By Kieron Gillen on September 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm.
This broke on Friday, but RPS were dividing and conquering across the world, requiring Kadayi – cheers! – to bring it to our attention. In short, Gamasutra reports that the coldness between Interplay (Original Fallout IP holders) and Bethesda (Purchaser of the Fallout IP) has crossed into an actual legal suit. However, it isn’t about the MMO situation, as described in the link. It’s to prevent any further distribution of the compilation Fallout Trilogy’s sales via Digital Download companies causing “immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm”. Do read the whole thing, and a little industry thought below…
I actually don’t really believe this is primarily about selling the older games. This is a high-level tactical battle between companies, with one trying to secure rights. The fact that – according to Bethesda – that they didn’t actually get their approval for packaging, advertising and promotional material means that Interplay are in breach of contract. This will be a step towards them acquiring the MMO rights back.
(Bethesda bought the IP, then leased the rights for the MMO back to Interplay. Seriously, go read the full story)
In other words, as pure business, this strikes me as a pretty smart.
As a developer of Fallout games, this is openly outrageous.
I’m not even someone who is particularly devoted to the original games, and I’m outraged. Bethesda’s buying of the rights was controversial, but the developers have constantly said how big fans they were of the original games. To my mind, the case counters that. This case simply says the company believes that anyone having access to those games would confuse and devalue the brand – because they’re using the original art which hasn’t been through Bethesda’s hand. At the best, it says they’re of historical interest, but pretty much should be kept in museums. Fundamentally, they’d rather people not have the chance to play Fallout at all if it’s not in a Bethesda-approved box.
Obviously, this almost certainly came from the business side, but it’s put everyone on the Fallout 3 team in an enormously difficult position, no matter what the reason. The next time they talk about how much they like Fallout, someone is going to say “You like it so much that you stop people from buying and playing it?”. Because answering “That wasn’t about the game – that was about the logos” implies that you care far more about the logos than the actual games themselves. And what gamer would argue that?
14/09/2009 at 13:03 Frenz0rz says:
Oooh bugger, thats not good news at all. Hopefully this will all die down, instead of being a sign of things to come.
14/09/2009 at 13:04 KindGalaxy says:
Well yeah, it is smart business. After the success of Fallout 3, and the DLC of Fallout 3 they now want to encompass any and all game sales, game development into their company. Honestly, the Fallout brand, and any Fallout game, MMO or not, will be better delivered from the hands of Bethesda than any other company since lets not forget Interplay were and always were a publisher of the Fallout games, Black Isle Studios was the developer of 1 and 2, Bethesda the developer of 3. What farm would Interplay develop a Fallout MMO in? One that would cause a nuclear meltdown on not just NMA but the new FO3 fans, MMO fans, and any remotely interested in sneaking behind a dude, putting a landmine in their backpocket and watching them explode.
14/09/2009 at 13:06 Heliocentric says:
Are you sure this isn’t more about fallout trillogy implying that fallout 3 is involved?
14/09/2009 at 13:08 Latro says:
I disagree. This only makes me angry at Bethesda and makes me think I’m going to boycott them.
For once, the classics games are available so new generations can enjoy them, and thats “damage” to Bethesda?
Lets give them more damage then.
And yes, it may be good “business” sense… except the business they have is in managing a fan base. Way to go to alienate it.
14/09/2009 at 13:09 Dan Lawrence says:
That’d make sense to me. I’m guessing there is a real risk of confusion of an uninformed gamer picking up the trilogy thinking he is getting the Bethesda game as well if the boxart doesn’t make the facts explicit.
14/09/2009 at 13:10 Nevarion says:
Business as usual and a shame for that! Least for me as a gamer, I tend to take a less of a… ‘opportunistic’ point of view on a game(/toy).
I may see the reasoning if it comes down to bucks only but at the same time I certainly despise this behavior.
14/09/2009 at 13:10 Ergates says:
Even if they’re legally in the right, I can’t see that this is a good move from Bethseda. They must have noticed the reaction towards their buying of the rights in the first place – how exactly did they think this come across?
If the article is correct, then it doesn’t ring true that this is all about getting back the MMO rights either. Is says the contract stipulates that interplay a) must start fullscale development of the MMO by 4th April ’09, and b) that they must secure $30 million in funding withing 24 months too. If Interplay haven’t met these requirements they the rights should return to Bethseda. (or is that too easy)
This is what happen when people listen to lawyers.
14/09/2009 at 13:13 Heliocentric says:
Read it again, i agree with the post its just an ip grab.
14/09/2009 at 13:17 ChaosSmurf says:
“And yes, it may be good “business” sense… except the business they have is in managing a fan base. Way to go to alienate it.”
Their business is selling games.
14/09/2009 at 13:18 smiler says:
Bethesda In Money Grab Shock!
Is anyone genuinely suprised by this?
Now to just add Bethesda to my little book of grudges…
14/09/2009 at 13:22 AsubstanceD says:
Just shows how important advertising and marketing are considered to these big game development companies. They do not believe it is good enough to develop a good game, or even market just their own game to death, but also necessary to limit the types of games which could become popular (polarize the market). The fact that they are trying to control a push for the sale of past games just goes to show that they really do not respect the previous Fallout games like they claim (which is the impression I got from playing Obli… Fallout 3 anyway).
14/09/2009 at 13:25 Senethro says:
Ugh, 10 posts in and the b-word has already been thrown about. Boy howdy I can’t wait for yet more boycott websites to spring up.
14/09/2009 at 13:25 Hmm-Hmm. says:
Ugh. Bunch of bastards. Legality and rights aside, that’s a nasty move.
Then again, I’ve never even bought a Bethesda game.. but on the other hand, I do love Fallout.
14/09/2009 at 13:30 neems says:
Perhaps it would have helped if Bethesda hadn’t used the title ‘Fallout 3′, as you do get 3 games in the ‘Fallout Trilogy’ set, even if FO3 isn’t one of them.
14/09/2009 at 13:32 Risingson says:
Cinism time, I guess. Of course ‘someone’ could get confused over the Fallout trilogy, as many people use to have the attention capability of an ameba. Of course this is about selling games. Now, the question is : how, really, could perjudice selling the old Fallouts to the sales of the new ones? No way, simply. Now, if we accept that a company like Bethesda can really ignore the fan and put their comercial interests explicitly and cinically above the gamers, we could also just send them money for existing.
14/09/2009 at 13:33 Allandaros says:
“Bethesda’s buying of the rights was controversial, but the developers have constantly said how big fans they were of the original games. To my mind, the case counters that.”
Just remember that devs being big fans is very different from the legal department being big fans, alas.
14/09/2009 at 13:34 vasagi says:
Boycott, the new internet “you suck, your games suck, dev suck and my mom sucks” for whiners allez uber the platz
14/09/2009 at 13:37 Optimaximal says:
As Heliocentric touches on, are we not sure that it’s Bethesda getting irate with Interplay change the title of the bundle(s) from Fallout Collection to Fallout Trilogy, which might well be where all the ‘artwork’ and ‘boxart’ claims come from?
Bethesda and ZeniMax spent almost the entire of F3′s development ice-skating uphill against the fanbase and I don’t think anyone in their company is stupid enough to start throwing their weight around needlessly.
14/09/2009 at 13:43 Flibberdy says:
It looks like Interplay decided to ignore their contract and didn’t submit the old FO imagery to Bethesda so they could OK it. Not that I agree with what Bethesda’s done, per se, but we don’t know what led up to this legal hoohaa. For all we know Bethesda asked nicely a bunch of times and then when they got tired of being ignored they did this.
Then again, it could just be Bethesda sticking their finger up to people who want to buy the originals.
14/09/2009 at 13:45 Greg Wild says:
Honestly, I’ve got no time for Interplay. They’ve spent years arsing around trying to scrape something together, and I’ve got very little sympathy for what is evidently a failed endevour. The debate over distribution rights is perhaps a bit of a dodgy move by Beth, but ultimately Beth is hardly going to take FO1/2/T off Steam when they’ve got their own stuff up on there anyway – hopefully they’ll just use it as an opportunity to take advantage of GoG. At least we might see Skynet up on there.
