“What’s more frustrating for those working on SCP, and the wider Starfield modding community, is how difficult it is to work with Starfield’s code without official modding tools and support. This isn’t helped by the delayed mod tools from Bethesda, which the company says are coming at some point next year.”

    • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a very good question. I completely gave up on them as a company specifically because of the abysmal quality of their games on console.

      • ampersandrew@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So people play it on console because it’s a good game without mods, which would mean it’s not unplayable. There’s also little reason beyond just general cynicism to believe mod tools aren’t coming when their past several offline games got mod tools a handful of months after release, including Skyrim. As far as I can tell, it’s quite normal for mod tools to come several months after release for non-Bethesda games as well. I don’t think the longevity of mods has anything to do with whether or not a game is unplayable.

        • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If the game is so riddled with bugs it famously needs modders to create mods for the sake of fixing the product, there is quite the significant tie between longevity of an unplayable game and mods. See, the problem is your wording sees the cause and effect the wrong way around. Hopefully this helps you to understand.

          Oh and yiu ask about people continuing to play Bugthesda’s games on console, I’ll happily point out you’re asking fir a logical answer from a market that proliferated child gambling, standardised season passes and the standard of the complete version of a game release costing 100 bucks before the industry still found an excuse to increase the usual price of 60 bucks up to 70. It’s not because something is bad that idiots won’t buy it.

          • ampersandrew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve played Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Fallout 4, the latter two at launch. I’ve never installed mods for any of these games, and I rarely install mods in general. Skyrim had a rough launch, where it would crash for me frequently, but that problem was resolved within a few weeks, tops. They’re all very playable, and I never felt like I needed mods to fix them, which is why they also sell well on consoles.

            and the standard of the complete version of a game release costing 100 bucks before the industry still found an excuse to increase the usual price of 60 bucks up to 70

            Inflation is a fact of life, and prices were going to increase somehow, especially since a lot of AAA games these days are recklessly large, including Bethesda games. There’s a lot more at play with the way DLC works and the pricing around them than just trying to sneak a price increase by you, but the short answer is: I don’t think it’s a big deal to have an entry level price for a game and another price for the game and expansion content.

    • Perfide@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, Skyrim SE and FO4 had some level of mod support even on consoles. That was and still is mostly unheard of otherwise.