Fallout "True Sequel" Community Effort

God, brother none...I'm sure the company just loves suing....man that sounded so dumb. Any company will protect its ip's....you zealots need to learn this.

The linked paragraph does seem to me to support Brother None's claim. Requiring the manual documentation to be withdrawn when a game is already freeware(Arena) seems just a bit over zealous to me.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
Many IP owners and even many developers simply don´t understand the concept of "fan games" or "fan mods" or whatever you want to call them.
Well, the rest of us understand it fine. Maybe the sharper, brighter IP owners and developers can give the other ones a hand in figuring it out.

OK, that's sarcasm (sorry), but this conflict of interest doesn't have anything to do with misunderstanding simple concepts, IMO. It's about how some businesses compare their advantages: The benefits of being nice on the one hand versus the value of asserting control over your property on the other.

IMO, the folks over at Bethesda feel they're so hot that they don't have to be nice, and that's why they protect their IP so diligently. I don't like that.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
I still think they'll sue though. That's just the mentality of big games companies nowadays (EA being the prime example).

Yeah. Those BASTARDS, man. Whatever happened to this, you know, like cooool idea of communism and just sharing shit with everyone, duuuude? *rolls another fat one* :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
Yeah. Those BASTARDS, man. Whatever happened to this, you know, like cooool idea of communism and just sharing shit with everyone, duuuude? *rolls another fat one* :rolleyes:

Um, did you read the first half of that post (the one bit you didn't quote), where I stated it's probably in their best commercial interests not to sue small community projects? Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, you've completely misrepresented my stand-point - I never even suggested they shouldn't sue out of some sharing, kind-hearted nature?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
Um, did you read the first half of that post (the one bit you didn't quote), where I stated it's probably in their best commercial interests not to sue small community projects? Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, you've completely misrepresented my stand-point - I never even suggested they shouldn't sue out of some sharing, kind-hearted nature?

It's a bit tricky. If they don't protect their IP, it risks sliding into the public domain; if they do, there will be a backlash. The practice that has evolved appears to be that non-commercial modifications that require a licensed version of a product to run aren't pursued (example: Team Gizka and The Sith Lords Restoration Project) but stand-alone products using IP will be.

In other words, I'd say the odds are that at least a cease-and-desist letter is on the cards, and if that's not respected, possibly even legal proceedings. Of course, if they're *really* nasty, they'll let the project wander on until near release, and *then* slap it with a lawsuit.

Of course, if they renamed it "Fullout" and called it parody, it would be another story...
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
I agree that the issue of whether or not Beth should protect their IP is a complicated issue. The post you quote was merely made to state that I think they should allow the use of their IP because I believe it's in their best commercial interests, rather than because I'm some pot-smoking hippie who believes in sharing (as Moriender misrepresented me to be). I can equally see the argument for IP protection, from a commercial standpoint.

As for non-commercial mods that require the original product - you can see why companies might allow these - they require the product to be sold! Though even then, some companies clamp down on them, which I think is a mistake from a commercial standpoint .

I also agree that subtle changes in the community game name, etc., could easily get round the whole issue (exhibit A: Lazarus and lawsuit-happy EA).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
Um, did you read the first half of that post (the one bit you didn't quote), where I stated it's probably in their best commercial interests not to sue small community projects?

How is it not in their interest? I mean, they own the rights and it's something of a duty to protect that. When said project is a mix of bad fan-fic, decade old graphics tech and an attitude of 'lol, we're better than you', it is in your best corporate and commercial interest to shut it down. What's the fallout (lol) from doing so anyways? The guys on NMA will talk shit about you? I think that ship has already sailed.

No need to sue when a cease and desist will do however.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
10
...rather than because I'm some pot-smoking hippie who believes in sharing (as Moriender misrepresented me to be

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack against you but just a sarcastic remark on the general commie attitude that is displayed throughout this thread ;) . Your quote was the most convenient to pick out since it was short and concise. You became a collateral damage victim so to speak. Apologies again :) .
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack against you but just a sarcastic remark on the general commie attitude that is displayed throughout this thread ;) . Your quote was the most convenient to pick out since it was short and concise. You became a collateral damage victim so to speak. Apologies again :) .

Oh, no worries! And I didn't take it personally. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I agree with you that people shouldn't be bemoaning Bethesda being "mean and selfish". They paid for, and own, the IP and they intend to make money from it - they are a business! However, I tried to separate myself from those masses, by stating a possible commercial basis for Bethesda not suing. Of course, whether or not that stance is economically viable or not is a very complex issue, as others have pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
How is it not in their interest? I mean, they own the rights and it's something of a duty to protect that. When said project is a mix of bad fan-fic, decade old graphics tech and an attitude of 'lol, we're better than you', it is in your best corporate and commercial interest to shut it down. What's the fallout (lol) from doing so anyways? The guys on NMA will talk shit about you? I think that ship has already sailed.

