If they wanted to expand housing but were afraid it wouldn't do well due to mods, then they'd just focus their DLC on something that would sell. I don't like this whole season pass thing but I don't think this is the reason why they joined the bandwagon.

Unless of course they already started work on expanding housing for a DLC but didn't like the way the feature was received by the fans after the E3 presentation so pulled this stunt that you're suggesting. That is way too 'black helicopters' for me though.

re: Oblivion and all it's various wacky DLCs..... you need to remember that OB came out when this whole DLC thing was pretty new. There weren't lots of other examples to base tactics on, so Beth did all sorts of crazy things (horse armor.....)

It's a decade later, DLC is well established, and types/styles/tactics for DLC have evolved. I wouldn't try to predict FO4's DLC based on what they did in Oblivion. (Personally, I've been assuming that it'll be more like Skyrim's - two large DLC, and something smaller.)

Oblivion was among the first game using DLC, it had a lot of crappy DLC.

Fallout 3/ NV and Skyrim did not, yes Skyrim had heartfire but it was a way to bring high quality housing mods to consoles.

Fallout 4 will contain the setlement system who looks 10 times better than heartfire, this and everything else can be moded 10 times better again.

Yes they could make an DLC like Helgen or kvatch rebild but this is mostly quest mods and far from housing mods.

Somehing like oblivion housing DLC would look far more dated than Oblivion grapic.

Why would a Harthfire type DLC be needed with the reported Settlement building feature?

Mods on consoles may not even be available when the first DLC drops.

they made Hearthfire for Skyrim bc there wasnt much option for housing during the base game, and if u count the "housing" Mod for oblivion most of it werent from Bethesda.

Most likely this time around we will get more stuff for the settlement (isnt a house) just from free update or as part of the DLC, like a story base dlc about Robots and that will allow us to get robots for the settlement, stuff like that.

This.

IIRC, the Horse Armor served as kind of a "proof of concept" test to make sure the infrastructure was working properly - uploading DLC to the marketplace, making sure it installed properly on the game, and so on. Easier for them to do that with a simple and cheap cosmetic item than test the pipeline with a full expansion or something. It ended up being the butt of a lot of jokes, but I'd bet from Bethesda's stand-point it was quite the success - it proved they could put out DLC and that they had best practices in place to do so, and I think I even remember an internet article a while back about how six years after Oblivion released people were still buying Horse Armor from the marketplace...

Occam's Razor would suggest this the more likely reasoning, I think.

With all the settlement-building and crafting, you basically have everything you'd put into a house DLC (and more) already included in the base game. I'd actually be surprised if they even went the Hearthfire route. So this whole hypothetical is itself based on a hypothetical that I, at least, don't find terribly likely.

But to assume all of that ends up being true, and Bethesda just really has it's heart set on this housing DLC - I don't see the strategy linking that to a Season Pass, either. If you just have to release a DLC that from the get-go you know before the game is even released or you've released any details about DLC content people aren't going to buy - how is essentially giving it away for free to anyone who bought a Season Pass a viable or profitable option? What does Bethesda gain from doing that? If this housing DLC is so unpopular, then it's not going to prompt more people to buy a Season Pass, and if it's not going to sell on it's own then you're not going to make more profit when customers only download it because they already have a Season Pass.

So, hey - it's all theories. But to break this down, this situation hinges on a hypothetical that itself has little evidence to back it; and even if those two hypotheticals proved true Bethesda has nothing to gain from employing that strategy.

Why would they even release Housing DLC for Fallout 4? For Supermutant Master's sake, the game will allow you to build your own house and furniture and even build your own freaking town. Housing DLC are unlikely to make a return in Beth games if they continue using the system introduced in FO4.

And where did you even read that housing DLC sold badly? From what I remember, in OB they sold better than most of the rest. At Skyrim, HF also doesn't seem to have sold badly (not as good as DG and DB, but that's to be expected as those two are proper expansions).

What are you talking about? I never once said Bethesda released broken DLC. What I'm saying is that, on PC, those DLC packs didn't sell too well. The most profits were seen on consoles due to the absence of player mods, which will be coming to consoles.

Bethesda likely wouldn't sell a season pass if there was no reason to do so. I actually think it has the potential to give them greater freedom with what they create, as they won't have to worry so much about bad sales concerning DLC that, on its face, people aren't interested in.


I was basing that on part of Steam Achievements. Only 19% of people ever got the landowner achievement, and that was just buying a plot of land. However, a similar number is there for landing on Solstheim. So something is off with that. I could have sworn that I read somewhere it didn't sell very well on PC.

