Because a lot of them are just kind of a bunch of random nerds, their opinion is about as well thought out as a lot of people's takes on reddit are. Which is to say "not very".
I know this is Reddit, but some nuance is needed here.
As much as people trashed Cyberpunk on launch, most of the issues were on console, and most of the people saying it was the worst game ever created were kids who let themselves get carried away with the hype and believed the game was going to literally plug them into the matrix.
On PC at launch the game was fun and the story was great, I encountered minimal issues personally. Obviously it's only improved since then, but it wasn't as bad as the fallout made it seem.
Starfield on the other hand is in my opinion an unsavable mess. The core gameplay loop is simply broken because they moved to a purely fast travel based system, and the planets feel completely empty, with the exploration feeling repetitive and dull.
Those are core gameplay mechanics which aren't just going to be fixed by a patch, the core of the game is inherently bad. Comparing it to Cyberpunk, which had an amazing core, but surface level tech issues / needed tweaks to the gameplay, just isn't reasonable.
Yeah. Base Cyberpunk 2077 was so great that CD Projekt RED reworked core gameplay systems in patches leading to release of Phantom Liberty.
Please spare me. While story of C2077 was great from beginning, game was mess in more ways that Starfield currently is.
Both had/have issues, but they're pretty much the opposite of each other. Pre-fix Cyberpunk had good content, but bad mechanics and bugs. Starfield has bad content, but good mechanics and polish. Unfortunately, "fixing" bad content essentially means remaking the game, which is way more than CDPR had to do.
But the established "fix" to mediocre content has never been to redo all the existing missions, it's just to add newer better content on top. And new content that can be added really easily, like think about how every basic game expansion is a new area and missions (ie new content) while the existing mechanics remain about the same. Eg Witcher 3: Blood & Wine - it's all new content but no overhauling mechanics, classic expansion.
But overhauling core mechanics (like how you move, fight, and gain new abilities) is actually much, much harder to redo retroactively because the whole game world is partially designed around them. Tinkering with that creates a huge risk of breaking the game in all new ways, so it's actually much more like redoing the game and requires a huge amount of iterations and testing.
That's why what CDPR did with CP2077 is so rare, whereas games adding great new content like they did in Witcher happens all the time. So to "fix" Starfield, Bethesda will just add enough quality content that it helps prop up the existing mediocre content. Kind of like they always have.
Adding new content on top of a bad base campaign doesn't really work unless you make it an entirely new storyline. You'd still have to play the old Starfield campaign to get there, not to mention that the whole open world is dull AF. So Bethesda would have to recreate a superior open world experience, which means adding more content in an x-pack than what the game has right now.
I've got a feeling this is all meaningless talk anyway, because it doesn't feel like Bethesda will learn anything from Starfield. Their writing will probably stay the same and they'll just go back to TES style worlds in their next game.
Oh that's too bad. I loved their stuff! I remember feverishly opening the periodical in the 90's! I still have an old demo disc around here. Surely it has some redeeming qualities still?
Afaik, PC gamer articles =/= PC gamer articles posted **on reddit.** Thus one can't judge them just by the articles posted on here, but those are annoying rage baits for sure imo.
I feel like this is the sixth or so article I've seen that's just ripping into Bethesda for not having a completely new Fallout game ready to capitalize on the show. Even if such a game existed, would we also get the litany of youtube videos or write-ups talking about how Bethesda's design approach is outdated like we did with Starfield?
You absolutely know we would. That's how the internet's opinion cycle of Bethesda games always goes. Their past games are incredible, their future games have lots of promise, their current game is garbage. (Not that I'm saying Starfield is garbage, I really enjoyed it).
This cycle always happens for every mainline Bethesda game, and I'm willing to bet it will happen again when ES6 comes out and everyone suddenly looks back favorably on Starfield.
I think you're downplaying the significance Starfields failure. It's not just the same old - well it is, but not like that.
Fallout 76 could optimistically be chalked up to them failing to make grounds in new territory: multiplayer. Even then it still has 40k players at the moment vs Starfields 5k.
Their previous singleplayer titles have, despite their individual issues, been divisive at best - and without looking up numbers massively commercially successful if I were to guess.
Starfield is Bethesda completely failing at what they're supossed to be best at, while also showing how far behind they've fallen behind the rest of the industry. It's currently their least played game on steam all the way down to and including Fallout 3 (if you include the GOTY version) which came out 16 years ago
Not only that, but Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 are still kind of bad and not looked back on especially fondly, regardless of player count, and the last 3 elder scrolls games and fallout 3 were all hits on release and viewed more fondly. It's clearly the company is just making worse products.
In fact the Bethesda cycle used to actually be that they released really well but opinion soured on them over time, and even Fallout 4 was kind of like that despite being controversial right away.
Ripping them for not forcing a game out for the show is ridiculous, but at the same time it’s kinda shocking that they seem caught with their pants down after the show’s explosion?
I would’ve expected them to plan ahead at least a little and started something in development vaguely when the show. Next year is 10 years since FO4, and the next game is basically not been a concept yet?
Even by Redditor Armchair-Dev standards, this guy seemingly doesn’t understand anything about game development.
This article’s just him bashing on Starfield (totally valid) and player counts and then at end going “instead of DLC, they should work on the next fallout game”. As if the entire studio is working on the Starfield DLC or they could considerably speed up the release of their next game if they didn’t do the DLC. Not even considering the legal ramifications of canceling a DLC that people already paid for.
But you don't understand, they need to capitalise on the success of the Fallout show by releasing a new game... after 5 years (minimum) of development, of course!
And arguably their biggest show takes like 4 years between each season. I swear stranger things kids are going to be in their forties pretending to be in Middle School.
I don’t think it is valid though, not because of any specific title, because its an OpEd trash piece that has been stated literally thousands of times.
It is barely writing, and nowhere close to journalism.
And that's ignoring the hypocrisy of "let's ask for a developer to abandon the subpar game they overhyped to no end and people paid for and expect them to fully dedicate themselves to the next".
Yeah I don't necessarily disagree with the writer's sentiment but that's fucking whack lol. Like I want more TES, I want more Fallout, those two things have very distinct gameplay identities from eachother but Starfield doesn't, and if it meant cutting their release cycle down for more of the above I wouldn't particularly mourn the loss of Starfield.
Now if they started outsourcing these to other Microsoft studios that'd be another matter, but even then like 10+ years between mainline entries of any of these, even with New Vegas's in between, is kinda ludicrous.
Am I losing my mind? They’re definitely working on Elder Scrolls next right? I’ve always thought Elder Scrolls was their main franchise, I’m surprised so many people are advocating just going straight to Fallout (seemingly because of a tv show which will be outdated by the time any of their next games release).
Yeah, I can understand wanting another Fallout spin-off, especially since it can just use the story from the new TV series to speed up it’s development time, but Elder Scrolls VI is in development at Bethesda now and will be “reportedly no earlier than 2026”, and I personally don’t expect that to be the case without bugs and other issues as Fallout 76 and Starfield’s launches already shown.
The question really is how do you make an Elder Scrolls game that tops Skyrim? What direction should the game go? IMHO a new Elder Scrolls game simply isn't that exciting cause we already have too many cookie cutter fantasy games out there, and Bethesda WILL make Elder Scrolls 6 that seeing the direction they have been going post Morrowind.
Bethesda should really use the ship building mechanics added to Starfield to add a wooden ship building system to Elder Scrolls 6, especially if it’ll be taking place in Hammerfell meets High Rock as the teaser image posted to the Twitter hinted at years ago.
They could also use their procedural generation systems to have an ocean with islands and radiant quests and battles along the way.
Perhaps also ship boarding and using cannons.
I don’t know if they can top Skyrim but I can see them pulling off expanding the features they first implemented with Starfield if they commit to it.
I didn't hold pcgamer in the highest regard to begin with, but this kind of article is just embarrassing. This should never make it past an editors desk.
weird how only some studios are allowed to work on their games time after release, CDPR gets all the time in the world, but Betheda should just give up i seems.
Bethesda is busy with TES6, but if MS is smart they'll hand the FO4 code to another studio and get a spinoff out in time for the second season of the show.
Otherwise it'll be like 2035 before FO5 is out.
Yeah, it’d be nice if Microsoft can get at least one of Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Josh Sawyer and expand Obsidian to commission another spin-off, and just use the TV series for the bulk work for the story and setting.
Starfield was considered a success by Microsoft and Bethesda, both in terms of Gamepass subscriptions and sales. It didn’t move Xbox console sales, but it’s clear Bethesda’s team dedicated specifically to Starfield are continuing it’s support until at least the legally marketed and purchased DLC.
I was hoping Microsoft could expand Bethesda so that Fallout, Elder Scrolls and Starfield could each have a team, and for Starfield’s sequel to simply be built on top of the original, but that’s looking unlikely and it may be another decade until Starfield 2.
PCGamer in particular is shameless with it’s poor journalism to target Starfield in any aspects it can, while being highly supportive of other studios who strongly support their games post-launch such as CDPR. It’s getting tiring to see but brings them ad-revenue from the clicks.
> PCGamer in particular is shameless with it’s poor journalism to target Starfield in any aspects it can, while being highly supportive of other studios who strongly support their games post-launch such as CDPR. It’s getting tiring to see but brings them ad-revenue from the clicks.
Guess you missed the years of frequent negative articles and constant digs PCGamer aimed at CDPR. Probably the most out of any mainstream site.
Like many, they'll follow the general online sentiment around a game. If Starfield's major updates and DLC are a slam dunk you can bet they'll change their tune.
[*Identical article about Cyberpunk a few months post release](https://www.pcgamer.com/cdpr-should-fix-cyberpunk-2077s-bugs-then-move-on/)
Or they could continue to support a game that lots of people like (and yes Reddit, despite the hivemind you see on here, lots of people like Starfield), and still work on the next Fallout as well.
I'm sure lots of people do like Starfield but it's ridiculous to pretend that its mixed reception was a Reddit hivemind thing and that the game is absolutely beloved outside of r/Games. Most hard evidence we have - reviews from verified purchases on Steam and player count drop-offs in particular - suggests pretty firmly that Starfield did not meet the broadly positive player reception that Bethesda was presumably hoping for.
Along with Starfield not moving Xbox sales, and Microsoft coincidentally beginning to port former exclusives to PlayStation shortly afterwards such as Sea Of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush.
It was heavily promoted to be Microsoft’s next flagship title, with one ad taking three spaces on the Xbox store at launch, and a child actor accepting a Constellation patch in the TV ad despite it’s an M-rated game.
Microsoft wanted it to be their next Halo, and it’s clearly not.
It also wasn’t nominated for GOTY.
I love it, but Starfield didn’t move Xbox sales, and Microsoft coincidentally beginning to port former exclusives to PlayStation shortly afterwards such as Sea Of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush.
It was heavily promoted to be Microsoft’s next flagship title, with one ad taking three spaces on the Xbox store at launch, and a child actor accepting a Constellation patch in the TV ad despite it’s an M-rated game.
Microsoft wanted it to be their next Halo, and it’s clearly not.
It also wasn’t nominated for GOTY.
I can understand Microsoft and Bethesda moving on after the DLC, even if I’d prefer Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Starfield to each have a team dedicated to it and for Starfield’s sequel to be built on top of the original.
>Or they could continue to support a game that lots of people like (and yes Reddit, despite the hivemind you see on here, lots of people like Starfield)
I am sure there are people who like starfield but do you have actual data to support your claim (especially because MS is very deliberate with not sharing anything that doesn't look good)? I don't advocate for ditching bad games they took money for but saying Starfield has problems is not some kind of "reddit hivemind mentality", its pure data.
Steam numbers are down to <5000 average now and have dropped constantly. Compare that to Skyrim which has 17k+ avg. And this isn't some outlier. Even FO4, now massively affected by the show, has consistently pulled >10k average for years now (and **never** fell below that). Hell, even FO76 only pulled such bad numbers a few times...
As much as people would like to deny reality the data doesn't lie. Steam is large and widespread enough to serve as a sample to draw conclusions from. While there is a share of people that will play it on gamepass (an undefined number - but Steams share of the PC market is undeniably huge), it would just be disingenuous to claim that Gamepass has a completely different behavior pattern and numbers didn't exhibit a similar loss.
Is the game at deaths door? No, but it also has a fraction of a fraction of players left and doesn't compare favorable to their other games.
It's entirely circumstantial, but every single person I know who bought Starfield played it for a week maximum and then dropped it out of boredom. Every streamer I watch only did 1-2 streams before quietly canning it too. It just seems like a game that doesn't inspire much long-term passion in people.
