Fallout 76 announces Fallout Worlds with (paid) customizable servers

    
32

Private customizable servers have been high up on the most-wanted list for a segment of Fallout 76’s community. Now, they’re here. Bethesda announced that it’s started to test Fallout Worlds, a new game mode that lets owners create a custom ruleset and visitors experience that setting.

Some of the ruleset options mentioned for Fallout Worlds include making the difficulty harder, changing housing restrictions, offering infinite ammo, controlling weather effects, and allowing unlimited combat AP.

While only Fallout 1st players can take ownership of a custom world, Bethesda will be posting free “public worlds” on rotation that offer a developer hand-crafted ruleset. It should also be noted that non-subscribers can visit any of the Fallout Worlds without paying.

There’s no word as to whether or not basic text chat functions of guilds are some of the possible customizable options. (But yeah, they’re totally not.)

Source: Fallout 76
Advertisement

No posts to display

32
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Dug From The Earth

I cant help but think of the HUGE amount of players the game could get, if they would offer this FOR FREE for people who BOUGHT the game.

Reader
Rndomuser

Bethesda’s greed has no limits. They’re still trying to milk their simple-minded userbase by forcing them to pay for an illusion of custom servers, instead of just allowing people to run their own servers on their own hardware with whatever mods they want to. Mods such as text chat, something that users created long time ago but something that Bethesda still doesn’t care about adding to a game because they can’t monetize this feature and something which would enable many people with disabilities or people who just want to hide their voice (because they don’t want to be harassed if they are a female or a transgender person) to enjoy the game better.

Reader
Toy Clown

Hey there! Simple-minded player of FO76 here. I’m deaf, too, AND I pay for a sub. (I guess that makes me tripply-simple-minded.) I actually think FO76 is a pretty good game and I’ve been enjoying the heck out of it since I started back in April. Yeah, I wish there was text chat, too, but there isn’t so I use emotes and the forums to interact with other players.

I’m sorry to hear you’re really down on the game and I’m sure you have your reasons for it. Many hugs, from a simple-minded player.

Reader
Rndomuser

I actually think FO76 is a pretty good game

Well, good for you, and you have a full right to waste your own money on anything you personally find enjoyable. This still doesn’t change the facts about the game I have mentioned, as well as Bethesda’s own greed which is the reason why certain features are not implemented and most likely never will, including lack of user-hosted servers not located behind paywall.

And it is still disappointing seeing some selfish people enabling such greedy behavior by continuing supporting such companies even though many other people will suffer because of that, and not only with Fallout 76 but with other games as well (because developers of other games will look at Fallout 76, think “hey, plenty of selfish people still don’t mind paying for an illusion of custom servers and for lack of basic features, let’s do the same!”). Those few selfish people still have full right to do this, of course, but that still doesn’t make it less disappointing. Reminds me of people who are still paying for WoW despite all the bad things Blizzard did and continues to do.

Reader
Ir1shguy

Everyone has the right to waste time doing what they enjoy just as much as you have the right to waste time bashing and abusing games and people you dont like.

It is still disappointing seeing some selfish people making posts like this about games they dont like and could easily avoid and insulting everyone that enjoys a game regardless.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
NeoWolf

This is potentially a very good thing, although whether it turns out that ways will depend upon what server aspects you can actually alter. Some of the things they show are really good, some of them less so..but I am hopeful, this seems like a decent update to look forward to.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

This does absolutely nothing for me, but I’m happy for folks that will enjoy this more. Guess this update will just have Daily Ops improvements and I’m waiting on the winter update.

Seems neat though, especially if I had friends that played. Genuinely impressed with how much control it seems they’re giving players, and makes total sense that progress won’t be shared. The public worlds that Bethesda will make are neato for non FO1 folks too.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
DeadlyAccurate

I’ll just keep playing Minecraft in the meantime, on my own private server, modded the way I want.

If they ever stop trying to gouge the customer base, I’ll be happy to take a look at the game again.

Fisty
Reader
Fisty

I would freaking hope you don’t need to be online for the server to be up. I can see it being down til someone connects, but requiring the owner on would be soooo dumb.

But then, if you can only start one with a 1st membership, but non subs can play, I can totally see them requiring the 1st member to be on.

