the very real dilema bethseda faces in the fallout, interplay court case.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/10/27/could-bethesda-loose-the-fallout-franchise.aspx

in short bethseda's cracking of skulls over the inteplay fallout MMO is at a tipping point and a huge pile of moeny could be headed interplay's way

what was interplays last game in the last 10 years? i question if they are still good as they once were. and how the hell they are still alive?

what was interplays last game in the last 10 years? i question if they are still good as they once were. and how the hell they are still alive?

TheShadowLord07

magic and they published alot of kids games to generate revenue.. you know all thsoe cheesey cd's you get in cereal boxes..yeah those

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

what was interplays last game in the last 10 years? i question if they are still good as they once were. and how the hell they are still alive?

ionusX

magic and they published alot of kids games to generate revenue.. you know all thsoe cheesey cd's you get in cereal boxes..yeah those

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

Is it too much to ask for both bethesda to keep making fallout games and interplay to keep making the MMO?
i want ALL the Fallouts!

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

I just hate hearing about about all these companies making MMO games. These games will most likely be failures. Even if they did make a solid game, I don't think the product would do well. (DC Universe Online) Even MMO games with strong I.P.s don't always do well like FFXI and FFXIV. These guys should be working on their regular games.

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

Planeforger

Have you played New Vegas? What a technical mess...

I just hate hearing about about all these companies making MMO games. These games will most likely be failures. Even if they did make a solid game, I don't think the product would do well. (DC Universe Online) Even MMO games with strong I.P.s don't always do well like FFXI and FFXIV. These guys should be working on their regular games.

DireOwl

ff11 was a moderate success steady half-million users on the pc & ps2 combined. heck no free mmo has that amny players (omitting runescape)

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

Vari3ty

Have you played New Vegas? What a technical mess...

Which version? I didnt encounter many bugs at all on the PC version, no more than I did with Fallout 3.

Besides any technical issues were made up with far superior writing, design and gameplay. Bethesda's take of the Fallout franchise was a disgrace in turn of gameplay, tone and lore. Did they even play Fallout 1+2+Tactics?

[QUOTE="DireOwl"]

I just hate hearing about about all these companies making MMO games. These games will most likely be failures. Even if they did make a solid game, I don't think the product would do well. (DC Universe Online) Even MMO games with strong I.P.s don't always do well like FFXI and FFXIV. These guys should be working on their regular games.

ionusX

ff11 was a moderate success steady half-million users on the pc & ps2 combined. heck no free mmo has that amny players (omitting runescape)

Maplestory?

Several other asian mmos have an absurd ammount of players. Some even beating WoW.

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

Vari3ty

id rather they gave it back to interplay then we might see a true fallout 3.Dont get me wrong its fun but to be honest F1 and 2 are better games.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

Vari3ty

Have you played New Vegas? What a technical mess...

Yeah, and vastly better than the horrible mess that was Fallout 3. With the patches, ofcourse.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

razgriz_101

id rather they gave it back to interplay then we might see a true fallout 3.Dont get me wrong its fun but to be honest F1 and 2 are better games.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

razgriz_101

id rather they gave it back to interplay then we might see a true fallout 3.Dont get me wrong its fun but to be honest F1 and 2 are better games.

Black Isle are the ones that created Fallout, and they haven't ben a part of Interplay since 2003. After Black Isle closed, the team split into two - Troika Games and Obsidian. Troika unfortunately is no longer, but Obsidian lives on, and recently with the return of Tim Cain (another Black Isle member), maybe they'll resolves their issues.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

Lucianu

id rather they gave it back to interplay then we might see a true fallout 3.Dont get me wrong its fun but to be honest F1 and 2 are better games.

Black Isle are the ones that created Fallout, and they haven't ben a part of Interplay since 2003. After Black Isle closed, the team split into two - Troika Games and Obsidian. Troika unfortunately is no longer, but Obsidian lives on, and recently with the return of Tim Cain (another Black Isle member), maybe they'll resolves their issues.

hopefully Bethsoft just throws them a bone and they keep working on Fallout instead of bethesda's internal studio.That would be good, aslong as they give Obsidian free reign bout how the game plays and go back to the more old school Fallouts.

NV is essentially what 3 should have been when you really think bout it in terms of storyline :P

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

Maroxad

Have you played New Vegas? What a technical mess...

Which version? I didnt encounter many bugs at all on the PC version, no more than I did with Fallout 3.

Besides any technical issues were made up with far superior writing, design and gameplay. Bethesda's take of the Fallout franchise was a disgrace in turn of gameplay, tone and lore. Did they even play Fallout 1+2+Tactics?

If Bethesda farms out Fallout 4 to Obsidian like they did with NV, they had better keep a much tighter leash on quality control this time. Obsidian's habit seems to be to release games while they're still in alpha code, and all the fancy writing and design in the world will not save a game if it's too glitchy to play.

My brother quit playing New Vegas because he saved his way into a corner of glitches. How do writing and design make up for that? He had to stop playing the game because of Obsidian's incompetence. Personally I think all the things you mentioned are way overrated by New Vegas fanboys. Fallout 3 laid down the groundwork for all of NV's gameplay, and frankly I don't give a crap how much "better" the writing in NV allegedly was when the game is virtually unplayable from the glitches.

If Bethesda farms out Fallout 4 to Obsidian like they did with NV, they had better keep a much tighter leash on quality control this time. Obsidian's habit seems to be to release games while they're still in alpha code, and all the fancy writing and design in the world will not save a game if it's too glitchy to play.

Timstuff

Nah, i disagree.. But i aknowledge people's love for Fallout 3 aswell. Though i believe Fallout 3 was garbage, and basically a base for creating Fallout New Vegas, the true succesor to the Fallout name. It was a mess, for some (since i heard some people had no problem playing), but the PC version is bug free (as close as possible at least) due to the amount of support this game has at the moment. Your brother should replay the game now.

I hope Bethesda doesen't loose the Fallout liscence, Interplay would ruin it, which is ironic cause they invented Fallout. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were some of the best games of all time.

I hope Bethesda doesen't loose the Fallout liscence, Interplay would ruin it, which is ironic cause they invented Fallout.

JohnnyWPSP

Interplay had all of the talent and made Fallout 1.

Then the developers left to form Troika, so Interplay's Black Isle stepped in and made Fallout 2.

Then Black Isle left to form Obsidian and Interplay fell apart, so Bethesda bought the licence off Interplay and made Fallout 3.

Then Bethesda was busy, so Obsidian got the licence and made Fallout New Vegas.

And now Obisidian hires the former Troika devs, Bethesda could lose a court case, and Interplay could get the licence again.

Round and round we go...

[QUOTE="DireOwl"]

I just hate hearing about about all these companies making MMO games. These games will most likely be failures. Even if they did make a solid game, I don't think the product would do well. (DC Universe Online) Even MMO games with strong I.P.s don't always do well like FFXI and FFXIV. These guys should be working on their regular games.

ionusX

ff11 was a moderate success steady half-million users on the pc & ps2 combined. heck no free mmo has that amny players (omitting runescape)

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Have you played New Vegas? What a technical mess...

Timstuff

Which version? I didnt encounter many bugs at all on the PC version, no more than I did with Fallout 3.

Besides any technical issues were made up with far superior writing, design and gameplay. Bethesda's take of the Fallout franchise was a disgrace in turn of gameplay, tone and lore. Did they even play Fallout 1+2+Tactics?

If Bethesda farms out Fallout 4 to Obsidian like they did with NV, they had better keep a much tighter leash on quality control this time. Obsidian's habit seems to be to release games while they're still in alpha code, and all the fancy writing and design in the world will not save a game if it's too glitchy to play.

New Vegas was not too glitchy for me, no more than FO3 anyway. At least I didnt encounter any bugs forcing me to start a new file in NV. Furthermore, it is about the overall experience. Fallout 3 did NOTHING well.

Writing was laughably bad, The side quests were completely random and almost each and every one of them felt tacked on, the world was copy paste, the green tint, awful gunplay, excessive level scaling, terribad level design, weak choices and consequences (at least they beat Bioware's C&C though, although that isnt saying a lot), linear mainquest, VATS, forced Auto Aim resulting in me dying several times because my bullets were flying towards a wall, lack of challange, lack of depth, little motivation to explore, being able to max all skills and attributes without much difficulty, too many perks (1/level was too much considering the level cap), complete imbalance, drab animations, uninspiring towns that serve as nothing more than hubs, ect.

Fallout 3 was a terrible game, NV might have been buggier, but at least it improved in almost all aspects, and more importantly it actually felt like Fallout. While NV did burrow elements from "FO3" (refining most of these elements to the level where they became at least tolerable), but it also burrowed elements from the cancelled Van Buren.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Losing Fallout would be a big blow to Bethesda. I hope they keep it, I want to see what they can do in Fallout 4.

razgriz_101

id rather they gave it back to interplay then we might see a true fallout 3.Dont get me wrong its fun but to be honest F1 and 2 are better games.

New Vegas was not too glitchy for me, no more than FO3 anyway. At least I didnt encounter any bugs forcing me to start a new file in NV. Furthermore, it is about the overall experience. Fallout 3 did NOTHING well.

