this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
400 points (95.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8088 readers
736 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 48 points 6 months ago (2 children)

For contrast, 24 hour peak for BGS game since skyrim

Skyrim base + special edition = 28.5k
Fallout 4 = 18k
Fallout 76 = 8.3k
Starfield = 9.2k

Starfield + fallout 76 can't even surpass Fallout 4. They sure is losing the plot lately.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

I guess “lately” is relative considering that Fallout 76 has been out for awhile and had a disaster of a launch.

I say this as someone who is a huge Skyrim and fallout fan, but people need to realize that Bethesda might be dead soon and be absorbed into Microsoft.

Let me help wake you up to why. First, their games are developed incredibly slowly. This is showcased by Starfield really well. That game took 7 or 8 years to make and yet, it’s very unfinished. They cannot make games quickly. And clearly they’re being forced to. Fans will wait a long time, but when your franchise gives each generation one game to play, your goose is cooking. Not to mention the glacial pace means that Starfield screwed them big time.

This part is huge though: their tools are ancient and always have been. I know engines get reworked to fit new projects, it’s common in development. However, they haven’t invested at all in their engine and it shows big time. People were even saying it about FO4 how it ran very very poorly and couldn’t handle the cities at release. Everything in that engine was very similar to Skyrim so of course Starfield failed because it’s the same engine with little time spent upgrading it properly. In fact, that’s why the game sucks. They spent too much time on engine stuff and the project moved forward without content due to technical limitations.

Then all the minor stuff. Their PR sucks. FO76 was a scam and still has a subscription to it. Horse armor. Re-releasing games 3 times.

But that’s just the game studio. What about the publishing arm? Well, mostly fine except for Redfall. Seems the only thing they can manage sorta well is the Doom franchise. But my god what happened to Prey and why not have Prey 2?

In summary, Bethesda doesn’t appear to have it in them despite being a huge studio and I’m not looking forward to its future handling of TES6

[–] pleb_maximus@feddit.de 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If enough people already bought it, I doubt they care.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

The thing is they're still milking Skyrim over a decade later. They wanted the same for Starfield.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 8 points 6 months ago

Ohh they should, the sales doesn't look too good.

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

I don't think it sold nearly as much as they hoped.

But yeah, it probably made back what was spent on it's making. And a bit more.

But as I understood it, they imagined it being their "Next Skyrim" in terms of success. And it's nowhere near that.