No need to sue when a cease and desist will do however.

In this case, you are probably correct - the fan-made effort may well detract from the Bethesda/Fallout brand-name.

I don't think that always has to be the case though: Prime Junta pointed out the Sith Lords restoration project. And Vampire: Bloodlines has benefited a great deal from fan intervention. Of course, both those examples require you to own the original, and one is from a now defunct software house... However, I still think that the right fan-project could raise the profile of a brand name enough that the IP holder could reap the commercial benefit. My point about the "mentality of software companies nowadays" was that I don't think they consider the potential free marketing opportunity - I think they automatically sue/cease-and-desist, as the law branch is autonomously doing their own thing.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
At the risk of sounding rabidly anti-Bethesda again, I agree with mogwins in theory but don't believe it applies directly to Bethesda.

Their modding support is good, but it's not excellent. (better than Fallout's, which also explains our slow progress. Some of the things modders have done with the game by now are amazing, tho')

On the other hand, Todd Howard seems to get pretty defensive about people modding his game and messing with his property, oddly enough, and certain modders aren't modders anymore but "hackers." I think Bethesda has a stricter view of what they consider beneficial modding.

And that's not nice, because their games really benefit from the excellent mods out there. A lot.

Also: someone noted Bethesda just has a seperate legal corp that spends its time hunting down stuff like this. That's very correct, that's often what happens with bigger companies, as they become more jealous of their property. Sometimes justified, sometimes it's just bad PR. In this case, it's mostly because Bethesda is owned by ZeniMax, and ZM is just an archetype evil corporation thing (run by people of the Democratic party, too. Heh)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
However, I still think that the right fan-project could raise the profile of a brand name enough that the IP holder could reap the commercial benefit. My point about the "mentality of software companies nowadays" was that I don't think they consider the potential free marketing opportunity - I think they automatically sue/cease-and-desist, as the law branch is autonomously doing their own thing.

Yes, but on the other hand you have the modders who "automatically" assume that they can screw around with a foreign IP as they please. I have very rarely heard of a case where a mod team -instead of basically starting a sneaky guerilla attack on the IP- actually, you know, ASKED the IP holder for CONSENT in advance of starting work on the project. I think that would be a thing of common sense and courtesy really to at least attempt to establish a line of communication and to check with the IP holder if it would be OK with them if you did a project based on their IP. Ring them up. Ask to talk to their legal department. Offer them to send them detailed design docs so they can see for themselves which elements of their IP will be used in which ways. Offer them proper credit (like non-skippable intro/outro screens where it says for 10 seconds "Based on a game by [IP holder]" and appropriate footnotes in the main menu screen. Talk to them. Ask under which conditions (if at all) they'd not consider legal proceedings.

But if you do none of the above then please be so kind as to STFU if you get your butt kicked by the IP holder's legal department. You had it coming. And it could have been avoided by some simple communication even if you don't like the outcome. If they say "no" then you just got to accept it just as if you would expect someone to accept it when you say "no" to someone who wants to enter your house or apartment. It's their property. No trespassing w/o consent. Period.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
Prime Junta pointed out the Sith Lords restoration project. And Vampire: Bloodlines has benefited a great deal from fan intervention.

Very much true but also entirely different. Not so much because they require the original product to make happen, but because there's a level of respect for the company that owns the rights... or at least the company who licensed said rights. I'm not so sure about wesp's level of communication with the cats from Troika nor the feedback that TSL: Resto get from Obsidian, but I'd imagine the relationship is cordial and respectful. Also, if you visit the defacto homes for these projects on the webs you're not going to find the words 'cocksnorkling beardo' or 'raping my favourite franchise' pop-up all that much.

Not that I'm so much into their games, not a fan of blades and elves, but reading their blog would suggest that the cats at Bethesda do have a sense of humour about things. They linked to a mod which ridicules Todd Howard*... seriously, it's a little midget that follows you around repeating all those wonderful PR comments he made during the games development. I don't see them going after Falloup, which is an internet comic based on the game world, nor have they shutdown the various places you pick up a blue and yellow ringer t-shirt with a big 13 on the back. Point being, they're relative kind with what they'll let slip by and I'm sure on some level they'd like to see projects like these made, most likely with their own tools but that's not really an option until after release. Like I said, I haven't really liked a game they've made since some silly bowling sim they put out in the nineties, but I do realize they're one of the earliest adopters of a company content/fan content model for game development and they're pretty much hands off when it comes to that... a casual glance at the somethingawful page regarding the latest batches of Oblivion mods will tell you that.

It's all about how you approach the situation really. Getting antagonistic with a company that can keep the next three or four generations of your family in the poorhouse is just stupid.

