Bethesda Sues Interplay Over Fallout Game

[bounty]

Minimum PC System Requirements
PC Processor Speed 200MHz PC Operating System Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me), Windows XP, Windows Vista PC System Memory 32MB RAM PC Additional Requirements DirectX 9.0c

Clearly this is the new blockbuster game released this year. If grandma is confused this easily, she's probably buying PS3 versions of the game for her PC grandson anyways. It's called Fallout Trilogy, not Fallout 3. When you look at the cover of Fallout Trilogy, you don't see Fallout 3 anywhere. The only people getting confused by this are also spilling "Hot Cofee" on their pants and suing because they didn't know it was hot.

 

[TeKEffect]

Newegg even has Bethesda's name on it....If they made an agreement they need to stick to it. Bethesda has made that name popular again. If they want to design the box, let them design the box.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832136011&cm_re=fallout-_-32-136-011-_-Product

Fallout Trilogy - 3 Pack PC Game Bethesda - Retail

 

[spongebob]

[citation][nom]jellico[/nom]Well, this really sucks! Regardless of where your loyalties lie, the fact of the matter is that this little pissing contest is exactly the sort of thing that could wreck any future versions of this great franchise. Fallout 3 was one of the best games I've ever played.[/citation]
No, this won't wreck any future installments of this franchise. The people who currently own the franchise (the ones who made FO3) will still own the franchise when the dust settles. The only future product that could get wrecked is the MMRPG version of fallout that Interplay is developing. But ATM Interplay isn't doing to well with that title - it's late and under-funded, and the project will probably drag on much longer than anticipated if things don't change. In these kind of situations, it's common for license holders to want to kill the project and give the license toi someong else that can deliver (i.e. make the license holders money in a more timely fashion).

 

[TeKEffect]

Plus interplay didnt make them any money. They sold them a name and made money. Bethesda took that name and made a great game, using talent and money. You guys act like interplay had anything to do with FO3. If they could have made a game that good they would have.

 

[purplerat]

Saying "only morons would mistakenly buy Fall Out Trilogy instead of Fall Out 3" is itself a very intellectually lazy argument. It doesn't have to just be somebody buying the Trilogy pack and expecting Fall Out 3 for this to be an issue for Bethesda. There are probably a lot of people out there who looked at both Fall Out 3 and Fall Out Trilogy and decided to go with the cheaper 3 pack even if they knew the Bethesda title was not included. I know I considered it when I looked at the two side by side. If Interplay is using deceptive packaging to try and compete for sales with a game Bethesda bought the rights off them for and they have a contract in place for just that type of thing then I don't see how you can defend Interplay.

I know there are lots of fanboys out there who dislike Bethesda for their take on the series, but have a little common sense. If you take money from somebody and sign a contract then not only break that contract but do so as a direct attack on what the contract was put in place for then you are wrong.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Why does anyone even have anything to say about this? We do NOT know the details and really, shouldn't even be involved with it. Besides everyone owning Fallout 3, 2 or 1... I don't think this is anyone's business. It IS interesting to read about though.

 

[Guest]

It sounds like a legitimate lawsuit to me. When Bethesda purchased the rights to make Fallout 3, I'm sure their legal team put CLEAR restrictions in the contract on what Interplay was allowed to do with their previous Fallout titles. I can definitely see how somebody might think that "Fallout Trilogy" implies that Fallout 3 is included. As with anything, we don't have all the details, but from what I hear it sounds like it holds some weight.

 

[spongebob]

[citation]I don't think this is anyone's business. It IS interesting to read about though.[/citation]Lesson to all: How to contradict yourself in only 7 words.

 

[TheZander]

[citation][nom]ShqTth[/nom]hmmm I can see the problem, still somehing should be put on the trilogy packaging to make things more clear, that is why Bethesda should review the packaging. A lot of preople would buy a trilogy thinking its v1,2,3, (aka parents, grandparents) and it would hurt fallout 3 sales.wtf, how can a trilogy contain a tatics game? Not really a trilogy since fallout 3 is out.[/citation]

You hit the nail on the head here. Bethesda's response might be harsh, but a trilogy could DEFINITELY confuse many customers into thinking, "Holy CRAP this is a hawt deal! We can get the whole Fallout trilogy for twenty bux!!! SAWEET!" All the while they are assuming 1,2, and 3 are included when they are not. I can totally see some gamer's grandma or parent buying them as a gift simply because they don't know any better. Trilogy is most certainly inappropriate when the newest title has the simple, clear name of "Fallout 3" but is not included in the "Trilogy."

You KNOW Interplay didn't do that by accident. They wanted to milk Bethesda's new legitimately purchased and re-deployed franchise.