Connect
- 387 Comments
-
More VaultLeaks: Bethesda claims IPLY could only use the Fallout name
I've just received another batch of court documents regarding the Bethesda vs. Interplay court case, where the rights to develop Fallout Online, to distribute Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics, or even the future ownership of the whole franchise are at stake (OK, that last bit is rather unlikely, but still).
Among other things, Interplay asserts that "Bethesda has breached its agreements with Interplay by refusing to allow Interplay the right to use the Fallout related intellectual property assets". However, Bethesda lawyers now claim that when Interplay licensed the rights to develop and publish Fallout Online from Bethesda back in 2007, it actually never had the rights to use any elements of the Fallout universe and Fallout games aside from the title Fallout itself. Here's some snippets:
“ To effectuate the transfer of the Fallout Intellectual Property to Bethesda, Interplay assigned all trademarks and copyrights associated with the Fallout games to Bethesda as part of the APA. Specifically, Interplay transferred to Bethesda the following copyrights and trademarks:
Copyrights:
Trademarks:
See Copyright Assignment Ex. A, Schedule of Copyrights; Trademark Assignment Schedule of Trademarks. In addition, the APA contains the following provisions which unambiguously state that Interplay has relinquished all rights to any Fallout related intellectual property:
APA § 5.9 (emphasis added). The APA further states:
APA § 3.9. In licensing the FALLOUT mark as part of the TLA, the parties expressly agreed: “Any and all rights not explicitly granted to Interplay hereunder are reserved by Bethesda.” TLA § 2.6. Bethesda acquired all rights to and interests in any and all Fallout related intellectual property and reserved all of those rights except for the one license in the TLA.” |
“ The only license back agreement contained in the APA is attached at Exhibit B-1, and is called the “Trademark License Agreement,” or the TLA. Bethesda, through the TLA, granted to Interplay, subject to certain conditions,4 an exclusive, non-transferable license and right to use one single asset – the FALLOUT trademark – in connection with a massively multiplayer online game (“MMOG”). See TLA § 2.1; TLA Recital A; TLA Schedule of Marks. There is no other license back to Interplay of any Fallout related intellectual property in the APA.5 Indeed, Bethesda and Interplay agreed that “[a]ny and all rights not explicitly granted to Interplay hereunder are reserved by Bethesda.” TLA § 2.6.” |
Bethesda concludes that:
“ The breach of contract claims asserted by Interplay (...) fail because Bethesda is not obligated or under any legal duty to allow Interplay to utilize the panoply of Fallout assets in connection with an MMOG. Interplay transferred its
right, title and interest in and to all Fallout Intellectual Property to Bethesda for $5.75 million. This included, among other rights and properties, all characters, story lines, weapons, art and other game related assets as well as the copyright and trademark registrations that protect same. (...) In the APA, Interplay further represented and warranted that any and all Fallout game assets that it owned were being transferred to Bethesda. (...) The APA contained one single-license back agreement – the TLA. The TLA plainly and unambiguously concerns one single mark – FALLOUT. (...) Despite the clarity of both the APA and the TLA, Interplay has in recent months promoted its purported MMOG project by repeatedly using numerous Fallout related trademarks and copyright protected elements that it has no proper right to use under either the APA or TLA. (...) Interplay’s use of Bethesda’s Fallout intellectual property such as characters, weapons, and story lines was not a “benefit of its bargain” as Interplay claims. The only bargain Interplay made for a MMOG was the conditional right to use the FALLOUT trademark.” |
In another court filing, Bethesda demands that Interplay release the contents of its internal wiki containing Fallout Online design documents as court evidence for discovery purposes. Interplay objects to that, saying that it "has objected to copying of the trade secret document, but has several times offered Plaintiff and its attorneys an opportunity to inspect it. Plaintiff declined the invitation."
Also, Interplay recently filed their 10-Q SEC filing. The company is running at an operating loss of $205,000 over the 3 months ending on 30 September 2010. Here's a snippet:
“ On September 8, 2009 Bethesda Softworks LLC filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Bethesda seeks to terminate the rights Interplay holds to sell and develop certain FALLOUT(r)-branded video games, including an MMOG. Interplay disputes all claims raised by Bethesda and has answered the lawsuit and asserted Counter-Claims, including claims for Breach of Contract, Rescission, Accounting and Declaratory Relief seeking an award of damages and other relief. Interplay also seeks a declaration from the Court that it has not infringed upon the FALLOUT(R) mark and that it has satisfied the terms of the Trademark Licensing Agreement related to Interplay's production of a FALLOUT(R) massively-multiplayer online game. The Court denied Bethesda's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on December 10, 2009. Interplay will continue to defend its rights and pursue its Counter-Claims against Bethesda.” |
Additionally, Interplay won a lawsuit, but not this one.
Update: Jas Purewal of Gamer/Law comments on the case:
“ I can see the commercial benefits of what Interplay is trying to do (if in fact I'm right on the above): get the game as far developed as possible, both as a bargaining chip with Bethesda in any negotiations and because, if Interplay wins, it already has a game ready to go. On top of that, the Interplay Fallout MMO is now probably regarded by fans, gamers and the games industry as the Fallout MMO regardless of this lawsuit - so Interplay has won the PR contest there. So it seems like a smart move in those respects...if it wasn't for the legal risk that it could all be taken away from them.
That said, it's worth remembering that ultimately all of this remains to be tested in the litigation, so the ownership and the future of the Fallout IP is still undecided. It also means I've stopped making any predictions about what or may not happen in this case - I'll write another update when there's another turn in this roller coaster...” |
- Showing 25 most recent
387 comments
You cannot add a comment to the article.
-
I think the arguments on here are pretty funny, not gonna lie. On one hand we've got remarks along the lines of "I never played the originals, but I think Bethesda made a better game!" You guys honestly don't have a leg to stand on. You're forming your opinion based off of a very limited amount of information. Then there are others such as "Interplay should never make another Fallout game! Look at BoS! And all of their games are old turn-based games..." As far as Interplay putting out old turn-based games... dude, the majority of Interplay's games seem to have been released in the 90's. Let's not forget that they created Fallout, it's setting, etc, along as having their hands in things like the Baldur's Gate games, which a lot of people still regard as some of the best RPG's out there. I'd like to point out though, that there are quite a few problems with those remarks, along with people siding with Bethesda's attempt at shutting down Interplay's attempt at an MMO.
