I fail to see how them releasing a patch would even look bad on them. They aren't stopping say... me... from releasing a patch for the game. As long as Beamdog isn't SELLING a patch then there shouldn't be any ramifications legal or otherwise. I think what's far more likely is that Beamdog have simply stopped working on it because they don't want to work on it for a project that they might not get any profits from any longer.
Unless somehow *no one, anywhere* is allowed to release a patch for the game anymore I'm completely missing the part where that would somehow be illicit. But maybe that's just me being out of the know.
I fail to see how them releasing a patch would even look bad on them. They aren't stopping say... me... from releasing a patch for the game. As long as Beamdog isn't SELLING a patch then there shouldn't be any ramifications legal or otherwise. I think what's far more likely is that Beamdog have simply stopped working on it because they don't want to work on it for a project that they might not get any profits from any longer.
I do believe it is more along the lines of the copyright holders of Baldur's Gate and D&D Video games in general, Atari and Hasbro, telling them not to release anything related to Baldur's Gate until things get settled... And the most likely thing getting settled is Atari's bankruptcy and selling off some of their Intellectual Properties to possibly remain around as a company..
I fail to see how them releasing a patch would even look bad on them. They aren't stopping say... me... from releasing a patch for the game. As long as Beamdog isn't SELLING a patch then there shouldn't be any ramifications legal or otherwise. I think what's far more likely is that Beamdog have simply stopped working on it because they don't want to work on it for a project that they might not get any profits from any longer.
Unless somehow *no one, anywhere* is allowed to release a patch for the game anymore I'm completely missing the part where that would somehow be illicit. But maybe that's just me being out of the know.
First off, we don't know if it is finished even. If it isn't finished, releasing it could cause instability issues in the game. Even if it is "Finished", releasing it "Might potentially" cause issues with the program. There are so many hardware and software configurations out there, releasing something that may cause problems that they are not financially or legally allowed to work on exposes them to legal risk. Anything released prior to the 'freeze' is and remains at the state it was at time of freeze and therefore isn't a problem (hypothetically) but anything released during the freeze is twice as risky. Why run the risk?
Additionally, they may be using the patch and any work done on BG2:EE as some part of their strategy to get Atari to agree to whatever they are trying to talk about. Something along the lines of "We have this additional work that we can offer up, but you need to start agreeing to concessions on your end as well." IF that is the case (and I am NOT saying it is, merely that it is what I would do in their place), any work at all is a bargaining chip in their favor. releasing it gratis doesn't help them.
Thirdly, they may be under something akin to a gag order. Either internally or externally generated, this basically says (or would say if it existed or potentially existed - this is all extremely hypothetical you understand) "Not one single line of code is to be released until this is all resolved." Failing to follow the letter of that means that they "don't play well with others".
I want to be clear here. I am not assuming any of the above is in any way factual. I have no knowledge of the state of affairs, nor am I assuming anything on their part. Merely that these are factors that I might consider as reasons not to release my own code if I were in charge of a company like Beamdog. which I am not. These are therefore merely likely hypotheticals and nothing more.
@rathlord and @the_spyder. I have a different guess. I think that the patch was being worked on by paid employees, who were told that there was now no money to make payroll, so they'd have to find other jobs.
It turned out that none of them were willing to do the work to finish it up for free, so the parts of the patch that are finished are sitting on some network server at Overhaul.
They probably have the main program finished, but are missing quite a few subroutines or modules that have yet to be written. With a computer program, the final pieces that make the whole thing work are the last to be inserted, so, without the last few days or weeks worth of coding being done to finish those subroutines in the program, the whole thing doesn't work. At all.
And it still needs to go through QA and testing once the coding is finished. They can probably get their volunteer beta-testers to do the QA work for them, but the paid coders were let go before the last of the coding was finished.
I'm seeing a lot of insight into legal issues in the thread, but not much insight into the nature of computer coding, or of payroll accounting.
@belgarathmth If you read back over what I said, that's what I said, too =P Like I said, I'm not really here to say "you guys should release the patch now and say screw everyone," I just wanted to toss the idea out because I think it needed to be said.
@the_spyder There would be no legal backing for a gag order. Companies can't just give other companies gag orders. And even if they did, a gag order just blocks communication. I'm not saying there isn't a legal reason behind it all, but a gag order is something else (and, additionally, must be issued by a court not a private entity).
I'm a history student, but I don't... um... Is there anything historians and/or student typically do to be evil?
I don't think in general, people do things "To be evil". Ok, maybe a few do, but quite probably not the majority. Even with some of the greatest atrocities in this world's history, I don't believe that the people doing them, nor the people chronicling them "Intend to be evil". Yet still, the way histories end up can be perceived as evil.
I'm a history student, but I don't... um... Is there anything historians and/or student typically do to be evil?
