Surprising, considering that there are more versions of Skyrim than there are moons around Jupiter.
It's easier to see when think about it. People like guns more than swords and FO4 incorporated "mods" into the main gameplay, then the creation center even moreso, the games are basically endless sandboxes.
Pete Hines was just referring to the period up to that tweet's date; Skyrim was a pretty strong evergreen title and sold a lot after its first year. I'm not sure Fallout 4 was similar as it always seemed like that game was very frontloaded (TBF AAA games have become increasingly frontloaded over the years and only some of Sony's and most of Nintendo's tend to be evergreen over a period of years. There may be a couple of 3P ones that are evergreen though like GTA5, Witcher 3 and Elden Ring more recently).
At least that's the way I read the tweet.
Understandable. No need for list wars. And I should not talk about Redfall without having played it first too. I think that the game is already a 70$ sink or swim game with PC so putting it on the PS5 would not have changed much, especially as Microsoft would care even less of the reception there. Only a Sony block would have changed things, but I doubt it. Your last paragraph is were I strongly disagree. in general, yes I would agree with you. A lot of redemption storied exist. And we do not always need to wait for the next game as No man's sky proves even a bad game can get really good with time and efforts.
But this is different. Redfall problem is not that it is a bad game. It is that it is a bad game that got a 1 year delay. And the second game that had the same problem after Halo Infinite under Xbox management. We have a french proverb: Never two without three. It makes me really afraid of Starfield being the third one. Failures can happen, but they often have reasons behind it. Redfall should not be out in this state. And this is Xbox fault. I asked you for a Sony/ Nintendo equivalent because even if a game can be shit first party are at least polished in general.No need to, just a honest reminder that this is not what first party is/ should be.
I should not be worried about Starfield, as they are made by another studio, with a different engine, and none of the GAAS/ coop elements that can fuck up a game that Redfall had. But I am worried. Worried that Xbox will decide that they need a Spiderman 2 answer no matter the cost. Worried that they need a AAA game in 2023 more than they need a GOTY 2024 game. Worried that the Xbox "mierdas touch" is real and not just warrior bullshit. I should not. But I am. And sadly there is reasons to be, if the rumors of Starfield having a rough dev time are true.
There was a person on ResetERA who made a post months ago about RedFall & Starfield (and HiFi Rush's reveal) that has been right so far on the games. They said that Starfield was in even worst shape than RedFall, but that was at the time they made the post, back in January. And for all we know, they may've been referring to a point earlier than January when they actually saw the games (maybe December, maybe November, maybe as far back as May 2022 for all we know though given RedFall's state I doubt it was that far ago).
A lot could have changed by now including the fact that Starfield did in fact get a soft delay (out of H1 2023 into H2). I'm thinking that maybe Xbox funding budget has been reduced (this was also something rumored) and Phil's shifted a lot of that towards Starfield development, so maybe a portion of the FY '22 budget was slashed and added to FY '23. That could have affected RedFall, even affected Ghostwire Tokyo's Xbox port, affected HiFi Rush marketing and other things since they all came after the holiday season where things were slowing down heavily for Xbox, and Microsoft would've wanted to start saving some money to reduce losses.
That's maybe one of the only contexts I could come up with to dissuade too much worry over Starfield, although it'd of mean RedFall had to be a sacrifice. Still hurts optics for Xbox in the meantime, but so be it if they think Starfield will be worth it.
But if it
isn't?
...
I don't think it will be a bad game, per se. It's a Bethesda game using Bethesda formula, since FO3, but now in space. It will most probably review good. High 80's to early 90's Meta even.
But as with the tradition of every singleplayer Bethesda game, it will be broken tier bugfest garbage at launch.
Thumb rules before playing any upcoming Bethesda SP RPG:
1. Try to play the game on PC, if possible for the best experience. Mods - cosmetic, content and performance, give you a game that almost is a brand new one compared to the limited set of developer/publisher curated mods on console.
2. Wait a year for the bugs to be fixed, by either the community or the devs themselves, a stable release that you can play from start to finish, expansions are a bonus.
If it comes down to mods and waiting a year for the game to get good, I hope reviewers factor that in their reviews and score the game on what it itself actually brings at the time of review. Don't go treating it like they did Halo Infinite and scoring it higher on "potential" that never manifested (when they don't give the same leeway for other big games).
If it's a 9/10 on the strengths of what Bethesda have there Day 1, give it a 9/10. If it's a 6/10, give it a 6/10. Some people are gonna pay $70 (or more) for this game. Some are spending money on Game Pass for this game. Don't lie to them.
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1750247637){kind=avatar}
