Bethesda Sues Warner Bros for Copying Fallout Shelter With New Westworld iOS Game

[Lennyvalentin]

That said, this is a poor business decision. It's hard to argue that Westworld hurts their business.

Well, copyright infringement is copyright infringement (alleged, anyway.) And Bethesda is extremely aggressively ligitious; as mentioned they sued Mojang over the word "scrolls", and petty also, they have been blackballing Kotaku for years now for having written about (I think) Fallout 3 before its formal announcement. If occupations were to be represented by animals, Bethsoft's company lawyers would be wasps and its executives corpse worms...

And if I owned a software development company and Bethesda came knocking, I'd have a long, very hard decision to work with them.

Good idea! There's not much to like about Bethesda. Well, other than their games - when they work the way they're supposed to anyway. They make millions off of them, then abandon them with game-breaking bugs still in there. Even re-release "HD re-makes" with said bugs in there... Gah. Drives me crazy it does.

 

[jlc1978]

Many good points by LawJolla snipped for brevity.

I have a trademark question - could you trademark game play and look and feel that changes? Tiffany's Blue Box is distinct, non-changing aspect of their product. Coca Cola has the unique bottle. In each case, the trademark does not change on a regular basis, it is still recognizable no matter the size of the box or if it is merely an outline on a bottle.
A game, however, looks different as play progresses, and many not be distinctive; which is why I ask if it could be trademarked. Characters, perhaps, such as Mario and Luigi, but a side scrolling platform game?
[doublepost=1529794862][/doublepost]

If occupations were to be represented by animals, Bethsoft's company lawyers would be wasps and its executives corpse worms...

(Snip)
Even re-release "HD re-makes" with said bugs in there... Gah. Drives me crazy it does.

What do you expect from wasps and worms?

 

[alphaod]

I've played many games with this type of "underground" structure.

 

[Eric5h5]

That may sound very incriminating, until you find out that the "copyrighted code" they're talking about isn't even Bethesda's own, it's an off-the-shelf game engine called Unity used by probably 3/4 of all the games by small developer titles on the App Store. The fact that they chose to word the fact that they use the same engine like that and then play up the fact that they ended up running into the same bug as they did makes the whole lawsuit pretty suspicious.

Well, no. The game engine isn't the entire code, it's only the engine. The game code is still unique for every game (code re-use aside), and for any substantial game will be many thousands of lines. Is the bug a game bug, or an engine bug? I doubt even Bethesda would claim to own Unity. "As evidence for this, Bethesda claims Westworld has a unique bug that was also found in early builds of Fallout Shelter." They describe it:

This software ‘bug’ appears when a player starts up the demonstration version of the Westworld game. Specifically, the view is out-of-focus and the scene that appears is far to the right and below the targeted landscape image. It is as if a camera capturing the scene had been inadvertently pointed to the lower right foreground and then slowly refocuses on the central image. The identical problem appeared in initial versions of FALLOUT SHELTER but was addressed before FALLOUT SHELTER was released to the public. While this error was ultimately fixed in subsequent builds of FALLOUT SHELTER, the appearance of the bug in the Westworld game demo makes clear that the FALLOUT SHELTER source code was used by Behaviour in developing the Westworld game.

So yeah, that's a user code bug, not a Unity engine bug. That does sound like code re-use by the developer, and while tempting to do, is highly unlikely to be allowed by contract. For a Mac-specific example, take Civilization 3, which was originally ported by Macsoft, and later ported by Aspyr. Both ports were by the same guy (Brad Oliver), but he had to do the re-port from scratch.

--Eric

 

[alien3dx]

Well, no. The game engine isn't the entire code, it's only the engine. The game code is still unique for every game (code re-use aside), and for any substantial game will be many thousands of lines. Is the bug a game bug, or an engine bug? I doubt even Bethesda would claim to own Unity. "As evidence for this, Bethesda claims Westworld has a unique bug that was also found in early builds of Fallout Shelter." They describe it:



So yeah, that's a user code bug, not a Unity engine bug. That does sound like code re-use by the developer, and while tempting to do, is highly unlikely to be allowed by contract. For a Mac-specific example, take Civilization 3, which was originally ported by Macsoft, and later ported by Aspyr. Both ports were by the same guy (Brad Oliver), but he had to do the re-port from scratch.

--Eric

that's the most mistaken, but actually a bad idea. The most reason of nowadays company, if Bethesda commit a a bug report and patches about it can be seen via x git repo or x svn repo or any actuall repo, they can easily fill a lawsuit . If just a hearsay after see WESTWORLD have same future,it is a bad .

The most problem would be , coup de tat from behaviour developer staff exposing the whole company repo to Bethesda.

For me, it never ever about code at all.

 

[gnasher729]

What about stealing XCOMs idea?

Ideas are not protected.

 

[Tech198]

Very interesting. I would think HBO will argue that their game is a type of "genre", and thus can't infringe on copyright - similar to many driving, racing, or fighting games. However it does look almost identical, and Bethesda is one of the few mobile developers with a bank account.

lol

 

[Gravydog316]

Innocent until proven guilty, & it's up to the judge,
but it's pretty obvious. (which means nothing in American courts)

 

[mabhatter]

It's not just that it looks similar, it apparently has some of the bugs that Fallout Shelter had in the beginning. They're claiming the company that they paid to make Shelter took the code and basically sold it again.

So then Bethesda didn’t really “make” Fallout Shelter? Hmm. Sounds like they gave Fallout Assets to someone else to make a game. So the copyright question is how much of the “people in a cave simulator” was created by the company before they got a “Fallout” license to slap on it?

The mobile industry is full of 3/4 done games that need a sponsor to get across the finish line. From the short timeframe Fallout Shelter came out in, it was probably one of those games off a shelf at some developer.. so they sold a COPY of that ORIGINAL game to Bethesda.. but that doesn’t mean Bethesda ever owned that original unfinished game. That’s fun for the courts to decide... like a video game, but for lawyers with actual money for scoring!
[doublepost=1529839527][/doublepost]

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

But, likewise, never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by apathy.

I have worked on projects with contracts like this. All that would have to happen is that Bethesda was internally convinced the Fallout name was a necessary part of success. "You want the code for some unrelated game? Have at it, just don't release anything more recent than two years old." Then the new game manages to get the Westworld name and Bethesda suddenly realizes that's even bigger.

It doesn't require bad lawyers or bad negotiators. It just requires a difference in perceived value of code vs. trademarks, and the other party being proved right later.

KEEP IN MIND I'm not saying this is what happened. I haven't seen the contract. But we shouldn't throw around terms like "theft" until it's at least been read by someone who can comment on it.

That’s like how Bill Gates bought DOS firvdirt cheap and sold it to IBM... but IBM let him keep a clause to also sell DOS to “other companies”... and those other companies just happened to be making copies of IBM’s computers... oops! Lawyers try not to let that happen, but courts frown on “exclusive” agreements unless the Buyer actually OWNS the product. Bethesda is a PUBLISHER and likes to make the developers absorb as much risk as possible.. so it’s possible a clever lawyer made sure the Developer kept a license to the original engine they rented to Bethesda.

Oh - the MR article didn't mention that at all, but digging into the Polygon article I do see that now.

It's interesting. The same developer "co-developed" both games, Fallout Shelter with Bethesda and Westworld iOS with Warner Bros. Normally when I see that it's "co-developed" I assume it means one company provided some art assets and licensing, while the other actually developed it. So normally with that arrangement, it'd be 100% OK for this to occur.

In this case though, Bethesda is claiming that they also provided some code. It leaves me wondering how much code was actually provided by them... if it was a substantial amount, why involve a co-developer at all?
[doublepost=1529714886][/doublepost]

It says the bug was fixed shortly after release in Fallout Shelter. So the allegedly stolen code would have been an earlier copy from when that bug was present.

the bug could also prove that the company DIDN’T copy Bethesda’s work. I’d guess there was a prototype “people on a cave simulator” that was 3/4 finished before being “sold” or “licensed” to Bethesda. So this could prove that the original engine had this bug and the company used NONE of Bethesda’s resources to fix said bug, the new licensee would need to pay for that.

 

[dampfnudel]

Westworld looks different enough to me, but just in case it gets pulled, let me look it up.

Update - It looks like I could get bored with it just like I did with Fallout Shelter. I’m getting tired of repetitive iOS games that try to pressure users into $peeding up their gameplay which often becomes a intentional grind or spending money to “enhance” it.

 

[Eric5h5]

that's the most mistaken, but actually a bad idea. The most reason of nowadays company, if Bethesda commit a a bug report and patches about it can be seen via x git repo or x svn repo or any actuall repo, they can easily fill a lawsuit . If just a hearsay after see WESTWORLD have same future,it is a bad .

The most problem would be , coup de tat from behaviour developer staff exposing the whole company repo to Bethesda.

For me, it never ever about code at all.

That was basically gibberish, sorry. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

--Eric

 

[LordVic]

So then Bethesda didn’t really “make” Fallout Shelter? Hmm. Sounds like they gave Fallout Assets to someone else to make a game. So the copyright question is how much of the “people in a cave simulator” was created by the company before they got a “Fallout” license to slap on it?

The mobile industry is full of 3/4 done games that need a sponsor to get across the finish line. From the short timeframe Fallout Shelter came out in, it was probably one of those games off a shelf at some developer.. so they sold a COPY of that ORIGINAL game to Bethesda.. but that doesn’t mean Bethesda ever owned that original unfinished game. That’s fun for the courts to decide... like a video game, but for lawyers with actual money for scoring!

in a lot of software development cases, if a company is contracted to make software for another, the purchaser of the development will also claim exclusive right to any code created for that content.

in this case, both Bethesda and Warner Brother's outsourced to the same development team.

The development team for Westworld than re-used code they used in Fallout shelter. If it is proven that there was indeed limitations within the contract with Bethesda about the assets created for Fall out shelter, than the developer was not legally entitled to reuse those assets and code for a 3rd party.

if we were just looking at the "Look and feel" of the game, there's likely no lawsuit. But the fact that some identical bugs appeared between the two different games in identical places (that were not generic engine bugs), than it's likely that the developer used simliar, if not the identical code in places between the two games. This would result in a case of plagiarism / copyright or whatever bloody legislation covers wholesale copying of application code

 

[fairuz]

All I can see them winning is damages for the stolen code, or more likely some dev reusing old code. Unless they can find that WB targeted and/or made a shady deal with the dev to make a knockoff quickly. One of the dangers of outsourcing.

 

[DeepIn2U]

“Bethesda Sues Warner “

Psst “Sues” should be lowercase since it’s not a pronoun in its current place.

 

[Brandhouse]

It's impossible not to see the similarities between Fallout Shelter and Westworld...​

It's a game genre, as another has posted, does that mens driving game (a) should take driving game (b) to court, or any zombie games, flying games kart racing game, pretty much any game style?​

 

[alien3dx]

That was basically gibberish, sorry. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

--Eric

It just mean too technical to argue here. And most here talk outside the realm of the issue anyway
[doublepost=1529883678][/doublepost]

All I can see them winning is damages for the stolen code, or more likely some dev reusing old code. Unless they can find that WB targeted and/or made a shady deal with the dev to make a knockoff quickly. One of the dangers of outsourcing.

It never about code , it just quick buck . WB targeted because big company .
[doublepost=1529883852][/doublepost]

It's a game genre, as another has posted, does that mens driving game (a) should take driving game (b) to court, or any zombie games, flying games kart racing game, pretty much any game style?​

The real argument only click to zoom patern . Not sure other company have pro claim pattern for it .

 

[Eric5h5]

It's not too technical. Did they copy the code without permission? It's a simple, yes or no answer.

Psst “Sues” should be lowercase since it’s not a pronoun in its current place.

What? That's not how title case capitalization works, at all. "Sues" should not be lowercase. Here's a link: https://capitalizemytitle.com

--Eric

 

[alien3dx]

It's not too technical. Did they copy the code without permission? It's a simple, yes or no answer.



What? That's not how title case capitalization works, at all. "Sues" should not be lowercase. Here's a link: https://capitalizemytitle.com

--Eric

There is no or yes answer as been mention.It's all depend on contract agrement .

 

[LawJolla]

Many good points by LawJolla snipped for brevity.

I have a trademark question - could you trademark game play and look and feel that changes? Tiffany's Blue Box is distinct, non-changing aspect of their product. Coca Cola has the unique bottle. In each case, the trademark does not change on a regular basis, it is still recognizable no matter the size of the box or if it is merely an outline on a bottle.
A game, however, looks different as play progresses, and many not be distinctive; which is why I ask if it could be trademarked. Characters, perhaps, such as Mario and Luigi, but a side scrolling platform game?
[doublepost=1529794862][/doublepost]

What do you expect from wasps and worms?

These are great questions and on point. Trademark cases are factually intensive and hard to predict for the reasons you've cited. But their complaint reads like a trademark infringement, not a copyright infringement lawsuit -- specifically that people are confused as to the source of the content.

The changing part isn't part of it. The mark needs to acquire secondary meaning, like Tiffany's blue box. However, if Tiffany uses a green box and the blue box, that won't extinguish secondary meaning in the blue box so long as the market understands that such a blue jewelry box is Tiffany.

To answer your question, I'm not aware of any case on this question, pro or con. It becomes a market analysis question. You need to convince a jury that the market understands this look and feel is from Bethesda/Fallout.

 

[Eric5h5]

There is no or yes answer as been mention.It's all depend on contract agrement .

...Which means there is, obviously, a yes or no answer. Is the code copied? If so, does the contract allow it? That's it.

There is trademark/look&feel stuff thrown in there too, which muddies things up. But the copyright part should be clear-cut.

--Eric

 

[alien3dx]

...Which means there is, obviously, a yes or no answer. Is the code copied? If so, does the contract allow it? That's it.

There is trademark/look&feel stuff thrown in there too, which muddies things up. But the copyright part should be clear-cut.

--Eric

Contract will rarely mention about code copyright. Unless Batesda have hack "Behaviour" company and expose both source code repository. Code usually will be given to client as technologies transfer as copyright material but still the lawyer seem to get access of "Behaviour" system and will be charge of stealing copyright in same time.

As pursue is "PATTERN" not trademark or look and feel . If Batesda pursue look and feel, they will loose on the spot. It's a freakin old movies 1973 become a tv series.

 

[MVMNT]

Are they both not just like "Little Computer People" anyway?

 

[SarcasticJoe]

I doubt even Bethesda would claim to own Unity.

Considering they're previously claimed to wholly own the use of the word "Scroll" in the context of a game title it's not like the first time they try to stake claim to something that isn't theirs...

So yeah, that's a user code bug, not a Unity engine bug.

Being a software developer by trade (doing point cloud visualization software for CAD use ATM) and having actually developed a few small gamejam-games on Unity when I was still a student, that's clearly a camera bug and Unity obviously has a built-in camera system. Hell, I've even personally had to get it to follow characters in environments with things for it to get stuck on so I know it can be pretty clunky at times out of personal experience.

 

[sdf]

O c'mon, that story line is obviously ripped off from a script for Silicon Valley. Expect to be served -- infringer.

I'm just a little scared to share the company names. Give it another five years, then I'll be okay with it. Probably.

I've give a hint, though: both companies likely involved remnants of Robert Maxwell's empire.

 

[Eric5h5]

Being a software developer by trade (doing point cloud visualization software for CAD use ATM) and having actually developed a few small gamejam-games on Unity when I was still a student, that's clearly a camera bug and Unity obviously has a built-in camera system. Hell, I've even personally had to get it to follow characters in environments with things for it to get stuck on so I know it can be pretty clunky at times out of personal experience.

No, it's definitely not a Unity bug, and Unity does not have any "built-in camera system," not like you apparently mean anyway. I know Unity very well and use it regularly. There are no camera bugs that could result in anything even remotely like "It is as if a camera capturing the scene had been inadvertently pointed to the lower right foreground and then slowly refocuses on the central image." A camera in Unity can't move on its own, and it can't "slowly refocus" on its own. That's 100% user code.

--Eric