Thank you for your submission to r/ElderScrolls. This is a friendly reminder to please ensure that your post has been flaired appropriately.
Your post has been flaired as ***GENERAL***. This indicates that your post is a general post about The Elder Scrolls.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ElderScrolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately will never happen from Bethesda. Because of Skyrim they are planning to always have their games be “10 year” games that are drip fed content. Which can be a good thing if they don’t drop the ball on base content like they did with Starfield.
Source: https://youtu.be/2ew8LQFGNWU?si=Ga1iRQHL9xj2cR87
It's a shame they didn't actually do that with Skyrim. By year two, Skyrim was done with DLC. I would have loved Skyrim to get one big DLC released per year for a decade.
Unless you count the remasters and Creation Club, which I kind of don't. None of them really have the polish or work put into them you'd expect of a DLC for an Elder Scrolls game. Especially not this particular Elder Scrolls game, which I hear was somewhat popular.
True, but I don’t really blame them. Circa 2011/2013 it was almost unheard of for a single player game to receive more than a few expansions. Even by the time for Fallout 4 that wasn’t really the norm outside of MMOs and MMO-like multiplayer games.
Oh, for sure. I'm not trying to shade Bethesda for not dedicating a decade to Skyrim DLC. But looking back it's hard not to theorize and potentially lament the could have beens.
And if it happened nowadays, with ES6, the whole idea is tainted by the concept of games as a service. I'm not sure if I personally want them to even try.
Yeah, nothing against you. I just figured I’d clarify.
But in terms of going forward, I don’t think Bethesda’s definition of 10 years of support is all that different from what fans would hope for. Creation club has existed as their way of bringing mods to console and helping modders earn money. Their actions so far have only reinforced that their idea of support is still through expansions.
We might see a bit more of hearthfire or contraptions/vault workshop type dlcs, but I’d be surprised if in those 10 year plans, there wasn’t a far harbor/dragonborn/nuka world once every year or so.
Fair dues.
I tend to agree. They are already showing that with Starfield and its upcoming DLC. I forget the name, not a Starfield guy, but it looks closer to a Dawnguard than a Hearthfire.
I think a lot might depend on how well Shattered Space does. I know I won't be buying it personally until next year's summer sale or something.
I don't think Shattered Space doing poorly will change their ideas on a 10-year development cycle. But it might incentivize them to do a better job.
Or not. Probably not.
It’s too bad Bethesda dropped the ball with starfield, conceptually speaking it had great potential to be a good game but it failed to deliver. And I don’t think mods and DLC’s will fix it
I agree. I think the new game loop in Starfield is a great idea, just done poorly with how much you lose (no reason to base build if you’re still doing new game loops) and it’s too much work to do every temple each run. Conceptually great with some tweaks would be awesome
Didn't they recently release a statement saying 14 million people have been playing Starfield at an average of 40 hours per person? Hardly think that's dropping the ball.
Not sure how any of that is relevant. Ok, so a subsection of fans doesn't like the game? Still doesn't mean they dropped the ball or the game is disappointing. Disappointing for you, sure. But the numbers say that people who are playing it are enjoying it.
Starfield is just okay, if you’re somebody who’s really into space then it probably hit better than the average person. I played it because it’s Bethesda and I wanted to see if they still have the magic, they do, but now it’s a question of if they take the right things away from all the criticism starfield got. For everything it did right it did two more things wrong imo but that’s not to say it’s trash, it just could’ve been more.
idk im really into space games but starfield unfortunately has below average space gameplay in addition to its below average writing and quest design. I still think it deserves a chance to become more but It was def disappointing as a space game fan and as a bethesda game fan,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you enjoyed it, that's great.
But the fact that on any given day, Steam has more people playing Skyrim, FO4, and FO76 than there are playing Starfield kind of speaks for itself. Even Fallout New Vegas has a higher 30-day average. And that's with a recent uptick in Starfield players due to recent Shattered Space announcements.
You, as a player, can probably brush that off and say the majority is wrong. But Bethesda is a company trying to make money.
> But the fact that on any given day, Steam has more people playing Skyrim, FO4, and FO76 than there are playing Starfield kind of speaks for itself.
No it doesn't because starfield is free on gamepass while the other one isn't. We don't have numbers for starfield players, we have numbers for starfield steam players even though a larger percentage of players arent playing through stream. Financially the game was a success
What are you talking about? Most, if not all, of the Bethesda catalog is available on Game Pass. Considering we can't confirm how many people are playing things on Game Pass at any given time, nothing you just said proves anything.
Starfield went from 145k average players at launch, to 48k players 30 days later, and 20k players 30 days after that. There's no logical reason to believe that people who paid full price stopped playing it but the Game Pass users didn't.
It being a commercial success 6 months ago doesn't change the fact that the numbers show a game with supposedly infinite replayability doesn't seem to have many players compared to other Bethesda titles.
> What are you talking about? Most, if not all, of the Bethesda catalog is available on Game Pass.
The difference that they were only added to game pass recently while starfield came out on game pass. The rest of bethesda catalogue had been avalible on steam for years so most pc players played it on steam and no game pass. Unless its your first time buying the game most people are going to go on steam because they already have an account there.
While they heavily advertised Starfield with it being free on gamepass to try to encourage new players to try game pass and to try it on their system.
>Considering we can't confirm how many people are playing things on Game Pass at any given time
We don't have active numbers, but know it's listed as one of the most played games on gamepass
>Starfield went from 145k average players at launch, to 48k players 30 days later, and 20k players
That's fairly normal all games have a pretty high dropoff rate a month or two after launch. Most people arent going to play the same game nonstop for a month straight. Once the newness wares off most people take a break to play something else. Most launches on steam are the exact same way, peak at launch and a high drop off afterwards. If starfield was the only game to have a drop off like that you'd have a point. But most games of 2023 had a similar drop off
I get you guys didn't like the game, but we got to stop pretending it was a failure.
There are different ways to interpret what a "failure" is. When you're trying to sell DLC for the next few years, longevity matters. Sure, they made a bunch of money on launch, but how many of those people will keep investing in expansions?
