Raycheetah Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Given that Bethesda has definitively stated that Nuka World will be the final DLC released for FO4, I have to wonder: Had so many not bought into the "$40 (or whatever it was) buys all DLC" deal, would Bethesda be shutting things down so quickly? After all, if a significant portion of FO4 players paid for the Season Pass (in either iteration), wouldn't there be a discernable break-even point at which it would cease to be profitable for Bethesda to create new content? With Skyrim, Bethesda stopped making DLC prematurely due to technical issues with the console platforms; it was pretty clear that we would have seen at least a little more DLC content, had that issue not become the PR and developmental disaster it was. It seems, therefore, that production of DLC for open-world games (aside from data-mining their own products for construction kits to sell piecemeal) has a limited value to Bethesda, and having front-loaded a large portion of their FO4 income into what amounted to a short-term subscription can't have provided much incentive to keep creating new content. ='[.]'= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iXenite Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Skyrim stopped receiving DLC because Fallout 4 had reached a more involved development stage and required the full attention of the team. Not because of consoles. Not really sure where you're getting the idea that future DLC was scrapped because the consoles were not powerful enough. Parts of our team have also been in pre-production on our next major project," a post on Bethesda Blog reads, "and that game is at the point where it requires the studio's full attention to make it our biggest and best work yet. Source: http://www.polygon.com/2013/4/15/4226804/skyrim-dev-support-team-moves-on-to-bethesdas-next-project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raycheetah Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 Skyrim stopped receiving DLC because Fallout 4 had reached a more involved development stage and required the full attention of the team. Not because of consoles. Not really sure where you're getting the idea that future DLC was scrapped because the consoles were not powerful enough. Parts of our team have also been in pre-production on our next major project," a post on Bethesda Blog reads, "and that game is at the point where it requires the studio's full attention to make it our biggest and best work yet. Source: http://www.polygon.com/2013/4/15/4226804/skyrim-dev-support-team-moves-on-to-bethesdas-next-projectWell, I can see that as the official reasoning. However, with Skyrim receiving just three DLCs within three of months of release, then NOTHING, and the fact that Bethesda struggled with the PlayStation ports, reading between the lines, I'd say we missed out on some stuff they just weren't gonna try to cram into the consoles: http://www.geek.com/games/bethesda-admits-skyrim-players-may-never-get-dawnguard-on-ps3-1512649/ I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only player who expected to see more DLC in 2012, and we all know that Bethesda creates content which goes unused for lack of time and resources. Can I prove it? No. But if Dragonborn released for PlayStation 3 on February 12, 2013, why didn't Bethesda tell us that it was the LAST DLC until April? =0[.]o= At any rate, FO4 is a hot, new game, and as a consumer, I would've expected more ongoing support, though admittedly, we have gotten more than we did with Skyrim (speaking to my points, above). But when you're offered a chance pay in advance for a pig in a poke... That pig might end up being less meaty than you'd hoped. ='[.]'= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I don't think they planned to do more than 6 regardless. In fact if their marketing is to be believed, they only had 3 on the table and upped it after demand for the Season Pass got so high. As far as Skyrim DLC, Todd originally told everyone BEFORE launch that they had plans for a total of 5. 3 larger ones, 2 smaller ones. Once they got the DLC train rolling though and the PS3 choked itself on Dawnguard, that plan shifted to making what they had work. they don't need to come out and say what everyone and his dog saw happen. We got 2 larger ones (thank Talos) and 1 smaller one. It could have been much worse. That Todd simply brushed it aside by saying they were moving on in April is no surprise because that's likely when they had always planned to stop. It simply cost us 2 DLCs as casualties due to PS3 issues. We'll probably never see those DLCs as it's unlikely they made it much past pre-alpha work. This is what happens when your DLC/patch teams get bogged down in issues caused by insisting on supporting obsolete hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedGeoduck Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) As a convert to PC from Xbox/PS, I diligently try to avoid the "platform wars" and "console bashing". But in this case, the PS3 did indeed impact the Skyrim DLC development/release schedule. And Sony's attitude was "it's a software problem", which did not help with solving the problems. The cavalier attitude of Sony and Microsoft was one of the compelling reasons I gave up on consoles and moved to PC. And I wanted more Skyrim DLC too. Thanks to some genius and ingenious modders, I got my wish. (in my best convert voice with upraised eyes and waving hands) I have seen the light. :laugh: Edited: can't spell good, can't type neither, grammer worser. Edited July 14, 2016 by FriedGeoduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midtek Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 It usually works in one direction. Extra contents can be canceled by unexpected events including negative impact on sales. But success in sales, including advance purchase, does not prolong the schedule. I know few cases but mostly they were made in marketing movement. If they got more money from Season Pass, the money likely goes elsewhere; hopefully to development part but unlikely to improve DLC quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lelcat Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I dont see the problem with "only" the existing DLC being everything. In terms of volume and quality it exceeded all previous games. And it was delivered much sooner. I think the reason players sometimes find it is too "little" is because all of it released within 6 months. If they had spaced the release times to 3-5 months per dlc, players would "feel" there is more to it. It is similar to people perceiving the quality of a COD game is lower just because they managed to release a new one every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyDungas Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Yeah it has everything to do with perception and not the heap of bugs/broken features that they are released with as a result lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lelcat Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 What heaps of bugs and broken features? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raycheetah Posted July 15, 2016 Author Share Posted July 15, 2016 This leaves me to wonder if we're gonna get any of the new construction goodies from Nuka World (presumably there will be some) with that DLC, or if those assets will never be made available in an official release? =0[.]o= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts