It’s Pretty Unlikely That We’ll See Fallout 4 This Weekend

Well ain't that a punch in the head?

Blah. Bleh. Also bluh. I want Fallout 4, you want Fallout 4, the President (probably) wants Fallout 4, but Bethesda might have other plans. After a series of trademarks and countdown websites got us all in a tizzy – our faces practically aglow with irradiated glee – Bethesda’s seen fit to put what is maybe the final nail in this excitement-killing coffin. Everyone assumed an announcement would take place at this weekend’s Spike VGX, er, “awards,” but Bethesda marketing man Pete Hines has said that we shouldn’t get our hopes up.

“I am not going to VGX,” Hines tweeted in response to people speculating that he was headed to LA for just that reason. “Bethesda is not showing/talking about anything at VGX.”

Instead, he’ll apparently be in town for some conveniently timed meetings. WHICH COULD (OR ALSO COULD NOT) BE ABOUT FALLOUT 4. But it’s basically impossible to say at this point.

It is, however, worth noting that the countdown website, Survivor 2299, won’t be cracking the lid on its tightly sealed vault until Tuesday of next week. Now, many have taken to assuming that the site is a fake (the corresponding Fallout 4 trademark was), but we can’t rule out all possibilities just yet. For one, Hines refused to comment on Survivor 2299’s campaign despite confirming that he won’t be at VGX. So maybe Fallout 4 won’t be at VGX, but Bethesda will just do its own thing a few days later. No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense (especially in light of the fact Skyrim was announced a few years ago at the very same “award” show), but it’s not off the table yet.

Also, this would not be the first instance of Hines talking around the truth – effectively sidestepping it by lacing factual statements with deceit – instead of tackling it head-on. That’s exactly what he did when I asked him about Prey 2, so again: it’s possible. But is it plausible? Evidence seems to suggest otherwise, but I guess we’ll find out next week.

So yeah, it’s still up in the air, but probably don’t put many eggs in this particular basket. No matter what you do, they won’t hatch into Deathclaws. Believe me: I’ve tried.


  1. Kubrick Stare Nun says:

    Fuck Fallout 4.

    • Discopanda says:

      Yes. Fuck Fallout 4 for not being announced and/or released yet! I wanna play it!

      • BobbyDylan says:

        I’d rather play a HD remake of the original 2.

        I hope the beamdog folks that did BG1 & 2 enhanced get to do Arcarnum and the Fallout games.

        • preip says:

          It’s a sad thing for gaming in general, if all we are hoping for today are remakes of old classics with improved graphics. Or we are all just getting old…

          • Tyrmot says:

            I have thought that same thing, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true. Fallout 2 for example is just a Good Game. When it came out it was good, and it’s still good. The only part of it that could be improved for our modern sensibilities is the technological side – of course they were limited then by the different technology that was available. So I don’t think it’s so bad to to want an updated version of F2 – that’s really the only part that needs (although it doesn’t *really* need it) to be updated.

            A rather rough and ready analogy would be some old shoddy book from the early days of printing – would you rather read it like that or in a nice new copy? As long as the content is the same, the medium in which it is delivered can always stand to be presented in the most modern way available. If full-on VR becomes a thing one day, I’d love to play F2 like that as well!

          • paddymaxson says:

            @Tyrmot Well, the graphics and maybe this version could have less bugs. As much as I love the game, without community patches it’s still extremely broken

          • blackmyron says:

            It really isn’t. Fallout 2 was an unfinished game that also had some extremely un-Falloutish elements.

        • lofaszjoska says:

          What for? I wouldn’t argue that BG and BGII were in dire need of a make-over, but in my opinion Fallout aged really, really well. Gameplay’s still very fluid and accessible, the UI is simple and clear, and with the resolution tool plus the shader model fix I’d risk saying it still looks nice. No need for a $20 voiced waifu add-on.

        • Stevostin says:

          The one good thing about replaying the original is that it would put the fallout 3 hater in an embarassaing position when they’ll realize that most cases they brought against it could have as well made against the first two.

          I don’t especially want that but I’ll sure take anything fallout content + bethesda flexible rpg engine anytime of the day.

          • DrGonzo says:

            I played fallout 3, enjoyed it. So I then went back and played the originals, they were even better.

          • fenriz says:

            hahahja, what you typed down is so unreal and twisted i’m turning into a walrus just reading it.

      • Barberetti says:

        Same here. I had 500+ hours of enjoyment from Fallout 3 & Fallout:NV. Bring on more!

    • Alexander says:

      No, I won’t.

      • The Godzilla Hunter says:

        Why, I am married good sir!
        I do suggest you take your proposition to someone else!

    • XhomeB says:

      This. There were only 2 Fallouts (Tactics is a special case – crap in terms of lore, writing and story and sticking to the “retro-future” aesthetics of the originals, but as a squad based tactical game, it was simply brilliant).

      I’m not interested in another The Elder Scrolls with guns.

  2. lowprices says:

    He’s lying. I have it on “good” authority that they’re going to announce Half Life 3 at Spike.

    • Deadly Sinner says:

      Well, Valve is currently advertising the show on the front page of Steam, so they have got to be announcing something.

  3. Taerdin says:

    I loved Fallout NV… but 3? It didn’t really grab me… I basically got to a point where I just wanted to finish the story and thankfully it was mercifully short. Spent a good 20~ hours in Fallout 3 and felt like I never needed to return.

    So my hopes are not exactly high for 4…

    • Viroso says:

      FO3 is more fun if you pretend the main story is writing the survival book from that lady in that town with the nuke.

      • Keyrock says:

        Or just play it like every other Bethesda game. Forget the main story altogether and dick around. Bethesda developed games are great for dicking around in.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I actually did enjoy the game much more when I was doing that quest.

    • NarcoSleepy says:

      Which is funny, because I am just the opposite. I loved Fallout 3. I enjoyed New Vegas, but it just didn’t interest me nearly as much. I don’t spend a whole lot of time on the stories of either one, preferring to derp around. The little tidbits you find throughout the world are so much more interesting to me. Also the music! It’s kind of a silly reason to like a game, but the music in Fallout 3 was fantastic. I hope the next one has a much larger and varied soundtrack.

      P.S. Please have more varied scenery. I know it’s post-apocalypse, but, damn, it’s been a few hundred years. How about SOME foliage. Color! Staring at the same dingy brown for hundreds of hours is unbearable.

    • Ansob says:

      Yeah. I’m only interested in Fallout 4 if Obsidian are doing it. If it’s Bethesda, it won’t be very good at all.

    • onodera says:

      I also love NV more than 3, but people need to understand that Bethesda had a big task on their hands when developing Fallout 3. They had to take a ten-year old game setting and create a new game that would work well in 2008. So they knew they couldn’t take too many risks.
      1. They played it safe by reusing their sandbox gameplay idea.
      2. They took some risks enough by creating the gameplay model: rehashing the skills and attributes (and they generally succeeded, there were fewer useless skills than in 1 and 2), creating VATS, hacking minigames etc.
      3. They took some risks by replacing their dialogue minigame with dialogue trees.
      4. They took some risks by creating post-apocalyptic graphical assets.
      5. They played it safe by not creating too many and reusing them.
      6. They played it safe by not inventing anything new in the setting and transplanting everyone to the East Coast.
      7. They played it safe by creating a straightforward main questline.

      Obsidian didn’t have to take risks where Bethesda had already taken them. They had the gameplay model, they had the assets, they had the dialogue system, so they could simply improve on them without replacing them completely. They took some risks of their own:
      1. They moved the game to the West Coast, because they knew the setting well.
      2. They created more complex quests, both thematically (a great success) and mechanically (good-bye, bonus).

      Once again, I still prefer New Vegas due to the replayability it provides (you can visit every ruin in FO3 in a single playthrough and that’s it), but I’m not sure if Obsidian could’ve created it without standing on Bethesda’s shoulders.

      What does that all mean for Fallout 4? Well, Bethesda has a gameplay formula they can reuse now, so they can be more daring. They can put more dialogue, more interesting quests in. But I’m afraid they’ll stick to the “nine thousand caves” gameplay of Skyrim and make a vast, interesting game you can play exactly once.

  4. Squirly says:

    If we assume that the ARG they’re doing right now is legit, why would they go through all that effort, hinting at 11/12/2013 and then… shoot themselves in the foot and announce it the weekend before?

    Honestly now, that would be kinda dumb.

  5. Viroso says:

    I think it isn’t fake. Why wouldn’t Bethesda confirm it as a fake when asked? “Hey Bethesda is this fake?” “I dunno, maybe it is maybe it ain’t, not talking about this.” Why would they do this, why would you do this Bethesda?

    I think it’s real and they’ll announce FO4 and not only that but everyone will be talking about why Bethesda didn’t announce it at this vgthing and everyone will be like writing big articles musing about the relevance of events and awards and etc. Then they’ll bring up PAX and E3 and Nintendo direct and all that crap. That is what is going to happen.

  6. karthink says:

    Eh, I don’t care for a Bethesda made Fallout. I’d rather wait for Obsidian to make another one, even if it takes the better part of a decade.

    • Werthead says:

      Obsidian might actually be making FALLOUT 4. I could see Bethesda taking more time to make games with next-gen technology, which may make it more viable for them to exclusively handle ELDER SCROLLS games whilst Obsidian do FALLOUT games.

      However, it’d still be published by Bethesda and Bethesda would still be making the announcements, owning the trademarks, handling PR etc.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        I can’t realistically see Obsidian coming back under Bethesda’s wing after that silly Metacritic debacle and all the accusations of poor quality control on Beth’s part. Besides, they’ve got other stuff to work on right now.

        • Werthead says:

          Obsidian said in their Kotaku interview at the end of last year that not only were they happy to work with Bethesda again, they’d already spoken to them about a ‘NEW VEGAS 2’-style side game.

          link to

          link to

          Interestingly, whilst Bethesda need to take responsibility for the limited bug-testing on NEW VEGAS, Obsidian have also said they tried to pack a bit too much into NEW VEGAS given the limited time of development. I think if a ‘NEW VEGAS 2’ went ahead, Obsidian would have a bit more idea of what they were getting into ahead of time. Certainly Bethesda shouldn’t have a problem with it, given that NEW VEGAS outsold FALLOUT 3 and made them a huge amount of money.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            That’s awesome news, although I’m hoping the next time around Obsidian don’t agree to any unfavorable Metacritic stipulations in their contract.

    • Keyrock says:

      I agree with you 100% (this is why I should read all the comments before posting my own :p). New Vegas was so much better than Fallout 3. Obsidian is a much better choice to develop a Fallout game than Bethesda themselves.

    • blackmyron says:

      Fallout: New Vegas was a good game, but almost out of range of the original concept of Fallout. I want a post-apocalyptic setting, not a society-rebuilding-just-on-the-frontier setting. I also don’t want the “reset button” ending of the “original” F3 aka Van Buren. One apocalypse is enough for plenty of stories.

  7. Alexander says:

    Sad news is sad, but they have the rights for at least 3 Fallouts, so that alone should confirm that F4 is in production. Thankfully.

    • Werthead says:

      They have the rights for infinite FALLOUTS. They originally licensed the rights from Interplay, but then (long before FO3 even came out) bought them outright when Interplay got into serious financial problems. That’s also what caused the legal mayhem over the MMORPG.

      • Alexander says:

        Gracias for the correction, wasn’t too sure about it. Infinite Bethesda and Obsidian Fallouts.

  8. Werthead says:

    Bethesda is extremely litigious and also clamps down on anyone they think is infringing their copyrights faster than Games Workshop faced with a book about Space Marines. That alone suggests something is up, as thesurvivor2299 would simply have been shut down for misleading people about Bethesda’s next game.

    There’s also the trouble that the person running the site has gone to, faking morse code messages not just on the site but apparently on actual radio frequences in the Boston area. It’s not a slam-dunk, and it may still be fake, but it’s definitely not certain. IIRC, both the SHENMUE 3 and HALF-LIFE 3 things were declared fake by Sega and Valve pretty quickly, whilst thesurvivor2299 has been running for three weeks without comment by Bethesda at this point.

    Btw, the FALLOUT 4 trademark claim wasn’t necessarily fake. Apparently, if you are applying for a new trademark based on an extension to an old one in Europe, the new trademark is rolled into the existing one and the separate trademark for the new one is declared as failed. So Bethesda may have applied for ‘FALLOUT 4’ but had it rejected because instead it’s rolled into the existing ‘FALLOUT’ trademark. The same thing apparently happened to FALLOUT 3.

    • HadToLogin says:

      It’s sure something is happening with Fallout. Only question is, is this Fallout 3 2, or some mobile/facebooky stuff?

  9. Keyrock says:

    I want Fallout 4, you want Fallout 4,

    It depends on who’s going to develop it. If Bethesda themselves develop it, then I’m pretty apathetic toward Fallout 4. If they let Obsidian Entertainment develop it, like Fallout: New Vegas, then I definitely want Fallout 4. New Vegas was way better than Fallout 3, because it was developed by the heart of the former Black Isle, people that understand the Fallout universe, its quirks and its dark humor, in a way that Bethesda never could. Also, Obsidian can actually write a story, and Fallout is a story-driven series. Bethesda can’t write for shit. They’re great at making big, wonderful sandboxes, but they can’t write a storyline to save their lives.

    • Viroso says:

      See it this way though: Bethesda is extremely detailed and thorough creating their worlds, at least the physical part. Take Skyrim, they’ve made tons of useless objects just for flavor. It’s like most of their effort with Skyrim was put into the setting. Think of how many reused assets New Vegas had from FO3.

      They make a new next gen engine, they make brand new assets, they create all the tools and then maybe they hand it to someone else after FO4.

  10. XhomeB says:

    Wait, there was a Fallout 3?
    Bethesda is a medicore developer capable of doing nothing but creating huge land masses with lots of samey grindy activities sprinkled everywhere and no rewards for exploration whatsoever. Look at the latest Assassin’s Creeds and then at Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim – they’re hardly different anymore. Action games with useless stats. Bethesda keep making the same dumbed down, poorly written and designed, repetitive crap, basically grindy single player MMOs, only shinier with every iteration. Their games barely feel like rpgs anymore.

    • Volcanu says:

      Well there’s a gross exaggeration.

      Some of those criticisms might be valid, but those games play nothing like a single player MMO. Nor are they ‘grindy’ in fact one thing they are quite good at, is not forcing you to grind. Plus if the stats are as useless as you claim, why would you bother grinding at all?

      They also dont play anything like an AC game. That’s just silly.

      • Viroso says:

        Yeah, agreed with you. Their games had their problems but not the ones listed there.

      • XhomeB says:

        I meant the world structure. They’re closer than you think, really.

  11. Maxheadroom says:

    While I loved and finished all 3 Fallouts my excitement level for a 4th installment is only somewhere around ‘moderately curious’.

    Not sure where they could take it without it just feeling like more of the same* Like an earlier poster said, A HD remake of the first 2 might well be a better prospect at this point

    *Ohh I know, how about setting it ‘before’ the bombs drop? Part FPS, part Vault building management sim! :)

    • Werthead says:

      All 3? There’s been four games in the main series, plus two spin-offs.

      • Maxheadroom says:

        Yeah I tend not to bother with DLC. Again, it’s more of the same.

        Kinda like a straight to DVD sequel of a really good film

        • Premium User Badge

          gritz says:

          I’m curious to know which of the 4 full games in the main series you consider “DLC”.

        • mr.ioes says:

          Wait, you think New Vegas was similar to a DLC for Fallout 3?

        • Werthead says:

          That was a bit of a non-sequitur.

          There are four main games (FALLOUT, FALLOUT 2, FALLOUT 3 and FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS) and two spin-offs (FALLOUT TACTICS and FALLOUT: BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL). FALLOUT 3 and NEW VEGAS both have DLCs, which are optional (though most of them are very good, and not really more of the same).

      • Stompopolos says:

        He’s been copy/pasting this into every Fallout article for god knows how long. Still gives me massive deja-vu.

  12. lucasdigital says:

    There’s something quite special about Fallout 3 / Fallout NV — the vast sweeping landscapes, swarming with all manner of NPCs from quirky comedy sidekicks, tragic heroes and monstrous villains. I don’t thing exploring virtual landscapes has ever been done better – even with all the bugs. I definitely feel the pang of longing for another of Bethesda’s dusty, radioactive playgrounds.

    Lets to forget that we know for certain that the game is in production, and with some confidence that it will return to the East Coast — Boston works. I’d rather they’d chosen San Francisco — a more characterful place that’s also more distinct from the earlier settings.

    No news may indicate that development isn’t moving quickly enough for an Q4 2014 release, which makes me sad.

    • KevinLew says:

      I absolutely love the Bethesda versions of Fallout. Complaining about how Bethesda “ruined” the Fallout franchise is akin to complaining about how Peter Jackson “ruined” the Tolkien storyline with his films. The Lord of the Rings trilogy took very large liberties with the original source material, but most people would say that he made a pretty darn good film series.

      • Premium User Badge

        gritz says:

        You mean like Peter Jackson’s absurd, overwrought and generally forgettable adaptation of The Hobbit?

    • Werthead says:

      Bethesda are doing the east coast and Obsidian the west coast/midwest. In fact, Obsidian have said that their proposal for another FALLOUT game would be set in and around LA. I assume they’d also handle San Francisco if the series went that way.

  13. MichaelPalin says:

    I don’t want Fallout 4, I want original games.

    • Thirith says:

      As if it were an either/or thing, and as if every developer had it in them to be original. How many of the best examples of any medium – games, films, novels, plays etc. – are great because they’re original, and how many are great because they do something that’s been done before but they do it much better than anyone else?

    • DrGonzo says:

      Even fallout 1 wasn’t original *cough* A Boy And His Dog.

      • Premium User Badge

        gritz says:

        Have you seen A Boy and His Dog?

        Because aside from being post-apocalyptic, it doesn’t have a whole lot else in common with Fallout.

  14. 2late2die says:

    “No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense (especially in light of the fact Skyrim was announced a few years ago at the very same “award” show), but it’s not off the table yet.”
    I don’t know why you say that. One case of showing Skyrim at VGX is hardly a precedent setter. As far as I’m concerned not only is it likely that Bethesda decided to do their own thing for Fallout 4, but I think it’s actually the better move. That way they don’t have to rush their developers and artists to finish something on someone else’s schedule.

    Anyway, I couldn’t get in into Fallout 3 but I loved New Vegas and so my excitement for Fallout 4 is actually more about the inevitable Obsidian sequel. ;)

  15. Scumbag says:

    Half-Life 4 unconfirmed.

  16. Turkey says:

    They should do a 40k version of Elder Scrolls instead. Just throwing it out there.

    • Werthead says:

      As in do a WARHAMMER 40K game using the SKYRIM mode of gameplay, or actually do THE ELDER SCROLLS 40,000: DAEDRA IN SPACE?

