The infighting between Fallout's father and newly adopted guardian continues. According to a forum post by supposed Interplay stockholder frymuchan, Interplay has been given a 10-day extension to answer a preliminary injunction filed by Bethesda, which claims Interplay no longer holds rights to sell the original titles in the series. Following the release of Fallout 3, Interplay began selling the original titles across multiple PC-based digital distribution services.
Previous court filings by Bethesda claimed that Interplay's plans to develop a Fallout MMO -- codenamed Project V-13 -- were no longer valid because Interplay did not commence development prior to an agreed date of April 4, 2009. According to the post by RagingBull forum user "frymuchan" -- who claims to have received the information from official court documents -- Interplay claims it did issue a letter to Bethesda prior to the April date outlining details of a Fallout MMO, but Bethesda told it "for no apparent reason" that Interplay was no longer allowed to develop the game. Interplay believes that Bethesda's interference with licensing agreements to make the original titles in the series available digitally is unreasonable based on the current contracts in place.
Frymuchan also claims that Interplay has filed a countersuit versus Bethesda over statements it made to third party companies to whom it was attempting to license the original titles. According to the post, Bethesda released statements to companies such as GameTap and Good Old Games, claiming Interplay had no rights to license Fallout 1, 2 or Tactics for sale on its services. Interplay's counterclaim maintains this "unreasonable interference" puts Bethesda into breach of contract and makes the license sale "null and void," therefore reverting the agreement back to a sub-licensing deal between Interplay and Bethesda. In short, Interplay claims Bethesda now only holds rights to Fallout 3 with options for a fourth and fifth game in the series.
It's an argument of apocalyptic proportions and we're expecting more details when the extension expires next week.
[Via GamePolitics and Destructoid]
Reader Comments (29)
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:17PM (Unverified) said
if one of them loses, one of them also wins.. tough call.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:19PM Courtney said
From the article:
"Interplay claims Bethesda now only holds rights to Fallout 3 with options for a fourth and fifth game in the series."
If Bethesda has the license or rights to two more games in the series, I don't see any reason why they couldn't outsource one of those games.
Reply
"Interplay claims Bethesda now only holds rights to Fallout 3 with options for a fourth and fifth game in the series."
If Bethesda has the license or rights to two more games in the series, I don't see any reason why they couldn't outsource one of those games.
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:12PM (Unverified) said
I still like Wasteland better than any Fallout game.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:14PM (Unverified) said
correction: interplay is not the father of Fallout, it was the step uncle in charge of publishing the game who ultimately pulled the plug on the franchise. now uncle interplay wants to come back in and make some more money now that Fallout is back on the sales charts. Huge surprise.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:18PM (Unverified) said
This is really shady on Interplay's part. They're treating the IP sale like some jank real estate scam.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:19PM RKN said
Well, Bethesda had the idea to make 3 far more mainstream, for the consoles and thus the reason for its massive sales success vs. 1/2/Tactics which are PC only and relatively niche.
Too bad you didn't have that idea Interplay. Wait, there was a Fallout game for the PS2/Xbox but it was utter garbage.
Reply
Too bad you didn't have that idea Interplay. Wait, there was a Fallout game for the PS2/Xbox but it was utter garbage.
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:29PM (Unverified) said
It seems what happened was that Interplay thought that there was no financial value in the Fallout license after they bungled the last few attempts at creating a Fallout 3 (Brotherhood of Steel and the unreleased Interplay version of Fallout 3) and probably thought Bethesda's Fallout 3 was going to do mediocre numbers and my guess is they had no intention of developing the Fallout MMO. Once they saw the Fallout 3 sales numbers their jaws dropped and started to hack something together. I think at that point Bethesda was just trying to protect the Fallout license by revoking it from Interplay. If Interplay wasn't willing to put in the resources and time necessary to create a Fallout MMO (several years) then it likely would have been a bomb and hurt the brand. I also don't doubt that Bethesda has their own big plans for a Fallout MMO.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:40PM Aurailious said
That is how I took it. Bethesda has far better capabilities to develop and publish games than Interplay at this point and really have made what Fallout is today.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:38PM LaughingTarget said
Obsidian: Hey, we're the ones who actually made the game, but you Interplay jerks made us go to the courthouse to change our name from Black Isle.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 6:44PM Aurailious said
I expect Obsidian to do excellent work on Fallout: New Vegas. Perhaps if they well enough Bethesda will let them make all future Fallout titles as well.