So let's start with that. Interplay is prevented from using anything besides the name "Fallout." Think about the result, they could push an MMO out anyway. So we either get a game that is similar to Fallout, or something completely different. Now... you guys as well as Bethesda are forgetting that it's labeled Fallout. So what happens when fans of post-Interplay Fallout try the MMO? If it's horrible, there's the potential of it damaging further games in the series, if it's great, well... Bethesda reaps the rewards later on, but continuity of Fallout has now been compromised.
Now, I'd also like to point a few things out when it comes to "but Interplay made BoS. It was HORRIBLE!" I'll start by saying if you forget it was a Fallout game, it could be mildly amusing. No, I still thought it wasn't very good, but myself, along with I'm sure many others have killed some time playing it. The thing to remember here is both with BoS Tactics, and the other BoS game Interplay was trying something new. The problem with trying something new is the idea may be better than the end result. But how could you know? It was something new and _different_. The alternative is we have companies like Bethesda take a game series and do nothing more than milk all of the potential cash they can out of fanboys, while never actually doing anything amazing, different, or half the time worthwhile. Look at Elder Scrolls. It was entertaining for a bit, but for example, Oblivion is essentially the same as Morrowind, the major difference being you have a better graphics engine. Low and behold, they get the Fallout franchise, and their new Fallout game is essentially Oblivion with guns. Still a halfway written story (if you want to call it that), but for the most part there is no other real difference. Side plots have no weight to them, and if you compare Fallout 3 to the originals... well, even the first BoS game had more of a true Fallout feel to them. The only part captured (IMO) by Bethesda is the visual aspect. There's no dark and gritty feel to it. I mean, running around by yourself you stumble across slavers or raiders... in 3 who cares? You shoot em, and that's about it. There's no real difference in the game, and honestly, one versus 10 isn't too big of a deal in 3. In 1 or 2... well, generally unless it's a randomly generated encounter, when you encounter raiders there's actually some sort of story involving them. When you try to fight 10 by yourself, well, you'll probably be reloading quite a bit unless you're decked out in powerarmor and have insane firearm skills. Essentially what I'm getting at is Bethesda has a knack for creating more of the same, and getting praise for it. So it's a sandbox game, great, but at the same time it's somewhat of an RPG - a role playing game - how can you be immersed in the world or feel a connection to the character if the entire world is bland?
As far as Interplay, yes some of their games have sucked. But some of them were an attempt at trying something different, and for that we should give them some recognition. If people never tried new takes on things we'd still be playing pong. Seriously. Problem is yes, sometimes you succeed in your endeavor, and sometimes you fail. It's part of the process. But I'd much rather have to wade through dozens of crap games by various publishers and encounter one that's amazing than see hundreds of versions of the exact same thing. Maybe I'm alone on that one, but I doubt it. If you disagree, go back and download some variation of pong.
As far as the lawsuits, well, if Bethesda bought the franchise on the contingent that Interplay gets right to an MMO they should allow em to follow through, regardless of the milestones (with quality control of course). It shouldn't be one of those in name only things - that serves only to hurt Bethesda in the long run, regardless of the success or failure of the game.
On the otherhand, if for some reason they refuse and it is in name only, I'd honestly like to see Interplay do a full out parody MMO. It could do quite well, and could get away with using some of the original material which is now owned by Bethesda. Great thing is, Bethesda couldn't really do anything about it provided enough of the game was directed as a parody or new. Honestly, unless they've got the game ready now, or have any sort of breach of contract case (I couldn't say, I wasn't present when Interplay sold the rights, nor do I think anyone else here was), I'd personally go that route. Dark humor in the style of the original Fallout, and plenty of things post-apocalyptic to poke fun at... well I could see the idea doing pretty well. MMOs get old after a while, but if one kept you laughing, and kept some kind of fun to it... well, it could be a winner, could include many of the things they intended to, AND could be defended in court under the copyright laws. If you doubt that, go read up on them yourself, there's quite a few things were led to believe when it comes to copyrights which just plain aren't true... if you can deal with all the legal wording it can honestly be quite interesting when you listen to all these big companies try to blow smoke.
And finally, in response to some of the flames I know are coming, no, I'm not trying to bash Bethesda. I've played the games I was talking about, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3. Not saying they're complete crap, but we as consumers should demand more than just rehashing the same theory. If we don't we're also likely to see Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47 with a 2 minute story, and the exact same multiplayer that the yearly release they've put out every year so far has. Maybe the game companies think that all they need is an updated engine or graphics and they're good, but I really don't. Yes, working on a game engine, or even using the same engine to make a different game is a lot of work... but having worked on a few projects myself I tend to think that when you get a lot more out of it, both in the experience, and the pride in having created something... and something that hasn't been done before. As far as Interplay, well, they could do something more from now on as far as quality control goes. When you're designing and the game is crap, well, you could redesign what's taking away from the game or scrap the project.
When it all comes down to it, neither company is blameless in anything. It seems like Bethesda is either trying to sink Interplay, or at least bog them down to the point that they will be the only making a Fallout MMO. At the same time though, it does also seem like Interplay is both trying to cash in on the success of Fallout 3, _AND_ put themselves into the position of not meeting the milestones. If they seriously wanted to make the MMO, they should have started before Fallout 3. Regardless, I've got to stick to the opinion that I think they should be given their shot. Ultimately there's nothing but backlash from long time fans, and those looking forward to the game, if they don't or hamper the development. What's the worst that happens if they do? It sinks Interplay, and that ONE game is avoided, just like BoS... BoS didn't kill the franchise, it just ended up bombing. Conversely if it does well, the franchise grows even more, and they could possibly gain royalties on any paid expansions, or follow up games. Sounds like their lawyers simply have too much time on their hands.
-
Woah, big comment, but whatever.
You've missed out one part, and were uncorrect in another. When you "quoted" people bashing Interplay because they'd make another BoS, you should of say that they didn't even try to make a Fallout game. They put some apocalyptic textures, got some street voice actors, purchased some low-cost rock music and reused some engine from their Baldur's Gate (can't remember which one, soz). Then, they quickly scribbled some art and a story and punched out hard the name Fallout on it, attracting people to think "My fucking gawd, Fallout! I need to buy an Xbox/PS2 to play it!". They got some cash out of it, payed out some debts, sold the license and payed debts, again. Maybe not all of them, but it probably cost a whole lot.
Now I agree that a MMO could spoil the franchise a bit, but, hell, if Bethesda is making single-players, and this isn't one, then why would anyone bash on it? Plus, Interplay is going to draw their "By Gamers For Gamers" all over the damn cover and CD, just to show "No, it ain't Bethesda, it's us!". Considering that Interplay doesn't have too much cash, it'll need to put some impression into it, just for, say, the first 2 months, and then develop the game further to attract more girls and money. I agree that it should be made. Bethesda won't be struggling too much after it's released, hell, they could even release THEIR Fallout in the same year, say, 2012 or 2013, and beat the crap out of the MMO because people will be playing Fallout 4, anyway.
-
Wow, just took the time to read all these. I find it fascinating and a little sad that the legalities of the issue are so complicated an subjective.
I'm not sure who I would rather have make the game, but In my opinion, a game made by either of these companies would be tolerable.
After looking at some of the information on what Interplay is doing, including some screen shots and concept art, I'm actually excited to see what they can do.
However, If they end up not finishing it, Bethesda will take over regardless, and if it is completed to any degree, finish it and publish it.
From my point of view this situation has the potential of being rather good for the series, as a game started by interplay will most likely be truer to the canon, and there is the additional insurance of bethesda picking it up and completing it if interplay cant.
I am simply excited about looking at the fallout universe from a new perspective, and experiencing it in a new way. =P
-
I think Bethesda should let Interplay make the game, because Interplay is the reason Fallout exist. Bethesda may have made it famous, but since Interplay created Fallout Bethesda should let Interplay have one more shot at thier old game. Another thing stop complaning that Interplay is going to make it all shitty when you don't how the gameplay is and you still blame them for BoS.
-
Bethesda is just too damn greedy. While maybe FOOL is developed by Mark and Chris, it'll probably turn out a little different from Fallout 1/2. But I know that it won't be all "shitty". Don't ask me how, I just know it.
-
Guns and Yakov, lrn2realworld. When us people in the real world buy things it becomes our property. Bethesda bought Interplay's game. It's now theirs and they should care about it because it's a good kind of property, the kind of property that makes you money. However, when you put Fallout in the hands of Interplay all you get is failure. They got bad sales and don't know how to handle their money, as seen by their massive amounts of debt that continue to pile up. But when Bethesda got it it only took them one game, 1 GAME, to sell millions upon millions of copies and open it up to mainstream. Interplay was never capable of that with even more than 5 games. They are a failure. The thing is the only person that is greedy here is Interplay. You sold Fallout, get over it. You can't have it back. People; how would you like it if the car you bought was stolen by someone? Then the next day they return with it trashed but tell you they needed to use it. It's just like with Bethesda and Interplay. There's nothing to complain about here. An MMO would ruin Fallout's reputation because it would more than likely be terrible if made by Interplay and then of course this hurts Bethesda. Would you liek your baby harmed? I didn't think so. Interplay deserves no longer to make a game. They sold their rights, it isn't theirs anymore at all. I hope this lawsuit makes them go into debt so far that they go bankrupt and never come back.
Both of you best be ashamed now. Interplay is terrible and the good Interplay is far gone.
-
You make a good point. Interplay started it. Bethesda made it a very famous game. Interplay is asking for Fallout back now is because Bethesda made it famous. Interplay will rip off Bethesda's ideas to make it a "better" game.
-
Your missing the point that Interplay has the rights to fallout online, NOT bethesda. Its bethesda who are trying to 'steal' FOOL back.
-
Why cant we all get along? Does Bethesda have nothing better to do than to sue people for money? I think they are poor and are just asking for money and not the rights to the games. If Bethesda wins Im never buying their games again because they are going way too far, why cant they just settle and make a compromise?
-
- Sigh* Because everything now has to be about money, this industry is no longer about creating amazing works that people love and enjoy (not to say that some people still don't try to have those things come about), and also as everyone has their flaws Bethesda and Interplay will continue this fight until one or the other wins, the first Fallout game I played was 3, but I was curious and bought the original, and personally I prefer Fallout as an RPG as to a shooter/pseudo RPG, but from reading other posts and thinking it over, if by some miracle Bethesda and Interplay decide to work together, then I believe they could make an amazing game, too bad it probably wont happen >_>
-
@Ryosan
Interplay doesn't have the original crew, Bethesda is just a group of whores. It won't be an amazing game. Your (and mine) best bet is Obsidian. Otherwise, I do agree with you.
-
interplay has some of the originial designers and voice talent for FOOL>
-
Has anyone ever heard of capitalism?
-
Can someone provide me with a link or a list of the inconsistencies between the Interplay Fallouts and the Bethesda Fallouts? I'd very much like to know what they are. Thanks. And please stop deleting this post, I'm just asking for information, nothing more.
-
what do you mean... inconsistencies?
-
Lawl, no one was deleting your posts.
If by "inconsistencies" you mean (un)canon, then Fallout 3 has lots of flaws in that point. If you mean why it was bad, it was, as you pointed out, "storylineless". Many things happening (or those that happened) in the game didn't make sense, which made the game bland, because simple shooting and killing is not the type of a game many people enjoy. Not young ones.
Also, are you really in your "mid 20's"? Can't believe it.
-
Ok, I've read pretty much every comment, and I've played far too much of both Fallout 3 and NV. If possible, would an "old gamer" or whatever it is you call yourselves, point me to a site or at least describe what inconsistencies Fallout 3 has with the original Fallout universe in F1 and F2? I do agree that F3 was VERY bland in the story department, but it was NOT a "bad" game, by any means. I've been playing video games since I was 3, and I'm now in my mid 20's. Fallout 3, at least from my experience, (sans the occasional bugs), As an FPS/pseudo RPG, was a good game, and the atmosphere was really something you can't replicate in any other game (sans the story). So for the sake of getting the "big picture" as to why F3 "was a failure of game", can someone please enlighten me as to why? This is real question, not a troll. I see lots of F3 flaming and no real explanation.
-
Fallout 1 and 2 were all about story, setting and the mood of the game combined w/ a bit of dark humor.
Fallout 3 was could render amazing open outdoor environments that were beautiful to look at but it utterly lacked any and all story. The game did have a mood but that was mostly just standing on a mountain just looking out over the wasteland which was nice but once again. story of the lack of it made the game lackluster to the old veteran fallout players.
-
I fail to see that Bethesda is to blame for anything. They didn't say "Interplay you have to try to make this MMO in this abnormally small time frame so we can sue you later for not meeting the terms of the contract". This is something that Interplay got themselves into, they wanted the rights to make a MMO and Bethesda probably didn't really want them to have that right so they imposed a ridiculous time frame on them and Intertard agreed. Furthermore its a smart move to only give them the rights to the name so you can keep them from using everything else making them take more time to come up with their own weapons and what-not further complicating the time frame for them and ultimately making them fail to put the game out that you never wanted out to start with. I think we can all agree as I quote Will Ferrell when I say..."Go fuck yourself San Diego."
-
If you read the trademark agreement you will notice that interplay can not use anything from Fallout 3 onwards but they can use fallout 1, 2, tactics and BOS. That about sums it up. This is just Bethesda trying to throw a hail Mary and pray they get it. If this gets thrown out , so what. If it gets in the court case then its all just gray for Bethesda.
-
Interplay, you are going to be soooooooo broke after this court case that you won't even be able to make games anymore. You sold the rights to Bethesda and didn't meet the time limit agreed upon to make enough money to make the game. Get over it, you lost, quit crying like babies. Maybe you should have used your brains in the first place. Or maybe you can finad and read an issue of Lying, Congressional Style and raise your speech. Then talk to Bethesda and maybe you'll pass a speech check.
-
My friend try to at least show some respect to Interplay, they made some fantastic games back in the late nineties. As for the court case, it looks like Beth is going to finish this quickly but not clean.
-
It doesn't look like this case will be finished quickly, actually.
-
case should be pending for another year and then you have the court of appeals for either side to engage in. ooo yes,, this is going to drag on and on.
-
Wait, wait, wait. This sounds pretty insidious on Bethesda's part all of a sudden claiming that Interplay couldn't use the Fallout IP...but didn't they miss every benchmark set out for them for Fallout Online? Yeah the benchmarks seemed unfair and unreasonable but they agreed to it nonetheless. Doesn't that make Interplay greedy then? Willingly taking money and then crying foul play when the contract said what they had to do and the missed the mark. If you were so convinced you could sell the whole kit-n-koboodle for $50 mill why not wait for another buyer then? Bethesda's intent was clear from the get go...they didn't want a Fallout MMO asynchronous with their other titles, if Interplay was dumb enough to think they could get a game out in the time frame set out to them by Bethesda, that's their fault.
-
I'd say that neither of the parties is blameless here.
-
They share blame equally.
Personally I don't mind the profound lack of an MMO. I always find them boring and dry simply because they can't be as immersive as a single player game.
-
Even if Bethesda wins, they're probably going to make their own Fallout Online.
-
Interplay was forced to sell due to a lawsuit. If they did not sell they would have gone bankrupt. The time frame to get the game out is not expired yet.
-
"Even if Bethesda wins, they're probably going to make their own Fallout Online"
If Bethesda loses they cant make a Fallout MMO as it would be a breach of the contract and they would be sued via Interplay.
If they win they might in theory have to wait 4 years since thats what the Bethesda CEO said it takes time wise to make a MMO. He also stated Bethesda is not making a Fallout MMO. so it would be pretty bad for Bethesda to win and then magically a Fallout MMO pops up. Again.. another lawsuit.
-
Not to say Interplay didn't put their time, money and sweat into making Fallout with quality either.
-
- Games that appeal to me more. I never played Fallout 1 or 2, but it seems like the sort of game back then that would be inducted into the 'classics'. Games that are old, but loved very much because they're nostalgic. Interplay probably could change the turned based combat into a more flexible combat system, but based on work, I probably would choose Bethesda to work on future games because of the success they've had on a variety of other things. Interplay made the series in the first place and there wouldn't even be a Fallout 3 without it, so in respect they've got a right to use their own intellectual property - yet, Bethesda put their time, money and sweat to make Fallout with quality. 'Why can't we be friends' indeed.
-
It's not just nostalgia. I simply prefer this kind of gameplay style in new games as well.
-
I agree with Ausir. I can't really like the game because it's "nostalgic", but because it's enjoyable.
-
I find usually people like what they grow up with. Recent gamers did not grow up with games such as Fallout 1 while they did and do grow up with games more like Fo3 (and NV). Even if it's nostalgia it isn't really nostalgia. They genuinely enjoy those types of games more.
I have played Fallout 1 and 2 and enjoyed them. I do not prefer that type of game-play however. When I first started playing them they were more like games on character creation rather than games that develop as you play them. As I play them now I rejected that and see them for the excellence that they are just as I do with modern games like Fallout 3.
We can't be friends because, while perhaps Ausir and YakovFrolov can see what good is in games like Fo3 while still preferring and respecting the Originals, other can only view either Fallout 1 and 2 or Fallout 3 (and games like them) as infallible masterpieces rather than excellent games with some flaws (or even just games that do not appeal completely to everyone).
-
It's not as if there weren't Fallout 3-style games at the time when I played Fallout 1 and 2. Fallout 1 was released a year after TES II: Daggerfall.
-
@ Other anonymous, you're assuming something about me before even getting to know what I'm apparently talking about.
Nostalgia, enjoying the game, same thing. What, you think I didn't enjoy playing Final Fantasy's turned based system because I did - I've played a lot of games with different combat systems, even back then. Fallout as turnedbased though - I'd preffer if it wasn't because that's the style I'm used to playing with. The only reason I heard of Fallout in the first place was because someone I once knew played the original games and I looked it up, found the story interesting. Geez, it's not as if I don't respect Interplay. I didn't even hear about Fallout 3 back then. Since Fallout 3 was the most advertised game at the time, winning game of the year, that's what I went for and considering their work on Oblivion... xD When have I ever said Bethesda made infallible master pieces or there weren't games back then that weren't Fallout 1/2 style. In terms of who has the most liberty to create a better game, I'd say it would be Bethesda but I don't mind giving a chance to Interplay out of respect. I agree Bethesda's got flaws in consistancy but if they're willing to work on it, make it work, it's alright by me, same with Interplay. People change, sometimes for the good.
