Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interplay Pitches Fallout MMO, Despite Dearth Of Cash

Posted by simoniker on from the wanna-coulda-shoulda dept.

Thanks to Yahoo! for reprinting an Interplay press release discussing Interplay's latest financial results, ruminating on possibilities for the embattled publisher. Although "the Company reported a net loss of $.9 million" for the quarter, a relatively small amount, Interplay's detailed financial statement reveals: "We currently have no cash reserves and are unable to pay current liabilities. The Company cannot continue in its current form without at this time obtaining additional financing." However, CEO Herve Caen is bullish about prospects, explaining: "We are now pursuing several options to fund our entry into Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming with titles including Fallout", a positive step, according to "...initial feedback from our investment bank and ongoing dialogue with others in the gaming sector." We've previously covered Interplay's recent financial woes.

46 comments

  1. So your idea is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...another MMOG in an already massively saturated market. Thanks Herve, keep on nailing that coffin shut.

    1. Re:So your idea is... by Drawkcab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And not only is the MMOG market so saturated that MMORPGs have been getting cancelled left and right, but its one of the most expensive and time consuming genre to develop for. Not an ideal undertaking for a company that is narrowly avoiding bankruptcy. The Fallout games were great and I'd love to see more of them, but I don't think they'd be able to pull off an MMORPG right now.

      A console RPG might work out well for them. Fallout seems like it could work really well for XBox or XBox 2, and the XBox could really use some more good RPGs in its lineup. A well done console Fallout title could be very successful, and it wouldn't take nearly as much time and money as an MMORPG, or face such stiff competition.

    2. Re:So your idea is... by 17028 · · Score: 1

      Yea, good idea. They could call it something like "Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel". :-P

  2. FOOL by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh brother...not THAT old topic again..

    "FallOut On-Line" aka FOOL

    Part of what makes Fallout, Fallout, is its turn-based strategy. That goes away in a MMORPG.

    --
    The fallacy of government is that it assumes everyone needs to be told how to live.
    When it passes more laws until it makes everyone a criminal it has made the mistake of placing the intent on the "Letter of the Law" over the "Spirit of the Law."
    "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55
    ALL civilizations eventually collapse. Are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?

    1. Re:FOOL by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
      Turn-based combat goes out the window, but if done properly you could still maintain tactical combat with delays.

      Of course, it won't be done properly.

    2. Re:FOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of what makes Fallout Fallout was an excellent story in a beautifully developed world with an almost completely open ended gameplay. Most of this goes out the window with MMORPG's.

      Great. Just thinking about it makes me want to go play Fallout again. I'll be back in 40 hours.

    3. Re:FOOL by d3kk · · Score: 1
      Uh, yeah. I don't see how having a beautifully developed world and open ended gameplay doesn't apply to MMORPGs. They're the least linear games on the market, and the settings are probably more developed than the majority of non-MMO titles.

      Excellent story, on the other hand..

    4. Re:FOOL by prockcore · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Part of what makes Fallout, Fallout, is its turn-based strategy. That goes away in a MMORPG.

      It does? How so? Fallout was only turn based during combat. I don't see why it wouldn't work in a MMORPG environment.

      Besides, what made Fallout was the environment and the no-rules feel of the game.

    5. Re:FOOL by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never having played a MMORPG in my life, I just have to offer my expert opinion:

      MMORPGs cannot have a plot. A plot implies a clear beginning and end. MMORPGs, on the other hand, are built to go on indefinitely (or untill the cash flow dries).

      Furthermore, a plot implies a dynamic world, which changes as a result of events. That, in turn, means that once a quest has been completed, it stays completed, instead of someone else starting it... This is unfeasible, since someone would constantly have to make new quests, and that would mean hiring a tremendous amount of staff.

      Hmm. On the other hand, if you had a "world engine" working in the background, and the actual world would reflect that... That world engine would be like a strategy game, with AI manning all the seats. The gameworld would reflect that strategy game, and things happening would generate missions for players (for example, two armies preparing to fight would generate spy missions, a city under siege by enemies would generate sabotage/smuggling missions, and so on). The success or failure of these missions would then affect the outcome of the event, leading to a completely dynamic world where even the weakest of players could influence (very weakly, of course) the course of events... And, of course, there would be room for advancement, all the way up to leading a nation of your own, and moving those armies yourself.

      Has this been done in any MMORPG ? Or did I actually come upon a novel idea ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:FOOL by servognome · · Score: 1

      MMORPGs ideally are like creating a universe. They try to be "world engines," like you described. Unfortunately a fully fleshed out constantly changing world is one of the holy grails of MMORPGs and hasn't been achieved yet. What you describe is what the developers have been trying to do; Unfortunately the current technology only allows for static worlds with disjointed quests.
      To give you an idea of how it works, imagine the first star wars movie. One of the "quests" was to fly down the trench and destroy the death star. Well a player can do that "quest", and then the next day the death star comes back and the next player can try the do the same "quest." At best the devs can rack up the tally of successful and unsuccessful attempts and at the end of the month the plot is incrimented forward with either the death star still there or destroyed.
      Someday the universe would be seamless, where players have direct impact on the universe, but the amount of content and technology required to accomplish it is just out of reach right now.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    7. Re:FOOL by ultranova · · Score: 1

      MMORPGs ideally are like creating a universe. They try to be "world engines," like you described. Unfortunately a fully fleshed out constantly changing world is one of the holy grails of MMORPGs and hasn't been achieved yet. What you describe is what the developers have been trying to do;

      No, they've tried to make every single player think they're the center of the universe and its most important person, which is easy in a single-player game but impossible in a multiplayer game because it leads to inconsistencies (such as the same quest being done time and again by different players instead of being done once and then staying done).

      Unfortunately the current technology only allows for static worlds with disjointed quests.

      Single-player games already have dynamically generated quests based on the overall situation, and have had a long time. Quite a few strategy game has them.

      Take, for instance, the game Shogun - Total War. It has both a strategick map mode, where you move armies, ninjas and diplomats and build castles and such, and a tactical mode where said armies fight. The details of the fight are generated dynamically, based on the time of year, the location of the battle, whether there's a castle in the province, and of course, the composition of the army. What is this but a dynamically generated mission ? And you can significantly increase your odds of victory by assasinating the other sides general (if he's any good) before the battle - something which could easily be turned into a playable mission as well.

      An earlier example of the same idea is the game Master of Magick (which can be found from several abandonware sites), which also had a tactical battle and a strategic map.

      I haven't played Falcon 4.0 myself, but if I understood it correctly, it too has a dynamic campaign which generates missions for the player, and the success or failure of those missions can significantly effect the course of the war.

      UFO - Enemy Unknown (or X-Com - Ufo Defense, as I heard it was called in the USA) is an even better example, because in its tactical battles a small team of soldiers face alien monsters, kill them and loot their corpses for artifacts - sound familiar ?-) UFOs missions are dynamically generated, but arguably get a bit repetitive after a while, especially since the main variations are terrain types, soldier skills, UFO size and available weapons.

      As the above proves, dynamic mission generation is actually pretty easy. The only reason I can think of why it isn't more widespread is that it requires some work (to set up general mission templates) and leads to logical inconsistencies if everyone wants to be the star all the time.

      Oh, and the glue between quests is, of course, the ongoing series of events, which was (however lightly) influenced by your successes or failures in the quests you've performed.

      The latter problem is a show-stopper - if we have a really dynamic world, then some players are going to be in a losing side every now and then (or at least not in the star role of each particular event). If they can't handle that, then the world can never really be dynamic.

      To give you an idea of how it works, imagine the first star wars movie. One of the "quests" was to fly down the trench and destroy the death star. Well a player can do that "quest", and then the next day the death star comes back and the next player can try the do the same "quest." At best the devs can rack up the tally of successful and unsuccessful attempts and at the end of the month the plot is incrimented forward with either the death star still there or destroyed.

      In my design, the approaching death star would generate various "destroy this fighter squadron" and "destroy that tower" missions for all nearby Rebel pilots. If enough of these quests succeed, pop goes the Death Star.

