Bethesda v. Interplay: Now with more transcripts

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Tagaziel, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Ausir of the land of Mordor has procured some more transcripts from orionquest. As usual, in the Interplay corner is Mr. Gersh, in Bethesda's is Mr. Marbury and the referee is judge Deborah K. Chasanow. TLA refers to the Trademark Licensing Agreement, while APA refers to the Asset Purchase Agreement.

    Ding, ding, ding, ding!<blockquote>MR. GERSH: Trilogy, as far as I'm concerned, I think the evidence would be clear, doesn't refer to a third version of a game like Fallout Three. You'll see from the documents we've submitted, the packaging is completely different. The packaging completely identifies the product within it, but most importantly, there is no confusion in the marketplace. Zero. Yesterday during the deposition there was testimony by Mr. Leder, the COO of the company, that they had possibly two complaints to their customer service office, talking about they needed a patch or a fix for a game. They have not one complaint in the millions of copies they should of Fallout Three, that one consumer was confused by Fallout Three and Fallout Trilogy thinking they were the same. Not one. They have no survey. They have no evidence of any confusion. I don't even belief when Your Honor looks at the two packaging that you could even say there is a likelihood of confusion. It doesn't exist. They're clearly identified. This is not the same as somebody actually taking Fallout Three and using it. It's clearly marked. The font is the same. The lightening bolt and the O is the same, exactly what we've been using in the past, exactly what is continued to be used today by the Plaintiff. So I submit there is not any confusion. There is not likelihood of confusion when it relates to that.

    The other issue that you have to deal with is whether or not they're likely to prevail. We have the balancing test that we deal with, et cetera, and I submit that once all the evidence has been brought out to Your Honor, you've looked at what's going on, you'll see, one, no confusion, two, no likelihood of success, three, the balance of the hardships would tip strongly in the favor of Interplay. They've been using this in the past, and if the only thing that is the problem is the use of the word "Trilogy," then we should know that that's the problem and that can be addressed by the Court and us, but there should not be an injunction issued to stop Interplay from doing that which it had previously done. Also, there will be testimony from Mr. Caen that when he licensed, when he sold the product and licensed it back there was an expected revenue stream for the company for years to come, and as a matter of fact, not only that, Mr. Marbury indicated that we're trading on the good will of the Fallout brand. Well, that's exactly what we're going to do. That's exactly what was intended by the agreement.

    They licensed Interplay back the right to be able to sell the pre-existing games in perpetuity, no termination provision in the document whatsoever, and there is a termination in the TLA, but there isn't a termination right or provision in the APA or the asset purchase agreement. And there's no question that the consequence of Interplay continuing to sell product, every time a Fallout game is released by Bethesda the consequence will be that the earlier game increase in sales and there is demand for them. Their own witness indicated that is a consequence and that's going to happen. So when Mr. Marbury talks about trading on the good will, yeah. That correct. We're going to. We bargained for that, and they knew it and they know it. That's exactly what we're doing. It's going to help the sales of Interplay's earlier game and Interplay is going to continue and should be allowed to continue to market its games world wide as it has in the past.

    With respect to the MMO, we have some very threshold issues to get through before I believe an injunction could even be considered to be granted in this case.

    First of all, this game is not going to be released for at least two years, possibly three years, not even going to be completed. Why we're here trying to enjoin something that's under development is beyond me.

    Secondly, Interplay has the absolute and unfettered right under that agreement to continue to develop this game, and if it is ultimately not approved because of the quality or other reasons under the terms of the agreement or, for that matter, if ultimately at the time of trial Your Honor decides that there was some violation that should have stopped Interplay, they have the right to change characters and scenes and do what is necessary to release that MMO.

    So, how do we fashion even an injunction when we're thinking about it, you can't say "Interplay, you cannot make a MMO. You can't make an MMO with Fallout characters." Then we're going to have an argument, does this character look like a Fallout character? Is it similar? Is it close? The language of the agreement defines what can be done, and it's a little bit vague and a little bit left for everybody to kind of decide as we go. But I don't think we can decide that until 1 the game is done. Did we meet the standard or not.

    There is a provision in there that says if this agreement, I'm sorry, if the game is not approved we can take out the Fallout characters to the extent any are in there. We can take out the scenes, and we can continue to make the MMO. They can't stop us from making an MMO, which is exactly what they're trying to do, so we have that problem.

    We have a bigger problem. The two conditions that Mr. Marbury has indicated, they're incapable of being enforced, absolutely incapable. They're vague. They're ambiguous. They're illusory at best.

    Let's start with the first one. We had to secure $30 million in financing. What does that mean? I don't know. Why isn't it defined in the agreement? The witness, Mr. Leder, the COO, didn't know. Why wasn't it made clear what it had to be? Didn't know. Did it have to be, did the money have to be in the bank? Absolutely not, he said. Did they have to have a line of credit? Maybe. What does it mean? How do we interpreter that?

    By the way, Mr. Leder testified yesterday that Interplay was fully permitted to use a third party to help develop the game for them. Masthead. If Masthead is going to spend $20, $million in its development, why isn't that adequate? I'm not sure. I think it is, but I don't know. I don't know what secured, secure financing means.

    Everybody know it, Mr. Leder said. Everybody will know what it means. Well, but it didn't mean in the bank. It didn't mean they had to have a specific line of credit. It also doesn't mean, and there is nothing in the agreement that says they have to be able to use $30 million on day one. This is a project that's going to take four to five years to develop. So secured financing over some period of time that they're going to be able to have that amount of money. That might be reasonable. Is that what Interplay is doing? I believe so.

    Now we get to the next step. And remember, they have to have both, as Mr. Marbury said. You got to be, commerce full scale development. Your Honor, what does full scale development mean? I don't know. Doesn't say it in the agreement. No definition.

    Mr. Leder said "Boy, it's a very complex situation. Hard to describe," and he listed a whole bunch of things yesterday for full scale development. I said why is it in the agreement? I don't know. How does Interplay, how is Interplay supposed to know when full scale development starts? I don't know.

    This is an agreement drafted primarily by DLA, who represented the Plaintiff in this case. They had five in-house business people review this agreement. They had their in-house, at least one in-house lawyer and at last one lawyer at DLA review it. That's seven people looking at this document. And we're left here today before you with this preliminary injunction with the two most important provisions of that TLA undefined and unknown and we have to guess. Interplay has no way of determining when it's in compliance. You have no way of determining when it's in compliance for purposes of this preliminary injunction. Maybe at trial it's different. Maybe if there is expert testimony that comes along at the time of trial on what standard in the industry means, we get there. Maybe. But I don't think so because I don't think anybody can define full scale development in the context of what they're doing or what they understood. It could only possible be what theses two parties meet in their minds.

    And Mr. Leder couldn't even tell us, the COO, yesterday, what it meant and when it started. It's a complex situation. If you can't decide when that starts, the provision's illusory. You can't enforce this agreement. If you can't determine what it means and, you know, clearly, unequivocally what it means to have secured $30 million in financing and we've got to go speculate for something, that may be a trial issue. We're here on a preliminary injunction. It's got to be clear. It's going to go unambiguous. And I submit, Your Honor, you don't even need testimony if Your Honor looks at those two provisions and says "Wait a second. Is there any definition of these? Is there any way I can determine as the Court what these mean and when this was suppose to happen for Interplay?" And when your answer comes up "Nope. There's nothing in the agreement," we should all go home. Thank you, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Mr. Marbury.

    MR. MARBURY: Very briefly, Your Honor. I'd like to continue along the part here of discussing the MMO separately from the TLA.

    I'm at a little bit of a loss of words on this issue, because to have a company that's been active, a publicly traded company that's been active in the marketplace, raising money, putting out games, operating for year, decades, to say they don't know what secured financing means is just hard to understand.

    It's not unclear. What they're trying now to do it's clear, is try to negotiate that two year obligation into a five year obligation, or a six year obligation.

    What Mr. Gersh failed to point out was that Interplay was also represented by counsel. They negotiated the agreement too. They understood what it meant when they went into it. There is no question what secured financing means. Everybody knows what that means.

