| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (41)

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:23PM DiscordSK said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So let me get this straight...

Interplay has failed to raise capital for the creation of the fallout MMO, as per their licensing agreement.

Inteplay has failed to show progress in the creation of the MMO, in the ammount of time they agreed to, as per their licensing agreement.

Interplay is no in effect, broke.... yet again... and has zero chance of actually finishing the product in no small part due to the first two issues yet it still somehow is trying to argue its in the right.

They sold the IP to Bethesda, the licensed it back with stipulations they were required to meet (hint: they didn't) and were taken to court by bethesda for it (hint: because they didn't). Why hasn't this case settled by now?

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:16PM sortius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DiscordSK

Buhbung... wrong.

Bethesda claims that they only licensed the NAME "Fallout", any art style, characters, etc, were supposedly NOT allowed in the license. So Bethesda are trying to bend Interplay over and do what "Buhbuh" does in prison.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:58PM Eamil said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@sortius

What you're describing is only one small part of the overall case. It started with the situation the OP described, and as far as it goes, he/she is exactly right. Both sides have just started adding any number of BS claims to their suits since it started, like they're both just throwing crap at each other and seeing what sticks. Personally I think Bethesda's claim about licensing the name only is stupid, but Herve Caen's claim that if Bethesda wins the lawsuit the entire Fallout IP should revert back to Interplay is frankly far more contemptible.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:29PM Kitanishi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So, can someone explain to me this:

Bethesda creates Fallout in the name only.

Bethesda then acts as if another game based on fallout somehow conflicts with the nu-Fallout.

As far as I know from having played F3, the only thing in common with the fabled and amazing F2 is the same name.

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 2:24AM StClair said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kitanishi
Always nice to get a visitor from NMA.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 3:26AM Transientmind said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@StClair

You can usually spot certain NMA'ers by their automatic assumption that anyone who counts understands that F3 was crap, F1 the holy grail, and F2 a 'passable' expansion to F1.

Always amusing when they venture out of their bunker into the rest of the world, blinking in the light, to realize that their argument of, "Look, we've discussed this at length, and it's been proven: F2 = win, F3 = Crap, Interplay = Fallout, Bethesda = Pretenders," doesn't hold any water with the rest of the world... who enjoyed F3.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:36PM HokieKC said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Interplay has a grand total of 11 employees including developers. It's pretty obvious Interplay wants Bethesda to write them a big fat check for full immediate rights to everything Fallout. And Bethesda is unwilling to do that.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:53PM urgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@HokieKC Um, what? Interplay doesn't want money from Bethesda, Interplay wants to be able to keep making / owning a Fallout MMO...
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 8:02PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@HokieKC

I'm not a lawyer but I think technically, Bethesda already owns the rights to everything Fallout. The MMO rights were licensed back to Interplay, but Interplay doesn't really "own" those rights.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 9:12PM HokieKC said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eamil - No. When Bethesda bought the Fallout IP part of the original deal was Interplay obtaining an exclusive license for a Fallout MMO.

I read the contract and Interplay obviously broke the part about obtaining $30 million. However, whatever agreement Interplay has with Masthead Studios is good enough for the judge.

It also states in the contract Interplay can obtain the license for 5 years after the start of development. Which means Interplay has it until April 2014.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 1:51AM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@HokieKC

My point is the deal was that Bethesda bought everything Fallout-related (the sale agreement even uses almost that exact wording) and then turned around and licensed the rights to an MMO BACK to Interplay. Interplay holds the license to do an MMO, but my understanding is there's a distinction between license and ownership.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 6:08AM Fakeassname said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eamil

you don't get to sort of break part of the contract: it's either all or nothing.

Interplay did not have the money on hand when the deadline passed, they did however have letters of trust from two sources saying "we will feed you money as you develop this ..."

the contract never stipulated that Interplay had to have the money in their bank by the deadline, just that they raise the prescribed funding. and, while it did say that development could not be subcontracted out to anyone else, it did not stipulate that Interplay could not contract out the construction of what Interplay had developed. (and thus Masthead's involvement.)

now as far as the bill of sale for the IP to Fallout: the deal was that Interplay would sell Bethesda the IP to Fallout for 5 mill AND the rights to make the Fallout MMO. THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP FALLOUT ONLINE IS PART OF THE TERMS OF SALE! (just so we are clear on that)

it's kinda like if you were to sell your gated house to someone, but part of the deal was that you could still live in the guest house out back for a few years (provided you got a job and sleep in it every night) ... then the people you sold the house to changed the code on the gate after declaring that McDonalds wasn't a good enough job, and tried to call the cops on you for trespassing when you jumped the fence and walked across "their" lawn to get to the guest house.

and that's really what this lawsuit is all about: I'll let the Judge make the final decision, but to my untrained eye Bethesda has been doing some really shitty things that have hampered Interplay's progress on raising the capital and developing the game under the stipulated terms.

