Interplay's Fallout MMO on the ropes

By Robert Purchese Published 14 September, 2009

As Bethesda attempts to terminate deal.

Interplay's Fallout MMO may never see the light of day as Bethesda attempts to terminate the licensing agreement with a lawsuit filed last week.

The Fallout 3 maker claims Interplay needed to check with Bethesda before re-selling old Fallout games online. Licensing them to Steam, GOG.com and GameTap apparently breaches the 2004 trademark agreement.

The result is "immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm" suffered by Bethesda, according to Gamasutra.

Of course, Bethesda has threatened Interplay before, alleging that the latter had broken the licensing agreement by failing to enter full-scale production of the Fallout MMO and by failing to secure enough funding to see the project through.

Interplay doesn't appear to have made any great strides with the Fallout MMO since recruiting Masthead Studios to work on the poorly-disguised Project V13 in April.

Nevertheless, the controversial re-issue of the old Fallout games - as well as the resurrection Earthworm Jim on PSN, WiiWare and XBLA - may be Interplay's way of funding the on-going MMO.

But Bethesda will fight hard to protect the dignity of the licence after the enormous success of Fallout 3. And given the financial clout of the publisher-stroke-developer, the likelihood of a rival Fallout MMO being developed behind closed-doors may not be too far-fetched.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (21) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • the_dudefather #1 2 years ago

    boo hiss @ Bethesda, Interplay should totally be allowed to sell games in a franchise that they sold the rights to in whatever way they want, it's not like they signed a contract or anything!

  • JACK_BURTON #2 2 years ago

    The article would seem to indicate that Interplay did sign an agreement. How would Bethseda be able to claim breech if nothing was signed?

  • Spekingur #3 2 years ago

    But what kind of an agreement?
    Does it entitle Bethesda control over previous iterations of Fallout, as the article suggests? If so, then that's not a good contract for Interplay.

  • the_dudefather #4 2 years ago

    From what I understand, Bethesda own the fallout IP, but interplay can distribute the older fallout titles (Bethesda have to verify the marketing materials for the game), while the GOG and steam versions are fine, the disagreement comes from a 'fallout trilogy' pack released (that contains 1+2+tactics), which wasn't approved by Bethesda

  • JahB #5 2 years ago

    if you sell an IP, that's the stuff that comes with it. no need to bitch at bethesda, they paid top dollar for said IP, hence they're entitled to a piece of the cake if interplay sells the old games online/in different packaging.

  • poopmonster #6 2 years ago

    Some of us remember when Interplay were a good publisher and on the ball. Those days are long gone.

    It's hard to blame em for trying in the current climate, and with the reborn interest in the Fallout brand. But if they did wrong, they did wrong. And publishers are renown for trying to contractually screw devs, so it's interesting when the tables turn.

  • Orange #7 2 years ago

    Never liked Bethesda's style of RPG.

  • Olemak #8 2 years ago

    What? Did they reissue the original Fallouts? A propper reworking with decent textures and stuff? For PSN and XBLA? Want, want, want!

  • Jonathan_Fakenham #9 2 years ago

    Nah, they didn't rework anything. Basically, they just threw the games on Steam and GOG. (And I re-bought the pack, for easy access in my Steams.)
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 11:25

  • Sorbicol #10 2 years ago

    I got these from GOG ages ago, and they were consistently the top sellers until they were released via steam as well. Seems a bit heavy handed from Bethesda, but strongly indicates they want to develope their own fallout MMO.

    But then if interplay signed on the dotted line I guess they haven't got a lot of come back.

  • MrChuckles #11 2 years ago

    Seling Fallout 1 & 2 harm the Fallout brand? Excuse me?

    Fallout 3 has harmed the brand created by the first two...

  • UberFrog #12 2 years ago

    Hindering a game from legendary Interplay (and especially a Fallout MMO) should be met by Bethesda boycot...

  • metalangel #13 2 years ago

    Uberfrog, Interplay just published most of the games, they didn't make 'em themselves.

  • actionfitz #14 2 years ago

    because what the world needs is another MMO.
    with wow's future still bright, Aion out next week or so, The Secret World, The old republic and Star Trek Online all looking promising... where the fuck are we gonna find the time to play any of these MMO's hehe.
    QQ

  • Optimaximal #15 2 years ago

    Isn't this just based on the fact that Interplay have started selling 'The Fallout Collection' as 'The Fallout Trilogy', which is just asking for trouble.

    I suppose the question is, if GOG.com & Valve are forced to remove Fallout & Fallout 2 from sale, will they still be allowed to offer it for repeat download/access, and if not, will customers be getting refunds? Could set a precedent either way!

  • penhalion #16 2 years ago

    While Bethesda now own the IP. They would do well to remember that the only reason the IP is worth anything at all is because of the original games bought out by interplay. Do they really then think it is a good idea to try to remove the original titles and so piss off the very gamers who have only just made their own fallout game a success?

    If so then things may well start to get ugly for bethesda and rightly so.

  • JahB #17 2 years ago

    Seling Fallout 1 & 2 harm the Fallout brand? Excuse me?

    game quality aside,i guess that's because Interplay is selling F1, F2 and Tactics advertised as "The Fallout Trilogy". the word trilogy usually implies parts 1, 2 and 3 (obviously not the case here), so i can understand how bethesda might have a problem with this.

  • Skorms-Boss #18 2 years ago

    If you two don't stop arguing I'll send you to your rooms..... children huh!

  • trooperdx3117 #19 2 years ago

    I don't understand why so many seem to misinterpret Bethesda when they say that Interplay hurt the brand of Fallout 3 considering Interplay downright insulted Bethesda by releasing Fallout 1, 2 and tactics as the Fallout trilogy which seems to suggest that Fallout 3 isn't a real Fallout game. Also im almost positive that Interplay completely sold the Fallout IP to Bethesda back in 2005 or 2006.

  • Kami #20 2 years ago

    As much as I am going to get downrated for this, do we need ANOTHER post-apocalyptic MMO? Huxley and Fallen Earth are pretty much covering the bases on that front (As well as a few older ones but we'll keep it to modern times), and as much as I love Fallout - wouldn't we rather have a proper sequel than an MMO?

    Just a thought. But totally with Bethesda here - when you package a "Trilogy" and leave out arguably the most well-known part, you're just asking for trouble.
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 17:08

  • Miths #21 2 years ago

    It's not like anyone was actually expecting a Fallout MMO from Interplay to ever see the light of day, is it?
    Not that I wouldn't love a Fallout MMO (assuming it was done well of course), but I can't really say I have much faith in Interplay ever again being in a financial position to undertake a development project of that magnitude. But I could be wrong of course.