Obsidian Founder Says He Would 'Love To Make A New Fallout Game'

Feargus Urquhart : "At some point we'll start looking into what those next games are going to be, and I would be surprised if Fallout is not on that list".

Read Full Story >>
-Foxtrot552d ago

I think Microsoft should let them

With Bethesda having their hands full with Elder Scrolls and now new games like Starfield it's going to be years before we get a new Fallout game so why not let Obsidian do the Fallout games until Bethesda is ready to do the main numbered ones.

For having a rushed development and strained budget Obsidian made one of the best newer Fallout games, if they were given more money, support and a longer development cycle I'm sure they could do something fantastic.

I'd personally use Obsidian Fallout games to experiment with the franchise, venture out of America and do other locations like the UK or Canada. New locations mean different companies, their own versions of Nuka Cola or Vault Tec, different mascots, different versions of robots or their own Super Mutants and even different versions of Lock picking / hacking since they would be using different systems.

RaidenBlack551d ago

Obsidian's got their hands full as well with the upcoming Avowed (as large as Skyrim) and Outer Worlds II (which will be a much larger project since M$ money) after that. Plus they got smaller projects in pipeline as well like Pentiment. As well as supporting Grounded.
So .. I doubt they can take on a large project like a new Fallout project now (i.e. in near future).
Plus, Obsidian will have to use an existing Fallout build to create their Fallout game (like how they used Fallout 3 to create New Vegas). The latest Fallout build is of 76 which is wayy too old to create a new game upon.
They'll have to rely on Bethesda to deliver a newer Fallout build, which I doubt will happen anytime soon and I doubt the Starfield build will work (that'll involve a lot of conversion work at Obsidian's side + new game dev time).
Obsidian can't start from scratch using Creation Engine as well. Creation Engine kit is too finicky, complex and scripting nightmare. Obsidian will have to dedicate a huge amount of time and resource then which they wont.
Hence Urquhart says in the article, "If we were to do Fallout, it has to tie in with what Bethesda is doing with Fallout and a lot of other things".
And UE Fallout won't work as well, Outer Worlds is the example. If tried, UE Fallout will be like any other open world RPG but won't be a Bethesda level interactivity experience in normal 3-4 years dev time. It is possible but then huge amount of time and resources need to be dedicated to replicate the Creation Engine's scripting n interactivity in a UE build and that might take several years.
So in conclusion, New Vegas 2 only after Fallout 5, unless some other genre spin-off Fallout is planned before that.

VenomUK551d ago

What with Starfield's release in 2023, then a year of DLC, then development of Elder Scrolls VI, Todd Howard won't be available to start work on Fallout 5 until the latter end of the decade for a release coming at the earliest in the 2030s (😲!). So if MS/Bethesda can put together a team to build a Fallout game that comes outs before then, then it obviously keeps the fans happy and won't detract from whatever innovative developments Howard has in mind for what may be his last Fallout.

shinoff2183551d ago

Id take a new fallout from obsidian over any game you just mentioned

-Foxtrot551d ago

The Outer Worlds is alright but it's got nothing on Fallout

551d ago Replies(1)
shinoff2183551d ago

Im all for it. Make me buy the xbox x sooner then i thought i would. I love the fallout series. Bethsada never let them make another one probably cause they showed them up. New vegas was way better then 3

badz149551d ago (Edited 551d ago )

wouldn't it be more sensible to just build a PC?

ED-E551d ago

Would love a official Fallout: New Vegas remaster/remake, where they finish the content/ideas they had to cut due the tight time/budget contrains back in the day.

chicken_in_the_corn551d ago

I would prefer he didn't after how bad New Vegas was.


