Fallout 4 Won't Have DLC Exclusives

Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
 
Dawill said:
Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

I buy content DLC, I go back to the game to play it normally or sometimes I just buy it for a game I'm in the middle of playing (I quite often buy games that are a year or so old at discount prices).
 
Quix said:
I buy content DLC, I go back to the game to play it normally or sometimes I just buy it for a game I'm in the middle of playing (I quite often buy games that are a year or so old at discount prices).
Click to expand...

But if you don't like the game very much it's not worth it.
 
Can they make this Fallout less crash prone maybe? Maybe patch some of the memory leaks and exceptions in the engine?

Nah, who am I kidding.

Oh, and can we have more eye-straining bland desert with nothing in it? That was such a great choice the last time and it was sooooooo immersive to stare at.
 
Dawill said:
Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

I've bought DLC on occasion, but only for the type of game that has massive replay value, like Civ 5.

The addition of additional civilizations as DLC didn't bother me, and I was willing to pay a reasonable price for them. The only part about the Civ5 experience and DLC that didn't jive well, was that in multiplayer mode, all players had to own the DLC in order for you to play as one of those added Civs...

Other than this, the only DLC I've ever had, has been of the variety that comes included with a GOTY edition or something like that.
 
Dawill said:
Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

I rarely buy a new title anymore as most companies can't be trusted to actually put of complete and working titles. Instead I normally get the game of the year editions since not only so they normally include the dlc but also by that time the game is normally fixed, at least enough to make it playable.

As for treating all platforms equally, I would agree, at least as far as dlc is concerned, but see no problem with a game company leveraging a platforms advantage over the others to improve the game on that platform, be it graphically or something else.
 
Skripka said:
Can they make this Fallout less crash prone maybe? Maybe patch some of the memory leaks and exceptions in the engine?

Nah, who am I kidding.

Oh, and can we have more eye-straining bland desert with nothing in it? That was such a great choice the last time and it was sooooooo immersive to stare at.
Click to expand...

What's more post apocalyptic than a bland desert? It's supposed to a barren wasteland.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041880110 said:
The only thing better than no DLC exclusives, would be no DLC at all :p
Click to expand...

DLC has often taken the place of expansions (which I think most of us miss) ... one advantage of DLC over the expansion is that although it isn't perfect it does allow for incremental upgrades and the ability to pick and choose which upgrades you buy ... another is we don't have to wait as long (expansions used to take a year or more before they were released ... DLC is usually available within weeks or months of release)

Although there have been some abusive DLC models I don't consider Bethesda to be one of the abusers (others opinions might vary) ... the DLC for Bethesda games, although often useful, is not necessary to win or play (you can complete an entire Bethesda game with no DLC, although DLC sometimes makes a game easier or gives you additional things to do beyond the main quests)

As to exclusives, I love them when they are PC only, hate them when they are console only ... I have little love for consoles since I and my kids game on PCs exclusively so I would actually like to see DLC abandoned for consoles and made a PC exclusive thing (console games get none of the capabilities of their PC counterparts) ... this would make for better and higher end PC games if they were not required to maintain compatibility with consoles :cool:
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
As for treating all platforms equally, I would agree, at least as far as dlc is concerned, but see no problem with a game company leveraging a platforms advantage over the others to improve the game on that platform, be it graphically or something else.
Click to expand...

I would - in fact - insist that they do this :p

Can you imagine if your PC port were stuck at the same resolution and settings as the garbage console version?
 
Time2Kill said:
What's more post apocalyptic than a bland desert? It's supposed to a barren wasteland.
Click to expand...

Look at all the nuclear accident and testing sites.

People go away, and the wildlife comes back and thrives. Chernobyl and the surrounding 1000km radius of land ain't a desert, it is a radioactive wildlife preserve full of trees and birds and beasts living and growing in what used to be bland 70s-soviet-era-architecture urban streets. Same with the atolls the USA blew up in above ground nuclear tests, and the ships they sunk with nukes as well. Thriving wildlife areas. The only places that got nuked that are deserts today were deserts historically.

What is more post apocalyptic than a desert? Just about anything. When humans nuke themselves into oblivion, the result in a handful of decades will be thriving wildlife environments....desert-not so much. Ma nature will cover up the craters of our mutual destruction damn quick.
 
Time2Kill said:
What's more post apocalyptic than a bland desert? It's supposed to a barren wasteland.
Click to expand...

This. Complaining that Fallout is a wasteland is comedy. Like whining that Skyrim has too much forest.
 
