Modding Bethesda Games on Game Pass - What we know so far

[showler]

In response to post #92481478.

WaltC wrote: I can't advise anyone who wants to mod to buy through the Microsoft store.  I tried it--once, with The Outer Worlds.  First I rented the game through the Microsoft store and discovered I could not mod the game, and that even an edit would render the associated save unplayable--you'd have to start over.  So, I thought maybe that sort of copy protection was understandable for a rental--figured I'd do much better with a purchased copy--so I bought the game outright for $44.95, IIRC.  I was dumbfounded when I discovered that as far as copy-protection there was *no difference* at all between the $1 rented version and the full-price version--my God, it was festooned with copy-protection the likes of which I had never seen--and that's going back to old floppy-disk copy protection schemes.  This game was trussed up tighter than a nun in a strip joint...;)  No kidding, but when I explained to Microsoft I wanted a copy I could mod or else I wanted a full refund, Microsoft was nice enough to refund my money, no questions asked!  Got it all back, bought the Epic store version which had no copy protection and was fully moddable from the start--and I paid only $34.95 at the EGS, so I got the game for $10 less than Microsoft wanted to charge me for a copy I couldn't mod!  No contest.  Only wish I'd bought from the EGS first and saved myself so much trouble.

Rental games?--I understand Microsoft's restrictions--but for full retail pop?  No--I understand nothing of Microsoft's restrictions.  They aren't rational.  Who wants to pay full price for a copy of a game so wrapped up in copy protection that it cannot be modded?  Not I. I don't know if things have changed as of now, but this is the way they stood as of December 2019, immediately after the release of The Outer Worlds--sure hope it's different now!

I'd also want to know if there is a difference between games with official mod support, like Bethesda games, and games that do not have official mod support, like the Outer Worlds.

Bethesda games have the little "enable mods" button.

[gbdrbob]

Did we miss anything? 

Yes! 

 

Older Bethesda games from GamePass (Oblivion, Morrowind) are fully moddable, including the script extenders! 

 

The Bethesda GamePass titles are standard Win32 programs, just like the versions distributed by Steam or GOG, whilst MS places them in a MS Store UWP wrapper, all the API functions of a win32 app are still present. 

 

For Oblivion and Morrowind the version of the exe distributed by MS is exactly the same as the one distributed via other stores.

 

MS gives full read/write access to all the game files via %ProgramFiles%\ModifiableWindowsApps however they set some permissions that by default stop you from running the game exe directly from that folder. The simplest solution to this is to copy all the game files out of the %ProgramFiles%\ModifiableWindowsApps to another location on your hard drive. Once you've done this you can treat the game like an install from GOG or Steam, install OBSE or MWSE, use Mod Organiser - there are no restrictions! 

 

The above solution doesn't work for Fallout4 and SkyrimSE as the exe version for those games has changed and they seem to have been modified in some way to rely on the windows store wrapper (for example if I copy Skyrim to a different location, it launches then forces me to exit at the title screen - this might be a very simple check that could be disabled with an skse plugin). 

 

Alternatively (for oblivion at least) you can replace oblivion_launcher.exe with a renamed obse_loader exe and the game can be launched with OBSE enabled within the MS store wrapper from the Xbox app. Launching it this way would however prevent Mod Organiser from working as it has to launch the game in order to hook the game exe before OBSE. Nexus Mod manager which works via symlinks should be fine (though you may have to alter some folder permissions, I've not tried it myself).

 

The second approach should work fine for the newer games, it simply requires that skse and f4se be updated to recognise the exe versions distributed by gamepass.

 

EDIT: Note that SKSE won't have to circumvent any DRM in order to work with the MS store version since mods are enabled. The only technical hurdle is updating SKSE to recognise the MS store version and getting it to run within the MS store wrapper - as stated in the article Ian Patt, the main developer of SKSE is working on an update. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by gbdrbob

[ff7legend]

In response to post #91955663. #91980893, #92004163, #92005323, #92007078, #92015173, #92035723, #92041663, #92072548, #92086163, #92091233, #92111838, #92111993, #92144808 are all replies on the same post.

ff7legend wrote: No pun/disrespect intended towards console users but with Game Pass, one does not actually own the game in question.  If one fails to renew their yearly subscription to Game Pass, one will lose access to all those so-called "free games" they downloaded to their console's HDD/SSD.  The same applies to PS Plus users.  One is far better off buying the actual game vs obtaining it via Game Pass/PS Plus. 

I actually prefer physical media vs digital downloads/recordings anyway.  With a physical copy, I actually OWN the game/music/movie in question & can watch/play/listen to it as many times as I wish without having to pay those nagging subscription fees.  Not only that but the overall sound/video quality of physical media is vastly superior vs digital downloads/recordings anyway.  I still have my CDs/Blu-rays for this very reason & will not pay a subscription fee just to watch/play a game/movie or listen to my favorite music.  Total RIPOFF.

Another thing to be concerned with are all those DATA OVERAGE CHARGES one is likely to incur depending upon the ISP.  Streaming games/movies/videogames eats up A TON OF DATA.  This is especially true for 4K/8K video streaming.  Many ISPs here Stateside have monthly data caps & charge a King's ransom for going over one's monthly data allotment.  Others will simply throttle one's internet speeds to the point where streaming is impossible depending on the device used.  Either way, physical media is vastly superior & will save one a TON OF $$$$$$ in the long run...

GamingZacharyC wrote: Someone's a misinformed ranter on this forum. First, find an ISP that doesn't have a ridiculous data cap. 1.2 terabytes a month, my data cap, is plenty for me.

Second, renting your game or movie from a service like Netflix, Disney Plus, and Game Pass are really great options for people who only want to watch a movie once or twice. Chances are I'm never going to watch Frozen 2 again. Renting an entire library of games is a great way to go for people who play a game for a short while (think Human Fall Flat) before needing a new one. Game Pass is a great option for games that aren't replayable. Beyond that, streaming quality is getting better and better. If quality is your concern, well, I'm sorry to say that you're not getting a disk of Flora & Ulysses any time soon. There are times when you have to decide: Wallet or impractical peace of mind.

Something that I haven't even mentioned today is that Game Pass DOES NOT MAKE PROFIT as of yet. Microsoft is taking a gamble with it and hoping that people stick around long enough.

