Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[kaelamon]

In response to post #36131870. #36137955 is also a reply to the same post.

davenby wrote: After the update I kept getting ctd when loading my modded saves. Then I remove all my mods and I get ctd before the Bethesda intro. Opt out of beta leaving mods uninstalled works completely fine! Modded again and still fine! Patch is messed up for me!

phexe wrote: because you're supposed to start a new game for the new survival mode. your old saves are supposed to crash without the mods, they are dependent on them, and, as mentioned before, the update disables mods.
"then i remove my mods and i get ctd before intro" - not 100% sure, but you could/should have tried verifying game's file integrity. i had an issue updating to automatron, where i somehow lost half of my interior textures. a clean install fixed all the issues

delete all mods wia F4SGE

[Crimsonhawk87]

In response to post #36130355. #36131015, #36131195, #36131385, #36131925, #36132930 are all replies on the same post.

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: I have not opted into the Beta, nor do I plan on playing on Survival Mode when it goes live (just not my thing), so this doesn't really affect me at all...yet. If the no mod/console thing translates into the live patch then I will see which way the wind is blowing and it's time to move on from Fallout 4 (and maybe even Bethesda). What makes a Bethesda game re-playable (I have already played all the way through in vanilla) time and time again, are mods. Without mods, this game is a pretty "meh" one off playthrough...which I suppose is what you pay for in the first place, but we have come to expect more out of Bethesda games. I mean, I was still playing Skyrim up until FO4 release, which is a pretty good testament to Bethesda and the modding community. If they force the no mods/no console thing onto the game after the beta, it probably means that they have completely sold out to the consoles and are taking control of the modding scene by having all mods go through their official website. It is my fervent hope that this is not the case (I don't think that it is the case, just to be clear), but if it is, then FO4 just became another un inspired FPS and is no longer worthy of my time.

Oh, and to the people screaming that mods aren't officially "supported" yet...that is beside the point. The game has been modded, will continue to be modded, and was made to be modded, so regardless of "official" support yet, modded FO4 is here to stay or will wither and die. THAT is the truth of the matter, like it or not.

Eruadur wrote: Let me copy/paste what I said earlier:
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: I get it and support what you are saying, betas are for testing purposes....I'm just talking about after the beta. If the no mods/no console "feature" remains after it goes live, then there will be hell to pay, and rightfully so.

Eruadur wrote: If.... It's still a big 'if'...

Let's move on and see what happens,ok? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
:)

dikr wrote: @ Crimsonhawk87
Why would you think that disabling mods and the console could be a feature in the live version of the expansion? 0_o

Why would Bethesda be occupied with how we play our single player games?

If these measures aren't only for beta testing purposes I will eat my shorts and my socks too.

To put it in another way:

• Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in beta testing of Survival mode: a hundred millionbillion

• Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in the live version of Survival mode: none

hivKORN wrote:

Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in the live version of Survival mode: none

More people from Mainstream and Money! XD
But True words... but another method would be cool.
I want only play and modifying, other players can describe problems better then me

@dikr: I never said that they would disable modding/console ( I even said as much in my initial post), what I am saying is that were to be the case (for whatever reason...none good enough to justify doing that, I can assure you) then you can expect an out cry that would make the paid modding scandal seem like an afternoon tea party. The point I was trying to make is that modding goes hand in hand with Bethesda games, every since the days of Morrowind, and anything that seems to disrupt that tends to throw fans into a tizzy. The concern among many right now is that Beth seems to be heading in the direction of catering to the consoles and that eventually that mods for the PC will be restricted or controlled in some way. I'm not saying it will happen that way, but I've read enough about it on the forums and in a myriad of posts to know that some fear it is heading in that direction.

I'm not saying Beth would even do it on purpose, but you have to admit that the last few patches have played havoc with mods and if they inadvertently translate the beta settings into the live version, the result would be the same.

[bethjunkie]

In response to post #36105510. #36107130, #36108145, #36111230, #36111695, #36111880, #36112075, #36112165, #36112205, #36114300, #36114565, #36115285, #36116105, #36116520, #36119260, #36119480, #36120035, #36121030, #36123185, #36130025, #36130390 are all replies on the same post.

Uthuriel wrote: https://community.bethesda.net/thread/2952


Bethesda disabled the console in the "new" survival mode

good job -.-

HippeusOmega wrote: Yeah I was really suprised by this. I get they don't want gamers cheating but console is used for a lot more then cheating.

Zaxen069 wrote: wow that ..... sucks console to fun to mess with i mean i use for testing out mods i DL or if i feel liek fighting a bunch of npc's or something guess we'll have to wait for modders to renable it

calleb666 wrote: Console yeah, how many games give you this console option? The number close to zero. They obviously had their reasons to disable it, stop whining already

starfis wrote: Was it confirmed by someone official that the console is disabled as part of the Survival overhaul and not just as part of beta testing? I know they didn't disabled it during previous beta updates or during Automatron prerelease, but maybe they want to know what can happen without console interfering similar to disabling mods. If it truly is a "feature", this beta and all that crying about it may simply prove them that disabling it is not best idea. Cheating in singleplayer game is ruining only my own experience, if this is their only reason. And in the end, enabling console will probably take a second when the CK is released next month so who really care.

jet4571 wrote: And wait until you get stuck between 2 static objects and cant get out. No TCL command to get unstuck. Good Job Bethesda!

