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

[GhanBuriGhan]

GhanBuriGhan: That still doesn't mean that it can't be called a shit trick for not having the courtesy of respecting anything of the original creator or fans wishes. So then, why should we respect them? That is the same reason why I do not respect vaporware or name-dropping developers in turn.

Calling it a shit trick and uncourteous - go ahead if you want, if that is your opinion. That's at a different level than calling it morally or ethically wrong though.

Also, wether Bethesda will produce a great or shit or NO FO3, and wether Troika would have made a better, worse or NO FO3 is beside the point too, it has nothing to do with wether B. acted morally right or wrong.

 

[Rosh]

I understand this point of view. However, doesn't it strike you as unethical if Troika had acquired it knowing full well that it might have not been possible to develop the title? We are talking of the community's expectations, after all. It seems either result would have been equally troubling for many Fallout fans.

No, it's not unethical at all. They were taking what is held to be the last hope of the fans for a proper sequel, otherwise it appears that most Fallout fans wouldn't want to see Fallout skullfucked any further. They didn't want to see Fallout undergo what went on for Ultima, resulting in it's latest incarnation (UXO), and interest was apropos for the title because of such neglect.

Faulting Troika for trying to make a faithful sequel even though they didn't have "phat clannie cash", would be like faulting a writer for trying to come up with a sequel to brilliant novels even though they were in bad health. Yeah, it would suck if they died midway through, but at least the property is in the hands of those who know it and would respect it.

GhanBuriGhan: I'll call it a shit trick when they ignore a courtesy in any authoring field, and that is not respecting the original authors nor the audience. Really, I don't know how to dice it down so it's even more simple for you to understand, so I'm not going to even bother.

 

[bryce777]

. Unfortunately, while we may actually want a good game to bear the Fallout title that recreates some of the gameplay we liked in the original Fallout games, the big, wide, "casual gamer" market that Bethesda probably acquired the license to sell the game to doesn't give a shit.

So, because all indications point towards that, why should we ever be nice to the Bethesda people? It's one thing to cover a title because you like it, another because someone expects you to reprint their hype while also selling out the game design for a quick buck, kind of like what EA did to Ultima 8. Again, so why should Bethesda get any respect for that kind of selling out?

.

I think that is the real crux of the matter which people seem to ignore. Slapping a name on the side of a game that is nothing like the originals is not much short of fraud and shows that a company is willing to make money by hoodwinking consumers instead of actually providing a good product, which IS morally reprehensible...and ultimately selfdefeating as has been shown by the companies that have done this and gone out of business because of it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The engine they were going to use wasn't exclusively 3D isometric, by the way.

Few 3D engines are, if any.

All of their three games have ocasional bad or questionable elements of roleplaying and dialogues.

True. Yet they were better than most crap you see on the shelves these days.

Most of Temple of Elemental Evil's dialogue was pretty poor, Arcanum was an unbalanced mess at times, and Bloodlines was a frag fest in the later stages.

Now let's look at MW: poor dialogues, poor quest design, unbalanced, etc.

I didn't expect Troika to be nothing short of great but I also wouldn't assume that they'd be able to create good dialogues or roleplaying all the time.

Arcanum and Bloodlines say different. Even ToEE temple areas are very rich with quests and role-playing. At least you can't become the leader of all temple factions :wink:

Without playing the Bethsoft apologist, which I definetely am not seeing as I don't particularly like a whole lot of things in their game design, their planned 'actiony RT' seems to be no different than that of Bloodlines.

One system has no hit roll, one has. Remember all those reviewers bitching abour ranged being useless? Well, that's because it is useless if your skills are low. Ranged owns everything at >7. That's role-playing.

As for 'crappy dialogues and role-playing', I doubt Oblivion will be a radical departure from Morrowind concerning dialogue, but the inclusion of dialogue trees alone already suggests that they are at least making attempts to correct their static NPCs with lifeless dialogue.

I was talking about the quality of writing. Haven't you seen any Oblivion screens?

They were already shopping for a publishing deal with their own post apocalyptic title but there were not many publishers interested. What makes you think it would be different with a license like Fallout?

Why do you think Bethesda grabbed that license? It's harder to sell an orginal IP these days than to sell a sequel or a follow up.

 

[Claw]

Morals and ethics concern all human affairs. The idea of exceptions is absurd.
Saying ethics have no blace in business is just an excuse for disregarding them.

I do not however believe that outbidding Trokia was immoral as such. It was ruthless and discourteous. Maybe disrespectful.

And lets not forget Silver Style! Seems they got their hands on Simon the Sorceror though. Weird company...

Huh? Was that a stab at Adventure Soft or what did I miss?

