Depends. They could easily go the route of survival games like Ark and Conan.
They won’t, because they want to preserve their revenue stream.
They do have their atomic shop as a potential revenue stream. I’m not saying there’s no way they won’t do what you predict, but it’s not a sure thing. They can also release additional content, expansions, etc.
Even then it wouldn’t be ok. Fallout is supposed to be a premier RPG franchise, god dammit. Fallout 1 was the first RPG I ever played! And it set a golden standard in player agency scarcely matched, let alone exceeded.
They already have great shooters. Rage! Wolfenstein! Why turn Fallout into another one…
This game is 42% off at Amazon if you’re still sitting on a fence.
Every time companies do something that is anti consumer and/or burns their current fan base, fans hope for the game to fail so the company realizes that what they were doing is wrong (read; capitalism). Sadly it rarely happens, but I am glad it did in this case. $35 literally right after release is hilarious and well deserved. I hope Bethesda thinks long and hard on this before releasing their next game.
It’s fine to make other products in the same universe. Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel weren’t real mainline Fallout games, and they were fine too.
I think you went the equivalent of “full-retard” on those of us that aren’t interested in a Fallout “online exploration game” going so far as constructing a ludicrous “No Mutants Allow” level strawman circa 2007 for some reason…?
Tactics sold poorly - for a good reason, people who liked Fallout liked it for other aspects too than just its combat - and BoS was the franchise’s biggest disaster…until 76.
RPG is the royal genre, because it encompasses many other genres and offers broadest scope of player agency and interaction. I am all for Fallout having awesome, Destiny-like (I trust you that it is good, didn’t play it myself) shooting - as long as it also has great dialogues, nonlinear quests, stealth, melee…all kinds of character builds. You know, the things that make Fallout, Fallout.
If you put servers in the hands of players, you no longer have any revenue stream. They’ll just hack them and give everything to everyone.
They will not have private, player-run servers. It would destroy their model. Like someone said above, they might rent Bethesda-owned servers to players to slightly modify rulesets or just to give them a private world to play in with their friends. And even then, I would assume any characters created on a private server would then be locked to that server.
But any data in the hands of the player will be hacked.
I didn’t say they would necessarily be successful in the market, just that it’s fine to explore other types of Fallout games.
Huh? I wasn’t criticizing anyone, really, just expressing my personal bafflement at the way some folks are approaching things, the same way I cannot understand why people like poached or fried eggs. It’s fine that they love them, but I find them icky. Same here, really. And I fail to see any strawman. The arguments against Fallout '76 don’t need any embellishments, as the game is objectively a hot mess. But there is a strain of criticism that does seem rooted more in generalized opposition to the direction the franchise has taken than in anything specific (other than the aforementioned horrible technical and design issues) in this particular game.
So, you can take it however you want I suppose. I have found all of the Fallout games from FO 3 on to be mostly exploration games, with a thin RPG veneer, but YMMV.
If all of these things were mostly, if not entirely, rooted in the first two games, and we haven’t had anything like that since then, maybe it’s time to admit that Fallout qua Fallout was a one (or two) hit wonder, and the rest have to be judged on their own merits? Of course, based on how horribly Bethesday executes these things sometimes, that won’t help their critical reception much…
Except that’s not true. New Vegas and to lesser extent Fallout 3 executed these things perfectly fine as well. And were loved and widely celebrated.
Devolving the franchise from RPG into shooter is what should be criticised, not applauded.
It should, but F76 is not to blame. If they called it Fallout 5, it would be.
To me that’s just semantics. Bethesda’s progression so far has been RPG+Shooter (FO3) → MostlyShooter(FO4) → Shooter (FO76). Not exactly the way I wanted to see this franchise go, particularly when New Vegas showed well what first person Fallout RPG can be.
Well, I disagree.
I will ask another way:
Do people here think that FO76 would be more or less appreciated as a game by both gamers and critics, if, say, it kept the multiplayer aspect, but also still contain all the RPG elements of New Vegas, like multilayered nonlinear quests, interactive dialogue with well written characters, various character builds, choices and consequences… ?
Obviously it would be much harder to actually develop - possibly beyond Bethesda’s capabilities - but let’s imagine that they could.
I’d agree in part. I did not find NV appreciably better than FO 3; I liked them both, though NV was prettier. I do think those two games were less “shooter” than the subsequent ones. Where my opinion differs, though is over whether the transition to more shoot-y games is bad. I don’t think it is. My favorite type of games are precisely these shooters with RPG elements. My quibble has always been with Bethesda’s inability to actually make it work well.
Sure. But it’s also a matter of getting hamstrung due to technical limitations so these would need to be addressed to preserve the more robust single-player-like experience. Stuff like storage limitation and building budget, for example, are the biggest culprits.