Seriously. A contract like that would sort of be the antithesis to why I like sites like GoG.

Gamersgate got them a few months later.

Nope, not "a few month" it was september '11 and they (atari) are using the GOG version. I know, because I made that same comment when it was released (the complete collection). That was probably part of the original deal.

If there was a deal then it was probably to keep the games off of Steam. But no exclusivity deal lasts forever.

What does that mean, exactly? Same installer...?

My bet was (and is) that it was exclusive to GOG for one year and then it was open for Atari to publish it werever they want. But one year was probably all you ever needed, and it worked great for GOG. Why Atari didn't went to Steam directly after that, no clue.
Not excactly the same installer, but parts of it, iirc. That was mentioned in some thread here before, and check the screenshots they are also taken from GOG (easy to spot the cheated chars).

But its been available on other distribution services other than GoG so a deal like that makes little sense since its only cutting Steam out. And like it or not GoG is not (esp back then) as big a player (potential sales wise) as Steam. I can't see any publisher agreeing to giving GoG a free years worth of distribution on the condition that others/steam don't get it - they are just not a big enough fish to even try that tactic.

I suspect Steam and the publishers have simply not managed to get a firm agreement on release details in a contract - which could be caused by any number of various factors.

This. As much as I want GOG to prosper, I hope they don't strike such deals. I hate it that some developers only offer their games on Steam without alternatives as I would prefer to buy them somewhere else. In that regard, it would be hypocritical for me to support games being GOG exclusive by contract. I want free choice, so that I can freely choose GOG over the rest and openly show my support, buying from them because I like their philosophy, not because they force me to.

Besides, GOG had it first and I assume that's because others were not as eager to re-release it. At least that' is and will remain the case with a lot of other good old games. I'm not even sure people would really prefer to buy BG from Steam. Should be interesting to find out. ;)

I saw/heard about this, and I find it interesting that it'll be gog version...

However, I'm more likely to buy from gog, as I prefer to buy these types of games here... They actually work, good support, great prices...

Ofc, if it is gog version it'll work, but steam doesn't have best support ever. But great sales.. makes sense to have the current sale before it's released on steam.

I have no doubt it'll be up in the charts in no time.

well, boo-friggin'-hoo, huh?

Im curious. Why would/should GOG allow their version to be sold on another service ?

Ask Atari. They seem to be the ones doing it. Perhaps somewhere in the agreement it says that, despite what alterations Gog makes to the game/installers, the entire thing stays intellectual property of the people who actually own the game?

My, purely personal, theory

GOG actually made the original Deal with Hasbro/Interplay estate/whoever had still had to bring abort for a re-release. That was around 2009/10 when nobody really thought old games could sell and even indies weren't as big as now. The whole industry was looking "COD/ME/DA", you know, bigger budget, high profile voice actors, better graphics in a nutshell, the whole "Hollywood action movie next gen package".

Therefore GOG was, in being dedicated to this series and the negotiation, possible to strike such a deal in the first place, simply because nobody bother with "ten year old games". Part of the deal with Atari was (again speculation on my side), that GOG got a one year exclusive deal on the D&D games we see here ( a lot is pointing in that direction). But GOG had to provide there mastered builds to Atari for an eventual rerelease (Atari probably wanted to test the waters first, try to sell "reinvesting in 10 year old outdated games" to your board of directors.). A simple "quid pro qou": negotiation and legal/technical groundwork for one year of exclusive distribution rights (and/or a bigger than usual cut for each game sold).

Seeing how this impacted on the gaming community and catapulted GOG in the top (or at least higher) tier of digital distributors, Atari (being out of touch as most big time devs and publishers) realized the goldmine they had on their hands and started selling the game to other retailers. Why they didn't go to Steam first? No clue, maybe they didn't want to compete with their own boxed version to much (at least on the american market).

Imo, the only reason GOG was able to pull this (master) stunt off, was because the industry (and especially Atari) was so out of touch with what gamers wanted and that they would gladly buy it again for all the services that GOG offers, that they didn't think giving one year of exclusive rights was such a big thing. (Atari exec: "Wow, exclusive rights for a game nobody will buy anyway, sure GOG/CDP, you can have those. ...Idiots...")

CDP and Atari had dealings before (Witcher publishing), so maybe there are some factors that I'm missing which affect other games. GOGs most important gain was the PR, not the game sales themselves.

Too much to read, because of this I start to promote GOG instead :)

GZ97-ZM76-SBUT-CPLB