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?
Related Stories:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Companies that sign a contract they don’t understand do not deserve to remain in business.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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?
@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.
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?
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.
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
@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.
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.
@Naurgul By ‘here’ I referred to this thread, apologies if there were any misunderstandings.
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.
“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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still don’t see all the fuss about fallout 3.
@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.
the assumption that this would do more damage to bethesda and outweigh a potentially successful MMO based on fallout 3 seems off to me.
@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?
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.