Interplay Calls Bethesda's Fallout Claim "Absurd"

[Narcogen]

Without specifics I can only speculate, but since the franchise itself was sold, and the MMO rights re-licensed to Interplay, what seems to have occurred does not actually match up with your description. Presumably Interplay had to pay a licensing fee to make the MMO, and the price of this license either was either reduced from the sale price of the franchise, or offset in some other way that made it attractive to Bethesda for Interplay to continue development. The licensing fee may even be nonrefundable.

For specifics, please read the Vault article linked from this very newspost.

Apparently I was too nonspecific in my admission about not having specifics.

I mean the actual full text of the agreements in question, not quotations from court filings but the contracts themselves. The summary I wrote above is based on the Vault article-- that Bethesda purchased the entire franchise (APA) and then licensed back to Interplay the rights to develop the MMO (TLA).

I'm not expecting that anyone outside Bethesda or Interplay to have access to that, just stating that it's difficult to do more than speculate on why Bethesda has taken the actions it has without knowing the entirety of the agreements in question.

For instance, the purchase price of the franchise is quoted from the APA, but not the licensing fee in the TLA, if any.

That said, the current interpreation of the agreement by Bethesda does indeed seem silly and unsupportable. I would speculate that this is their response to the judgment that Interplay is not in violation of the agreement as it stands.

 

[Legion]

Shit, Bethesda making me hate them?

I think I see a flying pig....

Exactly my thoughts. I love the Fallout series and Bethesda did a fantastic job with Fallout 3 but they are being dicks with this.

I know we gamers like to delude ourselves that games are made for the fans but here's one more bit of disillusionment.

So, why does Bethesda want to prevent Interplay from making an awesome Fallout MMO which would boost popularity and awareness of previous games again?

They won't see the revenue from it.

Or they are planning on making one themselves.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Those two original Interplay devs are the ones that fucked over the Black Isle Employess hard.

Er, no, they didn't - you must be talking about the Caen brothers, who are company executives, not developers. The original Fallout developers I'm talking about (Chris Taylor and Mark O'Green) actually originally left the company back in the Fargo days and rejoined Interplay in 2008-2009, long after Black Isle was dissolved, to work on Fallout Online.

Fair enough. But the Caen brothers still pretty much run Interplay. Can't see much good coming from this if those guys are involved. Those two alone destroyed Black Isle Studios and nearly ended Interplay with stupid decisions.

 

[Jesus Phish]

I remember there was going to be a GLC produced Pen and Paper RPG version of Fallout. Bethesda went after them over them using the Fallout name (they had the right to do so when they started working on it, possibly before Bethesda bought the fallout ip).

So they brought them up over it and got GLC to change the name of the Fallout PnP to "Exodus". They kept everything the same and made minor modifications to Pipboy.

So first they go after someone using the name. Now they're saying Interplay can use the name, but it just cant LOOK like a Fallout game.

 

[Ausir]

I mean the actual full text of the agreements in question, not quotations from court filings but the contracts themselves. The summary I wrote above is based on the Vault article-- that Bethesda purchased the entire franchise (APA) and then licensed back to Interplay the rights to develop the MMO (TLA).

Actually, The Vault has full text of the APA and TLA linked from that very article too. I also have the ELA, but in scanned form, not as text that can be easily posted as a Vault article.

For instance, the purchase price of the franchise is quoted from the APA, but not the licensing fee in the TLA, if any.

There was no actual licensing fee - the license was part of the payment for the IP.

That said, the current interpreation of the agreement by Bethesda does indeed seem silly and unsupportable. I would speculate that this is their response to the judgment that Interplay is not in violation of the agreement as it stands.

Yes, as I said before, Bethesda is actually weakening their case by adding ridiculous claims and contradicting their own statements (which is a big no no in court) instead of focusing on the counts where their case is pretty strong. While my opinion of the current management of Interplay is not stellar either, Bethesda has demonstrated that they've been acting in bad faith here.

I wonder when Bethesda will fire their law firm again and hire a new one (they already did it once after they failed to get a preliminary injunction against Interplay).