Honestly, the sooner people realise Interplay is a thoroughly spent force, the better.
14/09/2009 at 13:48 Latro says:
Of course the business is selling games.
To who exactly is what this kind of thing makes one think they arent sure.
14/09/2009 at 13:55 Schadenfreude says:
In other news, Bethesda has been seen having an intimate dinner with Timothy Langdell.
14/09/2009 at 13:56 pkt-zer0 says:
“For all we know Bethesda asked nicely a bunch of times and then when they got tired of being ignored they did this.”
Ausir suggests that the opposite is the case. Bethesda never intended to approve any material Interplay sent to them.
14/09/2009 at 14:00 CMaster says:
While you can see that some people may pick up the “Fallout Trilogy” expecting to get FO1, 2, 3 in there, nobody is going to continue making that mistake having played it. I really don’t see them losing any sales long-term.
Once again, I wish developers made new games rather than sequels and remakes, so this sort of battle wouldn’t happen and companies wouldn’t waste millions on liscencing.
14/09/2009 at 14:03 JuJuCam says:
As I understand it Bethesda are basically claiming that consumers think that FO1, 2 and Tactics are Bethesda produced games? Umm… Really?
14/09/2009 at 14:03 der Rudi says:
Obviously people who do not read labels…
14/09/2009 at 14:04 Lilliput King says:
From what I’ve heard, “a thoroughly spent force” is right. Bethesda is a vast development powerhouse (no matter what you think of their games), but Interplay’s glory days are over. Word is they barely have any capital.
Bethesda knows this, and knew this when they short term leased Interplay the rights for the MMO – they knew Interplay didn’t have the resources to get a game together in the time they gave them, and that Interplay would either go bankrupt or fail to make the game, and break the contract between the companies. They’re happy to take advantage.
Vast, evil ole’ Bethesda has been dicking Interplay around for years, and now they’re going to take them apart.
It’s thoroughly detestable.
14/09/2009 at 14:05 oceanclub says:
Interplay make contract with Bethesda.
Interplay break contract.
Bethesda sue.
Am I understanding this correctly?
P.
14/09/2009 at 14:09 Naurgul says:
Well, it seems obvious to me that when Bethesda added the clauses about the Fallout MMO milestone and the approval for re-releases to the contract, the only thing they had in mind was how to sue Interplay into resigning the last remaining rights they had on the franchise. The real question though is: Why the hell did Interplay agree to this? Did they really think the MMO could have reached the required milestones by now? Did they really think that Bethesda would ever give them the green light to sell the older Fallout games anywhere? Why didn’t they settle for selling the rights for less money but without the clauses or even selling them to someone else?
14/09/2009 at 14:10 Greg Wild says:
It’s probably worth noting that as well as a major lack of funds, Interplay lacks…well, Interplay. Fargo of course left years ago. Most of the former FO devs work either for Obsidian (on a new Fallout game, of course) or have gone elsewhere in the industry or otherwise. To my knowledge, isn’t Chris Taylor basically the only “original” developer they’ve got to their name? Most tellingly in my opinion, Jason Anderson abandoned PV13 a good while back to join up with Fargo.
I just don’t see any point in indulging in a facade of sympathy for what is apparently more or less a nebulous arrangement of IP owned by a rather distasteful (according to NMA, anyway) CEO in his own right.
I’d rather see Fallout with Beth, than no Fallout at all.
14/09/2009 at 14:12 manveruppd says:
I agree with Helio and Opti, Bethesda are obviously basing their complaint on the bundle being called “Fallout Trilogy”, which, to be fair, is a valid complaint. If I didn’t know anything about the history of the Fallout IP, I’d definitely buy that thinking that it has Fallout 1, 2 and 3 in it. Casual gamers don’t follow the shifting fortunes of publishing houses with as much dedication as the hardcore, so that kind of name would not only defraud the customer but possibly rob Bethesda of a sale too.
Whether this is genuinely what Bethesda are miffed about, or whether this is merely tactical manouevreing to take back control of the IP, will become clear pretty soon, depending on whether they accept a settlement, name change for the bundle and monetary restitution, or whether they insist on going to court, proving breach of contract, and wresting back the MMO rights.
All due respect to Kieron and others who have expressed outrage at Bethesda’s moves, but do you really think Interplay would make a better custodian of the Fallout IP in the state they’re in these days? We’d all love to see them rise from the ashes and be great again, but the fact is the people that made them great now work elsewhere, and no Fallout game they produced would have what made the first 2 special. They farmed out development of the MMO to an unproven Bulgarian dev ffs! It could still turn out to be brilliant, but I honestly don’t believe that Interplay designed anything but a quick and dirty cash-in skinning trite and familiar MMO gameplay in post-apocalyptic hues, designed solely for getting Interplay out of trouble. Even if it is a well-thought out game, I’m dubious about Interplay’s ability to supervise the developers implementing their design decisions when they’re in Bulgaria, as well as their capacity to fund the project adequately.
So, moral outrage aside, ask yourselves what’s in YOUR best interest as gamers and consumers before you go about lambasting Bethesda’s lack of corporate ethics. You may be right, but they may be doing exactly what needs doing in order to eventually get a decent Fallout MMO into our hands. This might seem like a cynical and pragmatic view, but, equally, it would be cold and heartless to allow a great setting to languish in the hands of a company that doesn’t have the means to do anything good with it. If someone has to play dirty to get more Fallout games out there, let them!
14/09/2009 at 14:13 Demiath says:
Although I normally wouldn’t dream of cutting Bethesda any slack, methinks Kieron Gillen reads too much into this. Interplay has been a complete mess for years and their overall management of the Fallout IP (including rushing Fallout 2, licensing away almost everything to Bethesda and hiring a bunch of virtually unknown Bulgarians to create the MMO) has been a disaster (legally and otherwise) waiting to happen more or less from day one.
But maybe I’m just being so admirably relaxed about all this because I already bought Fallout 1 and 2 from GOG.COM and have the DRM-free install files safely stored on my external drive where the big bad B can’t touch ‘em…
14/09/2009 at 14:14 Dan Lawrence says:
@Lilliput
Hang on a minute, Interplay are hardly county fair rubes being tricked by the sinister machinations of the Bethesda money men. Interplay were a big company in their own right back in the day and they are free to make whatever deals they like, no doubt they made a large sum from the Bethesda Fallout deal which they thought they could leverage to begin production of an MMO. If they’ve failed to do that its hardly the fault of Bethesda.
14/09/2009 at 14:16 Starky says:
I have no sympathy for Interplay what-so-ever, they sold the IP (again repeating what is said above they were the publishers NOT the developers, they didn’t make the games) leased some rights back then since then spent their time screwing around and trying to milk the classic games after the success of FO3.
Interplay failed, and Bethesda clearly want complete control of the IP and nothing more to do with Interplay. Personally I don’t blame them one bit. I honestly think the Fallout IP would be much better in Bethesda’s hands anyway (mmo included).
Yes it sucks that the old game sales are just another battleground of this legal mess, but from the sounds of it Interplay have several times broken agreement (legally binding contractual agreement) – in the end it doesn’t matter how hard it was to raise money, or how well intentioned their actions, in business you don’t break contract. Ever.
If you do, you get sued. Simple as.
14/09/2009 at 14:17 Dracko says:
“We’ve ruined the Fallout IP’s future and now want to destroy its past too.”
Cheers, Bethesda.
14/09/2009 at 14:20 Latro says:
Whoever is reading the criticism of this as an “Interplay rules! Less defend them”, is misreading it.
Interplay is a zombie? Yes
Bethesda is more capable of keeping the franchise alive? Yes, in whatever form, and I was one of the people that thought that even if FO3 was not going to be a “classical” FO, it didnt matter as we were not going to get Van Buren anyway.
Going after selling the old games, when for the first time in years the Internet is actually delivering the marvel of having a market were we dont lose the classics and people can actually see and play games from the past? Dick move
14/09/2009 at 14:21 Latro says:
Disclosure: FO3 was 90% a marvel, then the ending. So just to put into context that I’m not a NMA puritanical fantatic :-P
14/09/2009 at 14:22 phil says:
Considering Interplay claimed it was using the funds the Fallout IP sales generated to restart development on brands like MDK and Descent, whilst reissuing its older titles, ie basically what people wanted them to do, this is annoying as they’ll likely go bust again.
