Starfield Thread - Shattered Space expansion coming September 30th

[Rhobar121]

BG3 just allows multiplayer, but that's enough to be omitted in your counting, a disputable quality Bethesda only has F76 to show for.

There is no way BG3 would've achieved its current numbers if it didn't allow for co-op play.

Bullshit. You can continue to delude yourself, but let's play your game. I left out a few games that no one cares about. Guess what the games below have in common. If you have a problem with this, I will help you. These are SP games.
1. Cyberpunk 2077 1 million+
2. Elden Ring 953k
3. Hogward Legacy 879k
4. BG3 875k
5. F4 473k
6. Postal 412k
7. Starfield 330k
Starfield is literally worse than goddamn Postal.
Starfield's result is pathetic considering the size of the advertising campaign.
It was literally defeated by a game that came out a month ago and whose only advertising was bear sex.
You can't even judge the brand's popularity here because the BG series was released 20 years ago and few of the younger players remember this series at all.

You are aware that Starfield reached over 1 million concurrent players, right? Gamepass on both PC and console is how the majority play it.

A poor achievement because you can easily get a gamepass for a month for few pennies. BG3 was only released on PC at that time and Steam statistics do not include the number of players on GoG.

 

[Vic]

BG3 just allows multiplayer, but that's enough to be omitted in your counting, a disputable quality Bethesda only has F76 to show for.

There is no way BG3 would've achieved its current numbers if it didn't allow for co-op play.

Bullshit. You can continue to delude yourself, but let's play your game. I left out a few games that no one cares about. Guess what the games below have in common. If you have a problem with this, I will help you. These are SP games.
1. Cyberpunk 2077 1 million+
2. Elden Ring 953k
3. Hogward Legacy 879k
4. BG3 875k
5. F4 473k
6. Postal 412k
7. Starfield 330k
Starfield is literally worse than goddamn Postal.
Starfield's result is pathetic considering the size of the advertising campaign.
It was literally defeated by a game that came out a month ago and whose only advertising was bear sex.
You can't even judge the brand's popularity here because the BG series was released 20 years ago and few of the younger players remember this series at all.

You are aware that Starfield reached over 1 million concurrent players, right? Gamepass on both PC and console is how the majority play it.

A poor achievement because you can easily get a gamepass for a month for 1 euro.

Yes, so if they were too concerned with immediate sales, they wouldn't have released it day 1 on gamepass. More likely M$ is using the game to get more subscriptions. You have to look at the bigger picture here, mate.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

BG3 just allows multiplayer, but that's enough to be omitted in your counting, a disputable quality Bethesda only has F76 to show for.

There is no way BG3 would've achieved its current numbers if it didn't allow for co-op play.

I would rather disagree with that. People cooping in bg3 are not many at all.

 

[Konjad]

Have you ever taken a 360-degree turn on any planet when walking? I bet never.
So why can't we? It is not by technical limitation that the message appears that we have reached the limit of the planet, but rather to prevent the player from falling off the edge.

I bet even with this revelation you're still trusting Bethesda.

Alright, I have another one.

Did you know that planets are an optical illusion? You can't land on them, they just disappear. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Also, if planets were round it would be impossible for the spacecraft to fly over them. Is it possible to fly inverted, upside down? And land like that? We know the answer is no. The ultimate proof that Bethesda lies how the cosmos works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Have you ever taken a 360-degree turn on any planet when walking? I bet never.
So why can't we? It is not by technical limitation that the message appears that we have reached the limit of the planet, but rather to prevent the player from falling off the edge.

I bet even with this revelation you're still trusting Bethesda.

Alright, I have another one.

Did you know that planets are an optical illusion? You can't land on them, they just disappear. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Also, if planets were round it would be impossible for the spacecraft to fly over them. Is it possible to fly inverted, upside down? And land like that? We know the answer is no. The ultimate proof that Bethesda lies how the cosmos works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

And what's the matter? Is an abstraction. Would you rather have floating rock ala no man sky that gives you ther impression to land in a life filled asteroid?

 

[Van-d-all]

BG3 just allows multiplayer, but that's enough to be omitted in your counting, a disputable quality Bethesda only has F76 to show for.

There is no way BG3 would've achieved its current numbers if it didn't allow for co-op play.

I would rather disagree with that. People cooping in bg3 are not many at all.

Games nowadays are streamer-loaded. As such coop does help sales massively, by streamers doing organized multiplayer sessions when gameplay fun is complemented by social behaviours between (semi)professional players. Regular gamers despite trying to copy them, rarely play coop however, simply because it's nearly impossible to coordinate several people to dump HUNDREDS of hours SIMULTANEOUSLY into a hobby, and remain fun. Same reason most people stop playing tabletop.

 

[Konjad]

Have you ever taken a 360-degree turn on any planet when walking? I bet never.
So why can't we? It is not by technical limitation that the message appears that we have reached the limit of the planet, but rather to prevent the player from falling off the edge.

I bet even with this revelation you're still trusting Bethesda.

Alright, I have another one.

Did you know that planets are an optical illusion? You can't land on them, they just disappear. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Also, if planets were round it would be impossible for the spacecraft to fly over them. Is it possible to fly inverted, upside down? And land like that? We know the answer is no. The ultimate proof that Bethesda lies how the cosmos works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

And what's the matter? Is an abstraction. Would you rather have floating rock ala no man sky that gives you ther impression to land in a life filled asteroid?

Your simple mind cannot comprehend that post, that truth. No surprises.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Have you ever taken a 360-degree turn on any planet when walking? I bet never.
So why can't we? It is not by technical limitation that the message appears that we have reached the limit of the planet, but rather to prevent the player from falling off the edge.

I bet even with this revelation you're still trusting Bethesda.

Alright, I have another one.

Did you know that planets are an optical illusion? You can't land on them, they just disappear. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Also, if planets were round it would be impossible for the spacecraft to fly over them. Is it possible to fly inverted, upside down? And land like that? We know the answer is no. The ultimate proof that Bethesda lies how the cosmos works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

And what's the matter? Is an abstraction. Would you rather have floating rock ala no man sky that gives you ther impression to land in a life filled asteroid?

Your simple mind cannot comprehend that post, that truth. No surprises.

Is simple. In no man sky you can land on "Planets" but they really don't feel as planets. They feel more like floating rocks with life in it. They are very small. I like more a system like in starfield where you land and stuff around you in a huge chunk of terrain gets generated at least i have a sense of scale.
Also dude you are trying too hard to troll you are not believable.

 

[Stokowski]

 

[Lovely Feather Pillow]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

 

[Vic]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

the ones I know of:

- you can setup high yield outpost and grind crafting xp
- you can accept resource delivery missions from the ship manufacturer's shipyards
- there are procgen quests that ask you to set up a cargo link with them

 

[just]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

so you have groundwork for inevitable loverslab breeding colonies

 

[FugueLah]

Two ships exactly the same. One with 194 shields.

 

[Vic]

Sarah is a Chunks girl

also, these names

 

[Vic]

Two ships exactly the same. One with 194 shields.

yeah, bug. I got softlocked on my NG+. Couldn't open inventory or save.

 

[spectre]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

Autism.

In theory, you could automate resource production so that you have everything your need for crafting,
and when you craft a lot of shit, theoretically this gives you exp and money if you do it in ridiculous bulk.
Also, one way to complete the cargo delivery missions which ask for hundreds of materials.

There are also various bonuses coming from outposts like increased scanning range, haven't looked too much into this cause
it probably needs a bit of research to unlock everything.

Myself, I used them for shipbuilding (the outpost shipyard has all the components in one place), as a discrete stash
for all the contraband before I unload it, and a safari spot where I go and slaughter local wildlife whenever I need a levelup.

 

[abija]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

Kitchensink design. Make systems you think are interesting (copy from other games), some people like them. And some people who will never touch them will think they are deeper than they really are and be impressed.

 

[GaelicVigil]

To emphasize even more how much 6 million is a shitty result. According to unofficial data, BG3 has sold approximately 5.5 million copies on Steam alone (data from last month).
We're talking about a game whose only advertisement was bear sex.

Starfield has at least one DLC planned, and my guess is 2-3, each DLC release will pump sales. They'll also re-release it again as a "complete" edition, which more people will buy. They are probably less concerned with immediate numbers and are taking a more long term approach with this. Simply based on the fact that it's day 1 on gamepass and that the performance is pretty shit on release, which they must've been aware of.

Limit copium. Every developer hopes to sell as many copies as possible on release day, when the hype is greatest. How many casuals will remember the game in 2-3 months?
The game definitely won't be the next Skyrim. The difference in perception of this game is extremely different from Skyrim. I don't see a million versions of F4, but Skyrim has tons of versions for different platforms.

Starfield is the most played single player game on steam, it reached a milestone of over 1 million concurrent players across all platforms. You always take risks if you attempt something new. Skyrim was the 5th elder scrolls game, meaning they had 4 iterations beforehand to perfect their formula. With Starfield they are building on their previous Fallout games but are also taking a completely novel approach, one of which we have not yet seen in RPGs.

If they wanted to maximize their sales they wouldn't have released it day 1 on gamepass. Also, considering how different the game is, and that there's really nothing quite like it out there, I'm pretty sure they expected it not to be wildly popular on release. Compared to a safe bet like a fantasy RPG, starfield is pioneering the field using AI/proc gen in combination with RPG gameplay.

And no Starfield is not a No Man's Sky, nor does it attempt to be one.

https://www.ign.com/articles/starfield-seamless-fly-space-to-planet-not-important-todd-howard

You are not "playing" anything when you're stuck in a loading screen, long-winded and boring dialog, or running across a bland empty landscape. Sure, the game is techincally "running", but it's not being played. So take your concurrent players and reduce it by about 40%, because that's how much time people are not actually playing.

In BG3 by contrast, players are almost always fully engaged with it. The world is filled to the brim with playable spaces.

 

[Vic]

To emphasize even more how much 6 million is a shitty result. According to unofficial data, BG3 has sold approximately 5.5 million copies on Steam alone (data from last month).
We're talking about a game whose only advertisement was bear sex.

Starfield has at least one DLC planned, and my guess is 2-3, each DLC release will pump sales. They'll also re-release it again as a "complete" edition, which more people will buy. They are probably less concerned with immediate numbers and are taking a more long term approach with this. Simply based on the fact that it's day 1 on gamepass and that the performance is pretty shit on release, which they must've been aware of.

Limit copium. Every developer hopes to sell as many copies as possible on release day, when the hype is greatest. How many casuals will remember the game in 2-3 months?
The game definitely won't be the next Skyrim. The difference in perception of this game is extremely different from Skyrim. I don't see a million versions of F4, but Skyrim has tons of versions for different platforms.

Starfield is the most played single player game on steam, it reached a milestone of over 1 million concurrent players across all platforms. You always take risks if you attempt something new. Skyrim was the 5th elder scrolls game, meaning they had 4 iterations beforehand to perfect their formula. With Starfield they are building on their previous Fallout games but are also taking a completely novel approach, one of which we have not yet seen in RPGs.

If they wanted to maximize their sales they wouldn't have released it day 1 on gamepass. Also, considering how different the game is, and that there's really nothing quite like it out there, I'm pretty sure they expected it not to be wildly popular on release. Compared to a safe bet like a fantasy RPG, starfield is pioneering the field using AI/proc gen in combination with RPG gameplay.

And no Starfield is not a No Man's Sky, nor does it attempt to be one.

https://www.ign.com/articles/starfield-seamless-fly-space-to-planet-not-important-todd-howard

You are not "playing" anything when you're stuck in a loading screen, long-winded and boring dialog, or running across a bland empty landscape. Sure, the game is techincally "running", but it's not being played. So take your concurrent players and reduce it by about 40%, because that's how much time people are not actually playing.

In BG3 by contrast, players are almost always fully engaged with it. The world is filled to the brim with playable spaces.

Are you playing on an SSD? My loading screens are under 5 seconds, compare that with the 10-15 minutes or so it takes me to clear out a dungeon.

Have you seen this post yet by the way? I think it's an efficient way to explore more without wasting too much time running across barren planets.

ok I think I figured out planetary exploration of the proc gen content: Find a planet that is at or above your level and has life on it. Planets which are barren don't have much stuff on them. land ship anywhere on the planet, get out and look around with your scanner if there are any POIs you want to visit (hit E on your scanner to get more details about what it is, locations with a question mark have a quest usually from what I've seen, but I usually go for Structures to hunt Elites and avoid Natural and Caves), if there are, go there and look for new POIs that pop up on the way. If there aren't, go back to your ship and fly to a new cell. that's the most efficient way I've found to find relevant POIs and not waste time running around the wilderness. Oh and only do that in solar systems that are at your level, because you can kill aliens on the way for xp and the Elites drop good loot for you, don't waste time exploring lower level planets. Doing the highest level planets you can efficiently kill Elites in is probably best.

 

[Levenmouth]

also, these names

This if nothing else confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that SF is an RPG.

 

[darkpatriot]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

I have only done limited outpost building so far (just 2 outposts, and I haven't even linked them yet) but so far based on the buildings I can build there isn't much point. Once I have them properly linked it will basically give me a good source of 4 resources, but the only thing I need resources for is modifying weapons and my suit, and I can find or buy enough resources for the small number of times I upgrade weapons. So far I only switch to a new weapon and need to upgrade it every 10 levels or so.

The main need for lots of resources is... building more outposts. I assume that can eventually be quite a money maker, but I also already get plenty of money just from looting. So no need for that.

Now with that said, I haven't gotten the skill to unlock more buildings, so I would hope that other buildings that get unlocked allow you to do more interesting things. But the base no skill invested buildings seem to primarily be about extracting resources to use for further outpost building. I am hoping it eventually allows you access to unique benefits when you invest in the skill and heavily build up outposts. Like, maybe you can create and use some unique advanced ship modules you can only research and build with a sufficiently advanced outpost.

But it may just be in the game for people that like doing that kind of thing. Which I kind of do like doing, so I could still appreciate that. If you don't enjoy that kind of thing, it looks like you can probably just skip it entirely.

 

[GaelicVigil]

Am I the only one to notice how oversaturated the green color is on New Atlantis? When the sun is high in the sky, all the vegetation looks like a lime, radioactive, melted, neon green color. You spend the most time in the game in this city, and it is by far the most ugly location in the whole game.

This gives me the same oversaturated green vibes from Oblivion. Makes my eyes bleed.

 

[Lovely Feather Pillow]

What’s the point of outposts and taking the time to setup supply lines and trade routes?

I have only done limited outpost building so far (just 2 outposts, and I haven't even linked them yet) but so far based on the buildings I can build there isn't much point. Once I have them properly linked it will basically give me a good source of 4 resources, but the only thing I need resources for is modifying weapons and my suit, and I can find or buy enough resources for the small number of times I upgrade weapons. So far I only switch to a new weapon and need to upgrade it every 10 levels or so.

The main need for lots of resources is... building more outposts. I assume that can eventually be quite a money maker, but I also already get plenty of money just from looting, so no need for that.

Now with that said, I haven't gotten the skill to unlock more buildings, so I would hope that other buildings that get unlocked allow you to do more interesting things. But the base no skill invested buildings seem to primarily be about extracting resources to use for further outpost building. I am hoping it eventually allows you access to unique benefits when you invest in the skill and heavily build up outposts. Like, maybe you can create and use some unique advanced ship modules you can research and build with a sufficiently advanced outpost.

But it may just be in the game for people that like doing that kind of thing. Which I kind of do like doing, so I could still appreciate that. If you don't enjoy that kind of thing, it looks like you can probably just skip it entirely.

Yeah, I did roughly the same amount of building as you and started asking myself why, which is never a good thing. Engaging in systems should always have an obvious benefit that motivates you to invest the time.

Like you said, there's only so many equipment upgrades you can do, just like in Fallout 4. Trade routes will eventually make you a ton of money, but what are you doing to do with that money? Much like equipment upgrades, there are only so many ships and upgrades you're going to need; and unless the end game ships are so prohibitively expensive that it isn't viable to save money for them via quests, I just don't see the need for all that.

 

[darkpatriot]

To emphasize even more how much 6 million is a shitty result. According to unofficial data, BG3 has sold approximately 5.5 million copies on Steam alone (data from last month).
We're talking about a game whose only advertisement was bear sex.

Starfield has at least one DLC planned, and my guess is 2-3, each DLC release will pump sales. They'll also re-release it again as a "complete" edition, which more people will buy. They are probably less concerned with immediate numbers and are taking a more long term approach with this. Simply based on the fact that it's day 1 on gamepass and that the performance is pretty shit on release, which they must've been aware of.

Limit copium. Every developer hopes to sell as many copies as possible on release day, when the hype is greatest. How many casuals will remember the game in 2-3 months?
The game definitely won't be the next Skyrim. The difference in perception of this game is extremely different from Skyrim. I don't see a million versions of F4, but Skyrim has tons of versions for different platforms.

Starfield is the most played single player game on steam, it reached a milestone of over 1 million concurrent players across all platforms. You always take risks if you attempt something new. Skyrim was the 5th elder scrolls game, meaning they had 4 iterations beforehand to perfect their formula. With Starfield they are building on their previous Fallout games but are also taking a completely novel approach, one of which we have not yet seen in RPGs.

If they wanted to maximize their sales they wouldn't have released it day 1 on gamepass. Also, considering how different the game is, and that there's really nothing quite like it out there, I'm pretty sure they expected it not to be wildly popular on release. Compared to a safe bet like a fantasy RPG, starfield is pioneering the field using AI/proc gen in combination with RPG gameplay.

And no Starfield is not a No Man's Sky, nor does it attempt to be one.

https://www.ign.com/articles/starfield-seamless-fly-space-to-planet-not-important-todd-howard

You are not "playing" anything when you're stuck in a loading screen, long-winded and boring dialog, or running across a bland empty landscape. Sure, the game is techincally "running", but it's not being played. So take your concurrent players and reduce it by about 40%, because that's how much time people are not actually playing.

In BG3 by contrast, players are almost always fully engaged with it. The world is filled to the brim with playable spaces.

You are not "posting" anything when you are fixated on only how you play games, long-winded and boring arguments, or arbitrarily trying to define things you don't like doing as not-gameplay. Sure, the forum is technically "posting", but it is not communicating anything. So take your current post count and reduce it by about 40%, because that is how much time you are not saying anything meaningful.

Vic, by contrast, is almost always fully engaged with the game. His posts are filled to the brim with noteworthy observations.

 

[Vic]

You spend the most time in the game in this city