This is so close, yet so far away. More studios should look at Minecraft’s popularity and realize the more servers = more copies sold = larger playerbase = more profit. At least in the short term while they take 2 years to come up with a solid map expansion. Private servers keep games alive as long as mods do. Bethesda of all places should realize the importance of this (glares at my 35th replay of modded Skyrim).

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

Stealth archer again right?

Fisty
Reader
Fisty

HAH! It always ends up that way.

Reader
David Goodman

So close to what people actually wanted, and yet, so Bethesda….

Reader
Tanek

Just another reminder for me that if Bethesda tries to pull any garbage with Starfield or TES6, that is likely the last chance they get from me.

If FO76 ever gets actual private servers not shackled to the cash shop, let me know. Not holding my breath, though. If they could retroactively tie the older Fallout games to the cash shop, I’m sure someone would be working on doing so.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

What do you mean by “shackled to the cash shop”? I mean, it’s gated behind FO1 and the cash shop still exists, but they still exist and are playable as long as you have a friend to host the server.

If they could retroactively tie the older Fallout games to the cash shop, I’m sure someone would be working on doing so.

Why so cynical? They’re bringing some stuff in from older FO games in the cash shop and earnable in-game, but I will never get why folks view the people who make the games they enjoy with such deep suspicion.

Reader
Tanek

Because the industry seem to be driving toward cynicism. Some always-online cash-shop games feel like they should have had an offline option except for the need to keep the game “shackled” to the shop. Look at Diablo 3, look at Shadow of War. Also, I want to know I can still play the game in 5 years and we are already seeing the death of non-MMO games that thought needing a company server to keep going was a good plan.

I’m almost certain one reason the “private” servers are paid is to make sure they stay within the cash shop environment. Same with modding.

Maybe FO76 is a 1-off experiment into MMO-lite and Starfield will show us they are still able to make games that won’t go *poof* as soon as they aren’t making enough money. Waiting to see how it goes.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

The industry is huge, and the bad games aren’t a majority. Yes, D3’s always online was silly, yes the gold RMT was dumb (and removed). Yes, Shadow of War gating the “real ending” behind a massive slog of a grind that would be easier with MTX was shitty too. I played that and honestly the thought of the grind to begin with was miserable and awful, but I got plenty enough of my fill from the game up to that point. Outside of the awful ending grind, it’s bloody fantastic.

seeing the death of non-MMO games

Like which ones? I mean, some of the huge failures have shuttered, but even games like Anthem that have been abandoned are still up and running. It’s the nature of online games, which while they’re more common now are still only a small segment of the whole gaming scene. Beyond that, we’re on a MMO blog…games getting shuttered when they’re no longer sustainable is like, a thing that’s been in this genre since ye olden days : P

I’m almost certain one reason the “private” servers are paid is to make sure they stay within the cash shop environment. Same with modding.

Or…hear me out…because they want to add more perks to FO1! You don’t need the cash shop to begin with, there’s cool stuff in there but you “need” nothing there.

Why not let folks have true “private” servers unconnected to the rest of the game? Security reasons, both for the game itself and for players. They already have trouble getting a handle on duping/hacked weapons on live servers, you think they’ll be able to handle all the modding funzies if there’s a proper offline version of the game people can literally do whatever they want in, and find creative ways to bring that insane shit into the core game.

FO76 is, at its core, an online only game. You may not like it, but this is their vision for their game. If you want an offline experience, there’s FO4.

Maybe FO76 is a 1-off experiment into MMO-lite and Starfield will show us they are still able to make games that won’t go *poof* as soon as they aren’t making enough money. Waiting to see how it goes.

It may be, but Bethesda was clear that this was always going to be a very different type of game compared to their mainline games. Especially given that the game initially launched as a more PvP/survival focused game without NPC’s or anything.

We currently have absolutely no information about Starfield to suggest that it would be online-only, so I’m not sure what this concern would be (at least none that I’ve seen).

Beyond that, “poof as soon as they aren’t making enough money”? They just drop support, but that’s unlikely. Just look at what they’ve done with 76, taking a game that was pretty bad and was slammed by players and critics across the board, and turned it into a pretty solid game. It’s actually fairly rare for games to go “poof” like that, look at Umbrella Corps. The game launched to a thud, sold like shit, reviewed like shit, but the servers are still up 5 years later.