 

[NLS]

Interplay was basically dead, and as such sold the Fallout franchise to Bethesda.
Then they let Bethesda revive the Fallout franchise with Fallout 3.
And then they say "nu-uh" and work on the Fallout MMO, knowing that it will sell good (thank's to Bethesda's help).

 

[RicoADF]

Interplay is a publisher, not a developer. A publisher buying a publisher does not make any sense.

It does if you want to buy out all their franchises in one purchase

 

[wildcard9]

I'm gonna have to side with Bethesda on this one. Despite how dickish they've been on the whole issue, it's all a matter of who's hands the Fallout IP is better in. Ten odd years ago, I'd be saying Interplay via Black Isles, in that they were the ones who invented and created the post apocalyptic RPG we all know and love today. But, like a deadbeat dad, Interplay neglected and abused the franchise and gave us the travesty that is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, in which they actually stooped so low as to directly say to the fans who knew this game was crap to fuck off in the credits.

Shift to two years ago: out of all the RPG companies to rescue the Fallout IP, Bethesda was the last one on my mind. Oblivion was the antithesis of Fallout: lots of stuff to do, not a whole lot of engagement or story. Somehow, they made it work. Fallout 3 was a breath of fresh air: a fully realized contemporary FPS version of the old isometric RPG. Bethesda's been good to Fallout, even letting it's original creators now at Obsidian to make the true Van Buren they never did get to make.

My point is this: you have to choose between the lesser of the two evils. I'd rather trust a successful company with a fully realized goal for the franchise as opposed to its neglectful former creators who are in a desperate situation and out of that situation would most likely run it into the ground for quick profit. Besides, do we really need another MMO?

 

[Ausir]

Interplay was basically dead, and as such sold the Fallout franchise to Bethesda.
Then they let Bethesda revive the Fallout franchise with Fallout 3.
And then they say "nu-uh" and work on the Fallout MMO, knowing that it will sell good (thank's to Bethesda's help).

The license to make the MMO was part of the price for selling the franchise to Bethesda. It's not as if they decided to make the MMO only after they sold the license.

Bethesda's been good to Fallout, even letting it's original creators now at Obsidian to make the true Van Buren they never did get to make.

Not really. New Vegas reuses a few of the Van Buren characters and factions, as well as one location in a very changed version, but it has otherwise nothing to do with Van Buren. Different scope, entirely different story, different gameplay.

 

[Exort]

Interplay was basically dead, and as such sold the Fallout franchise to Bethesda.
Then they let Bethesda revive the Fallout franchise with Fallout 3.
And then they say "nu-uh" and work on the Fallout MMO, knowing that it will sell good (thank's to Bethesda's help).

And Bethesda should accept that since that was the deal. If they didn't like it they won't bought Fallout or buy MMO right at the same time.
They are basicly eating their words now.

 

[Daywalker1983]

It seems...that making a Falloutgame without anything Fallouty in it has worked out pretty well for Bethesda.

At this point no one is interested in original Fallout content, also evidenced by the lack of mods pointing back to the old games. Not even weapom mods of trusted guns like the bozar, or even just a faithful representation of the .223. I hope New Vegas changes that a bit.

But still, Bethesda move seems stupid...I concur that we don't knwo enough specifics.

 

[Narcogen]

Actually, The Vault has full text of the APA and TLA linked from that very article too. I also have the ELA, but in scanned form, not as text that can be easily posted as a Vault article.

Shame on me for not noticing. You are right. Now I'm off to read both of those.

For instance, the purchase price of the franchise is quoted from the APA, but not the licensing fee in the TLA, if any.

There was no actual licensing fee - the license was part of the payment for the IP.

I see. I'll look in both to see if there's written mention of the signing of the APA depending on agreement of the TLA; if so, we may safely assume that the APA price includes a "TLA discount". If not, it might still exist, but lie within the realm of a "gentlemen's agreement".

That said, the current interpreation of the agreement by Bethesda does indeed seem silly and unsupportable. I would speculate that this is their response to the judgment that Interplay is not in violation of the agreement as it stands.