    The same can be said about full scale development. The parties understood that, and Mr. Gersh's characterization of the testimony I don't think is completely accurate from yesterday, but you'll hear it later and you can determine that. But the parties understood exactly what they were getting into when they got into this agreement back in 2007.

    The suggestion that we don't have to deal with this until launch is just wrong. The contract says we're suppose to be dealing with it in two years. More to the point, the contract, in §3.4 very clearly explains what, in the event of a termination, Interplay can do, and it says very clearly in §3.4 that they are not allowed to use our characters, our environment, our story lines, our setting, our characters, our character classes.

    The parties have already negotiated this. You can't just take out some of the characters. It's the world. Their project right now, it's been titled Project V13, and that's a reference, we understand, to Vault 13, expressly something that's excluded from their rights going forward to use Vault. So you understand the context, the idea here is that in the post-apocalyptic world people went underground into the vaults. The Fallout story starts in Vault 13. Those are things that they bargained away. So the idea that five years down the road, or years down the road when these guys have finished the game, they can simply flick a switch and suddenly have a non-violative game, it just doesn't make any sense. In terms of customer confusion, we'll have testimony from Mr. Leder that not only were there some calls in to customer service, but there were also, he had discussions with marketing people, I'll show you a picture from WalMart where the two things are on the shelf. A number of people complained that way.

    More to the point, customer, actual customer confusion is one of, I believe, eight criteria that we need to show. It's not even actual, it's likelihood of confusion. Of the eight criteria, Your Honor, we nailed seven out of the eight. It's not a requirement for a finding of trademark infringement.

    The other criteria, Defendant's intention. Well, we understand their intention. They're intentionally doing this, so we have proven that.

    Is it the same mark? It's the identical. It's not E Fallout, or some variation in a foreign language. It's the exact same mark. It's the exact same goods. It's the exact same sales channels. It's the exact same advertising, sometimes on the same shelves.

    So, to the extent that we haven't done a survey in the last month and brought in an expert witness who would not have been allowed because we were limited to the affidavits that we had submitted along with our motion. It doesn't matter for the purposes of reaching a conclusion here. And, finally, you know, to point out on the asset purchase agreement side and to claim that the merchandising rights were perpetual is illogical. They argue that there is no termination provision in the asset purchase agreement. Well, Judge, it's an asset purchase agreement. It's a transfer. There's a closing.

    Having a termination provision, express termination provision, makes sense in the trademark license agreement. It doesn't make as much sense in an asset purchase agreement. But if you put that aside, the logic fails. The logic has to be, the word "perpetual" shows up no nowhere in that agreement, Judge. There is no perpetual language in there. This is just an interpretation. But the logic, if you continue it to its extreme, is that they can breach that contract ten ways to Sunday, but they get to continue to sell, and that just can't be right. That can't be the law.

    So, we think that our case is a clear one. We agree that, you know, we need to look at the contract documents and focus on what has been done and what has not been done by the parties. I think we can clearly establish what has not been done. They have not submitted these boxes for approval. They have not gotten the $30 million and they haven't started full scale development. Thank you.

    THE COURT: Um hum.

    MR. GERSH: One point if I may, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: Um hum.

    MR. GERSH: I just want something to be very clear. Mr. Marbury said that Interplay was represented by counsel in the negotiates. Not true. Didn't come out in his deposition. Mr. Caen represented the company, handled the transaction himself. Did not have counsel go over the document for him. This is seven people on one side, one person on another. This is how the document came out.

    On the issue of the termination, which is the last thing I wanted to say under the agreement, all they had to do was make their language clear as to what was going to happen, and they didn't. Instead they created confusion. They created it in the TLA and they created it in the APA, and I don't think there is enough for the preliminary injunction to issue. Thank you.

    THE COURT: All right. We're ready to hear witnesses.

    MR. MARBURY: That would be great. </blockquote>Thanks, Ausir.
     
  2. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    this lawyer is an idiot...

    1) post apoc is not a setting or environment owned by iply or bethesda. only the rules system is transferable.

    2) the geography of western or the eastern united states is not a setting or environment owned by iply or bethesda. their art assets are.

    3) nobody owns the environment. the post apoc dictated by the special system and the fallout bible was owned by iply and was transferred to betheda.