I certainly hope so. And I know Bethesda will treat them better than Interplay.
Reply
I certainly hope so. And I know Bethesda will treat them better than Interplay.
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 7:30PM Sleepyperson said
Personally I see interplay winning in this legal battle at least to still hold fallout 1,2 and tactics rights.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 8:39PM Dark Archon PSN Archonik XBL Dar said
To be honest I'd rather have Fallout 2 "2"...
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 9:33PM (Unverified) said
Bethesda has a LOT more money than Interplay. I'm not saying they're right (or wrong) but I'm pretty sure that fact is going to have a good deal to do with how this case washes out.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 10:26PM (Unverified) said
As much as I love Fallout 3,
Interplay made Earthworm Jim right?
Therefore go Interplay!
Bethesda does have alot of money though.
Whatever happens (as long as it dosnt result in Fallout ending)
Happens.
Reply
Interplay made Earthworm Jim right?
Therefore go Interplay!
Bethesda does have alot of money though.
Whatever happens (as long as it dosnt result in Fallout ending)
Happens.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 6:39AM (Unverified) said
Interplay is a publisher. PUBLISHER. they don't make games, they publish them. Shiny made earthworm jim.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 9:31PM (Unverified) said
Sorry!
Dont read that much into things...
Downvoted on one of my first comments):
Reply
Dont read that much into things...
Downvoted on one of my first comments):
Posted: Oct 21st 2009 10:46PM F1 Basu Gasu Bakuhatsu said
To win this case Interplay's going to need a lot of Mentats.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 9:32AM jedimacfan said
They'll eventually settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of bottle caps.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 10:33PM c247def6 said
You are all wrong, Interplay went bankrupt then just recently found financing in selling rights to their most successful franchise to another company.
Also, simply put, if Bethesda is overstepping their contract guidelines, then more power to Interplay. Bethesda's vision of Fallout was not true to the story, it's hard for me to even consider it canon.
Where is the child killing and forcing everyone you meet to hate you? When you became a slaver in Fallout 2 you got a tattoo on your forehead that let everyone know. Sulik would try to kill you for it. There are simply no far-reaching consequences for your actions in Fallout 3 (Choosing the starting city doesn't count, it has to be lasting social consequences, not eliminating a group that would hate you altogether.) If you attacked a city in Fallout 2 you had to fight them every time you went back until EVERY SINGLE ONE was dead. If you attacked someone in Fallout 3, you just had to go somewhere and rest for 3 days before you could go back.
Also, cptkrush, outlining plans of a game is the first step of making a game. That means that Interplay fulfilled their end of that deal. You can't start the coding unless you have ideas to code around.
Also, as with the console argument, the technology simply wasn't around then. There was no way a Fallout 3 like we saw could possibly be released on the ps2 or xbox.
Lastly, I would rather see an updated isometric Fallout than the first person garbage that Bethesda released. Quicken the turn-based combat from the original instead of some jank ass first person AP recharge bullshit like VATS is what I want to see.
Reply
Also, simply put, if Bethesda is overstepping their contract guidelines, then more power to Interplay. Bethesda's vision of Fallout was not true to the story, it's hard for me to even consider it canon.
Where is the child killing and forcing everyone you meet to hate you? When you became a slaver in Fallout 2 you got a tattoo on your forehead that let everyone know. Sulik would try to kill you for it. There are simply no far-reaching consequences for your actions in Fallout 3 (Choosing the starting city doesn't count, it has to be lasting social consequences, not eliminating a group that would hate you altogether.) If you attacked a city in Fallout 2 you had to fight them every time you went back until EVERY SINGLE ONE was dead. If you attacked someone in Fallout 3, you just had to go somewhere and rest for 3 days before you could go back.
Also, cptkrush, outlining plans of a game is the first step of making a game. That means that Interplay fulfilled their end of that deal. You can't start the coding unless you have ideas to code around.
Also, as with the console argument, the technology simply wasn't around then. There was no way a Fallout 3 like we saw could possibly be released on the ps2 or xbox.
Lastly, I would rather see an updated isometric Fallout than the first person garbage that Bethesda released. Quicken the turn-based combat from the original instead of some jank ass first person AP recharge bullshit like VATS is what I want to see.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 222 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 162 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 117 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments










