Interplay - D&D Rights Sold to Atari

[Dhruin]

Stanza writes that according to bigdownload.com (http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/08/07/interplay-and-atari-settle-dispute-over-dandd-game-rights/), Interplay's latest SEC filing shows they sold (or really, relinquished in return for canceling a promisory note) their last remaining D&D properties to Atari. Since IPLY long ago lost the license to release any D&D games, this presumably means titles such as Icewind Dale and so on. From the original article:
Under the terms of the agreement, Atari has agreed to purchase all rights that Interplay had on licensing games based on the Dungeons and Dragons franchise (One of Interplay's most popular games in the 1990s was the D&D themed RPG Baldur's Gate (http://news.bigdownload.com/tag/baldurs-gate), developed by BioWare) (http://news.bigdownload.com/tag/bioware). In return, a previous agreement by Interplay to pay a promissory note of $1, 050,000 to Atari was cancelled.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=9876)

[Surlent]

So now potentially Atari could hire Obsidian or some other studio to develop sequels for BG, IWD and PST?

Couple of years ago there were rumors of BG3 being in development. If Interplay was directly involved in the development then no doubt the project wasn't going anywhere. But I wonder if it hit the wall because Interplay had the license to the title?

[Roi Danton]

So Interplay sold only their IPs (BG, Icewind Dale, etc) and not the DnD license, or am I mistaken? Because there are a lot of DnD games out there and I always thought that Interplay didn't hold anything relating to DnD for a while.

[Dhruin]

Correct as I see it. They long ago lost the rights to make D&D games but presumably Atari now owns IWD and Torment. Not sure on BG - I thought they gave that up a long time ago in return for ownership of Dark Alliance.

[danutz_plusplus]

It would be awesome if Atari found a good dev to do Icewind Dale 3. I love the cold and secluded setting. My favorite place in Faerun. If I had to choose a place to spend my elder days, that'd be the one. Kuldahar particularly. :D

[fracek]

It would be awesome if Atari found a good dev to do Icewind Dale 3. I love the cold and secluded setting. My favorite place in Faerun. If I had to choose a place to spend my elder days, that'd be the one. Kuldahar particularly. :D

Aye... sitting nice and warm in front of the fireplace under the great tree while outside the blizzard screams down the valley... with a cup of steaming wine or ale in your hands, sharing the tales of past adventures... :)

Sign me under too ;)

Icewind Dale is also one of my favourite fantasy settings...Kuldahar probably THE favourite...
I still remember when my party stumbled out of the snow to behold the great tree and the village under it for the first time...

Would love to see the franchise revived again! (revived not desecrated that is; let`s see first what happens with the new Fallout..)

[danutz_plusplus]

Aye... sitting nice and warm in front of the fireplace under the great tree while outside the blizzard screams down the valley... with a cup of steaming wine or ale in your hands, sharing the tales of past adventures... :)

Yeah, just plain beautiful. :)
And the track that plays during your visit to Kuldahar is magnificent. Jeremy Soule really outdid himself with IWD's soundtrack.

[Turok]

Oh good lord i hope this mean good news, not something like besheda and fallout, please please!!!!!!!!!

Go Atari Go!!!
________
Ford gt70 (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_GT70)

[Lucky Day]

Well Obsidian has hinted quite strongly in the past that they purchased the rights to IWD a long time ago as they left.

When it was reported that I'Play took the links to their support sites down it was realized they sold them to a third party.

I would really be interested in just what they gave Atari. I can only think that Plane Scape has been left out of any current deal, or possibly any marketing of the games they already published. Or it could be that's what's been holding up any new BG franchise - NWN2 would have been taken care of in the agreement with Bio and Atari in 2002 under this thinking.

[magerette]

This will be interesting to follow. Sequels and 'spiritual successors' seem to be a market given, so I expect something will turn up from this.

[Ausir]

Correct as I see it. They long ago lost the rights to make D&D games but presumably Atari now owns IWD and Torment. Not sure on BG - I thought they gave that up a long time ago in return for ownership of Dark Alliance.
They gave up the rights to the title, but probably still owned the characters and stories of BG, IWD and PST games. Which now went to Atari.

[Brother None]

This was filed as an 8-K back in July (http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43914). Probably should've tipped you off towards, the 10-Q contains nothing new.

Correct as I see it. They long ago lost the rights to make D&D games but presumably Atari now owns IWD and Torment. Not sure on BG - I thought they gave that up a long time ago in return for ownership of Dark Alliance.

Yeah, Interplay lost BG ages ago.

Also, this means Interplay probably lost Dark Alliance as well, but that is unclear.

But honestly, the filing is pretty unclear and I'm not sure who owned what anyway. Interplay probably owned the characters, plot and other related paraphernalia of IWD and Torment, and Atari owns that now. No idea how that relates to property of Baldur's Gate, because BioWare might be holding that rather than Interplay.

[Avantenor]

My information was that Dark Alliance name rights (without "Baldur's Gate") remains Interplay property. But they are not allowed to use any D&D elements for a sequel. I think there was something about that topic in a former report. There are rumours that Snowblind and Interplay made an agreement about a sequel to DA2.

[Brother None]

My information was that Dark Alliance name rights (without "Baldur's Gate") remains Interplay property. But they are not allowed to use any D&D elements for a sequel.

That was the old deal, yes.

The 8-K states Atari got "intellectual property rights developed by the Company in connection with the Dungeons & Dragons games". It doesn't say all IPs developed in connection with D&D, so it is possible DA was spared, but the filing doesn't confirm it either way.

The Snowblind rumour has been around for a while too, but as far as I know they're not based on anything other than Snowblind's long job listing.

Unless you're getting this from somewhere other than this filing...

[purpleblob]

I sure do hope Atari does not have rights for BG series. If they do, please do not develop anymore BG series!!! I don't want them to ruin perfectly fantastic game series. God, no!!!

[Dhruin]

Well, currently Atari has the D&D license for computer games, so presumably they could - although it would likely just be a name attached to a new party-based D&D RPG. I doubt they'd try to continue Bhaal spawn story. I think they feel NWN2 occupies the same territory at the moment but who knows down the track?

[Thaurin]

How can they ruin the Baldur's Gate series? Go back in time and sabotage the development process?

I never understood why a sequel to something could retroactively destroy its predecessor. Oh! And I love how George Lucas "destroyed our childhoods" with The Phantom Manace! Amazing feat, that. :D

[kalniel]

I sure do hope Atari does not have rights for BG series. If they do, please do not develop anymore BG series!!! I don't want them to ruin perfectly fantastic game series. God, no!!!
Perhaps you're one for nostalgia and would prefer no game to be released than one that doesn't live up to your expectations, but personally I think Atari at least try and do things with their licenses. Interplay have had these great licenses but nothing has been done with them for years. Bring back Fallout and Icewind Dale, and even Dark Alliance (assuming Diablo will re-kindle the arcady hack and slash genre). They're no good to anyone sat in a registration database.

[purpleblob]

Lets face it. 99% of Atari products suck. And I actually don't care about other games such as IWD, NWN series. Just leave BG series alone. The story ends with ToB. Do not ruin the series in vain attempt to sap out more money.

[Brother None]

Perhaps you're one for nostalgia and would prefer no game to be released than one that doesn't live up to your expectation.

I'm not sure what you'd have to be one for nostalgia to think that. Personally, I dislike any industry that relies on endless sequel-churning and prefer developers to make fresh, original new properties rather than just producing sequels, but if they want to do a sequel then yes, they'd better do it right.

[Zygo]

The trademark info from the USPTO.gov search engine, TESS (sorry, can't direct link as it's a database search engine), which I looked up when checking System Shock's info a week or so ago:

Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance is (currently) an Interplay mark, registered Dec 24 2007 (!), with the old registration having lapsed in 2002. I'd presume this would be transferred to Atari soon.

Icewind Dale is published for opposition as of June 2008, by Atari. Presumably there won't be any opposition.

Baldur's Gate has two current registrations both for Bioware and both very recent (one of them was approved in May this year), as well as a dead WOTC one from 2004-5 and a dead IPLY one for BG2: TOB. This may make a BG game problematic, due to EA's ownership of Bioware and being a competing publisher to Atari.

It's all a bit odd because the manuals list all the TMs as being WOTC/Hasbro marks, which is what the standard licensing agreement would normally be. But then the standard agreement wouldn't have two companies (IPLY/Atari) both having licences at the same time so there was clearly something weird going on, perhaps like the old Pool of Radiance situation where they got sequel rights.

[kalniel]

Lets face it. 99% of Atari products suck..I strongly disagree with that statement - I've bought and enjoyed more Atari games than from any other publisher recently. I'm not a fanboi- I've had my own share of disagreements with Atari, but games like NWN 1&2 + expansions, Test Drive Unlimited and The Witcher are top drawer and the critics agree.

I'm not sure what you'd have to be one for nostalgia to think that. Personally, I dislike any industry that relies on endless sequel-churning and prefer developers to make fresh, original new properties rather than just producing sequels, but if they want to do a sequel then yes, they'd better do it right.
Why not just not buy a game if you don't like it, rather than wish it was never made and stop someone else from enjoying it? The Witcher is new IP for a video game. NWN was a new series. Test Drive Unlimited was a completely new take on a series.

[Lucky Day]

Kal, NWN was originally an AOL game. I remake of sort was made for it with Bio's NWN called NWN:Resurrected.

The game was initially marketed as a "build your own D&D game" construction set, meant for multiple players and one DM, so I think its safe to say that Bio was in part cashing in on the name.

[blatantninja]

I would love to see another Baldur's Gate game, but agree it should not have anything to do with the Bhaalspawn. I just think it is a great setting. While I love IWD, I like big cities teeming with people. I'd love to see a game that encompassed all the areas of the 2 1/2 BG games (and hopefully some new ones), but with a new story line, preferably not one where the main character has some special destiny like NWN2 or BG. As much as I didn't care for the OC of NWN, I did like the fact that you were just one person who happened to answer the call.

[Brother None]

Thanks for the info, Zygo.

Why not just not buy a game if you don't like it, rather than wish it was never made and stop someone else from enjoying it? The Witcher is new IP for a video game. NWN was a new series. Test Drive Unlimited was a completely new take on a series.

That doesn't really address my sentiment much. Also, NWN was not a new series, and the Witcher is not an original property.

As I said, I dislike the thought of an industry that just churns out sequels or properties adapt from other media, the state the film industry is in now. Simply not buying it isn't much of a solution when almost all AAA-products are sequels.

I'm not sure what is confusing about my sentiment: I prefer original products, but if sequels have to be done for whatever reason it is better if they're faithful and well-made sequels. "A bad sequel is better than nothing" is only a valid viewpoint if you feel sequels are necessary anyway, and I fail to see how sequels are necessary.

[Corwin]

Are you saying you wish Fallout 2 had never been made?

[Brother None]

Considering Fallout 2 improves on the original in application of choice 'n consequence and varied quest-paths: no. It wasn't a necessary sequel, tho', and if I were to value Fallout's setting above Fallout's gameplay elements I'd call it a mistake.

But that's the point, innit? Baldur's Gate II improved on I, Fallout 2 improved on 1 (in areas), Gothic II improved on I. If you're - however - not going to improve, why bother to make a sequel anyway? Producing cheap copies and slapping labels on them is stupid, as is calling a game that has little in common with its predecessor a sequel.

I'm reminded of MCA's answer (http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=39341) to the question "What advice would you have for someone making another Fallout game?":
Don't do one. Do something better and raise the bar even higher.

[blatantninja]

But that's the point, innit? Baldur's Gate II improved on I, Fallout 2 improved on 1 (in areas), Gothic II improved on I. If you're - however - not going to improve, why bother to make a sequel anyway? Producing cheap copies and slapping labels on them is stupid, as is calling a game that has little in common with its predecessor a sequel.


It depends on what you mean by improve. Most mods for NWN and NWN2 don't 'improve' the game (well maybe NWN since the OC was so bad), but they are fun because they have different stories.

