Fallout 76

[Margot Robbed Me]

If I had to guess why, off the top of my head. Bethesda is being intentionally vague about everything, though that's business as usual for them. Private worlds are clearly a huge feature that many players want (just sift through reddit, the stream chats, forums, news articles, etc). Bethesda is sliding like a snake around that topic and essentially saying, "Yeah that might be in the game. Anyway, here's the pre-order so you can try FO76 before we implement private worlds so if we change our minds and don't wanna add it, we got your money already".  The beta being locked behind the pre-order was genius as well.

I'm not too bummed about it if it sucks. I wasn't expecting a big Fallout entry so soon after FO4, so if FO76 sucks, then I'll just pretend it never happened and continue waiting for FO5.

[Craigsters]

2 hours ago, OurJud said:

I’m praying this venture is a monumental disaster for Bethesda. And when they come crawling back to their SP offline fan base, I’ll take great delight in telling them to take a long walk down a short pier!

They'll have to lose money, to learn there lesson, hopefully Tod comes to his senses and sees the ways of his errors, he's underestimating the single player market and has been following bad advise!..

[luisniko]

Not gonna happen. Online and especially a shooter that holds PvP element will draw its own specific community, even when that means completely dropping the previous userbase they garnered as far as Fallout 4, which obviously it won't. Some people within the Fallout userbase evidently are interested in the online element.

 

The only screw-up that surely will bring doom to them is a trainwreck server. Otherwise, no, I don't see they gonna fail. Not especially after Todd very acknowledging the grieving potential in this game that he is looking to prevent. The second worse thing is that they fall into Dark Zone incident where griever takes over the game and kick the PvE userbase out despite of his prevention which something like this can be repaired through updates.

[Doctor Holliday]

40 minutes ago, Noale said:

The beta being locked behind the pre-order was genius as well.

Yes!

This fact tells you everything you need to know. They clearly lack the confidence to roll out ANYTHING without insurance for their bottom line... It's not a good sign of things to come.

[chronic lumbago]

People complained about microtransactions in singleplayer (Creation Club) so there we go. They just make an always online game to fix the problem.

[AmigaMix]

Maybe this game will be bad enough to be entertaining, instead of being a mediocre action adventure larping as a Fallout - game / RPG. 

[OysterBarron]

It seems pretty good finally watched the full presentation I like the premise of it I expect it to be a refreshing new experience within the fallout universe.

[luisniko]

It will definitely give a refreshing experience both positively and negatively. I will probably jump in the ride once private lobby is in considering Todd says everything is Solo-able.

[OurJud]

8 hours ago, Craigsters said:

They'll have to lose money, to learn there lesson, hopefully Tod comes to his senses and sees the ways of his errors, he's underestimating the single player market and has been following bad advise!..

I didn't watch the whole conference (my patience was at snapping point when they all started whooping like a troop of baboons at the 'Online only' announcment) so forgive me if I'm talking out of line here, but what has annoyed me more than anything, is the complete and utter disregard of the SP offline players. He doesn't apologise, he doesn't explain their reasoning (not that their reasoning isn't obvious, but the gesture would have been nice), he doesn't do anything to try and appease us. Blatant and complete disregard - almost as though we never existed.

Edited June 13, 2018 by OurJud

[Mokrie Dela]

I swear it's the way they talk. If he said in a normal voice 'It's online only' people would go 'Ok...'

 

But he could literally have said in that same tone, phrasing and such:

 

' And another thing. I have wiped my ass..... on every. Single. Copy.' With a smug "oh Yeah" smile and nod, they'd still go mental. 

 

(I'm semi joking)

[DarksunDaFirst]

20 hours ago, OurJud said:

I’m praying this venture is a monumental disaster for Bethesda. And when they come crawling back to their SP offline fan base, I’ll take great delight in telling them to take a long walk down a short pier!

Wow, talk about spite.  BGS actually wanted to do something new for once and you want them to fail just so you can tell them off when they release their next SP game?  All because they're trying to do for the first time a multiplayer game?

I know who can walk off that short pier...and it aint Bethesda.

Like holy f*** people, Fallout 4 was their biggest selling game to date (ok, Fallout Shelter has more players...but how many of them actually PAY into that game?) and you actually think they're going to turn their back on their SP-only fans?  And sh*t, I'll give Todd Howard & BGS grief when he deserves it, but that dude has been working these SP games for almost as long as Bethesda has been making them (iirc, he joined Bethesda after Arena was released but his first assignment was on testing the CD-ROM version).  I'm betting this guy has been working at Bethesda longer than most of you have been alive, or at the very least, playing video games.  They wanted to try something else....BFD.

