Sometimes, saying the obvious seems necessary as many people apparently expect Beamdog to act like a charity institution.
I'm glad Beamdog exists and I'll do everything in my power to keep its existence as a little token of appreciation for giving BG and IWD a second breath.
Sometimes, saying the obvious seems necessary as many people apparently expect Beamdog to act like a charity institution.
Hehe. Or like a useless and wasteful government agency.
I don't expect any business to act like a charity but ethically would be nice.
What I don't understand - why would anyone prefer the original versions (as a casual gamer, this is a non-starter for me anyway, because I don't want to spend a fortnight on patching things...)? Can you not either disable (or ignore) most of the new features?
Sometimes, saying the obvious seems necessary as many people apparently expect Beamdog to act like a charity institution.
Hehe. Or like a useless and wasteful government agency.
I don't expect any business to act like a charity but ethically would be nice.
What I don't understand - why would anyone prefer the original versions (as a casual gamer, this is a non-starter for me anyway, because I don't want to spend a fortnight on patching things...)? Can you not either disable (or ignore) most of the new features?
That's not really what the argument is about. It is the fact that Beamdog have been complicit in removing the original game from the market so that the only way to get it as a download is to buy one of the Enhanced Editions. I think the Enhanced Editions are great and I am sure that the majority of people would indeed prefer them but I think it is a mistake to block people from being able to buy the original if that is what they want.
And it is worth remembering that the only reason the Enhanced Editions exist is because the original game was so good.
What I don't understand - why would anyone prefer the original versions (as a casual gamer, this is a non-starter for me anyway, because I don't want to spend a fortnight on patching things...)?
The thing is, you don't have to spend a fortnight patching anything. The originals, while not perfect and slightly dated, are still stable and playable.
I'd also argue that depending on your hardware, the EEs are not necessarily stabler: for example, on the latest update (not just the beta, mind you), PCs with integrated Intel video cards freeze the game for upwards of a minute when saving. Not to mention the horrible lag caused by the zoom-out effect of the area map screen (which you can't disable).
The whole point here, which a lot of people seem to be missing, is that not only there are cases in which the EEs won't run (while the GoG originals will), but for some veteran players, all these actual improvements and enhancements made by Beamdog come with the price of excessive or arbitrary changes and additions that ultimately make it a mixed bag.
And that's when the whole removal of the originals thing comes into play. If they were still there, available as always, none of this would be a big deal and the whole "WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T PLAY IT" argument would actually hold water.
Sure, you can still get them from GoG if you buy the EEs from there. Is it right that folks have to play double the price for games they don't want to a developer which didn't even make them?
I'm curious as to the actual contracts that were written up to bundle the originals with the EE. I can't have been just Beamdog's input. Its still GoG's distribution platform, and they clearly had the rights to sell the games on their own, seeing as they did for a number of years. I also understand that Beamdog has the rights to develop and sell the EEs, but I don't recall hearing any rights for the original. Not to mention the copyright holders themselves, wizards and hasbro. It lokks to me that, while complicit, Beamdog also has the least amount of power in this situation.
The whole point here, which a lot of people seem to be missing, is that not only there are cases in which the EEs won't run (while the GoG originals will), but for some veteran players, all these actual improvements and enhancements made by Beamdog come with the price of excessive or arbitrary changes and additions that ultimately make it a mixed bag.
Don't you think all these veteran players already purchased original version long time ago (maybe even couple of times on different stores)?
The team at Beamdog was able to breathe a new life into the Infinity Engine classics. We're proud to recognize their excellent work in offering the best possible experience and support for these legendary titles. We want these to become the definitive editions – featuring both the enhanced and classic versions of the games
This quote was then used by Julius Borisov as concrete proof that it was WotC's doing (even though they don't really claim to be behind the decision).
One year later, a GoG user contacted Beamdog about the bundling and got the following response, in which they completely shift responsibility over to GoG:
I am sorry you believe that we are the cause of this, but I can assure you we have no say in what other retailers do with our titles (discounts/bundles, etc).
That being said, GoG brought the idea to our attention and over a year ago Cameron decided that it was a positive choice. I am sorry you are negative about this, but I want you to know you are supporting the people who make those decisions, and blaming the ones who don't.
We also have no say in what happens to the original versions of the games, we aren't the owners of those and only licensed them to create our Enhanced Editions.
A couple of months after that, an official statement was published over at the GoG forums, in which Beamdog finally admits they're responsible for the bundling:
We would like to apologize for recent miscommunications regarding the removal of the predecessor products to our Enhanced Edition titles from sale on GOG.
The decision to take Baldur’s Gate, Baldur’s Gate II, Icewind Dale, and most recently, Planescape: Torment from sale on GOG and bundle them with the Beamdog Enhanced Edition titles was a joint decision between the Beamdog and GOG leadership teams, just as it was when the GOG Definitive Edition Bundles were first announced.
At no point was it our intention to appear as if we were shifting the weight of this decision to GOG. Again, we apologize for creating this perception and hope to do a better job of communicating with the GOG community in the future.
We believe that bundling the old titles alongside their newer Enhanced Editions creates a value unique to GOG and allows for owners to enjoy the option of choosing to play the game as it was on release or the versions we have made available.
To sum it up: first, they have people believe they were victims of a WotC unilateral decision by not bothering to correct Julius' erroneous statement. Then, when inquired in private, they say it was GoG's idea so they're hardly responsible for it. Then, they discreetly admit responsibility, directly contradicting previous statements about just how much control they have over the originals.
Don't you think all these veteran players already purchased original version long time ago (maybe even couple of times on different stores)?
That's a blanket assumption that ignores the classic status of these games. And why should we assume that no one ever would prefer to stick with the originals unless they've been introduced to these games back in the day?
Me and other people have been pointing out again and again why treating the EEs as the definitive/authoritative versions of these games is not necessarily a good idea. Dismissing BD's attempt at erasing history by claiming "no one would buy it anyway" seems to me like an even worse idea.
While I’m exclusively an EE player at this point, I understand that someone would like to play with the originals. Final Fantasy 4 has been remade on numerous platforms, but my favorite one is the SNES one. For its classic tone.
On GOG (Good Old Games, after all) I bet that some players would actually like to have access to the originals without having to buy the EEs. For some, the whole point is to play the old game. That’s why I think that the bundling make economical sense for Beamdog, but it kind of a dick move ethically wise.
The team at Beamdog was able to breathe a new life into the Infinity Engine classics. We're proud to recognize their excellent work in offering the best possible experience and support for these legendary titles. We want these to become the definitive editions – featuring both the enhanced and classic versions of the games
This quote was then used by Julius Borisov as concrete proof that it was WotC's doing (even though they don't really claim to be behind the decision).
One year later, a GoG user contacted Beamdog about the bundling and got the following response, in which they completely shift responsibility over to GoG:
I am sorry you believe that we are the cause of this, but I can assure you we have no say in what other retailers do with our titles (discounts/bundles, etc).
That being said, GoG brought the idea to our attention and over a year ago Cameron decided that it was a positive choice. I am sorry you are negative about this, but I want you to know you are supporting the people who make those decisions, and blaming the ones who don't.
We also have no say in what happens to the original versions of the games, we aren't the owners of those and only licensed them to create our Enhanced Editions.
A couple of months after that, an official statement was published over at the GoG forums, in which Beamdog finally admits they're responsible for the bundling:
We would like to apologize for recent miscommunications regarding the removal of the predecessor products to our Enhanced Edition titles from sale on GOG.
The decision to take Baldur’s Gate, Baldur’s Gate II, Icewind Dale, and most recently, Planescape: Torment from sale on GOG and bundle them with the Beamdog Enhanced Edition titles was a joint decision between the Beamdog and GOG leadership teams, just as it was when the GOG Definitive Edition Bundles were first announced.
At no point was it our intention to appear as if we were shifting the weight of this decision to GOG. Again, we apologize for creating this perception and hope to do a better job of communicating with the GOG community in the future.
We believe that bundling the old titles alongside their newer Enhanced Editions creates a value unique to GOG and allows for owners to enjoy the option of choosing to play the game as it was on release or the versions we have made available.
To sum it up: first, they have people believe they were victims of a WotC unilateral decision by not bothering to correct Julius' erroneous statement. Then, when inquired in private, they say it was GoG's idea so they're hardly responsible for it. Then, they discreetly admit responsibility, directly contradicting previous statements about just how much control they have over the originals.
