storyline, mechanics, and features in that level graphics and size. Skyrim is arguably the most detailed, graphical, and engaging RPG in years.
Like I said if BG is in a worst case scenario auctioned publically, I'd be willing to bid what I can. I mean yes at the present time Beamdog is not a large studio but at the very least I know they are willing and intend to develop the series and IP more. They obviously care about the IP itself and I'm willing to see what they could develop with much less strings attached. Long story short I'd trust them any day over the bigger studios, save possibly Bethesda which I like, but that studio has enough on their plate now, so I don't see them being interested.
@Shawne You're acting like the only alternative to Beamdog picking up the IP is a mega-publisher like EA getting a hold of it. There are other options, such as medium sized comanies like inXile or Obsidian.
Because I think it's highly unlikely that medium-sized companies would be interested - setting aside the fact that inXile, Obsidian and Bethesda have their hands full with their own properties, I doubt very much that they could readily afford to acquire an IP that requires splitting distribution and content rights between three or four different companies (even with Atari out of the picture, you'd still have BioWare/EA, Hasbro and WotC to contend with). inXile chose to avoid that quagmire by distancing "Torment: Tides of Numenara" from "Planescape Torment", why would they dive back in for something they didn't even make?
You're probably right that inXile/Obsidian wouldn't do BG3, but I don't think there's any reason they couldn't. Also, I'm not sure why Overhaul would be able to afford it but inXile and Obsidian couldn't. Anyways, I used those two simply as examples of a middle ground between Overhaul and EA.
I'd just like to go on record saying that I am fully supportive of Beamdog/Overhaul, and would be overjoyed if they buy the BG IP (hopefully IWD would also come with that). I also don't think beamdog is public, but if they were, you could count me in for buying stocks.
Can we buy stock in Beamdog to assist in funding the acquisition of BG IP?
I don't think they are a public company. Also, they're based in Canada, so I don't know how that affects stocks...
...Canada has a very internationally significant stock exchange, the TSE. Well, it's mostly raw materials, and industry to service the stuff. We still have a few big tech companies, though we've been becoming progressively less relevant all the time in the high tech field, notably in telecommunications, which we used to be world leaders in. Poor Blackberry! Uh, poor Nortel? *shrug*
@TheGreatKhan, no matter what is said, everything else besides the fact are assumptions. Sony brought LoD trademark and didn't give a single official statement of what they intent to do with the title.
I hope you to be right, so i can see a sequel for LoD, or an HD remake. But as you even said, if Sony decide to keep the copyrights for 10 yers, they would lost nothing. An small company maybe would have less resources, but by their own needs they would release any news earlier also.
Does anyone else wonder if a kickstarter project wouldn't help out here?
A Kickstarter project with what goal, buying the rights from Atari? That wouldn't exactly be a typical Kickstarter project, what sort of rewards would those that pledge receive (as is expected in KS projects)? It would be nice, but I doubt that such a project would do well, and it would also most likely make the company seem a bit desperate.
They've stated before that their partners didn't want them doing KS for the games themselves; but I suppose that Overhaul could start a KS for BG3 and include in the funding goal the cost of buying the rights from Atari... The problem with this being Overhaul's partners: even if they don't mind Overhaul using KS, those that donate to KS projects have an anti-publisher view of projects, and would not be likely to donate to the developers of a project when the devs and the game are going to be tied up in legal relations with WoTC, Hasbro, and EA (/Bioware). Having this tangled web of business partners and the restrictions that come with them is always going to stand in the way of the quality of the games and fans' abilities to trust the company making the game. The only way to be free of this would be to purchase all the varied BG-associated and D&D-associated rights before working on a BG game, which would clearly be astronomically expensive and unrealistic.
One alternative that I could see would be going the route of Torment: Tides of Numenerra, and Kickstarting a project which is an original IP that could be a "spiritual successor" to the BG games. Although Project Eternity is sort of riding on being considered a s. successor to all the IE games, a game advertised and designed as a specific successor to BG's style of gameplay, storytelling, etc. might just do well on KS. It would be nice if they had BG:EE and BG2:EE both released and patched before pursuing this future game so that their experience and talent could speak for itself.
I have high hopes in what this company could do with a BG s. successor original IP given the right funding through KS.
@Dee (& other devs): Any chance of something like this? I'm sure the team would love to work on a game without so many restrictions, and it seems like it would be worth it to at least run the Kickstarter project down the line and, if it doesn't reach its goal, little to no harm done.