 

[Whipporowill]

And lets not forget Silver Style! Seems they got their hands on Simon the Sorceror though. Weird company...

Huh? Was that a stab at Adventure Soft or what did I miss?

Posted this yesterday:

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10302

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

GhanBuriGhan: I'll call it a shit trick when they ignore a courtesy in any authoring field, and that is not respecting the original authors nor the audience. Really, I don't know how to dice it down so it's even more simple for you to understand, so I'm not going to even bother.

I didn't even aregue with you calling it that, Rosh. You are in rambling mode now, as usual...

 

[Claw]

Oh, I rarely read General Discussion.

Well, I guess they can't do much worse than Adventure Soft did with the last title.
Also, while The Fall is marred by both technical and design flaws and over-scripted gameplay, I like the visual style. I even like the RTwP combat gameplay more than in Baldur's Gate.

Btw, funny thing I spotted on their site looking for this news:

In development:

The Fall - Last Days of Gaia

At least they're honest, eh?

 

[kathode]

(Snip more idiotic excuses.)

That still doesn't invalidate the point of a fucking courtesy call.

I wasn't responding to you. Dhurin posted about the supposed bidding war, which I find ludicrous. Vault Dweller is still posting about it like it's gospel and I still don't see any way it could be when you look at the numbers.

 

[Revasser]

(Snip more idiotic excuses.)

That still doesn't invalidate the point of a fucking courtesy call.

I wasn't responding to you. Dhurin posted about the supposed bidding war, which I find ludicrous. Vault Dweller is still posting about it like it's gospel and I still don't see any way it could be when you look at the numbers.

It's not really a "bidding war" if it's Troika saying "Hold on, we've got some money together, and we're looking for more. Give us a little while, because we really want this." and then Bethesda coming in and saying "OOOOHH!! We'll give you THIS much monies! Ho ho ho, we gots Fallout, boys." and then the seller licking his lips and agreeing without discussion. A bidding war actually requires some metaphorical shots being fired, doesn't it? If it was a "bidding war", it was the equivalent of a tank rolling over a few troops and continuing on its merry way.

 

[Lumpy]

I don't understand why some people still defend Bethesda. If what was said is true, then Bethesda made a fucking unethical deal with Interplay.
While I know I'll like Falout 3 myself, I don't know whether you, the Fallout fans, will.
If Bethesda were such Fallout fans like they claimed (unless Fallout fans means "yeah, I think I played it once"), they could have just left the licience to Troika and made their own post apocalyptic universe.
But, one question: why did BIS go out of business.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So tell me - which Ethic norm did Bethesda break, in you opinion?
Common courtesy is NOT an ethical norm, BTW.

I've already said it: taking a license to the setting from the CREATOR of that setting is immoral. What else needs to be explained? Buying a house of some family that was put up for sale by creditors instead of giving the family a chance to come up with some money is immoral too. Good business, most likely, but immoral.

 

[Whipporowill]

But, one question: why did BIS go out of business.

Short story - big license clusterfuck with Dungeons & Dragons. Atari got hold of the license instead, and that's that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But, one question: why did BIS go out of business.

Herve Caen killed it because he wanted to make tons of money on console games. So instead of paying for the DnD PC license for BG3 he used the money to pay for DnD console license for BG:DA2. He used BIS resources on console projects, than killed the department. Stupid fuck. He would have made way more on FO3 / BG 3 combo sales.

 

[Vault Dweller]

(Snip more idiotic excuses.)

That still doesn't invalidate the point of a fucking courtesy call.

I wasn't responding to you. Dhurin posted about the supposed bidding war, which I find ludicrous. Vault Dweller is still posting about it like it's gospel and I still don't see any way it could be when you look at the numbers.

Huh? I said that Troika wanted to buy the license, got some money, then Beth got involved and paid more. Simple as that. There was no bidding war.

 

[Lumpy]

I see. So it had nothing to do with Fallout.
Oh well, that makes Bethy's move even worse.
Has anyone here played Redguard? From what I've heard, it was completly different from Morrowind. It had great dialogue, a great story, and complex quests and puzzles.
If that's true, then Bethesda devs are more flexible. It proves that they can do more than just huge worlds with bland NPCs and quests. So maybe Fallout 3 will really be the sequel of Fallout 2.
As for maintaining the original Fallout feel, I have no doubt about that. They really care a lot about TES lore, unlike other companies, who just pop races, lands and cultures out of nowhere.
OT: I just started Fallout myself, and so far it looks great. The only complaint would be the isometric view. It's just not immersive enough. I'd rather it had Daggerfallish graphics.

 

[Revasser]

But, one question: why did BIS go out of business.