Writing was laughably bad, The side quests were completely random and almost each and every one of them felt tacked on, the world was copy paste, the green tint, awful gunplay, excessive level scaling, terribad level design, weak choices and consequences (at least they beat Bioware's C&C though, although that isnt saying a lot), linear mainquest, VATS, forced Auto Aim resulting in me dying several times because my bullets were flying towards a wall, lack of challange, lack of depth, little motivation to explore, being able to max all skills and attributes without much difficulty, too many perks (1/level was too much considering the level cap), complete imbalance, drab animations, uninspiring towns that serve as nothing more than hubs, ect.

Fallout 3 was a terrible game, NV might have been buggier, but at least it improved in almost all aspects, and more importantly it actually felt like Fallout. While NV did burrow elements from "FO3" (refining most of these elements to the level where they became at least tolerable), but it also burrowed elements from the cancelled Van Buren.

Maroxad

Honestly, alot of what you said could be applied to New Vegas as well. I acknowledge that New Vegas had better writing, dialogue and choices. But things like gunplay, the tint of he world, copy and paste, vats, challenge, animations, and maxing all skills are present in New Vegas.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

New Vegas was not too glitchy for me, no more than FO3 anyway. At least I didnt encounter any bugs forcing me to start a new file in NV. Furthermore, it is about the overall experience. Fallout 3 did NOTHING well.

Writing was laughably bad, The side quests were completely random and almost each and every one of them felt tacked on, the world was copy paste, the green tint, awful gunplay, excessive level scaling, terribad level design, weak choices and consequences (at least they beat Bioware's C&C though, although that isnt saying a lot), linear mainquest, VATS, forced Auto Aim resulting in me dying several times because my bullets were flying towards a wall, lack of challange, lack of depth, little motivation to explore, being able to max all skills and attributes without much difficulty, too many perks (1/level was too much considering the level cap), complete imbalance, drab animations, uninspiring towns that serve as nothing more than hubs, ect.

Fallout 3 was a terrible game, NV might have been buggier, but at least it improved in almost all aspects, and more importantly it actually felt like Fallout. While NV did burrow elements from "FO3" (refining most of these elements to the level where they became at least tolerable), but it also burrowed elements from the cancelled Van Buren.

Kickinurass

Honestly, alot of what you said could be applied to New Vegas as well. I acknowledge that New Vegas had better writing, dialogue and choices. But things like gunplay, the tint of he world, copy and paste, vats, challenge, animations, and maxing all skills are present in New Vegas.

New Vegas was pretty much more Fallout 3, with a few changes. It had a few improvements like the faction system, improved companion system, weapons, iron sights and stuff like that. Overall though, Fallout 3 kind of beats it in every aspect. Its WAY less buggier, and in comparison I suffered less hard crashes in the whole of Fallout 3 then I did 5 hours in New Vegas, the story has a bigger pull, the world feels more like a wasteland and overall it had a much bigger impact on me then NV did.

I can't really get behind people saying NV is better just because Obsidian worked on it, because it wasn't and though it was good, it wasn't great and its easily one of the worst rush jobs I've ever seen.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

New Vegas was not too glitchy for me, no more than FO3 anyway. At least I didnt encounter any bugs forcing me to start a new file in NV. Furthermore, it is about the overall experience. Fallout 3 did NOTHING well.

Writing was laughably bad, The side quests were completely random and almost each and every one of them felt tacked on, the world was copy paste, the green tint, awful gunplay, excessive level scaling, terribad level design, weak choices and consequences (at least they beat Bioware's C&C though, although that isnt saying a lot), linear mainquest, VATS, forced Auto Aim resulting in me dying several times because my bullets were flying towards a wall, lack of challange, lack of depth, little motivation to explore, being able to max all skills and attributes without much difficulty, too many perks (1/level was too much considering the level cap), complete imbalance, drab animations, uninspiring towns that serve as nothing more than hubs, ect.

Fallout 3 was a terrible game, NV might have been buggier, but at least it improved in almost all aspects, and more importantly it actually felt like Fallout. While NV did burrow elements from "FO3" (refining most of these elements to the level where they became at least tolerable), but it also burrowed elements from the cancelled Van Buren.

Kickinurass

Honestly, alot of what you said could be applied to New Vegas as well. I acknowledge that New Vegas had better writing, dialogue and choices. But things like gunplay, the tint of he world, copy and paste, vats, challenge, animations, and maxing all skills are present in New Vegas.

Some can indeed. But not all of them.

Furthermore, some of them are improved to be less awful. The gunplay is improved, orange tint is more bearable than a green tint, copy paste was less common, and maxing skills was a lot harder because of 3 reasons: less points/level, far fewer books in the world, no bobbleheads that permanently increased stats.

