Personally, I haven't seen an FPS made for me in a long time, so I was betting on a new TimeSplitters being it. The last two FPS campaigns I was into were Half-Life: Alyx in 2020 and Titanfall 2 in 2016. Those are slim pickings over a long timespan while the rest of the genre focused on live service garbage (though, to be fair, I still have yet to play Wolfenstein II). If that new Perfect Dark happens, I'm betting Microsoft spends $400M turning it into an extraction shooter multiplayer with a modern Call of Duty campaign, neither of which is what I want. TimeSplitters was likely only going to happen on a shoestring budget that couldn't afford to turn into the kind of game I don't want it to be, lol.
but something people tend to fail to mention is how much bigger the market is than when $60 became the norm.
No, people mention it a lot, but it's got a fundamental flaw in its rationale in that the larger market is not spread anywhere near evenly across the industry. Grand Theft Auto will outsell Starfield 10:1, and Starfield is an elite position to sell more copies than the vast majority of games out there. When we talk about how much bigger the market is than it was when prices increased to $60 (which was itself lower than prices had been 10-20 years earlier), we're capturing the sales of games that blow their next closest competitors out of the water. The same goes for profits, which are going to heavily favor an industry with Shark Cards and Ultimate Team loot boxes compared to a game that just sells a base game and an expansion pack via season pass for a total of $100. A rising tide does lift all boats, but it lifts a select few way higher than just about everyone else.
By the way you’re buying and reselling the regurgitated excuses, you have clearly lost to them like many, many others and I’m genuinely dreading what my favorite hobby is going to look like in five years time because of those people and their ever-increasing tolerance to getting screwed and expected to be grateful.
Buy the stuff you like and don't buy the stuff you don't like. Loot boxes and battle passes prey on impulses wired into people at an instinctual level that makes that more than just a free market scenario, but you like Witcher 3 expansions. Starfield is offering the same business model as that. Buy it or don't, depending on how much trust you have in that product to be good. I'm content to buy a $100 version of Street Fighter or Guilty Gear or Mortal Kombat but not so much Tekken (remember Street Fighter II cost $70 in 1992 money, $150 adjusting for inflation, offering far less than we get today). I feel like I got a bargain on Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate 3, but if they had something to upsell me on, I'd likely be a happy customer to pay for that too.
As for the game-breaking glitches you ran into, I fully believe that you encountered them, and that sucks. I also believe that sheer law of averages would indicate it's not the norm, and that the vast majority of people are able to play these games without mods, or they would not do as well as they do, critically and commercially.
There are problems with Steam that a competitor could win customers from by solving those problems, but they didn't bother. They only went after the people producing games, not buying games.
I've played Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Fallout 4, the latter two at launch. I've never installed mods for any of these games, and I rarely install mods in general. Skyrim had a rough launch, where it would crash for me frequently, but that problem was resolved within a few weeks, tops. They're all very playable, and I never felt like I needed mods to fix them, which is why they also sell well on consoles.
and the standard of the complete version of a game release costing 100 bucks before the industry still found an excuse to increase the usual price of 60 bucks up to 70
Inflation is a fact of life, and prices were going to increase somehow, especially since a lot of AAA games these days are recklessly large, including Bethesda games. There's a lot more at play with the way DLC works and the pricing around them than just trying to sneak a price increase by you, but the short answer is: I don't think it's a big deal to have an entry level price for a game and another price for the game and expansion content.
So people play it on console because it's a good game without mods, which would mean it's not unplayable. There's also little reason beyond just general cynicism to believe mod tools aren't coming when their past several offline games got mod tools a handful of months after release, including Skyrim. As far as I can tell, it's quite normal for mod tools to come several months after release for non-Bethesda games as well. I don't think the longevity of mods has anything to do with whether or not a game is unplayable.
That's exactly my point. At some point, Divinity: Original Sin was a niche. Now Baldur's Gate 3 is poised to be called Game of the Year and outsold Larian's wildest expectations. Many of those sales came from people who bought BG3 and not Starfield. That sends a message for what customers actually want. There wasn't some mass campaign to boycott Battlefield 2042; their customers just told them, by way of not buying it like they used to, that the product EA put out was not worth the price they were asking.
I'm not. Choosing not to buy a bad product has incremental effects on what gets made in the market from 1 person choosing not to buy it all the way out to no one buying it.
My past experience has been bugs that ruined my experience at launch and then got fixed shortly after. I'm sure there are plenty more bugs that I didn't notice, but they certainly fixed the ones that I did.
I had also heard that at some point they were being directed to adapt the idTech engine which runs DOOM to become the new base for Bethesda games, but I guess that hasn’t happened.
They must have had trouble, because Arkane moved from Unreal to Void (which is built on idTech) for Dishonored 2 and Deathloop and such, and then back to Unreal again. Everyone got in a hurry in the 2010s to have their own in-house engine to avoid paying out fees to Epic, and then after running into trouble trying to adapt those engines to genres they weren't built for, they're back to Unreal again.
You won't hear me defending them using that old engine, except that development time is also a resource. They should have spent it a long time ago migrating to a more modern tech stack, and maybe they will for ES6 now that there's a new boss in town; Microsoft did, after all, delay the game by a year and a half to make what is by all accounts their least buggy launch of one of their RPGs in decades. I also don't know how much we can claim they're leaving it up to modders when plenty of console versions are completely unmoddable.
That's all well and good. I just think it's silly to say that "at least CDPR fixed Cyberpunk, but Bethesda won't fix Starfield" when these things take time, and Starfield hasn't had much of that yet. And then we have people here calling mod tools an afterthought as though this company hasn't always prioritized making mod tools for their games because they know how important they are, just because (like their past several games) mod tools are going to take several more months before they come out.