These guys know where their bread is buttered and they're not abandoning you.  Did you not see Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI as their next games to be released?

What's really funny is that years ago when Interplay was making a move to make Fallout Online - it was a welcome thing.  After Bethesda won the law suit and took all the assets to them...then years later when they have time to actually work such a product, they're getting flak for it?  Makes no sense.  They don't need to apologize or anything to the SP-only folks:  they're making another product and if it aint for you, don't f*cking buy it.  Acting like they owe you for something that isn't here yet that you haven't paid a nickle into yet...SMH

Edited June 13, 2018 by DarksunDaFirst

[DarksunDaFirst]

15 hours ago, 1972 said:

People complained about microtransactions in singleplayer (Creation Club) so there we go. They just make an always online game to fix the problem.

To be fair, I think the Creation Club was a product of Sony being dipsh*ts and forcing Bethesda to do extra work to get this extra content to players...and they have to make the money back on that work and Sony sure as sh*t aint gonna pay for it.

CC was aimed at PS4 players - plain and simple.  

[rtie]

I've bought skyrim todd leave me alone

[Nutduster]

28 minutes ago, DarksunDaFirst said:

Wow, talk about spite.  BGS actually wanted to do something new for once and you want them to fail just so you can tell them off when they release their next SP game?  All because they're trying to do for the first time a multiplayer game?
 

Ehh. There are some irrational people out there (on both sides of the debate) but fundamentally I think the concerns about 76 are legit.  This isn't about them dipping a toe in multiplayer or "trying something new," it's the specific way they're doing it that is alarming.  So far they've showed off next to nothing about the game that resembles all the previous Fallouts except for how it looks.  The little bits of gameplay we've seen or had described to us look like slipshod copies of other recent runaway multiplayer successes.  That's not usually a good starting point for a game, when it's just chasing someone else's tail and jettisoning the elements that made people like it in the first place. 

 

Of course, Fallout 76 could be a lot more Fallout-like than that, but a big part of the backlash so far has been that even if that ends up being the case, Bethesda is doing a poor job advertising that fact.  They barely (or not at all) mentioned quests, NPCs, or mods in the initial announcement, and what little they've said so far about any of that has sounded like "This is not really a Fallout game as you know them, but a PvP multiplayer, realtime shooter game set in a Fallout map, running on a Fallout engine."  That's concerning, and I do hope it ends up being untrue; but I don't blame anyone for being a little alarmed.  By all appearances, this is a game made for an entirely different audience than the entire rest of the series.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[DarksunDaFirst]

17 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

Ehh. There are some irrational people out there (on both sides of the debate) but fundamentally I think the concerns about 76 are legit.  This isn't about them dipping a toe in multiplayer or "trying something new," it's the specific way they're doing it that is alarming.  So far they've showed off next to nothing about the game that resembles all the previous Fallouts except for how it looks.  The little bits of gameplay we've seen or had described to us look like slipshod copies of other recent runaway multiplayer successes.  That's not usually a good starting point for a game, when it's just chasing someone else's tail and jettisoning the elements that made people like it in the first place. 

 

It's been 2 days (or 3?) since their E3 presentation...you want them to show you (and potential competitors) all their cards just yet?  And Howard has gone into more detail outside the presentation, but it's obvious they don't want to show all the details just yet because they're not set in stone just yet.  However, some deductive reasoning puts together some interesting tidbits.

Over time on their website, more and more Vault-Tec videos I'm sure will be released for your education.  There is only so much they can put into the presentation.  Bethesda had something like a 1 1/2 hour presentation and the largest bulk of that was taken up by BGS.  

I get it.  People want details.  And they don't want them now, they want them yesterday.  Well, that's not how gaming works.  Never has and never will.  These details will come out over time, and I'm fairly certain there will be lots of open discussion on the forums from the beta players and hopefully we can all access them.  If not, there is always Reddit.  

Question: how many details did we know about Red Dead Redemption 2 after it's official reveal?

....f*ck, how much do we know now?

Edited June 13, 2018 by DarksunDaFirst

[Nutduster]

I mean... you can quibble all you like, but the fact is that this game looks very little like previous Fallouts, and you know that.  If there's a hidden Fallout-iness about it, it's not exactly stellar marketing to keep their cards so close to the vest. It was fine for the initial teaser trailer, but once they started explaining exactly what it was, they had to have known that the existing fanbase would be, mostly, outraged.  So what I take from that is either A) this initial half-explanation is basically right, and this is a multiplayer, PvP-dominant shooter game with a Fallout setting that otherwise isn't much like Fallout as we know it, and any Fallout-ishness will be patched in later; or B) they just are terrible at marketing their own games and terrible at predicting how people will react to announcements.  Either way... not a good look, is it? 