That said, the chances of a Fallout MMO actually being successful and not, for example, bankrupting them anyway, were incredibly high.
On the brightside, there’s never going to be Clayfighter 128.
14/09/2009 at 14:22 Lilliput King says:
I’m not sure having another Fallout game from Bethesda would actually be best for the consumers.
FO 3 was appalling. (flamebait, but really)
Either way, theres very little original in the Fallout setting, really. And a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, you know?
I guess I just prefer developers to care about the games they make. It may be that the development side of Bethesda do care, but thats not evident in their games, and it’s certainly not what we see here.
14/09/2009 at 14:23 Tei says:
Re: “smart bussines decission”.
People will download these games. Most people that download these games are not to play then, but to feel again things, will launch the game once, see the menus, play a few minutes.
If you unable people to play for the privilege to download a game that already own. These people will download such game elsewhere, most probably with “abandonware” on the name.
So heres a bussines decission described as “smart” that is actually pushing forward Warez, and attacking Digital Downloads. Not soo smart to me.
14/09/2009 at 14:24 Naurgul says:
I’m pretty surprised about the people who defend Bethesda on the grounds of Interplay being what can be best described as “a bunch of jerks”. I say: Of course there’s no sympathy for Interplay. Who the hell would care about them? They destroyed everything good they had because they thought they could make quick cash in the console market. They deserve nothing. With that said, however, this legal manipulation that Bethesda is doing is still despicable. The fact that the victim is rotten does not remove the immorality of the act.
14/09/2009 at 14:25 qrter says:
Surely the dev team only needs to answer “That’s not our work, that’s the legal department” and be done with it?
I don’t see why the Fallout 3 team would have to feel responsible for something they most probably have little to nothing to do with.
14/09/2009 at 14:28 Starky says:
Drako that is utter balls, FO3 was a good addition to the IP – unless of course you’re one of those irrational counter-culture haters who refuse to believe that critical acclaim, many industry awards, public acclaim and huge sales some how ruined the IP.
One thing you can be sure of FO3 was a damn sight better than anything Interplay could have managed – better than anyone could have managed short of a micricle happening in the form of Black Isle studio’s reforming (al the major players back) and given 100 million to make a game.
Whatever MMO Bethesda makes out of the MMO IP, I’d wager my life savings and a lung that it will be a tonne better than anything that random Hungarian studio Interplay hired could do.
Hell a Bethesda & ID joint project mmo could rule the planet in my opinion (just let ID handle the tech and animations).
14/09/2009 at 14:28 Lilliput King says:
@ Dan, as Greg pointed out, Interplay was once great. Now they’re penniless, and lack the people that made them great. The people they do have are largely inexperienced. In other words, the company that was Interplay doesn’t really exist anymore, except in name.
I think you’re spot on about the deal. Yes, they’re free to make whatever deals they like and yep, as a publishing company they hoped it would give them the capital to fund their MMO.
I imagine it seemed like a pretty good idea at the time, till Interplay’s new crew learnt how harsh the world of business is. The way I see it, Bethesda set them up for a fall.
14/09/2009 at 14:38 Dante says:
As some people have pointed out, this is a complex situation, there’s a very real case to be made about Interplay’s ‘Fallout Trilogy’ (1, 2 and Brotherhood of Steel) being an attempt to get sales out of people who think they’re mistakenly buying Fallout 3.
There’s also the fact that Bethesda’s lease with Interplay required them to begin development of the MMO by now or the rights would revert to Bethesda. They say they’ve started, but there seems little evidence to prove that.
Not that I’m completely taking Bethesda’s side here, I’m just saying it’s a complex issue and neither side is being particularly honourable about it.
14/09/2009 at 14:42 Lilliput King says:
I imagine the Trilogy is 1, 2 and Tactics, rather than Brotherhood of Steel.
I don’t honestly understand the problem, though. It’s a trilogy of fallout games. The first 3, no less.
Fallout Trilogy. Mm?
Never remember there being a case of Interplay suing Bethesda for tricking people into buying FO 3 when people thought they’d be getting the third Fallout game, Fallout Tactics.
14/09/2009 at 14:44 Dan Lawrence says:
@Lilliput
Sure, I know they are rumoured to be low on money now but they (the founder at least) have been around in buisness a long time and know how it works. They still signed the deal despite all that, I’d be right with you if Interplay were some startup indie developer with no cash and little understanding of the ways of money.
Addressing the main article, as other commentors have made clear it seems like Interplay deliberately chose to rename a pre-existing package of the old Fallout games from ‘Fallout Collection’ to the much more Bethesda baiting ‘Fallout Trilogy’. Its a shame that Bethesda is trying to get the games pulled from sale but I think they have at least had some provocation from Interplay.
14/09/2009 at 14:58 menki says:
Trilogy issue is fair enough, I’d be pretty pissed if I bought the Star Wars trilogy and found out it contained A New Hope, Empire, and Caravan of Courage.
14/09/2009 at 15:06 Bhazor says:
Honestly I fail to see how Bethesda are the bad guys. Interplay signed both contracts and Interplay failed to fullfill both contracts. Interplay has been using Fallout 3 as free publicity and you can’t be surprised Beth wants a cut of that. Bethesda uses Steam themselves, if they get the rights to publish the originals they won’t vanish from there. If anything we’ll see better deals as you could buy “The Complete Fallout” rather than buying the Interplay and Bethesda games separately. Heck with Zenimax money we could see remastered versions with higher resolution and fixed AI.
In terms of developers/publishers Interplay has been on life support for 6 years.
Reply to Pkt-zer0
Because NMA is a completely impartial source for information.
14/09/2009 at 15:14 Jae Armstrong says:
Ehhh… as bad as Beth are, Interplay have been worse for a long time. Even NMA seem to be siding with the big B on this.
14/09/2009 at 15:15 bill says:
I was totally on interplay’s side when i first heard this… but their use of Fallout Trilogy has been rather sneaky.
That said, not sure a lawsuit is good for anyone.
It’s worth noting that Fallout Trilogy made it into the NPD top 10… while i hope that this was because people wanted to play the old games, i can’t help but wonder if a lot of people didn’t want Fallout 3?
14/09/2009 at 15:33 pkt-zer0 says:
Ausir seems impartial enough, the guy was a translator for Fallout 3, after all. And anyhow, it’d make more sense to question whether the unnamed inside source is being impartial or not, wouldn’t it?
Regarding the “confusing” promotional material of Fallout Trilogy:
- the boxart features the three titles contained within pretty prominently. Leaves no room for confusion about its contents.
- were the titles ever distributed digitally in such a fashion on GOG or Steam? Because I’m under the impression that they weren’t, and apparently that is also among the things that Bethesda takes issue with.
14/09/2009 at 15:34 Gutter says:
Talks of boycott of Bethesda over this make me lose faith in the ‘net.
They aren’t alienating a fan base, they are trying to prevent a zombie company from leaching life out of them. If the only goal of Interplay is that “fans” play Fallout (as opposed to wanting to grab money over Bethesda’s rights, because they dully bought them) they could very well sell the first 2 games right to Bethesda.
Why would *anyone* use that to cast doubt on Bethesda’s love of Fallout over this is beyond me.
14/09/2009 at 15:38 Bhazor says:
Heck Bethesda has made some of their oldest games available for free (Daggerfall released in 1996 and Arena released in 1994). So much for not letting people play older games in the series.
Give Beth the rights you basts.
14/09/2009 at 15:44 moshegy says:
Anyone who’s a fan of the original games knows that Interplay shut Black Isle down and I have to admit I really don’t care if they lose the rights to something they never appreciated to begin with.
Heck, the fact that they’re putting tactics in a bundle and calling it a Fallout trilogy is just so wrong and I’d be pretty pissed if I were Bethesda aswell.
14/09/2009 at 15:52 Lilliput King says:
@ Gutter
“Why would *anyone* use that to cast doubt on Bethesda’s love of Fallout over this is beyond me.”
You’re right, there are so many better examples. :D
Man, I’m not even contributing anymore.
14/09/2009 at 15:56 Naurgul says:
Guys, Bethesda set up a contract with impossible to fulfil obligations on Interplay’s part. If you see nothing wrong with that, then I can only assume that you are just rationalising your Bethesda fanboyism.
Or maybe I just don’t get your an-eye-for-an-eye sense of morality: If a thug attacked an old-timer thug, would you see nothing wrong with that as well?
14/09/2009 at 16:00 Bhazor says:
And what were Interplay doing while these contracts were being discussed?
Rule 1 in business school: Don’t sign a contract unless you can fulfill the contract.
Interplay had no way to fulfill their end of the bargain and are rightly being sued. Thats their fault for signing.
Also Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 but not quiet as good as 2. End of.
14/09/2009 at 16:11 Gorgeras says:
To clear this up: Interplay is now owned by Titus; a company reknowned for never making a good game and yet still it survives. I’m guessing it’s a branch of a much larger company that actually does make money and lots of it.
Titus are twats and through Interplay they spread their twattery. At this point in time it doesn’t appear to be the ‘Fallout Trilogy’ that’s the problem but the use of material owned by Bethesda.
So yes it is a case of Interplay makes deal, Interplay breaks deal…but for players some inadvertent good came from that: previous Fallout games are now widely available. Bethesda made a reflex action and didn’t cover all angles.
We EXPECT a bad company to be a bad company, so Interplay has been a bad company. Yawn. But a good company should be a good company and Bethesda are not being. They’re being a reckless company, throwing a large amount of very hard-earned goodwill on a bonfire to drag Interplay to court.
Courts often count a failure to attempt a deal outside of court against either side; the side that was most un-cooperative tends to suffer for it. I wonder if Bethesda did anything at all to avoid keeping it out of court.
14/09/2009 at 16:17 Naurgul says:
Bhazor, that’s victim blaming, though. Is it fair if you get conned? The conman legitimately convinced you to give up your stuff. But it’s still a con.
Even though your argument does have some merit regarding the MMO (they should have known there was no way in hell they could make it fast enough, so they shouldn’t have agreed with that) it doesn’t really apply to getting approval for re-releasing old games. How could Interplay have known that Bethesda would not act in good faith and did not intend to approve anything?
14/09/2009 at 16:25 Seth says:
Naurgul: Let’s try treating the people at Interplay like adults for a second.
Second: we don’t know that Bethesda didn’t intend to approve “anything.” A mod on NMA said an “insider” told him. NMA. The home of bile and professional victimhood. You’ll excuse me if I wait until we get independent verification on that one.
14/09/2009 at 16:27 Bhazor says:
Reply to Nargul
“How could Interplay have known that Bethesda would not act in good faith and did not intend to approve anything?”
Could I get some source with that anecdote please? A named one from the legal department of either company ideally.
Honestly, I haven’t read the whole contract but if Interplay didn’t put in checks and safe guards as to approval then they are once again idiots. They should have sold off the whole property because I can almost gurantee they’re now gonna be paying a sizable portion of their profits from the Fallout games as damages.
Again, how are Bethesda the bad guys. I know Interplay aren’t because their just fantasists.
14/09/2009 at 16:31 Naurgul says:
What do you mean “like adults”? It’s not like only children fall victim to fraud. But you are right on your second point: NMA is not exactly a very trustworthy source (although I wouldn’t go as far as to vilify them, like you do) so it’s not fair to assume that Bethesda not intending to approve anything is true.
14/09/2009 at 16:33 Seth says:
Kieron: I think I understand where you’re coming from, but unless Bethesda fails to start selling the old games themselves, I really find your rant premature.
Honestly I woke up this morning and half thought I was reading NMA rather than RPS.
14/09/2009 at 16:35 Seth says:
Naurgal: Because there’s no evidence that says fraud of any kind took place, or that Interplay didn’t fully understand what they were signing. I really have no idea why you’re so sure of otherwise.
14/09/2009 at 16:38 KikiJiki says:
Companies that sign a contract they don’t understand do not deserve to remain in business.
14/09/2009 at 16:42 Naurgul says:
Bhazor, my perspective is this: Bethesda are “the bad guys” because they used their superior negotiation power to dictate the terms of a contract that was unfair to the other party.
Seth, honestly, if I had to choose between listening to crazy conspiracy theories about how Bethesda is the devil and your blatant fanboyism, I would have to go for the former.
14/09/2009 at 16:44 Bhazor says:
Reply to Seth
Agreed. Very knee jerk for Kieron. Boo.
Again Beth use Steam for their stuff and make their oldest games freeware. Fallout won’t vanish from Steam in the long term though it might be suspended a couple of months if Beth take full rights.
14/09/2009 at 16:45 Kieron Gillen says:
(I actually don’t think it’s a question of good guys and bad guys. I just think removing stuff from Digital Download sales is iffy. I mean, if I bought fallout on Steam and then it’s removed, I wouldn’t like it. Developers stopping people play games raises my eyebrow.)
KG
14/09/2009 at 16:46 Seth says:
Naurgul: Excuse me sir, I was not aware that pointing out that there is no evidence for accusing a company of a crime is tantamount to fanboyism.
And here I thought this was going to be a logical discussion. I guess I should have known better.
14/09/2009 at 16:48 Y3k-Bug says:
If Interplay did breach contract by selling the games, then… yeah.
I really don’t see why Bethesda is wrong here. They paid a sum of money for the IP rights to the fallout series. Why should Interplay be allowed to circumvent that if they are nit contractually allowed to sell these games?
Perhaps they should have thought of the “well being of the brand” before they sold the IP rights?
14/09/2009 at 16:48 KikiJiki says:
@Naurgul I’m sorry, but I don’t think you should throw accusations of fanboyism around when you’re clearly here just to bash Bethesda.
No matter which way you cut it, a contract was signed. The option was there to NOT sign it, and it wasn’t taken. This contract has now been wilfully broken by Interplay and they are facing the wrath of their partner in the contract.
At the end of the day, this is what legal departments are paid to oversee, to make sure that a contract is fair. You’re making out that somehow Bethesda forced Interplay to sign the original contract to sell them the Fallout IP. Were this the case FO3 wouldn’t have been released as the contract would have been void from the start.
Seriously, you can pretend that big nasty Bethesda hurt your little Interplay all you like, but most of the sensible comments here have rightly pointed out that both parties wilfully entered into a contract, and thus Bethesda are totally in the right to exercise the penalties for breaking it.
14/09/2009 at 16:51 Bhazor says:
Reply to Kieron
Well then you’d run it from the hard drive in the Steam client. Or wait for Beth or whoever has the rights to rerelease it. Or pay £3 to download it from GOG.
Though recalls for digital downloads is an interesting idea. What if the latest Leona Lewis single was released on iTunes and months later was found to be incredibly racist and mildly treasonous?
14/09/2009 at 16:54 Naurgul says:
Seth, sorry about that. I was referring to your previous post, the one where you “half thought you were reading NMA rather than RPS”.
KikiJiki, I think it’s obvious that my place here is neither to bash Bethesda (you can judge that from my comments in other articles) nor to defend Interplay (I was pretty harsh on them in my previous comments). I apologise for the misunderstanding.
14/09/2009 at 16:54 Kieron Gillen says:
I regularly delete games and download them, Bhaz. In fact, I’m doing that now.
There was that fascinating thing with the Ebook thing a couple of months back where they removed the rights from an ebook and it disappeared from everyone’s readers. Amazing.
(Doubly so, because it was Orwell. I didn’t follow the story any further, as it couldn’t have got any better)
KG
14/09/2009 at 16:54 KikiJiki says:
@Kieron
The penalty you pay for using Steam tbh, GoG versions will I assume remain unaffected if already downloaded. I can understand your point but this just goes to show a flaw in Steam.
14/09/2009 at 16:56 Bhazor says:
Reply to Kieron
“I actually don’t think it’s a question of good guys and bad guys.”
“I’m not even someone who is particularly devoted to the original games, and I’m outraged.”
