Interplay Claims It Could Take Back Fallout
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm going to be blunt. You're wrong. The timetable was not to make the game quickly, it was to start by April 2009, which they did, and finish by April 2012. Bethesda tried to sue because they wanted the rights back, trying to make the claim that they weren't far enough along. This got thrown out because it was bullshit. Then Bethesda followed up with this suit saying they could only use the name Fallout and nothing else. Interplay has kept up there end of the deal.Starke said:
As for taking back the IP, if the MMO rights were part of the same contract as the one granting Bethesda the IP, it's possible that Interplay could get the rights back. This is because Bethesda's actions make for a fairly solid suit if they want to have the contract nullified. This current suit is practically the definition of Bad Faith Negotiations.
Not to burst your bubble but there stating Beth can make Up to the 5th Fallout And its Fallout 3mjc0961 said:
Fallout Nv(4) Then the 5th, its counting NV as the 4th in the series
People cant count. 
And lets be clear interplay cannot run a business. Back in the day interplay had any number of great games that sold well, not just black isle but interplay was a pretty prominent name in the games world back when EA was a game maker not a publisher, and lucasarts made good star wars games.
Yet despite the fact that in my game library and many people game library interplay existed any number of interplay titles, interplay continued to hemmorage money, like wtf.
Did bethesda really purchase the rights in "good faith" i say hell no. It was pretty clear they knew they had a bunch of business idiots on the phone that had a potentially huge ip on their hands, and hammered out a deal involving a MMO. A MMO is the most difficult thing in the games world to do proper it requires mountains of time and money. If interplays idea was to angle for the mmo they should have been smacked by their business lawyers, and interplay agreeing to a strict timetable their lawyers should have hung their clients.
beth constantly nannying them from day 1 was a clear sign that beth had no faith the interplay could follow through on the mmo on any timetable. beth also pulled a rather dickish move when the fallout bundle came out throwing a tantrum that the bundle would confuse gamers, that could nto keep bethesda fallout 3d game seperate from black isle isometric 2d sprite games.....
I think any good will here is wholly imagined, bethesda knew they caught a fish and were going to jerk that fish around hard. Neither company has acted in good faith, bethesda games are wholly overrated, but interplay has done nothing worth mention in nearly 15 years either, and even when they were showed an extreme knack of not being able to make money.
And lets be clear interplay cannot run a business. Back in the day interplay had any number of great games that sold well, not just black isle but interplay was a pretty prominent name in the games world back when EA was a game maker not a publisher, and lucasarts made good star wars games.
Yet despite the fact that in my game library and many people game library interplay existed any number of interplay titles, interplay continued to hemmorage money, like wtf.
Did bethesda really purchase the rights in "good faith" i say hell no. It was pretty clear they knew they had a bunch of business idiots on the phone that had a potentially huge ip on their hands, and hammered out a deal involving a MMO. A MMO is the most difficult thing in the games world to do proper it requires mountains of time and money. If interplays idea was to angle for the mmo they should have been smacked by their business lawyers, and interplay agreeing to a strict timetable their lawyers should have hung their clients.
beth constantly nannying them from day 1 was a clear sign that beth had no faith the interplay could follow through on the mmo on any timetable. beth also pulled a rather dickish move when the fallout bundle came out throwing a tantrum that the bundle would confuse gamers, that could nto keep bethesda fallout 3d game seperate from black isle isometric 2d sprite games.....
I think any good will here is wholly imagined, bethesda knew they caught a fish and were going to jerk that fish around hard. Neither company has acted in good faith, bethesda games are wholly overrated, but interplay has done nothing worth mention in nearly 15 years either, and even when they were showed an extreme knack of not being able to make money.
This happens quite often. It's probably because all a company cares about in the end is money. That's my opinion anyway.Kakashi on crack said:
Really, who cares?
As long as we still get Fallout games, this doesn't affect us, and frankly, the world doesn't need another MMO.
As long as we still get Fallout games, this doesn't affect us, and frankly, the world doesn't need another MMO.
Fallout 2 had real weapons. The Pancor Jackhammer and HK CAWS were in both games.Starke said:
Seeing as how Interplay made this absolute abomination of a Fallout game, I don't think they should be allowed anywhere near the franchise.
There are two types of people who think Fallout 3 was the worst thing to happen to the Fallout franchise. Those who never played Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. And those who work for the Bawls* energy drink company.
*[sub]In Fallout Brotherhood of Steel all references to Nuka Cola were replaced with Bawls energy drink. I'm not making that up.[/sub]
how about, they release the deal that was signed by the two companies. am i missing something? is there somewhere where we can LOOK at what exactly the deal actually WAS, instead of just listening to these two companies *****?
also, seems bizarre that interplay would sell them any rights, then try to make the exact same game years laters to surf off bethesdas success (or if it failed, their failure), but as an MMO, which takes a much higher budget to not only build, but to maintain.
really, just seems like two greedy companies fighting to the death for their juicy money maker, however that success came FROM bethesda and fallout 3, not saying the original FO's were bad, they were great, but interplays interest to make a current gen fallout game only came after bethesdas success. they had more then enough time to make their own FO3.
TL;DR: overall, i really dont have a side. not until i can see what the actual deal WAS, and not what these greedy rep's SAY they were.
also, seems bizarre that interplay would sell them any rights, then try to make the exact same game years laters to surf off bethesdas success (or if it failed, their failure), but as an MMO, which takes a much higher budget to not only build, but to maintain.
really, just seems like two greedy companies fighting to the death for their juicy money maker, however that success came FROM bethesda and fallout 3, not saying the original FO's were bad, they were great, but interplays interest to make a current gen fallout game only came after bethesdas success. they had more then enough time to make their own FO3.
TL;DR: overall, i really dont have a side. not until i can see what the actual deal WAS, and not what these greedy rep's SAY they were.
Interplay did fail to meet the financial requirements, but their claim (which is pretty strong on this, actually), is that they failed to do so because Bethesda acted in bad faith from the beginning, never actually intending for them to be able to finish the game, and tried to stop them from making the game by any means necessary even before the deadline.
Yeah, I knew about the Bawls thing, I'd just repressed it for years. Thanks, that's years of therapy down the drain.CD-R said:
Okay, yeah there were real weapons in Fallout 2, in fact there were two in the original game, the Winchester Widowmaker (though I believe that's actually a semiautomatic shotgun), and the Desert Eagle .44. There were a few others in Fallout 2, the FN FAL and the Bozar are the two that come to mind, though I suspect the .44 magnum revolver was another real gun. The Jackhammer is a "kinda", the gun did exist, but it never went into production. The HK CAWS in Fallout 2 is NOT the same weapon as the real world counterpart, like the P90c and (I believe) the G11, the CAWS in FO2 used a different ammunition from any real prototype. (It used a non-standard 12 gauge cartridge.)
The difference was, that ignoring the energy weapons, heavy weapons, and a handful of outliers, the bulk of the firearms in Tactics were either real firearms or very near approximations (though it did bring back the 9mm P90s and the 12 Gauge CAWS). I mean, I'm kinda chewing on minutiae here, but for the most part Fallout's setting followed a vastly different armament setting until Tactics came along, the bulk of the weapons were fictitious, and then suddenly we're equipping UZIs, Barreta 92s, M1911s, AK-47s, SIG 220s, Remington 870s and M79s... it did strike me as more than a little jarring... no offense. And in a way, it's one of the biggest (by volume) departures from the existing setting, up to that point. So, you're right, but...
Anyway, I may have just wasted five minutes of your life... sorry for that.
EDIT: I double checked, the G11 and the G11-e both used the "correct" ammo in Fallout 2. (4.7mm caseless)
It wasn't start, it was achieve X amount of funds and start. IIRC the claim was that they hadn't obtained sufficient backing by the deadline. I also don't remember reading about this getting thrown out, but that one's on me.infinity_turtles said:
Bad faith actions, not negotiations. Sorry, that's a minor quibble. If the behavior is in bad faith it occurred long after the contract entered into effect, so if it is in fact bad faith negotiations, then you'd have to prove that this was in fact their intent from the beginning, which would be hell.infinity_turtles said:
Anyway, if the contract is null there's a pretty solid case for Bethesda to demand it's money back as part of the ruling/settlement/mediation/live iguana wrangling session. Which in turn could get pretty messy. Honestly, given how far it's gone so far, I seriously doubt the IP is going to get passed back over to Interplay. Best case for Interplay it gains a permanent right to the MMO IPs.
I mean it's one thing to say that a contract was negotiated in bad faith or the parties acted in bad faith, but it's another to tell someone that just spent 50m on an IP that the IP has reverted due to actions that were entirely under the control of the company they bought it from.
Except, if you turn it around... Interplay sells the IP with the provision that they get to work on an MMO. Then, they get the MMO ready to roll, but claim they're behind the mark in order to provoke Bethesda into telling them to stop. They deliberately provoke it into a court case by refusing to settle or mediate... and now they're looking at reclaiming the license because they provoked the other party into behaving in "bad faith"... call me crazy but that sounds like a plan.Ausir said:
Because it's not about developers. It's about who publishes. This isn't about developing games at all. This is about making money and getting (intellectual) property.Alandoril said:
New Vegas proves that Bethesda doesn't care about who develops the game, only who publishes it. To a lesser extent Tactics and BoS proved the same for Interplay.
Everyone keeps saying that good ol' Bethesda are being dicks about this, but no one seems to be question Interplays angle,. ok heres somthing for you all to think on. When Interplay sold the IP thay had no money, they where going down hill fast and as such the "at the time" dead fallout IP was never going to have another game under its belt. Off it goes to Bethesda who not only resurect the whole IP at there own cost but bring it up to AAA status and quality.
(Im ignoring the bugs for the purpose of this post. . . actuly no, with the ammount of bugs in most AAA titles nowerdays the bugs can be recognised and the game can keep its AAA title)
Ok so now fallout is big, a "household name" among gamers, now Interplay knowing the rights for the single play RPG fallout are gone is trying to wiggle out an MMO. Now heres a question and i want you to answer without looking it up, what was the last game released by Interplay?
Dont know or are Unsure? ok next question,
What was the last GOOD game Interplay released?
. . .
. . .
Yeah, there you go. Bethesda has put fallout back on the map, they Have made Fallout a big AAA title at huge expence, now the company that sold the rights to them that hasnt made a good game that you can name probebly since Fallout 2 wants to make an MMO and Advertise it as fallout Online, using the name that Bethesda have made big again but keeping all the profit for themselves.
Interplay may make a truely awesome fallout MMO that will up the sales of Bethesda's single play fallout titles and increase Bethesda's profits, on the other hand Interplay was responcable for Superman 64, and a bad fallout MMO could rip down the now quite good name of fallout that Bethesda have built up, loosing Bethesda revinue on an IP that they paid to buy, to develop and market.
What Bethesda is realy saying is "I cant take the risk that you might screw this up as you wont just screw it up for yourself, but for us too" and as far as im concerned thats fair enough realy.
(Im ignoring the bugs for the purpose of this post. . . actuly no, with the ammount of bugs in most AAA titles nowerdays the bugs can be recognised and the game can keep its AAA title)
Ok so now fallout is big, a "household name" among gamers, now Interplay knowing the rights for the single play RPG fallout are gone is trying to wiggle out an MMO. Now heres a question and i want you to answer without looking it up, what was the last game released by Interplay?
Dont know or are Unsure? ok next question,
What was the last GOOD game Interplay released?
. . .
. . .
Yeah, there you go. Bethesda has put fallout back on the map, they Have made Fallout a big AAA title at huge expence, now the company that sold the rights to them that hasnt made a good game that you can name probebly since Fallout 2 wants to make an MMO and Advertise it as fallout Online, using the name that Bethesda have made big again but keeping all the profit for themselves.
Interplay may make a truely awesome fallout MMO that will up the sales of Bethesda's single play fallout titles and increase Bethesda's profits, on the other hand Interplay was responcable for Superman 64, and a bad fallout MMO could rip down the now quite good name of fallout that Bethesda have built up, loosing Bethesda revinue on an IP that they paid to buy, to develop and market.
What Bethesda is realy saying is "I cant take the risk that you might screw this up as you wont just screw it up for yourself, but for us too" and as far as im concerned thats fair enough realy.