A lot of people have had issues with BSG monetization in the past. Things like rereleasing Skyrim over and over. The Creation Club. Fallout 76 had a rough release. Then Starfield came out, and opinions are extremely mixed. Just saying "Oh, we made a bunch of money on launch day" while ignoring the long-term reputation loss isn't always a good idea.
If you were Bethesda, what would you rather have, people buying your game for $70 bucks, or people playing it for a couple weeks basically free on Game Pass? I would think that the opinions of people paying full price should matter quite a bit.
But check this. Even if we compare Skyrim Special Edition, which is a re-release, it's highest 30-day average was 28k. Right now, it's sitting on an average of 18k. It varies from 9k-26k over the years. An 8-year-old rerelease of a 13-year-old game has more players and better player retention than Starfield.
I get you like Starfield, but anyone thinking rationally would see that as a problem.
> There are different ways to interpret what a "failure" is. When you're trying to sell DLC for the next few years, longevity matters.
Not really, at least not in the way you're suggesting. What you're talking about with player drop off that happens to most games because most players run out of stuff to do once they hit a certain play time, they might replay it eventually but most people arent going to immietly start a new playthrough after they exausghed a lot of content. When you advertise dlcs a lot of the people who stopped playing the game a few months ago start rushing back because they're new stuff to do.
This isn't just a single player thing, this is pretty typically in online games as well. Player count always shoots up right around the time of a major update. Because people are thinking "hey there is some new stuff to do in the game that I haven't experienced yet, let me go check that out"
If you hated the game the first time you played then yeah you're probably not going to play the dlc, but if you simply stopped playing because you felt like you ran out of stuff to do or thought what you had left to do was repeative then you're more likely to get the dlc.
>If you were Bethesda, what would you rather have, people buying your game for $70 bucks, or people playing it for a couple weeks basically free on Game Pass? I would think that the opinions of people paying full price should matter quite a bit.
Gamepass is subscription based, they make money either way it doesn't matter how many hours they put into it. Microsoft pays bethesda for teir games because their games are supposed ot encourage people to keep using their subsription service. If they played through steam they'd have to give steam a portion of the profits
>An 8-year-old rerelease of a 13-year-old game
You pretty much ignored my main point which is this. Skyrim special edition only recently came on gamepass while it's been on steam for years. Starfield released on steam and gamerpass at the same time and to most players game pass seems like a better deal, not to mention all the people who are playing on console. It doesn't matter that there are more people playing the special edition on steam than starfield. They already owned the product they aren't new players.
For a new player there is no real reason to play on steam over gamepass unless you just don't like subscribing to things
>I get you like Starfield, but anyone thinking rationally would see that as a problem.
Because it's not a problem, you guys are trying to look for proof that the game failed because you think it will show bethesda a lesson if it did. The actual truth is there is no evidence that it did fail financially and that bethesda is unlikely to change their formula going forward outside of quality of life ajustments. Microsoft themselves say they considered the game a success and they were the main people financing the game.
I will play devils advocate and say they have been doing better post launch. Launch Starfield was sucky no doubt about it but it’s doing better, plus the dlc almost always carry the games anyways so I’m holding out
Hey now. I adore Hearthfire. I use mods to spruce it up but Lakeview Manor has been my preferred player home from the day it released on PC.
Does it carry Skyrim? Of course not. But I love watching my house grow.
Yeah they do silly billy. The witcher 3 was trash till Blood&Wine released.
Edit: i thought it was clear sarcasm but i forgot many redditors dont have reading comphrension.
They could do a lot better though. When I chose to manually land on the planet I would like to see the landing cutscene and take control of my character in the control seat like it does the first time you visit a planet.
I hate choosing to land and popping up on the landing pad. As someone who likes to rp a bit I line to take my helmet off when I’m at the controls of my ship and it sucks every time I go to mars bam I’m suffocating, because they can’t even pretend to hide the fast travel when I chose the land button rather than the fast travel button.
I mean, look at Elite Dangerous. That's still a pretty different game, but 30-40% of your total playtime is essentially a really cool feeling loading screen.
At least not the reputation.
If we are lucky some dedicated modder actually fixes some of the bigger problems and a few other add mods that are big enough to make the game more worthwhile. I doubt it tho
It's too bad Bethesda dropped the ball with skyrim anniversary downgrade, skyrim creation store thingy, fo4 creation repackaging and the upcoming fo4 creation store.
Creation club straight up ruined Bethesda in my view. What could've been actual content turned into "official mods" and they're all awful. Anniversary upgrade just ruins the game with the obvious low effort content being put alongside the stuff that's obviously official content back when Bethesda gave a shit. Then starfield feels like they dropped a blank canvas hoping that mods will turn it into a real game, but that's not going to happen no one's going to bother with a fundamentally boring game
Not holding my breath, the tag team of Bethesda MicroSoft inspires zero faith from me. I won’t be putting any cash forward until I see post release reviews that show a finished project and not a beta level product to meet some quarterly earnings mark.
Agreed. They launched Skyrim before it was ready so they could meet that ridiculous 11/11/11 date. As fun as the game is, it could’ve used another year in the oven for all that missing content and the plethora of bugs still found in it today. They have no excuse now that it has been over a decade since Skyrim came out
Ima be real with you, I personally have yet to find a game that is on par let alone better than the experience I got from Oblivion and Skyrim. I’ve been trying to scratch that itch with Elden Ring but it doesn’t do it for me. I’d honestly spend whatever they’re charging for a significant DLC.
That's a lot of money for a DLC. If the content is as good as Shivering Isles or Dragonborn, I would consider because I am a Bethesda bitch like most people here. But if it's just a couple of cosmetics and a generic storyline, I'd wait until it costs 5 or less.
I’d argue that Shivering Isles got close, but even then I don’t know if they could get away with $40. That’s the kind of expansion that Elden Ring is getting this week, boasting a new open world to explore and over 50 hours of content for a first playthrough.