If someone came out with an entirely new story, new places, etc. using the BG2 engine with no changes since ToB, I'd be happy as well (assuming the story was good). I don't need an 'improved' story, just a new one.

[Brother None]

It depends on what you mean by improve. Most mods for NWN and NWN2 don't 'improve' the game (well maybe NWN since the OC was so bad), but they are fun because they have different stories.

I think D&D-properties are kind of peripheral to the argument I'm making anyway, since they're more about just telling stories in that setting and with those rules over and over again. So the fact that sequels do little else isn't all that surprising.

Besides, expansion packs and total conversion mods are a completely different matter, they're not independent product, they basically have the stated purpose of "being the same content, just more of it".

Agh, D&D, personally I'd be fine if they just left that license alone, but who knows, maybe they'll produce a great game out of it. I recall the sigh of relief when BioWare noted they'd do a non-D&D fantasy RPG, but then it turns out there wasn't much originality to be seen.

PS: wow, you'd seriously be happy with a new game on that engine? I might be if they sell it for 5 bucks or something, but the technological leaps have been such that I'd definitely expect improvements on BG's original mechanics.

[purpleblob]

I strongly disagree with that statement - I've bought and enjoyed more Atari games than from any other publisher recently. I'm not a fanboi- I've had my own share of disagreements with Atari, but games like NWN 1&2 + expansions, Test Drive Unlimited and The Witcher are top drawer and the critics agree.

Well, I strongly disagree with you. In my opinion NWN series sucked. Only good thing about it was that it allows ppl to create mod. Some mods were fantastic I admit, but there's only like million mods out there.

[Ausir]

I strongly disagree with that statement - I've bought and enjoyed more Atari games than from any other publisher recently. I'm not a fanboi- I've had my own share of disagreements with Atari, but games like NWN 1&2 + expansions, Test Drive Unlimited and The Witcher are top drawer and the critics agree.


The Witcher is not much of an Atari game - all development was not only done, but also funded by CD Projekt and CDP has the rights to the franchise (licensed from Andrzej Sapkowski), Atari only licensed the rights to publish it in the US, Western Europe etc.

[blatantninja]

I think D&D-properties are kind of peripheral to the argument I'm making anyway, since they're more about just telling stories in that setting and with those rules over and over again. So the fact that sequels do little else isn't all that surprising.

A non-D&D example was Ultima VII and Ultima VII part II. Basically the same game but different settings. I never felt like I didn't get my $50 worth out of each one despite the engine recycling.


PS: wow, you'd seriously be happy with a new game on that engine? I might be if they sell it for 5 bucks or something, but the technological leaps have been such that I'd definitely expect improvements on BG's original mechanics.

Absolutely. And I'd pay $50 for it. As much as I loved NWN2 OC, I don't really need a 3-D game to keep me interested. I just finished BG2 last week. First time I've played it in about 7 years, and I enjoyed it as much as I did back then (well, maybe not quite as much, but that's due primarily to knowing what the story was already!). It would be nice if they incorporated some of the community fixes, though.

I just don't get the need for continued 'improvement' in RPG engines. Not saying that it shouldn't be done, but for me the graphics, interface, combat, etc. are all minor points to what really drives the enjoyment for me, the story. I can get just as immersed in a game like U5:Lazarus, with what are now archaic 3-d meshes as I can with a game that has photo-realistic graphics like BioShock.

[Arma]

Speaking of game engines, I personally prefer older graphics for RPGs since they leave more to the imagination of the player and I find that may give more the atmosphere of the game. I am not against more technically advanced graphics, especially 3D, but in RPGs, especially party based ones like NWN2 for example, it takes out more than it gives.

Least we should forget that an older graphics would significantly broaden the audience, due to the low sistem requirements.

[blatantninja]

Totally agree Arma. I think the problem is that it costs so much to make those beautiful 3-D graphics that it doesn't leave much in the budget for the important things, but it is possible.

Take a game like U5:Lazarus or the U6 Project. The modders making those have spent a vast majority of their time (obviously not money since they are mods!) on making the stories robust. Sure they spent a lot of time on the world building and meshes and such (tons of time from what I understand), but it seems they are really story focused, which I don't get from most RPG's I pick up these days.