Skripka said:
Look at all the nuclear accident and testing sites.

People go away, and the wildlife comes back and thrives. Chernobyl and the surrounding 1000km radius of land ain't a desert, it is a radioactive wildlife preserve full of trees and birds and beasts living and growing in what used to be bland 70s-soviet-era-architecture urban streets. Same with the atolls the USA blew up in above ground nuclear tests, and the ships they sunk with nukes as well. Thriving wildlife areas. The only places that got nuked that are deserts today were deserts historically.

What is more post apocalyptic than a desert? Just about anything. When humans nuke themselves into oblivion, the result in a handful of decades will be thriving wildlife environments....desert-not so much. Ma nature will cover up the craters of our mutual destruction damn quick.
Click to expand...

That assumes the destruction is localized, and there is wildlife that can move in again.

I would imagine with more global destruction, you might wind up with something more barren.

I would also have expected more of the "Nuclear Winter" type of wasteland, rather than desert.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041880143 said:
That assumes the destruction is localized, and there is wildlife that can move in again.

I would imagine with more global destruction, you might wind up with something more barren.

I would also have expected more of the "Nuclear Winter" type of wasteland, rather than desert.
Click to expand...

Not to go all Fallout nerd on you, but the setting makes sense in the game's context. In the alternate timeline of Fallout most bombs dropped were under a megaton in power leading to much more localized damage. There were just a a lot of them used but it's how they explain the different pockets of surviving areas.
 
demingo said:
Not to go all Fallout nerd on you, but the setting makes sense in the game's context. In the alternate timeline of Fallout most bombs dropped were under a megaton in power leading to much more localized damage. There were just a a lot of them used but it's how they explain the different pockets of surviving areas.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I am by no means a Fallout franchise expert.

I DID play through Fallout 3 and spent some time in New Vegas though, but they were never top titles of mine.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041880143 said:
That assumes the destruction is localized, and there is wildlife that can move in again.

I would imagine with more global destruction, you might wind up with something more barren.

I would also have expected more of the "Nuclear Winter" type of wasteland, rather than desert.
Click to expand...

Plotline of Fallout has 100s of years...plenty of time for nuclear winter clouds to preciptate out.

Further most of say the USA or Russia is empty wilderland or farmland. During the Cold War about the only places in the Great Plains with ICBMs targeting them was SAC and military bases....living next to those was how you got vaporized if war started. Everyone else-not so much. So no, the "whole world is nuked desert"-really not a valid explanation for making a video game a bland empty desert.
 
Glad to see Bethesda came to their senses and eliminated DLC exclusivity. Whether or not the game is any good, I'll be buying every DLC as I want the full package. If they threw in a bag of chips I'd grab that, too! :p
 
Skripka said:
Plotline of Fallout has 100s of years...plenty of time for nuclear winter clouds to preciptate out.

Further most of say the USA or Russia is empty wilderland or farmland. During the Cold War about the only places in the Great Plains with ICBMs targeting them was SAC and military bases....living next to those was how you got vaporized if war started. Everyone else-not so much. So no, the "whole world is nuked desert"-really not a valid explanation for making a video game a bland empty desert.
Click to expand...

The Fallout Universe isn't set in a carbon copy of ours though ... they fought their war in the mid 21st century and the nuclear conflagration occurred after 25 years of conventional war ... their nuclear war involved every nuclear power on Earth (which for us would be 10-20 nations currently) ... if their nuclear war occurred as the climax of a 25 year conventional war they would likely have had nuclear weapons equivalent to the USA and Soviet era (which would have allowed every major city on the planet to be destroyed) ... it isn't unreasonable to expect a high level of destruction after that, even after 200 years

One other note on the realism front ... if we didn't have desert we would have virtually no cities left since most of our major cities have been built in areas where water and forest would completely consume them in under 200 years usually (at least according to the "what if" documentary on Discover, Life After People) ... having the world as a desert might be a little bland but it does give us a technical reason for the ruins of our cities to be available for exploration (as desert climates often preserve things longer) ... it will also make it more striking if we ever reach an area with a G.E.C.K. (which would be one of the few ways to restore the vegetation destroyed in the war
 
Skripka said:
Look at all the nuclear accident and testing sites.

People go away, and the wildlife comes back and thrives. Chernobyl and the surrounding 1000km radius of land ain't a desert, it is a radioactive wildlife preserve full of trees and birds and beasts living and growing in what used to be bland 70s-soviet-era-architecture urban streets. Same with the atolls the USA blew up in above ground nuclear tests, and the ships they sunk with nukes as well. Thriving wildlife areas. The only places that got nuked that are deserts today were deserts historically.

What is more post apocalyptic than a desert? Just about anything. When humans nuke themselves into oblivion, the result in a handful of decades will be thriving wildlife environments....desert-not so much. Ma nature will cover up the craters of our mutual destruction damn quick.
Click to expand...

You've never been to Nevada, have you?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041880419 said:
Well, for New Vegas it probably does make sense.

Might not make sense for the DC area in Fallout3 though. That's a natural swamp.
Click to expand...

At least it was prior to Armageddon :cool: ... the Wasteland theme is more common in post apocalyptic settings (Wasteland, Fallout, Mad Max, Damnation alley, Planet of the Apes, etc) ... although people want see a different theme it isn't uncommon for the genre ;)
 
Frankie said:
You've never been to Nevada, have you?
Click to expand...

You do know that the portion of Nevada not Mojave desert is merely a scant 2/3 of the state. Don't you? Ever been to Lake Tahoe? There's forests in the Great Basin. There's a ton more to Nevada than dead desert.
 
With Bethesda games, just wait for the GOTY edition which usually follows 8-12 months later and usually has all dlc. By then, many bugs should be fixed.
 
amdgamer said:
With Bethesda games, just wait for the GOTY edition which usually follows 8-12 months later and usually has all dlc. By then, many bugs should be fixed.
Click to expand...

Actually...

All the bugs in the engine for Fallout 3 retail release are still in the engine today (unless you use mods to try and adress some of them) and were never patched...including tons of exceptions and memory leaks and so on.
 
amdgamer said:
With Bethesda games, just wait for the GOTY edition which usually follows 8-12 months later and usually has all dlc. By then, many bugs should be fixed.
Click to expand...

If you're still on an allowance then that might make some sense.

It's Fallout motherfucking 4 and having a job allows me to go nuts and splurge $60 on a 500+ hour game.
 
DPI said:
If you're still on an allowance then that might make some sense.

It's Fallout motherfucking 4 and having a job allows me to go nuts and splurge $60 on a 500+ hour game.
Click to expand...

I just really hate buggy games and Bethesda is legendary for that. I only have time to play 1-2 games a year and will not waste it fighting bugs.
 
Skripka said:
Actually...

All the bugs in the engine for Fallout 3 retail release are still in the engine today (unless you use mods to try and adress some of them) and were never patched...including tons of exceptions and memory leaks and so on.
Click to expand...

I had a problem with VRAM memory leaks in Fallout 3 and New Vegas on my dual 6970 crossfire setup back when I first tried to play it.

I noticed it when the game would start out fine, but the framerate would drop over time, and like clockwork after 10-15 minutes it would hit unplayable framerates, which would go away after restarting the game, and it would be playable for another 10-15 minutes.

After some troubleshooting I noticed that the VRAM was filling up over time, suggesting some sort of VRAM leak.

A couple of years later, on a single GPU (can't remember which one, either 7970, GTX680 or original 2013 Titan) it played just fine without this problem.

Not sure if it was just a crossfire issue, or if the bug was actually fixed.
 
Dawill said:
Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

Honestly for most games I wait until they're on some crazy sale and pick up all the DLC off Steam for a song or I just wait and buy the GOTY editions that have everything included (often on sale as well). I can honestly say I have never bought a single lick of DLC at it's original retail price though.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041880630 said:
I had a problem with VRAM memory leaks in Fallout 3 and New Vegas on my dual 6970 crossfire setup back when I first tried to play it.

I noticed it when the game would start out fine, but the framerate would drop over time, and like clockwork after 10-15 minutes it would hit unplayable framerates, which would go away after restarting the game, and it would be playable for another 10-15 minutes.

After some troubleshooting I noticed that the VRAM was filling up over time, suggesting some sort of VRAM leak.

A couple of years later, on a single GPU (can't remember which one, either 7970, GTX680 or original 2013 Titan) it played just fine without this problem.

Not sure if it was just a crossfire issue, or if the bug was actually fixed.
Click to expand...

I'd guess AMD patched driver side.

There was a comp/sci teacher IIRC who gave his class each a copy of the retail FO3 DVD and told them to go to town finding programming f'ups...then had them do the same thing on fully patched...results were the same.
 
New Vegas was buggy as hell when first released...game breaking bugs...hopefully Fallout 4 will not have any major issues
 
Skripka said:
Can they make this Fallout less crash prone maybe? Maybe patch some of the memory leaks and exceptions in the engine?