I don't see how Beamdog can claim sole responsibility here. They can't dictate how GoG does business. Even if it was originally Beamdog's idea, WIzards and GoG would have had to agree.
But none of this still addresses the point of why Beamdog or WotC or anyone else should HAVE to sell someone the original games? It's their property, and they have every right to choose to allow you to buy it, or not. It's not your right to be able to buy it; it's their right to choose to sell it to you. Potential buyers have no rights to a property. Only the seller/owner has rights. There is absolutely nothing unethical about the owners of the original games refusing to sell it to you. If I were them, I would do exactly the same thing. Demanding that Beamdog/WotC sell you their product is an entitlement mentality and that mentality is what is outrageous here, not Bemadog's/WotC's choice to exercise their right to withdraw their product from the market.
@kanisatha The original games are not Beamdog’s property, only the EEs. Since we had contradicting reasons as to why they bundled it and who decided to, there’s good reason the think that Beamdog were behind this idea. And hiding something to sell that is not yours behind your own product is indeed shady.
Edit : But it’s true that, if WotC decided to go against the bundle, Beamdog couldn’t have done it. Which actually gives some measure of validity to the bundle ethically wise, if I’m totally honest.
@Arctodus That's part of my point. Beamdog doesn't own the originals. Leglly speaking, they DON'T have the authority to restrict sales of it. They could have suggested bundling it, sure, but all the power to make the decision would lie with Wizards approving the idea, and then GoG approving the new distribution method.
@kanisatha While I do agree with your point in broad strokes, it still sucks that in order to play the originals, you HAVE to shell out $20 for a newer version that you may not like. And if you only wanted to play 1 or 2 (yes those people exist), you now have to sink $10 more than you needed to before. So I do understand the frustration.
But none of this still addresses the point of why Beamdog or WotC or anyone else should HAVE to sell someone the original games? It's their property, and they have every right to choose to allow you to buy it, or not. It's not your right to be able to buy it; it's their right to choose to sell it to you. Potential buyers have no rights to a property. Only the seller/owner has rights. There is absolutely nothing unethical about the owners of the original games refusing to sell it to you. If I were them, I would do exactly the same thing. Demanding that Beamdog/WotC sell you their product is an entitlement mentality and that mentality is what is outrageous here, not Bemadog's/WotC's choice to exercise their right to withdraw their product from the market.
Jesus rollerblading Christ.
No one is arguing whether Beamdog or Wizards or my mom has a legal right or prerogative of selling or refusing to sell anything. It is completely beside the point.
Here's the situation: Beamdog removed the original games from sale in order to boost sales of their own versions. This is questionable from an ethics point of view and a passive aggressive move towards people who weren't supportive of their handling of the franchise as a whole. Am I or anyone saying it's illegal? No. Does legal always equal right? No.
Calling out a company on their jerk business practices has nothing to do with entitlement. No one said Wizards or GoG or Beamdog OWED anyone having the games for sale. It is, however, the wise thing to do since apparently there's demand for it. But that's also beside the point.
So please, pretty please, get the hell out with quoting Capitalism for Dummies. We know how it works, we're having a completely different discussion.
But it’s true that, if WotC decided to go against the bundle, Beamdog couldn’t have done it. Which actually gives some measure of validity to the bundle ethically wise, if I’m totally honest.
From my point of view, it doesn't validate it ethically so much as it shows WotC/Hasbro is not exactly concerned about a 20-year game that yields peanuts in profits.
@Kilivitz How can Beamdog refuse to sell games they don't own? Wizards and GoG reallly should be included in this decision, they hold all the power here.
"From my point of view, it doesn't validate it ethically so much as it shows WotC/Hasbro is not exactly concerned about a 20-year game that yields peanuts in profits. "
From what I understand of your post, it seems you should be just as peeved at WotC/Hasbro over this stunt. Why is their "Not exactly concerned" more forgiveable than Beamdog suggesting that the games they aren't concerned about be bundled?
@ThacoBell in my blind rage I forgot to answer your previous post.
I see your point about Beamdog not being the sole responsible. In fact, the evidence suggests that 1) GoG came up with the idea, 2) Beamdog went for it and 3) WotC gave them the green light.
