Bethesda Claims Interplay Wants to "Undermine" Fallout

Recommended Videos

xxcloud417xx

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,658
0
0
InsaneOne10 said:
I'd love to see another Descent game
Amen to that. We are seriously lacking in Space Sims for the PC right now (especially since Freelancer 2 isn't coming TYVFM Microsoft)

OT though, I have to side with Bethesda, and agree with a lot of people here in saying that Interplay does not have the funding required to run an MMO. Just look at the charts people studying the amount of money WoW needs to operate just on a daily basis, It's crazy. No way Interplay has that funding.

Also, to the people that dislike the new Fallout games and think they are not truly Fallout Sequels. All I can say is that you can't use that as an argument against Bethesda reviving the series. Despite the game being bad in your opinion it sold plenty of copies and is very much alive again. Not something Interplay would have accomplished I'm very sure. So yes Bethesda HAS done a good job reviving an otherwise dead series.
 

Vault boy Eddie

New member
Feb 18, 2009
1,800
0
0
I love Fallout, I don't want to play a Interplay made Fallout MMO, especially if they are planning on butchering the canon. Interplay seems like a sinking ship trying to hold on to the imaginary dinghie that is this "game" they are working on, which I doubt is more than a bunch of people sitting around thinking about what they'd like to do, but haven't and probably won't.
 

BabyRaptor

New member
Dec 17, 2010
1,505
0
0
Wait. So they sell them use of the name (and the name only, NOTHING else), sue when the story starts becoming too like their games....And then ***** that the game isn't similar enough? Do I have that right?
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0

Ahem, sorry for that, it just kind of makes me want to punch someone in the face right now.

Okay, Interplay didn't created Fallout, it was Black Isle Studios, wich most of them are working in Obsidian right now. Interplay did some nasty stuff to the franchise back then, for example, taking out a significant quest in the Boneyard, because they seemed it as "too ambiguous" and got replaced with a boring Deathclaw nest. All of this stuff got fixed/restored by the modding community, not by Interplay and Black Isle Studios couldn't do much. They also removed the children in a latter patch, because it was "too violent".

Almost the same story with Fallout 2, too many great ideas that couldn't be done properly, because Interplay wanted the game out ASAP, one year after the previous game. Also, let's not forget that Interplay was responsible for the latter attrocities, like Fallout Tactics and *shudders* Brotherhood of Steel. And they cancelled Van Buuren.

So, yeah, Interplay can suck it. They had their chance. Get over it.
 

Necromancer1991

New member
Apr 9, 2010
805
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.
I agree with this post, Interplay is a shambling mockery of what it once was, despite the hate people seemed to pile onto New Vegas I enjoyed it and was happy they went back west for it (The only real references to the original 2 games in FO3 were Harold making a cameo and the Brotherhood of Steel). Overall although I would have been interested to see what they'd come up with the idea of a Fallout MMO seems to go against the very idea of the Fallout franchise (You are a Lone Wandered who saves the wasteland from potential destruction)
 

Duskflamer

New member
Nov 8, 2009
355
0
0
Starke said:
Remember when Interplay turned out a "Fallout Trilogy" pack a couple years ago? This is an example of that problem in motion. The package was pulled and replaced (with, I think the "Classic Fallout" pack) because the average consumer would mistakenly believe that the Fallout Trilogy would be 1, 2 and 3, not 1, 2 and Tactics.
Little bit off topic but I actually have that pack, got it fairly recently too. Gamestop was holding a sale and it caught my eye, "New, Final Clearance: 7.99." I admit that "trilogy" threw me off a bit at first, but the packaging is fairly clear about it being 1,2, and tactics, really, the only way someone would think it was 1,2, and 3, would be someone who just looked at the title and bought it without looking at anything else. Honestly, if that's the way you're going to shop you deserve to be cheated like that IMO, but if enough people complained about this I can see how it would hurt the Fallout name.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
Well, considering that Titus-Interplay made Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, they've proven already their intent to undermine the Fallout series.
Even Fallout Tactics was non-canon, even though that on didn't stink on ice.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
I'll simplify this for anyone who isn't sure who to side with in this debate.

This was the last Fallout game Bethesda developed.


Now this was the last Fallout game Interplay developed.


Sorry but unleashing that abomination on to the world is just unforgivable. Interplay had their chance with the Fallout franchise and they blew it out of the stratosphere. And I sincerely hope Bethesda does everything in their power to prevent another tragedy like that from occurring.

Edit: Looking through the thread I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers Brotherhood of Steel. Never forget people. Never forget.
 

Keldon888

New member
Apr 25, 2009
142
0
0
Bethesda is doing this for greed, yet some how it is in our best interests.

Bethesda doesn't want the MMO undermining their work, which would lessen their contribution and devalue their future Fallout products. And if the game gets made and is awful, that would devalue the next game coming out as well. So they are going out of their way to show the MMO even if it could technically be made could not be successful as it would lack all of the things Bethesda had in 3 which is when Fallout really had its resurgence into stardom.