I don't see the logic there, though. If I'm being honest.

Each DLC still needs to sell well - if no one's interested in a particular DLC then it won't. How does a Season Pass help sales of a DLC no one's interested in, in this hypothetical?

A Season Pass is just a bulk discount - it's the same thing how I can buy a 4-pack of toilet paper for a few bucks but if I buy a 24-pack I spend more money up-front, but I'm actually spending less for each individual roll.

Okay, well, I can't believe it, but Hearthfire did much better than I thought. A quick double check shows that it actually had almost as many reviews on Steam as Dragonborn, with 510 positive reviews and 93 negatives. Compare that to Dragonborn which had 543 positive reviews and 71 negative reviews.

This, along with a secondary look at Steam Achievements shows only a little over 20% of people ever went to Solstheim. So...ya.

Hearthfire, despite the presence of player mods, actually did well. Like, it actually competed with Dragonborn and Dawnguard in terms of popularity.

I'm not sure where I got the impression that it did so poorly on PC...Anyway, that completely shoots my theory down. So I guess the season pass really just comes down to Bethesda wanting some revenue before development starts? Who knows. Either way, this kind of blows my theory on this clear out of the water.


Season packs generally help the sale of unpopular DLCs for a few reasons. First, it's often times about the same for people if they just bought the DLC that they want. For example, if I didn't want Hearthfire and just Dawnguard and Dragonborn, but saw that a season pass would get me more stuff for essentially the same price, I would have no real reason not to get all three. Some companies take the cheapest route possible and try to stick weapon skins in (which is likely why some people were up in arms about it). But again, I was operating under the assumption that settlement or housing DLC was just unpopular on PC, which at first glance appeared to be the case. However, looking at other DLCs, they have largely the same figures.

As for the wholesale debate...I'm not so sure that applies with software. Unless you buy it individually in a store, there are no packaging costs, and no shipping costs. It's not like it's being sold at a wholesale store, either. So I'm guessing it just has to do with getting money before the development starts? Cause it sure as he'll isn't my idea.

Hah. I was writing up a big post about Steam achievement stuff and you've already got what I was trying to say

That 20% going to solstheim thing is something you'll find in every game. With Steam selling AAA games for 5 dollars a year or two after release, a whole bunch of people buy games in bulk and never play them. Its one of the more interesting parts of the modern gaming world that Steam is literally selling games so cheap that people barely even touch them despite buying them.

I am really curious what Bethesda does with their DLC though. The season pass isnt for sale yet, not at all, so maybe we'll have more info when it does come for sale. Personally I am hoping for more game mechanics-based DLCs like Hearthfire instead of just "More content!" like Dawnguard and Dragonborn. Don't get me wrong, I love more content, but I found Hearthfire's unique gameplay mechanics to add something special to the game that mods had been trying to do before but were limited by the very nature of modding.

Oblivion had several Housing DLC's made by Bethesda.. ever heard of Wizards Tower (aka Frostcrag Spire)? Thieves Den (aka Dunbarrow Cove)? Vile Lair (Deepscorn Hollow)? what about Fighters Stronghold (Battlehorn Castle)?

and Skyrims Hearthfire was clearly a housing DLC..

I agree. I...just can't believe how wrong I was on this. I remember when Hearthfire first came out, the forums were ablaze with either apathy or hatred towards it. Now, a few years later, everything on Steam indicates that it sold like hot cakes, and people liked it, despite the presence of user mods.

I can't for the life of me figure out why Bethesda is doing a season pass now, other than to get money early.

They don't usually overcharge for their DLC.
It's routinely popular.
It's insanely in depth.
Bethesda rarely does BS DLC.

I mean, Dawnguard and Dragonborn, with all of the content, voice acting, etc. was about as expensive as your average map pack.

But...looking at how few people got the achievements for, say, Dawnguard, maybe they're trying to use the hype train and rope people in to buying all of the DLC before they lose interest?

You got it right there with your last sentence. Thats the reason why Season Pass's exist in the first place.

Maybe someone could make a argument that its a slummy move, and this being a games forum I know someone will proclaim it the end of all of humanity. But it's just something that the business suits at the top do to market the game. Todd is a perfectionist, doesn't like people to see his games until they're done, and even though one could say that this might be a part of what is possibly his idea of a low-key hype train, I don't think Todd would decide on making a Season Pass.