I don't even know if the actual BG:EE infinite engine has any contractual bind with the previous and older infinite engine. If not, it's a less copyright to run after.
Im tired of the expression, tangled Web of partners. Wotc wants BG ,atari wants BG, bioware wants BG. Everyone is making money.
Its a win / win / win / win situation.
I'm sorry you're tired of the expression, but your preferences don't make it any less correct. Obviously the motivations of the business partners are clear, and yes, they obviously all want to maintain their rights and continue making profits due to those rights. None of this changes the fact that having to bend to the will of multiple rights-holders makes the process of working on BG games pretty difficult and convoluted. Beamdog's business partners have an interest in the products with which their names are associated, and so they have a desire to control these products.
Also, the fact that all these parties "want BG" and "everyone is making money" doesn't make this a "win / win / win / win situation." That's quite the oversimplification. Only if all parties and the customers are mostly satisfied with the situation and what they're giving and receiving does the situation become "win-win." This clearly isn't the case at the moment. Beamdog can't sell or work on BG and has been restricted from the beginning in what they are able to do and Atari is selling off assets which may or may not end up including their BG rights which, if sold, could end up in the ownership of any number of potentially interested parties. Again, this isn't exactly able to be defined as some ideal situation.
@Dee Which is a fair point. Also, what's with the name change, if I may ask?
But like I said previously I just think why not give it to a bigger studio who could do more with the IP? From what I've seen on these boards Beamdog said they have limited resources (not to say bigger companies have unlimted resources lol). At least that's the impression I get from they've said on what they can and can't do regardless of the legal situation (before the latest developments).
I've loved a lot of what has been done with BG:EE and was cautiously awaiting BG2:EE, but I can't say I didn't view the process as flawed and that I'm left with the impression that some people were possibly too eager to take on BG:EE despite some serious restrictions. I don't know all the ins and outs there because obviously I'm not privy too inside knowledge, but that's the impression from what has been said on the legal issues and their ramifications.
To be clear to everyone I'm not saying the game is awful or that I regret spending money on it, just that I question some of the decisions made. I realise that may not be popular to say, but those are my views and I don't see the harm of airing them.
@RedGuard You keep raising this point about how a 'bigger' company would do more, and then @Malicron yelled that contractual obligations (not the size of the company) prevented Beamdog from doing 'bigger' things. So he was not just being a jerk and yelling with capslock but trying to make a point.
I'm so late to this discussion lol....shennanignas
I will generally agree that a lot of bigger studios today have killed/exploited game series but they are getting better in some regards. Many developers and people inside the industry have gotten annoyed at this and frankly I think even a lot of corporate members have realized that they are losing by doing this. That's why I'm hoping next gen will obviously have your COD money makers and more deeper titles that stay true to the originals. Resident Evil is the best case study of how a series falls bad. The last two games have done really poorly in reception and I think the industry has finally realized why at the top end.
I fully agree with this sediment. To be honest with you, I am not even sure if the staff members inside large studio even liked the fact the series strategy works so well. People who worked in gaming industry probably have a dream of making them dream game, but in the end you have to face the money.
Part of the blame is actually on the consumer side: Why on Earth do people want to play countless CODs? Why on Earth people want instant gratifying MMORPG - like WOW? Consumer choices often dictate what is being made. In the end, your janitor to the CEO of gaming studio needs to feed themselves.
Another alarming trend is the fad of browser/social networking/mobile game. Many have terrible or highly-repetitive game play, and often acts as your seasonal fad game of choice. So the market is flooded with poor quality instant gratifying game that is too easily accessible.
Many consumers have poor taste. Large studios have to face up to both that and their own investor requirements. It is really tough. Last month, Wall Street Journal interviewed the CEO of Nintendo, Nintendo CEO said that he had to set the company's gaming studio and hardware design policy to look down 20 years down the road. He said it was hard because shareholders keep pressuring the board to jump on social gaming or releasing Nintendo's IP to other platforms, which he think that only beneficial in the short term, and is against long term interest of Nintendo. Instant gratification and short-termism do factor strongly in studio strategy.
In fact a smaller private studio like Beamdog has more flexibility and pick on projects what they want to work on - as long as it is financially feasible to do so. It is really a shame that legal issues get in the way. Anyway, Beamdog still has to remember the good-ole rule by Warren Buffett: "Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1."
I think he meant that if Beamdog acquires the IP, they still would not have resources to do graphical enhancements along with others, that a bigger company would be probably able to do.
