560°

This Is How Much Money You’d Spend if You Bought Every 2015 Season Pass

While several of the big releases this year such as Halo 5 and Bloodborne hit shelves without the added expense of a season pass, many other major titles gave customers the option. So just how much money could fly from your wallet in 2015 for this additional content?

Read Full Story >>
twinfinite.net
itsjustexuma3073d ago

The only Season Passes I've purchases this year are Batman Arkham Kinght and Fallout 4 season passes

OC_MurphysLaw3073d ago

I pulled the trigger on The Witcher 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider. The key for them for me was the promise of more single player content not multiplayer map packs.

jb2273073d ago

The Tomb Raider decision was an odd one then because there is only one single sp dlc in the form of the Witch tomb...the rest is mp & challenge stuff...they detailed it all when they announced it...you probably could've saved $15-20 bucks just waiting for the actual content to release.

InactiveUser3073d ago

I've never purchased a season pass and don't plan on ever buying one. It's a rip-off. Now you're expected to pay $110 for a full game instead of $60. F 'em, I'll wait until the complete edition is ~$15.

conanlifts3072d ago (Edited 3072d ago )

The Witcher 3 season pass is probably the best around. I loved the first pass, I have played shorter games than the first expansion. I am considering the fallout pass too, but not sure what they are including yet.

Player3Podcast3073d ago

Legitimate curiosity about Batman, how nervous were you purchasing it when they hadn't revealed the details? And was it worth it in the end?

itsjustexuma3073d ago

I wasn't nervous I kinda trusted Rocksteady because they did the last two games right and it really wasn't worth it because instead of giving the players more story content they just kept releasing short story missions and a lot of those challenge add ons

PX543072d ago

The only season pass I bought this year (and ever) was Arkham Knight, and that's only because I got the game including the season pass for just £25 at launch.

3072d ago
Jmanzare3072d ago

@eejlp
Its not a rip off if you plan on getting them all anyway, you usually get a discounted price for purchasing them ahead of time.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3072d ago
Thom94343073d ago

I've never bought a season pass. Screw that.

PizzaSteve3073d ago

Yeah me neither. Too bad others fail for the trap.

jb2273073d ago

No doubt...it's a lot easier for me because I don't play mp, so I just wait until they actually release any sp content & buy it piecemeal....there's typically only one sp component for every $20-50 dollar season pass, & I get it for 10 bucks if it reviews decently enough or if I just dig the game enough not to worry about impressions.

nitus103073d ago (Edited 3073d ago )

But, but, but you get really good value for season passes. You get??? ...?? ...? err! a few extra maps if you are lucky, some extra weapon skins, clothing skins and maybe if you have been a good boy/girl extra quests which you could have brought later as an expansion or DLC anyway. ... err!

Yep Thom9434 had it right first time "Screw that".

nix3073d ago

I also never buy.. But Driveclub n Bloodborne are two games for which I've bought DLC/extensions.

GordonKnight3072d ago

@ PizzaSteve

You really should thank the people that purchase DLC. DLC is how companies make these huge budget games and still turn a profit. If it wasn't for the people who purchase DLC, games would cost $100 at launch instead of $60.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3072d ago
conanlifts3072d ago

Depends on the pass. The Witcher 3 pass includes 2 expansions, the first being 10 hours long, the second most likely double that. That's more gameplay than most games offer to begin with.

But yes most are worthless and a rip off.

MrCrimson3072d ago

I bought COD Elite way back in the day, that was the last and only time.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3072d ago
DanielEndurance3073d ago

Picked up Syndicate's & Black Ops III's season passes this year... Might get Siege's too.
There's probably going to be 25% more season passes next year at this rate.

Player3Podcast3073d ago

I think we are going to see a lot of people migrate towards the microtransaction model like Halo 5.

Slevon3072d ago

I hope so, I handle people being able to buy cosmetic items in game while i can still earn them to get free maps/updates.