Owning a physical disk because of ISP charges is a very uninformed answer that just screams to me "too stubborn to change." Think about it this way: Owning an Xbox disk is really just a container for a license key and some metadata. You still have to download the game over the internet. Also, if game streaming services like GeForce Now didn't exist, there'd be plenty of games I couldn't play with my potato. Instead of paying upfront for a bunch of expensive hardware, I choose to rent it. My household doesn't incur data cap charges, like, ever.

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering in an attempt to change the mind of someone who argues so naively anyway. I guess this is here for someone else to read and agree with.

Lominsa wrote: .. there are still ISPs that have data caps? I thought that was a thing of the past. At least in my country.

Kalell wrote: Sadly nearly every ISP here in the US has one, and even the few that don't will start throttling your connection if they feel you're using too much.

showler wrote: Game Pass isn't a streaming service to my knowledge.  You download the full game, but with a somewhat restrictive DRM (so you can't just copy it to another folder and keep it).  Unless you are constantly downloading and erasing the games, you won't use much more data than just buying and downloading the game.

SciRika wrote: My ISP added a data cap and tried to advertise it as a bonus "you now have 1TB of data!" when it was "you're now limited to only 1TB of data".

Chaosgod3456 wrote: thats not true ps plus games are free and not like game pass if you dont renew you still own the game

Kel1978 wrote: It's quite rude calling people names. If ff7legend is a ranter then so are you, GamingZacharyC, for ranting about his rant. His situation is different than yours. Maybe he doesn't have a great ISP. There are still places in the US without great connections so perhaps his options are limited. Don't be so judgy.

I prefer physical as well. If I really like a game on Gamepass, I'll buy the physical. I mostly go for collector's edition anyways.

I tried the console versions but modding was way too limiting. A mear 5gb? Ridiculous. I'll stick to PC for Bethesda games.

ThomGonring wrote: Or maybe to read and disagree . . .

#1 try not calling names: "ranter", it does not foster conversation, only reactions.

More specific to your post:

"Game Pass does not make a profit" "Microsoft is taking a gamble"

If you think game pass is going to remain a low monthly fee, think again.  The low initial price is a lure, and the "gamble" is a long term INVESTMENT. designed to generate profits, imagine that!  The price WILL GO UP.

As far as Game Pass's value, it's really as simple as this:

If you want to play a lot of games, and/or try them out without commitment:  Game Pass is Great! - Period

If you prefer a small amount of your favorite games, and/or like to mod:  Game Pass SUCKS! - Period

ALL OF YOU:  recognize that different people have different goals (Which is GOOD!), and stop trying to convert the opposite camp!

MOD CRITICIZERS:  Don't knock mods until you get them working right, because when you do: it transforms your game in ways you cannot imagine.  Skyrim (2011!) is still more playable than many modern games BECAUSE OF MODS.  Yes, they require some patience, but that patience is greatly rewarded.

LAST AND NOT LEAST:  ANY internet outage means no gaming with Game Pass.  If you're going to try and tell me your internet NEVER goes down, I will call you "nobody", because nobody's perfect (including the internet).

Thank you.

DaveClaw wrote: Game Pass is DRM-locked downloaded games.  It is not streaming.

Game Pass is a great way to play 100+ games.  Yes, if you enjoy one of those 100 enough to want a permanent copy then it makes sense to buy the GOTY edition a couple of years later for $20.  Meanwhile you've saved paying $60 each on many games. 

I played Outer Worlds day of release with Game Pass.  It was fun but I'm not feeling any urge to replay it unlike my 1,000+ hours in Fallout 4 and eleventy playthroughs of FO 1-2-tactics-3-NV.  The $60 I didn't pay paid for months of Game Pass by itself.

showler wrote: Not sure why anyone would address "MOD CRITICIZERS" on the Nexusmods message boards.  Not likely to find too many of those around here.

naitzmic wrote: You're aware that discs just have a digital image on them too, right?
There's literally no difference between a downloaded file and the one on a disc. It's all digital.
Whatever difference you think you're seeing/hearing is either placebo or you're comparing two differently encoded files.

As for the datacap argument; eh, okay. Sucks for you, I guess?
I have fiberoptic gigabit ethernet with no restrictions, and IF it should ever go down at an inoppurtune time, I'll hook up my phone and use the 5G connection on that instead. Two different networks, so the likelyhood of both being down at the same time is quite low.

Sounds like "stone-age woes" to me thb.

juggernex9 wrote: Right, Data-Caps, data caps, what is that? I'd understand if you are referring to telephony. But internet? Not in my country either!

werksmith wrote: I think of Game Pass like this: paying a small amount to try out a bunch of different games. If I like the game and it has some replay-ability and I want to play it long term I will buy the game. There is nothing stopping anyone from purchasing the game outright nor is game pass a replacement for that. I really think that game pass marketing is failing at that message and people have that misconception. One other way to look at it is if you do not have much money but want to game you can get in. It really seems like a neat deal especially for those who are less savvy than us on Nexus. 

@juggernex9: A data cap is a cap on the amount of data uploaded/downloaded/streamed within a particular time frame.  Here in the U.S, many ISPs have instituted monthly data caps on home internet service.  This means that if one goes over one's monthly data allotment within a 30 day period, one will incur expensive data overage charges added to their monthly bill.  Some ISPs will also throttle the speed of one's connection in addition to the added data overage charges.  This is especially true for smartphone users.  In many countries across Europe/Asia, it is ILLEGAL for ISPs to cap one's data usage/throttle one's connection speeds.  That is not the case here in the U.S where corporations rule the day via lobbying/political campaign contributions.  ISPs here Stateside also enjoy monopolies across large geographical areas no thanks to the contracts they have in various large cities that expressly PROHIBIT any competing company to have access to the necessary infrastructure to set up a competing network...

[Stiffon]

In response to post #91967003. #91979463, #91980208, #92042283, #92067333, #92140103, #92149073, #92390813 are all replies on the same post.

