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:
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.
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.
Wow. Way to insure I never buy one of your games again, Bethesda.
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?
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.
Bethesduh should take customer relations (or “PR spin” if you’re the cynical type) lessons from GabeN and co.
@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.
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
@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.
I don’t think James likes Fallout.
James LOVES Fallout. All of them (almost).
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.
That’s incredibly insightful, Psychopomp. Perhaps you could explain further?
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.
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!
@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.
@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. :]
@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.
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.”
@Psychopomp – of course you realize nothing in the screed you typed has anything to do with anything that James has said.
@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.
@ 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.
@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.
@Klaus
Fair enough then. :]
Alas, history once again proves NMA folk were right all along.
*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.
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.
“Also Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 but not as good as Fallout 2.”
Agreed.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@ 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.
@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”
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.
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.
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.
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!
@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.
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.
@postmanX3
You seem to be mistaking zombie-Interplay for Interplay.
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.
Bah the best one was Wasteland anyhow.
Oh man if only Obsidian acquired the Fallout IP.. *sigh*
“It’s like watching the Watchmen movie, knowing that Alan Moore didn’t quite approve.”
Alam Moore never approves.
Of anything.
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.
@ 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.
@postmanX3
Correct, the company died quite a few years ago, this latest is a resurrection of the name but little else.
*sigh*
just give the licence to George Lucas and have a happy bashfest in 3 years.