Bethesda Softworks - Fallout Bought Outright

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Whatever else it means, I guess we can now take for granted that Bethesda plans to give a long lease of life to the Fallout IP over several games. I am amazed at the value of the IP though, considering the so-so sales of the originals, the abysmal spinoffs, and the totally unproven ability of Bethesda to make a successful fallout game. I would not have expected such a move prior to a successful FO3 launch. They must have quite a bit of extra cash.

Totally agree.

A cynical interpretation (and I'm not really suggesting this is the most likely scenario, but just for the sake of discussion…): This agreement has terms that essentially guarantee Interplay's failure with the MMO, which then reverts the rights back to Bethsoft. Bethsoft either sees a profitable MMO as the long-term evolution of the series or believes the rights to develop an MMO could be sold profitably in the long run.

Hmmm

I remember Kharn saying in a different thread than this that Interplay had some 9-10 million USD in debts to its creditors. I also remember reading somewhere that Interplay's creditors had filed a lawsuit in order to get Interplay declared Bankrupt (I think). And that the cour hearing was pushed up until May, which means that Hervé (?) must be pretty happy with near 6 mill. USD he got from the sale of Interplay's Fallout IP license to Zenimax Media/Bethesda Softworks. This means that he can fend off those creditors. Also, if you need the money, would you rather have nearly 6 mill. USD in your hand, that 1.75 (unsure) USD that you would get if Bethesda's Fallot 3 did sell enough copies… I know what I would choose, and it is not door # 2.

However, I don't think that Interplay can pull of making a Fallout MMORPG which will help them out of the economis disaster they are in right now. It is clear to me that this is what Interplay is hoping.

Now, what will happen if, in a stunning turn of events, Fallout 4, will be licensed by Bethesda to be made by Interplay??

My head hurts!!

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Whatever else it means, I guess we can now take for granted that Bethesda plans to give a long lease of life to the Fallout IP over several games. I am amazed at the value of the IP though, considering the so-so sales of the originals, the abysmal spinoffs, and the totally unproven ability of Bethesda to make a successful fallout game. I would not have expected such a move prior to a successful FO3 launch. They must have quite a bit of extra cash.

If they would have bought the license after showing a great successful launch, Interplay would have made them pay at least triple that price !

Interesting question:
In their first agreement Beth licensed Fallout for an advance against royalties plus options for more games. Now that they own the IP, do they still have to pay according to the first agreement? Interplay no longer has an IP they can license to Beth after all. Or is the old contract declared null and void (on amicable terms, nobody sues anybody, etc.) and the money not payed yet won´t change hands? The latter case would make the purchase of the IP look like a good investment if Bethesda has long term plans.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Wasn't interplay's total debt around 8 million?Wouldn't this and the other deals they did basically put them back in the black?

Interplay has a forced bankruptcy case against it for roughly 750,000 USD. This'll allow them to settle that, meaning they won't go into immediate bankruptcy.

The remaining 7 million in debts, with the possible exception of their debts to the IRS, aren't urgent, so while they're not balanced now, they're a ways in.

I'm really surprised about how much misinformation is being spouted everywhere in reaction to this. Seriously, guys, this is a license sale, not an assets sale. AFAIK, nothing has changed in the position or ownership of the assets with this. If you want to know where all the assets are, I suggest reading this page

Or is the old contract declared null and void (on amicable terms, nobody sues anybody, etc.) and the money not payed yet won´t change hands?

Yes.

Kharn:
How will this affect your communities' plans to punish Bethsoft for franchise disloyalty? Do you think they'll respond with despondency or renewed fervour? The reaction at NMA has so far been distressingly moderate. I see three instances of 'wait and see' to our zero.

Actually, I'm sure the Codex is still in the fight, and DaC couldn't find its collective ass with a trail map and compass, so I guess I'm just asking about your site. If you don't want to speak for your users, then has this blunted your own resolve to "fight tooth and claw"? If not, for what would you now be fighting?

(And yes, Briosa, no way to know, wait and see, etc. etc. ad absurdum. Let's just assume Bethsoft will do what we all believe it'll do.)

Originally Posted by abbaon
How will this affect your communities' plans to punish Bethsoft for franchise disloyalty? Do you think they'll respond with despondency or renewed fervour?

I don't think it changes anything, except this;

Before now, Bethesda was working on someone else's baby, that was still in someone else's legal custody. Now they have custody over said baby…

…If Fallout 3 flops, then before this deal, Bethesda would've simply dropped the option for Fallout 4 and 5, and either Bioware or Obsidian could've scooped up the now-worthless Fallout license in the impending Interplay garage sale…

…Now it's Bethesda's, and the two unlikely best-case scenarios are Bethesda making a good Fallout 3 or Bethesda licensing it out to Obsidian.

It's more of a psychological thing for must of us, I guess. It is a bit disheartening, though it does add the advantage of making a Fallout MMO slightly less likely, but it doesn't really change Fallout 3's chances of success in any way.

Originally Posted by abbaon
If not, for what would you now be fighting?