As a result of protecting their bottom line they are really trying to guard us the gamers from a terrible game. I find it terribly amusing in our time of greed.
 

Sinisterair

New member
Oct 15, 2008
353
0
0
bombadilillo said:
robotam said:
PettingZOOPONY said:
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?

Basically there were a few requirements for Interplay to make the MMO,
1. Begin development Within 4yrs of the contract being signed
2. Raise enough money to Fund the project within those 4 years...30mil was required
3. Everything has to be checked with BethSoft or Zenimax before final development
....They didn't do any of these things, the original law suit is because BethSoft thinks Interplay is in Breach of Contract.....which in the eyes of the law...and signers of the contract they haven't held any part of there end of the deal, Interplay just needs to back the fuck off because obviously they haven't done what they were supposed to

I found the Exact artical
In November 2006, Interplay, headed by Herve Caen, filed a Form 8-K filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding a potential Fallout massively multiplayer online game.[1]. In April 2007, Bethesda Softworks, the developer of Fallout 3, purchased full rights to the Fallout IP for $5.75 million USD. While Bethesda now owned the rights to the Fallout MMO IP as well, clauses in the purchase agreement state allowed Interplay to license the rights to the development of the MMO. [2] Specific requirements were stated in the agreement that if not met, Interplay would immediately lose and forfeit its license rights for Fallout. Development must have begun within 24 months of the date of the agreement (April 4, 2007), and Interplay must have secured $30 million within that time frame or forfeit its rights to license. Interplay would furthermore need to launch the MMOG within 4 years of the beginning of development, and pay Bethesda 12 percent of sales and subscription fees for the use of the IP.

Or if you want you can just read the wholeeee lawsuit

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda_v._Interplay
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Duskflamer said:
Starke said:
Remember when Interplay turned out a "Fallout Trilogy" pack a couple years ago? This is an example of that problem in motion. The package was pulled and replaced (with, I think the "Classic Fallout" pack) because the average consumer would mistakenly believe that the Fallout Trilogy would be 1, 2 and 3, not 1, 2 and Tactics.
Little bit off topic but I actually have that pack, got it fairly recently too. Gamestop was holding a sale and it caught my eye, "New, Final Clearance: 7.99." I admit that "trilogy" threw me off a bit at first, but the packaging is fairly clear about it being 1,2, and tactics, really, the only way someone would think it was 1,2, and 3, would be someone who just looked at the title and bought it without looking at anything else. Honestly, if that's the way you're going to shop you deserve to be cheated like that IMO, but if enough people complained about this I can see how it would hurt the Fallout name.
Yeah, but you've also just defined the entire market for Asylum Films. You or I will catch that, [footnote]Hell, I actually like Tactics, so a bundle pack with that, without a disk check? I'm there.[/footnote] but what about your well meaning Aunt who doesn't know anything about Video Games, or worse someone new to gaming?
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
Most of the posts here are just fanboys of Bethesda agreeing with them because they liked Fallout 3, not because they know anything about who's legally in the right.

Full disclosure: Interplay sucks, I wouldn't want to play an MMO they make, and they likely will die off in the next year... but they're the ones in the right here. They had the rights to a Fallout MMO, and now Bethesda is trying to sue Interplay into submission because they can afford the lawyers and Interplay can't. It's petty, pathetic, childish, and will most likely work.
 

UnravThreads

New member
Aug 10, 2009
809
0
0
Pandabearparade said:
Most of the posts here are just fanboys of Bethesda agreeing with them because they liked Fallout 3, not because they know anything about who's legally in the right.

Full disclosure: Interplay sucks, I wouldn't want to play an MMO they make, and they likely will die off in the next year... but they're the ones in the right here. They had the rights to a Fallout MMO, and now Bethesda is trying to sue Interplay into submission because they can afford the lawyers and Interplay can't. It's petty, pathetic, childish, and will most likely work.
But Bethesda are in the right. It's clear by what little progress we've seen that Interplay have not fulfilled their side of the bargain. Yes, Bethesda are being dicks about this. They're taking petty shots at Interplay to undermine them. But Bethesda aren't unjustified in what they're doing. Interplay clearly haven't done what they agreed to do, and as such are forfeit to legal proceedings. If a company currently making an MMO can't afford its own legal fees (As recent events clearly show, on top of Interplay's other debts), then it's not in a position to create, run and maintain the game.

