I have a theory as to what happened to Starfield

[Biff]

To keep this short, I think Bethesda knew what they were doing when they released this highly anticipated game in this state.

They wanted to create a platform for DLC.

Starfield was basically being marketed as the reason to own gamepass, which is great. I use the service personally and I'm quite satisfied with it. However I think Microsoft didn't like the idea of giving away their darling essentially for free.

So my theory is that they released Starfield in the most barebones way possible in order to sell us the additional content to populate their barren game world. When you consider the strange absence of vehicles all while requiring the player to constantly traverse great distances on foot, you can't help but feel like we're about to be sold that feature.

For me the greatest flaw starfield has (there are many) is how much play space it has and how little of it is utilized, or populated with copy and pasted assets. Yes it's space and space is barren. But this is a videogame and it shouldn't waste your time at every opportunity like it does. It wouldn't surprise me if the plan was to sell us the content to fill out this barren game at a cost beyond our gamepass subscription.

Remember folks, these are the same guys who started it all with horse armour...

[JacEEEBABY]

When you spend more on a advertising campaigns compared to actually spending money on development you end up with games like Poofield.

[Biff]

Originally posted by JacEEEBABY:

When you spend more on a advertising campaigns compared to actually spending money on development you end up with games like Poofield.

They definitely marketed the crap out of this game and with good reason. It's a Bethesda game and one that looked to be grander than anything they've released before. And we got the scale but lacked the content to fill out that space or even make it feel compelling.

It still has potential to be a good Bethesda game. It just needs more hand made content to populate it, which makes me suspicious. There's no way they were this oblivious to what the game was lacking.

[Flippy]

The 1000+ planets is amazing, the space ships are amazing, the gameplay is amazing, the writing and so much more ruined is to blame no matter how much spam to the contrary.

The topic theory is wrong because there are 100's of horror games being spammed at home entertainment customers, 100 bad movies as well, and many top video game titles have all been garbage so it isnt just Starfield.

The difference may be that while Activision being totally worthless at this point as far as im concerned was bailed out, then a company that actually made top games like Bethesda has "The Starfield Disaster" happen, and maybe the truth will come out.

[76561198013077829]

They also cut a lot of features and pulled back from the current ones. Its like they created 4 or 5 different prototypes for games and then smashed them all together.

[Biff]

Originally posted by Flippy:

The 1000+ planets is amazing, the space ships are amazing, the gameplay is amazing, the writing and so much more ruined is to blame no matter how much spam to the contrary.

The topic theory is wrong because there are 100 horror game being spammed at home entertainment customers, 100 bad movies as well, and many top video game titles have all been garbage so it isnt just Starfield.

The difference may be that while Activision while totally worthless at this point as far as im concerned was bailed out, meanwhile a company that actually made top games like Bethesda has "The Starfield Disaster" happen, and maybe the truth will come out.

Also the constant spam openly spamming away any real topics is disgusting.

The IDEA of 1000 planets is amazing. The execution is terrible. There isn't even enough content in this game to not have repeated POIs constantly on 1 planet.

If it was 1000 planets, each with something unique to see or do, then great. But the way it's implemented now it all just feels pointless. The resources would have been better spent on actual handmade content for the player to interact with.

[Biff]

Originally posted by Your Friend Hana:

Bethesda wasn't owned by Microsoft when they were developing Starfield.

Right. And I bet if Microsoft wasn't involved the end product would have been much different...

[Plagued]

RPG games are the hardest and longest to develop. I think the things that sour Starfield are bad UI elements and the temple floating sequence seems like a rushed idea that didn't get worked on further. I don't think it's bad but I wouldn't say it's their best work, perhaps the sequel will be a much better experience.

[Flippy]

Originally posted by Your Friend Hana:

Bethesda wasn't owned by Microsoft when they were developing Starfield.

Well Bethesda never delayed a game twice either, or even once, and Starfield isnt their first video game.

To be honest i would rather be wondering what went wrong rather than 5 or 6 delays or what ever, or take pre order money like Cyberpunk 2077 did then try and delay it more, or alot of things.

Im so glad i never played Cyberpunk 2077 or so many other total cringe games.

[Biff]

Originally posted by Klayyed:

RPG games are the hardest and longest to develop. I think the things that sour Starfield are bad UI elements and the temple floating sequence seems like a rushed idea that didn't get worked on further. I don't think it's bad but I wouldn't say it's their best work, perhaps the sequel will be a much better experience.

I'd argue Starfield will be pretty epic when it's "complete" after several LARGE expansions.

[Sikklid]

Shartfield is absolutely designed to be another 10-12 year planned DirectX-Box perpetual monetizing platform. It's just like a live service, only without the mp. AAA has been trying hard to figure out how to get this Holy Grail of profits accepted by those who refuse to engage in online live service trash.

