Interplay Loses Rights to Fallout MMO
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If they weren't planning on making an MMO, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the lawsuit. The contract already provided them with a decent flow of money just for providing the rights, and they would have known from the beginning that this was going to be a pretty hefty court case. The only reason I can think of for them to pursue it would be to get rid of the potential awkwardness of two, separate Fallout MMOs. This is all just a wild man's guesswork, but I consider it to be organized guesswork.Vault101 said:
Anyway, Bethesda Softworks is in possession of the rights now, not Bethesda Game Studios, the actual development team. If my guesswork is accurate, Softworks will probably farm out the MMO to a studio they keep on a tighter leash, and just let Game Studios keep developing single-player games. Wouldn't really make sense to turn around your experienced team of single-player RPG developers and make them create an MMO. Be sort of like hiring a five-star chef to design you a house.
I wanted to write a long thesis style response (yes this is me keeping it brief), but I lack the energy to put vigor into it especially considering that if you can write a post that way off base and missed even my most obvious points then there is very little hope that this post will fare any better.Sucal said:
However, I will say this.
Many people make settlements in the law every day even when they are in the right, because of external reasons to right or wrong in the law. I know because I am one, and I am certain I am not the only one. Interplay could easily be in the right, but choose to settle the agreement because they know they cant continue paying the lawyers to keep the fight going as just one of MANY examples of how people will willingly give up being right in the law in exchange for what is logical or practical. Interplay was in the right. They were moving along with the MMO just as the agreement had stated, until Bethesda started to interject into it wanting the rest of the IP for themselves that they had no claim to, and started using litigated force to break down their resistance and take it from them.
Oblivion, Fallout3, New Vegas, Skyrim, are all using in essence the same engine, and in some cases reuse the same assets paired into twos. They all four use the same narrative tropes, and exhibit the same gameplay mechanics. Dont forget that from development standpoint, building an engine, creating assets, are the hardest developmental stages. writing the narrative, scripting it out are fairly easy (just look at how quickly any company can pump out narrative driven DLC once the toolset has been created, or how quickly amature modders can craft their own with small teams) Or for that matter how long it takes for an establish IP to get its next installment released on a new console and how quickly the next installment after that is ready to go. Or, yeah, just look at how the industry works. its all right there.
They are not sequels in a narrative context, but in gameplay they are the same thing, so perhaps sequel isnt the best term, but would Regurgitated installment been preferable?
Seriously. What exactly can you point out thats unique to any of these 4 titles? Cause anything you can point to as "keeping it different" I can point to something showing where its been done before or its an irrelevant factor. (Irrelevant as in Obsidian being the "developers" of New Vegas considering the oversight was done by bethesda, the tools belonged to them, and many of the early assets are directly pooled from Fallout 3)
I purposely portray Bethsda in the same light as Activisions developer teams because Bethesda is trying to become the activision of RPGs. Their Standard operating procedure is mirroring them, the time tables they are working on mirrors them. Their level of sphincterocity in dealing with customers and or the industry mirrors them. Hell they might as well be them and drawing that comparison is a fair comparison to make because they are both guilty of the same things. Only difference is Bethesda is just later to the game Activision and EA have been playing, in part because they had to first set the precedent, and in part because an RPG, even a copy pasta one, takes longer to copy pasta than a FPS or Madden title as there is simply more content at the base level.
So is there anyone who does open worlds better than Bethesda? Yes, basically anyone who tries, because honestly what you get out of any Bethesda title is literally like scraping the bottom of the barrel with modified decade old engine and a constant stream of unimaginative, bland and regurgitated narrative expositions that play out like they were slightly modified from files found on tvtropes and a gameplay mechanic that was pretty unimpressive back in 2004. Couple all that with an often rushed and extensively buggy release and you find yourself with a very subpar product that rabid fanboys blind themselves to all the glaring flaws present.
But you know what.. you wont see any of this. Ive just wasted my time because surely nothing I just said made any sense, and it must be blatantly wrong with absolutely no bearing in reality. Yep, that must be it. Sorry for that. You were right. Just ignore this post all together.
EDIT: Also, the assessment that Bethesda ever owned the IP is blatantly incorrect. Go back and read the actual terms of the agreement. Interplay licensed the franchise to Bethesda and it was set to return to Interplay after Bethesda made 3 installments in exchange for Interplay being able to make the MMO. So the other assessment is correct. Bethesda used their overwhelming monetary clout to strong arm interplay into conceding any and all claims to the property. Really it is completely irrelevant if this incarnation of Interplay has nothing to do with the orignal interplay. What this is about is a company, who has made more profit than they know what to do with, utilizing it to buy out companies, and use litigation to crush competition so they can make even more money and expand that even further.