My argument was that this doesn't necessarily leave BD off the hook. Yes, it does make sense from a business point of view, specially considering that from what I've read, the originals were outselling the EEs on GoG. Let me reinforce that this is just GoG - I'm not suggesting in any way that the EEs were being outsold once you consider Steam and Beamdog's own store, because they obviously weren't.
Ultimately, GoG makes more money (the EEs cost twice as much what the originals used to cost), Beamdog makes more money and sells more copies of the EEs, and WotC, who were making royalties either way, are not affected much. I guess that if the EEs are the current version of the games, it makes sense to make them the only version available with the originals thrown in as a bonus for those who prefer it.
I understand all of this. My argument is that the bundling shouldn't have happened (as much as they have a legal right or the green light from WotC) because I disagree with BD and WotC's claim that the EEs are the definitive versions of the games that everybody should be playing - the EE, with all its changes and additions, is an alternative version as much as (if not more than) an update. They say they want to give EE buyers the choice of playing the originals, but they did so by also eliminating prospective buyers from the choice of buying the old games for a lower price or the EEs (which costs more, and reasonably so, since they're still in active development).
I don't think WotC being complacent with the whole situation deserves a pass as well. But I think it is much more effective complaining about it here, to Beamdog, than sending emails directly to Hasbro (which some people on the GoG forums have done, to no avail).
@Arctodus@ThacoBell In my post I did reference WotC as the owner, and they are not only the owner of the original games but also the EEs. BD has often made it clear in various contexts that all decisions re. the EE games have to be cleared with WotC. So WotC/Hasbro have final and decisive say over everything related to the IE games no matter the version.
It is very routine in the business world for a company to stop supporting and distributing an older version of a product when a new version gets released. This is standard practice, and to claim that it is unethical or someone being a jerk is silly. And yes, a newer version is always the definitive version. People certainly are free to feel frustrated with this, but at the same time it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for WotC to tell people: "Play the EEs. They are better/superior to the originals."
Companies are not infallible - not everything that's legal or legitimate is ethical. And there's nothing silly about questioning a business decision. While you or anyone else may hold a different opinion, I find it much sillier to dismiss a well-presented argument with sweeping statements which conveniently ignore the context I have repeatedly laid out.
Totally agree with kanisatha. I don't know or care who gave the decision. This is not a jerk move at all, nor unethical in my perspective. This is just business strategy, with valid reasoning behind it.
I was wondering about future of BG:EE. As the updates bring a lot of changes and fixes I was wondering when can we expect the final patch? Taking under consideration how long it took to get to 2.5 beta (since release of BG:EE) does this mean that I will have to wait another few years before BG:EE will be finally patched?
Comments
I'm glad Beamdog exists and I'll do everything in my power to keep its existence as a little token of appreciation for giving BG and IWD a second breath.
And it is worth remembering that the only reason the Enhanced Editions exist is because the original game was so good.
I'd also argue that depending on your hardware, the EEs are not necessarily stabler: for example, on the latest update (not just the beta, mind you), PCs with integrated Intel video cards freeze the game for upwards of a minute when saving. Not to mention the horrible lag caused by the zoom-out effect of the area map screen (which you can't disable).
The whole point here, which a lot of people seem to be missing, is that not only there are cases in which the EEs won't run (while the GoG originals will), but for some veteran players, all these actual improvements and enhancements made by Beamdog come with the price of excessive or arbitrary changes and additions that ultimately make it a mixed bag.
And that's when the whole removal of the originals thing comes into play. If they were still there, available as always, none of this would be a big deal and the whole "WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T PLAY IT" argument would actually hold water.
Sure, you can still get them from GoG if you buy the EEs from there. Is it right that folks have to play double the price for games they don't want to a developer which didn't even make them?
One year later, a GoG user contacted Beamdog about the bundling and got the following response, in which they completely shift responsibility over to GoG: A couple of months after that, an official statement was published over at the GoG forums, in which Beamdog finally admits they're responsible for the bundling: When confronted about saying it was WotC's decision, Julius said he had been mistaken.