Interplay will not come out of this in any fit state. It's just speeding up the inevitable. Interplay is a sham of a company run by two of the most infamous people in gaming (The Caen Brothers, responsible for the high quality title that was Superman 64), with no well known talent still left in its stable. When Black Isle was disbanded, Obsidian was formed. Brian Fargo went and formed inXile Entertainment, responsible for the Bard's Tale remake a few years back (Brian Fargo is one of the key people for that series) and the recent Hunted: The Demon's Forge, and others appeared in places such as BioWare and likely Bethesda.
 

scott91575

New member
Jun 8, 2009
270
0
0
Both of these companies have made huge mistakes and are acting really childish. This all goes back to original contract(s) where Interplay sold their IP, but Bethesda was so anxious to get a hold of the Fallout IP they bought it with a huge loophole. That was big mistake #1. Bethesda made a huge assumption that Interplay would never be able to meet the stipulations. Since then, Interplay has done everything in their power to manipulate that loophole and stick up a middle finger to Bethesda. Like Rick James, Interplay is "a habitual line stepper." They have sold old games while tying them to Fallout 3, and ignored the contract requiring approval from Bethesda for how they sell their old games. Again, just horrible contract writing on Bethesda's part. They should have bought the old games, instead they make stipulations about how they can be sold. Yet Interplay should realize they need to get some approval from Bethesda, and from the sounds of it they simply ignored any communication with Bethesda.

Next, Interplay has proceeded with the MMO (in a very half assed manner), but from the sounds of it, have done everything they can to screw with the canon created by Bethesda. Instead of working within that framework and even working with Bethesda, they just went off on their own and did what they felt like. So now Bethesda is questioning all use of the Fallout IP outside of the name. Which of course begs the question, how do you allow a company to make a Fallout game and deny them everything about Fallout? This is the stuff the courts are wrestling with. What exactly did the contract allow Interplay to use? I think Bethesda is going too far in stating Interplay can only use the name, but Interplay keeps poking the dragon. Interplay could have probably avoided much of this by working with Bethesda. Bethesda could have avoided this by actually buying all the IP without such big loopholes. Now both are stubborn and they have to battle it out in court in order to figure out what exactly the first contract actually stipulated.

Yes, Bethesda is acting like a bully. Yet Interplay is also acting like a little child by doing everything in their power to screw with Bethesda and manipulate the contract as much as they can. Essentially, they sold their IP, got the cash, and now are acting like they never sold anything.

In the end, the original contracts were simply horrible, and the actions of both companies have made it worse. This will have to be decided in the courts, and one company will look like a huge fool.
 

Desert Tiger

New member
Apr 25, 2009
846
0
0
Pandabearparade said:
Most of the posts here are just fanboys of Bethesda agreeing with them because they liked Fallout 3, not because they know anything about who's legally in the right.

Full disclosure: Interplay sucks, I wouldn't want to play an MMO they make, and they likely will die off in the next year... but they're the ones in the right here. They had the rights to a Fallout MMO, and now Bethesda is trying to sue Interplay into submission because they can afford the lawyers and Interplay can't. It's petty, pathetic, childish, and will most likely work.
Kinda funny how you're saying nobody knows anything about who's legally in the right. Did you happen to read the actual terms of the agreement? Here, another member graciously already posted it about two posts up from you:

tonyl said:
Basically there were a few requirements for Interplay to make the MMO,
1. Begin development Within 4yrs of the contract being signed
2. Raise enough money to Fund the project within those 4 years...30mil was required
3. Everything has to be checked with BethSoft or Zenimax before final development
....They didn't do any of these things, the original law suit is because BethSoft thinks Interplay is in Breach of Contract.....which in the eyes of the law...and signers of the contract they haven't held any part of there end of the deal, Interplay just needs to back the fuck off because obviously they haven't done what they were supposed to

I found the Exact artical
In November 2006, Interplay, headed by Herve Caen, filed a Form 8-K filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding a potential Fallout massively multiplayer online game.[1]. In April 2007, Bethesda Softworks, the developer of Fallout 3, purchased full rights to the Fallout IP for $5.75 million USD. While Bethesda now owned the rights to the Fallout MMO IP as well, clauses in the purchase agreement state allowed Interplay to license the rights to the development of the MMO. [2] Specific requirements were stated in the agreement that if not met, Interplay would immediately lose and forfeit its license rights for Fallout. Development must have begun within 24 months of the date of the agreement (April 4, 2007), and Interplay must have secured $30 million within that time frame or forfeit its rights to license. Interplay would furthermore need to launch the MMOG within 4 years of the beginning of development, and pay Bethesda 12 percent of sales and subscription fees for the use of the IP.

Or if you want you can just read the wholeeee lawsuit

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Bethesda_v._Interplay
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Bethesda Softworks has filed a new motion for an injunction against Fallout Online, claiming that Interplay is trying to undermine the canon established in Fallout 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Fallout-3-Game-Year-Pc/dp/B002BXKJA0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1307639073&sr=8-3] and beyond with non-canon work set in a different era.
Considering the liberties Bethesda took with original Fallout 1&2 canon when making 3, I find that a bit on the hypocritical side. Don't get me wrong, 3 was a great game, but it did f*ck about with established canon. That's the main overriding reason I cut F:NV so much slack - it tries to get the series back on track after Bethesda's 'homage'.
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
craddoke said:
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.
George Lucas owns the rights to the Star Wars franchise, so you can't really sue him for doing bad things with it. Bethesda owns the Fallout Franchise now, so they can actually sue Interplay for undermining and misuse of their property.