The Implications of Overselling a Videogame: Starfield's Controversy.
Todd Howard casually dropped another truth bomb when no one expected it. This time, he states that only 10% of the one thousand planets in Starfield will have life.
Right after the end of Starfield Direct during the Summer Game fest, we got the news that Starfield will run at 30fps on Xbox Series X|S to maintain fidelity. Everyone started jumping to conclusions trying to justify the design decisions, while others blatantly rejected it. One user review-bombed the game on Metacritic, even before its release.
Not long after, Todd Howard utilized social media to drop another bucket of icy water to its fans and potential newcomers: Starfield will only feature life in 10% of its one thousand planets.
Doing a quick math, this means that at least a hundred planets will feature life (not bad to be honest). Howard did not specify if by life he refers to NPCs who can potentially provide you with side quests or if it includes the procedurally generated wildlife as well.
Further continuing with our mental exercise, this could mean that only a few dozen planets could contain NPCs, while the rest of the 10% will only feature wildlife.
Announcing games too early in its lifecycle
One of the biggest problems the gaming industry has is that they announce games before development has started. For instance, Nintendo has announced games like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, or Metroid Prime 4 without showing us actual gameplay.
Zelda was announced early during the Wii U's lifecycle but came out many years after. The game was completely different than what we saw on the prerendered teaser.
Metroid Prime 4 on the other hand has not even been released yet. To make things even worse, Nintendo changed developers midway and reworked the game from the ground up due to quality concerns.
Another example I can think of is the Halo TV series which was announced early during the Xbox One X lifecycle. It took many years to see it become a reality.
Why have companies fallen into this trap? Probably to keep consumers expecting something all the time. Consumerism demands companies to stay relevant even if they do not have a tangible ready.
The vision and project's scope are always different than the final product. Starfield was marketed as this epic space saga that would take you to different worlds providing you with an experience like never before.
The Xbox Series X on the other hand was hyped as the most powerful console of all time, they even marketed the Xbox as a 4K 60fps console. You would at least expect their first-party titles to perform at that standard. It seems that we have been deceived.
Biting more than you can chew
Bethesda has failed to deliver an experience up to today's standards. They could not find all the Xbox Series X's potential. They missed the 4K 60fps target due to processing limitations, it has nothing, or very little to do with graphics.
At hindsight it seems that the console limited Bethesda's vision of Starfield, and PC gamers will end up paying the price. I'm sure that if the game were a PC exclusive, they could have increased the percentage of planets containing procedurally generated elements.
Bethesda should have refocused its vision and limited the game to a realistic design, one that the console could handle. Microsoft is desperate to show its fans that they can make Triple A games. They have acquired a plethora of studios and Bethesda is the latest on the list. They are the biggest name on the list.
Starfield is the last bullet the company has, Halo is losing tremendous momentum, considering it is their staple franchise. Unfortunately, it feels that the franchise has been neglected.
Microsoft also has the Activision deal as an escape route. If they acquire the studio behind Call of Duty, the number of consoles sold, and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions will skyrocket.
What are your thoughts on Starfield? Do the 30fps and 10% news affect your decision to get the game on day one? Let me know in the comments below.
Happy gaming.