I found the difficulty in NV to be fair, at least on hardcore very hard (while sequence breaking). Still, it still suffered from severe balance issues from my experience. But at least the flaws were small enough to not ruin the game though.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Hm, my knowledge of US IP law is pretty much nothing, but I gather that the ambiguous terms would have to be pretty much impossible to draw meaning from in order to kill the contract...and even then, if they're just severable clauses, I'm guessing that the contract would survive regardless.

So while it looks like Interplay might keep their MMO for now, I don't think it's hugely likely that they've be able to spin their way out of selling (part of) their IP to Bethesda.

Anyway, if there was any justice in the world, Obsidian should be the sole owner of the franchise. They're pretty much the only company competant and experienced enough to do anything with the Fallout games.

Vari3ty

Have you played New Vegas?

Yes Ive played New Vegas, it was a return to the Fallout series and better then Fallout3 in eveyr way possible (besides radio stations).

New Vegas felt like a Fallout game, F3 did not, I am praying Obsidian does Fallout4 as I was very bored with F3 but loved New Vegas (I am on my 5th playthrough now).

Its actually not that buggy on PC, especially after all the wicked patches they did.

New Vegas had much better gunplay (you can look down the sites now), better dialogue, factions!, better story, better roleplaying elements, MUCH better questing, better atmosphere, Much more humour, feels like fallout alot more then F3 did, better characters and MUCH more replay value. F3 has better radio stations thats it for me.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

New Vegas was not too glitchy for me, no more than FO3 anyway. At least I didnt encounter any bugs forcing me to start a new file in NV. Furthermore, it is about the overall experience. Fallout 3 did NOTHING well.

Writing was laughably bad, The side quests were completely random and almost each and every one of them felt tacked on, the world was copy paste, the green tint, awful gunplay, excessive level scaling, terribad level design, weak choices and consequences (at least they beat Bioware's C&C though, although that isnt saying a lot), linear mainquest, VATS, forced Auto Aim resulting in me dying several times because my bullets were flying towards a wall, lack of challange, lack of depth, little motivation to explore, being able to max all skills and attributes without much difficulty, too many perks (1/level was too much considering the level cap), complete imbalance, drab animations, uninspiring towns that serve as nothing more than hubs, ect.

Fallout 3 was a terrible game, NV might have been buggier, but at least it improved in almost all aspects, and more importantly it actually felt like Fallout. While NV did burrow elements from "FO3" (refining most of these elements to the level where they became at least tolerable), but it also burrowed elements from the cancelled Van Buren.

SPYDER0416

Honestly, alot of what you said could be applied to New Vegas as well. I acknowledge that New Vegas had better writing, dialogue and choices. But things like gunplay, the tint of he world, copy and paste, vats, challenge, animations, and maxing all skills are present in New Vegas.

New Vegas was pretty much more Fallout 3, with a few changes. It had a few improvements like the faction system, improved companion system, weapons, iron sights and stuff like that. Overall though, Fallout 3 kind of beats it in every aspect. Its WAY less buggier, and in comparison I suffered less hard crashes in the whole of Fallout 3 then I did 5 hours in New Vegas, the story has a bigger pull, the world feels more like a wasteland and overall it had a much bigger impact on me then NV did.

I can't really get behind people saying NV is better just because Obsidian worked on it, because it wasn't and though it was good, it wasn't great and its easily one of the worst rush jobs I've ever seen.

I dont care who worked on the two games.. the bottom line is that I felt very bored to play F3 and never wanted to do a 2nd playthrough. While with New Vegas I was HOOKED and could not wait to do a 2nd playthrough, in fact I am alreayd on my 5th playthrough.

The two games look similair because its the same engine but thats where it ends, eveyrthing else New Vegas does much much better.

Dissapointed with F3, blown away and surprised by New Vegas, thats just the way it was for me.

I hope Bethesda doesen't loose the Fallout liscence, Interplay would ruin it, which is ironic cause they invented Fallout. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were some of the best games of all time.

JohnnyWPSP

Fallout 1 >> Fallout3

Fallout 2 >> Fallout3

New Vegas >> Fallout3

I own each game in the series and Fallout3 is my least favorite perosnally and this is someone who loves Bethesda (own every Elderscrolsl game from Arena to Oblivion). I was expecting Flalout3 to be just amazing, one of my fav series done with new graphics by one of my fav devs.. YES PLEASE!! Yet when the game came out I was very dissapointed, so much so that Iw as not even gonna try Fallout New Vegas, I sure am glad I did because I loved it.

Bethesda will destroy fallout by reducing it to the now mediocre status of the elder scrolls games. Interplay is just a tumor that should have been killed off a while go. The true owners of the fallout franchise should be obsidian and they did a hell of a job with new vegas.

I hope Interplay wins.