      And of course the Imperial players are trying to destroy Rebel fighters,

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:FOOL by servognome · · Score: 1

      You have admitted to never playing an MMO, I have played several MMO and spent thousands of hours on EQ, AC, AC2, DAoC, and SWG. You do make good observations, and I agree with what you think should be in a good MMO, there are some points I disagree with you on though.
      No, they've tried to make every single player think they're the center of the universe and its most important person,
      Some MMORPGs are like this, but most are intent on trying to immerse you in a world/universe. The best way I have heard Star Wars Galaxies described is: do not play if you want to become a master jedi, play it if you want to be Tauntaun handler number 5.
      Most MMORPGs you do not feel like you are the most important person in the world. Yet you can still consider yourself a hero. There are many heroes in a well designed living world. Heroes along the lines of slaying the fearsome robber baron and saving the poor town, rather than saving the whole universe from a godly powered necromancer.
      Single-player games already have dynamically generated quests based on the overall situation, and have had a long time. Quite a few strategy game has them.
      First there is a difference between random mission generation and dynamic mission generation. UFO is more of a random mission generation (while taking into account the location of the encounter, city or country), Falcon like you described is dynamic mission generation where what happened the mission before affects the next mission.
      They already have linear dynamic mission generation in games like Planetside, and random mission generation in EQ, AO, and SWG. What you seem to be looking for is dynamic mission generation in a story driven game. Dynamic mission generation is something much easier to do in an action driven game than in a story driven game. In action games you just generate a random new map, say "its the next zone closest to the enemy base" and let the killing begin. In story driven game you have to create a well though out story about the reprecussions of the winner, populate the world with suitable NPCs, and program in new dialogue, and create new quests.
      For Planetside you have constant dynamic content (like what you described). For Star Wars Galaxies, or Asheron's Call 2 which are story driven, the dynamic content comes out once a month, and that only pertains to a specific thread in the universe. Most of the universe is static (through respawns) because it would take too much manpower like you mentioned in your previous post to constantly update multiple story lines, and the technology isn't there to be able to simulate the implications of each and every NPC interaction/mission
      If each and every player has to be the one to actually destroy the Death Star, then this will never happen, because such a world would be internally inconsistant. If, on the other hand, they will be satisfied with having merely contributed to the destruction of the Death Star, then this is easy.
      I agree, not everybody can be the super hero. But even in your example the game breaks down because of its MM nature. A universe changing event like destruction of the death star should be something that happens once a month, just to give time to fill in story lines and plan new content. So to accomplish this with an average of 10 players destroying tie fighters at a given time (very conservative estimate) and an average of 10 minutes per "destroy mission", you would run through 43,200 missions in a month. I don't remember seeing 43,200 tie fighter squadrons and death star towers in Star Wars.
      Having a living breating "world engine" as you described is what developers are working towards. The genre is still very young, and with each iteration they get better. AO introduced instanced quests, games like Second Life are pioneering player driven content creation, and SWG looked at purely player driven economies.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  3. Rats by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I really liked the early Fallout games (1 and 2), and it's a real shame to see this happening. I just can't see Fallout succeeding in an MMORPG market. Not enough people, serious capital is required for MMORPG creation, the Fallout "world" is largely spoofs and future views of the existing world -- it's not like, say, the Star Wars world, where you have a really unique and interesting world. Fallout was big because it did a *good implementation* of a post-apocalyptic world, not because nobody has done such a world before. Given that, and the fact that Fallout isn't *that* visible, I don't know why Fallout would be such a valuable piece of IP to build a game around.

    The existing Fallout engine is, frankly, behind the times WRT MMORPGs -- I think that a new MMORPG is likely to have to be 3d. That means that just about everything has to go out the window. Instead of making a "Fallout MMORPG", it'd be just as easy for a company that wants to do an MMORPG to make a "Brand X Post-Apocalyptic MMORPG".

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Rats by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      TKO Software is developing a moderately successful MMORPG (originally developed by Asylumsoft) that's entirely in 2D. The defining thing of Fallout that goes bye-bye with the move to MMORPG is the combat system.

    2. Re:Rats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as much as i didn't use it, there was the move into semi real time with Fallout Tactics that i think would translate well into a MMO I think. Also, I think the style, the 3/4 overhead could work just as well in a MMO setting. What are everyone elses thoughts?

  4. Amazing idea by FloodSpectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have an amazing idea. Why not make the fucking game people actually want instead of making all these spinoffs that on one's going to like ? I love the Fallout series, and even enjoyed Tactics, but I'd never buy or sign up for a Fallout Online. If they do it, it'll probably be an even bigger flop than Fallout: BOS, mainly because it would cost them so much more to make...

