Also: Bethesda Announce New Vegas DLCs

By Jim Rossignol on May 3rd, 2011 at 5:11 pm.

And now for those fanboys...
And I can pluralise DLC like that, because I am in charge of language. Anyway, the Bethesda Blog has a bouquet of details on the forthcoming New Vegas content, and there is three of it: Honest Hearts, Old World Blues, and Lonesome Road. Honest Hearts is due on May 17th and “takes you on an expedition to the unspoiled wilderness of Utah’s Zion National Park”, then Old World Blues, which appears some time in June, enables discovery of “how some of the Mojave’s mutated monsters came to be when you unwittingly become a lab rat in a science experiment gone awry.” Finally there’s Lonesome Road in July. That “brings the courier’s story full circle when you are contacted by the original Courier Six, a man by the name of Ulysses who refused to deliver the Platinum Chip at the start of New Vegas.” I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like something that would happen in a Fallout game.

These DLCs are all going to be $9.99, and full details are here.

__________________

« | »

, .

51 Comments »

  1. Coins says:

    The first DLC was surprisingly good, so I’m curious about these. Though, if you buy all four the DLC you end up with the price of the full game. Price/content-wise it’s still not entirely correct.

    • Archonsod says:

      Depends on whether the three extend the content out to another games worth really.

    • Nick says:

      Yes, I really enjoyed the first DLC, surprised me.

    • Stevostin says:

      Agreed. DLC are overpriced… OTOH, a Fallout game is way cheaper per hour than most games. Even DLC ends up pretty cheap so it’s ok to me. Still, Valve would think “free DLC, more full pack sales” and would be right, or at least cooler.

    • groghog says:

      also really enjoyed dead money, was a surprise after FO3′s comparatively tepid DLCs

    • arghstupid says:

      DLC is a brilliant idea from a sales point of view – Publishers get most of their profits when the game is at full price (or at least that’s often stated). DLC is relatively cheap to produce as a lot of the work has been done, but not only does it give you extra profits from hardcore fans, but you get two full price releases via a GOTY / Collectors edition rather then one.
      Even if a significant portion of your fan base eschew the initial release and wait for the GOTY, you’re still receiving the same revenue from the game overall and get to keep it at (effectively) full price for much longer. I can absolutely see why they do it from a sales point of view, it makes a lot of sense.
      As a customer it sucks as you either have to wait a year or so to play, feel like you’re only getting 2/3 of the content, or get milked for extra moneys.
      On the other hand AAA titles now require astronomical budgets and are pretty risky affairs as games, even from established franchises, can fail. I can understand investors doing their utmost to get a return on the successes. I personally think it crosses a line when the DLC is actively promoted in-game ala Dragon Age. Day 0 stuff bothers me less but does sort of highlight the cynicism of it. In it’s Bethesda form it’s just a bit of a niggle which I can (personally) tolerate. Probably as I tend to be a bit bored of their games by the time I’ve finished the vanilla version.

      Edit – er, I think I meant to put that reply somewhere else but I’m not sure where now.. Oh well.

    • bob_d says:

      @arghstupid: From a publisher point of view DLCs aren’t just brilliant, they’re necessary. It’s gotten to the point where a publicly traded game company simply can’t release a single player game without having DLC as a secondary money maker. They just can’t justify it financially to stockholders. Activision’s CFO even mentioned recently that a game like Starcraft 2 wasn’t worth making, financially speaking, because they can’t afford to spend that kind of development budget without getting either subscriptions or DLC income from it.

    • teedom says:

      ◎★★◎Something unexpected surprise

      [ w w w . j o r d a n s f o r k i n g . c o m]

      very good web,believe you will love it.

      exquisite watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.We have good reputation, fashion products,

      favourable price.
      ◎★★◎FREE SHIPPING
      good

    • anduin1 says:

      The DLC is almost rarely worth the price. I still hold to the mentality that if I paid $50 and got 30 hours from doing the main quest then for $10 I should be getting 6 hours of campaign, ignoring the side stuff. It rarely equates to that which is why I tend to avoid buying DLC or avoid buying games from companies that have a track record of doing this until they release everything at once.

      Kotick’s comments are not exactly true, SC2 still made back money and then some but what Blizzard tries to do is to create a good enough game that you’ll be like “wow, this is a great product and so I’ll buy the next one” whereas Kotick thinks shotgunning down your door and flooding your PC with CoD games over 2 years is a good way to keep repetition. They got burned by Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk games and soon they’ll get burned by CoD.

      Publicly traded game companies absolutely can release a product and not have DLC, they just can’t then expect their stocks to rise as rapidly. If a game companies priorities shift toward what their stocks are doing, then that company is already on the verge of losing. Gamers are fickle and the moment they realize that they’re not getting what they paid for, that company may be dead to them.

