Bethesda vs Interplay continued, FOOL screenshot

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Duck and Cover offers the results of the motion in limine hearing. Their summary:<blockquote>1. The burden of proof is on Interplay to prove 3 things.
A. it has a trademark and copyright license
B. it was in full scale development
C. It had secured funding of 30 million.
2. Interplay is not precluded from presenting parole evidence.
3. Interplay is not precluded from presenting evidence showing minimum financing and full scale production.
4. Affirmative defense of mistake will not work for Interplay.
5. Bethesdas witness can be at the trial, but can only testify as to what an mmo is and what it entails...he cannot comment on what Interplay has done.
6. Trial will be at 9:30 A.M. on Dec 12
7. Interplay thinks it will take 2 to 2 1/2 days for the entire trial.</blockquote>Additionally, they spotted a screenshot on the website of developer Masthead.

<center></center>
 
treehouse-of-horror-iv4.png


This was the exact image that came to mind when reading the results.

God I hope that those 2 to 2 1/2 days are made into some awful Made for TV movie.
 
MMOs always look kinda crappy, but yeah, that does not look like a competitive MMO. Bethesda must be seriously freaking out to think this will be released as a Fallout title, that'd seriously harm the value of their IP.
 
It reminded me less of WoW and more of PoS, graphic wise.

falloutbsx_005-large.jpg
 
Brother None said:
MMOs always look kinda crappy, but yeah, that does not look like a competitive MMO. Bethesda must be seriously freaking out to think this will be released as a Fallout title, that'd seriously harm the value of their IP.
Click to expand...

Better crappy than cartoony.
 
Who really gives a shit about the graphics? That gas station looks fine and atleast a bit true to the gas stations in FO1/2 to me. What I am really interested in is how they will design the combat, the questing, the character development in FOOL... Even the FO:BOS screenshot Lexx linked looks ok to me, if it would not have such a crappy lore/gameplay.
 
Who cares? It's all we have to go on right now. What are we going to do, not talk about it and post empty speculation instead?
 
That's not what I meant and you know it, I was merely repeating what you said in a similar tone - MMOs were never really about amazing graphics, they rise and fall with their character development paths and gameplay options. Ofcourse we don't have much in hand to talk about other than the graphics, but imo they look fine and are nothing to rage about.
 
Surf Solar said:
Who really gives a shit about the graphics? That gas station looks fine and atleast a bit true to the gas stations in FO1/2 to me. What I am really interested in is how they will design the combat, the questing, the character development in FOOL... Even the FO:BOS screenshot Lexx linked looks ok to me, if it would not have such a crappy lore/gameplay.
Click to expand...

I think with those graphics we can expect wow-tastic gamepplay.
 
Kradath said:
Surf Solar said:
Who really gives a shit about the graphics? That gas station looks fine and atleast a bit true to the gas stations in FO1/2 to me. What I am really interested in is how they will design the combat, the questing, the character development in FOOL... Even the FO:BOS screenshot Lexx linked looks ok to me, if it would not have such a crappy lore/gameplay.
Click to expand...

I think with those graphics we can expect wow-tastic gamepplay.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. With the project struggling in every possible way fear is high and expectations are low. I doubt they'll go for anything ambitious, instead go the safe route of "follow the leader" and churn out a post-apo WOW.

Not that I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Blizzard offices are heated by burning 100$ bills and they've got better job security than an undertaker monopoly. They can afford to experiment and get something wrong - the guys working on FOOL don't have any of that.
 
archont said:
Not that I don't understand the reasoning behind this. Blizzard offices are heated by burning 100$ bills and they've got better job security than an undertaker monopoly. They can afford to experiment and get something wrong - the guys working on FOOL don't have any of that.
Click to expand...

"Can afford to experiment" and yet... they don't. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 only titles released since WoW came out. The only experimental parts of these 2 games was "lets see how we can milk our customers better" via splitting SC2 campaigns into separate games, and Diablo 3's new real $ marketplace.

:roll:
 
Gnarles Bronson said:
I know I'm being an impatient patricia, but there was a quote saying the trial would only take 2 1/2 days which was 5 days ago...
Click to expand...

Interplay thought it would take 2.5 days, and if I recall correctly DaC mentioned it'd start on December 12th, but that's just what Interplay thinks. Bethesda's estimate was actually shorter. So I dunno.
 
so just to clarify this all is now supposed to end in December or ?

It gets slowly quite ridiculous for both companies if you ask me.
 
Who ever wins this case will probably ask the other side to pay their legal costs, it will be very interesting to see what that amount is, I'm guessing Bethesda have spent a lot more on lawyers than Interplay. If Interplay do lose, they will most likely (just speculating) declare chapter 11 bankruptcy again, I can't see them surviving.
 
Bethesda is the one who took Interplay to court IIRC, which would argue against them having Interplay pay for the legal costs, especially since I don't think this case will have a clear-cut winner, but it's more likely the judge will rule for some money to change hands regardless of whether or not FOOL ends up being allowed to be developed.

And yes, Crni, we should hear the results before the end of the month. I'd expect it this week.
 
though BN what is your opinion about it ? I mean do you think Bethesda acted in "bad faith" or something ? I would love to know the opinion of someone who is 1. not biased and 2. understands the case - my english is to limited for all those lawyer talking.
 
I'm not that well up in the case, I've hardly read all the files fully. It's pretty clear Bethesda acted in bad faith in some cases, particularly when it came to the Fallout Trilogy, but as pointed out here before that the actions of Bethesda here - which are the only indisputable example of bad faith on Bethesda's side - is part of the license back agreement, and will influence the court's decision on this specific contract (in the form of a fee or the like), but it is not related to the purchase of the Fallout IP by Bethesda. Interplay stockholders have really pushed the viewpoint that a reversal of the Fallout IP is "likely" but nothing Bethesda has done can be related to the actual purchase of the agreement, which is a separate contract from the FOOL and original games license back agreement, so there simply is no way the ownership reverts.

Also, you could argue Bethesda intentionally set up the badly worded agreement for Interplay to fail, and hasn't been helpful to Interplay's effort to promote FOOL. You'd be right, but that isn't relevant as long as Bethesda followed the letter of the contract, which in the case of FOOL is certainly true. The contract doesn't force them to ok PR, and it doesn't stop them from taking this case to court. Being dicks, sure, but not bad faith in any relevant way. The (again, stockholder induced) contention that they're "secretly" developing Fallout Online themselves when it's a badly kept secret that Zenimax Online is going to make TES Online is ridiculous. The stockholders feeding DaC opinions and other reporters online just copying it has irked me throughout this process. It's bad journalism, and allows people with a clear financial interest to twist reporting to their benefit.

So yeah. The contract's wording is pathetic, particularly on funding (30 mil at one certain date with no demands on how this funding works or if it needs to be present beyond the contract), but if you're going to argue that you should look beyond the wording of the contract Interplay is clearly in the wrong because their claim that the small European developer Masthead somehow "represents" $20 million in funding is ridiculous. But they can get by because of the contract's poor wording.

In most situations I'd take Interplay getting the smackdown, but Bethesda's lawyers have look outmatched all day long. There's no way Interplay is getting the license back and if they would they would likely have to pay Bethesda significant amounts of money because of the value difference Bethesda has created in the Fallout license, but it is looking likely since Interplay has shown a working demo of Fallout Online that they will be allowed to continue to work on the game. Bethesda might have hamstrung them enough that they won't hit the launch date, but I have no way of knowing if that's a major concern.

Chances of Fallout Online being any good or financially successful when Bethesda's PR network can essentially silently kill it are minute at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top