  5. No, this could actually be good. by TellarHK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look, folks. The real success behind Fallout was the story, the aesthetic, the locations, and the fact they put it together with some pretty good attention to the important things like gameplay. Remember that the original plan for Fallout was simply as a GURPS-based game that got re-worked near the end of development into the SPECIAL system that -did- work very well.

    The real problem with this kind of development would be if they went and tried to make it turn-based-MMORPG. Then we'd just have to kill them all.

    If they do something similar to a City of Heroes environment, without the mind-numbing quest for items and other crap like you have in more traditional MMORPG places, it'd go over quite well.

    --
    My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    1. Re:No, this could actually be good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, anything done well is simply that, done well. You could have a Trix Rabbit platforming game and if it was the next Mario we'd all play it just the same.

      I'm happy to see MMORPGs are breaking out of the Everquest archtype and becomming more playable and diverse. Some games like City of Heroes and Tabula Rasa have evolved the genre and taken out the dumb ideas that added nothing except tedium. Some others are taking a complete departure like Auto Assault and Planetside.

      Fallout "Online" could be something new. Something interesting. Even something good. I just hope it's not Everquest 1.5++ with guns. We have those already, thanks.

  6. FUCK THAT SHIT by Txiasaeia · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sorry for the profanity, but I've been reading about the slow and painful demise of Interplay for *months* now. They haven't paid their employees in months, they're in debt, they were evicted from their building, they were temporarily shut down by the gov't because their workers' insurance lapses, and NOW they want to take the most popular RPG franchise and turn it into a grab-as-much-cash-as-possible MMO game?

    They don't have the cash flow (or capital up front) to sustain an MMOG. They don't have the trust of gamers any more. Hell, all their good employees have left the company (Troika)!

    Herve, if you're reading this, YOU NEED TO MAKE FALLOUT 3. This will bring in the cash you so desperately need to keep your company afloat, respect from the industry, and a leaping point to resurrect Interplay. The market is saturated with up and coming MMOGs that are going to suck the online market dry - City of Heroes is here, Matrix Online and World of Warcraft are coming, not to mention EQ2, PLUS all the MMOGs currently ON the market. There's no room for you online, but there are some of us who have been waiting years for a proper and wonderful RPG. You've got the freaking goose that lays golden eggs - out with them already!

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    1. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, one more thing: how's Interplay going to make an online game when they can't even afford to keep their own damn website up?

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    2. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by glowimperial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell yeah, they need to make Fallout 3, I would play a Fallout MMO in like 4-5 years, when the market is right, but Interplay needs to make use of the valuable Fallout license ASAP, and save their sorry butts. I can't endorse the idea of making Fallout 3 enough. I just replayed Fallout 1 cause it kicks so much ass. Even had a great ending.

    3. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by AdamPiotrZochowski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fallout 3 was 90% complete as developers claimed,
      even if they overshot, it would be much less time to
      finish fallout 3 than to do mmog, not to mention that
      they would regain trust of the fans.

      as per developers:

      The first batch of developers, the ones responsible
      for original fallouts did go to Troika

      Others that stayed developed Icewind dale, a squad game
      that stayed on heels of Buldurs Gate, and later LionHeart,
      a game that was fantasy much like Icewind Dale, but did
      use Fallout like Special system as opposed to the very
      limiting and constraining AD&D system. They were working
      later on Fallout 3 (the Armen Burmin project), but as
      project was canned they created own studio, Obsidian.

      Funny, both Obsidian and Troika specialize in RPG making
      and their releases are quite well recieved. To recap:

      Troika -> Arcanum
      a big game that industrilizes fantasy.
      you got magicians traveling in trains.
      amazing marriage of sci-fi and fantasy worlds

      Troika -> Temple of Elemental Evil
      one of the most highly detailed games
      that is based on AD&D system

      Obsidian -> Star Wars - Knights Of THe Old Republic
      need I say more?

      As per Fallouts, there were so far 4 games released:

      Fallout 1
      for pc and mac
      original dev team
      quest : find waterchip
      Fallout 2
      for pc and mac
      original dev team
      quest : find GECK
      Fallout BOS Tactics
      for pc ?mac?
      contracted outside of interplay
      commonly referred to as Fallout Tactics
      not an rpg, but more of a squad game
      quest : start new BOS outpost
      Fallout BOS
      for xbox
      new dev team, new art, new game rules
      inconsistant with Fallout1/2/tactics
      quest : join BOS

      When Interplay announced a new fallout, Fallout BOS,
      people were surprised and quite taken aback as to why
      xbox only? Afterall the game was originally PC based
      and would not translate properly to console style
      gaming. And yet interplay pushed, changed ideas, logos,
      story lines, the special system, dumbed down everything.
      (yes, I played them all).

      Not only that, but before finishing xbox Fallout BOS ,
      Interplay had the audicity and the nerve to annouce a
      sequel, the one they never did start!

      Then Interplay decided to get back on track and to finally
      make Fallout 3, but that was cut, as some developers
      claim, at being 90% done.

      Yay for interplay....

      --
      /apz, Interplay dug their own grave

    4. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe that only the core engine was 90% complete. They still have a tremendousamount od scripting and art resources to get done, for Fallout 3. As to Troika's games Arcanum and The Temple of Elemental Evil. Both of these games had serious flaws that were indicitive of poor product testing. Arcanum had an awkward interface and the storyline of the game seemed tacked on to most folks. The Temple of Elemental Evil actually contained a bug at launch that could REFORMAT YOUR HARD DRIVE or something along those lines, under certain circumstances. I have no idea what is wrong in their development cycle, but t doesn't bode well for Troika in the long term either.

    5. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Troika -> Arcanum
      a big game that industrilizes fantasy.
      you got magicians traveling in trains.
      amazing marriage of sci-fi and fantasy worlds.

      Actually, you don't get magicians traveling in trains, because magick screws up technology. No, the mighty mages have to either teleport or walk.

      You know, the teleport spell is my only real complain about Arcanum (aside from it not working on Linux ;): you can't just select a place from the map, you have to target a location that has a "marker". It's annoying.

      That, and you can't blow up the buildings with dynamite. I tried, figuring it would be a good way of getting rid of a few of the criminals in the slums of Tarant, and they just became angry, despite having stood just on the other side of the thin wooden wall.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:FUCK THAT SHIT by murdocj · · Score: 1
      Actually, I believe that only the core engine was 90% complete

      I was reminded of a quote I saw a while back, to the effect that "coding is 90% complete for about 50% of the time". Which is not to say anything about the viability of Fallout 3 (I've never played any of the Fallout games) but just that I don't put much stock in such numbers.

      And as you point out, the core engine is really just the start of the project.

  7. Fishing for Funding by wev162 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd give it even odds that Interplay is just fishing for investments to try and save the farm. Isn't it odd that it is only now after years of cries for a new fallout game they propose one but insert the buzzword "MMORPG"? One has to wonder if they are trying to show potential investors they have a viable product with heavy fan demand (eg. Look at level of interest in a new fallout game over the years, its a license to print money!!! Its one of those "lucrative" MMORPGs like UO or EQ no less!!!) Sounds custom fit for an investor pitch to me. I can't help but think Interplay is completing the slow implosion that has occured over the years with less and less blockbuster projects.

  8. Great Idea, Now Show Me The Money by Shihar · · Score: 1

    The idea of a Fallout MMOG is not a bad one. The problem is two fold though. First, Fallout can not be Everquest. If you want to appeal to a broad audience and actually make a hit, they will need to take a risk in terms of game play. What that translate to could be debated forever, but the simple fact of the matter is that they need a breakout hit that smashes some rules. Maybe it means no leveling, maybe it means some new style of game play. Who the hell knows. If we knew the answer they would already be building it.

    So, what they need to do is to take a big risk. They need to make something new and original with this great title. In other words, they need money. The problem is that they don't have any, and the project they are going to need to make this worthwhile is going to be very risky. No one is going to want to invest in a risky hit or miss project from a dying company. Everquest in Fallout skin is just not going to cut it, and it isn't going to make money.

    Honestly, I think Interplay is dead. They don't have the money to take the risks they need to take, and they are not going to get the money they need to take such a risk. I think the best thing to do is patiently wait for Interplay to break up and sell off their property and release their programmers. Hopefully, after everything is done falling apart a good gaming company will have the Fallout title and some good programs will find their way along with that title.

  9. What we need is a 3d non turn based Fallout 3 by glowimperial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That doesn't totally suck and has the magic storylines of the original series. I love turn based games, but frankly, they are going the way of the dodo and I want Fallout 3 to succeed in the mss market so it can stay alive. A Fallout MMO would be hard to do. Key to the whole Fallout feeling is being the Chosen One and wandering the wilderness alone, ala Mad Max. I don't want to play a fallout game with folks spamming "selling power armour, 100k caps!" in the center of every town. Fallout was all about the mystery of discovering a wonderfully crafted, funny, post apocalyptic world, alone. Bring the magic back one more time folks.

    1. Re:What we need is a 3d non turn based Fallout 3 by AdamPiotrZochowski · · Score: 2, Interesting


      The 3d they have done, atleast from screenshots of Fallout 3
      and from the xbox Fallout:BOS.

      I dont have anything against the game being non turn based,
      but give me the ability to play turn based.

      I loved the idea that the game never really was a clone
      of diablo where finger twiches are actually an advantage.

      ofcourse this causes problems for the game to be MMO, but
      then Civilisation / HOMM3 play online quite well, and
      Fallout:BOS Tactics also did have a fake real time mode.

      --
      /apz, Far duller than a serpent's tooth it is to spend a quiet youth.

  10. Oh shut up. by ftgow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, it would fuck up the franchise. Sure they're doing it for the money. Blah blah blah.

    But it would be fun.

    Aren't we all sick of the current mmorpg's now? I could care less about elf's and dwarves, and wookies...finding a magic key, or collecting gold coins to by a new sword with a +1 bronze gem that makes me immune to the common cold.

    I want an mmorpg where you don't fit things, you fight for survival. Imagine having clans of players, in a DANGEROUS, screwed up after-world, fighting each other just to survive. Imagine leading the warriors of your clans, in the night, to the other guys shack, killing or abducting they're women, slitting the men's throats, stealing they're necessities, ETC, JUST TO live another week! That would be thrilling. And? no/barley any computer npc's. Hell EQ, that warcraft thing (god I hate blizzard, make a Linux port you lazy sluts) starwars.. it's all coop doom with swords and a couple thousand space marines. Coop doom wasn't (that) fun! Dammit, these games remind me of the sims.

    In Fallout Online, you band together, traveling the wasteland, salvaging useful scraps, not finding them in chests next to a dead gnome. I'm talking about a SAVAGE online experience, where you can get pissed off, angry, and travel the wasteland, sometimes solely on revenge. Or from an order from your clan leading. You can over through your clan leader (provided it's in the public favor, aka mutiny. You can start your own clan in a shack in the dessert, convert some homeless people, (not that you would start out homeless, but it's a possibility), arm them, and attack a nearby town, in the dead of night, kill a local shop keeper (think shady town), and turn the place into your own military-grade bunker. Advance, take your clan, make it into a battalion. Army. (think brotherhood of steel) Form legions, alliances, with common interests, secretly generated by the world. Forge new technological advantages. Advanced weaponry, hardened armor. Take over.

    Or possibly form a neutral facility, helping strangers, in exchange for favors that will help the community etc.

    I'm sick of wacking rats with sticks. Gimme a damn gun and shove me in a deadly world. Fallout Online.

    1. Re:Oh shut up. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      The problem is getting people to keep playing. If when you're not logged on, the guild you're in gets attacked and the supplies stolen, would you want to keep playing? That was one of the many problems with 10six, if I remember correctly.

      People who play MMOGs don't want to lose all their progress when they're not logged on overnight.

      I think a good Fallout MMOG could be made, but they would have to be very careful with how they go about doing it. They'd have to avoid the problems that plague Lineage 2 (Too much griefing) and City of Heroes (Great character creator, no content!).

      I wish them only the best of luck with their attempt , though.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Oh shut up. by billcopc · · Score: 1

      This would make for a fap-tastic game, if only the games were short enough to be finished in one sitting. An MMORPG is a never-ending world where time doesn't stop to ask directions. Sure, you could build the greatest war fortress in the world, design a BFG9000 to rule over your enemies. Then when the phone rings and you turn your back for ten minutes, you come back to find your empire in ruins because the enemy swooped in while you weren't paying attention.

      That's why most MMORPG's have a friendly atmosphere, with safe havens. In Fallout's storyline there isn't room for such a place, war is war.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  11. misprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "However, CEO Herve Caen is bullish about prospects.."

