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

[crpgnut]

I don't worship Fallout but I'd love to see a game like it again. There is zero chance that Todd Howard will allow Fallout 3 to be anything like its predecessor. Todd is all about graphics and graphical buzzwords, so you can kiss turn-based and isometric viewpoint goodbye for sure. My guess is that Todd's vision will be something like the original Deus Ex with Oblivion's engine. He'll keep the SPECIAL system and perks and I imagine they'll have something similar to a pipboy. Dialogue will likely be similar to Deus Ex and Mel Gibson will do the voice acting for the main character.

Even though I love TES, I really hope I'm off the mark by 1000%.

 

[Volourn]

"You have asperger's or something Ted? You pretty much agree with the sentiment, and just have to add the "fool" part for flavour? Classy!"

This is the Codex. If someone doens't agree with me 100% they are labeled a fool at the absolute minimum if not worst.

I was being polite.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Well, considering the plot and full story details for Van Buren are now all over the internet...

 

[roguefrog]

And IIRC theres two Van Buren versions of the plot.

MCA's plot with some dome lab and pre-apocalypse scientists or something.
And the post MCA plot with a jailbreak, hunter killer robots, and a space station!

 

[kingcomrade]

Well, you have to remember the tribals were part of the original plan for Fallout 2, I believe. Maybe they wouldn't've been so stupid in it's original incarnation, but hey, what can you do.

 

[Avé]

I though volourn stopped posting

 

[Naked_Lunch]

You though wrong.

 

[Whipporowill]

I though volourn stopped posting

All his other personalities got tired of stalking him, so I guess that means he's back.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for Troika having a 'moral' right to make Fallout 3 over Bethesda, that argument is so mind-bogglingly stupid that to see it paraded around in this thread time and time again makes me question the sanity of everyone who uses it.

Creative people already have all the rights to their work by default. The fellows who later left to found Troika do not own the IP because they *sold* their rights to Interplay when they signed up to work there to *make games* for the company. Unless you or someone else can present some claim that proves that Interplay cheated them in the process then Interplay can morally do whatever the hell they want with the IP. And then there's the non-trivial matter of Interplay providing the means to execute this project in terms of personnel, equipment and office space.

All that explains nicely why Troika didn't have any legal rights to the license, which was never an issue, but doesn't explain your position on the moral issue.

 

[Vault Dweller]

TOEE was not a good role-playing. ...
So, take out TOEE in your role-playing assessment than I might agree with you.

Fine. I meant "a good dungeon crawler". Yes, with not very challenging combat.

I was being polite.

Noted and appreciated.

 

[callehe]

I think it's safe to assume that neither of the Fallouts or any of the three Troika games sold in the numbers that Bethesda is looking for. From a "purely business perspective" Bethesda wants lots of sales, and to build a franchise - and working with Troika gets them neither of those things. It would get them "a better fallout game", but that is meaningless in the business perspective you set.

Pray tell, how exactly is satisfying what the potential customers (the fallout fans) want bad for business? I'm sure most (all?) fallout fans would have wanted the original creators of the game making the sequel.

All in all, I don't understand the whole concept of buying a franchise and then assrape the fanbase, like Bethsoft seems set their mind on doing; seems like very bad business to me considering the fact that these ppl (the fallout fans) were the ones who bought the game in the first place. Why make a game if you don't stand on good terms with your potential customers? Who is Bethsoft's fallout 3 aimed for anyway?

 

[Kalle]

Creative people already have all the rights to their work by default. The fellows who later left to found Troika do not own the IP because they *sold* their rights to Interplay when they signed up to work there to *make games* for the company. Unless you or someone else can present some claim that proves that Interplay cheated them in the process then Interplay can morally do whatever the hell they want with the IP. And then there's the non-trivial matter of Interplay providing the means to execute this project in terms of personnel, equipment and office space.

All that explains nicely why Troika didn't have any legal rights to the license, which was never an issue, but doesn't explain your position on the moral issue.

So your argument is that people should be able to sell a cookie but still have a moral right to, at some undisclosed future date, demand it back?

