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

[GhanBuriGhan]

Disagree, Steve? Feel free to express yourself with more than an emoticon.

Grabbing the license may have been a good business decision (time will tell, but I hope it will bite Bethesda in the ass somehow), but it sure as fuck was one of the most immoral things I've ever heard of.

How is bidding for a license and winning it immoral? Just because you don't like Bethesda as a developer, or becasue the Troika team had more emotional ties to Fallout doesn't mean they have any more or less "Rights" to bid for the license than anyone else. Get a grip!

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

OK so let me get this straight. Interplay, the rightful owner of the Fallout IP and license, decided to sell the license for reasons of their own. As the holder of the IP, this was within their rights. So there's a major RPG license available. Bethesda decides that it'd be a good license to acquire, and so puts in a bid, which is accepted. Read the press releases for details.

That is really all there is to it. There's nothing sinister, underhanded, malicious, unethical or immoral about it. It was a totally 100% above-board, legal transaction between two corporate entities.

You guys are passionate fans of the Fallout series, and you want the best for the game. You'd prefer that the original creators of the series were somehow involved in its continuation. But just because it didn't work out that way does not mean that anything underhanded or immoral occurred. There's no conspiracy at work here.

 

[Quigs]

Yeah, wonder where they got their buisness advice...

 

[Whipporowill]

I really don't blame Bethesda for grabbing the rights to Fallout - that's just business, and business is about making money in whatever legal way you can. Why should a company care that if they buy something they believe can make them some more $ - another company goes bust? That said, I still very much wish Troika was around and working on Fo3.

 

[Twinfalls]

There's no conspiracy at work here.

How did this 'conspiracy' straw man get in here?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Did you even read this thread, Twinfalls? :D

 

[Rosh]

OK so let me get this straight. Interplay, the rightful owner of the Fallout IP and license, decided to sell the license for reasons of their own. As the holder of the IP, this was within their rights. So there's a major RPG license available. Bethesda decides that it'd be a good license to acquire, and so puts in a bid, which is accepted. Read the press releases for details.

That is really all there is to it. There's nothing sinister, underhanded, malicious, unethical or immoral about it. It was a totally 100% above-board, legal transaction between two corporate entities.

You guys are passionate fans of the Fallout series, and you want the best for the game. You'd prefer that the original creators of the series were somehow involved in its continuation. But just because it didn't work out that way does not mean that anything underhanded or immoral occurred. There's no conspiracy at work here.

Spin Doctoring: F

Really, you HAD to have known that Troika was looking to get the license, as they had been nearly since they left Interplay. Just about every goddamn Fallout-carrying news site knew this. So either Bethesda's developers are "fans" of the series and followed it, then they knew this and the suits were shitheads anyways, by taking the license from the hopeful people who wanted to work on it again and whom the fans tended to like their design before BIS even took a hatchet to it. If they didn't know about Troika's interest, then Bethesda lied shamelessly about being Fallout fans and fans of the title.

Which is it going to be? There isn't going to be some asinine spin-doctoring out of it.
What the fuck is Bethesda doing?
You or Pete Hines can finally answer the question instead of spinning it if you want me to consider you to have any shred of integrity left.

 

[Revasser]

That is really all there is to it. There's nothing sinister, underhanded, malicious, unethical or immoral about it. It was a totally 100% above-board, legal transaction between two corporate entities.

You guys are passionate fans of the Fallout series, and you want the best for the game. You'd prefer that the original creators of the series were somehow involved in its continuation. But just because it didn't work out that way does not mean that anything underhanded or immoral occurred. There's no conspiracy at work here.

Legal, yes. 100% above-board transaction between two corporate entities? Ain't no such animal. Underhanded? Almost certainly. By their very nature, corporations are underhanded and their activities usually reflect that. But immoral? Doubtful. Completely amoral, yes. Business is amoral. Blindness to ethics that aren't enforced by law is how businesses become successful.

As consumers in this case, we have the luxury of having some principles, as we haven't yet been forced to compromise them by the corporate machine as most corporate employees above entry level have. Of course, the bean-counters and executives have no principles aside from "get more money" and probably never have. That's how you get to be an executive.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How is bidding for a license and winning it immoral? Just because you don't like Bethesda as a developer, or becasue the Troika team had more emotional ties to Fallout doesn't mean they have any more or less "Rights" to bid for the license than anyone else. Get a grip!

The way I see it, taking a license to the setting from the CREATOR of that setting is immoral, business or no business. Bethesda did have the right to bid, but rights and morals are often two different things.

Considering that Bethesda doesn't even need the license - Beth's target audience either hasn't heard of Fallout or heard but doesn't give a shit about, that whole license grabbing business looks even worse.

