yes i have read it previously,but let us think of something that we can do, to convince intel to giving the IP and Engine to fractiv, i SERIOUSLY want to see this game

Nah. A better strategy would be to start from the ground up again. Project offset didnt have a lot of defining elements, it was just a high fantasy demo with technology as its driving force. If they started over I bet they could make something even better. Give it a story and a title. Keep it from looking like unreal. Price the engine so its budget friendly to indie studios. That would be the right move, but honestly I doubt their going to reembark on that journey. They know intel isnt going to bite and its easier to just move on and let it rest in peace.

Damn intel, just because their GPU department sucks big Spherical objects, doesnt mean they have to destroy the most epic game!!! uhh...let us start a petition my friend double O seven, like make a website and get as much petitions signed as possible!

We have tried working with Intel to obtain the rights and there are some good people there who have made some effort to help us, but without success.

I wonder, why exactly did they refuse? It sounds to me if they canceled a project, that they had bought over and for which the IP is new and of no use to them, they should be glad to resell it? Any money back is better than none

If there was one guy called "Intel" then sure, you'd expect some sensible, rational behaviour out of them... but that's not how corporations work.
"Intel" is thousands of different middle-managers, lawyers, policies, conference calls, filing systems, etc... Just finding out which internal department thinks they're in charge of that IP would be an endless task, and just when you find out, some general-manager would re-structure the internal business, playing musical chairs with the people that should be responsible. Then even if you do find someone who thinks they're responsible for it, you've got to convince them to actually rock the boat and stick their neck out for you, which involves them informing the people around them about this seemingly insignificant piece of property that they apparently own, and then convincing the rest of the business that it's critical for the business to sell that property as soon as possible, and that doing so is the best option, and that the countless hours of legal paperwork is indeed worth it, all while bikeshedding profusely. Also, when an organisation gets big enough, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between disorganisation, incompetence and malice, which means that by sheer fact that it will be a disorganised process, it will give the impression that others are working against you, or doing their best efforts to derail themselves... Suddenly it's not easy to be sensible.

I wonder, why exactly did they refuse? It sounds to me if they canceled a project, that they had bought over and for which the IP is new and of no use to them, they should be glad to resell it? Any money back is better than none

theres one of two possible (but unlikely) explanations.

1.) Intel didn't want to give up the rights because maybe they do see some potential in it and since they still own it perhaps they have a future business model in mind for that IP.

or

2.) The fractiv guys are lying, intel probably did put an offer on the table for the IP but the fractiv guys didn't have enough green to fork over.

Neither of which I can see happening, but thats really the only two scenarios I can come up with.
It does kinda scratch me the wrong way too because why would intel want to hold on to it when its just sitting there collecting dust?

If there was one guy called "Intel" then sure, you'd expect some sensible, rational behaviour out of them... but that's not how corporations work.
"Intel" is thousands of different middle-managers, lawyers, policies, conference calls, filing systems, etc... Just finding out which internal department thinks they're in charge of that IP would be an endless task, and just when you find out, some general-manager would re-structure the internal business, playing musical chairs with the people that should be responsible. Then even if you do find someone who thinks they're responsible for it, you've got to convince them to actually rock the boat and stick their neck out for you, which involves them informing the people around them about this seemingly insignificant piece of property that they apparently own, and then convincing the rest of the business that it's critical for the business to sell that property as soon as possible, and that doing so is the best option, and that the countless hours of legal paperwork is indeed worth it, all while bikeshedding profusely. Also, when an organisation gets big enough, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between disorganisation, incompetence and malice, which means that by sheer fact that it will be a disorganised process, it will give the impression that other's are working against you, or doing their best efforts to derail themselves... Suddenly it's not easy to be sensible.

I like his explanation better lol
Essentially Hodgman is right, its like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1327372760' post='4905667']
If there was one guy called "Intel" then sure, you'd expect some sensible, rational behaviour out of them... but that's not how corporations work.
"Intel" is thousands of different middle-managers, lawyers, policies, conference calls, filing systems, etc... Just finding out which internal department thinks they're in charge of that IP would be an endless task, and just when you find out, some general-manager would re-structure the internal business, playing musical chairs with the people that should be responsible. Then even if you do find someone who thinks they're responsible for it, you've got to convince them to actually rock the boat and stick their neck out for you, which involves them informing the people around them about this seemingly insignificant piece of property that they apparently own, and then convincing the rest of the business that it's critical for the business to sell that property as soon as possible, and that doing so is the best option, and that the countless hours of legal paperwork is indeed worth it, all while bikeshedding profusely. Also, when an organisation gets big enough, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between disorganisation, incompetence and malice, which means that by sheer fact that it will be a disorganised process, it will give the impression that other's are working against you, or doing their best efforts to derail themselves... Suddenly it's not easy to be sensible.

I like his explanation better lol
Essentially Hodgman is right, its like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
[/quote]

Maybe the right hand to contact would be the one that was in charge of the aquisition of the company at the start? That department should at least be able to direct you to the right decidors.

Also while responsibility tends to dillute in larger companies there usually are borders (large branches where you at least know you're in the right branch), you could bypass those people and directly contact the top of the branch which sounds very normal for an aquisition request anyway no?

So no hope?

[quote name='double O seven' timestamp='1327373232' post='4905670']
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1327372760' post='4905667']
If there was one guy called "Intel" then sure, you'd expect some sensible, rational behaviour out of them... but that's not how corporations work.
"Intel" is thousands of different middle-managers, lawyers, policies, conference calls, filing systems, etc... Just finding out which internal department thinks they're in charge of that IP would be an endless task, and just when you find out, some general-manager would re-structure the internal business, playing musical chairs with the people that should be responsible. Then even if you do find someone who thinks they're responsible for it, you've got to convince them to actually rock the boat and stick their neck out for you, which involves them informing the people around them about this seemingly insignificant piece of property that they apparently own, and then convincing the rest of the business that it's critical for the business to sell that property as soon as possible, and that doing so is the best option, and that the countless hours of legal paperwork is indeed worth it, all while bikeshedding profusely. Also, when an organisation gets big enough, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between disorganisation, incompetence and malice, which means that by sheer fact that it will be a disorganised process, it will give the impression that other's are working against you, or doing their best efforts to derail themselves... Suddenly it's not easy to be sensible.

I like his explanation better lol
Essentially Hodgman is right, its like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
[/quote]

Maybe the right hand to contact would be the one that was in charge of the aquisition of the company at the start? That department should at least be able to direct you to the right decidors.

Also while responsibility tends to dillute in larger companies there usually are borders (large branches where you at least know you're in the right branch), you could bypass those people and directly contact the top of the branch which sounds very normal for an aquisition request anyway no?
[/quote]

I'd Find that true, instead of going through the hassle of all of intel why not contact the top? its 2012 , and i think that Intel has realy forgoten about Project Offset, wouldnt it now be a good time to ask them or do something at the least?

It looks like fractive has moved into the mobile market. Their games look pretty rad as well for mobile games.

It might be worth contacting them to see if they have any desire to get back into the console/PC markets at all. It might not even be in their interest to work on another game like project offset with their current company. There is a contact link on their website, might be worth an email.