    4) fallout does not have character classes. its a skill based system. it does have archetypes.

    lawyer is an idiot for over-generalizing and using nonsensical terms as they are not applicable.

    oh...

    per the Merriam-Webster dictionary...

    if there is ANY market confusion, it is due not to improper use of the word, but rather to the ignorance of the individual.


    you know you are in deep shit when all opposing council has to do is admit a dictionary into evidence to defeat an argument.
     
  3. UncannyGarlic

    UncannyGarlic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 6, 2008
    And so orionquest proves that he has read more of the documents and is not just blowing smoke. My hat off to him, I didn't think he actually had the full transcript.

    Actually it then becomes a question of whether or not there was intent to deceive consumers and that is going to be hard to prove, especially given when the trilogy was released.

    Interesting arguments by the Interplay lawyer and I think he has a good shot the full scale development argument but the financing argument is going to require some research. I get the argument that they didn't have to have $30 million in the bank, on credit, or have immediate access to it but I do believe that they will have to show that they have access to at least $30 million for the course of the project. That is going to be tough for them I think.

    That is, of course, assuming that section of the agreement doesn't get thrown out on some technicality (having to do with lacking specificity).

    The Interplay lawyer challenging Bethesda to prove market confusion is right, that's how the law works and it's the whole justification for the preliminary injunction hearing and would be required in order for Interplay to have to pay damages. Violations of distribution and promotional material clauses might result in punitive fees but I think it more likely that it would simply result in the breach of contract clause being triggered.
     
  4. OakTable

    OakTable Vault Senior Citizen

    Nov 26, 2009
    I really don't give a shit. This isn't the OJ Simpson trial; it's just two boring lawyers pissing about who owns what.
     
  5. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    Well, he is still teasing us by releasing them incrementally.
     
  6. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    Exact same goods?
    At least Bethesda is consistent in their disregard for their customers' intelligence.

    Herve pulls a masterstroke by hitting himself in the chin with a motion of no confidence to nullify presence of counsel for the contract. Like a wolf chewing off it's own leg to survive. Shrewd.

    It's comical how this guy and his company can never be counted out for good.
    He's a slippery mo-fo.
     
  7. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    Interplay was so broke at that point that he probably couldn't afford a lawyer.
     
  8. King of Creation

    King of Creation Vault Fossil

    Dec 9, 2003
    For anyone too lazy to read the whole thing, I've summarized it:

     
  9. UnidentifiedFlyingTard

    UnidentifiedFlyingTard Vault Fossil

    Mar 12, 2009
    Hey, something that makes sense in this retarded legal battle.
     
  10. thenightgaunt

    thenightgaunt First time out of the vault

    94
    Jun 7, 2007
    And this folks is why I HATE copyright law. Ugh! I studied up on it a little a few years back. At the time I was interested in the issues regarding pdfs, digital distribution, and TSR/Hasbro. And it is really friggin vague in some spots. You have a cluster of laws designed in the precomputer days and it's been updated and added to in order to get it where it is today. And like most laws, they found it easier to alter than to just delete and replace. So it gets reeeeeaaaaaaly murky.

    So it often ends up in a bitching match between lawyers. In all though, Bethesda's kinda comming out of this looking like real dicks.
     
  11. orionquest

    orionquest First time out of the vault

    95
    Jun 26, 2004
    Knowing that Bethesda and their lawyers are not beneath blatant lying, let's look at the "arguments" that their now defunct lawyer believes were satisfied but completely failed to persuade the judge much to the chagrin of his now canned to the curb side self:

    "ARGUMENT
    A.
    Bethesda Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Claims
    1.
    Bethesda is Likely to Succeed on its Breach of Contract Claim Under the TLA
    Because Interplay Failed to Satisfy Either the Funding or Full-Scale
    Development Conditions
    2.
    Bethesda is Likely to Succeed on its Breach of Contract Claims Under the APA
    Because Interplay Repeatedly Violated the Merchandising Rights and Non-
    Assignability Provisions
    3.
    Bethesda is Likely to Succeed on its Trademark Infringement Claims
    B.
    Bethesda is Likely to be Irreparably Harmed Absent Preliminary Relief
    1.
    The Court Need Not Fully Adjudicate the Claims on the Merits to Decide
    Whether Preliminary Relief Should Be Granted
    2.
    Any Potential Harm to Interplay Does Not Tip the Balance of Equities in
    Interplay’s Favor
    C.
    The Public Interest Compels the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction in This Case"


    http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23422

    Now take all the arguments stated by the disgraced lawyer(whose DLA Pipersensitive mug happens to be my avatar) and turn it on its head and you are much closer to the truth of the matter all along.