 

[Twinfalls]

OK, MSFD if you mean Herve 'forgetting' an agreement with Troika in favour of a better bid from Bethesda is a 'conspiracy' then sure, but to me the general gist here is simply that it was 'business', and the accusation remains one of ethics rather than conspiracy. Anyway, I'll butt out.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Face it, even after we have repeatedly pointed this out, Bethesda still hasn't really given any concrete reason or plans on what they intend to do with the Fallout license, so doubly there really isn't any reason for the Fallout fans to trust Bethesda for that matter, or ever given this.

But Troika wasn't that much better - they shared no specific plans or concrete ideas with the fans on where they were planning to take the Fallout series if they had gotten the intellectual property. Granted, it was hinted that Fallout 3 would be likely realtime with pause, and that it would also likely use Troika's new inhouse engine, but what else? In this, Bethesda wasn't much different in regards to hiding their intentions when it came to the game. But neither of them has released any substantial information.

That kind of business dealing puts them a little more than metaphorically in the same boat as Herve in regards to ethics.

Speaking of ethics, didn't Troika had known for a while that they might be going under financial problems, more or less at the time of the whole license thing? If this is true, I don't think it's very ethic to try and acquire a license that is followed by many fans (and is not only important to them, but also important to the developers as its creation and development contributed one way or the other to where Troika was) when there were no guarantees that the company's future would be assured long enough to produce a game using said license.

After all the Fallout community went trough all these years regarding Fallout 3, seeing their pet developer get the license then going under before they could develop their dream game doesn't sound like it would be all that great. It wouldn't be very ethic to hold their dreams high only to disapoint in the end, either.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Bethesda did nothing wrong here. At all. It's not Bethesda's fault -- nor any of Bethesda's doing -- that Troika was not able to aquire the license.

 

[Revasser]

Bethesda did nothing wrong here. At all. It's not Bethesda's fault -- nor any of Bethesda's doing -- that Troika was not able to aquire the license.

Wrong and right are relative. Bethesda didn't do anything illegal (that we're aware of). That's not the same thing.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

But the only reason some of you think it was "bad" in whatever way is because the license didn't go to some of the people who made the first two games. And while from some people's points of view that may be unfortunate, I fail to see how it's unethical or immoral. I mean, the license didn't go to Obsidian, either, and they're still in business.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But Troika wasn't that much better - they shared no specific plans or concrete ideas with the fans on where they were planning to take the Fallout series if they had gotten the intellectual property. Granted, it was hinted that Fallout 3 would be likely realtime with pause, and that it would also likely use Troika's new inhouse engine, but what else? In this, Bethesda wasn't much different in regards to hiding their intentions when it came to the game. But neither of them has released any substantial information.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out something like that:

Troika's Fallout:
- It's actually a Fallout game. Imagine that.
- Isometric
- RT mode, hopefully RT and TB combo, hopefully better than the Arcanum combo
- Good dialogues
- Good role-playing
- PC game

Bethesda's Fallout:
- MW with guns, i.e. exploration, "living in some crappy world" game
- actiony RT all the way
- Crappy dialogues
- Crappy role-playing
- The most violent game evar! (according to Todd)
- PC and XBOX game

Speaking of ethics, didn't Troika had known for a while that they might be going under financial problems, more or less at the time of the whole license thing? If this is true, I don't think it's very ethic to try and acquire a license that is followed by many fans...

Why is that? If they had the license, they would have had a publishing deal which would have eliminated or pushed back their financial problems.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But the only reason some of you think it was "bad" in whatever way is because the license didn't go to some of the people who made the first two games. And while from some people's points of view that may be unfortunate, I fail to see how it's unethical or immoral. I mean, the license didn't go to Obsidian, either, and they're still in business.

Who's this Obsidian you speak of and what do they have to do with Fallout?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

How is bidding for a license and winning it immoral? Just because you don't like Bethesda as a developer, or becasue the Troika team had more emotional ties to Fallout doesn't mean they have any more or less "Rights" to bid for the license than anyone else. Get a grip!

The way I see it, taking a license to the setting from the CREATOR of that setting is immoral, business or no business. Bethesda did have the right to bid, but rights and morals are often two different things.

Considering that Bethesda doesn't even need the license - Beth's target audience either hasn't heard of Fallout or heard but doesn't give a shit about, that whole license grabbing business looks even worse.

In addition to what MSFD said, even IF one takes your point of view which I don't, the only one who may have done something "immoral" would be Interplay, who didn't grant the license to Troika for whatever price, based on the grounds that they are nice chaps, and worked on previous Fallouts, and... yeah, I am sure that is highly immoral!

Sorry, the idea of this being a moral issue is just absurd. Like it or hate it - ok, but morals got nothing to do with it.

To see Rosh arguing morals is funny in it's own right however...

 

[DarkSign]

I think he should have phrased it better...