USMC_POLICE3073d ago

Did you see what's in sieges pass? Almost nothing

Crispyleeks3073d ago

Witcher 3 and Fallout 4. I played it safe but damn I have no regrets with Witcher. By the sounds of Fallout 4's season pass I won't get burned by that either.

Player3Podcast3073d ago

The Witcher 3 seemed like the best value for the money!

wheatley3072d ago

I bought the same. Fallout games have done well with their expansions before, and the Witcher team's philosophy on DLC meant I could trust them from the outset.

Jmanzare3072d ago

Me too. Bethesda always does dlc right.. Besides horse armor

JOKERACN73073d ago

Videogames are already expensive, can't afford season passes tbh ...
Good Expansion Packs like The Witcher 3's worth it tho.

_-EDMIX-_3073d ago

Video games are actually factually less money now then 10 years ago.

Expansion packs are like games, they are "Good" based on subjectivity of the end user. Some where to some gamer, a season pass is "worth it" if you spent 500 hours in BF4, you might say its season pass was worth it.

I didn't get BF4's season pass due to only playing 200 hours in it which is light for me on the BF scale, but lots of titles in 2014 and 2015 kept lots of my time, I put that 200 in MOST of it around PS4's launch, but during 2014 played and focused on other titles.

It depends, if I played more of it and seeked to continue long term like in other BFs, I might have bought the season pass and put another 400 or so hours in it as even 100 extra hours to me for $50 is more then worth it.

Consider again, we factually due to inflation have cheaper games now then years before and are in a medium that is the most value worthy out of any other. How many times will you watch a film? But for $20 or so you might get it on Bluray, DVD etc and I'm not putting you on spending 100 hours watching it over and over in 6 months to a year lol.

Nothing is wrong with season passes in terms of price anymore then the prices of games. The user really defines what that is to themselves more so.

The value of The Witcher 3 to you, might differ then other gamers, consider that also applies to season passes or any post launch content.

ShottyGibs3073d ago (Edited 3073d ago )

You're not wrong. But people have less disposable income than 10 years ago. Tax, rate increases and the cost of living have far outpaced wage increases year on year.

Not only that, if you're in living in the US (I'm not) as the majority of posters here are, you guys currently have 0.25% interest rates for years (post 08 crash) and are looking at possible negative interest rates in the very near future. But I digress. I doubt they are going to reduce the cost of games based on this. Do you?

Tankbusta403072d ago

Will people stop this inflation garbage? Salaries have not crazily gone up with inflation so it's a non argument. Ten years ago the minimum wage was still the same and if you were making 25 dollars an hour it didn't increase to 35

_-EDMIX-_3072d ago

@Shotty- "I doubt they are going to reduce the cost of games based on this. Do you?" No, that is likely not going to happen they are more likely going to raise it them lower it.

"But people have less disposable income than 10 years ago. Tax"

I just don't see any evidence to support much of this, if someone games, they will find the income. The reality is, for 10 years, we've had games for $60.

http://kotaku.com/36-years-...

and

http://www.ign.com/articles...

and

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

@Tank- Because economical facts... The reality is, games have cost $60 for 10 years whole over all costing more to create, the top most expensive games made of all time where made in the last 10 years. Mind you, that is merely the ones that even report their cost to the public, consider Konmai didn't regarding MGSV and reports of 80 million are rumored, but over the course of 7 years development, with inflation its actually around 100 million.

So they made 170 million on MGSV, they could use that 100 million to pay back their loan, a couple million more in interest and might be left with 70 or 60 million, its not enough to make another MGS, they even made comments regarding they would need finical support for the next MGS game.

Games have hit RECORD sales, yet have also cost MORE yet made less due to inflation. Its not a subjective idea, its a factual one. You can actually look that up. I'm buying MORE games now, then 10 years ago.

http://www.usinflationcalcu...

Mind you, with the cost of gaming to develop, I would wage its really around $100 per game for them to get a respectable profit to create a second title. Many need to factor its not about JUST breaking even, they have operating cost and most times need to pay back loans for a huge project on top of interest.

Muzikguy3072d ago (Edited 3072d ago )

You post a great comment Edmix. I have to agree with Shotty and Tank though. Yes games haven't gone up in price over the last decade. Everything else has though. Not only that, healthcare (at least in the US) has almost doubled too. They can tout all they want to about the prices, but the fact is to many of us, they're still high. That's why things like Gamefly exist. Games on the cheap. Can even buy them cheap from them. I got Shadows of Mordor for $15 and Dragon Age Inquisition for $12 ^_^

I'd have gladly bought them both new, but I can't afford to pay $60 for every game out there that interest me. And for the record I'd rather buy at GF than GameStop because they don't put all those stupid stickers on the cases. Had wages increased with cost of living I'm sure people would be spending more on full priced games

Edit: I also just want to say that if Konami did make $60 or $70 million profit that's more than enough to make the next game. Unless they don't think they'd make the $30 to $40 million dollars needed to cover just the cost. Of course, they'd make more than that and still turn a profit. It's not like they're making multiple MGS style games each year that cost $100+mil to make :)

And in all fairness, I wouldn't feel sorry for Konami anyway

_-EDMIX-_3072d ago

@ Miz- "I'd have gladly bought them both new, but I can't afford to pay $60 for every game out there that interest me"

That sounds more like specific situation. The reality is, we have games that broke records in sales year over year and the evidence of high sales don't support the idea that they are too expensive, it states just the opposite.

"but the fact is to many of us, they're still high"

Nope. What do you have to support that idea though? Again...consider the records Fallout 4 just broke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Now...consider MOST of the all time list has happened in the last 10 years of the best selling.

GTAV a perfect example, full price, 54 million units.

The reality is, you might be in a situation where you can't afford full price most times, that fine, but thats also situational. The reality is, the facts surrounding current game sales don't support that "most" can't afford it.

PS4 just hit 30 million units...again...we have more money to buy such things then 10 years prior. Consider both PS4 and XONE are hitting record sales.

" I also just want to say that if Konami did make $60 or $70 million profit that's more than enough to make the next game"

It is if you consider they could just use the same engine to save cost. The point is if the wanted to make another MGS using a new engine and need to spend another 80 to 100 million, they would be unable to without taking deep loans. Could they, yes....does it make sense given the high production quality? Maybe not. Its the reality that they can't even with millions of units due to the price saying the same.

"And in all fairness, I wouldn't feel sorry for Konami anyway" irrelevant, merely using an example of a AAA game in terms of profit and development cost. Though I feel the needed to assess their cost and have DLC to make up that cost if they want to get a bigger profit, I'm merely pointing out that they even need to do that if they wish to make another game for 100 million.

Consider....they need to do that JUST to make another game using 100 million.

Record sales of games show MORE are buying games then in any time ever in gaming. Yet we are still paying the same price since 10 years ago. We either need to raise the base price of games to $80 or $100 or get use to DLC and Seasons passes. We can't go another 10 years with games at $60 without either happening.

Muzikguy3072d ago (Edited 3072d ago )

@Edmix

I get what you're saying but I think you're only looking at half the scenario. Yes, games break records. Yes, year over year they sell and sell more. That doesn't mean people are happy with the cost of are willing to keep paying it. Look at the series that break records. They're all the same and have been for a long time. Not only that, they're released on like 10 different platforms (exaggerated). You also have to account for a growing gaming user base. When you factor all that in, the records aren't really saying much. Even more so when things that sell millions are still considered failures (which I don't exactly agree with, but financially is a different story)

I do see games going up in the future but other things need to happen as well. Gwmes are supposed to be getting easier with the PC based stuff and everything so I'm not really seeing that as a viable excuse. When companies hold certain games in limbo for so long (like versus13) that's their fault not mine or yours. And Konami makes tons of money off mobile games to more than make up for one big AAA game if they wanted to do that. I can't tell a company how to manage their money :)

_-EDMIX-_3072d ago

@Miz- "Yes, year over year they sell and sell more. That doesn't mean people are happy with the cost of are willing to keep paying it"

?