    Should read: However, CEO Herve Caen bullshits about prospects...

  12. "a relatively small amount" by BortQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, $.9 million is actually quite a large amount of money, especially when you have 0 dollars to your name (or company).

    --

    A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
  13. Well it couldn't happen to a more deserving compan by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Well it couldn't happen to a more deserving company. Serves them right for cancelling the 3rd Star Trek adventure, vulcan fury.

    The first two were moderate hits, meaning they made a profit. So did they continue, No. Not hip enough.

    Fallout 3 the rpg? Gone.

    Companies that cancel modest earners for high risk games that never happen deserve to go out of bussiness. Both these games would have been bought by a steady fanbase, enough to ensure a profit and could have been small hits even large hits.

    Turning Fallout into an online RPG might be intresting but so far MMO has been less then a success in profit terms. Even the massive sony is struggling with SWG. What the hell kinda chance does interplay think it has?

    Oh well another game company going down the drain. Hardly a newsitem sadly. Still funny, a lot of those who went down turned away from small nich games that made small profits to try big fps mass audience games. And died. Read the story of sierra. A lesson to be learned by those who still cling on? Unless we want to end up with EA owning the gaming industry?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  14. Exploding Toilets by Zorilla · · Score: 0

    I never played the existing Fallout series of games, but a friend did show me the aftermath of the toilet explosion when he loaded up one of his savegames. I can only think an MMO would be worthwhile if you could make the room as brown as it was while some other living, breathing player's character was in there as well.

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:Exploding Toilets by AdamPiotrZochowski · · Score: 1



      Dear sir, I strongly advise, urge, you run to nearest
      store and rummage through the bargain bin. You should
      find a dual-cd jewel case with both Fallouts for 5$.

      If you are lucky, it might also contain Fallout:BOS Tactics.

      There is no reason anymore for you, nor anyone, to
      still have had not played the game

      and yes, the game plays like a charm under Wine too !

      --
      /apz, If it's too loud, you're too old.

  15. Valid points. by ftgow · · Score: 1

    Suffice to say, there is no way in hell they would ever be able to get any game out in their current state. But as it stands, computer games are like television. Lowest common denominator. This country is full of inbred morons. Cops on Fox. Same with computers. We have Aol. They use it to chat with other idiots, download all the wrong kind of pornography, and look at stupid pictures of some guy with his hand up his ass, their dumb friends, or their friends with their hand up their ass. Gaming is filled with worthless crap, 80 percent. lucas arts cancels another adventure game, realeases 5 star wars titles in the next 2 weeks. There is another grand theft auto missionpack in the works. By the way? How many sims titles were there? Regardless, I'm sure Interplay COULD be doing better, and isnt on their own accord. Yet they made GOOD games, for a specific audience. No lowest common denominator with the Fallout Series. They're doomed. This little insite into what they might be 'working' on is just trying to rejuvinate a spark in now devoid loyal fanbase. It wont happen. If id did, im sure it would be better than everything else in just the setting alone. I doubt it would be like I had described, and I doubt they (the players) could manage a commitiment to a virtual character. (Just thoughts I suppose) But, interplay, if you do decide to do a fallout **PC*** game. Try either Fallout 3, (turn based, society, fixed up enough so that another bomb could wipe it out) as a 3d representation of the 2d game world we once could run in DOS. Or Fallout: Online, a 3d FPS/3PS, with lots of players in a battle field 1942 (hated the game, but it could support many playes) game mechanics, but make everything LARGE (farcry large) maps, with UT assault like objectives. Or just let me take any computer crap you have to get rid of. I really enjoyed fallout. Thank you.

  16. I'll bet someone else will make the MMORPG by mutewinter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since they are out of cash, I'm guessing they will liscence Fallout to another company to make the MMORPG. I don't have to tell anyone here that the MMORPG market is over saturated right now. Even if the game is a success we all know they are looking at 4+ years of development which would translate into just another money drain for them -- not what they need right now. An up-front liscence fee from a big company like EA could be the cash injection the company needs. I'm just suprised their whole company hasn't been gobbled up yet.

