Oh god, having them as NPCs would be catch 22 for Beamdog figuring the new NPCs for SoD still need to make an appearance in BG2 first. People will complain that there is no Glint but these people who don’t fit the story.
That’s why I suggested it for IWD:EE. No other (non-mod added) NPCs to worry about.
Okayyyy.... I feel a little weird since I've rarely criticized the Beamdog games. I've even bought 3 versions of every Beamdog game available on Android, GOG, and from the main Beamdog site, not to mention games I've purchased for other people. I even signed up for the Beamdog newsletter, watch the Beamblog, and promote the games to people I talk too. But even a noob like myself has used my own portraits and sounds since original game(s). But, I guess congratulation to this group that is on twitchy, youtubie, or is on one of the other social media site that a old man like myself doesn't follow (Heck, who wouldn't like their character added into the main game). But I really, really hope this is just "FAKE" news that was referred too for the last month+. If so you could have just released it with no big fan fair, since like them, while I would have been PUMPED to have my character added, I'm sure the rest of the community would say "Meh". A new story line like those added to the Enhanced Edition... now that a different story!
@ZoGarth Don't worry, this wasn't the big announcement. That one got pulled, so we are still waiting for the big news. The EE pack was only mentioned about a week ago on stream.
I don’t really mind a purchasable voice pack on principle, but I am disappointed they’re releasing a voice pack across all the titles when BG and BG2 still don’t have the same voice options (I assume that’s still true?). Like, my CHARNAME can’t have the same voice across titles unless I use one of these specific voices?
I'm very much in agreement that as a business BD needs to do what it needs to do to generate income. But I don't see why that shouldn't include creating new games. Owlcat Games (Pathfinder: Kingmaker), GrapeOcean Technologies (Black Geyser), and Ceres Games (Realms Beyond) are I'm pretty sure much smaller companies than BD, and yet they're out there working on new crpg IPs. They face the same business climate as BD, and yet are ok doing original things. So why not BD?
This is why I've said many times on these forums, if BD/Trent O. were to come forward and announce that they're a company whose identity is remaking old games and that they really don't have an interest in making new games, I would be ok with that. I'd be disappointed, yes, but I'd respect their choice. My problem is that they constantly keep talking the talk that they're working on new/original games, but they don't walk the walk. It's been well over two years since they first began talking about BD's "next NEW thing." Well, where is it?
Considering that Oster stated back in 2012 that their endgame with BG:EE was to make BG3 (or BG Next as he called it), I don't think they don't intend to launch a new series of D&D-based games.
I think, and this is bound to piss off a few people, that the reason why the Brand New D&D Isometric RPG by Beamdog hasn't come out is not because they won't do it, but rather because they can't. As in, lack what it takes to do it - at least without sinking under its weight. I don't say that out of spite for the studio, by the way, but from scrutinizing their track record.
BG/BG2:EE are mired by clumsily added new content, bad UI design, unreasonably long patch cycles and being nowhere near stable or polished enough six (!) years after release. They've also taken too long to release SoD on mobile which led to paltry sales. They've fragmented the NWN player base by releasing an Enhanced Edition that breaks backwards server compatibility but otherwise is just a glorified patch with a promise of substantial updates in the future (and if BG is any indication, it's going to be a long wait until - and if - they make good on those promises). Their own client has been out for 18 months and still doesn't support DLC.
The hiring of David Gaider was solid evidence that they have (or had) a new IP in the works. However, two years passed and nothing came out of that. Then Gaider left and all they had to say was "Someday we will share the fruits of his labour!". Now seven more months have gone by. Should we be surprised?
I mean, does that look to you like a studio who's got its collective shit together? I understand why people still hold great expectations since they currently hold the D&D license torch, and only a new D&D-based game can scratch that particular itch that no Pillars of Eternity or Divinity game can, despite being very good titles. I am, however, puzzled by the people who are biting their nails in anticipation for an announcement that by the looks of it, not only is in development hell but isn't much likely to join the ranks of the old Bioware/Black Isle classics anyway.