I'm sorry but this is where a number shows otherwise. They like it enough to buy games at record numbers, I get many want things for free, but real market value is not based on if you want, its based on what people for a mater of fact will spend on a game. Those records show most will, of course a few want to pay nothing for games and want them all for free, but that isn't being debated. Its based on the majority, not a few. Could that not apply regardless of the price of games? Do people not steal even items that are at low cost? Someone not agreeing with the price really has nothing to do with its real market value.

Record sales again show otherwise.

"Konami makes tons of money off mobile games to more than make up for one big AAA game if they wanted to do that. I can't tell a company how to manage their money :)"

I don't disagree with that all at, but we are saying yes or no to what is being offered. If we feel the price isn't worth the product due to price being based on the companies shortcomings, we are free to not buy the title.

Don't disagree with that either as the market is based on consumer choice.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3072d ago
Show all comments (93)
220°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot21h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack19h ago(Edited 19h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo15h ago(Edited 15h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

RaidenBlack9h ago(Edited 9h ago)

@KyRo
So, by 15 years, you mean Fallout 3 was the last great game Bethesda made?
You don't consider Skyrim a good game, which came out 13 years ago?
I'd consider Fallout 4 a pretty decent game as well. It's Story & RPG elements were a bit downgrade from New Vegas but the exploration and shooting on the other hand, were upgrades.
FO76 was disappointing and Starfield could've been better at launch I'll agree.

shinoff21835h ago

Kyro idk why you got downvoted. Obsidian has shown they can do a better fallout once. Fallout 4 while liking the game was a step down tbh

Duke1915h ago(Edited 15h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke1911h ago(Edited 11h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

-Foxtrot8h ago

"Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs"

He's literally just told you why

We're waiting like 15 years before a sequel comes out, it's insane

Skyrim came out in 2011, the next game is expected to come out in 2027 at the earliest so that's 16 years apart while Fallout 4 came out in 2015 and might not release until 2031, again 16 years.

We're fine with Bethesda trying new things and doing new IPs like Starfield but adding a new game to the cycle now means a bigger wait. Also Starfield didn't meet most peoples expectations, can you imagine waiting 15 years or so for a sequel and it's disappointing? It would feel even worse because you would have to wait another 15 years to see if they manage to come back from it.

They need to give it to another developer, we don't need main numbered titles but a spin off of Fallout and Elder Scrolls should be cycled in between the long gaps of the main releases.

Once again you are making out people want these games as quick as possible when all we want is a standard development time of at least 4 years or so rather than waiting 15.

theindiearmy6h ago

At this rate, I'll get two or three more Elder Scrolls games released in my lifetime and I'm not even 40. :(

mandf12h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

shinoff21835h ago

That's not completely true. I had a good time with fallout games on my ps consoles. So they work just fine

gold_drake1h ago

"Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support."

no, we need to stop relying on mods to make a broken arse game good. there is no excuse for that whatsoever.

fans should not be responsible and relied on for fixing games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1h ago
Skuletor14h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave13h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor11h ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

-Foxtrot8h ago

@Skuletor

Who's saying to rush the releases? No one is saying that...

People just don't want to be waiting 15 years for a sequel, they aren't working on the game for that long, you do realise that right? The issue isn't coming down to them working on the game and us "rushing them", it's the fact they are working on other games like Starfield now meaning bigger gaps before they even get started on them.

I bet you any more Elder Scrolls VI only entered full development last year when Starfield was finished despite being announced in 2018.

Skuletor5h ago

@Foxtrot
It's like Duke19 said, people will complain about anything. If they focus on just Fallout and/or Elder Scrolls, people will complain they're just a Fallout/Elder Scrolls studio, if they branch out and focus on other IP like Starfield, now there's complaints there's too much of a gap between their other game's sequels, it's a lose/lose scenario.