“Fundamentally, they’d rather people not have the chance to play Fallout at all if it’s not in a Bethesda-approved box.”
“The next time they talk about how much they like Fallout, someone is going to say “You like it so much that you stop people from buying and playing it?”.”
One of these statements is not like the others.
14/09/2009 at 17:00 KikiJiki says:
@Naurgul By ‘here’ I referred to this thread, apologies if there were any misunderstandings.
14/09/2009 at 17:06 Blather Bob says:
If Interplay lose their limited rights to the Fallout IP, will anyone be left with rights to publish the old games? That is, if Bethesda win this lawsuit, do they then own all rights over the old games (as opposed to just the Fallout name and “universe”), or does it just make them unpublishable?
And regarding the removal of DD games, that’s happened before. GOG has pulled TOCA 3 and CMR2005 from sale and removed the ability for previous purchasers to redownload it. Actually they announced they were going to remove the downloads, but didn’t seem to have actually gotten around to it last time I checked. But the announcement was enough for me to lose all interest in continuing to use GOG if the ability to redownload isn’t one of the things I’m paying them for.
14/09/2009 at 17:14 oceanclub says:
“and removed the ability for previous purchasers to redownload it.”
Are you sure about this? I thought that you definitely could, but I could be wrong.
Just bought Giants: Citizens Kabuto _again_ in the GOG sale (had it on CD before but gave it to Oxfam) and still cannot get the second, jetpack level. I must suck.
P.
14/09/2009 at 17:15 manveruppd says:
@KG I saw NOTHING on any news source reporting on this story about Bethesda demanding that games ALREADY PURCHASED be DELETED from users’ accounts. So if you already bought them you’re in the clear (especially if you bought them individually or as “Fallout Collection” – it’s only the dodgy “Fallout Trilogy” branding and packaging that Bethesda demanded be pulled from the shops).
The most likely outcome is that Interplay will settle, as it’s clearly a misleading name for the package. Games will be relisted individually (or as “Fallout Collection”) and they’ll probably pay damages to Bethesda. If they go to trial and lose the damages will break them financially and they’ll be in breach of contract, losing the right to sell even their own games as well as to develop the MMO.
But anyway, it’s unlikely that anything affecting customers will happen, and even if they stop Steam and GOG from selling htem it’ll only be for a few weeks/months and won’t affect people who already bought them.
14/09/2009 at 17:27 Ozzie says:
Oh, come on, people, just look at the cover:
https://www.whizbiztrading.com/_fpclass/catalog/images/FALLOUTTRILOGY-f.jpg
If someone is so dumb to think that they will get Fallout 3 if they buys this compilation, then it serves them right. It says there right on the front cover which games are included!
Also, yes, Interplay developed all these role-playing classics themselves back in the day. Black Isle was just a brand name they put on all their developed and published RPG games. Baldur’s Gate was also a Black Isle game, published by Interplay, developed by Bioware.
14/09/2009 at 17:52 Wisq says:
And who’s to say everyone is going to look at the cover art before buying a title that clearly implies it includes FO3?
And who’s going to be around to correct someone if they make that assumption, then see the cover art, then wonder if “Fallout Tactics” and “Fallout 3″ are different names for the same thing?
And what new not-in-the-know gamer is going to be aware than FO3 and the prior titles aren’t by the same publisher, so that you almost certainly won’t get FO3 and the prior titles in the same retail package?
I totally agree that Interplay should change the wording back to “Collection” or whatnot. But if that’s what this whole lawsuit is about, then I think it’s pretty irresponsible for Interplay to have not backed down before it came to this. Assuming they were given the chance, anyway.
14/09/2009 at 17:54 James says:
For a little perspective, people are dying in various parts of the world due to all types of ill shit, even as you read this.
Does this really affect anyone so much that it’s worthy of your time to debate? I like RPS a great deal, but perhaps we should all consider how we’re actually being affected by this whole “Bethesda vs. Interplay” thing before we start ranting at each other like we know anything but what press releases have told us.
It’ll get worked out. You’ll still be able to buy any Fallout games you want. Unless you’ve got money in this, who cares how they settle it?
…and I am now done ranting.
14/09/2009 at 17:55 Vinraith says:
One gets the impression that legal didn’t consult public relations on this one, or at least didn’t listen to them. As a business strategy it’s fair enough, I suppose, but as a PR move it’s catastrophically stupid. Speaking as someone that really enjoyed FO3 (oooh heresy) I’d hate to see it harm the franchise. Speaking as someone that can’t presently find his FO2 disc I’d hate to see it get the classics pulled off of GOG.
14/09/2009 at 17:59 Seth says:
Maybe PR didn’t assume that everyone would jump to the conclusion that you will never be able to buy classic Fallout again and that burly men are going to come to your house and delete your Steam account.
If this actually stops people from buying the old games – then it’s time to pull out the pitchforks.
14/09/2009 at 18:03 Jayt says:
I still don’t see all the fuss about fallout 3.
14/09/2009 at 18:07 Vinraith says:
@Seth
I find it hard to believe that PR doesn’t know the internet, gamers, and Fallout gamers in particular a bit better than that.
14/09/2009 at 18:14 dhex says:
the assumption that this would do more damage to bethesda and outweigh a potentially successful MMO based on fallout 3 seems off to me.
14/09/2009 at 18:21 Jad says:
@Wisq: And who’s going to be around to correct someone if they make that assumption, then see the cover art, then wonder if “Fallout Tactics” and “Fallout 3″ are different names for the same thing?
Exactly. Plenty of games have sequels that are Name: Subtitle with no number, but everyone calls them Name 2 anyway. How is the less-informed consumer supposed to know that “Fallout Tactics”, part of the “Fallout Trilogy”, and coming right after “Fallout 2″, is not that “Fallout 3″ game that everyone’s been talking about?
Step back a moment and pretend that you’d never heard of this story, and didn’t know much about the publishing of these games (and frankly, most people really don’t care about publishers like hardcore gamers do: quick, what are the publishers of your five favorite movies? Books?). If I told you that Amazon was selling a package called “Fallout Trilogy”, would you not immediately assume that now you’d be able to get Fallout 1, 2, & 3 in one package?
14/09/2009 at 18:34 Wisq says:
@James: By that standard, RPS shouldn’t even exist, or should be dedicated to how gaming is going to help those people dying in various parts of the world.
Most people I know turn to their hobbies in order to have some fun and temporarily escape from the dull and depressing real world.
If one’s hobby is computer gaming, and if the Fallout series is a not-insignificant part of that hobby, and if the future and past of the series is (maybe) in jeopardy due to a rather questionable legal battle, and if perhaps it even has implications on the rest of the gaming hobby — dying PC game publishers, frivolous legal battles setting bad precedents, total disconnect between legal and PR departments, etc. etc. etc. — then it’s not particularly unreasonable that we might take interest.
Even though people are dying and blah blah.
14/09/2009 at 18:35 Ozzie says:
@Wisq: If you buy the title in retail stores than I would recommend to check out the box before actually buying it. If you buy the games online than I recommend reading the description, like here. The titles of the games are written in bold, so it’s hard to read over them.
And if you’re not sure if Fallout 3 may be called Fallout: Tactics in some circles, then I advise you to consult with the internet.
You know, like every human being with common sense would do. Look, if Fallout: Tactics would stand by itself lonesome in a store, nobody would confuse it with Fallout 3. So why should it be different if it’s part of a compilation?
Especially since screenshots on the back of the box look a bit…outdated.
Yeah, Interplay may make some money off stupid folks, but it’s their own fault.
14/09/2009 at 18:43 Ozzie says:
If I told you that Amazon was selling a package called “Fallout Trilogy”, would you not immediately assume that now you’d be able to get Fallout 1, 2, & 3 in one package?
@Jad: I may assume, but I wouldn’t buy it on the title alone. No one should. Sorry, I have no compassion if you fall for such a cheap trick. I would if the box art and the description would give an impression that Fallout 3 is included, but the listing of Fallout: Tactics, descriptions and screenshots speak against it.
If you define trilogy as a collection of three works that are thematically related then there’s nothing wrong with calling the collection “Fallout Trilogy”. Yeah, Fallout: Tactics is a spin-off and not a true successor, but it’s actually not even a lie.
14/09/2009 at 18:51 James says:
@Wisq
Actually, no, that’s not the standard I set. Look up perspective, then reread my post if you would.
You seem a very excitable person. I don’t see how “the future and past of the series is (maybe) in jeopardy”, but you go on letting the people know about the horrors that are stalking their favorite hobby from the shadowy courtrooms of the underworld.
14/09/2009 at 18:52 Seth says:
@Vinraith: Most vociferous “Fallout Gamers” already think Bethesda is a band of evil, stupid men out destroy gaming out of pure malice, so if I was them I wouldn’t be too terribly concerned about what emotional reaction “Fallout Gamers” have to their legal battle to extricate the remains of the Fallout ip from Interplay’s dessicated, incompetent corpse.
14/09/2009 at 18:54 Gorgeras says:
Ok just to clarify again: Bethesda do not own Fallout 1, 2 or the other one. They own Fallout 3 which they made and the Fallout IP. Interplay still owns the originals; the copy and distribution rights.
What Bethesda have done is attacked Interplay on a very vague area: the box. The original Fallout games have Fallout designs on the box. Bethesda are claiming they own these under their contract with Interplay. So Interplay is supposedly not allowed to use their own produced work to sell their own produced work. They’re not allowed to use likenesses and trademarks that Bethesda now own, such as Vault-Boy or the Brotherhood armour on the box; even if they’re in the games. I don’t know what the status is on the game manuals.
No one is claiming Interplay is not in the wrong; dare I say it that probably none of us here are actually qualified to give authorative statements on legality? The issue is with the moral dimension of it: Bethesda are making a frivolous lawsuit and at the same time not assuring players that they are not going to interfere with purchases.
14/09/2009 at 18:55 Vinraith says:
@Seth
I would argue that, in the public eye, it gives credence to the Bethesda haters. Personally I agree with you, unless the older editions become unavailable I honestly don’t care, and I’m not particularly concerned about what happens to zombie-Interplay. However, I’m also an unabashed lover of Bethesda RPG’s (FO3 included), so I know I’m neither entirely objective nor particularly representative of a random sampling of gamers.
14/09/2009 at 18:55 Gorgeras says:
Sorry I meant to say “the ‘box’ ” because when we’re talking about downloads, we’re talking about the images being used on Steam store pages and such.
14/09/2009 at 18:59 James says:
@Gorgeras
Thanks for summing up what the issue is, it’s helpful when lone individuals can quickly and concisely distill an issue into a single statement.
By the way, it’s totally awesome how you managed to state both that no one here is likely qualified to comment on legal issues, yet also managed to label said legal issue as frivolous. Bravo.
14/09/2009 at 19:02 Seth says:
@Gorgeras: Well, they aren’t able to sell the games without getting approval. And they didn’t get approval. Now, it is of course possible that what the rumors on NMA are true; that they never really planned to approve anything. But I’m going to need to hear more about that before I’ll buy it.
And that’s not the only part of the lawsuit – they’re being sued for inking deals for digital distribution for which they apparently did not have the rights, and for failing to raise the capital for the Fallout MMO.
14/09/2009 at 19:06 Kadayi says:
For me the issue is that I would hate to see Bethesda effectively stamp out the sale of the previous titles. I agree that the repackaging of the ‘Collection’ to the ‘Trilogy’ was a big mistake, but at the same time this idea that Bethesda were perhaps likely to object to any form of repackaging of the original games simply to force Interplay to concede the MMO rights doesn’t sit well with me personally. They are classic games and that they are available via GoG or Steam and available to a wider audience is a good thing. They sure as hell don’t detract from the Fallout legacy, because they are the Fallout legacy.
14/09/2009 at 19:10 stormbringer951 says:
Wow, what an amazingly subtle IP grab by Bethesda, from Interplay. They also want to get rid of the Steam and GOG.com versions as well.
Meh, it’s life.
14/09/2009 at 19:15 Psychopomp says:
Wow. Way to insure I never buy one of your games again, Bethesda.
14/09/2009 at 19:17 Meat Circus says:
If anything would make me suspect the contempt Bethesda has for the Fallout brand, I’d say it was Fallout 3.
Soulless developer-by-numbers IP troll Bethesda acts according to their true nature shocker?
14/09/2009 at 19:17 Doc. Gonzo says:
Well, it does technically harm Bethesda if people buy Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics because then people see how much of a letdown Fallout 3 really is. It is in the franchise’s best interest for those games to no longer be available so no comparison can be made and Fallout history can be re-written in a dumbed down elder scrolls-ish manner.
14/09/2009 at 19:22 Reason says:
Bethesduh should take customer relations (or “PR spin” if you’re the cynical type) lessons from GabeN and co.
14/09/2009 at 19:25 Wisq says:
@Ozzie: Because all game-buyers represent our level of interest, our gaming know-how, and our cynical view of what people will call a product versus what’s actually in it, obviously.
Think of the average non-gaming parent who is told their child wants Fallout 3. They see the “Trilogy” for a price they’re willing to pay to get a good bundled deal and make their child extra happy. You can see where this is going.
I’m not saying that Interplay is necessarily going to fool a lot of people, or that this was their intention all along. I just think the “Trilogy” name was rather ill-thought out, at the very least.
@James: I’m not particularly excited by this. I’m not even a big Fallout fan — I’ve only played 3, and haven’t even bothered to finish it.
My point is that for someone who is, this is exactly the sort of news that would worry them. Is Bethesda suing Interplay over the “Trilogy” name? Over selling old content with unapproved art for which they refuse to approve replacements? Are they just setting Interplay up to fail? Is this going to affect the chances of an MMO? (Is the MMO even going to be worth anything?) Etc.
All I was trying to say is that telling us we should not take this sort of news very seriously because there are more important things going on in the world is a bit of an odd thing to say on a gaming blog. A place where people specifically come to look for news articles for a niche that simply isn’t very important compared to those other real-worldly things.
14/09/2009 at 19:26 bhlaab says:
The deal for releasing the old games required the promotional art to pass through Bethesda’s hands
Rumour has it that Bethesda did not intend to okay ANYTHING Interplay threw past them
14/09/2009 at 19:40 James says:
@Wisq
Kind of you to point out for others things that they could be (pardon, ARE GOING TO BE) worried about, I’m sure there’s a universal shortage of those topics.
If you’re not excitable, then you’re highly speculative. I noticed a lot of question marks in your statement, and by rights, there’s a reason for that; your being speculative, based on very limited information.
Also, I didn’t tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t take seriously (whatever that entails). It may be an odd thought, I’ll give you that, but, again, it was to put things into PERSPECTIVE. Sorry if had too much meat-space flavor for your hobby’s sanctuary, but I still content that there are better discussions to be had, even within this “niche” realm of gaming.
They’ll settle it. If my hobby is threatened in some tangible way at some point in the future, I’ll post again and admit that I contributed to it’s downfall with my flagrant statements of complicity. In the meantime, I’ll continue to seek out nuggets of wisdom like yours, strewn throughout the internet.
PS- My tone is a bit harsh, so I have to let you know that I actually love you and wish you the very best in life. Really.
14/09/2009 at 19:46 Psychopomp says:
I don’t think James likes Fallout.
14/09/2009 at 19:51 James says:
James LOVES Fallout. All of them (almost).
14/09/2009 at 19:53 Klaus says:
Methinks James is a wee bit passive aggressive. James can also find ‘better discussions’ elsewhere if he doesn’t believe this one is prudent or necessary.
14/09/2009 at 19:55 Seth says:
That’s incredibly insightful, Psychopomp. Perhaps you could explain further?
14/09/2009 at 19:59 tssk says:
Colour me confused at all the Beth hate. Leaving aside the NMA logic that Beth should have just listend to the real hardcoare fans and just handed over a bunch of dosh to interplay and mybe just released Fallout 2 uncit or failing that get all of Black Isle together again…
People are aware that this Interplay isn’t the old Interplay they loved back in the day right? I mean I loved all of David Crane’s games on the old Atari but I know Activision of new isn’t the same as Activision of old.