IMO really good promotional event for Beamdog as a company. Only a little suggestion: maybe you should make a short movie, send it to them (especially to that Jared guy) and ask him if he could post it on his youtube channel? maybe ask him about SoD, did he played it, how about a review? you know - to strike while iron is still hot.
"BG/BG2:EE are mired by clumsily added new content, bad UI design, unreasonably long patch cycles and being nowhere near stable or polished enough six (!) years after release."
Those are all subjective though. The new UI is awesome, the new content (except Hexxat) fits in swimmingly with the old, and how many single player games recieve updates 16 years after release?
Right on, @Kilivitz! I've been biting my tongue not wanting to say too much on this given the "Let's circle the wagons and burn the heretics at the stake" attitude of a lot of people on these forums, but you said it all for me. Very well put. Thank you!
SOD was a totally original game and it was pretty well done. It had a few bugs but I completed it on the first try without problem. They may be having some growing pains if they are using a more modern engine for their new title.
Beamdog does take a stupid long time to patch their games and if that is any indication they are struggling because of team size which is probably why David finished his work for the project and decided to go else ware rather than sit around while the rest of the team worked for 3 more years on the game engine and quests. Beamdog is expanding, they are hiring and buying a new larger building so maybe they will get it under control in the future. From products to announcements and patches things have been very slow since SOD released.
I'm very much in agreement that as a business BD needs to do what it needs to do to generate income. But I don't see why that shouldn't include creating new games. Owlcat Games (Pathfinder: Kingmaker), GrapeOcean Technologies (Black Geyser), and Ceres Games (Realms Beyond) are I'm pretty sure much smaller companies than BD, and yet they're out there working on new crpg IPs. They face the same business climate as BD, and yet are ok doing original things. So why not BD?
This is why I've said many times on these forums, if BD/Trent O. were to come forward and announce that they're a company whose identity is remaking old games and that they really don't have an interest in making new games, I would be ok with that. I'd be disappointed, yes, but I'd respect their choice. My problem is that they constantly keep talking the talk that they're working on new/original games, but they don't walk the walk. It's been well over two years since they first began talking about BD's "next NEW thing." Well, where is it?
Considering that Oster stated back in 2012 that their endgame with BG:EE was to make BG3 (or BG Next as he called it), I don't think they don't intend to launch a new series of D&D-based games.
I think, and this is bound to piss off a few people, that the reason why the Brand New D&D Isometric RPG by Beamdog hasn't come out is not because they won't do it, but rather because they can't. As in, lack what it takes to do it - at least without sinking under its weight. I don't say that out of spite for the studio, by the way, but from scrutinizing their track record.
BG/BG2:EE are mired by clumsily added new content, bad UI design, unreasonably long patch cycles and being nowhere near stable or polished enough six (!) years after release. They've also taken too long to release SoD on mobile which led to paltry sales. They've fragmented the NWN player base by releasing an Enhanced Edition that breaks backwards server compatibility but otherwise is just a glorified patch with a promise of substantial updates in the future (and if BG is any indication, it's going to be a long wait until - and if - they make good on those promises). Their own client has been out for 18 months and still doesn't support DLC.
The hiring of David Gaider was solid evidence that they have (or had) a new IP in the works. However, two years passed and nothing came out of that. Then Gaider left and all they had to say was "Someday we will share the fruits of his labour!". Now seven more months have gone by. Should we be surprised?
I mean, does that look to you like a studio who's got its collective shit together? I understand why people still hold great expectations since they currently hold the D&D license torch, and only a new D&D-based game can scratch that particular itch that no Pillars of Eternity or Divinity game can, despite being very good titles. I am, however, puzzled by the people who are biting their nails in anticipation for an announcement that by the looks of it, not only is in development hell but isn't much likely to join the ranks of the old Bioware/Black Isle classics anyway.
And this is another problem.
“If it isn’t a new isometric RTwP D&D game the company is failing!”
No, the company is attempting to expand its clientele base beyond single player, isometric games.
Once again, lower your expectations.
It took BioWare 7(!2002-2009) years to create Dragon Age: Origins, the first spiritual successor to BG. It took Obsidian three years (with more than enough cash flow already in the bank from Kickstarter) to make PoE, the next spiritual successor. Stoic games took 3 years to release the First Banner Saga to mobile another 2 years to port it to console.(more on them later).
A company like Beamdog, who is its own publisher, has to rely on other game sales to increase revenue to pay for employees to work on new titles. Low risk, high reward projects like Axis and Allies, are perfect for doing this. So are comsmetic nickel and dime practises such as new portraits and voice sets. A player isn’t missing anything from the game if they don’t buy it.
Comparing the company to Owlcat games, or Grape Ocean Technology or any other indie gaming company that has only released ONE game is unfair as its true development time is masked and all companies are obscure enough that they don’t have people asking when their next game is going to be released as soon as the last one was out.
How about comparing Beamdog to Stoic Studios. Beamdog founded in 2009 has 5.5 (BG, BG2, IWD, PS:T, NWN, SoD as the .5) under their belt where Stoic, founded in 2011, has three Banner Saga 1-3. Also, don’t discount Beamdog’s ability to weather through the Atari fiasco, one of the reasons why their games were so buggy upon release. Once Atari literally disappeared, their titles stability improved.
Do I want a new BG:Next game. Yes. Do I expect it anytime soon? Hell No. That game needs to be perfect before it can have that title and Beamdog better take their time in creating it and making it perfect.
Beamdog founded in 2009 has 5.5 (BG, BG2, IWD, PS:T, NWN, SoD as the .5) under their belt ....
Yeah, this made me chuckle. Sorry, but no. You are of course free to define your game count however you want, but by my game count Beamdog's number of released games is zero. EEs and DLCs to EEs don't count as "games made" to me. Only a standalone new (though not necessarily a new IP) game will count for me.
Beamdog founded in 2009 has 5.5 (BG, BG2, IWD, PS:T, NWN, SoD as the .5) under their belt ....
Yeah, this made me chuckle. Sorry, but no. You are of course free to define your game count however you want, but by my game count Beamdog's number of released games is zero. EEs and DLCs to EEs don't count as "games made" to me. Only a standalone new (though not necessarily a new IP) game will count for me.
Yes you are quite correct. Redoing an entire engine to make a game not only run smoothly on modern machines but mobile as well shouldn’t count for anything.
The hiring of David Gaider was solid evidence that they have (or had) a new IP in the works. However, two years passed and nothing came out of that. Then Gaider left and all they had to say was "Someday we will share the fruits of his labour!". Now seven more months have gone by. Should we be surprised?
Yeah, I figured that as soon as David left that game would never see the light of day. I really hope I am wrong. I really want to see what he was working on. However I fear he realized it as well and left.
Am I the only one struggling for agreeing with both @deltago and @Kilivitz ?
No. Because we both make good points. I agree with Kilivitz too (to a degree). I can probably counter point everything he said in his second paragraph, but things like Gaider leaving (I was one of the first to call them out and say, whatever he was working on has been shelved for NWN DLC) means don't expect a new D&D game from them soon. DLC for NWN for the next year or two + Axis and Allies need to come first (and maybe even another remake).
Whatever Demon/Devil game they have in the works, it is still in the development stage. The people working on that are not working on NWN, Axis & Allies or IE games, but they still need to get paid for the work. Late 2019 at the earliest is my estimate, Mid 2020 if WotC wants it hyped up.
It took BioWare 7(!2002-2009) years to create Dragon Age: Origins, the first spiritual successor to BG.
Yeah. Seven years to make (from scratch) Dragon Age: Origins, a brand new game on a brand new engine (which included a toolset) on a brand new campaign setting. In the following six years (precisely how long BG:EE has been out), they put out an expansion pack and another two entries to the series. The games were critically acclaimed and are on multiple platforms, including consoles.
Now, I know it's unfair to compare BD to the well-established 2009 BioWare. How about we compare them to the newly formed BioWare who started out with the original BG?