Duke1911h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai13h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris12h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (29)
280°

Fallout 4 – Why Was it So Divisive?

The RPG has seen an explosion in popularity thanks to Amazon's TV show, but it was Bethesda's most controversial Fallout for a long time.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
thorstein1d 22h ago

I loved it. And I platinum'd it. I guess it's like most "divisive" games. If you don't like it, so what? Let those that do, enjoy it.

Eonjay1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

The article is trying to create fud where there was none. It has an 87 meta (on PS4). There is nothing divisive about it. It was well received. Period. I don't remember any arguments except for some performance issues when it first came out. Thats it.

VenomUK1d 12h ago

I really enjoyed Fallout 4.
I loved the halfway goal of what you are building towards. I had a good sense of what it was and then when you finally are almost there the music builds up - beautiful!

@Eonjay Forget the meta scores there are plenty of people who loved Fallout 3 but thought Fallout 4 was a bit of anticlimax and I do get it. Pete Hines the retired head of Bethesda's PR was even asked about it, and his answer was that it was because it simply didn't have the novelty of being brand new that Fallout 3 had.

Profchaos1d 4h ago

No venture beyond that so many of the hardcore gatekeep the franchise hard as 4 was far more popular and simplified many of the rpg elements refined shooting to the point where vats was optional the game was far more accessible and sold the most out of every franchise entry to date.

It's my personal favourite I get why people love 3 or NV but I do hate seeing people crap on 4 and the people who like it.

neutralgamer199221h ago

It was a good shooter especially coming from FO3/NV game wise improvements wise but it was a below average RPG and that’s where many felt ROG elements should have been deeper

CantThinkOfAUsername1d 18h ago

Whatever they do, Fallout 5 is guaranteed to be dogsh*t.

GamerRN1d 10h ago

What are you basing that off of?

CantThinkOfAUsername22h ago

- Fallout 4's story, characters, dialogue, and quests. They even managed to make the Vaults boring.
- Fallout 76 is Fallout 4 online. Same crap.
- Starfield doubled down on the crappiness of all these aspects despite being a new IP.

People bought and liked all of these games, which sends the message that we want more of this. I don't know about you, but I don't like being treated as a child and my intelligence insulted by developers.

ChasterMies1d 18h ago

Fallout 4 wasn’t so much divisive as not very good. But there aren’t many first person RPGs so what else are fans of the genre supposed to play?

FPS_D3TH1d 18h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

I think it was the lack of morality gameplay and lack of path to completion options compared to what fallout 3 and New Vegas offered. I think the issue mostly arose because of the voiced protagonist and how many lines of dialogue that needed to be recorded. Didn’t leave for many options beyond “good” “sarcastic douche” and the odd question or two for nearly every interaction. Personally I thought the game was fantastic as an adventure and exploration game, I liked the park system and base building, but the rpg aspects were fairly gutted. It made shooting much more tolerable too but it still wasn’t anything fantastic. The faction choices were ok and I felt like they all provided a more grey moral choice dilemma compared to older games which felt more good/evil but it wasn’t presented as such as prominently as I would’ve liked. You had to do some more internal and critical thinking of your own to come to decide why you’d support one faction over another unless you were in it just for some in game benefit or another.

kneon1d 8h ago

I didn't like any of the factions, so when it got to the point that I had to choose, I chose to stop playing

jznrpg1d 7h ago (Edited 1d 7h ago )

I finished the game but you are correct. I was thinking I don’t really know which one to pick as I don’t really care for any of them. I was near the Institute so I just went with that quest line. A lame way to choose who will win but I didn’t really prefer one over the others

EazyC1d 1h ago

I don't think FNV was good/evil. You have evil with Caesar's Legion, then everything else is different shades of grey imo and quite relative to your own political views! 😅

Friendlygamer1d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

1 Bad writing, the main quest is terrible. The sense of urgency of the story is at odds with the open world nature of the game