    1. Re:I'll bet someone else will make the MMORPG by hsoft · · Score: 1

      gobbled up... you mean bought? Why the heck would EA buy Interplay? They would have to assume their debts too. They should (and probably will), wait until Interplay declares bankrupty and buy all virtual assets (licenses etc..) at a ridiculously low price. They'll hire all Interplay programmers, and start Fallout3 and not Fallout MMO, because they know what makes money now. They'll even make "Fallout: Hot date", "Fallout: on vacation", "Fallout: Mutant party" expansions!

      --
      perception is reality
  17. Irrelevant by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1

    Whether or not Interplay says they want to make a new Fallout game is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they are in deep financial turmoil. They have recently pitched forth several game plans that will probably never come to fruition (a similar promise was made of Descent 4).

    It's just the final death throes of a dying company. Let it go, already.

  18. Bad idea right now. by tprime · · Score: 1

    Even though I am not into the whole MMORPG game thing, I like the idea of creating one based upon the Fallout Universe. However, now is not the right time.. Who in their right mind is going to spend the initial $50 or so on buying the game and then put up $10-$15 a month to play a game that, after they have made their built up their character, the game shuts down because the servers were repossessed? Hell, they couldn't even afford to keep the Interplay FORUMS online. They had to shut those down a few months ago. Hell, even the Interplay website doesn't always respond (hows that for a benchmark on system uptime?) For this reason they are not going to get enough subs to get anywhere near an ROI.

    While I know that there have already been a few "Herve is an idiot" type posts, it seems like he really does believe that this company is going to make some kind of mythical comeback (he personally recently bought a whole load of shares in IPLY at penny stock prices). Does he know of something or is he just as stupid as we think he is.

    To all of the people complaining the "Interplay should just bring out Fallout3 (VanBuren)" Give it up. You will NOT see this title come out any time soon. It will probably show up in a few years after the Interplay IP is sold off to another company (Obsidean? Troika?) Here's to hoping it is a quick death.

    --
    http://www.tomandemily.com
  19. Old times by Doctor+Cat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I remember pitching my first MMORPG, DragonSpires, to Interplay back in 1994. Their company president at the time was looking to get started with a project for about half the budget I was asking for. I talked to their producer a bit about how we could do something on that size budget. Then we met with the president briefly, showed him what I had, and he explained why he'd rather do a game based on their D&D license. Sounded plausible to me. Back to the producer's office, and he says "Ok, what I think we should pitch to him is that we simultaneously develop a D&D game AND your game with your engine". I was speechless. Didn't that just double the budget back up to what the prez had said was more than he wanted to invest into the MMORPG market right then? Sure enough, he decide to pass on his producer's proposal.

    Given how they did with things like Engage Games Online, frankly I'm glad they said no. Interplay did manage to publish some very good games over the years, but their management was always kinda strange as far as I could tell. (Hopefully they don't have enough nickles left in the petty cash drawer to get a lawyer to sue me for saying they were strange. :X)

    --

    Furcadia - A free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more.

    1. Re:Old times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...their management was always kinda strange as far as I could tell."

      "Free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more. Furcadia!"

      Interplay's management seems kinda strange to a furry - wow!

  20. MMO = .COM by servognome · · Score: 1

    I get the feeling the MMOs are the gaming industry equivalent of the .COM companies in the 90s, and we're starting to see the fallout (no pun inteded), with all the announced cancellations.
    Once UO and Everquest hit it big, so many game companies drooled at the cash cow of MMOs. So they all scrambled to create their own MMOs to grab a piece of the market. I mean Motor City Online?
    Browsing this list of just RPG related MMOs to be released, it looks like too many companies are just grasping at straws. Is there a huge pirate afficionado market just clamoring for an MMORPG to meet their needs? Do we really need another MMO in a high fantasy setting... or 10 more?
    These are the most expensive games to develop, and the most difficult to attract players to. These are the types of games that can destroy companies. I am just worried that like in the .COM era, alot of money is being thrown at alot of doomed projects.
    You are basically playing the MMO lotto, unless you have a solid license like matrix online, a rabid community asking for a game like City of Heroes; and even then MMO players have become very picky and if the game isn't that good you will have problems like Star Wars Galaxies.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  21. Fallout !! by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 1

    Man I love the Fallout (GURPS?) system. I don't know how they'd transition a tactical, turn-based strategy RPG into an MMORPG though...

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!