Interplay vs. Bethesda: Who Owns Fallout

January 21, 2011 -

The battle in the court of public opinion continues between Bethesda and Interplay concerning who actually owns the rights to Fallout. Bethesda's Peter Hines claims they own it outright, while Interplay president Eric Caen claims that the rights will revert to them if Bethesda fights them on its MMO project.

It's a battle of he said he said on two different news outlets. On Eurogamer Caen says that if Bethesda doesn't allow them to make a Fallout MMO the rights to the franchise revert back to them after one more game. Meanwhile on VG247 Bethesda VP of PR Pete Hines states rather emphatically that his company owns Fallout:

"We own the rights to everything Fallout. The licence is ours. Fallout belongs to us. That’s what I’ll clarify," he told the outlet during a phone conversation yesterday.

Caen claims that it's bad news for Bethesda if Interplay doesn't get to make its MMO:

"We sold the Fallout IP to Bethesda in exchange for a certain amount of cash and the right to do the Fallout MMO," he said. "If they refuse to let us do the game, then the sale of the IP is terminated, and they will be allowed to do only one more Fallout, 5. But in that case, the IP will come back to us, and of course, we will complete our work and release Fallout MMO."

According to a GI.biz report, part of Interplay's agreement with Bethesda stated that it had to "commence development and secure adequate funding by April 2009." Bethesda sued the troubled firm for trademark infringement and breach of agreement in September 2009.

The agreement sounds like it's very murky and will have to be sorted out . Both Hines and Caen admit that the matter will end up being decided by a court.


Comments

Re: Interplay vs. Bethesda: Who Owns Fallout

I did some digging on the selling of the Fallout IP. Interplay has been pretty scummy already on their deal. So far they have broken many of the agreements as it is. I am hoping the courts punish Interplay hard :(

---------

James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: Interplay vs. Bethesda: Who Owns Fallout

If you go and read the history of Interplay and Titus Software which is the other company the Caen brothers owned, it's pretty clear that these guys are scumbags who led their companies into death spirals, left all the employees high and dry and are trying their best to keep Interplay on life support so they can keep drawing paycheques. I've no doubt it was their intention to sell Fallout and after it succeeded, launch this stupid stunt to try to steal it back from Bethesda. The Caen brothers are scam artists who should frankly be in jail (or at the very least broke) for what they did to those companies and their employees. I hope (and expect) they get crushed in court and lose their shirts as they deserve to.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.digital-lifeline.ca

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Interplay vs. Bethesda: Who Owns Fallout

They were licensed back the rights to do an MMO but there were certain conditions they had to meet to retain those rights. That's what this whole legal battle is over - whether those conditions were met.  If Interplay loses this legal battle it'll be because in the judgement of the court, they didn't meet those conditions, in which case it's been some time since I read the agreement but I don't remember reading anything about the rights to Fallout reverting back to Interplay if they weren't able to meet those conditions.

The agreement granting them the MMO license is a separate agreement from the purchasing agreement so it's not even a case of "part of the purchasing agreement wasn't met so the whole thing is invalid." That just seems like a bizarre assertion to make.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@EZK - I think you're attributing too much there. I think the reality is actually, if 15 news sites didn't alll write coincidentally 'gamers are dead' articles, in response to a very small number of harassment cases, we wouldn't be here.10/02/2014 - 9:10am
E. Zachary KnightSo what you are saying is that gamergate is a reflexive and defensive reaction to jerks and douchebags being told off?10/02/2014 - 9:06am
Sleaker@prh99 - the ZQ stuff was a catalyst, but GG didn't explode until the Gamers are dead articles popped up everywhere, see article 3 in the link I posted.10/02/2014 - 9:04am
prh99The articles by Leigh Alexander and others were in response to what happened to Anita and Quinn and this toxic subset of gamers. 10/02/2014 - 9:02am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My timeline puts events in the order that prh99 just laid out. Had Quinn's ex-boyfriend not been an incredible douchebag, we might not be where we are.10/02/2014 - 9:00am
prh99The blog post by Quinn's exboyfriend suggesting she slept with journalists to get favorable reviews was the impetus for #gamergate.10/02/2014 - 8:54am
SleakerTechRaptor seems to do a decent job of breaking down things in it's currently 6-part series: http://techraptor.net/2014/09/23/good-morning-orthodoxy-1/ - and why atleast for him, the whole Media-thing is offensive.10/02/2014 - 8:53am
SleakerSo from all of the articles I've read that give timelines and show tag trends, there's nothing to support GG being about AS or Quinn. These were a minority of people harassing.. The large portion of GG started when the 'Gamers are dead' articles started.10/02/2014 - 8:45am
prh99Btw apparently they've gone as far as creating a GitHub for this Operation Disrespectful Nod. http://bit.ly/1qsbWcq10/02/2014 - 8:44am
Sleakerthey don't consider the issue. This is the consumeristic nature of a market.10/02/2014 - 8:41am
prh99Attacking their integrity and now getting advertisers to pull their ads from those sites.10/02/2014 - 8:40am
Sleaker@EZK - Telling a company you disagree with the nature of a news sites methodology and feel it negatively impacts the ad-running company as a supporter of said articles is not censorship. It's voicing your opinion that you will vote with your wallet if10/02/2014 - 8:38am
prh99I don't think they have any interested in debate. They scared Anita and Quinn with threats of violence, now they are going to try and damage organizations who called them their behavior.10/02/2014 - 8:36am
E. Zachary KnightWhat I can't understand is why gamergate supporters feel the need to silence their critics. Why can't they simply fight free speech with free speech.10/02/2014 - 8:23am
E. Zachary KnightSo what I am saying is that since gamergate failed to force Gamasutra to retract their editorial directly, they are now going the starvation route.10/02/2014 - 8:22am
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy. They do pretty much anything to damage their targets.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician