170°

Why Multiplayer In Fallout 76 Might Not Be As Bad As Many Anticipate

Bethesda Softworks shocked the games industry with a surprise announcement of Fallout 76. As a spin off from the traditional numbered series, Fallout 76 will play host to the series' first online multiplayer experience; but does that mean single player fans should be weary of Bethesda's upcoming title?

Read Full Story >>
raginggazebo.com
InKnight7s2541d ago

Another article for why always online for a non real MMO game?
Like past Crew, Division, NFS and they all were wrong.

Always online is bad and pathetic in most cases, Just Imagine FFVIIR or KH3 will be always online game?

I suggest for the OP to defend consumer benefits instead of trying to sell pathetic ideas.

MuddyWaters2541d ago

How do you add consistent updates and keep the game fresh unless you are online? This is what some kind of neglect and that is they want to create a world now that involves other players and the interactions going on. Then they take that feedback and what works they improve on, what doesn't they remove.

Listen, I'm the first one that would agree Fallout has always been about playing solo and discovering the story yourself and interacting at your own pace. They are trying something different so forgive me to have any sympathy for those who are bashing it without playing it.

MorpheusX2541d ago (Edited 2541d ago )

@Muddywaters

People like u are all full of shit.

Its not about creative expression, & about trying something new, it's about "Jumping on the Bandwagon".

Bethesda is trying to "MILK" it's fans by turning a single player game, into a Mulitplayer game, where fans will be charged for Microtransactions, DLC etc .

It's a Live Service approach, nothing "new" as you stated.

smh, stop lying and trying to sugar coat what these Business Conglomerates are doing, which is make "more" $$$, ..it's that simple.

UltraNova2541d ago

Really? How would people react if COD went full single player with online being an afterthought at best? Thats how controversial making Fallout an MP focused game is.

-T9X-69-2541d ago

@MorpheusX

Milking its fanbase? Their last game was 2 1/2 years ago. You guys love to act like you HAVE to buy this game. You don't. You can easily skip it with the amount of games coming out this holiday. They are offering dedicated servers, something still a lot of companies don't. They confirmed cosmetic microtransactions to help pay for the servers and free content added.

If you're going to quote someone, at least you what they said. Not what you want them to say. He said "They are trying something different". That means not the norm. That doesn't mean something new. Maybe you should stop lying and sugar coating your quotes to match the negative narrative you're painting.

gamer92541d ago

Morpheus are you being a little bit aggressive? You know there are some people that like Fallout AND like online games too. We just had Fallout 4.. I’m 100% in for trying something new with an Online Fallout. Don’t like it then wait for Fallout 5

Goldby2540d ago

@Muddy
"How do you add consistent updates and keep the game fresh unless you are online?"

simple, updates. like games have done since they were allowed to.

Witcher 3 isnt always online, isnt even online, yet it was able to bring alot more to the table than Bethesda ever will with their GaaS approach

MuddyWaters2540d ago

Ignore this title then because Fallout 5 is coming, so is Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield. All of which will be single player.

Typical attitude.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2540d ago
-T9X-69-2541d ago

It's always online because it's an online only game. You just compared that to FF7 Remake and KH3. Two single players titles. I suggest you work on educating yourself a bit more on the subject before making more ignorant comparisons.

InKnight7s2540d ago

So Fallout is not a singleplayer game? 76 is a prequel not even a spin off. It just like releasing Crisis Core FFVII (which is a prequel) as an online game, or online always sequel of The Witcher.

-T9X-69-2540d ago (Edited 2540d ago )

@InKnight7s

I like to go by facts, not peoples perspective of how they see things. I also don't put words into peoples mouth. Fallout, Fallout 2, 3, New Vegas and 4 are all single player titles, yes. We are talking about Fallout 76 though aren't we? It's an online only game. New Vegas was also a "spin off" title. So lets educate you a little bit.

The definition of "spin off" is: "a byproduct or incidental result of a larger project"

To help you a little further, a byproduct is the following: "an incidental or secondary product made in the manufacture or synthesis of something else"

Todd confirmed that Fallout 76 was actually the base for the multiplayer portion of Fallout 4. But they decided against it and went strictly single player. During that time in development, they grew larger and decided to actually go through with it. Thus, Fallout 76 is the exact definition of a "byproduct" which translates over to the word "spin off". Same with Fallout New Vegas, it was a byproduct designed by a different team. It's a prequel because you can't fit a narrative built by the community within a timeline so focused on single player driven story. Which is exactly why it makes sense in the timeline for Fallout 76 to be a multiplayer game.

You can read a little bit more about here:

https://www.pcgamer.com/fal...

I would suggest watching the documentary they reference because it provides a lot of information and answers to many questions and concerns I've seen here around N4G about Fallout 76 and Bethesda in general.

InKnight7s2540d ago

Stop educating and listen, just stick to the point? Fallout 76 is a prequel by developers words. So why in the world that a prequel of singleplayer series would be an online always game? Online always for such games is a disease. If they would just do a spin off or new establishment like The Elder Scrolls Online which is seperated, that would be understandable and acceptable, but doing an always online for sequel or prequel for non online games, its just milking and huge mess with consumers.

-T9X-69-2540d ago (Edited 2540d ago )

Well the problem here is you don't have your facts straight. If you don't have your facts straight and understand correctly, how is any point I attempt going to make sense to you? Educating yourself on something you like to talk about (I assume that's why you're here? To talk about games) isn't something to take offensively.

It's using the IP's name and shipping on all major platforms. If it didn't fit within the universe, timeline and lore, they would have called it something different. Hence why the name of the game is named after the Vault you start in. It's a spin off title that happens to be a prequel.

You're also confusing "Online Only" with "Always Online". They are 100% not the same.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2540d ago
3-4-52540d ago

It might be like in Fantasy Life for 3DS....You played single player but could play with ai or other humans for some quests.

Gridknac2541d ago

The one thing I don't understand yet is, if the game is going to be played fully online with servers, are we going to be playing on the same server all the time? Lets say I build a base or whatever, and another player out exploring comes across my settlement. They make note on their map where my camp is. Now the next time they jump into the game, are they going to be on the same server as me again? Because if they are not, they would travel back to the same spot and my settlement would't be there. What if i get 25 hrs in and have built up a nice settlement, only to find out there is another player on my server that I just can't get along with. Can I move to another server without fear of loosing everything? I don't know, maybe these questions have been answered elsewhere, but I sure would like to know!

-T9X-69-2541d ago (Edited 2541d ago )

For starters, there's dedicated servers. Whenever you log-in to the game you're connected to a random server. Private servers will be available but not a launch. You have a deployable "workbench" per say (forget what they called it) that can be placed anywhere and will provide you with X amount of space to build your base. There's no permadeath. You don't loose everything you're carrying when you die. When you log out, your base gets packed up and goes with you. When you log back in, your base will automatically redeploy where you left it previously. If you happen to join a server and someone has a base placed in the same spot. Your base will be packed up and you can redeploy it wherever you like.

In a recent interview, Todd said there would be fast travel but no details. Also players up to level 5 cannot be killed by PVP. Although Todd did say this could change. Just to throw it out there, Nukes aren't just being fired left and right. They said the codes are scattered all over the map and when you launch it, it creates a high level zone with rare gear and loot. That being said, the only assumption I'll make is considering it creates a high level zone is the codes will be probably also be guarded by high level enemies. So I doubt people will be firing Nukes left and right on day 1.

slate912541d ago

Can't wait for this game man.

UltraNova2541d ago

Thanks for the explanation but lets be honest, nukes will be fired by day 2 maybe even day 3...dont underestimate people's obsession.

-T9X-69-2541d ago

@UltraNova

Depends on how the game is designed if it allows you to progress that fast. For argument sake, let's assume it does. Of course there will be a few people. But it's not going to be common enough where every server you join has nukes being fired.

Let's not forget they are having a beta. Once that's out and people are playing, I imagine a lot of tweaking will be done. I'm not the biggest PVP player as I prefer co-op or single player. But I'm staying open minded until we see more. There's plenty of time and you never know what you might miss out on by writing things off so quickly.

Kokyu2541d ago (Edited 2541d ago )

You say that like you can play 76 a different way its only MP. Try to spin it how every you want but the fact other a$$holes can drop nukes on you is not awesome or cool no matter how you try to justify it.

The_Jackel2541d ago

its ok Todd will be asked why only online and will point the finger at ms or sony (more so sony) like he always does. never his doing always someone elses fault.

i don't see why this needs to be online only that's why i'm more than likely going to skip it but at least one thing, it was stated now not on release or a week off release date like some do

Kokyu2541d ago

It needs to be online only so they can milk it. Its easier to push MT in online only grabage games.

The_Jackel2541d ago

@kokyu
this is true, i'm sure there is something like that planned and why it will only be online, wonder if they will keep it hush then be like "oh thanks for buying the gamr btw MT's and lootboxes enjoy"

MorpheusX2540d ago

@The_Jackel

Have u heard of or tried Elex?

Just curious,...I'm playing it now, reminds me of a Fallout type of game. I actually like it better than Fallout, I prefer the story, setting, & lore more than Fallout.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2540d ago
Lighter92541d ago

Your comment is so ignorant. Please go and do some research before saying these things.

Kokyu2541d ago

I dont have to research stuff they've openly said themselves tard.

gamer92541d ago

Nukes are not primarily for PVP, they are for opening up high level areas of enemies with the best loot. Players get a warning if they are going to be nuked. Also, your base can be rebuilt easily

Kokyu2541d ago (Edited 2541d ago )

"Nukes are not primarily for PVP" yeah cause that will matter oh so much to people online. You're clueless.

"Players get a warning if they are going to be nuked. Also, your base can be rebuilt easily"

you act like some how thats going to make it better or something. It will end up with them having to remove them from the game or change the entire mechanic obviously these tards on here defending this have never played or seen a game like this before. It will just be gangs of a$$hole looking to screw with people and not really play the game. They will find away to glitch to max lvl or some other bug and then start raining nukes.

Goldby2540d ago

@kokyo

i know what you mean, todd stated dont worry there isnt pvp so you dont need to worry about a nuke dropping on you. instead it will drop on the tree right beside you...

gamer92540d ago

Kokyu, so you don’t want any interaction with other real players? Ya.. this game isn’t for you

King_Lothric2541d ago

This game is a skip. Not falling for it.

MorpheusX2540d ago

King_Lothric

nice one. 😂

MorpheusX2541d ago

Mulitplayer " in " Fallout 76?

Fallout 76 " is " a Multiplayer game.

Smh. Word Games.

Show all comments (43)
80°

Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studio

The latest game in BioWare’s fantasy role-playing series went through ten years of development turmoil

In early November, on the eve of the crucial holiday shopping season, staffers at the video-game studio BioWare were feeling optimistic. After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in.

HyperMoused4d ago

Its easy they called the die hard fans people in their nerd caves who will buy anything and then went woke to reach modern audiences....insulting the nerds in their caves along the way showing utter contempt for their fan base. very hapy it failed and any company who insults their fan base and treat their customers with contempt and insults, in future, i also hope fail.

neutralgamer19924d ago

It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what's happening with Dragon Age: The Veilguard and the broader situation at BioWare. The layoffs are tragic — no one wants to see talented developers lose their jobs. But when studios repeatedly create games that alienate their own fanbase, outcomes like this become unfortunately predictable.

There’s a pattern we’re seeing far too often: beloved franchises are revived, only to be reshaped into something almost unrecognizable. Changes are made that no one asked for, often at the expense of what originally made these games special. Then, when long-time fans express concern or lose interest, they’re told, “This game might not be for you.” But when those same fans heed that advice and don’t buy the game, suddenly they're labeled as toxic, sexist, bigoted, or worse.

Let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of gamers have no issue with diversity, LGBTQ+ representation, or strong female leads. In fact, some of the most iconic characters in gaming — like Aloy, Ellie, or FemShep — are proof that inclusivity and excellent storytelling can and do go hand in hand. The issue arises when diversity feels performative, forced, or disconnected from the narrative — when characters or themes are inserted not to serve the story, but to satisfy a corporate DEI checklist. Audiences can tell the difference.

When studios chase approval from a vocal minority that often doesn’t even buy games — while simultaneously dismissing loyal fans who actually do — they risk not just the success of individual titles, but the health of their entire studio. Telling your core customers “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is not a viable business strategy. Because guess what? Many of us won’t. And when the game fails commercially, blaming those very fans for not supporting it is both unfair and self-defeating.

Gamers aren’t asking for less diversity or less progress. We’re asking for better writing, thoughtful character development, and a respect for the franchises we’ve supported for decades. When you give people great games that speak to them — whether they’re old fans or new players — they will show up. But if you keep making games for people who don’t play them, don’t be surprised when those who do stop showing up

Armaggedon4d ago

I thought the writing and character development were fine. Sometimes things just dont resonate with people.

90°

Report: Just Cause 5 Was in Development at Sumo Digital, But Got Cancelled

Recent evidence we discovered indicates that the next game in the Just Cause series may have been canceled, potentially two years ago.

RaidenBlack6d ago

NOooooooooooooooooooooo....... ..............

mkis0075d ago

Well if it went back to being more like 3 I would have liked it. 4 was crap.

280°

Bend Studio Reportedly Lays Off 30 Percent of Staff Following Live-Service Project Cancellation

Sony's Bend Studio lays off 30 percent of its workforce following the cancellation of its live-service project.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Jin_Sakai6d ago

And to think we could’ve been playing Days Gone 2 by now.

RaidenBlack6d ago

I would even pay 80 bucks for an UE5 based more immersive Days Gone 2 .... or even a new Syphon Filter.
But nah .... rather lay off staff & re-remasters Days Gone i.e Days Gone Reloaded.

Cacabunga6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Stubborn Sony not wanting to listen to fans is paying the price of its arrogance. They could have let these studios grow and do what they do best and let others like Bungie maybe make gaas for those who want it.

Days Gone 2 is obviously what they should focus on next. We’ve had enough remasters and reeditions of the first one

Profchaos6d ago

Sony's not paying the price its workers are.

z2g5d ago

They were listening to the money that games like Fortnite were pulling in. Market research shows service games when successful make more money. It’s a gamble that Sony was too cocky to worry about. Now ppl are losing their jobs in an economy that’s gonna slow down any minute.

gerbintosh5d ago

@Profchaos

The workers let go were probably hired for the live service game and released now because it was cancelled

jznrpg6d ago

People needed to buy the first game! And not at 20$

neutralgamer19925d ago

I understand the argument that if fans truly wanted a sequel to Days Gone, they should've supported it at launch at full price. But that perspective misses a lot of important context.

First of all, Days Gone launched in a broken state. It needed several patches just to become stable and playable. For many gamers, paying $60 for something clearly unfinished just wasn’t justifiable. That wasn’t a lack of support—it was a fair response to a product that didn’t meet expectations out of the gate.

Despite that, over 8 million people eventually bought the game. It built a strong, passionate fanbase—proof that the game had value and potential once it was properly patched. A sequel would’ve had a much stronger foundation: a team that had learned from the first game, a loyal audience, and way more hype around a continued story.

But Days Gone also had to contend with another challenge—it was unfairly judged against other first-party PlayStation exclusives. Critics compared it directly to polished, masterful experiences like Uncharted, The Last of Us, and God of War. And while those comparisons might make sense from a branding perspective, they didn’t reflect the reality of the situation.

Studios like Naughty Dog and Santa Monica Studio had years—sometimes decades—of experience working with big teams and high budgets on flagship titles. Days Gone was Sony Bend Studio’s first major AAA console release in a very long time—their last being Syphon Filter back in the PS1 era. Before that, they were mostly focused on handheld games. Expecting them to match the output of the most elite studios in the industry, right out of the gate, was unrealistic and frankly unfair.

The harsh critical reception didn’t reflect the potential Days Gone actually had, and it probably played a big role in Sony's decision not to greenlight a sequel. Instead, they pushed Bend and other talented studios like Bluepoint toward live service projects—chasing trends instead of trusting the kinds of games their fans consistently show up for. Many of those live service games have since been canceled, likely wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable time that could’ve gone toward meaningful single-player experiences.

So when people say, “You should’ve bought Days Gone at launch if you wanted a sequel,” they’re ignoring the bigger picture. Gamers didn’t reject the game—they waited for it to be worth their time. And once it was, they absolutely showed up. That should’ve been seen as a foundation to build on, not a reason to walk away from the franchise

InUrFoxHole5d ago

@neutralgamer1992
Has a point. I supported this game day 1. There was either and audio sync issue or a cut scene issue that ruined the game for me early on. I dont blame gamers at all for holding off until it meets their standard.

raWfodog6d ago

I seriously wonder who makes these types of decisions. Days Gone was a solid game. It didn't get that much love at first but people eventually saw the diamond in the rough. The ending basically guaranteed a sequel, but someone said "nope, let's pitch a LS game instead". And the yes-men were all "Great idea, sir!!"

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5d ago
-Foxtrot6d ago

Urgh. Jim Ryan’s sh***y GaaS plans still ripple across their studios even today.

Such a shame, they should have just been allowed to make Days Gone 2.

Sony need to truly let go of their live service plans once and for all.

OMNlPOTENT6d ago

Agreed. I think the live service era is dead. Even titans like Destiny are starting to fall apart. Sony needs to shift their focus back to their single player games.

ABizzel16d ago (Edited 6d ago )

I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane.

Those kind of games are backed by hundreds if not thousands over 1,000 developers working on those games year-round even after release for continuous new content monthly, quarterly, and huge annual or bi-annual updates. It was stupid to expect taking your single-player focused studios and have them become GaaS focused studios when many of them have skipped Multi-player modes the entire last generation (a stepping stone into GaaS).

He was after his Fortnite, Apex, etc… and I feel they could have found that by building a singular new studio dedicated to helping developers like Naughty Dog bring Faction 2.0 to life. At most they should have had:

Factions 2.0 GaaS (PlayStation’s Open World Survival)
Destiny 3 (Bungie needs to revamp Destiny)
Horizon GaaS (PlayStation’s Monster Hunter)
A new AAA IP

That’s it. I mean technically Gran Turismo is a GaaS so that could count, and an Open World InFamous meets DC Universe Online could work with custom hero / villain classes.

raWfodog6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

"I don’t think the GaaS overall was a bad idea they’ve seen the success of others, however, forcing all your studios to focus on it was absolutely insane."

What's more interesting is that SIE was not actually 'forcing' their studios to make GaaS games. I have to find the article again but it was explained that these studios knew about Jim's plans for GaaS games and typically pitched those types of games to SIE because they would have a better chance of getting greenlit for production. They were chasing dollars instead of their ideal games.

Edit: I found the article. Take it for what it is, lol

https://wccftech.com/playst...

ABizzel15d ago (Edited 5d ago )

@ra

I don’t think they were forcing all of their studios, however, that initiative didn’t just come out of no where. Jim Ryan’s entire purpose was to make PlayStation more profitable than ever, and a collection of successful GaaS across platforms would have definitely done that. Based on his talk tracks and interviews he is a numbers guy, and he and Herman Hulst ran with this GaaS solution to all the PlayStation teams.

And when your CEO says this is what we’re getting behind and what the company and shareholders want going forward, everyone falls in line and pushes towards it.

Naughty Dog probably wanted Faction 2 with or without influence.

Sony Bend wanted Days Gone 2 and it was shot down, and now more than ever it makes way more sense, since the game, while initial impressions were slightly above average (which at the time wasn’t good enough being compared to God of War, Ghost, TLoUs, etc…), has found a cult following and has ended up selling extremely well across both PS4 and PS5. But instead they were dropped into this GaaS IP that failed and now they’ve wasted years of development when Days Gone 2 could have already been released or releasing.

6d ago
Obscure_Observer6d ago

Sony literally sent Playstation studios into a death trap!

They forced studios into this GaaS bs just cancel their games midway in development and fire thousand of people in the end!

WTF is happening over there? Why those CEOs still got to keep their jobs after billions and billions dollars invested in new studios and games just to so many developers fired and projects canceled in the end?

This is the worst generation of Playstation! Period!

CrimsonWing696d ago

Jim Ryan got fir—err I mean, retired.

anast6d ago

Jimmy followed Phil's advice.

6d ago
raWfodog6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

They didn't actually 'force' their studios, per se, but the initiative was certainly there.

https://wccftech.com/playst...

-Foxtrot5d ago

They didn't have a choice lets be honest, a new boss comes in and lays out all these plans....what are any of them going to do? Pitch a single player game with none of the things that guy is asking for? You're just asking to be given less funding, less notice, less resources and the like. or maybe you're scared incase the guy decides to get rid of you for someone who will actually give him things that he wants.

They didn't get brutally forced but they had no choice but to go with the flow or Jim would find someone who would.

raWfodog5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

@Foxtrot
No, they definitely had a choice but many chose the path of least resistance.

We have plenty of single-player, non-LS games that began development during the LS initiative. Those projects obviously got greenlit for production. These studios just needed to have good ideas for single player games, but most just chose to come up with half-assed LS pitches.

slate916d ago

Can't believe Sony has been shooting themselves in the foot this gen. Abandoning what made them great to chase industry trends

Skyfly476d ago (Edited 6d ago )

Alanah explains the reasons why in this video which goes into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/wat... But its basically down to appeasing their shareholders

Show all comments (44)