Fallout 76 - UK Sales down by 82.4% compared to Fallout 4 - Sensationalist Headlines

Pok�mon and Spyro top hyper competitive week at UK games retail .. "Fallout 76 - an online multiplayer take on the franchise - was not expected to sell as strongly as Fallout 4. Of course, any new game from Bethesda Game Studios is still a major release, yet this title has got off to a slow start. Fallout 76 debuts at No.3, and sales are down 82.4 per cent compared with the previous game in the franchise - 2015's Fallout 4. Even so, due to its higher retail price, Fallout 76 was actually the game that generated the most revenue at UK retail last week. Because of its budget price, Spyro was actually No.3 in the revenue charts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AQ-D_OnF-E

They could've made a fallout 4 DLC that was just COOP for fallout 4. Like the new location is nice and all but at least there is stuff to do in fallout 4.

That's because H2 sold mostly digital and these charts don't count digital. It's stayed in Steam's top seller list for at least a week, though not by a huge margin. As far as I'm aware it's done acceptably, though likely not enough to recoup costs yet.

A game that somehow has even less depth to it than Fallout 4 sold worse than Fallout 4? Color me surprised. Oh yeah, not to mention all the other glaring flaws with the game, and the fact that it has no endgame besides just constantly nuking each other. Seriously, I thought Bethesda couldn't streamline the RPG mechanics and quest writing more than they did with Fallout 4, but dear lord they proved me very wrong.

All those people are waiting for the FO76 GOTY, FO76 VR, FO76 Special Edition, FO76 ENHANCED that explains the low sales, come on guyssssssssssssssssssssssss

I really don't get how or why they thought it was a good idea in the first place. They've made an entire new Fallout game pretty much, but then decided to leave out two of the biggest factors that make the ames enjoyable - the world-building and the interactivity. It's as if they came up with the idea and then made themselves stick with it regardless of the fact that it didn't fit with the lore, took away one of the more well-liked parts of the games, resulted in the world feeling empty and meant the quests and their outcomes are worse. I get that they wanted to make the interactions you do have seem important, but removing all the non-player human characters is a hugely detrimental thing and it's just absurd that they thought that would be a good idea.

Yeah it's like they thought their gameplay was the reason why people liked it lawl, nobody plays that shit for the gunplay. they either play it for the RPG aspect (which stinks in 76) or for like you said worldbuilding and story.

could also be that fallout 76 is a dumpster fire under the hood with everything running client side.

Good Don't make another multiplayer game ever again, BGS.

If Bethesda wanted to put Multiplayer into one of their games it should have been a Co-op mode where you could join your friend's otherwise single player game. I'm kinda saddened at the prospect that they may have completely screwed the pooch with fallout 76, and now we will never get a decent co-op multiplayer element in a Bethesda open world game because nobody liked their lame live service rust clone.

After playing this installment, I'm convinced they'll never be able to handle any multiplayer ever, and should never try again unless they have a massive shakedown. Even a co-op mode would risk compromising too much of the single player experience, at which point I'm going to say no thanks.

I don't think it's fair to say that Bethesda should never make another multiplayer game again. There's a ton of issues with 76, both in terms of design and mechanics, sure, but I can still appreciate them trying something different at the very least.

Well one positive out of 76 is that if they updated gamebryo to support multiple players (or at the very least made it easier to support multiple players), modders might have an easier time modding co-op into future games. Right now existing efforts for Skyrim involve replicating other players as NPCs where those fake NPCs simulate the player's actions - if 76's code makes it into the main branch then it might help. Not to say Bethesda's excused from trying in the future as once again it'd be modders fixing their game for them, but still

Skyrim 2 with co-op. That's all I want.

I hate this whole situation, because Bethesa will look at it and go "Oh, people don't want multiplayer Bethesda titles" when the real lesson is that people don't want empty, shallow games built upon decades of the same buggy engine. Because a multiplayer fps looter shooter post-apocalyptic bugaloo with friends is absolutely my jam, but somehow bethesda did it completely wrong in almost every direction.

I feel like this game might have been better received if it wasn't a fallout game

Frankly if people don't want a shallow game built on a buggy engine, they really don't want a multiplayer Bethesda title.

The thing is that Morrowind was built with NetImmerse, which was designed for multiplayer games and got refactored by Bethesda for a singleplayer title. Elements of NetImmerse still linger into the Creation Engine due to their habits of building everything on top of older stuff. As the modding communities have shown for New Vegas and Skyrim, multiplayer is possible with a hell of a lot of workarounds, but it's still very questionably hacky and difficult stuff. Bethesda's official work on implementing such stuff into their engine officially again for FO76 is only marginally better but still an absolute crapshoot that gives way too much power to the client - a massive fuck up that anyone with any sense in net game programming would tell you is a huge security risk and a fundamental problem rooted into the core that you should always avoid - and even then their own servers shit the bed semi-consistently. Even if Bethesda did tackle multiplayer for later games, it would basically have to be with an entirely new team with competent, modern training instead of hanging onto lazy and shitty habits for 16 years now, and it would have to be co-op to avoid repeating this problem. It would be easier for them to just file it as a failed experiment and never bother again.

well the whole client thing is unsurprising due to it having to require more than a weeks worth of netcode implementation to make it server authoritative. I'm willing to bet money the "server" is nothing more than an echo server that has no knowledge of the game or content and just shits out what it hears, for the most part.

I blame the always online DRM thing they keep insisting on using even after it turned of a lot of people, including myself, of buying Hitman 2016.

considering how cheaply made FO76 was, I doubt they care that much lol.

Fallout 76 might have been fine if it costed $30 at max. But as of right now.They are asking to much and all you have is their promise they might fix bugs and add content later. There is also the fact you need to convince several other people to also buy the game to make it the slightest bit worth it.

I honestly like the game a helluvalot, but this is deserved, it's early access at best and certainly not fit for release (yet) There's just too many basic features that are missing and a lot of massive design flaws present at the moment to justify a full release yet, they a massive kick in the ass to hopefully wake them up a bit so they don't cut so many corners.

Maybe I just haven’t been paying attention, but honestly, the first I heard of this game was like 2 weeks before it was released? And it might not be a battle royale style game, but it seems like virtually every shooter is heading towards that direction these days, and I’m just really not interested.

I wouldn't play Fallout 76 even if someone paid me 30$ to do so.

what ho old bean, me and my chums are most jolly we purchased the new fallout 76 for the low sum of £50, 15 shillings and 3pence. what a blast we are having apprehending yobs and ne'er-do-wells with our pea shooters and puckle guns, why not give it a try? available from any respectable merchant or market town. tally ho, toodle pip

1 - Fallout 3 and 4 aren't very good RPG, and 4 is a much worse RPG than 3, so 76 successfully became WORSE than fallout 4 on that regards. 2 - The whole idea suck. Fallout in multiplayer should not be an MMO. It should have been like what Wasteland 3, right now, is trying to do for its multiplayer: a multiplayer coop game RPG where the players do the main story together or in solo, and they can mess each other story up. Yes, it is possible, and I highly recommends you guy to check out wasteland 3 on fig. It is very promising and much more interesting than what FO76 has to offers in terms of "How can we make a good RPG, but in multiplayer?"

The only reason I'm even a tad interested in eventually getting it in the first place is because it's a Fallout game. Otherwise it's just another generic janky as fuck early access survival game on the pile of generic early access survival games that currently exist.

The fact that it's a fallout game is the only reason I even noticed that it existed. Without the ties to a legendary RPG franchise, it's just another early access survival simulator.

I'd honestly be way more interested in Fallout 76 if it was a 30$ or 40$ game and not a full price launch