Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bethesda Sues Warner Bros, Calls Its Westworld Game 'Blatant Rip-Off' of Fallout Shelter (polygon.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the copy-and-paste dept.

Bethesda, the video game publisher behind Fallout and The Elder Scrolls, is suing Warner Bros. and Fallout Shelter co-developer Behavior Interactive over the recently released Westworld, alleging that the mobile game based on HBO's TV series is a "blatant rip-off" of Fallout Shelter. Polygon reports: In a suit filed in a Maryland U.S. District Court, Bethesda alleges that Westworld -- developed by Behaviour and released this week for Android and iOS -- "has the same or highly similar game design, art style, animations, features and other gameplay elements" as Fallout Shelter. Fallout Shelter was originally released in 2015 for mobile devices. The game was later ported to Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Windows PC and Xbox One.

Bethesda said in its suit that Behaviour uses "the same copyrighted computer code created for Fallout Shelter in Westworld," alleging that a bug evident in an early version of Fallout Shelter (which was later fixed) also appears in Westworld. Bethesda alleges the companies "copied Fallout Shelter's features and then made cosmetic modifications for Westworld's 'western' theme."

109 comments

  1. Huh by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll be darned, I didn't know those crapfest microtransaction filled mobile games had enough differences between them in the first place to have lawsuit worthy similarities. You learn something new every day.

    1. Re:Huh by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fallout Shelter is easily playable without paying microtransactions. I haven't played Westworld.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:Huh by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fallout Shelter is pretty good, no need to buy anything, you can't do too much at once, and you dont even need to be online (my gripe with other mobile games which stop working when I go mobile). When I first saw the spam attack trying to get me to play Westworld I did notice the similarities to Fallout Shelter even before I saw this article.

    3. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to spend any money on any of them.. Don't download them.. I learned this with Clash of Clans.. After spending so much damn money I realized it was nothing but a freaking cash grab... https://ggurls.com

    4. Re:Huh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fallout Shelter is pretty good, no need to buy anything, you can't do too much at once, and you dont even need to be online

      Can you have more than 200 dwellers yet? I stopped playing because the game got severely boring when I could no longer expand and all my rooms were fully upgraded.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time read more than the headline moron.

    6. Re:Huh by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Start over, or find a new game.

    7. Re:Huh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You could have just said no, and the game is still boring. I found several more interesting games already. I presume that they aren't implementing a higher dweller count because they are bad at programming and that's as many as they can manage. From their history of creating infinite massive bugs, we know this to be a plausible explanation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Huh by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      At 200 the game was very slow to start up. I haven't found better games really, except for some puzzle locked-room things that don't last long. I'm not "gaming" on the phone, it's for a few minutes of distraction at time, not like a PC game.

    9. Re:Huh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've been playing idle kingdoms lately, and #ymbab as well but I'm getting tired of that again. Also polytopia.

      At 200 the game punched my TF201 right in the nuts... but it still ran fine on my MK908, the Nexus 7 2nd, or the Nexus 4. And there is also a PC version these days, and last I looked, it was also still limited to 200 dwellers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering it's the same developer, and the Westworld game seems to be just a reskin/mod of their Fallout Shelter game, complete with the same bugs, the lawsuit isn't surprising.

    I have no problem with this lawsuit, unlike the "similarity" lawsuits like the PUBG/Fortnite stupidity.

    1. Re:Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reminds me of the very early text adventure game that was released for the TRS-80 back in the early days.. It was just the classic text "Adventure" with the description strings replaced, to change from exploring "colossal cave" to exploring an Egyptian pyramid.

      For instance: In place of the delicate ming vase and the pillow, you find a miniature mummy that will shatter if you put it back down ("drop it") unless you carry it a little way and find a "mummy case" to put it in.

      If you remember the winning moves in Adventure you could run straight through this one as well. Boring...

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re: Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That description of the mummy sounds like Scott Adams adventure Pyramid of Doom.

    3. Re:Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the Westworld also lose the saved games every few weeks? Android version of Fallout shelter did that to me and on third time I just stopped playing. It is sad as the game itself is quite fun, but there is no point of playing if progress is erased at random and one needs to start from the beginning.

    4. Re:Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by Megane · · Score: 1

      It was Pyramid 2000.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Bethesda believes they just re-used the code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you played the games? They're completely different!

      The only things which are similar are:
      1. there is an underground portion - though they're managed completely differently
      2. you have toons which grow - except they're completely different: earn XP differently, different attributes, different effects on the world...

      The quote given
      > "has the same or highly similar game design, art style, animations, features and other gameplay elements"
      is completely wrong on the face of it: art styles are completely different, animations are only similar if the multi-part characters can be considered similar (like 100s of other games), the only game design/play features which are similar are that they are both management games and you get to 'build' things in them. Above-ground buildings can be updated 3 times - whereas in FoS the underground rooms can be upgraded 3 times.

      The management items and workflow are completely different between the games, and Westworld incorporates storytelling elements completely different from Fallout Shelter's updated ability to go on quests (no idea if the original devs did that part since it was added far after the initial release).

      So yeah: even if there is one bug the same between them, this suit has no merit. Bethesda could sue several over several other games before this one - they just seem upset that the same devs would produce another game.

  3. Their code has a Mountweazel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bilge about "same or highly similar game design, art style, animations, features and other gameplay elements" is totally irrelevant.
    The only thing that matters is the claim that the bug proves they actually copied code.

    All the "look and feel" copyright lawsuits were won by the defendants back in the '80s.
    A Frogger "clone" that doesn't use any of the code or assets from the original doesn't infringe on its copyright.

  4. Re:Race Riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yo, is this from a Thomas Pynchon novel? It hella sounds like it, holmes.

  5. Did they have it written into a contract by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that they couldn't re-use code? If so they company's boned, but if not, well, Bethesda is basically run by a guy who got kicked out of Wallstreet for being too greedy. Let that one sink in. I like their games, but they're not exactly known as the most charitable company in the world. By all accounts they released New Vegas in a buggy and unfinished state so they could cheap Obsidian out of a Meta-Critic bonus...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did they have it written into a contract that they couldn't re-use code? If so they company's boned, but if not,

      Actually, it's the reverse of that. Unless it's written into the contract that they CAN reuse the code, the company is probably boned.

      Generally the law is that whoever writes the code keeps the copyright, unless someone else paid them to write it (ie: a work for hire) and the contract did not state otherwise. So if they wrote the game and then sold it to Bethesda, they're OK. If Bethesda contracted them to write it and wrote in the contract that they can keep the copyrights, then they're OK. But the most likely scenario here is that Bethesda contracted them, and the contract did NOT say they can keep the copyright, which would mean Bethesda wins.

      Now of course, it depends on the nature of the bugs. If, for example, the bug is the result of some code library they wrote years ago (before the contract), then that particular code would not have been part of the work-for-hire and would most likely be treated like any other licensed 3rd party library.

    2. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Generally the law is that whoever writes the code keeps the copyright, unless someone else paid them to write it (ie: a work for hire) and the contract did not state otherwise. So if they wrote the game and then sold it to Bethesda, they're OK. If Bethesda contracted them to write it and wrote in the contract that they can keep the copyrights, then they're OK. But the most likely scenario here is that Bethesda contracted them, and the contract did NOT say they can keep the copyright, which would mean Bethesda wins.

      You have it backwards. Work for hire has to be specified as such. So, unless it's written into the contract that they couldn't re-use the cod e(by making it work for hire), they can.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. An employee cant walk away and reuse code he wrote for his employer without explicit permission. A contractor cant walk away and reuse code he wrote for his client without explicit permission.

      Acting in any way contrary to that is a recipe for bankruptcy.

    4. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, he's not wrong. On further investigation we were both right. My understanding was only correct with respect to an employee, but he is correct when it's a contractor creating the work, which is surely the case here.

    5. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "An employee cant walk away and reuse code he wrote for his employer without explicit permission."

      You must be too stupid to see this is a contracted thing, thus the coding company is NOT an employee.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      which is surely the case here

      It is. From the complaint:

      Under the agreement, all Behaviour work product of any kind, including code, designs, artwork, layouts, and other assets and materials for FALLOUT SHELTER were authored and owned by Bethesda ab initio as works made for hire

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Get ready for another reversal: Unless created by a direct employee (someone who gets a W2 form from you at the end of the year) "works made for hire" must fall under one of 9 categories established under the law. If the work doesn't fit in to one of the nine, it doesn't matter what the contract says: the copyright vests in the company that made it not the company that paid.

      https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

      Bethesda hopes Behaviour's work is a "contribution to a collective work" but generally that means a -small- contribution like one article for an encyclopedia.

      Here's the lesson: don't write a contract which says you own the contractors work. The law may contradict you. Write a contract which says the contractor agrees to assign you all rights to their work. That's enforceable in court.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    8. Re: Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it all depends on the contract

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

    9. Re: Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you too stupid to see the sentence after the one you quoted?

    10. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      agrees to >exclusively assign you

    11. Re: Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is totally irrelevant as copyright law trumps the contract, you nitwit.

    12. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they did. I have to find it, tbut there's a better article that explains what the original contract included, and it specifically listed the code used to make shelter is copy-right bethesda.

    13. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Section 101 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code) defines a “work made for hire” in two parts:

      ...

      b a work specially ordered or commissioned for use
      1 as a contribution to a collective work,
      2 as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,

      Bethesda likely figures it falls under b2, not the dubious case b1. "where the contracted work is commissioned for use in an audiovisual work." Audiovisual works include video games.

    14. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Vreejack · · Score: 1

      Bethesda has a track record of being somewhat competent here, so I would assume they knew what they were doing when they bought the code. Furthermore, they had to consult a lawyer before filing suit, so unless this is some edge case where the facts are hazy they probably have a good case. Did the contractor think they could develop a library "for internal use" thinking they could re-skin it and use it over and over again? What a deal! Especially since Bethesda probably paid them to develop this "library."

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    15. Re: Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, the contract trumps copyright law. If the contract says all the code on the project belongs to Bethesda, then they signed away their rights to the code, you nitwit.

    16. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so they could cheap Obsidian out of a Meta-Critic bonus...

      Nah, Obsidian were using pen and paper to keep track of bugs and didn't change until their next game after they realized how stupid they were for doing that.

      Just remember, Obsidian is ran by a skeevy fucking slimeball that put his kids on the payroll to avoid putting himself in a higher tax bracket yet still bring home the same amount of money. He also cheated his employees out of pay so he could refinance his house and is a general all around asshat. There really is a reason they never work with the same publisher more than once.

    17. Re: Did they have it written into a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought You can't sign away your rights?

    18. Re:Did they have it written into a contract by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      And audiovisual work in this context would not tend to include the apparatus which displays the work. If they re-used the graphics and sounds then sure. It doesn't read like they did.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  6. Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because both of those characters are so ugly that they're vomit-inducing. Dolores is so pretty, so I guess they intentionally hired ugly women to be a foil against her.

    1. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Evan Rachel Wood is beautiful. The Mave and Hale characters are so ugly that because you have to look away from the screen when they're on it, that it takes you out of those show. I know HBO is trying to be edgy by using ugly people in the show, but they're going too far.

    2. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have Westworld parties at my place on Sunday nights, but I got tired of people throwing up on my couch and carpet when that digsusting Thandie Newton was on screen so I stopped.

    3. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolores is so pretty

      And the Armenian Clementine Pennyfeather. Elsie Hughes also is pretty cute. I think HBO only cast those ugly women Newton and Thompson for contrast. Too bad they give Newton so much screen time since she is so ugly we have to look away from our TVs and she is a terrible actress so her well-written part is just trashed by bad acting.

    4. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As if lots of movies don't do SJW casting to hire people that aren't likable and can't act. Just look at the recent Star Wars movie that failed. People want to be entertained and interested in a story. They don't want to be preached at.

    5. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And the Armenian Clementine Pennyfeather...

      Three of my four grandparents were killed sometime around the summer of 1915 during the Armenian Genocide in Turkey that still Turkey doesn't even recognize. IIRC, an estimated two million of us were killed during that one event. It really makes me sad to think that the world has been missing out on more women that look like Clementine. Angela Sarafyan is stunning.

    6. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actress that plays Hale is terrible and ugly. Canâ(TM)t believe they allow someone that ugly to be on TV.

    7. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edgy is right. I canâ(TM)t think of any other reason to hire such ugly actors.

    8. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actress that plays Hale is terrible and ugly.

      I think that's the point. She works for corporate so HBO needed someone so ugly that it would disgust the watchers. She is stupid and ugly so I think they went too far with stupid and ugly.

    9. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maeve is disgusting looking. Iâ(TM)m sure that was an intentional decision by the writers so we wouldnâ(TM)t sympathize with it. Sheâ(TM)s such a bad actress that she is believable as a robot.

    10. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because she was so stupid she didnâ(TM)t understand the precariousness of her position. Terrible casting.

    11. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right. There is no other logical explanation for hiring Newton or Tessa Thompson. Both are ugly. HBO knew they would drive off viewers with those casting choices, but I can't figure-out why they would decide to do so.

    12. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hale is supposed to be hated since she represents corporate. That is why HBO picked someone so ugly to play her.

    13. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't been watching the show closely. Maeve and Hale are disgusting characters that should make you feel like you need to vomit. That was an obvious intentional choice by HBO.

    14. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. That is why they cast Tessa Thompson to play that part since she is so ugly.

    15. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Dolores is so pretty

      Which is why the writers have basically written her off of the show in exchange for ugly people.

    16. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollywood these days seems to care more about edgy than good.

    17. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not think people will watch ugly people on Westworld just because of political correctness? I think you're wrong. Hiring ugly people these days is critical to the success of any movie or TV show.

    18. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad the disgusting, bile inducing Mave and Hale characters are so heinous and ugly. The soft features, delicate skin, and ideal looks of Delores really throw those hideous beasts into sharp contrast.

    19. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      what new kind of shitpost is this. Multiple personality troll?

      --
      -
    20. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking kidding me? Clementine looks like a dog.

    21. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know what's even more disgusting? your broken iphone posts.. please fix your hipster vibrator.

    22. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to social(ist) justice, comrade. It's all about "making the personal, political.'" Things like merit and the bottom line are dead last in this brave new world.

    23. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you the guy posting all the Trump stuff on every story? Can you express what it's like being such a huge autist? Please remember to use your words...

    24. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to give minorities a chance even if theyâ(TM)re ugly and canâ(TM)t act.

    25. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you've not figured it out, this is all about the fact that the actresses playing Maeve and Charlotte are black. Which is of exactly no interest or concern to anyone other than racist trash like our friend(s) here.

    26. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because both of those characters are so ugly that they're vomit-inducing. Dolores is so pretty, so I guess they intentionally hired ugly women to be a foil against her.

      I doubt that since HBO decided to shove those ugly people down the throats of viewers while a game can't afford to do that.

    27. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's definitely a shitpost, but it's not new. This is almost certainly the idiot responsible for the "Republicans hate us and want us to die" shitpost threads from awhile back.

    28. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like a woman/minority in a movie or think they couldn't act, it's not their fault, it's just because you're a sexist and/or racist!

      Worse is "color-blind casting"... except "color blind" refers exclusively to casting minority actors in white character roles, because it's a full on sjw feakout and boycott movement if a POC character is played by a white actor... the evil whitewashing! Don't forget, 'color-blind' is actually a tool of white supremacy. Judging people by the content of their character instead of their color of their skin is now racism, and anyone who doesn't judge someone by their skin color, and then hold them to lesser requirements (except Asians in intellectual things, they don't count and should be brought down a notch), is a racist.

    29. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of sociopathic fuckery is going on, what is wrong with you people. I canâ(TM)t tell if you have so little actual social interaction that youâ(TM)ve never learned how to speak about (or to?!) other humans or if youâ(TM)re just mad that real women never talk to you in real life and are taking it out on people youâ(TM)ll never meet as some weird attempt at reclaiming your masculinity through some misguided random judgmental misogyny or if youâ(TM)re just trying to role play both Anonymous and Coward in some dramatic show of irony

      Healthy people donâ(TM)t talk this way about other people in any context. Grow up, boys.

    30. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop replying to yourself. It's pretty blatantly obvious.

    31. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just one person replying to themselves.

    32. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Kaenneth · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows that the ugliest 'TV Ugly' woman is out of your league.

      You should try picking up dates at Wal*Mart, they are more your class.

    33. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Megol · · Score: 1

      If your are trying to troll you is a complete failure. A skilled fisherperson* lays out a tasty bait and let the scent and presentation lure all to reply, a failure of an idiot use the lazy carpet-bomb variant you (I hope) are showing here.
      If not you are just a complete failure of not only trolling but of life itself.

      No matter why this stinking crap is flowing down here you deserve a spanking you pathetic little man. Not that anyone would ever want to touch you, probably the reason you unleashed this spam attack in the first place.
      (* bet at least 10 people will get incredibly angry when reading this)

    34. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is almost certainly the idiot responsible for the "Republicans hate us and want us to die" shitpost threads from awhile back.

      You forgot a few "want us to die"s.

    35. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      It's fucking bizarre. I'd really like to know his motivation for talking to himself.
      Anyhow we can assume he's not a heterosexual man because even if Delores is the hottest, I can't think of a woman on that show that I'd throw out of bed.

    36. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Someone please explain this guy to me. Is he just insane? Does he think this is lulzy trolling? Is someone paying him?

    37. Re:Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or.... maybe they really are ugly, and really suck at acting. you are the only one here implying race or sex. maybe you are he racist sexist pig yourself.

      amazingly, the people who scream racism and sexism the most, usually are the one who is racist and/or sexist. if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like nails.

      you sir/mam are racist, take your kkk bullshit somewhere else ffs.

    38. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just one person replying to themselves.

      the times of the posts are too close for it to be one person. /. makes you wait 5-10 minutes between posts. 5 at first, then 10 if you try more so you are incorrect in your ASSumption.

    39. Re: Are Maeve or Charlotte Hale in the game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless it's multiple IP addresses or multiple boxes

  7. You made a shitty game out of OUR shitty game! by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    How are you going to compensate us for all the money we're going to lose now that no one is going to be downloading our free game?

    We demand justice, sir!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:You made a shitty game out of OUR shitty game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you going to compensate us for all the money we're going to lose now that no one is going to be downloading our free game?
      We demand justice, sir!

      That's a very good question, seeing as they make a surprising amount of money off Fallout Shelter.

      Forbes had an article how Fallout Shelter went up to 3rd most downloaded iOS app within 24 hours, and in two weeks grossed 5.1 million USD from micro-transactions.

      These types of games tend to surge income after their initial release and then take a major tapering down before stabilizing on a much smaller but steady trickle of income.

      The thing is, in 2015 it was only on iOS and Android, then in 2016 released again on PC, then in 2017 released on Xbox, and this year released on PS4 and Switch.

      That's a whole bunch of separate surges of income, and easily many tens of millions of dollars in provable damages.

      You say "free game" in such a way as to imply Bethesda made $0 on it when in fact the insane amount of money made through micro-transactions, assuming absolutely no punitive damages, is enough to completely bankrupt a smaller game studio, and still hurt a decent sized one pretty bad.
      Except you already know how damages get multiples by stupid amounts in court when it comes to copyright violations, and there's not much chance the court wouldn't throw in punitive damages so they can get in on a cut too.

  8. Potentual outcome by meglon · · Score: 2

    They better hope their lawsuit doesn't end in a draw.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:Potentual outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Draw seems unlikely, since Bethesda obviously used V.A.T.S. to file the lawsuit from an undetected position. It's kinda hard to miss a V.A.T.S. assisted head-shot when the opponent doesn't even know you're there.

    2. Re:Potentual outcome by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What does video assisted thoracic surgery have to do with it?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Potentual outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: V.A.T.S. = "Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System."

      (You would have heard of it if you ever played a Fallout game.)

    4. Re:Potentual outcome by meglon · · Score: 1

      The games based in Westworld though.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:Potentual outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence video assisted thoracic surgery, obviously. Because they have that all over Westworld.

    6. Re:Potentual outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bethesda one isn't

    7. Re:Potentual outcome by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's not even on the first page of hits.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  9. <blink>YOU'RE AN IDIOT!</blink> by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    <blink>YOU'RE AN IDIOT!</blink>

  10. Zenimax (parent company) are like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dishonest, and blatantly trying to sue anyone and everyone they can in the industry, just like Apple. If you're smart, don't spend any money if it winds up in the pockets of Zenimax. Boycott the Elder Scrolls series and anything else that comes out of Zenimax and its subsidiaries. Vote with your wallet.

    1. Re:Zenimax (parent company) are like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bethesda secretly installing spyware along with games is enough for me to never buy their games again.

  11. Game/Show similarities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some similarities in the game/show too that look like one influenced the other. The vitruvian man reference in the manufacture of synths/hosts is one. The name abernathy is another.

  12. Re: Clit Boner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only people with your amount of contempt for lbgtq people are lbgtq themselves. and your obsession with trump leads us to believe you indeed have an lbgtq crush on donald trump and want to drain his noodle of semen.

  13. Re:Race Riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yo, is this from a Thomas Pynchon novel? It hella sounds like it, holmes.

    Yo dawg, u wuz close. And who be dis "holmes" homie?

  14. Sorry, Bethesda, Here's Why You Will Lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer%2C_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.

    In 1994 Apple sued Microsoft to keep Microsoft and HP from using a GUI as a part of their operating system. Apple thought they owned GUIs because they got them from Xerox Parc first. The court ruled no, saying you can't copyright the "look and feel" of the GUI, therefore Microsoft and HP could release their own GUIs with similar looks. The world has been cursed with Microsoft Windows ever since.

    Using that legal precedent, the judge will rule Bethesda can't copyright the look and feel of Fallout Shelter, therefore Warner Bros. can release their own mobile game with a look similar to that of Fallout Shelter. Will it be a blessing or a curse? I stopped buying video games 20 years ago so I don't know and I don't care.

    If, however, Bethesda's contract with Behavior specifies the code cannot be reused in other projects for other clients then Bethesda has a case against Behavior for breech of contract. However, I don't see how Warner Bros. can be blamed for breeching a contract they weren't party to. So, it looks to me that Bethesda filed suit for the wrong reason and makes a claim that conflicts with legal precedent. Including Warner Bros. in the lawsuit is just plain wrong.

    Good luck to all, may the truth come out, and may the party who is correct prevail.