Hi,

Sorry for posting yet another thread, but I have heard this comment thrown around a lot. The idea that Bethesda are stripping down their games to the bare minimum and leaving the rest behind for modders and future DLC. So I thought it was worth a discussion. Do you believe that Bethesda are too reliant on DLC and Mods to create the true experience?

I'll post my ideas in a seperate post (here).

Hopefully a good discussion can come out of this...

I am one of the players who learnt about the Fallout series with 3, and started it on the PS3. I played the game till its end and was completely fine with the story and the experience it gave me and even re-rolled a couple of times to experience different characters. But as DLC piled up, and as none of it came to the PS3 on time, I decided to change to the PC. The PC version changed my views on Bethesda's approach to game development entirely, and it was appreciative.

FO3s DLC was superior to the original game in every way, but the Vanilla game was great. The Pitt was and is to this day my favourite piece of DLC. It gave insight into the world of the Brotherhood and expanded the universe greatly. However, it also made me realise that the same morale-greyness was not present in FO3, and the story telling was no where near as good with the exception of a certain black & white, and a childrens village, which where great! The DLC gave way to mods as I looked for further ways to improve the game, but they never truly provided me the experience the DLC did, and as such I do believe DLCs are better than mods (which I know many will disagree with).

Forward to FO4 and I think the game is similair to Vanilla FO3, in fact slightly better. The game doesnt truly feel complete, but still gives you space for hundreds of hours of gameplay, and as such I dont think I can complain if no DLC or console mods ever came. But the space for them is noticeable, and some mechanics feel rushed. So I do think that if ever a Broken-Steel-like DLC came along it will provide the true experience of FO4, and anything beyond that will be sugar on top.

Why does Bethesda not fix a lot of bugs?

Because Bethesda found out from Fallout 3, Fallout NV, Oblivion and Skyrim that no matter what, people are going to fix all the crap for them. FOR FREE. Then upload it to Nexus, that would share it with the world... FOR FREE.

Why does Bethesda have rubbish guns in game?

Because Bethesda found out from Fallout 3 and Fallout NV that no matter what, people are going to make their own models and mods. So they made weapons moddable in game instead of making say, a M16 look alike, etc.

Like I have said many times, including here on Bethesda's own forum, that the ONLY thing that makes this game worth the price is all the content (and even then, I'm not sure about it) and moddability. If Bethesda makes any Fallout/Elder Scrolls game unmoddable, it automatically means that it is not worth it.

But I would argue the console success of those games suggest otherwise. I know the games can be buggy, but none of those games recieved mod support on console format, and still managed to be hugely successful. Maybe I am among the very fortunate to never have seen any game-breaking bugs, especially fortunate considering the hate Skyrim got on the PS3, the format I played it on. The occasional bug forcing me to revert to a previous save file comes along maybe every four or so play-sessions, but thats it. And I do think FO4 has less bugs than the previous games, again I have yet to run into any game-breaking bugs, just the occasionally annoying one where a settler finds himself on the rooftops at Sanctuary. Arguably the Kill-shot perk bug is game-breaking and I am suffering from that, but I dont think it damages the experience too much.

That all being said I do agree that the potential loss of mod support for future games will hurt them a greatly.

And the M16 comment, the M16 was designed in 1956 according to the Wiki, and Fallout lore deviates from our worlds history from 1944. A sort of stagnation in technological mindset occurs, hence the bulky design around everything, so I think the AR look makes sense.

My 2 cents...

DLC storylines are almost destined to be superior to the long-since cliched "main questline" in episodic sandbox worlds, unless the writers are totally different. Consumers expect/demand a vanilla main quest, so developers give them one. Consumers also expect a connection to prior episodes, so developers throw that in. Consumers also expect multiple exclusive endings, so that's there too. Side quests under every rock? Check. In-jokes from three episodes ago? Roger that. All that has to get crammed into a vanilla world that doesn't violate too many canon expectations, but still expands on things everywhere it can.

The DLC so far in FO games have generally been able to diverge pretty radically from what had come before in the world, and tell much more compact stories about much more contained locales and groups. What happened in The Pitt or In The Big MT will probably never need to come up again in the events of a FO main quest, so the devs can string together much more interesting scenes and characters without worrying about creating (or contradicting) a precedent in the vanilla FO universe.

I'm always happy to see FO stories that don't revolve around the BOS, since they're basically just cardboard cutouts with "fascist" stamped on their foreheads. Most of those are only going to going to appear in DLC, because the target market for Fallout games tends to romanticize any bigot with a big gun.

So....if I answer NO to the first question, I have no valid choice in the second.question...and if I don't answer all the questions I can't submit my responses.

So my answer is NO.

This is tinfoil hat nonsense.

You can mitigate everything a developer does and point to a mod that did it better (arguably), and use it as some kind of hollow point that the devs are reliant on modders who do it for free. Game's like the TES/Fo series have the benefit of having a relatively fluid community. Morrowind is still going strong. There has to be a point where the dev moves on to other projects.