The thing is, if you're so limited by contracts to enhance something, and can't touch the original content as a result, along with the source art gone which means you can't touch the graphics, the enhancements you can actually do are really limited. So what is this about?
Porting, obviously and a bit of ease of use. Which is cool and all, but a lot of people envisioned the "Infinity Engine Resurrection" as something more grand.
Anyway, if they(Beamdog) acquire the IP, i hope they step up from "enhancement" to something more, which they should be able to do then.
Does anyone else wonder if a kickstarter project wouldn't help out here?
They've stated before that their partners didn't want them doing KS for the games themselves; but I suppose that Overhaul could start a KS for BG3 and include in the funding goal the cost of buying the rights from Atari...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, without the rights, wouldn't they be unable to make a BG3?
Also, not to be a Debbie Downer here, but isn't the auction coming up pretty quickly? A Kickstarter to raise enough money from an admittedly niche audience would probably have to be up already. Plus, if the price of the IP hasn't been announced (or if it is even going up for auction), how would they know what to set it at?
Sorry... I really want them to have the rights, too, just being a little realistic.
The work is done, the new engine, the most of the bug clean, most of the new content or at least the patch to do the new content.
By adquiring the IP beamdog will not have to pay toll for the copyrights anymore, neither will have to wait for approval for any project done. Less money flowing out of the company and more speed in the content released.
Let's just hope that ATARI to not give much attention to BG:EE, otherwise they would probally hold the copyrights and make us wait the 6+ months of the bankruptcy to make something.
I don't know how the District Attorney office of EUA works on, but here in Brazil, The "Ministério Público", the equivalent of this office (in fact the MP on Brazil acts nearly as a 4° power), it's responsible for promoting "public civil suit" for tutelage of colective rights and intervene in any suit where rights of unable, juvenile and colective rights are discussed. If exist any similarity between those 2 officers, maybe a complaint to D.A Office should help a bit we, customers scattered over the world.
@RedGuard You keep raising this point about how a 'bigger' company would do more, and then @Malicron yelled that contractual obligations (not the size of the company) prevented Beamdog from doing 'bigger' things. So he was not just being a jerk and yelling with capslock but trying to make a point.
I'm so late to this discussion lol....shennanignas
@bdeonovic It's still not paying attention to what I actually said though. I acknowledge the situation and make the point that we've been told that they don't have the resources to do some of the features fans would like to see regardless of the legal situation. From what they've told us I don't get the impression that if they were no longer subject to the same terms that we would see much difference. That's why I pondered if maybe a dev studio with more resources at hand could do more with the BG IP.
Does anybody know what restrictions placed on BG:EE were put there by Atari as opposed to WoTC or EA/Bioware? If Beamdog were to get the rights from Atari what restrictions would be removed?
It's great to come back to this forum after the weekend and to find some positive news. The acknowledgement that Beamdog have been trying to find a solution ("proposing something") certainly shows it's not over yet.
I've managed to find out that it's not accidentally that Atari's listing of assets doesn't mention anything related to BG. I understand it's all due to the following reasons.
A New York bankruptcy judge on June 13 approved Atari’s plan to sell off its assets piece by piece by the end of July. On June 19 the announcement from Trent appears. For me it shows that removing BG:EE from sale on Beamdog and the Apple App Store is 100% connected to the court's approval of Atari’s plan.
All this weekend I've been searching the answer how is it possible that if this removing BG:EE from sale is a part of Atari’s plan there's nothing BG-related in their listing of assets. And now I see how.
In addition to seeking to sell major assets in the July auctions, Atari is going to sell certain games outside of the auction process.
"These assets have generated insufficient interest to be included in their own respective category," the company said.
Obviously, the BG intellectual rights are in this category. And because of this a great chance appears that Beamdog can buy what they need outside of the auction process. BTW, we can find plenty of reasons BG is not on the auction, from 1) it's more than 10-years old game and thus "insufficient interest" to 2) Beamdog has an advantage here that cannot be risked loosing (they've already put more at least 2 years of work into it).
Having come to this conclusion I've asked myself is it real that some of Atari's assest are indeed being sold outside of the auction process. And yes, it's real.
On June 24 Nordic Games confirmed it had acquired Desperados and Silver IP from Atari for an undisclosed sum.
So, if some of Atari's assest are really being sold outside of the auction process while there's nothing BG-related in Atari's list of assets for the auction it becomes clear that Beamdog as a matter of fact is trying to solve the issue in the best possible way.