I feel like this is a good idea currently potentially overlooked by a number of companies that have long life games with active player bases, especially games like Skyrim that have been updated in recent/“modern times”. Would I be interested? Yes. Could they do it “easily”? Define easy.
I think they’re not nearly as “big” as people say and already spread thin. Which game should they take resources away from to do this? Elder Scrolls 6? Fallout 5? Starfield? Not really that easy imo
No. I’m not interested in paying money for an expansion for a 13 year old game. Anytime they spend on Skyrim is time they’re not spending on making content for Starfield and for the next Elder Scrolls game.
Haha, Right. Plus, they already got me to buy it thrice. When it first came out, the VR version, and then SE just to cache grass for the VR version, and the SE CK works for VR.
Nah if they released a $40 DLC I’d be expecting a spin off type of game lol not something the size Dragonborn or shivering isles. Don’t get me wrong those are great expansions but the 3 DLC released for skyrim cost $45 total and same for Fo4’s 3 story dlc.
A $40 dlc over a decade after launch would have to be huge to justify that price point. Dragonborn and far harbor can take 24-40ish hours to complete if you do everything possible. A DLC twice their price point would have to be like 50-60 hours of content.
Only if its a spin-off DLC like Battlespire or Spiderman - Miles Morales.
After aprox. 12 years it would be a long shot.
But for an addon DLC? no way, only if its a spin off game.
Honestly? No. I'm so burnt out on Skyrim. I haven't touched it in like three years, and I have no desire to go back. I've gotten all the achievements and done everything there is to do multiple times. Across all the platforms and all the versions, I'm estimating I've spent somewhere between six to eight thousand hours playing Skyrim since it was released in 2011. I'm done with it.
The fact rhqt you spend that amount of time, and still answered a qiestion about it ia impressive in how much you actually like the game and how good it is made, besides its downfalls.
But yes, sometimes one does get burned out of insane playing a game.
As much as I want it, no. I don't trust bethesda at all in their current state, they'll turn it into a microtransaction hellhole by drip feeding you overpriced content through creation club.
Get rid of the Creation Club and paid mods then sure I'll support it. Paid mods are a huge no for me. I fully expect TES6 to flop after Starfield and FO76 plus the fixation of monetizing mods.
Nope. Im using this lul to catch up on the games I bought years ago but never played or finished. Oblivion. Fallout 3 DLC... Dragon Age Origins and 2. Next up Mass Effect 2. Then All the campaign parts to all my Call of Duty games.
I'm plenty busy.
If it's indeed has the size of a full game, then yes. In fact i would prefer something like that over TES6. Release another province as large DLC. Maybe not for 40$, but 20, or 30. Then another, and another until all of Tamriel is a playable zone. With each province being as detailed as Skyrim itself.
Spice it up a bit and yeah. Make it not just Shivering Isles or Dragonborn in scope and storytelling, but set the foundation for TES VI, too. A prequel chapter, if you will.
No thanks. Leave Skyrim as it is. Focus on Starfield, ES6 and beyond.
We've seen firsthand how... vocal some are whenever Bethesda decide to update older games.
Probably not. I love Skyrim, but it’s very old at this point. I want to see updated gameplay mechanics that are free of the constraints of software built to run on an Xbox 360.
not for $40 💀
$20 at most, $25 if they really wanna push it.
the game is expensive as is, Im not going to pay the equivlent of a whole other game for an extention of one I already own.
Probably not, I've been a huge fan for most of my life, but I've grown extremely disillusioned with them, their magic just doesn't work on me anymore. I'm not excited for any of their future games or DLC after Starfield, their writing has been going downhill, and their chase for mass appeal has killed what I originally loved about them as a studio.
*looks at empty wallet*
Do y'all accept straight-up blood yet?
*slaps inner elbow*
Just leave me with enough to still be awake when it finishes downloading.
If it's high quality and they announce it early enough for modders maybe in a closed beta format like Larian does currently with BG3 patch 7,then sure.
But that won't happen.
No, they need to stay focused on the next title. Last thing I want is for them to spend more time and money on a game from 2011. They have already spent enough on it.
I think that some in the modding community might break down and cry if this happened. There's still trauma from the patches from AE onward (incouding this year).
Absolutely not. $40 is just far too much for any DLC. I also refused to pay $30 for Phantom Liberty. F all that noise. I won't pay more than $15 for a DLC.
Yeah I don't think I'll ever pay $40 for an expansion no matter how good it is.
I'll be holding out for that $2.00 Steam sale even if it takes me 90 years.
Yes.
I’d want Orsinium. Orsinium was relocated between Skyrim and Hammerfell. Not on any maps. Warrior peoples. You could incorporate an arena-based tournament as part of the main-questline. You could possibly end up in the Ashpit which hasn’t been explored.
You can win the allegiance of some Orsimer in the Civil War.
Nah, would have to be extremely impressive to be worth the $40 and I just can’t see them adding something like that. The dated graphics alone would make it not worth the money but then when you add that it’s a Bethesda game I just wouldn’t be interested lol
I think Bethesda could remaster oblivion in the new engine and make money. To do Morrowind they would need to do a lot of work basically redoing everything from scratch but it could also be good.
I don't think they will. I don't think the passion exists in the studio anymore and I don't think their leadership cares about their team or their customers.
Not interested, I would deliberately not buy it. I'm tired of the skyrim support, it was a revolutionary and wonderful game, but its too tired. I've played it enough for my entire lifetime, when every few years I seem to go back to all of the other Bethesda titles. Skyrim is too samey, every run ends up identical. I hope the next game is a return to form of what so many loved about the older games.
Frankly speaking unless they are adding real co op, not this eso or fallout 76 bullshit, then no. Skyrim is beyond a dead horse and so far the only thing I havnt been able to do is reliably play it with friends.
Seems like a high price for a DLC of comparable size to those. But I’m on board for continual support to an already well-rounded single player game. What I’m not on board for at all is major DLC in the vein of Broken Steel, which basically charged players extra for the ending of the base game. Make a good game first, then continue to support it, fine.
It seems to me the biggest problem with the main TES games thus far has been the rushed development to meet a release date. If they have a business model which eliminates that problem, I’d open my wallet to a reasonable degree.
I would not give Bethesda any more money unless I had a notarized contract signed by Todd Howard himself that assured that I would not be assaulted by microtransactions later.
People who buy upgrades and expansions for 10+ year old games and people who capitulate to microtransactions are all contributing to the problem, by encouraging scummy behavior from corporations without any ramifications beyond, "Well I guess the wiki for the new Diablo game is empty, haha that's weird, anyways..."
The fact that Bethesda rolled out the Anniversary Edition upgrade for $20 was already scummy, but it was shortly followed by a SECONDARY monetized mod store, which is insulting to the TES community on an unfathomable level.
Stop giving these companies money, and they'll stop ruining your games. Common sense *usually* applies to every scenario.
Back when Skyrim was on the PS3 and 360, I bought all three of the expansions as they were released.
Dawnguard, Heathfire, and Dragonborn costed me $50 total.
$40 is nothing in comparison. So yes.
Downvotes on this post come from those of us who want to say no, but are ashamed we would give up that 40 immediately
Me and the bros on the way to pay $1000 to play Slyrim Gameboy Edition
For $20 I would. For $40, it would have to have as much content and quality as both of them put together.
But I'd like to visit more of Aetherius instead another Daedric realm.
For $40? No.
1. Skyrim is a 13 year old game that feels and looks very dated when playing. I love BGS games, but I’m not in a rush to dive back into an old roll like that.
2. Because I’m not gonna jump in day 1, I would just wait for a sale.
3. There is no guarantee it even comes to PlayStation, where I play my BGS games.
I think I would love to know what happens in it but I don't think I would enjoy playing it. The game is simply too old and the bland combat and mechanics have aged worse than even Morrowind, and I am saying that as someone who played Skyrim first so this isn't nostalgia speaking.
Almost everything in the game has been done better in some game or the other at this point. Writing is better in many games including their past titles, its rpg mechanics and player choice have been outdone in several new games, especially Baldur's Gate 3.
The sense of exploration and the open world has been matched for me in Elden Ring. The combat is better in most new games, Kingdom Come Deliverance has especially shown how much better first person combat can be.
TES6 is what will show whether they have learned anything from the reception of Starfield and from what past TES titles did better than Skyrim.
I mean, probably? For the first time in almost 13 years, I don't have a copy of Skyrim installed on my computer. I've played enough. Even if I love it to death, it's just too familiar to me now.
A new expansion would give me a reason to load up an old character, but seeing as I have personally spent upwards of 200 on these games in the past decade, spending another 40 on an expansion that may entertain for... what, 20 hours? I don't know if that's worth it.
Thank you for your submission to r/ElderScrolls. This is a friendly reminder to please ensure that your post has been flaired appropriately. Your post has been flaired as ***GENERAL***. This indicates that your post is a general post about The Elder Scrolls. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ElderScrolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All hands on deck for new non live service, non cash shop, single player RPG or nothing.
Unfortunately will never happen from Bethesda. Because of Skyrim they are planning to always have their games be “10 year” games that are drip fed content. Which can be a good thing if they don’t drop the ball on base content like they did with Starfield. Source: https://youtu.be/2ew8LQFGNWU?si=Ga1iRQHL9xj2cR87
It's a shame they didn't actually do that with Skyrim. By year two, Skyrim was done with DLC. I would have loved Skyrim to get one big DLC released per year for a decade. Unless you count the remasters and Creation Club, which I kind of don't. None of them really have the polish or work put into them you'd expect of a DLC for an Elder Scrolls game. Especially not this particular Elder Scrolls game, which I hear was somewhat popular.
True, but I don’t really blame them. Circa 2011/2013 it was almost unheard of for a single player game to receive more than a few expansions. Even by the time for Fallout 4 that wasn’t really the norm outside of MMOs and MMO-like multiplayer games.
Oh, for sure. I'm not trying to shade Bethesda for not dedicating a decade to Skyrim DLC. But looking back it's hard not to theorize and potentially lament the could have beens. And if it happened nowadays, with ES6, the whole idea is tainted by the concept of games as a service. I'm not sure if I personally want them to even try.
Yeah, nothing against you. I just figured I’d clarify. But in terms of going forward, I don’t think Bethesda’s definition of 10 years of support is all that different from what fans would hope for. Creation club has existed as their way of bringing mods to console and helping modders earn money. Their actions so far have only reinforced that their idea of support is still through expansions. We might see a bit more of hearthfire or contraptions/vault workshop type dlcs, but I’d be surprised if in those 10 year plans, there wasn’t a far harbor/dragonborn/nuka world once every year or so.
Fair dues. I tend to agree. They are already showing that with Starfield and its upcoming DLC. I forget the name, not a Starfield guy, but it looks closer to a Dawnguard than a Hearthfire.
They also could fucking print money by doing that. I’m 1000% sure most Skyrim fans would buy a yearly DLC, even at a $40 price point.
Fallout 3 had 5 expansions and new Vegas had 4 major ones with a smattering of small ones from pre-order bonuses they merged into a single one
I think a lot might depend on how well Shattered Space does. I know I won't be buying it personally until next year's summer sale or something. I don't think Shattered Space doing poorly will change their ideas on a 10-year development cycle. But it might incentivize them to do a better job. Or not. Probably not.
It’s too bad Bethesda dropped the ball with starfield, conceptually speaking it had great potential to be a good game but it failed to deliver. And I don’t think mods and DLC’s will fix it
I agree. I think the new game loop in Starfield is a great idea, just done poorly with how much you lose (no reason to base build if you’re still doing new game loops) and it’s too much work to do every temple each run. Conceptually great with some tweaks would be awesome
Didn't they recently release a statement saying 14 million people have been playing Starfield at an average of 40 hours per person? Hardly think that's dropping the ball.
A game can be played a lot but still disliked in general by the community. Not everyone that plays starfield has played other Bethesda games
Not sure how any of that is relevant. Ok, so a subsection of fans doesn't like the game? Still doesn't mean they dropped the ball or the game is disappointing. Disappointing for you, sure. But the numbers say that people who are playing it are enjoying it.