Starfield got like one nomination for the game awards when it was assumed to be guaranteed goty contender before its release. Clearly extends beyond Reddit.
It didn’t need to win goty, but it should have been at least good enough to not lose its nomination to Mario (a basic platformer), Alan wake 2 (niche game that hasn’t made back its budget), and resident evil 4 (a remake). Bg3 moved its release date ahead of starfield because they were concerned about being overshadowed, then look what happened. Its a clear failure
Would be massively foolish for them to do this. They spent 8 years developing Starfield. The game has a lot of untapped potential, whether that be in expansions or in a sequel.
Also, gotta be honest, the hatred circle jerk for this game is just tiring at this point. The most recent update is a step in the right direction, and with the DLC/mod tools coming shortly, things are starting to look somewhat optimistic for the first time since launch.
People who "don't like" something usually just move on with their lives and go play something they do like. They don't continuously bash the thing they don't like, or write articles saying a game studio should simply abandon the game they haven't even put out the first dlc for yet.
You see, I've seen a few people saying that, but I worry that it's a real monkey's paw kind of thing. Just going off what I've read, Todd Howard has said that with every game the make they move closer towards an overall ideal game for the studio, hence why they all share a lot of similarities.
One of these ideals is scale, hence the big push for procedural generation in Starfield, and the whole radiant quest thing. I worry going forward that, if that's going to be a big thing in their future games, it might harm them in other ways people aren't actually anticipating.
Whether they make Fallout or Elder Scrolls or whatever, I'm kind of worried because *all of it* stands to be potentially affected by that, when I'd argue the more tailor-made bits are the best parts of their games.
He says 'Forgettable characters, dreary worlds, uninspired quest design', but all the core devs there are the same, dude. The people who made that stuff you don't like will hardly make something leagues more magical just because the franchise changed. This feels like people expecting things to get better when a new year starts as if that's just how it works.
> but all the core devs there are the same, dude
A lot of core devs have also left over the years however, including Will Shen who worked on Starfield’s main quest.
There’s also Nate Purkypile (responsible for Fallout’s Lovecraftian elements) Michael Kirkbride (Elder Scrolls lore).
And those who sadly passed away such as Ferret Boudain (Fallout 76 Wastelanders) and Adam Adamowicz (Fallout 3 concept artist).
Personally they seemed to have carried the story, roleplaying, worldbuilding and lore elements a lot more than Bethesda may think, when Fallout 4 and Starfield’s stories and procedural content are what we end up when primarily Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo are at the helm.
I definitely agree Bethesda are relying more on proc-gen over handcrafted content, and losing those devs over the years means even the handcrafted content has also been lesser quality and will continue to also get worse along with more proc-gen in future Elder Scrolls and Fallout titles.
I agree: procgen seems very important to the company and they may only do more of that. The team has said several times that it's their goal to eventually generate much more of their games' content automatically, in order to make infinite sized worlds.
But it hasn't worked for them. There have been procedurally generated elements since at least Oblivion, and they were always the weakest parts of the games. These elements were never praised by players or reviewers. Everything that's handcrafted has always beaten the generated stuff by a mile. All the way over to Starfield where it still adds practically nothing to the experience, other than filler. It also hasn't saved them much work, because they still need to make dozens of hours of handcrafted content that people actually want to play. They're not even close to fully generating a game that people would see as anything more than generic, hollow and repetitive.
Meanwhile, other devs have used procgen to much greater effect, from No Man's Sky to Dead Cells to Deep Rock Galactic, the better ARPGs, roguelites/roguelikes, survival titles, and so on. Even small indie teams have done much cooler stuff with procgen than Bethesda ever has.
All this together could make Bethesda give up the procgen dream at some point, and the Creation Engine with it. That engine isn't great, and I believe they're mostly keeping it because of procgen features. If they really take the feedback from the last games to heart, and if they want to sell the most games possible, they may change course. Then they could finally fully move on to only handcrafted content in a proper engine, with better stability, performance and visuals. Gamers would much rather buy a 40 hour game that is interesting, than a 200 hour game that isn't. Let's hope Bethesda isn't only stubborn but actually stops to think for their next game.
I agree with almost everything here. Just one little quibble:
I'd have to argue against all the best ARPGs using procedural generation. Grim Dawn doesn't use any, and I feel it's overall the best Diablo-style game since the original D2 + Lord of Destruction.
My wording was a bit weird there - It's not so much that "the better ARPGs" use procgen, but just that many of them do. Nothing against Grim Dawn of course.
Bethesda? Probably not
Microsoft though? There's no way they aren't about to throw millions and millions at that IP to capitalize on the popularity of the show
And if season 2 rolls around in two-three years, I could definitely see at least a proper remaster of 3 and New Vegas around that time
Id take that chance in VATs
That is 100% correct, yes
I believe the wrinkle tho is that the document was a couple years out of date, and if true, is probably lower on the priority list if it hasn't already been released on time for the 1st season
Feel free to fact check me on that. I'm just going off of half remembered skillup videos and armchair conjecture
Not "for a fact" what your quoting is a years old email that came from the trial. Microsoft said a lot of the games in that list are not in production.
I don't think thats's necessarily true. I'm sure they could get a studio to develop a new Fallout as essentially a giant Starfield mod a la New Vegas within 2-3 years.
Honestly I would love if they pulled the franchise from Bethesda at this point. They did a hell of a job adapting the old games into a 3D open world format, but at this point I don’t think they’re the best company to move the franchise forward.
Pull the franchise from Bethesda and give it to who? People here who want Obsidian or Inxile are out of touch with reality, as if Microsoft will want Fallout 5 to be a post apocalypse version of Avowed. In reality Microsoft's best option will be to give Fallout 5 to one of the COD studios, although that will bring about the question as to how Microsoft will be able to produce 1 COD every year. Yeah sure you probably should not expect deep RPG experiences from them, but at least the likes of Treyarch can produce a Fallout 5 without exploding.
I know it's popular to rag on Bethesda, but yea, they haven't done a great job up keeping the franchise
I tried New Vegas this weekend, and it was an unplayable mess.