Taking into account Atari will be receiving bids by a July 10 deadline in advance of auctions proposed for July 16, 17, 18 and 19, the same term can be actual for selling assets outside of the auction process.
One way or another a sale hearing in the court will take place on July 24 - it's the date when a judge will give his blessing to all the transactions.
And after all the deliberation and cogitation I've had this weekend I'm in a strong belief Beamdog will settle this problem in the nearest future.
Comments
@Shawne
You're acting like the only alternative to Beamdog picking up the IP is a mega-publisher like EA getting a hold of it. There are other options, such as medium sized comanies like inXile or Obsidian.
The graphic issue could be made from zero if needed, with the proper investment, maybe if BG:EE change from developer only to owner also. We can only hope as the title says.
Also bear in mind that it hasn't even been a year yet since it was reacquired. You are also in a phase where console developers are going through periods where they are finally completely transitioning over to the next gen of consoles. With the string of old series coming out again, I'm pretty sure we'll see another Dragoon again soon and on the PS4 no less.
Someone else mentioned Legacy of Kain. Good lord don't even get me started on that series. Most unfortunate end to a great series in the history of gaming. They ran into a few big problems though, most of the original development team moved on to other studios after Defiance and the plans they left for the last game got picked up and the game that team developed afterwards got shelved from more circumstantial problems than you can imagine. There's been more petitions and interest for that series to be picked up again than any other IP.
I will generally agree that a lot of bigger studios today have killed/exploited game series but they are getting better in some regards. Many developers and people inside the industry have gotten annoyed at this and frankly I think even a lot of corporate members have realized that they are losing by doing this. That's why I'm hoping next gen will obviously have your COD money makers and more deeper titles that stay true to the originals. Resident Evil is the best case study of how a series falls bad. The last two games have done really poorly in reception and I think the industry has finally realized why at the top end.
I'm also noticing the level of hate from many people for studios like Bethesda. To be honest I don't see it. I feel Bethesda is one of the better studios. I mean yes their modern games aren't as deep as Morrowind was, but Skyrim was pretty damn close. I find it hard to argue Skyrim was a bad game by any means. I mean I think that's more a case of it's hard to get as much detail of storyline, mechanics, and features in that level graphics and size. Skyrim is arguably the most detailed, graphical, and engaging RPG in years.
Like I said if BG is in a worst case scenario auctioned publically, I'd be willing to bid what I can. I mean yes at the present time Beamdog is not a large studio but at the very least I know they are willing and intend to develop the series and IP more. They obviously care about the IP itself and I'm willing to see what they could develop with much less strings attached. Long story short I'd trust them any day over the bigger studios, save possibly Bethesda which I like, but that studio has enough on their plate now, so I don't see them being interested.
I also don't think beamdog is public, but if they were, you could count me in for buying stocks.
I hope you to be right, so i can see a sequel for LoD, or an HD remake. But as you even said, if Sony decide to keep the copyrights for 10 yers, they would lost nothing. An small company maybe would have less resources, but by their own needs they would release any news earlier also.
They've stated before that their partners didn't want them doing KS for the games themselves; but I suppose that Overhaul could start a KS for BG3 and include in the funding goal the cost of buying the rights from Atari... The problem with this being Overhaul's partners: even if they don't mind Overhaul using KS, those that donate to KS projects have an anti-publisher view of projects, and would not be likely to donate to the developers of a project when the devs and the game are going to be tied up in legal relations with WoTC, Hasbro, and EA (/Bioware). Having this tangled web of business partners and the restrictions that come with them is always going to stand in the way of the quality of the games and fans' abilities to trust the company making the game. The only way to be free of this would be to purchase all the varied BG-associated and D&D-associated rights before working on a BG game, which would clearly be astronomically expensive and unrealistic.
One alternative that I could see would be going the route of Torment: Tides of Numenerra, and Kickstarting a project which is an original IP that could be a "spiritual successor" to the BG games. Although Project Eternity is sort of riding on being considered a s. successor to all the IE games, a game advertised and designed as a specific successor to BG's style of gameplay, storytelling, etc. might just do well on KS. It would be nice if they had BG:EE and BG2:EE both released and patched before pursuing this future game so that their experience and talent could speak for itself.
I have high hopes in what this company could do with a BG s. successor original IP given the right funding through KS.
@Dee (& other devs): Any chance of something like this? I'm sure the team would love to work on a game without so many restrictions, and it seems like it would be worth it to at least run the Kickstarter project down the line and, if it doesn't reach its goal, little to no harm done.
