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

[GhanBuriGhan]

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.

No. I would be dissapointed, maybe angry, but it is still not a moral question. It would be immoral if Bethesda had badmouthed Troika to skew the deal and they did not get the license becasue of that. It would be immoral if they had threatened Troika that they would buy THEM up and lay them all off if they tried to aquire the license. It would be immoral if Interplay had not given the license to Troika because they wanted to hurt their feelings. The way things actually happened has no moral bearings whatsoever, because there IS no moral entitlement to something you created - not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

 

[Lumpy]

not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

Even if they had no other choice?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

Even if they had no other choice?

Yes. Look, I publish papers. To do so I have to give up my copyright. I know what that means, i deal with it. That's just the legal backdrop against which we work.

VD, you example is incomplete, because the morality of the house purchase would really depend on many things - how long has the creditor held back already, does the family even have any chance of obtaining the money. As it is, I would say its NOT morally incorrect to buy that house. To evict them although you know they WILL have the money next month would be, e.g. More importantly though, it is misleading, because the circumstances of a family and a company are very different.

Finally, in both cases the actual decision for the sale is made by the seller (your creditor, or interplay) who thus holds most of the responsibility to begin with.

I understand that you feel that them being the Creators (All of the creators?, the most important ones?) somehow gives them the moral right to the license, but I think it really doesn't. They have a moral right to fair and equal treatment, but you can't have a moral right to a thing thats first and foremost an intellectual property and thus a legal matter.

Does Julian LeFay have a "moral right" to make the next Elder Scrolls title if he wanted to?

 

[DarkSign]

VD is right about the law. Its a codification/record of argument based on history that is founded in morality. We say that certain things are morally wrong and others arent by means of the law.

That being the case - the 2cent definition of morality is:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

It boils down to whether you think

a) the original designers (Troika) could make a better game

or

b) anything legal to is automatically ok to do.


As has been said, just because its legal doesnt make it moral. Thats just a starting place. BethSoft simply believes b). Most here at The Codex put art over business, but the rest of the world doesnt.

This is further proof the world should be more like The Codex.

 

[Lumpy]

not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

Even if they had no other choice?

Yes. Look, I publish papers. To do so I have to give up my copyright. I know what that means, i deal with it. That's just the legal backdrop against which we work.

VD, you example is incomplete, because the morality of the house purchase would really depend on many things - how long has the creditor held back already, does the family even have any chance of obtaining the money. As it is, I would say its NOT morally incorrect to buy that house. To evict them although you know they WILL have the money next month would be, e.g. More importantly though, it is misleading, because the circumstances of a family and a company are very different.

Finally, in both cases the actual decision for the sale is made by the seller (your creditor, or interplay) who thus holds most of the responsibility to begin with.

I understand that you feel that them being the Creators (All of the creators?, the most important ones?) somehow gives them the moral right to the license, but I think it really doesn't. They have a moral right to fair and equal treatment, but you can't have a moral right to a thing thats first and foremost an intellectual property and thus a legal matter.

Does Julian LeFay have a "moral right" to make the next Elder Scrolls title if he wanted to?

Sure, they didn't have a moral right. At least, not one enforced by the law. But don't you agree that it would have been a better moral choice from Bethesda to leave Fallout to Troika?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

If Bethesda were smart and not so over-the-top cocky, they would have seen the smartest business strategy in this situation.

Troika was trying to aquire Fallout. Troika was using Activision for funding. Bethesda is a publisher that also develops. Now, given that Bethesda does both publishing AND development, I think there's a clear, smart choice where they should have entered this deal if they wanted in on it.

If they'd bumped Activision out instead of Troika, I doubt anyone would have cared too much about Bethesda having their hands in Herve's pants. They'd still get a good cut of the profits because they'd be the publisher.

But really, the truth is even more fun than Bethesda's whole, "Well, we just had more money. It's not our fault Troika didn't." There have been contacts between Bethesda and Troika where Troika members wanted in on the project of Fallout 3. Now, you'd think if it were JUST BUSINESS and such, they would be happy to hire up the original developers of Fallout to work on Fallout 3.

Hell, that's PR gold right there. It'd be worth it for that reason alone. How many press releases could they squeeze out about having the original Fallout developers working on Fallout 3? Things like that go a little bit farther than what Star Trek Captain is going to voice a character at the beginning of the game. In fact, unlike Star Trek Captains, you can pimp out the developers for video interviews, previews, and interviews.

