Troika and the Fallout rights - where did I read that?

[Fintilgin]

I would have found it great if Troika had gotten the license, considering their ties to the original games. But the question was if Beth did something morally reprehensible by buying it. And to that, as well as to your reversed example I say no, neither Beth nor bioware in the hypothetical case are doing something I find morally wrong.

No, I'd agree it's not morraly reprehensible. Moral is realy the wrong word. It's much too freighted with emotional weight and implications of wrongdoing. But, on the otherhand if Bethesda/Bioware knew Troika or SSS was gunning for the license, it's not very... well... classy to snatch it up, either.

It's less that I think Bethesda did something wrong (`cause, hey, by Codex standard, I'm preaty much a Bethesda fanboy) and more that I think it's legitimate for Fallout fans to be upset that Troika didn't get it. I don't think it's crazy to feel that Troka, by benifit of being founded by several of the folks who made Fallout in the first place, was inherently better suited to continue the series.

That's what it boils down to. I'd rather read a Dune novel by the actual author then a spin off by his son. I'd rather read an Asimov novel then someone writing for his estate. I'd rather watch a Terminator movie directed by James Cameron then any other director. And yes, goddammit, I'd rather play a Fallout game by the Troika Trinity then one by Bethesda.

 

[Zomg]

This game however, will be decidedly darker. Imagine a survival horror-esque version of the Fallout world, with all the things you expect out of the series still intact, but with deeper, more immersive gameplay. The post-apoc theme (with tongue in cheek humor) of the series is still present, with your character having spent the first 20 years of his life living underground. Because of this, his eyes are unaccustomed to the light of day, thus players will have to train their eyes away from light sensitivity by using a special pair of goggles. Todd Howard claims that Fallout 3 will be one of the most original and violent titles ever and will be set in a familiar US city. "

Jesus Fuck. Whoring eye adjustment, this season's lens flare, as a kewl, exciting feature when it's going to have been a threadbare gimmick for years by the time the game comes out. That's just goddamn embarrassing. I regret my apology of the PA-city setting idea.

 

[Micmu]

Your character will wear goggles. Like Riddick. Because Riddick is cool. Needless to say, that means the game won't be isometric.

Can't wait to see (over)hype about mr. Diesel super-starring as a voice actor in Xbox 720 magazines, like 2 years from now!
Because this is what they do best. :twisted:

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Edit: Welcome to PAGE 11!!!

I wonder how long this thread would've lasted on the TES boards before it would be expunged.

 

[Drakron]

Very well ...

True story.

Years ago R.A. Salvatore left TSR because he signed a contract with Del Ray and TSR naturaly wanted to continue with the profitable Drizzt books.

Now they could not get R.A. Salvatore because of the contracts so they decided to get a new writter for the series (forgot the name) and since it was contract obliged with TSR he had no choice.

So he started working on it but he was not happy because he knew that Salvatore was not happy about it but he had no choice.

In the end everything worked out, Salvatore was back working with TSR and that novel was simply abandoned and so never published.

 

[Vault Dweller]

First we are talking about intellectual ideas and not physical items, which work differently.

Is a game not a physical object containing ideas and vision?

Why does the shop owner own it?

Unrelated matter.

Rights aren't moral in nature.

Is that a fact? "I have a right to know" What right is that?

Without the store owner the object wouldn't exist if he payed for and owns it.

Disagree. The artist may have gone to a different store and made his creation there. The store owner wouldn't be able to make such an object with a different artist, as the history shown.

Is it profitable to do so?

Most likely not. I'm pretty sure that Beth's Fallout would sell a LOT more than Troika's Fallout would have, but what's that gotta do with anything?

Then it is a loss of the store owner to not let him.

Perhaps, but this particular store owner isn't the brightest and has managed to lose way more than that.

Will they lose money then? If so it is their loss.

It may or may not be a loss, but it's not the point. If the businessman is going to create a new object anyway, does he have to destroy this one to use spare parts?

Isn't it moral for the shop owner to try and get the most money?