Reader
Tanek

I’m sure they have made FO76 a much better game than it was at launch. My issue is not with the game itself but with the trend it follows. You seem to agree with me on the cash shops for D3 and SoW and neither of those were bad games. They were, in fact, pretty darn good games that had unnecessarily tied game progress/mechanics to an online shop.

As for FO1 “perks”, yes, having it as a requirement to start one of the “private” servers certainly does add value. But the same could be said about a game that increases grind, then has a subscription option where one of the perks is increased xp gain or something.

I am glad there are people who enjoy the game, and even happy to see that optimism still exists. But back when private servers and modding were first announced for FO76 there were those who dismissed concerns it would be another round of Bethesda trying to charge for mods. I mean, why would they do that *again* after the last time? Well.

So, I’ll remain in “wait and see” mode for Starfield and other games coming up. And I’ll keep telling Bethesda what I *don’t* want those games to be.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

Shadow of War and their blatant cash shop greed made me sad. One of my most memorable gaming experiences *ever* was from Shadow of Mordor. I ended up with an Uruk spearthrower enemy named “Bafra the Clever.” He had two traits that made him extremely memorable – he could show up whenever I was near any *other* Captain, and he’d run away if he took enough damage. And because I didn’t realize what that meant, I’d issued a death threat and given him his own personal squad of spear-thrower bodyguards.

Bafra became the bane of my existence in that game. If I was doing a mission to help or hinder another Captain, Bafra would be there. If I was trying to do one of the challenge things to get an artifact or memory fragment for more character points… Bafra. Every time I tried to take him out, he’d manage to escape. Any time I didn’t want him to show up, he would.

I *finally* managed to corner him, and because we had so much history at that point I couldn’t bring myself to kill him for some reason. So I turned him into an ally. And that’s when he *really* decided to show how much of a pain he could be. OnO

“Hey there, Gravewalker! I see you up on that ledge! You trying to sneak in? Well let me help! I’ll just set fire to these guards, cause a bit of chaos, make sure the whole place is good and riled up. And there we go! Whoops, papercut! Got to go! Good luck, Gravewalker!”

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

Because Bethesda are the ones who *literally* tried to monetize player-created mods. They backed off when it became clear that their audience would rather track them (and the modders) down and eat them.

Since then, they’ve basically done almost the same thing anyway with the Fallout 4 in-game store. Almost everything in there is “basically a mod,” with some of them literally just being a random gun or cosmetic item that gets dropped into the world somewhere to go get.

Even the ones that are fun and more fully fleshed out aren’t balanced in any real way – as much as I like the Sentinel Armor, where you can turn any suit of power armor you own into an NPC companion… it does sort of completely break the game. Because it *stacks* with any other companion. I can have a Sentinel suit, AND my custom Automatron Widget, and anything less than a Deathclaw is going to get deleted before I even realize it planned to try to bite me. All for the low, low price of “at least enough money to buy a totally different game during a Steam Sale.”

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Fallout 4 in-game store.

This is a thing? I don’t think I knew this despite my 120 hour playthrough recently >.>

Fair point on the attempt to monetize mods, but as noted they took big steps back from this plan when players revolted. Which is the right response. And the game still supports outside modding from Nexus and stuff, so it’s not like they totally killed it. Haven’t seen any moves in that direction since then, though.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

“Haven’t seen any moves in that direction since then, though.”

*points at Fallout 76, the Fallout 76 in-game store, and Fallout 1st.* What is that, then?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

In-game store…because they don’t sell DLC content, it’s free. FO1 because they need consistent revenue to design budgets around. The alternative is monetizing all the DLC.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

My point (such as it is) is that everything about Fallout 76 is “steps in the direction” that the Fallout 4 in-game store was headed.

It’s an online game, so they lock out player mods. (Because it’s too much work to separate “valid mod” from “cheating mod” in a game with anything that even slightly resembles PVP.)

Then they add a store where they charge money, often a LOT of money, for exactly the kinds of things that people normally get by the stack for free from mods.

THEN they charge an absolute fortune for Fallout 1st, which enables “private servers” and other perks, which basically forces people to pay an ongoing subscription to get “Fallout 76: The Sort of Single Player Experience,” where they can explore the world without BigNUTZ69 dancing in their face and trying to get them to PVP.