I don't think in general, people do things "To be evil". Ok, maybe a few do, but quite probably not the majority. Even with some of the greatest atrocities in this world's history, I don't believe that the people doing them, nor the people chronicling them "Intend to be evil". Yet still, the way histories end up can be perceived as evil.
I think there are plenty of people who do evil either because it gives them pleasure, gets them something they need, or just for the heck of it. Problem is, our society just calls them psychopaths and tells us not to judge them. There are many evil people in the world.
@rathlord - oh absolutely there are evil people out there. I just don't think many people do stuff with the specific intent to do evil. Ther do it for evil or selfish reasons, but not because they had two choices, one merely selfish and the other evil so they chose the evil one TO BE EVIL.
Down there are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any iniquity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathsomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no.
@rathlord - oh absolutely there are evil people out there. I just don't think many people do stuff with the specific intent to do evil. Ther do it for evil or selfish reasons, but not because they had two choices, one merely selfish and the other evil so they chose the evil one TO BE EVIL.
Difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil ^_^
@rathlord - oh absolutely there are evil people out there. I just don't think many people do stuff with the specific intent to do evil. Ther do it for evil or selfish reasons, but not because they had two choices, one merely selfish and the other evil so they chose the evil one TO BE EVIL.
Difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil ^_^
I know you are probably trying to make a joke here, but I don't think I am being clear. In my view, most people, even the most evil SOBs don't actually think of themselves AS evil. You don't have people going around blowing up crap and kicking babies because they think 'This is what EVIL people do, so I HAVE to do it." I would suspect that most people either think that what they do is for some greater good, or merely don't think about it at all.
Sure there are some examples of people who act 'Evil' simply because they think they should, but I would bet that the majority of these incidents are incidental incidents. I think that the true evil acts, the ones that have the most impact by and large aren't these types of vaudevillian evil acts. I would guess the most evil people of this decade or century don't twist their mustaches and monologue. Nor do they say "My scheme isn't nefarious ENOUGH. let's kill more babies in the scheme." They act as they think is 'Right' only they are wrong.
While I agree with you that people likely aren't evil just "to be evil," what I think you're both missing is the driving factor for *all* evil- greed. You're right, the guy isn't killing babies because he just does it to be evil. To take an example from a religious text, he could be killing babies because one of them is fated to overthrow him. While not "for the sake of evil," it is very evil, the person knows it, and doesn't care. Greed is the root of ALL evil.
No. It never is. *runs for cover and hopes he's not subject to any liability...*
@reedmilfam Hmm depending on the country I could just say your comment caused me unbearable psicological pain and suffering and earn a few thousand dollars. Where I live the judges would probably make me pay for moving a frivolous suit in bad faith
1) Not all evil is 'Greed' motivated. Granted, quite a lot is, but nowhere near all. Selfishness is a motivation (and yes there is a difference). Hatred (with no material gain) is another. Even lack of learning right from wrong is a kind of evil. A child may pull the wings off of a fly for no material gain. I am sure the fly would call that evil.
2) No where near all 'Evil' people believe that they are evil. In fact, the vast majority probably think they are the good ones and that everyone else has it wrong. That was my entire point.
I do not believe that a truely evil person thinks to himself "How can I really put the screws to other people just for the heck of it". I think that they make decisions based on their up-bringing and their need at the time and make the call. They either don't consider or don't care about the consequences to others. Sure there are some real jerks out there out to screw everyone, but the vast majority (I imagine) just say "if i can get here, others can as well. So why shouldn't I take my share before them."
1) Not all evil is 'Greed' motivated. Granted, quite a lot is, but nowhere near all. Selfishness is a motivation (and yes there is a difference). Hatred (with no material gain) is another. Even lack of learning right from wrong is a kind of evil. A child may pull the wings off of a fly for no material gain. I am sure the fly would call that evil.
2) No where near all 'Evil' people believe that they are evil. In fact, the vast majority probably think they are the good ones and that everyone else has it wrong. That was my entire point.
I do not believe that a truely evil person thinks to himself "How can I really put the screws to other people just for the heck of it". I think that they make decisions based on their up-bringing and their need at the time and make the call. They either don't consider or don't care about the consequences to others. Sure there are some real jerks out there out to screw everyone, but the vast majority (I imagine) just say "if i can get here, others can as well. So why shouldn't I take my share before them."
Selfishness is a greed-based motivation. Maybe I should have said self-interest but every evil act comes down to it. Causing people pain because you hate them gives you satisfaction, makes you feel good. Hence, self interest. Same with pulling the wings off of a fly.
I agree on point number 2, for sure, but I still feel every evil act boils down to self interest at its most primal level.
@rathlord - and while I disagree with you, we have been asked to take this to another forum if we wish to discuss further. Either way, I respect your point of view.
