Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[Deleted631007User]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180 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.

RustyXXL wrote: @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...

Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta. Edited March 30, 2016 by Guest

[Deleted918306User]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335 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.

RustyXXL wrote: @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...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

@ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

[rataje]

In response to post #36132845. #36133745 is also a reply to the same post.

hivKORN wrote: Give me old Survival Difficult values back! Add a New entry instead of replacing.
Ridiculous Designer decision!

Untitled1518 wrote: The old survival is identical but called Very Hard now. Its the first thing the game tells you after you load up the update

yeah i've read it now^^
And i've compared the old Fallout4.esm with a renamed beta one Fallout4Beta.esm
Only three new entries in "Game Settings" with _TSV ending in the name. Edited March 30, 2016 by hivKORN

[rbarkhordar]

In response to post #36137420. #36137545, #36137700 are all replies on the same post.

Kage6415 wrote: After opting out of the Beta, I went to play the game and every time I try to load a save, it says that all of my mods are missing. I've updated all the mods through NMM, I've went in and made sure all the .ini files still had the correct lines of texts and disabled and reinabled all my mods and still no luck. It says all my mods have been disabled. Anyone know how to get around this?

rbarkhordar wrote: Try launching the game through nexus mod manager. That worked for me after experiencing the exact same thing.

Kage6415 wrote: Yeah that was one of the things I've done (Multiple times) still hasn't resolved it.

I also validated my game files through Steam. If nothing else is working, you may have to reinstall the game.

[Crimsonhawk87]

In response to post #36130355. #36131015, #36131195, #36131385, #36131925, #36132930, #36138310, #36140975 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.

Wicketklown001 wrote: 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.

Sorry, I cannot believe for a moment that there is a valid reason for disabling the console, but "allowing" mods....it makes no sense. Maybe they mean if you go "survival" mode, then the console is disabled....*shrug*, even that seems abit over reaching, but some ppls can't just help themselves. If the console was disabled for all modes, regardless, then that's almost as bad as not allowing mods. That is what people are worried about....them changing the rules mid game for some unknown reason.

[Sharlikran]

No need to reinstall the game after opting out of the beta. I haven't played the beta because I'm not into all the immersion elements.

 

Solution:

 

1. Go to C:\Users\[username]\AppData\Local\Fallout4 or %localappdata%

2a. Make sure loadorder.txt and plugins.txt are not read only.

2b. Delete loadorder.txt and plugins.txt

3. Run the official Fallout4Launcher.exe from a shortcut or the game folder

4. Run NMM or Wrye Flash and enable your mods. Mod Organizer 2 for Fallout might be working well enough but I have no idea since I don't use it. I had heard that older versions had issues managing the load order files but that may be fixed.

5. Run Fallout 4 using NMM or SKSE. You can also start SKSE from within Wrye Flash.

 

Reason:

 

Most people that have been playing with mods know that the official launcher will disable them. Because of that people use all kinds of ways to get around what the launcher is doing. One example is to use NMM to launch the game but some use SKSE. Another thing that happens is Steam resets certain files when you verify the game cache. So all the above steps are required to configure your system properly. You can do either 2a or 2b but you can't skip any of the above steps.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Sharlikran

[Deleted631007User]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320 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.

RustyXXL wrote: @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...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

@TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair. Edited March 30, 2016 by Guest

[YisahVasNarri]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985 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.

RustyXXL wrote: @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...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

[steve40]

In response to post #36130510. #36130800, #36130820, #36130855, #36131325, #36133355 are all replies on the same post.

steve40 wrote:

Bethesda have done a half-arsed job of disabling mods in the survival beta, as all my texture, mesh, sound and material replacer files are still showing in-game...

terkup wrote: That's because those use loose files, it disables all .ESP and .ESM mods however.

Eruadur wrote: Only esp and esm are disabled.
You have done a half arsed job by not knowing this already,lol :)

OtakuWit wrote: That's because most texture/mesh/sound/etc replacers just replace, or are loaded over, the original files as opposed to adding new content via esp file, and would be rather difficult to disable. Combine this with the fact that they're not very likely to affect the new survival mode features in any way, and there's not much reason to even bother trying.

steve40 wrote: No s#*! guys, that's why I called them "replacer files" ;P

Zaldiir wrote: There is no reason for them to remove the files from your game folder, so why would they do that? They simply disabled mods due to them potentially causing issues with the update. A texture, mesh, sound, or material file is not going to mess with the update.

No, but they could cause game issues and complicate the beta testing. Loose textures in mods like Gore Overhaul, for example, caused CTDs after previous game updates. Surely Beth could easily make the beta executable ignore loose files during the test period. Edited March 30, 2016 by steve40

[ManleySteele]

Played the survival mode for about 5 hours. No problems encountered.

 

Before I downloaded it, I made a new Profile in NMM. I disabled all mods in reverse order of their activation. I then ran the game against FO4Edit to make sure their were no lingering loose files. Downloaded the Beta and started a new game.

 

Everything went as expected. Not my cup of tea so I opted out of the Beta.

 

I switched back to the profile I was playing before. Everything was correctly reactivated except I had one .esm I had to activate by hand.

 

Started my old game and went from their. All mods are working so far as I can tell.

 

So, no. It will not break your saves and it will not break NMM.