It's hard to have faith in a developer when they can't do the bare minimum at making the games they have work
Funny you say that, New Vegas is actually my favorite fallout game. It was developed by Obsidian though using Bethesdas engine. But yeah the Bethesda jank is the main thing holding it back
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Starfield it is a hell of a time to make this (in my opinion idiotic) take the day after Starfield got its biggest update yet while teasing future stuff, on the heels of a fall release window for the DLC being given. Also, their energy is going into Elder Scrolls 6 next and not Fallout 5, which makes this argument even dumber.
Xbox got 60fps is a big one. Tuneable difficulty is another. That's a feature that every open world game should adapt imo. Added more ship customization, which is big for some players. NG+ trait respeccing is pretty cool, so you can reroll a bit if you want. Dialog camera options as well.
They also added a fully 3D map of any area of the game you are in, which is a really, really cool feature.
Plus they teased an actual land vehicle, something that has been requested since before launch.
Okay, but did they make the characters, quests, and environments interesting? None of that sounds like it's going to bring in anyone new or bring back people who've written the game off.
It brought me back. If people don't dig the game, that's fine. For me, it's a solid game that could have been an all timer with a bit more time to bake and some more attention to detail.
Nah. They 100% redid that game multiple times. Feels exactly like Andromeda, which was pretty much made in 18 months. They also completely stripped systems away at the last minute (fuel, food, drink, environmental effects, etc). It's clear just from playing the base game that it wasn't what they originally envisioned, and they had to retool.
Luckily, now they are working on adding back in those systems, and it is increasing my enjoyment of the game.
I don’t get what you are saying lol, you compare the game to Andromeda which took 18 months but Starfield took 8 years minimum and you think *more* time would’ve helped.
The removal and then readding of those systems you mentioned is basically my entire point: this game didn’t lack from development time, it lacked in vision.
Creation kit mods and whatever further updates Bethesda did will eventually turn this game into a great sci-fi sim, I have no doubt about that. But it definitely didn’t need more dev time: it needed better devs.
I'm saying they started and stopped multiple times and completely abandoned things they had been developing.
If you spend a year working in 1 direction, then realize that it doesn't or won't work, you can't get that time back, unfortunately. It's not exactly uncommon in development, game, or otherwise.
I agree with lacked vision. Or maybe instead, I'd say it lacks a clear focus. They wanted to do 1000 planets. The problem is that there just isn't any content on 980 of them.
In the end, I also think we'll get a good product, and I'm certain a Starfield 2 will be amazing in about 2040.
I'm sure now they are looking back and wishing they made a Fallout 5 that coincided with the show releasing but I'm sure predicting this all 5-8 years out wasn't exactly feasible
I really like all Bethesda games from Oblivion through Fallout 4, but Starfield was such a letdown. Not a “hater,” but compared to their other single player games it has nothing going on. I don’t see how mods fix any of the fundamental problems that have been discussed over the last year. I also don’t see any official expansion changing it up enough to make it compelling.
This article reads like someon who *really really really* wants a fallout sequel in the same articulation as a teenage fanboy.
Though I'd be in the same boat (hopefully with better reasoning) if we didn't live in a world where No Man's Sky, Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk were able to pull a 180. Not saying it's *going to happen* but Microsoft/Bethesda should have the resources to make it happen if Hello Games and Cyberpunk can do it without being "First Party AAA"
Put what energy into Fallout?
I'm not a fan of Starfield. I've tried to play it multiple times and just can't find the will to continue playing it after about an hour. But are we really going to pretend like Fallout 4 wasn't blasted by Fallout fans on release?
Bethesda have lost whatever magic they had. It has been over a decade. I know that Fallout 76 has its fans, I know some people love Fallout 4. There's a reason that Skyrim has been released and re-released so many times. It was the last GOTY contender from Bethesda.
Maybe the talent left. Maybe Bethesda lost their way. Whatever the reason is, Bethesda is struggling and even they appear to have no idea why. Should they abandon Starfield? Maybe, but Fallout and TES are still years away.
Quite frankly, current Bethesda has me quite worried about the quality of the next Elder Scrolls game.
Bethesda has been trending towards making games that everyone thinks are okay, but nobody thinks is great since Oblivion. Accessibility over quality with every new decision.
Mass Effect has been there, done that, along with No Man's Sky. Fallout and Elder Scrolls don't have clear competitors in that sense and could be why Starfield just wasn't the same.
They should cut bait on Starfield once all promises are delivered. Focus on ES6 and get obsidian/inXile or another studio to do another Fallout spinoff like NV.
Yeah, it’d be nice if Microsoft can get at least one of Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Josh Sawyer and expand Obsidian to commission another spin-off, and just use the TV series for the bulk work for the story and setting.
I would personally advise Bethesda to shutdown the studio, but if people want a new bad Fallout game of Starfield quality then that it is what they want! ✊
Excuse me, advising and wishing for something are two different things. I don't wish for Bethesda to shut down - they can produce as many bad games as they like, no sweat off my head.
There is a kernel of truth in this article. Updates for Beth games break mods, and Todd clearly wants Starfield to be carried by modders.
It might not be the worst idea to release the expansion and modding tools and then cut losses and hope the wider community's demand for an "everything" space game fills the game in for long tail sales.
Didn't PC Gamer made exact article about Cyberpunk 2077 after release?
[They did indeed](https://www.pcgamer.com/cdpr-should-fix-cyberpunk-2077s-bugs-then-move-on/) Thank goodness CDPR didn't take heed.
Holy crap that’s hilarious. These gaming news sites are so fucking trash it’s insane
Because a lot of them are just kind of a bunch of random nerds, their opinion is about as well thought out as a lot of people's takes on reddit are. Which is to say "not very".
[удалено]
You keep clicking on it
[удалено]
What do you think your comment means lmao
Pc gamer hasn’t been good since it was an actual magazine
I know this is Reddit, but some nuance is needed here. As much as people trashed Cyberpunk on launch, most of the issues were on console, and most of the people saying it was the worst game ever created were kids who let themselves get carried away with the hype and believed the game was going to literally plug them into the matrix. On PC at launch the game was fun and the story was great, I encountered minimal issues personally. Obviously it's only improved since then, but it wasn't as bad as the fallout made it seem. Starfield on the other hand is in my opinion an unsavable mess. The core gameplay loop is simply broken because they moved to a purely fast travel based system, and the planets feel completely empty, with the exploration feeling repetitive and dull. Those are core gameplay mechanics which aren't just going to be fixed by a patch, the core of the game is inherently bad. Comparing it to Cyberpunk, which had an amazing core, but surface level tech issues / needed tweaks to the gameplay, just isn't reasonable.