Not to mention you get first hand knowledge of the setting from the guys who created it. Would they do everything that made fans happy? Maybe not. However, it's a lot easier to swallow DeathClaws having pink plummage from the original developers as opposed to some third party who just had more money.

They also know the mechanics of the system, being the ones who created it and molded a game out of it. They not only know the HOWS of things working, but the WHYS. This is for balanced, this is for gameplay, and this is because it's just cool.

It gets even better when Bethesda claims they haven't started working on it because they're working on Oblivion. They don't have a team together yet, but they are hiring!

Instead, Bethesda declined. Flat faced turned down those people from Troika interested in working on Fallout 3. I can accept the "business is business" argument when it's consistant. However, this whole thing rings more of a pissing contest than business.

Oh, and for the record, I doubt Troika's Fallout 3 under Activision would have been much like Fallout 1 either. It might have had the setting right, but I'd be willing to bet it would have been real time.

 

[bryce777]

VD is right about the law. Its a codification/record of argument based on history that is founded in morality. We say that certain things are morally wrong and others arent by means of the law.

That being the case - the 2cent definition of morality is:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

It boils down to whether you think

a) the original designers (Troika) could make a better game

or

b) anything legal to is automatically ok to do.


As has been said, just because its legal doesnt make it moral. Thats just a starting place. BethSoft simply believes b). Most here at The Codex put art over business, but the rest of the world doesnt.

This is further proof the world should be more like The Codex.

I don't think you could even say b) about them.

Really, I doubt that the heads of the company or the publishers even look at thing on the same level people here do. they look at companies and sales figures, not individual people. They might have some vague idea who tim cain is but I doubt they have the crazy, psycho knowledge of fallout that they would know every single person who contributed to it. To a company head people are just assets, too.

There is, and has to be, an element of art in computer games, though. On the other hand, you CAN get other good writers, artists, and game designers, and make a good game. There is no way to hold together the whole original fallout team or the whole team for any big project...it's just not reality. Is Tim Caine the creator of fallout, and if so what does that mean exactly? Would it be the same without some of the other people? I just can't see any moral imperative that would require giving his company the game's IP. They would have had no idea that losing the license could cause troika to sink.

Now, if they bought out the fallout license to squash it and make sure there is less rpg competition, then yeah I can see it as evil. If they bought it to make a game with all the good qualities of fallout in good faith then it is a great thing. Unfortunately, they may not be able to deliver, and they may not have the same idea of what made fallout great, but that is the reality of life.

 

[DarkSign]

If they'd bumped Activision out instead of Troika, I doubt anyone would have cared too much about Bethesda having their hands in Herve's pants. They'd still get a good cut of the profits because they'd be the publisher.

But really, the truth is even more fun than Bethesda's whole, "Well, we just had more money. It's not our fault Troika didn't." There have been contacts between Bethesda and Troika where Troika members wanted in on the project of Fallout 3. Now, you'd think if it were JUST BUSINESS and such, they would be happy to hire up the original developers of Fallout to work on Fallout 3.

Hell, that's PR gold right there. It'd be worth it for that reason alone. How many press releases could they squeeze out about having the original Fallout developers working on Fallout 3? Things like that go a little bit farther than what Star Trek Captain is going to voice a character at the beginning of the game. In fact, unlike Star Trek Captains, you can pimp out the developers for video interviews, previews, and interviews.

Not to mention you get first hand knowledge of the setting from the guys who created it. Would they do everything that made fans happy? Maybe not. However, it's a lot easier to swallow DeathClaws having pink plummage from the original developers as opposed to some third party who just had more money.

They also know the mechanics of the system, being the ones who created it and molded a game out of it. They not only know the HOWS of things working, but the WHYS. This is for balanced, this is for gameplay, and this is because it's just cool.


Instead, Bethesda declined. Flat faced turned down those people from Troika interested in working on Fallout 3. I can accept the "business is business" argument when it's consistant. However, this whole thing rings more of a pissing contest than business.

And Codexers would get to post for 50 threads about how Troika sold out. LOLers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The way things actually happened has no moral bearings whatsoever, because there IS no moral entitlement to something you created - not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

Is that (the underlined part) what your argument based on? Then you have no argument.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

The way things actually happened has no moral bearings whatsoever, because there IS no moral entitlement to something you created - not if you legally gave up your copyright and knew what you were doing.

Is that (the underlined part) what your argument based on? Then you have no argument.

Care to explain?

What I am saying is that there is no "moral" or "ethic" entitlement of Troika to this license under the circumstances. And even less a moral obligation of Bethesda or any other buyer to grant "first picks" to Troika.

What I am trying to say is that all parties concerned shared and stuck to the same notions about what is right and wrong here, which are based on the legal definition of intelectual property.

So unless you can show me how you derive Troikas entitlement in ethical terms from a more basic ethical principle, I don't see how YOU have a point.

 

[Shagnak]

And Codexers would get to post for 50 threads about how Troika sold out. LOLers.

Haha, no doubt.

But still, the IP would be in a better position than it is now.
I still can't see the point of the acquisition - making sales from existing IP is meant to be easier, but if the fans of said IP don't like the IP holder then surely this makes it very difficult to make those "easy" sales.

Unless they market it in such a way to dupe those that are not "in the know"?

I agree with Saint on what the best thing for Beth would have been to do; essentially having the makers of the original whilst having reliable financial backing. And good sales from the "true fan" sector as well as those picked up from savvy marketing.

 

[Human Shield]

Troika had a chance with the Vampire license and failed while over budgeting it. They would have made more profits with niche games but tried to make them big and failed in business while disappointing fans.

I don't even support "intellectual property rights", they aren't even rights they are government monopoly privileges so that other people are prevented by force from combining their own property in certain ways.

Bethesda and Interplay didn't have a 'right', they had a 'privilege'.

it's still not Bethesda's fault.

It is Bethesda's fault if we get a non-faithful sequel.

 

[Imbecile]

. If they bought it to make a game with all the good qualities of fallout in good faith then it is a great thing. Unfortunately, they may not be able to deliver, and they may not have the same idea of what made fallout great, but that is the reality of life.

That seems to be the most likely scenario to me.

These companies dont go out of their way to make a crap game, they try to make one that will be universally liked. Thats Hollywood. What happens if you dont like big budget filmsf, but prefer French films with subtitles, or films that run backwards (ah memento)?

As the videogame market matures I guess youre going to see fewer big budget films that fall into these niche categories, simply because companies are getting better at knowing what sells, and because more people with less "sophisticated" tastes are entering the market (both PC and console).

There'll still be space for small companies, and dedicated fans to churn out the odd indie classic, or shareware style game - although graphically I would imagine that these'll be less than youre used to...if that matters.

I guess the only other answer is lower your standards

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD, you example is incomplete, because the morality of the house purchase would really depend on many things - how long has the creditor held back already, does the family even have any chance of obtaining the money.

In the context of the situation, obviously the family can pay in reasonable manner, BUT you can pay more.

As it is, I would say its NOT morally incorrect to buy that house

That's where we disagree then.

Finally, in both cases the actual decision for the sale is made by the seller (your creditor, or interplay) who thus holds most of the responsibility to begin with.

True, and the seller usually picks the highest bidder, so it's buyer's responsibility to consider the circumstances before bidding.

All of the creators?, the most important ones?

The ones that count. People who defined the concept, the setting, character system, game design (quests, game flow), etc. That always show. FO1 and FO2 are two very different games, just like DF and MW are different. You can always tell when core people left the scene. Let's see how Blizzard will do without Bill Roper & Co.

... somehow gives them the moral right to the license, but I think it really doesn't. They have a moral right to fair and equal treatment, but you can't have a moral right to a thing thats first and foremost an intellectual property and thus a legal matter.

And that's why nobody's claiming that Beth broke the law. They didn't. But ....

Does Julian LeFay have a "moral right" to make the next Elder Scrolls title if he wanted to?

IF Beth went out of business, IF the license was for sale, IF 2 people were interested, LeFay and Cain, a guy who had nothing to do with TES and didn't give a shit about it, then definitely LeFay would have all the moral rights to the license.

 

[obediah]

Finally, in both cases the actual decision for the sale is made by the seller (your creditor, or interplay) who thus holds most of the responsibility to begin with.

And Interplay's responsibility is to their shareholders, and in their situation not taking the largest up-front offer would have been immoral, illegal, and stupid.

Gaming is a business now, and all the developers and publishers that don't recognize this have fallen, and many that recognized this but are poor businessmen have fallen as well.

If Bethesda were smart and not so over-the-top cocky, they would have seen the smartest business strategy in this situation.

Getting in bed with Troika to exploit their purchase of "Fallout" would have been a HUGE mistake by Bethesda. Bethesda paid for a brand - not mechanics, gameplay, or balance. Their goal isn't to recreate Fallout in gameplay or sales numbers. If neither Fallout game had sales numbers that would be considered a success for their Fallout, it would be suicide to target that audience.

