Interplay files 8-K, several clocks fail to fall off walls

[Per]

If you think it's been too long since we reported on the financial state of Interplay you'll be mildly pleased to hear that they just filed a Form 8-K about settling a debt with Atari. Fallout connection: tenuous.<blockquote>On July 24, 2008, the Company entered into an Option Exercise Agreement (the "Agreement") with Atari Interactive, Inc. ("Atari Interactive"). Under the Agreement, Atari Interactive and the Company settled outstanding disputes among them, including in connection with an existing Promissory Note dated August 19, 2004 of the Company in favor of Atari Interactive (the "Note"). Pursuant to the Agreement, Atari Interactive exercised an existing option to purchase, and purchased, from the Company intellectual property rights developed by the Company in connection with the Dungeons & Dragons games and the balance of all amounts due from the Company to Atari Interactive under the Note of approximately $1,050,000.00 was cancelled and terminated.</blockquote>So away goes the Dark Alliance IP and the result is not more money to fund FOOL, but less debt, which may or may not amount to the same thing.

 

[Ausir]

By the way, did Interplay or BioWare own the plot and characters of Baldur's Gate? If IPLY, it means that probably Atari owns those now.

 

[entropyjesus]

By the way, did Interplay or BioWare own the plot and characters of Baldur's Gate? If IPLY, it means that probably Atari owns those now.

Yay, now we'll get a Baldur's Gate 3 with completely redesigned first person action and realistic fire!!!

 

[Per]

How so? If Interplay didn't lose those when they lost the D&D license to Atari before, why would they do it now?

 

[Ausir]

They didn't have the rights to use D&D, but they might have still kept the rights to characters and stories from IWD, PST and (presumably) BG - not much to do with them, but Atari could use the name "Baldur's Gate" but not any characters created for BG1 and BG2. License to the source material does not equal license to use stuff from previous adaptations of the source material.

 

[entropyjesus]

They didn't have the rights to use D&D, but they might have still kept the rights to characters and stories - not much to do with them, but Atari could use the name "Baldur's Gate" but not any characters created for BG1 and BG2. License to the source material does not equal license to use stuff from previous adaptations of the source material.

Hence the total overhaul!

But on a serious note, I don't think Atari would even bother using the license unless it's to make another Dark Alliance-type game.

 

[Ausir]

They might make another Dark Alliance-type game, put BG1 and BG2 characters in it and call it Baldur's Gate 3.

 

[entropyjesus]

They might make another Dark Alliance-type game, put BG1 and BG2 characters in it and call it Baldur's Gate 3.

I cringe just thinking about it

 

[Xenophile]

They just recently published Neverwinter Nights 2.. I don't find it hard to believe they won't fund obsidian or someone to make a new BG, *gasp* as an actual RPG

 

[Per]

They could call it "Jefferson".

 

[entropyjesus]

They just recently published Neverwinter Nights 2.. I don't find it hard to believe they won't fund obsidian or someone to make a new BG, *gasp* as an actual RPG

I try not to get my hopes up anymore.

 

[Zaptoman]

So I'm guessing the dark alliance image will come off their website (page) now?

 

[Ausir]

Yeah, it probably will.

 

[Stiched]

So wait, does this mean FOOL is coming sooner? Sweet!

 

[junkevil]

They might make another Dark Alliance-type game, put BG1 and BG2 characters in it and call it Baldur's Gate 3.

wait, are you saying that you think some company is going to buy an ip for a game from another company, and then just slap that ip all over a different game and act like it's still in the same series to sell copies?

that's simply unheard of in todays video game market.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

The question still remains, how shitty will FOOL be?

 

[Briosafreak]

They might make another Dark Alliance-type game, put BG1 and BG2 characters in it and call it Baldur's Gate 3.

No, that was settled years ago. They can do a DA game, but without any reference whatsoever to Baldur's Gate.

 

[Ausir]

I mean Atari there, not Interplay. Now it looks like Interplay can't even make a new DA game without using the BG name, since DA falls under "intellectual property rights developed by the Company in connection with the Dungeons & Dragons games", doesn't it?

 

[Briosafreak]

I mean Atari there, not Interplay. Now it looks like Interplay can't even make a new DA game, since DA falls under "intellectual property rights developed by the Company in connection with the Dungeons & Dragons games", doesn't it?

Oh yeah, in that case yes, Atari can.


And that part isn't very clear, we'll need to dig that up.

 

[Vrede]

They might make another Dark Alliance-type game, put BG1 and BG2 characters in it and call it Baldur's Gate 3.

wait, are you saying that you think some company is going to buy an ip for a game from another company, and then just slap that ip all over a different game and act like it's still in the same series to sell copies?

that's simply unheard of in todays video game market.

whooaaa
now what kind of lowlife scum would do THAT???