Nah, who am I kidding.

Oh, and can we have more eye-straining bland desert with nothing in it? That was such a great choice the last time and it was sooooooo immersive to stare at.
Click to expand...

I loved the open desert. I like wandering around looking for my next random encounter. I find it a nice change from go here and find that or collect 50 of these. But the game does crash a lot, even more so now that it's much older and on Operating Systems it was never designed for. I am fighting that right now with Fallout 3 on Win 10. I need to go ahead and load up Skyrim to see if there is a difference between it and it's earlier sibling.
'
 
Skripka said:
Look at all the nuclear accident and testing sites.

People go away, and the wildlife comes back and thrives. Chernobyl and the surrounding 1000km radius of land ain't a desert, it is a radioactive wildlife preserve full of trees and birds and beasts living and growing in what used to be bland 70s-soviet-era-architecture urban streets. Same with the atolls the USA blew up in above ground nuclear tests, and the ships they sunk with nukes as well. Thriving wildlife areas. The only places that got nuked that are deserts today were deserts historically.

What is more post apocalyptic than a desert? Just about anything. When humans nuke themselves into oblivion, the result in a handful of decades will be thriving wildlife environments....desert-not so much. Ma nature will cover up the craters of our mutual destruction damn quick.
Click to expand...

Emotionally I find fault with your arguement, perhaps because on an emotional level I object with the whole nuking myself concept. But on an intellectual level I agree with you. I think man, specially those who think of themselves as so highly educated, often think too damn much of themselves and mankind's impact on the world. Can we tear some shit up? Hell yes, like no others. But Mother Nature has a way of teaching a man just how puny and inconsequential he really is.
 
Skripka said:
Plotline of Fallout has 100s of years...plenty of time for nuclear winter clouds to preciptate out.

Further most of say the USA or Russia is empty wilderland or farmland. During the Cold War about the only places in the Great Plains with ICBMs targeting them was SAC and military bases....living next to those was how you got vaporized if war started. Everyone else-not so much. So no, the "whole world is nuked desert"-really not a valid explanation for making a video game a bland empty desert.
Click to expand...

Umm, Fallout 3 is centralized in the DC area, so an area likely to be heavily saturated with attacks. If I remember they didn't go so far as to use cactis in Fallout 3's desert wates, I think it just looks deseerty because of the lack of trees and general vegitation. I do remember some areas with forested looking terrain, like the trees had all burned recently.

Vegas is already a wasteland so a few nukes spread around wouldn't have the same impact but might not look all that different for awhile at least.
 
I cant get fallout 3 to work on windows 10 no matter what I try, New Vegas on the other hand works just fine. 3 works on windows 7 though...

I was going to play 3 on the lead up to 4 coming out but these games just didn't age well, even with mods I cant seem to get back into it after playing some modern titles.
 
AceGoober said:
Glad to see Bethesda came to their senses and eliminated DLC exclusivity. Whether or not the game is any good, I'll be buying every DLC as I want the full package. If they threw in a bag of chips I'd grab that, too! :p
Click to expand...

I went further. I bought 3, then individually all the DLC. Then recently I wanted to reload and instead of digging out the disks I just bought it all over again as the Game of the Year Addition from Steam so it would remain easy to reload in the future. I get tired of the game, but I keep coming back to it every now and then.
 
Killerxp100 said:
I cant get fallout 3 to work on windows 10 no matter what I try, New Vegas on the other hand works just fine. 3 works on windows 7 though...

I was going to play 3 on the lead up to 4 coming out but these games just didn't age well, even with mods I cant seem to get back into it after playing some modern titles.
Click to expand...

When they announced 4 a little while ago I reloaded Vegas and hated how it played, the engine felt so bad. But when I tried 3 again it didn't seem to feel as bad and I have no problem with it.

Now I have to admit, I never liked Vegas as I did 3, Vegas always felt too linear, not as open as 3.
 
Dawill said:
Am I the only person who has never bought a DLC? I mean I play a game, I beat it. I move on. By the time the DLC's come out, I'm onto something else.

Anyways, glad there isn't any platform bigotry here :). All platforms should be treated equally.
Click to expand...

DLC is just a new name for mission disk. Those were always around as far as I can remember. I don't buy cosmetic or multiplayer DLCs, but I do buy those that expand the story. But only for games that I like and didn't bore me by the time I finished them. So for this reason I didn't get any DLCs for DA:I because I had enough of it's chores. But I did buy every DLC for both ME2, and ME3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top