TXChannel34 wrote: This is the predictable end of gaming. The general rule for a successful business is to find something that makes money and scale it. This is just Microsoft scaling it. They know that something that is this popular and the bygone conclusion is that there will be enough subscribers that will stay with it, they don't care about the odd ones out. When I bought games from a brick and mortar store for my new alienware laptop was like seeing my kids born, only to find out when I installed them on my computer and then launched it, it said I had to get this "steam" thing to run the game I bought on the computer I paid for. this is nothing more than money grabbing as many have noted. I don't buy a bunch of games, I don't play a bunch of them, there are a few that I have and like, and if there is a game that comes out that looks cool I will buy it, and if I don't like it, I stop playing it. I paid the developers for the privilege of trying it out. If I like it, I buy more of their games, more of their DLCs, etc. I am not going to go on down this road, you all know what I mean. Games like Fortnite and the like, sure, make em subscription stuff. Games like Fallout, Skyrim, etc, they are for refined gamers, they aren't plug and play shoot em ups. If you've ever had a problem with windows, and tried their customer support for a fix, you already know what sort of an invironment we find ourselves in now. Only in the corporate mind would anyone be ok with being turned from a player into a payer and expect the customer to be happy about it.

If they were serious about their plan and keeping us happy, they'd offer us the ability to pay a small one time charge for a game, and subscriptions would be optional with an "in app purchase". I'm still fuming about having had bought a game and have to run it through the steam client. I believe that it causes a lot of the crashes that I experience in the game. I can be playing, the game crashes, won't start back up again unless I go to task manager and force quit the 13 steam apps running in the background. But that's a different thread. I spent the last week downloading a bunch of mods and dlc and working the bugs out, and am still not done to my satisfaction, but it;'s getting there. Heck, on the microsoft platform, all you get is the vanilla game and No DLCs, no popular mods, nada. Just the opportunity to pay Microsoft $50 per month for the privilege of playing the vanilla game using their game client which is required to play at all.

Saggaris wrote: Have a Kudos for your 'rant' TX

I and a good few 'older' others feel the similar about being corporately stuffed.

GamingZacharyC wrote: Hold on a minute there: As far as we know, most Bethesda titles will be on the MS Store, yes, but we don't even know if they'll be on Steam, like Skyrim.  Personally, I'd prefer Bethesda releases their titles on Steam instead of the Bethesda.net Launcher because, honestly, that's too much bloat for my system. Bethesda titles, in my experience, are buggy and unoptimized. I don't need a buggy and unoptimized launcher running in the background, taking nibbles at my potato rig. Steam is very well optimized and well cared for.

As for the taskkilling the Steam processes: That is the game's fault. Steam provides a bunch of APIs for a game developer to make use of. If a game crashes and the game process isn't entirely dead, Steam provides an option to force quit a game if it is being stubborn. Personally, I've never had problems with Steam, only the games published on the platform. If the game crashes a lot, that's a very nieve answer to just blame the retailer service. The launcher is almost never the problem with a retailer; The problem is almost always with the game itself.

To top it all off, Game Pass is an *optional* thing, and it is $15 a month (for Ultimate), not $50. You can outright buy a copy of the game if you wish, or you can rent it and a bunch of other games for $15 a month. Personally, I would go Game Pass, but buy my Bethesda titles on Steam.


If there's one good thing I can see coming out of the MS-Zenimax deal, I do believe that Bethesda games will get better in terms of performance and bugs.

Kel1978 wrote: most Bethesda games are already on steam.  Also you can mod just mine with games from the Microsoft store. You just need to take ownership of the folder.

EnaiSiaion wrote: If the consumer rewards Microsoft for this move, it means game ownership, mods and so on don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I used to care about owning games, too. Then I grew up. Adults don't have time to mess around with installing and managing games, they just want to hit a button and play.

This rant feels like a brick and mortar store owner trying to defend their business from online marketplaces. People will go where they want, and if they go somewhere else, you didn't have enough to offer in the first place.

I suspect most people could not care less about moddability, and by the next generation, the only games that can be modded are games that are designed as platforms for custom content, like Mario Maker and Trackmania, and only within the confines of their sandbox. People will like it because it eliminates much of the hassle (Skyrim mods are too clunky and unprofessional for the majority of users). And if their favourite game doesn't support mods, who cares? It will have DLC instead, and once the DLC runs out, play something else!

Saggaris wrote: You seem to be a bit mixed up there, have you noticed that here on Nexus there have been over four and a half billion mod downloads... so where are you getting the idea that most people don't care about moddability?
I personally feel that you are of the camp that doesn't care and are trying to convert the mod anointed.

I understand that priorities change as you age, but don't think for one moment it's about growing up, it's not, it's about choice and what you do with that choice, if you give that up willingly then you will never get it back as long as there is a buck to be made and a head to be patted... "Yes, clever boy, you've helped to make me a greater percentage on my investment, and it only costs the user... have a pat on the head"

HaltyRem wrote: @EnaiSiaion:
I do agree about existence of dendency toward declining of using mods in new games.
From my personal point of view the reasons are:
1) modern games are staying for much longer visually and gameplay-wise non-outdated, and less lacking of quality-of-life features, so the modern games need less fixes;
2) nowadays, there are very many games with different visual styles, roleplaying setting and options, gameplay modes, so there is less need for expanding with mods all of this in any particular ONE game;
3) it is much faster and easier to just use an additional game, which already has what is needed and is optimised for it;
4) those games, that provide extensive options to fine-tune almost everything in game, do not induce desire to mod it (OH WHY DEVELOPERS DO IT SO RARELY?!!!);
5) majority of the most profitable games are either multiplayer, or cooperative, and these types of games are much less moddable then singleplayer games.

Dravond wrote: Hey there is there a guide i can look at to use mods on ms store games?

I think Saggaris got it right and you're both in the don't mod camp and think we should all join you. Wrong. I've spent days and weeks modding games like Skyrim and FO and still do. And I spend days playing them too - still. And I'm sure I will keep on modding in the future. I'm not new to gaming nor modding, but I definitely want the choice. Being an adult means having choice.

[vapor78]

In response to post #91967003. #91979463, #91980208, #92042283, #92067333, #92140103, #92149073, #92390813, #92576988 are all replies on the same post.

