No, I'd say that is a false assumption. When so many people bought F4, they only had Fallout 1-3 and NV on their minds, not what this creation is. Now that F4 is out, all future purchases will be with F4 in mind, and there are actually a ton of people who feel the same way as I do, as the ratings this game has got show.

Good business practice is not pissing off your customer base, even a segment of it, and continually deliver what they want. I suspect they could not meet their goals, so pushed what they had forward, using modders as a fallback excuse for every last bug and problem this game has in plenitude. Am I going to make assumptions about this crew a second time? No way, you can only fool me once before you loose your reputation. Those of us who do not bend over for Bethesda and make lots of excuses for their errors will probably do the same.

The gaming community needs to hold gaming companies like Bethesda and others accountable for their actions. If Apple released the iPhone and it had a ton a problems, they will get eviscerated for it. Not so gaming companies, because a lot of you people out there keep worshiping them rather than holding their feet to the fire for bad decisions.

Fallout 4 has a lot of good, but a lot of really bad decision making as well. My guess is the true programmers at Bethesda stayed true to the spirit of Fallout but some schmuck executive demanded the 'streamlining' of the Fallout premise in some short sighted console worshiping or smartphone app enthusiast prerogative.

It is you that is making the false equivalency. The base doesn't matter. The base will buy regardless of what they put out (as is proven by these forums). The entire point is to draw in NEW customers. In order to appeal to new customers, there had to be some changes made and some concessions to simplify the mechanics to appeal to a broader base.

Look at the sales numbers. They are still going up and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

A good example of this is The Elder Scrolls Online. While, initially they may have sought core Bethesda Skyrim lovers, they have since, significantly tweaked the mechanics and content to appeal to a broader audience.

Certainly people have whined about the changes made to simplify the mechanics, the difficulty and the overall stories, but that doesn't matter.

Bethesda is a business. They know that true fans of the series will purchase it regardless of the quality, simply because of the name (FNV is a great example of that) so that's a given. It is also a given that those same gamers will complain, whine and fill the boards with trash talk. They also know that the core does not matter. It is NEW players that need to be drawn in. Thus the beefed up FPS elements. Thus the simplification of the story and dialogue to cater to those players who get-in and get-out and don't really RP.

It's the way business works now. Sad, but true.

As you supposition that it was simplified for console and smartphone/tablet. Yes. It was. And it had to be. The majority of casual gamers these days are not PC users. Sorry. But it's true. I can count on one hand the number of PC owners that I actually know (outside of their work computers). People, on the whole, simply don't have the patience for in-depth games, mods and all the accouterments of PC gaming these days. It's in and out as fast as possible.

Most people now own consoles, smart phones or tablets (there are still a few laptops out there too), but PC's? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong. In some ways this is a betrayal of their most loyal fans, but, Bethesda has to deal with the reality of today's environment.

JMHO.

Game mechanic changes aside, this has been the least buggy Bethesda game I've ever played. I've had 0 game breakers or major mission breakers in probably 200 hours which is just unheard of for Bethesda.

no they shot in-game physics in the head, I see you floating cow and floating bear, you both acting like floating 10 feet off the ground like a girl from exersist is normal? OK

Well... for a Bethesda game, it's completely normal. Anybody remember it raining mammoths and circus performer horse riding from Skyrim, not to mention the "excuse me, I'm embedded in this post, but am more than happy to talk to you" thing?

While I can understand people disagreeing over things they like and dislike in the game, I don't understand at all the rants about the game having "tons of bugs" when this is the least buggy game Bethesda has ever made. I've only run into couple bugs myself...the MacCready perk and items sinking into surfaces after decorating. I'm sure there are probably a few more I personally haven't experienced, but overall, the game is about as bug-free as a game can get.

I don't give a flying f bomb if this is the least buggy game they ever made. My universe is not limited to Bethesda when it comes to assessing the quality of a game. After all if another company can make good quality then what's big B's problem then?

All I hear is more excuse making, like a mother trying to protect her brat from the angry accusations of the school teacher: "really this is pretty good behavior Mr. Smith, you should see him at home!"

In any event, I do not at all recall this many crashes, bugs, gross imbalances and lack of content from Fallout 3, so I don't even know where this assertion is coming from.