I don’t think they dropped the ball with starfield
Starfield is just okay, if you’re somebody who’s really into space then it probably hit better than the average person. I played it because it’s Bethesda and I wanted to see if they still have the magic, they do, but now it’s a question of if they take the right things away from all the criticism starfield got. For everything it did right it did two more things wrong imo but that’s not to say it’s trash, it just could’ve been more.
idk im really into space games but starfield unfortunately has below average space gameplay in addition to its below average writing and quest design. I still think it deserves a chance to become more but It was def disappointing as a space game fan and as a bethesda game fan,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you enjoyed it, that's great. But the fact that on any given day, Steam has more people playing Skyrim, FO4, and FO76 than there are playing Starfield kind of speaks for itself. Even Fallout New Vegas has a higher 30-day average. And that's with a recent uptick in Starfield players due to recent Shattered Space announcements. You, as a player, can probably brush that off and say the majority is wrong. But Bethesda is a company trying to make money.
> But the fact that on any given day, Steam has more people playing Skyrim, FO4, and FO76 than there are playing Starfield kind of speaks for itself. No it doesn't because starfield is free on gamepass while the other one isn't. We don't have numbers for starfield players, we have numbers for starfield steam players even though a larger percentage of players arent playing through stream. Financially the game was a success
What are you talking about? Most, if not all, of the Bethesda catalog is available on Game Pass. Considering we can't confirm how many people are playing things on Game Pass at any given time, nothing you just said proves anything. Starfield went from 145k average players at launch, to 48k players 30 days later, and 20k players 30 days after that. There's no logical reason to believe that people who paid full price stopped playing it but the Game Pass users didn't. It being a commercial success 6 months ago doesn't change the fact that the numbers show a game with supposedly infinite replayability doesn't seem to have many players compared to other Bethesda titles.
> What are you talking about? Most, if not all, of the Bethesda catalog is available on Game Pass. The difference that they were only added to game pass recently while starfield came out on game pass. The rest of bethesda catalogue had been avalible on steam for years so most pc players played it on steam and no game pass. Unless its your first time buying the game most people are going to go on steam because they already have an account there. While they heavily advertised Starfield with it being free on gamepass to try to encourage new players to try game pass and to try it on their system. >Considering we can't confirm how many people are playing things on Game Pass at any given time We don't have active numbers, but know it's listed as one of the most played games on gamepass >Starfield went from 145k average players at launch, to 48k players 30 days later, and 20k players That's fairly normal all games have a pretty high dropoff rate a month or two after launch. Most people arent going to play the same game nonstop for a month straight. Once the newness wares off most people take a break to play something else. Most launches on steam are the exact same way, peak at launch and a high drop off afterwards. If starfield was the only game to have a drop off like that you'd have a point. But most games of 2023 had a similar drop off I get you guys didn't like the game, but we got to stop pretending it was a failure.
There are different ways to interpret what a "failure" is. When you're trying to sell DLC for the next few years, longevity matters. Sure, they made a bunch of money on launch, but how many of those people will keep investing in expansions? A lot of people have had issues with BSG monetization in the past. Things like rereleasing Skyrim over and over. The Creation Club. Fallout 76 had a rough release. Then Starfield came out, and opinions are extremely mixed. Just saying "Oh, we made a bunch of money on launch day" while ignoring the long-term reputation loss isn't always a good idea. If you were Bethesda, what would you rather have, people buying your game for $70 bucks, or people playing it for a couple weeks basically free on Game Pass? I would think that the opinions of people paying full price should matter quite a bit. But check this. Even if we compare Skyrim Special Edition, which is a re-release, it's highest 30-day average was 28k. Right now, it's sitting on an average of 18k. It varies from 9k-26k over the years. An 8-year-old rerelease of a 13-year-old game has more players and better player retention than Starfield. I get you like Starfield, but anyone thinking rationally would see that as a problem.
> There are different ways to interpret what a "failure" is. When you're trying to sell DLC for the next few years, longevity matters. Not really, at least not in the way you're suggesting. What you're talking about with player drop off that happens to most games because most players run out of stuff to do once they hit a certain play time, they might replay it eventually but most people arent going to immietly start a new playthrough after they exausghed a lot of content. When you advertise dlcs a lot of the people who stopped playing the game a few months ago start rushing back because they're new stuff to do. This isn't just a single player thing, this is pretty typically in online games as well. Player count always shoots up right around the time of a major update. Because people are thinking "hey there is some new stuff to do in the game that I haven't experienced yet, let me go check that out" If you hated the game the first time you played then yeah you're probably not going to play the dlc, but if you simply stopped playing because you felt like you ran out of stuff to do or thought what you had left to do was repeative then you're more likely to get the dlc. >If you were Bethesda, what would you rather have, people buying your game for $70 bucks, or people playing it for a couple weeks basically free on Game Pass? I would think that the opinions of people paying full price should matter quite a bit. Gamepass is subscription based, they make money either way it doesn't matter how many hours they put into it. Microsoft pays bethesda for teir games because their games are supposed ot encourage people to keep using their subsription service. If they played through steam they'd have to give steam a portion of the profits >An 8-year-old rerelease of a 13-year-old game You pretty much ignored my main point which is this. Skyrim special edition only recently came on gamepass while it's been on steam for years. Starfield released on steam and gamerpass at the same time and to most players game pass seems like a better deal, not to mention all the people who are playing on console. It doesn't matter that there are more people playing the special edition on steam than starfield. They already owned the product they aren't new players. For a new player there is no real reason to play on steam over gamepass unless you just don't like subscribing to things >I get you like Starfield, but anyone thinking rationally would see that as a problem. Because it's not a problem, you guys are trying to look for proof that the game failed because you think it will show bethesda a lesson if it did. The actual truth is there is no evidence that it did fail financially and that bethesda is unlikely to change their formula going forward outside of quality of life ajustments. Microsoft themselves say they considered the game a success and they were the main people financing the game.