Bit by bit AAA brainwashes customers into accepting far less quality and far more monetizing. Horse Armor was just the beginning.

After hearing some former developer interviews, a lot is more clear on their spiral into greed madness. BGS devs are all moving on so they built this barebones pos and called it a day.

[Caolán_The_Wolf]

on god i just want my money back, i feel like i got ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ scammed

[Flippy]

Originally posted by Biff:

Originally posted by Flippy:

The 1000+ planets is amazing, the space ships are amazing, the gameplay is amazing, the writing and so much more ruined is to blame no matter how much spam to the contrary.

The topic theory is wrong because there are 100 horror game being spammed at home entertainment customers, 100 bad movies as well, and many top video game titles have all been garbage so it isnt just Starfield.

The difference may be that while Activision while totally worthless at this point as far as im concerned was bailed out, meanwhile a company that actually made top games like Bethesda has "The Starfield Disaster" happen, and maybe the truth will come out.

Also the constant spam openly spamming away any real topics is disgusting.

The IDEA of 1000 planets is amazing. The execution is terrible. There isn't even enough content in this game to not have repeated POIs constantly on 1 planet.

If it was 1000 planets, each with something unique to see or do, then great. But the way it's implemented now it all just feels pointless. The resources would have been better spent on actual handmade content for the player to interact with.

The 1000+ planets was advertised and is amazing.

Starfield being a same sex game isnt advertised and is being actively hidden, Skyrim wasnt a same sex game. I was tricked into buying Starfield because i wouldnt have if i knew it was a same sex game, which it is. Its not about judging others its about false advertising and whats supposed to be a Skyrim space game.

A separate but related problem is the cringe writing and its everywhere in Starfield but hopefully quest choices and updates can improve the situation.

[Biff]

Originally posted by Sikklid:

Shartfield is absolutely designed to be another 10-12 year planned DirectX-Box perpetual monetizing platform. It's just like a live service, only without the mp. AAA has been trying hard to figure out how to get this Holy Grail of profits accepted by those who refuse to engage in online live service trash.

Bit by bit AAA brainwashes customers into accepting far less quality and far more monetizing. Horse Armor was just the beginning.

After hearing some former developer interviews, a lot is more clear on their spiral into greed madness. BGS devs are all moving on so they built this barebones pos and called it a day.

Well said. I agree and it certainly feels like that's the plan for the game.

[CloudsInTheSky]

Originally posted by Biff:

To keep this short, I think Bethesda knew what they were doing when they released this highly anticipated game in this state.

They wanted to maximize profits.

Starfield was basically being marketed as the reason to own gamepass, which is great. I use the service personally and I'm quite satisfied with it. However I think Microsoft didn't like the idea of giving away their darling essentially for free.

So my theory is that they released Starfield in the most barebones way possible in order to sell us the additional content to populate their barren game world. When you consider the strange absence of vehicles all while requiring the player to constantly traverse great distances on foot, you can't help but feel like we're about to be sold that feature.

For me the greatest flaw starfield has (there are many) is how much play space it has and how little of it is utilized, or populated with copy and pasted assets. Yes it's space and space is barren. But this is a videogame and it shouldn't waste your time at every opportunity like it does. It wouldn't surprise me if the plan was to sell us the content to fill out this barren game at a cost beyond our gamepass subscription.

Remember folks, these are the same guys who started it all with horse armour...

Bethesda can only succeed in earning money only if players allow it and tolerate this type of marketing scheme behavior.

[Biff]

Originally posted by CloudsInTheSky:

Originally posted by Biff:

To keep this short, I think Bethesda knew what they were doing when they released this highly anticipated game in this state.

They wanted to maximize profits.

Starfield was basically being marketed as the reason to own gamepass, which is great. I use the service personally and I'm quite satisfied with it. However I think Microsoft didn't like the idea of giving away their darling essentially for free.

So my theory is that they released Starfield in the most barebones way possible in order to sell us the additional content to populate their barren game world. When you consider the strange absence of vehicles all while requiring the player to constantly traverse great distances on foot, you can't help but feel like we're about to be sold that feature.

For me the greatest flaw starfield has (there are many) is how much play space it has and how little of it is utilized, or populated with copy and pasted assets. Yes it's space and space is barren. But this is a videogame and it shouldn't waste your time at every opportunity like it does. It wouldn't surprise me if the plan was to sell us the content to fill out this barren game at a cost beyond our gamepass subscription.

Remember folks, these are the same guys who started it all with horse armour...

Bethesda can only succeed in earning money only if players allow it and tolerate this type of marketing scheme behavior.

True it will be interesting to see how popular DLC will be for this game after all the backlash.

However even I can admit I'll probably end up buying content for this game if its done well enough. I want another good Bethesda game to play damn it.