[Tyler F]

Well, in a way they are indirectly denying it by saying they've announced all their plans for E3. Announcing that they aren't showing TES:V at E3 would be a confirmation of it. So rather than implying its existence, they'd prefer to be completely mum on the issue.

Exactly. A non-answer is a non-answer. Trying to force a reading on it, positive or negative is a fruitless effort as it can be taken either way regardless. We are going to keep getting non-answers until they are either good and ready to make a real, carefully prepared, and unequivocal statement, or some leak or other problem forces them to make a hasty but still unequivocal statement. Either way, when real info comes out of Bethesda's PR room, it will be obvious. Until then we're grasping smoke by trying to parse every offhand or unrelated remark.

Keep watching the ancillary elements though. Until Bethesda makes a real announcement, it is more likely that at least circumstantial evidence will come from the periphery. Patents and copyrights. Domain hosting. Job postings. Leaks and whispers from other business folk who might be in the know.

Anybody know what Jeremey Soule is working on since he deleted his twitter account?

[Cassie Boyle]

I've always taken what Bethesda says about future plans with a grain of salt ever since they made Fallout 3's DLC. Up until Broken Steel was released and for some time after, Bethesda said that Broken Steel was their last "planned" DLC. Yet before Broken Steel was even released, there was a rumor going around that they were making a DLC called Point Lookout. But that was still when they were saying they had no plans. And of course, eventually they did announce Point Lookout, as well as Mothership Zeta. They also said for months and months that they had no "plans" to release the DLC on the PS3, and wouldn't you know after all of the DLC was released on the PC and Xbox 360, they announced DLC for the PS3.

Point is, you can't believe Bethesda when it comes to future games or DLC. They'll deny anything and everything until they announce it themselves. Now, that doesn't mean they may announce it at E3, but you can't trust Bethesda regarding things like this.

Edit: Sorry for being harsh Bethesda, I still love you though :wub:

[TIhIsmc L Griot]

Jeremy Soule quoted on myspace a while back on a bulletin that he was "working on a soundtrack for an amazing game" earlier this year. BUT! he didnt specify which game. sorry I dont have a screen capture or anything you will have to just believe me. Im not posting this to anger/frustrate anyone. could be totally something else

[Lexy Dick]

It's been only 8 months since they finished with Fallout 3

Er... 1 year and 8 months.

[liz barnes]

Er... 1 year and 8 months.

Unless he meant finished with Fallout 3's DLC... but that's still 10 months... since the GOTY edition maybe?

[Mylizards Dot com]

Unless he meant finished with Fallout 3's DLC... but that's still 10 months... since the GOTY edition maybe?

Still, it was only a small portion of the team working on DLC.

And besides, think about the team that made the Oblivion DLC and Shivering Isles. Yet Fallout 3 was revealed pretty quickly after Oblivion was released.

[Lou]

Still, it was only a small portion of the team working on DLC.

And besides, think about the team that made the Oblivion DLC and Shivering Isles. Yet Fallout 3 was revealed pretty quickly after Oblivion was released.

I don't agree with him, I was just trying to make sense of his "8 months" comment. :shrug:

[Jennifer Rose]

I don't agree with him, I was just trying to make sense of his "8 months" comment. :shrug:

Yes, I know. I just want to say that even though Bethesda spent time making DLC for FO3, it doesn't necessarily mean that we'll have to wait even longer for an ESV announcement.

[Avril Churchill]

I've been thinking about something and while perhaps not directly related to the current state of TES, it is a sort of speculation and something to help keep us busy until TES. We all know Umbra Software right, (if you don't know then check Mr. Tissue Box's sig) Zenimax is a registered user of Umbra so they have access to the middleware.

Suppose that Beth would need a separate license to use Umbra for their work and that they didn't want to pay, could they pick-apart the software copy of Zenimax, learn how Umbra works, then integrate their own version of it into Gamebyro? I really want to see them use Umbra and was just thinking of the different ways they could have done this without people knowing.