- From anonymous commentator of this post. >_>;
-
"I find usually people like what they grow up with"
Can't really agree with you. I was one year old or so when Fallout 1 came out.
-
this is what i noticed the ideas behind the new fallouts games fallout 3 and fallout new vegas all had their roots in interplay's fallout 1 and 2 games so without that bethesda would not even have a top seller
-
So Yakov, how's life at the age of 14?
-
@Anon
Pretty fun :D
-
Also, I'm not saying Interplay could'nt make a good Fallout game or MMO. If they made a game just as good as Bethesda, I don't see why it's much of a problem. If Interplay and Bethesda worked together instead of fighting over money, it probably could turn out to be a good fit and turn in a profit for both companies. Bethesda's probably rich beyond the need to be rich anyway. Most of Interplay's games are turned based which doesn't really appeal to modern gamers of Fallout such as myself, but they could still possibly make a good game that might suprise modern gamers such as myself. I sort of trust Bethesda more when it comes to making good games though. Of course, this is just an opinion.
-
bethesda gets a 12% cut but i suppose thats not enough now. They want the entire pie for free.
-
There's no chance Bethesda will start working with Interplay. Interplay still has a debt, it's not making any games lately (or, rather, any *successful* games) etc. It's not going to bring any income for Bethesda and there's no reason for it.
Turn based combat, to tell the truth, is actually for more "intelligent" people. No, I'm not calling any of you dumb or anything... But remember chess? Checkers? Cards? All those games are turn based. Here, we just got a little different setting and it's rather a video game.
As said, for those fucking trolls, I'm not offending anyone. I'm actually a very kind person (that's why all my walkthroughs in Fallouts is with positive karma).
-
Sorry, forgot to login.
-
"Most of Interplay's games are turned based"
Not really. Few of their games since Fallout were.
-
They still weren't much good.
-
I respectfully disagree. There were quite a few Interplay games that I enjoyed. E.g. Star Trek: Starfleet Command is my 2nd favorite Star Trek game ever.
-
I don't know all the facts and I'm not presuming to tell you I do. By good I mean quality graphics, movements and storyline. I'm also not saying Interplay doesn't make good games, just ones that are little old school for my tastes concerning Fallout, that is - if you look at my other posts. If you feel like telling the difference between me and another anonymous, just look at the IP addresses. Chess is actually one of my favorite games but my intelligence is pretty average anyway. xD
-
The movement and storyline in Interplay games were alright. :D
-
So were the graphics.
-
I actually like what Bethesda's done with Fallout, but in respect to Interplay, they've got a right to use the intellectual properties they've created in the first place. I really would preffer that Bethesda make the games though, due to their work on Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.
-
I would prefer Bethesda make the games more like the classics. Keep the first person and real time game play but re-introduce the focus on stats and choices.
I just don't want to see Fallout dumbed down to an MMO.
-
Interplay sold the rights to fallout to Bethesda. Bethesda now owns Fallout. Interplay did keep the rights to sell all Fallouts before Fallout 3 and they kept the right to make Fallout Online w/ some stipulations and revenue sharing.
-
I hope to god bethesda yanks that title from them and then fixes and releases it.
-
i suppose they could fix it like they fixed the fallout series with fallout 3.. no story.
-
Fallout 3 should've been a spin off. I see New Vegas as the "true" fallout 3 (if Van buren was released, Vegas would be fo4)
-
I agree that New Vegas has a better claim to being "Fallout 3" than Fallout 3, as it adapts parts of Van Buren and is a continuation of Fallout 2
-
No, New Vegas is a spin off as well. Up to now, there isn't any Fallout 3 from my opinion.
-
why cant we be friends, why cant they be friends, why cant they be friends.
-
People moan about Bethesda but without the sales they and Obsidian have achieved for Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas Interplay would not even be bothering to make a Fallout MMO. Interplay ran the Fallout franchise into the ground and Bethesda restored it to its former glory and now Interplay have come back to try to get a piece of the pie.
-
Aren't you afraid that you'll get flamed badly for this? You must be a dumbass.
Ausir, tell him what he needs to know :D
-
Please, pay more attention to what you are reading.
Q:If they wouldn't, why wasn't the FMMOG included in the package sold to Bedestha? A: Because Besthesda didn't want to pay what Interplay asked for ($50 million dollars).
Note: Someone already pointed out that Bethesda, most likely, is trying to get its hands on the MMOG without having to pay.
-
thats exactly what i was thinking!
-
I hope Interplay wins. Though I like Bethesda, I think the game would be in safer hands with the guys who made in the series in the first place, the ones who know how a REAL Fallout game should play.
-
I was sadly dissappointed with the new Medal of Honor game, but that wasn't made by a second company -- on the contrary, most of the devs had also been there for Airborne as well. Just because the original company makes the game does not, by any measure, necessarily mean the game would be good. Besides, Interplay was the publisher, Black Isle was the dev team.
-
Black Isle was always part of Interplay, it was an internal studio, not an external developer. And two of the Black Isle people (Chris Taylor and Mark O'Green) are currently at Interplay, in charge of Fallout Online.
-
@Everyone above
If Interplay gets the license, I'm sure a few original devs might as well come back. Obviously, if Interplay promises lots of cash and fame.
But with the nowdays lack of money and developers with expirience (sorry I can't spell the word :D), Interplay will just epicly fail. Who knows?
By the way - ChrisT and Mark O'Green rock :D
-
@ YakovFrolov - I of course can't speak for the Fallout Devs, but if anyone ever stiffed me on a paycheck the only place they'd ever see me is in the courtroom. I'd never go back.
-
Both Chris Taylor and Mark O'Green originally left Interplay before the Herve Caen days. Those who were sacked in 2003 or 2004 are unlikely to return.
-
Well, I guess. But still, however, if Interplay does gain respect again (as I said, it's probably impossible), I'm sure a few devs will return. Come on - good source of money plus developing a game you enjoy. :D
-
Who's gonna win? Place your bets, gentlemen... And, apparently, ladies as well. *Places some money on Bethesda.*
-
- Places 800k on Bethesda*
-
1500 caps on Bethesda!