 

I'm not here just to complain though, I'd LOVE for this to be good.  I play lots of multiplayer games and I have a good friend who put as many hours into Fallout 4 as I did, who I would like to build settlements and stuff with.  But I also want something more or less like a multiplayer Fallout game, and not just like a vaguely Fallout-flavored copy of other popular online games.  I already choose not to play most of those (except GTA Online, which I have very mixed feelings about), why would I want that from Fallout?

 

As far as RDR2 and its announcement go, we didn't know much, true.  But they also didn't come and tell us it was an online-only game with no NPCs.  If they had, people would be losing their f*cking minds just like Fallout fans are.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[Margot Robbed Me]

13 minutes ago, DarksunDaFirst said:

It's been 2 days (or 3?) since their E3 presentation...you want them to show you (and potential competitors) all their cards just yet?  And Howard has gone into more detail outside the presentation, but it's obvious they don't want to show all the details just yet because they're not set in stone just yet.  However, some deductive reasoning puts together some interesting tidbits.

 

Well to be fair, they're making pre-orders available now, and locking the beta behind that pre-order. There are Early Access/Kickstarter games that are more descriptive than Fallout 76, and Fallout 76 is less than 6 months from release. If people are going to pre-order the game, of course they want more information.

[Static]

IIT: How to be self-entitled 101

 

No one is being forced to pre-order though and there's still 5 months for more info to come out.

 

Also once the beta goes live, youtube/twitch will be filled to the brim with people playing it, so anyone can watch a stream/vid and decided then. Ya know, like always?

 

1 hour ago, Nutduster said:

As far as RDR2 and its announcement go, we didn't know much, true.  But they also didn't come and tell us it was an online-only game with no NPCs.  If they had, people would be losing their f*cking minds just like Fallout fans are.

Yeah, they'll just wait 3 months after RDR2 release when Online is launched and flip sh*t then when they realize it's just GTAO with horses.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Static

[Nutduster]

28 minutes ago, Static said:

IIT: How to be self-entitled 101

 

No one is being forced to pre-order though and there's still 5 months for more info to come out.

 

Keep churning out those excuses.  The game might turn out to be fine but honestly the whole idea of opening up preorders for a game when they've barely explained what it is, and it's based on a popular series that it may share little in common with gameplay-wise, is completely f*cked up.  Yeah yeah no one is being forced, but it borders on false advertising - like if Marvel started pre-selling tickets to Avengers 4 and then it turned out to be a porno movie.

 

Even if it's not intentional, Howard flat-out said "This game is a service and we are still designing that service."  Then how in the ever-loving f*ck are they SELLING it?  It's not even done!  Blows the mind.  It's basically being sold right now based on Bethesda's reputation, series precedent (which is almost meaningless in this case), and little else.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[CrysisAverted]

country roads...

[D9fred95]

As beautiful as the world is, it's more lively 20 years after the war than the CW was 200 years later. Clearly all the nukes everyone's going to be launching did their work.

[Static]

3 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

Keep churning out those excuses.  The game might turn out to be fine but honestly the whole idea of opening up preorders for a game when they've barely explained what it is, and it's based on a popular series that it may share little in common with gameplay-wise, is completely f*cked up.  Yeah yeah no one is being forced, but it borders on false advertising - like if Marvel started pre-selling tickets to Avengers 4 and then it turned out to be a porno movie.

And you just described why pre-ordering is always a bad idea.

 

5 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

Even if it's not intentional, Howard flat-out said "This game is a service and we are still designing that service."  Then how in the ever-loving f*ck are they SELLING it?  It's not even done!  Blows the mind. 

 

You're acting like Early Access or "games-as-services" isn't a thing already. Just look at Star Citizen if you need an example of selling an unfinished game-as-a-service. 

 

8 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

 It's basically being sold right now based on Bethesda's reputation, series precedent (which is almost meaningless in this case), and little else.

Insert any other AAA Dev/Pub and that's every game that's in a series, especially ones as long as Fallout.

[trip]

I'm gonna pull an old man card here.  Related yet unrelated.

 

From  1973...2 years after the original John Denver version.

 

Sorry, I'm a big Toots fan(seem him maybe 5 times). 

[OurJud]

33 minutes ago, trip said:

I'm gonna pull an old man card here.  Related yet unrelated.

