It’s a major historically cross platform franchise, for one thing.
The Activision Blizzard merger and the UK’s serious reservations about Microsoft’s monopoly makes this news even more important.
Should this game be restricted to Microsoft platforms and not include the Sony platform , it would show that they are lying about being well intentioned and non monopolistic.
Both Morrowind and Oblivion were released as Xbox exclusives, so it’s definitely not a “major historically cross plattform franchise”. Only Skyrim was released for both (though Oblivion did get ported to PS later).
Fallout is another matter though, since they’ve been released for both since Fallout 3.
I thought the UK’s reservations were more over the cloud streaming market than console exclusivity. It’s hard to make a stink about market share when this acquisition will only make them #3 in total size.
But the reason I ask why this is “news” is because this little fact has been known for quite a while now.
I’m also a bit fuzzy on whether I would categorize The Elder Scrolls as a “historically cross-platform franchise” when most of it’s numbered entries are not on anything other than PC or Xbox. Though to me these have always been PC games. Console versions of anything other than Skyrim felt like an afterthought.
It’s a major historically cross platform franchise, for one thing.
Also, there aren’t a whole lot of game developers that do Bethesda-style games.
I haven’t played any Mario games in a long time, and I don’t know what they look like after consoles went 3d. But go back some decades, and they were side-scrolling platform games. There were lots of other side-scrolling platformers. The Mario series was a particularly good series, but it had lots of competition.
Well, there’s that The Outer Worlds game that was billed as being kind of like Fallout. I was kind of disappointed with it, because some of what I’d call its weak points were really part of what make Bethesda’s games for me. Bethesda has interesting perks that really alter gameplay, and The Outer Worlds has pretty bland perks that slightly bump stats. The Outer Worlds is, strictly-speaking, open-world, but there’s no reason to really retrace steps, so it functionally feels a lot more linear. Bethesda focuses on you wandering around the world and just stumbling across interesting things, and The Outer Worlds has little to stumble across other than in cities. Bethesda has interesting weapons that operate significantly-differently, and The Outer Worlds has a few weapon classes that all operate in about the same way, including uniques, aside from several “science weapons”.
However, it did get a good Metacritic score, so I expect that there were people who liked it. It was also pretty bug-free. And it is kind of in the same vein, but just didn’t have what made me really enjoy Fallout titles.
More-broadly-speaking, I guess that you could call any open-world games a little like Bethesda’s stuff. The Grand Theft Auto series, Saboteur, probably the Assassin’s Creed series (though I’ve barely ever played those), the Mafia series.
EDIT: Hmm. Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds were both done by Obsidian, and Microsoft apparently acquired them as well five years back and rolled them into Xbox Game Studios, so from a standpoint of people on other platforms (well, I’m on Linux, but can run the Windows releases via compatibility software), I can imagine that The Outer Worlds doesn’t make things less frustrating, even if one does really like it.
So, in other words, there really aren’t any devs? The comparisons to Fallout garnered by the Outer Worlds are largely due to it being made by Obsidian and to be fair, even New Vegas, a game built on the same engine has design principles that falter away from the Bethesda-style.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
It’s a major historically cross platform franchise, for one thing.
The Activision Blizzard merger and the UK’s serious reservations about Microsoft’s monopoly makes this news even more important.
Should this game be restricted to Microsoft platforms and not include the Sony platform , it would show that they are lying about being well intentioned and non monopolistic.
Both Morrowind and Oblivion were released as Xbox exclusives, so it’s definitely not a “major historically cross plattform franchise”. Only Skyrim was released for both (though Oblivion did get ported to PS later).
Fallout is another matter though, since they’ve been released for both since Fallout 3.
I thought the UK’s reservations were more over the cloud streaming market than console exclusivity. It’s hard to make a stink about market share when this acquisition will only make them #3 in total size.
But the reason I ask why this is “news” is because this little fact has been known for quite a while now.
I’m also a bit fuzzy on whether I would categorize The Elder Scrolls as a “historically cross-platform franchise” when most of it’s numbered entries are not on anything other than PC or Xbox. Though to me these have always been PC games. Console versions of anything other than Skyrim felt like an afterthought.
Also, there aren’t a whole lot of game developers that do Bethesda-style games.
I haven’t played any Mario games in a long time, and I don’t know what they look like after consoles went 3d. But go back some decades, and they were side-scrolling platform games. There were lots of other side-scrolling platformers. The Mario series was a particularly good series, but it had lots of competition.
Not a whole lot? Are there even any?
Well, there’s that The Outer Worlds game that was billed as being kind of like Fallout. I was kind of disappointed with it, because some of what I’d call its weak points were really part of what make Bethesda’s games for me. Bethesda has interesting perks that really alter gameplay, and The Outer Worlds has pretty bland perks that slightly bump stats. The Outer Worlds is, strictly-speaking, open-world, but there’s no reason to really retrace steps, so it functionally feels a lot more linear. Bethesda focuses on you wandering around the world and just stumbling across interesting things, and The Outer Worlds has little to stumble across other than in cities. Bethesda has interesting weapons that operate significantly-differently, and The Outer Worlds has a few weapon classes that all operate in about the same way, including uniques, aside from several “science weapons”.
However, it did get a good Metacritic score, so I expect that there were people who liked it. It was also pretty bug-free. And it is kind of in the same vein, but just didn’t have what made me really enjoy Fallout titles.
More-broadly-speaking, I guess that you could call any open-world games a little like Bethesda’s stuff. The Grand Theft Auto series, Saboteur, probably the Assassin’s Creed series (though I’ve barely ever played those), the Mafia series.
EDIT: Hmm. Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds were both done by Obsidian, and Microsoft apparently acquired them as well five years back and rolled them into Xbox Game Studios, so from a standpoint of people on other platforms (well, I’m on Linux, but can run the Windows releases via compatibility software), I can imagine that The Outer Worlds doesn’t make things less frustrating, even if one does really like it.
So, in other words, there really aren’t any devs? The comparisons to Fallout garnered by the Outer Worlds are largely due to it being made by Obsidian and to be fair, even New Vegas, a game built on the same engine has design principles that falter away from the Bethesda-style.