    BURDEN OF PROOF: This is why you don't take someone to court but then again, Bethesda hired Lawyer 101 types to write the contract and to fight a non winnable case so I do feel bad for my Avatar since they put him in a no win situation and that is sad but not that sad since he's probably popping off the top of a crystal bottle somewhere.

    Bethesda's idea of business is seemingly to lawyer people to death, creating lots of bad karma among their fan base and hard working people in general.

    A Fan base that eventually turns on them and their Gestapo style tactics:

    And to think that I once supported this monstrosity by buying several of their games( I could attach screen shots of the large Boxes I still own of Bethesda games shelf dust included( Terminator Future Shock, Skynet, Daggerfall, even the obscure X CAR, etc...)


    No more thin air monetary unified $'s for them from me: Not until they change their Gestapo ways or never again which ever comes first.

    On

    http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Bethesda_vs._Interplay:_court_transcripts,_part_2

    before the comment was erased by someone(Ausir, was it you or the commenter who cleaned the comment or Bethesda?)

    There's a fellow who mentioned getting a lawsuit threat based pdf document with lawyer signature when he emailed Bethesda that he was working on a Fallout themed film script that he would offer to Bethesda. I understand protecting your property but this is ridiculous. this is madness. this is SPARTATHESDA....

    (imagining screenwriter getting kicked off the edge by SPARTATHESDIAN Overlord)

    Let the guy develop the screen play. You never know. It may be good. They may want to buy it from him. If it sucks, he can't sell it to anyone other than Bethesda because they would actually have a case against him and stealing their property.

    They don't actually have a contract with him. The judge would grant them an injunction in a heartbeat if that guy was going around in Hollywood selling a Fallout themed Screenplay, Vault13 water chips and all.

    Wait a minute, "City of Ember" was Fallout Like without fallout. Care to Sue Fox Searchlight(I think, but could be wrong)

    Hey what if someone comes out with a movie called FALLOUT but has nothing to do with the computer game or vaults but, you know, with the term Physicists use to describe the aftermaths of a nuclear explosion?

    Would SPARTATHESDA sue them sight unseen?

    Do you have stacks of lawyer signed PDF like documents waiting to send out?

    Or do you have a precognitive feeling that your empire will at some point collapse quicker than the ponzi scheming FEDERAL RESERVE system will soon collapse?

    I and others like myself who have experienced SPARTATHESDA's utter lack of care and sensitivity to gamers and human beings in general will tell people and they will tell people about their horribly crashing games that get little to no support unless fans who paid $50-80 are literally screaming from the top of their lungs to have them fix the bugs and glitches and products that failed testing(Canada Fallout 3 Ultimate Edition players are not important, eh?)


    How do you release a patch that fails to install?

    It's a patch. It's supposed to fix bugs and failure, not be a buggy failure.

    Even Government subsidized programming is not that shoddy and that is being generous.

    Next we will have lawsuits that state:

    you cannot speak bad about SPARTATHESDA since SPARTATHESDA is in bed with the ANNUNAKI based Military Industrial complex and we'll court order a GPS guided missile to your abode courtesy of your own tax dollars, bill of rights shmill of rights, just wipe your snot with it junior, it's just a piece of paper.

    Hey, Are you guys planning to sue Denzel Washington and the "Book of ELI" makers?

    Haven't seen it but it looks promising. You know what that means, better get those signed PDF's tailor fit and ready.

    Hey, What if I created a game and called it: "PREVENT THE FALLOUT" just to piss you off.

    Would you steal my idea? Should I get the PDF lawsuit template ready?

    Or would I be steptoe'in on your domain?