Skramel wrote: Yeah, cool, but clipping in stones and walls though...

Skramel wrote: don't be ridiculous. There such thing as "trainers", you know? But bugs and glitches still in this fn game, but now without console

popcorn71 wrote: On the one hand, I can understand Bethesda wanting to ensure that their beta test environment is 'clean' and reduce the amount of false bug reports brought on by irresponsible modding.

On the other hand they will never be able to test the robustness of their code without testing it real world situations (ie: with mods and console). I wouldn't want to be them when they finally decide to open up mod to consoles...

Tantalus010 wrote: @popcorn - At this point, I'll be extremely surprised if full console modding ever happens. I think a lot of console players expect it to, but I think Bethesda really only intends to deliver simple mods like recolors. I mean, how will modders mod the console version? On PC and then port the mods over? On the consoles themselves? If on the consoles, then how? Bethesda's tools have always obviously been designed solely for keyboard/mouse. How will scripting work? What happens when consoles start crashing/freezing/bricking because of poorly scripted mods?

All I'm saying: console modding is going to be a far more complex undertaking than most realize. Maybe even more complex than Bethesda realizes, given that they jumped whole hog into the paid modding scene for Skyrim without thinking it through very well. Less than 24 hours after release, there was a legal issue.

Gambit77 wrote: kiss quality screenshots goodbye

Polydine wrote: makes sense, unlike other patches they need to check game balance as well as bugs.

popcorn71 wrote: @ Tantalus010
My understanding is that the only difference between the console and PC version of the game is the executable file. Bethesda uses a very modular, 'plug and play' approach to modding, so there is no technical reason why any mod that does not require changes to ini files or direct changes to the executable to work would not on both the PC AND the console versions of the game.

The issue of weather or not current console hardware can handle the overhead incurred from mods is a completely separate issue. Watching you Xbox fry its self trying to render all 4k textures isn't the same the game not loading the extra dll file required for script extenders to work.

The bottom line is that any 'normal' mod that only requires an esp/esm plus a few meshes and textures to work should work regardless of the hardware, so long is it does not make edits conflict with the edits made by another mod.

Zaxen069 wrote: @calleb666 Considering we had it from the start/ it's normal for Fallout/Elder Scroll Games it's a reasonable compliant + if you factor in how the console helps with some of the bugs in their games and really if you want to cheat with the console it's your choice hell if you wanted to you could just as easily cheat with mods

Tantalus010 wrote: @popcorn - Oh I'm sure the file structure is similar, but console players can't even browse/edit their game files. Thus, they have no way of installing any mod that requires a manual installation (like ENB). Even if everything were plug and play, this is completely new ground and Bethesda is not known for releasing bug-free software. Hell, they're not even known for fixing all (or even most of) their bugs.

RaffTheSweetling wrote: Pretty sure in Saugus Ironworks offices there are a whole lot of chairs placed in the wrong direction so If you click on one and accidentally sit down you end up stuck half in/half out the wall and facing an instant-death drop down to the floor below you. Without the console or the quicksave this sort of thing is gonna be a huge pain in the Ar$e.

MythDinoex wrote: @calleb666

Never
go
full
retarded.

asouthern wrote: Anyone want to take bets on how long until a mod comes along that re enables console in the game? My guess: 2 weeks.

Wicketklown001 wrote: I would guess sooner depending on how hard it is to re enable it. If it's easy then I'd guess almost same day.

ilusaodigital wrote: Just use an explosive and ready: static objects destroyed! :)

Eruadur wrote: @Gambit77

You're a mod author yourself, high quallity screenshot gone? Come on man!
Ever tried HIDE UI by Fadingsignal? Get the Hardcore mode and there's you clean screen for screenshots.
And I'll bet that when the CK comes out Gopher will make a iHUD pretty soon !
More chances for great screenshots :)

Have faith man

Screenshots aren't only about the HUD. We use the console to change the FOV so characters don't look like a potato, freeze/slow time for action shots, play idles and poses, reset npcs who are looking the wrong way, move npcs who are clipping through the floor, who can't get close enough to an object because of collision issues, stop a bighorner who ran in from out of nowhere and is about to headbutt your posed best friend into oblivion, and on and on.

Much more work goes into a good screenshot than just moving a slider and hitting F12.

[RustyXXL]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

@TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

[xaosbob]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends. Edited March 30, 2016 by xaosbob

[RustyXXL]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

@xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later... Edited March 30, 2016 by RustyXXL

[Jellyjoker]

I'm going to play a little of the beta then roll back. Edited March 30, 2016 by Jellyjoker

[Banadan]

I would just add that people should stop whining about the console and mods in a BETA TEST. The whole point of that TEST is to try the game all by itself and that new feature, to see how it works and if it works. In case of issues, people are supposed to REPORT those to Bethesda, not try to "fix" it using console or mods. The whole point of TESTING is to try it and REPORT the issues to the developer!

 

Second, this is a beta test and people can choose whether they try it or not. No one is forced to and if you do not know what TESTING means and how it is done, then leave it alone. This is not a live feature. Once the testing is done, reports are gathered and issues/bugs fixed, a real version of that update will be made available and obviously the console and mods in general will work. And yes, it may be possible that some options may or may not be enabled while playing the game in that mode only. So don't cry about a BETA TESTING, if you do not know how testing is really done, don't opt in, wait until the feature is live and then try it.

 

Other then that, I myself will not play in that mode. Kudos to those who will, but I play the game to have a little bit of fun after long working days and so on and I do not want my game to mimic the dang life on every step. I like some of this "game magic" and "overpowered stuff" and what not, it's entertaining to me, it relaxes me. I am happy that I don't need to keep track of all kinds of little things. But I am glad to see that Bethesda keeps adding to the game and making it better.

[Wicketklown001]

In response to post #36130355. #36131015, #36131195, #36131385, #36131925, #36132930, #36138310 are all replies on the same post.

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: I have not opted into the Beta, nor do I plan on playing on Survival Mode when it goes live (just not my thing), so this doesn't really affect me at all...yet. If the no mod/console thing translates into the live patch then I will see which way the wind is blowing and it's time to move on from Fallout 4 (and maybe even Bethesda). What makes a Bethesda game re-playable (I have already played all the way through in vanilla) time and time again, are mods. Without mods, this game is a pretty "meh" one off playthrough...which I suppose is what you pay for in the first place, but we have come to expect more out of Bethesda games. I mean, I was still playing Skyrim up until FO4 release, which is a pretty good testament to Bethesda and the modding community. If they force the no mods/no console thing onto the game after the beta, it probably means that they have completely sold out to the consoles and are taking control of the modding scene by having all mods go through their official website. It is my fervent hope that this is not the case (I don't think that it is the case, just to be clear), but if it is, then FO4 just became another un inspired FPS and is no longer worthy of my time.

Oh, and to the people screaming that mods aren't officially "supported" yet...that is beside the point. The game has been modded, will continue to be modded, and was made to be modded, so regardless of "official" support yet, modded FO4 is here to stay or will wither and die. THAT is the truth of the matter, like it or not.

Eruadur wrote: Let me copy/paste what I said earlier:
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: I get it and support what you are saying, betas are for testing purposes....I'm just talking about after the beta. If the no mods/no console "feature" remains after it goes live, then there will be hell to pay, and rightfully so.

Eruadur wrote: If.... It's still a big 'if'...

Let's move on and see what happens,ok? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
:)

dikr wrote: @ Crimsonhawk87
Why would you think that disabling mods and the console could be a feature in the live version of the expansion? 0_o

Why would Bethesda be occupied with how we play our single player games?

If these measures aren't only for beta testing purposes I will eat my shorts and my socks too.

To put it in another way:

• Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in beta testing of Survival mode: a hundred millionbillion

• Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in the live version of Survival mode: none

hivKORN wrote:

Amount of valid reasons for Bethesda to disable mods in the live version of Survival mode: none

More people from Mainstream and Money! XD
But True words... but another method would be cool.
I want only play and modifying, other players can describe problems better then me

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: @dikr: I never said that they would disable modding/console ( I even said as much in my initial post), what I am saying is that were to be the case (for whatever reason...none good enough to justify doing that, I can assure you) then you can expect an out cry that would make the paid modding scandal seem like an afternoon tea party. The point I was trying to make is that modding goes hand in hand with Bethesda games, every since the days of Morrowind, and anything that seems to disrupt that tends to throw fans into a tizzy. The concern among many right now is that Beth seems to be heading in the direction of catering to the consoles and that eventually that mods for the PC will be restricted or controlled in some way. I'm not saying it will happen that way, but I've read enough about it on the forums and in a myriad of posts to know that some fear it is heading in that direction.

I'm not saying Beth would even do it on purpose, but you have to admit that the last few patches have played havoc with mods and if they inadvertently translate the beta settings into the live version, the result would be the same.

From what I gather, mods disabled are just for the beta. Console disabled is a "feature" (that last part is direct from an official response on the beta forums) so unless they listen to the players and reverse the decision on console commands then it'll still be disabled when it goes live. Hopefully it can be fixed afterwards if that happens.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Case and point of why there should not be mods in a beta, the majority of users do not know how to install and uninstall mods properly and assume crashes are Bethesda's fault.

 

There are already people complaining about how their old save (modded) crashes on startup when loading in 1.5 survival mode with mods disabled -_-

 

They are STILL making flawed crash reports because of their own inability to read instructions and install/uninstall mods properly.