Project X is BG3

[Sammael]

No seriously, I'm aware of the fact that there is little chance this is a mystary-engine FR crpg, but I just can't help myself.

Perhaps you need somebody else to help you?

 

The chances of Pogo Ex (© Krezack) being BG3 or an adaptation of TBH are nil.

[Drakron]

First the FR setting belongs to WIzards of the Coast, Interplay cannot claim rights to anything on it.

 

Baldur

[Volourn]

Actually, a D&D game did do well on consoles. Sege Genesis in fact. It was turn based to boot.

[Nightblade]

No seriously, I'm aware of the fact that there is little chance this is a mystary-engine FR crpg, but I just can't help myself.

Perhaps you need somebody else to help you?

 

The chances of Pogo Ex (

[Tigranes]

Huh? The Black Hound was not set anywhere near the city of Baldur's Gate, and (to the best of my knowledge) all cameo characters were from the Icewind Dale series...

 

Ah, really? The first part is big news to me. How then did The Black Hound link itself to the BG license - or did it even need to? I was under the strong impression you couldn't just throw a Kara-Tur game and call it BG. As for the cameos, I was simply guessing myself, to signify the lack of relation between TBH and the previous BG games.

[Vvornth]

As much as I would like to see another game in the Baldurs Gate vein I simultaneously feel that the D&D universe (particulary Forgotten Realms) is getting old. There are also a good number of D&D mechanics that are downright dumb, such as the very limiting alignment system.

[Judge Hades]

I wouldn't mind a good d20 System game, but not fantasy and especially not Forgotten Realms. Can we say "over used." I am not particularly looking forward to another d20 Star Wars either. Just more fantasy crap.

[Zahadome]

I'd hate to see a new BG game suffer from consolitis as much as the "simultaneously developed" KoTOR.

IMO they should let BG rest and make an entirely new game in a new setting.

 

edit: typo, consoli****

[Logan]

One thing that is not really clear..Who owns the license to make BG games on the PC? Bioware? Atari? If Atari, why? They own the D&D license, but BG was licensed to Interplay-Bioware-BIS before Atari/Infogrames aquired the license, who did Interplay lose the right to publish BG (on the PC) to?

 

I also agree that the chance of Obsidian making any "official" D&D game are close to nil, I think that both Bioware and the former BIS staffers have had it with all the legal problems and WoTC restrictions on content. IIRC Jefferson was cancelled as much because of WoTC content restrictions as it was due to Interplay losing the rights. It might be that when Interplay/BIS determined they would have to gut Black Hound in order to publish it that they then determined that the effort involved was not worth completing development and retaining the BG PC license. Hence they let the license go.

 

In fact, I hope that the good cRPG developers starve the D&D license holder (Hasbro, WoTC, Atari) of revenue from cRPGs until Hasbro releases its' money grubbing, moral high ground death grip from D&D, until then, all we will get is D&D fluff.

 

Hell Troika helped this process along by producing a complete failure of a D&D game.

 

Only through death can there be rebirth.

 

Logan

[Atreides]

The sad thing is that while things are shelved the engine will become more and more dated and if it's released may not be up to scratch.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Analyzing.... "Complete failure".... Result = 100% chance of subjective iteration. Analysis complete.

[Phosphor]

Ah, really? The first part is big news to me. How then did The Black Hound link itself to the BG license - or did it even need to? I was under the strong impression you couldn't just throw a Kara-Tur game and call it BG. As for the cameos, I was simply guessing myself, to signify the lack of relation between TBH and the previous BG games.

The BG link was license name only, because that's what BIS would have to do in order to release a D&D game. They could have very well do Baldur's Gate 3: Kara-Tur Adventures had they wanted to.

As for cameos, there was discussion on the Interplay boards about IWD NPCs (like Maralee Fiddlebender) being part of the story.

[Tigranes]

Ah, I see. So that was nowhere as restrictive as I had thought. Thanks for the clarification.

[roshan]

One thing that is not really clear..Who owns the license to make BG games on the PC? Bioware? Atari? If Atari, why? They own the D&D license, but BG was licensed to Interplay-Bioware-BIS before Atari/Infogrames aquired the license, who did Interplay lose the right to publish BG (on the PC) to?

 

I also agree that the chance of Obsidian making any "official" D&D game are close to nil, I think that both Bioware and the former BIS staffers have had it with all the legal problems and WoTC restrictions on content. IIRC Jefferson was cancelled as much because of WoTC content restrictions as it was due to Interplay losing the rights. It might be that when Interplay/BIS determined they would have to gut Black Hound in order to publish it that they then determined that the effort involved was not worth completing development and retaining the BG PC license. Hence they let the license go.

 

In fact, I hope that the good cRPG developers starve the D&D license holder (Hasbro, WoTC, Atari) of revenue from cRPGs until Hasbro releases its' money grubbing, moral high ground death grip from D&D, until then, all we will get is D&D fluff.

 

Hell Troika helped this process along by producing a complete failure of a D&D game.

 

Only through death can there be rebirth.

 

Logan

i think that atari gained the bg pc license from bis.

[Tigranes]

*claps* i guess you directly answered without reading the thread.

[Darkmoon]

I think I read that Bioware still has the rights to create games with the name "Baldur's Gate", but they don't have the rights to use "D&D" or "Forgotten Realms"...

And BIS/Interplay had the rights to create "D&D"- and "Forgotten Realms"-games but they couldn't use the name "Baldur's Gate". Therefore this whole mess with the Jefferson-project.

Then they lost the rights for "D&D" and "Forgotten Realms" to Atari.

So, if Bioware still have the rights to use the name "Baldur's Gate", they could team up with Atari to create a "Baldur's Gate 3", afaik.

[roshan]

baldurs gate is part of the dnd license...

[Darkmoon]

I know, but I think that I read that Bioware still has the rights for using this specific title for a computer game and no other company is allowed to create a game called "Baldur's Gate" even though it is the name of a city in the Forgotten Realms and thus part of the D&D-license.

[Iolo]

I know, but I think that I read that Bioware still has the rights for using this specific title for a computer game and no other company is allowed to create a game called "Baldur's Gate" even though it is the name of a city in the Forgotten Realms and thus part of the D&D-license.

BioWare employees have posted on their forums when asked why they don't do a BG3 that they don't have the rights. One would think that Interplay would have that right but they lost the ability to due to their amending their contract with Atari. That would imply that only Atari can do a BG3 but it could be developed for them by BioWare or any one of a number of other companies. To be honest, I am uncertain what the real truth is but BioWare definately can't do it because the BG games were published by Interplay who owned the trademark for the PC games.

 

After the acquisition of ownership of D&D electronic gaming rights by Atari from Hasbro, that is all Interplay could do because at some point after that time Atari renegotiated the D&D rights with Interplay and Interplay lost a more general right to do games with the Forgotten Realms license or D&D license. Instead the terms of Interplay's D&D license became such that they only could do D&D games with Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale in the title but they lost the BG part of that agreement (on the PC) as well. I am uncertain of the Icewind Dale part of that agreement. This is why Jefferson was cancelled. It was going to be Baldur's Gate 3 because they could only do games with BG or IWD in the title (and the type of game it was wouldn't have worked as an IWD title). However, Interplay negotiated with Atari for a double extension of the console BGDA rights at the expense of the PC BG rights instead of a single extension for the console and a single extension of the PC games. Blame Atari and Herve Caen and other Inteprlay management for this mess.

[roshan]

interplay is messed up. its too bad for the gamers and the jefferson team that what was to be one of the greatest computer games ever was scrapped because of the bastard herve caen.

[FrankK]

I'm sure Feargus or one of my other masters could probably answer better, but I'm pretty sure BG PC rights are owned by Atari as part of the DnD license.

[Tigranes]

Bioware could never do anything with BG after they split with Interplay, could they? Heck, they've spent the last three years or so on their forums responding negatively to about ten million "BG3!" threads. (and some by the same person.)

[Drakron]

I think one of BioWare commenst was interplay could do "Baldur

[roshan]

afaik atari has the right to use baldurs gate, not interplay.

[Zorrelak]

It seems like Interplay has won back the rights to BG3 from Atari.

 

This was taken from Atari's latest 10-Q Quarterly report ending December 30, 2003:

 

Interplay

 

On September 19, 2003, Interplay, commenced a wrongful termination and breach of contract action (the