 

From  1973...2 years after the original John Denver version.

 

Sorry, I'm a big Toots fan(seem him maybe 5 times). 

Brilliant version.

Edited June 13, 2018 by OurJud

[Margot Robbed Me]

1 hour ago, Static said:

IIT: How to be self-entitled 101

This is being thrown around way too much these days to the point where it has somehow become synonymous with giving criticism. Huh, TIL.

 

Hope you aren't aiming that first sentence at me either. Half my posts here are just memes/jokes because frankly I couldn't care less if I get Fallout 76 or not. I am against the current online concept of it, but I also fail to see how that would make me sound entitled.

 

The fallout (pun intended) of this announcement is just fun to be watch in my opinion.

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Static said:

And you just described why pre-ordering is always a bad idea.

 

Not true.  I actually never preorder games myself but at least for people who do, they usually have certain expectations of what the game will be like, based on the promotion and/or previous games in the series.  Neither applies here because the promotion is super-vague and what little they are telling us makes it sound like it's not really a Fallout game.  So what are people ordering?  Mainly a title and an aesthetic, and a nebulous promise of some kind of multiplayer experience - that's it.  It's only up for preorder now because Bethesda is clearly rushing this thing to market.  Mark my words, it's going to be unfinished as hell at launch - along the lines of GTA Online in 2013, but without a polished single player mode attached.

 

1 hour ago, Static said:

You're acting like Early Access or "games-as-services" isn't a thing already. Just look at Star Citizen if you need an example of selling an unfinished game-as-a-service. 

At least in those cases, they are up front about the game being a work in process, and they don't usually sell them for full AAA retail price.  Fallout 76 is preordering for $60. 

 

1 hour ago, Static said:

Insert any other AAA Dev/Pub and that's every game that's in a series, especially ones as long as Fallout.

Again, no, because when the newest Assassin's Creed or GTA or Halo or Madden game comes out, you DO know basically what it's going to be, at least the core gameplay of it.  There is still massive confusion about what Fallout 76 will be (even at Bethesda, seemingly), and what we do know points to a very different experience than the previous games. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Nutduster

[luisniko]

5 hours ago, Static said:

No one is being forced to pre-order though and there's still 5 months for more info to come out.

Also once the beta goes live, youtube/twitch will be filled to the brim with people playing it, so anyone can watch a stream/vid and decided then. Ya know, like always?

 Yep.

------

 

Anyway, there was Pete Hines interview for the game. Grieving and PvP was brought up again.

 

Pete Hines said that they have their own system to prevent grieving. For example, people come to you just to engage you and kill you. Once they killed you, it's done. You just died, no progress lost, no loot stolen, and no repeat killing/keep coming after you (grieving). 

 

Don't know how specifically they do this. But maybe the potential griever will be sent to another server or something.

 

 

[Margot Robbed Me]

The more I learn, the more interesting it becomes. Who woulda thought.

 

Still on the fence about pre-ordering. Though if my friend gets her copy, I'll probably do it as well.

[Jonesizzle]

16 hours ago, OurJud said:

I didn't watch the whole conference (my patience was at snapping point when they all started whooping like a troop of baboons at the 'Online only' announcment) so forgive me if I'm talking out of line here, but what has annoyed me more than anything, is the complete and utter disregard of the SP offline players. He doesn't apologise, he doesn't explain their reasoning (not that their reasoning isn't obvious, but the gesture would have been nice), he doesn't do anything to try and appease us. Blatant and complete disregard - almost as though we never existed.

apologize for what? for bringing a new expierence to the fallout universe? seriously? after this he announced Starfield and ES6 (SP games). I think you'd be very ignorant to think that Todd and Company are going to toss SP to the side and ride the online only train. 

 

Fallout is his baby, and I know for a f*cking fact he isn't going to let it go down the online toilet.  I think this is an experiment and nothing more. worse case scenario it fails and SP whores will be happy and get another FO in 3-5 years. 

 

for the record I'm a SP whore, but I'm genuinely interested in this and hope it turns out to be somewhat enjoyable. 

 

I dont think Todd should've said that you could play this game alone. I've played ESO, and while it is playable solo, it's more fun with other folks. These games are built for online only for a reason, and it isn't to play solo. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Jonesizzle

[luisniko]

Yea. Why would he apologize lol?

 

"Hi, I'm Todd Howard. I produce multiple lines of coffee cups and now I'm expanding my brand into plates. I apologize for my coffee cups fans for not bringing you a new coffee cup this year. *sobs"