I don't think it's very ethic [sic] to try and [pin the financial future of an entire company] on a license [even if it] is followed by many fans...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Bethesda did nothing wrong here. At all. It's not Bethesda's fault -- nor any of Bethesda's doing -- that Troika was not able to aquire the license.

Yes, it's Troika's fault for not being rich. I hate those poor people and companies. They should just all die or something.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

I probably don't know about Troika as much as the rest of you, but I thought that they didn't badly handle their finances or anything, they just couldn't find a publisher, couldn't afford to self-publish, and eventually ran out of money to pay their employees (with the Troika themselves getting "layed off" first).

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

VD, it's still not Bethesda's fault.

 

[Rosh]

But Troika wasn't that much better - they shared no specific plans or concrete ideas with the fans on where they were planning to take the Fallout series if they had gotten the intellectual property. Granted, it was hinted that Fallout 3 would be likely realtime with pause, and that it would also likely use Troika's new inhouse engine, but what else? In this, Bethesda wasn't much different in regards to hiding their intentions when it came to the game. But neither of them has released any substantial information.

It really boils down to development style. Bethesda's is quite far from Fallout's in terms of game design.

After all the Fallout community went trough all these years regarding Fallout 3, seeing their pet developer get the license then going under before they could develop their dream game doesn't sound like it would be all that great. It wouldn't be very ethic to hold their dreams high only to disapoint in the end, either.

At least it would have died in the hands of those most capable and most inclined towards developing towards that style. Which is a good thing, compared to having it handed off yet again for someone else's "development style" to work it's magic upon the title, whom also hasn't really developed anything like Fallout. No, Morrowind doesn't count.

Bethesda did nothing wrong here. At all. It's not Bethesda's fault -- nor any of Bethesda's doing -- that Troika was not able to aquire the license.

Keep saying that to yourself. No, wait, you don't have to repeat the lie any more to believe it. If you had taken a look at events, or the fact that Troika has been trying to get the license since Fallout was created, then it pretty much paints you into a liar.

But the only reason some of you think it was "bad" in whatever way is because the license didn't go to some of the people who made the first two games. And while from some people's points of view that may be unfortunate, I fail to see how it's unethical or immoral.

Oh, yeah...nothing immoral about preventing an original author from working on their creation again. (Here is the place for a few of those rolling eyed smiley faces.)

You are such a sleazy little shit, I guess it finally had to shine through sometime. No wonder Herve was able to secure the deal so quickly with Bethesda from under Troika with that amount of grease.

I mean, the license didn't go to Obsidian, either, and they're still in business.

Yes, but Troika wasn't BioWare's bitch, either. All piss-poor excuses. It would be like EA licensing out Ultima to someone else out from under Richard Garriot in the early 90's. Wait, they pretty much did, and look at how it was recieved by the fans and how the series was regarded as going to shit. Shiny, but it went to shit.

 

[DarkSign]

Bethesda did nothing wrong here. At all. It's not Bethesda's fault -- nor any of Bethesda's doing -- that Troika was not able to aquire the license.

Yes, it's Troika's fault for not being rich. I hate those poor people and companies. They should just all die or something.

So poor game companies need welfare? They should just be handed licenses when they can't manage their money? Wow. Sign me up for that one. I'll take one of those farmer subsidies...Hey Rosh...think they can pay me NOT to make my game? That way we both win!

 

[Revasser]

But the only reason some of you think it was "bad" in whatever way is because the license didn't go to some of the people who made the first two games. And while from some people's points of view that may be unfortunate, I fail to see how it's unethical or immoral. I mean, the license didn't go to Obsidian, either, and they're still in business.

Well, I think it's not as much to do with them being people the people who made the first two games as them being the people who originally created the concept. I suppose it's what you get for allowing a corporation to have complete, unqualified legal ownership of your ideas, but it still sucks. If something similar happened to me and the ideas I created and developed with some friends, I'd be pissed, and rightfully so, I think, despite the strict legality of the situation and my personal lapse in judgement for allowing it to happen.

I think people here just think, and I agree with them, that, while it was legal, it wasn't "the right thing to do". And, I suppose, there's the ever-present suspicion that Bethesda will be unfaithful to the things we liked about Fallout when it uses the license. ie. Make a crappy game and slap "Fallout" on it. I, personally, don't want to see anything like that Fallout console game ever again. The horror still haunts me, I swear.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In addition to what MSFD said, even IF one takes your point of view which I don't, the only one who may have done something "immoral" would be Interplay, who didn't grant the license to Troika for whatever price, based on the grounds that they are nice chaps, and worked on previous Fallouts, and... yeah, I am sure that is highly immoral!

Sorry, the idea of this being a moral issue is just absurd. Like it or hate it - ok, but morals got nothing to do with it.

Why? Explain please. Do morals and ethics have no place in business world, in your opinion? Should someone even consider moral issues when making a business decision? Or should they only be concerned with laws ignoring anything else?