Not being intended as a joke makes it even funnier. I mean, the lack of awareness is amazing.

Wait, you think I’m defending them?

Making statements about why shitty games are not the fault of old technology is not a defense of said shitty games.

They always make the same game, they ship it broken and keep it broken. The best game in their franchises since at least since Morrowind was made by another studio. The lore is derivative and as deep as a puddle. They sell their games based on bullet points and features and not quality.

I don’t like their recent output at all. I find their design philosophy and quest design outdated and lacking, recent games feel older that previous ones.

But none of those things are the engine’s fault. They ship exactly the game they want to ship, and use the engine that lets them do it as efficiently as possible. If they are limited at all is in their production organization or lack thereof.

Are you denying that Skyrim, Fallour 3 and 4, or Starfield are commercial successes? Even Starfield was a critically acclaimed game for a while.

Most people are okay without mods because they can’t install them in their platform of choice so they don’t expect them. They have heard about them in articles and videos and find them an oddity of PC gaming, at most.

It is really easy to fall into an echo chamber and believing most of the people that buys Bethesda games are fixing them with mods. That’s an option only for a minority of players, and of those many won’t install them. They play 30~60 hours and won’t launch the game ever again.

It’s not easy to change engines. But they could afford it, if they could justify it.

I think you overestimate how many people actually install or care about mods. Many people just seems to like what Bethesda does.

Oblivion was a smash hit on Xbox without mods. Since that the main sellers seems to be the console versions.

I’m sure that many people in the studio are having a bad time with how quick the internet discourse has gone into “Starfield Actually Bad” territory. It’s not easy refining that kind of feedback.

BUT. BUT. I’m not sure about the “until now” because Starfield has sold incredibly well, even for a game launched directly in game pass and not supporting PS5.

Even if internet gaming people don’t like the game, the market said it’s ok. BioWare survived a few blunders until destroying their brand, and Blizzard still goes strong.

They don’t want to. They have a formula, and the public and the market have spent decades saying that it’s good enough and want “Skyrim in Space”

If they want to change how inventory works they can, in whatever engine they are using. But why would they?

Also, I find pretty ironic to expect “Innovation” in a game with a number 6 attached to it, from a studio known for doing 3 franchises so similar to each other in gameplay and features that are used to describe each other. And to blame the tech for the lack of it.

I thing you are looking at this backwards.

They have the money and resources to change engine. They CHOSE not to. Because they can make the game they want to make faster and more efficiently on Creation Engine. If they could not make the game they want they would be forced to move to another game engine.

If their idea for Elder Scrolls 6 can be made in CE they won’t change engines. If it does not, they aren’t some indie studio, they have the resources to swap.

As I said Creation Engine did mot stop another studio from being creative.

They are not being hold back by Creation Engine in game design, they are stuck in a design philosophy and production strategy that until now has and got them lots of praise and sales.

They use the chest trick because saves reworking the inventory and container system. That would take time and left the game almost the same, so they don’t.

If they used Unreal engine they’d have to build a new inventory and container system from scratch, who knows if they would end up taking the hidden chest idea (it mostly works) and porting it?

The “Update your engine Bethesda” discussion is valid from many points of view, but most of the problems with current Bethesda releases are cultural. They don’t test nearly enough, they don’t have a “fun” game until a couple months before release, they don’t coordinate the content and mechanics production in any way, the quest writing is a free for all.

And until now things worked out. So they refuse to address those issues.

How would a engine change affect the game design philosophy of Bethesda?

Performance? Visuals? Alright. But game design?

Creation Engine powers Starfield and Fallout New Vegas. Quests can be complex, dynamic, with multiple endings, with lots of ways to approach them. Or they can be flat fetch quests. The tools allow both and everything in between.

Bethesda just chooses to use the current game design framework and would choose the same on any other engine.

They are actually updating their game design principles. They stopped using game design documents, they simplified the quests, they try to make sure every play through gets to see as much content as possible. Maybe they should stop updating.

The apple third party App Store solution should be in a list under the title: Notable Examples in Malicious Compliance

When has that stopped any tech or fake-tech company from making their IPO?

The IPO is where the Venture Capitalist get their paychecks. Is that or being acquired by some big tech like Google or Microsoft.

The current vc investments can not really be recouped with profits. They exist to make company valuation as big as possible before the IPO, so they can as much money as possible selling as much as the company as they can without losing control of the board.

The company will pump REVENUE just before the IPO to increase valuation, but the PROFIT right now is inconsequential in comparación with the total addressable market. It’s all pure speculation and a terrible way to make a sustainable business, but it’s the best way to get a lot of money for the VC and the founders.

Well, I have spent countless hours between Zachtronics games and Factorio, so…

Yes, I’d play that.

Some media organizations have started nuking old articles to please the Google algorithm

Sounds like a “you want us to buy Nintendo? Me too buddy…”

But you can sell everything back for full price, as always, right?

In Spanish we have an expression, “¡No se podía saber!” It’s something like “Who could have seen it coming?”

NFTs are a bad investment? ¡No se podía saber!

Xbox One/Series S/SeriesX and PS4/5 are x86 PCs, Switch is an ARM phone.

So, in the lowest level they are pretty out of the shelf hardware. Electronics are getting way to complicated to invest in the development of custom hardware architectures for a single product.

You take a commonly used architecture, fork an Operating System that you have access to, bundle as many libraries as makes sense and call it a day. No one is going to use weird quirks of the hardware except if you make some deal with Unity or Unreal.

Thank Sony and the Cell Processor for that.

It’s an amazing ideology to have because if you can create a plausible future benefit you can do any real evil and feel like the good guy!

• Stealed billions in wages from your workers? It’s alright, the funds will be used for you to gain influence and guide humanity to a better future!

• Did you release a bioweapon in some global south country? It’s all right! Overpopulation was a danger 5 or 6 generations from now!

• Destroyed democracy! It does not matter. Fascism today ensures democracy in the year 4000, trust me bro!

Vivaldi is a chrome derived browser. Using it entrenches Google power over the web.

The manifest v3 debacle, weird “standards” like the recent Web Environment Integrity and more are only posible because Google controls most of the web clients through Blink and V8. They can make or break standards thanks to the massive amount of Chrome and Chromium related browsers, like Vivaldi, Brave, Opera, Edge, etc.

So, glad you like Vivaldi, but you are not that far from google and are in fact an asset for their goals.

We need Firefox alive and well. If we lose it, Google will be THE web and will control it’s foreseeable future.

It’s not that huge of a userbase. Pinterest is bigger. Twitter just have a disproportionate amount of celebrities, politicians and journalists addicted to the instant feedback and drama.

Elon is hooked and high on his own supply, so he seems incapable of understand what Twitter actually IS for most users and that “ego boosting machine for the rich and famous” is not a business plan.

Enshitification implies a degree of planning and success that he seems incapable of right now. And you can’t jump to step three without achieving steps one and two. Never good for (most of) the users, never good for the advertisers. Nothing to squeeze.

I mean, it has gone to shit, but it doesn’t seem intentional. Even in the best of circumstances these changes would not be better for the bottom line than just doing nothing.

“Prompt Engenieer” is one of the funniest thinks that have happened in the recent history of the world.

“Learn to ask questions to a prediction algorithm and get rich! Is the work of the future! Software engineers and writers will lose their jobs, but asking questions is an evergreen field!”

Dude, if the algorithm only understand correctly formatted input is a parser. We have those.