As we prepare for the E3 madness to begin, there are some interesting nuggets of information floating about. None are necessarily long enough to warrant their own entry, so here, in easy to digest bullet points, are the whispers we’re currently hearing.

• Hope “God of War 3” isn’t on your holiday wish list. Despite widespread assumptions that the game is due this year, word now is that it has been pushed to 2010 (as has the next “Gran Turismo”). We may get official confirmation of this tomorrow at Sony’s press conference. 
• Microsoft’s press event later today will be star-filled. Tony Hawk will be there to demo (big shock here) “Tony Hawk Ride”. The big news is Microsoft’s surprise guest who will kick off the conference. I don’t want to ruin the surprise, but I will say the guest musical in nature – and is likely to “Help!” demo a hotly anticipated game from Harmonix. 
  • Update. Yep, they showed up. Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison reunited on stage to promote “The Beatles: Rock Band” - but they didn't play the game. “The game is good. The graphics are very good. And we were great!,” joked Starr. “Who would have ever thought we’d end up as androids?” added McCartney  
• From Joystiq comes word that the DLC for “Batman: Arkham Asylum” that will allow PS3 owners to play as the Joker will be free. That’s a nice incentive for players and could give the PS3 version the upper hand when the game comes out later this year. 
• “Starcraft 2” is reportedly looking great – and will be on shelves this year. Activision showed the game to analysts last night, who walked away impressed. Blizzard announced that it hopes to ship the game in calendar 2009, which should be a huge boost to Activision’s bottom line. The beta kicks off this summer.

After several years of poor results and a bad holiday season for the latest iteration of its key franchise, "Tomb Raider: Underworld," Eidos is throwing in the towel and agreeing to sell itself to Japanese videogame publisher Square Enix for a measly $120 million. Shareholders still have to approve the deal, which appears likely.

Given the dismal current state of affairs for the company's finances, it probably couldn't do much better. There was little hope its nearly worthless stock would rise anytime soon. And in the fiscal year ending June 30, it lost 143 million pounds (not sure what the exchange rate would have been at the time) and had only 25.9 million pounds in cash left.

But while it's probably the best move for Eidos and its shareholders right now, it's a very sad state of affairs. While the offer of 32 pence per share is a 129 percent premium compared to yesterday's closing price of 14 pence, it's about 40% less than what the stock was trading at as recently as this summer and a tiny fraction of the trading price in early 2008.

As one of Eidos' largest shareholders, Warner Bros. is particularly screwed. In December of 2006, it bought 10% of the game publisher for $86.8 million. Then in April of 2008, it agreed to invest about $30 million for another 10%. Today, as part of the Square Enix announcement, Eidos announced that Warner Bros. will be ponying up its 20% stake. Its payment? Approximately $24 million. Which means the movie studio has lost around $93 million on its Eidos investment. Ouch.

(Of course, Warner Bros. has long been considering buying Eidos. The fact that it would rather take that big a loss than spend another $100 million or so to buy the whole thing tells you what it thinks of the publisher's prospects.)

In addition, Warner Bros. had a deal to distribute and market all of Eidos' games in North America. Square Enix will surely take over those duties once it takes control (though I wouldn't be surprised if WB still handles "Arkham Asylum," since it comes out soon -- this spring -- and it's based on a Warner property). Given Eidos' recent performance, it's hardly a huge blow, but still, it's the end of a plan announced with much gusto about two years ago.

Eidos was the last publisher using Warner Bros. for North American distribution and marketing. Back in late 2006 and 2007, it signed partnerships with companies including Eidos, Codemasters, Empire and Brash to handle those duties as part of a larger strategy of becoming a videogame distributor. But that didn't work out and all the partners left WB fairly quickly. Now the studio is back to just handling its own games from Warner Bros. Interactive (though it does have the upcoming one-off "Wanted" that it's handling for Universal).

Assuming the deal gets approved at a shareholders meeting early next month, it will be interesting to see what this means for Square Enix. Best known for the "Final Fantasy" franchise, the publisher is very Japanese. Eidos' assets -- development studios in the UK and North America along with franchises like "Tomb Raider" and "Kane and Lynch" -- are very Western. Which means Square Enix will be a much more global company.