    • bob_d says:

      @ anduin1: Publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to maximize company profits. It would have been Thomas Tippl who made the remark rather than Kotick. I imagine his point was that based on the return on investment, Starcraft 2 wasn’t performing the way Activision expected a game to do. Given the huge development costs, they couldn’t financially justify to the shareholders making games like that, compared to CoD games that presumably make many times the profit. From their perspective, a game like Starcraft 2 should be reaping the rewards of consumer loyalty, not inspiring further loyalty.

    • Xerian says:

      @ anduin1
      “Gamers are fickle and the moment they realize that they’re not getting what they paid for, that company may be dead to them.”
      Well, sadly, thats not true, due to the fact that a HUGE amount of gamers nowadays are kids, whom hasnt even heard about pubity, and whom are as intelligent as my cat. (However, my cat is über clever. It can shake hands with you!) And the fact that a big amount of these kids, are spoiled brats whom just shout “MOMMYYY” when they want something, really takes out any intelligent decisions, and c’mon, the only reason that activision in its entirety isnt dead, is cause of CoD fanboys… and little, tiny, TINY douchebags.
      However, I for one am one of these “intelligent” sods, and do realize when a company is treating its gamers like shit, hence why i’ve cut off quite alot of developers, cause I know I wont get more than a dog-shit for my dime, and it’ll cost me a penny to get any sort of bugfixes the same year its released. (I’ll get map packs thoooo!!!!)

  2. KindredPhantom says:

    That “brings the courier’s story full circle when you are contacted by the original Courier Six, a man by the name of Ulysses who refused to deliver the Platinum Chip at the start of New Vegas.”
    That seems a tad spoiler-ish for those, like me who have yet to finish the game. Though, I’m not too sure. For those who have completed it, is it?

    • Wulf says:

      Nope, not at all.

      Ulysses was actually something they had to cut out of the original game because they had a deadline, and they had to make a hard decision about it. But because the character is the lovechild of Chris Avellone, he swore to get it in eventually, somehow. I guess he got his way.

    • Very Real Talker says:

      it’s the second village you visit in new vegas, nothing too spoilery. Also the game has been out since an eternity. Spoilers relate to the spoiling of 2 minutes new games or unreleased ones, and nothing else

    • Nick says:

      He barely gets a mention in the game, just that he saw your name on the courier list and said you should take it (the chip, that is). You learn a bit more about him in the Dead Money DLC.

    • KindredPhantom says:

      Ah, I just couldn’t recall much of the earlier story.

  3. dawnmane says:

    This makes me so happy.

  4. Ubik2000 says:

    Can I just say I feel like a goddamn idiot for preordering this game? When I tried to play it, I hit bugs and resolved to wait for patches. Then other things popped up and at this point, I have yet to actually play the game (is it bug free at this point?).

    Now we’re probably only a few months away from a GOTY edition. Sigh.

    Oh well. Are there decent mods out at least?

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      Yeah. Pretty much bugfree at this point. But I didn’t play much. The “western desert cowboy-like” setting pretty much put me off. I was a lot more into the first one. It would have been a dream if New vegas ruleset had been used right on the first game.

      Anyways, good to play as far as I know. Go for it.

    • Nick says:

      confused.. assume by first one you mean Fallout 3?

    • Tom OBedlam says:

      I’d like to challenge “almost bug free”, I’ve got an incredible bug at the moment that means that everytime an enemy attacks me I crash to desktop. This only started since Igot the dead money DLC. I’ve tried reloading games before the installation and it worked fine. Right up until i went to visit the gun runners then *poof* crash to desktop again. Fine, I won’t visit the gun runners which let me complete the game. Then I went back to do the DLC and, amazingly, no dice, crash to desktop. Bit irritated that I paid £7.95 to fuck my game up at the moment. I can’t even find anything on the web to help me.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      My favourtie was the “can’t turn” bug. I quickloaded after a death and, well, couldn’t turn.

      Totally should have played the rest of the game on that save file.

      It was all a bit Meh, though. Really.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      @Ubik2000: If you can read Spanish, I wrote a mod guide here. Hey, even if you don’t, I guess you can still more or less deduce what’s the deal with them; and ultimately you can just go for the universal language of clicking the links anyway.

  5. Iskariot says:

    I hate those little after the fact, to little to late, cut up pieces of game. I hated it when they did it with Fallout 3 and I hated it when they did it with Mass Effect 2. I’d rather have one big expansion pack for 30 buck. I am not spending any money or time on this. There are more than enough other games to be bought and played. Although reasonably fun, for me Fallout New Vegas is not at all good enough to revisit. I’d rather replay Fallout 3 for the third time with some mods.

