Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to "Undermine" Fallout

[warmonkey]

So, I liked Fallout 3. It wasn't the Fallout game I wanted, but it wasn't exactly a bad game. I enjoyed it, I still play it on occasion. The ending is pretty damn weak, though. While there's a lot of freedom in *things to do*, there's not much freedom in all in *choices to make*, which was what was, imo, what made the original Fallouts good.

That's a disclaimer.

This mess? This mess is a mess. I'm not going to say this isn't what Interplay is doing, but ummmm. They can make a game with the Fallout name, but they don't have the rights to use anything from Fallout, and now Bethesda is mad because the Fallout-named game that is unrelated to any Fallout assets (ie everything..) isn't enough like Fallout?

That doesn't sound right at all.

 

[DaxStrife]

They can make a game with the Fallout name, but they don't have the rights to use anything from Fallout, and now Bethesda is mad because the Fallout-named game that is unrelated to any Fallout assets (ie everything..) isn't enough like Fallout?

That doesn't sound right at all.

This was pretty much my reaction, too.
Personally I'm siding with Bethesda on this one, though they need to lighten up. Interplay did make the first few Fallout titles, but there's hardly anyone left there who worked on them; most of those guys moved over to Bethesda and Oblivion, who are attempting to continue that particular universe.
Heck, the last two Fallout titles Interplay made were Fallout: Tactics and that god-awful Brotherhood of Steel console game.

 

[robotam]

How are they even making a MMO if they sold the rights of to Bethesda? If you sold the rights and IP you can fuck off its not yours anymore.

I'm not exactly sure how it worked, but I think there originally was a deal made and Bethesda let them make a fallout mmo. But I don't know the specifics of the deal, I think it was quite complicated. I'm sure someone else will know more about it.



I don't know what to think about the legal battle, I find it all very confusing. But I don't play mmos any way. Why can't Interplay say that the MMO is a "What if?" set in the Fallout universe?
If Zelda can have multiple time lines, why not Fallout.

 

[bombadilillo]

Wait - can someone really claim that undermining established continuity in a fictional setting is an offense worthy of a lawsuit?

That's baloney - and if it's not, let me be the first to suggest a class-action lawsuit against George Lucas.

How is that baloney? Its an IP, you shouldnt be able rewrite someone elses IP

 

[Carnagath]

I think it's pretty clear that Bethesda are protecting their monopoly, not the "quality" of the IP. If Interplay have the right to make a Fallout game (which they obviously do, otherwise they wouldn't have invested on it), then they should be allowed to do so without Bethesda's silly pointless lawsuits runing interference. Nobody knows if the game is going to be good or bad, as is the case for Bethesda releases too, especially since every single one of them needed a year of patching before they became actual games and not trainwrecks with something potentially cool hidden underneath (and sometimes they became even worse, like the GOTY version of Fallout 3 for PS3, which crashes every 5 minutes and was never fixed, they just said "fuck it, some sucker or another will pay for it, fine by us"). Even if the game is bad though, I don't see how it can hurt Bethesda's games in any significant way. They are different games. If they are good, people will buy them. Hell, almost every single Star Wars game ever made was terrible, but that didn't stop people from buying KotOR, and that was in a time without Metacritic. I agree that an MMO is a poor choice of genre for Interplay's attempt at a Fallout game, but they should have their final shot before they go up in flames.

 

[bombadilillo]

How are they even making a MMO if they sold the rights of to Bethesda? If you sold the rights and IP you can fuck off its not yours anymore.

I'm not exactly sure how it worked, but I think there originally was a deal made and Bethesda let them make a fallout mmo. But I don't know the specifics of the deal, I think it was quite complicated. I'm sure someone else will no more about it.



I don't know what to think about the legal battle, I find it all very confusing. But I don't play mmos any way. Why can't Interplay say that the MMO is a "What if?" set in the Fallout universe?
If Zelda can have multiple time lines, why not Fallout.

Seconded, can someone in the know explain this. I think based on psat articles, they retained the rights to ONLY the title "Fallout Online" or something. Which is why they conceivably cant use "vaultboy" or any other fallout terminology. So who knows how their going to make a game...but technicly they could?

 

[craddoke]

Wait - can someone really claim that undermining established continuity in a fictional setting is an offense worthy of a lawsuit?

That's baloney - and if it's not, let me be the first to suggest a class-action lawsuit against George Lucas.

How is that baloney? Its an IP, you shouldnt be able rewrite someone elses IP

It's baloney because there's no harm caused by there being two continuities - much like the existence of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida doesn't harm Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. People rewrite stories all the time (just think about how many versions of Wonderland exist) - as long as Interplay secured the rights to the setting, it's ludicrous to say they can't write whatever story they want, even if it contradicts "canon" - barring some explicit clause in the rights contract that stipulates this as a condition of use; and, believe me, if that clause existed, it would be cited early and often in this claim.

Now, excuse me while I go write some Fan-Fiction and cause material harm to an existing continuity.

 

[feather240]

Why did Bethesda make the deal with interplay if they knew that interplay wouldn't be able to secure the funding?

 

[poiuppx]

I'll boil it down to the facts.

1. Interplay is not the Interplay we knew. Don't mourn what may happen to this Interplay - They're not who you think they are.
2. Bethesda are being dicks, but not without reason.
3. Interplay are in no shape to create, finance and run an MMO. The amount they're borrowing and the frequency of their near-bankruptcies should make that clear.
4. Interplay sold the rights to Bethesda, and in Interplay's hands the Fallout franchise would undoutably either be lost to the mists of time or fail in a non-spectacular fashion.
5. Bethesda have, and will, continue to use the license for "good". Getting Obsidian (The remnants of the original developers for Fallout) to do New Vegas should be near enough proof of that.
6. Interplay needs to die. Now.

This, this, a billion times this. Interplay were GODS back in the old days, but everything that made them gods has long since vanished. Bethesda might make some WEIRD damn choices, but damned if they're not trying to make Fallout work in a modern gaming context and keeping that kick-ass post-apoc setting rolling with good games. And I remind, the last time Interplay was allowed near the Fallout drawing board, we got Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. And that was when they had money and a corporate sponsor to infuse the game with extra cash and talent.

Unless Interplay goes through an epic reconstruction, I can't even IMAGINE them pulling off a solid Fallout game, let alone a persistant MMO. Hell, from the newsletters I've read for their Fallout MMO, I question if they could even pull off a Fallout mod for Angry Birds at this point.

 

[Kahunaburger]

In terms of reputation for Fallout, the best thing Bethesda did was have Obsidian develop New Vegas.

Truth.

But OT, Bethesada has (as far as I know) the rights to enough of the Fallout universe to make the creation of a Fallout MMO by anyone else basically impossible. But do I find it hilarious that they're whining about canon in a world that features flying saucers, lassie, and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

 

[bombadilillo]

Wait - can someone really claim that undermining established continuity in a fictional setting is an offense worthy of a lawsuit?

That's baloney - and if it's not, let me be the first to suggest a class-action lawsuit against George Lucas.

How is that baloney? Its an IP, you shouldnt be able rewrite someone elses IP

It's baloney because there's no harm caused by there being two continuities - much like the existence of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida doesn't harm Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. People rewrite stories all the time (just think about how many versions of Wonderland exist) - as long as Interplay secured the rights to the setting, it's ludicrous to say they can't write whatever story they want, even if it contradicts "canon" - barring some explicit clause in the rights contract that stipulates this as a condition of use; and, believe me, if that clause existed, it would be cited early and often in this claim.

Now, excuse me while I go write some Fan-Fiction and cause material harm to an existing continuity.

This is a little different then fan-fiction. Its the same platform. I could see your arguement if they were writing a fallout book. But using a already used setting to try to change this is wrong, and hopefully will fail copyright tests. Why dont they set their game in ohio. Or Mexico City, somewhere there ISNT already a game and established cannon.

Zeldas are standalone titles, and where there are theoretical timelines, these games have a definate timeline and stories/characrters moving between titles in a definate overarching cannon. Its different.

 

[InsaneOne10]

I used to love Interplay, but now it'd really just be better if they sold off those great IPs they have to people who can do something with them. (I'd love to see another Descent game)

 

[robinkom]

For fucks sake, I never wanted a Fallout MMO to happen in the first place. Now I REALLY don't want it to happen. Just let it go. You sold the IP and you can't have it back, you can't afford it. Bethesda probably should have realized in the beginning that any business ventures with Eric Caen and "Zombie Interplay" were going to be dodgy.

On the other end, Interplay is trying to fund development on a current-gen looking MMOG that I'm very sure they can't spare the expenses on. Considering the cult following still present for the classic 2D Fallout games, it would be wiser to definitely scale it down to a lower-budget Isometric view MMOG for the franchise. Less headache for them and we still get a potentially good game with re-imagined classic visuals. Give it some real-time Diablo-like pacing and we're off and running.

 

[II2]

I'll boil it down to the facts.

1. Interplay is not the Interplay we knew. Don't mourn what may happen to this Interplay - They're not who you think they are.
2. Bethesda are being dicks, but not without reason.
3. Interplay are in no shape to create, finance and run an MMO. The amount they're borrowing and the frequency of their near-bankruptcies should make that clear.
4. Interplay sold the rights to Bethesda, and in Interplay's hands the Fallout franchise would undoutably either be lost to the mists of time or fail in a non-spectacular fashion.
5. Bethesda have, and will, continue to use the license for "good". Getting Obsidian (The remnants of the original developers for Fallout) to do New Vegas should be near enough proof of that.
6. Interplay needs to die. Now.

Yes!

This is a well written and accurate assessment on the state of affairs.

 

[Uber Waddles]

They sold the IP to Bethesda. Why is this even an issue anymore? Any court in the world should be able to look at this case, and say "well derp, Bethesda has the rights. Hand it over".

While I would like to see a Fallout MMO, making a Fallout MMO for a company that is THIS close to being belly up is a bad idea. IF they could get the game running, it will not be what developers or gamers expect it to be. It will be waterdowned, bug ridden, laggy, and just all around awful. You need a firm backbone for MMO's. Even if it means running adverts in game.

Bethesda, on the other hand, is making the most out of the franchise. Say what you will, but Fallout 3 and New Vegas sold: Fallout 3 even won Game of the Year. New Vegas is a great game as well, although the bugs are certainly holding it back from reaching it potential. Interplay sold the rights to Bethesda so they could do with the IP whatever they wanted. They made it profitable, in mass, to the current gen of gamers (most of which had never heard of Fallout before).

I get it, they wanna ride the cash cow too, but you sold the rights. Interplay, the game is no longer yours. Just drop it, before you make this mess even uglier for you. You cannot win. You either lose, and have to pay heavily for it, or you win, and lack the resources to make the game you truely want to make.

 

[The Wooster]

Interplay isn't even a shadow of what it used to be and I'm fairly certain this is just them IP squatting.

That being said, if anything "undermines" the plot line of Fallout 3 it's the game's voice acting.

 

[bombadilillo]

Interplay isn't even a shadow of what it used to be and I'm fairly certain this is just them IP squatting.

That being said, if anything "undermines" the plot line of Fallout 3 it's the game's voice acting.

Are you questioning the voice acting skills of LIAM NEESON!!!!!!!!!

*cracks nuckles

 

[The Wooster]

Interplay isn't even a shadow of what it used to be and I'm fairly certain this is just them IP squatting.

That being said, if anything "undermines" the plot line of Fallout 3 it's the game's voice acting.

Are you questioning the voice acting skills of LIAM NEESON!!!!!!!!!

*cracks nuckles

Oh Liam Neeson was great. It was the other two voice actors I didn't like.