It took BioWare two years (maybe three if you consider the Infinity Battleground prototype engine they pitched to Interplay) to develop Baldur's Gate and release it. Three years later, they had TotSC, BG2 and ToB under their belt. Fully patched, by the way.
In other words, it took them five years to MAKE the Baldur's Gate series Beamdog has been fumbling about with for almost a decade despite starting work upon finished games.
How about comparing Beamdog to Stoic Studios. Beamdog founded in 2009 has 5.5 (BG, BG2, IWD, PS:T, NWN) under their belt where Stoic, founded in 2011, has three Banner Saga 1-3.
Stoic has released four games in seven years. If those games are currently stable and polished accross all platforms, they've doing way better than Beamdog. If not, your argument's as good as "leave Beamdog alone because they're not the only bad studio out there."
I hope you didn't bring up all those studios in order to make Beamdog look better by comparison. Because if anything, as we put things into perspective, they look even worse than before.
Also, don’t discount Beamdog’s ability to weather through the Atari fiasco, one of the reasons why their games were so buggy upon release. Once Atari literally disappeared, their titles stability improved.
What in the what? How exactly is *Atari* responsible for the bugs in BG:EE? They were the distributors. Not the developers. Seriously, what are you talking about?
And finally: when I mention how ridiculous it is for them to still be tinkering with BG(2):EE after 5-6 years, I'm constantly hit with the argument that it's because they're soooo dedicated to improving the game. Guys, please don't fall for that. That's what they will tell you because it'd be too embarassing to admit that these games are not in good shape.
Which leads me to the initial argument: Beamdog's handling of the IE games doesn't inspire any confidence in their capacity to rise to Obsidian or old BioWare or Larian levels of success. As of now they're still the small studio that lives off of Black Isle and BioWare's legacy.
What expectations? I have no expectations. I finished my previous post criticizing people who mantain high expectations for a new D&D title by Beamdog ever being released, nevermind living up to the hype.
Also, don’t discount Beamdog’s ability to weather through the Atari fiasco, one of the reasons why their games were so buggy upon release. Once Atari literally disappeared, their titles stability improved.
What in the what? How exactly is *Atari* responsible for the bugs in BG:EE? They were the distributors. Not the developers. Seriously, what are you talking about?
If you do not think a publisher holds more sway over the developer on a released product, you do not know this industry. By: Pushing the release dates before the games were ready. By demanding they change their release schedule to be BG>BG2>SoD instead of the intended BG>SoD>BG2 By Beamdog refusing to work on BG titles as they fought with Atari right before and after Atari’s bankruptcy leading to a year of silence and uncertainty.
[Atari is responsible for] Pushing the release dates before the games were ready.
Hmm. BG:EE was initially slated for September 2012 and then pushed back to November so they could have "the best possible product on launch." This translates to "it's too bugged to be released now."
You could argue, even without evidence, that it was Atari who was behind those release dates, and it wasn't Beamdog who jumped the gun by setting a deadline they ultimately couldn't meet.
Beamdog refusing to work on BG titles as they fought with Atari right before and after Atari’s bankruptcy leading to a year of silence and uncertainty.
BG:EE was removed from sale between June and August 2013. That's three months (not a whole year). It sure felt like a year, but you're off by nine months there.
And here's the thing: after the whole legal imbroglio was over, and they were free from Atari's clutches, BG2:EE got released in December 2013 and it was bugged as hell. But don't take my word for it, take Trent Oster's:
"We rushed Baldur’s Gate II out. It’s that simple. We rushed it and we screwed things up."(source)
By demanding they change their release schedule to be BG>BG2>SoD instead of the intended BG>SoD>BG2
Where did you get that information from? SoD was announced two years after BG2:EE was first released. And as we've just seen, Atari was out of the picture before that. The timeline of events simply doesn't accomodate this narrative of "Atari forced them to push BG2:EE out as soon as possible" because they could very well have delayed it for as long as they liked while working on SoD.
