QUOTE(ghastley @ Jun 15 2022, 08:48 AM)
I’ll try to sum up Creation Club from my point of view as a creator. Basically Bethesda wanted gig employees to write paid mods for them cheaply. I would have submitted my ideas for their approval, before making anything, and only be allowed to do it if they liked the idea. Then I would do the work, they sell it for money, even if indirected through a token system, and then I would get a small percentage, having done ALL the work. I assume that the ones bundled with AE pay nothing to their authors, as Beth gave them away free.
Mods created outside CC were not eligible for inclusion, as Beth did not have creative control. And that is why the CC mods all suck. They are all Beth’s ideas, with the work done on the cheap. Carry on getting mods from Nexus, or elsewhere when mine find a home, as they will be genuine mods, not cheap DLC.
I don’t want payment for my mods, but I do want full creative control if my name goes on it. CC gives Beth the control, but not the responsibility, for the mods, and the payments come out of the profits from the mods, so it costs them nothing.
Thank you for providing the only thoughtful explanation I have seen for why Creation Club could be a problem. Almost every single time, it's been just capital-G gamers finding something to complain about and parroting other people's opinions (like, you know, a lot of things gaming-related). But this actually gives me real information on how it works. That's actually kind of scummy on Bethesda's part. Yes, it's their IP, and they're not going to do something like this if it doesn't make them money. But taking that large of a cut when they are not doing a majority of the work, even if they are providing guidance, and taking most of the creative control is kind of low.
QUOTE(TheCheshireKhajiit @ Jun 16 2022, 10:29 AM)
Yeah The Todd made sure to mention that they didn’t feel it was necessary or even desired to design the game to allow direct-from-space-entry into the atmosphere of planets because they want gameplay on the ground and in space to be two very different experiences. Whatever that means. So, I agree that we will probably be dealing with load screen when we want to land on planets.
As insanely cool as it would be to be able to transition directly onto a planet a la No Man's Sky, I think it's better this way. It allows for a much more curated experience (and supposedly there is at least twice as much handcrafted content than any other BGS game, from what I have heard). Plus, the tech for doing that while making a handcrafted experience like a BGS game is not at all feasible, I imagine.
QUOTE(SubRosa @ Jun 16 2022, 05:48 PM)
It will also make the world design a lot easier. If you can fly anywhere you want, they have to actually build each entire world. By instead doing a load screen from space to surface, they can restrict you to landing in only one place for each planet. Then they can build out a small world space around just that. It will basically be like how the interiors of cities in Oblivion are separate world spaces from the main world. But in this case each planet will be its own world space, and outer space will be the main world space (ala Tamriel).
Yeah, that's what it seems like it will be. More and more, it's sounding like a modern-day, outer space version of Daggerfall, which really piques my interest. While the "modern" direction of TES from TESA: Redguard on is for the better, I've wanted to see BGS take another big-time stab at a Daggerfall-esque game.
It's almost always good policy to temper hype for anything, but I'm incredibly excited for Starfield!
Oh gosh, that's going to be a riot. Renee flying a craft, Renee LANDING a craft. Crashing into buildings and whatnot.