I recommend Google search with "Search Tools" -> "Past 24 hours" set with these key word combinations: Atari bankruptcy Atari assets Atari intellectual property
You could also try various combinations that include "overhaul", "beamdog", "Baldur's Gate", "BGEE", "trent oster".
More importantly, if you find something please post it here!
*sigh* Non-Disclosure Agreement = we can't get any word (officially). Period. I'm not sure why this is so difficult, but I do know why it's frustrating. Legal hornet's nests are a pain in the derriere, and probably always will be...
I recommend Google search with "Search Tools" -> "Past 24 hours" set with these key word combinations: Atari bankruptcy Atari assets Atari intellectual property
You could also try various combinations that include "overhaul", "beamdog", "Baldur's Gate", "BGEE", "trent oster".
More importantly, if you find something please post it here!
@ThunderSoul - In Google search, there are tabs right below the search box: "Web", "Images", "Maps", "Shopping", "More" and "Search tools". If you click on "Search tools" you can then click on "Any time" and change it to "Past 24 hours" (or whatever time frame you prefer).
@Rathlord Actually I didn't. It has been said many times before by the developers, such as in the Reddit all you can ask last year and right here in the forum where it was repeated many times that all details concerning the contracts and sales were under NDA. Just after release, for instance, it was asked if the sales were going well and the developers just answered that sales numbers were under NDA.
Just do some research and you'll find it.
@mlnevese As I said before you've vastly over exaggerated what we know. Just because they were under an NDA about the contracts doesn't mean they're bound by that in this particular circumstance. For all we know those contracts may have been liquidated by now. Furthermore, it may be that it's true that Overhaul owes Atari money and that could easily be something not covered in the specifics of their previous NDA. NDA's tend to need to be VERY specific to be binding.
Furthermore, it seems HIGHLY likely that if they couldn't comment because of NDA they would have jumped up and said that first chance they got- it makes them look better. It makes it look as if they aren't hiding things. They don't have any reason NOT to have told us they couldn't comment because of NDA and I think you're at best reaching.
So while there's a chance that is the reason, it seems very illogical to jump up and make that assumption with any pretense of certainty.
1) You're right about the NDA. We do not KNOW there is an NDA in effect. Several of us are GUESSING there is an "NDA" in effect. And, to clarify, by NDA we are not specifically talking about a Non-Disclosure Agreement you tend to have to sign when entering into secretive contract...though we are not ruling out that concept. NDA's are pretty common when "in the know" in dealings between or even within corporations, so the concept that the Dev Team (those who have the knowledge) would be under NDA about all of this isn't totally out of the question...though I will admit, you are correct in that we do not know this.
2) What most of us mean by the term NDA in our discussions here is a generic "we can't legally talk about this" as would be the case in the instance of an NDA or (more likely in a court case like this) a "Gag Order". There are several legal situations one can be under (beyond NDA) where talking can lead to legal troubles. While I appreciate your note that we have no idea whether an NDA is in effect, the term being used here is more "generic".
3) As joking as the comment about being under NDA and whether or not you're breaking NDA by saying you're under NDA was...I have been under several in my lifetime (almost all Game Related), and in almost all of them identifying that you are bound by an NDA is, in fact, a breach of the NDA itself. Stating "We're under NDA, we can't comment" can and probably would be a breach of that same NDA.
4) Even without a legally binding "Gag Order" of some kind, it's been posted MANY times in MANY different ways and locations that the powers that be at BeamDog believe it would not be in the companies best interest to post details about any of this. This doesn't preclude a gag order of some kind being in effect (again, in many cases you can't claim to be legally unable to comment without breaking the contract that's legally binding you from commenting), it DOES mean that BeamDog is either unwilling or unable to comment for the best outcome for their company. Given that the best outcome for BeamDog is likely the best outcome for all of us here on the boards, I feel like we're don't nothing but arguing semantics between "can't" and "shouldn't"...in this case, they're pretty much the same thing and both mean "won't"...and "won't" in this case also implies "to the benefit of us and our customers" at least if you take BeamDog at their word. (If not that's a topic for an entirely different discussion).
5) Finally, I'd like to propose that using the words "you don't know that" in your replies sets up a conversation stopper. I can post "you don't know that" to EVERY post on these boards relating to BeamDog and Atari at this point and no one can argue with me. No one here "knows" anything. No one posting here is a party to anything going on in courts and/or within BeamDog. Suggesting that someone's opinion or speculation isn't valid because we don't KNOW their speculation is valid does indeed make you right EVERY TIME, but doesn't lead toward further discussion. In my opinion (given freely, and worth every penny you've just paid for it), the speculation is interesting and at LEAST helps pass the time...if it doesn't help clarify the situation.
