A reader blames the normalisation of early access for the failures of Fallout 76, and wishes more companies were like Rockstar and Nintendo.
So here we are and Fallout 76 has set the record for not only the worst-reviewed big budget game of the generation but also the quickest drop in price, being almost halved in barely more than a week. Not, I assume, the sort of accolades that Bethesda was hoping for when they first announced it.
Although exactly what they were hoping for I dont know because they mustve known it would be a technical mess even back at E3. But presumably the logic was that everyone has put up with it before so why bother trying to make sure it works this time?
Im not picking on Bethesda here (even though they deserve it) because this attitude is commonplace amongst games companies nowadays, and its all because of early access.
Advertisement
Advertisement
This started off on Steam, and I know GC has always been against it, where smaller indie games and mods would be released to the public but with the open caveat that theyre not finished and dont work properly.
This is a useful way for small companies to get a steady income going, so they can finish their game, and also for players to suggest changes and, I guess, feel like theyre getting some kind of exclusive early preview.
PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds is probably the most successful recent example, but technically Fortnite is also still in early access. So the message traditional publishers are being sent is that not only are people fine with early access but its behind some of the most successful games of all time.
And thatd fine up to a point, if they really are indie games, but now increasingly were seeing full price games which think its fine to release broken or with hardly any content – Fallout 76 and Battlefield V being the most heinous examples of this year. And, thankfully, theyre being punished for it.
This idea needs to end and early access in general either needs to stop or be treated as a curiosity for impatient fans, not the way the game will be played for the majority of its lifespan.
I cant help thinking of what will be the two most successful games of the year: Red Dead Redemption II and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. (And also Call Of Duty: Black Ops 4, actually, which like all the COD games is also very professionally made, with few bugs.)
Advertisement
Advertisement
But as publishers Rockstar and Nintendo are known for three main things, despite making very different games: 1) not releasing yearly sequels, 2) being high quality, with almost no exceptions, and 3) no bugs.
Red Dead Redemption II had a couple of problems when it came out, which were quickly squashed. The last Nintendo bug I remember – because it had to have a patch, which Nintendo games dont usually do – was Zelda: Skyward Sword on the Wii. And that was one single bug, that was really hard to get. We had a Readers Feature a few weeks ago about how nobody seems to learn the lessons Rockstar teaches and that seems truer than ever now I write all this.
I honestly cant imagine what thought process led Bethesda to this situation. If you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasnt laziness, then what was it? Arrogance? Stupidity? Blindness to their own faults? I dont know, but I have very little confidence theyll learn from it. Nobody ever seems to.
The lessons are there though: make a great game, that works properly, and oozes class and people will buy it. But unfortunately theres also a second lesson: make an early access style title with much less effort and money and you might do just as well anyway. I guess its not surprising that too many other publishers go for the second option.
By reader Pinky
The readers feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email [email protected] and follow us on Twitter.
Advertisement
Advertisement