And this double logic of “Blame the victim poor Interplay while at the same time “blaming the customer if they aren’t hardcore enough to realize what they are buying…”
I Interplay has made a lot of dosh on the rerelease of the old Fallout games. I’ve seen them sell out pretty quickly here in Australia. At the very least if you hate Fallout 3 it’s popularity is at least exposing people to the classic games.
However I can see Beth’s point on renaming the Fallout Collection the Fallout Trilogy. It’s very likely someone in a hurry who might already own the other games would pick this up and buy it, in their excitement missing that the third games was Tactics. (After all, that was the lineup in that Fallout Collection wasn’t it.) They get it home and…yeah. And in their head they’ve spent money that was going towards Fallout 3. Stuff buying it now.
But I’m obviously not with the program.
So let me line this up in my head.
Interplay stupid for signing a contract they might not have had the resources to fulful. Victim. Should be supported.
Customer stupid for impulse buying something they thought was Fallout 3. Victim. Should be mocked. Should be happy in fact that they are giving money to Interplay.
Yeah right. I’ve never understood the Fallout 3 hate. Especially since it’s exposed a cult classic series to the world.
14/09/2009 at 20:02 tssk says:
I apologise for my earlier snarkiness. I have to admit reading that according to rumour Bethesda did not intend to okay ANYTHING Interplay threw past them I am obviously totally in the wrong!
14/09/2009 at 20:03 Psychopomp says:
@Seth
Well, considering that ever since Bethesda used their vast stores of money to snatch the Fallout away from Obsidian, the IP has been on a steady downward spiral into mediocrity…
I still can’t see how they can call Fallout 3 the sequel to a game you could complete without ever killing a single being.
Yes, I’m one of those.
14/09/2009 at 20:04 James says:
@Klaus
Astute observations, both. However, my concern (mild, though it may be) is with gamers getting caught up in silly debates about the hobby they purportedly love and utilize for fun and relaxation; amateur legal debate rarely fills these needs, though I be off the mark there, as I don’t work in PR. :]
14/09/2009 at 20:07 Kadayi says:
@Wisq
I can’t imagine there’s much market penetration left in Fallout 3 on the PC retail front tbh, given both the amount of time its been out and the gradual disappearance of the PC game from the high street. Its not like they are selling hundreds of thousands of units a week still.
14/09/2009 at 20:07 tssk says:
The Fallout debate between old and new always reminds me of the Regurgitar song talking about their transition from hard rock to electro pop “I like your old stuff better than your new stuff.”
14/09/2009 at 20:08 Seth says:
@Psychopomp – of course you realize nothing in the screed you typed has anything to do with anything that James has said.
14/09/2009 at 20:11 Klaus says:
@Tssk
But it seems it says Fallout Tactics on the box. I’d assume it would list the contents of the trilogy on the site as well. With that said, Fallout Collections is a much more appropriate name.
14/09/2009 at 20:14 tssk says:
@ Klaus I could see someone in a rush or a parent getting confused. Collection is a fairer name and I would hazard a guess that there were reasons the collection was renamed.
14/09/2009 at 20:16 Klaus says:
@James
Fair enough. I’m not actually too concerned with the legal issues as I find it boring, I just like to read people’s opinions.
14/09/2009 at 20:18 James says:
@Klaus
Fair enough then. :]
14/09/2009 at 20:29 Mike says:
Alas, history once again proves NMA folk were right all along.
14/09/2009 at 20:37 Bhazor says:
*IF* Interplay couldn’t distribute the old Fallouts online and
*IF* Interplay couldn’t publish their games without Beth’s approval of packaging and *IF* Interplay did not assign a safe guard to Beth blocking all their applications. Then it’s entirely Interplay’s fault.
Now I believe one of three things will happen
Beth successfully sues Interplay for breach of contract and
1) gets a cut of Fallout collection sales (possibly retroactively) and the mmo rights
or
2) gets the full IP including the distribution rights, mmo rights and the whole shebang.
14/09/2009 at 20:46 Bhazor says:
Safeguards would have included the employment of a third party agreed on by both Beth and Interplay to assess each “box” applicant. Interplay seeking approval for their designs before signing or a stipulation that Beth are to provide their own. Again if Interplay did none of this then they deserve whats happening.
And again I feel the need to point out that on previous record that if Beth did have the Fallout distribution rights then they would have made the first one available for free.
Also Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 but not as good as Fallout 2.
14/09/2009 at 20:50 Klaus says:
“Also Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 but not as good as Fallout 2.”
Agreed.
14/09/2009 at 20:56 Psychopomp says:
“And again I feel the need to point out that on previous record that if Beth did have the Fallout distribution rights then they would have made the first one available for free.”
I seriously doubt that. The original Fallouts were still in demand, and stand to make a nice profit. Who out there was lining up to buy Daggerfall again?
14/09/2009 at 21:11 Bhazor says:
Reply to Psychopomp
Agreed but I still think we could have seen a box set collectors edition. Maybe even an enhanced version with redrawn backgrounds, animations and a higher resolution to act as hype fuel and help brand recognition. Given the advertising budget of Fallout 3 those would have been nothing more than a hill of beans.
Either way the chances of Beth not distributing Fallout in someway is infinitesimally small. Which seems to be everyone’s big fear.
14/09/2009 at 21:17 Subject 706 says:
Interplay has been reduced to mostly Herve Caen, i.e. the man who destroyed the old Interplay. Still, Bethesdas move seems a tad bit over the top.
And pleeease you people who claim that Bethesda loves and respects the Fallout name. Whether Fallout 3 was good or bad is subjective (I was not impressed), but their cynical DLC milking should disprove that, if anything.
14/09/2009 at 21:30 Elman says:
It’s like they bought it because the Vault doors kinda looked like the Bethesda logo.
Anyway, I just beat Fallout 2, and I’m glad I beat Fallout 3 first, cause I doubt I’d be able to enjoy it now. They copied the Fallout 2 story completely, and then kind of ruined the whole backstory and gameplay.
Fallout 3 was decent fun, but it could have been so much better if it was anything like the original games… And now they do this. Uh.
14/09/2009 at 21:35 Elman says:
@ChaosSmurf:
“Their business is selling games.”
Yep. I didn’t buy Fallout 3 after the fiasco that was Oblivion… This kind of thing doesn’t help.
14/09/2009 at 21:43 Vinraith says:
@ Seth
I’m beginning to take your point more strongly after having read this thread. You can’t lose sales you never had, after all. It’s just as well, I very much want to see more Bethsoft RPG’s.
14/09/2009 at 21:59 bhlaab says:
@tssk
Of course I have no love for Interplay. But it sucks that Bethesda is pulling two fantastic RPGs off the shelves over logo disputes, especially after their sequel failed spectacularly on every level (besides sales figures).
and “I like your old stuff better than your new stuff”?
more like
“I like the old stuff better than Miley Cyrus’s cash-grab cover versions of the old stuff”
14/09/2009 at 22:05 Seth says:
I’d wait for the games to get pulled of the shelves before I impune anyone for pulling games off the shelves.
But maybe that’s just me.
14/09/2009 at 22:25 WJonathan says:
Maybe Bethesda was watching the downloaded Trilogy sales carefully, and after a certain point, they decided it was financially reasonable to initiate the lawsuit? They’re looking at all the future sales of old compilations they’re mission out on by not grabbing the whole pie. It’s not really about blocking downloads as much as it is having total control of the operation. That’s the only way it makes sense to me.
14/09/2009 at 22:28 bhlaab says:
Yeah, because what’s the point of getting upset over them just TRYING to get the game pulled off the shelves.
I wonder how much of a cut GoG and Valve get out of sales, because they’re the only ones who deserve any money out of Fallout sales anyway.
14/09/2009 at 22:41 Seth says:
Right, because there’s no way Bethesda would just continue selling the game themselves. Because after all they hate both Fallout AND money.
But wait, I thought the reason we hated Bethesda is because they love money? It gets so confusing!
