Bethesda to Launch $29.99 Starfield: Shattered Space Expansion Without Early Reviews

[Cpt.Jank]

Starfield's next DLC will be called Shattered Space, and it is set to launch on 30 September 2024 at $29.99 on PC, and Xbox. However, if you're a gamer that wants to know more about what you're getting into before you spend your money, you will seemingly need to wait, since gaming media won't have access to the expansion ahead of its launch.

The news was revealed by IGN journalist Dan Stapleton in a post on Bluesky that reads: "Aw dang, I'm told no Starfield: Shattered Space review copies are going out ahead of launch. We'll have something up on it ASAP but I imagine that's gonna be a few days at least." Stapleton doesn't seem to have been told why Bethesda won't be sending out review samples, but he does note that it will make reviewing the expansion while it is relevant more challenging.



Not sending out game keys for early review also makes it more difficult for gamers to know what they're getting into. For starters, some game reviewers will be more rushed to get their reviews out as early as possible, meaning they'll potentially miss details or produce inadequate coverage. Secondly, while many gamers will already have pre-ordered Starfield: Shattered Space, many are likely waiting for reviews so that they can make informed decisions.

That said, the Starfield community in general seems to be fairly optimistic about the new expansion, largely because of content Bethesda has published and information the company has divulged in interviews since the expansion's announcement. In a deep dive video posted to YouTube, Bethesda explained that Shattered Space is a departure from the standard Starfield formula, which was largely criticized for being too vast and somewhat bland. Instead, the new expansion will focus on up-close encounters in engaging, hand-crafted locations.

We love Starfield's massive open galaxy, but from early on in our planning, we knew we wanted to introduce some more secluded and handcrafted locations, similar to what you've seen from our past expansions.

Given how much hype there was around the initial launch of Starfield, and how the final game eventually turned out, it is still probably a good idea to wait a week or two for independent reviews before spending the $29.99 on the Shattered Space expansion.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Space Lynx]

I wonder why.

 

[Ferrum Master]

It still looks like skyrim mod.

 

[Gigaherz]

I forgot starfield existed ngl.

 

[64K]

My turd-o-meter detector is pinging loudly.

 

[Onasi]

It feels like that the only reason this exists is because they already sold Ultimate Editions with Season Pass included and kinda have to release SOMETHING. Otherwise this whole affair really feels like “we’d prefer to just forget about Starfield”.

 

[Carlyle2020hs]

I´ve started "No Man’s Sky" this week.

And from what i can gather both games are the same.

But No Man’s Sky in 2024 is just far more complete.

My question:

Who copied from the other?

 

[Onasi]

@Carlyle2020hs
…considering that Starfield was ANNOUNCED after NMS was already released it’s a bit of a silly question. But I honestly feel like the original vision that Todd had (if we believe his claims of SF being the game he always wanted to make) was very different and it never really congealed. There were stories of a really troubled development and at some point, after MS acquisition, it feels like the higher-ups just ordered to ship SOMETHING and that’s what we got.
Well, and, of course, we shouldn’t forget that Beth runs on decades of tech debt by now - there was never any chance that netImmerse Gamebryo Creation Engine can do what they seemingly wanted and I am baffled they thought otherwise.

 

[dj-electric]

I´ve started "No Man’s Sky" this week.

And from what i can gather both games are the same.

But No Man’s Sky in 2024 is just far more complete.

My question:

Who copied from the other?

NMS was announced over a decade ago.
The one thing Bethesda should copy from Hello Games is admitting they had issues and work as hard as they can to resolve them and satisfy the playerbase with free updates. to existing customers.
At least have the decency to buff the game up with enough features and technical improvements before daring to release a 30 dollar DLC.

 

[64K]

Well, and, of course, we shouldn’t forget that Beth runs on decades of tech debt by now - there was never any chance that netImmerse Gamebryo Creation Engine can do what they seemingly wanted and I am baffled they thought otherwise.

Their engine is a blessing and a curse at the same time. They have a huge mod community that is familiar with the engine and comes in and fixes what Bethesda just can't seem to manage to fix and adds a huge amount of free content for their games ever since Oblivion. Look at what the mod community contributed to Skyrim over the years and still do. If they dump their engine completely and move forward they risk not having that crutch to fall back on.