Starfield Highlights a Major Problem With the AAA Game Industry

Video games -- particularly AAA video games -- have become too expensive to make. The intel from every fly on the wall in every investor's room is there is an increasing level of caution about spending hundreds of millions just to release a single video game. And you can't blame them. Many AAA game budgets mean that you can print hundreds of millions in revenue, and not even turn a profit. If you are an investor, quite frankly, there are many easier ways to make a buck. AAA games have always been expensive to make though, but when did we go from expensive, to too expensive? A decade ago, AAA games were still expensive to make, but fears of "sustainability" didn't keep every CEO up at night. Consumer expectations and demands no doubt play a role in this, but more and more games are also revealing obvious signs of resource mismanagement, evident by development teams and budgets spiraling out of control with sometimes nothing substantial to show for it.

Read Full Story >>
franwex14h ago

It’s a question that I’ve pondered myself too. How are these developers spending this much money? Also, like the article stated, I cannot tell where it’s even going. Perfect example was used with Starfield and Spiderman 2.

They claim they have to increase prices due to development costs exploding. Okay? Well, I’m finding myself spending less and less money on games than before due to the quality actually going down. With a few recent exceptions games are getting worse.

I thought these newer consoles and game engines are easier-therefore-cheaper to make games than previous ones. What has happened? Was it over hiring after the pandemic, like other tech companies?

MrBaskerville14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

Costs quite a bit to maintain a team of 700+ employees. Which is what it takes to create something with state of the art fidelity and scope. Just imagine how many 3D artists you'd need to create the plethora of 3D objects in a AAA game. There's so much stuff and each asset takes time and effort.

That's atleast one of the things that didn't get easier. Also coding all the systems and creating all the character models with animations and everything. Animations alone is a huge thing because games are expected to be so detailed.

Back in the day a God of War type game was a 12 hour adventure with small levels, now it has to be this 40+ hours of stuff. Obviously it didn't have to be this way of AAA publishers hadn't convinced themselves that it's an arms race. Games probably didn't need to be this bloated and they probably didn't need to be cutting edge in fidelity.

franwex14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

Starfield’s animation and character models look like they are from Oblivion, a game that came out about 20 years ago. I cannot tell the difference between Spider-Man 2 and the first one at first glance. It’s been a joke in some YouTube channels.

Seven hundred people for 1 game? Make 7 games with 100 people instead. I think recent games have proven that it’s okay to have AA games, such as Hell Divers 2.

I guess I’m a bit jaded with the industry and where things are headed. Solutions seem obvious and easy, but maybe they aren’t.

MrBaskerville13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

I'm not talking about Starfield.

And I'm not advocating for these behemoth productions. I think shorter development time and smaller teams would lead to better and more varied games. I want that, even if that means that we have to scale things down quite a bit.

Take something like The Last of Us 2. The amount of custom content is ridiculous if you break it down. It's no wonder they have huge teams of animators and modellers. And just to make things worse, each animated detail requires coding as well.

Just to add to animation work. It can take up to a week to make detailed walking animations. A lot of these tend to vary between character types. And then you need to do every other type of animation as well which is a task that scales quickly depending on how detailed the game is. And that's just a small aspect of AAA development. Each level might require several level designers who only do blockouts. Enviroment artists that setdress and lighting artists that work solely on lighting. Level needs scripting and testing. Each of these tasks takes a long ass time if the game is striving for realism.

Personally I prefer working on games where one level designer can do all aspects. But that's almost exclusively in indie and minor productions. It gets bloated fast.

Cacabunga7h ago

Simply because they want you to believe it’s so expensive to develop a game that they must turn into other practices like releasing games unfinished, micro transactions and in the long run adopt the gaas model in all games..

thorstein7h ago

I think game budgets are falsely inflated for tax purposes.

Just look at Godzilla Minus One. It cost less that 15 million.

If they include CEO salary and bonuses on every game and the CEO takes a 20 million dollar bonus every year for the 4 years of dev time, that's 80 million the company can claim went to "making" the game.

esherwood5h ago

Yep and clogged with a bunch of corporate bs that has nothing to do with making good video games. Like diversity coordinators gender specialists. Like most jobs you have 20-30% of the workforce doing 80% of the work

-Foxtrot5h ago

Spiderman 2 is so weird because the budget is insane yet I don't see it when playing

Yeah it's decent, refined gameplay, graphics and the like from the first game but it's very short, there's apparently a lot cut from it thanks to the insight from the Insomniac leak and the story was just not that good compared to the first so where the hell did all that money go to.