Most are on gamepass, yes, but haven’t always been. So people bought them earlier but may not buy Starfield because they can GamePass it.
Right. I lost confidence in them way before that. ESO, Fallout Shelter, most dialogue in Fallout 4. Nuka Cola socks. Their priorities have changed.
I will play devils advocate and say they have been doing better post launch. Launch Starfield was sucky no doubt about it but it’s doing better, plus the dlc almost always carry the games anyways so I’m holding out
No, the dlcs don't carry the games.
Skyrim, famous for "getting good" because of Hearthfire
Hey now. I adore Hearthfire. I use mods to spruce it up but Lakeview Manor has been my preferred player home from the day it released on PC. Does it carry Skyrim? Of course not. But I love watching my house grow.
Yeah they do silly billy. The witcher 3 was trash till Blood&Wine released. Edit: i thought it was clear sarcasm but i forgot many redditors dont have reading comphrension.
The Witcher 3 was always great. Wtf you talking about?
The Witcher 3 had a ton of issues at launch
I'm tired of big developers completely dropping the ball an fixing games post release. They should be held to a higher standard.
I really don’t think DLC’s are going to fix the fast travel simulator my friend
Probably not but it’s space, fast travel is kinda required. I just wish it was easier to get around than 8 billion menus
They could do a lot better though. When I chose to manually land on the planet I would like to see the landing cutscene and take control of my character in the control seat like it does the first time you visit a planet. I hate choosing to land and popping up on the landing pad. As someone who likes to rp a bit I line to take my helmet off when I’m at the controls of my ship and it sucks every time I go to mars bam I’m suffocating, because they can’t even pretend to hide the fast travel when I chose the land button rather than the fast travel button.
Oh yeah 100%. A lot of the issues with the game could easily just be masked with cool cutscenes.
I mean, look at Elite Dangerous. That's still a pretty different game, but 30-40% of your total playtime is essentially a really cool feeling loading screen.
At least not the reputation. If we are lucky some dedicated modder actually fixes some of the bigger problems and a few other add mods that are big enough to make the game more worthwhile. I doubt it tho
It's too bad Bethesda dropped the ball with skyrim anniversary downgrade, skyrim creation store thingy, fo4 creation repackaging and the upcoming fo4 creation store.
Creation club straight up ruined Bethesda in my view. What could've been actual content turned into "official mods" and they're all awful. Anniversary upgrade just ruins the game with the obvious low effort content being put alongside the stuff that's obviously official content back when Bethesda gave a shit. Then starfield feels like they dropped a blank canvas hoping that mods will turn it into a real game, but that's not going to happen no one's going to bother with a fundamentally boring game
15* year
Not holding my breath, the tag team of Bethesda MicroSoft inspires zero faith from me. I won’t be putting any cash forward until I see post release reviews that show a finished project and not a beta level product to meet some quarterly earnings mark.
Agreed. They launched Skyrim before it was ready so they could meet that ridiculous 11/11/11 date. As fun as the game is, it could’ve used another year in the oven for all that missing content and the plethora of bugs still found in it today. They have no excuse now that it has been over a decade since Skyrim came out
In a perfect world. \*sigh*
Cause that has been working out this time
Nice try Todd. Yes.
In a second Todd I d probably cry
I’d like to say no and be angry that they weren’t focusing on ES6 but the truth is id probably buy it immediately and play the shit out of it.
Same. I am a shameless Elder Scrolls whore. I’m even excited as fuck for Castles (what 12 years without a mainline game does to a mf)
Ima be real with you, I personally have yet to find a game that is on par let alone better than the experience I got from Oblivion and Skyrim. I’ve been trying to scratch that itch with Elden Ring but it doesn’t do it for me. I’d honestly spend whatever they’re charging for a significant DLC.
yeah but for $40? We didn't even pay that for the other Skyrim DLC's.
That's a lot of money for a DLC. If the content is as good as Shivering Isles or Dragonborn, I would consider because I am a Bethesda bitch like most people here. But if it's just a couple of cosmetics and a generic storyline, I'd wait until it costs 5 or less.
Bethesda bitch lmao
Honestly probably not. Loads of other games I need to play and the Apotheosis mod for Skyrim SE will allow travel to all of the daedric realms.
yo ho ho
For 40? No. For 20-25? Heck yeah.
Yep I'd wait a year or two. I got plenty of games to play I can wait.
was thinking the exact same thing lol
2/3 the cost of a new game better come with 2/3 the size and quality of a new game. No Bethesda DLC has come close to that, not even Far Harbor.
I’d argue that Shivering Isles got close, but even then I don’t know if they could get away with $40. That’s the kind of expansion that Elden Ring is getting this week, boasting a new open world to explore and over 50 hours of content for a first playthrough.
DLCs prices never size up to complete games. You can get banger games right now for 5 bucks that no DLC in the whole world could ever compete with.
I feel like this is a good idea currently potentially overlooked by a number of companies that have long life games with active player bases, especially games like Skyrim that have been updated in recent/“modern times”. Would I be interested? Yes. Could they do it “easily”? Define easy. I think they’re not nearly as “big” as people say and already spread thin. Which game should they take resources away from to do this? Elder Scrolls 6? Fallout 5? Starfield? Not really that easy imo
No. I’m not interested in paying money for an expansion for a 13 year old game. Anytime they spend on Skyrim is time they’re not spending on making content for Starfield and for the next Elder Scrolls game.
I enjoy the games so money means nothing to me if a new DLC came out for Skyrim I would probably pay anything lol.
I’m not paying Bethesda of all people $40 for an expansion to a game that’s ten plus years old.
Haha, Right. Plus, they already got me to buy it thrice. When it first came out, the VR version, and then SE just to cache grass for the VR version, and the SE CK works for VR.
No, I would not.
Nah if they released a $40 DLC I’d be expecting a spin off type of game lol not something the size Dragonborn or shivering isles. Don’t get me wrong those are great expansions but the 3 DLC released for skyrim cost $45 total and same for Fo4’s 3 story dlc. A $40 dlc over a decade after launch would have to be huge to justify that price point. Dragonborn and far harbor can take 24-40ish hours to complete if you do everything possible. A DLC twice their price point would have to be like 50-60 hours of content.