Herve Caen killed it because he wanted to make tons of money on console games. So instead of paying for the DnD PC license for BG3 he used the money to pay for DnD console license for BG:DA2. He used BIS resources on console projects, than killed the department. Stupid fuck. He would have made way more on FO3 / BG 3 combo sales.

BIS produced BG3 and FO3? I may well have had a wet dream about that at some point.

 

[Whipporowill]

BIS produced BG3 and FO3? I may well have had a wet dream about that at some point.

Ayup. That'd be "Jefferson" and "Van Buren" - there are plenty leaked shots of both games around.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here is what we have on BG3. Read it and cry yourself to sleep:

http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=88

 

[Claw]

Want some emotional porn? Visit NMA for design docs of Van "Fallout 3" Buren.

 

[Revasser]

Here is what we have on BG3. Read it and cry yourself to sleep:

http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=88

Want some emotional porn? Visit NMA for design docs of Van "Fallout 3" Buren.

Now I'm sad.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

So tell me - which Ethic norm did Bethesda break, in you opinion?
Common courtesy is NOT an ethical norm, BTW.

I've already said it: taking a license to the setting from the CREATOR of that setting is immoral. What else needs to be explained? Buying a house of some family that was put up for sale by creditors instead of giving the family a chance to come up with some money is immoral too. Good business, most likely, but immoral.

Just saying it is immoral doesn't prove your point VD. The mere fact that you don't like it does not make it an ethical category either. Why would it be immoral? Intellectual rights are a legal not a moral entity.
Futhermore B. did not "take it away", because Troika tried to OBTAIN the license, they did not have it at the time. They made other games before, it was not their only purpose of existance to make a FO3 game, they jumped at the chance to aquire the license, so did someone else. Was it immoral by the original creators to sign the intellectual rights over to interplay? No. Was it immoral of interplay to sell it? No. Was it immoral of B. to buy it? No.
I can't see where a moral entitlement to the license could be derived. If you don't like it say so, but don't claim an Ethical standpoint.

 

[Lumpy]

So tell me - which Ethic norm did Bethesda break, in you opinion?
Common courtesy is NOT an ethical norm, BTW.

I've already said it: taking a license to the setting from the CREATOR of that setting is immoral. What else needs to be explained? Buying a house of some family that was put up for sale by creditors instead of giving the family a chance to come up with some money is immoral too. Good business, most likely, but immoral.

Just saying it is immoral doesn't prove your point VD. The mere fact that you don't like it does not make it an ethical category either. Why would it be immoral? Intellectual rights are a legal not a moral entity.
Futhermore B. did not "take it away", because Troika tried to OBTAIN the license, they did not have it at the time. They made other games before, it was not their only purpose of existance to make a FO3 game, they jumped at the chance to aquire the license, so did someone else. Was it immoral by the original creators to sign the intellectual rights over to interplay? No. Was it immoral of interplay to sell it? No. Was it immoral of B. to buy it? No.
I can't see where a moral entitlement to the license could be derived. If you don't like it say so, but don't claim an Ethical standpoint.

And they would have obtained the license, if it weren't for Bethesda. So, yes, Bethesda acquiring it was analogous with taking it away from Troika.
And taking something away from its original creators IS immoral. I, and you too, probably, would feel the same if Bethesda went bankrupt, and then tried to re-acquire the TES series, but another company took it first.

 

[Revasser]

And they would have obtained the license, if it weren't for Bethesda. So, yes, Bethesda acquiring it was analogous with taking it away from Troika.
And taking something away from its original creators IS immoral. I, and you too, probably, would feel the same if Bethesda went bankrupt, and then tried to re-acquire the TES series, but another company took it first.

Indeed. Legal or not, it's just not cricket.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Just saying it is immoral doesn't prove your point VD.

I didn't "just say" that. I explained and even gave an example with the house. It's your right to ignore it though.

Intellectual rights are a legal not a moral entity.

The rights are legal, the circumstances and consequences may have moral and ethical issues. Here is another example, Atari killing BG3 by refusing to grant the license was legal but immoral.

Futhermore B. did not "take it away", because Troika tried to OBTAIN the license, they did not have it at the time.

Troika would have gotten it if not for Bethesda. Thus, "taking away".

Was it immoral by the original creators to sign the intellectual rights over to interplay? No.

No, there was no other choice, just like that had no option but to give the Arcanum rights to Sierra.

Was it immoral of interplay to sell it? No. Was it immoral of B. to buy it? No.

Not that simple. Buying a license is not immoral. Buying a license when the creators of the setting were interested in getting it is. Decisions are never made in vacuum, there are circumstances, consequences, etc. That's how we judge those decisions, by taking a look at those circumstances and consequences.