Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to "Undermine" Fallout

ethanizaak

New member
Mar 14, 2011
11
0
0
This is a lot of reiteration through and through, but Interplay sold off the property completely, minus the ability to reuse only the title Fallout devoid of prior game reference. Bethesda invested a lot of money into the Fallout property. A lot of money.

Interplay looks to be trying to, as said before, ride the cash cow back to the top. The major problem, and this may be expounded on in the redactions, is Interplay is referencing property it no longer controls (e.g., the website references).

Beyond the nature of who makes (made?) better games, Bethesda seems to be right in stating that Interplay breached the agreement. I imagine that if anybody felt their multi-million dollar investment was being threatened and their purchase agreement of said investment was violated... well, they would dig up any and every reason to stop the offender. Money.
 

x-machina

New member
Sep 14, 2010
401
0
0
Under mine the story and canon of Fallout 3? The game is a hot mess that makes little to no sense. Bethesda didn't add anything to undermine
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
coldalarm said:
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.
#'s 2 and 6 are opinions and #'s 4 and 5 are speculations.

Does anyone have a real factual summary of events here? As in, no speculations or opinions, just facts and nothing but facts? I'd like to know more about what's actually going on.
 

Elementlmage

New member
Aug 14, 2009
316
0
0
coldalarm said:
I'll boil it down to the facts.

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.
If you listen to Bethesda, yes. If you listen to Interplay, Interplay says they sold Bethesda a 5-run license and use of applicable trademarks and copyrights to make those 5 said games. So, unless you have read the actual license agreed upon by both parties... the point is moot. Either one of them could be telling the truth.
 

craddoke

New member
Mar 18, 2010
418
0
0
bombadilillo said:
But using a already used setting to try to change this is wrong, and hopefully will fail copyright tests.
But Fallout 3 doesn't cease to exist if this MMO is published - although some might heartily wish that were true - nor does an alternate timeline/story prevent Bethesda from carrying on like nothing happened when it's time for Fallout 4/5/etc.

Seriously, I find the contention that continuity is something real/meaningful outside of arguments between 13 y.o. comic book fans a bit unsettling.
 

Camarilla

New member
Jul 17, 2008
175
0
0
mjc0961 said:
Does anyone have a real factual summary of events here? As in, no speculations or opinions, just facts and nothing but facts? I'd like to know more about what's actually going on.
Basically, Interplay sold the rights to the Fallout IP to Bethesda. However, as part of the deal, they retained the right to create an MMO game called Fallout Online. The problem is that the contract Interplay signed when selling the IP, and licensing the name back only states they can use the name. Bethesda therefore argue that as the terms do not state they can license the Fallout IP itself, by creating a game using the Fallout IP and assets, they are breaching the terms of the license. Interplay argue that when they licensed the right to make a game called Fallout Online, they were intrinsically allowed to use the Fallout IP and assets (their analogy is that being allowed to create a film called 'Snow White', without being allowed to use existing characters makes no sense).

Basically, it's down to poor writing in the terms of the license, due to the omission of a 'allowed to use Fallout assets' clause in the agreement.


It's a bit convoluted, to be honest.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I'd love a fallout MMO but I don't want a company as shaky as Interplay to make it, despite the history of the franchise. MMO's are a gamble as it is.
 

spectrenihlus

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,918
0
0
Grey Carter said:
bombadilillo said:
Grey Carter said:
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.
You mean Malcolm McDowell?

A POX ON YOU!!!!!
 

screwvalve

New member
May 24, 2011
55
0
0
Dastardly said:
Andy Chalk said:
Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to "Undermine" Fallout

Permalink
Interplay can't manage to stay solvent long enough to say, "Look, we have more than zeron dollars!" They have no business trying to camp this project, whether or not they have the "right."

It would also be ridiculous of them to do anything to disparage the work of Bethesda on this IP, as they're banking on the popularity that Bethesda has built, maintained, and/or restored in this franchise. Let's also not forget that the first-/third-person shooter transfer was accomplished by Bethesda, and I highly doubt anyone will be paying to play a 2.5D MMO now that we're past the days of Ultima Online.

The more this goes on, the more it becomes obvious that Interplay has been using the old quarter-on-a-string trick. Sell off the IP, let someone else (who doesn't run out of money every six months) build it back up, and then try to snag it back when it seems the most profitable.

So, I don't blame Bethesda for the legal wrangling. Tell Interplay they can't use all your hard work, then tell them they can't turn around and try to replace your work, and you'll corner them into giving up this long-running scam.
Right, nobody would play a 2.5D game with blocky graphics. *cough* minecraft. *cough*. I'd love to see a fallout online done by interplay, which completely removes that stupid fallout 3 bethesda game storyline.

Everyone saying "interplay sold the rights, bethesda owns everything now", sorry, you got it backwards. The arrangement went something like this.

Bethesda wanted to buy the rights to Fallout, since they needed to make something else besides the mediocre elder scrolls games, and it's much easier to buy out some third party IP than start one themselves. They wanted to buy the Fallout rights from Interplay, and they asked something crazy like $45 million. Bethesda replied, wtf, why $45 million, this IP is unkwown to anyone at this point. Interplay replied that it was because of the potential the IP had to make an MMORPG title. And they were right. Bethesda then asked to buy the rights to make a fallout game, without the MMO option. Bethesda then bought the rights, but they wanted that MMO option too. Their lawyers then came up with this amazing arrangement, which allowed Interplay to retain the mmo option, but with a clause in the agreement which required Interplay to provide enough evidence that they could make such MMO within some time frame, or else they would forfeit that mmo right too. Bethesda this way would obtain the mmo rights without the $45 million, since they were counting on Interplay not being able to secure their part. But Interplay did, they were able to provide assets and start the mmo project within the agreed timeframe. Bethesda's plan backfired, and they got bitter and now they're suing their way into owning everything.

I know Interplay now isnt the fallout 1 Interplay but it's still their game, and Bethesda here is the bigger ****holes.
 

newwiseman

New member
Aug 27, 2010
1,325
0
0
feather240 said:
Why did Bethesda make the deal with interplay if they knew that interplay wouldn't be able to secure the funding?
It was in the agreements when Interplay first sold Fallout that they would get to keep the rights to an MMO. All this legal stuff started after Fallout 3 was successful and Interplay failed to meet the amount of "Capitol" to make an MMO by the date they had agreed upon. Interplay countered that they did have enough "Capitol" as both what defines "capitol" and the amount they needed hadn't been explicitly defined as an amount of US Dollars. The Judge sided with them and they got to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO.

It's been one long string of injunctions and lawsuits ever since.

Basically Bethesda hoped that Interplay would just surrender the rights when they didn't have enough money but didn't cover their bases well enough to guarantee that is what would happen.

On another [redacted], I [redacted] reading about [redacted]; in [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] articles.
 

screwvalve

New member
May 24, 2011
55
0
0
newwiseman said:
feather240 said:
Why did Bethesda make the deal with interplay if they knew that interplay wouldn't be able to secure the funding?
It was in the agreements when Interplay first sold Fallout that they would get to keep the rights to an MMO. All this legal stuff started after Fallout 3 was successful and Interplay failed to meet the amount of "Capitol" to make an MMO by the date they had agreed upon. Interplay countered that they did have enough "Capitol" as both what defines "capitol" and the amount they needed hadn't been explicitly defined as an amount of US Dollars. The Judge sided with them and they got to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO.

It's been one long string of injunctions and lawsuits ever since.

Basically Bethesda hoped that Interplay would just surrender the rights when they didn't have enough money but didn't cover their bases well enough to guarantee that what would happen.

On another [redacted], I [redacted] reading about [redacted]; in [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] articles.
No,bethesda started the legal ramblings after Interplay announced that they were starting their fallout online mmo. At the time, Interplay still wasnt in chapter 7.
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,367
0
0
Wait, can you really sue for that? Can we just go ahead and do that with any game company? How many times must we be confused by the random time-jumping involved in our games, like Devil May Cry or Metal Gear Solid?

Enough, I say!
 

S3Cs4uN 8

New member
Apr 25, 2011
100
0
0
screwvalve said:
Dastardly said:
Andy Chalk said:
Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to "Undermine" Fallout

Permalink
Interplay can't manage to stay solvent long enough to say, "Look, we have more than zeron dollars!" They have no business trying to camp this project, whether or not they have the "right."

It would also be ridiculous of them to do anything to disparage the work of Bethesda on this IP, as they're banking on the popularity that Bethesda has built, maintained, and/or restored in this franchise. Let's also not forget that the first-/third-person shooter transfer was accomplished by Bethesda, and I highly doubt anyone will be paying to play a 2.5D MMO now that we're past the days of Ultima Online.

The more this goes on, the more it becomes obvious that Interplay has been using the old quarter-on-a-string trick. Sell off the IP, let someone else (who doesn't run out of money every six months) build it back up, and then try to snag it back when it seems the most profitable.