There is no moral issue, just a bunch of fanboys and their wishful thinking.

 

[Volourn]

"Pray tell, how exactly is satisfying what the potential customers (the fallout fans) want bad for business? I'm sure most (all?) fallout fans would have wanted the original creators of the game making the sequel."

The so called 'FO fans' are the main reasons why Troika is now out of business. It was those FO fanboys who got Arcanum RT combat, BL crappy RTS shit combat of all time, and TOEE's lack of role-playing (though that still beats the overrated 'old school RPGs').


P.S. I never stopped posting. Those fun 'feedback posts' were deisgned to punish thr Codex Stalkers. It worked. They stopped therefore I stopped.

Game over.

 

[Ausir]

And IIRC theres two Van Buren versions of the plot.

MCA's plot with some dome lab and pre-apocalypse scientists or something.
And the post MCA plot with a jailbreak, hunter killer robots, and a space station!

The MCA version also had a jailbreak. But anyway, it seems better than the final one. I'd love to see the original MCA design docs.

 

[Briosafreak]

You`ve seen a lot of the MCA stuff in the docs, it´s there, just look for it. Mainly the first one.


Still no Kathode?

 

[Fintilgin]

As for Troika having a 'moral' right to make Fallout 3 over Bethesda, that argument is so mind-bogglingly stupid that to see it paraded around in this thread time and time again makes me question the sanity of everyone who uses it.

Moral is a bit of a loaded word.

I really don't think this is a bunch of 'fanboys' being whiny because their pet developer didn't get the project. It's NOT just a Troika thing. It's more then that. You ignored this analogy, but let me restate it.

Bethesda goes under. Todd Howard and a bunch of ex-Bethesdites form a new company, say... Silver Springs Studios. SSS makes a bid on the rights to the Elder Scrolls, but Bioware with their money-bags sweeps in and snatches it up. Answer this: Is it legitimate for Elder Scrolls fans to be upset?

Well, SSS would certainly have no legal claim to the Elder Scrolls. The rememenants of Bethesda and their creditors could do whatever they pleased with them. Absolutely. No argument there. They could even sell them to Bioware and listen to Elder Scrolls fans cry as their new lead developer said "I'm so excited to be making Elder Scrolls 5. My favorite Elder Scrolls game was Stormhold, the cell phone game!"

I believe however, that all other things being equal SSS would have more of a right to the Elder Scrolls rights then Bioware. I think I, and most of the Codex, would probably side with SSS just as much as we side with Troika. SSS would, again, have no legal claim on the Elder Scrolls, but they would have a sort of 'spiritual' claim, or 'moral' claim. That dosn't mean Bioware couldn't buy them. But it does mean that if Bioware knew SSS was trying to get the IP, the dignified, polite, and correct thing would have been to step down and let SSS reclaim their 'baby'. Of course, big companies are hardly renowned for such traits.

After all, the people at SSS would be the people who made the Elder Scrolls. They'd be the people who wrote the lore. Planted every tree and giant mushroom. Shaped Vvardenfall and Cyrodill by hand. Slaved away long hours to bring the world to life. The Elder Scrolls was their creation, and it would be absolutely legitimate for fans of the series to be angry and disapointed that the people who gave birth to the games wouldn't have a chance to continue their legacy. They'd have every right to be upset that the Elder Scrolls had been taken over by a new company with nothing on thier side but money, and who apparently planned on changing the game dramatically and probably unrecognizably.

Now, perhaps under those circumstances you'd show up here and make snide comments about Silver Springs Studios and the developers. Perhaps you'd show up and say "Thank god Todd Howard and that bunch of loosers didn't get the rights! After all, what the fuck do they know about the Elder Scrolls?" Maybe you'd loudly and stridently defend Bioware, insisting that a contract and large amount of money trumped all other considerations and that it was "mind-bogglingly stupid" to think that the ex-Bethesdites at SSS had ANY claim AT ALL to making future Elder Scrolls titles. Maybe you'd insist that the disapointed Elder Srolls fans were 'just a bunch of fanboys' who were somehow delusional or stupid for prefering to see Elder Scrolls 5 made by the same folks who made the earlier games. Maybe you'd be baffled why they all didn't start immediately fellating Bioware, and chalk it up to stuborn idiocy and wishfull thinking. Maybe that would help you sleep at night.