TXChannel34 wrote: This is the predictable end of gaming. The general rule for a successful business is to find something that makes money and scale it. This is just Microsoft scaling it. They know that something that is this popular and the bygone conclusion is that there will be enough subscribers that will stay with it, they don't care about the odd ones out. When I bought games from a brick and mortar store for my new alienware laptop was like seeing my kids born, only to find out when I installed them on my computer and then launched it, it said I had to get this "steam" thing to run the game I bought on the computer I paid for. this is nothing more than money grabbing as many have noted. I don't buy a bunch of games, I don't play a bunch of them, there are a few that I have and like, and if there is a game that comes out that looks cool I will buy it, and if I don't like it, I stop playing it. I paid the developers for the privilege of trying it out. If I like it, I buy more of their games, more of their DLCs, etc. I am not going to go on down this road, you all know what I mean. Games like Fortnite and the like, sure, make em subscription stuff. Games like Fallout, Skyrim, etc, they are for refined gamers, they aren't plug and play shoot em ups. If you've ever had a problem with windows, and tried their customer support for a fix, you already know what sort of an invironment we find ourselves in now. Only in the corporate mind would anyone be ok with being turned from a player into a payer and expect the customer to be happy about it.

If they were serious about their plan and keeping us happy, they'd offer us the ability to pay a small one time charge for a game, and subscriptions would be optional with an "in app purchase". I'm still fuming about having had bought a game and have to run it through the steam client. I believe that it causes a lot of the crashes that I experience in the game. I can be playing, the game crashes, won't start back up again unless I go to task manager and force quit the 13 steam apps running in the background. But that's a different thread. I spent the last week downloading a bunch of mods and dlc and working the bugs out, and am still not done to my satisfaction, but it;'s getting there. Heck, on the microsoft platform, all you get is the vanilla game and No DLCs, no popular mods, nada. Just the opportunity to pay Microsoft $50 per month for the privilege of playing the vanilla game using their game client which is required to play at all.

Saggaris wrote: Have a Kudos for your 'rant' TX

I and a good few 'older' others feel the similar about being corporately stuffed.

GamingZacharyC wrote: Hold on a minute there: As far as we know, most Bethesda titles will be on the MS Store, yes, but we don't even know if they'll be on Steam, like Skyrim.  Personally, I'd prefer Bethesda releases their titles on Steam instead of the Bethesda.net Launcher because, honestly, that's too much bloat for my system. Bethesda titles, in my experience, are buggy and unoptimized. I don't need a buggy and unoptimized launcher running in the background, taking nibbles at my potato rig. Steam is very well optimized and well cared for.

As for the taskkilling the Steam processes: That is the game's fault. Steam provides a bunch of APIs for a game developer to make use of. If a game crashes and the game process isn't entirely dead, Steam provides an option to force quit a game if it is being stubborn. Personally, I've never had problems with Steam, only the games published on the platform. If the game crashes a lot, that's a very nieve answer to just blame the retailer service. The launcher is almost never the problem with a retailer; The problem is almost always with the game itself.

To top it all off, Game Pass is an *optional* thing, and it is $15 a month (for Ultimate), not $50. You can outright buy a copy of the game if you wish, or you can rent it and a bunch of other games for $15 a month. Personally, I would go Game Pass, but buy my Bethesda titles on Steam.


If there's one good thing I can see coming out of the MS-Zenimax deal, I do believe that Bethesda games will get better in terms of performance and bugs.

Kel1978 wrote: most Bethesda games are already on steam.  Also you can mod just mine with games from the Microsoft store. You just need to take ownership of the folder.

EnaiSiaion wrote: If the consumer rewards Microsoft for this move, it means game ownership, mods and so on don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I used to care about owning games, too. Then I grew up. Adults don't have time to mess around with installing and managing games, they just want to hit a button and play.

This rant feels like a brick and mortar store owner trying to defend their business from online marketplaces. People will go where they want, and if they go somewhere else, you didn't have enough to offer in the first place.

I suspect most people could not care less about moddability, and by the next generation, the only games that can be modded are games that are designed as platforms for custom content, like Mario Maker and Trackmania, and only within the confines of their sandbox. People will like it because it eliminates much of the hassle (Skyrim mods are too clunky and unprofessional for the majority of users). And if their favourite game doesn't support mods, who cares? It will have DLC instead, and once the DLC runs out, play something else!

Saggaris wrote: You seem to be a bit mixed up there, have you noticed that here on Nexus there have been over four and a half billion mod downloads... so where are you getting the idea that most people don't care about moddability?
I personally feel that you are of the camp that doesn't care and are trying to convert the mod anointed.

I understand that priorities change as you age, but don't think for one moment it's about growing up, it's not, it's about choice and what you do with that choice, if you give that up willingly then you will never get it back as long as there is a buck to be made and a head to be patted... "Yes, clever boy, you've helped to make me a greater percentage on my investment, and it only costs the user... have a pat on the head"

HaltyRem wrote: @EnaiSiaion:
I do agree about existence of dendency toward declining of using mods in new games.
From my personal point of view the reasons are:
1) modern games are staying for much longer visually and gameplay-wise non-outdated, and less lacking of quality-of-life features, so the modern games need less fixes;
2) nowadays, there are very many games with different visual styles, roleplaying setting and options, gameplay modes, so there is less need for expanding with mods all of this in any particular ONE game;
3) it is much faster and easier to just use an additional game, which already has what is needed and is optimised for it;
4) those games, that provide extensive options to fine-tune almost everything in game, do not induce desire to mod it (OH WHY DEVELOPERS DO IT SO RARELY?!!!);
5) majority of the most profitable games are either multiplayer, or cooperative, and these types of games are much less moddable then singleplayer games.

Dravond wrote: Hey there is there a guide i can look at to use mods on ms store games?

Stiffon wrote: I think Saggaris got it right and you're both in the don't mod camp and think we should all join you. Wrong. I've spent days and weeks modding games like Skyrim and FO and still do. And I spend days playing them too - still. And I'm sure I will keep on modding in the future. I'm not new to gaming nor modding, but I definitely want the choice. Being an adult means having choice.

I like how a few comments on here make back handed swipes at the mod community as a whole... comments like " *adults* dont have time.. blah blah" these remarks are specifically stated to be dimunitive towards folks who do mod.. cuz by that logic if you mod, you arent an adult..

the bethesda games have been kept alive BY modding, ppl wouldnt still be playing marrowind or oblivion if not for mods, as another user pointed out, there have been billions of mod downloads which trumps the amount of games even sold.
ppl mod... freedom of choice and customization is what brings mods to the forefront.
Modding wasnt always a mainstream thing either, it gained popularity and now some "users" whom werent modders to begin with want to tell us we dont need mods... if that was the case, then the mods never would have existed to begin with.
Adding options to customize a game is no where even close to modding a game, some people clearly dont know anything about the subject they have an opinion about..
Lastly.. if you dont want something, cool, dont use it, but wtf is it with people that feel if they dont need it then by default it means it shouldnt even exist?

[vapor78]

In response to post #91955663. #91980893, #92004163, #92005323, #92007078, #92015173, #92035723, #92041663, #92072548, #92086163, #92091233, #92111838, #92111993, #92144808, #92516638 are all replies on the same post.

ff7legend wrote: No pun/disrespect intended towards console users but with Game Pass, one does not actually own the game in question.  If one fails to renew their yearly subscription to Game Pass, one will lose access to all those so-called "free games" they downloaded to their console's HDD/SSD.  The same applies to PS Plus users.  One is far better off buying the actual game vs obtaining it via Game Pass/PS Plus. 

I actually prefer physical media vs digital downloads/recordings anyway.  With a physical copy, I actually OWN the game/music/movie in question & can watch/play/listen to it as many times as I wish without having to pay those nagging subscription fees.  Not only that but the overall sound/video quality of physical media is vastly superior vs digital downloads/recordings anyway.  I still have my CDs/Blu-rays for this very reason & will not pay a subscription fee just to watch/play a game/movie or listen to my favorite music.  Total RIPOFF.

Another thing to be concerned with are all those DATA OVERAGE CHARGES one is likely to incur depending upon the ISP.  Streaming games/movies/videogames eats up A TON OF DATA.  This is especially true for 4K/8K video streaming.  Many ISPs here Stateside have monthly data caps & charge a King's ransom for going over one's monthly data allotment.  Others will simply throttle one's internet speeds to the point where streaming is impossible depending on the device used.  Either way, physical media is vastly superior & will save one a TON OF $$$$$$ in the long run...

GamingZacharyC wrote: Someone's a misinformed ranter on this forum. First, find an ISP that doesn't have a ridiculous data cap. 1.2 terabytes a month, my data cap, is plenty for me.

Second, renting your game or movie from a service like Netflix, Disney Plus, and Game Pass are really great options for people who only want to watch a movie once or twice. Chances are I'm never going to watch Frozen 2 again. Renting an entire library of games is a great way to go for people who play a game for a short while (think Human Fall Flat) before needing a new one. Game Pass is a great option for games that aren't replayable. Beyond that, streaming quality is getting better and better. If quality is your concern, well, I'm sorry to say that you're not getting a disk of Flora & Ulysses any time soon. There are times when you have to decide: Wallet or impractical peace of mind.

Something that I haven't even mentioned today is that Game Pass DOES NOT MAKE PROFIT as of yet. Microsoft is taking a gamble with it and hoping that people stick around long enough.

Owning a physical disk because of ISP charges is a very uninformed answer that just screams to me "too stubborn to change." Think about it this way: Owning an Xbox disk is really just a container for a license key and some metadata. You still have to download the game over the internet. Also, if game streaming services like GeForce Now didn't exist, there'd be plenty of games I couldn't play with my potato. Instead of paying upfront for a bunch of expensive hardware, I choose to rent it. My household doesn't incur data cap charges, like, ever.

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering in an attempt to change the mind of someone who argues so naively anyway. I guess this is here for someone else to read and agree with.

Lominsa wrote: .. there are still ISPs that have data caps? I thought that was a thing of the past. At least in my country.

Kalell wrote: Sadly nearly every ISP here in the US has one, and even the few that don't will start throttling your connection if they feel you're using too much.

showler wrote: Game Pass isn't a streaming service to my knowledge.  You download the full game, but with a somewhat restrictive DRM (so you can't just copy it to another folder and keep it).  Unless you are constantly downloading and erasing the games, you won't use much more data than just buying and downloading the game.

SciRika wrote: My ISP added a data cap and tried to advertise it as a bonus "you now have 1TB of data!" when it was "you're now limited to only 1TB of data".

Chaosgod3456 wrote: thats not true ps plus games are free and not like game pass if you dont renew you still own the game

Kel1978 wrote: It's quite rude calling people names. If ff7legend is a ranter then so are you, GamingZacharyC, for ranting about his rant. His situation is different than yours. Maybe he doesn't have a great ISP. There are still places in the US without great connections so perhaps his options are limited. Don't be so judgy.

I prefer physical as well. If I really like a game on Gamepass, I'll buy the physical. I mostly go for collector's edition anyways.

I tried the console versions but modding was way too limiting. A mear 5gb? Ridiculous. I'll stick to PC for Bethesda games.

ThomGonring wrote: Or maybe to read and disagree . . .

#1 try not calling names: "ranter", it does not foster conversation, only reactions.

More specific to your post:

"Game Pass does not make a profit" "Microsoft is taking a gamble"

If you think game pass is going to remain a low monthly fee, think again.  The low initial price is a lure, and the "gamble" is a long term INVESTMENT. designed to generate profits, imagine that!  The price WILL GO UP.

As far as Game Pass's value, it's really as simple as this:

If you want to play a lot of games, and/or try them out without commitment:  Game Pass is Great! - Period

If you prefer a small amount of your favorite games, and/or like to mod:  Game Pass SUCKS! - Period

ALL OF YOU:  recognize that different people have different goals (Which is GOOD!), and stop trying to convert the opposite camp!

MOD CRITICIZERS:  Don't knock mods until you get them working right, because when you do: it transforms your game in ways you cannot imagine.  Skyrim (2011!) is still more playable than many modern games BECAUSE OF MODS.  Yes, they require some patience, but that patience is greatly rewarded.

LAST AND NOT LEAST:  ANY internet outage means no gaming with Game Pass.  If you're going to try and tell me your internet NEVER goes down, I will call you "nobody", because nobody's perfect (including the internet).

Thank you.

DaveClaw wrote: Game Pass is DRM-locked downloaded games.  It is not streaming.

Game Pass is a great way to play 100+ games.  Yes, if you enjoy one of those 100 enough to want a permanent copy then it makes sense to buy the GOTY edition a couple of years later for $20.  Meanwhile you've saved paying $60 each on many games. 

I played Outer Worlds day of release with Game Pass.  It was fun but I'm not feeling any urge to replay it unlike my 1,000+ hours in Fallout 4 and eleventy playthroughs of FO 1-2-tactics-3-NV.  The $60 I didn't pay paid for months of Game Pass by itself.

showler wrote: Not sure why anyone would address "MOD CRITICIZERS" on the Nexusmods message boards.  Not likely to find too many of those around here.

naitzmic wrote: You're aware that discs just have a digital image on them too, right?
There's literally no difference between a downloaded file and the one on a disc. It's all digital.
Whatever difference you think you're seeing/hearing is either placebo or you're comparing two differently encoded files.

As for the datacap argument; eh, okay. Sucks for you, I guess?
I have fiberoptic gigabit ethernet with no restrictions, and IF it should ever go down at an inoppurtune time, I'll hook up my phone and use the 5G connection on that instead. Two different networks, so the likelyhood of both being down at the same time is quite low.

Sounds like "stone-age woes" to me thb.

juggernex9 wrote: Right, Data-Caps, data caps, what is that? I'd understand if you are referring to telephony. But internet? Not in my country either!

werksmith wrote: I think of Game Pass like this: paying a small amount to try out a bunch of different games. If I like the game and it has some replay-ability and I want to play it long term I will buy the game. There is nothing stopping anyone from purchasing the game outright nor is game pass a replacement for that. I really think that game pass marketing is failing at that message and people have that misconception. One other way to look at it is if you do not have much money but want to game you can get in. It really seems like a neat deal especially for those who are less savvy than us on Nexus. 

ff7legend wrote: @juggernex9: A data cap is a cap on the amount of data uploaded/downloaded/streamed within a particular time frame.  Here in the U.S, many ISPs have instituted monthly data caps on home internet service.  This means that if one goes over one's monthly data allotment within a 30 day period, one will incur expensive data overage charges added to their monthly bill.  Some ISPs will also throttle the speed of one's connection in addition to the added data overage charges.  This is especially true for smartphone users.  In many countries across Europe/Asia, it is ILLEGAL for ISPs to cap one's data usage/throttle one's connection speeds.  That is not the case here in the U.S where corporations rule the day via lobbying/political campaign contributions.  ISPs here Stateside also enjoy monopolies across large geographical areas no thanks to the contracts they have in various large cities that expressly PROHIBIT any competing company to have access to the necessary infrastructure to set up a competing network...

AS someone who works for an ISP, MOST ISP's in america do NOT in fact throttle your bandwidth nor do they implement caps, that is almost entirely a cellular or satellite trait.
our "typical" user goes thru about 850 gigs a month, our "heavy" users can do 1.5 tb if they use thier internet as a cable replacement.

if you are being throttled, you may consider switching ISP's

I work for a WISP and we dont even throttle our CU's at all, "unless" thier account has been flagged as abusive use, I.E. they run lots of torrents or are running a server from thier home. in which case they upgrade to a buisiness account and then its no issue

also to note, no internet company in america is allowed a monopoly, there MUST be an alternative even in a franchising situation.
you sir are horribly informed OR you are just making stuff up. idk which. Edited March 31, 2021 by vapor78

[showler]

In response to post #91967003. #91979463, #91980208, #92042283, #92067333, #92140103, #92149073, #92390813, #92576988, #92589523 are all replies on the same post.

TXChannel34 wrote: This is the predictable end of gaming. The general rule for a successful business is to find something that makes money and scale it. This is just Microsoft scaling it. They know that something that is this popular and the bygone conclusion is that there will be enough subscribers that will stay with it, they don't care about the odd ones out. When I bought games from a brick and mortar store for my new alienware laptop was like seeing my kids born, only to find out when I installed them on my computer and then launched it, it said I had to get this "steam" thing to run the game I bought on the computer I paid for. this is nothing more than money grabbing as many have noted. I don't buy a bunch of games, I don't play a bunch of them, there are a few that I have and like, and if there is a game that comes out that looks cool I will buy it, and if I don't like it, I stop playing it. I paid the developers for the privilege of trying it out. If I like it, I buy more of their games, more of their DLCs, etc. I am not going to go on down this road, you all know what I mean. Games like Fortnite and the like, sure, make em subscription stuff. Games like Fallout, Skyrim, etc, they are for refined gamers, they aren't plug and play shoot em ups. If you've ever had a problem with windows, and tried their customer support for a fix, you already know what sort of an invironment we find ourselves in now. Only in the corporate mind would anyone be ok with being turned from a player into a payer and expect the customer to be happy about it.

If they were serious about their plan and keeping us happy, they'd offer us the ability to pay a small one time charge for a game, and subscriptions would be optional with an "in app purchase". I'm still fuming about having had bought a game and have to run it through the steam client. I believe that it causes a lot of the crashes that I experience in the game. I can be playing, the game crashes, won't start back up again unless I go to task manager and force quit the 13 steam apps running in the background. But that's a different thread. I spent the last week downloading a bunch of mods and dlc and working the bugs out, and am still not done to my satisfaction, but it;'s getting there. Heck, on the microsoft platform, all you get is the vanilla game and No DLCs, no popular mods, nada. Just the opportunity to pay Microsoft $50 per month for the privilege of playing the vanilla game using their game client which is required to play at all.

Saggaris wrote: Have a Kudos for your 'rant' TX

I and a good few 'older' others feel the similar about being corporately stuffed.

GamingZacharyC wrote: Hold on a minute there: As far as we know, most Bethesda titles will be on the MS Store, yes, but we don't even know if they'll be on Steam, like Skyrim.  Personally, I'd prefer Bethesda releases their titles on Steam instead of the Bethesda.net Launcher because, honestly, that's too much bloat for my system. Bethesda titles, in my experience, are buggy and unoptimized. I don't need a buggy and unoptimized launcher running in the background, taking nibbles at my potato rig. Steam is very well optimized and well cared for.

As for the taskkilling the Steam processes: That is the game's fault. Steam provides a bunch of APIs for a game developer to make use of. If a game crashes and the game process isn't entirely dead, Steam provides an option to force quit a game if it is being stubborn. Personally, I've never had problems with Steam, only the games published on the platform. If the game crashes a lot, that's a very nieve answer to just blame the retailer service. The launcher is almost never the problem with a retailer; The problem is almost always with the game itself.

