View Single Post

Default 

May 23rd, 2009, 00:41
Originally Posted by Brother None View Post
Most of the clauses are standard. Some of the vague clauses just look like eventual failsaves.
It's a bad deal because Interplay had their backs against the wall. Angry Gamers is being pretty irrational about it, even seemingly not understanding that Interplay knew and accepted all these clauses, and had nothing forced on it.
Yes and no. Yes Angry Gamers are overreacting. No it's not "standard", at least one of the clauses definitely isn't fair:
The MMO "must meet or exceed such quality standards as may be set by Bethesda from time to time" in order for Interplay to remain in good standing

"standards set by Bethesda" is a complete fog. It's anything Bethesda wants it to be. Using that clause they can basically end FOOL anytime they want without really needing to justify that decision.
It's as if I agree to let you use my bike if you give me $1000. The loan will last 5 years provided I think you ride it well enough. A week later I proclaim you're not good enough at it and rightfully take it back, and of course I get to keep the money too.

Is it legally valid? Probably. American law is known to give nigh absolute freedom to what contractors can agree on, and doesn't really care if one gets screwed so long as it's not a "consumer".
Should Herve Caen have signed that contract? Had I been his legal counselor, I would have advised him to give up any hopes of developing FOOL in exchange of more money for the Fallout franchise. Indeed given the forces en presence, negotiating more freedom to develop FOOL seemed unrealistic.
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#14

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203