Since they are not making fallout1 or 2 with a new story, they are not going to bring in people that worked on and take pride in fallout 1 and fallout 2. The baggage those people would bring to the processs would far outweigh the benefits of their experience and familiarity. It might make sense to try to hire some of them as contractors to attend a few brainstorming meetings, but the last thing Bethesda wants is to hear "That's not how we did it in fallout..." coming back from their development team every 30 minutes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I am saying is that there is no "moral" or "ethic" entitlement of Troika to this license under the circumstances. And even less a moral obligation of Bethesda or any other buyer to grant "first picks" to Troika.

We simply have different opinions of what's morally right and morally wrong.

What I am trying to say is that all parties concerned shared and stuck to the same notions about what is right and wrong here, which are based on the legal definition of intelectual property.

Legal vs Moral. Two different things

So unless you can show me how you derive Troikas entitlement in ethical terms from a more basic ethical principle, I don't see how YOU have a point.

This stuff is very subjective, it depends on one's own system of moral and values. Nothing one can prove in a court of law. I have already explained my position, if you still don't see my point, just file it under "different opinion".

 

[Fintilgin]

I wouldn't be suprised if Bethesda wasn't aware of Troika's bid, and if there wasn't a bidding war. They don't really have a reason to lie to us. It may be Troika was still gathering the money and hadn't made an offical bid, or whatever. We are (well, most of us) not really in a position to know.

Still, it's understandable why we're upset. The annalogy I like is imagining if Bethesda went out of buisness, but a chunk of the designers and old staff founded a new company and made an offer for the Elder Scrolls rights. But, before they could get it, Bioware showed up and bought the Elder Scrolls. Then the first words they said were along the lines of: "Well, we're not really sure we're going to do a free-form, first-person, exploration game/fantasy simulator. That's not really what we do best. We do hallways best. Lots and lots of linear hallways." Then when questioned, they refused to answer if they'd be keeping many of the fundemental elements that made the Elder Scrolls the, well, Elder scrolls:

Design your own class? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."
No XP/Skill use advancement? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."
Go where you want in an open world? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."

The fact that they Bioware was apparently questioning such things would lead even the most forgiving and understanding fan to wonder why they'd want to make Elder Scrolls 5 and if the final product would resemble the previous game in anything but name and a few thematic elements. Especially when it would take about thirty seconds and a few sentences to clear up the confusion. Then, even the most forgiving and understanding fans might wonder if they weren't remaining silent to keep from pissing people off.

 

[Rat Keeng]

That's a pretty good analogy, and I reckon most Bethboys would feel fucked over if that was the case, it'd certainly be poetic justice, or whatever that cunt phrase is.

Though I don't think Troika could've made a proper Fallout 3 after my tastes, but I would like to give them a chance. They're pretty much 50/50 on my good/bad game scale, and i'd really like for them to tip it one way or the other, something to let me know they've either still got it, or have lost it.

 

[bryce777]

. If they bought it to make a game with all the good qualities of fallout in good faith then it is a great thing. Unfortunately, they may not be able to deliver, and they may not have the same idea of what made fallout great, but that is the reality of life.

That seems to be the most likely scenario to me.

These companies dont go out of their way to make a crap game, they try to make one that will be universally liked. Thats Hollywood. What happens if you dont like big budget filmsf, but prefer French films with subtitles, or films that run backwards (ah memento)?

As the videogame market matures I guess youre going to see fewer big budget films that fall into these niche categories, simply because companies are getting better at knowing what sells, and because more people with less "sophisticated" tastes are entering the market (both PC and console).

There'll still be space for small companies, and dedicated fans to churn out the odd indie classic, or shareware style game - although graphically I would imagine that these'll be less than youre used to...if that matters.

I guess the only other answer is lower your standards

I think the problem we have is that it's a lot different to market a game then to market a movie. In movies, the studios have the power, and the theatres generally make all their money off of the popcorn people buy at 7 bucks a pop.

For games, you now have to bribe the fuckers at compusa to put you on their shelves at all by buying ad space for 50k in their stupid insert, or else to make some special deal where there is a special comp usa version to get any preference.

So, that pretty much kills off the idea of making a game for a million dollars, selling 50-100k copies, and making a small but predictable profit.