If you have a theory or conjecture, spout it! That's what we're all doing. It's interesting to see the logic and the backing behind that logic and helps people clarify their own thinking and make some sense to all of this. Even without knowing anything, taking part in (or reading) the conversation can help you get a better grasp of the complexity.
The official word is on the front page in the FAQ:
They're working on it. They'll let you know when they have more to tell you but they're hopeful they'll be able to reach a resolution.
It's not the answer any of us (even those of us being termed "BeamDog Brown Nosers") want to hear. None of us like the waiting game, none of us like the lack of information.
If your honest question was "Is there anything more official than what's posted on the front page." the honest answer is "no" there's not. And you can stop reading this post right here because the rest doesn't apply to you.
If, however, you aren't asking for what the official answer is, you (like many others) are asking for a status update..."Give us more information than we have right now." then:
There's a metric ton of posts as to why this won't happen. Everything from "They can't due to legal matters" (speculation) all the way down to "It's not a good idea for them to do so." (officially stated in several places), and passing through a huge amount of speculation along the way.
Any way you cut it, the answer to the request of "give us more information than we have now" will never come. Not till some major progress is made and potentially not till another entire deal has been signed and the game is back in sales production (or the project is officially shutdown completely).
What we're being told time and time again is that this is NOT a slight to you personally, their customers in general or the community in total...BeamDog/OverHaul/Trent/the developers/whatever entity you want to talk about has EVERY incentive to get the game back in your hands and patches, updates and further development going again. There is absolutely NO motivation what-so-ever on the part of anyone involved in the sale or support of this product to allow this current situation to continue a millisecond longer than it has to. BeamDog is losing money hand over fist (and according to some official comments aren't making much of anything at the moment) over this loss of sales ability. Being unable to produce BG2:EE and sell that or update with the newest patch is also not on their list of "good things". The number of pissed off customers coming to these boards to complain about the situation is also not something I believe that's making anyone over there happy right now either.
The only answer we've ever gotten to the question of "What's the status" has been "we're working on it and we'll tell you when something changes." I'm as democratically minded and against corporate BS as the next guy. But I simply can't find any reason for that official statement not to be true. Not because I think OverHaul/BeamDog is a flawless company, but because there's just no motivation for that statement NOT to be true.
@illydth I completely agree with everything you said there. I really didn't have any problem with people conjecturing that they were under an NDA, but that's not what he said. He said "they're under an NDA and that's why they can't talk about it." Which obviously wasn't accurate.
I'm not arguing it to be pedantic (or semantic for that matter), I just want to keep things factual here. And (maybe being a little semantic now) I think that we should be accurate with the terms we use including NDA and Gag Order. Someone posted something about a Gag Order in another thread and I reamed them out a bit for it because that was even less likely than an NDA.
Anyways~
I'm not sure there's much else to do now but wait for news =\ Here's hoping we hear something soon!
Yea, you're right. We all (including me) should be careful with the difference between "they may be under NDA and thus can't talk" and "they're under NDA and can't talk" in our conjecture. I think one of the big problems is that, like the poster above, I'm fighting for a term to describe a the illegality of discussing the details of a court case outside of court. "Sequester" is what they do to juries which wouldn't apply here, "NDA" isn't right unless there was a contract prior to Atari going bankrupt that banned public statements in the case of a court battle, and "Gag Order" may be a bit too official / judicial in that I think that assumes the judge deciding "off the cuff" so to speak to stop all public conversation about a case...which likely isn't in effect here either.
I'd love a better term for what we're talking about, and if there is one I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that we should be using it...I just don't have the legal background to figure out what that term would be.
Either way there are two possibilities here, either they CAN'T speak (whatever legal term we want to place around that) or they WON'T speak (as @Dee states, just because you may legally be allowed to say something doesn't mean it wouldn't be almost as detrimental as a law suit).
And despite my post back to you, those of us spouting conjecture on a regular basis (including and especially myself) can use someone willing to post "reality checks" when we get a bit too "factual" with our conjecture. Good catch.
I suspect that they won't talk about it, as they still have hope that it can be resolved amicably, and they are concerned that if details of the talks are spread out publicly, that may sabotage their efforts.
Maybe Atari is more concern about being bankrupt and paying of debt collectors then discussion about BGEE2 with beamdog? Anyone ever thought about that scenario?
They've said that they were asked not to talk about it, and I think that while they may not be bound by law (be it contractual obligation or actual law) it's obviously in their best interests not to speak about it. That being said it's likely best to just refer to it as them making the smart choice rather than any specific law term. Carry on with the conjecture! If there's anything left to think about, we're in a bit of a rut now D=
@raxtoren Regardless of what they're concerned with, it's one of their assets and it has to be dealt with whether they like it or not. It's just a matter of when and how.