But of course they didn't, because BG2, having been a lot more successful than the first game, was arguably an even more important release than the first game. One could even argue that if they had started by releasing BG2:EE before BG1:EE, people wouldn't have batted an eye.
Also: SoD was not always meant as a full-blown expansion. It started out as a minor DLC that comprised the very end of it and the whole campaign involving Caelar's crusade was added later as the project got bigger and bigger in scope as development went on. Again, the timeline of events does not support your claim.
Look, I really don't mean to disparage you. Your assessment of the Axis and Allies future announcement/release was really sober and most likely spot on. But maybe don't downplay Beamdog's mistakes by making these outrageous, unsubstiantiated claims and then accuse *me* of "not knowing how this industry works".
I don’t have time to dig, but references to SoD in BG2s added content was there from the beginning. I am also pretty sure the Daigle leaks (Sneaky Door) were also prior to BG2 being released, but it looks like those have been scrubbed clean.
Atari’s was still the publisher for BG2:EE they weren’t out of the picture but still wanted as much money as possible prior to handing over the D&D digital licence to WotC. I also can’t remember when The Atari logo disappeared from the games, but that is when they were completely out of the picture.
I don’t have time to dig, but references to SoD in BG2s added content was there from the beginning. I am also pretty sure the Daigle leaks (Sneaky Door) were also prior to BG2 being released, but it looks like those have been scrubbed clean.
Is that proof that they meant to release SoD before BG2:EE as you've claimed? No. At best, it's proof they've already had the general outline of SoD's campaign figured out. As you know, developing releases simultaneously is something that companies do all the time.
You know what's funny? Their approach to SoD is exactly the one you claim they have (or should have) when it comes to a new IP: take their time, don't rush it, release it when it's ready. They did (or rather tried to do) just that, but since it doesn't support your argument of "Beamdog isn't any less competent than any other studio out there" and "Every bad move Beamdog has ever made is Atari's fault", you'd rather insist, with the most circumstancial evidence possible, that SoD was meant to come out before BG2:EE. Even though it took them another 2 years to announce it.
Atari’s was still the publisher for BG2:EE they weren’t out of the picture but still wanted as much money as possible prior to handing over the D&D digital licence to WotC. I also can’t remember when The Atari logo disappeared from the games, but that is when they were completely out of the picture.
So you mean to say Atari, while having their assets liquidated and *after* the agreement that reverted full publishing rights to Beamdog, made a last move to force poor Beamdog to release BG2:EE in a bugged state so they could make as much money out of it as possible before their licensing contract expired.
Without any leverage, of all things.
And then later on, Trent Oster the Magnanimous let Beamdog take the fall for BG2:EE's rushed release even though he could have told the truth and avoided blame without any fear of repercussion from a dead publisher.
Of course. It makes perfect sense.
Let me know if you've got any straws left to grasp at.
And then later on, Trent Oster the Magnanimous let Beamdog take the fall for BG2:EE's rushed release even though he could have told the truth and avoided blame without any fear of repercussion from a dead publisher.
it's smarter to take responsibility. whatever the truth is, a perception of blame-shifting is highly toxic
And then later on, Trent Oster the Magnanimous let Beamdog take the fall for BG2:EE's rushed release even though he could have told the truth and avoided blame without any fear of repercussion from a dead publisher.
it's smarter to take responsibility. whatever the truth is, a perception of blame-shifting is highly toxic
Right, right. That's why Oster didn't denounce Atari as the ones behind the removal of BG:EE from sal-- oh no wait, that's exactly what he did.
But since you really really want to believe otherwise, it's best to just assume he lied about BG2:EE and Beamdog never shifts blame, ever (except for when they do).
Sorry, I did say Bankruptcy, but I meant all their legal issues (which included the bankruptcy of the parent company).
Allegedly, their legal issue with Beamdog was Atari selling the game on other distribution channels, something Beamdog didn’t agree too. That was worked out after the 3 months, hence Trent’s post.
Atari’s very public legal fight with WotC probably had more to do with the announced released dates than anything else.
