Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Starfield.
There seem to have been some pretty explosive outbursts from Bethesda fans online following a recent interview with studio head Todd Howard. Howard, who is also the director of the upcoming sequel to Skyrim, was quoted as saying that The Elder Scrolls VI is “still a long way off.” But we knew that already. Didn’t we?
I’m sorry, but if *anyone* genuinely believed that the next Elder Scrolls game was going to be launched next year… that’s on them. They set themselves up for disappointment by buying into a clearly and demonstrably false narrative about the game. This quote from Todd Howard shouldn’t come as a surprise, and to be honest, the only surprising thing about it for me is how genuinely hurt and upset some folks seem to be as a result. I guess that just proves that Todd Howard was right, for once, to try to tamp down some of the rumours and “cope” from die-hard fans about a release being imminent.
Todd Howard, director of The Elder Scrolls VI.
Starfield, Bethesda’s most recent game, took five years to make, with development lasting from 2018 to 2023. It launched in September 2023, and, to be realistic, much of Bethesda’s team was still dedicated to patching, updating, and preparing DLC for Starfield for at least a few months afterwards. We also know that Bethesda only works on one game at a time. We’ll get into that in a moment (because it’s an idiotic mistake for a studio this size at this point in time), but it’s also a known fact that fans should have accounted for. Knowing those two things – Starfield’s long development and Bethesda’s commitment to only working on one game at a time – how could *anyone* believe that The Elder Scrolls VI would be ready in just a couple of years? It’s going to take at least as long as Starfield; there’s no chance it’ll be ready in half the time. And if someone convinced themselves it would be… this is a rare case where I’ll defend Bethesda, to an extent, and say that that disappointment is on them.
There are plenty of things to criticise Bethesda and Todd Howard for. Fallout 4 is broken, and its “Anniversary Edition” is really just an excuse to shove paid mods and microtransactions into a decade-old game. Starfield and Shattered Space just… weren’t very good, and are also riddled with microtransactions that Bethesda deliberately hid during the game’s first few weeks on sale. The studio has failed to modernise or keep up with the competition, relying on the creaking, zombified remains of a three-decade-old game engine that is no longer fit for purpose. And, of course, The Elder Scrolls VI was announced years too early, contributing to the disappointment fans feel today.
Fallout 4′s “Anniversary Edition” has not been well-received.
I look at studios like Obsidian – once a Bethesda collaborator – as an example of how Bethesda could do so much better. Obsidian released not one but *two* massive role-playing games this year: Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2. How did they manage such a task? Well, isn’t it obvious? As they’ve gotten bigger and become more successful, they’ve been able to build up their studio a lot more, allowing them to have separate teams of developers for different projects. Bethesda could – and I would argue *should* – be looking to do the same thing.
Because it isn’t only Elder Scrolls fans who are upset. It’s now been a decade since the last single-player Fallout title, and at the current rate Bethesda is going, it’s gonna be close to *another* decade before we’ll see their version of Fallout 5. Fallout fans, already burned by the disappointments of 76 and now the “Anniversary Edition,” have every right to be upset about that – just as Elder Scrolls fans do about the long wait for their next game.
It’s been almost fifteen years since Skyrim…
So while I stand by what I said a moment ago, that any disappointment Elder Scrolls fans may feel about learning the game won’t be coming out any time soon is on them… that’s not the whole story. Bethesda has spent close to fifteen years repeatedly porting, remastering, re-releasing, and adding microtransactions to Skyrim, and the games they’ve released since then, beginning really with Fallout 4, haven’t been as well-received as they were in the 2000s. Bethesda should, after the Microsoft acquisition, have created a second development wing, and given either Starfield or The Elder Scrolls VI to them, allowing them to have both games ready in a more reasonable time frame.
Skyrim launched in November 2011. And by the time The Elder Scrolls VI launches in 2028 or 2029 (or beyond, perhaps), it’ll be closer to Skyrim’s twentieth anniversary than its fifteenth. In the intervening years, fans of role-playing games have been treated to the likes of The Witcher 3, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Elden Ring, and open-world adventures like Grand Theft Auto V (and VI), Red Dead Redemption II, and Cyberpunk 2077. And yeah, you read that right – in spite of all the memes and jokes, there’ll have been *two* Grand Theft Auto games released in between Skyrim’s 2011 launch and the eventual release of The Elder Scrolls VI.
There’ll have been two GTA games – V and VI – since Skyrim launched…
Given what happened with Starfield, with its lacklustre world-building, characters, and stories, I can’t be the only one thinking that The Elder Scrolls VI is going to struggle… can I? Bethesda seems content to double-down on the same basic approach, employing the same writing team, and using the same game engine. But isn’t that going to lead to the same kind of outcome? After all this time, is The Elder Scrolls VI going to end up as little more than a microtransaction-riddled disappointment? I hope not, but I confess that I’m sceptical. As I wrote last year, The Elder Scrolls VI is no longer a “must-buy on day one” title for me, but rather a “wait six months and see” kinda game.
There is clearly still a Bethesda fanbase, and at least some of those folks won’t care if the game feels a generation or two out-of-date, or the writing and voice acting aren’t up to par, because that “jankiness” is just part of what makes the Bethesda experience. So I’m not arguing that there’ll be no audience for The Elder Scrolls VI, but I think it’s interesting to note that, even among hard-core Bethesda fans, there’s discontent and disappointment – albeit that some of that disappointment, when it comes to the game’s release window, is rather self-inflicted!
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.
In 2002, I absolutely adored Morrowind, and it remains one of my favourite games to this day. But I’m struggling to get excited for another Bethesda game right now, even in a series I have a genuine fondness for, after a decade-plus of the studio focusing more on wringing money out of players than keeping up with the competition. Now that I no longer use PC Game Pass, I really don’t expect to pick up The Elder Scrolls VI until it’s been out for a while and I can assess to what extent it’s being monetised. If it looks anything like Starfield, which has a microtransaction marketplace that resembles something out of a free-to-play mobile game… I might not even pick it up at all.
So this has been an odd one. I will reluctantly defend Bethesda and Todd Howard on the timing of The Elder Scrolls VI, simply because anyone with a brain cell should have been able to understand that the game wasn’t going to be released in just a few months’ time. But at the same time, it’s still a problem of Bethesda’s own making: a massively premature announcement in 2018 led fans to believe that the game was being actively worked on, and the studio’s unwillingness to change and adapt the way it creates games means they’re *still* only working on one game at a time, despite having the resources to do more. After all, what else are they gonna spend all the money from Microsoft and those paid mods on?
All titles discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some screenshots and promo art courtesy of Steam and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’ve been a pretty big supporter of Xbox Game Pass (and PC Game Pass) since the service launched a few years ago, and I’ve been a subscriber to the PC version from almost the first moment it became available. I love the idea: a huge library of games, all available for one monthly price. As someone on a low income (and as someone who remembers what it was like to be a kid with only a few pennies to spend on gaming), Game Pass has been genuinely great value; an easy route into current-gen gaming for players on a budget.
What’s more, I’ve discovered games that I’d never have thought to buy or try for myself, thanks entirely to Game Pass. Some of those games – like Little Kitty, Big City last year and South of Midnight just a couple of months ago – are genuinely among the best titles I’ve played in the 2020s, and it’s only because of Game Pass that I was able to try them and enjoy them.
But unless Microsoft changes course, it’s time to cancel Game Pass.
It’s time to cancel Game Pass, unfortunately.
I play on PC, not console. The PC version of Game Pass, just over a year ago, went up in price from £7.99 here in the UK to £9.99 – a hike of 25%. That already felt a bit steep, but since I don’t have many other subscriptions, I begrudgingly accepted it. £10 a month still felt like reasonably good value for what I was getting from Game Pass; play two full-priced games a year, or four £30, double-A games, and it’s paid for itself. Right?
If you weren’t already aware, Microsoft has come back, not twelve months after the last price hike, and they’re doing it again. The PC version of Game Pass is rising from £9.99 to £13.49: a 35% increase on top of last year’s 25% increase. And that isn’t even the worst or most egregious price rise: the “Ultimate” Game Pass plan is rising by more than 50%, from £14.99 to a whopping £22.99 a month. At these prices… Game Pass no longer feels like a good value offer, unfortunately.
Game Pass prices are rising… by a lot.
And I really do say this with regret. Not only has Game Pass felt like a good value prospect until now, but it’s introduced me to some genuinely wonderful gaming experiences that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. Being able to log into the app, scroll through a huge list of titles, and see what leaps out at me has felt fantastic, and as I’ve said more than once: Game Pass has opened up a huge library of titles; more games than I’d ever be able to afford. When it was £7.99 – and even after last year’s significant rise to £9.99 – it felt like a good deal.
But I can’t accept the price of a single subscription rising by almost 70% in just thirteen months. And at £13.49 a month – or £162 a year – it’s become impossible to justify. There just aren’t that many games on the service that I’d want to play – and some, like RoadCraft, aren’t available on the PC version of Game Pass, for some reason. So… I think I’m done with Game Pass for now, unless Microsoft apologises and reverses this price hike.
How Microsoft imagines its customers…
I’ve believed for a long time that the subscription model would be the future of gaming. Just like Netflix did for films and TV programmes, and Spotify and others have done for music, something like Game Pass should be able to do for video games. Gaming is basically all-digital these days anyway, and the audience skews younger and more tech-savvy. A reasonably-priced subscription service – like Game Pass used to be – represents a genuinely good value proposition, an easy route into gaming, and should be the wave of the future. Compared to buying individual titles outright, either physically or digitally, a subscription which opens up a library of hundreds of titles should seem like good value.
But Microsoft is fucking it up.
Not only are the prices going up, but on the lower “tiers,” Microsoft is making Game Pass worse. No longer will all Xbox-published games join the service on day one. If you’re on an Xbox console, the only way you’ll get that particular perk is if you pay for Game Pass Ultimate, and if you’re on PC, the only way to get it is through the PC-only tier, for £13.49 a month. If you pay less, you don’t get those brand-new titles on day one, but “within a year.” That’s already a massive downgrade. Oh, and the venerable Call of Duty series? Those games aren’t included on day one any more.
That little asterisk could be important if you’re a lover of first-person shooters…
So… the price is going up. Unless you pay for the top-tier plan, you won’t get new games on day one. And the most popular series that Microsoft currently owns may not be part of Game Pass on day one even if you do pay the premium price. So… what’s the point of Game Pass, then?
Microsoft, like all big corporations, has to disclose its financial records. And in the twelve months leading up to June 2025 (the most recent data at time of writing), Microsoft made US$193 billion in profit. That represented a 14% increase over the previous twelve months. Compared with quite a few other big companies in the gaming space, whose profits have been relatively static since the end of lockdown, Microsoft has been doing phenomenally well. And the Xbox brand is a big part of that.
Microsoft has literally never been more profitable. Slides: Microsoft’s July 2025 Earnings Call.
Microsoft made more money last year than it has ever made before in its entire corporate existence. For the corporation to then turn around and announce price hikes of 50% – or, really, what is effectively 70% on PC – is just sickening. It’s beyond greedy, and even if a thousand new games were being added to the Game Pass library… it still wouldn’t be right. But Game Pass, as far as I can tell, is not actually getting a major expansion or much additional content that could even come close to justifying a price hike of this nature.
So… I’m gonna cancel. And I would encourage other folks in the same boat as me to do the same.
If Microsoft is willing to walk this back – and apologise – then maybe I’ll reconsider, because I have genuinely enjoyed having Game Pass over the last few years. But at this new price, it’s not worth it for me, and I could use my £162 a year in other ways – like buying games when they go on sale on Steam or Epic Games, for instance. I really did think that subscriptions are the direction of travel for gaming… but not like this.
A selection of Game Pass titles.
This is a catastrophic own goal from Microsoft that the corporation simply did not need to make. Game Pass has been profitable for a while, and even as the Xbox brand has struggled over the last couple of console generations, the growth in PC gaming, coupled with Game Pass, has seen Microsoft’s gaming division land on its feet. But increasing the price of a subscription by 70% in thirteen months is not something any consumer can or should accept – not when the corporation behind the price hike is making hundreds of billions of dollars a year – and still laying off boatloads of workers and closing game studios.
Maybe Microsoft wants to get out of the gaming market, and these moves are designed to push people away. Or maybe they really think they can just get away with it and that folks will brush off these inexplicably large price hikes. Maybe some people will – but if it’s true, as has been reported, that so many people are rushing to cancel their subscriptions that the Game Pass website crashed… I suspect a re-think of this price structure may be in order.
In any case, I’m cancelling this month, and unless Microsoft apologises and changes course, I won’t be rejoining Game Pass any time soon. I’m genuinely disappointed about that, because the subscription has been great until now (even though the Xbox app on PC isn’t spectacular). But this price hike is too much, so I’m going to do the only thing I can do as a consumer in this marketplace: vote with my wallet.
The Game Pass subscription service is available now for players on PC and Xbox game consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The first part of this review is free from major spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.
I’m late to the party with yet another review! South of Midnight was released back in April, but it somehow eluded me for a while. I noticed it on Game Pass – I’m a subscriber to the PC version – and I thought I’d give it a try based on little more than its art style. And you know what? I’m so glad I did!
South of Midnight is a great advertisement for Game Pass as a concept. This is a game I wouldn’t have bought for myself – and I might never have come to hear about – were it not included as part of the subscription. It’s entirely because of Game Pass that I’ve gotten to enjoy one of the best gaming experiences of 2025 so far; a genuine contender for my highly-coveted “game of the year” award. I continue to believe that Game Pass is a fantastic idea, especially for folks like myself on lower incomes where budgets are tight. And South of Midnight is the latest – and one of the best – examples of a game I discovered thanks to the platform that I wouldn’t have come across otherwise.
But enough about that – this isn’t meant to be a review of Game Pass.
I really enjoyed South of Midnight.
South of Midnight is an absolute delight. Its unique art style – which draws inspiration from cartoons of yesteryear and stop-motion films from the likes of Tim Burton – belies a dark Southern Gothic narrative, full of twists, complex characters, and nightmarish monsters. An engaging, relatable protagonist keeps the entire experience grounded, with a simple, understandable quest – even as things get progressively weirder! There are some incredible voice acting performances bringing a wonderfully diverse cast of characters to life, and a beautiful soundtrack that really leans into the music of the Southern United States and New Orleans in particular.
I found the game’s combat to be tough but fair – even though I had to turn down the difficulty at one point – and there’s enough enemy variety to keep things interesting. Boss battles are outstanding, too, with each boss having something unique to pose a new challenge. And the game rewarded exploring its beautiful and haunting levels with collectibles, points for levelling-up, and things to read which expanded the story and the lore. I had an incredibly fun time with South of Midnight, and it’s a game I’m happy to recommend to any fan of single-player adventure titles, narrative adventures, and really just gaming in general! If you have Game Pass already it’s an absolute no-brainer.
I think I’ve said all I can without touching on the story, so if you haven’t played South of Midnight yet, be aware that there will be some narrative spoilers from here on out.
This is the end of the spoiler-free section. Expect narrative spoilers for South of Midnight from this point.
In 2021, I named Kena: Bridge of Spirits my “game of the year.” And South of Midnight is giving me major Kena vibes in terms of how it plays, how its story is structured, and even the whole “healing the world” or “helping lost spirits” ideas that both games use. I absolutely mean that as a compliment; Kena: Bridge of Spirits is one of the best games of the last few years for me, so any title that can tap into that style or feel in any way reminiscent of it is doing a lot of things right!
3D platforming is something we don’t see enough of nowadays – and I really appreciated this aspect of South of Midnight. It’s a ton of fun to run, jump, climb, and swing through some truly beautiful levels, and there was a distinctively “old-school” feel to some of the game’s 3D platforming. At the same time, protagonist Hazel’s magical powers gave her a variety of ways to navigate these environments. Things like gliding, “rope” swinging, and double-jumping aren’t new by any means, but the way Hazel acquired these abilities felt unique and in keeping with the game’s story.
Hazel jumping onto a temporary platform.
As I indicated above, combat was challenging enough that I had to turn down the difficulty from normal to easy – but I’m usually an easy mode player, so that wasn’t a huge surprise. I liked how South of Midnight keeps combat encounters and exploration separate; combat arenas are pretty clearly marked, so you can’t just stumble into combat totally unprepared. One thing I thought was a bit silly, though, is that health never regenerated out of combat – if you were injured (or you had to respawn, losing a chunk of health in the process) there aren’t any healing potions or items. That meant the only way to heal was to locate a healing coil – which are only found in combat arenas.
The haints – South of Midnight’s enemies – were pretty varied and fun in terms of how they behaved. You got your usual ranged enemy, a couple of different brute variants, a healer, and a couple of others. With combat being quite fast-paced, and every enemy being a similar colour, maybe a little more visual variety wouldn’t have gone amiss! But that’s my only real criticism of the enemies; I liked the way they played.
A combat encounter.
Boss battles were fun – though a couple of them felt just a tad repetitive. This wasn’t because one boss felt the same as another, but rather within a couple of the boss battles – Two-Toed Tom the alligator and Kooshma, the final boss – the boss’ pattern would repeat. You’d be knocked down, you’d have to chase them or return to the arena, then after beating the next part of their health meter, you’d have to do it all over again. It wasn’t annoying per se, but it was a little repetitive to the point where I felt a couple of those boss battles were just a little padded. Either some changes could’ve been made to the way the bosses behaved, or maybe they could’ve been cut down from three rounds to two!
Each boss was, though, completely distinctive both visually and in terms of their battle arena, which was great. And mechanically, there were different ways to fight different bosses – like throwing bottles at Molly, or ringing the bell for Two-Toed Tom – rather than just repeating the same hit-hit-dodge pattern that some action games can fall into.
One of the boss battles.
I felt echoes of Hurricane Katrina in South of Midnight’s opening act. A hurricane coming in, sweeping away homes, floodwaters rising… I know there have been other hurricanes to hit the region both before and since Katrina, but the game’s story, with its Deep South setting, some jazz in the soundtrack, and references to New Orleans, definitely made me think of Katrina before any other hurricanes.
Many of the monsters and creatures in the game are inspired by real-world legends from the Mississippi Delta, Louisiana and the surrounding Southern region. The game weaved these into its narrative, building a world and lore based on the Southern United States – but with a dark twist. Often called “Southern Gothic,” this style of storytelling blends Gothic horror with Southern ideas, characters, and themes – and it’s been a popular subgenre for a while. South of Midnight is the first video game I’ve played to lean into the genre in such an overt and profound way, though.
Hazel in a New Orleans-inspired town near the end of the game.
Hazel made for a great protagonist. With so many hares and rabbits running around, though, I can’t be the only one who thought of Watership Down… can I? Gosh, that film is burned into my mind! To get back on topic, Hazel was a wonderfully relatable protagonist, and her core storyline of wanting to find her mother – her sole surviving parent – after the hurricane was intense and emotional. Hazel could occasionally chatter too much, with a handful of lines of dialogue feeling out of place or just weirdly-timed, but for the most part, I really enjoyed her story.
Hazel’s journey saw her grow in power – as her quest to find her mother was repeatedly derailed by her grandmother, various monsters, and deep dives into her family history and the history of the area around her hometown! The way Hazel unlocked her powers and equipment felt natural, and South of Midnight did a great job of building this up and pairing newfound powers with levels and enemies that allowed me as the player to go to town with them. The powers were well-integrated with gameplay, providing a narrative reason for everything from combat to wall-running… and when Hazel was temporarily stripped of most of her powers late in the game, I felt a profound sense of vulnerability after having gotten used to having them!
Concept art/renders of Hazel. Image: Xbox/Compulsion Games
I thought one of the themes of the story was going to be grief: that Hazel was, ultimately, going to have to come to terms with the loss of both of her parents. Having been in that position myself, I was curious to see how that theme might play out across the story. However, I was pleasantly surprised by a happy ending – with Hazel’s journey to reunite with her mother ending on a positive note. A post-credits scene even implied at Lacey and Laurent had rekindled their relationship, which was doubly sweet.
The narrative leaned on the history of the American South in a big way. Although I’m not from the United States, the American Civil War and its associated issues are an interest of mine, having read history at university. Seeing these very personal tales of how slavery in the antebellum South impacted individual people was gritty, emotional, and incredibly impactful. Hazel, her mother, and many of the people she met on her adventure were African Americans, and the game didn’t try to shy away from the history of slavery or the legacy it still carries on the descendants of enslaved people. Some players might find that uncomfortable – but that’s the point.
The game wrangles with slavery and its lasting legacy.
There were a couple of points, though, where I felt the narrative wasn’t perfect. This is a story about trauma, right? More specifically, how trauma lingers if we bottle it up, and how that only makes it worse. Compulsion Games specifically describes South of Midnight as a game about healing. So why, then, do we barely see any of the aftermath of Hazel’s healing? I felt this most significantly at two points: after the battle against Huggin’ Molly, when a brief storybook line said that Itchy would care for the lost children, and right at the end when Bunny realised that Hazel had interfered and helped Cherie.
Both of these moments were the culmination of a lifetime for their respective characters, but Itchy and the children weren’t even shown on screen, and Bunny was mildly angry for a moment, then disappeared. We could also say the same about Rhubarb and Jolene – after going through hell to help unweave or unravel their traumatic past, we didn’t see the results of that for either of them. Rhubarb – who murdered his own brother – didn’t get closure, comeuppance, or… anything. Hazel and South of Midnight just left him behind.
Itchy’s story didn’t get a proper ending, I felt.
Often when I’m playing a narrative adventure, I want to move the story along and see what’s going to come next. But South of Midnight’s beautiful levels rewarded exploration – and they were tight enough that going off the beaten path didn’t feel like a time-sink or too much of a detour. There were good reasons to explore: both to pad out the story, the world, and the lore by learning more about the history of the region, the characters, and the events, and to upgrade Hazel’s health and skills. I don’t think I found every health upgrade, but I acquired more than enough upgrade points to max out Hazel’s skill tree and upgrade all of her powers.
The readables and other bits of lore-building were great, too, and Hazel always had something to say when discovering a new note or inscription. These little things added a lot to the story in all of the levels. There were heartbreaking messages from kids who’d gone hungry, appealing to a spider-demon for sweets and food. There were gut-wrenching messages about escaping slavery. And there were mementos from Hazel and Lacey’s life, too. All of them were interesting, well-written, and helped build up the narrative experience.
One of the readable messages.
I wanted to say more about South of Midnight’s soundtrack in the spoiler-free section, but most of the songs – which are all original compositions for the game – reference events and characters! The soundtrack is an eclectic mix from across the Deep South: there’s New Orleans jazz on tracks like Rougarou and Roux, Americana or folk on Two-Toed Tom and Benjy, blues for Shakin’ Bones, Life is a Fight to be Won is an acoustic ballad… and throughout the game there are pieces inspired by a variety of genres, as well as a capella music common to enslaved peoples. Some of the tracks are truly haunting, others are upbeat and fun – and they all fit the game just right.
My golden rule for any video game soundtrack is “do no wrong;” i.e. the music shouldn’t clash with or get in the way of the adventure. But it’s rare for me to find a soundtrack quite so emotional and enjoyable as South of Midnight. I’d be happy to add several of these tracks to my playlist to listen to again – which, again, is something very rare for me.
The game has a wonderful soundtrack.
I loved South of Midnight’s art style. But I gotta be honest about something, given its prominence in the game’s marketing material: I didn’t really feel a lot of the “stop-motion” effect. The visuals were clearly drawing on designs and aesthetics from stop-motion films – like those by Tim Burton, for instance – as well as other animated works. But in terms of the way South of Midnight actually looked during gameplay sequences, I didn’t get a ton of “stop-motion” most of the time. Cut-scenes were a different story, with all of them going much more on the stop-motion effects. And there were some moments in the game where I felt the stop-motion effect a bit more strongly; some of Hazel’s idle animations, some of the animals in the environment, and the spiky bramble plants, for instance.
Occasionally, the stop-motion animation could feel a little jittery or jumpy, as if some frames were missing during some sequences. Because it wasn’t a particularly strong visual effect throughout the game, I didn’t mind it. But given how South of Midnight was basically billed as “the stop-motion game,” I must confess that I expected that style to shine through a bit more strongly. Maybe if it had I’d have hated it – and it was a wise decision to include an option to turn it off! But it’s equally plausible that I’d have actually enjoyed seeing South of Midnight really lean into that kind of animation style, and I’m a tad disappointed that there wasn’t a slider or some other option to really dial it up.
The stop-motion effect was most noticeable in cut-scenes.
Hazel’s cuddly companion – Crouton – made for a fun additional gameplay element. Being able to seize control of an enemy made battles feel a bit more fun and tactical; having to choose when to use that power (which has a slow recharge rate) added a bit of strategic thinking. And it’s always fun to have a companion who can fight by your side!
Crouton also dived into burrows, often finding cute animals going about their business. This is another legend: many cultures have tales of “borrowers” living in the walls or underground, taking unwanted things. The burrows were usually fun little places to visit, and reminded me of a bunch of cartoons and kids books – like the aforementioned Watership Down – that featured animals or saw characters visiting these kinds of places. Some of Crouton’s burrows could feel a bit too straightforward – with one clearly-marked route from end to end. That would be my only real criticism.
Crouton.
I’m not usually a fan of waypoints or quest markers in games; I like to explore at my own pace, and a giant arrow telling me where to go can get annoying! But I like the way South of Midnight uses directional indicators – they’re temporary and optional, meaning if you never want to see them you never have to, but they’re there if you need to be pointed in the right direction. And narratively, the way this fit with the game’s Weave and Grand Tapestry ideas made a lot of sense.
Some games just give you a waypoint, a quest marker, and so on without explaining how or why you’ve got this magical ability to see exactly where you need to go! But in South of Midnight it blended in perfectly with Hazel’s other magical abilities, which is something I really appreciated.
I liked the way the game handled waypoints.
So I think that’s it.
If it wasn’t clear already, I adored South of Midnight. It’s one of the best games I’ve played so far this year, and it’s absolutely a contender for one of my end-of-year gaming awards – possibly even the “game of the year” title. But you’ll have to swing by in late December to see if it makes the cut; there are still a few months to go!
Sometimes when you put the control pad down after an intense or emotional game, you can feel a little hollow. South of Midnight was one of those games that I didn’t want to end… but at the same time I was keen to follow the story to its conclusion and see what was going to happen to Hazel and the rest of the characters. It was well-written, generally well-paced, beautifully designed, and just a fantastic all-around experience.
A happy ending.
If you liked Kena: Bridge of Spirits, or similar titles, I really think you’ll enjoy South of Midnight. And if you have Game Pass either on PC or Xbox, it’s almost a no-brainer to fire it up and at least give it a try. I really had a wonderful time going on this adventure with Hazel.
So what game might I try next? There are still a few interesting titles to come later this year – I’ve got my eye on Mafia: The Old Country and Terminator 2D: No Fate. And I should really try Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, which I’ve installed but haven’t started yet. And now that Firaxis has had a chance to patch and update Civilization VII, maybe I should jump back in and see what’s new! There’s a lot of gaming content still to come here on the website, though, so I hope you’ll stick around.
South of Midnight is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X. The game is also available via Xbox Game Pass and PC Game Pass. South of Midnight is the copyright of Compulsion Games, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The recent cancellations and studio shutdowns in the games industry – and at Xbox in particular – got me thinking. There are a lot of games that just never made it to the launchpad for one reason or another, and some of them sounded genuinely fantastic. Given how poor a lot of corporate decisions are, I don’t buy the argument that “any cancelled game would’ve been bad; that’s why they cancelled it!!1!” – which is something some armchair critics like to say. That seems to be a bit of a “cope;” a way to brush off the cancellation of a title that could’ve been a ton of fun.
So today, we’re going to take a look at ten cancelled games that I really wish had seen the light of day.
You don’t have to tell me, I already know the argument: some of these games might’ve been crap, and maybe there were good reasons behind their cancellations. Noted. Got it. We don’t need to go over that again!
Let’s talk about some cancelled games.
If I may suggest the obvious counter-point: some of these games might’ve been good! Some of the titles on this list seem to have been cancelled not for any reasons pertaining to quality, but for financial reasons, changes in priorities, or studios and intellectual property changing hands. Those things have next to nothing to do with the actual game, and while it’s true that not every decent-sounding cancelled game would’ve been great… I still wish we’d been able to see them and judge the finished products for ourselves.
As always, everything we’re gonna talk about is the entirely subjective, not objective opinion of just one person. If I highlight a game you think sounded awful, or ignore a title you think is obvious on a list like this… that’s okay. There ought to be enough room in the gaming community for differences of opinion. The games are listed in no particular order.
With that out of the way, let’s jump into the list.
Cancelled Game #1: Agent (a.k.a. Rockstar’s Agent) Early 2010s
The game’s logo.
Agent was first teased in 2007 by Sony, purportedly as a PlayStation 3 exclusive from Rockstar Games. Further details weren’t announced until 2009, when it emerged that the title would feature a secret agent in a 1970s Cold War setting. Obviously, the first point of comparison was James Bond, and that was more than enough to pique my curiosity! I didn’t own a PlayStation 3 until late in the console’s life, but Agent was perhaps the title I was most interested in after The Last Of Us.
Rockstar went radio-silent on Agent for years after the 2009 announcement. Occasional “leaks” would emerge, but there was nothing concrete. Rockstar’s parent company, Take-Two, renewed the “Agent” trademark twice, and seemed to imply to investors as late as 2013 that the game was still being worked on. However, another 2013 project, Grand Theft Auto V (and its online mode in particular), seems to have redirected Rockstar’s development resources.
One of the leaked screenshots.
By 2015, the project seems to have been abandoned, and I really do believe that Rockstar’s change of focus to Grand Theft Auto Online is the main culprit. Comments from at least one former Rockstar developer suggest that team members were reassigned from Agent to support Grand Theft Auto V after 2013, with the popular and financially successful online mode clearly being more of a priority for Rockstar and Take-Two.
It wouldn’t be the last project Rockstar would sacrifice at the altar of Grand Theft Auto Online. A single-player expansion was planned but never released, Red Dead Redemption II’s online mode was ignored when it failed to generate the same kind of revenue as GTA’s, and you better believe we’d have seen Grand Theft Auto VI, and perhaps other Rockstar titles – like a sequel to Bully – if the studio hadn’t gone all-in on GTA Online after 2013. Agent seemed like it had the potential to live up to stealth-action titles like GoldenEye and the Hitman series, and its ’70s setting sounded particularly fun.
Cancelled Game #2: Star Trek: First Contact 1998-ish
A game based on First Contact? Cool!
MicroProse created one of my favourite games ever: 1997’s Star Trek: Generations. Yes, the game is a pretty basic “Doom clone,” and yes it came out three years too late… but it was a ton of fun to play through an expanded version of the Generations story, with little connections to other episodes from The Next Generation. MicroProse had the Star Trek license in the mid-late 1990s, and after releasing Generations in 1997, the studio began work on an adaptation of First Contact.
For an action game or a first-person shooter, you could hardly pick a better Star Trek story than First Contact! Battling the Borg on the lower decks of the Enterprise-E, teaming up with Picard and the crew… it could have been a genuinely fun and exciting Star Trek experience. I doubt First Contact would’ve really crossed over to the mainstream and brought in a bunch of new fans… but you never know. A few years later, Elite Force managed to do just that.
A leaked screenshot of an early build of the game.
MicroProse’s financial problems seem to have impacted its ability to work on this game, though. The studio planned to use the then-new Unreal Engine, which would’ve allowed for better graphics and fully 3D models (Generations used a much older engine designed for DOS games that relied on 2D sprites for the most part). The jump in quality would’ve been noticeable, and First Contact could’ve been a good-looking game by 1998 standards!
A title based on First Contact is still one of my fantasy Star Trek games all these years later. Retaking the lower decks of the Enterprise-E, battling the Borg in close quarters, and perhaps having to rely on hand-to-hand combat and thrown-together weaponry… it just sounds so tense and exciting! It could also be a great horror-tinged game, with the Borg being a genuinely difficult and frightening antagonist. There was a ton of potential here, and it seems as if the game was cancelled through no fault of its own.
Cancelled Game #3: Super Mario 128 1997-99
Whee!
A sequel to Super Mario 64 was planned for the Nintendo 64’s disc drive accessory – but the hardware failure led to the game’s cancellation. There’s a bit of confusion surrounding this title, because Super Mario 128 also refers to a completely different project that was in early development for the GameCube! But the 64DD version would have been much closer to Super Mario 64 than Mario Sunshine.
Originally, Super Mario 64 was supposed to include multiplayer, with the second player being able to control Luigi via split-screen gameplay. It sounds like Super Mario 128 was going to pick up this idea, using the 64DD’s more powerful capabilities to include a two-player mode. Luigi was confirmed by developer Shigeru Miyamoto to have been part of the project throughout its development, and rumours have suggested that Peach’s castle from Super Mario 64 would’ve returned as a location.
Luigi would eventually be playable in Super Mario 64 DS.
Another idea that Miyamoto supposedly had for Super Mario 128 was spherical levels or environments. We’d eventually see this idea in Super Mario Galaxy a decade later, but I’ve always wondered what it might’ve looked like if even one level had been like that back in the Nintendo 64 era! A direct sequel to the events of Super Mario 64, perhaps re-using and upgrading some of the same levels and environments just sounds like a lot of fun, and having a two-player couch co-op mode with Luigi and Mario together would have been fantastic.
Ultimately, the failure of the 64DD doomed this version of Super Mario 128. It seems that Nintendo kept the name, for a time, and the project was either switched to the GameCube or a new GameCube project was created with the same name shortly after the turn of the millennium. Elements of Super Mario 128 have appeared in several 3D Mario games over the years, including spherical levels in Galaxy and a return to Peach’s castle in Odyssey.
Cancelled Game #4: Perfect Dark Reboot Late 2020s
The game’s logo.
After showing off Perfect Dark just a few months ago with an action-packed, exciting trailer… Microsoft and Xbox have now cancelled the project. Not only that, but the studio Xbox had created specifically to build Perfect Dark has been completely shut down and its staff have largely been laid off by Microsoft. This feels like a pretty shocking turn of events, and I think it’s a colossal disappointment that we aren’t going to get the promised Perfect Dark reboot.
Perfect Dark was Rare’s follow-up to the smash hit GoldenEye on the Nintendo 64, taking the same gameplay style but transposing it to a corporate-dystopia futuristic setting. Protagonist Joanna Dark was compelling, and the game was just a ton of fun both in single-player and multiplayer back in the Nintendo 64 days.
A glimpse at the game.
There aren’t that many single-player-focused first-person shooters any more. There’s id’s Doom series, and occasionally a title like Deathloop will come along, but for the most part, modern FPS titles focus almost exclusively on lucrative multiplayer modes that can be monetised to death. Perfect Dark represented something different – a bit “old school,” for want of a better term – in a modern gaming landscape dominated by those kinds of titles. And at a time when Microsoft’s biggest FPS franchise, Halo, has been flailing around, Perfect Dark could’ve been a much-needed boost. Heck, if it was good enough it could’ve even eclipsed Halo, taking Xbox in a different direction.
The gameplay that we saw a few months ago is real – though it was a “vertical slice” of a very incomplete game at the time it was produced. There really did seem to be a lot of potential in a return to this series and this style of first-person shooter. Maybe there were more problems behind-the-scenes than we’ve learned so far, and maybe Perfect Dark was just taking too long to be ready. But it’s a disappointment that we’ll never get to see it for ourselves.
Cancelled Game #5: TimeSplitters 4 Late 2000s
An early version of the game’s logo.
TimeSplitters 2 is genuinely one of my favourite games of its era. Fun, fast-paced, with a unique story and art style… it was just a blast to play either alone or with friends. A third TimeSplitters game was also well-received – though I didn’t play that one for myself! Developers Free Radical Design announced that a fourth entry in the series was coming, but then they switched to develop the critically-panned Haze.
Haze’s failure seems to be what doomed TimeSplitters 4. Free Radical Design went into administration, and although it was initially announced that TimeSplitters 4 might be able to be saved, it didn’t happen. The studio was shut down, and the TimeSplitters license eventually ended up at Embracer Group after passing through several other hands.
The Chicago level from TimeSplitters 2.
TimeSplitters’ unique level design – jumping through different time periods and using weapons from those eras – made it something a bit different, and there was something about its fast-paced gameplay, especially in multiplayer, that was just plain fun. I have wonderful memories of playing TimeSplitters 2 on the original Xbox with friends, kicking back after work with a game that was different from anything else on the market and just really entertaining to play. The single-player campaign was great, too.
TimeSplitters 4 feels all the more disappointing because the game seemed, for a brief period in the early 2020s, to be getting a reprieve. However, a second cancellation was confirmed a couple of years ago, with the resurrected Free Radical being shut down for a second time. Again, this seems not to have been the fault of TimeSplitters 4, but rather due to issues within parent company Embracer Group.
Cancelled Game #6: Shenmue III 2003-ish
Is this what Shenmue III would’ve looked like circa 2002?
Before you get angry and start screaming at me that “Shenmue III came out in 2019!!1!” – I know. I’m not talking about that version of the game. What I’m lamenting is that the original Shenmue saga couldn’t be continued on the Dreamcast, and that fans had to wait almost twenty years for a sequel to Shenmue II that wasn’t what it was originally supposed to be. If the Dreamcast had been a success and Shenmue III had been created in the early 2000s, it would have certainly been a different game – and probably a longer one, too.
There were rumours back in the day that Shenmue and Shenmue II could’ve been ported to the PlayStation 2 after the Dreamcast’s demise… and that could’ve also been something that saved the series. I firmly believe that the Shenmue saga is one of the best stories ever told in the medium, and it’s positively criminal that it’s never been concluded. There were chances in the early 2000s to salvage the Shenmue project, but its reputation, high pricetag, and connection to the failed Dreamcast all counted against it… as did the second game’s low sales.
Shenhua and Ryo.
If Shenmue had continued, one way or another, in 2003 instead of 2019, I think we’d have gotten a much larger game for starters. And without the intervening couple of decades, this version of Shenmue III would undoubtedly have been closer to fans’ expectations – and possibly exceeded them. One of the reasons Shenmue III felt disappointing to some fans, in my opinion, is that the 2019 version wasn’t able to take advantage of years’ worth of changes and improvements in game design.
Shenmue III in the early 2000s would’ve also been a stepping-stone – one part of an unfolding story. I can’t speak for every Shenmue fan, but I genuinely expected the crowdfunded 2019 game would conclude the game’s main story. It didn’t – and that alone convinced me not to even buy it at first. But in 2003, that would’ve been a non-issue, so even if the story and settings of Shenmue III had been exactly the same, I believe the game would’ve been far better-received. Unfortunately, Shenmue was a masterpiece that was, in many ways, ahead of its time. Players in the early 2000s weren’t as interested in what the first two games had to offer, and the Dreamcast’s shaky position in a market that was about to be dominated by the PlayStation 2 sealed its fate.
Cancelled Game #7: Life By You 2024-26
One of the game’s promo images.
Life By You was one of a handful of Sims-inspired life simulator games that were all in development at the same time in the 2020s. And it was probably the one that appealed the most to me! Electronic Arts has monetised The Sims 4 to death – it costs, at time of writing, more than £1,300 to buy all of the available add-ons and expansions for that game. That’s a consequence of EA having the life-sim genre basically all to itself for years. Titles like Life By You threatened to change that.
I don’t know what Life By You’s monetisation might’ve looked like. Developer and publisher Paradox is not exactly known for being light on the DLC with its grand strategy games, many of which have DLC totals that can run to several hundred pounds. But I think competition in the life-sim genre is a good thing, and as someone who enjoyed The Sims in the early 2000s, I was definitely interested to see what another big studio could’ve done with the same basic gameplay idea.
This looks like it would’ve been the game’s build mode.
inZOI and Paralives are two other new life simulators that are both coming out soon, though I would note that inZOI’s early access seems to have been a little *too* early! But both of those games are by smaller teams – and while there’s nothing wrong in the slightest with smaller studios, new studios, and indie developers, the bigger name behind Life By You was at least part of the draw, in my opinion. I’m still very interested in those other games, and I hope they both give The Sims 4 a run for its money! But if they don’t, or if they aren’t as good as people are hoping, I really think we’ll come to regret the cancellation of Life By You.
We don’t know what happened behind-the-scenes, but Paradox put out a statement saying that “a version we’d be happy with was too far away,” seeming to indicate that development was not progressing at a pace the publishing side of the company was happy with. It’s worth noting that Paradox was able to write off a significant portion of the game’s development costs against its annual income… which may have also been a factor in the game’s cancellation. Paradox also called the game “high risk,” and claimed in a meeting with investors that they’d be less likely to invest in similar titles in the future.
Cancelled Game #8: Whore of the Orient 2013-16
The only image of the game that ever leaked.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way: that’s a horrible title for a video game! But setting the title aside, Whore of the Orient sounded genuinely interesting. It was the brainchild of the people behind L.A. Noire, the police investigation game published by Rockstar in 2011. Team Bondi was eventually rolled into a new studio to develop Whore of the Orient, but most of the senior team stayed to work on the project.
Whore of the Orient would’ve made use of the same facial capture technology as L.A. Noire, but targeting a PlayStation 4/Xbox One release, I think we’d have seen some noticeable improvements on that front. The game was to be set in Shanghai in the 1930s, with political intrigue, the rise of communism, and criminal gangs. We don’t know much more about its story, but that premise sounds like something genuinely different, and potentially very engaging.
Whore of the Orient would’ve been set in Shanghai, circa 1930s. Photo: Shanghai, 1927
We haven’t seen another game quite like L.A. Noire, and I’d have loved to see what the original developers could’ve done with the improved hardware of the PlayStation 4 generation. L.A. Noire hasn’t really aged well, with its facial capture stuff feeling just a bit too janky, but the same technology running on more advanced hardware could’ve really been something special.
As to the story, there aren’t any games I can recall that are set in 1930s China, so that alone would’ve made it stand out. We don’t know why the game was cancelled, only that parent company KMM Interactive pulled the plug sometime between the final update on the project, which was in 2013, and June 2016, when the news was belatedly announced to the public. Perhaps the story never came together, maybe the technology wasn’t working right, or maybe the game got too big and ambitious for its budget. In any case, it’s disappointing that the L.A. Noire folks didn’t get a second chance to tell a different story.
Cancelled Game #9: Half-Life 2, Episode Three and Half-Life 3 Late 2000s
Promotional art for Episode Three.
Half-Life 3 has become a meme at this point; the ultimate example of a video game that we’re never gonna play! But there was a time when either Episode Three or a full Half-Life 3 were very much on the agenda. But that was before developers Valve decided to dedicate all of their time to Steam, Dota 2, and the Counter-Strike series. As above with Perfect Dark, there’s a gap in the market for single-player first-person games, and the Half-Life series should be well-positioned to fill it.
Half-Life’s story is incomplete. Worse, it just… ends. There’s no conclusion for any of the characters or storylines, just a big, almost twenty-year-long void. And at this stage, despite occasional rumours… I don’t think the Half-Life series would print money in the way the first two titles did. It’s been too long, a whole new generation of players have come along who don’t even know that Valve used to make games, and quite honestly, I’m sceptical about Valve having the talent to produce a top-tier single-player game after so much time has passed.
A leaked screenshot of an early build of Episode Three.
There was that VR game a couple of years ago, and rumours occasionally fly about a potential new Half-Life title. Valve, unlike many of the other developers on this list, is still around – and still printing money hand over fist thanks to Steam. But the company’s focus has changed, and I don’t think most of the folks there are interested in another entry in the Half-Life series. It’s just sad that such an interesting setting and cast of characters can’t get any kind of conclusion, and it’s frustrating that there’s not really a good reason. If the studio had closed or if the previous entries in the series had flopped… fair enough. But Half-Life is held in high esteem and Valve clearly has the resources to invest. They just never did.
I also think we’re at a point now, for fans of the series, where any new game would struggle to meet expectations. It’s been so long, and Half-Life 3 has seen its status massively inflated, so any announcement would generate insane levels of hype. No game – no matter how good – could realistically reach the heights players would set for a new Half-Life… so maybe it’s better this way?
Cancelled Game #10: Star Wars: Project Ragtag Mid-2010s
Concept art for the game.
After the Walt Disney Company acquired LucasFilm in 2012, they also acquired the game studio LucasArts… and promptly shut it down. Disney handed the Star Wars license to Electronic Arts, who commissioned Dead Space developer Visceral Games to create a Star Wars third-person adventure game. Project Ragtag was being helmed by Amy Hennig, who had written and directed the Uncharted trilogy. Everything seemed to be coming together, and a genuinely great Star Wars game was in the offing.
But in 2017, EA didn’t just cancel the game, they closed down Visceral Games as well. According to Hennig, this decision was taken months before the team was made aware of it, and EA apparently planned to re-use some of the work Visceral had done for a rebooted open-world title. That project never saw the light of day, either.
An early build of an in-game environment.
Project Ragtag was supposedly a “heist game,” being set sometime during the events of the original Star Wars trilogy. Last year’s Star Wars Outlaws sounds kind of similar in theory, and I think that’s a good starting point, at least, when considering what Project Ragtag might’ve felt like to play. I’ve long argued for more stories set in the Star Wars universe that don’t just rely on the Jedi and Sith or on bringing back familiar faces, and I felt Project Ragtag had the potential to be a wonderfully engaging experience.
The director and studio both had pedigree, so there were plenty of reasons to be optimistic. Maybe the game wasn’t coming together… or maybe Electronic Arts was desperate for open-world, always-online multiplayer titles that seemed like better monetisation prospects in the second half of the 2010s. EA would go on to publish Jedi: Fallen Order a few years later, though, so maybe they learned their lesson!
So that’s it.
A selection of Mega Drive/Genesis games.
We’ve talked about ten cancelled games that I really wish we’d been able to play!
Some of these have been sore spots for decades; others are new, but still sting. Sometimes a game being cancelled does ultimately lead to something better, either because the creative folks move on to different projects, or even because some of the work done on a title can be repurposed. But there’s no point in denying it: a game I’m looking forward to getting cancelled just hurts.
There are a few titles where cancellation feels reasonable under the circumstances or may have been expected. Some games sound too good to be true and may have proven too ambitious, or just didn’t come together in the way their developers hoped. These things happen, and as I’ve said before: game development is not a sure-fire thing. There can be all manner of reasons why a decent-sounding project struggles when the concept comes up against the real world.
Game development is not a straightforward process!
But all of these games sounded good to me, and I regret that they were cancelled before I could try them! As someone who follows the games industry – and who spent a decade working on the inside – I keep up to date with upcoming games, and even allow myself to get excited, sometimes! That inevitably brings with it a degree of disappointment when a title either doesn’t live up to expectations, or doesn’t even make it to release.
I hope this hasn’t been too depressing. And who knows: maybe some of these games will get a reprieve one day. If Age of Empires IV can be developed sixteen years after Age of Empires III, or a new 3D Donkey Kong game can launch in 2025 – more than a quarter of a century after Donkey Kong 64 – then maybe there’s still hope!
All titles listed above may still be in copyright with their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. Some screenshots and images courtesy of IGDB, DJ Cube, and Shenmue Dojo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Beware spoilers for the following games: Batman: Arkham Knight, Mass Effect 3, Halo Infinite, and The Last of Us Part II.
Microsoft’s latest round of layoffs has really hammered home how shaky some parts of the games industry feel as the 2020s roll along. Big games – like the remake of Perfect Dark, Rare’s long-awaited Everwild, and an unnamed title from ZeniMax Online – have all been canned as Microsoft “restructures” its gaming division… despite making literally more money than it ever has in its corporate existence. And all of this comes after some ridiculous studio closures barely twelve months ago. But the Xbox situation got me thinking… which other games and studios could be in danger?
So that rather depressing topic is what we’re going to tackle today. To be clear: I don’t think the entire games industry is heading for some kind of repeat of the 1983 “crash.” Gaming is too big nowadays, and there are so many people playing games, that the idea of gaming as a whole ever disappearing or experiencing that kind of huge slowdown just doesn’t seem feasible anymore. So to reiterate that last point: I am not predicting an industry-wide “crash.” But there are multiple publishers and developers that I believe are in danger – and one badly-received game could, in some cases, lead to their exit from the industry altogether.
This piece was prompted by the Microsoft and Xbox news, but it’s not only Microsoft-owned studios that could be on the chopping block. There are issues at outfits owned by Sony, too, as well as third-party publishers and developers.
Xbox just announced another round of layoffs.
A few caveats before we go any further. Firstly, if you or someone you know works at one of these companies, please know that I don’t mean this as any kind of attack or slight against you or the quality of your work. This industry can be brutal, and as a commentator/critic, what I’m doing is sharing my view on the situation. What I’m categorically *not* doing is saying any of these companies “should” be shut down. I really don’t want to see more people in the industry put out of work. I spent a decade working in the games industry, and I worked for companies that went through tough times. I know what it’s like to feel like your job is on the line… and the last thing I want to do is rub salt in the wound or make things worse.
Secondly, I have no “insider information” from any of these developers or publishers. I’m looking in from the outside as someone who hasn’t worked in the industry for more than a decade at this point. Finally, all of this is the entirely subjective, not objective, opinion of just one person. If you disagree with my take, think I’ve got it wrong, or you’re just convinced that a company’s next game is sure to be an absolute banger… that’s totally okay. Gamers can be an argumentative lot sometimes, but I like to believe there’s enough room in the wider community for polite discussion and differences of opinion.
With all of that out of the way, let’s get started.
Endangered Studio #1: Halo Studios
Is the long-running Halo series in trouble?
Halo Studios, formerly known as 343 Industries, is Microsoft’s in-house development team working on the Halo franchise. But… well, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that 343/Halo Studios has never released a *big* hit. The closest they’ve come, in more than a decade, was remastering the original Halo games… and even then, we have to give the huge caveat of the bugs and performance issues that plagued early versions of the remasters.
Whether we look at Halo 4, Halo 5, Halo Infinite, the Halo Wars spin-off, or the mobile games… Halo Studios hasn’t exactly taken the gaming world by storm. Infinite was supposed to be the Xbox Series X’s “killer app;” a launch title to really sell people on the new console and make it a must-buy, just as the original Halo: Combat Evolved had done some twenty years earlier. That didn’t happen, and the reception to that game – including from yours truly – was pretty mixed.
The cancellation of the TV adaptation won’t help.
Although Halo Studios has been hit by Microsoft’s layoffs in recent weeks, and a recent leak suggested that “no one at the studio is happy” with the state of their next title right now, I still think Xbox will give them another chance. The Halo series and Xbox are inseparable, at least in the minds of some players, and the name recognition and series reputation still count for something. But I don’t think those things will count indefinitely, so if the next Halo game isn’t a smash hit, Halo Studios will be in trouble.
This also comes after the failure of the Halo TV series. I happened to think the show was decent for what it was, but I understand where a lot of the criticism was coming from. That hasn’t helped Halo Studios’ case, though, and one of the best opportunities to grow the brand was squandered.
As a final note: every story has a natural end. I would suggest, perhaps, that Halo – or at least the Master Chief’s story – has pushed past that point. Recent narratives felt overly complicated, and I felt that Halo Studios was having to invent increasingly silly reasons for why the Master Chief was still fighting the Covenant and the Flood. Maybe the franchise just needs a break?
Endangered Studio #2: Ubisoft
Ubisoft publishes the Assassin’s Creed series, among others.
Ubisoft hasn’t been in great shape for quite some time. I think it’s fair to say that Ubisoft’s open world level design has stagnated, and a lot of players have kind of hit the wall when it comes to that style of game. But because the studio has doubled-down on that formula and that way of making games… it might be hard to find a way back.
Ubisoft has slapped its open world style on franchises like Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Avatar, and even Star Wars… but many recent games have felt pretty repetitive; the same thing every time, just with a different coat of paint. I’m on the record saying that the open world formula doesn’t work for a lot of games, and although I don’t play a ton of Ubisoft titles… I think the repetitiveness of their games is a contributing factor, at least. Open worlds can be fun, but they can also be bloated and uninspired.
Star Wars: Outlaws wasn’t particularly well-received.
Earlier in 2025, a lot of folks seemed to be saying that Ubisoft’s financial situation basically meant that Assassin’s Creed: Shadows was the company’s “last chance.” I’m not sure I’d have gone that far myself; there are clearly other projects in the pipeline that at least have some potential. But Shadows seems to have been a modest success, at least, which has probably bought the company some time. A remake of the popular Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag could be a much-needed boost, too, if it succeeds at grabbing a new audience.
But in the longer-term, Ubisoft needs to try new things. Its open world formula worked for a while, but repetitiveness and stagnation seem to have crept in. There are only so many open world “collect-a-thons” that anyone can be bothered to play, and if it feels like the same game is just being given a new skin every time… that’s not a lot of fun, in the end. Just Dance can’t keep the company afloat forever, so something’s gotta change, and soon.
I’m still crossing my fingers for that Splinter Cell remake, though!
Endangered Studio #3: Nintendo
Nintendo recently launched the Switch 2 console.
Bear with me on this. Nintendo is a titan of the games industry… but it’s also a more vulnerable company than folks realise. I don’t think people fully appreciate how big of a risk the Switch 2 has been with its high price, sole exclusive launch title, and repetitive design and branding. The console may have sold well in its first couple of weeks on sale – though, as I noted, it didn’t seem to have sold out everywhere – but that’s to be expected from a company with a well-trained legion of super-fans! The real question is still whether casual players, families, and people less connected to the gaming world will be willing to shell out for a console that’s now competing with the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X in terms of price.
I don’t know anyone – not one single person – who only owned a Nintendo Switch as their sole gaming device. I’m sure some people do, but most folks I spoke to bought a Switch for one of three reasons: to play a handful of Nintendo exclusives, like Mario Kart 8 and Animal Crossing: New Horizons, to play some of their favourite games in a handheld format, or for their children to play some kid-friendly titles. The Switch was well-positioned for any of those use cases… the Switch 2, at its higher price point, is less so.
The Switch 2 and its games are expensive.
In 2013/14, when the Wii U was clearly faltering, Nintendo still had the 3DS to turn a profit and keep its corporate head above water. But now, the company is all-in on the Switch 2… meaning there’s less room for manoeuvre if things don’t go to plan. Because of Nintendo’s unique position in the industry, if its hardware falters it’s gonna be in big trouble, and the Switch 2 represents a departure from a successful business model. The Wii, the Switch, and Nintendo’s handhelds have all been well-positioned and well-priced to attract casual players… I’m not so sure the Switch 2 is. The company has some cash in reserve to keep going for a short while… but not indefinitely.
For those of you screaming that “it’ll never happen!!1!” I would remind you of Sega’s unceremonious exit from the console market just after the turn of the millennium. If you’d asked any gamer in the late ’90s what the future held for Sega, no one would’ve predicted that the Dreamcast’s failure would lead to the company shutting down its hardware division altogether. Nintendo is at the tippy-top of the games industry, and the Switch has been a phenomenally successful console. But its position is more precarious than people realise, and it would only take one console failure to throw the company into chaos. To be clear: I don’t necessarily think that Nintendo would just shut down and that would be that… but a Sega-style exit from the hardware market, and far fewer Nintendo games being produced, could happen. Never say never.
Endangered Studio #4: Naughty Dog
A gaming “Easter egg” in Uncharted 4.
Naughty Dog developed Crash Bandicoot for the first PlayStation, the Jak and Daxter games, the Uncharted series, and The Last of Us. Although The Last of Us Part II proved controversial (I once said a 3/10 seemed like a fair score for that game), it seems to have sold pretty well, and the first title has been remastered… twice. But when Naughty Dog premiered a trailer for Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet, the reception was less than glowing.
That game seems like it’s still a way off, too, and it might realistically launch as one of the final titles of the PlayStation 5 generation. But with the Uncharted series seemingly on the back burner, and after the controversy surrounding The Last of Us Part II… can the studio survive if Intergalactic underwhelms? I think there’s a very real possibility that Sony would be swift and brutal in that event.
Will Intergalactic be well-receieved by players when it’s ready?
It’s silly to pre-judge any title based on a single trailer that didn’t show so much as a frame of actual gameplay. Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet might have a silly, clunky name… but we really don’t know much about its story or what it’ll feel like to play. Naughty Dog has pedigree (get it?) so I think there are reasons to be optimistic about their next game. But I can also see a world in which Intergalactic doesn’t succeed in the way Sony is surely demanding.
There are some upcoming games that are generating a ton of buzz and excitement. So far, Intergalactic isn’t amongst them. Maybe that will change as we get closer to the game’s launch and the marketing campaign kicks off. But maybe it’ll always be one of those games that just… didn’t do much for a lot of people. If that’s the case, Naughty Dog could be in trouble.
Endangered Studio #5: Turn 10
It’s already the end of the road for Forza Motorsport.
Turn 10 are the folks behind Forza Motorsport. Or they were. As of July 2025, the Motorsport series seems to be going on hiatus, with Turn 10 suffering significant layoffs. The spin-off Forza Horizon series had been developed by another Microsoft subsidiary: Playground Games. But with Playground working on the new Fable title, it seems as if Turn 10 might be working on Forza Horizon 6 in the months ahead.
The Forza Horizon games are a ton of fun… but they’re also more arcadey, and the open world design isn’t Turn 10’s style. I can’t help but feel the studio only still exists after Forza Motorsport’s disappointment because Microsoft needs someone to take over the Horizon brief now that Playground Games is busy with Fable. After Forza Horizon 6 launches, if the main Motorsport brand is still on the back burner… what could Turn 10 realistically do?
Forza Horizon 5 was great, though…
If Xbox is going to persevere with its home consoles in the future – and I suspect that it will – then those consoles will need at least one proper racing game. Turn 10 had been providing that for the brand since 2005, back when the first Forza Motorsport launched on the original Xbox. There are third-party racing games, of course, and Microsoft has several on Game Pass, including rally titles, Formula 1 games, and more. But Forza should be a genuine competitor to Sony’s Gran Turismo series, and again, it should be giving players an incentive to consider picking up an Xbox console.
With Turn 10’s main series seemingly shut down, at least for the foreseeable future, and after having already suffered with layoffs, I’m not sure where the studio finds a successful future. Maybe if Forza Horizon 6 knocks it out of the park… but even then, I could see Microsoft returning that series to Playground Games.
Endangered Studio #6: Bethesda Game Studios
Hi, Todd…
To be clear: we’re talking about Bethesda the developer, not all of the studios under Bethesda’s publishing umbrella. There are several factors here, so let’s go over all of them. Starfield was a disappointment and its DLC didn’t salvage the project. Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, despite achieving success in recent years, launched to controversy. The Elder Scrolls VI is still a ways off, which has pushed a potential Fallout 5 to the mid-2030s or beyond. Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 are thus the only Fallout titles that Microsoft can push to players enamoured with the Fallout TV series.
For me, this boils down to the success or failure of The Elder Scrolls VI. If that game truly lives up to the hype and reaches the high bar set by Skyrim, then Bethesda will be okay and will continue developing games for years to come. If it doesn’t, and it ends up closer in reputation and sales to Starfield… that could be it. Curtains. Microsoft will retain the studio’s various IP, but could conceivably distribute the ones that still have potential to other development teams. Speaking of which…
Can The Elder Scrolls VI save Bethesda?
With the Fallout TV show proving to be a hit, it’s pretty clear that Microsoft is hankering for a new game. There have been all kinds of rumours, with a Fallout 3 remaster seemingly the only one that’s guaranteed at this stage. But could Microsoft tap one of its other developers to make another Fallout spin-off, or perhaps something like a New Vegas remaster? If that were to happen, and if that hypothetical game were to eclipse Bethesda’s entries in the long-running series, that could be another nail in Bethesda’s coffin. Bethesda only has two well-known franchises under its belt, so if one of those were taken away – even on an alleged “temporary” basis – that could be hugely symbolic.
Here’s my take: Bethesda made some great games in the 2000s, but has shown absolutely no ability to move with the times in the almost fifteen years since Skyrim. The studio’s leaders seem to have bought into their own hype, believing that every game they develop will automatically be as well-received as Skyrim… and can be heavily-monetised without repercussions. There is still merit in the original Bethesda formula; an open-world game that turns players loose and opens up factions, questlines, and exploration. But other studios are doing similar things… and doing them way better. Bethesda feels like a bit of an outdated dinosaur, still clinging to Skyrim’s success more than a decade later. One more poorly-received game could be the end of the line.
Endangered Studio #7: Bungie
Promo art for Bungie’s Destiny 2.
We talked about the Halo series a moment ago, but that franchise’s new developer isn’t the only one in trouble. The originators of the Halo franchise, Bungie, are in dire straits right now, and could be only a year or so away from closure. The Destiny games may have sold reasonably well, but I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the whole “live service” thing didn’t exactly go to plan for Bungie. Then came the development of Marathon… something I talked about a few weeks ago.
Marathon was in a world of trouble after a seriously underwhelming closed playtest left critics and fans feeling like the game needed a lot of work. Then came the news that Bungie had – not for the first time – plagiarised a whole bunch of art assets for the game without payment or credit to the artist. These pieces quite literally define Marathon’s “quirky” visual style… which was pretty much the only thing the game had going for it.
Marathon is in a huge amount of trouble.
Sony recently acquired Bungie for what many have argued was an overly inflated price. A delay to Marathon has recently been announced, but any goodwill or positive buzz that the game could’ve had has entirely evaporated at this point. It’s at a point where even a total overhaul won’t be enough; Marathon is pretty much dead on arrival, even after the delay. So… what happens to Bungie if that’s the case?
Sony can be just as brutal as everyone else when it comes to killing off underperforming studios. Just ask Firewalk, Pixelopus, Bigbig Studios, or London Studio. Bungie should not consider itself safe simply by virtue of its name or its high price tag… if Marathon fails, which it inevitably will, there are gonna be some tough questions asked by Sony. If Bungie can’t prove that they have something big lined up… that could be it.
Endangered Studio #8: BioWare
Taash from Dragon Age: The Veilguard.
Mass Effect: Andromeda. Anthem. Dragon Age: The Veilguard. BioWare has endured basically a decade of failures since the launch of Dragon Age: Inquisition, and it’s difficult to see Electronic Arts being willing to put up with another title that doesn’t live up to expectations. And I’m afraid there are serious questions about the studio’s next project: a sequel to the beloved Mass Effect trilogy.
I have a longer piece in the pipeline that I’ve been working on for a while about the importance of endings – and how, in the modern entertainment industry, very few stories are allowed to come to a dignified, natural end. The Mass Effect trilogy, with its buildup to the defeat of the Reapers, is an example of that… and it’s hard to see how telling another story in that universe won’t feel tacked-on, repetitive, or underwhelming in comparison to what’s come before. That was a big part of the Andromeda problem, in my opinion: after literally saving the galaxy, there’s basically nowhere for Mass Effect to go.
Where does Mass Effect go after literally saving the galaxy?
I don’t buy the criticisms of Dragon Age: The Veilguard failing because it was “too woke.” I think a lot of armchair critics seized on a single line from one character and tried to make the game all about that. But there were clearly issues with The Veilguard, not least its stop-start development, multiple changes in focus, and deviation from the art style of the earlier games. I hope BioWare has learned something from that experience… but, to be blunt, they should’ve learned those lessons already from Andromeda and Anthem.
I will almost certainly play Mass Effect 4. So BioWare can take comfort in the fact that they have at least one guaranteed sale right here! But… am I optimistic? I’m curious, sure, and I want the game to be good. But I also can’t shake the feeling that it’s going to be a story that’s just going to struggle to make the case for itself. Why, after Shepard beat the Reapers, do I need to see this new story? What’s going to be the hook? And without that… will it be worth playing? This is surely BioWare’s absolutely final chance, and with EA notorious for shutting down underperforming studios, everything is now riding on Mass Effect.
Endangered Studio #9: Firaxis Games
Are the barbarians at the gates?
Like BioWare above, Firaxis is on a bit of a weak run right now. XCOM: Chimera Squad underperformed on PC, leading to its console port being cancelled. And Marvel’s Midnight Suns was also considered a disappointment by parent company Take-Two Interactive. Then we come to this year’s Civilization VII, which is struggling right now. Civ VII is currently underperforming, with players seemingly preferring to stick with Civ VI or even Civ V, and there’s criticism of various aspects of the game – not least its three-era structure.
I believe Civilization VII has potential, but there’s clearly a limited window of time to really showcase that potential before panic sets in. At time of writing, there have only been a couple of significant updates to the base game, which launched almost six months ago. Players are still calling on Firaxis to patch bugs, rebalance key features, and add more to the game… and many of those players seem to have drifted back to Civ VI while they wait.
A lot of players tried Civ VII but have already drifted back to Civ VI.
Other “digital board games” inspired by the venerable Civilization series have been eating Firaxis’ lunch, too. They don’t have the genre all to themselves any more, and I think we’re seeing the limitations of releasing a partial game, then hoping to sell expensive DLC to patch the holes. Civ VI did that, too, but there was arguably a stronger foundation to build upon and a fun base game to get players interested in the DLC in the first place.
I suspect Firaxis will get another chance. Even if work on Civilization VII were to end sooner than expected, 2K still recognises the strength of the series and its name recognition. But if a hypothetical Civ VIII or some other sequel or spin-off were to flop, too? That’s when Firaxis could be in real trouble.
Endangered Studio #10: Rocksteady Studios
Batman and a villain in Arkham Asylum.
No, not Grand Theft Auto developers Rockstar, we’re talking about Rocksteady – the team behind the Batman: Arkham series and last year’s critically panned Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. In 2015, Arkham Knight suffered horribly with a ridicululously poor PC port, but the Arkham series has been otherwise popular and well-received, especially by Batman fans. But in 2024, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League was not, and left many players wondering how such a bad game could’ve taken Rocksteady such a long time to craft.
The bottom line is this: Kill the Justice League has lost parent company Warner Bros. Games more than $200 million. That’s… well, that’s not exactly great news when you’re trying to keep the lights on! These live service types of games are notorious for being expensive flops in a lot of cases, and what often follows an expensive, poorly-reviewed title is a studio closure.
Suicide Squad: Killed Its Studio…
There are rumours that Rocksteady has already been laying off staff, first in the QA department, and later in other technical fields, too. The studio also has no new game on its schedule at time of writing; it seems some staff are still working on Kill the Justice League in supporting roles, while others may be working to assist Portkey Games with a new version of Hogwarts Legacy. Again, that doesn’t bode well for the studio.
Practically all of the studios we’ve talked about today were once well-regarded and had at least some popular and successful titles in their back catalogues. But with the Arkham series having wrapped up a decade ago, I don’t think its lingering goodwill will be enough to save Rocksteady. Kill the Justice League was a game outside of the studio’s area of expertise, seemingly forced on them by Warner Bros. Games, and it sucks that they couldn’t stick to making the kinds of single-player titles at which they excelled.
So that’s it.
Xbox prompted me to think about this topic…
We’ve talked about a few developers and publishers that *could* be in danger in the months and years ahead.
As I said at the beginning: I’m never rooting for anyone to fail. Well, except really low-quality shovelware or games with abusive gambling baked in! But those obvious exceptions aside, I don’t want to see games fail or studios closed down, and I especially don’t want to see hard-working developers and other industry insiders losing their jobs. There’s more than enough of that going around without adding to it.
But as a critic and commentator who talks about gaming, I wanted to share my opinion on these studios in light of what’s been going on in the games industry. There are plenty of examples of high-profile failures, collapses, and shutdowns. Whether we’re talking about Atari, Interplay, most of Maxis, Sega, THQ, Lionhead, Acclaim, or Neversoft, one thing is clear: being a well-known brand with a good reputation isn’t enough. The games industry is cutthroat, and not all companies – not even those that seem to have scaled the heights and reached the very top of the gaming realm – can be considered safe.
Maybe I’m wrong about some or all of these companies – and in a way, I hope that I am. But at the same time, gaming is like any other industry and it needs innovation. If the same companies dominate the gaming landscape forever, things will quickly stagnate. What gives me hope is that there are plenty of smaller studios producing new and innovative titles, and some of them will go on to be the “big beasts” of tomorrow.
So I hope this has been… well, not “fun,” but interesting, at any rate. And please check back here on Trekking with Dennis, because there’s more gaming content and coverage to come!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Over the past couple of months, leading up to and in the immediate aftermath of the big Xbox Games Showcase presentation, I’ve been hearing rumours about Bethesda Game Studios. Today, I wanted to get into some of what I’ve heard – and debunk a couple of commonly-repeated rumours, too!
Bethesda was notably absent from Xbox’s big summer presentation, with no mention of either Starfield or the upcoming Elder Scrolls VI. To be blunt with you: I’m not surprised that either of those games were absent. In fact, I’d probably have been more surprised if Todd Howard had toddled out onto the stage to make a big pitch! The Elder Scrolls VI is – as we’ll get into in more detail in a moment – still multiple years away from release, and Bethesda has already been burned by its way-too-early announcement. And Starfield? Well, let’s talk about that.
What – if anything – is next for Starfield?
When Starfield wasn’t so much as mentioned at the Xbox Games Showcase, I saw a lot of folks overreacting. “Starfield is being abandoned!” said one. “Bethesda is ignoring it and moving on!” cried another. While I agree with the overall sentiment that Starfield underwhelmed in terms of both critical reception and sales, and is certainly in trouble, I don’t believe that we need to write its obituary quite yet. Let me explain why.
Starfield is, according to solid insider information, getting a PlayStation 5 port in the not-too-distant future. I wouldn’t be shocked to hear talk of a potential Switch 2 port, too, but that’s much more speculative on my part. But Microsoft and Xbox wouldn’t want to announce this news at their event; it’s like saying “you might as well just buy a PS5!” Instead, it seems much more likely to me that Starfield will be announced for PlayStation 5 later in the year – almost certainly in time for Christmas. Alongside that announcement may well be another piece of DLC.
Starfield may be landing on PS5 soon…
Starfield hasn’t yet had a standalone expansion pack that Microsoft can really use to measure its future prospects. By that I mean that Shattered Space was sold as part of Starfield’s premium edition bundle, which players needed to buy if they wanted to play the game on its real release date in 2023 instead of a week later. Many folks who may have switched off from Starfield already paid for Shattered Space, even if they didn’t play it, and the expansion’s standalone sales in 2024 will be impacted by that. I feel absolutely convinced that Bethesda has enough in the tank for one last Starfield push – and a second expansion pack is certainly gonna be a part of that.
If Bethesda and Xbox have good sense, they’ll announce a PlayStation 5 “deluxe edition” port of Starfield, including not only Shattered Space but also the new DLC, as well as a similar release of the bundle for Xbox and PC. I’d imagine this DLC will be later this year; Shattered Space was in the autumn, so expect anywhere from September to November for this DLC. Some have pointed to Bethesda tradmarking the name “Starborn;” that could be the next DLC’s title.
“You cannot go that way.”
So Starfield should be getting a second piece of DLC and a PS5 launch – with a potential Switch 2 port if things go well. But things are not going well right now, and Starfield is really in the last chance saloon. Failure to light up the board on PS5, and/or another poorly-received expansion pack will almost certainly lead to the game being quietly abandoned. There might still be occasional patches to fix major bugs and issues, but if Starfield doesn’t get its redemption arc soon, there really won’t be any point in Microsoft greenlighting even more money on the game’s continued support.
So Starfield isn’t dead… yet. We’ll have to see whether the next DLC addresses the game’s many issues, and whether it’s as big and transformative as it needs to be. Starfield needs something on the scale of Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty, as I’ve said before. Whether Bethesda can even do something like that, though… well, we’ll find out later in the year, perhaps.
Reviews for Starfield on Steam have been mixed, and the game’s former players didn’t show up in big numbers for Shattered Space.
Up next is The Elder Scrolls VI. I’ll level with you: I’m astonished that anyone thought they’d see this game at the Xbox Games Showcase this year. Some super-fans are still clinging to the desperate “cope” that The Elder Scrolls VI is coming out next year. It isn’t. It simply is not. It’s way too early in its development cycle – a cycle that has only lengthened over time. No, The Elder Scrolls VI might – if Bethesda pushes and Microsoft is okay with a buggy mess – make a late 2027 release date. But realistically, I still think 2028 or even 2029 are more likely.
Starfield took five full years of work. There were changes to Bethesda’s creaking, zombified, thirty-year-old game engine which took up some of that time, sure, but the game still took five years to make and polish. Microsoft insisted on a year-long delay which was largely spent on bug fixing; I shudder to think what Starfield might’ve looked like if it had been pushed out on its original release date! But why, then, have some folks convinced themselves that The Elder Scrolls VI will be ready in half the time? Bethesda hasn’t been working on the game since 2018; development only started in earnest after Starfield’s release in late 2023, and realistically, a significant portion of Bethesda’s team was still assigned to Starfield for several months after, working on hotfixes, patches, and DLC.
Todd Howard announced The Elder Scrolls VI seven years ago.
So let’s be bold and make a prediction: you will not see The Elder Scrolls VI this year. Not a teaser, not a trailer, not concept art… nothing. You probably won’t see any of that stuff next year, either, unless Microsoft has supreme confidence in the game and its ability to make a 2027 release date. The Elder Scrolls VI is still a ways off and it needs time in the oven. And there’s another potential wrinkle in this equation, too: the Oblivion remaster that was released earlier this year.
This is a little technical, but bear with me. Oblivion was remastered using a process that combined two different game engines. Oblivion’s original code is still there, running on Gamebryo/the Creation Engine. But layered on top of that is Unreal Engine 5, which renders the game’s graphics. This process has led to Oblivion looking absolutely fantastic, by the way… so might Bethesda want to implement the same technology into The Elder Scrolls VI? I mean, it would be pretty awkward if the game launches and people begin comparing it unfavourably to the Oblivion remaster! If Bethesda does choose to go down that route, that could add to the game’s development time – and it’s something Bethesda may not have even considered until recently.
The Oblivion remaster adds Unreal Engine 5 graphics to the game’s original code.
There is one additional consideration here, one that could bump up The Elder Scrolls VI’s release date a little. It seems that Microsoft may be intending to launch new hardware in 2027 – and you could hardly get a better-sounding launch title than the sequel to Skyrim! Microsoft might want The Elder Scrolls VI to be the new Xbox console’s “killer app;” a system-seller that could potentially outmanoeuvre PlayStation. If that’s the case, maybe the 2027 holiday season could be a targetted release window.
Finally, there’s talk of a remaster of Fallout 3 using the same process as Oblivion. With a new season of the Fallout TV series officially on the schedule for December this year – a mere six months from now – could we see that remaster sooner than we think? Timing it to coincide with the new season would be perfect, if Bethesda and partner Virtuos could manage it. It might be a tall order to release the Fallout 3 remaster so soon after the Oblivion remaster, though! Still, there could be news of that game sometime around the holidays, as hype for the show’s second season builds.
Could a potential Fallout 3 remaster be released in time for the show’s second season?
So that’s it for now. Those are the Bethesda rumours I keep hearing – and my response to them!
I’ve been a Bethesda fan since I played Morrowind on the original Xbox back in 2002. I still consider that game to be one of the best I’ve ever played, and I’ve enjoyed other Bethesda titles in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises, too. But I’ll be honest with you… I’m not excited about anything the studio has on the slate right now. Starfield’s absolutely appalling microtransaction marketplace – which feels like something from a shitty free-to-play mobile game – speaks volumes about the company’s current direction and how they view their audience. Even if The Elder Scrolls VI looks great, and even if Starfield were to get a miraculous new update and expansion that completely transformed the game… I just don’t want to support that kind of behaviour in the single-player space.
Look around at other single-player role-playing games. Baldur’s Gate 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Kingdom Come: Deliverance… none of them have the kind of egregious in-game marketplace and paid mods that come baked-in with Starfield. If you think The Elder Scrolls VI will be spared the same fate, well… I wouldn’t bet on it. Bethesda has been trying to implement these kinds of paid mods and microtransactions for years, and I don’t see the company being persuaded to stop now.
Words cannot express how much I hate this.
Whether you’re okay with that… that’s up to you. For me, at the very least it’s reined in my potential hype or excitement for The Elder Scrolls VI. And even if Starfield were to get that Phantom Liberty-sized DLC that it desperately needs, if the microtransactions and paid mods remain in place, I’m still not inclined to play it or support it. It’s sad, because Bethesda used to be one of my favourite developers and, as I said, they created one of my favourite games of all-time. But this greed… it’s just sickening, to be honest with you.
Anyway, we got a little off-topic there at the end, but I think I said everything I wanted to about The Elder Scrolls VI and Starfield based on the rumours I keep hearing! I hope this has been interesting, at any rate. A lot of this is speculative, but I’m fairly confident about most of my predictions and my analysis!
Until next time!
Starfield and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered are out now for PC and Xbox Series consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’ve been critical of PlayStation and Nintendo in recent months for unnecessarily jacking up the prices of their consoles and games – and now it’s Xbox’s turn. If you haven’t heard, the prices of Xbox consoles, Xbox games, and most Xbox accessories are rising, coming hot on the heels of a significant price hike in Xbox’s Game Pass subscription service.
Don’t believe the lies: this isn’t because of “tariffs” or “inflation” – if anything, these price hikes are a cause of, not a reaction to, inflation. Xbox, like Nintendo and PlayStation before them, planned to jack up their prices months or even years ago. The latest economic turmoil may be a convenient excuse and shield – just like covid, “supply chain issues,” and inflation were a few years ago – but they aren’t the real reasons. The real reason is simple: greed.
Xbox consoles, games, and accessories just got a lot more expensive.
Not even two days ago, at the end of April, Microsoft bragged to investors on an earnings call about how well their Xbox brand and gaming division were performing. Where PlayStation, Nintendo, and other big players in the industry have been mostly stagnant for a couple of years, Xbox enjoyed significant growth – leading to higher than expected profits. Microsoft attributes this to the successes of Game Pass, the Call of Duty series, and Minecraft – the latter of which is probably connected to the release of A Minecraft Movie in cinemas.
The news caused Microsoft’s share price to rise, dragging up other related tech companies at a time when the stock market has been on a downward trend. Partly thanks to the continued success and growth of Xbox, Microsoft is now worth well over $3 trillion – that’s trillion, with a T. In spite of making record profits and enjoying growth that other gaming companies are struggling to maintain, less than two days later Microsoft has turned around and told customers and families that we’re going to have to pay significantly more for their products. They’re too expensive to make in these “challenging economic times.”
Microsoft boasted about ever-growing profits – including in its gaming business – mere hours before this announcement. Image: Microsoft Investor Relations
Although these price hikes will have been planned months or years in advance, the timing of this announcement is – at least in my opinion – connected to the Nintendo Switch 2 situation that we talked about last month. Nintendo may have been roundly criticised for its announcement that games like Mario Kart World will cost $80/£75… but that doesn’t seem to have impacted pre-orders all that much at this stage. In fact, Nintendo announced record pre-order numbers at least in Japan, and as I suggested would happen, the vocal backlash to Nintendo’s announcement hasn’t been met with a comparable “boycott” or even a noticeable decrease in sales.
The same must be true of Sony and PlayStation. PlayStation consoles rose in price not that long ago, and the PlayStation 5 Pro became one of the most expensive pieces of hardware ever when it launched last year. But despite generating online protests, Sony’s devices and games have continued to sell – leading to the company making record profits in 2024. In that environment, Microsoft might as well join in, right? From a business and financial perspective, they’d be silly not to – it’s like leaving money on the table.
Nintendo was the first company to announce an $80/£75 game last month.
But for those of us who live in the real world, where incomes haven’t risen in line with inflation and where government help is harder to come by than ever, it’s a pretty tough pill to swallow. Nintendo and Xbox may claim at this stage that only “some” games will be priced at $80/£75 going forward, but that’s unlikely to hold for very long. Less than five years after the base price of games already went up by $10, another permanent price hike is happening. And if speculation about Grand Theft Auto VI turns out to be true, this might not be 2025’s only price rise. As I said when discussing the Nintendo Switch 2 situation just a couple of weeks ago: by this time next year, $90 or even $100 could be the asking price for AAA games across the board.
“But game development is expensive!” Or so goes the whiny retort from corporate sell-outs. Here’s my problem with that: if your corporation has literally never made more profit before in its existence, as is the case for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft… that argument is dog shit. The same corporate suits can’t brag to investors and shareholders about how much money they’re making, then in the very next breath plead poverty to consumers and players. It doesn’t work like that – you gotta choose one or the other. If these companies were genuinely struggling to keep the lights on, I guess I’d be more receptive to that kind of argument. But when you see the financial reports and hear how eagerly the vacuous suits boast of their financial success, it’s pretty grating to be told that selling games for an already-inflated price is somehow “unaffordable.”
Microsoft brags about profits one minute then tries to plead poverty the next.
I said this several years ago, but here we go again: there really shouldn’t be a “cost of living crisis.” What we have is a “cost of greed crisis,” where almost every major corporation is making more money than ever, but they continue to jack up their prices to squeeze even more profit out of overstretched and overburdened people. It’s not because of “tariffs,” it’s not because of some nebulous concept of “inflation,” it’s pure and simple greed. And it’s disgusting.
That’s the lens through which I see Xbox’s price hike – and Nintendo’s and PlayStation’s, too.
The problem is that those three companies have an effective monopoly on the console gaming space. And while I’d never want to libel anyone by suggesting the executives at all three corporations are colluding to rig the market and raise prices… I wouldn’t put it past them. And if Xbox follows Nintendo’s lead and raises its prices to match – with Sony presumably set to do the same thing soon, too – what’s the difference? The end result is the same for those of us who just want to play a game or two.
Corporate greed is to blame.
The reality is that, even with disruption to the stock market and a potential recession looming, Microsoft and Xbox could’ve easily absorbed any financial impacts and still turned a very healthy profit. Nintendo could’ve done the same – even if it meant making a net loss on individual Switch 2 consoles in North America, the company would remain profitable. These price rises are a choice, one driven by corporate greed.
The main reason why I criticised PlayStation for hiking up the price of its consoles was because of how unusual a mid-generation price hike is. And Xbox is now firmly in the same camp. The trend for decades has been that consoles and games get less expensive as time goes on, not more. This console generation may have had some great games, but in many ways it’s been underwhelming. There’s been far less innovation, with corporations largely choosing to play it safe. There hasn’t been much by way of graphical improvement, thanks to companies choosing to launch many of their biggest titles on last-gen hardware. And there are fewer and fewer console exclusives – especially on Xbox’s side.
Most of Xbox’s biggest brands and games are available on other platforms.
With all of that in mind, is an Xbox Series S worth the new price of $400/£300? And is a Series X worth $600/£500? When the majority of the consoles’ price hikes are going directly into the pockets of investors, shareholders, and executives – and not to the people who are actually developing games – I’d say no. Absolutely not.
At the end of the day, as consumers we’re pretty stuck. If you want a home console, there are only three names in town – and they’re all jacking up their prices. If you want a brand-new game, from here on out they’re gonna cost $80/£75 at a minimum. Gaming just got a whole lot more expensive for no good reason.
All brands mentioned above are the copyright of their respective corporation/owner. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
In March of 2006, I distinctly remember rushing out of the office as soon as the workday ended to meet a friend. I didn’t yet own an Xbox 360, but my friend did – and he’d pre-ordered the sequel to one of my favourite games of all-time! I darted from the city centre down a side road to my friend’s place, which was a tiny attic apartment with one minuscule window and a sloping ceiling. As soon as I got there, we fired up The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and I spent the rest of the night hanging out with him as he created his character, played through the game’s iconic opening sequence, and stepped out into the world of Tamriel.
It wouldn’t be until 2008 or 2009 that I got to play Oblivion for myself, but when I did I had a whale of a time. I remember thinking that, while the game was more limited in some respects than Morrowind had been, other elements and mechanics more than made up for that deficit – and gave Oblivion a truly immersive world. All of the characters were fully voice-acted, facial animations and lip syncing looked great, and your character could mount and ride a horse! And the main storyline of Oblivion – the quest to find the Emperor’s heir and stop an invasion from another realm – was riveting stuff. I genuinely enjoyed my playthrough of Oblivion and its Shivering Isles DLC, and although I haven’t returned to the game since then, I still consider it to be a fantastic experience.
Stepping out into Oblivion’s open world for the first time is an iconic scene in gaming for everyone who played through it.
I’d been hearing rumours of a remaster or remake of Oblivion for at least a year. But as you may know, I don’t like to cover hearsay here on the website, so I was content to wait until we heard from developers Bethesda and Virtuos in an official capacity before talking about the game. Earlier today, the Oblivion remaster was shown off – and I gotta say, it looks great. It won’t be a totally modern game, as it’s still built on the same bones of the original, but it’s been updated with all new graphics, additional voice acting, and some gameplay tweaks to bring things like combat and exploration closer to modern standards. As I write this, I’m actually downloading the Oblivion remaster and I plan to play it as soon as it’s ready!
But – and you knew there had to be a “but” coming after all of that – I feel pretty sickened by Oblivion’s £10 “Deluxe Edition.”
I’ll give Xbox and Bethesda a lot of credit for bundling Oblivion’s main pieces of DLC in with this remaster. Oblivion is almost twenty years old, and it’s retailing for £50 here in the UK, so trying to charge extra for Shivering Isles or Knights of the Nine would’ve been just plain wrong. But Bethesda is a greedy company, so there’s still something extra that players can purchase separately – and it’s connected to one of the most notorious episodes in the company’s history.
The Oblivion remaster is launching with a £10 “deluxe edition.”
In April 2006, Bethesda released Oblivion’s horse armour DLC – one of the first pieces of small-scale cosmetic DLC for a single-player game. And the company was roundly criticised for trying to sell such a tiny and meaningless piece of content. Unfortunately for us all, and despite the relentless attacks from critics, the horse armour DLC sold reasonably well – well enough for Bethesda to keep going down this DLC road. Look at Starfield’s utterly disgusting in-game marketplace – which resembles something out of a free-to-play mobile game – to see where this approach ultimately led the company.
Other corporations in the games industry took note of both the backlash to, and the financial success of, Bethesda’s horse armour DLC… and it’s not unfair to say it was a harbinger of things to come. Many games now launch with little pieces of content hacked off to be sold separately, and it’s gotten so bad that I daresay most people won’t even bat an eye at the Oblivion remaster coming with a “deluxe edition.” But I’m afraid I do – I didn’t like it in 2006 and I like it even less now. Bethesda is, I would argue, one of the guiltiest parties in the games industry when it comes to pushing for and normalising the idea of single-player microtransactions – and that’s something which can quite literally ruin a game for me.
The original Oblivion’s horse armour DLC was incredibly controversial in 2006.
So the Oblivion remaster is launching with an expensive £10 “deluxe edition.” Contained within that is the typical bullshit you might expect: a collection of JPEGs that self-importantly claims to be an “art book,” the game’s soundtrack, and… wait, what’s that? Surely it can’t be… horse armour? Bethesda wouldn’t do that again, surely? But it is. It’s horse armour.
Oh piss off, Bethesda.
Seriously? After all of the controversy in 2006, with horse armour becoming the quintessential example of bad-value DLC, you’re really going to do this again? It must be a joke, right? A self-aware nod and wink to fans and players. But Bethesda is still earnestly asking you to cough up an additional £10 to access this “deluxe edition” content, complete with horse armour.
We’re really doing this again, huh?
I could be wrong, because I haven’t played Oblivion in more than fifteen years at this point, but the “deluxe edition” horse armour in this remastered version doesn’t look the same as the original 2006 version. But is that because it’s brand-new content or is that just the way it looks in the remastered version? Visuals have changed across the board, so I genuinely can’t tell at a glance. If it’s brand-new, I guess that’s at least marginally better. But if this is the original horse armour updated for the remaster, still being sold separately… I mean. I’m at a loss for words.
Super Extra-Special Platinum Premium Deluxe Editions of most games are usually poor value. Worse, they carve out content that was developed alongside the main game and fully-integrated into it to be sold separately for extra cash. I really do miss the days when games came feature-complete out of the box, and when expansion packs added a meaningful amount of content. But to sell a “deluxe edition” for a twenty-year-old game which is already retailing for £50 is piss-poor from Bethesda. And that’s not even mentioning that this “deluxe edition” contains the poster child for bad-value DLC; horse armour was received so universally poorly that it became a meme and remains the textbook example of this kind of single-player microtransaction to this day. Heck, I’ve used horse armour as an example of a shitty microtransaction on several occasions here on the website.
Staff at Virtuos working on the Oblivion remaster.
I thought it was a joke when I first saw the leaked image of Oblivion’s “deluxe edition.” I could believe that Bethesda and Xbox would be greedy enough to create a poor-value “deluxe edition” of a twenty-year-old game, but when I saw the horse armour bit… I genuinely thought it must’ve been a joke. It looked like something a troll had mocked up to poke fun at Bethesda and the old controversy. But no, this is real. It’s 2025 and Bethesda is asking you to pay extra for horse armour in Oblivion all over again.
I think the Oblivion remaster looks good. The presentation that Bethesda and Virtuos put together was genuinely entertaining, and the people involved all seem to be passionate Elder Scrolls players and fans. That leads me to believe the game is in good hands. I’m a Game Pass subscriber, and the Oblivion remaster is available there, so it felt like a no-brainer to fire it up and step back into that world for the first time in more than fifteen years. But this “deluxe edition” has really taken the shine off the game for me. I don’t know if anyone else cares as much as I do; this doesn’t feel like a Nintendo Switch 2 type of situation, where the price is overshadowing everything else. But would it really have been such a financial hardship for Bethesda to offer the “art book,” soundtrack, and fucking horse armour as freebies? Is that content worth £10 to anyone?
A promotional screenshot of the Oblivion remaster.
Bethesda could really use a win right now. The company has endured basically a decade of controversy, with Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Starfield, and even some of its mobile games all having issues and being criticised. With The Elder Scrolls VI still years away, this launch of the Oblivion remaster was a chance to get people talking about the company and its games more positively for a change. It was an opportunity to remind players why they liked Bethesda’s games to begin with, as well as to keep the series in our minds as production on The Elder Scrolls VI continues. I can’t help but feel this “deluxe edition” greed is getting in the way of that, at least somewhat.
And I have to ask: was it worth it? This article could’ve been titled something like “Bethesda stuns everyone by shadow-dropping a remastered version of Oblivion!” and I could’ve spent this time talking about my memories of the game, what I like best about the remaster, and how cool it is in 2025 to see a big game being released immediately after its announcement. Instead, we’re talking about horse armour again, and how Bethesda is a greedy, money-grubbing company. We could’ve been reminded of what Bethesda games were when they were close to their best, but instead we’re reminded more of Starfield’s microtransactions than Oblivion’s storytelling.
I’m gonna play the Oblivion remaster, I’m gonna try to push the stupid “deluxe edition” out of my thoughts, and if I’m lucky (and if Virtuos hasn’t screwed things up) I daresay I’ll have a fun time getting lost in the world of Tamriel all over again. But I’m disappointed that the game launched like this, and I really don’t think it would’ve been too much to ask to include those tiny pieces of content in the already-expensive price of the remaster.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S & X. The game is also available on PC Game Pass and Xbox Game Pass. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Virtuos Games, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
It seems silly to be talking about a game this far out from its potential launch – and I can appreciate that. However, I find myself with things to say about The Elder Scrolls VI, in part to expand upon something I touched on earlier in the year when discussing Starfield’s absolutely disgusting microtransaction marketplace, and with news breaking in 2024 that Bethesda Game Studios is ramping up development on The Elder Scrolls VI… well, it can’t hurt to share my thoughts at this early stage, right?
Let’s briefly re-tread some ground so we’re all on the same page. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time, and I also enjoyed Oblivion, Skyrim, and Bethesda’s entries in the Fallout series. In 2023, I got swept up in the hype for Starfield… only to crash and burn on that game pretty quickly when I found it to be last-gen, small, and basically just boring. I am not any kind of “hater” of Bethesda or their games – and I’m definitely not trying to pick on any individual developers, producers, or creative folks. I approach this subject as someone who desperately wants to enjoy The Elder Scrolls VI… but I feel so incredibly turned off the game at this early stage that it would take a miracle to even convince me to play it.
Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time.
The Elder Scrolls VI feels vulnerable right now. Bethesda is, to be frank, coming off not just one poorly-received game… but a decade’s worth. Fallout 4, while enjoyable enough, is generally considered to be less impressive than its predecessor, with fans proclaiming Obsidian’s spin-off Fallout New Vegas as the “best” entry in that series since Bethesda acquired the license. Fallout 76 has, to my surprise I will admit, clawed back some players and gone some way to rehabilitating its reputation as a multiplayer title… but it launched in such a shockingly poor state that there was a very low bar. And then we come to Starfield and its Shattered Space expansion.
Starfield was the game that, for me, hammered home how little Bethesda has learned and how unwilling the company is to adapt and evolve. Starfield was built on the creaking reanimated corpse of a twenty-five-year-old game engine… and it showed. Massively outdated gameplay was compounded by weak world-building and an uninspired and incomplete main quest – leading me to uninstall the game after a meagre thirty hours of gameplay. I was then massively disappointed to see Bethesda add paid mods and microtransactions to this single-player title.
Starfield has led to me feeling sceptical about Bethesda’s next game.
The microtransactions really stand out to me. They reveal how Bethesda sees Starfield – and by extension, how the company will presumably treat The Elder Scrolls VI, too. Instead of making a complete game with an expansion or two – like they used to do in the Morrowind days – Bethesda sees its games as platforms for every shitty monetisation trend going. Starfield’s in-game marketplace looks like something out of a free-to-play mobile game, complete with an in-game currency that has an awkward exchange rate, tiny packs of massively overpriced skins and cosmetic items, and even whole missions locked behind a paywall. I was disgusted to see the game descend so quickly into this overly-monetised mess – even more so because Bethesda hid the extent of microtransactions during Starfield’s important first few months on sale.
Paid mods will have to be the subject of a longer piece one day, but for now it’s sufficient to say that I’m not a supporter of the idea and never have been. But to see Bethesda greedily trying to grab even more money for something they didn’t even make… it makes me sick to my stomach to see how ridiculous Starfield’s in-game marketplace is.
One of Starfield’s many microtransactions.
And that, I’m afraid, has completely changed how I feel about The Elder Scrolls VI.
I could have written off Starfield as an unsuccessful experiment; a game with some good ideas but that was let down by an overreliance on outdated tech and poor world-building that never succeeded at generating that sense of scale that a game set in space needs to have. I would have been content to put Starfield back on the digital shelf and see what Bethesda could do with the next entry in a series that I have a genuine fondness for.
There would still have been concerns, of course. The Creation Engine is so outdated that using it for yet another game feels like a seriously bad idea, one that could harm The Elder Scrolls VI immeasurably. But I would have looked past that if the story and world-building were good enough – just as I can look past the jankiness of titles like Morrowind.
Bethesda’s insistence on retaining the outdated Creation Engine was always going to be a cause for concern.
But having seen the microtransaction hell-hole that Bethesda created, paywalling off little packages of content left, right, and centre in a game that – let’s be blunt – wasn’t exactly brimming with content to begin with… I feel increasingly sure that that’s how the company plans to make games from now on. The Elder Scrolls VI may launch with no microtransactions, but if it follows the Starfield pattern they’ll be added in within the game’s first few months – and you can expect to pay extra for anything from a shiny new pair of boots to an entire questline or faction.
I loathe this approach to single-player games, and I really don’t think it’s too much to ask for to be able to buy and play a complete game. Look at other titles in the single-player action/RPG space: Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Baldur’s Gate 3… what do they all have in common? They might have an expansion pack or two, but they don’t paywall fan-made mods, they don’t make you pay for in-game currency, and they don’t try to sell you skins, cosmetic items, and missions.
If Baldur’s Gate 3 can succeed and turn a profit without microtransactions, why can’t Bethesda’s games?
But that’s just my personal take on Bethesda, Starfield, and how I feel about The Elder Scrolls VI. There’s more to say – and I think there are legitimate reasons for Microsoft and Bethesda to worry about the prospects of this game as it’s currently envisioned.
Starfield was in development for a long time – and Bethesda, over the past few years, has taken anywhere from four to six years on development. Rumours abound that Starfield was forcibly delayed by Microsoft in order to quash as many bugs as possible, with perhaps as much as a year of “polish” and bug-fixing after the game’s primary development was complete. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to think a similar five- or six-year timeframe is likely for The Elder Scrolls VI.
Starfield took Bethesda years to create.
If we generously assume that Bethesda jump-started full development on The Elder Scrolls VI the second Starfield was out the door in September 2023, that puts the game’s potential launch in late 2028 or even 2029. Forget these so-called “rumours” of a 2026 launch… that seems like a total fantasy to me. It will take time to develop a game like this… and if I dare to hope, Bethesda may be taking on board feedback from Starfield and perhaps making some changes – like reducing the need for loading screens in between areas – which may make things take even longer.
So what else might be happening in 2028 or 2029? Well… in 2024 we’re about halfway through the current generation of home consoles, right? It doesn’t seem impossible to me that the PlayStation 6 and perhaps a new Xbox console could be targeting a 2028 or 2029 launch; I’d be surprised if we don’t see the next generation of home consoles before the end of the decade. With a new console generation there will be new games – and new improvements to graphical fidelity and gameplay. That doesn’t bode well for a game that’s being created on underlying technology that will be thirty years out of date by the time it launches.
By the time The Elders Scrolls VI is ready, a new generation of home consoles could already be on the way. Pictured: A PlayStation 2 Emotion Engine chip.
I’m not saying that The Elder Scrolls VI will be exclusive to next-gen hardware; I think it’s almost guaranteed that it’ll launch on the Xbox Series S and X – with the possibility, perhaps, of a deal to bring it to PlayStation 5 further down the line. But what I am saying is that, if the game arrives in 2028 or 2029 as predicted above, it’ll be landing in a very competitive marketplace, one where people are beginning to get hyped for new consoles – or where new consoles may even have launched.
That isn’t to say being late to the party in a console generation is always a bad thing. The Last Of Us was one of the final PlayStation 3 exclusives, for example, and it launched to critical and commercial acclaim. Microsoft could well be hoping that The Elder Scrolls VI will net Xbox a late consolation goal – ending a troubled console generation on a high note. That’s a good aspiration to have, I guess.
Is Microsoft banking on The Elder Scrolls VI to see out this generation with a bang?
But even if the PlayStation 6 and the next Xbox aren’t out by the time The Elder Scrolls VI launches, it’s quite possible that players will already be seeing trailers and teasers for those consoles’ launch titles – and those games could look bigger, better, and much more visually impressive than anything Bethesda is capable of. The Elder Scrolls VI could seem underwhelming or disappointing to an audience already preparing to move on from this console generation.
There’s also a perception – an incorrect one, but one that Bethesda inflicted upon itself – that The Elder Scrolls VI has been in development since 2018. While it’s true that early pre-production was going on during Starfield’s development, it simply won’t be true in 2028 that this game “took ten years to make.” But I already see this idea taking root, and even some commentators and critics who should know better have been talking about The Elder Scrolls VI as a game that’s been in development since 2018.
The Elder Scrolls VI was announced in 2018.
By announcing The Elder Scrolls VI so early, before any major work had been done on the game, Bethesda has set some dangerously wrong expectations. If the game is bad – or even if it’s good but not great – people will ask “what did you waste ten years doing?” or “how did a game this mid take a decade to make?” There’s nothing that can be done about that now; the 2018 announcement is out there and has been part of the gaming landscape for six years at this point. But it was an own goal from Bethesda; the company shouldn’t have rushed to announce a game that they weren’t actively working on and that they knew wouldn’t be ready any time soon.
Skyrim is, for many folks, Bethesda’s high-water mark. It was a landmark title that did a lot for the fantasy genre in gaming as well as action/RPGs. There hasn’t been a new mainline Elder Scrolls game since 2011; by 2028 we’ll be closing in on Skyrim’s 20th anniversary. Such a huge gap in between games brings with it its own expectations, and players will expect to see genuine improvements in everything from combat and exploration to world-building and voice acting. Failing to live up to those expectations will cause the game to suffer – and if there’s a gulf in between player expectations and reality, that could be catastrophic.
“Walk on, brave explorer.”
Bethesda is also a company that I would argue massively over-promises – to the point where some statements in the run-up to Starfield’s launch felt borderline deceptive. Remember “walk on, brave explorer?” Well, it turned out you could “walk on” for about ten minutes before hitting an invisible wall… which wasn’t exactly a great look. You can shout at me till you’re blue in the face that technically nothing they said was an out-and-out lie, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Starfield’s marketing was mishandled and that Bethesda deliberately encouraged excessive hype – hype that ultimately ended up harming many players’ enjoyment of the game.
The Elder Scrolls VI needs to be marketed fairly and honestly – even if it’s not actually that good! The basic job of marketing is to show a product in the best possible light, but it’s also incumbent upon a good marketing department not to set incorrect expectations nor allow hype to get out of control. That happened with Starfield, and the result was that too many players crashed down to earth pretty quickly when they hit the game’s limitations – and loading screens.
It must be some kind of visual metaphor…
For me, The Elder Scrolls VI is – at best – a game I’m going to wait a year to decide on after it launches. Bethesda was duplicitous with Starfield’s microtransactions and paid mods, concealing them as best they could during the game’s first few months on sale – and while reviews were being written – before adding them in later. If Bethesda won’t explicitly commit to having no such marketplace in The Elder Scrolls VI, then I’m going to wait at least a year to see if they add one in and how bad it is. If it’s anything like Starfield, I really don’t think anyone will be able to convince me to play it.
But there are other reasons to be sceptical of this game. Bethesda’s refusal to modernise – in terms of the underlying game engine as well as in both writing and game design – left Starfield feeling decidedly out of date; a game surpassed in so many ways not only by its contemporaries, but by games that were several years old by 2023. Without major changes internally, I worry that The Elder Scrolls VI will be in the same boat. If that’s what fans want – and some fans will clearly be satisfied with “just” another Bethesda game that’s no different from all the others – then that’s okay, I guess. But when I look ahead to the second half of the 2020s and beyond, I hope and expect to see improvements in game design… improvements that Bethesda has shown absolutely no signs of making.
Bethesda doesn’t seem to have learned anything from its competitors in the action/RPG space. Pictured: The Witcher 3 from CD Projekt Red
So that’s where I am when it comes to The Elder Scrolls VI… at least at this early stage. There are red flags galore and plenty of reasons to leave this game on the shelf, even if it launches to positive reviews. And after a difficult few years for Bethesda – a decade, basically, in which their least-bad title is arguably Fallout 76 – there is a lot riding on the success of The Elder Scrolls VI. Despite Starfield’s issues, its mediocre reviews, and a player base that seems to have largely deserted the game, Microsoft seems content at this stage to let Bethesda do its thing and push ahead with The Elder Scrolls VI. I find it impossible to think that Microsoft and Xbox will tolerate another disappointment on that scale, though.
Bethesda may have earned some goodwill through publishing titles like Doom Eternal and Indiana Jones and the Great Circle – the latter having become a surprise hit just this month. But the company’s development arm is struggling, and Microsoft has shown it can be brutal when it comes to shutting down studios that fail to deliver. It’s incredibly important for Bethesda that they get this right.
The Elder Scrolls VI is currently in development and will release on PC and Xbox Series consoles at an unknown future date. The Elder Scroll series, Starfield, and other properties discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, ZeniMax Media, Inc., and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A few months ago, I put together a list of “hot takes” about video games. As much as I enjoy gaming as a hobby, there are things that annoy me and things to criticise! There were a few other things that I considered including, but they didn’t really fit with that list. These “hot takes” have less to do with games themselves and more to do with the games industry, development, and gaming as a whole – so that’s what we’re going to discuss today!
Whenever I use the term “hot take” it’s because I’m acutely aware that we’re talking about something contentious! So before we get started, let’s re-emphasise that: these are all topics of debate among players and critics, and mine may well be the minority position. I don’t pretend to be 100% right, and I welcome disagreements and differences of opinion.
Let’s not throw a tantrum if we disagree, okay?
I worked in the games industry for close to a decade, and I worked with large and small games companies in that time. I’ve got a bit of a feel for how development works from the time I spent “on the inside,” and I know that developers are passionate people who care deeply about their art. But that doesn’t mean games get a free pass; a bad game is a bad game, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been!
As I always like to say: all of this is just the subjective opinion of one player, and I believe that there should be enough room in the community for differences of opinion and respectful disagreement. The topics we’re going to get into today are the subject of discussion and debate, and there isn’t a right answer – just opinions.
If you aren’t in the right headspace to see some potentially controversial games industry opinions, this is your final chance to nope out – because we’re about to jump into the list!
“Hot Take” #1: “Game development is hard” isn’t an excuse for selling a sub-par title.
A lot of people work really hard on some absolutely shite games…
Speaking as both a player and as someone who used to work in the industry, believe me when I say that I get it. Game development is undeniably difficult, it isn’t straightforward, and there are many, many reasons why a game may not be as good, enjoyable, or polished as we’d like it to be. There can be problems getting an engine to work, fixing one bug might cause ten more to pop up elsewhere, and the more complex and in-depth a title is, the greater the chance of these kinds of issues occurring. Publishers and corporations also meddle, moving the goalposts and pushing developers to hit unreasonable deadlines. So I get it. But that doesn’t make “development is hard” a good enough excuse.
Here’s a helpful analogy: suppose I buy a house, move in, and every time I turn on the washing machine, the electric goes off. Then when I ring the electrician, he basically says “wiring a house is really hard. You wouldn’t get it because you aren’t an electrician.” That’s not an excuse. If I go to a bakery and the bread is stale and mouldy, I likewise wouldn’t accept the excuses that “baking is really difficult,” or “running a business and keeping track of sell-by dates is hard.” The same basic principle applies to video games.
You wouldn’t accept sub-par bread from a baker, so why should you accept a sub-par game from a developer?
I will acknowledge and agree that game development is hard, and that bigger games are harder to make; it’s an almost exponential scale of difficulty. But trying your best and failing is still failing, and in a competitive marketplace where most games aren’t free, if you release a sub-par, broken, uninspired, or inferior game, you’re gonna get called out for it. Media criticism exists for this purpose, and just because a critic has never worked in the games industry or has no experience with development doesn’t invalidate their criticism.
When a game is listed for sale, even if it’s discounted or at a low price, players still have expectations – and those expectations aren’t “wrong” just because they didn’t see how hard the game was to create. If you’re a brand-new developer releasing your first-ever game for free and asking for feedback, then maybe some of the harshest words should be held back. But this asinine argument is too often made by publishers and executives who work for massive companies. When a game underperforms, they trot out the trusty old “game development is hard” argument as a rebuttal to critics.
The Lord of the Rings: Gollum was widely criticised upon its release for being riddled with bugs and glitches.
In no other business or industry would customers be told that “my job is hard, you should be grateful for what you got” as a response to genuine criticism. Selling a game that’s outdated, riddled with glitches, or just not fun can’t be excused in this way, and developers – no matter how hard they may have worked and no matter what programming hurdles they may have had to overcome – have to accept that. Criticism is inevitable in entertainment and media, and even if a developer had created an impossibly perfect game, there’d still be players who didn’t like it in whole or in part, or who just weren’t interested in its narrative or its gameplay. That’s unavoidable.
Some developers and studios actively make things worse for themselves by trying to respond to criticism in this way. It never works, it never succeeds at garnering sympathy, and practically zero players come away from this conversation having more positive thoughts about the game. It’s an argument that needs to go away, and developers and publishers should think long and hard before reacting to genuine criticism with this irritating whine.
“Hot Take” #2: Subscriptions are happening and physical discs and cartridges are dying out.
A selection of Sega Mega Drive game cartridges.
This is a subject I’ve tackled before in a longer column here on the website. In that piece I took a look at the media landscape in general, talking about how the move away from physical media started with music, then moved to film and TV, and is now belatedly arriving in gaming, too. You can find that piece by clicking or tapping here, if you’re interested! But for the games industry specifically, a move away from discs and cartridges has been happening for a long time – and the rise of subscriptions could well be the final nail in the coffin.
In the very early days, no one owned a video game outright. If you wanted to play a game, you had to go to where the games were: an arcade. It was only with the growth of home consoles in the ’80s that physically owning a video game became possible for a mainstream audience, and even then, renting games or even whole systems was still a big deal. Many of the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Dreamcast games that I played in through the ’90s and into the new millennium were rented, not purchased outright. The idea of owning a massive media library is, when you think about it, a relatively new phenomenon that was kicked into a higher gear when DVD box sets became a thing in the mid-2000s.
Arcades (like this one from Wreck-It Ralph) used to be the only place to play video games.
In that sense, we could argue that subscriptions aren’t “changing” the way people engage with media, they’re just a return to the 20th Century status quo. For much of the history of film, television, music, and gaming, audiences have had a temporary or impermanent relationship with media… and to me, that’s absolutely fine. It’s a trade-off I and many other players are happy to make.
I could probably count on my fingers the number of games I’d want a permanent hard copy of… because most games aren’t gonna be played on a loop forever nor returned to every few months. Just like when I used to rent SNES and N64 games in the ’90s, I’m totally okay with not having a huge library of titles gathering dust on a shelf (or metaphorical dust in a digital library), because once I’ve beaten a title like Donkey Kong 64 or Bioshock, I’m in no rush to play them again.
Red Dead Redemption II is one of just a handful of games I might conceivably want a hard copy of.
Speaking as someone on a low income, subscription services like Netflix and Xbox Game Pass open up a huge library of titles to me – allowing me to play more games than I’d ever be able to afford if I had to buy or even rent them individually. I’ve played dozens of games over the past couple of years that I’d never have bought for myself, and some of them have become personal favourites. Subscriptions like Game Pass are a great way into gaming for players on a budget – because for a single monthly fee a huge library of titles become available.
If the trade-off for that is that titles are occasionally removed from the platform and become unplayable… well, I’m okay with that. And for one-in-a-generation masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption II or Baldur’s Gate 3, I’m happy to splash out. When you consider that an annual subscription to Game Pass is more or less the same price as buying one or two games… you start to see why people are choosing to sign up. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Xbox, PlayStation, or both choose to go all-digital later in the decade when their next-generation machines are ready.
“Hot Take” #3: Microtransactions have no place in single-player games.
*cough* Starfield *cough*
I’m not wild about microtransactions in general – but in online multiplayer games and especially free-to-play titles, I accept that they’re an established funding model. They should still be regulated and prevented from being exploitative, but in those genres the microtransaction model seems to work well enough. But in a single-player game? Microtransactions need to GTFO.
Going back decades, games have released expansion packs – and large pieces of content that add new maps, quests, characters, and so on are usually okay. Look at something like Morrowind’s expansion Bloodmoon, or a more recent example like Phantom Liberty for Cyberpunk 2077. These are the kinds of expansion packs that have always been okay. Some are better than others, sure, and some expansions offer much more in terms of value. But as a general rule, I’m okay with expansion packs.
Phantom Liberty is a great example of an expansion pack that offers good value.
But in a single-player game, I shouldn’t be asked to purchase a “premium currency,” weapon skins, cosmetic items, and so forth. These microtransactions have no place in a single-player title, and there’s no excuse for adding them in other than pure, unadulterated greed. If a game like No Man’s Sky can remain profitable for Hello Games for close to a decade without charging for a single additional piece of content, there’s no excuse for the disgusting in-game marketplace in a title like Starfield.
I love a game with cosmetic customisation. Making my character feel personal to me goes a long way to enhancing the experience and making my playthrough feel like “mine,” so I enjoy having the option to change a hairstyle, outfit, or do things like re-paint a vehicle. But these things are an integral part of the game experience – not something to charge extra for. Exploiting players by locking basic items behind a paywall is despicable – and that’s before we say anything about “XP boosters,” damage multipliers, and other pay-to-win or pay-to-skip-the-grind items.
Oh look, it’s all of the DLC available for No Man’s Sky…
I’ll also include in this category “super premium deluxe editions” of games that come with exclusive content. You might think that Han Solo’s vest in Star Wars Outlaws is okay to lock behind a paywall, but some games do this with whole quests. Hogwarts Legacy infamously locked an entire mission behind a paywall, and it’s far from the only game to have done so in recent years. Offering an in-game item as a pre-order bonus is one thing, locking a whole chest full of items and even pieces of gameplay behind an expensive “luxury edition” that can easily run to $100 or more is just scummy.
If I’m paying full price for a game, I don’t expect that game to reach into my wallet and try to grab even more cash every time I want to use a consumable item or change my character’s appearance. I tend to avoid online multiplayer games, where this phenomenon primarily exists, but inserting a microtransaction marketplace into a single-player game where it has absolutely no business being is enough to make me uninstall that title and never return to it. I’ll even refund it if I can. Some studios have even taken to concealing in-game marketplaces at launch, hoping to garner better reviews and more sales, before adding them in a few weeks or months later. Truly disgusting stuff.
“Hot Take” #4: You aren’t paying for “early access,” you’re being charged an additional fee to play the game on its real release date.
An example of what I’m talking about.
“Early access” is controversial in general, but let me just say before we start that I’m generally supportive of smaller studios and indie developers using early access as a way to get feedback and even to keep the lights on during what can be a difficult process. I very rarely touch an early access title, but independent devs should always feel free to use whatever tools are available to them, including launching an early access version of their game. But that’s where my patience with early access ends.
Recently we’ve seen two pretty shitty trends in the games industry: firstly, massive studios backed up by big publishers have been abusing early access, sometimes leaving a game officially unreleased for four, five, or six years, charging almost full price for it all the while. And secondly, the issue we’re looking at today: “early” access for an extra charge.
Ubisoft wanted to charge players an extortionate amount of money to play Star Wars Outlaws on its real release date.
This kind of “early” access usually grants players access to a game a few days or maybe a week ahead of its official release date, but by that point the game is finished and should be ready to go. The “early” version that players get is usually no different from the launch version, and there’s no time for a studio to act on player feedback or patch bugs. This is a scam, plain and simple, and an excuse for wringing even more money out of players.
If a game launches on the 1st of September for players who pay £100, and the 6th of September for players who “only” pay £65, then the release date is the 1st of September. They’ve just charged more to players who want to play on release day – or, if you flip things around, deliberately penalised players who didn’t splash the extra cash. These versions of games – which I think we should call “real release date” versions – are often $20, $30, or $40 more expensive than their delayed counterparts.
And who has that kind of money to waste these days?
Buying a game on day one is a risk nowadays. So many games – even those that go on to be hailed as masterpieces – arrive on launch day with bugs, glitches, and other problems. So paying extra to play what is almost always a demonstrably shittier version of a game just feels… stupid. I’ve been burned by this before, and just as with pre-orders, I’ve sworn to never again pay for so-called “early” access.
I’d like to see digital stores like Steam, Epic Games, and ideally Xbox and PlayStation too clamp down on this practice. Early access should be reserved for studios that need it, and charging players extra to play a game on release day is something that should be banned outright.
There have been some fantastic games released over the last few years. Red Dead Redemption II, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Kena: Bridge of Spirits all come to mind in the single-player space, but I’m sure you have your own favourite. These games are, in a word, masterpieces; titles that did everything right and are rightly considered to be at the very pinnacle of not only their genres but video games as an art form in general. So… if your game doesn’t get that kind of glowing reception, whose fault is it?
Some developers think it’s the fault of players, and that we’ve had our expectations set “too high.” They argue that it was unrealistic to expect their game to be as engaging or entertaining as others in the genre, and we should be grateful for what we got. They worked hard on it, after all.
I wonder which game might’ve prompted this “hot take.”
The tl;dr is this: it isn’t the fault of players if they don’t like your game – it’s yours. Complaining about high expectations makes no sense when other titles have demonstrably been able to meet and even exceed those expectations, so if you learned nothing from your competition, once again that isn’t anyone else’s fault but yours! That’s to say nothing of the out-of-control and frequently dishonest marketing that promises players way more than the game can deliver. Studios and publishers are responsible for reining in hype and keeping their marketing honest. That, more than anything else, will help players set appropriate expectations.
I get it: it isn’t fun to be criticised or see your work picked apart. It’s even less fun to see a game you worked hard on for a long time compared negatively to another title in the same space. But to lash out at players – the people who are supposed to be your customers and the people it’s your job to entertain – just doesn’t make any sense to me. Not only is it wrong, but it also risks building up resentment and ill-will, so the next time you work on a game and get it ready for launch, players will be even more sceptical and perhaps even quicker to criticise.
This is a problem exacerbated by social media.
Thankfully, it isn’t all developers who say this – at least not in public! I heard complaints like this from time to time when I worked in the industry, but most developers I worked with were smart enough to keep such thoughts to themselves if they had them. So we’re fortunate that it’s only a minority of developers who take this argument into the public square.
Some developers need to get off social media. Social media is a great tool, don’t get me wrong, and being able to communicate directly with players can be useful in some situations. But if a developer is so thin-skinned that they feel the need to react in real-time and respond to every armchair critic and Twitter troll… that can’t be good for them, and it certainly isn’t good for the company they work for. For their own good, some developers need to shut down their social media profiles!
So that’s it… for now!
I hope this wasn’t too controversial!
I’m always finding more “hot takes” and things to criticise in the games industry, so I daresay this won’t be the last time I put together a piece like this one! Despite what I’ve said today, I still really enjoy gaming as a hobby and I find there are far more positives than negatives. And if you hated all of my points, just remember that all of this is the entirely subjective opinion of a single old gamer.
So I hope this has been a bit of fun… and maybe a little thought-provoking in places, too. If you don’t agree with any of my points that’s totally okay! I tried my best to present my arguments as articulately as possible, but these are “hot takes” so I’m sure plenty of people can and will disagree with all of them. If I gave you a chuckle or you found this discussion interesting in some way, then I reckon I’ve done my job!
Until next time… and happy gaming!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publisher, studio, and/or developer. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Remember Starfield? That space game we got all excited about in 2023? I wouldn’t blame you if you’d forgotten all about it by now; I haven’t touched the game in months myself and I have no real plans to go back to it. Any lingering feelings of positivity I might’ve had toward the game – and developer Bethesda Game Studios in a more general sense – evaporated pretty quickly when microtransactions and paid mods were added to this single-player title, so I’ve pretty much moved on.
But the launch of Shattered Space – the first of several larger pieces of DLC that are planned for the game – has dragged up the shambling corpse of Starfield for me once again, and I couldn’t let it pass by without sharing my thoughts on what I’ve seen… and offering some unsolicited advice to Bethesda and parent company Microsoft. There are things to consider for both Starfield’s future as well as any potential new games that Bethesda may be lucky enough to make. Let’s get into all of that today.
So far at least, Shattered Space doesn’t appear to have saved (or even really helped) Starfield.
The reaction to Shattered Space has been mediocre at best outside of Bethesda and Starfield mega-fans. The expansion is currently sitting at a “mixed” rating on Steam… but far more worrying for Microsoft and Bethesda should be the real lack of engagement that Shattered Space is driving. There are, at time of writing, fewer than 1,000 reviews of Shattered Space on Steam – a number that seems pitifully small for the first major expansion pack for the newest Bethesda role-playing game. And the release of Shattered Space didn’t give the game much of a boost in terms of player numbers, either; Starfield was beaten by both Fallout 4 and Skyrim on the day the expansion launched and every day since.
This is even more alarming when you consider that many players will have already pre-purchased Shattered Space last year. In order to pick up the “deluxe” version of Starfield (or whatever it was called), which gave players access to the game on its real release date instead of almost a week later, players had to fork over an additional £35 on Xbox, Steam, and even Game Pass. Included in that price was Shattered Space, so even players left underwhelmed by the base game should have still had access to this DLC. The fact that so few of them could be bothered to even download it or check it out should be ringing alarm bells at Bethesda HQ and for Xbox, too.
Shattered Space’s launch (date highlighted) didn’t bring in a lot of players. Image Credit: SteamDB (above) and Steam (below).
The mixed reception to Shattered Space from those who did bother to fire it up is something that I think could’ve been avoided – and could at least be mitigated in the future. But it would require a change in approach from Bethesda. I’ll try to explain what I mean.
Over the last few weeks and months, Bethesda has been rolling out updates to Starfield. Among the biggest of these have been the rover/buggy, which allows players to traverse the game’s maps more quickly, and also the ability to decorate the interior of spaceships. Both of these were highly-requested by players, and the fact that Bethesda added them is a positive thing.
But part of the disappointment some players and critics are noting with Shattered Space is that it’s “only” a story expansion. The DLC doesn’t add anything of substance to Starfield beyond one new planet and some quests, and that’s leaving some people feeling underwhelmed yet again.
A scene from the Shattered Space trailer.
A few months ago, I wrote a piece here on the website in which I argued that Starfield’s first piece of DLC needed to be comparable in how transformative it is to Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty, which was released last year. That expansion came with a new area of the map and new quests – just like Shattered Space. But it also came with a major update that overhauled whole in-game systems, completely fixed some of the biggest disappointments with the game, and significantly improved the experience. That’s what Starfield needed… and that’s what it still needs.
The conversation around Shattered Space might’ve been different if things like detailed city maps, interior ship decorating, and the rover vehicle had all arrived along with it. It wouldn’t have fundamentally “fixed” Starfield, but it might’ve given the game more of a boost and gotten more players talking about the game in a positive light for a change. Instead, this opportunity was missed.
Starfield has a rover now.
So here’s my advice for Microsoft and Bethesda: stop the trickle of minor updates. Obviously you’ve gotta keep working on fixing bugs, so there can’t be a total lack of patches, but from now on, everything should be saved up for the next DLC. The next and final DLC.
Take two years – or three, if that’s what you need. Use that time to craft a larger expansion to Starfield’s world and story – perhaps one with an actual ending to the game’s main quest. But save up all of the smaller things that might’ve been added along the way, and add them all at once. Instead of trying to wring as much money as possible out of a disappointed and shrinking player base, focus on transforming the game into something that more people might actually want to buy. For me, that also means stripping out the entire microtransaction marketplace… but since that doesn’t seem realistic, at the very least focus on making one significantly larger expansion that can launch alongside overhauls to in-game systems. In a word, make Phantom Liberty… but for Starfield.
Starfield’s executive producer Todd Howard.
Starfield feels like a very greedy game right now, and £35 for a single expansion pack that only really adds one new location and questline isn’t doing anything to change the narrative. A “single-player live service” type of game – which is clearly what Bethesda wanted to create – is absolutely not my thing and never will be, and for that reason I’m almost certainly never going to play Starfield again. But even knowing that, and knowing what kind of penny-pinching game this is… Shattered Space still seems pretty unexceptional.
There should be a way around this, but only if Bethesda and Microsoft are willing to listen to feedback. Right now, Starfield is on its last legs. It’s been surpassed in so many ways by its contemporaries, and most players have just moved on already. Shattered Space, because of how it was designed and launched, was never going to bring them back en masse. And part of that is because of the way the DLC was structured and how these other free updates have been drip-fed to players over the months since Starfield launched. At a time when the game needed a win, decisions taken earlier in the year tripped up Shattered Space’s launch… and the end result seems to be that most players just aren’t paying attention any more.
Microtransactions and paid mods have been added to Starfield since the game was released last year.
For me, Starfield would only become playable again if the microtransactions and paid mods were removed and all of that content added either totally for free or as part of the next expansion. Given the lack of things like costumes, skins, and other cosmetic items in both the base game and Shattered Space, I’d argue that all of those should be added for free. But rather than doing so bit by bit in small updates over the span of months, what Starfield really needs is one big update and one big expansion that can get players talking about the game once again. Phantom Liberty for Cyberpunk 2077 is my go-to point of comparison, but I’m sure you can think of other similarly large and similarly transformative expansion packs that have been released over the years.
As to the content of Shattered Space itself… I have to say that, based on what I remember of the game, this House Va’Ruun stuff seems like it should’ve been part of the base game from day one. I mean, you literally have a companion character who’s an ex-member of this faction, and they’re mentioned multiple times across the main quest. Shattered Space, having been planned and developed alongside Starfield, basically feels like cut content to me.
I’m over Starfield at this point.
I’m not surprised that Shattered Space hasn’t turned things around for Starfield based on what I’ve seen. And as someone who was genuinely looking forward to this game once upon a time, my concern now is that Bethesda is running out of chances to make Starfield into the game that I thought it should’ve been. Without a serious re-think and complete change in approach, I don’t see that happening. And given how brutal Microsoft can be when games and studios aren’t performing to their high expectations… well, let’s just say it probably isn’t a great time to be a Bethesda executive right now.
Despite how I feel, I will be keeping up with the latest Starfield news to see if there are going to be changes or improvements in the future. I sincerely hope that Bethesda takes its time with the next update and expansion, because that feels like the game’s best chance to come back strong and re-capture at least some of its lapsed players.
But I have to be honest: the microtransaction marketplace has killed any residual support I had for the game, and it will be a weight around its neck for as long as it continues to exist. Charging £10 for a single mission, £7 or £8 for a tiny pack of cosmetic items, and selling in-game currency at the usual awkward exchange rate are all truly scummy, shitty things for a massive company to try to get away with. I loathe Starfield’s microtransactions, and seeing the way Bethesda has behaved not only with this game but with Skyrim’s “creation club” and Fallout 76 too… it’s really put me off The Elder Scrolls VI. I can’t root for Starfield’s redemption as long as this stupid live service marketplace remains in a single-player game.
Starfield and the Shattered Space DLC are out now for PC and Xbox Series consoles. Starfield, Shattered Space, and all other properties discussed above are the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
As part of Xbox’s Summer Showcase event last month, we got some big news about Bethesda’s failing space game Starfield… and it isn’t good. In fact, I’m beyond disappointed in the latest updates about the game, and I now feel incredibly sceptical about Bethesda’s longer-term future and its upcoming titles in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises. Today, I’d like to talk about what it is that I don’t like – and why it should matter to fans of Starfield, haters of Starfield, and even folks who’ve never played a single Bethesda Game Studios title.
Last year, I had pretty high hopes for Starfield. But as you may already know if you’ve read my first impressions of the game – and my other post-launch articles – I didn’t enjoy what was on offer. The world-building and setting just didn’t grab me in any way, and I progressed through some pretty boring missions and bland environments not really giving a shit about the galaxy that Bethesda had created or the characters who inhabited it. After spending as much time with the game as I reasonably could, I put Starfield down and haven’t returned to it – save for taking a few screenshots here and there to use on the website.
Screenshots like this one!
But what we’re going to talk about today doesn’t come from a place of “hate.” I’m not blindly attacking these decisions from Bethesda and Xbox because Starfield left me disappointed and I want to twist the knife even more. On the contrary: it’s precisely because I’ve enjoyed other Bethesda titles and because I had hoped to enjoy new ones in the future that I feel compelled to share my criticisms.
In short, Starfield is being catastrophically over-monetised. Bethesda and Microsoft seem desperate to wring every last penny out of the game, no matter what. Not content with making a lot of money from sales and subscriptions to Game Pass, Xbox and Bethesda are greedily grabbing every penny they can using every dirty trick from the games industry playbook. Having already charged £35 extra to players who wanted to play the game on its real release date, Bethesda and Xbox have now set up an in-game marketplace that wouldn’t look out of place in a crappy free-to-play mobile game, one that charges players for basic items and even fan-made mods.
What the fuck is this shit?
Shattered Space is going to be one of several larger pieces of DLC, and I’ve always given big expansion packs a lot of leeway when it comes to criticisms like this. But the fact that Shattered Space was planned during development of the base game – and appears to contain a faction that I would argue should have been part of the main game given its prominence and relevance to the plot and to major characters – even that starts to feel shady. The fact that Bethesda and Xbox were selling pre-orders for Shattered Space before Starfield even launched last year is just more proof of that. This is basically cut content: storylines and missions developed alongside the game’s main content that were carved out to be sold separately later on.
Whether you love or loathe Starfield, you have to admit that this is a poor way to run a single-player game. Look around at some of Starfield’s biggest competitors in the single-player action-RPG space. Baldur’s Gate 3 was complete at launch, with no major DLC and only one small content pack being sold separately. Cyberpunk 2077 comes with a single piece of DLC – and it’s a massive, game-changing one. Elden Ring likewise only has the one piece of DLC, too. None of these games paywall their fan-made mods, either.
Comparable games – like Elden Ring – aren’t subject to this ridiculous level of monetisation.
If this is the route Bethesda wants to go down – and it clearly is, as we’ve already seen with Fallout 76′s microtransactions and expensive add-ons – then I don’t think I want them to make The Elder Scrolls VI any more. Or Fallout 5. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time, and even though it’s been a while since I last played Skyrim or Oblivion, I still felt a sense of excitement knowing that a return to the world of Tamriel was on the cards. But now? Fuck it, I’m out.
Gamers have become desensitised to this kind of over-monetisation, but for a single-player title Starfield’s in-game marketplace is one of the worst and most egregious I’ve ever seen. We’re looking at a single mission that costs $10, item packs containing a scant handful of items for £10 or more, and much more besides. Players also need to buy an in-game currency – at the usual awkward exchange rate – before they can buy any of these microtransactions. More games industry bullshit from Bethesda there.
The in-game currency packs at time of writing.
I get that developers need to be paid for their time and work. But this isn’t the way to do it. If Larian Studios and FromSoftware can release profitable games that don’t need to rely on this kind of shocking in-game marketplace, surely Bethesda can too. And if CD Projekt Red can recover from Cyberpunk 2077′s shockingly poor launch (and even the game’s removal from an entire platform for months) to turn a huge profit from a game that only has a single piece of DLC, why can’t Bethesda? I don’t buy the excuse that Starfield wouldn’t be profitable without this microtransaction storefront – especially given that many of the offerings are fan-made mods that didn’t cost Bethesda a penny to create.
Maybe I’m too old and times have changed, but I’ve always believed that fan-made mods should be free. They’re a passion project, something players do for a bit of fun or to tweak a game they enjoy to be more to their liking. The idea of paying for mods has never sat right with me, and while I love the idea of up-and-coming or budding developers viewing modding as a way into the industry… they shouldn’t be expecting to make modding someone else’s game their full-time job. So paid mods are already a no-no for me, but knowing that Bethesda and Xbox are taking a cut of the proceeds for something they didn’t even make? It’s sickening.
Another expensive cosmetic add-on.
I said months ago that, with Shattered Space just being the first of several pieces of planned DLC, the total cost of Starfield could soar well past the £200 mark – but I didn’t expect that warning to come true so quickly. At time of writing, just to pick up the microtransactions in the “featured” category you’ll need to spend over £50 – on top of buying the base game for £60 and Shattered Space for £35. With more microtransactions being added all the time, it won’t be long before Starfield will be asking for north of £500 or even £1,000 for the complete package. That’s completely unacceptable to me for a single-player title.
It’s not wrong to want good, high-quality, complete games from studios. Other developers are capable of turning a profit by making and releasing games, so there’s no justification for this cash-grab from Bethesda and Xbox. And if this is how the company plans to make and monetise its games, then quite frankly I hope Bethesda Game Studios goes the way of Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin. Given the abject failure of Starfield already, and the controversy that these microtransactions are bound to cause, maybe Microsoft ought to consider taking The Elder Scrolls VI and the Fallout license away from Bethesda. The corporation has enough other studios under its umbrella at this point that it would be quite feasible to pass these titles to someone else.
Maybe someone else should make The Elder Scrolls VI.
I’ve lost all interest in The Elder Scrolls VI now, anyway. And unless Microsoft were to announce a massive change in that game’s development, I doubt I’ll pick it up. It’s clear to me now how Bethesda sees its games – less as complete experiences than as platforms for monetisation, microtransactions, and expensive in-game purchases. Rather than creating games to be published and sold, Bethesda is going all-in on live services and “recurring revenue,” hoping to monetise its titles for years after release. If the company was making multiplayer games, where this business model has worked, I’d leave them to it. But in the single-player space I find it objectionable… actually no, I find it disgusting.
This time last year, coming out of Bethesda’s big Starfield presentation, I could hardly have been more excited about the game and its prospects. A friend of mine said to me that they genuinely felt Starfield “could be the best game either of us will ever play” – such was the level of hype and excitement that Bethesda and Xbox had successfully built up. But it wasn’t meant to be.
Pre-release concept art for Starfield.
Instead, Starfield was a game that was mediocre at best; a title comprised entirely of systems and mechanics that other titles have been doing better for years. As I wrote once, Bethesda should have been less focused on turning Starfield into a “ten-year experience” and instead ought to have been spending time catching up on a decade’s worth of improvements in game design and development. The company’s executives were entirely focused on the wrong ten years!
At the end of the day, I could have overlooked bland gameplay, uninspired mission design, and even a lack of decorative and cosmetic options if the world-building and narratives present in Starfield had been up to scratch. But they weren’t – and all of this lacklustre gameplay was taking place in a boring, small-scale world that I couldn’t find a way to get invested in or care about.
Starfield’s world-building was disappointing.
All of this leads to one question: why on earth is Starfield – with its bland, uninteresting, small world and outdated, mediocre, often-buggy gameplay – worth spending more money on? The kinds of things that these microtransactions are adding should be free – and given the crap state that the game remains in almost a year after its underwhelming launch, Bethesda should be continually adding new features, new missions, new cosmetic items and the like. And if there are going to be paid-for expansion packs like Shattered Space, then realistically they need to be as big and as transformative for Starfieldas Phantom Liberty was for Cyberpunk 2077.
Without that kind of large-scale change to the game, I don’t see Starfield surviving. Many of the players who picked it up on launch day or in the latter part of 2023 have already drifted away and are finding new gaming experiences to get stuck into. It’s already a tough sell to win back disappointed ex-players, and adding microtransactions – including a single mission for $10 – is categorically not the way to do it. It would be bad enough if Starfield was a popular title with a large playerbase… but it isn’t. And this kind of egregious in-game shop isn’t going to do anything to bring players back.
Starfield’s first $10 mission. Expect to see more like it.
So I guess I really am done with Starfield. I held out hope for a while that there might be an update or DLC pack that would genuinely transform the game, bringing it closer to the original promises that Bethesda made and making it a title I might actually enjoy playing. But with the company seemingly wedded to this microtransaction and paid mods approach that wouldn’t feel out of place in a free-to-play mobile game… I’m out. This game isn’t worth it, and even if it had been a title with a fun story and great world-building, I think I’d still be so turned off by the over-monetisation that I’d walk away.
On the one hand I get it: I’m a dinosaur in a gaming marketplace that’s changed. Morrowind, with its two expansion packs, was more than twenty years ago, and many developers nowadays go down the route of microtransactions, “gold editions,” paid early access, and so on. But there are still games that don’t, especially in the single-player space, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a game that I play alone and offline to be basically feature-complete and not try to grab every penny out of my wallet every time I want to change my character’s outfit or decorate their living space.
I’ll finish this piece with a warning for Xbox and Bethesda: players will remember what you tried to pull with Starfield when the next Fallout game or The Elder Scrolls VI are being readied for launch.
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. The Shattered Space DLC pack will be released in autumn 2024. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’m genuinely flummoxed by recent decision-making over at Xbox. I’ve said before that, while I’m a Game Pass subscriber on PC, I don’t own either of the current-gen home consoles – so I’m not coming at this from some kind of console war/fanboy perspective. But it’s pretty concerning to see Xbox flopping around like a dying fish, seemingly unable to turn its massive and ever-expanding gaming empire into anything remotely profitable.
If you haven’t heard the news, Xbox recently announced the closures of four subsidiary studios. One of those is the beleaguered Arkane Austin,developers of Redfall – which was one of the biggest flops of 2023. I’m never in favour of a studio being shut down after one failed project – especially when that studio has a previous track record of success. But I could at least understand why something like that might happen; we’ve seen it often enough with publishers like Electronic Arts, for example. Blame for a failed title gets pushed onto the developer – often unfairly, as studios are increasingly pushed to work on titles outside of their areas of expertise by publishers – and then they end up being closed down. It sucks, but it’s happened before.
Arkane Austin, the developer of the ill-fated Redfall, has been shut down.
But what I honestly cannot understand is Microsoft’s decision to close Tango Gameworks – developers of Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush, both of which have been successful titles for Xbox and Game Pass, with the latter even being launched on PlayStation to great fanfare. Closing down a studio after a high-profile failure is one thing, but after releasing critically-acclaimed titles that achieved more than anyone could have expected? It makes absolutely no sense – and seems to be indicative of a company in disarray.
Microsoft and Xbox may have bitten off more than they could chew with the recent Activision-Blizzard acquisition. Although that side of the company is one of the only profitable spots for Xbox at the moment, the massive outlay to purchase the company in the first place has clearly burned a hole in the once-infinite pockets of Microsoft, and that appears to have led to some very short-term thinking on the part of some executives. They’re scrambling, looking for any and all money-saving options.
VP of Xbox Marketing Aaron Greenberg hailed the success of Hi-Fi Rush… shortly before the developer that made it was shut down.
Xbox has been running way behind PlayStation since the end of the Xbox 360 era, and that shows no signs of changing any time soon. PlayStation 5 consoles are outselling Xbox Series S and X consoles by a huge margin, and Microsoft has been struggling with that for a while. But Xbox’s ace in the hole should be Game Pass – as I’ve said more than once, subscriptions seem to be the direction of travel not only in the gaming marketplace, but in media in general, and Xbox has been first out of the gate with the biggest gaming subscription around. There have even been calls in some quarters for Xbox Game Pass to launch on PlayStation, such is the demand for the service.
But Game Pass is, as we’ve also discussed, somewhat of a double-edged sword. More people signing up naturally means fewer direct sales of games – because any player who’s joined Game Pass is incredibly unlikely to shell out extra money for a copy of a game they can already play. When some critics of Game Pass tried to spin this as a major “problem,” I pushed back on that, saying it was a silly argument. Microsoft and Xbox know what they’re doing, I argued, and a short-term hit to individual sales will have simply been an expected part of the equation as Game Pass establishes itself. But apparently I’ve over-estimated the intelligence of some of Microsoft’s executives…
Does Microsoft not know how to handle Game Pass?
Senior folks at Xbox have been seen in public expressing concern over “flat” sales, and the company doesn’t seem to know how to handle its own Game Pass subscription service – you know, the platform it set up with the explicit intention of changing the way in which Xbox and PC players pay for and engage with games. How on earth that managed to happen is just beyond me, and some of this ridiculous short-term thinking on the part of senior management at Xbox seems to run completely counter to the company’s stated longer-term goals.
Maybe Game Pass isn’t doing as well as Microsoft hoped. It seems, from publicly available data, that the service hasn’t seen a huge influx of new subscribers over the past twelve months, even with the release of major titles like Starfield. But as any film/TV streamer could tell them, building up a user base takes time, and there are bound to be bumps in the road along the way. Hitting the panic button after a few rough months and closing down studios that should be making exactly the kinds of games that Xbox claims to want to prioritise is so stupidly short-sighted that it’s almost incomprehensible.
Starfield doesn’t appear to have led to a massive influx of new Game Pass subscribers.
Not for the first time, I feel echoes of Sega’s rather unceremonious exit from the console war some twenty-plus years ago. Perhaps that’s the next step for Microsoft, with its gaggle of newly-acquired studios. Rather than becoming a gaming powerhouse like Nintendo or Sony, producing a glut of high-quality exclusive content, Microsoft is instead going to end up as another Electronic Arts – a publisher owning a number of different studios, ready to close all of them at the drop of a hat if there’s so much as a whiff of underwhelming sales numbers.
That would not be good for gaming. Whatever you may think of Xbox consoles or Game Pass, the games industry needs competition in order to innovate, grow, and provide some semblance of consumer-friendliness. With Nintendo not directly competing with PlayStation for the same audience – being off to one side carving out its own niche – it’s up to Xbox to be the competitor that the gaming landscape needs. If Xbox is indeed failing, in danger of crashing out of the market… that’s not going to be good for anyone in the longer-term.
An Xbox Series X box.
I don’t believe for a second that this will be the end of the line for Game Pass, nor for subscriptions in gaming in general. Those things are here to stay – even if Microsoft and Xbox can’t figure out how to make them work properly right now. The direction of travel in media is still toward subscriptions and away from box sets and physical discs, and I don’t see that changing in the short-to-medium term. Game Pass, while it may be struggling to attract new users right now, is still an exceptionally good deal and a great way into current-gen gaming for players on a budget… but it’s on Microsoft and Xbox to find a better way to take advantage of that. Top tip: shutting down studios that could produce brand-new titles to add to the service that would attract new subscribers is categorically not the way to do it!
On a personal level, it’s hard not to feel for the folks at Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, and the other studios that Microsoft has killed off this month. And for the dozens of other studios that other big publishers have shut down. The games industry in general feels quite unstable right now, with high-profile flops, studio closures, and large numbers of people being laid off left, right, and centre. Corporate greed accounts for a huge chunk of that, by the way, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Many of these decisions are being taken to boost already record-breaking profits and to provide even more money for shareholders and investors.
There was no need to shut down Tango Gameworks.
All of this self-inflicted bad news for Xbox comes just a few weeks before the company’s big Summer Showcase event, at which several new titles are supposed to be revealed. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Avowed, Flight Simulator 2024, and Starfield’s Shattered Space DLC are all likely to be shown off in detail at the event, and there’s even going to be a special Call of Duty-themed presentation following Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision. But it’s hard not to see that event being totally overshadowed by recent closures and lay-offs, and the general sense that Xbox as a brand is struggling to find a direction and an identity right now.
For players who might tune into the Showcase, or who might be subscribed to gaming news publications that will cover the event… what are they to make of Xbox, when the company seems to be all over the map with its exclusives, lack of exclusives, new studios, and studios that have just been shut down? With some of Xbox’s precious few exclusive titles already making their way to competing platforms, and studios that developed popular and successful titles being unceremoniously killed off, how can any player have faith in Xbox and the upcoming titles it wants to highlight?
The Xbox Games Showcase is just a few weeks away.
Suppose Shattered Space doesn’t cut it for Starfield, and player numbers remain low. Will Xbox insist that future development on Bethesda’s attempted space epic is halted? What if Avowed does incredibly well and wins some big awards… but executives decide to shut down Obsidian Entertainment anyway? If I’m looking on as a potential player… why shouldn’t I just wait six months until some or all of these games come to PlayStation or to Nintendo’s next console? What’s the point in buying an Xbox any more?
All of these are questions that Microsoft has opened up by some truly bizarre and desperately short-term moves over the past few weeks and months. If you’d asked me even a year ago what Xbox’s strategy was, I’d have said clearly that there’s a focus on building up Game Pass as a subscription service with a guaranteed income, backed up by some expensive studio and publisher acquisitions to make new titles to add to the platform. But now? What is Xbox trying to do? Where’s the longer-term planning, and where does Microsoft see the Xbox brand in ten years’ time, five years’ time… or even just this time next year? I genuinely don’t know any more.
Where will Xbox be five years from now?
It’s a strange time to be following the games industry – and I suppose that’s been true for a while now, really. Despite the predictions of some doomsters, I doubt very much that we’re heading for a 1983-style “market crash.” Gaming has grown so much since those days, and I just can’t imagine a collapse of that nature happening… at least not in the immediate term. But bigger changes may be afoot, and if Xbox is losing money and unable to keep up with PlayStation, well… sooner or later, something’s gotta change.
As I said a few months ago when talking about Xbox and its exclusivity problem, I don’t believe that the company ceasing to produce consoles would be a good move for the market overall. But, as Sega found just after the turn of the millennium, focusing on software instead of fighting a losing battle on the hardware front might be what’s needed to save the brand.
Strange times indeed.
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Starfield’s main quest – including its ending.
I know, I know: I keep telling you that I’m “done” talking about Starfield… only to pop up again a few weeks later with another new article or something else to add! So perhaps I’d better stop saying that this will be my last-ever piece about Starfield and just take it as it comes!
Over the past couple of weeks, Starfield has come back into focus for me. The recent Fallout television series has seen a surge of interest in Bethesda’s other sci-fi property, with both Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 seeing massive player numbers in April 2024. Both games were already running ahead of Starfield – which seems to have dropped out of the charts altogether by this point – but with talk of Bethesda potentially greenlighting some new Fallout project to tie in with the second season of the show, it really puts into perspective how far Starfield has fallen.
Don’t forget to check out my review of the Fallout TV series, by the way. You can find it by clicking or tapping here.
The Fallout TV series has given a big boost to the games.
So here’s the deal: if you’ve read my first impressions of the game, or any of my other post-launch articles, you’ll know that I was underwhelmed by Starfield. There were elements of the game that had potential – but none that truly lived up to the hype. I didn’t hate Starfield by any means, and when I looked back at the worst or most disappointing gaming experiences of 2023, it didn’t seem fair to include it there, either. But the game was clearly not all it could’ve been.
Today, what I’d like to do is throw out a few of my (totally unsolicited) ideas for how Starfield could be improved. None of these are “magic bullets” capable of turning the game into a 10/10 perfect experience. I think that ship has sailed! But even within the confines of Starfield’s limitations, there are ways in which the game could be improved to make it worth returning to. I’m not proposing a total overhaul or re-making of the game, nor am I asking for something totally unrealistic like a brand-new main quest or recreating the game in a new engine. Instead, I’m trying to propose reasonable changes to certain systems or additions that wouldn’t undermine or fundamentally break the game as it currently exists.
My character on the surface of an icy moon.
If that sounds like something you’re interested in, let me begin with my usual caveats! First of all, I have no “insider information.” I’m not trying to claim that anything discussed below can, will, or must be included in a future update or expansion for Starfield. This is a wishlist from an ex-player, and nothing more.
Secondly, all of this is my entirely subjective opinion. If you loved Starfield in its original form, think the game is utterly irredeemable, or just hate all of my suggestions, that’s totally okay! There’s plenty of room in the Starfield and Bethesda fan communities for polite discussion and disagreement – and we don’t need to get into an argument about hypothetical ideas for the game that Bethesda may never include.
With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!
Number One: Empty Planets.
A man-made structure on a random planet.
Considering that one of the biggest complaints I repeatedly hear about Starfield is that “too many of the planets are empty and boring,” this might seem counter-intuitive. But bear with me, because I genuinely believe that making a portion of the game’s planets completely empty would be a significant improvement.
One of the things I wanted most of all from a game like Starfield was the sense of going “where no man has gone before,” and being the first person to set foot in an alien landscape. Like a Starfleet officer, I wanted to explore the galaxy – after all, isn’t that supposed to be the mission of Constellation, the main faction that players are forced to join in Starfield?
Landing on a planet where people have already been – and are still actively living – isn’t really “exploration,” is it?
But instead, the way Bethesda chose to create planets has meant that there are none – literally zero – that are empty. Humans have set foot on all of Starfield’s 1,000 planets, and it’s completely impossible to pick a landing zone that doesn’t already have pre-made structures, points of interest, shipwrecks, spaceship landing sites, and more. Any chance to feel like a bona fide explorer was lost… and for me, one of the single most crucial elements of a “space game” melted away as I came to realise that.
Empty planets in Starfield could serve a variety of purposes. Building outposts and habitats is one – because honestly, who wants to build their dream home or pirate base a few metres away from a spacer hideout, a commonly-used landing site, and an abandoned research tower? Such worlds could also contain more resources – and with a potential overhaul to the way resources are collected and used in-game, becoming a miner or space-trucker could become viable in-game career options.
Scanning a planetary body from orbit.
I loved the idea of finding a desolate planet, far away from civilisation, and building my luxury space penthouse there. I loved the idea of hopping from world to world, collecting rare resources that could be sold or traded, and upgrading my ship so that I could carry more and more cargo. Starfield offers the illusion of this through “mission boards,” but these are so barebones and non-interactive that they hardly even count.
I’d take the core of the Settled Systems – worlds around Sol, Alpha Centauri, and Cheyenne – and leave them more or less as they are. But the further out players get from those core worlds with their bigger settlements, the greater the number of genuinely empty planets there should be. I think this change could work wonders for Starfield, especially if it were to be combined with some of the other suggestions and proposals on this list.
Number Two: New and Modified “Points of Interest,” Including Different Variants.
Arriving at a “deserted biotics lab.”
Within my first few hours of playing Starfield, I’d been to the same “abandoned research tower” and the same “abandoned mine” four or five times each. I hoped that I was just unlucky – that there were many more of these copy-and-paste structures out there and I’d just run into the same couple of them a few times. But there really are only a few of these – some of which don’t have much going on. Considering how big the game is and how Bethesda expected players to want to spend hundreds of hours playing Starfield over the span of a decade, that’s pretty poor, and has been a huge weight around Starfield’s neck.
What the game desperately needs is many, many more of these so-called “points of interest.” Just to start, I’d say there ought to be four times as many as there currently are, and every free update should be adding new ones on top of that. But even if that were to happen, the fact that all of these structures – and everything within – are literally identical from one appearance to the next means that further changes are needed.
Discovering another copy-and-paste location.
So here’s my next proposal: each point of interest should come with multiple variants. I wouldn’t mind encountering the same structure half as much if the NPCs and loot contained within were in different configurations every time! It would make approaching one of these structures feel a bit more tense, too – you wouldn’t know whether you were about to encounter friendly NPCs, hostile enemies, alien monsters, or something else.
Taking the “abandoned research tower” as an example (because I played through several of those!) Here are some variant ideas: one variant could be the same as it is now, with hostile pirate NPCs having made the tower into their base. A second variant could contain scientists and researchers, perhaps even with a quest-giver to provide radiant quests or missions on the planet. A third could also have scientists, but be guarded by soldiers belonging to one faction or another, with players who haven’t gained enough ranks in that faction being turned away… or having to sneak in! A fourth variant could be totally empty, but with audio logs and notes suggesting something bad happened. A fifth could be filled with terrormorphs or other hostile monsters. And so on. How much more interesting would it be to approach an “abandoned research tower” if you didn’t know which variant you were going to get?
A non-hostile NPC at a random location.
There could also be unique once-per-playthrough points of interest that still appear at random but are never repeated. These could be variants of common structures or complete one-offs – ideally a mix of both. Some might spawn randomly on a certain planet or only in a certain biome, and others could be 100% random, with exclusive loot or quests to participate in. Clues could be left behind in the world to guide players to their locations.
In any case, one of the biggest things holding Starfield back is the incredibly repetitive dungeons/points of interest. I don’t think they can be entirely scrubbed from the game due to the way it’s made, but even just adding new and different variants of the current points of interest would be a start. Creating brand-new ones to add to the game ought to be a priority, too.
Number Three: Changes to the Ship-Builder. (Part One)
Starfield’s ship-building system.
Starfield’s ship-builder is one of the game’s best features… but it’s imperfect, finicky, and in serious need of some quality-of-life improvements. Firstly, it’s a pain in the arse to have to trek from one vendor to another to be able to design my ship exactly how I’d like it! Enabling players to access all ship parts at all vendors – or to unlock different constructors’ parts and use them from that point on – would massively improve the ship-building experience.
Being able to unlock different parts or groups of parts and then use them at all ship-building stations would be a massive improvement, one that this otherwise decent system desperately needs. The easiest way, I think, would be for each manufacturer to grant players a “license” (or other in-game jargon) for their pieces, permanently unlocking them. This would mean that players would still have to work to unlock all the different parts; they wouldn’t just be there by default. But it would also mean that there’d be no need to keep travelling between star stations and planets to add one component that’s only available in one location.
It’s a pain to have to continually travel between locations to access all of the different spaceship components.
Secondly, I’d want to see Starfield combine its interior decorating – which is currently only present in the outpost builder – with ship-building. This could be optional, meaning that players who aren’t interested wouldn’t have to participate. But one area of the ship-builder that I felt really let down the whole system was the lack of interior customisation.
It’s possible for players to drop items aboard their ship and have them remain where they fall – something that was epitomised by “sandwich lady” in the Starfield Direct marketing broadcast. But this is a Bethesda game hallmark that’s been present since Morrowind… and it hasn’t been improved in any way for almost a quarter of a century. Not only that, but any modification to a ship – even if those modifications don’t change the interior or layout in any way – would lead to all items being removed and dumped in the ship’s inventory. So even that very, very basic amount of interior customisation comes with a massive downside!
It’s possible to drop and clumsily reposition items on your ship – like this wooden duck.
At the very least, I’d like to be able to choose colours for the walls, floors, and doors, as well as choose where doors and hatches in between modules will appear. At present, there are only pre-set colours and doors appear at random; this should be easily added with a modicum of effort!
If I dared to dream, I’d like to see furniture options for each module, posters and wall art to decorate the ship, and everything from rugs to kitchen appliances, all with different designs and colour variants to choose from. One of the disappointing things for me was that, despite making my ship look the way I wanted from the outside, it never really felt like “mine” when I was exploring the inside. There was a half-eaten sandwich on a table that my character didn’t bite. There were math equations on a whiteboard in my captain’s cabin that I didn’t write. And I would have never chosen such a ghastly colour scheme!
Number Four: Changes to the Ship-Builder. (Part Two)
The ship services technician on Akila.
Sticking with Starfield’s ship-builder, there are a few more places where I think improvements could be made. Firstly, having to manually “assign” weapons is finicky and annoying, and there has got to be a better way to do this. Ideally, weapons would be automatically assigned as soon as they’re added to a ship, with the same slot always being used for the same weapon type. Heck, there are only four types of shipboard weapons in the game – so ensuring that each one is always assigned the same button shouldn’t be that difficult!
Secondly, adding the option to rotate ship pieces would be nice. Maybe not every single piece would need to be rotatable – engines, for instance, as well as cockpits might be tricky. But some layouts might work better a different way around, and being able to have some hab modules running “sideways” could open up a lot more combinations. There are also visual and aesthetic reasons for wanting to be able to rotate certain ship pieces – and this must surely be achievable without ruining the ship-builder!
Having to manually “assign” weapons is a pain in the arse.
It would also be great if there was some way to preview how different ship pieces look on the inside without having to buy them. The in-game descriptions of the likes of the brig and armoury are pretty barebones, and it’s only after purchasing an expensive hab and installing it that players actually get to see what it looks like. If the look isn’t right, if it doesn’t match the rest of the ship, or if it doesn’t do what players had been expecting… it can end up being a waste of time and credits.
This could be combined with the interior decorating and doorway positioning additions that I suggested above. The preview window could show different colour variants, for instance, and also allow players to choose where to place hatches, doorways, and even ladders.
Adding a new module in the ship-builder.
Finally, if players have a particular ship component on another vessel in their fleet, it should be possible – somehow – to swap parts between ships. Even if removing a part from one ship to add it to another made the first ship un-spaceworthy, if that wasn’t the player’s currently-assigned ship, then it should be okay. It seems silly to allow players to amass a fleet of ships that could have perfectly usable components, but be unable to swap them between different vessels in the fleet. Having to buy the same part more than once – especially if other ships are unused and just sitting there – feels like something that could be avoided.
The ship-builder is definitely one of the better game modes that Starfield introduced, building on the likes of Fallout 4′s settlement system. But there are ways in which it could be improved, allowing players to really make their ship into the flying home of their dreams!
Number Five: Alternate Starting Points for Different Character Backgrounds.
Every character starts here – regardless of how they’re set up.
It never made a lot of sense to me that a xenobiologist, a professor, or a diplomat would have ended up working in a mine. Sure, an ex-soldier or a criminal on the run might’ve taken a gig like that… but some of Starfield’s backgrounds just don’t gel with the game’s opening act. Rather than changing the entire opening (starting from a prison cell would’ve worked better, IMHO) perhaps Bethesda could add just a couple of alternate starts to account for some of these different backgrounds.
Look at what Cyberpunk 2077 did with its life paths as an example. There are three different starts in that game, each of which sees V living a different life in a different place. They all come together to kick-start the main storyline, but the journey to that point is pretty different. Even though the life paths don’t matter once the game gets going (there’s one mission apiece midway through, but they were pretty basic and uninteresting), the way the game begins offers players a different role-playing experience.
Starfield could offer alternate starts that work similarly to Cyberpunk 2077′s life paths.
Each Starfield starting point could still see players grabbing an artefact on the mining planet of Vectera if that’s important to Bethesda, but how players get to that point could change depending on which start was chosen. For example, players who wanted to imagine their character as a spacefarer could begin in space, landing on the planet to transport the unearthed artefact to New Atlantis. Or players could begin working in the mine’s laboratory, studying the artefact.
I’d also like to see at least one starting point that didn’t force players down the Constellation/main quest route immediately. Players could choose not to engage with the artefact, for instance, or could choose not to accept Barrett’s offer. After the pirate attack on Vectera, players could commandeer the pirate ship instead of being given the Frontier. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head!
Many of the available backgrounds don’t line up with working in a mine at the beginning of the game.
I don’t think Bethesda would need to go overboard here. There could be two or three mining-adjacent roles that could see players on Vectera in just the right place at just the right time to pick up the artefact. But these could be different enough from one another to take into account the different player backgrounds on offer in Starfield, which is something that I think would make a lot more sense.
If nothing else, adding a couple of alternate starting points would add to the game’s replayability, as it has for Cyberpunk 2077. There are ways to implement something like this without radically changing the game’s main story or even its opening act, and when it comes to the role-playing side of things – the side that makes me want to lose myself in a character and their fictional world – it would be a huge improvement.
Number Six: Make In-Game Careers Viable.
I was unimpressed with Starfield’s mission boards.
One of the things I love to do in a big open-world game is to step away from the main story and get lost in the world. In order to do that, my character needs to be more than just a generic adventurer… so in-game career options need to exist. And no, I don’t mean getting a job with one of the factions that quickly sees the player character climb the ladder to become its leader! I mean jobs that are off to one side, not really connected to any of the main questlines.
For example, it could be possible to be an explorer: charting unexplored and unvisited planets. Players could send probes to the surface, like in Mass Effect 2, to scout landing sites, then disembark and either map the area or collect different resources. These planetary surveys – which would actually require work to complete – could then be returned to Constellation for a profit… or sold to one of the game’s other factions. As players acquire a reputation for exploration, new quests could even arise, with factions offering players bigger rewards to survey planets further and further afield.
The mission board in New Atlantis.
Being a long hauler – one of the actual in-game backgrounds – could also be a career option. Using the mission boards, players could collect cargo from one planet and take it to another, either under contract or just to buy and sell. Different planets or settlements could have different resources or items that they’re asking for, and this could change week-to-week.
These missions would need to be much more interactive than they are currently, with players having to manually load and unload cargo, perhaps, or travelling to meet up with different NPCs inside settlements instead of just having a mission marked as “complete” as soon as the ship touches down! But there’s potential in this system to expand it and make it into a bona fide “space trucking simulator.”
Mining a resource.
Finally, for a game that kicked off deep inside a mine… there’s basically no reason to do any actual mining in Starfield. Resources are so worthless and sparsely spread out that I found there was absolutely no point in mining them when exploring a planet. If I desperately wanted to complete a research project or something, it was easier and quicker to loot a spacer base, sell the items for credits, and buy whatever resource I was missing.
But all of that could change! Making resources more abundant and accessible on different planets could make mining a viable in-game career. Tweaking the value of these resources could also make it much more worthwhile, and it could be strangely relaxing to spend an hour or two mining mercury or lithium to haul back to New Atlantis and sell it. I’m not alone in enjoying those kinds of slower-paced, “cosy” experiences… and it’s actually something I was hoping to get out of Starfield. As things stand, it’s way too unbalanced and grindy, but I can see the potential for a fun time hiding just under the surface!
Number Seven: An Alternate Ending/Reframe the Starborn.
One of the Starborn early in the game.
I hesitate to call this an “alternate” ending… because one of Starfield’s big narrative problems is that many of the fundamental questions present in its main story didn’t get any kind of conclusion in the first place. But that’s beside the point! What I’d like to see, as players reach the final act of the main quest, is the option to reject the Unity and to really push back against the whole concept of becoming Starborn. Not simply choosing not to go through the Unity, but actively stating how evil it is and the Starborn are and rejecting the whole thing.
The game puts Starborn adversaries in the player’s way, but most of these are unexplained, nameless non-entities that don’t really feel like actual people. The only two Starborn characters that players can engage with, the Hunter and the Emissary, have both been “reborn” hundreds or thousands of times over in many different universes – and the game actively pushes players to do the same thing. In fact, it’s the only way to fully complete the main quest.
Completing the main quest requires players to travel to a new universe.
But there are huge implications to abandoning one’s entire universe and everyone in it, and Starfield doesn’t do much more than pay lip service to this. It’s possible, for instance, for players to have a romantic partner or even get married – but their spouse doesn’t travel to a new universe with them. It’s implied that, based on choices the player has made, their universe of origin will be permanently changed in some way by their becoming Starborn… but this raises some massive ethical questions. Again, Starfield does nothing with these ideas.
So here’s my proposal: introduce new dialogue during the final act of the main quest that makes clear that the player rejects the entire concept of the Unity and becoming Starborn – and not only that, but they want to kill the Hunter and the Emissary to make sure that no one else can ever become Starborn either. However many universes these two might’ve fucked up… it ends here.
I’d like to see a “rejection” option added to the end of the main quest.
This is what I’d want to do if I found myself in that situation, confronted with a weird mirror image of myself telling me that “the Creators created everything,” and that becoming a Starborn is my destiny. No – fuck that. I’m from this universe, I want to stay in this universe, and I want to make damn sure that these Starborn clowns won’t be able to harm or kill anyone in the next universe, either. This universe-hopping quest ends here – not just for my character, but for all of the Starborn.
The Starborn and the Unity are the game’s real villains – at least until we get a proper explanation for the artefacts, their purpose, and where they came from. And I would want to see that reality reflected in the game’s final act, with players able to choose to reject the very idea of the Unity and the Starborn and ensuring they can’t go on harming people across countless parallel realities.
Number Eight: Quests with Multiple Pathways to Completion.
Battling a Spacer Captain at the climax of a quest.
One very disappointing thing about Starfield is how damn linear so many of its quests are. Most quests only have one route from beginning to end, and playing the game can feel like you’re riding a bike with training wheels half of the time. It ought to be possible to complete at least some quests in different ways, utilising different combinations of combat, tech, stealth, and even piloting skills depending on how players have set up their characters and which skills they’ve chosen to invest in.
Perhaps Starfield was harmed by comparisons with Baldur’s Gate 3, which was released just a month earlier. Actually, scratch that. Starfield was undeniably harmed by those comparisons! Baldur’s Gate 3 opens up practically all of its quests and characters, giving players a huge amount of freedom to decide how they want to tackle the game – leading to some incredibly fun gameplay moments. It’s possible for practically everyone in the game to die – something Starfield doesn’t allow with its “unkillable” NPCs – and for many quests to be tackled in radically different ways.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is overflowing with player choice and different ways to complete quests.
Where I got frustrated with Starfield was when the game presented the illusion of choice. At one now-infamous mission on Neon, players are teamed up with Walter to acquire another artefact. Walter states multiple times that there will be different ways to approach this interaction – but that turns out to be a lie. The game forces players down one path, and one path only.
Just taking this one mission as an example, it should be possible to abandon Walter and acquire the artefact alone, either by stealthily stealing it, killing the person carrying it, or causing panic at the nightclub and seizing it in the chaos. Then, after the player’s ship is impounded, there should be multiple options for escaping Neon. Players could sneak to the landing pad, knock out the guards, and disable the lockdown, or even rush over to another landing bay and steal a different ship. Just within this one mission there are so many ways things could go – but Bethesda has insisted that players must be locked onto one very specific route.
There should’ve been multiple approaches to this mission on Neon.
And there are many missions like this – both in main questlines and just out in the world. One side-story that I encountered involved a group of families on different planets and moons who found themselves in conflict with a gang of spacers. But there was only one way to complete every step of this mission – getting their communications back up and running, solving a conflict within the group, and then boarding the spacers’ station and killing them all. There should be so many different options in a mission like this – such as siding with the spacers for a reward, picking one family over the other when they argue, sneaking aboard the spacers’ station and opening all of the airlocks, or building a missile launcher on one of the moons and blowing it up from 10,000km away. Those are just a handful of ideas off the top of my head.
It’s obviously true that not every mission can have 100 different outcomes and routes to completion. But there should be some degree of choice in a role-playing game, for goodness’ sake! Even if all Bethesda can do at this point is make it so that some unkillable NPCs can now die and add one new alternate path for a handful of main story missions… that would still be a noticeable improvement.
Number Nine: More Cosmetic Items and Apparel.
It doesn’t take long to find NPCs wearing the same outfit as you!
I was quite disappointed with Starfield’s lack of cosmetic items – clothing in particular. For some reason, clothing only comes by way of whole outfits, with no option to mix and match different tops, trousers, or shoes – and there are almost no skirts, shorts, or different kinds of headgear beyond basic baseball caps and the occasional cowboy hat. Even Starfield’s omnipresent spacesuits are cosmetically limited, with the few available options having no colour variants.
It seems a given that Bethesda and Microsoft plan to add skins as paid-for microtransactions at a future point. You can even see in the game just where these skins will appear when they’re ready to be rolled out. But in my opinion, cosmetic microtransactions have no place in a wholly single-player game, and Bethesda should’ve added a lot more cosmetic variety to Starfield for free from day one.
Clothes shopping in Starfield isn’t much fun.
As far back as Morrowind it was possible to play dress-up by choosing different trousers, tops, shoes, and even individual pieces of armour. This would already make Starfield’s whole-body costumes feel like a backwards step even if there weren’t so few of them… but a combination of a lack of different costumes combined with the inability to select individual pieces of clothing comes together to make for an apparel system that’s underwhelming in the extreme.
For me, one part of the role-playing experience is getting my character to look exactly the way I want them to, and when Starfield offers such a limited range of costumes, that’s impossible. Most outfits in Starfield fall into one of two categories: generic “futuristic” sci-fi or western/cowboy. There’s very little diversity, no way to reflect different cultures and backgrounds… and for a game that makes a selling-point of its photo mode, there’s very little worth photographing from the available outfits.
Wearing a cowboy hat in Akila City.
Things like fashion sense and personal style are, of course, incredibly subjective – so you might enjoy the outfits and spacesuits that Starfield has to offer. That’s great – but even if you like some or all of the costumes available, adding new ones into the mix, as well as expanding the existing lineup with new colour variants and designs, can only be a good thing! I’d love to see Starfield add a lot more costumes and outfits, as well as skins and colour variants – all for free. There shouldn’t be paid skins in a game of this type.
And while we’re at it, let’s create some wholly unique cosmetic items that can only be found once per playthrough. One of the fun things about past Bethesda games used to be exploring dungeons and following questlines and being rewarded with something shiny and new! The only outfit in Starfield that comes close to falling into that category is the Starborn spacesuit… and I wasn’t especially wild about the way it looks.
Number Ten: Actual Spaceflight/Piloting.
There’s not much of an opportunity to be a pilot…
Starfield is a game set in space. It encourages players to build and customise their own spacecraft. Ship-to-ship combat takes place in real-time in space. But there’s absolutely no spaceflight in this game. Let me explain what I mean by that: players can’t get in their ship and manually fly it from one location to another. The only option is a modified form of fast-travel that generates a small bubble of space around the player’s ship. As some folks have demonstrated, there are no “real” planets or objects within that bubble; they’re just jpegs floating in the background.
Of all the points I’ve raised today, this could be the hardest to fix. Starfield is built from the ground up around fast-travelling between locations, and the way in which pockets of space are generated in orbit of planets or near starstations would need to be expanded and changed in a significant way in order to make real spaceflight work. Ships, too, would need to change – with better and faster engines being options for players who long for that space-sim experience.
Starfield appears to be built around fast-travelling from the galaxy map.
So there are real logistical issues in the way of adding bona fide spaceflight to Starfield. But I think it’s worth trying, at least – because if the only option is to fast-travel between locations, much of what appeals about taking to the stars is lost. Locations don’t feel far away from one another if players can teleport there in a few seconds, meaning much of the scale of Starfield’s galaxy – something that already feels diminished in light of its tiny cities, repetitive NPCs, and copy-and-pasted points of interest – is lost.
In past Bethesda titles, the journey from place to place was a significant part of the gameplay in and of itself. Walking from Seyda Neen to Balmora in Morrowind could lead to random combat encounters, side-quests, and interactions with NPCs. In Fallout 3, travelling from Megaton to the radio tower likewise saw the player presented with new opportunities to get lost in the game’s world and have fun. Heck, the recent Fallout TV series even referenced how exploring the wasteland often leads to getting side-tracked!
Part of the fun of past Bethesda games was journeying from place to place and stumbling upon new adventures along the way.
In short, the lack of spaceflight means there are fewer opportunities for players to take their time and explore Starfield’s galaxy in their own way at their own pace. When not on the surface of a planet – or approached by a random ship in orbit – there’s basically no way for players to get side-tracked by being offered a totally different quest or mission in a way that feels natural.
Starfield having functionally no spaceflight doesn’t just harm the game from a space-sim or space game perspective, it also denies players one of the fundamental building blocks of a Bethesda open-world game, too. I don’t know how it could realistically be implemented at this stage – and flying in between star systems would probably have to remain as fast-travel only. But making an effort to get proper spaceflight up and running would be worth it as it would be a huge improvement to Starfield’s immersion and gameplay.
So that’s it!
Does Starfield need to be rushed to the medical bay?
We’ve considered ten ways that Starfield could be improved – in my humble opinion, of course.
Although I spent close to a decade working in the games industry, I’m not a developer. I don’t know whether some or all of these ideas might’ve once been considered for Starfield, but were ultimately cut because they proved to be unpopular, impractical, or unworkable. The game’s very existence is, in some respects, a technological achievement; that Bethesda managed to build something this complex using the zombified remains of a game engine that’s more than twenty-five years old should count for something, right?
But I’m not alone in finding Starfield to be an underwhelming experience to play, and the fact that it didn’t win any big awards and seems to have dropped out of our collective cultural conversation after just a few months is testament to that. Starfield was being regularly beaten by Skyrim and Fallout 4 in terms of active players even before the Fallout TV show brought renewed attention to that franchise… and unless Microsoft and Bethesda take bold action in the months and years ahead, Starfield may very well end up being forgotten.
A custom spaceship on the landing pad at New Atlantis.
I’ve said before that I believe the only way to save Starfield is if its first major expansion is at least as big and impressive as Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty DLC was last year. Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, and if Bethesda can’t find a way to build a significant improvement to Starfield – not just a narrative addition or the inclusion of a new questline – then I think the game’s longer-term prospects will remain bleak.
I’ve had my say, and I’ve made my suggestions! Maybe not all of them would work, and maybe some of them are impossible due to the technical limitations of Bethesda’s game engine or the less-powerful Xbox Series S console. But Starfield would be a damn sight better if they were included… and really, some of these things should have been present at launch.
Could Starfield get its redemption arc one day? Never say never…
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Halo Seasons 1-2, and for the Halo video game series.
In 2022, I was one of the relatively small number of folks who enjoyed the first season of Halo. I didn’t think it was the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but it felt like a decent adaptation of the long-running video game series – albeit one that had been trimmed and cropped to fit a very specific mould used by other serialised streaming shows. Season 1 seemed to be a reasonable foundation upon which the next chapter of Halo could be built, so it was with some degree of anticipation that I awaited Season 2’s arrival.
And before we go any further, let’s acknowledge just how long that wait actually was. Halo Season 1 ran from March to May 2022 – meaning it’s been basically two full years since it went off the air. And as I’ve noted in the past with other made-for-streaming shows like Amazon’s The Wheel of Time, The Witcher on Netflix, or even some of the Star Trek shows on Halo’s platform, Paramount+, there are issues that result from long breaks in between short seasons. I needed a recap before the first episode – and at least in the UK, no such recap was forthcoming on Paramount+. Aside from the Master Chief and Kai, I couldn’t remember who was who nor where exactly the story left off – which wasn’t helped by a time-jump of six months in-universe, in which characters had moved around and at least one major story beat had taken place off-screen.
Promo poster for the second season of Halo.
Although it took me a while to get back into Halo during that first episode, as I was hampered by the lack of a proper recap, I will say that I did find myself engaging with the series as its story got going. Although I had to look up a plot synopsis for Season 1 online – something I really shouldn’t have needed to do – once I’d got myself properly reacquainted with the main players, and recapped the major story beats from the end of Season 1, I found a story that was entertaining enough to justify paying for a month’s worth of Paramount+, and that I didn’t mind following to its conclusion.
That being said, I still don’t feel that Halo has truly excelled – at least, not yet. Season 1 laid a solid foundation, but Season 2 seems to have disregarded parts of it, as well as deviated in a major way from the story that I remember from playing (most of) the main Halo video games. While I’m by no means a “canon purist,” I have to wonder: why go to all the bother of licensing a major entertainment property only to jettison most of its story and some of its characters? The story of the Halo video games – at least the first two or three titles, plus Halo: Reach – would have made for a strong and captivating story in itself, and with only a few tweaks could’ve seen the addition of new characters to join the Master Chief.
The story of Halo Season 2 was radically different from that of Halo: Reach.
In my review of the show’s first season, I said that re-interpreting and changing the story – and particularly finding a way to humanise the otherwise stoic Master Chief to make him into a sympathetic protagonist – was something I was generally on board with. And I stand by that to a certain extent; I don’t think a faceless, monotone character who’s an unfeeling killing machine would make for a good television protagonist, even if such a character works well in an action-heavy video game. But this time around, the Master Chief’s story felt muddled and seemed to rely on a few too many clichés and contrivances.
And partly, it must be noted, that’s because Halo’s writers have now taken the story in a significantly different direction to its source material. In Season 1, with the Master Chief getting entangled with a Covenant agent, discovering his humanity, and unlocking the mysteries of a strange alien artefact, there was still the potential to call all of this a preamble; the hitherto-unseen prequel to more familiar events. But in Season 2, with the Fall of Reach being depicted on screen in a radically different way to how it unfolded in the games, and with the story more interested in the intrigue within the UNSC and ONI, that possibility has evaporated. I’m not sure whether the new story that the writers have replaced it with is as compelling or as entertaining as the one that was sitting there, waiting to be adapted.
The Master Chief.
There was clearly an ambition on the part of some of Halo’s writers to use the UNSC, ONI, and the admiralty to look at the politics of war and the calculations that leaders have to make. This concept is sound, but it was let down by poor execution in Halo, unfortunately. In the first season, it felt as if most of the major characters – including Keyes, Halsey, and Parangosky – all had their own agendas. The Master Chief and his squad were caught in the crossfire and let down by the internal workings of the admiralty and leadership.
This message was somewhat streamlined in Season 2… but the way it was done necessitated some major contrivances. Corporal Perez, who Master Chief saved during the first episode of the series, refused to elaborate on what she saw of the Covenant during her debriefing… for seemingly no reason other than “because plot,” and when her words would have corroborated what Master Chief reported, that just doesn’t feel very satisfying. There was potential in Perez’s story to look at trauma and in particular the post-traumatic stress that soldiers can suffer from – but this angle was so undeveloped that I’m loathe to even include it as a plot point. In any case, it went nowhere – and thus doesn’t work as a justification for the narrative contrivance.
The Master Chief with Corporal Perez.
Perhaps this is the armchair general in me speaking… but I have a hard time seeing a character like Ackerson as an out-and-out villain. When confronted with the reality that a Covenant attack was imminent and unstoppable, he and the other admirals took what seems the only rational path open to them: a covert, quiet evacuation of high-ranking personnel and valuable assets in order to establish a new command centre to continue the fight and co-ordinate the defence of other worlds. Reach was, as Cortana explained, already lost before the explosions started – there was no way to prevent it.
Yet because we’re following the story of Master Chief and his crew, the series paints Ackerson and Parangosky as antagonists – more antagonistic, in some ways, than the Covenant themselves. And while we could entertain a more nuanced discussion of the “calculus of war” and how some leaders might try to use it as a justification to seize power or leave rivals for dead… Halo doesn’t really do any of that. It manoeuvres its characters into place – using more than a couple of contrived moments to get them there – and then… that’s it. Master Chief rages about how “they stole [his] armour” and his identity, but that just felt incidental and not like a driving force behind either the character or the story. The series came close to making a point about politics and war – albeit one that other, stronger narratives have already made – but then baulked on it at the last moment, despite the convoluted setup, in order to tee up the next big action sequence.
Halo came dangerously close to making a point about the politics of war with the character of Admiral Parangosky.
When such a story requires characters to act in a specific way to move things along, it can feel forced. And parts of Halo absolutely fall into this trap. During the climactic fight at Fleetcom, Master Chief and his Spartans are conveniently called away at the last second so they can be in just the right place to encounter Soren and Halsey, then Makee and the Arbiter, and finally to be rescued by Laera and Kwan. Master Chief was conveniently obscured by both fog and a communications blackout when he first encountered the Covenant, and the only other character to witness them refused to admit the truth. Laera was able to track down Soren just in time to save everyone from the attack on Reach. And so on.
Although Ackerson and Parangosky were manipulating the situation and keeping everyone in the dark about what was about to happen, their machinations can’t account for all of this – and the result is that the story is built on weak foundations. There are still successful moments of tension, excitement, and drama, and the deaths of major characters still manage to carry emotional weight. But that comes in spite of – not because of – the way in which the story has been structured. Halo is in real danger of getting in its own way.
Ackerson was presented as an antagonist.
In terms of visuals, Halo made a couple of missteps. Physical props used for things like spaceship doors, armour, and other pieces of supposedly “roughed-up” metal could look pretty phony in places, and while it wasn’t enough to take me out of the story entirely, it was definitely something I noticed across multiple episodes. This isn’t something unique to Halo, as I’ve noted it in big-budget productions from Star Wars to the upcoming Fallout series, but that doesn’t excuse it. Set design was generally okay, though, and I liked the interiors of the Covenant ships and the way they were laid out – as well as how the show got creative with re-using certain sets for Makee’s ship, the training simulator, and a real Covenant ship in battle.
Halo had some successes with its CGI – and one pretty epic misfire. The assault on Reach midway through the season, as well as the attack on another planet in the first episode, were fantastic, with explosions and plasma weapons that looked stunning. These were well-blended with physical sets, and the transitions between the two were great. The fleet battle toward the end of the season was likewise solid; a well-animated series of CGI sequences that lived up to the excitement I was hoping for from such a powerful narrative climax.
The Fall of Reach.
Then we got on the ground and came to the climactic one-on-one duel between Master Chief and his Covenant adversary, the Arbiter. The Arbiter felt vastly under-developed as a character, and while his hatred for the Master Chief was stated in almost every scene in which he appeared, there was no reciprocity there whatsoever, so the conflict itself felt very one-sided. I will say, though, that I liked the concept of this duel, and seeing plasma swords clashing almost like Jedi lightsabers was a fun idea, and a great way to take a rather clumsy weapon from the video game series and improve upon it. So in principle, this duel should have worked reasonably well.
But my god, the animation work here was atrocious. Neither the Master Chief nor the Arbiter looked at all real, with that “too shiny, too smooth, and too airy” CGI feel that I thought we’d left behind a decade ago. Even the shaky camera and fast-moving sequence couldn’t cover up these absolutely glaring flaws in the way these characters looked, and the entire duel – which, thankfully, was pretty short – entirely fell apart for me. There were clearly limitations in Halo’s animation budget that were showing, because the series completely failed to make either character look realistic at this moment. Because the Arbiter is a largely CGI creation to begin with, perhaps the way he looked wasn’t as bad as the Master Chief during the duel – though it was certainly the worst the character had looked all season long. But the Master Chief in particular just looked so hollow and fake, and that really took the shine off what was supposed to be one of the season’s final climactic moments.
It’s difficult to convey in a single JPEG just how bad this sequence looked.
One thing we didn’t see much of this time, unfortunately, was the first-person perspective that I noted in Season 1. Last season, this unusual blend of camera work and CGI was used sparingly, but at a couple of key moments it really worked well. As an homage to Halo’s video game origins, I enjoyed what the first-person viewpoint brought to the series. It’s also something a little different in the action space, at least in the medium of television, and in Season 1 it was used infrequently enough as to not be too obtrusive for folks who didn’t like it. It was a little disappointing to get so little first-person action this time around; there was one scene – or a clip, really, as it was so short – that I noticed… but that was all.
This season, Halo struggled to find a good character to pair with the Master Chief. In Season 1, the Master Chief spent time with Kwan, Kai, Makee, and of course Cortana, as well as butted heads with Dr Halsey and Admiral Keyes. His relationships with Makee and Cortana in particular, as well as the resentment he felt toward Halsey, went a long way to humanising him and turning him from that faceless video game protagonist into a character better-suited to a new medium. But in Season 2, Master Chief didn’t really spend enough time with any single character to have those kinds of moments. He spent much of his time angrily barking out orders and pushing his team beyond their limits, and his relationship with the under-developed character of the Arbiter was so non-existent that their conflict and climactic duel didn’t really work.
Halo struggled to find another character to pair with the Master Chief this season.
There’s something to be said for a storyline that puts its characters through a tough set of challenges, or even one that forces them to confront their own limitations and mistakes. But Halo didn’t really give us any of that, with the series presenting the Master Chief as having been “right all along,” even though he was basically behaving like an irrational dick for several episodes in a row. Combined with the lack of a partner or confidant for most of the season, this meant that the series’ protagonist spent much of his time angry and brooding – and that just never feels particularly fun. Shows like Game of Thrones did wonderful things with an ensemble cast that was broken up into distinct groups, taking literally years in some cases before some of the main characters even met one another. But Halo… I don’t think it has the chops to pull off something like that anywhere near as successfully, so splitting up its few noteworthy characters for so much of the story feels more a weakness than a strength at this point. I’d love to be proven wrong about that – but realistically, the show would need to run to six or seven seasons to develop these characters well enough to pay it off.
So after two seasons of a series called “Halo,” we’ve belatedly arrived at the titular ring-world. By this point, the Halo itself has been mythologised out of all proportion, and again this feels like a weakness when compared with the original story present in the first part of the video game series. Again, I have to point out that I’m not well-versed in the more recent lore of the expanded Halo franchise, and perhaps by this point the Halo ring-worlds are as legendary as the TV show depicts. But there was something to be said for the way in which humanity stumbled upon the first Halo, and how the Covenant were the ones who knew more about them and treated them with reverence. This “race to the Halo” idea that was underpinning the story of this season was just another way in which I felt it had diverged significantly from the story I remember.
Halo has finally arrived at the titular Halo.
The introduction of the Flood – which unfortunately came pretty late in the season – is at least potentially a point of interest. Presenting the Flood as akin to zombies from the likes of The Walking Dead or 28 Days Later certainly went some way to ramping up the fear factor as Halo came to the end of its final episode – but I can’t help but feel that more could have been made of this storyline if it had emerged earlier in the season and been drawn out for longer. There were a couple of key points at which the story needed to move rapidly thanks to the time constraint of being halfway through the series finale, and that just left things feeling a bit rushed and unsatisfying.
The biggest example of this is Soren and Kwan’s rescue mission. No one stops to ask “hey, what’s going on here?” because the episode just didn’t have time for the diversion, and when Laera revealed her “zombie bite,” it shouldn’t have been at all clear to Soren and the others that a bite wound would lead to infection. There was no time to explain this in-universe to the characters – nor really to us as the audience, either, as elsewhere in the base, infection seemed to spread by way of small spider-like creatures that emerged from the mouths of the infected. Perhaps Season 3 will be able to expand upon this storyline, flesh out its concepts and ideas a bit more. But as far as an introduction goes… it was a bit of a mixed bag.
The Flood’s “patient zero” in a holding cell.
On a more positive note, Halo took strides for representation, and it did so in a way that I’m always going to advocate for. There was a gay couple shown partway through the season; friends of Riz who she turned to for help. The fact that they were gay wasn’t front-and-centre in either of their characterisations, it was simply treated as an entirely unexceptional part of this sci-fi future. Representation can work incredibly well when handled in this way, and I’d point to Halo Season 2 as an example of how to include LGBT+ characters in a series when there isn’t the time or narrative space to include full-blown LGBT+ storylines or themes. Simply seeing a couple like this represented on screen is a positive thing.
As in Season 1, acting performances were solid across the board, and I wouldn’t want to single anyone out for criticism on that front. Halo’s sound design and music were solid; understated, perhaps, but in line with its source material. I heard several sound effects that were lifted directly from the video game series, which was great! With the exception of some unnecessary “shaky cam” sequences that made it difficult to follow the action, cinematography was pretty good, and the series’ use of light and shadow led to some tense moments of mystery and action at various points.
The Master Chief.
Unlike in 2022, I don’t think I’m going to call Halo one of my favourite TV shows of the year when I dish out my annual awards in December! It was alright; entertaining enough popcorn action fare. But there were significant weaknesses and narrative contrivances this time around that I feel got in the way of the fun, as well as a weak CGI sequence during what was supposed to be a climactic battle. I didn’t hate Halo by any means, but it wasn’t all it could’ve been.
However, now that the action has moved to an actual Halo… maybe there’s hope for Season 3. Although an official renewal hasn’t been announced at time of writing, it’s hard to see how the series could be cancelled at this point, given where it ended. With positive reactions from a number of critics and plenty of social media buzz, a third season feels like a sure thing. If it goes ahead and does actually take place on a Halo ring-world, that could certainly shake things up and perhaps go some way to bringing Halo back to firmer and more familiar ground.
I will be crossing my fingers for Season 3, then – and a story that successfully builds on what Seasons 1 and 2 laid out could go a long way to making some narrative decisions feel better in retrospect. So there are reasons to be positive as Halo continues its run. If for some reason, however, Halo isn’t renewed… I doubt it’ll be remembered particularly fondly, and instead will simply be tossed on the growing heap of video game adaptations that failed to light up the board.
Halo Season 2 is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available. Season 1 is also available on DVD and Blu-ray. Halo is the copyright of 343 Industries, Microsoft, Showtime Networks, Amblin Television, and Paramount Global. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for several main story missions in Starfield.
I was excited about Starfield last year. By the time the game’s big showcase had wrapped up in June, Starfield had rocket-boosted its way to the very top of my most-anticipated games list, and it held onto that position even as Baldur’s Gate 3 diverted my attention. But despite doing my best to give the title a fair shake, sinking more than twenty-five hours into it, and really wanting to love it… I didn’t. Starfield just didn’t have that “Bethesda magic;” the “je ne sais quoi” that has made some of the studio’s previous games into all-time classics.
And I’m far from the only person who feels that way. Despite launching to generally positive reviews from both players and professional critics, the longer folks have spent with Starfield, the further the game’s ratings have slipped. Although there are multiple areas of criticism from writing and dialogue through to the game’s outdated underlying technology, the general consensus is that Starfield is disappointing, shallow, and lacking in the replayability that Bethesda desperately tried to build into it.
An NPC aboard a spaceship in Starfield.
But it’s 2024, and if there’s one thing the games industry knows it’s this: you can launch half a game today and promise to patch out all of its issues later! The dreaded business model that I’ve dubbed “release now, fix later” has firmly embedded itself in the games industry – and Bethesda is no stranger to utilising it. The company’s most recent title before Starfield – Fallout 76 – has received years’ worth of patches and updates, and even though it endured an appalling launch, it’s in a much better state today than it was five years ago. In fact, Fallout 76 is now sitting just ahead of Starfield in terms of average reviews on Steam.
There are some areas of Starfield that patches, updates, and DLC have the potential to improve or fix. In a game all about exploration, being forced to re-play the same handful of copy-and-paste structures filled with nameless, mindless enemies got old fast – so how about quadrupling the number of these structures, creating some unique ones that only appear once per playthrough, and adding new and different types of enemies and loot to fill them. Or how about making at least some of the game’s 1,000 planets genuinely empty, with no pre-built structures at all. That sense of exploration, of being the first person to set foot in a “strange, new world” is what I wanted from a game like Starfield… and it seems like something that could be implemented into the game without too much effort.
It’s hard to convey how disappointing it was to land on a “deserted planet” only to find buildings and bases full of nameless, meaningless NPCs.
Then there’s the game’s main story. It was left deliberately open-ended to push players into New Game Plus – and I firmly believe this was one of the first and most important ideas conceived for Starfield during its creation – but it’s led to a fundamentally unsatisfying end to the game’s main quest. So Bethesda could write a better ending – and a more conclusive one. Who created the artefacts? What was their intention? Could the player character interact with these “Creators” somehow? Again, that seems like something that should be achievable.
Adding in new and varied paths through certain quests is also something that should be doable. A notorious mission in the main quest sees the player character travel to the “pleasure city” of Neon to acquire another artefact, but this quest is about as on-rails as it’s possible to be. No matter what choices the player makes, there’s only one way to get the artefact and complete the mission. It should be possible to tackle a quest like this in more than one way – and adding that in wouldn’t break the rest of the story or other parts of the game. For example, being able to kill the character who has the artefact, or finding another way to escape Neon after the deal goes down are things that would only impact that one quest – and being forced to play it in one specific way isn’t what a lot of folks wanted or expected from a game like Starfield.
This mission offers the illusion of choice, but ultimately forces players down one very specific route.
There are, of course, some things that can’t be fixed in Starfield, no matter how much of an annoyance they seem to be! I wasn’t personally all that bothered by the game’s loading screens when opening an airlock or entering a building – but I know that the loading screens have been an area of complaint for a lot of folks. Starfield is built on the creaking, zombified remains of a twenty-five-year-old game engine, though… so I don’t see a way to remove them. Nor could the game’s fundamental spaceflight problem be fixed; Starfield is built on the player and their ship fast-travelling between locations, so any opportunity for actual piloting or flying is basically gone at this point.
So we need to be realistic about what we could reasonably see from updates and future DLC; Starfield won’t change fundamentally in terms of either gameplay mechanics or narrative. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be significant improvements that could mean the game will be worth re-installing and giving a second chance. And yes, in case you were wondering: I’ve already uninstalled Starfield.
Things like adding better in-game maps for towns and other locations should be achievable.
But here’s the thing: Bethesda basically has one chance to do this.
Many players who tried out Starfield are already moving on. Games like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty DLC emerged around the same time and have, by comparison, highlighted many of the fundamental weaknesses in Starfield – as well as how far behind Bethesda has fallen in terms of game design and development. Bringing back players like myself who tried and gave up on Starfield – or convincing sceptics to try it for the first time in light of mediocre reviews – is not an easy task.
Phantom Liberty has done the impossible for Cyberpunk 2077, completely changing the way whole mechanics work, adding a massive new area of the map, new missions, and much more. Starfield needs its first piece of DLC to be at least as substantial and as transformative as Phantom Liberty given its shortcomings, and it needs this DLC to be well-received. If not… a lot of those players we’ve been talking about will be forever lost, with Starfield being brushed aside in favour of newer, better gaming experiences.
Phantom Liberty quite literally transformed Cyberpunk 2077.
Starfield is basically a “single-player live service” game. That’s the model Bethesda and Xbox chose to adopt, and we can see inside Starfield just where the paid skins and cosmetic items will appear when they’re ready to be pushed out. But like any live service, Starfield has to be basically good enough to build up a playerbase before anyone should be thinking about microtransactions, cosmetic loot, or paid mods. If Starfield’s first big expansion isn’t good enough, I don’t see the game retaining enough players to make that kind of “ten-year experience” anywhere close to viable.
Look at other games in the live-service space. Whether it’s Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, or Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, it’s incredibly easy for even massive publishers with huge brands to fail. And there are relatively few titles that launch to such a mixed reception that go on to make a recovery. The jury’s still out on the likes of Halo Infinite and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, but to say they’re limping along wouldn’t be unfair. Asking for a single patch or update to transform the fortunes of titles like that seems like a big ask… but it’s where they’re at. Just like Starfield, they’re in the last chance saloon.
We’ll see how much of this promised content for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League actually gets released…
Gaming is a marketplace – and a very competitive one at that. New titles are being released all the time, and while once-in-a-generation masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption II or Baldur’s Gate 3 are comparatively rare, there are enough good games out there – even in the single-player and role-playing spaces – for players to very quickly move on from a disappointing or underwhelming experience. Most games don’t even get a second chance; by the time developers have been able to address issues and roll out updates, the damage has been done and players have left, never to return.
Starfield is lucky in that Bethesda’s pedigree and Xbox’s sky-high marketing budget will almost certainly grant it a second chance and a second look from a decent number of players. But that second look had better be substantially different and a massive improvement – with changes and fixes across the board. Because there damn well won’t be a third.
Starfield has already had a chance to impress me.
Xbox won’t willingly burn money on Starfield if things don’t improve, just like Electronic Arts didn’t with Anthem or Square Enix didn’t with Marvel’s Avengers. Publishers pretty quickly hit their limit when it comes to supporting a failing game – so Starfield’s life-support can’t last forever. The game sold a decent number of copies at launch, and drove at least some new subscribers to Game Pass, so it’s probably bought Bethesda some time. But that time is finite, and if, at the end of it, the DLC or update isn’t good enough… I can see that being the end of the road for Starfield.
One interesting example here is No Man’s Sky. After that game was poorly-received by a lot of players upon release, Hello Games knuckled down and got back to work. Over the span of years, No Man’s Sky received dozens of updates that brought it much closer to its original vision. But those updates were all free, and players who stuck with the game were rewarded for their support and patience. Hello Games didn’t have the audacity to charge extra for completing the work that should have been done ahead of release… so perhaps there’s a lesson there for Bethesda and Xbox, too.
Some big free updates wouldn’t go amiss!
At the end of the day, despite whatever positive spin the PR departments at Microsoft and Bethesda might try to put on it, Starfield is in trouble. I gave up on the game after giving it more than enough time to impress me, but what should be even more concerning for Bethesda are the reports from folks who stuck with the game to the end – only to say it isn’t worth re-playing. The game’s launch did not go to plan, and the purported “ten-year experience” seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes.
We can discuss how all of this happened, where Bethesda went wrong, or what the worst aspects of the game are. There are already plenty of articles and essays about all of those subjects – and many different answers to those questions. But there is still a glimmer of hope for Starfield, that updates and improvements could bring it closer to the game we were all hoping for. But time’s a-ticking, and there’s one last chance to get it right.
Let’s cross our fingers and hope that Xbox and Bethesda seize the opportunity.
Starfield is out now for Xbox Series S and X consoles and PC, and is also available on Game Pass. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, ZeniMax Media, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I don’t usually like to cover rumours here on the website, but the growing controversy swirling around Microsoft and Xbox is proving difficult to ignore. If you haven’t heard, a number of reputable outlets have been reporting that Microsoft is planning to make some of its biggest current and upcoming console-exclusive titles available on PlayStation 5 consoles – including the likes of Indiana Jones, Starfield, and the Gears of War series.
This feels like a potentially massive shift in the gaming landscape, perhaps on a scale we haven’t seen for a long time. And I have to admit that it leaves me with pretty big questions about Microsoft’s strategy. What does the company hope to achieve in the longer-term with a move like this… especially after having spent so much money buying up companies like ZeniMax and Activision-Blizzard?
Microsoft spent a lot of money to purchase Activision-Blizzard recently.
Console exclusives suck. Let’s make that clear right off the bat. It would be better for players if every game could be available on every current-gen system with no limits… but that isn’t the world we live in. Nintendo games are exclusive to the Switch, and that’s gone a long way to helping the company shift well over 100 million consoles. PlayStation exclusives have likewise helped Sony dominate two console generations in a row. And Microsoft has been lagging behind since the end of the Xbox 360 era in that department.
But the company has seemed determined to course-correct. Microsoft has spent lavishly over the last few years, buying up the likes of Obsidian, Bethesda, and of course Activision, and using those long-established companies to create new exclusive titles. After launching Game Pass and bringing in tens of millions of subscribers in a few short years, Xbox’s plans seemed pretty clear: develop more and more exclusive games for consoles and PC, and turn the brand back into the powerhouse it was in the 2000s.
Xbox dominated the console market in the mid/late 2000s with the Xbox 360. Image Credit: Mario A.P. via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0
If these rumours of exclusive games going to PlayStation are even close to being true, that corporate strategy is no longer one that Microsoft is pursuing. And to me, it feels short-sighted almost to the point of desperation. Putting a game like Starfield on PlayStation might bring in some cash in the short-term as players who had previously been locked out will be able to pick it up. But in the longer-term… why would anyone buy an Xbox or even consider subscribing to Game Pass?
If Microsoft is willing to put games that it owns on a competing platform, but that competitor isn’t reciprocating, that’s tantamount to admitting defeat and throwing in the towel. Players will quickly realise that PlayStation is the place to be, because it allows them to play almost every title going – whereas Xbox doesn’t. PlayStation exclusives like God of War, Horizon: Zero Dawn, and The Last Of Us have been hugely influential in Sony’s success over the past decade or so, and if games that had previously been only available on Xbox also join the PlayStation lineup… that’s a great deal for PlayStation gamers.
Will we soon see Game Pass available on PlayStation consoles?
So what’s Microsoft’s move here? Are Xbox consoles to be discontinued, going the way of the Atari Jaguar and Sega Dreamcast? Have sales of the Xbox Series S and X been so poor over the past three years that Microsoft is considering getting out of the hardware market? If so… where would that leave the gaming landscape? If PlayStation and Nintendo are the only ones left, that might not be good for gaming and competition in the marketplace.
Sony learned a lot of harsh lessons during the PlayStation 3 era when the Xbox 360 sold more than 80 million units and gave the PS3 a real run for its money. That competition spurred Sony on and led to better things a few years later. With Nintendo effectively off to one side doing its own thing, Xbox has been PlayStation’s main competitor for the past twenty years – and having competition is necessary for a healthy marketplace. I don’t want to jump the gun and write Xbox’s eulogy, but if previously exclusive games start appearing on PlayStation… it feels like a harbinger of worse news to come.
PlayStation had to play catch-up during the PS3 era.
If Microsoft is finding that their current-gen machines aren’t selling as well as they’d hoped, there are other options besides a total surrender or abandoning hardware production. Nintendo ditched the Wii U well ahead of schedule, launching a brand-new machine less than five years later. That could be one route for Xbox to follow. If the Xbox Series S is proving troublesome from a development perspective, retiring that console in favour of the Series X could also be possible. Even just waiting, treading water in anticipation of bigger exclusives in the next few years might be better than abandoning exclusivity altogether for the sake of some short-term cash.
Microsoft has some upcoming games that have the potential to be console-movers. Indiana Jones is one – albeit one that I personally wasn’t taken with when it was shown off a few weeks ago! The sequel to Skyrim is also bound to be a big deal when it’s ready in a few years’ time, and that’s before we’ve looked at some of the franchises and games that Microsoft owns the rights to after its recent acquisition of Activision.
The Elder Scrolls VI could be a console-seller if it’s an Xbox exclusive.
With so many studios coming “in-house,” Microsoft’s future in the gaming marketplace looked to be getting brighter. Game Pass continues to add subscribers, and with subscriptions being the current direction of travel across various forms of media, Microsoft is actually ahead of the curve in the gaming realm; Game Pass is streets ahead of any comparable offering from any other company. Game Pass’ current success could pave the way for a subscription-based future for the Xbox brand. But Game Pass – and Xbox consoles in general – need exclusive titles to make it work.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight; the only current-gen console I own is a Nintendo Switch. But even as PC player, what happens on console has an impact. Microsoft’s seemingly abrupt change in strategy could have implications down the line for Game Pass, for ongoing and upcoming titles, and more.
What will this mean for Xbox?
I’m all in favour of shaking things up in the games industry, but Xbox seemingly surrendering its already mediocre lineup of exclusive games isn’t how I’d have expected – or wanted – things to go in the first part of 2024! And as I said at the beginning, I really don’t understand what it’s supposed to achieve beyond a short-term injection of cash. If Microsoft’s gaming division is so short of money that it needs a few hundred thousand sales of Starfield on PlayStation 5… then something’s gone very wrong indeed.
This is great news for PlayStation owners – assuming that these rumours turn out to be correct, that is. For people who’ve invested into the Xbox brand, though, I can understand why there will be some degree of upset. There’s tribalism, of course, with some Xbox die-hards determined to cheer for “their” console, but that isn’t really what I mean. Stepping back and trying to look at things as reasonably and objectively as possible… PlayStation is looking like a way better deal. If Microsoft’s biggest exclusives join its already impressive lineup, I can absolutely understand why players who shelled out for an Xbox Series X would feel hard done by.
The Xbox Series S and X consoles are still relatively new.
It’s that sense of regret, of having made the wrong decision. By sending their games to PlayStation, Microsoft will be giving that platform a boost and making it the better deal for players – leaving current Xbox gamers and supporters feeling understandably upset. If they’d known this was going to happen when purchasing a new console, PlayStation 5 would have been the logical choice.
We’ve all experienced that kind of regret or envy, even if just on a small scale. How many times have you chosen the wrong line at the supermarket, only to see the other lines moving faster? Or ordered a dish at a restaurant only to see your friend or partner’s plate look way better? It’s those kinds of feelings that I think we can all relate to; this is something that goes beyond merely “Team Green versus Team Blue.”
It could be a good time to consider buying a PlayStation 5…
So we’ll have to watch and wait for official news from Microsoft – as well as an explanation, if this does end up going ahead. I wanted to share my two cents on the subject, at any rate. Console exclusivity isn’t great, but what’s worse is seemingly promising players exclusive titles, using exclusivity as a major selling-point, and then U-turning on it midway through a console generation. Some players will feel that they’ve been left high and dry by Microsoft and Xbox… and the damage that could do to the brand, with some of its biggest fans and supporters potentially souring and turning away, should not be underestimated.
Is a bigger shake-up of the gaming landscape imminent? Will Xbox drop out of the hardware market altogether? Will a reciprocal deal be struck to bring titles like Spider-Man 2 and God of War Ragnarök to Xbox and PC? Is this the end of console exclusivity?
There are some big questions floating around… and all we can do is watch this space. Be sure to check back in the days and weeks ahead, though, because if there really is massive news from Xbox, I’m sure I’ll have more to say.
Xbox Series S/X and PlayStation 5 consoles are available for purchase now. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I have very little interest in the new survival/monster game Palworld. I’ve never engaged with titles like Monster Hunter or Pokémon, so the game just wasn’t on my radar. But an issue has come up for Palworld that I think is an important one not only for the games industry, but for entertainment and media as a whole, and I felt compelled to add my two cents to the conversation.
If you haven’t heard, Palworld has been accused of “ripping off” or plagiarising the long-running Pokémon series. The game uses some familiar designs for its monsters, and although I haven’t bought it or played it for myself, I understand that some elements of its gameplay are similar, too, with players being able to “catch” monsters and use them in battles.
Sheep-like critters with machine guns in a promo screenshot for Palworld.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, who jointly own and develop the Pokémon series, have even commented on this, with the latter releasing a statement saying that they “intend to investigate” Palworld and “take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights.” I’ve linked to The Pokémon Company’s full statement at the end of this piece so you can read it in full if you’re interested.
Whether you like Palworld or not, the issue this raises is a genuinely interesting one – and it’s one that the games industry hasn’t really wrangled with for a long time, at least not in public. The basic question is this: can any company claim ownership of, and potentially patent, trademark, or copyright, an entire genre, style of game, or gameplay mechanic?
Do Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have a monopoly on designs and gameplay elements?
The answer should be obvious: no, of course not, don’t be stupid. The Pokémon Company and Nintendo can’t own the concept of a game with battling monsters any more than Rockstar could own the open-world sandbox crime genre, or PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds could own battle royale. The developers of PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds tried in vain to claim ownership of the battle royale genre, even going so far as to try to sue Epic Games, creators of Fortnite, over the perceived “copying.” That lawsuit went nowhere – and rightly so.
I’m old enough to remember when first-person shooters were literally called “Doom clones.” Doom popularised the first-person shooter in the early 1990s, and on the back of its success, dozens of other FPS titles were developed. But Doom’s creators didn’t lawyer up and try to prevent anyone else from making a first-person shooter at the time, nor did Rockstar go after the likes of the Saints Row series in the mid-2000s.
Doom (1993) popularised – but did not invent – the first-person shooter.
Going all the way back to the earliest video games, new titles have come along that used similar styles, designs, and gameplay elements. Some of these games have gone on to innovate, pioneering entire sub-genres and gameplay mechanics, and if they’d been shut down or prevented from existing by excessive copyright lawsuits or patents, gaming today would be in a much worse place. The history of gaming is one of piecemeal innovation, and of companies jumping on popular genres, innovating, and pushing boundaries.
There were first-person titles literally decades before Doom, with 1980’s Battlezone in particular being a noteworthy progenitor. And there were crime games and open-world titles years before Grand Theft Auto III came along. So in neither case can the developer claim to have wholly independently “invented” something, even if their title was the one that popularised it. That was the fundamental flaw in the PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds lawsuit.
PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds didn’t win its lawsuit against Epic Games.
Stepping away from gaming, we can look to cinema and even literature for other examples. No one would try to make the claim that only Tolkien should be allowed to write fantasy, or that fictional races like elves and orcs are somehow copyrightable. Nor would anyone be able to argue that the owners of 1927’s Metropolis should be able to trademark the entire sci-fi genre. That isn’t how art and media work or have ever worked.
Look at a film like Galaxy Quest, or a TV series like The Orville. Both lean heavily on the Star Trek franchise for inspiration (and parody), but Paramount wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if it tried to take their creators to court. And once again, that’s because Paramount doesn’t own the sci-fi genre, or even the “explorers on a faster-than-light spaceship seeking out new life” sub-genre of sci-fi. Anyone is allowed to tell their own stories – as long as they don’t use trademarked names or characters for profit.
The Orville pays homage to the Star Trek series in more ways than one.
If Palworld had its own Pikachu or Charizard, maybe Nintendo and The Pokémon Company would have an argument here. But from what I’ve seen, the game’s monsters all have unique names, and while they may look similar to critters from the Pokémon series… so what? You can’t claim ownership of any and all yellow-haired monsters in every video game. That’s the kind of claim that would be laughed out of court.
Maybe The Pokémon Company and Nintendo have been complacent, because there hasn’t really been a serious challenger to the Pokémon series before. Monster Hunter exists in a similar space, as do games in the Digimon series, but Pokémon has been a force unto itself for a long time. Perhaps the sudden arrival of Palworld struck a nerve, or perhaps Nintendo is worried because recent Pokémon titles haven’t been well-received.
I can see why Palworld appeals to fans of the Pokémon games.
But none of that actually matters. Palworld has as much right to exist as any of the 873 Pokémon games, and if its better than anything that The Pokémon Company has done in recent years… well, they’ll have to adapt and do better. They’ll have to make better games, actually finish working on them before releasing them, and maybe even look at some of the features included in Palworld that players have enjoyed. Pokémon has arguably been pretty stagnant for a while, at least from what I can see looking in from the outside, so a kick up the backside from a genuine competitor could be just what the series needs. Complacency breeds stagnation and ultimately decline, but competition can revitalise a flagging series.
Rather than seeing Palworld as a problem to be crushed, The Pokémon Company and Nintendo should view its entry into the marketplace as a window of opportunity. After years of having the monster-battling space all to themselves, there’s now the potential to look at how other developers might handle that kind of game – and even opportunities to learn and grow. But that would take the kind of critical thinking that Nintendo doesn’t always have a knack for!
The Pokémon series has been running for decades, so a challenge and shake-up couldn’t hurt.
Either way, Palworld is here to stay. I can’t imagine that the game will be pulled from sale or forced to be shut down because of a complaint from Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, because any threat of legal action would surely be doomed to failure – as it has been every other time it’s been tried by other publishers and developers. Even if we accept that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company originated the monster-battling sub-genre (which is very much up for debate, as Pokémon itself is a variation on the role-playing game genre), they don’t get to claim ownership of it exclusively. And even if Palworld uses similar designs, visual styles, and gameplay mechanics… none of those things are copyrightable. This argument will go nowhere.
I will concede that, from what I’ve seen, parts of Palworld do look similar to the Pokémon series. And from the point of view of a fan or player, I can absolutely understand wanting to leave it a negative review pointing that out, or even to boycott it and refuse to play it because of its perceived “ripping off” of the Pokémon series. That’s absolutely fine on an individual level – and I can definitely appreciate why some Pokémon fans might see things that way. But that’s very much a personal, individual decision – and one that has no bearing on any copyright law or trademark case!
For my money, Palworld is a title I’m happy to skip. It’s not my thing – just like Pokémon isn’t. But I found this argument to be interesting – particularly when The Pokémon Company itself weighed in. I doubt we’ll hear much more about this; if The Pokémon Company has decent lawyers, they’ll tell them pretty quickly that nothing in Palworld comes close to violating copyright laws. But hey, I’ve been wrong about these things before… and in a way, I’d quite like to see this issue litigated, especially if it ends up embarrassing Nintendo and The Pokémon Company and costing them a lot of money!
You can read the full press release from The Pokémon Company by clicking or tapping here. (Warning: Leads to an external website)
Palworld is out now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Palworld is the copyright of Pocket Pair. All other titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publishers, developers, and/or distributors. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Just when I thought I’d said everything I was ever going to say about Starfield…
Bethesda’s customer support/public relations team has had to handle some absolute nightmares over the past few years. The line “we aren’t planning on doing anything about it” in response to a complaint about the Fallout 76 “canvas bag” fiasco will be forever etched in my mind – and that’s just the start! I used to work in the games industry, specifically in marketing, so this kind of story is right up my alley… so to speak.
If you haven’t already heard, Bethesda’s PR team has begun posting replies to negative reviews on Steam… and it’s going about as well as you might expect.
An example of a response to a negative review of Starfield from Bethesda. (I have redacted the developer’s username for the sake of privacy.)
Here’s a great rule of thumb for any developer, publisher, or creative of any kind: don’t reply or respond to reviews. Ever. Period. End of story. Just don’t do it – it never goes well, and ends up coming across as whiny, arrogant, or both.
There are legitimate points of criticism in practically any work of media, and there are always going to be differences of opinion even among professional critics and journalists. A developer might think that they’ve made the “perfect” video game – but it’s a universal truth that even the absolute best of the best receive the odd negative review. Going after critics and players who have something negative to say is just a bad look – and it shouldn’t happen.
A view of New Atlantis in Starfield.
If Starfield was some obscure indie title made by a couple of amateur developers, I’d still encourage them never to reply to negative reviews – but I could at least understand, on a purely human level, where such responses were coming from. If a project that I’m passionate about and poured a lot of work into suddenly seems to be coming under attack, it’s natural to want to react to that, either to try to convince reviewers to change their minds or to “fight back.” It’s still a bad idea, but at least it’s understandable in that case.
But Bethesda is a big company, and it’s backed up by Microsoft – one of the largest and most valuable corporations on the planet. For these companies to literally pay some of their employees to use official Bethesda developer accounts to reply to negative reviews is just… well, it’s pretty shocking, to tell the truth.
Another response to a negative Steam review. (Developer username redacted.)
Whether you think Starfield is the “game of the year” or a dumpster fire, you have to accept that other people have different points of view. And Steam reviews are one way in which players can express their opinions about the game. A company the size of Bethesda has to accept that not every review can be positive – and they kind of have to take that on the chin when it happens. It’s a reality of the games industry.
The internet has democratised media criticism – and that’s a fantastic thing. No longer are reviews the sole domain of professional journalists with university degrees; anyone can now offer up their half-baked thoughts and opinions on films, games, and TV shows. And I think that’s absolutely wonderful. One of the best things that Steam does – and other platforms like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes do, too – is aggregating reviews, presenting audiences with an overall picture of how players feel about the titles on offer. No one individual review is, therefore, a deal-maker or deal-breaker; players are now able to consider a much broader range of opinions.
The internet has opened up media criticism to anyone with a keyboard – and there are going to be a whole range of opinions on practically every video game, film, and TV show.
But the fact that any old idiot can set up a website – or post a review on a platform like Steam – means that not all reviews are going to be fair, accurate, or even relevant. Some reviews of Starfield criticised the game for absolutely silly reasons, and again on a human level, I can understand wanting to react to that and scream “it’s not fair!” But as a corporation, Microsoft has to be better than that. Bethesda and Xbox have to be professional.
Telling a player that they’re “wrong” to feel the way that they do about Starfield is bizarre – and it doesn’t do anything to endear Bethesda to its fans. Many reviews of Starfield echo my own thoughts on the game: people genuinely wanted to enjoy it, but found it to be visually last-gen, narratively weak, repetitive, and so on. Those criticisms may feel harsh to the talented developers who put a lot of time and effort into creating Starfield… but telling players that they shouldn’t feel that way or they just “don’t get” what Starfield was meant to be is an incredibly silly way to react.
Computer panels in Starfield.
There are two good ways to respond to criticism. Firstly, Bethesda and Xbox can prioritise fixing commonly-noted issues with the game. Rolling out updates and patches that, for example, improve the quality of the in-game map or reduce the frequency of copy-and-paste levels and environments would be a good place to start. Saying to players “we hear your concerns and we’re acting on them” is the appropriate reaction.
Look at what Hello Games did when No Man’s Sky came in for some absolutely ruthless criticism upon launch. Instead of lashing out at players, telling them to appreciate what the game had to offer, they knuckled down and got back to work. That game has received more free updates and patches than I can count – and it’s now in a far better and more enjoyable state than it was when it launched. Hello Games prioritised adding features that players wanted and fixing issues that players criticised – and the result is that, several years later, the game can claim to have made a comeback.
Bethesda could learn more than one lesson from Hello Games…
The second way to react to criticism is to make sure that the things players don’t like won’t be present in the next game a studio creates. While I personally wasn’t offended by Starfield’s abundance of loading screens, it’s one of the most common complaints about the game that I’ve read over the past couple of months. I don’t believe it’s possible to remove the loading screens in Starfield – thanks to the game’s reliance on the outdated Creation Engine that Bethesda has been using, in some form, for close to a quarter of a century – but it *is* possible for Bethesda to acknowledge the way players feel about loading screens and ensure that they won’t be present to the same extent in The Elder Scrolls VI.
Although the first Mass Effect game was well-received, it picked up criticism in 2007 for its inventory management and weapon overheating. By the time Mass Effect 2 rolled around a few years later, those problems had been fixed. Inventories were streamlined, weapon overheating was gone, and players had a much better time with the game. BioWare took those criticisms on board and worked to ensure that the things players didn’t like were gone from the next game in the series.
Inventory management was criticised in Mass Effect 1 – so BioWare streamlined it in Mass Effect 2.
When Bethesda responds to criticisms of Starfield being “boring” – in the subjective opinion of one player – by saying things like “When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored.” it feels incredibly arrogant and smug. Trying to shut down “wrong” opinions about the game by attacking players – some of whom spent dozens or hundreds of hours playing before leaving their reviews – is genuinely shocking coming from a major studio. I’ve never seen anything quite like it, in fact – not on this scale, at any rate.
So Bethesda, here’s some free advice from someone who used to work in video games marketing: just stop. Stop what you’re doing – and if possible, apologise to the players you attacked. Refrain from ever responding to reviews again, and take the criticism as it comes. Even if you’d made an impossibly perfect game, there’d still be some people who didn’t like it or felt it wasn’t for them. That’s the way it goes, and you can’t afford to be so thin-skinned in this marketplace! You are doing actual damage to your reputation by retaliating in this way – so stop it.
A custom spaceship landing on a planet in Starfield.
What a mess, eh?
I really felt that I was done talking about Starfield until this came along. I was quite content to put the game back on the shelf, perhaps returning to it in a year or two to see if expansion packs and updates had improved it. But never in a million years did I expect to see Bethesda lashing out in this way. It’s unprofessional, petty, thin-skinned, and just plain wrong. It has done nothing to address legitimate points of criticism of the game, nor has it helped the reputations of either Starfield or Bethesda itself. I’m genuinely shocked to see this.
Somewhat ironically, given Starfield’s copy-and-paste buildings and “points of interest,” at least some of these reviews seem to have themselves been copied-and-pasted… or perhaps written by an AI bot. I hope Bethesda learns another lesson from this mess and doesn’t keep up this attack on critics of Starfield. No matter how great you might think the game is, and how much fun you had with it, you have to concede that not everyone feels the same way, and that there are genuine reasons to be dissatisfied, underwhelmed, or even downright pissed off at Starfield.
Do better, Bethesda.
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X, and is also available via Game Pass. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for some of the entries on this list.
Although I was generous to Starfieldwhen it launched back in September, I quickly ran out of patience with the game. In summary… Starfield just wasn’t what I’d been expecting, and I couldn’t find a way to lose myself in either its world or its narrative. I like to think I gave it a fair shake after thirty-plus hours of playtime, but I just wasn’t enjoying myself. While the game is ambitious in scope and a technological achievement in some respects, it’s also limited in its designs, held back by an outdated engine and mid-tier graphics, and just… boring. Starfield never quite “clicked” for me… and I’m okay with that!
But it does leave me with a dilemma. I’d hoped Starfield would be my “game of the autumn,” giving me hours of fun as the nights are drawing in and Christmas time is approaching! Having stepped away from the game, I found myself unsure of what to do next. What game should I play to fill the void left by Starfield?
What should we play instead of Starfield?
This could also be a good list if you’ve played Starfield to death and you’ve done everything you can with the game. If you (somehow) managed to dedicate several hundred hours to it, and you’ve beaten all of the faction questlines, the side-missions, and gone through a dozen New Game Plus playthroughs… maybe you’re also looking to play something else for a while! Even the best games can wear out their welcomes after a while.
So that’s what I thought we could consider today: a few different games (and a TV show, too) that might replace Starfield for those of us who didn’t stick with it… or for folks who just need a break from it.
Boxman, my favourite Starfield character…
As I always say: everything on this list is entirely subjective! If you hate all of my picks or I miss something that seems obvious, that’s totally okay! We’re all entitled to our opinions, and there should be more than enough room in the gaming community for discussions and disagreements.
I’ve picked a few different categories of games based on some of my expectations for Starfield, and I’ve tried to include a few different and perhaps unexpected titles, too.
So let’s jump into the list!
Bethesda Game: The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
A Bethesda classic!
Starfield is a Bethesda game… which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view! I could certainly entertain the notion that Bethesda could do with modernising the way it creates its missions in particular, but that may be beside the point. If you’re craving this specific kind of game, there really is no substitute for what Bethesda brings to the table.
With that in mind, I’d like to suggest Morrowind as the first candidate for a game to play instead of Starfield. A lot of folks have played Skyrim to death already – with that game having been released and re-released more times than I can count over the past few years – but Morrowind may have slipped through the cracks for some players. If you missed Morrowind when it was new, now could be a great time to revisit it.
Creating a custom class in Morrowind.
Morrowindmay have been released in 2002, but it doesn’t have to look like a two-decade-old game if visuals are a concern. There are some fantastic graphics and visual mods out there that can genuinely transform the way Morrowind looks. It might be a stretch to say that it can look “brand-new,” but it can certainly give other Bethesda games a run for their money!
Morrowind was my first Bethesda game, and I played it to death in the early and mid-2000s. But even with the countless hours I spent playing the game, there are quests I haven’t completed and achievements I haven’t gotten. It’s overstuffed with content, having more NPCs, weapon types, and factions than Skyrim. If you haven’t tried it yet – or if it’s been twenty years since you last picked it up – it could be a great replacement for Starfield.
Spaceship Builder: Star Trek: Starship Creator – Warp 2
Modifying a Galaxy-class starship.
I don’t know what element or component of Starfield may have appealed to you the most – but for me, building and piloting my very own spaceship was at the top of the list! Relatively few games had offered anything quite like Starfield’s shipbuilder, but this offering from the Star Trek franchise just after the turn of the millennium was one of them.
This game was a niche product even in the year 2000, and I fully appreciate that! Trekkies will get a lot more out of Starship Creator than a general audience, and there are arguably other games that we could’ve picked for the spaceship builder category. If you’re looking for a more modern title, the likes of Space Engineers or Kerbal Space Program are definitely interesting options!
Selecting a ship to work on.
But for folks who enjoy the Star Trek franchise, Starship Creator is a unique experience that few other video games from the franchise have really offered. In 2000, it was a blast to import your own photo (or a photo of a friend or even a celebrity) to add to your virtual crew, and while the ship-building options are limited by the technology of the time, it’s still a ton of fun to remake classic Federation starships in new ways.
When I looked ahead to Starfield, the shipbuilder reminded me of Starship Creator. I said in the run-up to Starfield’s launch that one of the things I really wanted from the game was the ability to build and customise my own ship and take it on adventures! Unfortunately, Starfield’s lack of real spaceflight and overreliance on fast-travel meant that the custom ship I worked so hard on never really got much of an outing.
First-Person Role-Playing/Shooter: Cyberpunk 2077 + Phantom Liberty DLC
Promo screenshot of Phantom Liberty.
At time of writing, some digital shops on PC still have their Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals available, and I’ve seen the base version of Cyberpunk 2077 at a fair discount on both Steam and Epic Games. If you missed the deals this time, I expect we’ll have winter/holiday sales to enjoy within a month or so, so you might not have to wait too long!
If you’d told me a year or so ago that I’d be recommending Cyberpunk 2077 to anyone I’d have been sceptical! I didn’t hate the game, but I felt it was overhyped, surprisingly linear, and with gameplay elements that I’d seen before in other (better) titles. For what it was, though, Cyberpunk 2077 was decent enough, and I had some fun with its corporate dystopia, fully-realised cityscape, and Keanu Reeves’ character of Johnny Silverhand!
A side-mission in Cyberpunk 2077.
After waiting to ensure that Phantom Liberty was well-received and not bedevilled by the bugs and glitches that will forever define Cyberpunk 2077, I recently picked it up. A review will come when I’ve fully played through the new content, but suffice to say that the overhaul to Cyberpunk 2077 has been impressive, with changes made to the game’s levelling up system, skill tree, and one that was desperately needed: armour! The version of Cyberpunk 2077 that you’ll play in 2023 is significantly better than it was even just last year, and when the game has an entertaining story, I think it’s well worth playing for any fan of first-person role-playing shooters.
Starfield has also put Cyberpunk 2077′s gameplay and world-building into perspective for me. The open world of Night City in particular is miles ahead of anything in Starfield, feeling like a genuinely lived-in city populated by real people. The main story is much stronger than Starfield’s, too, and I think there are other favourable comparisons.
Spaceflight: Star Wars Squadrons
Ready to become a starfighter pilot?
As indicated above, one of the disappointing things about Starfield for me was the lack of functional spaceflight. After working hard on my custom spaceship, I genuinely expected that I’d be able to launch it into space and actually pilot it to my destination. Instead, travelling from planet to planet is all done by fast-travel menus, which really rips me out of the immersion. Relatively early in the game, I picked a mission from the “mission board” in New Atlantis, only for the so-called mission to basically play itself with practically no interaction required.
But we’re off-topic already! Star Wars Squadrons is the starfighter game of your dreams; the game that we all thought we were playing in the ’90s when we booted up the likes of Tie Fighter or Rogue Squadron. The visuals are absolutely gorgeous, and sitting at my desk I genuinely got the sense that I was in the pilot’s seat of an X-Wing.
Sitting in the pilot’s seat of an X-Wing has never felt more real!
I’m not sure if Squadrons still has an active multiplayer scene, but there’s a fun campaign to play through and it’s also possible to take on the AI, so there should still be plenty to get stuck into. I think the game is an absolute blast, and it’s one I really should get back into! In terms of spaceflight, which is the category I’ve assigned to it, I definitely felt there was a lot more to get stuck into here than there was in Starfield.
Because Squadrons puts you in the seat of a starfighter, you aren’t going to be hauling cargo across vast expanses of space. There are other games that offer that kind of experience, though, if you really want it. But if you’re looking to pilot small ships, get into fun dogfights, and try out some of the iconic vehicles from the Star Wars franchise, there’s really nothing quite like it!
Role-Playing Game: Baldur’s Gate 3
A combat encounter in Baldur’s Gate 3.
With only a month of 2023 left to go, I can’t see another game coming along to dethrone Baldur’s Gate 3. It will almost certainly be crowned “game of the year” at my annual end-of-year awards! It’s one of the best games I’ve played in years, offering branching storylines, a massive variety of play styles, character classes, and so much more.
I’d missed out on the first Baldur’s Gate in the late 1990s, and this game ended up being my first foray into the world of Faerûn. It was overwhelming at first, because the game hits you with a ton of options right off the bat – but I ended up having a whale of a time. I chose to play as a drow (or dark elf) druid, but there are a huge variety of character options and play styles, with different weapon types, magical spells, and more. I’m going to start a second run through the game sometime soon so I can try something different and have a completely different experience!
Creating a character.
Starfield offers players different backgrounds and skills to level up, but in the time I spent with the game I didn’t really find much by way of unique content to match either the character I’d made or the way I hoped to play the game. Baldur’s Gate 3 does a much better job in this regard, with character classes that have a massive impact on the way the game plays.
There are some absolutely incredible characters to meet in Baldur’s Gate 3, all of whom are voiced beautifully and feel like real, well-rounded people with their own motivations. Keeping them all happy and working together is part of the experience, too. Just thinking about the game again has got me salivating; I can’t wait to jump back in for that second playthrough!
Sci-Fi Adventure: The Mass Effect Trilogy
Commander Shepard’s crew in Mass Effect 2.
You can pick up the complete Mass Effect trilogy in one bundle called the Legendary Edition, which includes all three games plus their DLC. This could be another title to look for when it’s on sale, as I’ve seen Legendary Edition at a fairly steep discount in some recent Steam sales. If you’re new to the trilogy, or returning to it for the first time in a long time, it’s the easiest way to get the complete experience.
When I think about a sci-fi adventure set in a unique world, Mass Effect and its two sequels leap to mind. The trilogy isn’t an open-world experience; it’s much more linear than a game like Starfield in that respect. The games build up a main story focusing on a galaxy-ending threat, but also smaller character-focused stories featuring a diverse (and occasionally wacky) cast. Again, the voice acting to bring these characters to life is incredible, and all of the folks who join the crew of the Normandy are fun, fascinating, and frightening to various degrees!
Take cover!
The Mass Effect trilogy was criticised for its ending back in 2012, and I think it’s worth stating that some of that criticism was absolutely fair. There should have been a way for the third entry in the series to pay off more decisions and choices that had been made. But even with that weakness, I still feel that the trilogy is worth playing for any fan of sci-fi. The characters and world-building in particular are incredible.
And in terms of gameplay, there’s a lot to love with Mass Effect. A third-person cover-based shooter is already a blast, but Mass Effect adds both tech and magical powers into the mix, shaking things up. Different character builds play quite differently from one another, making it worth going back to replay all three games to get a new experience.
Open World Game: Red Dead Redemption II
Dashing through the snow…
Red Dead Redemption II is a masterpiece; one of the finest video games ever made. And director Todd Howard had the audacity to suggest, in a pre-launch interview, that Starfield was drawing inspiration from the way in which its open world was designed and built. Perhaps he shouldn’t have said that, because the comparison it invited is… well, let’s just say it’s an unfavourable one for Starfield and leave it at that.
I’ve had a fascination with the American “Wild West” since my schoolfriends and I used to play “Cowboys and Indians” on the playground. Red Dead Redemption II transported me to that time and place in a way I truly did not believe was possible, and I found myself having dreams about the game during my playthrough. I absolutely adored the time I got to spend in that world – over 100 hours on a single playthrough.
Promo image of protagonist Arthur Morgan.
The story of Red Dead Redemption II is dense, adult, and deeply emotional, packing a real punch as it reaches its crescendo. When people say that “video games can be artistic” or “video games can be just as good as films and TV shows,” it’s stories like Red Dead Redemption II that we can point to.
But more than that, the world in which the game was set was beautiful and jam-packed with things to do. It’s possible to wander on foot or on horseback through the wilderness, into the mountains, across the grassy plains, and beyond… just taking it all in. I’d heard great things about Red Dead Redemption II and knew I was in for something special, but even with the hype and high expectations, the game absolutely blew me away. It’s one of the best games I’ve ever played in my life.
Narrative Experience: Shenmue I & II
Promo poster of Shenmue I & II.
I never miss an opportunity to talk about Shenmue! This was one of the first games I played that felt truly “cinematic;” as if its story would be right at home on the big screen. I absolutely adored that experience, and while some aspects of the first Shenmue in particular can feel dated by today’s standards… at the time it was genuinely groundbreaking.
Unfortunately, Shenmue I & II has to come with the caveat that its story is incomplete. Beautifully written, gripping, and populated with a fantastic cast of characters… but nevertheless without an ending. I was deeply disappointed in 2019 when I learned that Shenmue III – a game that fans donated their own money to help create – would not be finishing the story, as I felt that was its only objective.
Protagonist Ryo Hazuki meets Santa Claus.
But we’re drifting off-topic once more! The first two Shenmue games – which can be picked up in one package, at least on PC – were fantastic during the Dreamcast era. They’re well worth playing in their own right to follow a genuinely enjoyable story, but twenty-plus years later, I also feel that Shenmue is a piece of gaming history. This was one of the first titles to come close to offering an open world, one of the first games to pioneer systems like dynamic weather and NPCs with routines, and one of the first to allow players to step away from the main quest to pursue mini-games and other activities. Shenmue pioneered ideas that many modern games now take for granted.
It also created the quick-time event… which may be a mark against it, depending on your point of view! For me, Shenmue feels like a game that was ahead of its time, pushing the boundaries and taking gaming in a new direction. Maybe some folks weren’t ready for that in 1999/2000. But Shenmue I & II are well worth revisiting, if for no other reason than to take part in an engaging and somewhat mysterious story.
Base-Building: Banished
A town in Banished with a forest, houses, a chapel, and pastures.
Another game I never miss a chance to discuss is Banished! Maybe it’s stretching the name to call this a “base-builder,” as it’s more of a town-building game akin to a stripped-down Sim City, but for players who were interested in building settlements and bases in Starfield, I think there are enough similarities to warrant its inclusion on a list like this one!
Banished is fantastic. Its charm lies in its relative simplicity, as there aren’t so many buildings and jobs for citizens to be overwhelming. But that simplicity blankets a surprisingly challenging game, and getting the right balance of resources to keep the town going is far trickier than it seems! Banished is a balancing act, requiring farms, orchards, blacksmiths, and other buildings and professions to keep the citizens of a small town fed, healthy, and happy.
A hospital and a field of wheat in Banished.
I’ve sunk countless hours into Banished, and every few months or so I find myself drifting back to the game, ready to start a new save file. It always boggles my mind that the entire game was created by a single developer – I’d still have found it to be a fun and impressive game if it had been worked on by an entire studio!
If part of the appeal of Starfield was striking out for a new land, creating a settlement, and harvesting resources, maybe a game like Banished will scratch that itch. Even if not, it’s well worth playing in its own right, because building, maintaining, and managing a town successfully is a fun challenge. I have a longer piece about Banished, and if you’d like to read it you can find it by clicking or tapping here.
TV Series: The Expanse
Title card for The Expanse.
The Expanse is one of the best sci-fi shows of the past few years without a doubt. In a similar way to Starfield, it shows a near-future level of technology and a solar system populated entirely by humans – without any aliens to be seen. Humanity has splintered into different factions, each of which has its own agenda, but at its core, The Expanse follows a few compelling characters rather than taking a birds-eye view of the political landscape of the solar system.
It’s hard to say too much about The Expanse without spoiling it, but aesthetically there are some similarities to Starfield. The way spaceships are designed in The Expanse feels similar, at least in some respects, to the way they’re presented in Starfield – so if that kind of NASA-inspired look is part of what drew you to Starfield, you’ll see at least some of that in The Expanse.
The spacecraft Rocinante in The Expanse.
Obviously a TV series is completely different from a video game, and I don’t think The Expanse can ever be a like-for-like replacement. But if you haven’t seen it and you’re not sure what to do with yourself after burning out on Starfield, I’d absolutely encourage you to check it out. It’s well worth a watch, and it has at least some points of comparison with Starfield.
I had a great time with the show, and I was pleased to see Amazon pick it up after it was dropped by its original network. The Expanse has now completed its six-season run, and you can binge-watch the entire thing on Amazon Prime Video at time of writing.
So that’s it!
You cannot go that way!
We’ve found a few things to play instead of Starfield. If, like me, you didn’t get on with Starfield, or if you’ve just spent so much time with it that you need a break, I hope this list has given you some inspiration! Some of the titles discussed above can be found at a discount when sales roll around, so it might be worth adding some or all of them to your wishlist ahead of the holiday season.
I really wanted Starfield to be my “game of the season,” carrying me through to Christmas and into the new year. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had for it, and after about thirty hours of trying to push through and waiting for it to “get good,” I gave up. Starfield is still installed on my PC at time of writing, but I have no plans to return to the game any time soon.
I hope this has been a bit of fun, and if I gave you an idea or two then I’ve done my job!
All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. Some screenshots and promotional artwork used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
On the 22nd of November 2013 – a decade ago today – Ryse: Son of Rome was released. And on that very day, I bought a copy! Ryse: Son of Rome was one of the launch titles for the Xbox One, a console I also picked up on release day. With it being the game’s tenth anniversary, I thought it could be a bit of fun to shine a spotlight on this underappreciated title.
Ryse: Son of Rome was a good game to get started with as a new console generation was landing. For all of its flaws (especially with the original version of the machine), the Xbox One was a beefy system by 2013 standards; a powerhouse built for high-definition screens and great-looking games. Ryse: Son of Rome took full advantage of the Xbox One’s hardware to create characters and environments that still hold up ten years later.
Box art for Ryse: Son of Rome.
I still remember the excitement I felt as I headed into the city on the day the Xbox One launched. I didn’t know what game or games I might be able to afford, but the launch of a new console generation felt like a really exciting moment. At that time I was still working in the games industry so I’d been following the new consoles as their launches approached. The Xbox One had already stumbled, with controversies surrounding its always-online nature, sharing games between accounts, and the mandatory Kinect accessory that bumped the price up to $100 more than a PlayStation 4. But I’d been an Xbox player for more than a decade at that point and had played on both earlier consoles – and I’d even tried out the original Kinect – so I thought I’d stick with what I knew!
The only Xbox One bundles that were available to me included FIFA 14, so I ended up with that game and enough spare cash for one other. After checking out little more than the box art, I settled on Ryse: Son of Rome. It was one of only a handful of Xbox One-exclusive titles in November 2013, along with the likes of Forza Motorsport 5 and a rail-shooter called Crimson Dragon. There were a few other multiplatform titles, but one of the drawbacks to the Xbox One across really its entire lifespan was a lack of solid exclusive titles. Looking back, Ryse: Son of Rome was one of the better offerings.
Ryse: Son of Rome was an Xbox One launch title.
I’m a history buff, having studied the subject at university, and I have a soft spot for historical settings as a result. Even now, a full decade on from Ryse: Son of Rome’s release, there aren’t that many games that visit Ancient Rome. In fact, aside from strategy titles like Civilization VI or Age of Empires, I can’t think of many other games that even mention the Romans – let alone action/adventure titles that take place in that time period. In that sense, Ryse: Son of Rome still represents something a little bit different.
What I remember most about Ryse: Son of Rome was how darn good it looked! There was so much more detail in the faces of characters, in the weapons they wielded, and in the environments they battled through when compared to games I’d been playing on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and it felt like a new chapter for gaming as a hobby. Though titles like Mass Effect 2 or Grand Theft Auto V had looked decent on those machines, I could definitely feel the Xbox One and Ryse: Son of Rome kicking things into a higher gear.
Ryse: Son of Rome is a good-looking game!
The story of Ryse: Son of Rome was fairly formulaic and nothing exceptional, but it was still entertaining and well worth following to its conclusion. It’s a swashbuckling tale of revenge told through a frame narrative – with echoes of the likes of Gladiator, perhaps. I won’t say too much lest I spoil it for you, but while I’d never rank Ryse: Son of Rome as one of the all-time great gaming narratives, it was solid and enjoyable for what it was.
I was surprised, when I revisited the game earlier this month, at just how well it performs and how new it still manages to feel. If I picked up Ryse: Son of Rome today, on its tenth anniversary, I think I could be led to believe that it was a brand-new game. That says a lot about its art style and graphical fidelity – but also, perhaps, a little about how technology hasn’t advanced as much in the past decade as it had in the previous ten years.
Concept art for Ryse: Son of Rome.
I was a little surprised to see that Ryse: Son of Rome isn’t available on PC Game Pass – though it seems to be available on the console version of Microsoft’s subscription service. If you have an Xbox One or Xbox Series S/X and a Game Pass subscription, it’s an incredibly easy title to recommend to any fan of action/adventure games and single-player narrative experiences. Without the subscription, Ryse: Son of Rome is often on sale, and I think it was one of the titles in a recent Steam sale on PC that was less than £5. For that money, it’s once again an incredibly easy recommendation!
For full-price on launch day in 2013, I was satisfied – and if Trekking with Dennis had existed back then, you’d have seen a positive review. I would’ve mentioned the game’s relatively short length as a caveat (Ryse: Son of Rome clocks in around the six-hour mark), but with relatively few other exclusive titles, it was worth it at the time.
Ryse: Son of Rome was my gateway into the Xbox One generation!
So that was my experience with Ryse: Son of Rome! I think it’s an underappreciated title from the early days of the Xbox One; a hidden gem that a lot of folks aren’t aware of. With holiday sales coming up next month, it’s worth putting it on your wishlist or keeping an eye on it, because it really is a fun, somewhat different, and visually impressive adventure.
I promised I’d do more of these “spotlight” pieces, taking a retrospective look at some older titles that I enjoyed. So far, the only other game to have gotten the spotlight treatment is Banished, a PC town-building game that, again, I thoroughly recommend! You can check out my thoughts on that title by clicking or tapping here, and I hope you’ll stay tuned for more spotlights like this one in the future.
All that remains is to say this: happy tenth anniversary, Ryse: Son of Rome!
Ryse: Son of Rome is out now for Xbox One and PC and is also playable on Xbox Series S/X. Ryse: Son of Rome is the copyright of Crytek and/or Xbox Game Studios. Some screenshots and promotional artwork used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Starfield’s main quest, including its ending.
I have to confess that I haven’t played a lot more of Starfield since I last shared my thoughts on the game, its flaws, and how Bethesda might want to respond to some of the biggest points of criticism. But as I’ve sat with the game in the month since it released, I’ve found a few more things to say that I didn’t get to mention in either of my two big post-launch pieces about Starfield. It’s these points that we’re going to talk about today – and if you ignored the spoiler warning above, please know that we’re going to discuss the ending of the main quest and Starfield’s New Game Plus mode.
I feel that Skyrim’s unprecedented success changed something at Bethesda. The company ceased viewing its games as individual stories to be created, completed, and published, and instead began seeing all of its projects as ongoing, long-running experiences. Because Skyrim remained popular for years after its release, Bethesda seems to have internalised that and expected it to become the “new normal,” deliberately taking steps to build all future games with that goal in mind. We saw that most obviously with Fallout 76, but I’d argue very strongly that it happened with Starfield as well.
Starfield has landed…
In a recent interview with Insomniac Games (creators of Marvel’s Spider-Man, among other successful projects), Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard said that Starfield was “a good base of a game to build upon,” referencing the company’s plans for future DLC and additional development for years to come. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of talk of years-long plans for Starfield. In fact, it seems that building a kind of single-player live-service title was one of Bethesda’s main objectives when developing the game.
My question is this: was Starfield screwed over by this idea?
Find me a recent game that billed itself as having a “ten-year plan” or a “five-year roadmap” that actually went the distance. Whether we’re talking about the likes of Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, or Halo Infinite, many titles have come along promising something like this – only to fail to deliver. Games that genuinely last a decade or more are seldom planned that way; titles like Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V, or Skyrim are lightning in a bottle. These one-off games succeed for almost unquantifiable reasons – and a massive amount of luck. Corporate planning to replicate that kind of once-in-a-generation level of success has almost never worked. Massive developers like Rockstar have faltered, and even some of the biggest brands and properties on the planet, like Marvel, have been unable to make a “five-year experience” work.
Anthem’s “roadmap” of content that was supposed to be added to the game.
And I can’t help but feel echoes of the likes of Anthem in Starfield. Parts of the game feel barebones and incomplete, as if waiting for future “content drops” and updates to round things out. There are plenty of missions and quests to get stuck into in Starfield, for example, but where are the cosmetics and skins? Why are there so few weapon styles, outfits, skins, and the like? I said when I wrote up my first impressions of Starfield that I was pleased to see the game wasn’t being excessively monetised… but looking at the lack of cosmetic variety and skins, it seems pretty clear that Bethesda plans to add these as paid-for DLC.
The corporation is no stranger to this. In fact, I’d argue that Bethesda is actually one of the guiltiest parties in the entire games industry when it comes to microtransactions – especially in the single-player space. Oblivion’s infamous horse armour DLC in 2006 was one of the most notorious examples of bad value cosmetic DLC in a single-player game, and one of the first to attract mainstream attention. Other companies saw Bethesda essentially getting away with it, and a truly unfortunate trend accelerated.
Oblivion’s horse armour DLC was released in 2006.
At time of writing in October 2023, the only skins available in the game come from expensive pre-order or premium editions of Starfield. That’s already a red flag, in my opinion, and it seems all but certain that future skins will also only be available as paid add-ons.
Starfield could look very different in six months or a year from now, with in-game purchases that could easily push the cost of the complete game closer to £200. Remember that in order to get the currently available skins, and pre-order Shattered Space, players are already having to fork over £100 to Bethesda for Starfield’s premium edition, so £200 when additional skins and cosmetics have been released doesn’t even seem like a stretch. By the time Bethesda finally stops working on Starfield altogether in the years ahead, the full price of the game plus all of its DLC and additional content could run to far more than that.
Skins are currently available as pre-order and special edition bonuses only.
So I’m rescinding my “doesn’t feel excessively monetised” statement from my earlier piece. Starfield feels like a game that’s being primed for additional monetisation – and rumours of paid mods have not escaped my notice, either. Paid mods will have to be the subject of a longer piece one day – but suffice to say for now that I’m not a supporter of them in any way, shape, or form.
Bethesda took a risk by turning Starfield into a single-player live-service title, and while I will say that the “base” version of the game still has a lot on offer – for people who are still interested in Bethesda games and the way they design their quests – I’m not sure it was the right decision. Building a good game with fun gameplay and an engaging story should have been priority number one – but it feels like both of these things took a back seat. Planning for a decade’s worth of add-ons and extra content became Bethesda’s main ambition. I’m not convinced all of these planned pieces of DLC will see the light of day.
This is where skins will appear – when Bethesda is ready to begin selling them.
When I really dig down, Starfield’s biggest issue for me personally isn’t actually that its gameplay feels outdated and uninspired. It’s that the game’s story just didn’t grab me and the worldbuilding was so bland and uninteresting that I didn’t care to spend any more time in it. The world of Starfield feels small, flat, and boring – and when the gameplay backing it up was lacklustre too, I couldn’t find a way to make progress. I’m someone who’ll happily play through some absolutely bog-standard gameplay if I’m enjoying a story or getting lost in a fictional world, but with Starfield offering neither an entertaining story nor an engaging world… sticking with the game lost its appeal.
I looked up spoilers online to see what happens further along Starfield’s main quest. I was bored to tears playing it, but if it picked up later on I thought I might be able to push through to get to the promised moment where the game would finally “get good.” But what I read actually surprised me – and I ended up feeling glad that I didn’t waste any more hours of my life playing through the story.
One of the artefacts at the heart of the game’s story.
What is one of the most basic pillars of storytelling? Any narrative needs a beginning, a middle, and an end. If a story revolves around a big mystery, solving that mystery is absolutely key to making it feel complete. Starfield’s writers chose to ignore this absolutely fundamental rule of narrative construction, and the result is that the game’s main story seems like it comes to a deeply unsatisfying “end.”
Starfield began by setting up a mystery: what is this artefact? What does it do? And who made it? Then the game introduces us to a team of people dedicated to figuring it all out. There are major structural weaknesses on this side of the story – like what anyone involved in Constellation actually does or has been doing for the past thirty years prior to the player character showing up – but that’s somewhat beside the point. After a series of glorified fetch quests that see us chasing different artefacts across the galaxy, Starfield introduces two antagonists and magical powers that we can learn… but then the story ends without explaining anything about what the artefacts were or who created them.
Starfield’s main story has a deeply unsatisfying ending – and the journey to get there isn’t much fun either.
Failing to solve the key mystery at the heart of the narrative, and refusing to even answer the most basic of questions about that mystery, ignores one of the fundamental tenets of storytelling. It makes the whole story – which then begins again in a weird kind of cyclical manner – feel incomplete and frustrating.
It seems to me that this aspect of the game – starting over by “travelling to an alternate reality” – is nothing more than a narrative gimmick to allow Bethesda to put a New Game Plus mode into Starfield.
And why would Bethesda want to add such a feature? None of the company’s previous titles included New Game Plus, after all. Oh, that’s right: because Starfield was built to be a “ten-year experience” rather than a complete game, and New Game Plus feels like an easy way to keep players engaged for longer.
I couldn’t even get through the game once…
So we come full-circle, and I think we can reasonably make the case that Starfield has been harmed in more ways than one by Bethesda’s insistence on planning for the long-term at the expense of the short-term. Maybe Shattered Space, or some additional piece of DLC in the future, will resolve Starfield’s big mystery. And maybe, if that happens, the main story of the game will feel complete and worth experiencing. But if the best possible spin I can put on Starfield is that it’s an incomplete experience that needs additional content to actually feel like its story has a proper ending… that’s not great. It makes it feel no different from dozens of other incomplete live-service games.
I usually avoid live-service titles, and I do so for one basic reason: I don’t like to play an incomplete game. If a film or season of TV ends on a cliffhanger, with promises of a resolution to come next time, that’s one thing. But Starfield isn’t a film or a TV show, it’s a single-player game that shouldn’t depend on future DLC or updates to actually complete its main story.
Ready for boarding?
The longer I’ve sat with Starfield, the further the game has slipped down in my estimation. There are unfavourable comparisons with other recent releases that can’t be avoided, but at its core we’re stuck with a game that feels fundamentally incomplete. As Todd Howard himself admitted, Bethesda made a “base experience” that they intend to build on over the next few years – and that they also expect modders to help with. That might’ve been okay were it not for the outdated and buggy gameplay combined with an uninteresting and bland setting.
So like with other live-service titles, maybe Starfield will be worth revisiting after those promised updates, content drops, and DLC packs have been created. Maybe the “ultra deluxe anniversary edition” will be worth playing in 2030 – so if I live that long, maybe I’ll check it out. But I’ve been wasting my time on a game that, for all of its lofty promises, just isn’t what I’d been expecting. As I said last time: part of that is on me for internalising too much of the hype and excitement that built up in the months before Starfield’s launch. But a lot of the blame lies with Bethesda for creating an uninspiring setting, a bland, incomplete story, and for building a game that feels a decade out of date.
You cannot go that way.
Forget about Starfield becoming a “ten-year experience.” Bethesda needed to catch up on at least ten years worth of improvements and changes in game design and development. Those are the ten years that Bethesda should have been focused on. The company should have been looking at what comparable games in the open-world, action-adventure, and role-playing spaces have been doing since Skyrim launched and worked to incorporate some of those elements into Starfield. Instead, Bethesda took the Skyrim formula, cut out content to introduce later by way of paid DLC and add-ons, and planned for a decade’s worth of content for a game that already feels at least ten years out of date.
I wanted to love Starfield. The game’s overall aesthetic and many of its creative choices looked to create exactly the kind of sci-fi setting that appeals most to me. Blending real-world design elements with some of the sci-fi properties that I remember fondly from years past should have been exactly what I was looking for. I was worried that I was too harsh on Starfield and that I’d been treating the game unfairly or unkindly… but the longer I’ve sat with it the more I’ve seen its “ten-year plan” laid bare. I don’t care for live-services, for incomplete experiences, or for badly-written stories with cheap endings. I think I’m done with Starfield for now – though I will give the caveat that the game could be worth picking up again once its planned add-ons have been released.
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
If you’re a regular reader, you might know that I’m an Xbox Game Pass subscriber. I play on PC, not on an Xbox console, but Microsoft’s “Netflix of games” has felt like a good value proposition to me over the past couple of years. I’ve been able to play several big games without having to buy them outright, and in addition Game Pass has introduced me to several titles that I’d never have thought to try for myself. Even though I’m not someone who plays video games every day, I still feel that I get good value for money from Game Pass.
You know there’s a “but” coming, though.
But Game Pass has a problem, and it’s one that might prove tricky to unstick. Although the service includes a good range of titles across different genres, and many brand-new ones join the Game Pass lineup on release day, a lot of these games are incomplete. To use a games industry euphemism: these versions are the “base game” – without any DLC being included.
Game Pass includes a lot of games – but many are incomplete.
There are exceptions to this, such as “game of the year” bundles of titles like Skyrim and Fallout 3 that come packaged with their DLC – but these games, when they exist, tend to be older titles, not brand-new ones. And in the case of Skyrim, while the Game Pass version does include DLC, it’s not the most recent “anniversary edition” that comes with additional content and visual improvements. Figuring out which version of a game is which and what add-ons and DLC come with which one can feel like navigating a maze at times!
This recently came up for me with two games: Starfield and Age of Empires II. I was a huge Age of Empires II fan around the turn of the millennium, and I’ve been thrilled with the Definitive Edition remake that was released a couple of years ago. When developers Forgotten Empires and Xbox Game Studios announced that there was going to be a new piece of DLC for Age of Empires II – one that would bring the original civilisations from the first Age of Empires into the new game – I thought it was something worth checking out.
Promo banner for the Return of Rome DLC.
But on Game Pass, the Return of Rome DLC isn’t included along with Age of Empires II. The only way to play it is to buy it – for the not-so-low price of £10. Even with a Game Pass subscription, it would cost a whopping £80 to buy the Age of Empires Collection – a bundle that includes all four games plus their various DLC packs. If I’m paying a subscription fee every month to access this service and these first-party games, that seems ridiculous and excessive.
Starfield, too, has irked me when it comes to DLC on Game Pass. Bethesda’s space-RPG launched on Game Pass not on “day one,” as was promised, but five days later – with those first five days gated off behind a paywall. Five days of so-called “early” access was only available to players who forked over an additional £35 – and I don’t think that should be acceptable. Too many companies have started charging extra to play their games as soon as they become available, using shady manipulative tricks to convince folks to cough up even more money. But paid “early” access will have to be the subject of a longer article in future.
The only way to get access to Starfield’s “story expansion” on Game Pass is to pay extra.
Also included in Starfield’s expensive £35 add-on on Game Pass was the first piece of planned DLC: Shattered Space. This DLC pack isn’t out yet and most likely won’t arrive until sometime next year, but even for Game Pass subscribers, the only way to get it will be to pay up. Shattered Space is described as a “story expansion” for Starfield; a piece of DLC that will add to the story present in the “base” version of the game. I’m beginning to get tired of this – being charged extra on top of a subscription.
The basic problem is this: we all know that most games in 2023 aren’t complete experiences. With a few exceptions, like Baldur’s Gate 3, most games nowadays are deliberately constructed to be incomplete, and to require DLC and “content packs” to make up for these inbuilt, deliberate deficiencies. When Game Pass only allows players access to the “base game,” what that really means is that it’s a service made up entirely of incomplete experiences.
Baldur’s Gate 3 feels like a rare gem in 2023: a game that’s actually complete without expensive add-ons.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a great game, and I firmly believe it would still be lauded and held in high esteem even if the games industry wasn’t plagued with these problems. But one factor among many in its success, and one of the reasons why it’s being celebrated by players, is that it’s so rare nowadays to see a fully-complete game that doesn’t require expensive DLC or that doesn’t come bundled with an in-game shop and microtransactions. In a broken, greedy, money-grubbing marketplace, games like that stand out.
Incomplete games have become normalised, and that’s been the case for at least a decade. In 2012, Mass Effect 3 was released – and the “base game” had a whole chunk carved out that was sold as day-one DLC: From Ashes. This content, which was developed alongside the “base game” and perfectly integrated into it, was sold separately by EA for an additional fee. Although it remains a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, it’s far from the only one. Day-one DLC and cut content are everywhere nowadays.
Mass Effect 3 was a pioneer of cutting out content to sell as DLC.
So if it’s increasingly rare that a “base game” can be considered anywhere close to a complete, well-rounded experience, what does that say about a service like Game Pass? To me, Game Pass feels increasingly like those demo discs that used to come stuck to the front of magazines or in cereal boxes in the ’90s. There’s some great stuff there – but if you want to play more than just the “base” version, you’d better be prepared to fork over some additional cash. Maybe £10 for Age of Empires II DLC seems reasonable to you, but £35 for Starfield DLC that might not be released for another twelve months feels like highway robbery.
Microsoft wants Game Pass to be “the Netflix of games,” and to transform the way players engage with playing games on its platforms. So let’s take the Netflix analogy as a starting point and consider this question: does Netflix charge extra for additional content?
Microsoft wants to make Game Pass the “Netflix of video games.”
Can you imagine logging into Netflix, excited to watch the second season of your favourite show, only to be told that you need to pay an additional fee? For many games, DLC is the equivalent of “Season 2,” continuing the story, rounding out the experience, and even patching out issues with the game in some cases. No video streaming service could get away with only making Season 1 of a TV series or the first film in a trilogy available to watch, with the rest only accessible for an extra fee. That would be ridiculous.
But you see my point, right? It wouldn’t be possible for a video streaming service to only include some films and episodes in its “base version” and expect to get away with charging extra fees to watch the rest. Customers wouldn’t stand for that – so why does Microsoft think it can get away with doing that on Game Pass?
Imagine if Netflix tried to get away with charging extra to watch the second or third season of a series.
I suppose we should make a distinction between different kinds of DLC, in the interest of fairness. Single-use items in online games, in-game currencies, and maybe even some cosmetic items are the kind of things that could still be charged for separately. I’m not suggesting that Game Pass players should get infinite amounts of these things, especially in competitive online multiplayer games.
But for titles like Starfield with its single-player DLC, and even for Age of Empires II with its new story campaign and factions, I really do believe that these should be included in the cost of Game Pass. What are we paying Microsoft for if all we’re getting are incomplete experiences; games that will become less and less complete over time? The price of Game Pass should go toward the cost of developing DLC for these titles, especially since it’s taken as a monthly charge. There’s no better definition of a “recurring revenue stream” than that.
This is all about money, at the end of the day.
So this was a bit of a rant, but it’s something I’ve been meaning to bring up for some time now. While I don’t think it’s fair to ask for every single title to include all purchasable items as part of Game Pass, I absolutely believe that single-player titles and big expansion packs should be covered. The “base game” hasn’t felt like a full or complete experience for a long time, so when Game Pass only offers that, it feels less like a subscription service and more like an expensive demo disc.
At the very least, I’d like to see Microsoft’s first-party releases bring their major expansion packs and DLC to Game Pass. If I were to fantasize, I’d say that cosmetic items in single-player games, small content packs like cars in racing games or new guns in shooters should also be included as well.
This is something Microsoft will have to deal with sooner or later, because players aren’t going to be pleased if they have to keep forking over additional fees on top of their Game Pass subscription. If I have to pay £35 to get Starfield’s unreleased DLC, why even bother subscribing at that point? I might as well buy the “base game” right now and wait for the DLC to go on sale.
The Game Pass subscription service is available now for players on PC and Xbox game consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for some early missions in Starfield.
A strange feeling hit me yesterday. I’d taken a break from Starfield for a few days after writing up my first impressions of the game, but I booted it up again to give it another shot at getting me immersed in its sci-fi world. This was, after all, a game I’d been excited to play and had been looking forward to. But while I was playing Starfield and feeling underwhelmed by some of its basic quests and unimpressive exploration… I realised that I’d rather be playing Baldur’s Gate 3. I was planning out character ideas in my head, thinking about how to approach some early-game quests and encounters that I was unprepared for the first time around, and I even found myself more interested in writing about that game than I was in actually playing Starfield.
This got me thinking about Bethesda, and in particular the way in which the company’s game design and creation feels… well, stagnant. Starfield, while an impressive technical achievement in many ways, also feels like a game whose core mechanics and systems haven’t really improved or moved on in more than two decades – and while that’s clearly sitting right with a lot of Bethesda fans and giving them a ton of enjoyment, it feels disappointing to me.
An empty captain’s chair.
Starfield is a Bethesda game. It’s “Skyrim in space.” And those two expressions simultaneously encompass everything Starfield fans love about the game… and everything that critics dislike about it. For the first time since I played Morrowind more than twenty years ago, I find myself wrangling with a difficult question: do I actually like Bethesda games? Or to be more accurate: are Bethesda games still enjoyable twenty years later when the formula, designs, and core gameplay mechanics haven’t really changed?
See, Starfield isn’t just “Skyrim in space.” It’s also “Oblivion in space,” “Fallout 3 in space,” and even “Morrowind in space.” Although more than twenty years have passed since we were first sitting down to play Morrowind, not a lot has changed in terms of the way a Bethesda game feels. And that’s a double-edged sword, because that familiarity is clearly something that fans adore. That style of gameplay has its audience – and it’s a big one. How else do we explain Skyrim still being popular almost twelve years later?
Morrowind was released on PC and Xbox in 2002.
But that familiarity is, at least for me, the beginning of Starfield’s undoing. The structure of a Bethesda game – with an optional main quest and plenty of side-missions to get stuck into – felt incredibly innovative in 2002, but doesn’t any more. And when many of those quests are incredibly basic, offering little if any choice of how to approach them, again it feels like Bethesda’s game design has become stagnant. Quests in Starfield operate in functionally the same way as quests did in Morrowind – and every other mainline Bethesda game since. You have two basic variants: go to place, press button to collect/interact with item, the end. Or: go to place full of enemies, kill enemies, the end.
During an early-game mission in Starfield, I found myself at a facility teeming with nameless “spacers.” This base felt no different from the dozen or so other bases I’d cleared out earlier in my playthrough, and even though it was a named quest location, it felt incredibly samey in terms of its design and its loot. Stealth was an option – but not an especially good one, as taking down one enemy would alert all the others in the vicinity. There were no real puzzles to solve, aside from picking a couple of locks, and after exploring the entire place, listening to a couple of audio logs, and talking to one NPC, I’d claimed my prize and was blasting off to the next place.
Fighting pirates in Starfield.
As I explored the facility that I was infiltrating (alright, attacking) I kept encountering interesting-looking items that I just couldn’t interact with at all. Computers that couldn’t be powered on. Gauges and switches that couldn’t be spun or flicked. Buttons that couldn’t be pressed. There was no environmental storytelling nor any way to use the environment to my advantage. I couldn’t, for example, hack into the base’s computers and set turrets to target the spacers. I couldn’t vent toxic gas into a room to knock them out. There wasn’t an alternate route to the clearly-marked destination that I could have used to sneak past the guards. In short: it was a Bethesda quest from a Bethesda game.
And I remember this exact criticism from the Morrowind days. “You’ll come across a fishing rod that you can’t use to fish,” said one reviewer at the time, using that example as a way to call out the superficial world that Morrowind offered. Because I got so hooked in by the story, the characters, the lore, and the world-building… I always felt such criticisms were silly. The world was rich and deep in story terms, even if mechanically and in terms of gameplay it wasn’t. That was good enough for me in 2002 – but it doesn’t feel good enough any more in 2023.
This computer setup (which is duplicated in many bases and locations across Starfield’s galaxy) is set dressing. It can’t be touched or interacted with in any way.
A lot of folks are playing and loving Starfield. A friend of mine, who was even more hyped for the game than I was, seems to be having a whale of a time – and I’m genuinely thrilled for them and for everyone else who’s enjoying it. But I feel like I’m watching a New Year’s Eve party through the window while standing on the cold street outside; everyone else is having fun, but I’m not.
I keep waiting for Starfield to “click.” I keep waiting for that moment where I’ll think “oh, I get it now,” and the fun can actually begin. But almost twenty-five hours in, it hasn’t. There are whole games that are shorter than that, games that get going from the very first moment and tell a wonderful story in a relatively short span of time. My pick for 2021’s game of the year was Kena: Bridge of Spirits, an indie title that was visually beautiful, emotional, and a ton of fun to play. But my playthrough of that game lasted barely twelve hours, and in that time I explored the game world, fell in love with its characters, and dragged it out as much as possible because I just didn’t want the experience to end.
Kena: Bridge of Spirits was 2021’s game of the year.
I’ve heard other critics and commentators say that Starfield doesn’t “get good” until around the six-hour mark, the twelve-hour mark, or even beyond that. But… if it takes that long for the game to get going, I don’t really consider that to be a selling-point. It’s often true that a game gets more interesting to play as the campaign goes on; your character levels up and gains more skills and abilities, giving you more options in some cases. But the basic gameplay still has to be balanced and enjoyable during those first few hours! That’s crucial to player retention. If the reason I’m not enjoying Starfield after twenty-five hours and bringing my character up to level 18 is because the game “doesn’t get good” until later… well, how much longer am I going to have to wait to have a good time?
I don’t really think that’s the issue, though. Levelling up my character and doing those basic looting and fetching activities just don’t hold the appeal they once did. The real reason for that, I fear, is that game design has moved beyond what Bethesda and its Creation Engine are capable of.
Standing on a random planet with a spaceship landing to my left and an enemy base to my right.
The world of Starfield feels regressive and, to me, more akin to Morrowind than Fallout 4 or Skyrim. Shops never close, even when it’s the middle of the night, and their NPC proprietors stand or sit behind their counters 24/7. When I aim the first-person camera down to the ground, I can’t see my character’s feet or body; I’m just a floating camera orb. Enemies and NPCs don’t feel reactive – you can run away from them and they’ll just forget you existed two minutes later, even if you’ve murdered all their companions and shot them in the face.
And the bugs. Oh god, the bugs. Starfield probably is Bethesda’s “least-buggy release ever,” as has been repeatedly claimed. But “least-buggy” doesn’t mean “there are zero bugs,” and claiming to be the least-buggy Bethesda game is like claiming to be the sewer with the fewest turds. I’ve seen dozens of bugs across my playthrough, including enemies able to shoot through doors and walls, NPCs clipping through solid objects, characters levitating, and items disappearing through the environment or floating away. There’s one particularly annoying bug where I’ll be piloting my spaceship but every crew member on board will repeatedly spout the same handful of lines of dialogue – as if the game thinks I just walked up to them.
Just one of many bugs I’ve encountered. Not game-breaking, but certainly immersion-breaking.
Every time Starfield has a chance at getting me to feel a crumb of immersion in its sci-fi future, something comes along that rips it away again. Maybe it’s walking into a cabin on my ship to see one of my crew members clipping through a box. Maybe it’s realising that a shopkeeper doesn’t have a life outside of the few seconds I spend in his always-open shop. Maybe it’s landing on a supposedly “unexplored” planet or moon only to find two spacer bases, a mining outpost, and another spaceship landing right next to me. But I can’t go more than a few minutes without something in Starfield reminding me that I’m playing a video game – and a video game that feels years out of date.
After taking part in yet another quest that didn’t seem to be any different from any of the others I’ve tried, I kind of felt myself hit the wall. Should I keep pressing on, following one uninspiring story after another in an empty world that I couldn’t give a shit about? Should I keep trying to pretend that these last-gen, waxy-skinned Madame Tussauds rejects are “people,” even as their dead eyes and ridiculous faces break what little immersion I can find? Should I keep waiting for Starfield to “get good?”
A pair of NPCs.
Setting my own feelings aside, I wonder what lessons can be learned from Starfield from Bethesda’s point of view. As the company begins to develop new entries in The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, as well as potential DLC for Starfield, what should the key takeaways be? As I asked at the beginning: where does Bethesda go from here?
Despite how I feel – and how you may feel, too, if you happen to agree with me – Starfield has been well-received by Bethesda fans. The game had six million players shortly after launch, making it the biggest Bethesda release ever. And it’s racked up decent reviews on platforms like Steam and Metacritic, with the positive reviews outweighing the negative ones from both professional critics and players alike. There’s a market for this kind of game, then… so Bethesda doesn’t need to change anything. Right?
Starfield’s ratings on Metacritic as of mid-September 2023.
I look at Starfield – and by extension, Bethesda games in general – the same way I’ve looked at Nintendo games since the mid-2000s. Nintendo threw in the towel and gave up on trying to compete with PlayStation and Xbox on power and graphics, focusing instead on carving out its own niche. Nintendo games rarely if ever compete with other studios in terms of things like visuals or scale, and yet it’s found success with 2D games, retro games, kids’ games, smaller and more simplistic games, and so on. The company has gone from strength to strength with the Wii and the Switch – with a bit of a blip during the short-lived Wii U era!
Bethesda may just be going down a similar path. Instead of trying to keep up with open-world developers like Rockstar or role-playing studios like Larian, Bethesda is sticking to what’s worked in the past. Instead of developing new technologies and innovating, the company is doubling- and tripling-down on its existing technology, knowing that its fanbase will forgive a degree of bugginess and jankiness. Instead of learning from what other companies have done with tech like procedural generation, Bethesda is content to muddle through and do things its own way.
Shops in Starfield never close, and shopkeepers never leave their posts.
And who am I to say that’s a bad thing? I don’t like every Nintendo game that comes out, but their heavy-hitters are still worth turning up for. Whether it’s Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Super Mario Odyssey, or Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Nintendo knows what its fans want and serves them just enough of it to keep them coming back. Are those games innovative masterpieces that push boundaries and drive gaming forward? No… but do they need to be?
Did Starfield need to be?
I bought into too much of the excitement for Starfield and internalised too much of the hype. That one’s on me, and after playing games for more than thirty years I should’ve known better than to place any new release on such a pedestal. But there’s also a lesson here for Bethesda – one that the company should have learned already from similar experiences in the past! Over-hyping a game and being frightened of telling players “no” can lead to excessively high expectations and ultimately disappointment. That’s part of the Starfield problem. The Starfield showcase earlier this year was great, but what came after it should have shut down speculation, explained clearly the boundaries that would be present, and done more to lower sky-high expectations. Over-selling a game might lead to a temporary boost in sales, but it’s almost never worth it in the long-run.
Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard.
Beyond just marketing, though, there are questions for Bethesda in terms of the fundamentals of development and game design. Does the company have both the ability and the desire to keep up with its competitors? If so… why didn’t we see that in Starfield?
Procedural generation has been able to create massive, expansive worlds for a long time. So why are Starfield’s planets restricted to tiny, non-contiguous landing zones? Minecraft generated massive worlds with varied biomes more than a decade ago, and No Man’s Sky took procedural generation to space all the way back in 2016. The same for spaceflight: why can’t I fly my ship from one planet to the next in the same solar system?
My customised spaceship.
Look at open-world games like Grand Theft Auto V – which is now a decade old. That game’s linear missions at least offered some variety in terms of the way they played. Why does every quest in Starfield feel functionally the same? Where’s the diversity of items to at least make the looting side of the game feel worthwhile?
When I explore a city in Starfield that’s supposedly the capital of humanity’s extrasolar colonies, why does it feel so lifeless and empty? For all its problems – and my god were there problems – Cyberpunk 2077 at least managed to create the feel of a bustling city, replete with skyscrapers, traffic, and countless individual NPCs.
New Atlantis – the biggest city ever made for a Bethesda game – feels small and empty.
These are just some of the areas where Starfield feels deficient. And my question isn’t “how will Bethesda fix them?” but rather… does Bethesda even consider these things problems that need to be fixed? Or is the company content to take this formula and repeat it yet again in its next title? If so, will that be good enough for Bethesda fans when The Elder Scrolls VI rolls around in 2028? Or when Fallout 5 graces our screens in the 2030s?
The answer is a solid “maybe.”
So where does Bethesda go from here? The way I see it, there are two paths open to the company. One sees it continuing to double-down on its existing technology and design philosophy, becoming “the Nintendo of role-playing games,” where graphical fidelity, quest design, characters, and more are all a couple of generations behind. Abandoning innovation in this way will probably lead to The Elder Scrolls VI being referred to as “Starfield in a fantasy setting,” whenever that game is ready!
Another bug that I encountered during my playthrough.
Alternatively, Bethesda could recognise the deficiencies in its technologies and processes, look around at what other games in the action/adventure, open-world, and role-playing spaces have been doing over the past few years, and try to catch up. Realistically this almost certainly means dumping the Creation Engine in order to create or license something more powerful that can really stand up to the rigours of modern game development.
After trying to give Starfield a fair shot but finding it came up short, I know what I’d rather see. But given Starfield’s critical and commercial success, perhaps I’m in the minority here. It seems that millions of players are absolutely fine with playing “just another Bethesda game” in a different setting, and if that’s the case in 2023, who’s to say it will change by the time the next Bethesda title is ready? Like Nintendo, the company clearly has a dedicated fanbase who are willing to overlook and even embrace its flaws. I thought I was one of those fans… but Starfield has shown me that I’m not.
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: While there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers for the main quest and a handful of side-quests are present.
I promised that I’d share my first impressions of Starfield as soon as possible, and with the game finally launching for us plebs who didn’t fork over £100 to get “early” access, I’ve belatedly had the chance to jump in and try it for myself. I’m basing my impressions of the game on approximately twenty hours of playtime, in which I’ve started but not completed the main quest, created a character, worked on my spaceship, undertaken a handful of side-missions and fetch quests, and landed on about twenty different planets. There’s no way I can reasonably “review” a game as large and long as Starfield without beating a single questline, so I’m calling this piece my “first impressions” of the game.
Starfield’s showcase earlier this summer was fantastic, and the game rocketed up the list to become my most-anticipated launch of the year. The idea of playing an open-galaxy adventure with all of the fantastic writing and quest design of a Bethesda game combined with spaceflight, spaceship building, and exploration, and set in a new fictional universe with designs that drew inspiration from NASA… it all seemed too good to be true. A friend of mine suggested to me a couple of months ago that Starfield “might be the best game that either of us will ever play.” Try as I might to avoid the hype, there’s no denying how excited I was for Starfield.
Promo poster for Starfield.
Hype can be detrimental to any game if not properly handled, something I commented on shortly before the release of 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077. I said then that games publishers and their marketing teams need to do a better job at reining in speculation, and that there are ways to let players down gently, redirecting the conversation, if necessary, away from features that won’t be part of a game. The hype train for Starfield definitely got unwieldy, and I fear that Bethesda ended up over-promising.
Let’s get the headline out of the way right now: Starfield is undeniably a good game… but it doesn’t always make good on some of its loftier promises and ambitions. It brings a lot to the table, but several of its key features and systems feel barebones and underdone, especially when compared to other titles in a similar space, meaning that there’s not a lot to offer in terms of longer-term play or replayability. Thus far, the game’s main story has failed to grab me following what I felt was a pretty rushed beginning, and customisation options for both the player character and their spaceship aren’t at the level I was hoping for. There are also some notable bugs that slipped through, in spite of promises that Starfield would be Bethesda’s “least-buggy release ever,” and graphics that feel outdated in some areas.
The city of New Atlantis.
That being said, Starfield gets a lot right. The game’s art style and overall aesthetic is exactly what I was looking for, drawing on real-world space agencies like NASA and retro sci-fi properties from the ’70s and ’80s that I grew up with. There’s some genuinely enjoyable gunplay – a first for a Bethesda title. Voice acting is solid across the board. And while I don’t feel that the game has really managed to suck me in – at least, not yet – it still manages to evoke at least some of those feelings of being a space captain in a sci-fi world that it was aiming for.
I think the best thing to do at this point is to break this article into segments. Each segment will tackle one aspect of Starfield’s gameplay, and then we’ll bring it all together at the end for a conclusion. I’ll try to avoid major plot spoilers – though I’m yet to complete the main quest or any faction questline, so there shouldn’t be anything massive in the mix.
Exploration:
Landing on a planet’s surface.
Exploring in Starfield is not what I expected it would be. After landing on the surface of a planet, you’re restricted to a “landing zone” that takes about ten to twelve minutes to reach the boundary of while traversing on foot. No, despite what you may have heard, a landing zone is not “the same size as Skyrim!” For the most part, I don’t think the size of a landing zone is a particular problem, and I’d wager that most players – though by no means all – won’t bother to trek as far as the invisible wall. But that in itself is saying something – because there’s not a lot to do in a lot of these places, and much of what is on offer gets repetitive very quickly.
As an aside about invisible walls: this could have been handled better. An in-game explanation could have been found, allowing Starfield to technobabble its way to an excuse for why it isn’t possible to roam too far from where your ship landed. Something about “needing to stay in communications range,” or words to that effect, for example. Instead, the first time you hit an invisible wall it’s pretty jarring – you’re simply told that “you cannot go that way,” much like you were as far back as Oblivion.
This looks familiar.
In the roughly twenty hours I’ve spent with Starfield, I’ve encountered absolutely identical locations and buildings on different planets on multiple occasions. Within each “abandoned mine,” enemies spawn in the same place, much of the loot is identical, and the layout of the structure is the same. These so-called “points of interest” on the surface of planets are copied-and-pasted from one to the next, and I’m already bored of that after just a few hours.
Imagine if you visited three identical dungeons in Skyrim, and knew that the fourth one would also have the same enemies in the same places and the same basic loot to grab. You’d start to lose interest pretty quickly, right? Maybe I’ve been particularly unlucky, and maybe there are many more of these randomised locations that I’m yet to encounter. I hope so, but even if that’s the case, the fact that these structures – and everything within – can be repeated at all isn’t exactly a good look.
This was one of my big fears about Starfield from the moment Bethesda began talking of planets being made up of “tiles,” and I’m disappointed to see it come to pass.
Discovering another “deserted biotics lab” soon feels repetitive.
One of the early main quest missions is even set at one of these copy-and-paste locations. That actually shocked me when I realised it, because I’d already explored not one but two identical “abandoned mines” on other planets prior to playing this main quest mission. I would have expected at the very least to see locations connected to main quests and faction quests being wholly unique, and again this feels like a disappointment.
One of the things that appealed to me about Starfield was the idea of being able to go “where no man has gone before,” and setting foot on an uncharted world for the first time. But I can’t do that – at least not from what I’ve seen so far. Every single landing zone I’ve touched down at has at least two of these copy-and-paste structures, and no matter how many times I take off again and pick a different spot… they’re always there. Also, every single time I land on a planet, another ship lands a few metres away from mine moments later. There’s no opportunity to feel like a bona fide explorer – the first person to set foot in this strange alien landscape. No matter where you go, someone else has beaten you to it.
A structure on a random planet.
Feeling like I’m at the forefront of this mission of exploration like a Starfleet officer was one of the things I was most keen to experience in Starfield, and the way that the game has handled this hasn’t been great. I literally tried landing at more than fifteen different sites on a single planet, just trying to find one that didn’t have any pre-built structures or spaceship landing sites. But alas.
That’s not to say that there’d be much point in landing at such a site. Starfield is incredibly stingy with its planetary resources, with only a handful of minerals to collect that are scattered across a wide area. With most resources not being worth many credits, any kind of mining or resource-gathering is pretty much out of the question as an in-game career. It’s easier and more efficient to kill random enemies and loot their bases rather than trying to mine or collect minerals and resources.
Mining iron doesn’t yield much profit.
Much was made at the showcase about gravity, and how different planets will have different levels of gravity. As far as I can see, gravity in Starfield affects one thing: how high you can jump. How fast you can walk or run seems entirely unaffected by gravity, as are shooting and carrying capacity. I haven’t encountered any zero-G sections of gameplay yet, though, so those could spice things up a bit.
Different planets can have different environmental hazards: radiation, heat, and even things like scalding rain or toxic gases. For the most part, the spacesuit and helmet that I’ve had equipped for the bulk of my playthrough thus far seem to be adequate, though my character picked up a couple of environmental injuries early on. I’m not sure if there’s more to this, but I’ve landed on frozen icy planets and even the surface of Venus using the same equipment and I’ve really not noticed a difference.
The map.
Having a usable map has become an essential feature in any game with large levels – but Starfield bucks this trend. The available map is good enough on the surface of random planets, but utterly useless for navigating cities and settlements.
The map highlights points of interest, and it’s possible to fast travel to any that have been discovered. But god forbid you try to find a particular shop or building in New Atlantis! The map doesn’t have that level of detail for some inexplicable reason.
Spaceflight:
A custom spaceship takes to the skies!
This ought to be nice and short: there isn’t any. There’s functionally no spaceflight in this game whatsoever. Remember being told “if you can see it, you can go there?” Well, you don’t get to actually fly your ship to your destination. You can’t take off from wherever you landed and manually fly to the moon or to the next planet over. No. The only way to travel from one location to the next is to fast-travel from either the map or mission menu.
I fully expected that travelling from one solar system to another would work this way. Who wants to sit around for ages flying through interstellar space, right? But within a single system – and especially to fly from a planet to its moon or from a space station to the planet it’s orbiting – I genuinely expected that I’d be able to take my customised spaceship and actually, y’know… fly it.
Flying near a planet doesn’t mean you can fly to a planet.
Instead, Starfield drops you and your ship in a little pocket of space, a little bubble. You can fly around within that bubble, talk to any nearby ships, dock with space stations, and the like. But you can’t do anything else, and you’re trapped within that bubble until you open the map menu and select another destination. There’s no option to fly from one planet or moon to a neighbouring one, which is just a disappointment.
What’s the point of building a custom spaceship if you can’t actually get to pilot it for any significant length of time? Sure, there are some combat encounters in space that are tense, and it’s a bit of fun the first few times you get scanned for contraband, hail a friendly ship, or dock with someone. But there’s not a lot of longevity in most of those activities, and the decision to basically offer no actual spaceflight in a space game… it’s an odd one to say the least!
The view from the cockpit.
Some missions operate the same way. After choosing an assignment from a “mission board” located near a spaceport, you’ll be tasked with some relatively mundane job in exchange for credits. One that I chose involved delivering a shipment of jewellery from one planet to another. But to call these “missions” is massively overstating it!
After selecting the task I wanted from the mission board, the quest was available in the menu. But I didn’t have to go anywhere to collect the cargo; it magically appeared on my ship instantaneously. All I had to do was board my ship, select the destination planet from the map screen, and away I went. I mistakenly assumed that I’d have to talk to someone or at the very least interact with a screen in order to transfer the cargo and complete the assignment – but no! The mission was automatically marked as complete the very second my ship touched down. I didn’t even need to get out of my seat, and the entire thing took less than a minute from choosing the task to marking it as complete and receiving my reward. Hardly an interactive experience – and while such tasks may be useful for making a bunch of credits in short order, it wasn’t fun and it wasn’t immersive.
The view from the cockpit.
Maybe this is more of a personal taste thing, but I really dislike the way Starfield presents its heads-up display while piloting a spaceship. I found the HUD to be incredibly cumbersome, especially in first-person mode, and it got in the way of the immersion of being a space captain or space pilot. Displaying these little transparent boxes on top of in-game computer screens and monitors really detracts from the piloting experience.
Even in third-person mode, the HUD is still obtrusive and takes up a lot of real estate on the screen. I’d have loved to see Starfield make actual use of those screens and displays in the cockpit, as that would make for a much more engaging and interactive experience. Offering players a choice, at least, with a simplified HUD or smaller HUD as options would have been nice, too.
Graphics:
Parts of Starfield can look decent.
If Starfield had been released on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, I’d have said it looked great. And some of its backdrops and vistas look pretty. Seeing a planet from space or seeing a landscape stretching off into the distance are genuinely great moments, and they’re rendered well. But when you start looking at things up close, a lot of Starfield’s next-gen trappings fall away.
The main area of complaint here is the characters’ faces. Eyes are dead and faces flip-flop from being totally blank and expressionless to having almost comically exaggerated movements, then back again. Every character, regardless of race or age, looks to be about twenty-five years old, with smooth skin and perfect teeth. Practically all characters are the same height, and most are the same build, too.
Starfield vs. Baldur’s Gate 3.
The image above is one I believe offers a fair comparison. On the left we have the character of Sam Coe from Starfield, and on the right, Gale from Baldur’s Gate 3 – wearing a similar hat to make comparing them easier and fairer! I picked these two characters because they have a similar look, and are both major NPCs and companion characters in their respective games. You can tell at a glance which looks better and more lifelike, and that’s without even seeing them moving or being animated. In short, Bethesda has fallen a long way behind when it comes to faces – and this comparison proves it.
“But graphics don’t matter!” goes the frequently-heard retort. And I agree to an extent – many games deliberately employ art direction that isn’t intended to be realistic, going down a “retro” route of pixels and polygons or choosing a cartoony aesthetic, just to give two examples. But Starfield is trying to be realistic – and at least in terms of faces and character models, it misses the mark by a country mile. Games in the same role-playing space by other developers look so much better than Starfield, which is, at best, a polished and shinier version of Fallout 4.
Story:
Sarah Morgan, head of the Constellation organisation.
Thus far, I don’t feel particularly engaged with either Starfield’s main story or the world that the game is trying to build. In true Bethesda style, the player character is some kind of “chosen one,” able to see visions when interacting with mysterious artefacts. But the game’s opening act felt pretty rushed, with my nameless miner picking up an artefact and then being whisked away by Constellation mere minutes later. I get that Bethesda needs to make this section of the game as curtailed as possible so it doesn’t drag too much on repeat playthroughs, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that there wasn’t much explanation provided for why my character was essentially given a free spaceship and shoved off into the cosmos.
The artefacts themselves are pretty bland to look at, and the visions, while certainly mysterious, don’t really offer much else. I don’t feel compelled to keep pushing to figure out what the artefacts are or where they’ve come from, and while a decent ending or a good explanation could certainly reframe this aspect of the game’s story and make it more interesting, that hasn’t happened for me yet.
One of the artefacts that are at the core of the main story.
In terms of storytelling, the side-missions I’ve played so far didn’t feel especially interactive or player-led. On one occasion I stumbled upon a farmstead that was under attack by spacers, and as the mission unfolded I had to recruit other local families to join in the defence of their system from these raiders. But at every stage, the mission felt like it was being organised and led by the very people I was supposedly helping. They discovered the locations I needed to attack, they planned the mission, and it was at their direction that I did, well, everything. I didn’t even have the basic choice to try to do the mission through stealth; a full-frontal attack was literally the only option.
What this meant, when the dust settled and the questline was complete, is that I didn’t really feel like I’d done anything different. Attacking this group of spacers, killing them, and looting their base scarcely felt any different from attacking, killing, and looting random bases on other worlds, and I felt that my character really didn’t engage much with the quest-giver beyond listening to his plan and following orders. As the questline wrapped up and the quest-giver showered my character with praise for defeating the spacers… the whole thing just felt rather hollow.
Scale:
New Atlantis, the bustling metropolis at the heart of the United Colonies.
Before Starfield launched, I wrote a piece here on the website about my concerns surrounding the sense of scale that a game like this needs to have. I zeroed in on two factors: the amount of content relative to the size of the map, and the way other games manage to convey the feeling that players are taking part in a story that only scratches the surface of a much larger world, one that exists beyond the confines of the playable area.
Parts of Starfield feel… small. Exploring New Atlantis – supposedly the biggest city that Bethesda has ever created – feels akin to walking around a small town, not the capital city of a futuristic humanity. There’s no sense of scale, no ambience, and the city doesn’t feel believable. Parts of it are literally deserted, and the handful of people who are milling around are more often than not nameless “citizens” with nothing to say.
A citizen. He’s busy at the moment.
The aforementioned lack of spaceflight also cuts into this sense of scale. Because Starfield allows you to hop from one planet to the next by opening a menu, there’s no feeling that you’ve actually travelled, or that the destination you’ve reached is far away from the spaceport that you departed from. What should be a vast, open galaxy feels small as a result.
Doubling-down on this feeling are the copy-and-paste locations present on planet surfaces outside of the main settlements. I truly can’t believe how many repeat locations I’ve encountered in such a short span of time, and this is again something that really drags Starfield down.
Customisation Part 1: Character Creation:
The character creation screen.
The character creator in Starfield has left me with mixed feelings. Firstly, there seems to be a pretty big difference between the way your character looks when initially creating them and how they actually appear during gameplay. Maybe this is due to lighting or other effects, but I felt my character looked noticeably worse after exiting the character creator. And having spent ages working on them… that didn’t feel great.
There are some great options within the character creator to represent different body types – but this isn’t as extensive as it could be. You can choose whether to be thin, muscular, or fat, for example, or any combination of those three things, but not your character’s height. There are plenty of options for various skin types, including things like vitiligo, freckles, and wrinkles, but very few hair and facial hair options. When it comes to reflecting diverse hair types… that’s poor.
There aren’t a lot of hairstyles, facial hair styles, or eye colours.
Eye colour is likewise very limited. Baldur’s Gate 3, which was released last month, and even 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077 offer far richer and more detailed character creators, and I think it’s a shame that Bethesda hasn’t really made much progress here since Fallout 4. And speaking of Fallout 4: several of the hairstyles seem to be lifted directly from that game, retaining their ’50s-inspired look that doesn’t particularly suit Starfield’s retro-sci-fi future.
As a quick comparison, Cyberpunk 2077 has 35 hair colours and more than 50 hairstyles to Starfield’s 23 hair colours and 40 hairstyles – an absolutely massive difference considering it’s almost three years old and was released on last-generation hardware. And Baldur’s Gate 3 has well over 100 colours and more than 85 styles to choose from, showing what a modern game is really capable of in that department.
Baldur’s Gate 3 has far more hairstyle, hair colour, and eye colour options.
What’s the point in Starfield offering 100 ways to reshape your nose or cheekbones – things that are barely perceptible in-game – while only offering a handful of eye colours and hairstyles? These things go a long way to making a character feel personalised and unique, and when there are so few options, within a matter of minutes you’re likely to be running into NPCs who share some part of your character’s appearance or who look alike. Given the aforementioned issues with the way the game renders faces, the fact that many NPCs look similar to one another is verging on immersion-breaking.
The Starfield showcase really played up the various backgrounds and traits that are available during character creation. And to the game’s credit, these traits and backgrounds are varied and interesting. However, I would say that in my twenty hours with the game, the only place where my character’s background has even been mentioned so far was in the intro/tutorial sequence right at the beginning. Now, there are likely to be more opportunities for random lines of dialogue to appear, but so far I haven’t seen very many.
Backgrounds don’t seem to have much of an impact on gameplay.
I picked the “Raised Enlightened” trait, one of three potential religious affiliations. Partly I did so because in-game text promised access to a chest in New Atlantis, of which there seems to be one for each religion, and I figured that the chest may contain items that could prove useful in the early game. This chest was a complete nothing-burger, offering a handful of health packs and four “books” – which are a couple of pages long at most.
Another trait I chose was “UC Native,” meaning that my character was born in the United Colonies, one of two major factions in the game. While this has some bonuses when completing missions, it doesn’t really come with a lot of perks. For instance, I was told early on that I’m not actually a “citizen” of the United Colonies – presumably so I can have access to the same questline to become a citizen as players who didn’t choose this option. But then… what was the point of choosing this trait? It doesn’t seem to have affected my character in a meaningful way.
Customisation Part 2: Spaceships:
An example of a customised spaceship.
Spaceship building was one of the parts of Starfield that I was most excited about. I’ve loved the idea of creating my very own spaceship ever since I played the likes of Star Trek: Starship Creator in the late ’90s, and being able to not only build my own ship, but pilot it, take it into combat, and get out of my chair and freely walk around the interior are all aspects that held huge appeal.
The ship creator is fun – but it requires a significant investment of credits to get started with, and is a bit more finicky than I’d hoped to see. Some components are incompatible with one another, there are limitations on where some parts can be placed and what they can connect to, and the way weapons have to be manually “assigned” is cumbersome and annoying.
Assigning weapons to a spaceship.
That being said, building my own ship is about as much fun as I realistically expected to have. It isn’t perfect, and in an ideal world there’s a lot I’d add (and a few things I’d remove) to make the experience even more enjoyable. But there are plenty of colour options, and the fact that ships can be assembled in a range of configurations is great. I’d like to see more components and modules – but I don’t think I’ve seen or unlocked all that the game has to offer, so it’s conceivable that I’ll come across more options as I progress.
As I said a few times before Starfield launched, if spaceship interiors could be customised, Bethesda would have said so. While I was still crossing my fingers, this didn’t feel like a realistic prospect as the game edged closer to launch. Even though I’d resigned myself to this reality… it’s still disappointing, especially considering that Starfield does allow for interior designing and decorating in outposts and houses. Would it have really been much more complicated to add this already-present feature to spaceships, too?
Spaceship interiors can’t be repainted or customised.
My spaceship doesn’t feel like “mine.” There’s a half-eaten sandwich on a table that my character didn’t bite. There are notes on the whiteboard in my “captain’s cabin” that I didn’t write (and have no idea what they mean). Although my spaceship is a fetching shade of pink on the outside, the walls inside are a generic white colour. I can’t even repaint hatches and doors, nor choose the colour of the furniture.
While it is possible to drop items aboard the ship and have them remain where they fall, this particular mechanic has literally not been improved since Morrowind. It’s not possible to precisely position items, meaning I can’t even set the table for dinner with a knife and fork. For me, these things are all part of the immersion – and when they aren’t present, my ship just feels bland and generic, and not personal at all.
I hope you weren’t planning on giving your ship a long name!
A spaceship can be renamed at will, which is great, but names are limited to a scant fourteen characters. “Enterprise-D” fits, but “Millennium Falcon” doesn’t. I’ve no idea why Bethesda has been so stingy with the character limit here, as it cuts off a good deal of ship naming possibilities.
And while we’re on the subject of names: remember Todd Howard telling you that Vasco, the robot companion, could say your name and the name of your ship? Well, that hasn’t happened for me yet, despite taking Vasco all over the galaxy and having him accompany me on a number of missions. Not sure if there’s some hidden requirement to unlock this, but if there is, I haven’t found it yet. I didn’t give my character some kind of horribly obscure name, and I was looking forward to hearing this robotic voice say it; it’s another addition to the immersion. Considering what’s possible with text-to-speech nowadays, there’s no reason why Vasco should be limited to a handful of pre-recorded names.
Customisation Part 3: Outfits and Loot:
Six spacesuits available to purchase from a vendor.
I miss the days when you could mix and match outfits. Clothing in Starfield comes by way of whole costumes, with no option to change shoes, pants, shirts, and the like. There are hats that can be equipped individually, but that’s it. I find this to not only be disappointing, as it seriously cuts into the customisation and role-playing aspect of the game, but also a pretty big regressive step.
As far back as Morrowind, Bethesda games let you choose individual pieces of clothing. Shoes, trousers, tops, and even individual pieces of armour were all separate and could be mixed and matched at will. Even though that game is more than twenty years old, it seems like it had more customisation options when it comes to apparel.
Some defeated enemies don’t drop much loot.
In addition, Starfield doesn’t appear to have a huge array of clothing options to choose from. I think I’ve seen a couple of dozen different outfits, maybe, across my playthrough so far – including from several different vendors. And while looting outposts and enemies, I keep picking up the same ones over and over again. At one point I literally had 20 of the same spacesuit.
And this is true of other items, too. Even if you’re lucky enough to come across a building or base that you haven’t seen before – i.e. one that may not be a total copy-and-paste job – the items in it are remarkably samey. You’ll soon be able to identify which items are valuable and which to leave behind… because there really aren’t that many different ones.
A helmet, a couple of lootable items, and a few items that can’t be picked up.
Looting a base can be a frustrating experience at points. Some items that look like they should be collectable aren’t, they’re just part of the scenery and can’t be picked up or interacted with in any way. And the items that can be collected soon feel repetitive. Sure, these items are, to some extent, a means to an end. You’re looting the base or scavenging in order to sell the items for credits to spend on things like ship upgrades or building a base.
But it begins to harm the sense of immersion to constantly be picking up the same handful of items over and over again at different places across the galaxy.
Combat:
Firing a laser rifle.
Combat in Starfield is solid. First-person combat with both guns and melee weapons is probably on par with similar titles in the action-RPG space like Cyberpunk 2077 – though with admittedly fewer options and less variety. But for Bethesda, this is a massive improvement! We’re not reaching the levels of a dedicated FPS like Doom Eternal, and enemies can feel a bit over-armoured and bullet-spongey. But considering how mediocre gunplay was in Fallout 76 (or Bethesda’s other Fallout games when you take VATS out of the equation) I must say I’m impressed.
I had some genuinely fun and tense moments fighting pirates and spacers, and gunplay felt fast-paced and exciting. Different weapon types behave differently and can apply different effects to a target, and there are some “rare” or “legendary” weapons that I’ve come across that have additional bonuses. I think crafting and modifying weapons is also an option here. The only drawback, at least in the first few hours of the game, is that there isn’t all that much variety. I might’ve come across a dozen different guns in total – but when you break that down into lasers, rifles, pistols, and shotguns… well, that’s literally three of each. I hope there’s more that I haven’t discovered yet.
Battling a spacer.
Space combat is likewise fun, though perhaps I’d call it the lesser of Starfield’s two ways to fight. Where gunplay on the ground felt a bit more strategic, with a need to take cover, aim, and generally plan how to win a fight, space battles seem to mostly consist of mashing the buttons over and over again. There is targetted aiming, which is how you can try to disable an enemy ship for boarding, but this is inexplicably locked behind a skill point and can’t be accessed right off the bat.
That being said, I’ve had some exciting space combat encounters in my time with Starfield so far. On one occasion I was overwhelmed by a force of spacers and had to grav-jump to safety, and waiting for my grav-drive to power up with my shields down and enemy ships raining a hail of missiles down on me was a genuinely tense and thrilling moment.
Polish and Bugs:
An enemy clipping (and firing their weapon) through a locked door.
Before the game was released, there was a particularly audacious claim by Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, that Starfield would have “the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped,” and I said at the time that he would absolutely be held to account for that! I haven’t encountered any game-breaking bugs, unfinishable missions, or hard crashes while playing Starfield, and unlike many PC games over the last couple of years, the game seems to run well out of the gate. The frame-rate feels decent, there hasn’t been any stuttering, screen-tearing, or frame-drops, and overall the performance feels solid.
I have noticed that my GPU – an Nvidia RTX 3070 Ti – seems to run hotter than usual and with its fans spinning faster than usual while playing Starfield, but I wouldn’t call that a cause for concern at this stage – and it’s something that could be patched or perhaps modded somewhere down the line to improve things.
Pretty sure you’re supposed to sit on a chair…
However, some bugs have slipped through the cracks, despite Starfield’s long and exhaustive QA process. And many of these bugs feel like your typical Bethesda/Creation Engine fare: characters clipping through walls or doors, being able to shoot through doors, levitating, or making random movements. At one point a character I was in conversation with was facing the wrong way. Characters and items will occasionally “slide” as if on a polished or icy surface.
None of the bugs I encountered stopped me from completing a quest – though a handful of times an item or piece of loot would float away, leaving me unable to retrieve it. The bugs feel akin to those found in other Bethesda titles at launch, which some people claim to find endearing. I don’t – and given the promises attached to Starfield on the bug front, it’s disappointing to have seen so many bugs and glitches within just a few hours of playtime.
Conclusion:
Starfield has landed…
Starfield isn’t as much fun as I’d hoped it would be. It’s a game that brings together systems and mechanics that have been done before – and done better – in other titles, some of which are several years old. What it does offer is all of those things in one package, in the framework of a Bethesda RPG. If Bethesda and Xbox had done a better job of setting expectations, and had been more willing to say “no” and shut down wild speculation when it started to get out of hand, perhaps some of that disappointment could have been avoided.
That being said, Starfield isn’t a bad game by any means. I fully intend to spend more time with it, and it’s not inconceivable that my opinion will shift if the story picks up and I begin to find more items to loot and things to do. I just don’t feel especially engaged with Starfield right now, and the story hasn’t grabbed me in the way I’d have hoped. If it had, perhaps things like limited landing zones or spaceflight consisting more of fast travel menus than anything else wouldn’t feel like such a let-down.
Notes and drawings aboard a custom spaceship.
If there’s one takeaway I have from Starfield it’s this: the Creation Engine has got to go. It’s clearly no longer up to scratch, and practically every element of Starfield that I’ve singled out for criticism today is being held back by outdated software. Let Starfield be the final game to use this piece of kit, and when Bethesda shifts its focus to The Elder Scrolls VI, let’s hope that they finally retire this engine in favour of creating or licensing something more modern, and something that can really stand up to the rigours of modern game development.
Look at what other games in the RPG and action/adventure spaces are doing, and in so many ways, Starfield is being let down by its reliance on the Creation Engine. From character creation and procedural generation to graphics and bugs, the Creation Engine is showing its age and its flaws – and it’s got to go. Obviously Starfield has been made and released now, and we’ll have to deal with it as it is. But in future, Bethesda would be well-served by ending its reliance on this outdated technology.
You cannot go that way.
But that’s really a question for another time! Starfield is good but not great, a game with ambitious scope that brings together a lot of different gameplay ideas – but doesn’t always make them work as well as they do elsewhere. Want more exciting space combat? Pick up Star Wars Squadrons or Elite Dangerous. Want a better, more in-depth RPG? Try Baldur’s Gate 3. Outpost building in a sci-fi setting? Something like Frostpunk or Subnautica might be up your alley. Looking for a first-person adventure? Cyberpunk 2077 or even The Outer Worlds are no less enjoyable.
This is both Starfield’s selling-point and its biggest flaw: it brings together so many different concepts that it can’t possibly deliver a suitably in-depth experience with any of them. The role-playing side of the game is let down by incredibly basic quest design that’s akin to making a few clicks on a menu. Spaceflight is let down by… not actually being able to fly anywhere in space. Shipbuilding is let down by a lack of customisation options. Exploration is let down by incredibly repetitive environments and loot as well as the feeling that you’re never the first person to go somewhere. And so on. If you find something you like in Starfield, chances are it won’t last all that long before you see how shallow it is, and how little longevity or replayability it has to offer.
Touching down on the surface of a planet.
I will give Starfield credit, at least in its launch version at time of writing, for not being excessively-monetised. I feel that the “premium edition” was over-sold, and that paying £35 for five days of early access was poor, but within the game itself there aren’t any microtransactions, lootboxes, premium currencies, paid mods, or any of the other AAA trappings that too many titles include these days. Maybe that’s a low bar, but it’s one Starfield happily clears. I sincerely hope that such nonsense won’t be added later on.
Starfield is a game I’d recommend, at least to some folks. If you have Game Pass it’s a no-brainer – you might as well give it a shot to see how you get on with it. And if you’ve played and enjoyed any Bethesda game in the past, chances are you’ll find something to like in Starfield, too, as the game feels very similar; the DNA of titles like Morrowind is clearly noticeable. I don’t think the “premium edition” is worth £100, though!
On the surface of a planet, ready for exploration.
Bethesda certainly over-promised with Starfield, and lessons need to be learned on the marketing side of things to ensure the company does a better job at reining in out-of-control hype. But part of the problem lies with me – I internalised too much of the hype and excitement, and feel let down because Starfield is “just” another Bethesda open-world role-playing adventure and not the once-in-a-lifetime genre-buster that I’d hoped for. Part of that is on me, and while I have some critical thoughts about Starfield and the way it implements some of its systems and mechanics, at its core I think it’s still a decent game.
I will continue playing in the days and weeks ahead – though perhaps not every day nor with unshakable enthusiasm! If I find that I have more to say after beating the main quest or unlocking more of the game, I’ll be sure to write up my thoughts and impressions later in the year. For now, I hope this has been informative if you’re considering picking up Starfield for yourself, or at least an interesting perspective to consider. For the record, I don’t hate Starfield. I just feel a bit let down that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The console wars have taken yet another toxic turn in recent weeks, after the Starfield showcase started getting fans hyped up. Xbox and PC players are eagerly awaiting Starfield’s launch… but not everyone is happy about that. A handful of loud PlayStation fanatics have promised to review-bomb the game regardless of how good it may turn out to be, as they appear to feel a mix of helpless frustration at not being able to play Starfield and pent-up anger for which the internet, Twitter, and the world of video games are the easiest available outlet.
I’m on record as defending review-bombing – at least in some cases. If a game is bad, broken, buggy, or overly-monetised, it deserves to be called out and criticised, and review-bombing on platforms like Steam and Metacritic are valid ways for players to register their disapproval. Review-bombing doesn’t need to stop at the mechanical level, either. If players hate a game’s narrative choices, feel that the company behind it has misbehaved or mis-sold the game, detest that developers were put under too much pressure and “crunched,” or even want to register their disgust at corporations like Ubisoft and Activision – both of which have been embroiled in scandals involving toxic behaviour and abuse – then review-bombing is again an acceptable outlet.
I think we can all agree that Diablo Immortal deserved its user score…
There may be some PlayStation fans who want to register their disapproval at Starfield being unavailable on their platform of choice, and this is something that feels like a fair or at least understandable point of criticism. Although I would caveat that statement by saying that I pointed out that this would happen as soon as Microsoft’s acquisition of Bethesda was announced – and before many people had been able to get their hands on a current-gen PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series console!
Although console exclusivity has been a part of the gaming landscape for as long as there has been a gaming landscape, it’s never exactly fun to feel like you’ve been locked out of what seems to be a great experience that other players are having. In the Morrowind days, circa 2002-03, I had a friend who’d regularly come over on the weekends or after work to play the game, because he had a PS2 and I had an Xbox. Yes, even in those days, Bethesda and Microsoft had an exclusivity arrangement!
I had a friend in the Morrowind days who’d spend hours at my place playing the game on my Xbox console!
As excited as I am to play Starfield, I’m not just going to blindly declare it to be “game of the year” before I’ve had a look at it for myself! In fact, if you check out some of my other pieces about Starfield here on the website, you’ll note that I’ve said time and again that I consider the game to be firmly in the “wait for the reviews” column thanks to Bethesda’s reputation, the poor launch of games like Fallout 76 and Redfall, and the overall unfinished state of too many games in 2023. So while I’m happy to defend Starfield in cases such as this, I’m also going to share my honest opinions on the game when it launches – and if it’s full of microtransactions or bugs, I’ll be scathing about that in my first impressions and review of the game.
But on the flip side, I don’t see why someone would be so anti-Starfield – a game that won’t even be released for another couple of weeks – that they’re already planning their review-bombing campaign. If the game is broken and unplayable, excessively-monetised, or just unenjoyable to play, then by all means – go for it. Leave a bad review, encourage others to join in, and chances are if you swing by Trekking with Dennis you’ll see the game get a bad write-up from me as well. But why pre-judge Starfield before it’s even out? Is PlayStation that important? Do some people actually take the console wars seriously?
Have some folks tied their entire identities to this piece of shiny white plastic?
Humans are, by nature, a tribal lot. You see it in sport, in politics, in regionalism and nationalism… so I guess it shouldn’t be a huge shock that gaming, too, has come with its own dividing lines. But it just feels so petty, so stupid, and so small to be tying one’s identity so strongly to a gaming brand that attacking a game on another platform for no good reason is in any way part of the conversation. Thankfully we’re dealing with a small number of people, but even so. It would be better if no one thought or behaved this way!
Growing up in the UK in the ’80s and ’90s, I saw a lot of football hooliganism. English teams were even banned from European competition for several years, in part due to hooliganism, and it was something that I just didn’t understand. I was a football fan as a kid, sure, but the idea of getting into a fight or even just disliking someone else simply because of a sports team that they support… I couldn’t wrap my head around it. And when it comes to today’s console war, I see echoes of that kind of tribalism all over again.
Hooliganism at football matches was common when I was younger. Pictured: A fire caused by hooligans at Odsal Stadium, September 1986.
I’m not naïve enough to believe that I’ll change anyone’s mind by writing this piece. The handful of aggressive PlayStation fanatics who plan to review-bomb the game are unlikely to be dissuaded in that endeavour by a plea to their better nature nor an appeal to their common sense. Those ships, I fear, have long since sailed. But I want to register my disappointment – and above all my disbelief that this kind of toxic behaviour and militant console wars fanaticism still persists in 2023.
While there are Xbox, Nintendo, PC, and mobile players who are, I’m sure, just as angry and as aggressive when attacking other platforms, I want to draw a comparison. PlayStation has done phenomenally well in recent years with exclusive titles. Ghost of Tsushima, The Last Of Us, God of War, and Horizon Forbidden West all spring to mind, and PlayStation fans are about to receive another highly-rated game that won’t be available on Xbox for a while: Baldur’s Gate 3.
Baldur’s Gate 3 will be released on PlayStation 5 the same week as Starfield is on Xbox and PC.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with Baldur’s Gate 3 thus far, and I highly recommend the game to all PlayStation players when it arrives in a couple of weeks’ time. Stay tuned for a review, by the way! But here’s something for PlayStation fans to chew on as they make their sockpuppet accounts and prepare to review-bomb Starfield: there’s no comparable campaign from Xbox fans to target Baldur’s Gate 3. There were no review-bombing campaigns from crying Xbox fans targeting any of the PlayStation exclusives we were just discussing… and while there may have been a few wayward negative reviews or social media comments, by and large this isn’t something that Xbox or PC players have done to PlayStation games.
Although I don’t own a PlayStation 5, it makes me happy to see great games on that platform. Part of me hopes that the likes of Ghost of Tsushima will make it to PC one day, and I’d even consider buying a PS5 if the right game came along and I had the financial means. But above all, good games are good for gaming, no matter what platform they launch on. As someone who supports gaming as a hobby, and who believes that games can be just as good – better, in some cases – than films or television shows, I support good games wherever they appear. Yes, even mobile games!
Good games are good for all players – they raise standards across the industry, push boundaries, and innovate.
In a perfect world, all games would be available on all platforms. And I get that it must hurt to see a popular game that looks great and is getting people hyped up… and know you won’t be able to play it. I’ve been there – we all have. But some PlayStation fans – a small minority, thankfully – seem to have developed an attitude of entitlement born of being spoiled in recent years. There have been relatively few Xbox exclusives for a full decade now, going back to the launch of the Xbox One in 2013 – and even fewer that were any good! PlayStation players, in contrast, have enjoyed a number of fantastic exclusive titles… and that has unfortunately led a handful of fans to begin acting like spoiled toddlers when they see anyone else having a good time or being the centre of attention.
If Starfield sucks, or if it’s a microtransaction hell-hole, I’ll be saying so in my review. But if it’s great, good, or even if it’s just okay… why bother picking on it and singling it out for a review-bombing campaign? I just don’t see the point, the attraction, or what anyone would gain by doing so.
It’s my hope that platforms like Metacritic will be aware of what’s going on, and will step in, if necessary, to hide or even delete reviews that are clearly not about Starfield itself. Such things have happened in the past, so the review-bombers could find that this whole thing is a massive waste of time in the end! Perhaps that would be the least bad outcome.
Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for Baldur’s Gate 3 and Starfield.
I’ll get into this in more detail in my review of Baldur’s Gate 3 – which is currently a work in progress – but I came to Larian’s Dungeons and Dragons CRPG with basically no expectations at all. The game wasn’t one that had been on my radar, I don’t know the first thing about Dungeons and Dragons, and the primary reason I picked it up is because it happened to be well-timed, releasing just as the hype train for Starfield has been building. I was looking for a new game to play, and Baldur’s Gate 3 reared its head, backed up by plenty of positive reviews. It felt like the right game at the right time – but little more than a way to kill some time while waiting for the real prize: Starfield.
Suffice to say, I undervalued Baldur’s Gate 3 in a pretty big way! The game is fantastic, as you’ve no doubt heard from other reviewers, and although I can’t call it “perfect,” it’s certainly the best game I’ve played in 2023 so far. It will absolutely rival Starfield for the coveted “Trekking with Dennis Award” come December, and if Starfield should falter… well, maybe it’ll even pip it to the post and scoop the prize. I wouldn’t have expected that even just a couple of weeks ago.
A promo screenshot of Baldur’s Gate 3.
There are two things that Baldur’s Gate 3 has done well that Bethesda needs to consider when it comes to Starfield. The first is microtransactions. There aren’t any in Baldur’s Gate 3, and that’s in spite of comparable titles like Diablo IV positively drowning in them. As I’ve noted more than once, we haven’t yet had confirmation from Bethesda that Starfield will be free from microtransactions, season passes, lootboxes, premium currencies, and other shit-smeared trappings of the modern video games industry.
Secondly, while I have encountered a few glitches and bugs in my thirty-plus hours with Baldur’s Gate 3, the game is complete and pretty polished. The main quest is complete, side missions and character quests are all unique and interesting, and the state of the game overall is pretty darn good. The main mechanics and systems it employs, from magic and spellcasting to combat and exploration, all work well, and there are plenty of choices that genuinely have an impact on the game world.
A relatively minor visual bug that I encountered in Baldur’s Gate 3.
Bethesda has acquired a reputation over the years, and it’s well-deserved. Major Bethesda releases, from Oblivion to Fallout 76, have all arrived with bugs and glitches to varying degrees. Bethesda’s publishing arm is also responsible for the likes of Redfall, a title ridiculed for its broken state earlier this year. While Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t entirely bug-free, it’s on a completely different scale from any of Bethesda’s launches.
The microtransaction issue is already one that I’ve been sceptical about when it comes to Starfield. Well before the game has even launched, Bethesda has already been touting the first piece of story DLC, an expensive £25 add-on. Expansion packs are no bad thing, don’t get me wrong, but it’s disappointing to see Bethesda leaning into add-ons and DLC so early in Starfield’s life. In contrast, Baldur’s Gate 3 may not have any DLC at all, with Larian potentially moving on to their next project instead, regarding the game and its story as complete.
Diablo IV has an awful and aggressive in-game monetisation scheme. Let’s hope Starfield follows the Baldur’s Gate 3 model…
The games are very different from one another. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a CRPG – a throwback, in many ways, to a style of game that has fallen out of fashion over the past twenty years or so. It employs turn-based combat, a third-person or isometric camera, and a game world broken up into several large regions (or levels) to accompany its three-act narrative.
Starfield, in contrast, is very much an action-RPG or even an RPG/shooter, with real-time combat inspired by the likes of id Software’s recent Doom and Doom Eternal titles. Although a third-person view is available, Bethesda has stated that the game is intended to primarily be played from a first-person perspective, and the game’s “open galaxy” map, while broken up into star systems and planets, isn’t split into sections or levels in the way that the map is in Baldur’s Gate 3. Starfield is also a sci-fi title to Baldur’s Gate 3′s fantasy setting.
Starfield will be a different kind of game – but with comparable features.
But there are plenty of similarities, too. Both games are role-playing experiences, both have skills to unlock, character progression, and both aim to tell expansive single-player stories complete with engaging characters, main and secondary quests to follow, and more. Though the comparison is not a direct one between two games with identical styles… it’s close enough that many Baldur’s Gate 3 players may be intending to play Starfield. In fact, Larian Studios deliberately moved up the release date of Baldur’s Gate 3 by more than a month to avoid a clash with Starfield.
So when I say that Baldur’s Gate 3 has set a high bar, I mean it. Coming just a few weeks apart, comparisons between the two games will be inevitable – and if Starfield should suffer a bumpy launch for any reason, those comparisons may not be favourable. Baldur’s Gate 3 will also be launching on PlayStation 5 the same week as Starfield arrives on PC and Xbox, so there’ll be a flood of new players joining the party. PlayStation fans may feel less bad at missing out on Starfield if Baldur’s Gate 3 is being heralded as the “better” title.
Baldur’s Gate 3 promo screenshot featuring a dragonborn warrior.
But we mustn’t get too far ahead of ourselves! It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that players can enjoy one or both games on their own merit, without needing to “pick a side” or say which one is somehow “objectively better.” I want Starfield to be a fun experience – at least as much fun as Baldur’s Gate 3 has been for me over the past couple of weeks. But I recognise that, with the games releasing so close to one another, my impressions of Starfield – particularly insofar as how complete and polished it feels – will be coloured by my experience of Baldur’s Gate 3.
So… here’s the difficult part. In 2022, I praised Xbox and Bethesda for delaying Starfield. If the game needed more attention, more work, and more time to squash bugs and polish the experience, then a delay was unquestionably the right call. With a scant two weeks to go before Starfield’s pre-order exclusive early release, and with reviewers and publications eagerly awaiting their review copies… well, this is basically the last possible opportunity to delay the game. If Starfield should release with a level of bugs and glitches comparable in any way to the likes of Redfall or Fallout 76, not only will we lament this missed opportunity, but we’ll have those comparisons with Baldur’s Gate 3 to chew on.
Starfield was originally targeting a November 2022 release.
Whether you’ve played and enjoyed Baldur’s Gate 3 or not, and regardless of whether it’s “your thing” or not, it’s undeniable that the game has raised the stakes for Starfield, and has set a high bar indeed for other single-player role-playing games to strive for. I hope Starfield can hit it. Heck, I hope Starfield smashes through it and sets a new, even higher bar! It’s rare to get a title as fun and as consumer-friendly as Baldur’s Gate 3, so to get two in a row would be beyond fantastic. You know what they say: you wait ages for something and then two come along at once!
Where I see the biggest potential comparison is with one of my biggest concerns about Starfield: monetisation. We’re so close to Starfield’s launch, and yet Bethesda and Xbox have still failed to clarify what kind of monetisation we can expect to see in the game. Unless the answer is “none at all,” as Larian repeatedly assured players in the run-up to the launch of Baldur’s Gate 3, that will already be a disappointment. Should that monetisation extend beyond large-scale expansion packs to include things like premium currencies or lootboxes… that could spell disaster.
Bethesda and Xbox have yet to comment on microtransactions in Starfield.
What Larian has done with Baldur’s Gate 3 is something that other AAA studios should strive for. Of course it’s true that not every game can be as expansive and feature-rich as Baldur’s Gate 3… but every game should be able to take inspiration from it in different areas. Single-player games shouldn’t need in-game monetisation to turn a profit. AAA studios should be launching complete games, not broken, “release now, fix later” messes, nor games with incomplete stories and promises of “roadmaps” to more content. Larian has also shown a willingness to listen to feedback from players through an extensive early access period, and while I’m generally sceptical about big studios using early access, and of long early access periods in general, in this case it seems to have worked as intended for once.
The fact is that Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t anything new, nor even particularly innovative. In many ways it’s actually a throwback to an older style of game that was prominent in the 1990s and early 2000s. As that kind of gameplay has fallen by the wayside in the push to open worlds, always-online experiences, and microtransactions… it feels different in 2023.
But that’s just a really sad commentary on the sorry state of the video games industry. A consumer-friendly game, one that doesn’t chase every trend going nor try to extort its players for extra cash, finds itself becoming headline news.
The titular city of Baldur’s Gate.
When I looked ahead to the games I was most interested to play in 2023, titles like Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, Lord of the Rings: Gollum, Redfall, Forspoken, and of course Starfield were all contenders. After several of those proved to be disappointing or underwhelming, it’s been a genuinely cathartic experience to pick up a new game and just… really enjoy playing it. That Baldur’s Gate 3 wasn’t on my radar and was thus an unexpected surprise just adds to that.
There has been chatter online and on social media about Baldur’s Gate 3 being a unique project that shouldn’t become the “industry standard” that players expect to see going forward. And there’s an element of truth to that: most games won’t be old-school CRPGs with hundreds of hours of content. But in terms of adopting consumer-friendly practices, abandoning trends when they don’t fit with the story a game is telling, and focusing on delivering a quality product… those are things that players can and should expect. Some of us never stopped asking the video games industry and its biggest corporations to deliver those things. Maybe the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 – coupled with some spectacular failures over the past few years – will finally be the catalyst that makes these corporations sit up and listen.
And as for Starfield… the bar has been well and truly raised. I can only hope that Xbox and Bethesda have done enough to reach it.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC, will be released on PlayStation 5 on the 6th of September, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Starfield will be released on PC and Xbox Series consoles on the 6th of September. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, spoilers are still present for the game and some of its systems.
Yes, we’re talking Starfield again! Bethesda’s upcoming open-galaxy sci-fi role-playing game is absolutely my most-anticipated game right now, and there’s a lot to look forward to. There are also a few points of concern! I’ve covered both here on the website already, but today I thought it could be fun to put together a “wishlist.” We’re going to talk about some of my biggest concerns for Starfield as well as some possible inclusions that haven’t been announced. We’re also going to look at some of the game’s announced features and mechanics and consider how I’d like them to be used.
The major caveat I always give when putting together a wishlist is this: I have no “insider information.” I’m not trying to claim that anything listed below *is* going to be part of Starfield – no matter how much I might want it to be! I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that the game Bethesda has developed will be plenty of fun to play regardless of whether my “wishes” end up being granted!
A custom spaceship.
And as always, all of this is the wholly subjective opinion of one person. If I miss something that seems obvious to you, or if you disagree with all of my ideas, that’s totally okay! There’s enough room in the gaming community and the Starfield fandom for differences of opinion and respectful disagreement.
Now that that’s out of the way, there are a few points from the recent Starfield presentation that were left unclear, with features I’d like to see included in the game that weren’t announced or discussed in detail. There are also some concerns about the game – from its marketing and hype bubble to Bethesda’s reputation. Let’s jump into the list and look at each of my wishes in turn.
Wish #1: No microtransactions and especially no paid mods.
Starfield will launch with pre-order bonuses.
I was alarmed to see that the special edition of Starfield comes with a handful of character costumes that aren’t going to be part of the main game. Pre-order bonuses are nothing new, of course… but I fear that this is just the canary in the coal mine; a harbinger of some potentially aggressive in-game monetisation.
In a free-to-play game, I’m much more forgiving when it comes to microtransactions. They mustn’t be exploitative, of course, and prices still need to be measured and reasonable, but a game that doesn’t charge its players anything up-front has to make its money back somehow. Starfield will be a fully-priced game, retailing for £60 here in the UK or $70 in the United States, and that means microtransactions are absolutely unacceptable.
An in-game shop in Diablo IV.
I was astonished by the scale of Diablo IV’s in-game marketplace. That game has online features, but it can be a wholly single-player experience – and it’s charging players £20/$25 in some cases for character skins and other cosmetic items. To me, that’s so far beyond the pale that it almost feels laughable.
Bethesda is one of the pioneers of this kind of nonsense, too, with Oblivion’s notorious horse armour DLC in 2006 paving the way for this kind of in-game monetisation in single-player titles. Bethesda has also tried to monetise mods, with multiple attempts to get the “Creation Club” off the ground in both Skyrim and Fallout 4. Paid mods could (and should) be the subject of an entire article one day – but for now, suffice to say it’s something I want to be kept as far away from Starfield as possible.
Wish #2: Customisable spaceship interiors.
A bed – I hope there will be options to customise it!
Bethesda showed off spaceship customisation extensively at the showcase – and the feature looks amazing. But what wasn’t shown was to what extent the interior of spaceships can be modified and customised… or if that’s even going to be possible at all. Part of me thinks that, if it were possible to make any sort of modification to a vessel’s interior, Bethesda would have shown it off and talked about it. So I suspect this particular wish may not be granted.
We saw a Bethesda developer depositing a large number of sandwiches that she’d pilfered onto a table aboard her ship – so it’s obviously possible to place some in-game items aboard a spaceship and have them remain there. But whether that extends to things like furniture is unclear.
Customising a spaceship’s exterior has been shown off…
At the very least, I’d like to see basic options for things like colours being included. If I want a hot pink spaceship for my gay-as-hell pirate – and if you know me, you know that’s exactly what I want – then it would feel a bit disappointing if the inside of that ship was just a boring white or grey colour.
As far back as Morrowind it was fun to put items on shelves and tables, to decorate a home or cave and make it feel a bit more personalised. If Starfield only gives us pre-made pieces to snap together, with no possibility for further customisation, part of the role-playing experience will be lost. We know that the interior of outposts on planets can be customised – at least to an extent – so I hope spaceships can be too. If not, this should be a priority for the game’s first free update!
Wish #3: A polished, bug-free launch – or a delay if that won’t be possible.
A visual bug in Fallout 76.
In 2022, I praised the decision to delay Starfield. If the game wasn’t going to be ready for prime-time in November of last year, a delay was the only thing Microsoft and Bethesda could have done. But Starfield’s hype bubble has inflated massively since the showcase, and with a release date at the beginning of September seemingly set in stone, there’s going to be a lot of pressure to launch the game whether it’s ready or not.
This year alone we’ve seen far too many bug-riddled, broken, unfinished games pushed out too early by greedy publishers. Microsoft and Bethesda are not immune from this, either, with Redfall being an absolute abomination only a few weeks ago. Given the state of other Bethesda titles when they were released – Fallout 76 most notably – there are reasons to be concerned. Starfield is, for me, a game firmly in the “wait for the reviews” column.
A broken character model in Redfall.
Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty was recently quoted as saying that Starfield would have “the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped” if it were released today… and that’s a bold claim that he will be held accountable for. It’s easy for any developer worth their salt to put together a “vertical slice” of gameplay that runs well and is polished, and even the worst and most incomplete, broken games can look decent in their own marketing material. All that we’ve seen of Starfield so far has been promotional bumf released by Bethesda, so until the game is actually in the hands of real players, we can’t be sure of its condition.
There is a lot riding on Starfield for Bethesda; the company is looking to recover its reputation after Fallout 76. But there’s a lot riding on the game’s success for Xbox and Microsoft, too. If Starfield goes the way of Anthem or even Cyberpunk 2077, the situation may not be salvageable… and that could lead to serious long-term problems for Bethesda and its parent company. If Starfield isn’t good enough by September, then for god’s sake delay it!
Wish #4: Small towns and settlements to visit beyond the main cities.
The city of New Atlantis.
At time of writing we know of four major settlements in Starfield: Akila City in the Freestar Collective, the pleasure city of Neon, New Atlantis in the United Colonies, and Cydonia on Mars. We also caught a glimpse of a space station that looked quite large, as well as a location called “Red Mile” that we don’t know much about yet. But that’s all.
In Skyrim there were nine cities, five smaller towns, and a number of settlements and farmsteads scattered across the map. Fallout 4 likewise had several larger and smaller towns, and even Morrowind had a number of smaller places to visit outside of the main settlements. I hope that some of Starfield’s planets will have colonies or small towns to encounter, especially if they aren’t tied to the main quest. I hope that both the United Colonies and the Freestar Collective will have other settlements outside of their capital cities. And I hope that these locations will be visually interesting and fun to visit!
The town of Pelagiad from Morrowind is an example of the kind of place I’m thinking of.
This really speaks to a bigger concern that I have about Starfield – namely that the game’s massive open-galaxy map could feel incredibly empty. Without these smaller settlements and the people that live there, Starfield risks feeling very under-populated. If the galaxy only contains four cities and a couple of thousand people… the population relative to the size of the map will be completely out-of-balance.
Bethesda has shown off a handful of locations, like an abandoned mine populated by hostile NPCs, but I’m looking for settlements akin to Morrowind’s Pelagiad or Fallout 3′s Grayditch – small towns with a few characters to encounter that go a long way to making their respective worlds feel lived-in and complete.
Wish #5: Heads-up display options.
The HUD during spaceflight.
One visual choice that I wasn’t wild about came during some of the first-person spaceflight sections shown off in the Starfield showcase. A well-designed cockpit could be seen, complete with buttons, screens, and readouts… but clumsily slapped on top of that was the game’s HUD in transparent boxes.
For me, this detracted from the way those spaceflight sections looked. I’d love to be able to move things like power management to those screens directly, and to see my character pushing buttons that correspond with the actions I’m taking. Failing that, I hope there’s at least an option to minimise or hide the HUD so it doesn’t get in the way.
Transferring energy between systems.
This is less of an issue on the ground, at least from what we saw at the showcase. And a good heads-up display is important; the HUD contains vital information like the amount of ammo you have left, the state of your health, a mini-map, and more. But during those spaceflight sections in particular, I felt that the HUD was clunky and got in the way.
The best-case scenario would be to move the HUD options directly to one or two of the screens in the cockpit. That would be fantastic to see! But at the very least if there could be options to hide this during first-person spaceflight, that would go a long way to helping with that sense of immersion that Starfield is going for.
Wish #6: Difficulty and accessibility options.
Difficulty options in Skyrim.
Say it with me, folks: difficulty options are an accessibility feature! Many modern games offer things like large text, colour-blindness settings, motion sickness settings, and more. One of the best games I’ve played in terms of the sheer number of accessibility features was Control, but other titles like Grounded have been pioneers, with options to dial back the fear factor in some of its bugs and arachnids.
Accessibility extends to difficulty, too, and while I certainly hope that Starfield will pose a challenge for folks who need or want that, I hope there will be options to dial back the difficulty to allow those of us who don’t want to die every six seconds to have an enjoyable time! There’s hope in that regard: Skyrim and Fallout 4 both had decent difficulty options. The addition of a “hard-core” mode with permadeath could be fun for some players, too… but it definitely won’t be something I choose to activate!
I hope I won’t be seeing this very often!
A role-playing game needs to be adaptable, allowing players with different ability levels to participate. Bethesda has usually made an effort, at least, to get this right – but modern games allow for many more options in that regard. It should be possible to dial down the difficulty of combat, for instance, while maintaining a higher difficulty level for something like lockpicking or puzzle-solving.
There’s been a trend in some modern games, pioneered by the likes of the Dark Souls series, toward a punishing level of difficulty. That’s fine for some players – but it would deny Starfield to millions more, myself included. There are games I’ve genuinely wanted to play that were denied to me because they were totally inaccessible – I hope Starfield won’t be among them.
Wish #7: Pets!
An alien life-form!
It’s already been confirmed that we won’t be able to “mount” any of the wild animals we encounter in Starfield. That’s fine by me, as mounts and vehicles weren’t things I was expecting. But it would be really sweet and cute if we could get pets for our spaceships and outposts!
These could either be purchasable from in-game vendors, perhaps with Earth animals like cats or dogs being available. Or, as an alternative, tamed alien animals that we encounter out in the game’s open world. We’ve already seen that players can choose an ability to pacify aggressive animals – it’s not much of a leap from that to having a tamed, domesticated pet!
Commander Shepard with their fish tank in Mass Effect 3.
If this isn’t something included in the base game, it’s absolutely something that Bethesda should consider for an update or even as a standalone piece of DLC. Other games have done this: from Commander Shepard’s hamster and fish tank in Mass Effect 2 through to horses in Red Dead Redemption II and the mini-games required to properly care for them. It’s possible to pet cats and dogs in games like Ghostwire Tokyo, and Bethesda’s own Fallout 4 gave players a pet dog to accompany them!
This is pure fantasy, of course, as it’s a feature that hasn’t been announced or even teased. But the ability to acquire a pet would add a lot to the pure role-playing immersion of a game like Starfield.
Wish #8: Make those traits and backgrounds matter.
The traits menu in the character creator.
The Starfield showcase highlighted both character backgrounds and optional traits – all of which seem like they have the potential to really shake up the way Starfield plays. Some traits add wholly new characters or change the way different factions will react to the player character, and that’s great… I just hope that it matters in a meaningful way.
In Cyberpunk 2077, the much-vaunted “life paths” that a player could choose ultimately had very little impact on gameplay. Outside of a short prologue, which was different for each, there was one solitary quest – and a short one at that – midway through the game, and a couple of places where different dialogue options could appear. That was it. There really wasn’t much to Cyberpunk’s life paths, certainly not enough to add much by way of replayability.
One of the available backgrounds.
Starfield needs to get this right. If I can choose to be a chef who frequently goes home to visit their parents, then playing the game with those options needs to feel substantially different from choosing to be a gangster with a bounty on their head. If these things will only have a superficial impact on gameplay, then they won’t really matter – and that will damage the sense of immersion and make starting a second save file feel less than worthwhile.
If these traits and backgrounds in their various combinations don’t matter as much as Bethesda’s marketing has suggested, then they may as well be scrapped and Starfield could have a Skyrim-style class system instead. It’s hard to see how all of the fifteen or more different backgrounds could each be given their own unique questlines and extensive dialogue options… but an effort has to be made!
Wish #9: A reason to explore – and to keep exploring.
A star system.
Recent interviews by Starfield’s director Todd Howard have confirmed that approximately 10% of the game’s 1,000 planets will have life on them. That leaves 900+ planets being lifeless, but with resources to collect and possibly a handful of ruins or abandoned outposts to discover.
Starfield needs to ensure that players have a reason to explore these worlds. Forced scarcity of resources won’t cut it – and could easily become frustrating. If the game’s Constellation organisation is focused on exploration, then there has to be a reason why they’re pushing the player to explore these planets. Seeking out ancient artefacts could be part of that – but again, there will be a lot of planets that don’t have any. What reason will players have to visit these worlds?
What reason do I have to visit these planets?
I think it’s possible that DLC will add new locations, crashed spaceships, ruined colonies, and much more to some of these empty planets… assuming that Bethesda will be in a position to continue to support Starfield post-release. That’s a longer-term solution, though, and doesn’t really get away from the immediate problem of what could be a map that’s simply too large for the amount of content that will be contained in it.
This is one of my biggest worries, to be honest. I have no doubt that Bethesda will have created some wonderful characters, some fun quests, and some engaging storylines… but will that content be too thinly spread? Or will most of it be concentrated in a handful of big cities and populated planets? Fallout 76 felt big and empty; an open-world with nothing to do and no reason to explore it beyond admiring the scenery. I hope that Starfield hasn’t fallen into the same trap.
Wish #10: Exciting and enjoyable combat.
An example of melee combat from the showcase.
I’ve usually enjoyed combat encounters in The Elder Scrolls games, particularly melee combat with swords, axes, spears, and the like. But Bethesda’s Fallout duology hasn’t always gotten its gunplay right. In Bethesda’s single-player Fallout titles, the VATS system paused the game to allow for targeting, and that went a long way to covering up what was pretty mediocre shooting and gunplay.
When VATS couldn’t be implemented in Fallout 76 – because of the game’s multiplayer nature – Bethesda’s sub-par shooting was laid bare. What we’ve seen of Starfield’s gunplay looks impressive so far, but again that comes with the caveat that everything we’ve been shown is carefully-edited marketing material that may not ultimately prove to be representative of the finished game.
Firing a pistol/handgun in Starfield.
Todd Howard confirmed that Bethesda has worked with fellow ZeniMax studio id Software on elements of Starfield, and the famed developer of the Doom series – including the recent highly-praised titles Doom and Doom Eternal – would definitely have a lot to offer. Some of Starfield’s shooting looked to draw inspiration from those recent Doom games.
At the end of the day, all we really need is for shooting to be competent. It won’t be the main focus of Starfield for the most part, but when combat encounters arise, they need to be basically fun to play and not frustrating! In a role-playing game with different playstyles and options, different kinds of weapons need to behave differently from one another, too.
So that’s it!
Using a mining laser.
Those are ten of my Starfield wishes!
In an ideal world, the game would do everything I want! But even if none of the things we’ve talked about today come to pass, I’m still hoping for a fun and enjoyable game. Maybe Starfield won’t be the best game of all-time… but as long as it has some of that Bethesda magic, and some decent systems and mechanics that don’t get in the way, I daresay it’ll be good enough to keep my attention and focus for a time this autumn.
I really am trying not to get too carried away. It’s hard, though, because I don’t think I’ve been this excited about a game since Bethesda’s own Morrowindmore than twenty years ago. If you asked me to describe my idea of an “ideal game,” many of the things I’d choose to include have already been confirmed to be part of Starfield.
One of the available companions.
In a broader sense, Starfield feels like the game I’ve been waiting decades to play, ever since I first played games like Star Trek: Starship Creator, Star Fox on the Super Nintendo, and first-person shooters like the original Doom, System Shock, and Elite Force. I’m trying not to place too high a bar on Starfield… but I can’t deny how excited I am!
Every time I think I’ve ran out of things to say about Starfield, I find at least one more thing to comment on! So I hope you’ll stay tuned here on the website, because I may have something else to say about the game before too long. When Starfield is released, I’ll also do my best to share my first impressions and my thoughts about the game and its various systems and gameplay mechanics, so definitely check back for all of that later in the year.
Until then, I hope this wishlist was a bit of fun!
Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers may be present. This article also uses screenshots and promotional artwork of the game.
A few days ago I shared my thoughts on the recent Starfield showcase, which was a standalone presentation that followed Xbox’s summer event. I’m beyond excited for the game’s release, as this kind of open-galaxy, retro-sci-fi adventure almost feels like it was tailor-made for me! Today, as a follow-up to that article, I want to go into a bit more detail about a few of the things that I’m most excited about in Starfield.
This article also serves as the counterpoint to a piece that I wrote a couple of days ago in which I went into detail about some of my worries and concerns about Starfield. These points of concern haven’t wiped away the excitement – but the excitement and hype that I feel for this game is, to an extent anyway, balanced out by some fears that I have. If you want to read about my points of concern, you can find that article by clicking or tapping here.
The player character looks on as a ship blasts off.
First of all, let’s talk about Starfield’s aesthetic, its visual style, and some of the design choices that we’ve seen so far. This retro-futuristic style has been described by Bethesda as “NASA-punk;” a blend of classic NASA-inspired designs with elements of the dystopian cyberpunk genre. I absolutely adore this choice, and some of the NASA-inspired spacesuits, spaceship interiors, and other pieces of technology look fantastic. Visual styles are very much subject to personal taste – but for someone who was inspired by NASA’s space shuttle missions as a young kid in the ’80s, and who read as many books about spaceships and astronauts as I could find, these designs couldn’t be more perfect.
The “NASA-punk” designs feel like a natural evolution of some of NASA’s recent and contemporary designs. The robotic companion Vasco, for example, is clearly inspired by the likes of the Curiosity and Perseverance Mars rovers. The interior of the Frontier spaceship, particularly its cockpit and airlock, feels very close in design to the space shuttle, the International Space Station, and contemporary rockets like SpaceX’s Dragon II.
A first-person view of a spaceship’s cockpit.
Starfield’s designs also incorporate elements from other sci-fi settings. There are elements of “NASA-punk” that remind me of the likes of Firefly, Farscape, and even the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. There’s also a Disney feel to some of these designs – and if you’ve been to Disney World and ridden rides like Spaceship Earth or Space Mountain, perhaps you’ll pick up on some of that, as I did. Although Starfield is brand-new, some of these visual and aesthetic choices feel quite nostalgic in that sense!
Starfield is standing on its own two feet with this “NASA-punk” style, though. There are influences and inspirations from both the real world and other sci-fi properties, but Bethesda has blended them together and put its own distinctive stamp on them.
Walking on the surface of a planet or moon.
But there’s more to Starfield than one visual style. Beyond the Constellation organisation and the United Colonies we saw the Freestar Collective and the city of Neon, both of which appear to have their own distinct styles of dress and architecture. For me, this harkens back to the likes of Morrowind, where different parts of the game’s world were populated by a diverse array of factions and races, each of which had their own styles. This was still present to a degree in Oblivion, but was much less obvious in the likes of Skyrim and Bethesda’s Fallout duology.
The Freestar Collective looks to have a distinct western inspiration, with cowboy hats and even an old-fashioned pistol duel being shown during the Starfield showcase. This could lead to some incredibly fun moments on the “frontier” of space, and I’m just in love with the “rough and ready cowboy” look of some of these characters and locales. Again, this is something that reminds me of my childhood, of playing “cowboys” with a toy six-shooter and dressing up in Davy Crockett’s coonskin cap! Yes, I really did own a replica coonskin cap as a kid.
The Freestar Collective is giving me wild west vibes!
The city of Neon feels like a ton of fun, too. A kind of “space Vegas,” where anything goes and all forms of pleasure are available – for a price, of course! Neon reminded me of places like Mass Effect’s Omega, Star Trek: Picard’s Freecloud, and other such “outside the rule of law” settlements that are a common enough trope in sci-fi stories. Its unique origin as a former fishing platform-turned-drug haven helps it to stand out, though.
Beyond the major settlements that we’ve seen there are bound to be smaller places to visit, either colonies on planets or spaceships and stations out in space. We caught a brief glimpse of a couple of these in the showcase, and I’m absolutely eager to see more! Bethesda’s past games have often had multiple settlements to visit, so I’m sure there will be several hitherto-unseen places to go.
Vasco the robot.
One feature I cannot wait to get stuck into is spaceship customisation. The idea of being able to create and customise my very own spaceship already sounded like something special – but knowing that I can also recruit a crew and then head out into a Bethesda-created open galaxy… it’s beyond exciting, and again this feels like a feature that was created from the ground up with me and my tastes in mind!
There are multiple methods for… shall we say, “acquiring” a spaceship, too. It sounds like the player character will get access to their own spaceship fairly early on in the game – and this ship can then be modified at will. But there are other options: purchasing a spaceship is possible, but so is stealing one! I don’t know whether it will be possible to land on a random planet or go to a spaceport and simply fly away in someone else’s ship – but after defeating an opponent in ship-to-ship combat, it’s possible to board their vessel, kill the crew, and claim it.
Dogfighting in space.
I’m absolutely in love with the idea of becoming a space pirate! And even if piracy isn’t going to be the focus of a playthrough, I can definitely see how hijacking and then selling a spaceship (or at least parts of a spaceship) could be an incredibly lucrative way of making a ton of money in-game. High-risk, sure… but with a potentially massive payday at the end!
In the showcase, Bethesda employees had designed some wonderfully creative spaceships of their own. And this was an easily-missed feature that Bethesda didn’t draw attention to, but it seems almost certain that it’s possible to re-name spaceships, too. I’m already thinking of names for my own vessel! I wonder if “Enterprise-D” is taken…
A customised ship that looks like it could carry a lot of cargo!
Within days of Starfield’s release we’re sure to see the community’s most creative players sharing their designs. Some will opt to recreate the likes of Firefly’s Serenity, the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars, or any of the hero ships from the Star Trek franchise. There are bound to be some incredibly wacky designs in the mix, too. I love the way that Bethesda described this; spaceship design will err on the side of fun, not of realism. What that means in practise should be that players can get really creative without having to worry about the likes of aerodynamics or mass.
There will be limitations to this spaceship creator, and I’m trying not to go overboard with my hype! We haven’t seen, for example, the extent to which interiors of ships can be customised, and whether things like colours can be changed, furniture can be repositioned, and so on. I hope there will be at least some of that, so that we can truly make our spaceships feel like ours instead of like a collection of pre-made pieces.
One possible cockpit style.
But what I love about the spaceship creator is that the interior is fully-explorable. If you place a cargo hold next to a crew cabin, you can visit them – and the design of the ship will be reflected in-game. If you chose to make a really large ship, for example, with a long corridor connecting different rooms, you can actually walk down that corridor and see each of those rooms in the places you put them. In first-person or third-person!
When I was playing Star Trek: Starship Creator in the late 1990s, I’d have loved nothing more than to explore my weird Federation ship in first-person! This spaceship customisation feature is absolutely something that could be a fun game all by itself – and if it lives up to the hype and meets the expectations that Bethesda has set, I can see myself spending hours and hours customising every last detail of my spaceship before I actually get any questing done!
You can give your ship a paint job, too.
But maybe we should say “spaceships,” plural! Because in the showcase, Bethesda confirmed that it’s possible for players to have their very own fleet. We saw that at least nine ships can be owned at any one time, and all of them can be fully-customised. Only one ship can be the “home” ship, but I imagine which ship is the primary one is something that can be changed at will.
The showcase appeared to show a range of different spaceship parts, with different manufacturers having different styles and designs to choose from. We didn’t get a particularly long or in-depth look at all of these options, but we saw enough to at least know that there’s a decent range of potential pieces. The number of possible combinations of parts must be positively astronomical! It will almost certainly be possible to create spaceships with a huge range of believable and fantastical designs, and to fit very different aesthetic styles.
Another custom spaceship.
And we haven’t even talked about functionality yet! Some spaceships that were shown off at the showcase were small, designed perhaps for combat. Others were far larger, with massive cargo holds that can presumably carry a lot of resources – or smuggled goods. It’s possible to add or upgrade every component – such as engines, shields, and weapons. And these things are sure to have a noticeable impact on gameplay, with larger, heavier ships controlling differently from smaller, lighter craft.
I will be tinkering with all of these – adding different kinds of weapons in different combinations is something I’m particularly keen to experiment with. There were three types of spaceship weapon highlighted during the showcase: ballistic, laser, and missile. Again, what the limitations may be on how many weapons a single spaceship can have weren’t mentioned, but it looks like there will be appropriate options for different sizes of vessels.
Customising a spaceship’s weapons.
Sticking with weapons, one area of gameplay that looked great in the Starfield showcase was first-person shooting. Past Bethesda titles – the Fallout games most notably – haven’t always excelled in this area. In Fallout, the VATS system (which paused gameplay to allow for targeting) covered up at least some of those games’ sub-par gunplay, but that won’t be the case in Starfield. Some rumours and reports had suggested that Doom developer (and fellow ZeniMax studio) id Software had been brought on board to help out.
Todd Howard, in a post-showcase interview, confirmed that Bethesda had worked with id Software, but seemed to suggest that they’d been helping more on the technical side with things like lighting and graphical fidelity. Either way, the influence of recent titles like Doom and Doom Eternal looked to be present in Starfield – at least looking in from the outside. It isn’t always possible to get a fair impression of something like gunplay from compressed video footage on YouTube, but from what we could see, gunplay in Starfield looks to be a vast improvement over past Bethesda titles.
An example of a pistol/handgun.
That’s good news, because shooting and blasting your way across space is going to be a big part of the game! Whether you’re wrangling with pirates, getting into a shootout with western-inspired outlaws, or being pursued by aggressive fauna on an unexplored planet, guns are sure to come in handy! What we’ve seen of Starfield’s gunplay looked good – solid, I’d say. It’s probably never going to rise to the level of something you’d see in the likes of a Halo or Call of Duty game, because it’s only one part of a much broader experience. But solid, enjoyable gunplay is a must – and the signs are positive in that regard.
I was also pleased to see that Bethesda hasn’t abandoned the idea of melee weapons in Starfield. Bethesda’s melee combat has usually been pretty solid, at least by role-playing game standards, and it’s a hallmark of their games going all the way back to the first Elder Scrolls titles in the 1990s. Even though melee combat is sure to play a smaller role in Starfield – as the game promises lasers, electro-magnetic weapons, and a range of different guns – it’s not something I’d want to miss out on as it feels like it’s a core part of the Bethesda role-playing experience.
Swordfighting on Pluto? Yes please!
One criticism that I made of 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077 was that the player character’s backstory ultimately mattered very little in-game. Developer CD Projekt Red made a big deal in pre-release marketing material of the three different “life paths” available to players, but these amounted to little more than a short prologue and a single event midway through the game that we might generously call a “mission.” That was a disappointment and hampered Cyberpunk’s replayability.
In Starfield, there appear to be multiple character backgrounds, from action game staples like “bounty hunter” to less common ones like “chef!” The extent to which these will have an impact on gameplay, and the amount of content that may have been created for each possible background isn’t clear, but even if there are just a couple of missions and a few places where different dialogue options are available, it’ll still be fun – and better than Cyberpunk 2077.
One of the character traits will make you an introvert… just like me!
Then there are “traits” – of which players can choose up to three. These are additional pieces of character creation that can be mixed and matched, with each giving an advantage and prospective disadvantage, too. Some look certain to unlock dialogue options and will have an impact on the way the player will engage with different factions and groups, and some even unlock entire characters. Again, this feels like something that has a tangible impact on gameplay, and could be a lot of fun to experiment with.
Past Bethesda titles offered players the opportunity to create a custom character class – rather than just being able to pick from staples like mage or warrior. Starfield’s complex system of backgrounds, traits, and skills looks like it could be something very similar, allowing players to either customise their character in detail or to go with a standard build suited to the likes of combat or stealth. I’m very much someone who likes to tinker and customise, and in my first playthrough in particular I expect I’ll spend ages agonising over which background to pick, then which traits to select, and so on!
There are a lot of things to tinker with!
Starfield also looks like it will offer a fair amount of diversity in its character creator. There were different skin tones, naturally, but also different hair types and hair styles, as well as tattoos, and Bethesda noted in the Starfield showcase that they worked with people from a range of different ethnic groups to ensure that there are a range of characters both as NPCs and as options for the character creator. That’s fantastic! Being able to represent oneself in a game like this is important – and I know a lot of folks like to spend a long time in the character creator recreating their own appearance.
There were also options for body type – including larger bodies that can sometimes be excluded in games like this. That’s also great! Most of the options in the character creator looked like they could be applied to any character – a male-bodied character could use a feminine walk style, for example. I didn’t see makeup options, but there were things like piercings, jewellery, scars, and the like. The player character isn’t fully-voiced, as far as I’m aware, so again I think there are options here for making a male, a female, a trans character, or even someone non-binary. I’m non-binary myself, so I appreciate feeling included!
Body type and walk style options in the character creator.
Starfield has officially been delayed twice: from an initial November 2022 release to a nebulous “the first half of 2023,” and then again to September. Given Bethesda’s reputation for buggy games, and the difficult launch of Fallout 76 in particular, I absolutely see that as a positive thing. There’s a lot riding on Starfield for both Bethesda and Xbox, with the game being Bethesda’s first exclusive title since the Microsoft takeover. Getting it right – and ensuring the game is truly ready for launch – is incredibly important, and in an industry that seems all too happy to adopt a “release now, fix later” approach, I think it’s worth complimenting the approach that Microsoft and Bethesda claim to be taking.
In a recent interview, Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty suggested that the reports he’d been receiving about Starfield were looking great – even making the audacious claim that the game would “already have the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped” if it was released today. All of this is marketing speak, of course, but given the serious risk to the reputation of both Xbox and Bethesda if it turns out to be untrue… I think it’s positive, at least. Microsoft clearly recognises the issues that have been present, and on the surface at least it seems that they’ve given Bethesda more time to get Starfield ready. We’ll have to judge that for ourselves when the game arrives – and Starfield is, for me anyway, still in the “wait for the reviews” column – but these are positive noises nevertheless.
Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty (centre) was interviewed about Starfield shortly after the showcase.
Characters are the heart of any good story, and Bethesda has created some fantastic and memorable characters for their games over the years. Off the top of my head I could pick out Fallout 3′s Three Dog, Yagrum Bagarn from Morrowind, and Alduin the dragon from Skyrim – and there are many, many more. After the disappointment of Fallout 76 with its empty world devoid of characters, it was wonderful to see so many different NPCs in the Starfield showcase.
The three major cities that we know of in Starfield look set to be large, dense, and full of people to engage with. And the diverse environments and factions should make many of these people feel unique. We’ve barely scratched the surface here, and there are bound to be hundreds or perhaps even thousands of individual characters to meet in Starfield.
Who’s this fella, and what might his story be?
One thing we know for certain is that Starfield is Bethesda’s biggest-ever game. And that includes recorded lines of dialogue: Starfield will have more than double the amount of dialogue that was recorded for Fallout 4. That game had approximately 700 NPCs, but also had a fully-voiced protagonist, something Starfield appears not to have. With so much dialogue having been recorded for the game, there’s bound to be a huge number of people to meet and engage with.
Some of these people can be recruited, joining the crew of your spaceship, being assigned to another spaceship, or being assigned to an outpost. Bethesda didn’t confirm how many recruitable NPCs there are in Starfield, but one thing I absolutely love is the idea of encountering some of these people at spaceports or just out in the wild. Bringing them on board, figuring out what skills and talents they have… it all adds to the immersion and the sense of truly being the captain of a spaceship in this open galaxy.
A potential companion and the skills they offer.
More than two decades ago, Morrowind was the game that I was looking forward to. I was incredibly hyped up for what was my first real open-world role-playing game. I’ve said a couple of times already that I don’t think any game since then has grabbed my attention in quite the same way, nor generated such a high level of interest and excitement – not until Starfield, that is. Ever since I first played Morrowind, I’ve ranked that game as one of my absolute favourite titles of all-time, and if Starfield is as good as Bethesda and Microsoft are promising, I can see it potentially joining Morrowind on that list.
Are there worries and points of concern? Absolutely. As I said, I wrote up all of my biggest fears for Starfieldin an article here on the website just the other day. But at the same time, I still feel that sense of hope. This game, if it lives up to the hype, has the potential to be incredible. A friend of mine recently suggested to me that Starfield might end up being “the best video game that either of us will ever play,” and that assessment is hard to challenge. This game feels tailor-made for me.
So we’ve talked about some of the things I’m most excited about when it comes to Starfield! Stay tuned, because if we get any big updates about the game – or if I find that I have more to say – I’ll be sure to write about it here on the website. And when the game launches in September, I’ll do my best to share my first impressions and more!
Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers may be present. This article also uses screenshots and promotional artwork of the game.
I touched on this subject when I gave my thoughts on the recent Starfield showcase, but I wanted to expand on some of my concerns about Bethesda’s upcoming sci-fi role-playing game. For context, Starfield is absolutely my most-anticipated game right now, and it’s one I’m very excited about! The hype train has definitely left the station, and I’m going to be riding it until September!
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns to be addressed. Some of these are things we can’t know or won’t get to see until Starfield is released, but others are things that Bethesda can – and really ought to – begin to address right away, before things get out of hand. We saw with Cyberpunk 2077 how dangerous an ever-growing hype bubble can be, and it doesn’t serve any game if players are allowed free rein to speculate and build up an inaccurate and even impossible picture of what it could be.
An unknown character seen in the recent Starfield showcase.
That’s perhaps my single greatest concern: that Bethesda and Microsoft aren’t doing enough to step in when speculation gets wild. I’ve seen commentators and critics propose entirely unannounced features that are almost certainly not going to be included in Starfield, dedicating entire forum threads or YouTube videos to discussing them. Theorising can be fun, but there’s a line somewhere that falls in between speculating about what might be present and convincing oneself (and others) that an exciting-sounding feature is certain to be included.
This is where a good marketing department is essential! There are ways to let players down gently, or to redirect the conversation to other areas of the game, without deflating the hype bubble or crushing players’ expectations. It’s infinitely better to do so at this stage, months before the game is launched, rather than attempting to clean up ambiguous statements and explain the lack of features fans felt certain they’d get to see after a rocky release.
Todd Howard, executive producer at Bethesda and director of Starfield.
In different ways, this is basically what tripped up Cyberpunk 2077 and No Man’s Sky. Both games were subject to intense criticism and even hate upon release, and while Cyberpunk 2077 in particular suffered from being in an incomplete state, both games had been over-sold. In both cases, marketing departments seemed incapable of saying “no,” promising players a genre-busting, once-in-a-lifetime experience that no game could ever hope to live up to. When it turned out that No Man’s Sky was pretty barebones and barren, and that Cyberpunk 2077 was so unfinished that many folks found it to be unplayable, the dejection that players felt as they fell back to Earth was unparalleled. They’d been promised something special, but all they found when the dust had settled was a sense of crushing disappointment.
Starfield is absolutely in danger of doing this. There are going to be limitations within the game: limited NPC numbers, limited character traits and skills to choose from, limits to customisation for spaceships and the player character, limits on exploration, and limits to the role-playing experience. It’s essential that Bethesda and Microsoft use the next few months wisely, setting appropriate expectations and not allowing players to build up an image of Starfield in their heads that the game could never live up to.
