Will there be more DLC releases (Fallout 4)

There will be one more, maybe even two.

I've heard about three, but I don't think it's earlier than autumn or winter.

It would be nice.

Naturally there will be) According to the Bethesda tradition, at least one more major one)

greencore
recently they are doing 5 story dlc. F3 and NV for example. so I'm waiting for at least 3 more.

fox345
nv not Bethesda did

rus1an3
did not do it, but they took an example from it.

the conversation was controlled by obsidians)
regarding the new DLC I will say that for a large number of them, like in part 3 of Vegas, do not count
in 4 parts, the content has become more difficult and the development of something super-duper large will take a lot of time and money, which they naturally will not go for

modders will grind down 100 pounds, the curve is as usual))))

someone was digging in the files of the game and there was a mention of DLS nukaworld esm.

where I saw it I don't remember

well, yes, many have already seen
not the fact that this is a DLC,
wait and see

so far there has been only one, of course there will be more!

At the announcement of F4, they said that 5-6 additions would be released, while only 3.
rus1an3
Did not Arbor, but published something Arbor. Here more depends on the publisher.

There will be three more, DLCworkshop02, DLCNukaWorld, and some I don't know the name. they won't be until the end of August!

tosha32
friend of Todd Howard?))

tosha32
How do you know?

Todd Howard will need to eat bread and play. Right?

rus1an3 wrote:
nv not Bethesda made a
conversation about DLC and not the main game created by Obsidian
in general there is a vague story with the removal of Obsidian because of many of those blunders (Obsidian's knock-ons are notable), then there are reductions and dismissals inside the company, a rhetorical question so who patched the game in the field of this and created the DLC)?
gmh4589 wrote:
Did not Arbor, but published something Arbor. Here more depends on the publisher.
but right now, many do not understand the role of the publisher in the creation process)
they think that the publisher just throws the loot and sets a deadline) but this is far from the case)

zhekazloy
oh well) the main loot is washed through it. For the consumer, the cheapest option would be the developer-to-consumer path. But there is "Developer" - "Publisher" - Consumer. The role of the publisher in this chain: The publisher determines the commercial demand for the product, determines the idea, cost and timeframe. After - defines the developer. The developer - oddly enough - develops) And when the product is ready (or not yet at all), the publisher puts pressure on the developer, is responsible for the release of the unfinished product, sets the selling price, analyzes the demand, based on the analysis determines whether it is worth developing the brand or you can bury the project. And when to move on to the next stage. In fact, the Publisher owns the rights to the product, he is the owner of that

Based on this scheme, it immediately becomes understandable why patches for game optimization are being introduced so long and sadly: the consumer will not pay for optimization patches. The consumer will pay for DLC with interesting content. But it is necessary to do patches for optimization. So it turns out that this category of work belongs to the category of net losses of the enterprise (it does not matter whether it is the publisher's losses or the developer's losses - this is determined by the agreement between them), which means that a minimum of effort is devoted to carrying out this kind of work. Moreover, if new DLCs were not planned in the future, then it would be possible to no longer wait for performance optimization patches - no one would have performed these works without promising.

Abbat76

You have stated quite trivial things, but all of the above does not clarify the question at all: why are high-budget and wealthy companies going to mediate their interaction with the consumer with the help of such a parasitic gasket, which is the publisher? You could also understand when an unknown cashless office of developers "Vasya-Pupkin Noname" is looking for a sponsor and completely falls under his dictate, but how can one explain the fact that, for example, Bioware has been rapidly degrading for several years in a row, under pressure from a greedy and EA's unprincipled management and destroying its own franchises?

How to explain the fact that a large and well-known company, which owns the rights to a promoted brand, which guarantees it millions of fans, agrees to obey the publisher, who does not care at all about the fate of the title, or in general the problem of the setting to which the product belongs? Rhetorical questions, one must answer with the same truisms: "because these are the merciless laws of the market";) In fact, these laws are not established by themselves, but are formed by consistent patterns adopted by the majority of players in this market.

In short: since serious companies employ people who live by no means one day, they cannot but understand that the release of patches for their own destiny means no less than the release of DLC. Only the publisher does not give a damn about it, since he is the least associated with the product and suffers the least reputation losses - in contrast to the direct developer. In your lapidary logic, the "net loss of the enterprise" can even mean the cost of toilet paper for sorting employees. But if you don't buy it at all, things will end badly in the long run;)