Fallout's Fathers Tell Bethesda Lawyers, "Oh No You Didn't"
Calamity in the Wasteland! Following a statement intending legal action early in the year and then an actual lawsuit about a month ago, the exchanges between current Fallout co-licenser Bethesda Studios and (former?) Fallout rights-holders Interplay have become heated enough to ping Geiger counters from the Republic of Dave all the way to Vault 13. Late last week, a stockholder commenting on Interplay revealed that the original developers of Fallouts 1 & 2 are countersuing Bethesda for, among other things, besmirching the good name of Interplay by sending letters of note to services like Gametap and Steam implying that Interplay does not have the rights to distribute and profit from the original Fallout games.
In an even more gutsy move, Interplay is claiming that Bethesda's attempts to cockblock their right to profit from the classic Fallouts have actually rendered the 2007 rights transfer null and void, and is demanding their beloved license back in full, save for Bethesda's right to release the unannounced Fallouts 4 & 5.
It's definitely a case of he-said-he-said, with Bethesda convinced only they can profit from the name of Fallout, but Interplay insisting that they've retained the rights both to the pre-3 Fallouts and the Fallout MMO, supposedly codenamed Project V13.
We may end up seeing one of those fun situations like Activision's Threat to Rocktober around the time Brütal Legend actually started getting good press, wherein both parties reached an undisclosed settlement that allowed them to go their separate ways, but this looks more like a case of a relatively small studio thumbing its nose at a rather large and wealthy developer (the parent company of whom just recently managed to buy id Software), with each party contradicting each other as to what the Fallout 3 contract actually states.
This development is pretty light on details, currently, but hopefully more will arrive soon. Interplay just received a 10-day injunction to respond to Bethesda's lawsuit, and this countersuit seems to be part of the response. More should be forthcoming as the actual legal documents are made public.
Interplay v Bethesda Court Filings [No Mutants Allowed]
[via: GamePolitics]
faePuck
Posted to Video Games on 20 October 2009
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: bethesda, fallout, fallout mmo, interplay, lawsuits
It has to reach a settlement.
Interplay simply don't have the money to go all the way, which is a shame, cos I really wish that they'd win. The original Fallouts were great and its saddening to see the original studio get shat on.
Okay, look. I have issues with this, and with comments like Cerberus635's. For the record, I love Fallout 1&2, even though a end-bug during the escape of the Mutant base kept me from ever finishing the first. (Bleeding walls.)
For anyone who thinks that Interplay will get it back and make Von Braun, Interplay is the one who canceled the project when by all accounts it was running smoothly and nearing the finishing stages. Besides, even if they DO make Fallout 4 assuming they get the IP back (Which, frankly I do not even think they will, see below), it STILL will probably not be a classic Fallout. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel anyone? THAT is probably what we will see. Phf.
Any hows, onto the merits of the case. Fallout Trilogy. I think myself a smart guy, but when I saw that, I thought (1,2,3) NOT (1,2,Side-Story). Heck, if they violated the agreement requiring naming and packaging approval, if they chose another name they might have got away without such a harsh response. Going foreign here, but what about the Non-US release titles of "Saga Fallout" "Classic Fallout" "Fallout Collection", at least then you would not see any sort of (Three, Tri, Trip, 3), which is what jumps out at Trilogy. And I HAVE to see it as a direct jab at getting some people to see it along side Fallout Three. Why? "Fallout Collection" had the same titles and was released way back in 2006. Flash forward to 2009, after Fallout 3 has been released for 4 Months, racking in the sales, and they decide suddenly "Fallout Collection" will not cut it and release "Fallout Trilogy", with the exact same material, but a title indicative of 3. I really see this as a jab, I really do.
As a disclaimer, I liked 1&2, like 3, and never played Tactics or Brotherhood of Steel (the reviews on that one chased me off). So much of the positive things supporting Interplay seem to assume that if Interplay wins, we will see Von Braun, or a true isometric sequel, but just look back. We won't. They skipped finishing VB Brotherhood of Steel.
Erm, bit of a rant. Sorry!
M-H, it's not about Interplay making Fallout 4. What Interplay is arguing is that Bethesda's breach of contract makes the deal granting them the rights to the Fallout franchise null and void, reverting to a previous agreement in which Interplay owns the rights to Fallout and Bethesda sub-licenses it for Fallout 3-5.
Bethesda has been trying to take from Interplay any rights to the entirety of the Fallout franchise and has been trying to block them from doing any business. In my opinion, Bethesda deserves to get burned for this.
Your right, in that it should not matter. However, that is what a lot of people seem to be excited about when they beg and hope for Interplay to win.
Any ways, according to the deal, Interplay kept the rights to proffit from 1, 2, Tactics, and Brotherhood. However, any new designs to the box, marketing, and promotion has to go through Bethesda as per the contract.
From what I understand, they changed the box, gave the collection a new name (see my contentions of the name above), and started selling it without going through Bethesda. (Although I am sure when herd, they will say Bethesda just sat on it, ceased all communications, or something.) So it comes down to, is the new box and title 'Promotional Material' or not?
While I agree the warnings on companies like GOG who sold Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics, by them selves saying Interplay was not authorised is wrong. Again, it may go to interpretation of the contract. However, they would have been right #depending# if they warned sellers who were using the new Triology label, coming againd to if rebranding is promotional.
As for the MMORPG, it... bugs me. They 'implicitly' said they got the money, by stating they were starting work in a letter. However, the contract may state the requirements much more clear then the letter did. In which case the implicit part may be thier undoing. Interplay was also a year late in starting the production. #And according to Bethesda, has not actually made any progress three years after.# Another point of contention will be if Interplay raised the 'implicit money' JUST for V13, or if thier financial problems make the real ammount less #maybe explaining why they did not come out and say they raised the money directly.# In all, the report seems very one sided. Probably becouse the guy who wrote that owns stocks in one comapny and not the other. It almost sounds like he is trying to get the stock value to jump there at the end, with the predictions of getting the money from the sale, voiding the sale, getting thier IP back, and getting the licence fees from the original deal all at the same time.