Its important to remember that Todd and Pete are the faces of the company but do not make all of the decisions. They're in charge of the game, there's other people who are in charge of selling the game that we usually don't hear about. Maybe because they're Zenimax people or part of that second Bethesda Softworks/Game Studios thing. I'll be buying the season pass to get a discount on the content I know ill end up buying no matter what. But I am not the demographic that they are hoping to make money off of. It is people who would never have bought the DLC but are hyped about it when they sell it. As you can tell from those Steam achievements SO MANY people buy games and never play them.

It's a really interesting strategy, and honestly I like it. I had always assumed that the official DLC was universally adopted. Apparently it's just the opposite. This fills in the gap I was seeing. Financially speaking, it would make no sense to give people a discount on something they'd be buying anyway. But...if they rope more people in to buying their product, it doesn't matter if you get a discount. They make more money in the end. On top of that, the money they make is before they even start developing, potentially giving them more manpower and funding to throw at their projects. It's a smart move and I'm all for it.

If you want to get really interesting on strategy we could talk about how low key the marketing blitz is this time around. Its been said that Todd has a lot more power after the 20 million sales of Skyrim, and he's said he would rather nobody see anything until its done and ready for purchase. There could also be so little money invested into the hypetrain since they know that its going to hype up and down the station regardless of what they do, so they can just put the money back into making a better game that produces even more word of mouth hype. Maybe its a bit of both.

Season Pass is a smart move though, you're right. Almost everything that's done in games as big as this is carefully calculated. Its why I love reading about all the things that go into the development of a game, and am especially happy when the developers talk about the rigours of development themselves or a major project gets leaked onto the tubes like with Half Life 2 and we get a major historical insight into the process.

Actually, the lack of information is probably adding to it. Look at the situation with Half-Life. I haven't played that game in years, but my ears still perk up when I hear something about a possible third one. Bethesda, by not giving us any info, is forcing us to speculate and sort of create our own news. Hell, we even get excited about leaked Gamescom footage, which considering everything wasn't overly impressive.

Thats kinda what im talking about. The hype train doesn't need to be fed, it will scream through the entire internet no matter what you do.

Also yeah, Half Life is similar that if they released it on steam without telling anyone, it would still sell millions. Word of mouth is the most powerful advertisemant you can get. And you get that by making great games and building goodwill towards the community. Bethesda is in a really nice spot with Fallout 4, there are CEOs that I am positive would kill a man to get to the level of massive success and high critical acclaim that Bethesda has with their games. There's very few that match Fallout and TES.

Has there really been a game recently that's had a season pass used this way? Most of the time I see season passes used on multiplayer games with ridiculously overpriced map packs that you'd be forced to buy anyway in order to stick with your friends in matchmaking. This, however, seems like it's actually an awesome deal for Bethesda's more dedicated fanbase. I can't imagine them jacking up their prices to make the season pass more attractive, after all.

I think Bioshock Infinite had a similar thing going on. There's also a season pass for Dying Light, which has been seriously one of the few games to rival Bethesda for me ever since I bought it on sale a few days ago.

Looks to be the same kind of reasoning behind both of those as it is with Fallout 4.

Good point! I forgot about the one with Infinite. I never did the DLC for that game, although I've heard good things.

Well, I could see different texture sets being a dlc. Ultra modern house! With assets added to base game so you can build your own, or use what they give you! Throw in another feature or two and its basically hearthfire.

*shrugs* Honestly I am not opposed to the idea. Heck the whole reason I bought hearthfire was for the assets, I couldn't care less about the homes they added. So heres to having pre-war housing, and super advanced housing dlc!

Personally, I think this is why:

DLC released 6+ months after a game comes out, doesn't sell huge. Because lots of people have moved on (we, here, on the Beth forums? Yeah, we play the games forever, and keep going back to them. Lots of other, more "average" gamers? Not so much )

So if you can get a few % more people, in the initial super-enthusiastic rush when a big game first comes out, to pre-commit to those DLC? That's additional sales. Whether they actually end up playing the DLC or not.

I think it's just because they know there are many people who like the base game that will happily pay money up front to get all possible DLCs for that game, so they feel they're all set.

For me it's just about getting the game purchase all sorted, knowing everything about the game is going to be playable.

Bethesda is just providing a service people want, by offering a Season Pass.

Because the more $ they rake in on pre-sales, the more $ they can commit to making DLC. It's in our interest (the fans) that as many people as possible buys the DLC as that will up the budget they can commit to DLC. Very simple.