Yes. The way he handled the negotiation wasn't though.

This example is of a finished good, the author doesn't change.

Think of it as a well cut and polished large diamond that the artist may enchance by cutting another and making a pair, while the businessman would cut it to smaller pieces and sell separately.

 

[Volourn]

"An artist creates an object of art. Let's say that the object legally belongs to the art shop owner who puts it up for sale later. The artist wants to buy it - he doesn't demand it, mind you, but wants to buy it so he can develop it further. A businessman wants to buy it too, because the object now has a certain value as the artist did a good job there, and the businessman feels that he can make some profit on it. Legally both the artist and the businessman have equal rights, but the moral right to the object belongs to the artist for 4 reasons:

1. without him the object wouldn't exist
2. he will develop the object further
3. his knowledge and vision of the object make him the most qualified candidate to develop the object further
4. the businessman would destroy the object. (regardless of whether Bethesda wants to use the Fallout label on the box or wants to make a good post-apocalyptic game, it won't be a "Fallout game", but something else. One more time:"

What a load of fucking shit. So full of shit, the poo is dripping off the shit.

The artist has the right to the painting originally. Afterall, he created it.

However, he gave up those rights legally AND morally when he (presumably) sold it to the art dealer.

Therefore, the art dealer has the legal AND moral right to sell it to wheoever he chooses if he so chooses.

I guess you are saying that the people making yummy gummy bears have the right to come in my house ind emand i give them their candies back even after I paid for it just as long as they pay for it.

No, that's not how it morally works unless you live in Codex World where Troika = Gods.


On top of this bullshit which doens't even work it becomes even more bullshit when you deal witht he fact that when FO was made everyone who made it was under contract to Interplay which means Interplay has 100% legal AND moral rights as it is INTERPLAY's CREATION.

Afterall, it's not so easy when you have tens of people creating it.

And, before someone lamely throws the Lucas-SW lameass comaprisons.

The difference here is that Lucas while he did make the SW movies for the studios obviously didn't give away the rights to them so in this case he has and continues to have all legal AND moral rights to the movies. This is why he has sole say in whether another SW movie will be made as well as games, tv shows, or what have you.

In essence,

LONG LIVE LA!

AND, DOWN WITH THE TROKIA WHO DID NOT CREATE NOR DID THEY HAVE THE MORAL OR LEGAL RIGHT TO 'FIRST DIBS' FOR FO!!

Interplay had the legal AND moral rights to do with the FO license as they please.

And, Bethesda (as much as I loathe their crappy games) had the moral AND legal rights to persue the license and then do with it as they please.

Period.


HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, he gave up those rights legally AND morally when he (presumably) sold it to the art dealer.

You make it sound like there was some kinda transaction instead a "the company owns everything and anything you may create or even think of..." clause.

Therefore, the art dealer has the legal AND moral right to sell it to wheoever he chooses if he so chooses.

Was that ever disputed? Pay attention, will ya?

I guess you are saying that the people making yummy gummy bears have the right to come in my house ind emand i give them their candies back even after I paid for it just as long as they pay for it.

Your analogy sucks major ass. Did anyone imply that whoever owns the license owns every copy ever sold? Focus, you can do better.

On top of this bullshit which doens't even work it becomes even more bullshit when you deal witht he fact that when FO was made everyone who made it was under contract to Interplay which means Interplay has 100% legal AND moral rights as it is INTERPLAY's CREATION.

I see that you are still unable to separate a business entity, in this case Interplay, from people who actually make games and who make those games great, mediocre, or god-fucking-awful.

The difference here is that Lucas while he did make the SW movies for the studios obviously didn't give away the rights to them so in this case he has and continues to have all legal AND moral rights to the movies.

That example was not about rights but about credit. Fool.

 

[obediah]

Very well ...

True story.

Years ago R.A. Salvatore left TSR because he signed a contract with Del Ray and TSR naturaly wanted to continue with the profitable Drizzt books.

Now they could not get R.A. Salvatore because of the contracts so they decided to get a new writter for the series (forgot the name) and since it was contract obliged with TSR he had no choice.

So he started working on it but he was not happy because he knew that Salvatore was not happy about it but he had no choice.

In the end everything worked out, Salvatore was back working with TSR and that novel was simply abandoned and so never published.

Whew, I never knew TSR came so close to publishing a crappy Drizzt book.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

No, I'd agree it's not morraly reprehensible. Moral is realy the wrong word. It's much too freighted with emotional weight and implications of wrongdoing. But, on the otherhand if Bethesda/Bioware knew Troika or SSS was gunning for the license, it's not very... well... classy to snatch it up, either.

It's less that I think Bethesda did something wrong (`cause, hey, by Codex standard, I'm preaty much a Bethesda fanboy) and more that I think it's legitimate for Fallout fans to be upset that Troika didn't get it. I don't think it's crazy to feel that Troka, by benifit of being founded by several of the folks who made Fallout in the first place, was inherently better suited to continue the series.

That's what it boils down to. I'd rather read a Dune novel by the actual author then a spin off by his son. I'd rather read an Asimov novel then someone writing for his estate. I'd rather watch a Terminator movie directed by James Cameron then any other director. And yes, goddammit, I'd rather play a Fallout game by the Troika Trinity then one by Bethesda.

I fully agree, fellow fanboy that said, I am CURIOUS what Bethesda will do with the license. Sceptical, but curious.

 

[Ausir]

The difference here is that Lucas while he did make the SW movies for the studios obviously didn't give away the rights to them so in this case he has and continues to have all legal AND moral rights to the movies. This is why he has sole say in whether another SW movie will be made as well as games, tv shows, or what have you.

Lucas made the SW movies? I thought he just helped the studios make them, as you claim in the Fallout case.

Whew, I never knew TSR came so close to publishing a crappy Drizzt book.

You mean there are non-crappy ones?

 

[Human Shield]

Is a game not a physical object containing ideas and vision?

They handmake each CD? A license is not a physical item.

Why does the shop owner own it?
Unrelated matter.

Very related.

Is that a fact? "I have a right to know" What right is that?

It isn't. Unless it relates to your property.

Without the store owner the object wouldn't exist if he payed for and owns it. Disagree. The artist may have gone to a different store and made his creation there. The store owner wouldn't be able to make such an object with a different artist, as the history shown.

The the object would be owned by a different store owner. Would the item exist with no store owner? If so the store owner wouldn't be able to sell it in the first place.

Most likely not. I'm pretty sure that Beth's Fallout would sell a LOT more than Troika's Fallout would have, but what's that gotta do with anything?

Then it is moral to maximize the creation of wealth/well-being.

And we were talking about a physical item. I feel that both should be able to be make "Fallout", but Troika would be able to claim on the box to be part of series by relation to the same people.

Perhaps, but this particular store owner isn't the brightest and has managed to lose way more than that.

Then let him fail. He payed for its creation in the first place.

It may or may not be a loss, but it's not the point. If the businessman is going to create a new object anyway, does he have to destroy this one to use spare parts?

He doesn't have to do anything anyone else tells him with HIS property.

Yes. The way he handled the negotiation wasn't though.

And how did he?

Think of it as a well cut and polished large diamond that the artist may enchance by cutting another and making a pair, while the businessman would cut it to smaller pieces and sell separately.

But the artist already gave to the store owner, it is up to him to convince the owner to go along with it.

That is like buying a house and having the architect kick you out and add an expansion, while you were stupid and hurt his work. How would you like that? Is it immoral to refuse to give up your house for free?

And if more people are happy with smaller diamonds, isn't it immoral for the artist to stop them from being happy?

 

[Drakron]

By the :wink: I take it you are not much of a fan.

I read a lot of those books but when then I realized they were pretty much the same going around in circles and stop reading, for me the best that Salvatore produced was the first books of the Cleric Quintent before he gone down the "Chosen" path.