Spaceship customisation is sure to have its limits.
Let’s talk about the size of Starfield itself. With 1,000 explorable planets being promised, I can’t be the only one who thinks that Bethesda might’ve made the game too big… can I? Don’t get me wrong, it’s essential that Starfield’s galaxy feels expansive, and if exploration, mining, and resource collection are going to be key parts of gameplay, it’s important to ensure there’s enough space to do all of those things. But 1,000 planets seems like a lot – arguably too many for any one player to even visit, let alone explore thoroughly in a single playthrough.
With the way Starfield’s procedural generation has been described, there’s a risk that players will miss things, too. If some characters, locations, and even missions are randomly assigned to planets, there’s only a one-in-one-thousand chance of finding a particular mission on a particular world. That potentially means that Starfield will be awkward to replay, or that it will be difficult for players to try out a mission that they’ve seen or to share something exciting with their friends.
A close-up scan of a planet.
In Fallout 4 or Skyrim, every single player could go to the same point on the map and encounter the same NPC or start the same quest. But that won’t be possible in Starfield – which is fun in some ways, but could become frustrating. If players find a fun quest or a useful item on one playthrough, locating it again on another save file could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. That can be fun in some cases… but it will definitely be frustrating in others.
Some of the planets shown off in the Starfield showcase also looked pretty flat and barren. One of the key marketing lines is “if you can see it you can go there,” with words to that effect being used in reference to a moon in orbit of a planet. But here’s the thing: if that moon or planet has nothing of note except, perhaps, for some crafting resources to collect… going there won’t actually be a lot of fun.
Some of these planets look lifeless and barren.
For all the talk of Starfield having 1,000 planets, only a handful of those – perhaps a dozen at most – are going to have a significant amount of content. Whether we’re talking about small settlements, villains’ lairs, shipwrecks to scavenge, random character encounters, ruins, or other hallmarks of exploration in a Bethesda game… there’s only going to be so many of those. My fear here is that 1,000 planets might spread this content too thin, leaving swathes of the galaxy feeling empty.
There was also talk of planets consisting of “puzzle pieces” – i.e. hand-made pieces of content stitched together at random. That seems to solve one problem, but might it create another? Unless Bethesda has created enough of these puzzle pieces to make each planet totally unique, at some point is there not a danger that they’ll have to be recycled? It would be immersion-breaking to land on a planet and see the exact same mountain or ruin as we’d just been exploring somewhere else.
The map, focusing on a single solar system.
I don’t think that Bethesda has done enough to allay some of these concerns about the scale of the map and the amount of content it may contain. One of the criticisms of No Man’s Sky when that game launched was that its planets felt empty – and outside of some of the main settlements and story locations, I’m just not sure how Bethesda will get around this.
Starfield will be Bethesda’s biggest game to date, with some reports suggesting it may have twice as much recorded dialogue as Fallout 4. Fallout 4 had close to 700 non-player characters, but even if we generously assume that Starfield might have as many as 2,000, that still spreads them out very thinly. Even more so if we assume that the three major settlements we know of will congregate a lot of NPCs in one place.
Sarah Morgan, one of the game’s important non-player characters.
Complaining that a space game is “too big” seems silly – and I freely admit that. But my concern is less to do with the size of the map itself and more with the amount of content relative to the size of the map. One of my main complaints about Fallout 76 was that its open world felt utterly lifeless due to the complete lack of non-player characters to engage with… and outside of settlements and space stations, I just fear that parts of Starfield’s galaxy could fall into the same trap.
The game is going to clock in at a whopping 125GB – at least on PC. That sounds huge, but when you compare it to other modern games, it actually isn’t. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is comparable in size, for example, as is Red Dead Redemption II. Now don’t get me wrong, I adore Red Dead Redemption II’s open world – but is its patch of the wild west in the 19th Century a fair comparison with Starfield’s 1,000 planets? Again, my concern is really the amount of enjoyable content relative to the size of the map.
Starfield’s system requirements. Image Credit: Steam/ZeniMax
Let’s hop over to the character creator now. This might seem like a nitpick, and as facial hair is something I seldom use on custom characters, it isn’t something that will affect my own playthrough. But the facial hair in Starfield’s character creator… well, it just looks a bit shit, doesn’t it? I’m not the only one who thinks so, surely. In fact, I’d go so far as to call facial hair the worst-looking part of Starfield that we’ve been shown so far, and on some character models it seriously detracted from the way they looked, dropping the realism down several notches.
Hair and hairstyles looked pretty good, with a variety of hair types and styles that should allow players to create a diverse array of characters. That’s fabulous – but it raises the question of why facial hair is struggling to hit that same level of quality. This is something past Bethesda games have struggled with, too – Oblivion most notably, but also Skyrim and the Fallouts to a lesser extent.
Facial hair does not look great in Starfield.
I fear that facial hair may be the first outward sign of another of my big worries: Starfield’s game engine. Bethesda has insisted on using their proprietary Creation Engine 2 for Starfield – but the underlying technology here is more than twenty years old. The core technology of Creation Engine 2 is Morrowind’s Gamebryo, a piece of kit that Bethesda has literally been using since the late ’90s when that game first entered development. Changes and additions have been made, but this technology has its limits. The facial hair problem, which is a hallmark of prior Bethesda titles, could be the canary in the coal mine here.
There are advantages to working with a familiar toolkit. If Starfield had been built on, say, Unreal Engine 4 or 5, it would have required a completely different development cycle, with a different team who were familiar with how that technology worked. I’m not saying that would have been better, and I’m not arguing in favour of any one of the well-known game engines that other modern titles use. There are drawbacks and disadvantages to working with practically all of them.
Starfield’s game engine uses the same core technology that Bethesda has relied on since Morrowind.
But what I am saying is that Bethesda’s technology is at best untested on a title this massive. Some of the in-game features and mechanics promised for Starfield, such as spaceflight and ship-to-ship combat, have never been done before in any form of Gamebryo or the Creation Engine. That’s one concern.
Then there are things that have been done before – but haven’t always been done particularly well. I noted in my piece on the Starfield showcase how impressed I was with the gunplay. Partly that’s because gunplay in Bethesda’s Fallout duology was pretty poor without those games’ signature VATS system covering for it. An update to the engine should allow for significant improvements in that area, but again this is something that’s untested, and something like shooting can be difficult to judge from compressed YouTube video footage – especially carefully-edited marketing bumf. Any developer worth their salt can make even the most lacklustre game look fast-paced, fluid, and exciting in their own marketing material.
Gunplay looked great in the showcase.
Bethesda has earned itself a reputation among players for releasing games bedevilled by glitches and bugs. The company wouldn’t be the first to release a broken, buggy game in 2023 – but that’s no excuse! I’ve already said that Starfield is a game that I’ll be waiting to see reviews and tech breakdowns of before I commit myself, and that’s because Bethesda has done so much to warrant such a cautious approach.
Look back to trailers and marketing material shown off for Cyberpunk 2077 in 2020. Or Redfall earlier this year. It’s easy for a clever publisher to compile footage – even in-game footage – that looks great, and to show off a “vision” for how the game could look under the right circumstances. Trailers, teasers, and gameplay reveals often turn out to be inaccurate, and the version of a game that arrives on launch day – or during a pre-order exclusive access window – can be a million miles away from how it was promised or presented. Bethesda has done this too, with Fallout 4 and especially Fallout 76 receiving well-deserved criticism for bugs and glitches when they were released.
Fallout 76 at launch had, uh, a few issues…
There’s a specific story concern that I have – one that hadn’t even entered my mind until someone commented on it somewhere online. I can’t remember where I first saw this idea or theory posited, so I apologise to its original creator for that! But several people have suggested that Starfield could be some kind of sequel to the Fallout series – noting in particular that Earth looks barren, devastated, and uninhabitable in teases we’ve been shown… not unlike Fallout’s nuclear wasteland.
To be clear, there’s no indication whatsoever that this will be the case. Bethesda hasn’t denied it outright, but they haven’t actually commented on it at all as far as I can tell.
For my money, this would be an atrocious idea. Even if this was a secret that was kept, with the player character not finding out until well into the main story… it just wouldn’t work. It would make Starfield feel diminished, living in the shadow of another game – and it just isn’t necessary. Starfield can and should stand on its own two feet, doing its own thing, and not needing to be constrained by other games in a different fictional universe.
This is one rumour I hope proves to be false.
After Starfield is launched, a lot of attention will be paid to how well the game sells. But as I’ve said before, in an era where Game Pass has tens of millions of paid subscribers, sales numbers no longer tell the full story. I fully expect the PlayStation fanboys to jump all over Starfield – as they are already for any point of criticism they can find – and if the game seems to be selling fewer copies than other Bethesda games or than comparable PlayStation 5 games, you can bet they’ll take that and run with it. There’s sure to be content proclaiming Starfield a “failure” no matter what happens!
But it isn’t fair to judge Starfield – nor any Microsoft or Xbox game – purely on sales numbers any more. Game Pass is a game changer; it’s quite literally changing the way many of us play games. The way players on Xbox and PC engage with Bethesda titles and other Microsoft-owned games and studios is changing rapidly, with more and more subscribers joining Game Pass every day. Starfield’s release is sure to see a spike in Game Pass numbers, too – because it makes a lot of sense from a player’s perspective! I’ll be playing Starfield on Game Pass, and several people I know will be doing the same thing. Each Game Pass player represents a sale not made – so look to Microsoft and Bethesda for player numbers rather than raw sales data.
Starfield is a big deal for Game Pass.
Speaking of sales and money, another area of concern is that Starfield seems to be quite aggressively chasing some recent cash-grabbing trends that have blighted the modern games industry. It was a given that Starfield would have a collector’s edition and a special edition at launch – such things are so commonplace nowadays that they don’t even raise an eyebrow. But I admit that I was a little surprised at how steep the price was and what kind of content was on offer.
Firstly, for an additional £25 – on top of Starfield’s £60 (US$70) price tag – players get a couple of skins, a digital soundtrack, an “art book,” which will be a collection of JPEG images of the game’s concept art, and access to the first piece of planned DLC. We’ll get to DLC in a moment, but there’s one more thing that pre-ordering this expensive special edition gets players: five days of early access to the game.
Starfield has a special edition – because of course it does.
Let’s look at this another way: Starfield’s release date isn’t the 6th of September, it’s the 1st of September – but only for players who splurge some extra cash. The rest of us plebs will have to wait five days, close to a week, in order to play the game. I find these kinds of paid access periods to be a particularly revolting way of monetising a game, and I’m disappointed that Microsoft and Bethesda would stoop so low in order to manipulate players into pre-ordering Starfield.
Then we have these character costumes. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I fear these paid outfits are a harbinger of some aggressive in-game monetisation. This might be something that’s already present in Starfield, or it might be something Bethesda plans to implement after the game’s release – but either way, it doesn’t bode well. A fully-priced game shouldn’t be selling costumes like it’s some free-to-play MMO, but the games industry has been getting away with more and more of this kind of aggressive in-game thievery. And Bethesda is one of the pioneers of this nonsense, with Oblivion’s infamous “horse armour” DLC.
Yup.
If I’m paying £60 – or £85 – for a game, I should expect to be able to equip my character with all of the costumes that the game has to offer. This isn’t Roblox or Fortnite; free-to-play titles that use in-game purchases and subscriptions to turn a profit. For the money Bethesda and Microsoft are demanding, it’s positively disgusting to think that some character outfits – and possibly other pieces of content too – have been cut out to be sold separately.
I mentioned the first expansion pack there, too, and this is another thing that’s ringing alarm bells. Starfield is still almost three months away from release – this is not the time to be talking publicly about expansion packs and DLC. It worries me that attention and development resources may be diverted away from what should be Bethesda’s top priority: getting the game ready for launch. DLC is great – and if Starfield is as amazing an experience as we’re all hoping for, I’ll definitely be picking up every major expansion pack that gets released! But now is not the moment to be advertising it.
Let’s get the game launched before we talk about DLC.
I do have one final point of concern before we wrap things up. Since the Starfield showcase was broadcast, hype for the game has gone way up. Players like myself who had been on the fence about Starfield or who were tentatively looking forward to it have now well and truly boarded the hype train – and that brings with it a degree of expectation. Microsoft and Bethesda have promised a release date of the 6th of September (or the 1st for people who pay up). There’s now more pressure than ever to meet that deadline.
That means two things. First of all, crunch. Having once worked in the games industry, I’ve seen crunch first-hand, and I know the toll it can take on developers and everyone working at a games company. Crunch is something that should be avoided at all costs – but rigid deadlines make it far more likely.
It’s on Bethesda (and Microsoft) to avoid a difficult crunch period.
Secondly, Microsoft and Bethesda are now far less likely to delay Starfield. The game has already been delayed twice officially – or four times unofficially, if you believe certain reports. If Starfield isn’t ready in time for September, there’s going to be a lot of pressure for the game to be pushed out anyway – and that could be disastrous. Look at Cyberpunk 2077, a game which, despite pulling off an admirable recovery, will be forever tainted in the minds of players by an atrocious launch. Likewise No Man’s Sky. And for every game like those that manage to recover, there are dozens of titles like Anthem, Babylon’s Fall, or 2013’s Star Trek that never do. Bethesda has some experience in this field, both with Fallout 76 and as the publisher responsible for this year’s Redfall.
I praised Starfield last year for being delayed. I stand by what I said then: it’s never fun when a game I’m excited for gets delayed, but more and more players have the maturity to understand that it can be necessary. Practically everyone would rather play a good game a few months later than a bad, broken, or unfinished game a few months earlier. But with so much hype building up and a release date seemingly set in stone, a further delay at this stage might be something that Microsoft and Bethesda are unwilling to consider. I hope that, if Starfield needs a few more weeks or even a few more months, that they will ultimately be willing to take that tough decision.
A spaceship!
So I think that’s all I have to say for now. I know it’s a lot – and if you feel like I just took a big stinking dump all over your excitement for Starfield, well… sorry!
Despite everything we’ve discussed today, I’m still incredibly excited for Starfield. I’m trying to restrain myself and not get overly hyped up – and that’s partly why I decided to put metaphorical pen to paper and write out all of my concerns and issues with the game. But the truth is that in spite of some worries and fears, I’m still really looking forward to this game. In fact, I can’t think of any other title since Bethesda’s own Morrowindmore than two decades ago that I’ve been this excited to play for myself.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed, and I truly hope that all of the points I’ve raised today will turn out to be misplaced fears. In three months’ time, feel free to come back and have a good laugh at my expense if Starfield really does live up to our expectations! I know that’s what I’ll do… if I’m not too busy playing Starfield, of course.
Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major spoilers for Starfield’s main story, minor spoilers may be present – and this article includes screenshots and images of the game.
As part of Xbox’s big summer event – or rather, as a standalone addendum to it – Bethesda recently showed off the first proper deep dive into its upcoming role-playing shooter Starfield. The game is due for release in September, barring any further delays, and today I wanted to share my thoughts on how Starfield looks to be shaping up!
It’s been a while since we last took a look at Starfield here on the website. In fact, it’s been over a year since I last commented on the game at length – a piece that was prompted by news that it had been delayed. A single teaser trailer had been released since that announcement, but this showcase offers a much deeper and more expansive look at the game.
The game’s director and Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard spoke at the Starfield showcase.
I would be lying if I said I wasn’t excited for Starfield – even more so knowing that it will come to Game Pass on day one. The game that Bethesda showed off and talked about looks fantastic, with a multitude of complex systems and mechanics to get stuck into, and an engaging retro-sci-fi story that I can’t wait to follow.
But at the same time, hype isn’t always a positive thing – and I’ve already seen players and commentators starting to speculate about unannounced features in the game, potentially setting themselves up for disappointment. I’m trying to restrain myself from doing the exact same thing; building up an image in my head of the “perfect” role-playing game that Starfield – and indeed no game – could ever possibly live up to.
Concept art for Starfield.
Bethesda’s games are fantastic. Morrowind in particular will be a permanent fixture on my “favourite games of all-time” list, and I’ve also enjoyed Bethesda’s other modern titles like Skyrim and their Fallout duology. But the company has a reputation, and mistakes have been made over the past few years that are absolutely worth bearing in mind before the Starfield hype train accelerates too much.
Fallout 76 was, for me at least, utterly unplayable. Forget the bugs, the glitches, and the crappy marketing – it was a role-playing game with no characters in it. To Bethesda’s credit they’ve been continuing to work on Fallout 76, but it was a mistake to launch the game in such an unfinished state. Fallout 4 also had its issues – particularly with bland and repetitive side-quests and open-world busywork. And we’d be remiss not to mention the fact that Bethesda’s publishing arm is responsible for such recent abominations as Redfall.
Fallout 76 was a big, empty game that had a very difficult launch.
Even Bethesda’s better titles have a reputation for being buggy at launch – and with Starfield being the company’s biggest release to date, the potential for bugs and glitches to sneak through quality control is off the charts! The game has been delayed from an initial November 2022 release, first to “the first half of 2023,” and then again to September. Delays are almost always good news – but there can be pressure to meet a deadline, especially one that’s been pushed back more than once.
I’d absolutely encourage Bethesda, Microsoft, and anyone who’ll listen to consider delaying Starfield again if the game needs it. The gameplay we got to see in the showcase looked smooth, fun, and bug-free – but any developer worth their salt can create a “vertical slice” of gameplay for a presentation like this. Until the game is actually in the hands of independent reviewers, analysts, and of course players, we won’t be able to say with certainty that it’s in a good enough state.
A mining laser as seen in the Starfield showcase.
There are other concerns I have, too. Bethesda has insisted on re-using their creaking, ageing game engine for Starfield. Creation Engine 2 is a modified, updated version of Bethesda’s old Creation Engine, itself a modified version of Gamebryo. In some form, Bethesda has been using this same technology since the Morrowind days, and I fear that we’ve already seen some of the limitations of Creation Engine 2 in the showcase itself. Look, for example, at the low-quality facial hair and beards present on some characters – this is a hallmark of Gamebryo/Creation Engine, as we’ve seen similar shortcomings in other Bethesda titles.
The Creation Engine was originally designed for role-playing games – not space combat or colony-building, two elements of Starfield that have been teased. Fallout 4′s settlement-building was good – but it had its limitations and could be clunky to work with, especially for new players. Spaceflight and ship-to-ship combat are entirely new for Bethesda in this context, and again there’s a concern about how well Starfield’s underlying technology can deal with that.
It’s an open question as to how well the Creation Engine can handle all of these new gameplay mechanics.
Then there’s the idea of procedurally-generated planets. Procedural generation will allow Starfield to be far larger than any hand-crafted game could ever be… but it has its limits. No Man’s Sky is the title many folks will call to mind when thinking of procedural generation in a space-adventure title, and while that game has pulled off an amazing recovery following a rocky launch… it’s not exactly a comparison that Bethesda would be thrilled to see.
There were a few moments in the showcase where I felt that player characters were gazing out over pretty barren, uninteresting landscapes and vistas. For all the proclamations of “if you can see it, you can go there,” if “there” is an empty wasteland, a barren patch of dirt, or a procedurally-generated mountain with nothing at all to see or do… then I’m sure I won’t be alone in saying I don’t think I’ll bother!
A beautifully-rendered but barren-looking planet.
This is perhaps another case of expectations being raised that can’t be met. Starfield may indeed have 1,000 planets to visit – but only a handful are going to be worth visiting, with solid missions, story content, non-player characters, and hand-crafted locales to explore. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe Bethesda has found a way to take procedural generation to another level. I hope so! But I’m not convinced of that yet.
I was also not thrilled to see two things as the showcase drew to a close: a timed early-access release for players who pay an extra £25/$30, and talk of a “story expansion” already. Bethesda has created some wonderful expansions and pieces of DLC in the past for all of its games… but it’s premature to be talking about that at this juncture. Let’s worry about getting the game released first!
Starfield has a “digital premium edition” with extra content and early access.
There were also some pre-order exclusive costumes and outfits, and I sincerely hope that won’t be a trend that Starfield aggressively pursues. We’ve seen too many single-player, fully-priced games trying to sell microtransactions and cosmetic items via an in-game marketplace, and to me that kind of thing crosses a line. In a free-to-play title, sure. Go for it. But let’s not have that nonsense in Starfield.
So those are my negative takeaways from the showcase, and I wanted to get them out of the way up front! There are concerns about Starfield, and as excited as I am for the game, it’s another one that has firmly earned its place in the “wait for the reviews” column!
But there’s a lot more to say about Starfield, and I have some very positive impressions and takeaways from the showcase that I’d like to share now.
Concept art of a neon marketplace.
First of all, this game is giving me a “Star Trek-meets-Disney World-meets-old-school sci-fi” vibe! The positivity of Star Trek’s exploration-focused future seemed to be present, and as a massive Trekkie I’m all there for that! Bethesda once had the license to make Star Trek games, and I can’t help but feel that in another world we might be looking at Starfield Trek… or should that be Star Trekfield? Maybe one day Paramount will license a game like that! A fan can dream, eh?
If you’ve ever been to Disney World and ridden the likes of Spaceship Earth or visited Tomorrowland, maybe you’ll also pick up on the same feeling that I did. Perhaps it’s because of the aesthetic, perhaps it was the talk of humanity expanding into the stars, but something in the showcase absolutely harkened back to those Disney experiences for me – and I absolutely mean that as a positive thing.
Paging Mr Morrow…
Finally we have Starfield’s deliberately retro look and feel. Described by Bethesda as “NASA-punk,” this visual style takes NASA’s technology as a starting point and looks to a future inspired by those machines and devices – and their aesthetic – in much the same way as the Fallout games take the early ’50s as inspiration. I adore this look, and while there’s more to Starfield’s galaxy than just one visual style, it seems to fit perfectly with the game’s theme of exploration.
Each faction, locale, and/or area of the galaxy looks to have its own distinct aesthetic, too, which is fantastic. In Morrowind, and to an extent in Oblivion as well, different regions of the map and factions were distinct from one another with radically different styles of dress and architecture. This was far less visible in Skyrim, and while there were distinctive looks in Bethesda’s Fallout games too, by and large those titles had their own post-apocalyptic thing going on that tamped down at least some of the potential for creativity and diversity in terms of style. Starfield doesn’t have that – and it was fantastic to see different cities, different factions, and different characters with pretty diverse styles that complimented or clashed with the “NASA-punk” look of the main character and spaceship.
Starfield has a visual style that Bethesda calls “NASA-punk.”
Let’s talk a bit more about spaceships – because this is one area where I’m beyond excited. With the caveat above about the game’s engine being relatively untested in this area, the idea of building, customising, living aboard, and finding a crew for my very own starship is something I literally cannot wait to get stuck into. Starfield is making my knickers moist with anticipation; this is something I’ve been looking for in a game of this type for a long time.
I adore customisation options in practically any game, and there have been some fun games with base-building elements. Going way back, there are even games like Star Trek: Starship Creator, which, while limited by the technology of the time, were an absolute blast to get stuck into. But being able to build and customise a ship, recruit a crew, and then take that ship on untold adventures in a Bethesda sandbox… I can hardly think of anything more appealing in any video game that has ever been announced in the history of ever!
Spaceship!
At first it seemed as if this feature might be akin to Fallout 4′s settlement-building in the sense that it would feel tacked-on, and like a part of gameplay that could be sidelined or even ignored. And I suppose some players will choose to do the bare minimum when it comes to spaceship customisation, putting their focus into the story or into side-missions. But from what we saw in the showcase – and again, with the caveat that all of this is heavily-edited marketing bumf – it looks like the player’s ship is going to be an integral part of the game. Maintaining it, upgrading it, and finding a good crew will all have tangible effects on gameplay – making space battles easier to win and potentially even unlocking new areas of the galaxy and new planets to explore.
It seems as though there will be a choice of crewmates; this isn’t a Mass Effect situation where there are only handful of characters who could join the squad. Bethesda games have had companions in the past, but I usually found them to be quite limited in what they could do. If each member of the crew brings skills with them when they join up, that completely reframes the entire concept of companions – and makes it way more interesting. That at least some of these people can be found randomly out in the wild is even more enticing!
Ship customisation looks amazing.
My excitement about building my own starship extends to the colony/base-building feature, too. Again, this looks like a ton of fun, and provided that there are enough customisation options – and that things like colours can be changed inside as well as out – it will be an absolute blast to get stuck into. Being able to set up a base on a random planet or moon… again, I feel like this is as close as I’m ever going to get to living out my Star Trek/Disney/retro-sci-fi fantasy!
The game’s character customiser looked good – but as I said above, facial hair seems not to be as well-done in Starfield as we’ve seen it in other modern titles. That’s unlikely to affect my own custom character, but it’s worth noting regardless. I don’t think the character creator will quite match the likes of Cyberpunk 2077, which probably has the best on the market right now, but it should be a solid next-gen improvement over even Fallout 4, which had been Bethesda’s best to date. As long as I have a decent range of options to pick from, I daresay I’ll be satisfied!
The character creator. Note the low-quality facial hair.
Starfield will have two different kinds of combat: ship-to-ship in space and first/third-person on the ground. It can be difficult to tell from compressed video how well these will work, but the signs from the showcase were positive – at least as far as I can tell. Some of Starfield’s combat looked positively Doom-like – thanks, no doubt, to support from Doom developer (and fellow ZeniMax studio) id Software. Gunplay looked fast-paced and fluid, and I even caught a glimpse of some melee weapons in the mix, too.
Combat – and especially firearm combat – had been a bit of a concern. In the Fallout series, the VATS system, which essentially paused gameplay to allow for targeting, went a long way to covering up some decidedly average or even sub-par gunplay. This came to the fore with Fallout 76, which as an online multiplayer title couldn’t implement VATS in the same way. Gunplay in Starfield looks a million miles away from the lacklustre shooting seen in Fallout 76, which is fantastic.
Melee weapons are present in Starfield.
Ship-to-ship space combat reminded me of Everspace 2 and even No Man’s Sky in the way it appeared at the showcase. That’s a compliment – as both games are easy to get to grips with! For players who want to focus less on spaceship battles and more on piloting and exploration, or who see going to space as merely a way to travel to the next destination, ensuring that these combat sequences don’t feel awkward and annoying is a must. I can think of a fair few titles where these kinds of sequences could feel like they got in the way – and I hope Starfield won’t be one of them!
Having gone to all of the trouble of customising and stocking up my ship, it’ll be a treat to see it zooming around in space! If the ship-to-ship combat is as fun and fluid as the first-person shooting looks set to be, then I think this aspect of the game will be fantastic, too. Again, diversity and player choice are on full display here: piracy is an option, raiding other ships. Trading and even smuggling are available, too. And of course, exploration! It sounds like there will be a ton of different ways to use these ships – and yes, that’s ships plural, as it was confirmed that players can acquire more than one vessel.
A spaceship in orbit of a planet.
After the disappointment of Fallout 76′s big, empty world, it was phenomenal to see so many non-player characters milling around. Several of the locales shown off in the showcase look like big, bustling cities, filled to the brim with people. Smaller settlements also seemed to be populated, and as mentioned above, some of these characters can be recruited to join the crew. I don’t know how many potential crewmates there are, but it was implied to be a decent number.
Characters are at the heart of any story, and Bethesda has created some incredibly fun and memorable characters over the years. I’m genuinely looking forward to seeing what they’ve done in the sci-fi space, and all the different kinds of people we might meet. We’ve already seen some of the members of the Constellation organisation – but in a galaxy filled with corporations, pirates, colonists, independent worlds, and so on… there should be a lot of people to meet!
Sarah Morgan is one of the members of the Constellation organisation.
Starfield’s main storyline is still under wraps, but we got a few tidbits of information at the showcase. The Constellation organisation appears to be in decline, and the player character had a unique connection with an artefact of unknown origin – possibly created by ancient aliens. This idea seems like something that has the potential to be fun and engaging! But as with other Bethesda games, the main quest is sure to be only a small part of what Starfield has to offer.
I first played Morrowindmore than twenty years ago, shortly after it was released here in the UK. In that time I’ve returned to the game on multiple occasions – but I still to this day haven’t seen everything or beaten every side-quest. That’s the kind of scope we’re talking about here, and with Starfield promising to be Bethesda’s biggest game ever, there are bound to be factions to join, side-missions to complete, and entire quest lines that are of comparable length to the game’s main story. For many folks – myself included – this is the appeal of Bethesda titles, and thus is the true appeal of Starfield.
Who’s this and what’s his story?
All of the usual Bethesda skills and perks looked to be present in Starfield – along with plenty of new ones, too. Character customisation goes way beyond appearance, and from what we saw in the showcase, players are going to be able to really decide what kind of person they want to be in this sci-fi world – and what kind of gameplay they want to have! I noted options that build up stealth, physical attributes, weapons, engineering, piloting, charisma, and more. And as in any RPG, choosing one set of skills or perks will mean others aren’t available – making Starfield a game with huge replayability potential.
I like tinkering with stats in a good role-playing game, and I hope that Starfield’s skills and perks will be both fun to use and will have a meaningful impact on the game. Some games rightly attract criticism for skills and stats having little functional effect on gameplay – though Bethesda has usually managed to get this right. There were some interesting and unique-sounding skills and perks in the mix, too, including some that seemed to unlock potential characters, dialogue options, and story elements.
Part of the skills menu.
So we’ll have to wrap things up, because this is already running long!
I’m trying hard to suppress as much of my hype and excitement for Starfield as possible. Not only are there concerns about the game engine, Bethesda’s reputation for bugs and glitches, pre-order and monetisation shenanigans, and other things on the technical side, but there’s a very real danger that Bethesda is overplaying its hand. Starfield is being pitched as a kind of genre-busting, once-in-a-lifetime experience… and many players may find themselves falling back to Earth with a thud if the game can’t live up to those impossible expectations.
There are going to be limits to customisation, procedurally-generated locations that may be barren, bland, and less exciting than we’d hoped for, and constraints on what’s possible in terms of both gameplay and story. Both Bethesda and Xbox have track records of poor launches, with Fallout 76 being an unparalleled disaster in 2018, and Redfall being a total mess earlier this year. So there are solid reasons to place Starfield in the “wait for the reviews” category!
Concept art of an outpost or spaceship.
But at the same time, I can’t help myself. A friend of mine recently suggested that Starfield might just be “the best video game that either of us will ever play,” and I can’t argue with their assessment. If Starfield lives up to the hype and the expectations that Microsoft and Bethesda are setting, then it almost certainly will be one of my favourite gaming experiences of the last few years – if not of all-time. I’ve been waiting for a game like this; one that promises to be multiple games with multiple gameplay mechanics all rolled into one.
The showcase did its job, in my view. It succeeded at getting me incredibly excited for Starfield, a title that was already close to the top of my most-anticipated games list. Part of me is saying “please delay it if it needs it!” But another huge part of me wants nothing more than to get my hands on Starfield right now! I don’t think I’ve been this excited about an upcoming game since Morrowind.
Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Microsoft recently talked about the success of its Xbox Game Pass and PC Game Pass subscription services – which between them have somewhere in the region of 30 million subscribers. However, this was accompanied by news from Microsoft that sales on its Xbox platform are down, with some big games not selling as many copies as they might’ve been expected to in years past.
Some outlets and commentators have seized upon this news in a pretty bizarre way, trying to present Game Pass as some kind of “problem” for Xbox and Microsoft, even going so far as to say that Game Pass is “harming” the company. But… Game Pass was designed to lead to fewer sales. It’s something that’s baked into the subscription model. To use a bit of game dev lingo: it’s a feature, not a bug.
An example of the kind of reactions we’re talking about. Image: DreamcastGuy via YouTube
Saying that Game Pass is “harming” sales of games on PC and Xbox is like saying Netflix is harmful to sales of films on VHS, or that Spotify has led to fewer cassettes being sold. The entire point of creating a subscription is to sign people up for the long-term. There are legitimate questions about the viability of the subscription model in the video gaming space, because it’s new and relatively untested. But to say that it’s “harmful” to game sales is, in my view anyway, entirely missing the point.
Consider what Microsoft’s objective is with Game Pass. They hope to create a “Netflix of video games,” where players sign up and remain subscribed for the long haul, playing the games they want as they become available. It’s intended to work in a similar way to the way subscription services work with other forms of media. By definition, that means fewer physical and digital sales. Microsoft will have known this going in, and fully expected it.
Game Pass is shaking up the industry.
Microsoft sees an opportunity to make the Game Pass model the future of gaming. Rather than buying individual titles, players will pay one monthly fee and have access to a range of titles on either PC, Xbox, or both. With a linked Xbox account also tracking achievements, adding friends, and playing online, the corporation hopes that this will keep players “loyal” to their brand for console generation upon console generation.
There’s a subset of self-professed “hardcore gamers” who vocally lament the decline of physical media in gaming, and it seems to me that it’s predominantly these folks who are upset by Game Pass as a concept – and they always have been. If I may be so bold: they’re dinosaurs, and the way they like to purchase and own games is on the way out. We’ve talked about this before, but there will come a time – perhaps within just a few years – when there will no longer be anywhere to buy physical copies of games. Certainly in the area where I live, most dedicated gaming shops have already closed their doors.
There are fewer and fewer retailers like this these days.
The industry is moving on because players are moving on. The convenience of digital downloads is, for a clear majority of players, something to be celebrated. It began on PC with the likes of Steam, but now it also includes Game Pass as well as other digital shops. The way most players choose to engage with games companies is changing – and that trend shows no signs of slowing down, let alone reversing.
Maybe Game Pass won’t end up being the subscription service that takes the gaming world by storm. Perhaps some other platform will come along to dethrone it, a service that offers more games at a lower price, or one that can – somehow – be available on multiple platforms. But Game Pass is, at the very least, the canary in the coal mine: a harbinger of what’s to come.
An example of some of the titles available on Game Pass for PC.
When I see folks criticising Game Pass or trying to manufacture stories about how difficult and problematic it is for Microsoft, I feel they’re rather like the old guard of the music industry railing against people taping their favourite songs off the radio, or a DVD retailer trying to fend off the likes of Netflix and Disney+. The way people consume media – all forms of media, gaming included – is changing, and subscriptions are the current direction of travel. That’s not to say it won’t change in the future, but right now, subscriptions are where the entertainment industry is headed.
With the convenience of digital distribution, it’s hard to see a way back. Having tried Game Pass for myself, it already feels like a big ask to go back to paying £50-60 – or more, in some cases – for a single title when there are dozens available on subscription. Even just playing a couple of new games a year is still cheaper on Game Pass than buying them outright. And the more people who sign up, the more that feeling will grow. Rather than whining about Game Pass, other companies need to be taking note.
Game Pass feels like good value right now.
In the television and film space, we’re firmly in the grip of the “streaming wars,” and that has been a double-edged sword for sure. On the one hand, there’s been a glut of amazing, big-budget content as streaming platforms and the corporations backing them up continue to slog it out, competing for every subscriber. But on the other, the industry feels quite anti-consumer, with too many services charging too much money. Not all of the current streaming services will survive the decade, I am as certain of that as I can be!
But gaming has the potential to be different. Unless Microsoft gives its explicit consent, no other streaming service could set up shop on Xbox consoles, nor could anyone but Sony run a subscription for PlayStation titles. The titans of the gaming industry will continue to compete with one another, but the issue of oversaturation of the kind we’re seeing in the film and television space should be avoidable.
Sony is (belatedly) getting started with the subscription model too.
Games companies will have to adapt. Raw sales numbers are already less relevant now that Game Pass is up and running, and they’re going to be of decreasing relevance as time goes on. The way in which developers and publishers measure the success of their titles will have to change as the industry continues this shift – and the companies that get this right will reap the rewards. Those who don’t – or who try to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening – will fall by the wayside.
The way I see it, Game Pass is just getting started. 30 million subscribers may seem like a huge number – but it’s a minuscule percentage of the total number of gamers worldwide, so there’s huge potential for growth. There will be competitors that will rise to meet it – but all that will mean is that more players, not fewer, will get roped into long-term subscriptions. We’ve already seen the beginnings of this with Nintendo Switch Online, PlayStation Plus, and even the likes of Apple Arcade on mobile.
Subscriptions like Game Pass could reach huge numbers of people.
It’s mobile phones, more than anything, that I’d argue kicked off this trend. The biggest, fastest-growing gaming platform of the last decade is entirely digital and has been since day one. Players have always accepted digital distribution on their smartphones – because it’s always been the only option. Subscription services are the natural next step – and the only surprising thing, really, is that it’s taken as long as it has for a gaming subscription to become as successful as Game Pass.
The success of Game Pass is not without pitfalls, and as I said the last time we talked about the decline of dedicated gaming shops, it will impact some people more than others. Younger people, people on low incomes (as I am myself), and others will all find that their relationships with gaming as a hobby will change as a result. Not all of these changes will be for the better for everyone, and people who aren’t able to commit to a monthly expense, or who don’t have the means to do so, risk being left behind. But many of those folks are already priced out of the gaming market, especially as companies jack up their prices to unjustifiable levels.
A closed-down games retailer in the UK.
Some of the “hot takes” on Game Pass over the past week or so have taken me by surprise – but in some cases at least, we can look to the “usual suspects” of Sony supporters and die-hard believers in the supremacy of physical media. Stirring up trouble for Game Pass and Microsoft is a hobby for some outlets!
I’m not a defender of Microsoft by any means, and the corporation has made a lot of mistakes. But Game Pass, at least at time of writing in early 2023, feels like a good deal. It has a mix of new games, older titles, and some big releases – like Halo Infinite and Starfield – come to the platform on release day. I’ve discovered games I’d never have thought to try and been able to play games I’d never have purchased entirely because of Game Pass. That undoubtedly means I’m buying fewer brand-new games… but from Microsoft’s perspective, that’s entirely the point.
Microsoft operates the Game Pass subscription service.
We should all be vigilant and not simply accept what these big corporations want to do. They’re trying to corner the market and rope players into long-term subscriptions, and they’re doing so not because they think it’s particularly beneficial to players – that’s merely a coincidence. They’re doing it to maximise profits. Not having to split the proceeds with shops or storefronts is a big part of it, and Microsoft would rather take £7.99 a month, every month, than take a cut of the profits on a single sale that it has to share with other companies.
But if this corporate skullduggery is beneficial to players, why shouldn’t we participate? An Xbox Series S or a pre-owned Xbox One combined with a Game Pass subscription is an easy and relatively affordable way into the gaming hobby – offering players a huge library of titles that would be impossibly expensive for practically all of us if we had to buy each game individually. The disadvantages are the ongoing nature of the subscription and the inevitability of titles disappearing from the service either temporarily or permanently. But them’s the breaks – that’s the nature of subscriptions across the board. And with Microsoft doing all it can to buy up companies, more and more titles will be locked into Game Pass for the long-term.
There are reasons for scepticism, sure. But trying to spin this particular issue as a negative one for Xbox and Microsoft is disingenuous. Game Pass was always going to lead to fewer game sales in the long-run. Far from worrying about this, Microsoft’s executives will be rubbing their hands together gleefully… because right now, their plan is working.
Game Pass is available now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X. Xbox, Game Pass, and other titles discussed above are the copyright of Microsoft; other games and titles may be the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Xbox recently hosted its Games Showcase event – an addendum to Summer Games Fest, which has effectively replaced this year’s E3 industry event. The Showcase was generally pretty decent, with a focus being on games that will be released over the next twelve months. Some big games like Valheim and Redfall took centre stage, and there was news or updates about the likes of Grounded, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and even Fall Guys – the latter of which is belatedly launching on Xbox (and Nintendo Switch) in just a few days’ time.
Having recently been gobbled up by Microsoft’s expanding gaming division, Bethesda had a lot to say about Starfield. Though the game has recently been delayed until the first half of 2023, the Xbox Games Showcase event provided a massive update on the game and showed players a first look at gameplay. That’s what we should be talking about; that should be the headline for Bethesda coming out of their big summer presentation. But it isn’t, at least not in a lot of publications.
Bethesda chief Todd Howard chose to drop the “announcement” – if we can even call it that – that Fallout 5 will be the studio’s next-but-one big project, and that news has grabbed headlines and stolen attention away from Starfield right at the moment when you’d think its marketing campaign should be beginning in earnest. I just don’t really understand why it was necessary to make this so-called “announcement” and confirm what most players and fans had already been assuming.
Firstly, if Starfield brings in rave reviews, massive player numbers, and goes on to be the success that Bethesda and Microsoft must be hoping for, then surely a sequel should enter the conversation. By stating now, before Starfield has even launched, that Fallout 5 will follow The Elder Scrolls VI as Bethesda’s next-but-one project, that seems to push any kind of Starfield sequel even further away. If decisions need to be made in future to change that around for whatever reason, some people are going to be left upset. There’s literally no upside to talking about Fallout 5 at this juncture.
The same could have been said, arguably, about The Elder Scrolls VI when that was similarly “announced” at E3 in 2018. With the game so far off, talking about it so soon seemed premature at best. In that case, though, there was a case to be made that the constant stream of re-releases for Skyrim, the fact that there had never been such a long gap in between Elder Scrolls games, the releases of not one but two Fallout titles, and Starfield being in active development all combined to make it worthwhile to make a commitment to Elder Scrolls fans that their series hadn’t been forgotten.
With Fallout, there just isn’t any need. Fallout 4 was released in November 2015, and that was followed up by the (disastrous and unplayable) Fallout 76 just three years later. Fallout 76 continues to receive attention and updates, some of which have been pretty substantial, so there isn’t that same feeling of abandonment that some Elder Scrolls fans had been feeling in the wake of a lack of follow-up to Skyrim. Though I’d still suggest that announcing The Elder Scrolls VI in 2018 was premature, at least there was a kind of logic to it – a logic that this “announcement” of Fallout 5 lacks.
The Elder Scrolls VI was also announced with a slick teaser – obviously no gameplay, but at least a look at a pretty landscape and a logo. Fallout 5 got no such fanfare, with the news of its planned existence seemingly being an off-the-cuff remark dropped haphazardly in an interview with IGN. Perhaps someone at Microsoft or Bethesda needs to help Todd Howard with his interviews so this kind of thing doesn’t happen again!
Starfield has been Bethesda’s biggest and longest project to date, having been worked on for at least a decade. Production officially began following the release of Fallout 4 in 2015 and ramped up in the wake of Fallout 76′s launch in 2018, so this has been a massive undertaking. The Elder Scrolls VI will be comparable in scale, and if it follows a similar timeline to Starfield it may not be ready until 2027 or 2028. If Fallout 5 likewise takes five-plus years in active development, we’re potentially talking about a release window sometime in the early/mid-2030s. So why on earth should we be talking about this game now?!
One of the reasons why video game corporations like sequels is that there’s a built-in fanbase. Fans of Fallout 3 turned up for Fallout 4; fans of Oblivion turned up for Skyrim… and so on. Starfield represents much more of a risk compared with the likes of a new Elder Scrolls or Fallout title, and as a result it needs to be handled carefully, marketed cleverly, and not overshadowed by the bigger and more illustrious franchises that its parent company owns.
The mere act of mentioning Fallout 5 – which had not been discussed by anyone senior at Bethesda or Microsoft prior to this – has completely stolen Starfield’s thunder coming out of the Xbox Games Showcase, and that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen. Bethesda’s mistakes and stumbles – some of which go back several years – have already meant that there’s a bit of a caveat in the minds of some players when they think about Starfield, so the game needs every boost it can possibly get. Being overshadowed by a new title, especially one that’s probably ten years away from being released, doesn’t help and has actually hurt Starfield at the moment players should be beginning to pay attention and, from Bethesda’s point of view at least, get excited for its launch next year.
Maybe this was just a mistake; a throwaway remark that Todd Howard didn’t really intend to make. If so, I guess it’s fair to say that we all make mistakes, these things happen, and to try to move on from it and refocus on Starfield. But it won’t be easy to do. There are already a ton of articles about Fallout 5 being “announced,” and that will lead to questions from fans and the gaming press drawing attention away from Starfield at what was supposed to be its first moment in the spotlight.
We could have spent today talking about the gameplay that was shown off, how things like jumping and jetpacking look like fun, and how incredibly excited I am to design and build my own spaceship! But instead we’re talking about a marketing screw-up and a game that, to be blunt, I’m not sure I’m going to live long enough to see! It was a mistake to even mention Fallout 5 this early, and if Starfield exceeds expectations and becomes Bethesda and Microsoft’s “next big thing,” I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a sequel planned sooner than expected. That could push back work on Fallout 5, upsetting fans. There was literally no upside to this at all, and the resultant reaction to Todd Howard’s statement has drawn attention away from Starfield at the precise moment when fans should have been excitedly talking about its gameplay reveal, new features, and the scale of the galaxy that Bethesda has created. What a mess!
Starfield will be released in the first half of 2023 for Xbox Series S/X and PC and will also be available via Xbox Game Pass. Fallout 5 has no release date scheduled. Starfield, the Fallout franchise, the Elder Scrolls franchise, and other titles and properties mentioned above are the copyright of Microsoft and Bethesda Softworks. Some promotional images courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
If you missed the announcement, Bethesda Game Studios’ upcoming sci-fi role-playing game Starfield has been delayed. Originally planned for a November 2022 release, that has slipped back to “the first half of 2023,” which potentially means that the game is a year or more away. With Starfield having shown off a cinematic teaser and some concept art but no real gameplay yet, perhaps the delay was not entirely unexpected! Regardless, some folks are upset by this move, with some PlayStation super-fans even hailing it as a “failure” for Xbox. Obviously that isn’t the case, so today we’re going to use Starfield as an example of why delays really are a good thing.
First up, it’s never fun when a game I’m looking forward to receives a delay. I don’t think anyone is trying to pretend that a delay to a highly-anticipated title – particularly a lengthy delay of six months or more – is something that fans and players are thrilled about or want to see. Instead, I’d describe delays as “understandable.” Particularly in light of a number of recent titles that have been disappointing due to feeling like they weren’t ready to go on launch day, I think more and more players are coming around to that point of view.
Concept art for Starfield.
Increasingly, these kinds of announcements are treated with maturity and understanding by players – and you need only look to some of the comments and responses to Bethesda’s announcement about Starfield as a case in point. Yes, there are some folks who are angry or unhappy – toxicity exists within the gaming community, who knew? And there are the aforementioned PlayStation ultra-fans who are taking a victory lap. But many responses were positive, saying something along the lines of “if it needs more time, that’s okay.”
Failing to delay a game when extra development time is clearly required never ends well. A game’s reputation is largely set within a few hours of its release, and attempting to change the narrative once “it’s bad” or “it’s full of bugs and glitches” has become the overwhelming impression is nigh-on impossible. For every No Man’s Sky that manages to pull off some kind of rehabilitation, there are dozens of titles such as Anthem, Aliens: Colonial Marines, or Warcraft III: Reforged. It’s much better to launch a decent game out of the gate than to try to fix a broken mess after players are already upset.
Concept art for Starfield.
One game has done more than any other in recent years to soften attitudes in favour of delays and to remind players just how badly it’s possible to screw up a premature launch: Cyberpunk 2077. Despite receiving a significant delay earlier in 2020, Cyberpunk’s launch in December of that year was so catastrophically bad that the game ended up being forcibly removed from the PlayStation store, found itself widely criticised by players, and it even saw CD Projekt Red’s share price take a tumble from which it has yet to fully recover.
Starfield exists in a similar space to Cyberpunk 2077 – both are role-playing games, both include science-fiction elements, both are open-world titles, and so on – so many of the players anticipating Starfield have been burned already just eighteen months ago by a game that was released far too soon. Those players, perhaps more than any others, are inclined to understand the reasons behind this decision. And even folks who didn’t personally get caught up in the Cyberpunk 2077 mess are at least aware of what happened.
Cyberpunk 2077 needed a delay or two of its own.
In 2022, with so many games having been released too soon, the attitude from players in general has shifted. Where delays may once have been met with a louder backlash from those who felt disappointed, reactions today are more mature and understanding. That’s not to say toxic or aggressive individuals don’t exist or that there won’t be any criticism of such a move, but rather that the scale of backlash that delays receive is now less significant than it used to be.
At the end of the day, even the most aggressive critics of delays are still likely to buy a game that they’re excited for when it’s ready. It would take some serious self-harming spite to say “because you didn’t release the game in 2022 I’m never going to play it ever!” so from Bethesda and parent company Microsoft’s point of view, the longer-term damage is limited. That isn’t true for every company, though.
Bethesda is owned by Microsoft.
Delays have a disproportionate impact on smaller companies and independent developers, because a delay in those cases can potentially mean that there won’t be enough money to fund their project. If a developer only has enough money in the bank to keep the lights on and the computers powered up for a certain number of weeks, then there’s naturally going to be a hard limit on how far they can push back a release – and the income it brings. In those cases, more leniency can be required when assessing a game.
But when we’re dealing with Starfield, Bethesda, and Microsoft, that’s a non-issue! Backed up by one of the biggest corporations on the planet, Bethesda doesn’t need to worry about running out of cash, and from Microsoft’s point of view it’s infinitely better to ensure that Starfield gets all the time that it needs to be ready for prime-time. This is Bethesda’s first big title for Microsoft, their first new IP in years, and a game that has a lot riding on it for the success of Microsoft’s Xbox brand and Xbox Game Pass. Getting it right is so much more important than rigid adherence to arbitrary deadlines, so if release windows need to shift then from a business perspective that’s what makes the most sense.
Starfield is likely to be a big title for bringing in new Game Pass subscribers.
There are instances where release dates are announced that seem, even at the time, to be unrealistic. Bethesda’s 11th of November 2022 release date for Starfield, for instance, came eleven years to the day after another of their titles: Skyrim. In addition to getting the game out in time for the Christmas rush, there was also clearly something poetic or symmetrical about such a release date that was appealing to Bethesda. But they recognised that the release date wasn’t practical and changed it – good for them!
As consumers in this marketplace, I think we have a responsibility not only to call out and criticise companies when they get it wrong, but to at least acknowledge when a correct decision has been made. As I always say, I have no “insider information” – so I don’t know what condition the current version of Starfield may or may not be in – but if the developers, testers, and management at Bethesda have recognised that the game isn’t far enough along to be in with a realistic chance of hitting its release date, then the smart move is to announce a delay as early as possible. That seems to be what they’ve done, and I commend them for it.
Concept art for Starfield.
In an industry and a marketplace that is too demanding of its employees sometimes, delays can be incredibly welcome respite. I’ve talked before about “crunch” – a practice that I have some personal experience with having once worked in the games industry – and that’s another reason why delays can be a positive thing. Maybe Bethesda could have crunched the teams working on Starfield hard enough to get some semblance of a playable title ready in time to hit its planned release date – but if doing so would have come at the expense of those developers and their health, then I wouldn’t want to get Starfield this year.
Crunch is a bigger subject that we’ll need to talk about at length on another occasion, but if a delay like this one helps to minimise the stress and difficulty of working under such conditions, then suffice to say we have one more reason to be supportive.
I’m looking forward to Starfield, despite some missteps by Bethesda in recent years. If this delay means that the game will be significantly more polished, free from as many bugs and glitches as possible, then I’m all for it. If this delay means that developers and staff at Bethesda aren’t pushed too hard and overworked this year, then I’m all for it. And if this delay means that Starfield will be an all-around more enjoyable experience, then I’m all for it. Though there will be critics and a vocal minority of toxic “fans,” more and more players are coming around to this way of thinking. Delay Starfield if necessary, and if it isn’t ready for the first half of 2023 then delay it again! All that really matters is that the game is in the best possible shape when it finally arrives, and if that means waiting a little longer, that’s fine by me.
Starfield has been delayed and is now due for release sometime in the first half of 2023. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, Bethesda Game Studios, and the Microsoft Corporation. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Well that certainly came out of nowhere! Microsoft has opened its wallet once again, this time buying up massive video games publisher Activision Blizzard for a whopping $69 billion. Nice.
After receiving criticism during the previous console generation for the lack of exclusive games on its Xbox One system, Microsoft has stepped up in a big way in the last few years. Early moves brought on board companies like Obsidian and Rare, and then last year came another shock announcement: the acquisition of ZeniMax – the parent company of Bethesda. All of those laid the groundwork for something big, and Microsoft has now added Activision Blizzard to its lineup, bringing on board hugely popular games and franchises like Call of Duty, Overwatch, World of Warcraft, and even popular mobile game Candy Crush.
Microsoft will soon own Candy Crush!
At almost ten times the price of its Bethesda purchase, Microsoft clearly has big plans for Activision Blizzard and its games. Even by the standards of other corporate takeovers, $69 billion is a lot of money – an almost unfathomable amount. As Microsoft looks to expand its Xbox and PC gaming platforms, though, it makes a lot of sense to bring on board a company like Activision Blizzard.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is currently pushing hard to take gaming as a whole in a new direction, pioneering a subscription model based on the likes of Netflix – indeed, Game Pass was originally pitched as the video game equivalent of Netflix. Though on the surface the company seems to be taking a two-pronged approach, with its Xbox home console family and PC gaming being separate, in many ways that isn’t really the case any more. Microsoft’s goal is to bring these two platforms as close together as possible, offering most games to players regardless of their chosen platform. One need only look to two of the biggest releases of the past year as an example: both Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5 came to both Xbox and PC, despite originally being franchises that were exclusive to consoles.
Forza Horizon 5 was a massive title for both Xbox and PC – and came to Game Pass on release day.
Let’s step back for a moment. My initial reaction to this news was disbelief! But after double-checking my sources and confirming that this was, in fact, not some kind of elaborate prank, my next thoughts were of the Activision Blizzard scandal, and how from Microsoft’s point of view this may not have been the best time to announce this acquisition.
There’s no denying that Activision Blizzard is a tainted brand in the eyes of many players, with the severity of the sexual abuse scandal cutting through to make the news in mainstream outlets when it broke last year. Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the scandal is part of the reason why Microsoft may have felt that the timing was right – Activision Blizzard shares had lost basically a third of their value over the last few months (down from almost $100 per share to below $65 prior to the acquisition announcement). Microsoft arguably made a savvy deal in some respects.
Activision Blizzard is a company embroiled in scandal right now.
There also seems to be a sense from at least some quarters of the gaming press and gaming community that Microsoft is “swooping in” to save Activision Blizzard from the scandal, perhaps even preserving the jobs of some employees or protecting games and franchises from cancellation. I didn’t really expect this reaction, and while it’s safe to say there’s been plenty of criticism to balance out some of the positivity, overall the mood of players seems to be more in favour of this acquisition than opposed to it.
We should talk about exclusivity before we go any further. Despite the hopeful – almost desperate – claims being made in some quarters, Microsoft isn’t going to publish Activision Blizzard titles on PlayStation forever. Once the deal has gone through and existing contracts have been fulfilled, expect to see all of Activision Blizzard’s new titles and big franchises become Xbox, PC, and Game Pass exclusives.
Starfield is a highly-anticipated Bethesda title – and it will be an Xbox and PC exclusive following Microsoft’s acquisition of Bethesda.
This is exactly what happened with Bethesda. Some players clung to the argument that Microsoft somehow wouldn’t want to limit the sales of some of these games to Xbox and PC players only, with some even going so far as to claim that we were witnessing the “death of console exclusives.” That hasn’t happened (to put it mildly) and we’re now expecting massive games like Starfield to become Xbox, PC, and Game Pass exclusives.
When Microsoft first jumped into the home console market in 2001 with the original Xbox, a lot of games industry critics and commentators argued that the company would open its wallet and spend, spend, spend in order to compete with the likes of Sega, Nintendo, and Sony. Microsoft certainly made some sound investments in games early on, but it’s really taken almost twenty years for some of those concerns to be borne out – and by now, the gaming landscape has so thoroughly shifted that it doesn’t feel like a bad thing any more.
It’s been more than two decades since Microsoft jumped into the home console market.
When Microsoft announced the acquisitions of the likes of Oblivion, Rare, and even Bethesda, there was still a sense that the games industry was pursuing its longstanding business model: develop games, release them, sell them, turn a profit, repeat. But now I believe we’re actually in the midst of a major realignment in the way the entire games industry operates – a realignment that’s shaping up to be as disruptive as Netflix’s emergence as a streaming powerhouse in the early 2010s.
Microsoft isn’t making all of these big purchases just to make games and sell them individually. That approach will remain for the foreseeable future, of course, but it isn’t the company’s primary objective. In my view, this is all about Game Pass – Microsoft’s subscription service. Microsoft has seen how successful the subscription model has been for the likes of Netflix – but more importantly for the likes of Disney with Disney+.
Disney+ is both an inspiration and a warning for Microsoft and Game Pass.
As streaming has become bigger and bigger in the film and television sphere, more companies have tried to set up their own competing platforms. In doing so, they pulled their titles from Netflix – something we saw very recently with Star Trek: Discovery, for example, which will now be exclusively available on Paramount+. Microsoft is not content to simply license titles from other companies – like Activision Blizzard – because they fear that a day is coming soon when other companies try to become direct competitors with their own platforms – muscling in on what Microsoft sees as its turf. If Sony gets its act together and finally manages to launch a Game Pass competitor on its PlayStation consoles, Microsoft will be in an out-and-out scrap, and pre-empting that fight is what acquisitions like this one are all about.
If Netflix had had the foresight to use a portion of the money it had been making in the early 2010s to buy up film studios or television production companies, it would have lost far fewer titles over the last few years, and wouldn’t have needed to pivot so heavily into creating its own content from scratch. I think that the Activision Blizzard deal is one way for Microsoft to shore up its own subscription service ahead of a potential repeat of the “streaming wars” in the video game realm.
The official announcement image.
So it isn’t just about “more games for Game Pass” – this deal is about Microsoft’s vision for the future of gaming as a medium, and also their concerns about other companies trying to elbow their way in and become serious competitors. Spending $69 billion may be a huge financial hit up front, but if it pays off it will mean that Game Pass will remain competitive and profitable for years – or even decades – to come. That’s the attitude that I see through this move.
And I don’t believe for a moment that Microsoft is done. Activision Blizzard may be the company’s biggest acquisition to date, but it won’t be the last. When the deal is done and has officially gone through – something that most likely won’t happen for at least twelve months – expect to see Microsoft lining up its next big purchase, and it could be yet another games industry heavyweight. There have been rumours in the past that Microsoft had considered making a move for Electronic Arts, for example… so watch this space!
Could another big purchase be on the cards in the next couple of years?
As a player, these are exciting times – but also turbulent times. I increasingly feel that it’s hardly worth purchasing brand-new games, because several massive titles that I’ve spent money on have ended up coming to Game Pass. In the last few days the Hitman trilogy has arrived on the platform, Doom Eternal landed on Game Pass last year, and even Mass Effect: Legendary Edition is now on the platform less than a year after its release. What’s the point in buying any new games any more? Let’s just wait and it seems Microsoft will eventually bring them to Game Pass!
This is, of course, an attitude Microsoft wants to foster. If Game Pass is an appealing prospect, players will stop buying games. Once they’re “locked in” to the Game Pass ecosystem, Microsoft thinks it’s got them for the long haul. This is how Netflix, Disney+, and other streaming platforms view their audiences, too: once someone has been hooked in, they tend to stay hooked in. That’s why they put the majority of their time and energy into recruiting new subscribers rather than ensuring current subscribers stay signed up.
This is all about Game Pass.
So it’s an interesting moment in gaming, and one that has the potential to herald an entirely new chapter in the medium’s history. People who decry the death of buying individual titles increasingly feel like they’re on the losing side; relics of an era that’s rapidly drawing to a close. Subscriptions have basically become the norm in film and television, with sales of DVDs, Blu-rays, and the like in what seems to be terminal decline. Television viewership, along with cable and satellite subscriptions, are likewise declining.
And who really feels that the death of broadcast television is something to mourn? Subscription platforms offered viewers a better deal – so they snapped it up. If Game Pass can do the same for gaming, more and more players will jump on board.
The Call of Duty series will soon join Game Pass.
Speaking for myself, I’ve been a subscriber to the PC version of Game Pass for almost a year-and-a-half. In that time, my subscription has cost me £8 per month ($10 in the US, I think). Call it eighteen months, and that’s £144 – or roughly the same amount of money as three brand-new full-price video games. In that time I’ve played more than three games, meaning Game Pass feels like a pretty good deal. If Microsoft continues to splash its cash on the likes of Activision Blizzard, bringing even more titles to the platform without asking me to pay substantially more for my subscription, then as a consumer I gotta say it’s worth it.
One corporate acquisition on its own does not irreversibly shift the gaming landscape. But we’re on a trajectory now that I believe will see gaming move away from the old way of doing business into a new era where subscriptions will be a dominant force. There will be advantages and disadvantages to this, but I don’t see it slowing down. As the likes of Sony and even Nintendo try to compete with Game Pass, if anything we’re likely to see this trend speed up.
Watch this space – because this certainly won’t be Microsoft’s last big move.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some promotional screenshots courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Forza Horizon 5 was released in November for Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X, and PC. It took a little while, but after spending quite a bit of time with the game over the past few weeks I’m finally ready to put pen to paper and share my thoughts!
Forza Horizon 5 is a big game. There are different kinds of races and events to participate in, ranging from multi-race championships all the way to smaller challenges and mini-events. The game’s open world is huge and offers varied terrains and scenery. And perhaps most importantly for a racing game, Forza Horizon 5 offers a veritable smorgasbord of cars to choose from.
What Forza Horizon 5 is not, though, is massively different from its predecessor. If you’ve played Forza Horizon 4 at all, you know the formula. This time around there’s more: the game world is bigger, there are more roads to drive on, more races and events to take part in, and so on. But it isn’t a fundamentally different experience – aside from the scenery changing from the quaint English countryside to the deserts, jungles, and beaches of Mexico, it’s basically an iterative instalment of the series. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem for Forza Horizon 5; it’s a riff on the same concept, expanding it in some significant areas but without really breaking new ground. However, when the formula works, why shake it up too much? As the saying goes: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The Horizon spin-off series has always taken a more casual approach than mainline games in the Forza Motorsport series, and that trend continues here. There’s a party atmosphere that runs through the entire game, with a handful of named characters who all take a very laid-back approach to running the titular Horizon festival. That feeling extends to gameplay, too. Races are organised seemingly haphazardly, and there’s a lot of fun to be had simply by exploring the open world, making your own fun, and driving some fancy cars at high speed!
Forza Horizon 5 is perhaps the most accessible racing game I’ve played – except, maybe, for Mario Kart 8. The game is geared up for fans of arcade racing, with a “pick-up-and-play” attitude that feels perfectly aligned with the aforementioned casual, laid-back approach taken by characters within the game itself. That isn’t to say that Forza Horizon 5 presents no challenge – not at all. But this is a game that allows players to tailor the kind of challenge or fun that they want to the way that they like to play. There are options to tweak practically every aspect of single-player gameplay, meaning Forza Horizon 5 would be a great introduction to racing games for a complete newbie – but a game that experienced racing fans can enjoy as well.
As a gamer with disabilities, I always appreciate games that go out of their way to be accommodating. In Forza Horizon 5, it’s possible to slow down single-player gameplay to give players more time to react or make moves. It’s possible to see a guide line on the ground or along racetracks pointing players in the right direction. And there are different levels of assistance; cars can be set up to brake automatically, for example, as well as change gears. Forza Horizon 5 also recommends specific cars for specific races, ensuring that players who aren’t familiar with cars or racing games won’t find themselves in an unwinnable situation.
None of these things have to be used, and they can all be turned off for players who want a more realistic or challenging racing experience. The game has pre-set difficulty options, but within those pre-sets it’s possible to tweak many different individual characteristics so players can get the kind of experience that they want. This really does open up the game to many different skill levels, and Forza Horizon 5 would be a great game for someone brand-new, a kid seeking a more realistic racer than the likes of Mario Kart, and everyone else all the way up to racing simulation fanatics.
Forza Horizon 5 also brings a lot of customisation options to the table. Every car (at least, every car that I’ve unlocked so far) can be customised. Cars can be repainted in every colour of the rainbow, and can have custom liveries applied – including advertising logos for famous brands. There’s already a bustling customisation scene, with players from all over the world sharing their custom creations for others to download and use in-game. I love a game with strong customisation elements, and Forza Horizon 5 absolutely delivers in that regard!
As I was getting started with Forza Horizon 5, I actually found myself getting a little emotional. As you may know, I’m non-binary – meaning that my gender identity falls in between male and female, and I prefer to use they/them pronouns. When setting up my Forza Horizon 5 character, the option to use they/them was present alongside male and female pronouns – something that was amazing for me, and for other non-binary players as well I hope. It’s still quite rare to see games offer this option, so it was an incredibly welcome surprise.
I’m not the world’s biggest car enthusiast. My knowledge of cars mostly comes courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson and the rest of the crew of Top Gear! But for people who know more about cars than I do, I reckon Forza Horizon 5 has a lot to offer. Although the game goes out of its way to be accessible and to have cars ready-to-race from the moment of being unlocked or purchased, there are still plenty of tuning options to fiddle about with. At the game’s uppermost echelons, where elite players are duking it out and races are won or lost by the millisecond, perhaps some of these things will make a difference. I’m not at that level – but some folks are, and there are tuning and customisation guides already for many of the game’s vehicles.
Although Forza Horizon 5 includes a lot of ultra-expensive supercars from manufacturers like Bugatti, Koenigsegg, and Lamborghini, I think it’s great that the game offers classic cars, “normal” street cars, and even some novelty vehicles or cult favourites as well. For example, the game includes a classic Land Rover (a personal favourite of mine), as well as every nerd’s favourite car: the DeLorean! There’s a VW Camper available, a classic Mini, a Morris Minor, as well as a Hummer, and even a car taken straight from Hot Wheels! In short, there’s fun to be had with some of these vehicles, and while some may not be suitable for winning every race or clocking the fastest time, for having fun driving around the game’s open world I think some of these additions are absolutely fantastic!
Some racing games offer light-hearted fun, and for me, Forza Horizon 5 is absolutely that kind of game. I can pick it up for even just a few minutes at a time, hop into a race or two, and then put it down knowing I can do the same thing again later on. It absolutely can be more than that; players with the inclination can take it more seriously, spend more time on their vehicles, and really push hard to get the best lap times and reach the top of the various leaderboards. That’s not the way I personally play – but the fact that Forza Horizon 5 has plenty to offer to all kinds of players is a huge mark in its favour in my book!
I’m a subscriber to the PC version of Xbox Game Pass, so for me Forza Horizon 5 was available on release day to download and play at no extra cost. On that basis, I’m thrilled with the game. That being said, for folks who don’t like the idea of a subscription or who like owning games outright, I can absolutely recommend Forza Horizon 5 as a purchase. Game Pass is a great service, but I recognise that it isn’t for everyone. When I looked at Halo Infinite a few weeks ago I said that paying £55 for just the campaign felt a bit much, so getting the game on Game Pass made a lot of sense. But there’s a heck of a lot of value in Forza Horizon 5 for players of varying skill levels and with varying levels of interest in cars – so it feels like a solid buy.
I think that’s all I have to say about this one! I’m thoroughly enjoying my time with Forza Horizon 5 and I’m looking forward to jumping back in and getting into my next race. See you on the track!
Forza Horizon 5 is out now for Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X, and PC. Forza Horizon 5 is the copyright of Playground Games, Turn 10 Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Promotional images and artwork courtesy of Xbox and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
On the 15th of November 2001, the original Xbox launched in the United States. That makes today the 20th anniversary of the console and Microsoft’s gaming brand, so I thought we should mark the occasion with a look back! I haven’t yet had the chance to play on an Xbox Series S or X, but I’ve owned an original Xbox, an Xbox 360, and an Xbox One at different points over the past couple of decades so I like to think I’m qualified to comment on the brand!
It’s hard to remember now, especially for younger folks who’ve quite literally grown up with the games industry looking the way it does, but the Xbox was a massive risk for Microsoft in 2001. The games industry at the turn of the millennium felt settled – Nintendo and Sega were the “big boys” and PlayStation had been the new kid on the block, shaking things up as the world of gaming moved from 2D to 3D titles.
Xbox turns 20 today!
For practically all of the 1990s, it had been Japanese games companies – Sega, Nintendo, and Sony – that had dominated the video game hardware market. Challengers from the ’80s like Atari and Commodore represented American manufacturers, but they’d fallen away by the end of the decade leaving the worldwide video game hardware market the sole domain of the Japanese.
I remember reading more than one article in 2001 promising that the Xbox would be an expensive failure for Microsoft, arguing that “no one” was looking for a new console manufacturer at that time. It would be impossible to enter a market where things were already stable, and even with Microsoft’s money, challenging the mighty Sega, Nintendo, and PlayStation was just going to be a waste of time. How wrong is it possible to be, eh? We should all remember articles like those before making big predictions!
Bill Gates unveiled the Xbox and showed the console to the world for the first time in 2001.
The video games industry was far less settled in 2001 than anyone seemed to realise, of course. Sega’s Dreamcast would prove to be such a significant flop that the company ended up shutting down their hardware business altogether, and Nintendo’s GameCube – which also launched in November 2001 – would struggle to compete with the PlayStation 2 and Xbox in terms of sales.
So the market was definitely more receptive to a new entrant than a lot of folks at the time were predicting! But that isn’t why the Xbox succeeded. It helped, of course, that the console was created at a time when Sega was getting out of the way and Nintendo had uncharacteristically faltered. But those external factors weren’t key to the success of the Xbox, and anyone who claims otherwise is doing the console a disservice.
The original Xbox logo.
The Xbox was a great machine. Microsoft had decades of experience in software and plenty of money to boot – they were one of the world’s richest companies even then. Bringing their considerable experience and financial resources to bear led to the creation of a truly world-class machine, one that massively outperformed two of its three competitors in terms of raw processing power and graphical fidelity.
All of those stats would have been meaningless, though, had the console not had a killer lineup of games – and Microsoft delivered there too. Though Microsoft had made some games of their own before 2001, like Age of Empires for example, they didn’t have as much game development experience as the likes of Nintendo and Sony. While development of the Xbox was ongoing, Microsoft worked with a number of third-party developers, signing exclusive contracts and having games built for their new machine from the ground up.
The Xbox was Microsoft’s first video game console.
We can’t talk about the Xbox without talking about its “killer app” – Halo: Combat Evolved. After GoldenEye on the Nintendo 64 had proven that first-person shooters could work well on home consoles, Halo honed the console shooter genre to near-perfection. It was the must-have game of 2001 and 2002, one of the most talked-about and debated titles of the day. Nintendo and PlayStation simply didn’t have anything in reply, and Halo absolutely dominated the conversation going into 2002.
It wasn’t only the first-person shooter genre where Microsoft invested heavily. They contracted a studio called Bizarre Creations – who’d developed a racing game called Metropolis Street Racer for the Dreamcast – to work on an Xbox-exclusive racer: Project Gotham Racing. The game played differently to other racing games at the time – with an emphasis on “kudos” points rather than just winning the race. Project Gotham Racing didn’t quite succeed at eclipsing the likes of the Gran Turismo series on the PlayStation 2, but it was a fun romp nevertheless.
Halo: Combat Evolved was the console’s big launch title.
My personal experience with the original Xbox came in the wake of the Dreamcast’s demise. I’d invested in a Dreamcast as a replacement for my Nintendo 64, but when Sega announced in early 2001 – scarcely a year after its launch – that the Dreamcast would be discontinued and development would cease I knew I’d have to find a new machine again! The Dreamcast was a great console in its own way, but it felt iterative rather than transformative. When I was finally able to upgrade to an Xbox in early 2002 I was blown away by how modern-feeling the machine was.
The control pad – affectionately known as the “Duke” – was the first thing I noticed that was so much better. The addition of a second analogue stick made controlling all kinds of games so much easier and smoother, whether they were racers, shooters, or third-person adventure titles. The black and white buttons were a solid addition too, giving games more options than older control pads on other hardware. The Duke wasn’t wildly popular, though, due to its large size making it heavy and unwieldy for a lot of players. Within a matter of months, Xbox had released the S-controller as an alternative, and that design has stuck. The popular Xbox 360 control pad was based on the S-controller, and the design has remained more or less unchanged since.
The S-controller replaced the Duke – and its design has been honed and refined in the years since.
Some of my favourite gaming experiences of all time took place on the Xbox. I played my first true open-world games on the platform, with titles like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind showing off the console’s power through the size, scale, and density of their worlds – something completely unprecedented at the time. Knights of the Old Republic completely blew me away with its story, and at one point I can vividly remember sitting with the control pad in my hand, mouth open in shock at the way that game’s story unfolded. That’s a moment in gaming – and a moment as a Star Wars fan – that I will never forget!
The Dreamcast had shown me the first game that I felt was genuinely cinematic; a title that would’ve felt at home on the big screen: Shenmue. But that console still had its limitations, and relatively few Dreamcast titles came close to reaching the high bar set by Shenmue. The Xbox feels – at least to me – like the first modern video games console; the first machine to bring together all of the foundational elements of 21st Century gaming.
Knights of the Old Republic was a fantastic Xbox exclusive.
The launch of the Xbox marked a sea change in the video games industry. Sega was getting out of the market, and Microsoft jumped in. Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox would go on to be the two big powerhouses of gaming in the 2000s, settling their status as the decade wore on. It was also around this time that Nintendo stopped focusing on trying to compete with PlayStation and Xbox in terms of raw power and began looking at different ways to play – culminating in the launch of the Wii a few years later.
Twenty years ago the Xbox was seen as a risk. Now, as we look back on two decades of Microsoft’s gaming hardware, it’s patently obvious that it’s a risk that paid off – and then some! As we stumble into another new console generation, Xbox feels like a safe, solid bet. And the brand is, in many ways, just getting started. Xbox Game Pass offers fantastic value as a subscription service right now, and as Microsoft looks to harmonise their console and PC players in a single conjoined system, things are definitely changing for the better for Xbox as a brand. There have been some bumps in the road over the past couple of decades – the rocky launch of the Xbox One and the failure of Kinect being a couple of big ones – but overall, it’s been a success for Microsoft. I knew a lot of people in 2001 who would never have expected to see Xbox as one of the top two gaming platforms twenty years later.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. Xbox and all associated properties are the copyright of Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
It’s been a whole year since the launch of the Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5. The consoles debuted a week apart in early November 2020, and I thought I’d mark the occasion by taking a look back on what has to be considered a pretty rough year for both machines.
At time of writing, both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 are out of stock in the UK – and this has been the case for twelve months. Occasional deliveries of consoles to retailers are either sent out to folks who pre-ordered or are snapped up within minutes of going on sale – often by bots. Availability of the less-powerful Xbox Series S has been spotty, but generally better than its more powerful cousin, which is good news for gamers on a budget. However, availability overall has been poor.
Promotional image of the Xbox Series X.
These aren’t the first machines to launch without the supplies to meet worldwide demand, and it’s likely that they won’t be the last. But as I argued last year, this particular console launch feels far worse and more egregious than practically any other. It’s certainly true that other consoles in the past had supply issues. Getting a Nintendo Wii in the UK in 2006 and into 2007 was difficult, for example. But this feels far worse than that, and when compared to the launches of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in 2013 it’s pretty damn bad.
As we keep hearing on the news, issues with “supply chains” abound across the world, and this was true a year ago as Microsoft and Sony prepared to launch their new consoles. Many components involved in the manufacture of the machines – from silicon to microprocessors – were feeling the pinch due to a number of factors. The pandemic had hit manufacturers in China and Taiwan hard earlier in 2020, but there were also additional pressures from a growing cryptocurrency mining craze that ate up vast numbers of graphics cards and other components. As a result of all of these factors and more, both the Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5 launched with far less availability than necessary.
Two PlayStation 5 editions – with and without a disc drive.
Ever since the transition from 2D to 3D, it’s taken game developers a while to truly get to grips with new hardware and release games that can fully take advantage of the computing power on offer. As a result, for at least a couple of years following the launch of a new console many games are in transition – looking slightly better, perhaps, than the prior generation, but still nowhere near as good as they could. With the diminishing returns on offer considering that Xbox One and PlayStation 4 titles could already look decent, many games released for the two new systems over the past year haven’t really felt new or innovative.
This generation, like the one before it really, will almost certainly go down as an iterative step rather than a transformational one. When consoles from the previous generation could knock out visually-stunning titles like Red Dead Redemption II, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, and Ghost of Tsushima, it really feels like there’s limited room for improvement! Put the average player in a room with the best-looking games of the last generation and some of the first titles from this generation and they’d struggle to tell the difference.
Last generation’s Red Dead Redemption II is a stunningly beautiful game with an expansive open world.
There’s a case to be made that Microsoft and Sony should’ve waited. Rather than letting down their audiences by having totally inadequate supplies, if they’d delayed their releases by a year and used that time to build up stock in anticipation of a bigger launch in 2021, we could be talking about the new consoles releasing this month. It’s still possible that they’d both sell out just like last year – but it’s also possible that the extra manufacturing time, without the pressure of fulfilling pre-orders from increasingly irate customers over the past twelve months, would have led to a better launch window for both consoles.
So I guess that’s where I come down on the issue. The consoles were launched callously by both companies without adequate levels of stock to meet the demand that they knew existed. The predictable outcome has been that scalpers and touts have been re-selling consoles all year long for close to double the recommended retail price, lining their own pockets in the process. It seems as though Sony and Microsoft don’t care about this in the slightest, and they’ve been content to leave the problem of bots and reselling to retailers. Some retailers have tried to put in place mechanisms to prevent bots from buying up every available machine, but as we’ve seen all year long these reactions have been more miss than hit.
A handful of Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles being offered for sale via a popular auction website. Prices are easily approaching twice the recommended retail price for both machines.
In terms of games, both Microsoft and Sony – as well as practically all third-party developers – have pursued a year-long policy of making titles available on last-gen consoles as well as the two new machines. Only a handful of titles have been true exclusives, with PlayStation games like Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart and Returnal carrying their flag. Microsoft fans have to be content with basically no exclusives right now, with games like Forza Horizon 5 and the upcoming Halo Infinite also launching on PC and Xbox One.
Might there be some buyers’ remorse among PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X players? I would think so – especially if they paid over the odds for their console to an eBay scalper. Neither machine feels like particularly good value even at their recommended retail price, let alone at the prices folks have actually had to pay to get their hands on them! The handful of exclusive games are backed up by “enhanced” versions of last-gen titles, but in many cases I’ve genuinely struggled to tell the difference between different consoles’ versions of the same title. The improvements on offer over the past year have come in terms of things like frame rate – jumping to 60fps from 30fps for certain titles – and then in comparatively minor areas like controller battery life. These things are hard sells.
The PlayStation 5 DualSense controller.
There have been some changes over the past year, though. Microsoft’s aggressive pursuit of the Game Pass model represents great value for players on a budget, opening up an entire library of titles for a relatively low monthly fee. Sony still hasn’t caught up and doesn’t have a functional Game Pass competitor yet. Both companies have also made big moves into supporting PC gaming – with games that were once PlayStation exclusives making their way to a new platform. In lieu of having enough PlayStation 5 consoles to sell, perhaps that’s something of a consolation prize for Sony!
Overall, I can’t even be generous enough to call the past year a “mixed bag.” There are far more negatives than positives as I see it, and unless both companies can get to grips with the supply and demand issue, this Christmas will be the second in a row where folks are either going to have to pay silly money for a new console or go without. That isn’t a good look, and the longer these problems drag on the worse it will get for the reputations of both Sony and Microsoft.
Last year I felt that it was wrong to launch the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X given the low levels of stock and the myriad other issues that a pandemic-riddled world was facing. The past twelve months have done nothing to change my mind or convince me I was wrong about that. Inadequate manufacturing capacity has kept both consoles out of too many players’ hands, and those who did succeed at getting a pre-order – or more likely who paid close to double the price to a scalper – have found a perishingly small number of exclusive games on a machine that doesn’t feel like much of an improvement over the last generation. The Xbox Series S/X and the PlayStation 5 have potential – but over the past twelve months, neither have come close to reaching it.
Xbox and all other related properties mentioned above is the copyright of Microsoft. PlayStation and all other related properties mentioned above is the copyright of Sony. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only is not intended to cause any offence.
The Forza Motorsport series – and its Forza Horizon companion – is Microsoft and Xbox’s answer to PlayStation’s long-running Gran Turismo, and also competes well against other racing sims like Project CARS, Assetto Corsa, and many more. The games are Xbox and PC exclusives, which makes perfect sense because their developers, Playground Games and Turn 10 Studios, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Microsoft, and the games are published under the Xbox Game Studios brand. So why, then, is Forza Motorsport 7 about to be removed from Xbox Game Pass and pulled from sale altogether?
Forza Motorsport 7 is less than four years old, having been released in October 2017. Yet for some reason the game will soon be unavailable to purchase or to play via Game Pass, effectively killing the game and reducing it to a single-player experience for those who purchased it ahead of its imminent withdrawal date. I only spotted this a couple of days ago on the Xbox Game Pass for PC app, but I felt compelled to comment.
How has Microsoft managed to lose Forza Motorsport 7 (far right) from Game Pass?
To say that all of this struck me as odd would be an understatement. Xbox Game Pass does periodically lose games, and to be fair to Microsoft and Xbox these are always announced ahead of time as has been the case with Forza Motorsport 7. But the games that tend to disappear from the service have thus far been third-party titles, and usually unimportant, smaller, older, or indie games rather than major titles. This is the first time I’ve seen a major Microsoft-published title by a Microsoft-owned studio disappear, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who wanted to figure out why this has happened.
The reason, according to Turn 10 Studios, has to do with licensing. Specifically the licenses they hold for certain vehicles and racetracks are set to expire, and when they do the game will no longer be able to be sold. Rather than pay more money to update or extend their license agreements, evidently the decision has been taken to shut down the game, remove it from Game Pass, and pull it from sale altogether.
Forza Motorsport 7 features a number of different real-world cars and racetracks – the licenses for which are apparently due to expire.
This technical, legalistic reason makes perfect sense – but it shows how ill-prepared Turn 10 Studios and Xbox Game Studios have been. This should never have happened; they should never have been caught out with such short-term licenses in the first place. There have been other occasions where games have had licensing issues – the remake of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater, for example. But in every other case that I can recall, the licenses involved were musical tracks and songs featured on the game’s soundtrack, not something as integral to the game as the vehicles and racetracks themselves.
Many other racing games remain available despite being far older than Forza Motorsport 7. The aforementioned Project CARS (2015) and Assetto Corsa (2014), along with titles like F1 2014 (2014), Dirt Rally (2015), NASCAR Heat Evolution (2015), and even titles like Euro Truck Simulator 2 (2012) all use real-world vehicles and racetracks, and are still on sale at time of writing despite being older than Forza Motorsport 7. Is Microsoft skimping out on paying for longer licenses for cars and racetracks compared with other companies? That seems to be the obvious conclusion.
Older racing titles, like F1 2014, are still on sale.
In some ways, this is a reflection of gaming as a whole moving away from the “buy it and own it” model to a subscription-based model. Just like Netflix periodically loses films or television series from its service, so too will Game Pass. That’s kind of priced into the scheme when we sign up; we know that any title could be removed at any time pending license agreements on the service’s side, and that’s generally okay. Most folks are still happy with the content Netflix or Game Pass can provide, so the price is worth it.
But Game Pass losing Forza Motorsport 7 – one of Microsoft’s own titles developed and published by its own subsidiaries – is akin to Netflix losing The Witcher or Paramount+ losing ten of the eleven Star Trek films that it had… oh wait, that one already happened because ViacomCBS is pathetic at managing its own brands. But you see my point, right? The one sure thing that subscribers have when they pay for a subscription is that a company’s own titles will be available, and Microsoft has violated what feels like the only “golden rule” of these kinds of subscription services.
I hope you’ve played Forza Motorsport 7 if you wanted to, because it’ll be gone in a matter of days…
Are there mitigating circumstances? Sure. Does that excuse the loss of Forza Motorsport 7 from Game Pass? Absolutely not. If vehicle and/or racetrack licensing agreements are the issue, Microsoft should’ve done better at negotiating those licenses in the first place, or at the very least made sure that they had licensing agreements in place for longer than three-and-a-bit years. There are newer racing sims to play, for sure, but Forza Motorsport 7 simply isn’t that old. To see it removed from sale altogether after having had such a short shelf life just feels wrong.
Though Forza Horizon 5 is coming up before the end of the year, the Horizon series is a fundamentally different one; arcade-style racing to Motorsport’s simulation-oriented approach. Without Forza Motorsport 7 Game Pass won’t have a racing sim at all. It’s got F1 2019 and MotoGP 2020, but those are both much more specialised titles with limited appeal. With no new Motorsport game coming imminently, fans of this kind of racing sim will be missing out if they play on Xbox or PC, and the Game Pass service will be noticeably worse for its absence.
Xbox Game Pass will be worse for this decision.
The pace of game development has definitely slowed over the last decade, with big AAA games taking longer to make than ever before. That’s certainly a factor here; a decade ago or more we’d almost certainly have expected to see a new racing sim ready to take Forza Motorsport 7′s place. But as we enter an era of subscription services, companies need to be on the ball when it comes to these things, and ensure that they have longer licenses to make certain their games last as long as possible.
Game Pass is still good value, in my opinion, considering the sheer number of titles available. For players on a limited budget it still feels like a service that has a lot to offer. But slip-ups like this will end up costing Microsoft in the long run if they aren’t careful. Losing a third-party title might be forgiven, even if a game was popular. But losing one of their own games for a totally avoidable reason and with no like-for-like replacement is poor, and it diminishes Game Pass and the service’s reputation. Hopefully Microsoft will learn the lesson here and ensure that Forza Motorsport 8 doesn’t suffer the same ignominious fate a few years down the line.
The Forza series – including Forza Motorsport 7 and all titles mentioned above – is the copyright of Turn 10 Studios, Playground Games, and Xbox Game Studios. Other titles copyright of their respective developers, owners, and/or publishers. Some promotional screenshots used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Starfield.
The in-engine teaser trailer for upcoming space-themed role-playing game Starfield was a bit of a let-down at E3 back in June. There’d been a lot of hype and rumours before the event that something big was coming from Bethesda and that we’d get our first major look at the game, so to only see a highly stylised teaser that might as well have been totally “fake” wasn’t the best. But the company has recently put out three new mini-trailers showing off three of the locations in Starfield, as well as dropping some more tidbits of information about the game, so I thought we could take a look at what’s been revealed and start to get excited!
Remember, though, that too much hype can be a bad thing! Just look at the disastrous Cyberpunk 2077 as a case in point. As fun as some of these bits of Starfield news may seem, it’s worth keeping in mind that we haven’t yet had a real look at the game itself. And as much as I hate to be too negative, Bethesda doesn’t exactly have a good track record in recent years when it comes to big releases. Their overreliance on a massively out-of-date game engine is also a concern. But Starfield is still over a year away, so hopefully there’s enough time to iron out all of the issues!
With that caveat out of the way, let’s take a look at what we’ve learned about Starfield since E3 – with a healthy pinch of speculation and guesswork thrown in for good measure!
Promotional artwork for Starfield.
The United Colonies is described as “the most powerful established military and political faction in the game.” Their capital city – or capital planet, not sure how best to describe it! – looks like a futuristic Dubai or New York City; a wealthy, clean megacity. This is the city of New Atlantis, and it’s described as being a “melting pot” of different peoples.
The “melting pot” reference is clearly meant to give the city and the faction an American vibe; the United States often likes to see itself as a mixture of cultures. But it could also mean that the United Colonies is akin to something like Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets – semi-independent cultures and worlds co-existing, perhaps under some looser federal form of government.
Concept art of New Atlantis (with a starship in the foreground).
I could be way off base with this, but it seems like the United Colonies isn’t going to be an evil or villainous faction. I didn’t get the sense that this was something like Star Wars’ Empire or First Order, but the fact that it’s described as being powerful – and with a strong military to boot – could mean that the player character is operating outside of the law, or that large parts of the game take place in areas beyond the United Colonies’ jurisdiction.
There were trees on New Atlantis, so the United Colonies clearly have some respect for greenery and the environment – even if just for aesthetic reasons. This is also something I think we can assume to be positive, as at least New Atlantis doesn’t have that overly industrialised, dystopian feel of some sci-fi megacities.
Concept art of New Atlantis showing a couple of trees!
If I were to hazard a guess I’d say that only parts of New Atlantis will be able to be explored and visited. The teaser image depicted a huge building complex with more buildings and lights in the distance, but it seems like making all of that part of the map might be too difficult to pull off; the last thing any of us want is a bland, mostly empty map that’s superficially large but has nothing going on or no one to interact with (looking at you, Fallout 76). New Atlantis was specifically mentioned in the context of a spaceport, so perhaps the spaceport and surrounding area will be able to be visited.
Going all the way back to 1994’s Arena, Bethesda has created contiguous open worlds – that is, game worlds that are one large, single space. There have been examples where smaller areas branched off from the larger game world – such as Morrowind’s expansion pack Tribunal, for example. But by and large we’re talking about single open worlds. Starfield, with different planets to visit and a spaceship being used to travel between them, seems like it will be a game where the game world is broken into smaller chunks. Some of these planets may be quite large, but the concept represents a change from the way Bethesda has worked in the past.
Large open worlds have been a Bethesda hallmark since 1994’s Arena.
Moving away from the United Colonies brings us to Neon, a watery planet with a facility run by the Xenofresh Corporation. This floating city resembles a large oil rig, and although the upper levels look well-lit and probably quite wealthy, I wonder if the lower levels of the platform might be home to the kind of sci-fi dystopia that didn’t seem to be present on New Atlantis!
The backstory of Neon was interesting – and perhaps the closest we’ve got so far to any “lore” of Starfield. The Xenofresh Corporation established Neon as a fishing platform, but soon stumbled upon a drug called “aurora” that they used to turn Neon into a pleasure city. Neon clearly operates outside of the jurisdiction of the United Colonies, and is the only place where this drug is legal.
Concept art of the floating city of Neon.
Previous Bethesda games allowed players to take drugs and drink alcohol, complete with screen-wobbling consequences! I can’t imagine that the developers would mention this aurora drug at this stage if players weren’t going to be able to try it for themselves in-game, so I think we can be pretty confident that aurora will play some role in the game’s story. Perhaps smuggling it from Neon to planets where it’s illegal will be an option for players to make some extra cash! Neon also gave me vibes of Star Trek: Picard’s Freecloud – a similarly independent, pleasure-centric world.
The final location shown off was Akila. The Freestar Collective, of which Akila is the capital, is described as “a loose confederation of three distinct star systems.” Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but singling out the word “confederation” could indicate that this faction is villainous or adversarial. The Confederacy or Confederate States was the official name for the pro-slavery southern states that seceded in 1860-61, instigating the American Civil War. We’ve also seen the name “Confederacy” used in Star Wars, where the Confederacy of Independent Systems was the antagonist faction in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.
Concept art of Akila, a city in the mountains.
Perhaps I have recent news reports on the brain, but something about the concept art for Akila reminded me of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan. The mountainous terrain, smaller buildings, and hooded or cloaked figures all gave me the impression of that kind of settlement. Perhaps a better analogy, though, would be a Wild West frontier town, and this is reinforced by the narrator saying that all of the people in the Freestar Collective place a strong emphasis on personal freedom and liberty. The whole faction seems very libertarian, then!
Akila was definitely the most Star Wars-seeming settlement, and there are several locales from the Star Wars franchise that Bethesda may have used for inspiration here. It was on this planet that we learned about the first confirmed alien enemy – the ashta, described as being a mix between “a wolf and a velociraptor.” Yikes! As above, there’s no way this critter would be mentioned at this stage if it wasn’t going to be something players could interact with, and like other iconic Bethesda open-world monsters like Fallout’s deathclaw or The Elder Scrolls’ slaughterfish, I think this is something we’re going to do battle with!
A closer look at some of the people and buildings in Akila.
So we know of three locations, each of which is controlled by a different faction. Presumably the Freestar Collective has at least two other planets under its control, as the narration specifically mentioned that the faction controls three star systems. Whether all three will be able to be visited or not is not clear, so I guess watch this space!
The Xenofresh Corporation could easily be in control of more worlds or settlements; I got the impression that it was the kind of mega-corporation that we often see in sci-fi, and thus it seems plausible that it controls holdings on other planets as well as its settlement of Neon.
The United Colonies would seem to be the most widespread and populous faction, but if players are potentially operating outside of its jurisdiction we may not get to visit all of the worlds that make up the United Colonies.
Is the United Colonies going to be similar to Star Trek’s Federation?
Then there’s the player’s faction or group – the organisation called Constellation, described as “the last group of space explorers.” The ship shown in the E3 teaser appears to belong to this group, so it’s assumed that the player will have some kind of relationship with them as well. If this faction is interested in exploration, they may not have a large settlement or permanent colony – but that’s pure speculation!
So that’s it for now. Starfield is still on course for a November ’22 release, but it goes without saying that that’s subject to change at any point between now and then. I’m tentatively looking forward to it, and nothing we’ve seen or heard so far has been offputting. If anything, these little teases are intriguing and make me want to learn more about the game, its backstory, and its factions and locales. I’m a little surprised that Bethesda didn’t include some of these details at E3; it would’ve been more impressive to give players a bit more information about the game rather than just sharing that stylised teaser trailer, and none of what’s recently been revealed seems like it couldn’t have been included a couple of months ago. This is all just backstory and concept art – things Bethesda certainly had at the time. But regardless, we’ve got another little tease of Starfield to pore over!
Starfield will be released on the 11th of November 2022 for PC and Xbox Series S/X. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios and Microsoft. Concept art featured above courtesy of Bethesda Game Studios and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Alert: There are minor spoilers ahead for several of the games shown off at this year’s E3.
E3 2021 is over, and it was an interesting long weekend of games and gaming! I’m sure some people will come away disappointed – a lot of the games that were shown off aren’t being released imminently, with many of the bigger, most-anticipated titles not being launched until 2022. But overall, I had a good time. Because E3 was all-digital this year, the presentations were slicker and smoother, and while there were a couple of cringeworthy moments as presenters and CEOs were clearly talking to an empty room instead of a crowded auditorium, on the whole I think E3 benefits when the public stays away!
I mentioned this last year when Electronic Arts had their big annual presentation, but digital events really feel like the future. Live events have the potential to go wrong – very wrong, in some cases – and also drag on a lot longer. E3 this year was more concise, and several of the big presentations packed a lot of games into their hour or two. Though this is still a pandemic-riddled world, and that’s why E3 has gone digital this time around, I won’t be shocked to learn that future years will keep this kind of format.
With Sony skipping E3, Microsoft dominated proceedings. A number of big Xbox exclusives were shown off, and with the eyes of the world on the games industry in a way that seldom happens, I wonder if Sony will come to see the decision to stand alone as a mistake. There will be a Sony event later in the year – perhaps even this summer – but having missed the party at E3, Microsoft will come away dominating the gaming headlines in the days and weeks ahead.
Pandemic-related delays continue to afflict the industry, and some of the bigger titles shown off won’t hit shelves until next year at the earliest. Despite that, however, there are still big games coming out in the next few months – hopefully enough to tide us over until 2022! Though I didn’t subject myself to every minute of the presentations and chatter, I had fun with this year’s E3. It was generally well done, with plenty of exciting upcoming games to talk about – which is the point, after all.
Let’s take a look at my E3 roundup. I’ve picked out twenty games that I considered to be the most interesting (or the biggest) from this year’s E3. Here they are – in no particular order!
Number 1: Forza Horizon 5
Forza Horizon 4 was the game that tempted me to sign up for Xbox Game Pass last year, so I’m definitely going to take a look at the next game in this fun racing series when it’s ready. Forza Horizon 5 will see the action jump to Mexico, using a similar semi-open world to the previous game, with different types of races, a multitude of cars to choose from, and a focus on a more arcade style of racing over the simulation of the mainline Forza Motorsport titles.
Forza has grown from humble beginnings to become Microsoft’s answer to Gran Turismo, and a fine addition to the Xbox and PC lineup. Mexico is an interesting idea for a setting, and it seems like there will be plenty of dusty deserts and paradise-like tropical beaches to race around. Racing games always manage to look fantastic, and Forza Horizon 5 was definitely one of the prettiest games on show at this year’s E3.
Number 2: Avatar – Frontiers of Pandora
This one was a surprise; I don’t think anyone had it on their radar! Avatar – Frontiers of Pandora was shown off during Ubisoft’s presentation, and was really the highlight of what was otherwise a dull hour populated by updates, expansions, and sequels. The game is due for release next year, which is also when the first of four sequels to 2009’s Avatar is scheduled to hit cinemas. It doesn’t seem like the first-person action game will be a direct adaptation of the film – at least, that’s the impression I got – but the timing can’t be coincidental!
Despite Avatar becoming the highest-grossing film of all time when it was released, more than a decade later it’s not unfair to say that it hasn’t made a huge impact in the cultural landscape, even within the sci-fi genre. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say Avatar has been largely eclipsed by titles released in the decade since, and is almost forgotten at this point. Commissioning what looks to be a big-budget video game of this kind is a bit of a risk under those circumstances, but it seems like it has potential – and the Avatar sequels may succeed at establishing the basis for an ongoing franchise of which this game could be a big part. We’ll have to wait and see! So we can add this one to the pile of games I’m tentatively excited about.
Number 3: Starfield
I was rather surprised to see so little of Starfield – even though its “in engine” trailer was well put-together, and it was certainly our biggest look so far at a game Bethesda chief executive Todd Howard described as both “a new universe” and something set in the future, I had expected to see more actual gameplay. Considering Starfield is still a year and a half away, perhaps the game just wasn’t ready for a more in-depth look.
What we saw was interesting, though. Starfield seems to be doing something superficially similar to television series like The Expanse in the way it handles its spacecraft – a combination of modern military, industrial, and astronaut aesthetics seemed present in the design and layout of the ship we saw in the trailer. I quite like that style, it arguably gives stories a semi-realistic feel when compared to the likes of Star Trek or Star Wars, which both rely on technobabble and fictional technologies. Spaceships in Starfield are said to be fuelled by helium-3 – a real-world substance that can be used for spacecraft fuel.
But, of course, this is the studio that brought us The Elder Scrolls and the modern Fallout games, so it won’t just be a realistic spaceflight simulator! It seems as though there will be exploration involved, as well as encountering alien races!
As I predicted, Starfield will be exclusive to Xbox and PC following Bethesda’s acquisition by Microsoft. This seemed patently obvious to me, but doubtless some PlayStation fans will still be disappointed.
Number 4: Elden Ring
Upcoming hack-and-slash title Elden Ring was one of the first games shown off this year, debuting on Thursday as part of the “Summer Games Fest” presentation. I stated in my preview of E3 that Elden Ring might not be the kind of game I’m interested in, personally speaking… and having seen more of it I can now say that with certainty!
If you’re looking forward to Elden Ring, that’s fantastic. I have no doubt that for fans of certain genres it will be a fun time – but as someone who doesn’t much care for the “extreme difficulty” hack-and-slash gameplay of other FromSoftware titles, this is one I’m going to skip. Nothing in the trailer – from its dark, bland colour palette to its monsters that looked like they’ve been copied and pasted straight from one of the Dark Souls games – appealed to me, and you could’ve told me this was Dark Souls 4 and I’d have believed it.
The involvement of author George R. R. Martin did admittedly pique my curiosity when the game was first announced, and I have no doubt his input will help craft a fantasy setting that is, at the very least, interesting. But that’s about the nicest thing I can say about Elden Ring. It might have an interesting setting with enjoyable lore. Everything else about it makes it look like a game I’ll happily skip.
Number 5: Sea of Thieves crossover with Pirates of the Caribbean
What?! What on Earth did I just see? This crossover between Rare’s multiplayer pirate game Sea of Thieves and Captain Jack Sparrow from Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean looks utterly bonkers, and was a total surprise. Multiplayer generally isn’t my thing, as you may know, so I haven’t played much of Sea of Thieves. But this crossover looks like a blast, and I’m sure fans of the game will have a lot of fun.
Sea of Thieves underwhelmed when it launched in 2018, with criticism for feeling rather barebones. But in the three years since launch, developers Rare have added a lot of new content, and the general consensus seems to be that the game is in a good place in 2021. This crossover with Pirates of the Caribbean will surely bring in a lot of new players, and it looks set to give Sea of Thieves a significant boost.
Number 6: The Outer Worlds 2
The Outer Worlds 2 wins the award for “funniest trailer!” Other than a very early tease at the fact that the game exists, we don’t know much at all about the sequel to Oblivion’s 2019 role-playing game. The Outer Worlds drew positive comparisons to the Fallout franchise; Oblivion having made Fallout: New Vegas a few years earlier. With Fallout 76 floundering, The Outer Worlds was talked up as a kind of spiritual successor. I think that description sells it short – The Outer Worlds is its own thing. And now a sequel is on the way which will hopefully be just as much fun and expand the world that the first game created.
As with a number of big, hyped-up titles this year, The Outer Worlds 2 isn’t coming any time soon. However, knowledge of its existence might be enough to tide fans over until its eventual release.
Number 7: Battlefield 2042
So many games nowadays are ditching their single-player campaigns to focus entirely on multiplayer, and Battlefield 2042 is the latest to do so. Sometimes it feels as though games companies are deliberately making shorter and less interesting campaigns, so that when fewer people play them they can say “see, no one wants a single-player mode! That’s why we didn’t make one!”
Battlefield 2042 was shown off with a very slick cinematic trailer, before showing off proper gameplay during Microsoft’s presentation a couple of days later. The gameplay looks… fine. If you like the Battlefield series, I daresay you’ll find this game familiar and enjoyable when it releases later in the year. Following on from 2006’s Battlefield 2142, as well as the likes of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and even Arma III, Battlefield 2042 is taking a near-future setting that will likely allow for a degree of creativity on the part of developers Dice.
In that regard I have to say I like the diversity of settings on offer from modern shooters. Long gone are the days when everything was either sci-fi or World War II, and after the most recent entries in the series looked at World War I and World War II it makes sense to change things up and give fans a different experience. This won’t be one I dive into, but it looks like a solid shooter for folks into that kind of thing.
Number 8: Age of Empires IV
We’ve known for a while that Age of Empires IV has been in the works, but E3 finally gave us a release date: the 28th of October. I’ve had a great time with the remastered Age of Empires games over the last few years, but the initial teaser for Age of Empires IV a few months ago left me distinctly underwhelmed. The game just looked incredibly outdated, and I was genuinely worried for its prospects.
The E3 trailer, however, looked a heck of a lot better. Though Age of Empires IV will be taking a different approach to past games, and will feature fewer factions at launch, it has potential, and I shall certainly give it a try when it arrives on Game Pass this autumn. The original Age of Empires and its Rise of Rome expansion were two of my most-played games of the late 1990s/early 2000s and cemented my love of the real-time strategy genre. After successful remakes of those classic games, it’ll be great to welcome the Age of Empires series to the modern day!
Number 9: Mario Party Superstars
The Nintendo Direct broadcast began with a far-too-long look at a single new Super Smash Bros. Ultimate character that really dragged. After that weak start, however, there were a couple of interesting announcements. Mario Party Superstars is probably the one that seemed most exciting to me, as it will be bringing back boards and mini-games from the Mario Party games of the Nintendo 64 era. I have fond memories of playing the original Mario Party with friends on the N64, so this new game seems like it has the potential to be a wonderful blast of nostalgia.
There is already a Mario Party game on the Nintendo Switch, of course, and at first it seemed as though Superstars was simply going to be an expansion for that title. However, it’s a standalone game instead, and is going to be retailing for full price (£50 in the UK). That seems a bit steep to me, and it might end up putting people off. But the idea is interesting, and I’ll be curious to see how Mario Party Superstars does.
Number 10: Chivalry II
Chivalry II is already out – it launched last week. But E3 provided developers Torn Banner Studios another opportunity to plug the game, and they seized it! The game is a medieval combat multiplayer title, with players jumping into large-scale battles with dozens of others. There are a variety of different game modes, including sieges, pitched battles, and others, and despite the fact that I’m not much of a multiplayer gamer, I have to say that the fast-paced hacking and slashing looks like fun!
In a multiplayer scene dominated by first-person shooters, Chivalry II is something different. Stepping back in time to the medieval era, and arming players with swords, shields, bows, and battle-axes instead of guns and rocket launchers really does feel like a breath of fresh air. It’s likely going to remain a fairly niche game by multiplayer standards, but that’s okay. It looks like fun, and maybe I’ll be convinced to check it out some time soon.
Number 11: Shredders
I like winter time and winter-themed titles – especially when it’s summer and there’s a heatwave going on! Shredders will be an Xbox/PC exclusive snowboarding game, and it’s due for release in time for Christmas. The game looked stunning, with great visuals and a snow effect that looked incredibly realistic. The trailer was very cinematic, though, so I’ll wait to see how good the finished product looks in comparison!
There have been some great snowboarding and winter sports games over the years, and I remember games like 1080° Snowboarding on the Nintendo 64 and SSX Tricky in the Xbox days with fondness. Shredders looks to be cut from the same cloth as those older titles, so perhaps it’ll be just as much fun when it’s released this winter.
Number 12: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild II
Regular readers may recall that I haven’t played Breath of the Wild – nor indeed any Zelda game. But fans have been clamouring for a sequel to the 2017 Switch launch title ever since it was released, and Nintendo has been hard at work on Breath of the Wild II (real title unknown!) for some time now. We finally got a look at the game at E3.
It looks like… Breath of the Wild. If you liked the first game, what we saw at E3 should be encouraging because it looks very much like more of the same. Link may have new abilities or new weapons, and of course there’ll be new monsters to fight and a new story. But in terms of visuals and the way the game seems to be played, there’s nothing earth-shattering or radically different from the last game.
Number 13: Redfall
I like Redfall’s visual style. The cartoon-inspired art style takes what could’ve been a horror title, featuring a vampire apocalypse, and turns it into something more fun and casual. Billing itself as a team or co-op shooter, Redfall stars a unique cast of characters tasked with fighting off vampires. It’s a game made by Arkane, the studio best-known for the Dishonored duology, as well as a personal favourite of mine from the Xbox era, Arx Fatalis.
Redfall looks to build on the studio’s work with the Dishonored games, but at the same time will take a different approach. It’s definitely one to watch, and I like the idea of using vampires in this way. Vampires in entertainment often follow the Dracula model: one or two very powerful enemies to outsmart and defeat. Television series The Strain stepped away from that and gave us a vampire apocalypse – and it looks like Redfall will try to do something similar in its own unique way.
Number 14: Super Monkey Ball: Banana Mania
Super Monkey Ball has always been a niche product, even by Nintendo’s cartoony standards! But there’s no denying that the original game was a lot of fun, and with the series hitting its 20th anniversary this year, Nintendo evidently felt that the time was right for a remaster. That’s what Banana Mania is, in case the trailer wasn’t clear – a remaster of the first three Super Monkey Ball games.
I don’t really have a lot more to say about this one. If you like Monkey Ball games, you’ll probably like Banana Mania when it launches on Switch.
Number 15: Bear & Breakfast
One of the few indie games to really shine at E3 this year was Bear & Breakfast. In short, you run a bed and breakfast (i.e. a small-scale hotel) in a forest. But you’re a bear. That’s the gimmick. The art style looks cute, the premise sounds like fun, and I liked the trailer that new developer Gummy Cat put together. I got kind of a Stardew Valley vibe from Bear & Breakfast, which is certainly no bad thing.
All I can really say is that I like this kind of management/tycoon game, and the uniqueness of the premise, combined with the neat visual style, makes Bear & Breakfast appealing to me. There’s currently no release date, but the developer hopes to have the game ready before the end of this year.
Number 16: Grounded
Grounded is currently out in early access (or a “game preview” as Microsoft calls it). For that reason I haven’t checked it out; early access games are hit-and-miss, with far more misses than hits in my experience. But developers Obsidian have been working hard on this Honey, I Shrunk The Kids-inspired title, and a new update to the game looks to add a lot more content.
Though I’m probably still going to wait until Grounded is ready for prime-time, I love the premise of being shrunk down and playing in the grass. There used to be a Disney World attraction based on the 1989 film in which you could walk through an area of the park where grass and everyday items were scaled-up to huge sizes. Grounded reminds me of that!
Number 17: Halo Infinite
We already knew Halo Infinite was in development, but after a disappointing trailer left fans upset last year, the game didn’t launch alongside the Xbox Series X in November. We got to see a little more of the game at E3, and Microsoft dropped the big news that the game’s multiplayer mode will be free-to-play. This is definitely an interesting development, but the only thing I could think was that most Xbox Series X players will already be interested in the Halo series… so I’m not sure that making the multiplayer free will see Halo Infinite pick up a lot more players! But free things are always nice.
The game has definitely been polished since last year’s controversy, and the graphics look decent. The Master Chief’s return after a long absence will definitely be attractive to fans of the series, and with a Halo television show also in production, it seems like the Halo brand is about to undergo a renaissance after a decade in which it arguably underperformed.
Though the Halo series has been a flagship for Xbox, the sheer number of other games on offer as Microsoft snaps up studios and pushes Game Pass hard makes it feel a little less relevant in 2021. Halo Infinite is shaping up to be a good game – but Xbox’s success is no longer as closely-tied to the series as it once was.
Number 18: Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Zombies have been overdone in the last few years, with so many open-world zombie horror games that the industry is more or less burned out on the concept. Dying Light 2, which fans of the original game have been anticipating since 2015, has a mountain to climb, then – but there are positive signs.
There will be no guns in Dying Light 2, with players having to make use of crafted melee weapons in the post-apocalyptic city they find themselves in. There will likewise be no vehicles – the in-universe explanation being that there is no fuel any more, since the zombie virus devastated the world. Both of those semi-realistic concepts feel like they add value to a genre that’s otherwise played out, and Dying Light 2, with its interesting parkour-based movement system carried over from the first game, may have found a niche that will bring players back.
Number 19: Rainbow Six Extraction
I enjoyed Rainbow Six in the early 2000s, and I had the first couple of games in the series on Dreamcast. Rainbow Six Siege was never my thing; a multiplayer live service just held no appeal. And though Extraction brings back characters from Siege, it does so in a very different way. With a focus on cooperative play as opposed to competitive, and with an interesting-sounding premise involving an alien parasite, Extraction has all the elements in place for a fun experience.
Some have criticised the decision to take the previously straight-laced action series in a different direction, but I think there’s a lot of potential in a series like Rainbow Six trying something new. Siege was something new itself when it launched in 2015; the series had previously been a story-centric game with a main campaign, not a multiplayer one. So let’s see what Extraction brings to the table when it launches in September.
Number 20: Slime Rancher 2
One of the most colourful and vibrant games shown off at E3, Slime Rancher 2 is the sequel to 2016’s Slime Rancher, a first-person farming/life simulator. Though we didn’t see much in the way of gameplay – nor even get any significant details – I assume at this stage that the game will take the same premise as the original title and build on it.
Expect to see more of the same, but with new varieties of slimes and perhaps some new crafting or character abilities as well. It looks like fun, and will be released in 2022.
Notable absences:
Before we wrap things up I wanted to mention a few games that were notable by their absence at E3. Though there were plenty of titles we did get to see – the list above is nowhere near comprehensive – there were some titles I was hoping or expecting to hear news of that didn’t appear for one reason or another.
Anything from the Star Wars franchise:
There had been rumours earlier in the year of a Knights of the Old Republic sequel. There’s also Jedi: Fallen Order II (though that’s an EA game, and EA didn’t have a presentation at E3 this year) and Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga, which has been delayed multiple times. With so much new content to come from Star Wars, and with the brand ditching its exclusive arrangement with EA, I’m sure there must be more video games in the works. I genuinely expected to hear something about at least one of them!
Grand Theft Auto 6:
Still radio-silence on this from Rockstar, despite Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two Interactive having a slot at this year’s E3. We don’t even know for certain that Grand Theft Auto 6 will be Rockstar’s next big game, and with the recent announcement of a port of Grand Theft Auto V to new consoles, it seems like they’re planning to continue to milk that 2013 title for as long as possible. Disappointing.
Mario Kart 9:
As soon as Nintendo said, in the first minute of their broadcast, that they would be focusing on games releasing this year I was sure we wouldn’t see Mario Kart 9! The series’ 30th anniversary is next year, and in my opinion 2022 remains the most likely release date for the next entry in the Mario Kart series. Despite that, however, before E3 I felt there was the potential for the game to be announced in order to begin to get fans hyped up.
So that’s it.
With Sony and PlayStation being absent, Microsoft and Xbox dominated proceedings. Nintendo showed off a collection of smaller games that will be of note to their existing fans, but their biggest releases – like Breath of the Wild II and the next Metroid Prime title – are still a long way off. There were plenty of interesting games, though – far more than I’ll ever be able to play!
E3 worked well in this stripped-down, audience-free format. I hope they decide to stick with it going forward, even when the pandemic settles and in-person events are okay again. I just found the whole thing much simpler and more enjoyable, with less of a focus on presenters and staging and more of a focus on the thing we all care about: games.
The games I found most interesting are listed above, but there were many more shown off as well. Practically all of the trailers are now online on YouTube and similar websites, so take a look. I’m sure there’s something for everyone!
All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional art courtesy of Xbox, IGDB and/or E3. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers present for the following games: Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, Knights of the Old Republic I & II, Mass Effect 3, and Mass Effect: Legendary Edition.
After taking a year off in 2020, the Electronic Entertainment Expo – better known as E3 – is returning later this month. In fact, many large games companies have events or announcements scheduled for June, meaning we could be in for practically an entire month of previews, trailers, teasers, and demos for a number of great upcoming titles. This time I thought it could be fun to look ahead to E3 – and other June events – and maybe make a few predictions about what we might see! There might also be a few wishes or fantasies thrown in as well!
From Microsoft and Electronic Arts to Nintendo and Ubisoft, practically all of the big names in the games industry will have something to say over the next few weeks. Much of the attention will be focused on this year’s digital E3 event, which officially takes place from the 12th to the 15th of June, but I think we can expect other big announcements outside of those dates as well.
My usual caveat applies: I have no “insider information.” Today’s list is nothing more than guesswork and speculation, with a fair amount of hoping and fantasising thrown in for good measure! With that out of the way, let’s take a look at some of my predictions (and wishes) for what we might see at this year’s E3!
Number 1: Starfield
Teaser logo for Starfield.
Bethesda’s next game has been common knowledge for years, and even while they’ve been working on Fallout 76 and porting Skyrim to smart fridges, development on this sci-fi role-playing game has continued. Rumour has it that Starfield is now edging closer to being complete, and it’s possible we could even see a release date announced at E3 – maybe even for later this year or the first half of next year.
Other than a sci-fi setting that may include some degree of space travel, actual information about Starfield has been hard to come by. The disappointment of Fallout 76, and Bethesda’s refusal to consider developing or licensing a new game engine to replace the outdated Gamebryo/Creation Engine that they’ve used for more than two decades, leaves me at least a little anxious about Starfield’s prospects, with any hype or excitement I might’ve felt at the latest big Bethesda release replaced by cautious interest. However, there’s potential in Starfield, and I hope that we’ll get a fantastic game.
Microsoft now owns Bethesda and all its current and upcoming games.
If Bethesda hadn’t learned their lesson following the calamitous launch of Fallout 76, December’s Cyberpunk 2077 catastrophe should serve as another reminder that players simply will not tolerate a broken, unfinished, “release now, fix later” mess. So as interested as I am to see Starfield, I’d very much rather that it was delayed if needs be. It would be great to see it at E3 and begin to get excited for its release, but only if it’s ready!
Bethesda has recently been acquired by Microsoft in a multi-billion dollar deal, so Starfield will almost certainly be announced as an Xbox and PC exclusive. Sorry PlayStation fans!
Number 2: Mario Kart 9
Is a new Mario Kart game coming soon?
I’ve talked about the possibility of a new Mario Kart game several times over the past few months here on the website, and the reason is simple: next year will be the Mario Kart series’ 30th anniversary. Nintendo loves to make a big deal of anniversaries, as we saw just a few months ago with the 35th anniversary of Super Mario. Although nothing is confirmed and I should point out that we don’t even know for sure that Mario Kart 9 is in development, putting the pieces together makes this one seem at least plausible!
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has been the best-selling game on Nintendo Switch since it arrived on the platform, but it’s only a port of a Wii U game from 2014. After more than seven years, this is the longest dry spell the Mario Kart series has ever endured, and it seems like the perfect time to give the Switch its own original Mario Kart title.
2022 will be the series’ 30th anniversary.
As a celebration of all things Mario Kart, it would be great to see racetracks from past iterations return, as well as drivers from across Nintendo titles and even from other games altogether. If Mario Kart 9 is to be released in time for the anniversary next year, announcing it at E3 makes a lot of sense – building up the hype and giving fans plenty of time to get excited!
I’m not sure whether to classify this one as a wish or a prediction, because I feel certain that Nintendo will be doing something to mark the Mario Kart series’ anniversary – but will they announce it this month? We’ll have to see!
Number 3: Anything Star Trek
Could a new Star Trek game be on the horizon?
The Star Trek franchise has not done well in the gaming realm. In recent years, Star Trek Online has been the only game in town – literally – and as someone who isn’t big on massively multiplayer online games, it just isn’t “my thing.” I’d love to see ViacomCBS take advantage of Star Trek’s return to the small screen and commission a video game adaptation. Whether that would be something connected to a classic show or something based on modern Star Trek wouldn’t matter to me – though I could see the advantages of a game based on Discovery or Picard from the company’s perspective.
This is definitely a pure wish, because I’ve heard no rumours nor seen any indication that ViacomCBS has any plans to license out Star Trek in a big way. There are mobile games, the online game, and there was even a browser game earlier this year, but when it comes to putting together the kind of single-player title that I’d really love to see, the Star Trek franchise hasn’t shown any interest since the disastrous 2013 Kelvin timeline game.
2013’s Star Trek was not a good game, unfortunately.
It’s possible that that buggy, poorly-received title has harmed Star Trek’s brand from a gaming point of view, which is such a shame. There should be a pretty big overlap between Trekkies and gamers, but the franchise has consistently failed to capitalise on that, with Star Trek games going all the way back to the ’80s being of little interest to most folks.
If ViacomCBS could contract a big studio to put out the equivalent of a Jedi: Fallen Order or Mass Effect I’d be beyond thrilled. Will it happen at E3 – or ever? I have no idea. Probably not, but there’s always hope!
Number 4: Fall Guys coming to Switch and Xbox
Fall Guys is coming to Switch… eventually.
Though Fall Guys promised earlier in the year that a release on both Switch and Xbox is on the cards, there’s currently no release date on the schedule. Announcing one at E3 would be a big boost for the fun little obstacle course-battle royale game, and as I’ve said on a few occasions now, Nintendo Switch in particular feels like a perfect fit for Fall Guys.
There have been some improvements made to Fall Guys recently, like the addition of cross-platform play, the introduction of new rounds and round variants, and additional challenges that make logging in and playing more frequently feel rewarding. But there’s still a ways to go for Fall Guys if new owners Epic Games hope to break into the upper echelons of multiplayer gaming.
Hopefully Fall Guys will continue to improve – as well as finally be released on other platforms.
Fall Guys had “a moment” in August last year, in the days immediately following its release. But issues with cheating soured a lot of players on the game, and there’s work to do to rebuild both its reputation and playerbase. The announcement of Switch and Xbox versions of the game would bring renewed attention to Fall Guys, perhaps convincing lapsed players to pick it up again.
Though developers Mediatonic have stated that there are no current plans to make Fall Guys free-to-play, the delay in getting the Switch and Xbox versions ready makes me wonder if a bigger overhaul is on the cards. Announcing it at E3, with the eyes of players around the world on the games industry, would make a lot of sense and drum up plenty of hype.
Number 5: Knights of the Old Republic III/Knights of the High Republic
A new Knights of the Old Republic would make a lot of fans very happy indeed!
Rumours swirled earlier in the year of a new entry in the Knights of the Old Republic series of Star Wars role-playing games. Originally developed by BioWare, with a sequel created by Oblivion, the Knights of the Old Republic games are among my favourite games of all-time, and a sequel just sounds fantastic!
The Star Wars franchise is seemingly stepping away from its exclusive deal with Electronic Arts, so perhaps a studio like Oblivion could come back to pick up the mantle. Or we could learn that BioWare is coming back to the series that laid the groundwork for titles like Mass Effect and Dragon Age.
These two games were just fantastic.
It’s been 17 years since Knights of the Old Republic II was released, so that could mean a new entry in the series won’t be a direct sequel and will instead focus on new characters. The so-called “High Republic” era is currently a big deal in Star Wars spin-off media, focusing on a time period about 300 years prior to the film series – and several millennia after Knights of the Old Republic. I can’t help but wonder if a new game could be Knights of the High Republic instead!
However, Knights of the Old Republic II definitely teased a sequel, and the stories of both Revan and the Jedi Exile are arguably incomplete (despite some mentions or appearances in the online multiplayer game The Old Republic). The Star Wars franchise has recently been in the habit of announcing games shortly before their launch – like last year’s Squadrons. If that happens again, maybe we’ll get a new Star Wars game later this year!
Number 6: Jedi: Fallen Order II
Jedi: Fallen Order was amazing.
Sticking with Star Wars, we know that Respawn Entertainment is currently working on a sequel to 2019’s Jedi: Fallen Order. Though development may have only begun in earnest when the success of the first game became apparent, it’s not inconceivable that there’ll be something concrete to show off at this year’s E3, even if the game isn’t coming any time soon.
Cal Kestis’ story could take a different direction in the sequel, as the end of the first game left things open-ended and with no clear destination. Jedi: Fallen Order introduced us to some amazing characters, and it’s going to be wonderful to find out what comes next for all of them. I doubt Jedi: Fallen Order II will be released this year – it may not even be released next year – but a little tease to keep fans interested is no bad thing at an event like this!
It would be great to see Cal and the gang return.
Jedi: Fallen Order definitively proved to companies that have been moving away from single-player titles that there’s still a lot of room for success and profit in the medium. That’s an incredibly positive legacy for any game, and after fans had been vocal about wanting a single-player, story-focused Star Wars game, the fact that it succeeded and sold millions of copies showed Electronic Arts and other big companies that it’s worth investing in this kind of title.
I’m happy to wait for Jedi: Fallen Order II. The original game was released without major bugs or glitches, something which should be expected but which won it a lot of praise in an industry where “release now, fix later” has almost become the norm. Rather than rush the sequel, I hope Respawn and EA take their time to give it the polish it deserves.
Number 7: Mass Effect 4
Promo art for Mass Effect 2.
It would make a lot of sense for BioWare and Electronic Arts to capitalise on the successful release of Mass Effect: Legendary Edition to at least tease or hint at what’s coming next for the franchise. We know, thanks to an earlier announcement, that Mass Effect 4 is in early development, but aside from a cinematic teaser we know nothing about the next entry in the series.
One of the reasons Mass Effect: Andromeda didn’t succeed (aside from its bugs and launch issues) was that it ignored the ending of the third game and tried to do its own thing off to one side. The end of the Reaper War was a significant moment for the Mass Effect galaxy and its races, and piecing together what happens next is something many fans are interested in, despite the disappointment many felt at the three ending options for Mass Effect 3.
With the Reaper War over, where will the drama and action come from in Mass Effect 4?
Mass Effect 4 has a difficult task. It has to follow on from an epic “war to end all wars” type of story in a way that doesn’t feel anticlimactic and small. That’s not going to be easy, and I can understand why BioWare instead chose to tell a side-story in Andromeda instead of trying to confront this challenge head-on. With the game in development, though, I assume they’ve figured something out!
Mass Effect: Legendary Edition can be seen as a test or a dry run for a new game, and judging by the success it’s seen over the last couple of weeks, I have no doubt that a new entry in the series will be highly anticipated by fans.
Number 8: Grand Theft Auto 6
After almost a decade, surely a new Grand Theft Auto game can’t be too far away?
For too long Rockstar have been milking Grand Theft Auto V’s online mode, and it’s time for a change. After the longest gap between games in the history of the franchise, a new title in the open-world crime saga is long overdue, and it would be great to get some kind of news – even just the tiniest tease – at E3.
Rockstar has already committed to porting Grand Theft Auto V to PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X, diverting time, money, and development resources away from making a new game. I’ve said before that Grand Theft Auto V has run its course by now, and the disappointed reaction from fans to news of a port to new consoles backs that up. It’s high time for a new title.
Grand Theft Auto V’s port to new hardware left many players upset.
Will it happen, though? I mean it will eventually happen, of course; there’s too much money in the brand to let it end with Grand Theft Auto V. But despite the fact that some players have been vocal about wanting a new title, Rockstar has thus far shown no signs of working on a sequel. In some ways, perhaps the success of Grand Theft Auto V has become a problem for the franchise; the more time passes, the harder it will be for any sequel to live up to its illustrious predecessor.
Finding a way for Grand Theft Auto 6 to differentiate itself from the current iteration of the series is also a challenge. Another sunlit coastal city in the present day probably won’t cut it – so where should Rockstar take the series? Maybe we’ll see the first indications soon!
Number 9: Civilization VII
Promo screenshot of Civilization VI.
It’s been almost five years since the release of Civilization VI, so it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a new entry in the series is in development. The most recent expansion pack for Civilization VI – titled the New Frontier pass – may be the game’s last, with no further announcements of DLC coming since last year. Perhaps Firaxis has already begun to shift development to a new game?
I was pleasantly surprised by Civilization VI when I picked it up in 2016. Having not been a big fan of previous turn-based strategy games I was initially sceptical, but I’m glad I took the plunge! I ended up sinking hundreds of hours into Civilization VI as the last decade drew to a close, and there’s a lot to be said for the series.
The Civilization series has come a long way since its inception in the early 1990s!
A new game would shake up the formula without reinventing the wheel, introducing different ways to play or bringing back successful features from past entries in the series. There would also be the potential to introduce brand-new factions and leaders – a subject I took a look at a few weeks ago.
Series like Civilization, which don’t see annual releases, can sometimes cause controversy if a new entry is regarded as being released “too soon” after the previous one. But the Civilization franchise has usually put out a new game roughly every four to five years on average, so the time could be coming for a new entry.
Number 10: Xbox Game Pass
Xbox Game Pass is a great and inexpensive way to get access to a large library of titles.
Game Pass has taken off over the last few months, and is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of buying an Xbox right now, as well as offering a relatively inexpensive way into gaming in general. Microsoft will be making a big appearance at E3, and I can’t help but wonder what news they’ll have regarding Game Pass.
Some have suggested that a deal might be on the table to bring Xbox Game Pass to Nintendo Switch or even PlayStation; I’m not sure that’s practical considering the divide between Microsoft and Sony in particular, but you never know! After Bethesda and EA Play have both brought significant libraries of games to the service in recent months, I’m beginning to wonder what’s left for Microsoft to possibly add!
EA, Bethesda, and more… Game Pass continues to grow!
Regardless, I’m sure that any titles Microsoft show off, including big Bethesda titles like Starfield or even The Elder Scrolls VI, will be coming to Game Pass, so that’s a good start. But using the opportunity of E3 to really push the service and show how it’s continuing to expand would be great from Microsoft’s perspective.
PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X consoles are still sold out everywhere, but there seem to be more Xbox Series S consoles available at the moment. Game Pass also makes picking up a pre-owned Xbox One a pretty good proposition in the short term, so Microsoft has a lot of scope this month to hook in and convert players to their platform – and Game Pass is the way to do it.
Number 11: Halo Infinite
Halo Infinite was delayed, but it’s still being worked on.
Speaking of Microsoft and Xbox, following a disappointing reveal last year, Halo Infinite was postponed. Originally the game was supposed to be the Xbox Series S/X’s flagship launch title, but as I predicted at the time, its absence ultimately didn’t prove a huge hurdle for the new console’s launch.
Since original developer Bungie abandoned the Halo series to pursue Destiny in 2010, the series has struggled to hit the highs of earlier titles. Halo 4 and Halo 5 were both well-received by some fans but disliked by others, and there’s a sense that the Halo series really needs a win with its next iteration. I fully support developers 343 Industries delaying the project and taking the necessary time to bash it into shape. Maybe we’ll see what they’ve been working on at E3!
Promo art for the Halo series.
With a Halo television series also in the works, it should be a good time to be a fan of the sci-fi shooter series. Hopefully the issues with Infinite have been ironed out, and even if there’s still no definite word on when it’ll be released, there will be something to show off to tide fans over and restore hope in the series’ future.
I enjoyed playing Halo and Halo 2 back on the original Xbox, and I’ve recently had fun with The Master Chief Collection on PC, which included a couple of titles I hadn’t played. I’m interested to see what Infinite will bring to the table.
Number 12: Elden Ring
A figure from the Elden Ring teaser trailer.
I have to be honest: I’m not sure if Elden Ring is going to be “my kind of thing.” Don’t get me wrong, I like George R R Martin – who’s working with developer FromSoftware on the project – but the teaser trailer gave off a kind of horror vibe that just rubbed me the wrong way, I guess.
I’m also not a fan of FromSoftware’s “extreme difficulty for the sake of it” style of gameplay. There’s no indication that Elden Ring will be as horribly difficult as the likes of Dark Souls, but the developer’s reputation precedes them, and their unwillingness to add difficulty options in their games is not something I appreciate. For those reasons and more it may end up being a game I skip!
A rather creepy moment from the teaser trailer.
Despite that, I like the idea of a new dark fantasy role-playing game. The involvement of George R R Martin has a lot of fans understandably excited, as he’s one of the best authors working in the genre today. Other than that, and a short cinematic teaser, we don’t know very much at all about Elden Ring – so this could be the moment for Bandai Namco to finally show off some gameplay!
If I were being hopeful, I guess I’d say that I’d like to see a darker, more polished looking version of The Elder Scrolls, with plenty of side-missions, lots of factions to join or fight against, and a main story that can be played through right away or sidelined in favour of doing other things. Whether Elden Ring will be anything like that, or whether it’ll be closer to Dark Souls is anyone’s guess at the moment!
Number 13: Super Mario 64 remake
Battling Bowser in HD? Yes please!
This is a game that I truly felt was a possibility last year, when Nintendo was marking the 35th anniversary of the Super Mario series. Ultimately the company opted to include a pretty crappy version of Super Mario 64 – with a weird screen resolution that left black bars on all four sides of the screen – as part of the underwhelming Super Mario 3D All-Stars collection.
But maybe the rumours of a reimagining of this classic 3D platformer from 1996 weren’t just made up! Maybe Super Mario 64 is being remade using the engine from Super Mario Odyssey, and maybe it’ll be announced this month! Maybe.
Super Mario 3D All-Stars did not do justice to this game. A full remake would be amazing, though!
There are relatively few games that I’d be really excited to see remade, because in a lot of cases – especially when dealing with relatively recent games – the original versions still hold up pretty well. But after 25 years, there’s definitely scope to remake Super Mario 64, bringing it up-to-date for a new generation of players.
With the game’s 25th anniversary happening this year, perhaps Nintendo’s love of anniversary events will have convinced them it’s worth putting together a remake! Either way, if you can find a copy the original game is well worth playing if you missed it first time around.
Number 14: Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga
Teaser art for Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga.
The third Star Wars title on this list is a fun one! Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga was originally due for release last year, before being delayed. The game will be a follow-up to the very successful 2007 game Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga, which if you haven’t played I can’t recommend highly enough!
The chance to revisit the Star Wars world with a fun Lego twist – in high definition, this time – has been appealing since The Skywalker Saga was announced a couple of years ago, and this is one game I’m definitely looking forward to. When it was delayed there was mention of a 2021 release, but no date or even release window has yet been elaborated on. Maybe E3 could be the right moment!
Rey and Kylo Ren clash in another promo screenshot for the game.
Though they arguably overdid it and burned out somewhere in the late 2000s or early 2010s, Lego adaptations of popular franchises have been a lot of fun. Lego Star Wars was one of the first to really go mainstream and see big success, but other titles which adapted properties like Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean were good fun as well.
It would be great to get a solid release date and see a little more of the game. Adapting all nine films in the Star Wars series into a single game is no mean feat, but it’s a challenge that developer Traveller’s Tales has never shied away from. I’m sure that The Skywalker Saga will prove to be a worthy successor to previous Lego Star Wars titles.
So that’s it! A few of my predictions – and wishes – for this month’s E3.
The official E3 2021 logo.
Could you tell which were predictions and which were wishes? I’m not sure I could tell you which were which in every case, so don’t worry! After a rough year, which hasn’t been helped by myriad delays and shortages, it’ll be nice to see players getting genuinely excited about upcoming titles once again. Whatever is ultimately announced or revealed, I’m sure there’ll be something of interest to me, something I can put on my wishlist for later in the year!
Though I’ve never been to E3, I did attend two iterations of GamesCom – Europe’s biggest games fair – in the past when I used to work for a large games company. As I said last year, these digital events are arguably the future of games marketing. Not only are they substantially cheaper than paying to rent a convention centre in California, but it gives the companies greater control over their own messaging. Though the headline this year is “E3 is back!” I would argue that it isn’t – not really. E3 was an in-person event, an overblown trade fair that started allowing members of the public to attend. What we’re going to see this month will be all-digital and quite different.
I hope this was a bit of fun as we look ahead to E3. There are plenty of upcoming games to get excited about, and I shall be watching the various presentations with interest!
All titles mentioned above are the trademark or copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of press kits on IGDB. E3 2021 takes place digitally from the 12th to the 15th of June, with additional events taking place throughout the month of June. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
EA Play is bringing a huge library of new games to Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service! Because it’s been overshadowed by Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Bethesda, and the arrival of those games to Game Pass in recent weeks, this news seems to have flown under the radar. I almost missed this altogether, and it was only when I saw it on Twitter (of all places) that I realised what a monumental win this is for Microsoft, Game Pass, and quite frankly for subscribers as well.
I initially signed up for Game Pass for PC last year in order to play Forza Horizon 4, and it was well worth it! I’ve since played a few other games on there, and it’s easily value for money at £7.99 ($9.99 in the US) per month, in my opinion. One thing is clear, though, and that’s the fact that Microsoft has continued to invest heavily in the service. The addition of Bethesda’s lineup of titles brought the likes of Fallout 4, Skyrim, and Doom Eternal to Game Pass. And now EA Play has brought games like FIFA 21, Titanfall 2, The Sims 4, Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order, and many others to the service, too. It seems all but certain that the upcoming Mass Effect: Legendary Edition will be available there as well – so maybe I’ll play it after all!
EA Play and Game Pass have struck a deal.
Game Pass has expanded rapidly, and continues to go from strength to strength. Right now, there’s no question that it’s the best way to get into current-gen gaming, and picking up a preowned Xbox One or – when availability improves – an Xbox Series S will mean that a huge library of games is available to even players on a limited budget. For less than the price of a Netflix subscription there are more games than I could play in an entire year, including some absolutely fabulous ones!
The only pang of regret I feel is because I’d bought a few of these games over on Steam! Of course if you’re worried about permanence it’s better to buy than subscribe, because it’s possible that EA Play and/or any of its games will be removed from the service in future. But just like we’ve seen happen with television and films thanks to the rise of streaming, many people are quite okay with that concept. Sure, losing access to a title is disappointing, and when Netflix removes a big name there’s often a minor backlash. But people have generally come to accept the impermanence of films and television shows on streaming platforms – so I daresay that will happen with games as well.
A few of the titles now available.
In the worst case, if a game you adore is removed from Game Pass, you can always buy it elsewhere. It doesn’t have to be the huge drawback that some folks insist it is. We increasingly live in a society of renting: we rent our homes, vehicles, and sometimes even our furnishings. We rent our films, television shows, and music via services like Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Spotify. And now, Microsoft is pushing hard to convince people to rent their game libraries too.
Having built up a Steam library over the better part of a decade I’m not willing to part with it, and I still don’t see Game Pass as a full-time substitute for buying games in a general sense. But you know what? I could be in the minority on that very soon. As mentioned, Game Pass now offers a colossal library of titles, and not only Xbox-exclusive games like Halo: The Master Chief Collection and Sea of Thieves. The FIFA series of football (soccer) games are literally the most popular titles around the world, and now the most recent entries are on Game Pass, with this year’s entry almost certain to follow. And huge multiplayer titles like Apex Legends are as well. Heck, you can even play Anthem… though goodness only knows why you’d want to.
Very specific there, EA.
For a player on a limited budget, Game Pass is now my number one recommendation. Whether it’s on PC or console, I honestly can’t recommend anything else. There’s simply no alternative that offers such a variety of major titles for the cost, and even speaking as someone who doesn’t use it as often as I could, it’s 100% worth it. This new addition of EA titles has taken what was already an enticing offer and made it even better.
There are still some issues with the Xbox app on Windows 10, and it doesn’t always work perfectly. But the games it launches do, and whether you’re interested in a strategy title like Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition or a racer like Forza Horizon 4, there are so many games now that it’s worth a try for almost anyone interested in gaming.
The Xbox Series S with a Game Pass subscription is the most affordable route into this generation – or at least it will be when availability improves!
Microsoft took a risk with Game Pass, banking on players turning away from the model of buying and owning individual titles to rent them via a Netflix-style subscription. As the service continues to grow and expand, both in terms of its library and its playerbase, I think it’s fair to say that the risk is paying off.
So what am I going to play first? That’s a good question! I was tempted by the Mass Effect trilogy, which I otherwise only own on Xbox 360. But with Legendary Edition coming soon I think I’ll wait to see if it comes to Game Pass, which hopefully it will. Titanfall 2 is calling out to me, and despite being a big fan of fantasy I’ve never played the Dragon Age games, so maybe I’ll finally give those a shot. Or maybe I’ll go back and replay Sim City 2000 – there’s nothing like a hit of nostalgia, after all. I feel spoilt for choice!
I might sit down to play some Titanfall 2.
This move makes a lot of sense for both companies. EA’s Origin platform and EA Play have both struggled to bring in huge numbers of players since they launched, and with EA diversifying and bringing many of its titles to Steam, joining in with Game Pass feels like a no-brainer. And from Microsoft’s point of view, anything they can do to increase the appeal of Game Pass shores up the service, and that can only have the effect of bringing in new subscribers as well as convincing existing ones to stick around.
When taken alongside the recent Bethesda acquisition and the launch of the weaker but cheaper Xbox Series S, I have to say that Microsoft is off to a very strong start in this new console generation – far better than I had expected even six months ago.
Xbox Game Pass is available now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X. Prices were correct at time of writing (March 2021). This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A few months ago I briefly touched on the Microsoft buyout of ZeniMax – parent company to Skyrim developer Bethesda. The deal, which was announced back in September last year, has finally gone through after months of behind-the-scenes legal wrangling, meaning that Microsoft now officially owns Bethesda Softworks, its subsidiaries, and all of the games they’ve developed and produced. This is a significant acquisition for Microsoft, and looks sure to shake up the games market – at least the single-player games market! It will also certainly provide a big boost for Xbox Game Pass, which has already been touting the arrival of Bethesda’s back catalogue to the service.
Almost all Bethesda titles for at least a decade have been multiplatform, with releases on Sony’s PlayStation consoles and some select releases on Nintendo hardware too, and those games aren’t going to be taken away. Microsoft has also pledged to honour existing contracts for upcoming titles, meaning that both Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo will still have timed exclusivity on PlayStation 5. After that, however, we can expect to see future titles arrive exclusively on Xbox Series S/X and PC.
Ghostwire: Tokyo will still be a timed PlayStation 5 exclusive.
Some games industry commentators seem taken aback at this notion, asking with mouths agape if Microsoft will seriously make upcoming Bethesda projects like Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI Xbox/PC exclusive. To those folks I ask a simple question: really? This seems like a surprise to you?
Microsoft paid $7.5 billion for Bethesda, and for that huge investment they’re going to want a lot more than a few new titles in the Game Pass library. Exclusive games sell systems, and in 2021 exclusive games drive subscriptions too. Microsoft fell way behind in the last generation as the Xbox One was massively outsold by the PlayStation 4, and a lack of decent exclusive games was a huge factor in explaining why that was the case. Microsoft has tried to rectify the situation by acquiring Obsidian Entertainment, Compulsion Games, Playground Games, Ninja Theory, and other studios, and guess what? Those studios now make games for PC and Xbox only. Some of these investments will take time to pay off, but as the new console generation rolls into its second and third years, I think we’ll see a big push from Microsoft with some of these new exclusive games.
Expect to see future Bethesda titles be Xbox/PC exclusive.
Titles from Microsoft-owned franchises like Halo, Gears of War, State of Decay, and standalone games like Sea of Thieves aren’t going to be released on PlayStation (or Nintendo) so I’m afraid that people are getting their hopes up if they expect to see future Bethesda titles on any other platform. Microsoft wouldn’t have spent such a huge sum of money not to capitalise on their acquisition, and while in the immediate term nothing is going to change, give it a couple of years when Starfield is ready, The Elder Scrolls VI is preparing for launch, and Bethesda are working on new entries in the Fallout or Doom series and you can guarantee they will be Xbox/PC exclusive.
Sometimes I sit down to read through opinion and commentary by other games industry writers – including some pretty big names – and I’m surprised how they can get it so wrong. It seems naïve in the extreme to be banking on any future Bethesda title – including huge ones like The Elder Scrolls VI and a potential future Fallout title – to be anything other than exclusive to Microsoft’s platforms. That’s how these things work, and it’s why Microsoft was willing to get out their wallet in the first place.
I wouldn’t bet on being able to play Starfield on your PlayStation 5.
Though it may seem “unfair” to lock games to a single platform (or pair of platforms, in this case) it’s how the industry has operated since day one. Nobody got upset about Marvel’s Spider-Man being a PlayStation 4 exclusive, even though that game wasn’t made by Sony, but rather one of their subsidiaries. It was just expected – Insomniac Games make PlayStation titles, just like 343 Industries make Xbox titles. Bethesda’s acquisition means they join Team Xbox. It may not be great fun for PlayStation gamers who had been looking forward to a future Bethesda title, but that’s the reality of the industry.
Be very careful if you hear an analyst or commentator saying that they believe Bethesda titles will still come to PlayStation. Rather than getting your hopes up or setting up false expectations, it may be better to plan ahead. If Starfield or The Elder Scrolls VI are games you’re dead set on playing, consider investing in Xbox. The Xbox Series S is a relatively affordable machine at £249/$299, and if you only need it for a couple of exclusives that you can’t get elsewhere it could be a solid investment – certainly a lot cheaper than a gaming PC.
The Xbox Series S might be worth picking up.
Despite all of this, I still feel Sony has the upper hand in the exclusives department, at least for now. It will be a couple of years or more before Microsoft can fully take advantage of their new acquisition, and other titles from developers like Obsidian – who are working on a game that looks superficially similar to The Elder Scrolls series – are also several years away. Sony, on the other hand, has games out now like Spider-Man: Miles Morales and the Demon’s Souls remake, as well as upcoming titles like God of War: Ragnarok and Returnal to draw players in. Microsoft is still pursuing a frankly bizarre policy of making all Xbox Series S/X games available on Xbox One for the next year or so, so for exclusive next-gen gaming in the short term, Sony is still the way to go.
I remember when Microsoft entered the home console market for the first time in 2001. A lot of commentators at the time were suggesting that Microsoft were buying their way in, that they would throw their wallet around and other companies would find it hard to compete. It never really happened, though, at least not to the extent some folks feared. The acquisition of Bethesda is a big deal, but Bethesda and all its subsidiaries have published only around 20 games in the whole of the last decade, so in terms of the wider gaming market, and considering how many games there will be on PC, Xbox Series S/X, and PlayStation 5 in the next few years, it’s a drop in the ocean.
That doesn’t mean it won’t sting for PlayStation fans who want to play Starfield or The Elder Scrolls VI, though. Better start saving up for an Xbox!
All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Early January isn’t usually a good time for big announcements as folks are still getting back to work and school after Christmas and New Year. But 2021 is different with lockdowns and such, so perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise to see a new video game announcement!
Bethesda Softworks – the company behind The Elder Scrolls series which was recently acquired by Microsoft – has announced their latest project: a new Indiana Jones game. In addition to Bethesda and legendary producer Todd Howard on the publishing side, the game will be developed by MachineGames, the studio responsible for the recent Wolfenstein titles. Obviously there’s a lot that we don’t know at this stage about the project, which was announced with a cinematic teaser and little else, but any title featuring Indiana Jones has the potential to be fantastic.
Doesn’t it?
Despite being a successful film series (alright, three successful films and one crap one) Indiana Jones hasn’t been anywhere near as successful in the interactive medium. Indiana Jones’ Greatest Adventures back in the SNES days was the last time any game featuring the scrappy archaeologist could be considered a hit. There have been a couple of Lego games and a couple of original stories during the 1990s and 2000s, but although Indiana Jones has inspired some fantastic games and game franchises, it never really took off as a game series of its own.
Indiana Jones’ Greatest Adventures on the SNES.
The likes of Tomb Raider and Uncharted owe a lot to Indiana Jones, but those series have gone on to far outperform and eclipse their inspiration, at least in the gaming realm. Since the mid-1990s no Indiana Jones game has felt like anything other than an afterthought; a second-tier game picked up by some fans but soon afterwards found in bargain bins. What can Bethesda and MachineGames do to stand out and make sure their new project doesn’t suffer that ignominious fate?
Because it’s been a while since there was an Indiana Jones game, and with the films’ standing remaining high, there will be a lot of interest in this game whenever it’s ultimately released. In fact the reputation of the Indiana Jones films has only grown, such that some people even consider Kingdom of the Crystal Skull “watchable!” With a new film in the works too, it would be great to see the series end on a high note.
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was… interesting.
The new film may have been the catalyst for this game’s creation, but there’s no indication at this stage that it will be a direct adaptation. As I’ve said before, the days of the film tie-in seem to be long gone, and in some respects making this new game a tie-in would arguably reduce interest in it, such is the low regard for film adaptations in a general sense.
So what can we expect from this game? At this stage, very little is known. MachineGames’ previous titles have all been first-person shooters, so perhaps a first-person perspective could be on the agenda. But Indiana Jones films have always been more about adventure than guns-blazing action, so I wouldn’t expect a game using this setting to simply be a shooter.
If I had to guess, I think what I’d say is that the new game will draw inspiration from those very games that Indiana Jones inspired years ago: Tomb Raider, Uncharted, and the like. We’ll get a third-person action-adventure game with puzzles, mystery, and plenty of villains to outmanoeuvre and defeat. But I could be completely wrong on that – it could be a multiplayer-only kart racer for all we know at this stage!
Indiana Jones inspired the Uncharted series of video games.
Right now, the hype around this project is almost entirely built on name recognition. Both the Indiana Jones brand and the studio and publisher behind this title have reputations that are generally respected – although it’s not unfair to say that Bethesda has been through the mud recently, especially with Fallout 76. Nostalgia for the Indiana Jones films will certainly help drive sales, but as we’ve seen from some recent projects – including one that was also part of a franchise created by George Lucas – nostalgia alone isn’t good enough. Sometimes too much nostalgia can even do harm, taking away a potentially-interesting story’s own merit.
So Bethesda and MachineGames will need to tread carefully. Indiana Jones has never really proven itself a colossal money-making success in the video game realm, and while the generally good reputation of (three of) the films and the nostalgia many folks have for them will bring a degree of interest, the game will have to offer more than that. It will have to be… a good game.
Shock horror! A game will have to be good in order to sell? I’m afraid so. In fact, “good” won’t be good enough. Any game using nostalgia as a hook will have to go above and beyond in order to make good on players’ and fans’ lofty expectations. A redux of Uncharted but set in the ’30s with Harrison Ford replacing Nolan North will not cut it. We’re in a new generation now, and what this game needs is something different and next-gen to really push the boundaries of action-adventure titles, setting a new precedent for future titles to look to.
A glimpse of Indiana Jones’ hat, whip, and other accessories as seen in the new game’s teaser.
That seems like a high bar. But no one forced Bethesda and MachineGames to pick up the Indiana Jones license. If they wanted to create their own unique adventure game, perhaps an Uncharted knock-off would be seen as good enough. But there’s power in brands and names, and while Indiana Jones has arguably never been a franchise that truly made it to the pinnacle of cinema or geekdom in the way Star Wars did, for example, it still has a cadre of fans who won’t settle for anything less than a unique and exciting experience. There’s a lot to be excited about from this game – and a lot that could potentially go wrong or be disappointing.
There’s no information currently on when this as-yet-untitled Indiana Jones game may be released. I’d be surprised if it were this year; Bethesda has previously announced games years ahead of time, and the cinematic teaser we got didn’t show off anything close to gameplay, which is usually an indication that a game is early in its development. Perhaps 2022 or 2023 might be when we’ll see it.
I’m interested to learn more, and if this game seems like my cup of tea (i.e. not a massively-multiplayer thing) I daresay I’ll check it out when it’s available. If we get any significant news between now and then I may cover it, so be sure to check back from time to time.
Indiana Jones is the copyright of Disney and LucasFilm. MachineGames and Bethesda are owned by ZeniMax Media, which is in turn owned by Microsoft. Some screenshots above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Were you lucky enough to secure a pre-order of the Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5? If so, congratulations! You’re one of the few who managed that feat. Both consoles sold out as soon as pre-orders were available, meaning a lot of people hoping to pick up one of the new machines this year were left disappointed.
A lot of factors came together to make this happen, and we’ll look at them in turn. First is the confusing way in which both Sony and Microsoft made their consoles available. Pre-orders for the PlayStation 5 “accidentally” went live hours ahead of schedule, meaning a lot of people who had planned to pre-order at the promised time missed out. There is no one place where consoles may be pre-ordered either, with retailers from big outlets like Amazon and supermarkets down to smaller specialist games or electronics shops all offering to take customers’ money. As many found out later, problems with stock availability and allocation meant that a lot of pre-orders were either cancelled, rejected, or could not be fulfilled on launch day.
The newly-released PlayStation 5.
Then there are the “bots.” Automated computer programmes bought up a significant percentage of the available supply of new consoles, leaving many machines in the hands of touts and scalpers. These consoles are currently being re-sold for well over the asking price to disappointed gamers who missed out.
Finally there’s the question of how many machines were manufactured. When coronavirus hit China hard earlier this year, production of next-gen consoles was majorly disrupted. Some factories were closed for weeks, others cut back their output, and the consequence for both Sony and Microsoft was that far fewer next-gen consoles were available in time for launch than they expected. I noted this a few months ago when I asked the question: is now really the right time to launch these machines?
There was always going to be high demand for these machines, and both Sony and Microsoft knew that they’d sell out on launch day. In fact that’s usually part of the plan; selling out makes a machine look exciting and cool, and fear of missing out drives sales. No company wants to see images of huge numbers of unsold machines sitting on shelves in the period after launch.
An Xbox Series S/X control pad.
But even in that environment, the reduced manufacturing capability has had a huge impact, make no mistake. The plan had been for millions more consoles to be available; Sony told us this directly when they announced a few months ago that they would have several million fewer consoles ready to go on launch day than they initially planned. When their business model was already based around artificial scarcity, the loss of several million units has made an already difficult pre-order process practically impossible when combined with the other factors listed above.
So on to the title of this article: how much does an Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5 really cost if you want to get one before the end of the year? I went to a popular auction website and compiled a short selection of listings. Take a look:
A selection of auction listings for Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles in the UK on the 17th of November 2020.
As you can see, prices are approaching double the recommended retail price here in the UK, with scalpers and touts even selling pre-ordered consoles that they don’t actually have in their possession yet. Anecdotally I’ve heard from friends in the United States of PlayStation 5 consoles being sold for upwards of $1200 – well over double the asking price.
In a way, this is “pure capitalism.” This is what happens when companies don’t have enough stock for consumers; the law of supply and demand kicks in. If someone is willing to pay £900 for a PlayStation 5, then there will be a market for that. The true price of these machines right now, in November 2020, is not the recommended retail price of £450. It’s £700, £800, or £900. And with no indication of the availability of either console improving before Christmas, those prices may yet rise further.
Companies are totally fine with this. It doesn’t matter in the slightest to Microsoft or Sony whether a genuine player buys a console or a bot picks up that console for a scalper or tout to re-sell later. They still make just as much money no matter who the buyer is, so they have absolutely no incentive to find ways to stamp out this behaviour. Likewise, retailers from game stores to supermarkets to giants like Amazon don’t care – and it’s through online retailers that the vast majority of pre-orders have been taken.
The market – that amorphous entity that economists love to talk about – determines the price and value of products. If people are willing to pay £900 for a PlayStation 5 then that’s its true value. But is it worth it? Could any video game console possibly be worth £900?
It will come as no surprise to you to learn that my answer is a resounding “no.” Not only are these machines not worth such a ridiculous amount of money, they’re probably not even worth their official price right now.
This new console generation is, at best, a minor improvement over the current one in most of the ways that matter. Add to that the fact that practically every game currently available for the PlayStation 5, and every single game currently available for the Xbox Series X, are also available on PC, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One, most players would find it hard to tell the difference between playing on a current-gen or next-gen machine. There are iterative changes, such as faster loading times, better controller battery life, and so on. But there’s nothing significant in terms of graphics or gameplay that make either console a “must-buy” in 2020. Any such improvements won’t be seen for a year or more; perhaps by 2022 you could make the case that games are getting better thanks to these machines. But not yet.
There was a lot of hype and buildup to the launch of these new consoles, as is to be expected. And a lot of players were sucked in by the hype and decided that they needed a new Xbox or PlayStation on launch day no matter what. If they paid over the odds for their machine from a scalper or tout, I bet a lot of them regret that investment today.
With the new consoles offering small improvements at best, there’s no need to get one right now. Don’t reward the scalpers and touts with their scripts and bots who bought up as many consoles as they could. Jump off the hype train and be patient, and enjoy the exact same games on current-gen hardware. Chances are you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway.
The Xbox brand – including the Xbox Series X and Series S – is the copyright of Microsoft. The PlayStation brand – including the PlayStation 5 – is the copyright of Sony. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Earlier in the year I wrote an article looking at Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition and my experience getting back into it after it was remastered. I had a lot of fun with that game, and I’ve even gone back and played a few matches here and there over the summer. I played the first two Age of Empires titles to death in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but when Age of Empires III was released in 2005 I was less than impressed. While the core gameplay was similar, the addition of features like “home cities” and “cards” complicated things and, in my opinion at the time, detracted from the real-time strategy experience that I hoped to have. This also coincided with a period where I was particularly busy with my professional and personal life, and as such there were a number of factors involved in me putting down the game and not picking it up again.
Until now, that is! Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition was released a few days ago and follows on from last year’s Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition and 2018’s Age of Empires: Definitive Edition, completing the trilogy. The remastering process has brought all three titles in line with one another, at least from a visual standpoint, and were it not for differences in building and unit styles, it would be hard to tell them apart. Age of Empires III, being a more recent title, was visually better than the first two titles to begin with, and in that sense perhaps the upgrade doesn’t feel quite so dramatic. However, the game looks great and a lot of work has been put into that side of things.
A promotional screenshot depicting a naval battle.
I wouldn’t have necessarily rushed out to buy Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition, especially not this close to its release. But as you may recall, I recently became a subscriber to Microsoft’s Game Pass for PC service, and in line with the company’s policy of bringing every new first-party release straight to Game Pass, it was available to me. So I downloaded it! Game Pass for PC is still not a seamless experience, and frustratingly logs me out every time I so much as minimise the Xbox app. Also, for some reason the download progress bar wasn’t working right; although the title did download, it told me it was stuck at having downloaded 14 megabytes the whole time. These are pretty basic things that Microsoft will need to work on if they want Game Pass for PC to be taken seriously, and now that the service is about to exit its “beta” phase, I hope to see such problems fixed. However, this isn’t meant to be another review of Game Pass!
The first thing players see upon booting up Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is a note from the developers explaining that some changes have been made to the game compared to its 2005 iteration. While there are gameplay changes (quite a lot of them, though many are minor) this message focuses on the way Age of Empires III treated indigenous peoples. The names of the game’s two Native American tribes have been changed – in the 2005 version of the game they were called the Sioux and the Iroquois; in 2020 they use the more accurate native names of Lakota and Haudenosaunee respectively. There have also been some changes to the way Native Americans are portrayed within the game, and Microsoft worked with Native American advisors in order to help shape the remaster.
The developers’ note in full.
This speaks to a much broader point, one which a single article can’t sufficiently cover. How can developers make history-based games that accurately depict the vast range of cultures and civilisations that existed? And how can a game like Age of Empires III possibly be made “fair” to all players when there are major differences between cultures and their levels of technology? This is an issue present in a lot of strategy games in particular, and the way developers have tended to handle it has been to “westernise” non-western civilisations, giving them technologies and resources they didn’t historically have in order to keep them competitive from a gameplay perspective. Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition does this too, and we see it prominently in other games, such as Civilization VI.
I don’t have a good answer when it comes to depicting history in media. On the one hand there will be people who say “it’s just a game,” as if to shut down the argument and just focus on whether or not the gameplay itself is good. And there will be others who practically want a boycott of titles that even try to deal with colonialism and the like. In a title like Age of Empires III, the entire aim of the game is to build and maintain a colony. Colonialism is the absolute core of the game, and that can’t be removed without fundamentally changing it into an altogether different experience. However, I like to think that we’re getting better with the way we treat history and different cultures in 2020, and the way that Native Americans are depicted in the game is not particularly historically accurate, despite attempts to make it better.
History, and the legacy of colonialism, can be a complicated subject for entertainment media of all types.
Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition brings in several changes to the original experience in order to make the game more accessible to new players. One change that I particularly appreciated was to the user interface; there are now options to either retain the original 2005 UI, to use a new UI developed for the remaster, or to use a UI that’s almost identical to the one seen in the first two games. This definitely helps move much more smoothly from one game to the next, and when remastering a title there’s no excuse for things like radically different UI or controls. One thing that I found extremely annoying in the 2018 re-release of Shenmue I & II was that on PC, the main action button (used to interact with the environment) changed from one game to the next. That’s the kind of annoyance that should be fixed in any remaster, and Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition has certainly made changes with players in mind.
As someone who isn’t all that familiar with the original version of Age of Empires III I’m not well-qualified to speak on gameplay changes between the two editions. That said, there are some that seem quite major, such as a big expansion of the “revolution” system, the changing of resource gathering rates, changes to resources on certain map types, and many more besides. For players used to the original version of the game who may have well-established ways to play, it’s worth reading through the entire list of changes on the Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition website. Even having done so, however, it will no doubt take time to get used to the new way everything works!
The beginning of a deathmatch game, showing the revamped user interface.
There are two new civilisations in the game – the Inca and Sweden – bringing the total number of civilisations to 16. Compared to the 35 playable civilisations in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition this may seem paltry, but unlike in the other two games, each civilisation has more unique features. For example, in Age of Empires II each civilisation would use one of a handful of architectural styles, meaning no civilisation looked unique. In Age of Empires III, each civilisation has its own distinct look.
The addition of home cities (which also look unique for each civilisation) which I disliked back in 2005 also adds further distinctiveness to each civilisation, as do the cards which are used to set up each game. In a way I stand by what I would have said about the game fifteen years ago – these factors complicate gameplay. But at the same time that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, and after getting used to the way the game works and figuring out each of the systems, their value to gameplay cannot be understated.
Promotional screenshot showing the Swedish civilisation.
Overall, Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition lives up to its name, at least based on the short amount of time I’ve spent with it so far. It is undeniably the definitive version of the game, having not only been given a visual overhaul, but with the development team having worked hard to rebalance the game to address player feedback. After fifteen years of a dedicated playerbase enjoying the original version, the developers had plenty of information to go on! It has been pointed out by those who know more about the game than I do that many of the changes made for Definitive Edition reflect changes and rebalances in some of the original version’s most popular fan-made mods. That says a lot – the developers have listened and tried to make the game as fair and fun as possible while still retaining some of its original quirks.
For me, as a Game Pass subscriber, getting Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition was a no-brainer. On Steam it sells for £15/$20, and for that price I think you’re getting a good strategy game with visuals comparable to any of today’s better games, and gameplay that has been improved based on fifteen years’ worth of player data and feedback. That seems like a pretty good deal, and for that matter all three of the remastered Age of Empires titles have been good value. Though I have heard from others that there are bugs and even crashes, I didn’t experience any of that during my time with the game. I would also add that if there are issues of that nature, they will almost certainly be patched out soon as the team behind Age of Empires are continuously working on updates. Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition has received regular updates since it was released last year, and I see no reason why the same won’t happen here. That said, I found nothing game-breaking in my time playing.
Some of the changes made will be controversial with fans of the original version of the game, but that’s to be expected with any major overhaul. In the case of the first two titles in the Age of Empires series, the remastered versions are widely acclaimed and even considered superior in many ways to the original versions by fans. Whether that will be the case here is uncertain, and some of the more contentious issues – like those surrounding the nature of colonialism itself – will take time to settle down. However, for my two cents I think Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is fun, and gives me a second chance with a game I mostly overlooked first time around.
Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is out now for PC. The game is the copyright of Microsoft, Xbox Game Studios, Tantalus Media, and Forgotten Empires. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I’m a couple of days late on this one, but if you didn’t know already, Microsoft surprised and upended the games industry by announcing a deal to buy ZeniMax Media. ZeniMax is the owner of Bethesda – the company behind such titles as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Fallout 76. The deal also includes id Software, developers of Doom and Doom Eternal, as well as several other associated companies, including the developers of The Evil Within, The Elder Scrolls Online, and the Wolfenstein series. Wow.
I’ve seen a lot of… interesting commentary to have come out of this acquisition, including people who seem to think this means there can be no more console-exclusive titles ever, and some overly-optimistic PlayStation fans still expecting their favourite Bethesda/ZeniMax titles to come out on that platform. A lot of the details of the deal and its fallout (pun intended) are still under wraps, but I think we can make some reasonable assumptions – and cut through some of the nonsense.
Buying ZeniMax Media gives Microsoft control over all of these game series – and many more.
First off, let’s clear something up. Microsoft wouldn’t spend $7.5 billion on this company and its subsidiaries for no reason. There are unquestionably going to be changes as a result of this deal. There are several ways it could manifest, but if we look to recent history we can pick out a couple of examples. The Outer Worlds was late into its development when Microsoft purchased developer Obsidian. With the game already scheduled for release on PlayStation, Microsoft honoured that commitment and didn’t make any changes. Likewise when they bought Mojang, Minecraft didn’t become an Xbox/PC exclusive. Those games were either already released or releasing imminently, likely with deals and agreements already signed, so Microsoft kept to those agreements.
The titles people seem most concerned about are The Elder Scrolls VI, which was announced a couple of years ago but is still several years away, and the next game in the Fallout series. No announcement has been made of a new Fallout title, but the assumption is that there may be one in pre-production. As someone who worked in the games industry for a time, I really feel that no company in Microsoft’s position spends this much money not to have exclusive titles. Unless this is part of some longer-term strategy to force Sony to bring their exclusive titles to Microsoft’s Xbox and PC platforms – which it almost certainly isn’t – we can say goodbye to the idea of any upcoming games being multiplatform. Despite Microsoft’s statements that they don’t care what platform someone plays on, they obviously do or they wouldn’t be investing so heavily in the Xbox brand and in PC gaming.
When The Elder Scrolls VI is finally ready, it may not come to PlayStation 5.
The Elder Scrolls VI is far enough in the future that I’d argue it won’t affect the purchasing decisions of 99% of gamers in 2020/21. Even hardcore Elder Scrolls fans should feel confident buying a PlayStation 5 if they want to this Christmas, because the next game in the series is years away and there will be time to get a cheaper Xbox Series S later if necessary. But thinking strategically and thinking long-term, the reality is that if players want to guarantee access to upcoming titles in any of these franchises, they’ll need to look at Xbox. That could be in the form of a console or it could mean getting a PC capable of running newer games. Either way, right now there’s no guarantee any of these titles will come to PlayStation – and if I were advising Microsoft, I’d say they’re in a rock solid position to demand compromises from Sony if Sony want to make any of those games and franchises available on their new system.
As we gear up for the launch of the two new systems, it’s hard to see that many people who had been planning to get a PlayStation will be swayed by this move – at least not in the short-term. All titles which have already been released – including the likes of Doom Eternal, Fallout 4, etc. – will still be available on Sony’s systems. On PlayStation 5 specifically, upgraded and/or re-released versions of some games are coming, and backwards compatibility with PlayStation 4 will mean all current-gen titles will run on the new system. Also the upcoming Ghostwire: Tokyo and Deathloop, which have already been announced for PlayStation 5, seem certain to keep their console releases. So anyone looking ahead to the next year or two need not be too concerned. It’s the longer-term prospects that may worry some PlayStation gamers.
Future ZeniMax/Bethesda titles may not come to PlayStation 5.
With this acquisition, Microsoft will be bringing all of Bethesda’s titles – including upcoming releases – to their Game Pass service. I wrote recently that Game Pass is already a pretty great deal, not to mention the cheapest way to get into current- and next-gen gaming. Add Bethesda’s titles into the mix and the value of the service goes up even more.
This is the real genius of the move. Exclusivity will certainly pull in some players, as those unwilling to miss out will have no choice but to buy into the Xbox ecosystem in some form. But Game Pass is Microsoft’s killer app right now; a subscription service offering players hundreds of games for a monthly fee instead of shelling out $70/£65 per title is not only in line with the way people consume other forms of entertainment (like music and television) but also feels like a good value proposition as we enter what could be a long-term spell of economic uncertainty as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
I’m a subscriber to Game Pass for PC – and it just became a much better deal!
Game Pass is already available on Xbox and PC, and has been steadily growing its subscriber base. It doesn’t have the library that a service like Steam has, but I can absolutely foresee a time in the future – the near future – where Game Pass will be the platform of choice for many players, perhaps with Steam as a backup to buy occasional titles that aren’t available elsewhere. And once someone has signed up for Game Pass, Xbox Live, and started racking up achievements and making friends, they’re hooked into the ecosystem. It isn’t impossible to switch or leave, of course, but Microsoft will make staying as appealing as possible.
As far back as 2000/01 when Microsoft decided to jump head-first into the home console market, commentators were wondering when they’d start throwing their wallet around. A company with the resources of Microsoft is in a unique position to spend, and we’ve seen them do so several times. On the whole, for players mostly interested in single-player titles I can understand why this feels huge. It is. But at the same time, the deal to buy Mojang a few years back was probably more significant!
In summary, this is good news for PC and Xbox players, and anyone who’s a Game Pass subscriber or on the fence about the service. PlayStation players shouldn’t notice any major short-term ramifications, but if you desperately want to play an upcoming game like the sequel to Doom Eternal, Starfield, or The Elder Scrolls VI, I think you’re going to need a PC or an Xbox.
All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. The Xbox brand is the copyright of Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A lot of things in the world are a mess right now, upended by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the tragic loss of life we’ve seen lockdowns, job losses, and economic chaos on a level unseen for a long time. And tech companies – including Sony and Microsoft – have suffered as a result of major disruption to supply chains and manufacturing facilities. Yet despite all that, both companies are pressing ahead with their new video game consoles, scheduled for release in November. But is that the right decision? Or might it have been better to wait a year or two?
One of the things that struck me most when looking at all the gameplay and footage released by both companies is how absolutely minuscule the so-called “upgrades” are, at least in terms of the way games will look on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X. Both companies use graphics as one of their major selling points, yet when you stack up a current-gen and next-gen version of the same title side by side, it’s hard to really see a difference.
Perhaps some consumers who have an incredibly fancy (and incredibly expensive) television – or superhuman eyesight – will notice a big change. But I didn’t, and from what I can tell by reading and listening to the reaction from players, a lot of other folks can’t either. There is more to a good game than graphics, but when it’s a key selling point I think it’s not unfair to say that players expect something more than either new console is able to offer.
The trouble is that even on the oldest version of current-gen systems – those consoles released in 2013 – games look pretty good. Players have been enjoying the visual style of titles like The Witcher 3 for years, and even some launch titles from 2013, like Ryse: Son of Rome, look fantastic. Any upgrade was always going to be minor, and things like slightly more realistic controller rumble or faster loading times are difficult things to market to the average player. The result? It’s hard to escape the feeling that the two new consoles already feel like a minor upgrade at best… and a waste of time and money at worst.
That’s before we account for the fact that disruption across all areas of the industry has massively complicated matters.
The Xbox Series X is going to be released without its key launch title – Halo Infinite. This game should have been one of the console’s selling points – despite its simultaneous launch on Xbox One. Without it, the Xbox Series X will be released with some cross-platform games and not a lot else.
However, things are even worse for Sony. The company recently announced that they were producing several million fewer PlayStation 5 consoles than expected. As a result there has been pre-order chaos. Initial plans to hold a “lottery” to determine who could pre-order a machine didn’t pan out, and the console sold out within minutes of being made available. Reportedly, some shops have either cancelled pre-orders outright, or informed irate gamers that they may not receive their console on launch day despite thinking they’d secured a pre-order.
We’ve seen consoles launch without sufficient stock numerous times. Here in the UK, getting a Nintendo Wii was nigh-on impossible in 2006 and throughout most of 2007, such was the lack of stock. Even with that in mind, though, this feels worse. Reducing the number of units available worldwide is clearly indicative of a company struggling with production, yet rather than delay or take steps to rectify the situation, Sony has been quite happy to make the PlayStation 5 impossible to get hold of – something which will only be to the benefit of shady resellers who’ll happily sell the console for double its asking price in the run-up to Christmas.
All of this comes at a time when many people are in financial difficulty or face an uncertain financial future. As the pandemic drags on and the idea of “getting back to normal” seems further away than ever, companies are closing left and right, and as temporary schemes like the furloughing of employees come to an end, many people will be out of work. A £450/$500 outlay in that environment is an impossible ask, and feels decidedly anti-consumer. This is made worse by price rises of games themselves, many of which look set to retail for £65/$70 when the new generation arrives.
As we approach what could be a bleak and lonely Christmas for many people, players and parents are looking at these companies and asking themselves how they could possibly have the audacity and lack of awareness to go ahead with something like this. The minor upgrade that most people perceive is incredibly overpriced at £450, and even the Xbox Series S with its lower price will still be out of reach of many in 2020.
I look at these consoles, and the footage the companies selling them have released, and I’m asking myself who would be interested? At least Microsoft can say that their policy of releasing games on Xbox One for the next couple of years – bizarre though that is in many ways – means that players can stick with their current systems and don’t need to shell out a ton of money for this minor upgrade. But Sony still plans on having exclusive games, and are in effect gating off those titles behind a very expensive paywall, one which will prove insurmountable for many players in 2020.
“Big companies do something anti-consumer” is not a surprising headline, either in the games industry or beyond. And as someone who worked for a large games company in the past, I understand that there are many factors at play, including research, development, and manufacturing contracts that were almost certainly too far along to be undone at the time the pandemic hit. Even so, I’m struggling to see how releasing these machines now is a good idea. A one year delay would allow both companies to resolve manufacturing issues, produce far more stock, and allow more development time for launch titles in order to overcome pandemic-created problems. We might even see marginally better graphics as a result. And a delay of a single year wouldn’t mean the internal components of either machine would feel out of date – they would still be cutting-edge devices even if they weren’t launched until November 2021.
Regardless of what some of us may think, the console launches are going ahead. Manufacturing is well underway, and with mere weeks to go until launch day it would be very difficult – if not outright impossible – to slam the brakes on at this late stage. Despite my misgivings both machines will still sell, and will be picked up by enthusiasts with enough disposable income. The beginning of a new console generation always leaves behind those who can’t afford to make the switch; this time around there’s just more people in that position. Hopefully things really will get back to normal soon so everyone can enjoy the next generation of consoles… and the minor changes they have to offer.
The Xbox brand – including the Xbox Series X – is the copyright of Microsoft. The PlayStation brand – including the PlayStation 5 – is the copyright of Sony. Both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 will be released in November 2020. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
I haven’t exactly been the biggest supporter of Microsoft’s strategy as we approach the new console generation. In particular, the company’s decision to make all Xbox Series X titles also available on Xbox One for the first couple of years of the new console’s life seems like a weight around its neck, and makes it a much harder sell at what was already a difficult time. But the leak/announcement of the Xbox Series S – along with its reasonable price at £250 – has definitely shifted my opinion.
The launch of a new generation of consoles is a fun and exciting time for enthusiasts with a suitably high budget, but for a lot of people it can be a moment where they feel left out and left behind. Technology moves on and new games are released, but only for those who can afford it. For players who’ve had to save up just to get a current-gen machine, it can be disappointing to see the newest and best titles be beyond their reach. It’s a position I’ve been in several times, and I know it’s not a nice feeling.
The Xbox Series S.
The Xbox Series S is a unique piece of kit. Though there have been cheaper variants of consoles – there’s even an Xbox One S available now – none were released simultaneously with the brand’s flagship machines, meaning that the beginning of a new console generation has always offered players a binary choice: pay up or don’t participate. The Xbox Series S offers players that budget option right from the start, and for many people who have been in the position of thinking next-gen will be unaffordable at launch, it’s undoubtedly a welcome surprise.
The Xbox Series S is not as powerful a machine as the Xbox Series X, and for some players perhaps the perceived downgrade will be a disappointment. But the Series S is still more powerful than the current crop of consoles, and for the market it’s aimed at, I think few will care about 1440p compared to 4K, a smaller, possibly slightly slower NVMe solid-state drive, and other minor differences. The processor at the system’s core is the same one used in the Series X, and while its graphics chip is a less-powerful version, it’s built on the same architecture as its sister console’s.
The console promises to be smaller than the Series X.
In short, the Xbox Series S is like getting a mid-tier gaming PC instead of a high-end one. And the PC comparison is apt, because compared to many PC gaming setups, the Series S blows them away. It would be impossible to build anything even vaguely comparable to the Series S for £250 or less, so it feels like a decent machine.
I recently took a look at Game Pass for PC, and the subscription service is also available on Xbox – where it offers over 100 games. The combination of the £8-a-month subscription with the cheap console is an incredibly enticing proposition for budget gamers, and one which is honestly hard to beat. It will likely be hard to beat for several years at least!
Ori and the Will of the Wisps is on Game Pass.
For less than the price of a standard Netflix subscription, players will have access to a huge library of titles, including every Xbox exclusive and every new game from a Microsoft-owned studio. Titles already on the service include: Dead Cells, Forza Horizon 4, all five games in the Gears of War series, Halo: The Master Chief Collection, Kingdom Hearts 3, Minecraft, No Man’s Sky, the two Ori games, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, State of Decay 2, Streets of Rage 4, The Outer Worlds, and Wasteland 3. Those are just some of the highlights, and it’s not unfair to say that Game Pass offers phenomenal value to console players. Combined with the low asking price of the Series S, I think it’s a steal.
There are still some concerns. The fact that Microsoft still plan on releasing games for Xbox One for the next couple of years or so means that realistically, buying an Xbox One S or even a preowned Xbox One is still a cheaper prospect. And I have to confess a degree of concern at the possibility of the Series S’s lower specs potentially holding back next-gen titles within the next five years or so. In short, if Xbox games have to be built with Series S compatibility in mind, will that slow the pace of game development considering that the Series S is comparable to a PC you could buy today?
The Xbox Series S won’t take discs.
The first of those points – that the Xbox One is still the cheaper option – may sway some budget gamers. In that sense, as I wrote once before, the biggest competition that the Xbox Series S/X will have won’t come from PlayStation – it’ll come from the Xbox One. But despite that, I think that players who don’t just want a console for the next couple of years could future-proof their gaming setups with a Series S. The low price still makes it a solid option, even if it’s possible to pick up an Xbox One for less money. The price difference between an Xbox One – even preowned – and the Series S won’t be that large, and when the Series S will be able to play new games for the next six-eight years instead of one or two, it ends up being better value in the long run.
If you couldn’t tell, I like this console. I like it far more than the Xbox Series X or the PlayStation 5! It fills a niche that no major company has tried to fill before, and offers players on a budget a way into next-gen gaming right from day one. There are a lot of people who fall into that category, and for some of them who may have felt next-gen was simply out of reach, they may now feel that they will be able to join in. Expanding the gaming hobby to more people is a great thing, and helping people who would have otherwise missed out or had to wait get a foot in the door is fantastic. I applaud this decision from Microsoft.
The Xbox Series S will be available in November. The Xbox brand is the copyright of Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Xbox Game Pass for PC has been out for a little while now, and after weighing up the options I decided to finally take the plunge and sign up. In this article I’ll cover my reasoning behind becoming a subscriber as well as my initial impressions of the service and its Windows 10 app. This won’t be a fully in-depth review, it’s really just my first impressions of the service.
First up, I’ll explain why I became a subscriber – and why you might want to as well. In short: I wanted to play Forza Horizon 4 and Game Pass was the cheapest option. I no longer own an Xbox One – I gave mine away years ago – so the only way to get that game is on PC, which is my primary gaming platform these days. But the “standard” edition is £50, and with the game not available on Steam (where sales happen more often) I hadn’t felt committed enough to trying it out to spend that much money. It’s rare that I’ll pay full-price for a game these days, and as someone on a limited budget £50 is just too much.
I subscribed to Game Pass as an inexpensive way to play Forza Horizon 4.
Enter Game Pass. At time of writing, the PC version of Game Pass is still in its “beta” phase, and costs £4 per month with the first month for just £1. That seems like a pretty good deal – even if the price is set to double when the service fully launches at some point in the future. At £4 per month I could play Forza Horizon 4 for a full year, cancel the service, and still have a few pounds left over compared to buying the game outright – and also have access to dozens of other titles to play in that time. It seems like a solid deal, and that’s why I signed up.
In recent months I’ve been critical of Xbox, mostly because of some of their odd decisions in the run-up to the launch of the Xbox Series X. But I have to admit that for Xbox gamers, Game Pass is a great deal. It’s by far the cheapest way to jump head-first into current-gen gaming, and when the Xbox Series X releases in a couple of months, it’ll be the most economical way to get into next-gen gaming too. Even if the Xbox Series X is priced similarly to the PlayStation 5, Game Pass provides an incentive for players to at least consider Microsoft’s platform simply because of the number of titles on offer. We’re primarily looking at Game Pass for PC today, but the console version currently offers more titles than the PC version and is thus an even better deal.
Microsoft currently plans to launch all of their major first-party games onto the service, and besides Forza Horizon 4 you’ll find such titles as Ori and the Will of the Wisps, The Outer Worlds, Halo: The Master Chief Collection, and even the brand-new Microsoft Flight Simulator. Upcoming titles I’m looking forward to include Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition, and I’m sure that there will be others. Although Xbox’s lineup of exclusives hasn’t been stellar this generation, Microsoft have made moves in that direction in recent years, snapping up studios like Obsidian and Ninja Theory who will now create titles exclusively for their platforms. Obsidian announced a new title a few months ago called Avowed, which looks to be their take on the fantasy/roleplaying genre and seems to have great potential. Avowed is just one title I’m following with interest from Microsoft, and guess what? When it’s released it’ll come to Game Pass.
Avowed, the upcoming title from Microsoft-owned Obsidian, is one game I’m anticipating.
So those are the key points in favour of Game Pass as I see it. It feels like a cost-effective way to play some of the newest titles, and even if there’s only one or two games on the list that you’re interested in, Game Pass can still be the cheaper option compared to buying them outright.
Now let’s look at the Windows 10 app.
This has been the least enjoyable part of the Game Pass experience so far. The app is very much a “beta” app, with a weird glitch that signs me out often and a small window that seems to constantly try to pop up only to immediately vanish. This happens every few minutes, and if I have the Xbox app minimised it flashes orange on the taskbar. It’s a minor annoyance, and one I’m sure will be fixed in future, but if you like perfect, seamlessly smooth experiences, the Xbox app for Windows 10 isn’t quite there yet!
However, signing in is a simple procedure – which is good considering how often it signs me out – and most importantly, downloads are at least as fast as those offered by other PC game launchers. The area where I live doesn’t have great internet; I don’t have fibre broadband or 5G or anything like that, so my downloads are never especially fast. But those from Game Pass are as fast as I get elsewhere, so from my perspective that’s about as much as I could have expected!
Game Pass for PC titles download at least as fast as those on Steam and other platforms.
One other issue that I have is that the same notification keeps popping up every time I sign in. It tells me something like: “your Xbox Live Account is not the same as your Microsoft account!” even though they are both the same account, linked together. Not sure if this is an issue which just affects me or if it’s something everyone has to put up with at the moment!
This is an incredibly minor point, but in the past Xbox allowed players to upload custom pictures to represent themselves and their gamertag – as other platforms like Steam do. But the current version of the Xbox app for PC only allows you to choose from a set list of pictures. As someone who has no friends (on Xbox Live, not in real life!) it doesn’t matter all that much to me, but it’s worth pointing it out.
One thing I did like about the app is that is has a “Surprise Me” button – when clicked this recommends a random game from the Game Pass collection. It’s a bit of fun, and for someone unsure what to play next could even be useful! I don’t see myself using it all that often, but it’s a neat little inclusion.
This is a neat feature – albeit one I doubt I’ll use often!
I’m sure that Microsoft is working on the app behind the scenes to fix its issues and get it ready for prime-time. In a way, it makes sense for them to focus on the console market at the moment, with the launch of the Xbox Series X being imminent. Minor gripes with the PC version can wait while they focus on having as good a console launch as possible under the circumstances.
With enough time and attention, though, Game Pass for PC has the potential to go from strength to strength. At this stage I don’t see it as a Steam competitor – there simply isn’t a big enough library to say that. But it is something that PC gamers could use to augment their Steam libraries, as well as a way to save money on some impressive new titles.
The caveat with any service like this is that you don’t own any of the games, and they can in theory be removed from Game Pass at any time. Game Pass itself could also cease to exist at some point in the future, making replaying games more difficult. In that sense it’s less permanent even than a Steam library, which while wholly digital does at least have a degree of permanence in that you “own” the games you bought. As someone who grew up when renting games – and even consoles – was a big deal, however, that doesn’t bother me all that much.
Game Pass aims to position itself as “the Netflix of games”, and just like Netflix adds and removes content, so too will Game Pass. Most Netflix subscribers are happy with the deal – the subscription provides a huge amount of things to watch, and not owning them doesn’t feel like a particularly big drawback. The same applies to Game Pass – it’s a different, but not altogether unfamiliar – way of gaming.
If you’re someone with an unlimited budget for gaming and a full Steam library, perhaps you don’t need Game Pass. But for budget-conscious gamers looking to get value for money, it really feels like a decent offering. At its supposed full price of £8/$10 a month you’ll be paying £96/$120 per year, which is the cost of around two full-price games. But when you consider you get far more than two games included in Game Pass, from my perspective as someone on a low income that definitely seems like a good deal – provided there are two or more games currently included with the service that you actually want to play! For me it was Forza Horizon 4, but I’ll also surely check out The Outer Worlds and several others, and when my first month only cost £1 and I can now play Forza Horizon 4 immediately, it feels like I saved a packet compared to buying the game outright.
Game Pass isn’t going to totally revolutionise the way we play games – at least, not on current form. But for gamers on a budget it offers an inexpensive way into the hobby, as well as a way to complement an existing library of games for everyone else. Despite the issues with the Windows 10 app, I recommend taking a look.
This post was not sponsored; I purchased a Game Pass for PC subscription for myself and these are my genuine opinions based on my experience. The Xbox and Game Pass brands, as well as others mentioned above, are the copyright of Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
For me, the beginning of September has always marked the start of the slow march to the holiday season. It’s the end of the summer holidays, kids return to school, the weather slowly cools, leaves begin to fall, and sunset gets earlier – all signalling that autumn has begun. It’s around this time of year when thoughts turn to the holidays, and to budgeting for big expenses at that time of year. With that in mind, now that we’re into September, it’s a surprise to me that we don’t know how much the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X are going to cost.
It’s pretty obvious that both companies are playing a high-stakes game of “chicken” – neither wants to announce first so they’re both holding fast, waiting for the other to make the first move. Looking back at past console launches, the cheaper system has been by far the best-seller. The Xbox 360 undercut the PlayStation 3 and enjoyed great success in that console generation, and the PlayStation 4 came in $100 cheaper than the Xbox One, and while in that case price arguably wasn’t the only factor in the Xbox One’s troubled launch, the fact that the cheaper console sold significantly better is clearly impacting Microsoft and Sony’s decision-making at this critical time.
The upcoming Xbox Series X. Price? Unknown.
But in past cycles, prices were announced much earlier. By the middle of June 2013 we knew the prices for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One – more than five months ahead of their launches. Microsoft promise the Xbox Series X is coming in November, and it’s assumed that the PlayStation 5 will follow suit. But November is literally in just a couple of months now, and there’s still no price information.
If it were good news, I think it’s fair to assume we’d know by now. If either company were planning to launch a system for less than say £350, they’d have made that abundantly clear and would be using it as a selling point. The fact that they’re keeping their pricing plans secret is in part because of how they’re in competition with each other, but it’s also at least in part because it’s bad news – both consoles are going to launch with a hefty price tag, which is not a good look in 2020 with the economy flailing.
Microsoft has perhaps the most riding on pricing. As I’ve said before, undercutting the PlayStation 5 is perhaps their last good strategy for the already-beleaguered Xbox Series X, which has seen incomprehensibly bad business decisions already hamper its launch. If the Xbox Series X could find a way to be a hundred dollars (or more) cheaper than the PlayStation 5, suddenly it seems a better proposition and Microsoft is back in the game.
The soon-to-be-released PlayStation 5. How much will it cost? Nobody outside Sony knows.
Sony seems better-placed than Microsoft right now, with a good lineup of exclusive games that are being built from the ground up for the PlayStation 5 instead of being limited by current-gen hardware. But an excessively high price could see them repeat the problems faced by the PlayStation 3 two generations ago, and even if they don’t end up charging $600-650 as some have suggested, if Xbox is able to undercut them they could still suffer. So while Microsoft has arguably the most to gain from a positive reaction to pricing, Sony certainly has the most to lose from a negative reaction.
At this late stage, though, both companies are going to suffer criticism and negative feedback for as long as they keep their prices covered up. With two months to go until launch, players and parents need to know how much to budget; keeping this information private is incredibly anti-consumer. Both Sony and Microsoft know their prices by now, having worked out how best to break even and turn a profit. They’re staying quiet on purpose, and people are starting to talk about that.
These are undoubtedly going to be pricey machines.
Sooner rather than later, both sides are going to have to rip off the metaphorical bandage. If the prices are high, reaction will be negative, especially from players whose jobs are under threat in a seriously disrupted economy. But going into the launch with that negativity around their necks will be harmful to Sony and Microsoft, and the more time they have after making price announcements means more time for their marketing and PR departments to spin it in a positive way – or at least blunt the edge. In short, if it’s bad news, giving players more time to get used to it rather than going into the launch window with potential buyers still reeling from the shock announcement will be beneficial.
A delay helps no one, and in the end will backfire on both companies and hurt them as they go into their most important sales window in seven years. In the absence of news, people will make their own assumptions – and the assumption right now is that if they had something good to say on pricing, they’d have said it ages ago and built their marketing around it! The conclusion gamers are drawing is that both consoles are going to be expensive – perhaps the most expensive machines ever, even topping the $600 mark. That’s putting people off right now, as in the current economic climate it’s increasingly hard for many people to justify such a large expense on a “luxury item” like a games console.
We need to see both companies make immediate announcements on price and stop messing around. The corporate game of “chicken” has gone on too long, and its anti-consumer nature is already causing both companies and their brands harm. They can’t keep this up any longer – players have a right to know how much they’re going to be expected to fork over for the new consoles.
At this stage I don’t know when we could expect an announcement. It may be imminent from one or both companies… or it may not be something we’ll get for weeks or even until next month. That would be a mistake for the reasons I’ve already given, and at a time like this, consumers need clarity. Both the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X are going to be expensive pieces of kit. We get it. But please just tell us how expensive so we can either start saving up or get the disappointment out of the way.
Both companies have been looking at this situation selfishly. Microsoft sees a pathway to a better-than-expected launch, and Sony fears losing the dominance they’ve enjoyed for years. But both companies’ selfishness has crossed a line into being something decidedly anti-consumer, and it needs to stop. At this point, I’d even wager that the company willing to make an announcement will get at least some positive reaction simply by demonstrating they’re not covering up their price. Either of them could even stage an event based around how their competitor is keeping their price a secret – something that could give them at least a temporary boost.
Either way, this has gone on too long. It’s past time that players around the world got to learn how much they’ll have to play for next-gen gaming in a couple of months’ time. We shouldn’t be in this position of having to ask and ask and ask – this information should have been available ages ago. From this point on, every day that Microsoft and Sony continue this cover-up is going to hurt them – and hopefully when they see that, they’ll finally come clean.
The Xbox Series X is the property of Microsoft, and the PlayStation 5 is the property of Sony. Both consoles are due for launch before the end of 2020. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
By sheer coincidence, I replaced both my keyboard and game controller in August. And also by coincidence – or at least, not by design – both of my replacements came from the Microsoft Store. This short review will detail my experience with each of them; rolling two items into one article is certainly a rare example of efficiency from me!
First let’s look at the controller. This one, I have to admit, is a bit of a luxury. I’d had an Xbox One controller for years – it may have been the one I got when I bought an Xbox One at launch in 2013. Now that was a bad decision if there ever was one – the console may have improved somewhat in the years since, but at launch it was bad value and offered precious little to play! But we’re off-topic already; you can read more about my Xbox One experience by clicking or tapping here. I decided that it was time to replace the controller – one of the thumbsticks was loose, making it harder to make very precise movements in some games, and in addition its vibration/rumble function didn’t seem to be working right. It still vibrates, but it does so in a much more clunky way than it used to.
I considered a few different controller options, including the Hyperkin Duke, which is a reimagining of the classic Xbox controller from 2001. That controller was one I greatly enjoyed using during the original Xbox era, but unfortunately the new version is difficult to get hold of here in the UK. I found one on Amazon, but at quite a mark-up. So I decided to check out Xbox’s Design Labs website, where Microsoft sell customised controllers. I went with an all-blue design, with a metallic D-pad, black Start and Select buttons, and black A, B, X, and Y buttons with the proper colours for the letters. I’m sure some people feel that removing the coloured letters and replacing them with a grey or black design looks more sleek, but the colours can be a great visual reference when it comes to things like quick-time events or any other occasion where split-second button presses are required.
My new controller.
Microsoft stated when I bought the controller that it could take up to a month to arrive, so I wasn’t expecting it much before the beginning of September. To my pleasant surprise, though, it arrived much sooner – on the same day as my keyboard, no less! The design was just what I’d chosen – which it should have been, of course – and so far I’m satisfied with it. Was it worth the extra money to get a different colour compared to buying a standard controller? I don’t play that many games any more, so I guess you could argue that it wasn’t. The control pad is fundamentally no different from a standard Xbox One controller; unlike the Xbox One elite controller it doesn’t have swappable parts or extra buttons, and its construction is wholly plastic instead of the “rubberised” feel of the elite. But the elite controllers are twice the price! For around £20 more than a standard controller, Xbox Design Labs offer a huge range of colours, and different areas of the controller can be different colours. They brag about millions of colour combinations – most of which you’d never want, of course – but all of the main colours are there, and they have a couple of “fades” and “camo” options too.
Controllers can also be engraved – though to be honest, that’s a pretty impressive-sounding term for what seems to be just laser printing. But for someone who wants their gamertag on their controller – or to make a fun gag gift, perhaps – it’s nice that the option exists.
The Xbox One controller was very similar to the Xbox 360 controller, which was itself not massively different from the second iteration of the original Xbox controller. So I’m not really reviewing the controller from that perspective. I already know I like it as I’ve been using something similar for years! The Design Labs experience was solid. There were a number of options, the website worked smoothly and was well laid-out, and the colours on screen match perfectly with the product I received. Add to that the quicker than expected delivery and it’s hard to find fault.
The Xbox S controller from 2002 or 2003. The “S” may have originally meant “small”.
As someone who has never really been a “PlayStation guy”, I think I’ll always prefer Xbox’s controllers than those made for the rival console. They feel chunkier and more substantial in my (admittedly oversized) hands, but at the end of the day once you get used to a particular design you want to stick with it. That’s presumably why the Xbox Series X’s controller won’t be a significant departure from the current design.
Up next we have the keyboard.
I write almost every day, not just for this website but for other projects that I have on the go, as well as typing messages to friends and the like. For the last three years or so, I’ve been using a Corsair Strafe mechanical keyboard. The variant I have has a red backlight and Cherry MX blue mechanical switches – the “clicky” kind. I bought this keyboard on the recommendation of several tech reviewers who said that the blue switches were great for typing.
The Corsair Strafe.
This keyboard has been fine. It was interesting at first to go back to a keyboard that, for all its modern aesthetic, had a very retro feel and sound. It reminded me of the kind of keyboards I first learned to type on when I was very young. I actually remember the first time I ever used a computer, being concerned that the keyboard only had capital letters when I wanted to type something in lowercase! That was when I was at school, and the “computer” in those days was little more than a word processor. And of course there was no internet. How things have changed, eh?
Although the typing experience has been good overall with the Corsair, after very long typing sessions it can get a little tiring on my old fingertips. The space bar in particular has a strange, almost rough texture to it, and I often find that my thumb – which I use to hit the spacebar almost all of the time – can start to not exactly sting, but rather notice this texture in an unpleasant way after longer typing sessions. The mechanical keyboard has also proved a nightmare to keep clean, with deep chasms in between the keys that seem to attract dust and cat hair like magnets! Finally, several of the keys have started to wear down, and the backlight shows through on the edges of several of them now. Perhaps that’s simply the result of heavy use, but for something I haven’t owned that long it seems like it shouldn’t have happened so quickly. Regardless, the keyboard doesn’t look as nice as it once did, and while it does still work I thought I’d try out a replacement.
I don’t need backlighting on a keyboard, as I can type from muscle memory – something that will happen as you spend more time hunched over your computer! And my computer setup is in a well-lit room, so on the occasions where I need to look down to see what I’m doing I don’t need the keyboard to be its own light source. The keyboard I ultimately bought as a replacement is not backlit, and I don’t consider that to be a problem at all.
After looking at several options, both mechanical and non-mechanical, I opted for the Microsoft Surface bluetooth keyboard. I’ve used a Microsoft mouse in the past (though my current daily driver is a white Logitech G305 wireless mouse) and I’ve always considered Microsoft’s hardware products to be solid and of decent quality. After ruling out a few other options for a variety of reasons, I chose the Microsoft Surface.
The Microsoft Surface bluetooth keyboard.
Initial impressions were good. The packaging was premium – as the Xbox controller’s had been too – and I was very impressed with the look and feel of the keyboard. It has almost no give to it when pressure is applied; it’s very solid. The keys, despite being low profile, have a satisfying press, and unlike the loud “click” of the Corsair, are relatively quiet.
The keyboard also has a full number pad, which is important to me as I often use the right Enter key when writing. It takes AAA batteries instead of being rechargeable via USB, which for some people may be offputting, but it’s a feature I really wanted to have. AA or AAA batteries last ages in devices like mice and keyboards. I used to use a Logitech MX Master mouse, and that thing needed to be charged every few days, which was incredibly annoying. In comparison, a mouse I have in my bedroom which takes AAs has been using the same pair of batteries for at least a year – probably longer. And since I replaced the MX Master with the G305 I’ve gone through precisely one battery. Why anyone would favour rechargeable devices that have such a short battery life over devices that take AA or AAA batteries that last months or years is beyond me. But we’re off-topic again! The battery cover is magnetic, which was a very neat feature. The magnet seems strong enough to keep the battery compartment closed, which is important for obvious reasons, and I like the modern touch it offers over an older-style plastic latch.
I did have an issue with the keyboard – but it’s one that seems almost unique to me that anyone with a modern setup should be able to avoid. The keyboard connects via bluetooth. Duh, right? It’s in the name. But my PC doesn’t have bluetooth connectivity built in, as several years ago I didn’t see any need to spend extra money on that additional feature. Most wireless keyboards come with a dongle so you can plug them into your PC, but presumably Microsoft’s expectation is that the Surface keyboard will be paired with a Surface PC – which must all come with bluetooth as standard. Like I said, this is a minor gripe that probably won’t affect anyone else who buys this product, but if your PC lacks bluetooth connectivity like mine, you’ll need to buy a separate dongle to be able to use the keyboard.
As with many things I’ve accumulated over the years, I could have sworn I owned a USB bluetooth dongle – but I haven’t the faintest idea where it is. I had to get a replacement on Amazon – not a big deal as they aren’t expensive, but it meant waiting an extra couple of days after the keyboard arrived before I could use it! It reminded me of the Christmas where I got a Nintendo 64 – I was all set to play with my new console when there was a power cut! The N64 sat in its box for what seemed like an eternity, unable to be played because the electric was out. Decades later and I’m back in that position. Life is funny like that sometimes.
Ah, memories.
When the dongle finally arrived, pairing the keyboard was easy. From the settings menu in Windows 10 – for which the keyboard has a designated button – it’s possible to see the device’s battery status. The keyboard is also in the standard UK layout – which means that a few symbols are in different places than on a US layout keyboard – which is obviously important to me as that’s how I’m used to typing. I’m on Windows 10, but the keyboard should be compatible with Windows 8.1 – or indeed any device capable of using bluetooth.
The typing experience is pleasant. As mentioned, the keys have a satisfying press, and they also have a slightly soft feel that’s definitely nicer than the hard plastic keycaps of the Corsair that I’d been using. It feels closer to typing on a laptop – a premium, high-end laptop – than any desktop keyboard I’ve ever used. Microsoft promises a whopping five million presses per key over the lifespan of the keyboard – so let’s put that to the test over the next few months and years! Unlike in the picture above, the Return/Enter key is full-size, which is something else I greatly appreciate. A single press of the Function button switches between the F-keys (F1 for help, F5 for refreshing web pages, etc) and a variety of other functions. The aforementioned settings button is one, and there are also keys to control the volume, media player keys to play, pause, etc. and even screen brightness controls. I don’t use such keys that often, but the additional functionality is nice, and not having to hold down a second key to use them is also a neat feature.
Of all the “premium” keyboards I looked at, the Microsoft Surface seemed like the best option for me at this point. I was ready for a change from the clicky mechanical switches I’d been using for the past few years, and as someone who does a lot of typing I wanted something I’d be comfortable with. So far, the Surface has accomplished that and I’m happy with my purchase.
It’s hard to make product recommendations, because I don’t know your circumstances. If you have a spare £20 burning a hole in your pocket and you like customised things, get the Design Labs controller and show off your unique style. But if you’re on a budget, skip that and just get a standard controller. Or better yet, find a pre-owned one or a 360 controller and save even more money.
Likewise for the keyboard. If you write as much as I do on a daily basis and want something solid and premium, the Surface could be a good option if you don’t want a mechanical keyboard. But it’s impossible to deny that you can get a perfectly functional keyboard with a number pad – wired or wireless – for a fraction of the price. I just looked on Amazon, and one of the top results was a Microsoft wired keyboard for £10 – a full £80 less than I paid for the Surface. So the question is – what do you want from a keyboard? If you don’t type a lot – or even if you do but are on a tight budget – save your money. Nothing the Surface does is essential and you could get identical functionality far cheaper.
Speaking for myself, though, I’m happy with what I got. Sometimes it’s worth spending the extra money on a higher-end product, and sometimes it’s worth splurging a little on a cool-looking or custom product just for the fun of it. At the end of the day, it’s up to you to decide what best suits your setup and where you want to invest your money.
The Xbox and Surface brands are the copyright of Microsoft. No sponsorship was involved; these are products I purchased for myself with my own money and the article comprises my genuine impressions regarding them. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
The blogosphere and the gaming world have been aflame today, following the announcement that Halo Infinite has been delayed. 343 Industries – the studio which acquired the Halo brand when original developer Bungie left the series a decade ago – made the announcement earlier, and it’s significant because the new game will no longer launch alongside the Xbox Series X. Well, unless that gets delayed too!
The general consensus is that this announcement is the worst possible news for the Xbox Series X and could ruin its launch. But will it?
I don’t think the Halo Infinite delay will prove to be all that significant for one major reason: the Xbox Series X was going to have an underwhelming launch anyway. The hardest of the hardcore Xbox fanatics will buy a console, and perhaps a few well-meaning aunties and grandpas will buy one for their relatives for Christmas, but the console most gamers are interested in and excited for is the PlayStation 5. And I’m not saying that as a PlayStation fanboy – for the longest time I was an Xbox guy. It’s just the reality of where most console gamers are right now.
A scene from the recent Halo Infinite trailer.
Microsoft – as I’ve noted several times already – has made the incomprehensible decision to launch the Xbox Series X with literally no exclusive games. Not even one. Halo Infinite is also scheduled for a release on Xbox One and PC, as are a number of other first- and third-party titles that Microsoft has shown off. The arguments in favour of buying an Xbox Series X this year were already nonexistent, so removing one non-exclusive game from its launch lineup will have no material impact on sales. I can practically guarantee that.
With all of the issues that are stacking up right now – including those of Microsoft’s own making – I’d argue there’s a pretty solid case for delaying the console’s launch until next year. In the current economic climate, I’m already expecting that fewer people than usual will be interested in a brand-new console for the inevitable £400+ price tag, and many fans – even those who are genuinely interested to play some next-gen games – may have no choice but to wait it out.
If the Xbox Series X launches alongside the PlayStation 5, all it will do is draw unfavourable comparisons. The lack of exclusive titles is a large part of that, and it’s not inconceivable to think that there could be hundreds of thousands of unsold units sitting on shelves or in warehouses come January. It feels like it’s going to be an expensive flop, and while it may eventually build up a solid user base a few years down the line, the Xbox Series X is already lining up to be the upcoming generation’s second- or even third-tier machine.
The upcoming Xbox Series X.
The Halo Infinite delay will upset some Halo diehards who were excited to see their favourite franchise get a new release for the first time in over five years. But in terms of the launch of the new console – where it wasn’t a system exclusive – it’s genuinely hard to see how it will have any impact whatsoever.
When considering the more general issue of game delays – and, incidentally, delays in other entertainment media as well – I’m all in favour of them. How many titles have been released just in the last few years that would have benefited massively from some additional development time? I can think of many, such as: Anthem, Fallout 76, Mass Effect: Andromeda, No Man’s Sky, 2013’s Star Trek, and WWE 2K20. All of these games released to negative reviews and underwhelming sales, so from that point of view, I fully support the delay to Halo Infinite – and to any other upcoming title that needs it.
I think Mass Effect: Andromeda is a good example of how to screw up a launch, and a great comparison to Halo Infinite. The Mass Effect series was already tarnished by the ending of Mass Effect 3, and was relying on Andromeda to be a semi-reboot of the series. Similarly, the Halo series has been experiencing gradually declining reviews, and while there isn’t one moment fans can point to on a par with Mass Effect 3′s ending that really upset the fanbase, there’s a sense that the series isn’t as good as it once was. Halo Infinite has billed itself as a soft reboot, aiming to return Halo to its roots and put some recent disappointments behind it.
Mass Effect: Andromeda launched in a broken, glitch-riddled state.
When Mass Effect: Andromeda launched, it was a bug-riddled mess. It was mocked online, and the mockery and memes hurt its sales far more than the mediocre reviews the game received. Halo Infinite has already seen its trailer come under heavy criticism for its visuals, which many felt look decidedly current-gen – an odd criticism for a game that literally is a current-gen game as it will be released on Xbox One, but that’s beside the point. If Halo Infinite were to release later this year in its current form, it would have undoubtedly drawn criticism on a scale similar to Mass Effect: Andromeda. And that game killed the Mass Effect series, which was “put on hiatus” in the aftermath of its disappointing launch and underwhelming sales.
It’s clear that 343 Industries and Microsoft feel that Halo Infinite needs more development time to work on the issues it currently faces. And to them I say: take all the time you need. I’d rather wait a little longer for a better, more polished game than play a rushed, broken mess.
Another moment from the Halo Infinite trailer.
But I don’t agree that it will damage the reputation or sales performance of the Xbox Series X. That’s not because the game doesn’t matter to that console – the Halo series is one of Xbox’s few strong selling points, after all – but because behind-the-scenes business decisions have already condemned the Xbox Series X to second place behind the PlayStation 5. In fact if I were advising Microsoft, I’d ask them if they wanted to take this opportunity to delay the console as well.
Flip the issue on its head, and let’s think about it this way around: would Halo Infinite have been a massive help to the Xbox Series X at launch? Because that’s the fundamental assumption people are making when they say its delay will hurt the console, and from where I’m sitting that doesn’t feel true. If I don’t own an Xbox or a PC and – for some reason – have a desperate need to play Halo Infinite, my best bet is to pick up a cheap Xbox One S or a preowned Xbox One from 2013 and play it there. I don’t need to buy an expensive Xbox Series X to play a game that I could play on a console that costs less than half the price. And if I’m already an Xbox One owner, I’m in no rush to upgrade because every Xbox Series X game is coming my way, including Halo Infinite.
So at the end of the day, Halo Infinite’s delay should be good for the quality of the finished title. I’m all in favour of that. And it won’t have any material impact on the launch of the Xbox Series X – because that console is destined for a seriously disappointing launch anyway.
Halo Infinite is the copyright of 343 Industries and Xbox Game Studios. The Xbox Series X and Xbox One consoles are the property of Microsoft. Header image and Mass Effect: Andromeda promo screenshot courtesy of press kits on IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
A couple of days ago, Microsoft showed off another collection of games coming to the Xbox Series X. The console will launch later this year – barring any last-minute delays – and will be facing very stiff competition from Sony’s PlayStation 5. In fact, Xbox seems like it’s repeating some of the same crucial mistakes which left it lagging far behind PlayStation’s sales numbers this generation – and the only way to salvage that, at least in the short term, may be to massively undercut Sony’s new console and sell the Xbox Series X at a very low price.
It wasn’t all doom and gloom from Microsoft’s second attempt at showing off gameplay – I like the look of Avowed, the upcoming game from Obsidian, for example – but generally the reaction to what they showed was muted and underwhelmed. The most stinging criticism was reserved for Halo Infinite, particularly in the graphics department. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, games already look pretty good on current-gen consoles in 2020. And if “better graphics” is basically all a new console has to offer, then those graphics need to be outstanding in order to win people over. Microsoft has shot itself in the foot in that regard by making every Xbox Series X title – including Halo Infinite – also available on Xbox One, at least for the first year or so of the new console’s life. What this means in practice is that any new title is constrained by the system requirements of the original Xbox One – hardware which is now seven years out of date.
Halo Infinite has been criticised for the way it looks.
Many commentators have said that Halo Infinite looks like a current-gen title. But it is a current-gen title – it’s literally going to be released on the Xbox One, which is a current-gen machine. Everything in Halo Infinite from the ground up has had to be built with that limitation in mind. Even being “enhanced” for the Xbox Series X, Halo Infinite could only go so far. And as I said, when graphics already look decent on current-gen consoles, it’s already a difficult task to show off how much better a game could look on a newer device. That’s without deliberately limiting that game by making it compatible with machines that are now seven years old.
The Halo series has been Xbox’s “killer app” since the first days of the original machine in 2001, but its star quality has been in decline since Bungie left the series a decade ago. The generally average-looking graphics that the newest entry in the series offers, combined with its simultaneous release not only on Xbox One but also on PC, will leave many gamers scratching their heads. Why exactly should I buy an Xbox Series X this winter?
The Xbox Series X.
I literally cannot see a reason. Games are what sell consoles – good, pretty, exclusive games. Many of the titles that will be available will be good; Avowed, as mentioned, looks like it has great potential, and I’m also looking forward to Grounded. While some of these games will be designed to take advantage of the Series X’s features to look shinier and prettier, line them up side-by-side with the Xbox One versions – which will look good, as games on that system already do – and if folks struggle to tell the difference, how does Microsoft intend to convince them to spend several hundred pounds (or dollars) on a new system? When none of the games are exclusive and can be played on the older system, if I’m a gamer who already has an Xbox One, what’s the point in upgrading?
In that sense, Microsoft is now having to compete not only with Sony, but the Xbox Series X is competing against the Xbox One – and there’s a clear winner in that regard. Exclusive games can shift millions of systems – I’ve known many people over the years who’ve picked up a console because one game in particular enticed them, and I’ve even been in that position myself. Launching a console with zero exclusive games, and with all of its games also available on the previous generation console seems absolutely bonkers – and I have no doubt Microsoft will see a lacklustre launch for its new system.
The current-gen Xbox One may prove to be the Xbox Series X’s main competitor.
The only possible saving grace at this stage is to massively undercut the PlayStation 5 – if the Xbox Series X can be £100-150 cheaper, suddenly it seems a little more enticing. £100 could score two new launch titles, or almost a year of GamePass, the subscription service which is one of Xbox’s few genuinely appealing offerings. Price can play a role in console launches, and it’s no coincidence that the consoles which had the strongest launches in the last two console generations – the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 4 – were both the less expensive option compared with their competitors.
I primarily play on PC. In fact one of my projects over the next few months is to make some upgrades to my gaming setup so I can enjoy things like ray-tracing and perhaps even higher frame rates. So I wasn’t going to be a day-one console buyer this generation regardless of how the new lineup looks. But if I were, I can’t see any reason to buy an Xbox Series X at launch. The only thing that might be able to sway me is price, because if I could make such a significant saving that I could get a year’s subscription to GamePass, and thus access a large library of titles from day one, that’s not a bad offering.
Another scene from the Halo Infinite trailer.
Maybe Xbox will surprise me, and it will turn out that this policy of having no exclusive titles will be a masterstroke, bringing more people into the Xbox brand. I’m just having a hard time seeing how it’s supposed to appeal to a gamer looking for a new console – and as someone who owned all three Xbox consoles in the past I want to see them do well. In fact it’s arguably a necessity – if Xbox fails, there’ll be far less competition in the home console market. Monopolies rarely end well for consumers, so it’s in everyone’s best interest to see at least two companies making a go of it.
At the end of the day, I’m simply not convinced that Xbox has the best approach. PlayStation’s offering for the imminent console generation just seems far more appealing, and unless Xbox can find a way to offer their new machine at a much lower price, I’d expect a clear majority of people who plan to get a next-generation console this year will opt for a PlayStation 5. I know I would. And I’ve always been an Xbox guy.
The Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 are scheduled to launch in time for Christmas 2020. All properties mentioned above are the copyright of their parent companies, studios, developers, publishers, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.
Trekking with Dennis 