-
Lady as well here. Bethesda. I'll bet my replica pip boy.
-
I just recieved fallout uno and dos today and fallout 1 looks pretty good though im barely out of the rat cave outside your vault. I would have even been interested these games if fallout 3 hadnt captivated me so f-ing (fucking) much. My opinion (which really doesnt matter) is that bethesda knows what its doing and is cranking out some good shit. Their games are well made (new vegas console excluded; PATCH IT ALREADY!!) and they shouldnt feel threatened by interplay and allow them to make a damn MMO with partial or "borrowed" rights to the PiP boy and deathclaws and all that.
-
So much disinformation is here i have to post.
Brian Fargo ran interplay into the ground. He went to Titus to keep Interplay going and when the funding ran out he was kicked out and Herve took over and then the company that was terminally ill almost died. Herve took the company from -56 million in the hole to just having -2.5 million now (he sold hunter to atari, matrix game license, fallout etc etc)
now fast forward Bethesda wants fallout and Herve sold him the rights to fallout 3,4, and 5. Then a pissed off former employee (i summon the CORITH) called corith sued interplay and forced them to sell fallout to Bethesda. Interplay wanted to sell the rights to the MMO for 50 million http://www.escapistmagazine.com/ news/view/104632-Interplay-Wanted-50-Million-for-Fallout-MMO-Rights which at the time seemed like a lot obvously but in retrospect is a fair deal. (url was too long.. just copy and put it back together)
now Bethesda assumed Interplay would fail but put in a few stipulations. 1. Interplay had to 'secure' 30 million by April 6, 2009. It did not say spend or put in a bank but secure. What that means was never defined in the contract. Interplay has a 90 person team in europe working on fallout http://www.thatgamingsite.com/ id958-Fallout-Online-Development-Team-90-People-Strong.html .
The court will have to look at the intent of the contract on this. Part of the problem that bethesda will run into is they actively tried to deny Interplay the right to advertise for fallout online (aka FOOL) this made collecting money more difficult. also court documents state that bethesda internal email says they wanted interplay to fail. so you can see the intent here. they wanted interplay to fail and damn.. they didnt. so they sued them thinking no biggy. we will just sue them into 'oblivion' (ha). BUT interplay had funding and cash to the battle rages.
2nd Interplay could not use any material based on fallout 3 onwards, yet they have full right to use anything from Fallout 1,2, tactics and the abomination that is Brother hood of steel. IF interplay had only in effect licensed the name Fallout but no content this would not have been put in the contract since it would have been obvious. This shows intent once again.
3rd Bethesda required 12% of profits from the game. I'm only including this since it shows that bethesda is greedy. Hell, let them make the damn game. If it fails so what your getting your cut.
4. Interplay kept the right to sell all fallouts made before fallout three. Bethesda got pissed b/c interplay was making money doing this and sued them saying consumers were confused when no one was confused. When a box says Fallout Trilogy and the back of the box shows and spells out that i get fallout 1, 2, and tactis its clear as day. They also didnt like the online distribution of fallout games. This is a mute point really. It does not matter where interplay sells the games or how they sell them. The have the full rights to sell the games on any PC.
5. The new copyright thing is too funny really. Its just bethesda trying to suck money out of interplay by forcing interplay lawyers to waste time.
IF by chance interplay is successful in their counter suit the 2nd contract could be null and void (1st contract was a license to fallout 3,4,5, the 2nd contract sold fallout to bethesda), thus fallout would revert 100% back to Interplay.
enjoy.
-
"fallout would revert 100% back to Interplay. "
What? That's not possible. Bethesda payed for the franchise.
-
Interplay's claim is that they were cheated into selling it on a condition that Bethesda was never willing to fulfill (letting them develop Fallout Online). THey might not be likely to succeed, but it's not entirely without merit.
-
Herve is that you?
Secure 30 million - I think that does have a meaning. Interplay must be able to access funds of 30 million. it could mean a bank balance of 30 million, or an open loan/overdraft facility, or combination of the above. Interplay has yet to show that its met this condition. Rights terminated, game over dude.
Suing into Oblivion point - I think those 10-K filings show how little cash Interplay have, and probably havent even considered how to pay the bill (of course if they win, they may not have to pay it - are they counting on this?
3rd, 12% of Profits for the fallout name - how exactly does that make Bethesda greedy. Seems like a very good deal (for interplay) for a well respected IP. Go ask George Lucas how much he wants for Star Wars, Paramount for Star Trek, or MGM for Bond if you don't think its fair, heck Interplay have something in common with MGM now - no money.
4th. Interplay didn't have the right to just simply create new marketing material however, nice you ignored that point. Hardly "Full Rights".
5th. You've just made an insult without any backup here, so I feel justified in discarding you comment completely.
Lastly, the "by chance" bit - I don't think that follows. Bethesda could be orderd into other action presumably other than handing over the IP - not interfering with FOOL/1/2/Tactics sales, etc.
-
So, what? The gameplay of Fallout 3 and Vegas will be gone forever (until the next Obilivion is realised, that is)? That's kind of sad. I liked where the series was going in the hands of Bethesda.
-
no im not herve.
"Secure 30 million - I think that does have a meaning. Interplay must be able to access funds of 30 million. it could mean a bank balance of 30 million, or an open loan/overdraft facility, or combination of the above. Interplay has yet to show that its met this condition. Rights terminated, game over dude."
i dont know how the 30 million will play out since one side says they got it and the other says they dont. I do know the meaning of what secured means is up in the air since it was never defined. courts will work it out.
"Suing into Oblivion point - I think those 10-K filings show how little cash Interplay have, and probably havent even considered how to pay the bill (of course if they win, they may not have to pay it - are they counting on this?"
If they win they would get damages and treble(sp?) damages which is 3x what ever damages are plus lawyer fees. Interplay does have some cash though as they sold about a million bucks of stock to dotasset corp http://www.interplay.com/about/article.php?id=43. So they have about a million, plus another 606k in defered income if you read the 10-K. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057232/000143774910004040/interplay_10q-093010.htm its on page 3 under liabilities and just for those that do not know what defered income is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_income so overall they have about 1.6 Million that is known.
23rd, 12% of Profits for the fallout name - how exactly does that make Bethesda greedy. Seems like a very good deal (for interplay) for a well respected IP. Go ask George Lucas how much he wants for Star Wars, Paramount for Star Trek, or MGM for Bond if you don't think its fair, heck Interplay have something in common with MGM now - no money."
i guess i should clarify this. Bethesda is going to get 12% of interplays profits but instead of taking an easy 12% they want to deny interplay the rights they acquired in the license back of the fallout license. so in essence they want to screw them over and take 100%. thats greedy.
@4th. Interplay didn't have the right to just simply create new marketing material however, nice you ignored that point. Hardly "Full Rights".'interplay to my knowledge used pre-existing artwork that was submitted to bethesda for approval and use the name fallout saga in europe that was used before the sale of the license even occured. its all in the court documents. they do have full rights to sell on PC as opposed to say trying to port fallout to X-Box or PSX3. They do not have the rights to sell on that platform. Bethesda got pissed that interplay put out a fallout collection when fallout 3 came out and bethesda has stated that interplay was trying to capitalize on that. well.. of course they were! otherwise why keep the rights to the old games if you cant sell them. duh.
"5th. You've just made an insult without any backup here, so I feel justified in discarding you comment completely."
are you sure you do not work for Bethesda b/c im working how thats insulting. lol Bethesda could be grasping for straws in desperation or they could just be trying to tie up interplay lawyers by forcing them to waste time defending something that bethesda knows will be shot down by the judge. Hell, they might even have a valid point.
"Lastly, the "by chance" bit - I don't think that follows. Bethesda could be orderd into other action presumably other than handing over the IP - not interfering with FOOL/1/2/Tactics sales, etc."
Well, 2 lawsuits exist. Bethesda is suing interplay for damages, trying to stop them from selling fallout games, stop them from making Fallout Online. If bethesda wins the above happens along w/ treble damages.
the 2nd lawsuit is the interplay counter lawsuit which is basically from my non lawyers view saying that bethesda tried to screw them by denying them the right to advertise for fallout online and tried to interfer with interplays fallout collection sales and fallout digital distrubution sales (see gametap in court docs). now if interplay is successful and the 2nd contract was made in bad faith or how ever a laywer would word it then in theory the 2nd contract would be null and void. Thus the rights to fallout would revert back to Interplay and the 1st contract would be in effect. the 1st contract licensed fallout 3, 4, and 5 to bethesda. so thats a pretty low probability but its a possibility. Of course if this occured bethesda would bring it to appeals court.
more questions?
-
Agent C = (i summon the CORITH)?
-
Chaper 4, Verse 3: And across the void the call went out, CORITH, CORITH, CORITH i summon ye. And CORITH did twitch in his computer chair and with quick silver he did put forth a mighty bellow!
-
@ Most recent Anon (CORITH)- I'm unfamiliar with your reference. If you're suggesting I'm involved in one of the dev companies, I'm not - The closest I get to fallout is writing a sourcebook for Jason Mical's RPG that looking back I'm quite ashamed of for its poor quality... I could do so much better if I rewrote it today but I keep losing the time.
@ "Not-Hearve" - "i guess i should clarify this. Bethesda is going to get 12% of interplays profits but instead of taking an easy 12% they want to deny interplay the rights they acquired in the license back of the fallout license. so in essence they want to screw them over and take 100%. thats greedy."
I think you're making a serious error here in your analysis. I'm not familiar where it says 12% of profit, so I can't be sure if your wording is correct, but assuming it says that then the greedy thing to do is actually sit back and do nothing.
Why's that I hear you ask - good question. If FOOL fails, Bethesda gets nothing, thats much is true, but it also pays nothing.
Lets look at the MMO Market - Its harder for a MMO to make it than a regular game. It costs more to make, more to support, its like putting a million bucks on 38. You're probably never going to see any of that money again. I'd rather keep the million bucks, or if you are going to make me bet it, put it on black.
Even MMOs with big names behind them struggle - Heck even Richard Garriot, Lord British himself proved that you simply can't bottle lightning - they guy invented the genre, and was working with a company that makes a lot of MMO's, and the game they made closed in a year. Other games are resorting to the "Underpants Gnome" business plan (1. make free game 2. ?????? 3. Profit)
"Profit" is actually very favourable to Interplay - they have to make all of their money back, before they pay a cent.
The greedy thing would be to demand 12% of revenue/sales/turnover (not profit!). That way even if it crashed and burned, BEthesda would still get a nice payoff (until the Chapter 11 boys moved in).
If Zenimax makes a MMO, it could be the ultimate "farm bet", no matter whether they go with Fallout, or TES.
-
i cant remember if its 12% profit or revenue but im leaning towards revenue now that i think about it.
greed is a matter of opinion. I think Bethesda is being greedy. A deal is a deal and the terms were put in place to ensure a quality product was created, although no specifications of what quality were ever put in the asset agreement which is another funny point in the case b/c now its a matter of opinion. anyway im going to laugh my ass off if they do not settle and bethesda loses the fallout license. .
-
Corith is the name of a pissed off ex interplay employee who is famous for lurking on the forums and popping up whenever and where ever interplay is mentioned.
-
You know what, people? I just miss old Interplay. I don't know about you, but simply said, I just miss Interplay. I swear to god I would be able to do anything to make the original team finish Van Buren - with all the graphics, the atmoshpere, and, finally, the whole "Interplayness", if you know what I mean.
Eeeh... Old Interplay.
-
Me too.
-
Hey. Some nice guys are incorperating Van Buren elements into Fallout 2. And it's online too. Check it out, it's called Fallout 2238
-
interplay will lose, im VERY good legally and after reading through that bethesda has a good point, obsidian can use the name fallout no problem but they cant use anythingelse, not the pip boy,power armor, the BOS,NCR, the legion, the wasteland, or anything, only the name
-
I dont beleive you anon
-
...Did you just switch from claiming Interplay will lose to Obsidian only being able to use the Fallout name?
Anon, if you're "VERY good legally" then I'd hate to see someone sub-par. Our court system would fall apart, the innocent would be unjustly held, rapists and murderers would go free, and all types of corporate sponsorship would get the big businesses off the hook for any wrongdoings.