It can still be said that Beamdog has more stable releases under their belt than unstable. And Atari (and time) is the common denominator I can count. That and them keeping their mouth completely shut on what they working on to prevent a chorus of “what about now?” Noobsrs flooding and second guessing their approach on said release.
And then later on, Trent Oster the Magnanimous let Beamdog take the fall for BG2:EE's rushed release even though he could have told the truth and avoided blame without any fear of repercussion from a dead publisher.
it's smarter to take responsibility. whatever the truth is, a perception of blame-shifting is highly toxic
Right, right. That's why Oster didn't denounce Atari as the ones behind the removal of BG:EE from sal-- oh no wait, that's exactly what he did.
But since you really really want to believe otherwise, it's best to just assume he lied about BG2:EE and Beamdog never shifts blame, ever (except for when they do).
distribution matters are one thing, and quality of the product is another
Allegedly, their legal issue with Beamdog was Atari selling the game on other distribution channels, something Beamdog didn’t agree too. That was worked out after the 3 months, hence Trent’s post.
That's not what happened. It was Atari who had Beamdog remove BG:EE from digital stores. The specific reasons were not made public but it's reasonable to assume it had to do with their filing for bankruptcy which happened around the same time.
Atari’s very public legal fight with WotC probably had more to do with the announced released dates than anything else.
Atari's legal fight with Wizards had nothing to do with Baldur's Gate. It happened between 2009 and 2011 (almost a year before BG:EE was even announced), and it actually started with Wizards/Hasbro suing Atari over licensing the D&D IP to Namco-Bandai, which they claimed it was a breach of contract. Atari lost, by the way.
It can still be said that Beamdog has more stable releases under their belt than unstable. And Atari (and time) is the common denominator I can count.
You would still have to explain how Atari keeps compromising these games after five years of being completely out of the picture as Beamdog is since then fully in charge of distributing the EEs. Is five years not enough time to fix the issues? Is Atari also responsible for the problems introduced by patches 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5?
That and them keeping their mouth completely shut on what they working on to prevent a chorus of “what about now?” Noobsrs flooding and second guessing their approach on said release.
Are you saying that people second guessing their approach on internet forums affects the quality of their releases? How does that work exactly? Do they feel demotivated and don't put in as much effort when people criticize them? Do mean comments make the development team so distraught that they lose concentration and screw up the code?
Comments
I think, and this is bound to piss off a few people, that the reason why the Brand New D&D Isometric RPG by Beamdog hasn't come out is not because they won't do it, but rather because they can't. As in, lack what it takes to do it - at least without sinking under its weight. I don't say that out of spite for the studio, by the way, but from scrutinizing their track record.
BG/BG2:EE are mired by clumsily added new content, bad UI design, unreasonably long patch cycles and being nowhere near stable or polished enough six (!) years after release. They've also taken too long to release SoD on mobile which led to paltry sales. They've fragmented the NWN player base by releasing an Enhanced Edition that breaks backwards server compatibility but otherwise is just a glorified patch with a promise of substantial updates in the future (and if BG is any indication, it's going to be a long wait until - and if - they make good on those promises). Their own client has been out for 18 months and still doesn't support DLC.
The hiring of David Gaider was solid evidence that they have (or had) a new IP in the works. However, two years passed and nothing came out of that. Then Gaider left and all they had to say was "Someday we will share the fruits of his labour!". Now seven more months have gone by. Should we be surprised?
I mean, does that look to you like a studio who's got its collective shit together? I understand why people still hold great expectations since they currently hold the D&D license torch, and only a new D&D-based game can scratch that particular itch that no Pillars of Eternity or Divinity game can, despite being very good titles. I am, however, puzzled by the people who are biting their nails in anticipation for an announcement that by the looks of it, not only is in development hell but isn't much likely to join the ranks of the old Bioware/Black Isle classics anyway.
Those are all subjective though. The new UI is awesome, the new content (except Hexxat) fits in swimmingly with the old, and how many single player games recieve updates 16 years after release?
SOD was a totally original game and it was pretty well done. It had a few bugs but I completed it on the first try without problem.