But you'd be just as wrong then as you are now.

 

[Human Shield]

The so called 'FO fans' are the main reasons why Troika is now out of business. It was those FO fanboys who got Arcanum RT combat, BL crappy RTS shit combat of all time, and TOEE's lack of role-playing (though that still beats the overrated 'old school RPGs').

This makes no sense, like most of what you write.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Wasn't there a quote from Cain way back where he said he felt like they "stole my baby" after Troika got outbid?

Ah well, the only light I can see at the end of the tunnel is that Wasteland had to die out amidst licensing issues, only to pave the way for FO. Now seeing FO as we know it about to get get punked out, I only hope that some other creative minds out there pick up the torch, and do something similar, in spirit if not in name.

 

[Ausir]

You`ve seen a lot of the MCA stuff in the docs, it´s there, just look for it. Mainly the first one.


Still no Kathode?

I know, but I'd like to see the docs for the original storyline, with all revolving around the Dome and with no space station, with Presper being a hybernated pre-War scientist instead of an NCR guy and with bigger role for the Caesar's Legion.

 

[Ausir]

Brian Fargo's Wasteland 2 for Next-Gen consoles?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

As for Troika having a 'moral' right to make Fallout 3 over Bethesda, that argument is so mind-bogglingly stupid that to see it paraded around in this thread time and time again makes me question the sanity of everyone who uses it.

Moral is a bit of a loaded word.

I really don't think this is a bunch of 'fanboys' being whiny because their pet developer didn't get the project. It's NOT just a Troika thing. It's more then that. You ignored this analogy, but let me restate it.

Bethesda goes under. Todd Howard and a bunch of ex-Bethesdites form a new company, say... Silver Springs Studios. SSS makes a bid on the rights to the Elder Scrolls, but Bioware with their money-bags sweeps in and snatches it up. Answer this: Is it legitimate for Elder Scrolls fans to be upset?

No.

Well, SSS would certainly have no legal claim to the Elder Scrolls. The rememenants of Bethesda and their creditors could do whatever they pleased with them. Absolutely. No argument there. They could even sell them to Bioware and listen to Elder Scrolls fans cry as their new lead developer said "I'm so excited to be making Elder Scrolls 5. My favorite Elder Scrolls game was Stormhold, the cell phone game!"

I believe however, that all other things being equal SSS would have more of a right to the Elder Scrolls rights then Bioware. I think I, and most of the Codex, would probably side with SSS just as much as we side with Troika. SSS would, again, have no legal claim on the Elder Scrolls, but they would have a sort of 'spiritual' claim, or 'moral' claim. That dosn't mean Bioware couldn't buy them. But it does mean that if Bioware knew SSS was trying to get the IP, the dignified, polite, and correct thing would have been to step down and let SSS reclaim their 'baby'. Of course, big companies are hardly renowned for such traits.

After all, the people at SSS would be the people who made the Elder Scrolls. They'd be the people who wrote the lore. Planted every tree and giant mushroom. Shaped Vvardenfall and Cyrodill by hand. Slaved away long hours to bring the world to life. The Elder Scrolls was their creation, and it would be absolutely legitimate for fans of the series to be angry and disapointed that the people who gave birth to the games wouldn't have a chance to continue their legacy. They'd have every right to be upset that the Elder Scrolls had been taken over by a new company with nothing on thier side but money, and who apparently planned on changing the game dramatically and probably unrecognizably.

Now, perhaps under those circumstances you'd show up here and make snide comments about Silver Springs Studios and the developers. Perhaps you'd show up and say "Thank god Todd Howard and that bunch of loosers didn't get the rights! After all, what the fuck do they know about the Elder Scrolls?" Maybe you'd loudly and stridently defend Bioware, insisting that a contract and large amount of money trumped all other considerations and that it was "mind-bogglingly stupid" to think that the ex-Bethesdites at SSS had ANY claim AT ALL to making future Elder Scrolls titles. Maybe you'd insist that the disapointed Elder Srolls fans were 'just a bunch of fanboys' who were somehow delusional or stupid for prefering to see Elder Scrolls 5 made by the same folks who made the earlier games. Maybe you'd be baffled why they all didn't start immediately fellating Bioware, and chalk it up to stuborn idiocy and wishfull thinking. Maybe that would help you sleep at night.

But you'd be just as wrong then as you are now.

If this SSS (whoa!) had been founded with the express intent to continue the TES legacy, and had been given hope by the creditors that thwy would get the rights to do this, then yes, they would have a moral claim.
If, like in Troikas case, they moved on, made other games, built a reputation for themselves, and THEN the license came along, they would NOT have a moral right to it. It would be NICE if they would get it, but a moral right? No.
I would have found it great if Troika had gotten the license, considering their ties to the original games. But the question was if Beth did something morally reprehensible by buying it. And to that, as well as to your reversed example I say no, neither Beth nor bioware in the hypothetical case are doing something I find morally wrong.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So your argument is that people should be able to sell a cookie but still have a moral right to, at some undisclosed future date, demand it back?

Do you have some reading comprehension problems we should be aware of when "talking" to you? Our position was explained many times in a variety of ways, but let me try that again:

An artist creates an object of art. Let's say that the object legally belongs to the art shop owner who puts it up for sale later. The artist wants to buy it - he doesn't demand it, mind you, but wants to buy it so he can develop it further. A businessman wants to buy it too, because the object now has a certain value as the artist did a good job there, and the businessman feels that he can make some profit on it. Legally both the artist and the businessman have equal rights, but the moral right to the object belongs to the artist for 4 reasons:

1. without him the object wouldn't exist
2. he will develop the object further
3. his knowledge and vision of the object make him the most qualified candidate to develop the object further
4. the businessman would destroy the object. (regardless of whether Bethesda wants to use the Fallout label on the box or wants to make a good post-apocalyptic game, it won't be a "Fallout game", but something else. One more time:

This game however, will be decidedly darker. Imagine a survival horror-esque version of the Fallout world, with all the things you expect out of the series still intact, but with deeper, more immersive gameplay. The post-apoc theme (with tongue in cheek humor) of the series is still present, with your character having spent the first 20 years of his life living underground. Because of this, his eyes are unaccustomed to the light of day, thus players will have to train their eyes away from light sensitivity by using a special pair of goggles. Todd Howard claims that Fallout 3 will be one of the most original and violent titles ever and will be set in a familiar US city. "

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

thus players will have to train their eyes away from light sensitivity by using a special pair of goggles.

Am I misinterpreting that or did he say you need to wear goggles to play? This :ahem: blows soil erosion away.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your character will wear goggles. Like Riddick. Because Riddick is cool. Needless to say, that means the game won't be isometric.

Edit: Welcome to PAGE 11!!!

 

[Human Shield]

An artist creates an object of art.

First we are talking about intellectual ideas and not physical items, which work differently.

Let's say that the object legally belongs to the art shop owner who puts it up for sale later.

Why does the shop owner own it?

The artist wants to buy it - he doesn't demand it, mind you, but wants to buy it so he can develop it further. A businessman wants to buy it too, because the object now has a certain value as the artist did a good job there, and the businessman feels that he can make some profit on it. Legally both the artist and the businessman have equal rights, but the moral right to the object belongs to the artist for 4 reasons:

Rights aren't moral in nature.

1. without him the object wouldn't exist

Without the store owner the object wouldn't exist if he payed for and owns it.

2. he will develop the object further

Is it profitable to do so?

3. his knowledge and vision of the object make him the most qualified candidate to develop the object further

Then it is a loss of the store owner to not let him.

4. the businessman would destroy the object.

Will they lose money then? If so it is their loss.

Isn't it moral for the shop owner to try and get the most money?

This example is of a finished good, the author doesn't change.