I see a lot of very insightful responses here. So I need to ask, didn't they (Beamdog) already state that SoD had sold well, or at least up to their expectations?
You always have to talk up your business. If banks, shareholders or customers lose confidence you are toast.
Whilst statements will be factually true, you always have to read between the lines. "At expectations" is very different to "was the big hit we where hoping for".
Every small game developer is in a permanant state of "financial difficulties".
It's the same as movies. Unless you are absolutely massive (Blizzard, EA, Disney) you are permanently one flop away from bankruptcy.
It's because of the nature of the product. It takes years to produce, during which time it sucks up money without generating anything in return. Then it makes most of the money it is ever going to make within the first couple of months of release.
You have failed to understand. A small games company is doing "pretty well" if it doesn't actually have the receivers hammering on the office door wanting to take away the computers. And no, I don't think they should "tell us" because their situation isn't any different to anyone else in thier business, and I certainly wouldn't want them to give the banks any encouragement to ask for thier money bank.
People become developers in order to make games. If they wanted to make money, pretty much any other business is a better option.
Also, game developers not wanting to make money is, forgive me there, utterly ridiculous. If its a business then it exists first and foremost to make money, else it will go bankrupt. I don't mean to say they don't like making games, on the contrary, but a business is a business is a business. Period.
Which is why not all of the ideas that the company may want to do will come to fruition. Your developers have to be paid, and that's factored into a cost-benefit analysis. As a software developer, I can tell you that someone with those kind of skills doesn't come cheap. Making money NEEDS to come first, which often means that projects with a lower projected benefit are going to be pushed to the back burner. It's a fact of business.
There is a difference between wanting to make money and needing to make money. If you have the skills to be game developer you have the skills to work in industry for a much higher salary and vastly superior job security.
Companies like Beamdog, and much earlier, Bioware, where not set up with the objective of making the owners rich -Bioware's founders where doctors, and they took a huge pay cut bucause they wanted to make games instead.
If a business was only for making money, we would have no computer games, and no movies. Either endeavour is a very poor way to try and turn a profit.
This thread seems to be going way off-topic... If you wish to go on discussing the financial status of Beamdog, the gaming industry in general, etc. I may split the comments into a new topic. Just let me know.
Yeah, and as a customer and loyal fan I am entitled to being disappointed. They made a cost-benefit analysis and decided to shove it, for the time beign, with DLC. They factored into it that I would be pissed, or at least disappointed, and they decided to go with it still. So I AM disappointed. What's some people here find so surprising with that is beyond me. Beamdog can do whatever it wants, but they have to own it as well. They can't have it both ways. The poster who started this argument (Rodrian I think) by saying what they did was a d*** move. Guess what, it is. Staying in business sometimes means be able to do d*** moves, I understand that pretty well, but it doesn't feel any less d***ish to me.
Hey Beamdog, please do whatever you need to stay alive (like I need to tell them that), but at the same time know that you will face criticism for you actions from time to time.
Satisfied?
You do know the contract that they signed with WotC stated that they could only release a DLC and not a full game. They attempted to release SoD as full game, but were denied by higher ups. They might have left loose ends in the story to see if they can convince WotC to allow them to do another DLC in BG2 to tie those up, but for the time being, WotC (probably) wants them working on something else.
Beamdog is still under restrictions of what it can and can not do with other people's IP. So, no, they can not do what ever they want and if you are pissed, you are pissing on the wrong company.
This thread seems to be going way off-topic... If you wish to go on discussing the financial status of Beamdog, the gaming industry in general, etc. I may split the comments into a new topic. Just let me know.
And, by the way, we actually already have had a thread about the financial status of Beamdog, which actually had answered (and positively) some of the questions that are again being asked here.
The only other one I can imagine that could have many uses would be "Suppress effects by resource" or "Supress effects by opcode." It would be similar to "Remove effects by resource/opcode," but would only grant a temporary reprieve.
Comments
Whilst statements will be factually true, you always have to read between the lines. "At expectations" is very different to "was the big hit we where hoping for".
It's the same as movies. Unless you are absolutely massive (Blizzard, EA, Disney) you are permanently one flop away from bankruptcy.
It's because of the nature of the product. It takes years to produce, during which time it sucks up money without generating anything in return. Then it makes most of the money it is ever going to make within the first couple of months of release.
People become developers in order to make games. If they wanted to make money, pretty much any other business is a better option.
Companies like Beamdog, and much earlier, Bioware, where not set up with the objective of making the owners rich -Bioware's founders where doctors, and they took a huge pay cut bucause they wanted to make games instead.
If a business was only for making money, we would have no computer games, and no movies. Either endeavour is a very poor way to try and turn a profit.
It's not a critique against your persons or anything, just an observation that phrases like that tend to trigger people.
You do know the contract that they signed with WotC stated that they could only release a DLC and not a full game. They attempted to release SoD as full game, but were denied by higher ups. They might have left loose ends in the story to see if they can convince WotC to allow them to do another DLC in BG2 to tie those up, but for the time being, WotC (probably) wants them working on something else.
Beamdog is still under restrictions of what it can and can not do with other people's IP. So, no, they can not do what ever they want and if you are pissed, you are pissing on the wrong company.
The only other one I can imagine that could have many uses would be "Suppress effects by resource" or "Supress effects by opcode." It would be similar to "Remove effects by resource/opcode," but would only grant a temporary reprieve.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/62738/beta-testers-needed-for-the-next-release/p1