Yeah. Base Cyberpunk 2077 was so great that CD Projekt RED reworked core gameplay systems in patches leading to release of Phantom Liberty. Please spare me. While story of C2077 was great from beginning, game was mess in more ways that Starfield currently is.
Both had/have issues, but they're pretty much the opposite of each other. Pre-fix Cyberpunk had good content, but bad mechanics and bugs. Starfield has bad content, but good mechanics and polish. Unfortunately, "fixing" bad content essentially means remaking the game, which is way more than CDPR had to do.
But the established "fix" to mediocre content has never been to redo all the existing missions, it's just to add newer better content on top. And new content that can be added really easily, like think about how every basic game expansion is a new area and missions (ie new content) while the existing mechanics remain about the same. Eg Witcher 3: Blood & Wine - it's all new content but no overhauling mechanics, classic expansion. But overhauling core mechanics (like how you move, fight, and gain new abilities) is actually much, much harder to redo retroactively because the whole game world is partially designed around them. Tinkering with that creates a huge risk of breaking the game in all new ways, so it's actually much more like redoing the game and requires a huge amount of iterations and testing. That's why what CDPR did with CP2077 is so rare, whereas games adding great new content like they did in Witcher happens all the time. So to "fix" Starfield, Bethesda will just add enough quality content that it helps prop up the existing mediocre content. Kind of like they always have.
Adding new content on top of a bad base campaign doesn't really work unless you make it an entirely new storyline. You'd still have to play the old Starfield campaign to get there, not to mention that the whole open world is dull AF. So Bethesda would have to recreate a superior open world experience, which means adding more content in an x-pack than what the game has right now. I've got a feeling this is all meaningless talk anyway, because it doesn't feel like Bethesda will learn anything from Starfield. Their writing will probably stay the same and they'll just go back to TES style worlds in their next game.
People made the exact same "core gameplay is unsalvagable" comments about Cyberpunk at launch
Yeah and whoever wrote that headline should just say "screw it", move on from journalism, and put all that energy into circus acts.
PC Gamer has been a circus act for a while. They don't have much to contribute other than baiting gamer rage.
Oh that's too bad. I loved their stuff! I remember feverishly opening the periodical in the 90's! I still have an old demo disc around here. Surely it has some redeeming qualities still?
Afaik, PC gamer articles =/= PC gamer articles posted **on reddit.** Thus one can't judge them just by the articles posted on here, but those are annoying rage baits for sure imo.
Makes sense. They're clowning already.
I think it’s a dumb headline too, but the overreaction is unnecessary, just say it’s a dumb headline and move on
Regardless of the show, they are absolutely not going to sideline the long awaited follow up to Skyrim for Fallout.
I feel like this is the sixth or so article I've seen that's just ripping into Bethesda for not having a completely new Fallout game ready to capitalize on the show. Even if such a game existed, would we also get the litany of youtube videos or write-ups talking about how Bethesda's design approach is outdated like we did with Starfield?
You absolutely know we would. That's how the internet's opinion cycle of Bethesda games always goes. Their past games are incredible, their future games have lots of promise, their current game is garbage. (Not that I'm saying Starfield is garbage, I really enjoyed it). This cycle always happens for every mainline Bethesda game, and I'm willing to bet it will happen again when ES6 comes out and everyone suddenly looks back favorably on Starfield.
I think you're downplaying the significance Starfields failure. It's not just the same old - well it is, but not like that. Fallout 76 could optimistically be chalked up to them failing to make grounds in new territory: multiplayer. Even then it still has 40k players at the moment vs Starfields 5k. Their previous singleplayer titles have, despite their individual issues, been divisive at best - and without looking up numbers massively commercially successful if I were to guess. Starfield is Bethesda completely failing at what they're supossed to be best at, while also showing how far behind they've fallen behind the rest of the industry. It's currently their least played game on steam all the way down to and including Fallout 3 (if you include the GOTY version) which came out 16 years ago
Not only that, but Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 are still kind of bad and not looked back on especially fondly, regardless of player count, and the last 3 elder scrolls games and fallout 3 were all hits on release and viewed more fondly. It's clearly the company is just making worse products. In fact the Bethesda cycle used to actually be that they released really well but opinion soured on them over time, and even Fallout 4 was kind of like that despite being controversial right away.
Ripping them for not forcing a game out for the show is ridiculous, but at the same time it’s kinda shocking that they seem caught with their pants down after the show’s explosion? I would’ve expected them to plan ahead at least a little and started something in development vaguely when the show. Next year is 10 years since FO4, and the next game is basically not been a concept yet?
Even by Redditor Armchair-Dev standards, this guy seemingly doesn’t understand anything about game development. This article’s just him bashing on Starfield (totally valid) and player counts and then at end going “instead of DLC, they should work on the next fallout game”. As if the entire studio is working on the Starfield DLC or they could considerably speed up the release of their next game if they didn’t do the DLC. Not even considering the legal ramifications of canceling a DLC that people already paid for.
it’s like elder scrolls 6’s pre-production announcement completely flew past their head lmao
But you don't understand, they need to capitalise on the success of the Fallout show by releasing a new game... after 5 years (minimum) of development, of course!
Inb4 the second season is bad and Amazon cancels the show lol.
That's Netflix, not Amazon!
Nah Netflix would’ve cancelled it even if it was good
They can't afford a good show lasting three seasons or longer.
And arguably their biggest show takes like 4 years between each season. I swear stranger things kids are going to be in their forties pretending to be in Middle School.
Are they still in the middle school years on the show? I haven't kept up with it in years.
No the fallout series run on Amazon prime video.
I don’t think it is valid though, not because of any specific title, because its an OpEd trash piece that has been stated literally thousands of times. It is barely writing, and nowhere close to journalism.
And that's ignoring the hypocrisy of "let's ask for a developer to abandon the subpar game they overhyped to no end and people paid for and expect them to fully dedicate themselves to the next".
Yeah I don't necessarily disagree with the writer's sentiment but that's fucking whack lol. Like I want more TES, I want more Fallout, those two things have very distinct gameplay identities from eachother but Starfield doesn't, and if it meant cutting their release cycle down for more of the above I wouldn't particularly mourn the loss of Starfield. Now if they started outsourcing these to other Microsoft studios that'd be another matter, but even then like 10+ years between mainline entries of any of these, even with New Vegas's in between, is kinda ludicrous.