So, I don't blame Bethesda for the legal wrangling. Tell Interplay they can't use all your hard work, then tell them they can't turn around and try to replace your work, and you'll corner them into giving up this long-running scam.
Right, nobody would play a 2.5D game with blocky graphics. *cough* minecraft. *cough*. I'd love to see a fallout online done by interplay, which completely removes that stupid fallout 3 bethesda game storyline.

Everyone saying "interplay sold the rights, bethesda owns everything now", sorry, you got it backwards. The arrangement went something like this.

Bethesda wanted to buy the rights to Fallout, since they needed to make something else besides the mediocre elder scrolls games, and it's much easier to buy out some third party IP than start one themselves. They wanted to buy the Fallout rights from Interplay, and they asked something crazy like $45 million. Bethesda replied, wtf, why $45 million, this IP is unkwown to anyone at this point. Interplay replied that it was because of the potential the IP had to make an MMORPG title. And they were right. Bethesda then asked to buy the rights to make a fallout game, without the MMO option. Bethesda then bought the rights, but they wanted that MMO option too. Their lawyers then came up with this amazing arrangement, which allowed Interplay to retain the mmo option, but with a clause in the agreement which required Interplay to provide enough evidence that they could make such MMO within some time frame, or else they would forfeit that mmo right too. Bethesda this way would obtain the mmo rights without the $45 million, since they were counting on Interplay not being able to secure their part. But Interplay did, they were able to provide assets and start the mmo project within the agreed timeframe. Bethesda's plan backfired, and they got bitter and now they're suing their way into owning everything.

I know Interplay now isnt the fallout 1 Interplay but it's still their game, and Bethesda here is the bigger ****holes.
Personally interplay can go burn in hell I have only played one of their games (Descent: Saturn) and i have to say fallout 3 and NV were a heck of a lot better than what I have heard about 1 & 2
You just seem to be hating on Bethesda for outdoing your precious 3/4 dead interplay.

Bethesda will come out on top in this little argument.


ps to any one else are there any more Descent games?
 

S3Cs4uN 8

New member
Apr 25, 2011
100
0
0
Haakong said:
Raiyan 1.0 said:
coldalarm said:
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.
Prepare to be assaulted by a horde of people decrying your statement because apparently New Vegas should've never seen daylight.

Bugs be damned, Obsidian did a really good job on that one. Set a new bar to sandbox narratives.
I might be the luckiest guy alive, but I only encountered 1 bug in Fallout:NV, and that was enemies stuck in walls. For me, NV was the best game Ive played last year, and the best fallout game overall. So haters can say whatever they want, MANY (including us) clearly liked it.
I will say the same here thats the only bug ive encountered and it's not exactly Game Breaking
or anything and im not even on the most recent patch
 

screwvalve

New member
May 24, 2011
55
0
0
S3Cs4uN 8 said:
Personally interplay can go burn in hell I have only played one of their games (Descent: Saturn) and i have to say fallout 3 and NV were a heck of a lot better than what I have heard about 1 & 2
You just seem to be hating on Bethesda for outdoing your precious 3/4 dead interplay.

Bethesda will come out on top in this little argument.


ps to any one else are there any more Descent games?
Yeah, because what you've heard from a game is more than enough and better than having played a game. Fallout 1 and 2 completely own bethesda's "fallout" 3.
 

GameMaNiAC

New member
Sep 8, 2010
599
0
0
I don't know about you guys but I'd love a Fallout MMO. Mainly for roleplaying purposes, because the universe is really awesome. I love Bethesda and I love Interplay. But I'm slightly more on Interplay's side since they -are- the original owners of Fallout. Besides, I want a Fallout MMO, like I said.
 

screwvalve

New member
May 24, 2011
55
0
0
GameMaNiAC said:
I don't know about you guys but I'd love a Fallout MMO. Mainly for roleplaying purposes, because the universe is really awesome. I love Bethesda and I love Interplay. But I'm slightly more on Interplay's side since they -are- the original owners of Fallout. Besides, I want a Fallout MMO, like I said.
A fallout MMO that looks like the original fallouts would be awesome.
 

theklng

New member
May 1, 2008
1,229
0
0
WorldCritic said:
Interplay my old friend, you did a good job with the original Fallout series, but when you guys also made the truly bad Brotherhood of Steel game and cancelled Van Buren, I kind of lost faith in you. Now you sold the rights of the series to Bethesda, and after their success with making the franchise good again, you are jealous and suddenly want your toy back. Please give up Interplay, it's over.
dude, you are wrong on so many accounts here. interplay is not jealous, i'm sure that brian fargo always has had much love for fallout, regardless of whose hands it has been in. if you were the creator of a universe, wouldn't you like to bask in it as much as you could?