I doubt anyone cares. Not like those people like Beth or FO3 anyway. There have been haters for years, when Beth first announced the project.. so not much new there. Funnily enough, most of the comments on NMA have actually agreed that Interplay screwed up bigtime and Beth is pursuing a logical course of action.

Call them what you will, but mistakes like that are made in the rush of shopping all the time, like when I recently bought my hubby a "bluetooth" version of the movie he wanted. Cost me more...he couldn't watch it since we don't have bluetooth. Yes, it was my mistake, but mistakes like that are easy to make and it would be most peoples conclusion that haven't a clue about that third spin off game ever existing that FO3 would be part of the trilogy. Not everyone was or is up on the history of Fallout like us.




Damages and lawyer fees which is customary to ask for in any suit like this. One never sues anyone here without asking for damages and legal fees. It just is not done especially when claiming you have been damaged by something.


Just a note folks to ask that you not bash Herve Caen anymore in this thread. He is an individual and we don't allow bashing individuals here no matter who they are. Go after Interplay or Bethesda but please don't flame an individual from either of those companies.

As for the rest, I will let the judge decide what is/was right or wrong. I doubt he/she will be asking our opinions but rather looking at the facts of the case.

Which is what I've been saying, but Hungry Donner is somehow convinced that they aren't asking for monetary compensation. For now, it is unclear at best.



The trilogy box pretty clearly shows what games are included:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:FO_Trilogy_Front.jpg

That doesn't matter; anyone with decent reading comprehension will see that Bethesda is just protecting their IP, and their interests. It's not a good idea to let small companies believe that they can push you around.

Well, the monetary gain is going to be irrelevant along with anything else in this case. That's buisness now-a-days.


The only thing I should say is that Bethesda did have the right to sue Interplay. They didn't let Bethesda check the packages and they didn't meet their end of the bargain in terms of the contract for V31, or so called "fallout online". Personally I thought the terms of the contract were seriously ridiculous, but I cannot argue with that, Bethesda want's Interplay to make it money while it still can, why not? Either way, I guess Interplay will go out with a whimper and not a bang.

Two things I'm glad about

1. Brian Fargo might be able to rise from his rather unwanted exile and bring back some glory to Interplays wonder-work with Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics.

2. I have the Trilogy pack in my closet, and Bethesda can't confiscate all those copies out on the market and in your shelves, buaahahahahahahahha, so I get to play it. Thankfully I'll never let Bethesda take it away.


All in all, the main things that went wrong for Interplay stem from this.

1. Brian Fargo get's kicked out. WTH

2. Herve Caen, Cain, I don't know, takes place.

3. They sell the rights of Fallout to Bethesda. Fallout was a huge opportunity, that with a little effort from the little talent left at Interplay, could have made them monies to recover.


My hopes


1. Brian Fargo returns

2. Obsidian contacts his little band of developers

3. They work on Wasteland 2 in a shadow development, releasing it before Bethesda can react.

4. Then we can start the cold war all over again! This time corporate style! WOOOHOOO!!!!!

5.

6. Bethesda makes fallout 4 with the assistance of the original developers, not just New Vegas. I want more of the old charm in the new Fallouts to come.


Back on topic



Bethesda want's the little damage done reversed, their contract blown to bits, and Interplay in the dark. I don't care. As long as one day someone can step up to the plate to give a good name to Fallouts original developers, and assist one day in the creation of a to-be fallout game, I'll be a happy pawn in the corporate battlefield. Huzzah!

*removed flames against individual. Don't do that :nono:*

Caen is the guy who destroyed Fallout. Cain is the guy who created it:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Herve_Caen
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Tim_Cain

Anyway, looks like the moderators don't want us to discuss Herve Caen, so let's drop it.



By then, Interplay was in such a shape that Interplay didn't have much of a choice. It was either sell or die.

But why change the word 'collection' to 'trilogy' right after Fallout 3 was released?

Honestly.. what innocent reasoning could there be behind it? I can think of none. You already had a working pack of games, and you change the art and put a new and misleading title on it and fail to submit it for approval even though you were obligated to. It's either sheer incompetence or shady. It's not like they patched the games or redid anything. They just put new art and a new title on an old box.

I'd love to hear the truth behind that one.



Bethesda doesn't want to prevent anyone from ever playing the old games again. They just want them distributed in a manner that doesn't conflict with the future of the franchise.. a future they now control.

Simple answer, there are three games. Trilogy sounds "cooler".

Distributed by different people. The "Fallout Collection" was packaged and distributed by White Label, and the "Fallout Trilogy" was distributed and packaged by some company called Gator.

And they are THE three Fallout games by Interplay.



Interplay sold the "Fallout Trilogy" pack even before Fallout 3 was released. And "Fallout Collection" is the name of the UK edition by White Label, not the US edition by Interplay itself.