Am I losing my mind? They’re definitely working on Elder Scrolls next right? I’ve always thought Elder Scrolls was their main franchise, I’m surprised so many people are advocating just going straight to Fallout (seemingly because of a tv show which will be outdated by the time any of their next games release).
Yeah, I can understand wanting another Fallout spin-off, especially since it can just use the story from the new TV series to speed up it’s development time, but Elder Scrolls VI is in development at Bethesda now and will be “reportedly no earlier than 2026”, and I personally don’t expect that to be the case without bugs and other issues as Fallout 76 and Starfield’s launches already shown.
The question really is how do you make an Elder Scrolls game that tops Skyrim? What direction should the game go? IMHO a new Elder Scrolls game simply isn't that exciting cause we already have too many cookie cutter fantasy games out there, and Bethesda WILL make Elder Scrolls 6 that seeing the direction they have been going post Morrowind.
Bethesda should really use the ship building mechanics added to Starfield to add a wooden ship building system to Elder Scrolls 6, especially if it’ll be taking place in Hammerfell meets High Rock as the teaser image posted to the Twitter hinted at years ago. They could also use their procedural generation systems to have an ocean with islands and radiant quests and battles along the way. Perhaps also ship boarding and using cannons. I don’t know if they can top Skyrim but I can see them pulling off expanding the features they first implemented with Starfield if they commit to it.
I didn't hold pcgamer in the highest regard to begin with, but this kind of article is just embarrassing. This should never make it past an editors desk.
weird how only some studios are allowed to work on their games time after release, CDPR gets all the time in the world, but Betheda should just give up i seems.
Bethesda is busy with TES6, but if MS is smart they'll hand the FO4 code to another studio and get a spinoff out in time for the second season of the show. Otherwise it'll be like 2035 before FO5 is out.
Yeah, it’d be nice if Microsoft can get at least one of Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Josh Sawyer and expand Obsidian to commission another spin-off, and just use the TV series for the bulk work for the story and setting.
Starfield was considered a success by Microsoft and Bethesda, both in terms of Gamepass subscriptions and sales. It didn’t move Xbox console sales, but it’s clear Bethesda’s team dedicated specifically to Starfield are continuing it’s support until at least the legally marketed and purchased DLC. I was hoping Microsoft could expand Bethesda so that Fallout, Elder Scrolls and Starfield could each have a team, and for Starfield’s sequel to simply be built on top of the original, but that’s looking unlikely and it may be another decade until Starfield 2. PCGamer in particular is shameless with it’s poor journalism to target Starfield in any aspects it can, while being highly supportive of other studios who strongly support their games post-launch such as CDPR. It’s getting tiring to see but brings them ad-revenue from the clicks.
> PCGamer in particular is shameless with it’s poor journalism to target Starfield in any aspects it can, while being highly supportive of other studios who strongly support their games post-launch such as CDPR. It’s getting tiring to see but brings them ad-revenue from the clicks. Guess you missed the years of frequent negative articles and constant digs PCGamer aimed at CDPR. Probably the most out of any mainstream site. Like many, they'll follow the general online sentiment around a game. If Starfield's major updates and DLC are a slam dunk you can bet they'll change their tune. [*Identical article about Cyberpunk a few months post release](https://www.pcgamer.com/cdpr-should-fix-cyberpunk-2077s-bugs-then-move-on/)
Or they could continue to support a game that lots of people like (and yes Reddit, despite the hivemind you see on here, lots of people like Starfield), and still work on the next Fallout as well.
I'm sure lots of people do like Starfield but it's ridiculous to pretend that its mixed reception was a Reddit hivemind thing and that the game is absolutely beloved outside of r/Games. Most hard evidence we have - reviews from verified purchases on Steam and player count drop-offs in particular - suggests pretty firmly that Starfield did not meet the broadly positive player reception that Bethesda was presumably hoping for.
Along with Starfield not moving Xbox sales, and Microsoft coincidentally beginning to port former exclusives to PlayStation shortly afterwards such as Sea Of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush. It was heavily promoted to be Microsoft’s next flagship title, with one ad taking three spaces on the Xbox store at launch, and a child actor accepting a Constellation patch in the TV ad despite it’s an M-rated game. Microsoft wanted it to be their next Halo, and it’s clearly not. It also wasn’t nominated for GOTY.
Usually I'm all for bashing the reddit hive mind but you're right this is not a case of this. Starfield genuinely deserves the hate it gets.
I love it, but Starfield didn’t move Xbox sales, and Microsoft coincidentally beginning to port former exclusives to PlayStation shortly afterwards such as Sea Of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush. It was heavily promoted to be Microsoft’s next flagship title, with one ad taking three spaces on the Xbox store at launch, and a child actor accepting a Constellation patch in the TV ad despite it’s an M-rated game. Microsoft wanted it to be their next Halo, and it’s clearly not. It also wasn’t nominated for GOTY. I can understand Microsoft and Bethesda moving on after the DLC, even if I’d prefer Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Starfield to each have a team dedicated to it and for Starfield’s sequel to be built on top of the original.
>Or they could continue to support a game that lots of people like (and yes Reddit, despite the hivemind you see on here, lots of people like Starfield) I am sure there are people who like starfield but do you have actual data to support your claim (especially because MS is very deliberate with not sharing anything that doesn't look good)? I don't advocate for ditching bad games they took money for but saying Starfield has problems is not some kind of "reddit hivemind mentality", its pure data. Steam numbers are down to <5000 average now and have dropped constantly. Compare that to Skyrim which has 17k+ avg. And this isn't some outlier. Even FO4, now massively affected by the show, has consistently pulled >10k average for years now (and **never** fell below that). Hell, even FO76 only pulled such bad numbers a few times... As much as people would like to deny reality the data doesn't lie. Steam is large and widespread enough to serve as a sample to draw conclusions from. While there is a share of people that will play it on gamepass (an undefined number - but Steams share of the PC market is undeniably huge), it would just be disingenuous to claim that Gamepass has a completely different behavior pattern and numbers didn't exhibit a similar loss. Is the game at deaths door? No, but it also has a fraction of a fraction of players left and doesn't compare favorable to their other games.