To sum it up: first, they have people believe they were victims of a WotC unilateral decision by not bothering to correct Julius' erroneous statement. Then, when inquired in private, they say it was GoG's idea so they're hardly responsible for it. Then, they discreetly admit responsibility, directly contradicting previous statements about just how much control they have over the originals.
Me and other people have been pointing out again and again why treating the EEs as the definitive/authoritative versions of these games is not necessarily a good idea. Dismissing BD's attempt at erasing history by claiming "no one would buy it anyway" seems to me like an even worse idea.
On GOG (Good Old Games, after all) I bet that some players would actually like to have access to the originals without having to buy the EEs. For some, the whole point is to play the old game. That’s why I think that the bundling make economical sense for Beamdog, but it kind of a dick move ethically wise.
Edit : But it’s true that, if WotC decided to go against the bundle, Beamdog couldn’t have done it. Which actually gives some measure of validity to the bundle ethically wise, if I’m totally honest.
@kanisatha While I do agree with your point in broad strokes, it still sucks that in order to play the originals, you HAVE to shell out $20 for a newer version that you may not like. And if you only wanted to play 1 or 2 (yes those people exist), you now have to sink $10 more than you needed to before. So I do understand the frustration.
No one is arguing whether Beamdog or Wizards or my mom has a legal right or prerogative of selling or refusing to sell anything. It is completely beside the point.
Here's the situation: Beamdog removed the original games from sale in order to boost sales of their own versions. This is questionable from an ethics point of view and a passive aggressive move towards people who weren't supportive of their handling of the franchise as a whole. Am I or anyone saying it's illegal? No. Does legal always equal right? No.
Calling out a company on their jerk business practices has nothing to do with entitlement. No one said Wizards or GoG or Beamdog OWED anyone having the games for sale. It is, however, the wise thing to do since apparently there's demand for it. But that's also beside the point.
So please, pretty please, get the hell out with quoting Capitalism for Dummies. We know how it works, we're having a completely different discussion. From my point of view, it doesn't validate it ethically so much as it shows WotC/Hasbro is not exactly concerned about a 20-year game that yields peanuts in profits.
"From my point of view, it doesn't validate it ethically so much as it shows WotC/Hasbro is not exactly concerned about a 20-year game that yields peanuts in profits. "
From what I understand of your post, it seems you should be just as peeved at WotC/Hasbro over this stunt. Why is their "Not exactly concerned" more forgiveable than Beamdog suggesting that the games they aren't concerned about be bundled?
I see your point about Beamdog not being the sole responsible. In fact, the evidence suggests that 1) GoG came up with the idea, 2) Beamdog went for it and 3) WotC gave them the green light.
My argument was that this doesn't necessarily leave BD off the hook. Yes, it does make sense from a business point of view, specially considering that from what I've read, the originals were outselling the EEs on GoG. Let me reinforce that this is just GoG - I'm not suggesting in any way that the EEs were being outsold once you consider Steam and Beamdog's own store, because they obviously weren't.
Ultimately, GoG makes more money (the EEs cost twice as much what the originals used to cost), Beamdog makes more money and sells more copies of the EEs, and WotC, who were making royalties either way, are not affected much. I guess that if the EEs are the current version of the games, it makes sense to make them the only version available with the originals thrown in as a bonus for those who prefer it.
I understand all of this. My argument is that the bundling shouldn't have happened (as much as they have a legal right or the green light from WotC) because I disagree with BD and WotC's claim that the EEs are the definitive versions of the games that everybody should be playing - the EE, with all its changes and additions, is an alternative version as much as (if not more than) an update. They say they want to give EE buyers the choice of playing the originals, but they did so by also eliminating prospective buyers from the choice of buying the old games for a lower price or the EEs (which costs more, and reasonably so, since they're still in active development).
I don't think WotC being complacent with the whole situation deserves a pass as well. But I think it is much more effective complaining about it here, to Beamdog, than sending emails directly to Hasbro (which some people on the GoG forums have done, to no avail).
It is very routine in the business world for a company to stop supporting and distributing an older version of a product when a new version gets released. This is standard practice, and to claim that it is unethical or someone being a jerk is silly. And yes, a newer version is always the definitive version. People certainly are free to feel frustrated with this, but at the same time it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for WotC to tell people: "Play the EEs. They are better/superior to the originals."
...what a useless, toxic, falsely framed thread