Its a win / win / win / win situation.
Now let atari get over Their bankruptcy stunt, and lets get on track with BG again.
Summer is another 2 months, plenty of time until the long days.
Also, the fact that all these parties "want BG" and "everyone is making money" doesn't make this a "win / win / win / win situation." That's quite the oversimplification. Only if all parties and the customers are mostly satisfied with the situation and what they're giving and receiving does the situation become "win-win." This clearly isn't the case at the moment. Beamdog can't sell or work on BG and has been restricted from the beginning in what they are able to do and Atari is selling off assets which may or may not end up including their BG rights which, if sold, could end up in the ownership of any number of potentially interested parties. Again, this isn't exactly able to be defined as some ideal situation.
I'm so late to this discussion lol....shennanignas
The thing is, if you're so limited by contracts to enhance something, and can't touch the original content as a result, along with the source art gone which means you can't touch the graphics, the enhancements you can actually do are really limited. So what is this about?
Porting, obviously and a bit of ease of use. Which is cool and all, but a lot of people envisioned the "Infinity Engine Resurrection" as something more grand.
Anyway, if they(Beamdog) acquire the IP, i hope they step up from "enhancement" to something more, which they should be able to do then.
Also, not to be a Debbie Downer here, but isn't the auction coming up pretty quickly? A Kickstarter to raise enough money from an admittedly niche audience would probably have to be up already. Plus, if the price of the IP hasn't been announced (or if it is even going up for auction), how would they know what to set it at?
Sorry... I really want them to have the rights, too, just being a little realistic.
By adquiring the IP beamdog will not have to pay toll for the copyrights anymore, neither will have to wait for approval for any project done. Less money flowing out of the company and more speed in the content released.
Let's just hope that ATARI to not give much attention to BG:EE, otherwise they would probally hold the copyrights and make us wait the 6+ months of the bankruptcy to make something.
I don't know how the District Attorney office of EUA works on, but here in Brazil, The "Ministério Público", the equivalent of this office (in fact the MP on Brazil acts nearly as a 4° power), it's responsible for promoting "public civil suit" for tutelage of colective rights and intervene in any suit where rights of unable, juvenile and colective rights are discussed. If exist any similarity between those 2 officers, maybe a complaint to D.A Office should help a bit we, customers scattered over the world.
@bengoshi would know more about this apparently.
I've managed to find out that it's not accidentally that Atari's listing of assets doesn't mention anything related to BG. I understand it's all due to the following reasons.
A New York bankruptcy judge on June 13 approved Atari’s plan to sell off its assets piece by piece by the end of July. On June 19 the announcement from Trent appears. For me it shows that removing BG:EE from sale on Beamdog and the Apple App Store is 100% connected to the court's approval of Atari’s plan.
All this weekend I've been searching the answer how is it possible that if this removing BG:EE from sale is a part of Atari’s plan there's nothing BG-related in their listing of assets. And now I see how.
In addition to seeking to sell major assets in the July auctions, Atari is going to sell certain games outside of the auction process.
"These assets have generated insufficient interest to be included in their own respective category," the company said.
Obviously, the BG intellectual rights are in this category. And because of this a great chance appears that Beamdog can buy what they need outside of the auction process. BTW, we can find plenty of reasons BG is not on the auction, from 1) it's more than 10-years old game and thus "insufficient interest" to 2) Beamdog has an advantage here that cannot be risked loosing (they've already put more at least 2 years of work into it).
Having come to this conclusion I've asked myself is it real that some of Atari's assest are indeed being sold outside of the auction process. And yes, it's real.
On June 24 Nordic Games confirmed it had acquired Desperados and Silver IP from Atari for an undisclosed sum.
So, if some of Atari's assest are really being sold outside of the auction process while there's nothing BG-related in Atari's list of assets for the auction it becomes clear that Beamdog as a matter of fact is trying to solve the issue in the best possible way.
Taking into account Atari will be receiving bids by a July 10 deadline in advance of auctions proposed for July 16, 17, 18 and 19, the same term can be actual for selling assets outside of the auction process.
One way or another a sale hearing in the court will take place on July 24 - it's the date when a judge will give his blessing to all the transactions.
And after all the deliberation and cogitation I've had this weekend I'm in a strong belief Beamdog will settle this problem in the nearest future.
Too bad the only thing I can give you for your hard work is an insightful...