Warner Bros. has upped its stake in "Tomb Raider" publisher Eidos (which happily no longer has an official corporate name of Sci that we all have to pretend to care about ) from 16.1% to 19.9%. Eidos didn't have to disclose how much Warner spent, but based on the company's pathetic trading price of about 18 pence, it's likely about $2.75 million. Or practically nothing.

Does this mean Warner Bros. is moving toward buying Eidos and moving it into its growing WB Interactive videogame division? Possibly, but not necessarily. Warner recently got permission from Eidos to buy as much as 30%, so the studio could just be taking the opportunity of a very low trading price to get more of a stake in anticipation of things improving next year thanks to games like "Arkham Asylum." (For which Warner is also licensor and U.S. distributor) It might even be upping its stake in anticipation of somebody else buying Eidos, which could net Warner a nice profit. Or really it maybe is moving closer toward the goal of buying the storied but troubled British publisher.

All I know for sure is that Warner is very interested in the potential Eidos offers and is, at a minimum, taking a very cheap opportunity to increase its bet on the company's future.

Want a solidly crafted "Tomb Raider" game that does most things right, gets a few annoying things wrong, and doesn't really push any boundaries? According to Variety critic Leigh Alexander, "Underworld" is the game for you.

In other words, it captures most of the qualities that have made for good "Tomb Raider" games in the past, and has been missing in the many not-so-good ones:

As Lara investigates diverse settings including caves, jungles and ruins, the world around her acts as a subtle puzzle. The player must navigate her across dizzying heights, precarious ledges, and just-made-it leaps. Although it’s old hat for cucumber-cool Lara, awesome visuals married to tight design make it appropriately thrilling for the couch jockey.

There's only one new feature that really caught Leigh's attention: the ability to tweak everything from Lara Croft's health relative to her enemies to how much ammo she has to how easily she can avoid being grabbed. That level of precise adjustment is unusual, and a nice touch to open the game up to all sorts of players.

But there's also the problems so many "Tomb Raider" games have had that this one can't solve: lame combat; an opaque and pointless story; a camera that, as Leigh writes, "keeps getting wedged between the wall and [Lara's] butt."

My favorite part of the review, though, is Leigh's brief exploration of a larger issue in the world of "Tomb Raider" games that really does bear further exploration:

Even veteran players may find themselves faced with a vexing question as this ninth series entry hits the market: “What does Lara Croft do, exactly?” Contrary to the title, she doesn’t seem to spend much time in tombs. Whatever her work entails, it’s brought her an enormous mansion, a fancy boat, and no shortage of Bond-like gadgets, all of which she uses to launch her latest escapade into ancient ruins, undersea caverns, deserted temples and the like.

Full review: Tomb Raider: Underworld

By now you probably know the basic details about "Batman: Arkham Asylum," the new game coming out next year in which the Caped Crusader has to fight his way out of the home for the criminally insane where most of his infamous villains are incarcerated (if you haven't heard, check it out here or here).

Beyond the game deatails, though, there's an intricately convoluted business relationship. According to the release, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and Eidos will "co-publish Batman: Arkham Asylum in North America," while "Eidos Interactive will publish the game in all other territories."

So what does that mean? Well, Warner Bros. has licensed Batman to Eidos. So it's the British publisher that is completely funding and overseeing all the development at RockSteady Studios. In that sense, it's just like Warner Bros. licensing to EA or Activision or whoever else. As with those deals, I assume WB is getting some kind of a multi-million dollar advance against royalties for the use of one of its prime pieces of intellectual property.

But there's more to it, because Warner Bros. owns a 20% stake in Eidos (for details, see this April story). So it's more like a license to a favorite son. With the promise that if the game is successful, 20% of the profits flow right back.

And that's not the only way Warner Bros. has a stake in the game. It has an existing deal in place with Eidos to distribute and market all of its game in North America (That's why it's listed as co-publisher in North America.). That means it gets a fee, and/or a cut of sales revenue, for Eidos games sold here, for its trouble.

Long story short:Warner Bros. has a lot more fingers in the "Batman: Arkham Asylum" honey pot than on a standard licensed game