Fallout Battles Still Ongoing

By Jim Rossignol on April 23rd, 2010 at 4:54 pm.


So says Pete Hines over at the big K. That means rumours about Interplay being okay to proceed were indeed false.

“The bottom line is it’s an ongoing legal matter, it’s in no way, shape or form done,” Hines continued. “We’re going to let the process play out in the courts, which is what we’ve said all along, but beyond that I can’t give specifics as to procedures. That’s not my domain.”

Why can’t those boys just get along?

__________________

« | »

, , , .

17 Comments »

  1. Mario Figueiredo says:

    It’s one of the curious oddities and certainly not something you see being done everyday: The original IP holder trying to completely deface one of the greatest creations in gaming history (the Fallout IP) and the current IP holder saying no.
    Probably because the current IP holder wants to do it themselves. But I like to stop at the previous paragraph and read no further.

    • Slaphead says:

      The original IP holder trying to completely deface one of the greatest creations in gaming history

      Unless you mean the whole concept of making a “Fallout MMO”, I’d like you to expound a bit on how exactly Interplay is “defacing” Fallout, please. If you do mean the MMO bit, the IP isn’t in any safer hands with Bethsoft. If there is going to be a Fallout MMO, I’d much rather see Interplay make it.

    • Adam Whitehead says:

      “If there is going to be a Fallout MMO, I’d much rather see Interplay make it.”

      Why? Only a couple of the original makers of FALLOUT are with Interplay any more. Most of them are at Obsidian (aka Black Isle Mk. II) beavering away on NEW VEGAS. If NEW VEGAS turns out well, I’d rather have Bethesda collaborate on the MMO with Obsidian (hopefully with a new engine, as the OBLIVION one is not really suited to an MMO).

  2. Pantsman says:

    Why can’t they get along? Because there’s MONEY to be made, dammit!

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      I admit I’ve not been following this all that well. But I can’t see how Bethesda can lose this thing. They are the rightful IP holders. Unless there is something else on the contract, Interplay can’t simply go out and make an MMO out of an IP they don’t hold anymore. What on earth were they thinking?

      What sort of message would we be getting here? That the big boys can screw you on IP rights, but us the small guys trying to revive old titles (The Silver Lining just occurred to me), or making parodies of it can’t?

      Even if Bethesda doesn’t have plans for a Fallout MMO, they may as well want to keep exploring the IP on a similar vein to Fallout 3, or even simply let it cool down and thus gain some leverage on a much later title.

    • Peter Radiator Full Pig says:

      Bethesda bought the rights to the Fallout IP, yes, partially.
      Interplay kept the right to make a Fallout MMO, provided there were able to get the money up and start making it before a certain date.

      Date came and went, Bethesda said they hadnt started, Interplay said they had.
      Arguing, plus lawsuit, plus countersuit.

      I may have gotten some specifics wrong, but thats the story i know.

      And, to be honest, the suit doesnt help either side, though it hurts interplay more.
      If there is a risk of them losing, i suppose that they may have to rework a lot of their MMO (Though im sure theyd still make it) which will cost them.

    • dadioflex says:

      Hey! Let’s not talk about Interplay, let’s talk about the Phantom. remember that? It was a fictitious product that made a lot of money for a few guys whose inflated salaries were being paid for by misguided investors. Wow. I bet that’ll never happen again. Anyway, you guys go back to talking about Interplay and their bold definitely going to happen Fallout MMORPG.

    • Nerd Rage says:

      @Peter Radiator Full Pig

      As I understand the situation: Not partially, Bethesda (or more accurately I believe it is Zenimax Media) bought the Fallout property outright. At the same time, they granted Interplay a license to develop an MMO based on the property and provided the stipulations we’ve seen about raising $30 million by some date and entering “full production” by another date. Apparently the dispute is over whether or not Interplay has met their responsibilities as set forth by the terms of that agreement.

  3. Vinraith says:

    All this effort and money for the rights to make an MMO out of a franchise that makes absolutely no sense as an MMO. It’s kind of sad, really.

    • MWoody says:

      As a WoW-style MMO, no. But imagine an open, ruined frontier, giving players the ability to found and protect a homestead in the wastes. Sort of a combination of Wurm Online, Oregon Trail, and Fallout…

    • Ninja says:

      I personally think that Fallout could make a good MMO.

      I’ve only played fallout 3, but I could see how even a world like that could be fun from a MMO standpoint. Sure it might not follow the storyline perfectly, but it could be even more freeform than it is now, people becoming full time slavers, joining various factions. I’m not sure how pvp would work, it would seem that using vats is a bad idea because of the whole standing still stuff, but I’m sure they could work out a solution of some sort. I envision “Battlegrounds” that actually effect the world, a group of people helping Roy Phillips take over Tenpenny tower, while Tenpenny tower hires some extra player guards to defend, and the process is repeated several times daily, the winners gaining certain rewards. I envision players working with the Brotherhood battling players allied to the Outcast battling over an artifact that is randomly spawned in an area of the map, and must be returned to the base of one of the two groups.

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      That would be no fun as an MMO if it just repeated over and over. The idea of Fallout (and Elder Scrolls) is that things persist.

  4. bob_d says:

    Who has rights to make particular games can get really complicated, really fast. This reminds me of the Avatar MMO, which Cameron talked about early in the movie production process. There was a studio all ready to start work on it, believing that they had the rights, when they discovered that apparently Fox had “unintentionally” sold the MMO rights to Ubisoft when they licensed the IP for the PC/console game. Fox had intended to license out the IP for both an MMO and the single-player game that Ubisoft made, but screwed up somewhere. Ubisoft had no interest in making an MMO, but they didn’t want anyone else making one, either, so that was that.
    Playing Fallout 3 made me think that a Fallout MMO could potentially be something worth paying money for, but I’m not holding my breath.

  5. Magic H8 Ball says:

    Oh, legal. I though you meant fan battles.

    Which too are ongoing.

  6. Magic H8 Ball says:

    Anonymous Coward said:
    I personally think that Fallout could make a good MMO.

    I’ve only played fallout 3

    Yes, I can see why you would think that.

  7. Andy says:

    Consider both companies at the moment. Interplay currently have in development some old ‘classics’ (and I use that term loosely) or what looks a lot like shovelware purely for the Wii and DSi and their theoretical Fallout MMO.
    Bethesda have literally nothing (that they’ve announced). They’ve turned almost exclusively into publishers (obviously Zenimax were only ever publishers) listing their big upcoming games as: Rage (id software), Brink (Splash Damage), New Vegas (Obsidian) and Hunted (inXile).

    Certainly Bethesda have had massive success with Fallout 3 and Oblivion before it but (as many people pointed out at the time) they’re essentially the same game only one of them has guns. And in the last ten years the only other things they’ve produced have been Morrowind and a couple of drag racing games.
    Personally I’m not sure I want either of these companies developing a possible Fallout MMO and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bethesda pass it off to another company either.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>