Fallout didn't lose money, but it didn't come close to expectations... or to other titles in Interplay's stable. On the other hand, it had fans. Fanatical fans.
My impression is that it actually did pretty well against the expectations, and it didn't have fanatical fans yet in 1998, did it?
To quote Tim Cain:
So I started FO2. But things were still bad. People secondguessed what was good for the game, and they wanted in on it, since it looked like a "big thing" now, not some grade B product, which was what FO was viewed as.
BTW, they missed the stage when Fallout was actually developed as a Wasteland sequel, but they did not manage to secure the license.
The ruins of San Francisco were on the map, as was the totalitarian New California Republic run by Tandi, an NPC from Fallout 1.
Totalitarian?
Tactics was just that: a tactical combat game. You took on a squad of Brotherhood initiates dealing with robot armies, warring factions inside the Brotherhood and a race to reach Vault 1, hiding spot of the U.S. government during the war.
Vault
1?
No Ron Perlman narration.
Huh? Tactics definitely did have Ron Perlman narration.
And yet, included in the box was Fallout: Warfare, a tabletop miniatures warfare game... perhaps the closest the series will ever come to returning to its pen-and-paper origins.
Only on the bonus preorder CD in most countries.
the prisoner would roam the better part of Utah and Colorado
You forgot Arizona and New Mexico.
Interplay, meanwhile, continues to talk a good game. A press release claimed development began on the Fallout MMO in April 2008, one year after the Bethesda deal. The next test will be in a few short months, in April 2009, the deadline for Interplay to secure $30 million in project financing or forfeit their claim on the franchise. The launch deadline is April 4, 2011. Fans are certainly pulling for them, particularly since the announcement that Chris Taylor, the seminal lead designer on Fallout 1, is on board.
You forgot Jason Anderson.