    • Urael says:

      It’s getting to the point where I’m holding off buying certain games because I know that there will be four or five pieces of DLC down the line, and would rather pay the regular RRP for the GOTY edition than twice the original cost (or more) buying them individually. I’ve still to get Mass Effect 2, for instance, despite loving ME1.

      But any marketing guy reading this will probably think “Aha! Do away with GOTY editions!”, the horrible c*nt.

    • arghstupid says:

      New vegas is a great big expansion pack for 30 bucks isn’t it? These DLCs are just little fleas on it’s back.

    • edit says:

      I wouldn’t think it fair to call New Vegas an expansion pack itself. I liked it significantly more than Fallout 3, despite thoroughly enjoying that. Many aspects are improved, not the least of which being the writing, and there is no re-use of locations. I felt it was a great and worthy addition to the Fallout saga.

      On DLC though… yeah I’d much rather a larger expansion myself. I think I’ll wait until long after the GOTY\complete edition is out (and probably discounted) and and until it’s been a long while since I played F:NV so it’s nice and fresh. One of the big downsides for me, for DLC for open-world games, is that if the game is any good I’ll play it until I can’t bring myself to play it any more (usually a couple of extremely thorough playthroughs). Then, what, I’m supposed to play through it AGAIN to experience a bit of extra content? Too late, I’m over it. Hence I think waiting for a while to check it out is my best option, both financially and experientially.

  6. Sif says:

    “And I can pluralise DLC like that, because I am in charge of language.”

    At long last, someone’s stepping up.

    Can’t wait for the Ulysses-focused DLC, although another (stable) PC patch would be appreciated before they release these.

  7. Andy_Panthro says:

    I guess I should wait for the inevitable Goatee edition? Although I expect I’ll be knee deep in Skyrim by then.

    Also: Since you have decided to be in charge of language (just English? or all of them?) I shall be henceforth directing all grammatical queries to you.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      You won’t be knee deep in skyrim, because when NV:GotY comes out you will be sensible and wait for the GotY version of Skyrim. I’m not buying anything from Bethesda on release again.

    • Andy_Panthro says:

      Very true!

      Although I never played the Oblivion expansions, the Morrowind ones were certainly worth waiting for the GOTY.

      I expect I’ll be doing the same as you… always waiting for the “complete” editions, and in sales too. It’s the best practice really, especially since I’ve got so many other games to play… If only I’d had this sort of access to top quality games in my youth! I’d never have accomplished anything (except playing lots of games).

    • anduin1 says:

      same here, will be waiting it out with the next one. Doubt my PC can max it out anyways and Im not really big on playing games on reduced resolutions on a widescreen monitor. Also it’s guaranteed to be buggy as shit for the first few months until the flurry of patches comes threw at which point the game should be half price.

  8. Zarunil says:

    Hopefully they will release a GOTY edition which will be on sale this Christmas for €14.99.

  9. Zanchito says:

    Way overpriced. Pity, ’cause I like the sound of them.

  10. dethtoll says:

    I’m going to wait and see what they do with the GOTY edition. If they wanna charge more than $40 for it I’ll just buy the DLC individually- it’s Steam, so I have no qualms. I don’t plan on going back to New Vegas for a while yet anyway; I have a long cycle where I play all the games- classic and new, not including that abysmal PS2 game- with at least a couple months in between.

  11. The Innocent says:

    The Burned Man lives!

  12. Blackseraph says:

    I am most interested in Honest Hearts, luckily it is the first one.

    Dead money was rather good dlc surprisingly, but it didn’t have things that I like in New Vegas that much, no factions and not much diplomacy. Dead money was also damn hard for me, I died like tens of times in it. Hopefully these won’t be as brutal as it was.

    • Nick says:

      You were meant to run away I think. Although that never stopped me..

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yeah, I died a few times too. Dead Money combined the old “”you’ve been kidnapped and your stuff taken” trick from The Pitt DLC for Fallout 3, with the kind of hard-to-kill enemies that were in Point Lookout (the bullet-proof hicks in the woods).

      That approach can’t be repeated too often without looking silly, although it sounds like at least one of the DLCs includes another “kidnapping.” That doesn’t sound promising. I’m gonna be pissed if I can’t use my cool outfits and collected weapons from the New Vegas endgame, in at least a few of the upcoming DLCs.

  13. Turin Turambar says:

    GOTY edition here i come! (eventually, in Q3 i suppose)

  14. TillEulenspiegel says:

    pay the regular RRP for the GOTY edition

    Not even RRP. I got DA:O Ultimate Edition for $25 in a Steam sale shortly after it was released, and that includes one real expansion in addition to the pile of DLC.