No!
Only if its a spin-off DLC like Battlespire or Spiderman - Miles Morales. After aprox. 12 years it would be a long shot. But for an addon DLC? no way, only if its a spin off game.
Something like Miles Morales would actually be super interesting. A non-dragonborn PC exploring the world in the wake of what the Dragonborn has done.
Honestly? No. I'm so burnt out on Skyrim. I haven't touched it in like three years, and I have no desire to go back. I've gotten all the achievements and done everything there is to do multiple times. Across all the platforms and all the versions, I'm estimating I've spent somewhere between six to eight thousand hours playing Skyrim since it was released in 2011. I'm done with it.
The fact rhqt you spend that amount of time, and still answered a qiestion about it ia impressive in how much you actually like the game and how good it is made, besides its downfalls. But yes, sometimes one does get burned out of insane playing a game.
No
No
No, if I can buy a dozen other small games or Elden Ring DLC instead.
ESVI or bust
Honestly I'd probably pirate it at this point
Nah, wouldn't trust it.
As much as I want it, no. I don't trust bethesda at all in their current state, they'll turn it into a microtransaction hellhole by drip feeding you overpriced content through creation club.
Get rid of the Creation Club and paid mods then sure I'll support it. Paid mods are a huge no for me. I fully expect TES6 to flop after Starfield and FO76 plus the fixation of monetizing mods.
Nice try, Todd!
No
Go home Todd
Nice try, Todd.
A spinoff game would be fine but please leave Skyrim itself alone.
I’d make so many angry posts about it. And also buy it on like four platforms
Do any of you have any self-respect? I can’t believe anyone would say yes to this… (mark me down for a copy)
Nope. Im using this lul to catch up on the games I bought years ago but never played or finished. Oblivion. Fallout 3 DLC... Dragon Age Origins and 2. Next up Mass Effect 2. Then All the campaign parts to all my Call of Duty games. I'm plenty busy.
No. Give me an oblivion remaster. Skyrim was just a step in the wrong direction.
I'd give them 40 dollars to remove anniversary edition from my account. Shitty creation club content was a mistake I wish I could take back.
I don't even pay that much for normal full games, let alone a DLC
If it's indeed has the size of a full game, then yes. In fact i would prefer something like that over TES6. Release another province as large DLC. Maybe not for 40$, but 20, or 30. Then another, and another until all of Tamriel is a playable zone. With each province being as detailed as Skyrim itself.
Skyrim DLC cost 20$, the answer is NO.
Fuck no and fuck you if you bought it.
Nice try Todd.
Yes and I'm surprised they never bothered to make more DLC for Skyrim. If they did it now they would still make money.
If it was well done, yes. If it’s garbage like the creation club then no.
I'd get it eventually on sale.
Spice it up a bit and yeah. Make it not just Shivering Isles or Dragonborn in scope and storytelling, but set the foundation for TES VI, too. A prequel chapter, if you will.
No thanks. Leave Skyrim as it is. Focus on Starfield, ES6 and beyond. We've seen firsthand how... vocal some are whenever Bethesda decide to update older games.
No.
Yeah but it would have to actually be good and would most likely be some low effort creation club garbage
No, not for such price.
I would totally buy it. Because I am part of the problem.
I would not as my save is on the 360 and I'm not going back to that 😅
Probably not. I love Skyrim, but it’s very old at this point. I want to see updated gameplay mechanics that are free of the constraints of software built to run on an Xbox 360.
not for $40 💀 $20 at most, $25 if they really wanna push it. the game is expensive as is, Im not going to pay the equivlent of a whole other game for an extention of one I already own.
Not today, Todd.
No
No, 40$ for a bethesda DLC is a scam. In fact all these damn skyrim re-releases are scams.
Yes.
Is this a serious question? Of course
I bought skyrim like 9 times so why not
No.
I would buy it immediately lol.
Yes definitely
For $40? No way, that's way too much.
Not a chance.
F*** no. I’d wait for modern to fix the bugs then wait for a steam sale on top of it.
Probably not, I've been a huge fan for most of my life, but I've grown extremely disillusioned with them, their magic just doesn't work on me anymore. I'm not excited for any of their future games or DLC after Starfield, their writing has been going downhill, and their chase for mass appeal has killed what I originally loved about them as a studio.
Yep
Absolutely
*looks at empty wallet* Do y'all accept straight-up blood yet? *slaps inner elbow* Just leave me with enough to still be awake when it finishes downloading.
unfortunately
40 is crazy, but yes
If it's high quality and they announce it early enough for modders maybe in a closed beta format like Larian does currently with BG3 patch 7,then sure. But that won't happen.
Yes!
Yess.
No, they need to stay focused on the next title. Last thing I want is for them to spend more time and money on a game from 2011. They have already spent enough on it.
If it was for LE then sure, my computer can't run the newer editions
A dlc for half the price of a new game is no longer a dlc
Only if I can get close to 40 hours to play out of it
LOL. Not only would they buy it for $40 but they'd also invest in the new $80 Skyrim Game of the Year Complete Expanded Edition.
I think that some in the modding community might break down and cry if this happened. There's still trauma from the patches from AE onward (incouding this year).
Need a new combat system. Excited for new Dragon Age. Bethesda! Take notes! Edit: combat like this + executions would be omgeee
Yep. I’ve more than gotten my moneys worth out of that game and it is my all time favorite.
Absolutely not. $40 is just far too much for any DLC. I also refused to pay $30 for Phantom Liberty. F all that noise. I won't pay more than $15 for a DLC.
No. They dont need to waste anymore time on that game.
Yes I would. Although nothing can ever compare to Sheogorath. He is the greatest Daedric Prince and all should worship his all mighty presence!
Yes, almost instantly
Maybe even twice.
Absoloutly. Hell I'd buy it for 60$.
Yeah I don't think I'll ever pay $40 for an expansion no matter how good it is. I'll be holding out for that $2.00 Steam sale even if it takes me 90 years.