Herve's claim that the sale of the Fallout IP is void and should be returned to Interplay, is on the grounds that the payment for the IP was for money AND "services" (in the form of being allowed to make FOOL), however Bethesda reneged on the "services" part of the deal and thus has not fully paid up on the deal.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 7:03AM Eamil said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Fakeassname

Two things. First, read the sale agreement - Bethesda was sold everything related to the Fallout IP, INCLUDING the MMO, which (yes, as a stipulation of the sale) was then licensed BACK to Interplay. All I'm saying is that this means Bethesda technically owns those rights but is licensing them out - you seem to be reading more into my posts than what I'm actually trying to say, unless you meant to respond to my post way up in the top thread of these comments.

Second, securing funding was only ONE of the conditions imposed on that deal, and while I don't recall seeing any source say that funding had actually been secured, assuming it was, they also had not (for example) commenced full-scale development within the time frame provided, another condition of the agreement. Your assertion that Bethesda is "reneging" on their end of the deal carries the assumption that Interplay has upheld theirs, which I don't think they've demonstrated even now, let alone years ago when this lawsuit was filed.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 7:05AM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eamil

Something I didn't point out, but should have, was that a condition of the agreement was specifically that if the conditions weren't met within the time frame provided, the MMO rights would revert back to Bethesda. So if Herve Caen had a problem with that, he shouldn't have agreed to those terms.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 7:50AM Fakeassname said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eamil

the thing is that Interplay OWNS the license to make FOOL (yes, I know the conditions and that it is not indefinite).

the two primary conditions were #1 that they drum up 30 million to pay for development costs and #2 that they start production of it by a set date.

the way the contract was worded, it was assumed that Interplay would have the money in their bank account and that they would be doing all the work themselves, however neither of those points were explicitly stated in the contract.

what Interplay did was to secure what amounts to two loans that said "we will provide you with funding, but it sits in our bank account instead of yours". on top of that they contracted Masthead to supply a game engine and support with constructing the game based off of Interplay's in house design for FOOL.

so what they did was get funding in the form of several people who were willing to say "we will pay your bills related to this project, but we wont give you the money outright" and then set up FOOL to be produced and developed by Interplay in conjunction with Masthead providing art assets.

but back to the start of this: as per of the bill of sale for the Fallout IP, interplay would be paid in the form of $5.75 million and the limited ownership of the rights to make a MMO off of Fallout. yes, if Interplay does not live up to the conditions of the limited ownership, they loose the rights to it. However they HAVE lived up to conditions, they just did it in an unconventional way.

If Bethsoft were to strip Interplay of the rights to make FOOL without Interplay having actually violated their requirements, then it wouldn't just be that Bethsoft was breaking a typical licensing contract and have to pay damages to the other party (as per a normal contract). they would be breaking the terms of the sale for the Fallout IP, and thus (like only paying the down payment on a car but none of the monthly bills after that) ownership would revert back to interplay because they would have not been fully compensated for the sale.
Reply

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 9:04AM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fakeassname

Here's the rub with your argument though. Herve Caen's argument is that if Bethesda WINS the lawsuit, then Interplay should get the Fallout rights back.

But IF Bethesda wins the lawsuit, that means that the judge ruled that Interplay DID NOT meet the conditions set forth in the agreement.

Therefore, by your argument as well as mine, Interplay gets nothing if Bethesda wins.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:44PM Palebane said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
An online game would probably only serve to tarnish the Fallout name. I kind of hope it never releases.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:58PM SocksForYou said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Palebane Me too, at least if Interplay is the one making it. Even well-funded companies have trouble putting out decent MMOs and I have no interest in seeing a terrible Fallout MMO rushed to market.

Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:01PM crazypoker said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I agree.

Black Isle + Interplay version of this universe in F1 and F2 was WAY better than what Bethesda did with it in F3 and further.

I also found in FO newsletter that Interplay tries to bring the old lore in this project so Im personaly on the Interplay side in this battle.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 7:20PM NeoWolfen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Goodness i wish they'd just stop the tug of war and make the game already..I mean heck if not for this litigation nonsense going endlessly back and forth we would have HAD the game by now.

Seriously Bethesda, Interplay.. SORT IT OUT!

Featured Stories

Global Chat: Through a monitor, darkly

Posted on Sep 30th 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW