Interplay financials: Fallout Online in doubt

[Brother None]

Re: yep, resources were listed

yep, as Elven6 stated all the information that was discussed in my posts is in public SEC filings and/or in the public records in the court documents with PACER.

I'm not an American citizen, I do not have access to PACER.

Feel free to link the the SEC filing. I've not seen it, I'm not reading everything back since you guys won't even provide a rough date. If it's so easy to find, link to it.

I have in fact read most of the SEC filings over the past few years. There's no way both I, DaC and the Vault missed a SEC filing stating 15 million has been invested by I2G, yet it isn't reported as such on any of said sites.

Heh, remember when Herve was talking about raising 75 million for the MMO? Good fun.

As an aside, Brother None, journalism often involves fully researching a topic before commenting as if one is an expert on the subject. First, do as many of us investors have done, read all of the SEC filings and every single court document that comes out, as many of us large individual investors with Interplay have been doing. Or if you are the lazy type and don't like fully researching a topic, then be nice to someone who does have the documents and has read each and every one of them, like me, and then you'd probably get a copy for free from someone like me

Sucking up to people is, surprisingly enough, not a part of my job.

I've been reporting Interplay's filings for years. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to read through and report the key points. No one has ever complained about my interpretation except stockholders who want to put a positive spin on everything. Now what do you think that tells me?

I'll gladly report anything you got, and I actually know more of Law or Economics than either outlet you've been using, since I've studied both topics at the university level. For example, I knew immediately that Bethesda's claim that Interplay could use only the Fallout name was ludicrous. I'm not going to use stockholder opinion as a legitimate source though. I'm fine just rereporting DaC and the Vault's stuff. It's not a race, after all.

I do hope this is motivated by the greater likelihood of DaC copying your positive spin, and not - as you claim - personal considerations. That would be beyond petty. But it's no skin off my back either way. This isn't a commercial site, if you really think you can pressure me in any direction, you're mistaken.

Oh yah, you could also look on duckandcover for documents.

Actually, what google turned up for DaC is your claim being repeated by KoC. He doesn't do any factchecking, he doesn't even note his source is a stockholder in the company he's reporting on. Oh yeah, he sure is a good journalist.

Also, head over to the Vault.

I talked to Ausir about the I2G investment you guys are claiming, he had no idea what you were talking about.

Lastly, you can be a journalist without trying to act so much smarter than everyone else. The reason you get so many posts firing back at you is due to your condescending attitude and overall negative energy in the way that you post and disagree with people.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but don't tell me how to post on my own forums.

You're pretending you didn't repost an insulting post directed at me, or you guys haven't been dismissive of me all along. I'm just giving as I'm getting. Let's not pretend this is about personality. You don't like that I won't dance to your tune and sing Interplay's praises. Either you learn to live with that or you don't. No skin off my back.

Also, I'm not paid for this job. I do work as a freelance journalist, but this is just a hobby. Any standards I hold myself up to are mine own. The last thing you should do is be insulted, I don't think many people in this field would even patiently give you their time as I have.

I wouldn't even bother commenting if this same story had been posted by someone with less of a "chip on their shoulder" angry/aggressive attitude.

Heh. What story? The other sites went indepth speculating Interplay's doom. I just reposted quotes from SEC and followed up with one line of speculation. Yeah, truly, I am so angrily against Interplay.

Fair enough but the original point was that asset sharing across studios is not as far fetched a practices as it may sound. It's something done industry wide by big and small.

Yes.

I think the heavy vs. minor thing has been discussed quite a bit above and until the game releases (or we see more) it's all speculation at this point.

Yes.

Why isn't it comparable? The only difference is the business model but it's still a 3D MMORPG is it not?

The f2p model usually demands an iterative process after design, rather than a huge development investment up front. Not sure that's the case here, it varies.

So what are you arguing for then, does a bigger budget make a better MMO or does a bigger budget make it more known?

I've seen small MMOs do very well in their field, but the thing is, if you're working with a big IP, that comes with expectations. We're talking about developing an MMO here for about the same (or less) than Bethesda invests in single-player games. The quality disjoint might be a stickler.

I'm the one with the "goldfish memory"? How about the newsletters, interviews, concept posts, etc? You posted about some of them yourself, remember?

All of them. Thing is, I'm a journalist in this field, and I read far and wide and talk to journalists far and wide. The only stories about FOOL that get reported on major sites are these "Interplay is fucked" stories, or when amusing claims come out like Interplay claiming it'll get the license back. The actual FOOL stuff isn't getting reported anywhere, except RPG and MMORPG speciality sites.

Still, they're limited in what they can do, so it's not their fault, I'm just saying, it isn't much. Last I saw from Ten Ton Hammer on this topic is this.

Again, this is what Interplay claims, perhaps I could have worded the last bit better since I was talking about the requirements for the MMO (again, according to them incase there is still confusion).

Yeah, I know. The two topics (court-claimed funding vs real funding) seem to be getting a bit mixed up throughout this topic.[/quote]

 

[Elven6]

Re: yep, resources were listed

The f2p model usually demands an iterative process after design, rather than a huge development investment up front. Not sure that's the case here, it varies.

So what you are saying here if I understand it correctly is that F2P games are released as incomplete titles and the missing content is patched in later after funding is received?

I've seen small MMOs do very well in their field, but the thing is, if you're working with a big IP, that comes with expectations. We're talking about developing an MMO here for about the same (or less) than Bethesda invests in single-player games. The quality disjoint might be a stickler.

On one hand you're saying the MMO budget needs to be in a different league from an AAA game budget and on the other you're comparing it directly to an AAA development cycle. What's your stance here?

All of them. Thing is, I'm a journalist in this field, and I read far and wide and talk to journalists far and wide. The only stories about FOOL that get reported on major sites are these "Interplay is fucked" stories, or when amusing claims come out like Interplay claiming it'll get the license back. The actual FOOL stuff isn't getting reported anywhere, except RPG and MMORPG speciality sites.

Still, they're limited in what they can do, so it's not their fault, I'm just saying, it isn't much. Last I saw from Ten Ton Hammer on this topic is this.

Your sources must work for different publications, a quick Google search reveals sites like IGN, Gamespy, Joystiq, Escapist, CVG, etc covering the Newsletters, website launch, leaks, announcements, etc (all I did was search generic terms like "Fallout Online newsletter", "Fallout Online leaks", etc). If you go to the major sites that use a games database and search for Fallout Online you'll see a complete list of articles attached to the game from that publication both good and bad.

This isn't including Fallout specific fansites like NMA, DAC, The Vault, etc which also report on these things.

Can't say I've ever heard of, "Ten Ton Hammer", but the SEC filing is the latest Fallout Online related news so it's not surprising that it's being covered (even though most haven't bothered fact checking it). Here are other posts they've made that are Fallout Online related though.

http://www.tentonhammer.com/taxonomy/term/2610

Yeah, I know. The two topics (court-claimed funding vs real funding) seem to be getting a bit mixed up throughout this topic.

Correct but to be fair, it's not an easy topic.

 

[Brother None]

Re: yep, resources were listed

So what you are saying here if I understand it correctly is that F2P games are released as incomplete titles and the missing content is patched in later after funding is received?

Unfinished is a hard term. Just...smaller and then expanding. It's not uncommon.

On one hand you're saying the MMO budget needs to be in a different league from an AAA game budget and on the other you're comparing it directly to an AAA development cycle. What's your stance here?

My stance is it needs to be bigger but isn't in this case. And maybe they can do so because it's being developed in Bulgaria.

Don't forget Interplay itself claimed it wanted/needed 75 million for an MMO. A much more realistic but unattainable number.

IGN, Joystiq,

You mean Voodoo Extreme and Massively, subsites, not the main site. GameSpy didn't cover nearly all of them, the Escapist too only seemed to post one. But believe as you will. I can see the difference between coverage of, say, WAR or tOR, and FOOL. And it makes sense, but not just because Interplay is limited in what it can do, but because no one really believes this project will see release.

The leaked screens went everywhere but that was hardly PR, since they looked like dookie. As well they should, since they're "early concept" stuff.

But yeah, "not anything" getting reported elsewhere is overstated. Still not a lot, though.

A PR guy once told me the hardest thing in game PR is to get journalists to care. It's hard to do that when they don't believe in your game's chance to even be released.

Can't say I've ever heard of, "Ten Ton Hammer"

They're probably the biggest MMO site out there?

 

[Elven6]

Re: yep, resources were listed

Unfinished is a hard term. Just...smaller and then expanding. It's not uncommon.

That can be applied to any title thanks to the "release now patch later" mentality. From what I remember, Allods Online (hate to keep using this example but it's pretty relevant given the budget) was praised for its content.

My stance is it needs to be bigger but isn't in this case. And maybe they can do so because it's being developed in Bulgaria.

Don't forget Interplay itself claimed it wanted/needed 75 million for an MMO. A much more realistic but unattainable number.

A bigger budget won't guarantee a better game. This past decade was good for game development since various studio heads were able to release quality/loved games for low budgets. As I've alluded to previously this is also possible with an MMO.

From what the other posters above noted, Interplay did have investments lined up which were halted by the lawsuit.

You mean Voodoo Extreme and Massively, subsites, not the main site. GameSpy didn't cover nearly all of them, the Escapist too only seemed to post one. But believe as you will. I can see the difference between coverage of, say, WAR or tOR, and FOOL. And it makes sense, but not just because Interplay is limited in what it can do, but because no one really believes this project will see release.

How silly of me, no one visits those sites! Your claim was that no one in the industry reports on the Fallout MMO asides from Interplay's state, regardless, those examples disproved that. The sites I've mentioned haven't reported all of the info of course (that would be impossible regardless of the game, only fansites are capable of this type of reporting) but they do have a fair mix of content regarding the game.

The games industry is certainly divided as to whether or not the Fallout MMO will release as a result of the lawsuit but this industry is about hits and the Fallout brand will get them.

The leaked screens went everywhere but that was hardly PR, since they looked like dookie. As well they should, since they're "early concept" stuff.

PR is still PR and those screens gave people a good idea of what the game can shape up to be. Given when they released I'm sure most are aware that they are early screens. They were pretty faithful to the concept art in both style and design so to say they didn't serve any purpose is untrue.

A PR guy once told me the hardest thing in game PR is to get journalists to care. It's hard to do that when they don't believe in your game's chance to even be released.

Again, this isn't the case with Fallout Online since regardless of the release potential sites are still covering it.

They're probably the biggest MMO site out there?

Not that into MMO's to be honest, I've played a few over the years but never had one hook me in the same way an offline RPG might.

 

[orionquest]

Brothernone,

If you only put in as much effort into correctly understanding financial releases of Wall Street Listed companies ( Yes, OTC/PS listing of IPLY is still based in New York which is where it went public in the first place back in late 1990's)

as you put into quoting and nit picking at those who disagree with you( the ridiculous level of over quoting disease has spread from you to Elven6, etc...)

Then you might actually have yourself the reputation of a verifiable fact checking news poster.


You even accused some of us Interplay investors/traders of spreading rumors when we quoted the I2G deal without pointing directly to the past financial form detailing this deal( It does exist and I'm sure we can find it again with some research. Herve Caen was deposed and answered to the positive of its existence and even turned in proof of its existence into an evidence pile that was recognized by Bethesda in the recent filing where Bethesda failed to get the court to toss out that evidence. The Judge only fined Interplay $2000)

You on the other hand, misquoted the most recent financial release and basically committed Libel by conveniently not mentioning the over 700k in deferred revenues that are due Interplay based on the 2010 financial release that you badly misquoted.

Either you were negligent or you intentionally chose to ignore the amount of revenue listed as deferred.

It is your errant story with incorrect assessments that most of us have problems with, not the fact that Interplay has a tough road ahead and your not wanting to sugar coat it. You can post your opinion as you like but to post claiming something is a fact when it is not is negligent at best and Libel at worst.

We know Interplay has a tough road ahead.( But they still have the better lawyers). That is why their stock is in the pennies. You don't have to make it harder by libeling them. Something that other sites took from you and ran with and now hundreds if not thousands of people have been misled by your errant news post.

Either you get yourself a fact checking news person that can read a basic financial release or you ask a professional to post for you.

If you do neither, then you need to put in a disclaimer that your analysis is unreliable due to your inability to correctly interpret financial releases.

Failing to put a disclaimer with your erroneous financial analysis post is proof of your negligence and or wanton disregard for facts and can constitute Libel which can be used to prosecute you or shut your site down.

Let's see whether or not you'll respond in a civilized manner( aka, will you respond rationally or will you boil in anger and go on a quoting rampage or start banning) Right now it is doubtful.

The incorrect quoting of financial news is our sole beef with you and it was enough of a concern for us to come over here and reply.

We are not concerned that you don't think much of Interplay. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But you are not entitled to misconstrue financial statements due to negligence, willful ignorance, or malice and not be held accountable for it.

You, as a self proclaimed journalist, are in the fact checking business. Therefor while checking other people's facts, make sure to check your own or you will look like a Hypocrite, regardless of how many times you pick and choose who you quote and what you respond to.

 

[Brother None]

I'm still not seeing a link on a $15 million investment. You've claimed it's available on SEC. The burden of proof is on you. Why is it so hard to provide a link here? It would be nice since none of the Fallout-dedicated sites you praised have posted on this filing.

Also there's nothing wrong with quoting what you're replying to. It helps keep debates orderly and ensures you don't ignore major points, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with you.

Then you might actually have yourself the reputation of a verifiable fact checking news poster.

Well, everyone who believes my newsposts aren't accurate or misrepresent facts should feel free to post here to back you up. I don't recall receiving complaints except from you and troybilt.

You on the other hand, misquoted the most recent financial release and basically committed Libel by conveniently not mentioning the over 700k in deferred revenues that are due Interplay based on the 2010 financial release that you badly misquoted.

Either you were negligent or you intentionally chose to ignore the amount of revenue listed as deferred.

Why would I mention deferred revenue? It will come up in the next filing. In fact, I've never mentioned deferred revenue, because it's, well, deferred. I've posted 10-K's for years. You've been posting comments on my posts for years. Why does this suddenly come up now?

Do any of the other sites post deferred revenue? Duck and Cover didn't. Is that libel? There's a lot of stuff from the financial report I don't mention in my post, because the post contains a link for people to read the whole thing. I just provide the most relevant numbers.

Is that it? I did not misquote anything. I did not alter or make up any numbers, simply providing them as Interplay does. It's a stretch to say that not mentioning various deferred income is bad journalism, but libel?

Also, none of the discussion so far was actually about the content of my newspost. Helstrom brought it up, but you never did. So how is it the "sole beef" if it wasn't even up so far?

Something that other sites took from you and ran with and now hundreds if not thousands of people have been misled by your errant news post.

Actually, we already established Develop started the run of "Interplay is in trouble" stories all over the internet. Its story is older, independent of ours, and cited as the source by various other major sites posting on it. It also goes a lot more indepth while still ignoring deferred incomes.

You honestly believed I was to blame for this run of bad coverage? Turn your ire elsewhere, because this accusation's already been disproved.

 

[troybilt]

Interplay's financing info

I wasn't able to figure out how to copy a PDF file to this site of Interplay's counter claims against Bethesda as well as Interplay's financing info. However, a copy was sent to Ausir at the Vault. I'm hoping Ausir can post the info at the Vault or send via email to this website. There is lots of detail there regarding how Bethesda interfered with Interplay's ability to realize any of the assigned rights in their agreement, and there is significant info in there regarding financing for Interplay that shows Interplay had at least 35 million already in place with additional deals, particularly the BVT deal that would have added more millions. Also, Interplay said that they would seek additional monies for distribution, marketing, etc. prior to launch.

 

[Brother None]

Yeah, Ausir's got it. Though as he told it to me, the filing mentions "up to" 15 million, and seems to have about as much faith in Masthead's side of it as I do. Still, should definitely be enough from a legal perspective.

Will see when the Vault puts up its tidbits.

You can't really attach PDF files to news submits. You can email them in tho'.

 

[Lexx]

Some dude at the interplay forum posted some stuff about the financial situations, etc. Might clear up some things or not, I don't know, I am not much into all that.

(Also I don't know if this was posted here already, as the big wall of text above is too much a wall of text for me to read it all through. :>)

 

[Brother None]

Nope, that's the same blatantly false claim that my story somehow started a wildfire of misreporting, as different sites steadfastly refuse to cite deferred income (which is, y'know, only standard practice). Nothing new in that thread from a glance. Like I said, I'll wait until we get stuff directly from the documents, or reported on by someone reliable (like Ausir, if he can be bothered to).