  17. Inzimus says:

    actually I want ‘Van Buren’ completed….

    • killias2 says:

      Play Fallout New Vegas.

    • NarcoSleepy says:

      If I am not mistaken, a lot of the parts of Van Buren were in New Vegas. I do know that many on the team that made F:NV were making Van Buren.

  18. Shazbut says:

    I do not want Fallout 4 because I don’t enjoy role-playing in a post-apocalyptic wasteland

    There I said it

  19. RProxyOnly says:

    I’ve gone right off Betheda games.

    It’s always the same story… their game worlds are pretty, dead, glitchy, shallow things with gameplay aimed at the lowest common denominator… they hold no surprises, or enjoyment for me anymore.

    I couldn’t care any less for another product from Bethesda.


    • Ich Will says:

      I know what you mean, I’d rather have a deep 5 hour experience set in one village than a 200 hour epic across the shallow worlds they create.

  20. DantronLesotho says:

    I can’t fathom how anybody could be unimpressed with Fallout 3 or why there is such a tepid response to this article. I think people look back with dirt colored glasses and compare it to any open world game that came afterwards. I also think that WoW is to blame for generifying quests to the point where the mechanic itself is decried instead of its implementation. “Ugh. I just have to go all over the map and collect stuff.” No, you travel through a meticulously crafted setting, interact with various characters, do battle, manage inventory, stats and skills, and participate in a somewhat living world. It’s “everything is amazing and nobody is happy” all over again. link to

    • InternetBatman says:

      The world was not amazingly handcrafted. DC was terrible to navigate; the metro was a tedious dungeon crawl; the writing was generally poor; the world didn’t really interact with each other, every area was either a link to a dungeon or fairly self-contained; and then there was the ending.

      That’s not to say that I didn’t like the game. It was a very fun post-apocalyptic playground. I thought VATs was a brilliant homage to the first two games. The weapons felt fun. Skills mostly worked the way they should. The opening was absolutely brilliant. The Vault and Megaton were great areas.

      But all of that doesn’t mean it was this transcendent gaming experience beyond criticism.

      Also, “you travel through a meticulously crafted setting, interact with various characters, do battle, manage inventory, stats and skills, and participate in a somewhat living world.” could describe everything from Balder’s Gate to Winter Voices. Hell, it could even be stretched to cover Football Manager.

  21. aliksy says:

    I will be moderately excited if this means it won’t be shackled by the xbox360’s limitations.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      I’m pretty sure Oblivion and Skyrim weren’t consolized out of consideration for the Xbox’s technical limitations.

  22. boba says:

    No, I do not want Fallout 4. Not one made by Bethesda anyway.

  23. JadedPrimate says:

    “I want Fallout 4, you want Fallout 4”

    No. If they let Obsidian do another Fallout after this though, I would want that.

  24. DatonKallandor says:

    RPS why are you being Sneaky Press Fucks again. Don’t you know that trying to figure out what a publisher is going to do is not nice.

  25. Kraizk says:

    Fall Out MMO update? Just say’n

  26. hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

    Oh you guys are just Press Sneak Fucks, with your “Wanting a clear answer on if we’re making a game or not.”

  27. Jason Moyer says:

    I’m not sure what the countdown could be for other than Fallout 4. The domain was registered by Bethesda, the year directly follows the end of New Vegas, and all signs point to it being related to Boston somehow.

  28. protowizard says:


  29. Press X to Gary Busey says:

    Tunnel Snakes rule!
    Thank you very much Reddit. I love a good rickroll…

  30. drewski says:

    Screw the haters, Fallout 4 is going to be awesome.

    Well, it might be. I don’t know, I haven’t played it yet.

  31. Frank says:

    So, Fallout is the PC gamer’s Final Fantasy now, eh? We’re just going to bicker over how much Bethesda and Obsidian suck at reclaiming the essence and greatness of Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game? I’m down for that.

    link to