scarykitties on 14/9/2009 at 18:24
So, apparently (
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/09/14/bethesda-sues-interplay-over-fallout-tradem/1) Bethesda is suing Interplay over the Fallout license, due to Interplay selling the "Fallout Trilogy" package in stores that includes Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics. Thoughts?
Personally, I feel like Bethesda's being greedy, particularly over something that, yes, was sold to them, but was done best under Interplay (in my opinion Fallout 1 and 2 beat 3 by leaps and bounds). Not to say that 3 was terrible, but I just get a sense of one author writing 2/3 of a book, then handing it over to another author to finish, only to have the new author turn around and complain of the original because the original wanted to show others the part that was originally made. And generally, I just don't care for Bethesda.
What do others think? Who's at fault, here? Is Bethesda being greedy, or is Interplay trying to twist the agreement unfairly?
june gloom on 14/9/2009 at 18:33
I don't see Bethesda selling a Fallout Trilogy.
Renzatic on 14/9/2009 at 18:48
Kinda hard for me to take sides on this one. If they were being sued over selling the Fallout Collection, I'd call Bethesda out for being assholes. But with it being called the Fallout Trilogy, which kind of leads you to assume you're getting FO1-3 in one swanky box, I can see why they're a bit irked.
It all boils down to more asshole IP corporate drama. Just buy them all off GoG and call it a day.
scarykitties on 14/9/2009 at 19:01
Oops... Forgot there was a Fallout forum. That's embarrassing.
Volitions Advocate on 14/9/2009 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Just buy them all off GoG and call it a day.
This
Zygoptera on 14/9/2009 at 21:46
It's all about FOOL, not selling ancient games which are coffee money for Bethesda. Interplay has no money, pretty much the only things making it money are its old games, if you litigate they have to pay for lawyers, and if you can make them pay for lawyers and cut off their revenue then it's game over man.
Realistically, Bethesda never had any intention to let Interplay retain any of the licence, the whole thing was structured around them being able to cut it off simply by being dickish about the conditions, at any time.
Epos Nix on 14/9/2009 at 22:10
Okay, so how can Bethesda be blamed for any of this? Interplay is selling what is rightly Bethesda's property without their consent and misrepresenting the Fallout license by slapping the Fallout name on a random MMO. And rather than demand monetary compensation, Bethesda is merely demanding Interplay discontinue all distribution and production with anything having to do with the Fallout license.
Seems pretty fair and reasonable to me.
[Edit] Seems the pursuit of monetary damages thing is in question. (
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/50220/Bethesda-Sues-Interplay-Over-Fallout-MMO-Re-Releases) This site claims no damages are being sought while (
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60435) this site claims the opposite. Either way, Bethesda is in the right. And don't pretend for a second that anything remains of Interplay that existed back during the time when they made Fallout. They are nothing but a corporate husk struggling to make a dime at present and could care less about properly representing the Fallout franchise.
Zygoptera on 15/9/2009 at 02:14
Er, no.
IPLY definitively have the right to (1) make an MMO (with certain restrictions, whether iply is in default of those restrictions is in dispute) and (2) sell the old Fallout titles. They were both written into the Fallout IP sales documentation.
[edit: hmm, whoever wrote that bit tech article is an ignoramus, as it turns out. How can someone write about it without even mentioning that
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057232/000117091806001092/0001170918-06-001092-index.htm) IPLY does have a licence to sell its old Fallout titles is quite beyond me]
Epos Nix on 15/9/2009 at 02:35
So, if Interplay "definitively" have the right to produce an MMO and the rights to sell the previous games, why would these silly news articles claim differently?
"Bethesda's complaint also claims that, 11 days after being informed the Fallout MMORPG license had been revoked and it could not enter into a deal with any third parties, Interplay formalized a deal with Bulgarian studio Masthead to develop the MMORPG Project V13.
The second part of the suit accuses Interplay of riding the coattails of Fallout 3 by re-releasing and repackaging older Fallout games without permission. Specifically, it says that the company was selling a compilation of Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics as boxed products called "Fallout Trilogy" and "Saga Fallout." The packaging of any such new boxed product needed to be approved by Bethesda, which claims it never did so."
Interplay's right to sell the previous games is limited to request and apporval by Bethesda, as their sales documentation states. Did you not see that part?
Zygoptera on 15/9/2009 at 03:46
Well, at least you've actually read the filing and now have the basic details right. Better late than never.
Silly news articles are inevitably written by silly internet journalists who have no idea about basic research and usually parrot other silly stuff they find on the web or that PR people send them. Recursive essence of :facepalm: basically.
They cannot simply 'revoke' Iply's rights to make the MMO as a fait accompli- they have to actually show that Iply is in breach. They almost certainly are, but it doesn't become invalid just on Bethesda's say so.
Bethesda was never going to approve new packaging, that's why the contract breach was constructively attained- it's a requirement which requires basic good will that was never going to be evident. The whole thing was written to ensure that Iply would inevitably default, and is being pressed in the knowledge that Iply lacks money for lawyers. Much as I dislike rump Interplay and Herve Caen particularly it's pretty ripe stuff from Bethesda. Or Zenimax, to be more accurate