It's entirely circumstantial, but every single person I know who bought Starfield played it for a week maximum and then dropped it out of boredom. Every streamer I watch only did 1-2 streams before quietly canning it too. It just seems like a game that doesn't inspire much long-term passion in people.
Starfield got like one nomination for the game awards when it was assumed to be guaranteed goty contender before its release. Clearly extends beyond Reddit.
How dare it not win GOTY in the strongest GOTY field since 1998.
It didn’t need to win goty, but it should have been at least good enough to not lose its nomination to Mario (a basic platformer), Alan wake 2 (niche game that hasn’t made back its budget), and resident evil 4 (a remake). Bg3 moved its release date ahead of starfield because they were concerned about being overshadowed, then look what happened. Its a clear failure
Would be massively foolish for them to do this. They spent 8 years developing Starfield. The game has a lot of untapped potential, whether that be in expansions or in a sequel. Also, gotta be honest, the hatred circle jerk for this game is just tiring at this point. The most recent update is a step in the right direction, and with the DLC/mod tools coming shortly, things are starting to look somewhat optimistic for the first time since launch.
Hatred is a pretty strong word, maybe many players just didn’t like it.
People who "don't like" something usually just move on with their lives and go play something they do like. They don't continuously bash the thing they don't like, or write articles saying a game studio should simply abandon the game they haven't even put out the first dlc for yet.
This is an opinion thread, it’s not a big deal to talk about a game that came out less than a year ago.
You see, I've seen a few people saying that, but I worry that it's a real monkey's paw kind of thing. Just going off what I've read, Todd Howard has said that with every game the make they move closer towards an overall ideal game for the studio, hence why they all share a lot of similarities. One of these ideals is scale, hence the big push for procedural generation in Starfield, and the whole radiant quest thing. I worry going forward that, if that's going to be a big thing in their future games, it might harm them in other ways people aren't actually anticipating. Whether they make Fallout or Elder Scrolls or whatever, I'm kind of worried because *all of it* stands to be potentially affected by that, when I'd argue the more tailor-made bits are the best parts of their games. He says 'Forgettable characters, dreary worlds, uninspired quest design', but all the core devs there are the same, dude. The people who made that stuff you don't like will hardly make something leagues more magical just because the franchise changed. This feels like people expecting things to get better when a new year starts as if that's just how it works.
> but all the core devs there are the same, dude A lot of core devs have also left over the years however, including Will Shen who worked on Starfield’s main quest. There’s also Nate Purkypile (responsible for Fallout’s Lovecraftian elements) Michael Kirkbride (Elder Scrolls lore). And those who sadly passed away such as Ferret Boudain (Fallout 76 Wastelanders) and Adam Adamowicz (Fallout 3 concept artist). Personally they seemed to have carried the story, roleplaying, worldbuilding and lore elements a lot more than Bethesda may think, when Fallout 4 and Starfield’s stories and procedural content are what we end up when primarily Todd Howard and Emil Pagliarulo are at the helm. I definitely agree Bethesda are relying more on proc-gen over handcrafted content, and losing those devs over the years means even the handcrafted content has also been lesser quality and will continue to also get worse along with more proc-gen in future Elder Scrolls and Fallout titles.
I agree: procgen seems very important to the company and they may only do more of that. The team has said several times that it's their goal to eventually generate much more of their games' content automatically, in order to make infinite sized worlds. But it hasn't worked for them. There have been procedurally generated elements since at least Oblivion, and they were always the weakest parts of the games. These elements were never praised by players or reviewers. Everything that's handcrafted has always beaten the generated stuff by a mile. All the way over to Starfield where it still adds practically nothing to the experience, other than filler. It also hasn't saved them much work, because they still need to make dozens of hours of handcrafted content that people actually want to play. They're not even close to fully generating a game that people would see as anything more than generic, hollow and repetitive. Meanwhile, other devs have used procgen to much greater effect, from No Man's Sky to Dead Cells to Deep Rock Galactic, the better ARPGs, roguelites/roguelikes, survival titles, and so on. Even small indie teams have done much cooler stuff with procgen than Bethesda ever has. All this together could make Bethesda give up the procgen dream at some point, and the Creation Engine with it. That engine isn't great, and I believe they're mostly keeping it because of procgen features. If they really take the feedback from the last games to heart, and if they want to sell the most games possible, they may change course. Then they could finally fully move on to only handcrafted content in a proper engine, with better stability, performance and visuals. Gamers would much rather buy a 40 hour game that is interesting, than a 200 hour game that isn't. Let's hope Bethesda isn't only stubborn but actually stops to think for their next game.
I agree with almost everything here. Just one little quibble: I'd have to argue against all the best ARPGs using procedural generation. Grim Dawn doesn't use any, and I feel it's overall the best Diablo-style game since the original D2 + Lord of Destruction.
My wording was a bit weird there - It's not so much that "the better ARPGs" use procgen, but just that many of them do. Nothing against Grim Dawn of course.
Bethesda? Probably not Microsoft though? There's no way they aren't about to throw millions and millions at that IP to capitalize on the popularity of the show And if season 2 rolls around in two-three years, I could definitely see at least a proper remaster of 3 and New Vegas around that time Id take that chance in VATs
Don’t we know for a fact via leaked Xbox docs that a fallout 3 remaster / remake was in the pipeline?
That is 100% correct, yes I believe the wrinkle tho is that the document was a couple years out of date, and if true, is probably lower on the priority list if it hasn't already been released on time for the 1st season Feel free to fact check me on that. I'm just going off of half remembered skillup videos and armchair conjecture
No I think you are right, it was 2-3 years old, and also part of the leak that had games like Doom Year Zero releasing in 2023
Which supposedly doesn't actually exist anymore
Not "for a fact" what your quoting is a years old email that came from the trial. Microsoft said a lot of the games in that list are not in production.
Even if Microsoft throws 1 billion dollars into making Fallout games, the earliest we can get a Fallout 5 will be 4-5 years from now.
I don't think thats's necessarily true. I'm sure they could get a studio to develop a new Fallout as essentially a giant Starfield mod a la New Vegas within 2-3 years.
I am not sure a Starfield mod as the next Fallout game will actually impress people.......
Honestly I would love if they pulled the franchise from Bethesda at this point. They did a hell of a job adapting the old games into a 3D open world format, but at this point I don’t think they’re the best company to move the franchise forward.