We don't know if, when Bethesda wins the lawsuit, they will distribute the original games in any form. We just know that they want to stop Interplay from distributing them.

This thread is getting heated in places, let's make sure to cool it down and keep our posts constructive.

Second, the semantics debate over "trilogy" is now over. People have had their say and made their arguments, I don't see anywhere for the discussion to progress to and it's caused enough sparks already.



If the news reports were getting haven't sorted this out yet it may be best to lock this discussion until they have.

I wouldn't be surprised if sueing for damages is a legal 'necissity' like I mentioned later in my post. Without knowing how much they're asking for its difficult to judge the situation. As for legal fees, as Summer points out this is routine and it's part of this being a law suit rather than the actual complaint. Really, if Bethesda wins their case then Interplay should pay for their legal fees, they had several months to settle this out of court and they didn't. If Bethesda looses chances are they'll have to pay for Interplay's legal fees, that's just how it works.


That may be the case, but as others have pointed out if you don't protect your assets it is very easy to loose them. I'd argue the legal system is too black and white in this regard. If Interplay was required to seek permission for re-releases, and if they broke this, then Bethesda either takes them to court over it or sets a precedent that they are loose with contractual requirements - which could be used later on other contractual disputes. That's kind of stupid, but it's unfortunately how it works.

Damages can mean anything. From the money that Bethesda feels they lost due to misguided purchases.. to having to miss work and deal with the crap associated with the trial. It's not a good point to isolate and make the key subject because no one knows what damages they are seeking.

I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do this legally, just that it's bad for PR.

So a few diehard fans from 10 years ago that already hate you.. hate you a little more. I'm pretty sure that's a worthy trade off when you are dealing with a multi-million dollar product.

I'm not just talking about diehard fans. Just look at comments on mainstream gaming sites, to outsiders it just looks like Bethesda simply wants to take away the original games from their makers (which is partly true for as long as Chris Taylor is still at IPLY). Sure, it might have been necessary for them, but PR-wise, it doesn't look good. And regardless of who is right or wrong, it is likely to lead to the games not being available legally anymore aside from used copies.

It's a sad idea that Interplay trifled with Bethesda.

But now in corporate timelines, the big bird always wins.

Too bad Interplay was the woodpecker.

*runs off to play the Fallout trilogy and get nostalgia attack*

Much better. Tea and biscuits?

The details of the case aren't a secret; Bethesda isn't doing anything wrong. Interplay failed to live up to their side of the deal, and Bethesda is taking action. Bethesda can afford to cut their losses here because the folks who see them as the bad guy probably hate Bethesda already.

I've looked at a few sites, and responses are as mixed as they always have been. But I actually see more people admitting that Interplay screwed up bigtime and they can see why it's happening.

Yes, Interplay of course did screw up big time. But it doesn't mean it also isn't bad for Beth's PR.

I've also read some that see Bethesda being greedy with the re-release suit, and these people aren't "haters" of Bethesda or anything. I guess you'll class them as such now, heh. It can come across that way, not that you can't but you shouldn't , people think.

The average gamer doesn't care about legalities, and the people who do care will read the articles concerning the case. It's not likely that Bethesda's PR will take any hits for this particular lawsuit.

Exactly - they might not care about legalities, but they might care about the original Fallouts being made unavailable for purchase.

So let me ask you this: Does that make any sense to you?

Do you think it is logical to say 'Company A screwed up, so I now hate Company B!'?

No? Then why is it even a point of contention?



Who said the old games would be unavailable for purchase? They just need to available in a way Bethesda approves of. The fact they let Interplay attempt this in the first place pretty much defies any reasoning behind jumping to that conclusion.

Ausir, they have the responsibility to do it and not just the right. The responsibility of protecting ones IP falls squarely upon the shoulders of the owner of the IP. If they know a contract has not been followed and their IP is at risk of being misused or used without permission and do not take the appropriate steps to stop it by first giving proper notice then following through with a law suit if the notice is ignored, they risk losing their entire IP by setting a precedent. That is how the law works here. I am sorry that Polish don't understand the US legal system, but that is the long and short of it as it has happened many times.

That is why this is a case for lawyers to fight and a judge or judges to decide. They are the ones who know and understand the law.

Bethesda now wants the court to declare that Interplay has no rights whatsoever to release them. And it's very much possible that Bethesda might not be able to release them either even if they win the lawsuit, because the rights might end up in a limbo, with e.g. Beth owning the content, but IPLY owning the code, and Beth being able to re-release the games only if they remake them from grounds up code-wise.



Exactly. I don't care that much about the fate of Interplay at this point, nor about Beth's reputation, but I do care about the availability of the original games.