Hal10k said:
Bethesda has a sister-company that was founded for the purposes of making MMOs, Zenimax Online Studios. ZOS has been working on their own project for a few years now, and during the legal proceedings it was confirmed that game doesn't involve Fallout in any way. It seems unlikely that the Fallout MMO rights would be licensed to someone else in the near future: this would require going outside the Zenimax Media family of studios and such a game would potentially be in competition with ZOS's. I think it's far more likely that Bethesda has no short term plans for the license, and it will lie dormant until ZOS is available for a new game. If their current project is successful that means it could be years before they're considering something like this.Hal10k said:
When this dispute began Bethesda basically accused Interplay of not having the resources or money to produce this game. I suspect Bethesda felt the project was doomed to fail or would be poor quality, either of which could have harmed the Fallout brand.
It's for the best. If I want a good Fallout game to be made, I want it to be done by Interplay. If, on the other hand, the IP is going to be shat on from a great height, Bethesda are the guys for the job. That's what they already make anyway: singleplayer MMO's.
Every part of my being stands behind the "Bethesda is the better choice" argument for developing future titles... except that one part that's reminded just how terrible New Vegas was. I'm not just talking bugs either- 99% of that game was reused assets from Fallout 3. Even most of the 'new' enemies were just reskins of Fallout 3 ones with the same AI (remember those spore carriers? Revisit the Pitt and they might seem familiar)
That said I doubt Interplay has much more to swing in the way of budget. They have been pretty much living in obscurity since the 90's.
That said I doubt Interplay has much more to swing in the way of budget. They have been pretty much living in obscurity since the 90's.
Hal10k said:
The real reason why Bethesda went to law is to protect their investment. They bought the licence from Interplay and spent maybe around $30-50 million on advertising Fallout bringing an old IP back from the dead. Along come interplay who want to capitalise on that expenditure by making an MMO and freeload on Bethesda's advertising campaigns. Also if the new MMO is jut plain bad, it will more than likely have a knock on affect on the reputation of the Fallout games made by Bethesda.
Kinda sucks, but if Bethesda keeps working with Obsidian on the whole Fallout thing, I will be one happy fan...even if I do miss the original Black Isle ones (probably why I liked New Vegas so much). I like Interplay a lot; apart from Fallout, they also published ANOTHER childhood favorite of mine: Wild 9
Was it as romantic, to paraphrase the OP, to have had FNV made by much of FO and FO2's original dev team, now at Obsidian? I have nothing against Interplay, particularly as in this battle they were defending their legal, contracted rights. If they're happy with the settlement, good for them. It's cool that the case is closed though I am kinda glad Bethesda will take the helm.
FO3 was brilliant, I've replayed it maybe twice which is a lot of hours. Include the fun had with mods, the toolkit, love it. Bethesda don't make good games, they make great games.
Saying that, as much as I enjoyed FO3 and FNV, I can't see an MMO succeeding. It's one thing to make a great single player game, even one with tons of replayability and extra content (in-house and community made). It's another entirely to make an MMO with a big enough world, community features, economy, story, questing, character progression, challenges and content. And with SWTOR out now, the bar is set very high indeed. To beat TOR or the undisputed king, WoW it has to be a sensational MMO...being a good or even very good game simply set in Fallout universe won't be enough. Maybe a F2P game...
I mean if IPs like Lord of the Rings, DCUO, Matrix and even Star Trek can only make above average games, what chance does Fallout have? WoW was unexpected...I can't understand how it had so many players...possibly a blizzard thing. Going back to Warcraft III, the only IP that can come close to it is Command & Conquer....but EA tore Westwood to shreds so *shrug*
FO3 was brilliant, I've replayed it maybe twice which is a lot of hours. Include the fun had with mods, the toolkit, love it. Bethesda don't make good games, they make great games.
Saying that, as much as I enjoyed FO3 and FNV, I can't see an MMO succeeding. It's one thing to make a great single player game, even one with tons of replayability and extra content (in-house and community made). It's another entirely to make an MMO with a big enough world, community features, economy, story, questing, character progression, challenges and content. And with SWTOR out now, the bar is set very high indeed. To beat TOR or the undisputed king, WoW it has to be a sensational MMO...being a good or even very good game simply set in Fallout universe won't be enough. Maybe a F2P game...