While my opinion of the current management of Interplay is not stellar either, Bethesda has demonstrated that they've been acting in bad faith here.

That would seem to be the case.

I wonder when Bethesda will fire their law firm again and hire a new one (they already did it once after they failed to get a preliminary injunction against Interplay).

I suppose they'll wait for a reaction from the court, and not just public opinion.

Okay.. from the documents.

The APA requires Bethesda to execute and deliver the TLA, so there is a discount... the APA purchase price can reasonably be said to have been the agreed-upon value of the Fallout franchise, minus the agreed-upon value of the rights assigned to Interplay in the TLA. This may have been as low as zero, as Interplay was required to pay a 12% royalty to Bethesda on all cash receipts for the MMO, including subscription fees, quarterly.

Interplay was supposed to start development within 24 hours, secure $30M in financing, and release in April 2011. If they got started, but didn't launch by then, they could get a year reprieve if they could show they were about to launch. Otherwise, all rights under the TLA were supposed to terminate immediately.

I wonder why Bethesda just doesn't wait for the deadlines to pass. Bethesda gets QC rights, although section 5 is a bit nonspecific about the criteria. I can only speculate that either Bethesda wants to do the MMO themselves, or has a more reliable potential partner they need to clear the way for-- the rights granted under the TLA are also exclusive, so nobody else can do a Fallout MMO unless Interplay loses the rights.

 

[Ausir]

Interplay was supposed to start development within 24 hours, secure $30M in financing, and release in April 2011. If they got started, but didn't launch by then, they could get a year reprieve if they could show they were about to launch. Otherwise, all rights under the TLA were supposed to terminate immediately.

I wonder why Bethesda just doesn't wait for the deadlines to pass. Bethesda gets QC rights, although section 5 is a bit nonspecific about the criteria. I can only speculate that either Bethesda wants to do the MMO themselves, or has a more reliable potential partner they need to clear the way for-- the rights granted under the TLA are also exclusive, so nobody else can do a Fallout MMO unless Interplay loses the rights.

Actually, they were to have commenced full scale development by April 2009 (which Interplay claims it has done, while Bethesda claims otherwise) and secured $30 million (which Interplay claims it has done, while Bethesda claims otherwise) by this date, and release the game 4 years from the start of development, which would be in 2013, not 2011. And Interplay intends to release the game in 2012.

 

[Narcogen]

Interplay was supposed to start development within 24 hours, secure $30M in financing, and release in April 2011. If they got started, but didn't launch by then, they could get a year reprieve if they could show they were about to launch. Otherwise, all rights under the TLA were supposed to terminate immediately.

I wonder why Bethesda just doesn't wait for the deadlines to pass. Bethesda gets QC rights, although section 5 is a bit nonspecific about the criteria. I can only speculate that either Bethesda wants to do the MMO themselves, or has a more reliable potential partner they need to clear the way for-- the rights granted under the TLA are also exclusive, so nobody else can do a Fallout MMO unless Interplay loses the rights.

Actually, they were to have commenced full scale development by April 2009 (which Interplay claims it has done, while Bethesda claims otherwise) and secured $30 million (which Interplay claims it has done, while Bethesda claims otherwise) by this date, and release the game 4 years from the start of development, which would be in 2013, not 2011. And Interplay intends to release the game in 2012.

Hmm. Okay, I think I misread "24 months" as "24 hours". That may well explain why Bethsda is unwilling to wait things out, if the deadlines are further off.

However, Section 2.3 reads...

In the event that within this
24-month period Interplay has failed to commence full-scale development of its
FALLOUT MMOG or has failed to secure the Minimum Financing, Interplay will
immediately lose and permanently forfeit its license rights under this Agreement
and the license rights automatically shall end, be void and otherwise terminate
on the anniversary date of the second year after the Effective Date and this
Agreement shall no longer remain in effect.

While the date of commencing full-scale development may be open to debate, securing of minimum financing would not seem to be. How is it that Interplay can say it has secured financing, but is unable to demonstrate such to Bethesda? On the other hand, who would want to finance an Interplay-developed Fallout MMO with the new owner of the IP so openly hostile to Interplay?