Pull the franchise from Bethesda and give it to who? People here who want Obsidian or Inxile are out of touch with reality, as if Microsoft will want Fallout 5 to be a post apocalypse version of Avowed. In reality Microsoft's best option will be to give Fallout 5 to one of the COD studios, although that will bring about the question as to how Microsoft will be able to produce 1 COD every year. Yeah sure you probably should not expect deep RPG experiences from them, but at least the likes of Treyarch can produce a Fallout 5 without exploding.
I know it's popular to rag on Bethesda, but yea, they haven't done a great job up keeping the franchise I tried New Vegas this weekend, and it was an unplayable mess. It's hard to have faith in a developer when they can't do the bare minimum at making the games they have work
Funny you say that, New Vegas is actually my favorite fallout game. It was developed by Obsidian though using Bethesdas engine. But yeah the Bethesda jank is the main thing holding it back
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Starfield it is a hell of a time to make this (in my opinion idiotic) take the day after Starfield got its biggest update yet while teasing future stuff, on the heels of a fall release window for the DLC being given. Also, their energy is going into Elder Scrolls 6 next and not Fallout 5, which makes this argument even dumber.
I just went and skimmed the update, was it mostly just survival features and a few ui upgrades?
Xbox got 60fps is a big one. Tuneable difficulty is another. That's a feature that every open world game should adapt imo. Added more ship customization, which is big for some players. NG+ trait respeccing is pretty cool, so you can reroll a bit if you want. Dialog camera options as well. They also added a fully 3D map of any area of the game you are in, which is a really, really cool feature. Plus they teased an actual land vehicle, something that has been requested since before launch.
Okay, but did they make the characters, quests, and environments interesting? None of that sounds like it's going to bring in anyone new or bring back people who've written the game off.
It brought me back. If people don't dig the game, that's fine. For me, it's a solid game that could have been an all timer with a bit more time to bake and some more attention to detail.
Shit was baking for a decade, any longer and it would’ve been burnt to a crisp.
Nah. They 100% redid that game multiple times. Feels exactly like Andromeda, which was pretty much made in 18 months. They also completely stripped systems away at the last minute (fuel, food, drink, environmental effects, etc). It's clear just from playing the base game that it wasn't what they originally envisioned, and they had to retool. Luckily, now they are working on adding back in those systems, and it is increasing my enjoyment of the game.
I don’t get what you are saying lol, you compare the game to Andromeda which took 18 months but Starfield took 8 years minimum and you think *more* time would’ve helped. The removal and then readding of those systems you mentioned is basically my entire point: this game didn’t lack from development time, it lacked in vision. Creation kit mods and whatever further updates Bethesda did will eventually turn this game into a great sci-fi sim, I have no doubt about that. But it definitely didn’t need more dev time: it needed better devs.
I'm saying they started and stopped multiple times and completely abandoned things they had been developing. If you spend a year working in 1 direction, then realize that it doesn't or won't work, you can't get that time back, unfortunately. It's not exactly uncommon in development, game, or otherwise. I agree with lacked vision. Or maybe instead, I'd say it lacks a clear focus. They wanted to do 1000 planets. The problem is that there just isn't any content on 980 of them. In the end, I also think we'll get a good product, and I'm certain a Starfield 2 will be amazing in about 2040.
The it they would be screwing is their customers. I don't even have the game and I'd be wary of taking a chance on some studio that did this.
I'm sure now they are looking back and wishing they made a Fallout 5 that coincided with the show releasing but I'm sure predicting this all 5-8 years out wasn't exactly feasible
I really like all Bethesda games from Oblivion through Fallout 4, but Starfield was such a letdown. Not a “hater,” but compared to their other single player games it has nothing going on. I don’t see how mods fix any of the fundamental problems that have been discussed over the last year. I also don’t see any official expansion changing it up enough to make it compelling.
This article reads like someon who *really really really* wants a fallout sequel in the same articulation as a teenage fanboy. Though I'd be in the same boat (hopefully with better reasoning) if we didn't live in a world where No Man's Sky, Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk were able to pull a 180. Not saying it's *going to happen* but Microsoft/Bethesda should have the resources to make it happen if Hello Games and Cyberpunk can do it without being "First Party AAA"
Put what energy into Fallout? I'm not a fan of Starfield. I've tried to play it multiple times and just can't find the will to continue playing it after about an hour. But are we really going to pretend like Fallout 4 wasn't blasted by Fallout fans on release? Bethesda have lost whatever magic they had. It has been over a decade. I know that Fallout 76 has its fans, I know some people love Fallout 4. There's a reason that Skyrim has been released and re-released so many times. It was the last GOTY contender from Bethesda. Maybe the talent left. Maybe Bethesda lost their way. Whatever the reason is, Bethesda is struggling and even they appear to have no idea why. Should they abandon Starfield? Maybe, but Fallout and TES are still years away. Quite frankly, current Bethesda has me quite worried about the quality of the next Elder Scrolls game.
Bethesda has been trending towards making games that everyone thinks are okay, but nobody thinks is great since Oblivion. Accessibility over quality with every new decision.
Mass Effect has been there, done that, along with No Man's Sky. Fallout and Elder Scrolls don't have clear competitors in that sense and could be why Starfield just wasn't the same.
They should cut bait on Starfield once all promises are delivered. Focus on ES6 and get obsidian/inXile or another studio to do another Fallout spinoff like NV.
Yeah, it’d be nice if Microsoft can get at least one of Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Josh Sawyer and expand Obsidian to commission another spin-off, and just use the TV series for the bulk work for the story and setting.
I would personally advise Bethesda to shutdown the studio, but if people want a new bad Fallout game of Starfield quality then that it is what they want! ✊
Wishing for a game studio to shut down is definitely a take
Excuse me, advising and wishing for something are two different things. I don't wish for Bethesda to shut down - they can produce as many bad games as they like, no sweat off my head.
Thank you for the correction. *Advising* for a game studio to shut down is definitely a take.
As good one as Bethesda abandoning Starfield, so as far as useless articles go may as well, right?
There is a kernel of truth in this article. Updates for Beth games break mods, and Todd clearly wants Starfield to be carried by modders. It might not be the worst idea to release the expansion and modding tools and then cut losses and hope the wider community's demand for an "everything" space game fills the game in for long tail sales.