I mean if IPs like Lord of the Rings, DCUO, Matrix and even Star Trek can only make above average games, what chance does Fallout have? WoW was unexpected...I can't understand how it had so many players...possibly a blizzard thing. Going back to Warcraft III, the only IP that can come close to it is Command & Conquer....but EA tore Westwood to shreds so *shrug*
Not seen you around since Euro-Morrowind and the even earlier days of the TES forums. Nice to see you still kicking around, HD.Hungry Donner said:
Yeah, it's a good thing the franchise is in the terrible hands of Bethesda who had Obsidian develop a Fallout game.viranimus said:
Obsidian who has a lot of the people who worked on Fallout and Fallout 2 for Interplay, meanwhile Interplay contains next to nobody who actually worked on either of those games. But I guess if you're just looking to be angry for the sake of being angry (HINT: you are), I guess this is as good a reason as any.
Then you actually hated the original Fallout games I presume?viranimus said:
Then I suggest you might wish to read my followup post that explains why Bethesda and conversely obsidian were bad hands for the franchise.Frostbite3789 said:
My support of interplay has nothing to do with nostalgia of Interplay of old. My support of interplay is because legally they were in the right and they got crushed by the devil they made their Faustian deal with.viranimus said:
viranimus said:
Your assumption is quite correct predominatly because I did not play them near their release. I played them in like 2009/2010 where I was not wearing nostalgia goggles and found them to be infuriatingly tedious, poorly made, unintuitive and unenjoyable junk. Let me clarify. I dont care about the original team who made the original fallout games. My point is not the development of the content. The point is the problem with the industry (and honestly consumer based capitalism in general) that this scenario represents.
However, your assessment of being angry just to be angry is way off base and incorrect. Ive watched this for quite a while now (since just before the release of Fallout 3) and have supported interplay in this fully the whole way. (Partly cause I hoped it would bring the company back to enough level of capability to create a new Descent game instead of allowing the IP to fall into obscurity with the possible death of the IP holder)
Hardly surprising, given Interplay's history since the original sale of the Fallout IP. Seems to me that most of the folks that made Interplay Interplay have moved on, leaving only the name behind.Andy Chalk said:
Bethesda has done an excellent job updating the game, turning it into a first-person experience, and (with the exception of parts of New Vegas) maintaining the tone of the originals. More than once while playing Bethesda's games, I've found myself already thinking, "Man, I wish I could play this with friends."
The property is in the right hands.
I'd like to clear up a little of what appears to be misunderstanding here.viranimus said:
Bethesda made an offer when Interplay was in financial trouble. Interplay said, "No," and made a massive counter-offer. Bethesda said, "No," and Interplay said, "Okay, we'll go with your price but we retain the rights to make an MMO."
Bethesda then said, "Okay, but there are some conditions:
1. You have to secure funding by X date.
2. You have to begin development by Y date.
3. You have to finish by Z date."
While Interplay technically fulfilled the first two requirements (they got someone to write them a little check before the deadline, and they threw together a couple art assets so they could say, "See? Development!"), they didn't fulfill the third. What's more, Bethesda was basically arguing that their "fulfillment" of the first two points was not a good-faith attempt to begin, but rather a token effort just to keep the IP in their pocket -- like me doodling some numbers on a post-it to show my boss, "See? I'm working!" Further support for this idea came in the form of Interplay's continued financial insolvency.
Is it possible that Bethesda named these terms specifically because they expected Interplay would fail to meet them? Sure, it's possible. Maybe even likely. But Interplay had two chances: They had the chance to work hard and meet the terms, and before that they had the chance to say, "No deal."
I bought and started playing the original Fallout like a month ago and am loving it so far. Odd.viranimus said:
Anyway, I really don't want there to be a Fallout MMO at all. It'd probably spell the end of the IP, and it's my favourite IP. =[
It also would probably not even be good, due to the problems people have already pointed out in this thread.
Bethesda wasn't the publisher of Interplay's Fallout MMO.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
A better example would be the C. S. Lewis estate licensing the Narnia film rights to the Walden Media publishing company. The estate wasn't involved in making the movies, funding the movies, or ensuring that they were made - it was simply giving Walden Media permission to work on the project. If Walden had failed to produce any films eventually the agreement would have expired and returned to the estate. (As it is the license has expired and has yet to be renewed.)
Similarly, Bethesda gave Interplay permission to work on a Fallout MMO, providing they met certain requirements in a certain time frame. Interplay (who is a publisher) was responsible for securing funding, getting the game developed, and publishing it.