I got the season pass after i enjoyed the main story one time, I thought the game was really good but lacking in settlement building. I believe the season pass will be much like Bethesda selling Skyrim dlc on psn finally after like 2 years of nothing from Skyrim on ps3 and you will much regret not getting the season pass. Also to that I believe the season pass should be limited time offer because I believe we will get the same amount of dlc as skyrim did and see it as a bargain price when their previous games dlc cost just as much as a new game to get all the dlc in one bunch. But I understand where this weariness comes from because of games like COD that exploit us with the season pass to only give us remake maps from the previous games in their map pack dlcs. COD is the reason why season passes might actually die because people like you don't trust them anymore and feel the company is trying to rob us blind but I would argue bethesda hasnt robbed us yet with any dlc or content. They release a game and some bugs are still present like in previous titles, time and time again this has been how Bethesda does things, they then release dlcs that are super good like previous games of theirs. I would say that Bethesda as a company has kept their track record and is probably the only company that gamers should blindly trust in a sense of speaking.

Then move on. Bethesda is not going to fix every little bug or glitch in the game. That's just the way it is. Sorry. Those of us who have played Beth games for years know this to be a fact.

Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and now Fallout 4. The started with bugs and they all have bugs still. The still have glitches. They still have issues. It is the nature of the Beth Beast. Mods have solved many of the issues on PC, but consolers have had to deal with them for years and accept these games for what they are.

To quote an old song: "You can't expect perfection in a quite imperfect world".

That's life. $100 bucks ain't gonna get you perfection.

If you don't like it, I am quite sure that Beth doesn't really care. What is 1 person compared to 100's of thousands that love and will always love their games, flaws and all.

As to your last line. It is your rig/console, your mods or the way you are playing. The majority of the rest of us don't and never will experience your issues. I have 100's of hours in and no crashes and only one game breaking bug (Monsignor Plaza - which, oddly, when I visited yesterday wasn't an issue).

I will buy a season pass from Bethesda until they screw me......

Look at Bungie...

True. They haven't yet.

*sigh* You mean the scene that did NOT mention the big mystery of who was involved? That one? Yes, I watched it and now, as soon as I come across this Kellogg, I shall know he is involved. How is that NOT a spoiler?

The concept of "Pay first on stuff you don't even know" is really stupid for me.

And I only ever bought once (for other game) because I was sure it's going to be good from what I saw previously.

Turned out it's [censored]. Shame on me.

Purchased the Fallout 4 Season Pass THE INSTANT IT BECAME AVAILABLE.

And am certain I will not be disappointed.

THERE IS NO DOUBT BETHESDA WILL DELIVER MY FULL MONEY'S WORTH WITH ALL THE DLCs FOR FALLOUT 4.

As-if otherwise? I mean, come on, be real.

Hell, I'd even buy Horse Armor again, for a mere five bucks, just for the sake of having it and seeing it in game...

You want to tell me how to spend my money be prepared to go out and earn it for me too.

Even though I generally like Bethesda games, I am not buying any season pass. It has nothing to do with me liking the company or not but it is a practice in gaming I absolutely hate to see these days. I don't know when we as consumers decided it was ok to just start paying for things we haven't seen on the hope that it may be good. Season passes, game preorders, so forth and so on. It really makes game developers a little too comfortable when they realize they can turn a profit before the product is even shipped out the door.

It'd be like going to a restaurant and the waiter tells you "if you can just pay the check right now, I am sure your dinner and the waiting service will be absolutely top notch!" Not a single person here would go for it, and yet here we are, folks essentially doing the same thing.

The first cinema opened in 1895.

Before that we bought books, and paid entrance fees for live theatre.

(I say we. I'm old, but not that old.) Anyway, there's nothing about this business model that's even remotely new.

That particular line of reasoning is very silly, has never made even the slightest sense, and it's popularized mainly by people writing for click-bait gaming websites aimed at readers too young to remember a world that didn't have broadband.

I think it's funny that while I agree with people who are adverse to buying Season Passes, I know why you don't because I don't usually either: I will undoubtedly want to get ALL of the Fo4 DLC (as most people will).