[Nick Pryce]

July GI cover is Infamous 2...

"mattbertz

And while you're visiting, don't miss our July cover reveal of Infamous 2! http://bit.ly/bzr47t

[Sheila Esmailka]

I've been thinking about something and while perhaps not directly related to the current state of TES, it is a sort of speculation and something to help keep us busy until TES. We all know Umbra Software right, (if you don't know then check Mr. Tissue Box's sig) Zenimax is a registered user of Umbra so they have access to the middleware.

Suppose that Beth would need a separate license to use Umbra for their work and that they didn't want to pay, could they pick-apart the software copy of Zenimax, learn how Umbra works, then integrate their own version of it into Gamebyro? I really want to see them use Umbra and was just thinking of the different ways they could have done this without people knowing.

That would entail disassembling the libraries, which is surely forbidden in the license and would infringe upon their IP. The only way to know the details of the license (as far as who specifically can use it within Zenimax) is to read the license itself.

[Assumptah George]

July GI cover is Infamous 2...

"mattbertz

And while you're visiting, don't miss our July cover reveal of Infamous 2! http://bit.ly/bzr47t

Now we know, cool.

Yeah, I'm thinking now this whole Bethesda's "secret" is getting out of hand and it was blown-up. I expect to get an announcement before the end of July. Perhaps right at the end of July, with the September issue of GameInformer.

[Sammie LM]

July GI cover is Infamous 2...

"mattbertz

And while you're visiting, don't miss our July cover reveal of Infamous 2! http://bit.ly/bzr47t

Damn. Damn damn damn. Well, we only have one cover left, the August edition that they'll reveal in July. Who knows, maybe Bethesda wont use a Game Informer cover this time, but it seems weird that they wouldn't want whatever money Game Informer pays them for such exclusive coverage.

[Ricky Meehan]

Damn. Damn damn damn. Well, we only have one cover left, the August edition that they'll reveal in July. Who knows, maybe Bethesda wont use a Game Informer cover this time, but it seems weird that they wouldn't want whatever money Game Informer pays them for such exclusive coverage.

Two left, if you include Bethesda making an announcement at the end of July, then getting the September GameInformer.

[Kaley X]

I'm thinking it will be shown at M$'s conference... That would pretty much be assured as one of the best at E3

[The Time Car]

We're not going to know through GI - or any other respectable source for that matter - before Bethesda announces it themselves. Assuming GI will be used again, and assuming the early cover reveal pattern will be the same, and assuming Skyrim is TES:V to be announced in July, September seems to be the most reasonable edition to expect TES:V material.

[BaNK.RoLL]

Two left, if you include Bethesda making an announcement at the end of July, then getting the September GameInformer.

I suppose but it'd be abnormal for Game Informer to announce the cover of the magazine at the end of the month instead of the beginning like they normally do.

[Kaylee Campbell]

I think now though, based upon syltstryder's latest call to the trademark office (thank-you very very much sylt), that we can safely assume that pre-orders for a game, game advertisemant, and articles in magazines definitely count for the "use in commerce." The problem I still have though is what Stain mentioned earlier, in that we haven't yet found evidence of a bethesda game filing the SOU BEFORE the game was actually RELEASED yet alone ANNOUNCED. Am I correct Stain? If they do this, it would definitely be a break in their pattern. This could have been driven though, by the interference that FO3 took on TES V development and their re-doing the engine as well. That and if they want to keep this trademark before it expires they kinda have no choice huh? heh

[CHANONE]

I suppose but it'd be abnormal for Game Informer to announce the cover of the magazine at the end of the month instead of the beginning like they normally do.

No, no no. I'm saying Bethesda announces ESV at the end of July, then the next Gameinformer shows up in early August as the September edition.