But my point over that is that Drizzt was TSR IP and when Salvatore left they simply got someone else and neither he or Salvatore was happy about it, from what take from Bethsoft developers here is they dont give a shit about Fallout since if they were fans (as they claim to be) they knew that the creators of the series wanted to work on it and my example shows that even contracted writers care enough about the creator of the series to not be happy when that creator is not happy about what they are going.

What we get from Bethsoft employers is the usual reaction to any critics to their company ... with futher points on whatever comes out with Fallout title from Bethsoft is not Fallout.

 

[Kalle]

1. without him the object wouldn't exist

This gives him brownie points for being creative but I fail to see how this gives him a moral claim on an object since he decided he was happy enough to sell it. What the hell are you basing your standard of morality on anyway?

2. he will develop the object further

False analogy. Fallout 1 and 2 will remain as they are until the end of time, or computers, whichever comes first.

3. his knowledge and vision of the object make him the most qualified candidate to develop the object further

True. Still not seeing where the morals enter the picture.

4. the businessman would destroy the object. (regardless of whether Bethesda wants to use the Fallout label on the box or wants to make a good post-apocalyptic game, it won't be a "Fallout game", but something else.

Give me a fucking break. You're willing to condemn the game before it's even released. Hell, has anyone even seen a screenshot of the game yet? I'm sure that no matter what ends up being released you will bitch and whine because the game won't live up to your platonic ideal of the perfect Fallout. Tough luck, the world doesn't cater to your wishes.

Bethesda isn't destroying anything. There is no Fallout 3 by Troika. There never will be a Fallout 3 by Troika. Deal with it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral.

 

[Volourn]

"Lucas made the SW movies? I thought he just helped the studios make them, as you claim in the Fallout case."

You better know your Lucas-SW-Studio History. Unlike the former Interplayers who HELPED create FO; Lucas didn't give his rights to the property he imagined. He sold the rights to publish the SW movies; but he maintained the rights to SW itself. Obviously, this is why he still owns them.

Unlike the Troikians who NEVER owned FO. never created FO. Never had the moral right to it. Interplay, and its employees which includes SOME of Troika created FO. hence why Interplay has (or had) 100% rights - both moral AND legal - to FO.

Lucas does not equal Troika in this case.

Afterall, Lucas (and most movie producers/writers/directors) are not usually full time employees of a studio company like most game devloeprs. Tim Cain (presumably) signed a contract with Interplay for x amount of time.

Lucas probably had to peddle his ideas to the different studios (not now heh) so from the get go, SW was his. Whatever the contratc eh eventually signed with the Studios obviously allowed him to keep the rights to SW and a lot of the profits as well.

That's the biggest difference between an independent contracted and a contracted employee.

Afterall, this is why the scientists who work for NASA don't own their work.

This doens't preclude getting credit for it. Afterall, I (and others) have (or should) have no problem giving Tim Cain, other Troikians, as well as other former Interplayers like Brian Fargo (THA TRUE MAN OF FO!!!) credit for their work on FO.

That still doens't give them the moral right to the license.

Period.


"That example was not about rights but about credit. Fool."

Tough shit. It works the same. Troika has NO rights to Fallout. And, you Troika dicksuckers could whine all you want.

If BIO goes under, and Gaider and other BIo deisgners make a company and then later want to buy the license or the rights to use the license for BG2, NWN, or DA they should not nor do they deserve the "moral" first dibs to them.

That doesn't mean I'm descrediting the work Gaider did on BG2, or NWN and is doing (presumably) on DA. It just means he has never owned it - morally or otherwise- DA.

He knew this was the case when he signed on Bioware. So did the Troikains supposedly when they first signed on with Interplay. Then again, Troika has proven themselves foolish in the business side of things so maybe they didn't. Hahahahah.

But, this isn't about bashing Troika though. It's about bashing the Trokian Dicksucker Fanboys.

Hahahahaha!!!


This is just as lame as me hiring a contractor to build me a house, and then him years later claiming he had the moral right to have first dibs at it when I (if I decide to) sell it. Afterall, he created the house.

Lame. Lame. Lame.

 

[DarkSign]

they looked around for backers, while talking to the remnants of Interplay for sometime.

Troika continued to talk and finally found a financial partner, someone that was ready to go to the amount Herve was asking for.

Troika got Herve to say that he accepted in selling the rights for PC and console games on the Fallout franchise, and very thorough negociations started.

troika was having serious finacial troubles at the time, and the deals outside fallout weren`t working, while Herve was stalling the signing of the deal, for reasons that Troika didn`t understand. The finacial backer of Troika states that either the deal would involve Fallout and to be signed soon or they would give up.

Bethesda makes a proposition that Herve considers a winner, and troika find out that Herve has an alternate deal with another company all ready to sign. Panic reaches the trio, Interplay tells them that they would need a much larger amount of money to secure the deal.The backer from Troika refuses to raise the bid, the studio is for all purposes shut down at the time and dies out while Interplay signs the deal with Bethesda.

If all of that is true...I believe you'd have a great case for promissory estoppel. That's part of the reason it "feels wrong."

 

[Vault Dweller]

They handmake each CD?

Each CD is a copy of what they basically made with their hands.

Very related.

How?

"Is that a fact? "I have a right to know" What right is that?"

It isn't. Unless it relates to your property.

Since you didn't answer, I will. It's a moral right.

The the object would be owned by a different store owner.

So? The point isn't who owns the object, but the role of the artist.

Then it is moral to maximize the creation of wealth/well-being.

Unrelated. We are not discussing whether the owner or the businessman did something wrong - they didn't.

Then let him fail. He payed for its creation in the first place.

Unrelated. See above.

He doesn't have to do anything anyone else tells him with HIS property.

Who said he does?

And how did he?

Made a deal with the artist, then made another one with the businessman, thus going back on his word.

That is like buying a house and having the architect kick you out and add an expansion, while you were stupid and hurt his work. How would you like that? Is it immoral to refuse to give up your house for free?

Whoa! First, who said anything about free? Second, the analogy is incorrect. You are not required to return your copy of Fallout for some code changes, are you?

And if more people are happy with smaller diamonds, isn't it immoral for the artist to stop them from being happy?

There are other ways to get smaller diamonds.

 

[Volourn]

DS: "very thorough negociations started."

The problem is the negotiations didn't end. Until negotiations end, and all things are signed, the owner of said property can chnage his mind and sell it to someone else.

P.S. I know about verbal contracts; but negotiations do not = contracts.

 

[Whipporowill]

It's great to see that things are back to normal again... Ted and VD playing retard tennis again. Feels just like home...

 

[Vault Dweller]

I fail to see how this gives him a moral claim on an object since he decided he was happy enough to sell it.

Once again, there was no act of selling. A company owns everything its employee creates, which is a different matter.

False analogy. Fallout 1 and 2 will remain as they are until the end of time, or computers, whichever comes first.

The franchise. Remember XCom? Well, it's dead now. Might & Magic? Dead. Ultima? Dead. MOO? (not an RPG, but...) Dead. So, while the original games will remain forever and ever, the franchise, the setting, the word could be improved and further developed.

4. the businessman would destroy the object. (regardless of whether Bethesda wants to use the Fallout label on the box or wants to make a good post-apocalyptic game, it won't be a "Fallout game", but something else.

Give me a fucking break. You're willing to condemn the game before it's even released.

Condemn? It may be a good game, but it won't be a Fallout game. Simple as that. Did you read that paragraph in the end? Does that sound like a Fallout game to you?

I'm sure that no matter what ends up being released you will bitch and whine because the game won't live up to your platonic ideal of the perfect Fallout. Tough luck, the world doesn't cater to your wishes.

I don't wish for anything, I simply expressed my opinion on that matter.

Bethesda isn't destroying anything. There is no Fallout 3 by Troika. There never will be a Fallout 3 by Troika. Deal with it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral.

Deal with it? Do you see me having a psychotic episode or crying on the floor? It seems to me you are trying to hard to provoke or get some reaction. Try harder.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's great to see that things are back to normal again... Ted and VD playing retard tennis again. Feels just like home...

Good ol' times.

 

[DarkSign]

Volourn: go read the definition of promissory estoppel.

Basically if he promised it to them and they based their future dealings on that promise, even if a contract didnt technically exist...they could still be liable.

 

[Volourn]

If that's a lame case, it's a moronic and immoral law.

Afterall, idiots who plan future things on what *might* be are lame, and should not be rewarded for their stupidity.

 

[Kalle]

I fail to see how this gives him a moral claim on an object since he decided he was happy enough to sell it.

Once again, there was no act of selling. A company owns everything its employee creates, which is a different matter.

No, the employee sold his rights to whatever he created when he took the job. Same principle, except the employee gets a monthly wage up front. Seems like a fair deal for everyone involved. I haven't heard the employees complain about it, have you?

...So, while the original games will remain forever and ever, the franchise, the setting, the word could be improved and further developed....

...It may be a good game, but it won't be a Fallout game. Simple as that. Did you read that paragraph in the end? Does that sound like a Fallout game to you?...

So on one hand you want the franchise improved and further developed, on the other hand, when someone is trying to do so you cry foul. Make up your mind. Just because Bethesda doesn't share your vision of the perfect Fallout doesn't meant you get to define what is and isn't Fallout. But do you know who does? The one who owns the rights to the franchise. Which would be Bethesda. Whatever they make will be Fallout 3, a Fallout sequel, because they are the ones in charge of the franchise. Tough cookies for you.

Bethesda isn't destroying anything. There is no Fallout 3 by Troika. There never will be a Fallout 3 by Troika. Deal with it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral.

Deal with it? Do you see me having a psychotic episode or crying on the floor? It seems to me you are trying to hard to provoke or get some reaction. Try harder.

No, I see you dodging the issue. Why is Bethesda immoral for making Fallout? What standard of morality are you basing your argument on? Is Bethesda hurting anyone?

 

[Human Shield]

They handmake each CD?
Each CD is a copy of what they basically made with their hands.

Creating doesn't imply owning property. Occupying scarce goods does. Creating a combination of 1's and 0's doesn't mean they control whenever someone else combines their own 1's and 0's. You can't own non-scarce ideas.

Very related.
How?

The question of who owns property is what morals and rules come from.

It isn't. Unless it relates to your property.
Since you didn't answer, I will. It's a moral right.

I don't understand. The "right to know" is a moral right? How? What are "moral rights"?

So? The point isn't who owns the object, but the role of the artist.

And if the role is a transfer of property, the only basics for moral decision rests on the new owner.

Unrelated. We are not discussing whether the owner or the businessman did something wrong - they didn't.

So immoral is not wrong? I don't understand.

Who said he does?

You are saying it is immoral not to sell to the artist for a lower price, or immoral for the businessman to offer a higher price. Why should this not be done according to morals?

If it would turn out the original artist uses it better then making a misinformed investment is not immoral.

Made a deal with the artist, then made another one with the businessman, thus going back on his word.

What was the first deal and how was it made?

Breaking a contract would be fraud and is immoral as well as illegal. And if the contract is broken because of the encouragement of the businessman, he can be tried as an accomplish.

Haven't heard of evidence that Troika had a contract in place before Beth.

And in the case of copyrights, the artist would lose the ability to make more of his own art, which I feel is the root cause of this immorality.

That is like buying a house and having the architect kick you out and add an expansion, while you were stupid and hurt his work. How would you like that? Is it immoral to refuse to give up your house for free?
Whoa! First, who said anything about free? Second, the analogy is incorrect. You are not required to return your copy of Fallout for some code changes, are you?

Forcing someone to do something for less and free is just different degrees of theft.

But in this example Beth would give back license to Troika.

And if more people are happy with smaller diamonds, isn't it immoral for the artist to stop them from being happy?
There are other ways to get smaller diamonds.

But people are offering money. Is it moral to refuse them?