[kalniel]

Kal, NWN was originally an AOL game. I remake of sort was made for it with Bio's NWN called NWN:Resurrected.

The game was initially marketed as a "build your own D&D game" construction set, meant for multiple players and one DM, so I think its safe to say that Bio was in part cashing in on the name.Very good point, I'd forgotten about that. Put in the category of new take on a series then.

The Witcher is not much of an Atari game - all development was not only done, but also funded by CD Projekt and CDP has the rights to the franchise (licensed from Andrzej Sapkowski), Atari only licensed the rights to publish it in the US, Western Europe etc.All 'Atari games' are like that - they are a publisher not a developer.

[purpleblob]

I agree with Arma as well. Especially party based games like NWN2... I prefer BG2 graphic with isometric view rather than current NWN2 graphic with camera issues.

[Brother None]

I just don't get the need for continued 'improvement' in RPG engines.

Not am I, but I do understand that the cost of said graphic improvements are reflected in the price. If BioWare puts 10 people on making a BG III on the infinity engine, I expect that to be reflected in the price. If a game that takes 100 people to make costs 50 bucks, a game that takes 10 should cost 5.

(this logic applies less to indie games, which have a different cost-return calculation to make)

I'd be fine with such a game, but insulted if it claims full price. I also think certain improvements in interface and user-friendliness hurt IE's usage now, just like the Fallout engine wouldn't make for valid releases these days.

[Maylander]

The equation isn't as easy as that (i.e your ratio example implies that the game would sell the same amount of copies regardless of whether it had new or old technology), but I understand your point.

Edit:
I should add that BioWare doesn't have the option to make indie games. They have a certain amount of developers, writers and so on, and they all need projects (unless they intend to fire half the company). The developer/designer:writer ratio is very different now than it was 10 years ago, so there's no way they could simply reshape their company to smaller teams without serious consequences. Just look at the credits list of a game today compared to a game 10 years ago, and you'll understand how different it all is - same amount of writers to write a story and the dialogue, but a whole lot more of everything else.

You just can't put a development team of 20 people (+all the misc people involved in making big games) to make BG3 with IE - it wouldn't even come close to paying off.

[Ausir]

All 'Atari games' are like that - they are a publisher not a developer.

Yes, but in most cases they fund the development and own the IP. It's not the case with The Witcher. Atari didn't become involved until the game was mostly finished and they have no rights to the Witcher IP.

[blatantninja]

Not am I, but I do understand that the cost of said graphic improvements are reflected in the price. If BioWare puts 10 people on making a BG III on the infinity engine, I expect that to be reflected in the price. If a game that takes 100 people to make costs 50 bucks, a game that takes 10 should cost 5.

(this logic applies less to indie games, which have a different cost-return calculation to make)

I'd be fine with such a game, but insulted if it claims full price. I also think certain improvements in interface and user-friendliness hurt IE's usage now, just like the Fallout engine wouldn't make for valid releases these days.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, even with only 10 people making the game (which I think it would take a lot more), they wouldn't make much profit off of a $5 game, hence why they don't do it.

[doctor_kaz]

I don't really see this as good news. Atari is an abysmal publisher. They do a terrible job of publicizing games and just about every game that comes out from them is unfinished. And they have done an awful job of maintaining the D&D license when it comes to computer games, focusing more on shitty spinoff games instead of the party-based adventures in games like Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale. As far as I can tell, they completely fucked over Ossian Studios with the Darkness over Daggerford debacle. Their handling of Mysteries of Westgate has been mind-bogglingly incompetent. Basically they are a bunch of completely inept retards, and if you value D&D, Atari owning the license instead of another major publisher is a bad thing.

[blatantninja]

As far as I can tell, they completely fucked over Ossian Studios with the Darkness over Daggerford debacle. Their handling of Mysteries of Westgate has been mind-bogglingly incompetent. Basically they are a bunch of completely inept retards, and if you value D&D, Atari owning the license instead of another major publisher is a bad thing.