In the future, maybe we will see boutique game stores come back, and smaller budget games, but I doubt it. What we need is something done over the internet ala geneforge, but with a little higher production values and some actual advertising to pimp it out.

 

[Dhruin]

Don't twist my words, kathode. I didn't say there was a bidding "war" - I said Troika couldn't find the finance to match Bethsoft's bid. I even clarified that I might have been wrong about the "last minute" bit.

--------------

I don't think there's anything immoral about Bethsoft acquiring the license. I'm not sure why they want it but they did nothing morally wrong. It's too hard to speculate about a hypothetical FO3 from Troika driven by a publisher's demands and whatever Bethsoft's design is, so I'll leave that side be.

 

[obediah]

In my ideal world, someone would give Troika all the resources they need to churn out Fallout games until I'm dead.

In the real world, I think the chances of Fallout 3 being a good game are better than they would have been if Troika had gotten the name. I'm sure what Troika had in their heads is a better game than what Bethesda has in theirs, but I think Bethesda will put a better game into a box than Troika would have. Mainly just because I think Bethesda is delivering games much closer to their target than Troika has been.

When it's 30 days to release and it isn't going to happen, they are much more likely to extend efforts, and when the axe does drop it will drop in a more intellegent manner than if a hands-off financer has to come in and do it. Also Bethesda needs Fallout to succeed, which means more QC, and bugs will be fixed.

 

[Lumpy]

I wouldn't be suprised if Bethesda wasn't aware of Troika's bid, and if there wasn't a bidding war. They don't really have a reason to lie to us. It may be Troika was still gathering the money and hadn't made an offical bid, or whatever. We are (well, most of us) not really in a position to know.

Still, it's understandable why we're upset. The annalogy I like is imagining if Bethesda went out of buisness, but a chunk of the designers and old staff founded a new company and made an offer for the Elder Scrolls rights. But, before they could get it, Bioware showed up and bought the Elder Scrolls. Then the first words they said were along the lines of: "Well, we're not really sure we're going to do a free-form, first-person, exploration game/fantasy simulator. That's not really what we do best. We do hallways best. Lots and lots of linear hallways." Then when questioned, they refused to answer if they'd be keeping many of the fundemental elements that made the Elder Scrolls the, well, Elder scrolls:

Design your own class? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."
No XP/Skill use advancement? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."
Go where you want in an open world? "We haven't decided yet. Go away."

The fact that they Bioware was apparently questioning such things would lead even the most forgiving and understanding fan to wonder why they'd want to make Elder Scrolls 5 and if the final product would resemble the previous game in anything but name and a few thematic elements. Especially when it would take about thirty seconds and a few sentences to clear up the confusion. Then, even the most forgiving and understanding fans might wonder if they weren't remaining silent to keep from pissing people off.

That's what I was saying. I would feel horrible, and I guess that's how most Fallout fans feel right now.
But, what if Bethesda really makes a good Fallout? I gave that Redguard example, which proves that Bethesda can do more than just Morrowinds. what if Bethesda's game will end up being better than Troika's Fallout? And, even if it weren't, I seriously doubt it will be Morrowind with guns. I believe they will keep everything that made Fallout Fallout, even if they do not implement them properly.

 

[Lumpy]

Double post...

 

[kathode]

There have been contacts between Bethesda and Troika where Troika members wanted in on the project of Fallout 3.
...
Instead, Bethesda declined. Flat faced turned down those people from Troika interested in working on Fallout 3.

Sorry you're going to have to back these up somehow. I don't think that is a real event you're describing.

Don't twist my words, kathode. I didn't say there was a bidding "war" - I said Troika couldn't find the finance to match Bethsoft's bid. I even clarified that I might have been wrong about the "last minute" bit.

Whatever word you're comfortable with, I'm just telling you I don't see how that's possible given the bid we got it for. I don't see that anyone has any proof at all that that's how things happened.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

That's a pretty good analogy, and I reckon most Bethboys would feel fucked over if that was the case, it'd certainly be poetic justice, or whatever that cunt phrase is.

Though I don't think Troika could've made a proper Fallout 3 after my tastes, but I would like to give them a chance. They're pretty much 50/50 on my good/bad game scale, and i'd really like for them to tip it one way or the other, something to let me know they've either still got it, or have lost it.

I am not denying anyones right to be upset about it. But calling Bethesdas buying the license morally wrong is saying that Bethesdas behavior was in conflict with Ethical standards, which is something very different. One is your personal feeling and opionion, the other should be based on universal standards.