[Sammie LM]

I think now though, based upon syltstryder's latest call to the trademark office (thank-you very very much sylt), that we can safely assume that pre-orders for a game, game advertisemant, and articles in magazines definitely count for the "use in commerce." The problem I still have though is what Stain mentioned earlier, in that we haven't yet found evidence of a bethesda game filing the SOU BEFORE the game was actually RELEASED yet alone ANNOUNCED. Am I correct Stain? If they do this, it would definitely be a break in their pattern. This could have been driven though, by the interference that FO3 took on TES V development and their re-doing the engine as well. That and if they want to keep this trademark before it expires they kinda have no choice huh? heh

Yeah it seems like they'll be forced to break the pattern if they want to keep it. But now that we know all they have to do is advertise it in at least one state, we know that they can definitely file a SOU without releasing it. I don't think they'll be filing it before announcing it though, because in order to file a SOU they will have had to used it in commerce, i.e. advertise it.

No, no no. I'm saying Bethesda announces ESV at the end of July, then the next Gameinformer shows up in early August as the September edition.

Oh, well yeah that'd make more sense.

[Camden Unglesbee]

Yeah it seems like they'll be forced to break the pattern if they want to keep it. But now that we know all they have to do is advertise it in at least one state, we know that they can definitely file a SOU without releasing it. I don't think they'll be filing it before announcing it though, because in order to file a SOU they will have had to used it in commerce, i.e. advertise it.

LOL, yeah I should have said "Right after the announcement date" instead of before announcing, heh, I was just trying to stress how far away even from the release date this would be. :foodndrink:

[c.o.s.m.o]

I think now though, based upon syltstryder's latest call to the trademark office (thank-you very very much sylt), that we can safely assume that pre-orders for a game, game advertisemant, and articles in magazines definitely count for the "use in commerce." The problem I still have though is what Stain mentioned earlier, in that we haven't yet found evidence of a bethesda game filing the SOU BEFORE the game was actually RELEASED yet alone ANNOUNCED. Am I correct Stain? If they do this, it would definitely be a break in their pattern. This could have been driven though, by the interference that FO3 took on TES V development and their re-doing the engine as well. That and if they want to keep this trademark before it expires they kinda have no choice huh? heh

So what if Bethesda breaks a pattern? They're under no obligation to confirm to any patterns. The only issue of any import that was ever at play was what legal restrictions the trademark placed on them.

[Lisa Robb]

So what if Bethesda breaks a pattern? They're under no obligation to confirm to any patterns. The only issue of any import that was ever at play was what legal restrictions the trademark placed on them.

Hey, c'mon, I'm all for breaking patterns, it's just a matter of doubt. I guess it could of also been worded, "I have a doubt because...instead of I have a problem because...." but in this context of my message these mean the same thing. I did not suggest that bethesda NEEDS to conform to any pattern because they frankly can do whatever the heck they want.

[luke trodden]

I think now though, based upon syltstryder's latest call to the trademark office (thank-you very very much sylt), that we can safely assume that pre-orders for a game, game advertisemant, and articles in magazines definitely count for the "use in commerce." The problem I still have though is what Stain mentioned earlier, in that we haven't yet found evidence of a bethesda game filing the SOU BEFORE the game was actually RELEASED yet alone ANNOUNCED. Am I correct Stain? If they do this, it would definitely be a break in their pattern. This could have been driven though, by the interference that FO3 took on TES V development and their re-doing the engine as well. That and if they want to keep this trademark before it expires they kinda have no choice huh? heh

Well, according to the person syltstrider spoke with the advertisemant of "Skyrim" across state lines would be a sufficient use in commerce to file a SoU. That renews a lot of hope for me. As for precedence, I have not been able to devote time to extensive research, but every game (no matter the company) I looked up had filed its SoU AFTER the game's release. It is peculiar we haven't dug up any previous instances of the other sequence, but this doesn't require us to conclude it isn't legally possible to file a SoU before a game's release - only that it's unlikely and perhaps even unprecedented.

[Melis Hristina]

What trademark do they have to "advertise" to be able to keep it? Could it be possible they released this new book, which could fit conveniently under the agreement to keep the trademark they plan to use for something else?