    It’s the only positive thing in this modern age of DLC. You wait for the GOTY, wait a little bit longer for the sale, then pounce. You just need about a year’s worth of patience. I seem to remember it taking much longer in olden times; games that wound up in the bargain bin were generally crap.

  15. Qjuad says:

    Loved, loved, loved FO:NV despite it blowing up left, right and centre and am excited to see some more DLC – Dead Money was a very satisfying experiment with some wonderful dialogue and a great setting and these look equally interesting (though no doubt they will also drive my computer to nuclear meltdowns).

    • anduin1 says:

      game of the year editions sometimes only took a year from release back when it actually mattered to publishers to get that out in the same year as the game or within a few months of the new year.

  16. AdamK117 says:

    Dead money was a cool twist on the game but the modular nature of it (i.e. not having anything to do with the main game) was a necessary but slightly dissapointing comprimise.

  17. Monchberter says:

    Interesting all the love for Dead Money on here, DLC that got rather tepid reviews for being repetitive. I enjoyed it, but felt the main part of it rather a tiresome ordeal bookended by some pretty good stuff. The writing was good and dark but still had the goofy Fallout-iness about it. Looking forward to an extra 3-5 hours or so a month into July.

    • ohnoabear says:

      It wasn’t repetitive so much as bastard hard (at least it was for me when I played at nearly level 30). The tough, overpowered enemies and brutal environment try to make it a game about survival, rather than the powergaming of the main game.

      It mostly works–the writing is even better than most of the main game, thanks to the self-contained nature of the story–but the design is at times too ambitious for the technology the game is built on, and the general bugginess of F:NV.

      I ran into some awful bugs related to the collar you wear that explodes if you get too close to radios. At one point I had to roll back from an earlier save because I got into an unwinnable situation. It also made the radio-dodging in the endgame tiresome beyond belief.

    • eclipse mattaru says:

      @Monchberter: You pretty much describe my experience with the entire New Vegas. Those Obsidian guys are very good at the whole multiple paths thing and I guess they’re not as terrible writers as the people at Bethesda which is nice too, but DEAR GOD do they suck at designing quests. I really really wanted to like NV as much as I liked Fallout 3 (hell, I’m still playing it), but I just can’t completely do it. For every Vault 11 there were about 8 hours of running errands back and forth in the same dull map, or plain simply wandering aimlessly on an incredibly boring, almost lifeless world.

      I am getting these anyway (I’m especially interested in finding out about the Burning Man), but I wish Bethesda would let those fucking orcs and dragons and all that garbage alone for good and come back to do the post-apocalyptic thing they do so well.

  18. Phade Fx says:

    Well you can get New Vegas for £14 nowadays, i got it for £25 when it came out. That won’t stop me spending another £24 on the next 3 DLC’s because I’m sucker for Fallout and I want to see the series continue (and Obsidian continue making Fallout games under Bethesda).

  19. anduin1 says:

    There’s a brilliant article in this past months EGM magazine that delves into DLC and sales and peoples buying habits + how companies compete to get the lowest price out the door. The jist of it is that with sales from Steam for example or games from companies like Bethesday or Bioware that inevitably release several pieces of DLC, people are beginning to wait more with their purchases or wait for very large discounts. They avoid buying a game straight away and will wait that extra 6 months to a year (depending how the game initially is selling) to get the product at what their perceived value is. One of the devs chimed in and said that Steam sales cheapen games by having sales so often (u mad bro) and lead to people holding off on purchases until said game goes on sale. Personally I don’t know how long sales like that will continue for Steam since it seems like a lot more companies are being vocal over the amount of money they’re losing. Is it really losing if the person wouldn’t of bought your game otherwise? Harks back to the piracy argument they always use.

    I get where they’re coming from but they also need to understand the consumers point of view. With rumors swirling about day 1 DLC being cut out from the game or on disc DLC that just needs a code to be unlocked (consoles of course), companies are responding to consumer demands for cheaper prices on games they deem are not worth the full price tag anymore. This kind competition or backdoor if you will lends gamers a much needed avenue to “vote with their dollars”, if a mediocre game comes out and charges you $60 and you don’t get value from that purchase then you would hold off on making purchases on day 1 in the future OR you would buy said game at a reduced price.

    Someone like myself may buy NV brand spanking new because I know I’ll get a ton of hours out of it and add to the fact that mods can enhance a game, I find it worth the new price. The DLC, not so much and in that case will wait until theres some GOTY edition of some steam sale that results in 75% off of them.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>