To top it all off, Game Pass is an *optional* thing, and it is $15 a month (for Ultimate), not $50. You can outright buy a copy of the game if you wish, or you can rent it and a bunch of other games for $15 a month. Personally, I would go Game Pass, but buy my Bethesda titles on Steam.


If there's one good thing I can see coming out of the MS-Zenimax deal, I do believe that Bethesda games will get better in terms of performance and bugs.

Kel1978 wrote: most Bethesda games are already on steam.  Also you can mod just mine with games from the Microsoft store. You just need to take ownership of the folder.

EnaiSiaion wrote: If the consumer rewards Microsoft for this move, it means game ownership, mods and so on don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I used to care about owning games, too. Then I grew up. Adults don't have time to mess around with installing and managing games, they just want to hit a button and play.

This rant feels like a brick and mortar store owner trying to defend their business from online marketplaces. People will go where they want, and if they go somewhere else, you didn't have enough to offer in the first place.

I suspect most people could not care less about moddability, and by the next generation, the only games that can be modded are games that are designed as platforms for custom content, like Mario Maker and Trackmania, and only within the confines of their sandbox. People will like it because it eliminates much of the hassle (Skyrim mods are too clunky and unprofessional for the majority of users). And if their favourite game doesn't support mods, who cares? It will have DLC instead, and once the DLC runs out, play something else!

Saggaris wrote: You seem to be a bit mixed up there, have you noticed that here on Nexus there have been over four and a half billion mod downloads... so where are you getting the idea that most people don't care about moddability?
I personally feel that you are of the camp that doesn't care and are trying to convert the mod anointed.

I understand that priorities change as you age, but don't think for one moment it's about growing up, it's not, it's about choice and what you do with that choice, if you give that up willingly then you will never get it back as long as there is a buck to be made and a head to be patted... "Yes, clever boy, you've helped to make me a greater percentage on my investment, and it only costs the user... have a pat on the head"

HaltyRem wrote: @EnaiSiaion:
I do agree about existence of dendency toward declining of using mods in new games.
From my personal point of view the reasons are:
1) modern games are staying for much longer visually and gameplay-wise non-outdated, and less lacking of quality-of-life features, so the modern games need less fixes;
2) nowadays, there are very many games with different visual styles, roleplaying setting and options, gameplay modes, so there is less need for expanding with mods all of this in any particular ONE game;
3) it is much faster and easier to just use an additional game, which already has what is needed and is optimised for it;
4) those games, that provide extensive options to fine-tune almost everything in game, do not induce desire to mod it (OH WHY DEVELOPERS DO IT SO RARELY?!!!);
5) majority of the most profitable games are either multiplayer, or cooperative, and these types of games are much less moddable then singleplayer games.

Dravond wrote: Hey there is there a guide i can look at to use mods on ms store games?

Stiffon wrote: I think Saggaris got it right and you're both in the don't mod camp and think we should all join you. Wrong. I've spent days and weeks modding games like Skyrim and FO and still do. And I spend days playing them too - still. And I'm sure I will keep on modding in the future. I'm not new to gaming nor modding, but I definitely want the choice. Being an adult means having choice.

vapor78 wrote: I like how a few comments on here make back handed swipes at the mod community as a whole... comments like " *adults* dont have time.. blah blah" these remarks are specifically stated to be dimunitive towards folks who do mod.. cuz by that logic if you mod, you arent an adult..

the bethesda games have been kept alive BY modding, ppl wouldnt still be playing marrowind or oblivion if not for mods, as another user pointed out, there have been billions of mod downloads which trumps the amount of games even sold.
ppl mod... freedom of choice and customization is what brings mods to the forefront.
Modding wasnt always a mainstream thing either, it gained popularity and now some "users" whom werent modders to begin with want to tell us we dont need mods... if that was the case, then the mods never would have existed to begin with.
Adding options to customize a game is no where even close to modding a game, some people clearly dont know anything about the subject they have an opinion about..
Lastly.. if you dont want something, cool, dont use it, but wtf is it with people that feel if they dont need it then by default it means it shouldnt even exist?

I would be amused if you are including EnaiSiaion, author of more than a dozen popular Skyrim mods, as someone who is against modding.

[akarageface]

In response to post #91967003. #91979463, #91980208, #92042283, #92067333, #92140103, #92149073, #92390813, #92576988, #92589523, #92591058 are all replies on the same post.

TXChannel34 wrote: This is the predictable end of gaming. The general rule for a successful business is to find something that makes money and scale it. This is just Microsoft scaling it. They know that something that is this popular and the bygone conclusion is that there will be enough subscribers that will stay with it, they don't care about the odd ones out. When I bought games from a brick and mortar store for my new alienware laptop was like seeing my kids born, only to find out when I installed them on my computer and then launched it, it said I had to get this "steam" thing to run the game I bought on the computer I paid for. this is nothing more than money grabbing as many have noted. I don't buy a bunch of games, I don't play a bunch of them, there are a few that I have and like, and if there is a game that comes out that looks cool I will buy it, and if I don't like it, I stop playing it. I paid the developers for the privilege of trying it out. If I like it, I buy more of their games, more of their DLCs, etc. I am not going to go on down this road, you all know what I mean. Games like Fortnite and the like, sure, make em subscription stuff. Games like Fallout, Skyrim, etc, they are for refined gamers, they aren't plug and play shoot em ups. If you've ever had a problem with windows, and tried their customer support for a fix, you already know what sort of an invironment we find ourselves in now. Only in the corporate mind would anyone be ok with being turned from a player into a payer and expect the customer to be happy about it.

If they were serious about their plan and keeping us happy, they'd offer us the ability to pay a small one time charge for a game, and subscriptions would be optional with an "in app purchase". I'm still fuming about having had bought a game and have to run it through the steam client. I believe that it causes a lot of the crashes that I experience in the game. I can be playing, the game crashes, won't start back up again unless I go to task manager and force quit the 13 steam apps running in the background. But that's a different thread. I spent the last week downloading a bunch of mods and dlc and working the bugs out, and am still not done to my satisfaction, but it;'s getting there. Heck, on the microsoft platform, all you get is the vanilla game and No DLCs, no popular mods, nada. Just the opportunity to pay Microsoft $50 per month for the privilege of playing the vanilla game using their game client which is required to play at all.

Saggaris wrote: Have a Kudos for your 'rant' TX

I and a good few 'older' others feel the similar about being corporately stuffed.