I think DLC and Mods are part of the Fallout experience Bethesda has created, some people forget that. It's almost like some want the franchise to be mothballed. I'm not saying OP is one, just that sometimes the forum vibe feels that way. The bugs, mods dlc, vanilla formula, all of it makes Fallout the greatest game for me.

God what a terribly flawed and Biased poll.

DLCs are a way for companies to extend both the life of the game which serve to increases sales of a title past the initial rush while at the same time extend revenue generation past the initial purchase. Bethesda has been both very good and poor on the value for said DLC. Oblivion's horse armour was a very poor example but Skyrim's Dawnguard or Dragonborn were both quality DLCs and even if you didn't like the stories they can't honestly be said to be a rip off.

Mods are a way to extend the life of a game and increase sales for both the base game and DLCs without the company providing content to extend a game's life. The company isn't reliant on this they simply create a mutually beneficial arrangement. Consoles have for the last few games allowed Bethesda to grow as a company and they have done so without mods so that is proof positive that mods are not required to enjoy their games.

As a PC gamer I am player who likes to Mod my games or tweak things within the limits of my limited skill in the area. I don't require to do this to enjoy a game i simply do so to enhance my enjoyment. Does that make the company that sells the game reliant on mods because I use them? I don't think so.

As for features and letting modders do things to tweak the game that is just the nature of mods, mods modify the game some will be merely cosmetic others will impact game play, I don't think you can view Bethesda as somehow failing because other people mod the game in a manner that Bethesda hasn't created the base game. You can add six to various degrees of explicitness to most (all? ) Bethesda titles is Bethesda somehow failing by not providing this in their base game? Your likely honest response is "of coarse not," yet why? just because it was sixual content? If they are not responsible for this feature why are they responsible for other features modders can come up with?

If people buy the game and never mod it or buy the game and only ever play it modded it doesn't matter. The game simply has to satisfy the customer in the way the individual customer wants to play the game. It appears that Bethesda makes games people WANT to play, both on platforms that allow and don't allow mods. This logically means they are making games that fit their customer's desires and that is all a REASONABLE person can expect on the topic.

Is Bethesda reliant on Mods and DLC?

I'm not sure reliant is the right word, though I guess they rely on the DLC for extra income once sales of the title taper off. While the community does rely on mods to some extent, I don't think Bethesda does. Were they truly reliant on mods the game would ship with the editing tools and documentation necessary to create said mods.

Do you believe the idea of Console-Mods is going to fuel this reliance further?

Uh, last console I owned was a 2600.

Which do you think is more important? DLC or Mods?

Apples and oranges. DLC is for adding more story to the game, mods are for tweaking things. From their perspective, DLC is probably more important as it effects their bottom line.

If you are on Consoles, are you excited by the prospect of mods coming to your console?

Fallout 2600? Not holding my breath.

Would you call FO4 a complete experience in its current state?

I haven't run across anything game breaking so far, so I'd say yes. There are certainly things I'd like to tweak, but compared to FO3/F:NV it's mostly trivial stuff.

You are approached by a frenzied Vault scientist, who yells, "I'm going to put my quantum harmonizer in your photonic resonation chamber!" What's your response?

Not without dinner and a movie you're not.

What is tinfoil hat craziness is you responding to that comment with logic and reason. This is the interwebs stop that!

I think Bethesda spend a good 18 months or so making and releasing awesome DLC and patching and supporting the community, this they do better than anyone, I wouldn't call the fact that they support and respect the modding community 'relying' on modders, as people have stated the console success vastly debunks that notion. Morrowind was the first to be released on consoles and it sold more on Xbox than PC, a LOT more! Cannot rely on modders for that so NO is actually the definitive answer to the first question.

Console mods will not make them rely on mods any more than they do now, I actually find it hard to accept people using the idea against them. It has never really been done before and if they can pull it off they will have pioneered something revolutionary, that's the way I see it.

DLC is more important than mods, if only for the obvious reason that DLC is on consoles as well as PC. The PC crowd hate the fact that the game has sold LOTS more copies on consoles than they ever have on PC, but that's the way it is. So for sheer numbers DLC is more important. Besides Bethesda DLC is substantial to say the least.

I am excited for mods coming to consoles, it very exciting. I'm mostly looking forward to additions and advancements to the settlement building but Beth will most likely be adding to and tweaking that themselves anyway.

Fallout 4 is NOT finished, we all know that. I wouldn't say that means if feels like an 'incomplete', experience as it is, as it stands, still one of the best games ever. Given the fact that we know DLC is going to be coming, most likely huge and awesome DLC at that is nothing but a good thing, I mentioned this in another thread but I would much rather be able to play the 'base' game now and play DLC later (which will feel more special having already bonded with the game and your characters) than have to wait another 18 months or so to play ANY of it. So yes Fo4 is 'technically' an 'unfinished' game (which again I see as a good thing), but I think it is unfair and overly critical to call it an 'incomplete' experience.

I'll say it again, Bethesda 'support' the modders. It is arrogance on the part of the modders to suggest that means any kind or 'reliance', arrogant and ungrateful. Some devs don't like people modding their games at all. It just seems the more good Beth do the more flak they receive.

Assault rifle in FONV. That is all.

Sure. How about you uninstall all the unofficial patches for previous games? And of course, don't use the script extender.

Right after you stop expecting developer's to bow and scraqe to your every whim, chief.

For me? Yes. Their games would be -80% Steam sale purchases at best for me if they were not moddable.

Generally? No. They have always sold very well on consoles, which have not had access to mods.

I play on console. I don't think Bethesda is reliant on mods or dlc. Mods from my viewpoint has always been a luxury for PC gamers. Game devs are restricted by time and etc when developing their project. Opening that project so that the community of gamers that experience that game can alter aspect of that game while retaining the vanilla foundation is amazing. The opportunity for consoles mods sounds great because as a console gamer I may get to share in some aspects of what PC gamers experience. Of course, I have lowered my expectations to adding color to power armor, new prefabs, settlement objects. However, I am hoping it will be much more, and well I play on PS4 :/ , Sony...

The only way Bethesda is reliant on mods is to not bother with creating certain features. With mods, Bethesda doesn't need to bother with create a hardcoe mod since modders will do it better. Besides, having different hardcoe mods means that players can choose how hardcoe their game is. If players want to make Fallout into a game that makes Dark Souls seem completely easy by comparison, then they can.

The only Bethesda game I can think if that absolutely needs mods is probably FO3 because it runs terribly on modern OSes. Mods are just an extra, sure for some people they can't play without mods but personally I think that idea is silly. Now on Bethesda depending on mods, not really, they release a good amount of dlcs and skyrim had a lot of free new features in it's updates so mods just make the game have more content for people later on, personally I think every company that does PC games should release mod tool sets and encourage mod communities.

As for mods on consoles this is something Bethesda has been trying to do since Morrowind. Every game they try to get a way for microsoft and sony to support modding but never could so it was kinda cool that they managed to win the fight for once. Sure it won't be as expansive as what you can get on PC but it's still really cool feature.

Bethesda knows that they can't please everybody and they give us the freedom to change things that bother us.

I believe almost every RPG nowadays is reliant on DLC, mostly because of development times and cuts that occur. Do i think that all Bethesda games are fine in their vanilla state? Yes to me they are. I use mods to remove small annoyances i otherwise couldn't with other games. We all have them, even with our favourite games. Quality content DLC is much more important to me than mods, and Bethesda has made alot of great expansions and meaty DLC, lets hope they do it yet again for Fallout 4. Also this was a bad poll, in many ways.

Rubbish.

Bethesda's games had a massive amount of bugs before any of their games were moddable. Daggerfall is still, to this day, the buggiest game Bethesda has ever made, and it came out long before Bethesda started releasing a Construction Set for modders. Most of those bugs have never fixed.

Bethesda's woeful lack of patching support is a bad habit that goes all the way back to the company's beginnings in 1986. It has nothing to do with mods, which were not a factor until 2002.

I can see that fans like yourself are very fierce in your defense of your idol God company. So much so that you are unable to keep your offensive comments to yourself.

By the way, it is 2015 now, not 2002. In 2002, they may have thought that mods are a nice way for players to prolong the lifespan of the game by themselves. And after Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, NV and 4, modding is a crutch that Bethesda relies on.

I do not expect anyone to do anything. I am just airing my opinion. I can see that fans like yourself, in your defense of your idol God company Bethesda, are unable to tell the difference between the 2.

For me, they are reliant on mods. If they didn't give mod support, I would 100% not buy their games. It's not about adding new quests. It's not about adding new armor. It's not about making the nights darker, or the storms more intense. All of those things are bonuses.

It's about the bugs.

Every single time they release a game, it's a buggy mess. I fully expect it, and I'm never disappointed. Mods allow me to fix that and make the game actually work as it's intended. Never mind the ways it makes them work in ways that were not intended. That is core to the entire issue. The vanilla experiences aren't too bad in and of themselves, it's the bugs, which many have just accepted as "features" that are. When I run into something broken or not working as intended, I make or download a mod that fixes it and there's no problem. Which is strange, since a modder can fix it so easily, yet they refuse to release a patch that ever addresses the issue. If they did, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Every game has some bugs at launch, most get patched out eventually. But Bethesda games typically never do.

The rest of the mods out there are just icing on the cake. Letting you customize the game to your liking and to suit your needs. But they aren't mandatory.

I can't imagine playing Skyrim again without the Unoffical Skyrim Patch, the Unofficial Dawnguard patch, the Unofficial Hearthstone patch, the Unofficial Dragonborn patch. The number of issues they fix that never got addressed by Bethesda are staggering.

This is why, for me, they are reliant on modders. Because without them the experience they provide simply isn't worth the cost of the game. I prefer games that work.