    "You can kill 'em with kindness
    or you can Qui l'aime with sarcasm. "
     
  12. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
  13. Dionysus

    Dionysus Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    377
    Oct 13, 2008
    I don't think intent is important. Although it would rarely happen, one could violate a trademark or patent by accident. When they finally get around to disputing the specifics of the contract, it will matter whether the marketing materials for the old games "use, refer to, trade upon, reflect the look and feel of or otherwise exploit any of the Fallout games or products, including but not limited to their packaging, advertising and promotional materials, developed by or for the Purchaser or its licensees." So, Bethesda's contention might be something like "we drew some new Vault Boy pictures, and they look an awful lot like the old pictures, so you can't use those anymore." Of course, I don't think that argument has much of a chance (and it might be a strawman), but intent isn't really important, or at least necessary.


    I think the big problem (when they get out of the injunction process) is that they aren't even trying to show that they met the financial requirement in any way. Earlier, they suggested that the financial benchmark didn't matter because they began full-scale development, and now they are suggesting that they don't even understand the financial requirement.
     
  14. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    well, in the original agreement, IPLY liscenced beth the right to use fallout assets and release 3, 4, 5...

    so they cannot take IPLY to court based on the original contract. all they can do is take them to court on the 2nd contract.

    and without being able to see the full wording on the original contract rather than just snippets of the 2nd one, cant really say who is in the right.
     
  15. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    It's irrelevant. At best it's relevant to show whether or not contract parties acted "in good faith", and thus in penalizing breach, but not in determining whether or not the breach exists.

    But Interplay's point that this is a conflation of two separate issues (contract breach and copyright infriction) and that you can not logically handle both cases at the same time since one is contingent on the other is a very strong one that appears to be somewhat ignored.

    Not really. They are now suggesting the financial benchmark is ill-defined and practically meaningless, and implying that the pure nature of developing an MMO means the expected base costs are so high that 30 million is a "given", and they don't have to prove a financing model exists for the game that has the worth of 30 million over the last 2 years, let alone the next 2 years.

    It's a specious argument at best. Without reading more documentation - since it's not available to me and the only person we have openly supporting it on this forum is clearly too biased for his opinion to be relevant and has given no proof of his own legal schooling/background (no offense) - a simple first call says it's clearly the weakest point in Interplay's case.

    That contract doesn't have anything to do with anything. Why'd you bring it up?
     
  16. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    It's only relevant to the Glutton Creeper part of the lawsuit.
     
  17. Goweigus

    Goweigus Mildly Dipped

    566
    Jan 18, 2007
    That is what I thought at the time :P
    Man i love reading this! I hope interplay kicks butt and gets this game out eventually (wouldn't that be funny if there ended up being multiple Fallout mmos?). It seems they will at least win the right to sell Fallout 1 through Tactics, and I get the feeling they will get to make this game but may have to shove out more royalties or something.
     
  18. Ashmo

    Ashmo Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Jul 2, 2004
    I find it very credible that Bethesda support is getting bothered by people who seek support for Fallout Trilogy. I also find it very credible that Bugbear / Vivendi get bothered a lot by people seeking support for Fallout Three ("Where are the cars???").

    However in the case of Fallout Trilogy it's probably Bethesda's fault too for making it seem like they invented the entire IP (if only by never contradicting the zero-research "journalists" who wrote it). Isn't that violating some laws as well? Claiming authorship where there is none? OTOH, this is copyright / trademark law we're talking about after all, so common sense may not be a good yardstick.

    What idiot hired this lawyer anyway?
     
  19. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    Yeah, it's silly for Bethesda to claim that Interplay is breaching trademark even by using the Fallout logo that's been used since Fallout 1 and by it being on the same shelves in stores as FO3 (well, duh).
     
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    No.

    What would be fun, if someome responsible for Fallout 1 (Or even 2 for that matter ... ) would get inside Interplay and in charge over the company, criticize Herve and the people responsible for the lay down of Van Buren in favour for some kind of Console game like BoS and start working on a real successor to Fallout 1 that is trying to stay true with the game.

    But since that will neither happen in the future either with Interplay or Bethesda ... both companies showed their loyalties to the franchise (money ...) more then once.