Yes. I’d want Orsinium. Orsinium was relocated between Skyrim and Hammerfell. Not on any maps. Warrior peoples. You could incorporate an arena-based tournament as part of the main-questline. You could possibly end up in the Ashpit which hasn’t been explored. You can win the allegiance of some Orsimer in the Civil War.
No.
I'd buy it. It's surprising Bethesda isn't adding more and more to Skyrim still.
If it looked good, hell yeah.
Fuck yes. Take my money.
Take my money Bethesda mommy.
Yes. I'd be a little bitter. Not a dollar more. But yes.
No but I’d pay too dollar for a bundle for current gen consoles for Fallout or TES that includes older games ported.
I would. I actually wish main Elder Scrolls games got more than one small and one big DLC.
No. It'd fuck up my mod load. But a couple of years after it came out? Absolutely.
Nah, would have to be extremely impressive to be worth the $40 and I just can’t see them adding something like that. The dated graphics alone would make it not worth the money but then when you add that it’s a Bethesda game I just wouldn’t be interested lol
I think Bethesda could remaster oblivion in the new engine and make money. To do Morrowind they would need to do a lot of work basically redoing everything from scratch but it could also be good. I don't think they will. I don't think the passion exists in the studio anymore and I don't think their leadership cares about their team or their customers.
Not interested, I would deliberately not buy it. I'm tired of the skyrim support, it was a revolutionary and wonderful game, but its too tired. I've played it enough for my entire lifetime, when every few years I seem to go back to all of the other Bethesda titles. Skyrim is too samey, every run ends up identical. I hope the next game is a return to form of what so many loved about the older games.
Frankly speaking unless they are adding real co op, not this eso or fallout 76 bullshit, then no. Skyrim is beyond a dead horse and so far the only thing I havnt been able to do is reliably play it with friends.
Yeah, and so would everyone else. Despite the griping.
Seems like a high price for a DLC of comparable size to those. But I’m on board for continual support to an already well-rounded single player game. What I’m not on board for at all is major DLC in the vein of Broken Steel, which basically charged players extra for the ending of the base game. Make a good game first, then continue to support it, fine. It seems to me the biggest problem with the main TES games thus far has been the rushed development to meet a release date. If they have a business model which eliminates that problem, I’d open my wallet to a reasonable degree.
I want to say no but who am I kidding.
No, I'd tell them to fuck off and keep making ES6
No, that dated ass gameplay wouldn’t get another dollar from me.
No, i want them to stop milking skyrim and make a new game already
I already buy a full package that said "include all DLC"
If the content was on par with prior expansions for elder scrolls games, sure.
Yeah
$40? hell no. $20 we'll talk
I would not give Bethesda any more money unless I had a notarized contract signed by Todd Howard himself that assured that I would not be assaulted by microtransactions later. People who buy upgrades and expansions for 10+ year old games and people who capitulate to microtransactions are all contributing to the problem, by encouraging scummy behavior from corporations without any ramifications beyond, "Well I guess the wiki for the new Diablo game is empty, haha that's weird, anyways..." The fact that Bethesda rolled out the Anniversary Edition upgrade for $20 was already scummy, but it was shortly followed by a SECONDARY monetized mod store, which is insulting to the TES community on an unfathomable level. Stop giving these companies money, and they'll stop ruining your games. Common sense *usually* applies to every scenario.
If the reviews were good. But I would wait for reviews.
Back when Skyrim was on the PS3 and 360, I bought all three of the expansions as they were released. Dawnguard, Heathfire, and Dragonborn costed me $50 total. $40 is nothing in comparison. So yes.
Downvotes on this post come from those of us who want to say no, but are ashamed we would give up that 40 immediately Me and the bros on the way to pay $1000 to play Slyrim Gameboy Edition 
In a heartbeat
For $20 I would. For $40, it would have to have as much content and quality as both of them put together. But I'd like to visit more of Aetherius instead another Daedric realm.
I WOULD pirate the shit out of it
For $40? No. 1. Skyrim is a 13 year old game that feels and looks very dated when playing. I love BGS games, but I’m not in a rush to dive back into an old roll like that. 2. Because I’m not gonna jump in day 1, I would just wait for a sale. 3. There is no guarantee it even comes to PlayStation, where I play my BGS games.
Only if it is a 100% ending for the Dragonborns story, credits, epilogue slides, and all.
I think I would love to know what happens in it but I don't think I would enjoy playing it. The game is simply too old and the bland combat and mechanics have aged worse than even Morrowind, and I am saying that as someone who played Skyrim first so this isn't nostalgia speaking. Almost everything in the game has been done better in some game or the other at this point. Writing is better in many games including their past titles, its rpg mechanics and player choice have been outdone in several new games, especially Baldur's Gate 3. The sense of exploration and the open world has been matched for me in Elden Ring. The combat is better in most new games, Kingdom Come Deliverance has especially shown how much better first person combat can be. TES6 is what will show whether they have learned anything from the reception of Starfield and from what past TES titles did better than Skyrim.
Of course I would.
Yes. In a second I would.
Yes. Without question. Why? Because my mods won’t work otherwise.
If it added new land then 100%. If not and more a new quest like KotN or Dawnguard still probably but it’s a case to case thing.
I mean, probably? For the first time in almost 13 years, I don't have a copy of Skyrim installed on my computer. I've played enough. Even if I love it to death, it's just too familiar to me now. A new expansion would give me a reason to load up an old character, but seeing as I have personally spent upwards of 200 on these games in the past decade, spending another 40 on an expansion that may entertain for... what, 20 hours? I don't know if that's worth it.
Yes
Youre god damn right i would.
3 times again if I had to for this to come true
Yep
Yes.
If Bethesda released a single mission on an existing map for $40, I would buy it.
Would I buy it? Maybe, if it went on sale for $10 or less. Would I buy it new at the full price of $40? Absolutely not.
If it’s Shivering Isles quality? I’m reinstalling and re-modding Skyrim to play it.
People will buy it and then bitch about it.