2 Boring, bland factions

3 too much personality for the main character. The game decides that you're married, that you love your son, your voice... a rpg like fallout should have a blank slate mc

4 dead open world. Fallout 3 and nv have a bunch of small cities and locations on their maps that give you interesting quests and dialogue. In Fallout 4 it feels like 80 per cent of the map is focused on combat and environmental storytelling, it feels more like a post apocalyptic action game rather than a dialogue heavy rpg

Fallout 4 is a very fun open world fps with really cool environmental storytelling but a very poor rpg

Show all comments (55)
360°

Fallout 4 For PS5 And Xbox Series X – Everything You Need to Know

For those looking to jump into the post-apocalyptic RPG for the first time, here's everything you need to know about it and its upcoming next-gen update.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
Barlos2d ago

Got it installed on my PS5 ready for this. Not sure I'll play it very much though because I didn't like the settlements feature, it just never seemed to gel with me.

Looking forward to giving it a shot though

just_looken2d ago

Use manual saves keep them backed up on ps4 it was a crasher

Just a fyi

Barlos2d ago

Hopefully it won't be after the update. Mind you it'll probably introduce some new bugs 🤣

Yui_Suzumiya2d ago

I was lucky and had minimal bugs at launch in 2015. I got the platinum trophy a month after launch.

Seth_hun2d ago

You probably need to download the native ps5 version, its not just a patch

Abear212d ago

This was my question, article states it’s a native version so will need to re-download when it releases.

Hoping it’s not a Bethesda buggy mess as the game has been out forever, but not holding my breath. Also unsure if saves will transfer, unlikely as again it’s a new version of the game

banger882d ago

"Not sure I'll play it very much though because I didn't like the settlements feature, it just never seemed to gel with me."

Doing the settlement related crap isn't mandatory, feel free to ignore it.

anast2d ago

Hopefully it's playable by now.

just_looken2d ago

tod: Can you load the start menu?

q&a: yes

Todd: does it load in allow you to move?

Q&a: yes

Tod: Great its gone gold ship it that is the quality we here strive for.

TheEroica2d ago

Naughty dog would've charged us 70 bucks for this. Thank you Bethesda!

anast1d 22h ago

@Eroica

It's free because they are going to let AI do most of the work.

1d 16h ago
Barlos2d ago

It was always playable for me on my PS4 Pro. I don't recall any issues aside from the usual 'Bethesda Bugs'. Nothing even close to game breaking.

just_looken2d ago

Now yes but first year it was very bad and you had to watch the save file size

Barlos2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@just_looken

No I mean even back then, I can't recall any significant issues. Funny thing with the save file size is there were serious problems with Skyrim on PS3 because of the save file, until it was patched. Seems that Bethesda just don't learn.

Abear212d ago

Far Harbor was barely playable on Pro for me, it was a slide show in the fog. I’ve been waiting for this patch for what seems like forever!

2d ago
brando0082d ago

Tried to play it again on PS4 last week to finish Far Harbour, the game kept crashing on launch. Hopefully this new patch let's me start the game lol

Abear212d ago (Edited 2d ago )

If Far Harbor is butter smooth and this baby has a smooth release overall I’ll take back everything terrible I ever said about Bethesda. This is the best game they put out in the last ten years. Still betting on a Day one patch incoming though and probably more to come. They should allow pre load bc their servers are gonna get boinked.

Profchaos2d ago

Yeah far harbour on the PS4 was playable for me but wow did that fog cause significant slowdown killed off any desire to explore and instead I would go point to point as fast as possible.

gold_drake2d ago

theres not rly much to know, other than the update comes out next week haha

Abear212d ago

Here’s the one Pro Tip you need—play as Evil, it’s impossible to keep track of who you are supposed to be for and against with all the Factions—I say F them all and play Evil so it’s no stress! Lol

kneon2d ago

I never finished the game because I got to the point where the game really wanted me to pick a side, I didn't want to side with anyone so I just stopped playing. It's pretty rare for me not to finish a game, but it just got boring.

Show all comments (32)