They may be having some growing pains if they are using a more modern engine for their new title.
Beamdog does take a stupid long time to patch their games and if that is any indication they are struggling because of team size which is probably why David finished his work for the project and decided to go else ware rather than sit around while the rest of the team worked for 3 more years on the game engine and quests. Beamdog is expanding, they are hiring and buying a new larger building so maybe they will get it under control in the future. From products to announcements and patches things have been very slow since SOD released.
“If it isn’t a new isometric RTwP D&D game the company is failing!”
No, the company is attempting to expand its clientele base beyond single player, isometric games.
Once again, lower your expectations.
It took BioWare 7(!2002-2009) years to create Dragon Age: Origins, the first spiritual successor to BG. It took Obsidian three years (with more than enough cash flow already in the bank from Kickstarter) to make PoE, the next spiritual successor. Stoic games took 3 years to release the First Banner Saga to mobile another 2 years to port it to console.(more on them later).
A company like Beamdog, who is its own publisher, has to rely on other game sales to increase revenue to pay for employees to work on new titles. Low risk, high reward projects like Axis and Allies, are perfect for doing this. So are comsmetic nickel and dime practises such as new portraits and voice sets. A player isn’t missing anything from the game if they don’t buy it.
Comparing the company to Owlcat games, or Grape Ocean Technology or any other indie gaming company that has only released ONE game is unfair as its true development time is masked and all companies are obscure enough that they don’t have people asking when their next game is going to be released as soon as the last one was out.
How about comparing Beamdog to Stoic Studios. Beamdog founded in 2009 has 5.5 (BG, BG2, IWD, PS:T, NWN, SoD as the .5) under their belt where Stoic, founded in 2011, has three Banner Saga 1-3. Also, don’t discount Beamdog’s ability to weather through the Atari fiasco, one of the reasons why their games were so buggy upon release. Once Atari literally disappeared, their titles stability improved.
Do I want a new BG:Next game. Yes. Do I expect it anytime soon? Hell No. That game needs to be perfect before it can have that title and Beamdog better take their time in creating it and making it perfect.
So once again, lower your expectations.
Whatever Demon/Devil game they have in the works, it is still in the development stage. The people working on that are not working on NWN, Axis & Allies or IE games, but they still need to get paid for the work. Late 2019 at the earliest is my estimate, Mid 2020 if WotC wants it hyped up.
Its why I say lower your expectations.
Am I disappointed. Yes.
But, well, that is it.
Now, I know it's unfair to compare BD to the well-established 2009 BioWare. How about we compare them to the newly formed BioWare who started out with the original BG?
It took BioWare two years (maybe three if you consider the Infinity Battleground prototype engine they pitched to Interplay) to develop Baldur's Gate and release it. Three years later, they had TotSC, BG2 and ToB under their belt. Fully patched, by the way.
In other words, it took them five years to MAKE the Baldur's Gate series Beamdog has been fumbling about with for almost a decade despite starting work upon finished games. And then it took them another three years to put out two expansion packs, finalize patching and then put out the sequel. Stoic has released four games in seven years. If those games are currently stable and polished accross all platforms, they've doing way better than Beamdog. If not, your argument's as good as "leave Beamdog alone because they're not the only bad studio out there."
I hope you didn't bring up all those studios in order to make Beamdog look better by comparison. Because if anything, as we put things into perspective, they look even worse than before. What in the what? How exactly is *Atari* responsible for the bugs in BG:EE? They were the distributors. Not the developers. Seriously, what are you talking about?
And finally: when I mention how ridiculous it is for them to still be tinkering with BG(2):EE after 5-6 years, I'm constantly hit with the argument that it's because they're soooo dedicated to improving the game. Guys, please don't fall for that. That's what they will tell you because it'd be too embarassing to admit that these games are not in good shape.
Which leads me to the initial argument: Beamdog's handling of the IE games doesn't inspire any confidence in their capacity to rise to Obsidian or old BioWare or Larian levels of success. As of now they're still the small studio that lives off of Black Isle and BioWare's legacy. What expectations? I have no expectations. I finished my previous post criticizing people who mantain high expectations for a new D&D title by Beamdog ever being released, nevermind living up to the hype.
By:
Pushing the release dates before the games were ready.
By demanding they change their release schedule to be BG>BG2>SoD instead of the intended BG>SoD>BG2
By Beamdog refusing to work on BG titles as they fought with Atari right before and after Atari’s bankruptcy leading to a year of silence and uncertainty.
You could argue, even without evidence, that it was Atari who was behind those release dates, and it wasn't Beamdog who jumped the gun by setting a deadline they ultimately couldn't meet.
Then, you mention this: BG:EE was removed from sale between June and August 2013. That's three months (not a whole year). It sure felt like a year, but you're off by nine months there.
And here's the thing: after the whole legal imbroglio was over, and they were free from Atari's clutches, BG2:EE got released in December 2013 and it was bugged as hell. But don't take my word for it, take Trent Oster's:
"We rushed Baldur’s Gate II out. It’s that simple. We rushed it and we screwed things up." (source)
Can't blame Atari this time, can you? Where did you get that information from? SoD was announced two years after BG2:EE was first released. And as we've just seen, Atari was out of the picture before that. The timeline of events simply doesn't accomodate this narrative of "Atari forced them to push BG2:EE out as soon as possible" because they could very well have delayed it for as long as they liked while working on SoD.
But of course they didn't, because BG2, having been a lot more successful than the first game, was arguably an even more important release than the first game. One could even argue that if they had started by releasing BG2:EE before BG1:EE, people wouldn't have batted an eye.
Also: SoD was not always meant as a full-blown expansion. It started out as a minor DLC that comprised the very end of it and the whole campaign involving Caelar's crusade was added later as the project got bigger and bigger in scope as development went on. Again, the timeline of events does not support your claim.
Look, I really don't mean to disparage you. Your assessment of the Axis and Allies future announcement/release was really sober and most likely spot on. But maybe don't downplay Beamdog's mistakes by making these outrageous, unsubstiantiated claims and then accuse *me* of "not knowing how this industry works".
Atari’s was still the publisher for BG2:EE they weren’t out of the picture but still wanted as much money as possible prior to handing over the D&D digital licence to WotC. I also can’t remember when The Atari logo disappeared from the games, but that is when they were completely out of the picture.
You know what's funny? Their approach to SoD is exactly the one you claim they have (or should have) when it comes to a new IP: take their time, don't rush it, release it when it's ready. They did (or rather tried to do) just that, but since it doesn't support your argument of "Beamdog isn't any less competent than any other studio out there" and "Every bad move Beamdog has ever made is Atari's fault", you'd rather insist, with the most circumstancial evidence possible, that SoD was meant to come out before BG2:EE. Even though it took them another 2 years to announce it. So you mean to say Atari, while having their assets liquidated and *after* the agreement that reverted full publishing rights to Beamdog, made a last move to force poor Beamdog to release BG2:EE in a bugged state so they could make as much money out of it as possible before their licensing contract expired.
Without any leverage, of all things.
And then later on, Trent Oster the Magnanimous let Beamdog take the fall for BG2:EE's rushed release even though he could have told the truth and avoided blame without any fear of repercussion from a dead publisher.
Of course. It makes perfect sense.
Let me know if you've got any straws left to grasp at.
But since you really really want to believe otherwise, it's best to just assume he lied about BG2:EE and Beamdog never shifts blame, ever (except for when they do).
Allegedly, their legal issue with Beamdog was Atari selling the game on other distribution channels, something Beamdog didn’t agree too. That was worked out after the 3 months, hence Trent’s post.
Atari’s very public legal fight with WotC probably had more to do with the announced released dates than anything else.
It can still be said that Beamdog has more stable releases under their belt than unstable. And Atari (and time) is the common denominator I can count. That and them keeping their mouth completely shut on what they working on to prevent a chorus of “what about now?” Noobsrs flooding and second guessing their approach on said release.