Even fixes to suits, bugs to wrinkle out and a New Game Plus mode took months to come out

Put it this way, the New Game Plus took as long to come out as the first games very first story DLC

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5h ago
raWfodog14h ago

I believe that it is due to this unsustainable rise in production costs that more and more companies are looking to AI tools to help ‘lower’ costs.

northpaws3h ago

The use of AI is all about greed, even for companies that are sustainable, they would use AI because it saves them money.

KyRo13h ago

I genuinely believe it's mismanagement. Why are we seeing an influx of one person or games with a team no bigger than 10 create whole games with little to no budget? Unreal Engine 5 and I'm sure many other engines have plugins that have streamlined to many things you would have had to create and code back in the day.

For instance, before the cull, there were 3000 Devs working on COD alone. I'm a COD player but let's be real, there's been no innovation since 2019s MW. What exactly are those Devs doing? Even more so when so much of the new games are using recycled content

Sciurus_vulgaris13h ago

I also think higher up leads may simply demand more based on the IP they are working on. This could explain why COD costs so much to develop.

Tody_ZA13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

I've stated this in many other articles, but corporate greed, mismanagement and bloat and failing to understand the target audience and misaligned sales expectations as a result are the big reasons for these failures.

You'll see it in the way devs and publishers speak, every sequel needs to be "three times the size" of its predecessor, with hundreds of employees and over-indulgence. Wasted resources on the illusion of scale and scope. Misguided notions that if your budget balloons to three times that of the previous game you'll make three times the sales.

Compare the natural progression of games like Assassin's Creed 1 to 2 or Batman Arkham Asylum to City or Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 or God of War remake to Ragnarok and countless others. How is it that From Software continues to release successful games? Why don't we hear these excuses from Larian? These were games made by developers with a vision, passion and desire to improve their game in meaningful ways.

Then look at Suicide Squad Kill the Franchise and how it bloats well beyond its expected completion date and alienates its audience and middle fingers its purchasing power by wrapping a single player game in GAAS. Look at Starfield compared to Skyrim. Why couldn't Starfield have 5-10 carefully developed worlds with well written stories and focus? Why did it need all this bloat and excess that adds nothing to the quality of the game? How can No Man's Sky succeed where Starfield fails? Look at Mass Effect Andromeda compared to Mass Effect 3. Years of development and millions in cost to produce that mediocre fodder.

The narrative they want you to believe is that game budgets of triple A games are unsustainable, but it's typical corporate rubbish where they create the problem and then charge you more and dilute the quality of their games in favour of monetisation to solve it.

Tody_ZA12h ago

Obviously didn't mean God of War "remake", meant 2018.

Chocoburger7h ago

Indeed, here's a good example, Assassin's Creed 1 had a budget of 10 million dollars. Very reasonable. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag had a budget of 100 million dollars, within the same console generation! Even though BF was released on more systems, its still such a massive leap in production costs.

So you ask why they're making their games so big, well the reason is actually because of micro-trash-actions. Even single player games are featured with in-game stores packed with cosmetics, equipment upgrades, resources upgrades, or whatever other rubbish. The reason why games are so bloated and long, artificially extending the length of the game is because they know that the longer a person plays a game (which they refer to as "player engagement"), the more likely they are to eventually head into the micro-trash-action store and purchase something.

That is their goal, so they force the developers to make massive game maps, pack it boring filler, and then intentionally slow down your progress through experience points, skill points, and high level enemies that are over powered until you waste hours of your life grinding away to finally progress.

A person on reddit made a decent post about AC: Origins encouraging people towards spending more money.

I've lost interest in these types of games, because the publisher has intentionally gone out of their way to make their game boring in order to try and make more money out of me. NOPE!

anast12h ago

Greed from everyone involved including game reviewers, which are the greedy little goblins that help the lords screw over the gaming landscape.