Game sequels and content.

[wonko the sane?]

This is a pretty open and broad subject, but my specific example is going to be fallout. Not only because that's what got me thinking about this particular subject, but also because I'm a fan of the series AND the current games make for an interesting dynamic in terms of content.

Eventually, there will be a fallout 5. Neither microsoft nor bethesda will let a money making series lie fallow (why should they?). Fallout 4 is STILL incredibly popular, especially among the people who enjoying modding their games, and fallout 76 is constantly adding new weapons, armors, meds, foods, enemies and such to what is functionally the universes lore.

This is where my thought originates. How much of what was there do you bring forward? There was a MASSIVE discrepancy between new vegas and fallout 4 in terms of content because of the changed game mechanics. 76 then ran with the same game mechanics, albeit to an entirely new place, and has been routinely adding new stuff to advantage of those mechanics. Historically; it's been two games: so we should probably see (again.) an entirely new set of game mechanics for fallout 5 which would (in theory.) allow them to get away with less stuff because it's going to be specific for those mechanics and THAT particular fallout.

Buuuutttt... I don't see that going particularly well for bethesda. While gamers will inevitably mod their game (come hell or high water!), I don't think given the amount of time they had OR the background they created, leaving out masses of content to either microtransaction the end user OR rely on modders to add is a particularly good idea. They're already on pretty thin ground, all told, for the creation club, the charlie foxtrot that was 76's launch and first two years, and the still complete lack of end game content. Lots of folks are basically looking for a reason, and it doesn't even have to be a good one, to walk away. Hell: I'm questioning whether I'll even bother with the next elder scrolls at all.

So... how does a company decide what they bring forward? How much? Even if they change the core game mechanics again, people will revolt if the selection of power armor dwindles, or they don't include most of the weapons from 76.

 

[Haze Arquebus]

It's a really precarious balancing act, to be sure, especially for the corporate suits trying to make the best weirdly-shaped thing to catch as much money as possible, and it really does depend on so many different factors unique to each game series - like your yearly sportsball games don't get too terribly much, though it's at least enough that there was that bit of controversy recently-ish with the soccer game that was essentially the same as the prior year's.

For Fallout, though - I feel like it'd need to be a less-drastic shift than it was from 3/NV to 4? Pull the reins in and work on tightening what they got, rather than trying to go big.

...just, whatever they do, now that they're under Microsoft alongside Obsidian, if the people that made all the fun melee/unarmed jive for NV are still there, let them give Bethesda some ideas. That's always, always been a weak point that's chapped me.