*
On the other hand, Todd Howard seems to get pretty defensive about people modding his game and messing with his property, oddly enough, and certain modders aren't modders anymore but "hackers." I think Bethesda has a stricter view of what they consider beneficial modding.

You're being disingenuous and false. If you wanna lie, that's fine but it rings hollow.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
10
With regards to Moriendor's comments: Again, I agree! If you're basing your game on an existing IP, you should at least ask the IP holder for permission.

To be fair, as I understand it, a couple of the Ultima remakes did try this approach with EA, but got no response. As the games were nearly 20 years old they assumed EA didn't care and went ahead. Then towards the end of the project, after many years of work, they got a cease-and-desist order out of the blue. That, I think, is bad management of your IP (if EA intend to do anything with the Ultima brand, I think it could only be helped by people having played the remakes. Especially those too young to remember the originals), and bad PR all round. The upshot of all that was Ultima V becoming Lazarus, and the only reason I paid money for Dungeon Siege.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
mogwins said:
To be fair, as I understand it, a couple of the Ultima remakes did try this approach with EA, but got no response. As the games were nearly 20 years old they assumed EA didn't care and went ahead. Then towards the end of the project, after many years of work, they got a cease-and-desist order out of the blue.

Interesting. Do you remember which remakes those were? I am aware of the Peroxide Ultima 1 remake and one Ultima 4 project, but had not heard about either of them actually getting a cease&desist - my impression was that they shut down their projects preemptively after failing to obtain a licence (I don't know if Peroxide's project was supposed to be commercial, which would certainly prompt harsher action from the IP holder). As far as I understand, Lazarus never received any official licence either, but are apparently tolerated - or am I mistaken?

Which would not surprise me. If I was a big, greedy game publishing company, and an amateur developer team approached me with a request for a licence, I would simply not react. If their project garners positive publicity for my IP, I will reap the benefits. If it takes a route that would damage the IP, I can always have it shut down at my whim. Why would I give up that power by formally granting a licence?

My personal opinion is that, if you think you have the creative skills to write an RPG, please put some of that creativity into coming up with an original IP. Failing that, it would seem exceedingly optimistic for an amateur developer with no credentials to expect to obtain a licence from the holder of a multi-million dollar IP, so that cease & desist may be the Damocles' sword that you will just have to live with.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
119
Atrachasis, I was primarily referring to Ultima V, which became Lazarus after EA made a few threats. I thought something similar had happened with some the the "earlier" (in terms of Ultima series) remakes, but my memory could be deceiving me.

Just a small point, but I don't think any of them wanted to licence the IP, per se, they just wanted to politely inform EA what they were doing and check that EA wouldn't object. As small, not-for-profit projects, licencing would be far too formal (not to mention costly!). Though it would certainly be required for a commercial project - if that was really the case with Peroxide, I don't know what they were thinking!

If I was a big, greedy game publishing company, and an amateur developer team approached me with a request for a licence, I would simply not react. If their project garners positive publicity for my IP, I will reap the benefits. If it takes a route that would damage the IP, I can always have it shut down at my whim.

I agree this stance makes good business (if not moral!) sense. However, I don't see how this fits with what happened with Lazarus/Ultima V? Lazarus didn't take away from any EA sales, I think it's rejuvenated interest in the Ultima brand (leading the way for a possible new, profitable Ultima game - and yet EA still does nothing with the IP), yet EA tried to shut it down? That just seems like a bad idea whatever way you look at it.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
To be honest with the venom and outright immaturity that the Fallout community has shown in the past I hate to say I don't have much faith in a user made mod.

With the first Fallout Steve Jackson was at least around for most of the development to keep a lid on what Interplay did.

It seems to me this could end up being something like what John K did with Ren and Stimpy after he got the rights back and didn't have Nicklodeon to keep him in line and productive (it was so bad even Spike TV pulled it after 4 episodes; not that the Nick solo ones were any good).

I can hope to be proven wrong though.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
You're being disingenuous and false. If you wanna lie, that's fine but it rings hollow.

Right, you're sorry, my bad, it wasn't Todd Howard, it was Pete Hines who referred to the nude mod of Oblivion as "hacking" despite the fact that the extraction utility used for the mod was publicly used by other modders on the official Bethesda forums.

Nice jumping out to scream "liar" instinctively, though. Guilty conscience?

To be honest with the venom and outright immaturity that the Fallout community has shown in the past I hate to say I don't have much faith in a user made mod.

Oh yes, we're much worse than, say, people that obsessively hate us without any direct provocation. We're such bad guys.

With the first Fallout Steve Jackson was at least around for most of the development to keep a lid on what Interplay did.

What lid? Steve Jackson was fine with everything in Fallout except the Vault Boy an opening execution scene, but he didn't jump under the contract, Interplay did (Frith knows why). Not sure if Steve Jackson was actively there to keep the lid on things before that, to be honest
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
Back
Top Bottom