Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Zbyram wrote:Don't you think they could foresee this turn of events somehow? Didn't they know that they'll lose the BG rights in the nearest future? Geez what a stupid move if that's true.
It's funnier than that, actually. Interplay starts making BG3 under BIS, dubbed "Jefferson", because they got the rights to make it when they extended the D&D license with Infogrames, right? This was part of the NWN sell off deal. However, this deal also required Interplay to pay for those rights in installments.
Well, about a year later, even though the game is in full development, Interplay kinda decided to not pay for extending the BG for the PC license instead paying to extend the BG for the console license to 2008.
I don't think anyone can make another "Baldur's Gate" sequel in perticular though. The only rights they really have is a game set in the Swords of the Coast part of Forgotten Realms. Or something like that anyway, I'm not perticularely up to date with D&D lore. Either way, I'm fairly certain Wizards of the Coast can go and sell off the BG name to some other company.
Off the top of my head, I'd say Infogrames (if anyone) can make BG games now.
But the thing with that deal is that IPLY was allowed to continue to publish D&D games but ONLY under the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale names. Having lost BG on PC, Jefferson is gone.
Here's something interesting I found regarding BG publishing rights.
A while back, the ToEE official site opened (www.greyhawkgame.com). Availible for download there are four desktop wallpapers, each one with a beefy legal blurb at the bottom. Here's something I spotted on one of them:
"Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, Baldur's Gate, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast...."
my god! this is great, i mean we strifed years for this! i just hope they dont fuck it up like fobos.
woohoo woohooo!!!!!!
btw this quickreply thing rules!
You are losing it, doesn`t matter, let`s close our eyes and wake up from this dream.....
-------------------------------
Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity.
-------------------------------
Spazmo wrote:"Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, Baldur's Gate, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast...."
So I guess Wizards owns the BG rights now.
Well that goes without saying...Baldurs Gate is a D&D entity...you don't own one without the other. What they're doing is being thorough, as the context of what 'Baldurs Gate' is in gaming is now a tradamark...its a highly visible entity. Otherwise, for the longest, Baldurs Gate was merely a part of the Forgotten Realms, and only became significant due to the game of the same name's success.
Red wrote:Not necessarely... I mean with all the time invested in Jefferson and it ebing dumped means that BIS will need to come up with a new game SOON. Given Van Burren was the next in line after Jefferson it means it'll have it's deadlines cut for more profits, which unless money starts raining on IPLY/Titus probably won't happen. Which in turn will mean a rushed-out-the-doors FO3. Which is something we all know we don't want.
Well, hasn't that been the case in BIS over the last years anyway? The IWD2 team worked hard the last few weeks to finish the game in time. With a major part of the Jefferson team working on Van Buren, it probably will have a shortening effect on the development time. There's no estimated release date yet, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it yet. I'm more concerned about how well BIS is capable of producing a new Fallout game with same quality as the previous ones.
EvoG wrote:Well that goes without saying...Baldurs Gate is a D&D entity...
Indeed. I'd just like to point out he was replying to me, rectifying my statement that BG was a BIS copyright - yet the world it was designed in was a WotC copyright.
EvoG wrote:Well that goes without saying...Baldurs Gate is a D&D entity...
Indeed. I'd just like to point out he was replying to me, rectifying my statement that BG was a BIS copyright - yet the world it was designed in was a WotC copyright.
Oh sure, but his sentence structure implied that WoC had received the rights to BG seperately as if it were a distinct entity, which the case is that they never NOT(double negative...but they're fun to say!) owned the rights to BG. Just clearing it up for Spazmo.
)would be good too,but not more