The problem with Starfield imo is that their is no patch for boring. The game would have to be redesigned and remade from the ground up. The long delay for releasing the modding tool kit just made matters worse.

 

[Prima.Vera]

The game was good, but THE FINALE or THE END GAME WAS THE WORST FROM ALL THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I mean, W.T.F.???
Because of that, I won't ever re-install the game again and start over. Fruck it, is not worth it.

 

[Vayra86]

@Carlyle2020hs
…considering that Starfield was ANNOUNCED after NMS was already released it’s a bit of a silly question. But I honestly feel like the original vision that Todd had (if we believe his claims of SF being the game he always wanted to make) was very different and it never really congealed. There were stories of a really troubled development and at some point, after MS acquisition, it feels like the higher-ups just ordered to ship SOMETHING and that’s what we got.
Well, and, of course, we shouldn’t forget that Beth runs on decades of tech debt by now - there was never any chance that netImmerse Gamebryo Creation Engine can do what they seemingly wanted and I am baffled they thought otherwise.

The visions of Todd lol. People attribute way too much credit to this man. As if he has any form of control. He's project lead, ergo a salesman and manager. Somewhere in the distance. He's also proven to be a pathological liar.

The man's a talking head. There is no innovation in any of the TES's or Fallouts anymore, and this has been the case since... well everything we got post-Fallout 3. The only vision that is left at Bethesda for their open world franchises is this: extract money. The game underneath is secondary to that, it shows in their monetization strategies, the re-re-re-release of the same games, etc.

They're awfully busy with all the things that aren't integral to the game or franchises' development themselves, and it shows, because the end product is a clusterfuck of loosely connected 'features' that get transplanted between those franchises. There's no cohesion, there's no vision. There's just game components tossed in a blender, the typical AAA approach these days. Bean counter gaming.

Starfield is the ultimate example of this. Its literally a bunch of systems taped together, with some extra tape in the places where it falls apart, they're called loading screens, or infinite space where nothing actually moves. The only, like literal only thing that is somewhat acceptable in Starfield is the writing around the overarching main quest, the only place where there is some speck of innovation by making you replay the same thing ten times. We're also calling it 'innovative' that there is a complete disconnect between playing for the story and levelling up your character - if you don't know, you're in for a massive time sink for no reason whatsoever, and again... no cohesion, no connection between these two disjointed approaches to playing the same game. And for all that innovation and its new setting Starfield isn't even a real open world game anymore. Its just a bunch of tiny, empty maps strung together with a few assets, NPCs and quest markers tossed in for good measure.

My faith in a half decent TES sequel is just about -100

 

[JIWIL]

I read the first five words in headline and thought I might actually buy when it goes on sale. Then I finished reading headline.

 

[Event Horizon]

Hello Games took their time to sort through all the player feedback, filter out all the death threats and abuse, then turn the constructive criticism into actionable plans. Bethesda can fix Starfield just like they fixed Fallout 76 but they move at a much slower pace.

 

[punani]

Telling me your game is a buggy mess without telling me your game is a buggy mess

 

[L'Eliminateur]

My turd-o-meter detector is pinging loudly.

the base game i still woefully unfinished, how can het have the GALL and stone-face and the balls to attempt to sell a DLC at ~3/4 the price of the full game????

are they so out of touch with reality?

 

[Tahagomizer]

I personally like Starfield very much. Over last months they fixed most technical issues and it is very much a Bethesda game, "here's a world and some basic backstory, figure it out". In the world of fake, DEI infested "open world" games which treat the player like a mentally challenged child and hold his hand at all times it's a much better experience - in my humble opinion, of course. Some people enjoy simple, linear experiences.
The problem of "without early reviews" is easily fixed by not preordering and waiting until reviews come. Or, ahem, playing a copy obtained in "other ways" as a demo, which is what I usually do.

As for comparisons to No Man's Sky: It's a completely different game. In NMS you can travel through space and enjoy solitary exploration without a story getting in the way. In Starfield you fast travel from place to place and do story things. I enjoy both games but don't consider them similar.

 

[kapone32]

I personally like Starfield very much. Over last months they fixed most technical issues and it is very much a Bethesda game, "here's a world and some basic backstory, figure it out". In the world of fake, DEI infested "open world" games which treat the player like a mentally challenged child and hold his hand at all times it's a much better experience - in my humble opinion, of course. Some people enjoy simple, linear experiences.
The problem of "without early reviews" is easily fixed by not preordering and waiting until reviews come. Or, ahem, playing a copy obtained in "other ways" as a demo, which is what I usually do.