15/09/2009 at 00:21 Kadayi says:
@WJonathan
Those figures are between the publisher (Interplay) and the Portal (GOG/Valve). Bethesda wouldn’t have access to them, in the same way that other publishers don’t have access to their sales figures.
15/09/2009 at 01:03 postmanX3 says:
That must be quite depressing for devs of the original Fallout. Really, it’s rather aggravating to see the original creators sued by the newcomers. It’s like watching the Watchmen movie, knowing that Alan Moore didn’t quite approve.
Funny thing is, I have the boxed edition containing Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics sitting right next to me, and was about to install it.
15/09/2009 at 01:05 Vinraith says:
@postmanX3
You seem to be mistaking zombie-Interplay for Interplay.
15/09/2009 at 01:19 ACS says:
From an attorney’s perspective, this seems legit from top to bottom. Interplay only has the rights to publish subject to Bethesda’s ownership of the trademark, and they didn’t run anything past Bethesda. They also used the words ‘Fallout Trilogy,’ which, frankly, seems to be a pretty sleazy way of implying that Bethesda’s game is bundled in there.
This, incidentally, isn’t the first point at which Interplay has reneged on the contract they made with regard to the rights to that name. They didn’t get the funding they said they were going to get, haven’t made a game, and then didn’t hand the rights back over to Bethesda in April.
Right now, they’re squatting on the Fallout name because it’s the last valuable asset they have. At some point, someone’s going to have to drive a stake through their heart, and Bethesda wants to make sure they do it before Interplay’s creditors tie up their assets for half a decade while dissolving the company.
15/09/2009 at 01:49 Scarves says:
Bah the best one was Wasteland anyhow.
15/09/2009 at 01:57 Neut says:
Oh man if only Obsidian acquired the Fallout IP.. *sigh*
15/09/2009 at 02:02 Psychopomp says:
“It’s like watching the Watchmen movie, knowing that Alan Moore didn’t quite approve.”
Alam Moore never approves.
Of anything.
15/09/2009 at 02:11 ACS says:
Incidentally, the motivation here is likely the desire to be first shark to the feeding frenzy.
When Interplay inevitably goes into bankruptcy — it hasn’t produced a product — it’s likely going to go into Chapter 7 bankruptcy because it isn’t a “going concern.” It’s a little office and a bunch of Bulgarians that are likely to be creditors too, when Interplay can’t cut them a check.
At that point, Interplay’s trustee in bankruptcy is likely to have half a dozen ways to preserve the Fallout trademark license for the creditors — a group which may not include Bethesda. Which means that it’s likely to be tied up in separate litigation, unable to be extricated, while Bethesda fights with well-funded creditors rather than poorly-funded Interplay.
Extricating that license before bankruptcy is important, because the license is valuable and there’s no guarantee (if it comes out later) that it’s eventually going to end up back at Bethesda. Which is why, incidentally, the complaint asks for recission (or “backsies”) rather than an injunction, which would be the normal remedy.
15/09/2009 at 02:13 postmanX3 says:
@ Vinraith: OK… so Interplay must have gone down, and this is a new Interplay? I don’t really bother to keep up with these things.
If that’s the case, though, then I don’t really care. Only if it’s the actual (now-dead?) Interplay do I care.
15/09/2009 at 02:14 Vinraith says:
@postmanX3
Correct, the company died quite a few years ago, this latest is a resurrection of the name but little else.
15/09/2009 at 02:15 Twurp says:
*sigh*
just give the licence to George Lucas and have a happy bashfest in 3 years.
15/09/2009 at 02:15 Seth says:
postman: Well ya see, companies are made up of people, and when none of the people who made a company any good are left, you don’t really have the same company.
i.e. Interplay.
15/09/2009 at 10:58 look out! Ninjas! says:
I just want to point out that my Fallout Collection (1, 2, T) says, on the front of the box, “Fallout 1, 2 & 3″. I’m not sure when the box was made and sent around, but I bought it not long before Fallout 3 was released, and I knew a fair bit about it (no I did not think I was buying Fallout 3 with two other games for $15).
15/09/2009 at 12:50 Calabi says:
This whole thing is so ironical, they base their new game around an existing ip they even call it an iteration of that existing ip, then it appears they want to remove the existance of previous ip. Part of their marketting and the merit was based on the previous games and the fans that they had.
So in the future when someone ask where are the first two, it’ll be shhhh they do not exist, we do not speak of them.
15/09/2009 at 13:05 kuddles says:
Jesus.
Interplay, as it is now, is one guy in an office. One guy who was partially responsible for destroying Interplay in the first place. Now he spends his days building hype and bilking investors for development projects that will never happen, and collecting money from old franchise material of which the original creators don’t see a cent off. It’s a scummy old man making tons of money while producing absolutely nothing, continuing to be the scumbag he always was. So much so that he thought nothing of signing a contract to get a big fat cheque from Bethesda, then turning around and making more money by completely breaking the terms of that contract.
And yet people are defending this guy over Bethesda. Christ, the internet is stupid.
15/09/2009 at 13:48 Nalano says:
@kuddles
“And yet people are defending this guy over Bethesda. Christ, the internet is stupid.”
Well, yeah. Because a lot of people don’t like the way Bethesda makes games.
It’s not about the feasibility of Interplay as a developer, it’s a backlash against the direction the industry is heading.
It’s the difference between the last Simcity to be made by Maxis as a wholly-owned subsidiary of EA (Simcity 4) and the first Simcity to be officially developed by EA itself (Simcity: Societies).
It’s the difference between the Command & Conquer series before and after Westwood was liquidated by EA. In the eyes of the discerning fan it’s the difference between “my baby” and “my cash cow.”
I personally did not like FO3, and found its plot, story and gameplay (it really is a very clunky FPS) to be inferior to its predecessors. I don’t think FO should be made for FO’s sake, so I’m not about to push Bethesda down anybody’s throats just because they have the ability to make more FO games.
That’s the eyes through which I see this lawsuit.
15/09/2009 at 13:50 malkav11 says:
All I care about is that the old Fallouts remain available from all digital distribution sources that offer them. Nothing excuses pulling games from people who’ve already bought them, and pulling the ability to buy them is pretty lame too.
15/09/2009 at 18:20 Obdicut says:
@Nalano:
It doesn’t seem like you’re actually looking at the lawsuit at all.
15/09/2009 at 20:41 toro says:
All I care is that Bethesda will release their version of a MMORPG flop and it will go to the garbage bin of gaming history. Interplay should be dead by now, but if they ever comeback for real … it would be simply awesome. That’s the only thing that Herve is not allowed to miss.
15/09/2009 at 23:30 Radicand says:
Oh come on, its not like the actual developers at Bethesda have any say in this; they probably do really love the original fallout games. Their legal department, conversely, really loves money. Three guesses who calls the shots.
15/09/2009 at 23:41 vagabond says:
Putting aside the fact that Trilogy means a set of three related works, and not parts one, two and three of something, is there really any name that you can give their boxed set that isn’t going to cause hypothetically addled parent to think that if they’re buying a three game collection of fallout, that they’re buying fallout 3 as part of it?
Short of “Fallout Threesome: the boxed set that does not contain Fallout 3!” I can’t really think of one.
It’s pretty much Bethesda’s fault for calling “Fallout 5″ “Fallout 3″ :)
16/09/2009 at 11:22 Melf_Himself says:
Interplay >> Bethesda
Isometric RPG’s >> First person RPG’s.
Cue flame war.
16/09/2009 at 12:12 pkt-zer0 says:
Things took a turn for the [url=http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60435]bizarre[/url], Interplay supposedly planning to release the Fallout MMO on consoles and handhelds, as well as saying that Project V13 is actually a different game.
What can I say, both companies are working pretty hard for the prestigious “scumbag of the year” award.
16/09/2009 at 12:28 pkt-zer0 says:
Yeah, HTML tags. Kinda forgot about that. Whatever, you’ll figure it out.
17/09/2009 at 20:41 Kamos says:
I still don’t understand why Bethesda needed the Fallout IP. Why not just create their own? It’s not like they kept the Fallout 1/2 fans anyway…
06/10/2009 at 15:17 Dano says:
sure they did Kamos, or are you going for the “no true scotsman” bonus points?