It does absolutely matter because Bethesda’s older games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 have higher player counts than Starfield.
Starfield is only a few months old. Why is it less popular than those games? Clearly something went wrong with Starfield.
You see this in Steam reviews too. Skyrim and Fallout 4 have positive Steam reviews overall. Starfield is mixed overall indicating severe dissatisfaction with the game. This dissatisfaction is reflected in Starfield’s low player counted compared to the older Bethesda games.
I don't have a dog in this fight (I haven't played Starfield or any of the Elder Scrolls games, and the last Fallout game I played was pre-Bethesda), so take this question as more curious than dismissive:
My understanding is that these games have been improved over time by both the developers and by third-party modders. Isn't a possible explanation for the older games being more popular that they're better games, not because something went wrong with Starfield, but rather that the earlier games have had much more time to be polished into what they are today? Isn't it a bit early to write Starfield off given the histories of these other games? I remember most of the Fallout games being written off as bug-filled, boring messes at launch, and now they're the "popular" games being compared against.
I will say though that one difference is that Skyrim and Fallout 4 were deeply beloved by most Bethesda fans when they released. Starfield on the other hand seems to have had a more negative reception than them.
That being said....everything you said could very well be true! I guess we shall see what happens.
One final point: Other Bethesda games are known to have highly memorable atmospheres. I strongly remember the emotions I felt when I played Bethesda's other games. Starfield, on the other hand, has a very bland atmosphere unfortunately. That was the biggest dissapointment I had with it. I don't know how Bethesda can"fix" this issue even if they fix all the other issues with Starfield.
Paid mods have been a thing for Bethesda games for a long while; that's effectively what the Creation Club is.
In any case, they haven't introduced paid Starfield mods yet (nor have they introduced official support for Starfield mods at all), so until that happens it ain't (yet) a live service game.
Starfield was really good, imo. I played the game, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I, as the article suggests, moved on with my life. If they have good DLC, I'll be back.
> Starfield isn’t a live-service game. Like past Bethesda RPGs, it’s a single-player game with the main goal of delivering an expansive and immersive world and narrative to the player. You play it, you have a great time with it (or not), and you move on with your life.
All major games these days are "live-service" games because of DLCs. If you lose 97% of your players it matters because it is a huge hit to your DLC income potential.
TL;DR: To my understanding, this article makes no sense because Skyrim's re-releases funded Starfield.
> You play it, you have a great time with it (or not), and you move on with your life.
There are series with fans who will play and buy multiple times. Bethesda's own actions prove this: they re-released Skyrim for a decade.
That's not hyperbole. The trademark was registered in 2013 [1]. Bethesda used a decade of Skyrim (2011)[2] re-releases to fund Starfield.
> For context, Elden Ring had less than 5 percent of its peak player base six months after release.
Elden Ring and souls games have an enduring fanbase. I don't know if Bethesda has good will left for that. First Fallout 76 went poorly, then Starfield. Now? Bethesda is Microsoft property.
To me, that reads as a practical way of dealing with what Todd and others probably saw: there's not enough long tail left, and game studios without strong culture seem to fall apart after a while. Bethesda is no exception.
I remember Skyrim releasing a "Special Edition" of some kind on Steam a few years ago, which (from rough memory) the owners of the existing edition on Steam were supposed to get automatically upgraded to if had some kind of pass. Or along those lines, I don't remember the exact details any more.
I do remember that even though I had the required pass, they never gave me the Special Edition version of Skyrim that I was supposed to be upgraded to. Typical Valve. :/
In addition to what jerlam and others said, simple bug fixes can tip nostalgic fans over into purchasing again for a low price.
As to Skyrim, there's a chance that's on Bethesda's side rather than Valve's. I haven't used their publishing tools, but it's possible someone specified the upgrade criteria incorrectly. Even if it's late, you could try reaching out to Valve's support. They might say no, but it's worth trying.
> I've had enough negative experiences with Valve Support
That's surprising to me, but your reaction is understandable. GOG's business model also caters exactly to the type of fan and scenario I was talking about in my top-level comment. For example, GOG has Daggerfall, an early TES game from Bethesda [1].
> from GOG or anything-other-than-Valve
How do you organize your games for launch? I've heard of people using Steam as their main UI, but it seems you probably use another option to browse and launch.
Starfield is only a few months old. Why is it less popular than those games? Clearly something went wrong with Starfield.
You see this in Steam reviews too. Skyrim and Fallout 4 have positive Steam reviews overall. Starfield is mixed overall indicating severe dissatisfaction with the game. This dissatisfaction is reflected in Starfield’s low player counted compared to the older Bethesda games.