What happened with Darkness of Daggerford? MoW is definitely a screw up on their part though.

I think the good news is that the licensing issue is clarified. Maybe Atari will eventually sell it to someone else.

[doctor_kaz]

What happened with Darkness of Daggerford? MoW is definitely a screw up on their part though..

Darnkess over Daggerford was supposed to be a pay-for module. Late in the game, Atari decided that Ossian couldn't charge for it, because they decided to drop commercial support for NWN1 in favor of NWN2. As a gamer, I'm delighted to have gotten DoD for free, but the studio appears to have gotten completely hosed over it.

[kalniel]

Yes, but in most cases they fund the development and own the IP. It's not the case with The Witcher. Atari didn't become involved until the game was mostly finished and they have no rights to the Witcher IP.There isn't really a 'most cases' in this respect - each publishing contract is different. The amount to which Atari will fund the development varies between companies and products - NWN2 was funded by them to a larger proportion than NWN was. Especially in recent times they are playing the role of distributor more than funding publisher/producer.

What happened with Darkness of Daggerford? MoW is definitely a screw up on their part though. There were 3 premium modules in development at various stages late in the premium program - eventually Atari wound down the program in order to move on to NWN2 and then it was a simple case of milestones as to whether they'd allow the development extra time to complete or not, same as any other game. Wyvern Crown of Cormyr was much further along in the QA process than the others so it was just about squeezed in (after a huge amount of work by Steel_Wind). Once you are no longer part of the official Bioware/Atari QA process you can just choose to release quite quickly and DoD did that. And it was a great module, though obviously not as polished as WCoC which had the extra QA process.

Ossian weren't completely hosed over it, nor are they with MoW.

Doctor_kaz, are you looking forward to SoZ then? A return to the party-based style of Icewind dale.

[blatantninja]

I know I'm pumped for that. I'd like to play MoW as well!

[Ausir]

There isn't really a 'most cases' in this respect - each publishing contract is different. The amount to which Atari will fund the development varies between companies and products - NWN2 was funded by them to a larger proportion than NWN was. Especially in recent times they are playing the role of distributor more than funding publisher/producer.

Indeed, but the point is that I wouldn't really refer to the games which Atari didn't fund/produce but only distribute "Atari games", especially if they're not even published by Atari at all in their country of origin. Only to the ones where they are involved in the development somehow.

[Lucky Day]

I'm sure Ossian themselves doesn't see things that way with Atari. As a former employee of Bioware, he's broken with his former company and is working with Atari again. Unlike certain members of the DLA team, he doesn't seem to hold any resentment, at least not publicly.

[kalniel]

Indeed, but the point is that I wouldn't really refer to the games which Atari didn't fund/produce but only distribute "Atari games", especially if they're not even published by Atari at all in their country of origin. Only to the ones where they are involved in the development somehow.
Well they were actually partially involved with the development of The Witcher - as much as they are for other games, more so in fact. It certainly wasn't a distribution only deal.

From the recent press release it looks like they've finally turned around their financials as well.

[Dhruin]

Where are you getting that from? Atari were involved in localisations but that's about it, as far as I know (other than distribution and marketing, obviously).

[purpleblob]

I'm looking forward to both MoW and SoZ but I'm not going to hold my breath. NWN series have been more than disappointing so far to say at least. Although I think NWN2 OC is ok. Still haven't finished MotB. For some reason, I just can't get into it.

[kalniel]

Where are you getting that from? Atari were involved in localisations but that's about it, as far as I know (other than distribution and marketing, obviously).Atari UK were involved in focus group testing which is an important part of QA.

[Dhruin]

Atari UK were involved in focus group testing which is an important part of QA.

Yeah, OK. Not going to undermine the importance of QA but I don't think that changes Ausir's point much.

[kalniel]

Yeah, OK. Not going to undermine the importance of QA but I don't think that changes Ausir's point much.Ah yes I was misreading his point - I thought he was saying Atari only distributed The Witcher and therefore had less involvement than other Atari games - he was actually just saying they didn't have a hand in the IP which is true (just as it is for other 'Atari games')

My point on funding and involvement still stands though.