And most of the people who are not going to purchase the season pass will probably spend more money buying the DLC separately!!

Whats funnier still is that buying the game itself, IS NO DIFFERENT, you pay your ￡50 or $60 or whatever BEFORE YOU PLAY THE GAME, what difference does it make if it's 1 hour before you play it or 1 month. And before you say anything about DLC not being announced yet if your suggestion is that the DLC may not end up being worth it..... I will simply say that you...... Are mental.

what is silly about it precisely? You make references to days when information was not readily available but even then there was word of mouth etc etc. We live in the age of communication, there is no reason to blindly push a product on people without telling them anything about it whatsoever. If that is what you like to do, hey I'm not arguing, people can spend their money the way they wish. I'm only after understanding since this practice affects consumers as well who would rather be fully informed about what they are purchasing.

The Season pass is there as a way for gamers who are set on buyng DLC to save money. It isn't an exploit really, if you want to get all of the DLC and you get the season pass you save money (usually) it's not being forced on anyone. At least Beth don't do micro-transactions. They're not EA.

Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim DLC was ALL worth it. I don't see a reason to start doubting Beth now, they have earned my faith.

I do not recall saying anything about exploiting. Nor did I say it was being forced on anyone, I was only commenting on buying game content that we have no information about. Not everyone has faith in these companies, especially those who have not been consumers for years. A few details would be nice so that those newer customers can make more informed decisions was all I was saying. I also find it fascinating how aggressively this practice is defended when the aforementioned is not at all an unreasonable request.

Eh, Oblivion is kinda questionable because that was Bethesda's attempt at micro-transactions and it did cause problems (see famous Horse Armor meme) but they've stopped doing that given what we've seen with Fallout 3 and skyrim. But yea I agree with your post, if this was a company like EA, Activision or Konami I'd question it right away but Bethesda is typically good with it's dlc.

Because of that I getting it.

Skyrim DLC bored me but Oblivion dlcs Shivering Isles and the Knights of the Nine I love them both.

Dlcs for Fallout3 are good all four of are. NV are better to me anyway. NV if a different game to FO3. Less polished but.

Who's pushing, exactly? I saw that there was a season pass, I have faith in this particular content producer, so I paid for it. Personal experience informed my decision, rather than basing my choices on what some random yob at IGN or l33tgam3r3vi3w3rs had to say in an article whose *sole* reason for existence is to generate ad impressions so that some other yob can convince me to buy overpriced consumer goods to prove how much of an alpha nerd I am by yelling obscenities at corpse-camping pre-tweens through a diamond-studded MLGPRO headset that cost as much as a small car.

It's silly because people continue to insist that taking a risk when making a choice is some sort of newfangled con job that's being pulled by the video game industry, when it's actually a fundamental fact of life, of which commerce is simply an extension, and always will be. My season pass means I take one type of risk and get a little price break. Someone buying DLC individually means they take several different types of risk and pay a little more. Someone who waits for the GOTY sale takes a different set of risks than either of us and pays far less to boot. Funny how you don't see him flapping his hands in despair, moaning about how the rest of us are killing gaming and making developers lazy, hmm?

Word of mouth is nothing like full information: "You should play Fallout, it's fun but buggy, no surprise". Wow, big time saver, thanks! (That guy thinks it's fun because you can chop up male corpses and stack them in your bed, he never left Sanctuary Hills.)

Subjective reviews are not objective experiences. "This DLC svcks." (Because it didn't have enough penguins in it?)

Ratings are marketing tools, ultimately meaningless to players even in the context that spawns them.

In the words of people who were raised without a broadband connection jacked into their ergonomic bubble-wrapped pacifiers, "A map is not the territory".

Unless you played the entire game before you purchased it, then you were not fully informed, nor could you have been. Same with a movie, or a book, or a restaurant meal, or a can of coke. To assert that anything other than a vanishingly small segment of the market wants or seeks out "full information" about the products they agree to purchase is patently absurd. If it were anything like common practice, spoiler tags wouldn't exist, and marketing practices would be completely different. We make decisions based on partial information ALL DAY LONG. People who choose to buy a season pass have reasons for doing so, and they're not intrinsically any better or worse than anyone elses reasons for doing anything. Life is risk.