I'm really hoping we will. We're still too new on the cases and deals for them to make much additional comment, and there may just be stuff they're not going to be willing to talk about AT ALL, like ever.
That said, for the several of us who have been filing the forum with what has likely amounted to (at best) entertaining logical guess work and (at worst) completely drivel and fluff, it'd be (nice, fun, entertaining, curiosity curing, insert description here) to get a better understanding of exactly what REALLY happened just to see how close we all were at reading court documents and piecing together the honestly complex 10+ year chain of events, business sales and corporate deals surrounding the IP, Production and Distribution rights of this product.
Ah well. BG:EE is back on sale, BG2:EE will soon follow (i'm sure)...I'm contented to wait for the "what really happened" recap.
I don't know, I'm really bummed now. It was getting really interesting trying to weed out which Atari subsidiaries might be involved in this and how the parent company "Atari SA" factors in to the whole picture. It was fun speculating and hypothesizing about the various legal entanglements and how the whole thing might play out.
And now this??? I feel so empty...
Oh well, *sigh* I guess I'll just have to buy BGEE for my IPad and try to enjoy myself with this tremendous let down (sobs quietly into bowl of Wheaties)
I don't know that I would call it an NDA, but the consequences of revealing too much would be just as dire, if not more so.
Like how when nintendo contracted sony to make a CD drive for their next console, sony revealed it which dishonored nintendo's ancestors (or something) and despite lack of NDA resulted in nintendo cancelling the deal. So sony declared it will make a better console then them and ruin their market share as retaliation and made the playstation.
Comments
Atari bankruptcy
Atari assets
Atari intellectual property
You could also try various combinations that include "overhaul", "beamdog", "Baldur's Gate", "BGEE", "trent oster".
More importantly, if you find something please post it here!
hopefully, all this clutter will not bury this awesome game and all the work devs have put into it.
Furthermore, it seems HIGHLY likely that if they couldn't comment because of NDA they would have jumped up and said that first chance they got- it makes them look better. It makes it look as if they aren't hiding things. They don't have any reason NOT to have told us they couldn't comment because of NDA and I think you're at best reaching.
So while there's a chance that is the reason, it seems very illogical to jump up and make that assumption with any pretense of certainty.
@rathlord: A couple comments if you please.
1) You're right about the NDA. We do not KNOW there is an NDA in effect. Several of us are GUESSING there is an "NDA" in effect. And, to clarify, by NDA we are not specifically talking about a Non-Disclosure Agreement you tend to have to sign when entering into secretive contract...though we are not ruling out that concept. NDA's are pretty common when "in the know" in dealings between or even within corporations, so the concept that the Dev Team (those who have the knowledge) would be under NDA about all of this isn't totally out of the question...though I will admit, you are correct in that we do not know this.
2) What most of us mean by the term NDA in our discussions here is a generic "we can't legally talk about this" as would be the case in the instance of an NDA or (more likely in a court case like this) a "Gag Order". There are several legal situations one can be under (beyond NDA) where talking can lead to legal troubles. While I appreciate your note that we have no idea whether an NDA is in effect, the term being used here is more "generic".
3) As joking as the comment about being under NDA and whether or not you're breaking NDA by saying you're under NDA was...I have been under several in my lifetime (almost all Game Related), and in almost all of them identifying that you are bound by an NDA is, in fact, a breach of the NDA itself. Stating "We're under NDA, we can't comment" can and probably would be a breach of that same NDA.
4) Even without a legally binding "Gag Order" of some kind, it's been posted MANY times in MANY different ways and locations that the powers that be at BeamDog believe it would not be in the companies best interest to post details about any of this. This doesn't preclude a gag order of some kind being in effect (again, in many cases you can't claim to be legally unable to comment without breaking the contract that's legally binding you from commenting), it DOES mean that BeamDog is either unwilling or unable to comment for the best outcome for their company. Given that the best outcome for BeamDog is likely the best outcome for all of us here on the boards, I feel like we're don't nothing but arguing semantics between "can't" and "shouldn't"...in this case, they're pretty much the same thing and both mean "won't"...and "won't" in this case also implies "to the benefit of us and our customers" at least if you take BeamDog at their word. (If not that's a topic for an entirely different discussion).
5) Finally, I'd like to propose that using the words "you don't know that" in your replies sets up a conversation stopper. I can post "you don't know that" to EVERY post on these boards relating to BeamDog and Atari at this point and no one can argue with me. No one here "knows" anything. No one posting here is a party to anything going on in courts and/or within BeamDog. Suggesting that someone's opinion or speculation isn't valid because we don't KNOW their speculation is valid does indeed make you right EVERY TIME, but doesn't lead toward further discussion. In my opinion (given freely, and worth every penny you've just paid for it), the speculation is interesting and at LEAST helps pass the time...if it doesn't help clarify the situation.
If you have a theory or conjecture, spout it! That's what we're all doing. It's interesting to see the logic and the backing behind that logic and helps people clarify their own thinking and make some sense to all of this. Even without knowing anything, taking part in (or reading) the conversation can help you get a better grasp of the complexity.
--Illydth
The official word is on the front page in the FAQ:
They're working on it. They'll let you know when they have more to tell you but they're hopeful they'll be able to reach a resolution.
It's not the answer any of us (even those of us being termed "BeamDog Brown Nosers") want to hear. None of us like the waiting game, none of us like the lack of information.
If your honest question was "Is there anything more official than what's posted on the front page." the honest answer is "no" there's not. And you can stop reading this post right here because the rest doesn't apply to you.
If, however, you aren't asking for what the official answer is, you (like many others) are asking for a status update..."Give us more information than we have right now." then:
There's a metric ton of posts as to why this won't happen. Everything from "They can't due to legal matters" (speculation) all the way down to "It's not a good idea for them to do so." (officially stated in several places), and passing through a huge amount of speculation along the way.
Any way you cut it, the answer to the request of "give us more information than we have now" will never come. Not till some major progress is made and potentially not till another entire deal has been signed and the game is back in sales production (or the project is officially shutdown completely).
What we're being told time and time again is that this is NOT a slight to you personally, their customers in general or the community in total...BeamDog/OverHaul/Trent/the developers/whatever entity you want to talk about has EVERY incentive to get the game back in your hands and patches, updates and further development going again. There is absolutely NO motivation what-so-ever on the part of anyone involved in the sale or support of this product to allow this current situation to continue a millisecond longer than it has to. BeamDog is losing money hand over fist (and according to some official comments aren't making much of anything at the moment) over this loss of sales ability. Being unable to produce BG2:EE and sell that or update with the newest patch is also not on their list of "good things". The number of pissed off customers coming to these boards to complain about the situation is also not something I believe that's making anyone over there happy right now either.
The only answer we've ever gotten to the question of "What's the status" has been "we're working on it and we'll tell you when something changes." I'm as democratically minded and against corporate BS as the next guy. But I simply can't find any reason for that official statement not to be true. Not because I think OverHaul/BeamDog is a flawless company, but because there's just no motivation for that statement NOT to be true.
I'm not arguing it to be pedantic (or semantic for that matter), I just want to keep things factual here. And (maybe being a little semantic now) I think that we should be accurate with the terms we use including NDA and Gag Order. Someone posted something about a Gag Order in another thread and I reamed them out a bit for it because that was even less likely than an NDA.
Anyways~
I'm not sure there's much else to do now but wait for news =\ Here's hoping we hear something soon!
I'd love a better term for what we're talking about, and if there is one I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that we should be using it...I just don't have the legal background to figure out what that term would be.
Either way there are two possibilities here, either they CAN'T speak (whatever legal term we want to place around that) or they WON'T speak (as @Dee states, just because you may legally be allowed to say something doesn't mean it wouldn't be almost as detrimental as a law suit).
And despite my post back to you, those of us spouting conjecture on a regular basis (including and especially myself) can use someone willing to post "reality checks" when we get a bit too "factual" with our conjecture. Good catch.
Anyone ever thought about that scenario?
@raxtoren Regardless of what they're concerned with, it's one of their assets and it has to be dealt with whether they like it or not. It's just a matter of when and how.
That said, for the several of us who have been filing the forum with what has likely amounted to (at best) entertaining logical guess work and (at worst) completely drivel and fluff, it'd be (nice, fun, entertaining, curiosity curing, insert description here) to get a better understanding of exactly what REALLY happened just to see how close we all were at reading court documents and piecing together the honestly complex 10+ year chain of events, business sales and corporate deals surrounding the IP, Production and Distribution rights of this product.
Ah well. BG:EE is back on sale, BG2:EE will soon follow (i'm sure)...I'm contented to wait for the "what really happened" recap.
And now this??? I feel so empty...
Oh well, *sigh* I guess I'll just have to buy BGEE for my IPad and try to enjoy myself with this tremendous let down (sobs quietly into bowl of Wheaties)
With big corporations come bigger egos.
Fingers crossed it's all going to be ok.