As for comparisons to No Man's Sky: It's a completely different game. In NMS you can travel through space and enjoy solitary exploration without a story getting in the way. In Starfield you fast travel from place to place and do story things. I enjoy both games but don't consider them similar.

I was with you until you used DEI as some type of negative.

 

[phanbuey]

Starfield would be cool if it wasn't 30% loading screens.

The concept isn't bad, they just need way more meaningful content to fill all that space.

 

[evernessince]

I personally like Starfield very much. Over last months they fixed most technical issues and it is very much a Bethesda game, "here's a world and some basic backstory, figure it out". In the world of fake, DEI infested "open world" games which treat the player like a mentally challenged child and hold his hand at all times it's a much better experience - in my humble opinion, of course. Some people enjoy simple, linear experiences.
The problem of "without early reviews" is easily fixed by not preordering and waiting until reviews come. Or, ahem, playing a copy obtained in "other ways" as a demo, which is what I usually do.

As for comparisons to No Man's Sky: It's a completely different game. In NMS you can travel through space and enjoy solitary exploration without a story getting in the way. In Starfield you fast travel from place to place and do story things. I enjoy both games but don't consider them similar.

You are sorely mistaken if you think Starfield doesn't hand hold as much as other games. All Bethesda games since oblivion hold the player's hand and it really kicked into high gear with Skyrim. Skyrim reduced the complexity of dungeons and made them all linear. Starfield also has linear and simple dungeons. Skyrim removed many character attributes / skills and Starfield's system is a even more dumbed down version of that. You can't even land or fly your own ship outside of a tiny box in starfield, you can't hold a person's hand much more than that. Puzzles were never amazing in TES games but they are absolutely insultingly easy since skyrim. All Bethesda games since Skyrim do not require thinking beyond a 1st grade level. Bethesda's current game design philosophy is based on theme parks. You have hubs, you have attractions around hubs, you make the player see other attractions on the way to said rides, and you make them friction free to go though (aka easy, linear, and simple). Notice how all dungeons in Skyrim loop around to the beginning? Classic hand holding to prevent inept players getting lost on the way back. Again same ideas apply to starfield, the entire game is designed to appeal to the widest audience and to be friction-less and that's precisely why the game feels so dead.

I'm just going to leave this video here because it touches on more ways the game holds your hand and insults the player:

Starfield would be cool if it wasn't 30% loading screens.

The concept isn't bad, they just need way more meaningful content to fill all that space.

It would indeed have been much much better, particularly if that means you could take your ship to the planet. That adds a lot more opportunity quest interactions and usage of the ship. You could do missions like dropping ordaniance on pirate bases or defeating planetary defenses to them go and capture an objective on the planet. That's really the only thing no man's sky is missing that Starfield could have provided. But yeah, that would require Bethesda to make a new game engine for once in their life. They didn't even make the Gamebyro engine that's still used as the bones for their creation engine (which is really still the Gamebyro engine with a few enhancements and plugins).

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I dont think I have it in me to do another boring play thru of SF. The expansion is not worth paying for if the only changes turn out to be minor cosmetic updates and nothing game-changing.

 

[Vayra86]

I personally like Starfield very much. Over last months they fixed most technical issues and it is very much a Bethesda game, "here's a world and some basic backstory, figure it out". In the world of fake, DEI infested "open world" games which treat the player like a mentally challenged child and hold his hand at all times it's a much better experience - in my humble opinion, of course. Some people enjoy simple, linear experiences.
The problem of "without early reviews" is easily fixed by not preordering and waiting until reviews come. Or, ahem, playing a copy obtained in "other ways" as a demo, which is what I usually do.

As for comparisons to No Man's Sky: It's a completely different game. In NMS you can travel through space and enjoy solitary exploration without a story getting in the way. In Starfield you fast travel from place to place and do story things. I enjoy both games but don't consider them similar.

Oh yeah I feel you. The games still have that typical vibe you talk about. Its just such a pity there's so little underneath it. That space, is where they should innovate and do things better. But its still clunky AF, even if it doesn't crash, you just feel in everything that you're looking at something that was new in the year 2000.