I started the thread and there's already another thread that's actually for speculating, but I'm okay with getting it "back on topic" as it were.
Although now that I'm back on topic I'm not sure there's anything left to say in the matter. Which is why I joined the off topic chat in the first place XD
One of the great things about a message board is that once a thread has run its course, you don't have to post in it anymore. There's nothing wrong with letting a thread fade once its purpose has been served, but @Cuv is right--if you want to discuss something else, it makes more sense to start a new thread.
(And that's not to say that the good/evil discussion isn't interesting; just start a thread specifically for that conversation.)
So I know no one wants to hear this, but it probably ought to be said: As the patch sounds like it's very nearly complete, would you guys be willing to "leak" the patch so that we might play with a better game? .
There having enough trouble with Atari. I don't see how this would help matters in the least.
So I know no one wants to hear this, but it probably ought to be said: As the patch sounds like it's very nearly complete, would you guys be willing to "leak" the patch so that we might play with a better game? .
There having enough trouble with Atari. I don't see how this would help matters in the least.
Comments
Unless somehow *no one, anywhere* is allowed to release a patch for the game anymore I'm completely missing the part where that would somehow be illicit. But maybe that's just me being out of the know.
Additionally, they may be using the patch and any work done on BG2:EE as some part of their strategy to get Atari to agree to whatever they are trying to talk about. Something along the lines of "We have this additional work that we can offer up, but you need to start agreeing to concessions on your end as well." IF that is the case (and I am NOT saying it is, merely that it is what I would do in their place), any work at all is a bargaining chip in their favor. releasing it gratis doesn't help them.
Thirdly, they may be under something akin to a gag order. Either internally or externally generated, this basically says (or would say if it existed or potentially existed - this is all extremely hypothetical you understand) "Not one single line of code is to be released until this is all resolved." Failing to follow the letter of that means that they "don't play well with others".
I want to be clear here. I am not assuming any of the above is in any way factual. I have no knowledge of the state of affairs, nor am I assuming anything on their part. Merely that these are factors that I might consider as reasons not to release my own code if I were in charge of a company like Beamdog. which I am not. These are therefore merely likely hypotheticals and nothing more.
It turned out that none of them were willing to do the work to finish it up for free, so the parts of the patch that are finished are sitting on some network server at Overhaul.
They probably have the main program finished, but are missing quite a few subroutines or modules that have yet to be written. With a computer program, the final pieces that make the whole thing work are the last to be inserted, so, without the last few days or weeks worth of coding being done to finish those subroutines in the program, the whole thing doesn't work. At all.
And it still needs to go through QA and testing once the coding is finished. They can probably get their volunteer beta-testers to do the QA work for them, but the paid coders were let go before the last of the coding was finished.
I'm seeing a lot of insight into legal issues in the thread, but not much insight into the nature of computer coding, or of payroll accounting.
@the_spyder There would be no legal backing for a gag order. Companies can't just give other companies gag orders. And even if they did, a gag order just blocks communication. I'm not saying there isn't a legal reason behind it all, but a gag order is something else (and, additionally, must be issued by a court not a private entity).
Also, it has been as much as said that no one has gotten let go over this.
But again my suggestions are pure speculation and could be quite wrong.
Sure there are some examples of people who act 'Evil' simply because they think they should, but I would bet that the majority of these incidents are incidental incidents. I think that the true evil acts, the ones that have the most impact by and large aren't these types of vaudevillian evil acts. I would guess the most evil people of this decade or century don't twist their mustaches and monologue. Nor do they say "My scheme isn't nefarious ENOUGH. let's kill more babies in the scheme." They act as they think is 'Right' only they are wrong.
All in my own humble opinion.s
1) Not all evil is 'Greed' motivated. Granted, quite a lot is, but nowhere near all. Selfishness is a motivation (and yes there is a difference). Hatred (with no material gain) is another. Even lack of learning right from wrong is a kind of evil. A child may pull the wings off of a fly for no material gain. I am sure the fly would call that evil.
2) No where near all 'Evil' people believe that they are evil. In fact, the vast majority probably think they are the good ones and that everyone else has it wrong. That was my entire point.
I do not believe that a truely evil person thinks to himself "How can I really put the screws to other people just for the heck of it". I think that they make decisions based on their up-bringing and their need at the time and make the call. They either don't consider or don't care about the consequences to others. Sure there are some real jerks out there out to screw everyone, but the vast majority (I imagine) just say "if i can get here, others can as well. So why shouldn't I take my share before them."
I agree on point number 2, for sure, but I still feel every evil act boils down to self interest at its most primal level.
Although now that I'm back on topic I'm not sure there's anything left to say in the matter. Which is why I joined the off topic chat in the first place XD
(And that's not to say that the good/evil discussion isn't interesting; just start a thread specifically for that conversation.)