GamingZacharyC wrote: Hold on a minute there: As far as we know, most Bethesda titles will be on the MS Store, yes, but we don't even know if they'll be on Steam, like Skyrim.  Personally, I'd prefer Bethesda releases their titles on Steam instead of the Bethesda.net Launcher because, honestly, that's too much bloat for my system. Bethesda titles, in my experience, are buggy and unoptimized. I don't need a buggy and unoptimized launcher running in the background, taking nibbles at my potato rig. Steam is very well optimized and well cared for.

As for the taskkilling the Steam processes: That is the game's fault. Steam provides a bunch of APIs for a game developer to make use of. If a game crashes and the game process isn't entirely dead, Steam provides an option to force quit a game if it is being stubborn. Personally, I've never had problems with Steam, only the games published on the platform. If the game crashes a lot, that's a very nieve answer to just blame the retailer service. The launcher is almost never the problem with a retailer; The problem is almost always with the game itself.

To top it all off, Game Pass is an *optional* thing, and it is $15 a month (for Ultimate), not $50. You can outright buy a copy of the game if you wish, or you can rent it and a bunch of other games for $15 a month. Personally, I would go Game Pass, but buy my Bethesda titles on Steam.


If there's one good thing I can see coming out of the MS-Zenimax deal, I do believe that Bethesda games will get better in terms of performance and bugs.

Kel1978 wrote: most Bethesda games are already on steam.  Also you can mod just mine with games from the Microsoft store. You just need to take ownership of the folder.

EnaiSiaion wrote: If the consumer rewards Microsoft for this move, it means game ownership, mods and so on don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

I used to care about owning games, too. Then I grew up. Adults don't have time to mess around with installing and managing games, they just want to hit a button and play.

This rant feels like a brick and mortar store owner trying to defend their business from online marketplaces. People will go where they want, and if they go somewhere else, you didn't have enough to offer in the first place.

I suspect most people could not care less about moddability, and by the next generation, the only games that can be modded are games that are designed as platforms for custom content, like Mario Maker and Trackmania, and only within the confines of their sandbox. People will like it because it eliminates much of the hassle (Skyrim mods are too clunky and unprofessional for the majority of users). And if their favourite game doesn't support mods, who cares? It will have DLC instead, and once the DLC runs out, play something else!

Saggaris wrote: You seem to be a bit mixed up there, have you noticed that here on Nexus there have been over four and a half billion mod downloads... so where are you getting the idea that most people don't care about moddability?
I personally feel that you are of the camp that doesn't care and are trying to convert the mod anointed.

I understand that priorities change as you age, but don't think for one moment it's about growing up, it's not, it's about choice and what you do with that choice, if you give that up willingly then you will never get it back as long as there is a buck to be made and a head to be patted... "Yes, clever boy, you've helped to make me a greater percentage on my investment, and it only costs the user... have a pat on the head"

HaltyRem wrote: @EnaiSiaion:
I do agree about existence of dendency toward declining of using mods in new games.
From my personal point of view the reasons are:
1) modern games are staying for much longer visually and gameplay-wise non-outdated, and less lacking of quality-of-life features, so the modern games need less fixes;
2) nowadays, there are very many games with different visual styles, roleplaying setting and options, gameplay modes, so there is less need for expanding with mods all of this in any particular ONE game;
3) it is much faster and easier to just use an additional game, which already has what is needed and is optimised for it;
4) those games, that provide extensive options to fine-tune almost everything in game, do not induce desire to mod it (OH WHY DEVELOPERS DO IT SO RARELY?!!!);
5) majority of the most profitable games are either multiplayer, or cooperative, and these types of games are much less moddable then singleplayer games.

Dravond wrote: Hey there is there a guide i can look at to use mods on ms store games?

Stiffon wrote: I think Saggaris got it right and you're both in the don't mod camp and think we should all join you. Wrong. I've spent days and weeks modding games like Skyrim and FO and still do. And I spend days playing them too - still. And I'm sure I will keep on modding in the future. I'm not new to gaming nor modding, but I definitely want the choice. Being an adult means having choice.

vapor78 wrote: I like how a few comments on here make back handed swipes at the mod community as a whole... comments like " *adults* dont have time.. blah blah" these remarks are specifically stated to be dimunitive towards folks who do mod.. cuz by that logic if you mod, you arent an adult..

the bethesda games have been kept alive BY modding, ppl wouldnt still be playing marrowind or oblivion if not for mods, as another user pointed out, there have been billions of mod downloads which trumps the amount of games even sold.
ppl mod... freedom of choice and customization is what brings mods to the forefront.
Modding wasnt always a mainstream thing either, it gained popularity and now some "users" whom werent modders to begin with want to tell us we dont need mods... if that was the case, then the mods never would have existed to begin with.
Adding options to customize a game is no where even close to modding a game, some people clearly dont know anything about the subject they have an opinion about..
Lastly.. if you dont want something, cool, dont use it, but wtf is it with people that feel if they dont need it then by default it means it shouldnt even exist?

showler wrote: I would be amused if you are including EnaiSiaion, author of more than a dozen popular Skyrim mods, as someone who is against modding.

You're jumping the gun pretty hardcore here, bud. There's no possible way Microsoft would switch to a subscription ONLY model for their games. There will always be the ability to just buy a copy. There is no incentive to Microsoft or Bethesda to prevent this. Hell, ensuring the Game Pass version is crappy for mods just incentives Game Pass owners to end up buying the game outright, which double dips profit for Microsoft, since they would get the Game Pass subscription on top of the full retail purchase. 

Also...not sure where the hell you're paying $50/month for Game Pass, but you should probably get your money back, since that's over 3x the actual price. Kinda undercuts your argument when you don't understand Game Pass in the first place.

Just my two cents. 

[akarageface]

Not sure why so many people are losing their minds here, tbh. 

 

Nothing about it being on game pass forces you to use it on game pass. 

 

Buy the game on Steam and mod to your heart's content. No big deal. They mentioned possible CONSOLE exclusivity, but nothing about restricting games on PC to the Microsoft Store was even hinted towards. 

 

If that ends up happening down the road, freak out and make your voices heard. But right now this is "old man ranting at clouds" level nonsense for the most part.

[luxor8071]

forget that Game Pass crap. get a steam version and mod the hell out of it.