[HN Gopher] Bethesda Thinks Fan Remaster of Oblivion Is 'Very Sp...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bethesda Thinks Fan Remaster of Oblivion Is 'Very Special' and
       Supports It
        
       Author : hn_acker
       Score  : 59 points
       Date   : 2025-05-03 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (kotaku.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (kotaku.com)
        
       | tmpz22 wrote:
       | Bethesda knows support for the official remake would go down the
       | toilet if they did anything but praise for the unofficial remake.
       | Its hard to take Bethesda on good faith on this.
        
         | Wobbles42 wrote:
         | I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may
         | or may not be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but
         | at least they ARE doing the right thing. That decision was made
         | by a set of humans, and likely at least some of them are well
         | meaning.
         | 
         | In any case the corporate entity as a whole is not conscious. A
         | strictly behavioralist approach is appropriate there. If it
         | does the good thing it gets the carrot, if it does the bad
         | thing it gets the stick. We can't win it's heart and mind
         | because it has neither, so we have to settle for keeping it's
         | behavior in line.
        
           | voidfunc wrote:
           | It's a lesson more companies should learn (looking at you
           | Nintendo), the revenue hit from a fan-made IP clone is likely
           | negligible. People want the official stuff usually as well.
           | The PR hit from attacking creator fans is way worse.
        
         | happytoexplain wrote:
         | I know businesses often bring it upon themselves, but this
         | "fucked if they do, fucked if they don't" attitude needs to be
         | carefully applied. It leaves no room for anything, really, and
         | it's exhausting.
        
           | washadjeffmad wrote:
           | It's not unwarranted. With the recent popularity of remakes
           | and rereleases, there's been tension between fans, their
           | multi-year/decade labor of love projects, and the studios
           | hoping to remonetize dated franchises.
           | 
           | A friend and old-school RuneScape player told me he was
           | quitting over this: https://www.ibtimes.com/runescape-devs-
           | backtrack-hd-mod-ban-...
           | 
           | Bethesda signaling their blessing might not have happened if
           | others hadn't made such spectacular messes of their own
           | relaunches.
        
         | crop_rotation wrote:
         | Yes nobody is doing good deeds to stab themselves. Not sure
         | what your point is here?
        
       | formerly_proven wrote:
       | Regardless, the remaster appears to have been rushed out due to
       | increasing leaks, no? It's hard to believe that with the
       | technical issues the release was actually intended to land in
       | April 2025, instead of fixing issues until March 2026 and
       | releasing it as an anniversary remaster.
        
         | VTimofeenko wrote:
         | It's an Elder Scrolls game. Technical issues are part of the
         | product spec.
        
           | formerly_proven wrote:
           | True! On the other hand, performance appears to be quite bad
           | and there seem to be tons of very obvious visual glitches
           | with transparent objects, foliage etc.
           | 
           | It using the UE5 renderer of course means the usual
           | reservations of that engine also apply - it will most likely
           | never run smoothly, as Unreal Engine games invariably have
           | more or less severe stuttering.
        
           | lupusreal wrote:
           | In some ways, the bugs are part of the charm. Sometimes
           | anyway. Having to run esoteric commands to fix broken quests
           | in a years old game isn't so endearing.
        
         | no_wizard wrote:
         | Bethesda is notorious for buggy software releases. They could
         | spend 10 years on something and it would likely have tons of
         | bugs still.
        
           | thatguy0900 wrote:
           | This one does feel extra infuriating though, since it still
           | has bugs that were fixed by fan made bug fixing mods from the
           | original game. It doesn't really even feel like they try to
           | fix bugs
        
             | chme wrote:
             | This is also not surprising for BGS as was demonstrated
             | with the multiple Skyrim re-releases, which didn't fix all
             | issues patched by the unofficial patches, and even
             | introduced more.
             | 
             | See the change log here: https://www.afkmods.com/Unofficial
             | %20Skyrim%20Special%20Edit...
             | 
             | Only a very small amount of the issues fixed there where
             | integrated into the official patch releases.
        
             | lelandfe wrote:
             | Keeping the VO flubs in is so good though, especially now
             | with the automatic lip syncing https://youtu.be/AWgPq6ocd5c
        
           | tjpnz wrote:
           | Bethesda farmed the remaster out to another studio and the
           | issues are mostly performance related. They chose to utilize
           | Unreal Engine 5 for the graphics[0] which means you get all
           | the stuttering and uneven frame times present in most games
           | using it.
           | 
           | 0: I recall reading somewhere that the game uses a really old
           | version of Bethesda's proprietary engine too - but only for
           | physics.
        
             | detaro wrote:
             | It's a pattern a few remasters have used: Run the entire
             | old engine for the game logic, but bolt a more modern
             | engine on top for the rendering. So it's not just physics
             | but pretty much all gameplay logic thats done by the old
             | code. Which is also why mods that don't touch graphics were
             | apparently easy to port to the remaster, but changing
             | models etc needs adapting to the new system.
        
         | iLoveOncall wrote:
         | How can you leak a 20 years old game?
        
           | accrual wrote:
           | GP is referencing how rumors of the remaster were spreading a
           | few days before the official announcement. There were some
           | early topics on Reddit at least.
           | 
           | Personally I doubt the "leaks" have anything to do with the
           | release date. The game worked fine on day one for me. Yes
           | there are some bugs, but none serious and none that made me
           | think "this was rushed".
        
       | jemmyw wrote:
       | Bethesda doesn't think anything. Some people in leadership there
       | think this. It would be very nice if they codeified what
       | "support" means and the circumstances around it into company
       | policy so that fans know what is what while that policy is in
       | place (and who to blame if the policy is abandoned).
        
         | PoignardAzur wrote:
         | I mean, when you reach the point where they advertise the mod
         | in dev spotlights videos, I think it's fair to say there's some
         | institutional support, even if it's not codified.
        
         | Lammy wrote:
         | > Bethesda doesn't think anything.
         | 
         | It even kind of irks me when people talk about "Bethesda" when
         | it's really "Microsoft Corporation presents Microsoft Gaming
         | presents Zenimax Media presents Bethesda Softworks presents
         | Bethesda Game Studios".
         | 
         | Not picking on you in particular since the same thing happens
         | with iD Software, Github, NPM, and many many more. I feel like
         | there's a collective lack of straightforward language to
         | discuss the influence of this kind of corporate structure.
         | Falling back to the singular-subsidiary name with the rest
         | unspoken is probably exactly what they want.
        
           | jemmyw wrote:
           | I wouldn't know who Bethesda was owned by without going and
           | looking it up. I personally don't think this kind of
           | corporate structure should be allowed, too much controlled by
           | too few.
        
             | sushid wrote:
             | What would you allow? Just one level deep? Two? All you'd
             | be doing is incentivizing the creation of more proxies and
             | more legal fees/inefficiencies to go along with it.
        
               | KeepFlying wrote:
               | The number of levels isnt the issue, it's the size and
               | scope of control of the market.
               | 
               | The rest is on journalists to be sure to mention
               | "Microsoft owned Bethesda" more often.
        
         | cultofmetatron wrote:
         | at the very least, it shows that bethseda leadership are not in
         | the habit of alienating their fans.
        
         | tedunangst wrote:
         | I think people understand how metonymy works.
        
           | npteljes wrote:
           | Even if they do, I very highly doubt that they successfully
           | process it emotionally too. I especially dislike when news
           | conflates leaders with nations. I think it just adds
           | unnecessary emotions to the mix. Which, of course, is good
           | for the news source, so I doubt I'll ever see a decline in
           | this phenomenon.
        
         | npteljes wrote:
         | I hate the same about how media presents news regarding to
         | nations. Russia attacks instead of Putin's army attacks,
         | Brussels denies instead of EU officials deny, etc. It irks me
         | so much, especially in a world where we pretend to do away with
         | racism. Because what these headlines end up reinforce are just
         | stereotypes. Which just keeps the people in their bubbles,
         | wasting the chance of them learning something new about the
         | world.
        
       | neuroelectron wrote:
       | This is a bit different situation than Nintendo and it's not fair
       | to compare the two. The mod requires the base game where Nintendo
       | software is hardware coupled. Furthermore, Bethesda has monetized
       | mods directly (the Creation Club).
        
         | jimbob45 wrote:
         | Let's call a spade a spade. Nintendo litigates worse than any
         | other company and they never drop prices. I can look the other
         | way because they're otherwise very good to their customers but
         | they do have genuine faults.
        
           | nothercastle wrote:
           | And they are really letting their franchises go stale
           | recently. Pokemon is especially bad.
        
             | crop_rotation wrote:
             | They do make amazing games though, for all the ones that
             | they make. BOTW and TOTK are just so so special games to me
             | (and I hope many others), and I have learnt by experience
             | that almost no Nintendo game gets released half baked or
             | lacking their best efforts.
        
             | jimbob45 wrote:
             | In fairness, Pokemon is perhaps the worst case in game
             | design difficulty. You have an audience insisting on 3D
             | characters and animations for 400+ (or however many now)
             | Pokemon, each necessitating ~6 animations for unique
             | attacks, 5+ status effects, idling/reaction animations, and
             | ideally some trainer interaction.
             | 
             | I understand why Nintendo has tried to use a lo-fi
             | artstyle, make games with only subsets of the total
             | bestiary, and generally limit development. Hell, I even
             | understand why Palworld gave up on unique attack animations
             | and just went with guns.
        
               | comex wrote:
               | 1000+, though the last two generations have included only
               | a subset.
        
             | goosedragons wrote:
             | Pokemon is it's own weird situation. It's not solely owned
             | by Nintendo, but co-owned and managed with Game Freak and
             | Creatures Inc by The Pokemon Company. It's not just a game
             | but a media empire. They have to coordinate between the
             | game, anime and TCG. It's not quite the same as Zelda or
             | Mario where they have complete control and don't have to
             | worry about messing with dozens of other product launches
             | if the game needs a delay.
             | 
             | I wouldn't agree that their other franchises are stale
             | right now either. Certainly not compared to Ubi's,
             | Microsoft's, etc.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-05-03 23:01 UTC)