Baldur's Gate used to cost $10. The bug-infested copy was $20. Not sure what it is now, but at launch it was exactly twice the price. Utterly ridiculous no matter which way people want to approach it.

It is still $20 if not on sale. On sale it is usually around 67% off, so probably around $7. The classics were $10 and often on sale for $2.99.

The Beamdog games are more 30% off really. When on sale.

Classics were usually bundeled with other classics and were sold 80% off. EEs were sold for 85% once, and usually on 50 or 66% afterwards.

The problem is, they could be 100% off, and it still wouldn't be worth it. Not when I have the proper versions already anyhow.

I think that's anecdotal rubbish. Come up with some proof as to why. This has Beamdog printed all over it.

It's not "anecdotal" as that means I have a story (e.g. inside story) to tell. I don't. What I do have is experience of the programming industry including video gaming. Ownership is everything, ownership is literally the law of the land. Indeed most of the world. Hasbro own the franchise. Nothing can happen to that franchise without their authority.

Just look at the legal disclaimer: I think that clearly shows who owns what. Ownership is authority.

Means they own the franchise because it is FR + D&D. It doesn't, however, mean that they decide how the devs sell the games they have "leased" the rights for. Black Isle never had any issues with WOTC telling them how to sell the games. Atari and SSI never had those issues either, not did Bioware or Obsidian.

It's anecdotal and it's rubbish. You have no proof, only your imagination.

Also just registered. Looks like someone just joined to defend Beamdog. Julius 2.0.

"Leased"? You have a source that Beamdog LEASED these games?

There are in the main two types of video game development; the first is self-funded by the developer. They tend to create/retain IP rights and then contract a publisher (if they don't self-publish). This is the model where the developer has the power, but it's rare because most developers can't afford the investment. The other case is more common, the publisher owns the brand, they pay money up-front, and thus they own everything. They can be hand's on or hand's off, like a film studio can be hand's on a film (Alien 3) or hand's off (Fight Club).

You literally need to go to a dictionary to find out what the word anecdotal means. This is not a criticism other than the correct use of the English language. [The telling of personal stories, autobiographical incidents]. An anecdote would be "Dave from Hasbro told me at the bar". I'm just making educated guesses based on industry experience.

I'm currently playing through the original P:T and BG1 using the GOG mod suggestions. I don't have, and won't be getting, the Enhanced Editions and, for the record, I deeply resent the original versions being taken offline.

I assume J20 is a reference I really don't need to get?

Julius is an employee of Beamdog (or so it says in his signature) active on this forum who kept stating that Beamdog had nothing to do with bundling EE and classic editions. In general, he has always defended the BS that Beamdog has been pulling out, even if it was obvious that they screwed up (which is most of the time).

Anyway, I think the most likely possibility is that the initiative to bundle classics and EE came out of Beamdog. I can believe that nothing happens without consent of publisher like Hasbro. But to me it seems highly unlikely that among hundreds (thousands) products Hasbro sells they suddenly woke up one morning and decided to bundle these two niche products...

Even more, Beamdog never hidden its ambition to develop new content in the BG setting and they clearly stated that whether this happens or not will depend on the success of their EE. So they had all incentives to kill the competition to their rubbish releases by removing classic editions from gog.

So to me this is the most plausible version of events: Beamdog came up with idea, got a green light from Hasbro and then demanded from gog to implement the bundling. The post by Beamdog from a few days ago highly suggests that this was the sequence of events.

That would be almost funny if it wasn't so utterly, incompetently wrong. Let me educate you: anecdotal refers to unreliable reports, descriptions, narrative, interpretations, portrayals, *tales* etc. based on personal opinions or accounts rather than facts. Telling of stories is in there, but it is NOT what anecdotal means. Go buy yourself a dictionary. A proper dictionary.

Of course they Leased the rights to them. What kind of idiot thinks Beamdog now own the rights to BG forever? WOTC didn't sell them the rights permanently.

Same thing Bioware did with Kotor. They got the rights so they could make the Kotor games and sell them, and then it reverted to back Disney afterwards. EA has the rights to make SW games now.
Solid reasoning.

Thank you, @Lebesgue! This is the meaning I took from his original post and what I've been saying since my OP, here. Thank you also, for being polite to a new member.

@Hickory and @Stig79, can you please show some manners to a new member? In his first post, he said what I and many have said for some time. Hasbro owns WotC and was the most recent publisher of the classics. If Hasbro wasn't ok with Beamdog bundling the classics, they wouldn't be bundled. On the other hand, if Hasbro wanted them *unbundled*, whatever contract Beamdog may have (from Hasbro, WotC isn't even in the equation, in this case), then they'd be unbundled sooner or later. @Darth__KEK isn't evil (well, except for being Sith, lol) just because he's a new member stating his opinion on a touchy subject.

I'm not sure how @Darth__KEK feels about me speaking up for him, but I'm of the mind that you give new members a chance before jumping down their throat (hell, I don't think you should do that at any time) and I prefer to keep this thread friendly. You're not only slighting and possibly chasing away a new member/voice, you're chasing away others that might've posted, but don't want to be jumped on for a misunderstanding. He was polite until you two jumped on him and, only after that, returned the favor. I can't say I blame him.

As you can see below, @Darth__KEK said pretty much what I and @Lebesgue said above, he just didn't go into any further detail than that Hasbro has the final say.

@Darth__KEK, I hope you'll continue to discuss your thoughts, here, and that this hasn't left a bad taste for the GOG forums or this thread in particular. :)