Wait. Nevermind. That already happened. You should be a lawyer! I hear they're looking for people that can lose their train of thought and swap company names mid-sentence after claiming to be VERY good legally.
-
OP, if you try to impersonate someone well versed in law, first work on your grammar and punctuation.
-
I thought it's Interplay, and not Obsidian, anon. Aaah.
-
i dont think that bethesda screwed up the series entirely, yes the storyline of fallout 3 is completely screwed up, but that special feeling you get when you are walking in a dead landscape with awesome music in the background and a dustcloud whirls up in front of you, that was one of the best gaming moments EVER.
-
@Recent Anon
When you go into a casino with Enclave Power Armor and a Gauss Rifle, with Robobrain, Cassidy and Marcus following you in, and then you start opening fire, running towards the stairs to the second floor, Cassidy covering you with a Pancor Jackhammer, Marcus killing everyone - guards and casino players - with his minigun and Robobrain silently taking everyone down with the .223 pistol... THAT'S one of the best moments.
EDIT: Or once you blow up the Cathedral and see the Overseer throw you out of the vault, and you walking away with "Maybe" in the background...
-
Bethesda is best I'm loyal to Fallout 3
-
they are the best they took this franchise to the next level
-
You meant, they took it to the previous level. I wonder, though, if there is one...
-
They improved the graphics thats about it. Oblivion w/ guns.. i mean Fallout 3 lacked any and all story compared to fallout 1 and 2. Why do you think they moved fallout vegas out of house.
-
Simply said, Fallout 2 is the best game in the series (to some it may be Fallout 1). New Vegas has, more or less, made a step towards the first two games. Fallout 3... I don't even know what people like about it. The graphical quality sucks, the gameplay sucks, the bugs suck, there isn't even any storyline or anything related to it.
-
If by 'the next level', you mean 'the next level of generic, poorly written pap', then I completely agree.
But after watching them show their version of humour over the more clever silliness of Fallout 2, and after having watched them turn a monastic order (the Brotherhood of Steel) into a saintly order of paladins, valiant defenders of the impoverished, after watching them march the poor BoS out to do some medal of honour nonsense, after watching them turn super mutants into nothing more than mutated thugs, and so many more absolutely horrible things that completely contradict everything Fallout is about, I can only hope you don't mean that they've improved upon the series in any conceivable way. Unless you happen to like poorly written, generic pap. I know there's the whole populist appeal angle... but really.
Fallout: New Vegas was a step in the right direction, it was a good game, but it still wasn't quite as Fallout as 1 or 2, it lost some of the magic of those previous games, and that's because some of the more important people aren't with Obsidian now. Not to make a pun here, but New Vegas comes over as very dry. Exceedingly dry. And they were so afraid of cracking a joke that they had to section everything off into a trait. It was good, but compared to the past Fallout games, it wasn't as good as it could have been.
Personally, any hopes I have left for the Fallout franchise lay with Interplay. And honestly, I smiled more at their 'Church of Harold' brochure than I did in anything I'd seen in Fallout 3 or New Vegas. So they might just be onto something.
-
@Anon
"Personally, any hopes I have left for the Fallout franchise lay with Interplay. And honestly, I smiled more at their 'Church of Harold' brochure than I did in anything..."
I have to agree with you there. Even though O'Green and Taylor are the only people left in Interplay to have worked on Fallout (2), they've made quite an effort and succeeded. Who knows, if it were up to those two and Obsidian, New Vegas would have turned out better.
But, unluckily, that didn't happen. Let's enjoy New Vegas... Apparently, after playing Fallout 3 I felt that my video game taste has just lowered its quality. New Vegas, more or less, gave me a feel of nostalgia at times, and I'm thankful.
-
@Yakov... I felt the same way with Medal of Honor (the new one). Only difference is, the original dev team was still working on it. So this thought that just because Interplay would be doing a Fallout game it would be better than Bethesda's Fallout, that doesn't mean it will be -- matter-of-fact, it could be just the opposite.
-
@Yuri Kaslov
I meant, any wishes of Fallout was back with Black Isle. If somehow Interplay gets the license, pays off its debts and gathers all of the original devs (those who worked on Fallout 1, 2 and Van Buren) - which, sadly, won't happen, no matter how much I wish about it - then that'll make my day. My life, to tell the truth.
But yes, even if that happens, the devs may look at it as something fragile and "overwork" on it. After all, to some of those people Fallout is their "babe".
Hell, I would feel the same - looking at Fallout as a good kid I raised - if I created such a great game. I think I just like Fallout too much. Even despite the fact I got familiar with it in early 2009, when we got Crysis and such. :D
-
Ugh...begun the fan boy wars have. I understand many people enjoyed the previous the Interplay Fallout games, but one has to remember that it is difficult for many people to play the newer Fallouts and go back to the Interplay Fallout games...they are indeed gems of games, but their appeal has diminished. If you were exposed to the earlier Fallouts before the Bethesda games, then hey good for you. You know what a great series this is and how it feels disjointed with the Bethesda games, which are good games in their own right. I've had some friends that enjoy the Star Wars prequels as apposed to the original trilogy...I was shocked and disgusted initially, but when I thought about it, it is hard to revert back and look at those movies if the prequels were your baseline: the SFX are worse, concepts seem slightly disjointed (crazy jedi fighting in prequels to samurai jedi fighting in sequels), and the dialogue is somehow was written by a fourth grader for the prequels. Take home message is please stop attacking each other over who is better as opinions are different depending on who played what first. My opinion is all the games are great and fantastic...but I prefer the Bethesda games...gives me a more tangible feel to things.
-
There are lots of players who played Fallout 3 first, but still loved the original games as well, and even preferred them to the newer ones. Just like there are young Star Wars fans who still prefer the original trilogy despite being born in the prequel age.
-
Good point. It's just fanboy flaming drives me crazy...just because one person doesn't like something doesn't make it necessarily horrible.
-
Because in my in my imagination a post-apocalyptic wasteland is full of smack-talking 13 year olds with spears and idiot neckbeard white knights in power armor.
Personally I think it's a dumb move on both their parts- One, arguing over the creative license for something they probably don't have the rights to be playing around with anyway and, Two- thinking that it'd be great to fill my precious wasteland with kids and neckbeards.
tl;dr- get off my lawn, they took our pipboy!