That's a good question, and not one I have an answer for anymore.

Just curious, what is the difference between Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics? I've never played either of them and I always thought that those were different names for the same game.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Just curious, what is the difference between Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics? I've never played either of them and I always thought that those were different names for the same game.

Confusingly, they kind of are.

This is Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, a post-apocalyptic tactical game marketed as "Jagged Alliance in a PA setting", under the leadership of Fallout original concept developer Chris Taylor, propped up on huge fan support to be the most pre-ordered game in Interplay history.

This is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, an attempt to make a weak Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance-esque game in the Fallout setting. Never gathered any momentum amongst fans or media, flopped very painfully (19,000 sales in the first few months).

Ironically, both games had sequels planned, the Tactics sequel dropping out because Interplay pulled out the funding of Micro Forte in a huge-asshole-moment, the BoS sequel never reaching production because Interplay laid off its entire staff after the flop of the first.

Thanks Kharn, so BoS was for consoles only, looks pretty crappy anyways.

I saw a radscorpion the other day…
— random Fallout 3 NPC

The one year anniversary of Oblivion's release has come and gone. Perhaps it's time to retire the mudcrab jokes.

If anyone would explain the difference between licence and assest to me in layman's terms, I think i would be —- happy — somewhat

Originally Posted by Kharn
This is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, an attempt to make a weak Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance-esque game in the Fallout setting. Never gathered any momentum amongst fans or media, flopped very painfully (19,000 sales in the first few months).

Alternate Titles * "Fallout: PoS" — Angry Fan Title
Trivia
Fan response to this game was so overwhelmingly negative that Interplay actually shut down the Official Brotherhood of Steel message board.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Thanks Kharn, so BoS was for consoles only, looks pretty crappy anyways.

Yeah, it is! We have it in our game library at work so I gave it a spin when it came out. Even though I knew what to expect from it (a Dark Alliance clone) I gave up on it after about 2-3 hours. Not worth the time…

Tactics I kinda liked though! It's not a RPG (no story worth mentioning) - but it has the objects, weapons and combat system we all love from the FO series Played through it maybe half a year ago..

Originally Posted by abbaon
The one year anniversary of Oblivion's release has come and gone. Perhaps it's time to retire the mudcrab jokes.

I don't think the mudcrab jokes are going anywhere until Bethsoft gives us something better to make wisecracks about, like leveled radscorpions, talking deathclaws, or how easy it is to become guild leader for both the Brotherhood of Steel and the Supermutants Guild at the same time.

Hey, at least we now know the real reason behind why people talk about mudcrabs as nast little things and avoid them whenever they can

Read here

http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/in…owtopic=674048

It is the frigthening tale of a person being killed by - you've guessed it —

a mudcrab

Anyway, about the mudcrabs —- the reason behind this is because the NPCs really talk about these creatures all the time, when they meet each other at the town's central place. I guess it is some sort of smalltalk, like Danes (nearly) always talking about the weather, just to start a conversation.

I think the interesting part of the sale is not that Bethesda bought the IP, but the MMO deal.

Keeping in mind I breifly read through the responses and haven't clicked a link yet, on Beths end, if they weren't interested in making an mmo, or haven't recieved much interest in people liscensing an mmo on FO from them (and who would? What dev studio willing to acrue the debt needed to make an mmo would want to acrue more debt using this IP instead of a new one without restraints?)

The only logical choice Bethedsa could make if Interplay was willing to lower the rpicetag in return for having an mmo-deal would be to make the mmo deal, if that saved them enough to offset the opportunity cost of being able to liscense that out to someone else for more. If the opportunity wasn't very likely or as profitable as the actual gain of a lesser pricetag on the IP, its a no-brainer to take the better deal.

But Wow is a cash cow, so Bethesda must have plans to steal some of the economic profit blizz is making. But what IP would be a stronger one for them, FO or ES, for an MMO? Probably ES. It seems far less risky (in my opinion of course). And if Interplay actually pulls off the mmo, Beth can make some nice profit with no work at all.

By why would Interplay give up real cash for an mmo deal? We know he had plans to make an mmo. But anyone willing to give interplay enough debt to make an mmo is going to have a return worked in that fits the risk. So with Bethesda taking creames, and the debt issuer taking more creames, Interplay would not be making that much real profit on a succesful game if made. But if not made, Interplay is in the same boat as before.

More cash still leaves them in debt or without enough working capital to do anything still. Debt is a given. If they lose the IP back to Bethesda they are still just as insolvent as if they never had it. The mmo deal is just a chance for them to get on track. The chance might be ever so slim, its still better than no chance. Even if they make nothing off of the profit of a succesful launch, it the profit after expenses and op costs and before paying debt and Bethesda look good enough, they could get better debt to make another non-FO game, then another, then another. And be back in business again. Thats how I see it anyway.

One fly in that ointment, is that Interplay has no staff to make any game, and as most of its previous staff went unpaid, who in their right mind (or even out of it) would agree to work for them!! With their track record, I'd insist on being paid 6 months in advance at least!!!!