They give out the “expansion” updates for free because they really kind of have to – if they don’t, lots of people just won’t spend the money, which fractures the playerbase and forces them to have to account for all the possible variations in *which* DLC someone might buy. (Unless they force you to buy all of them if you buy any of them.)

“Wait, what do you mean the game sets your kids on fire? What expansions do you have? None but the newest one? And what graphics card? Hold on, we’ve got a computer with that…. oh, crap, it totally does set children on fire. That doesn’t happen if you have any of the other expansions. What the frig…”

*Edit* Sorry, I’m not a good writer. What I’m getting at is that lots of stuff about the design of Fallout 76 feels like they deliberately created problems with the design, and then *charged money* for the solutions to the problems they made.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

I kinda get where you’re coming from, but still disagree.

Fallout 76 is “steps in the direction”

Not really. It’s more of a spinoff than anything else, and numbered sequels will likely go the same route as usual.

Then they add a store where they charge money

Again, this is lacking context on the business model. This isn’t FO4 where they don’t have ongoing server/development costs and have only a set amount of paid DLC planned. This is an online game with ongoing maintenance and development costs, and they’re not monetizing content. This is literally how players keep saying they want games to be monetized, but when we see it we get the same complaints anyways. Games are a business, they are designed to make money at the end of the day, and online games need to pay for ongoing support.

It’s either this route, a mandatory sub (kek) plus cash shop, or monetized DLC plus a likely cash shop. I’ll take this route, personally.

an absolute fortune for Fallout 1st

It’s about the same price as a standard sub, and cheaper for a full year ($100). It’s the same model as ESO, just without granting free DLC access (and having annual paid expansions).

which basically forces people to pay an ongoing subscription to get “Fallout 76: The Sort of Single Player Experience,”

Yes, because it was never designed as or supposed to be a single player experience. And the only real perks to that are farming routes and no PvP threat for workshops, it’s usually a detriment since events and daily ops are far, far more challenging solo.

without BigNUTZ69 dancing in their face and trying to get them to PVP

They can dance all they want, if you set passive mode you can’t flag yourself for PvP out in the world unless you claim a workshop. I regularly shoot people on accident and the only time I ever got flagged was opening a lockbox I thought was neutral but was player owned. Got a 10 cap bounty, got killed shortly after, minor inconvenience.

They give out the “expansion” updates for free because they really kind of have to

Initially while they were rehabbing the game, maybe. But nowadays they absolutely do not. Again, if they’re not monetizing content they need to generate sustainable revenue somehow.

Fallout 76 feels like they deliberately created problems with the design, and then *charged money* for the solutions to the problems they made.

Like what? Stash space is intentional and by design (similar to ESO inventory/bank limits), getting around those is a convenience but it still requires you manage your inventory while out in the world. The game was originally designed to focus on PvP, the move to a more PvE focus was directly in response to what players wanted.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

What kind of problems did they design and then charge to fix? How about starting with “making an multiplayer PVP game in a franchise that was ENTIRELY about being a single player RPG and then designing everything about it so that they had an excuse to monetize the hell out of it on an ongoing basis.”

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

That’s not a “problem”, that’s them trying something new and different because they wanted to. It didn’t pan out, so they pivoted and responded to players. Was it some grand masterplan from Todd Howard to launch a game that bombed only to spend years turning it around and salvaging its reputation?

It was already monetized this way from launch.

Reader
Vanquesse V

Due to nonsense only people that have a fallout 1st subscription on the bethesda.net launcher will be considered subscribers on the test server, so I couldn’t actually try it out, but even if you don’t have a subscription you can still customize as many servers as you want, you just can’t play them.
The way it works is that you set up a server as you like, and then link new or old characters to it. This is a one-way process so you can’t bring anything you do on custom servers back into the “real” game. You also can’t get achievements nor can you advance the battlepass while on custom servers.
The public, weekly rotating custom server will have 24 players, while the player run ones will be 8 player (at least starting out).
I don’t know if people you invite to one of your custom servers will be able to play on it while you’re not online or not.
You can give each server a name, description and pick an icon for it, and then there’s 3 categories of customization which I grabbed some not-that-great quality screenshots of:

comment image
comment image
comment image

It seems like the limit on server creating is based around how many characters are linked to your servers and not how many servers you have.
It sounds like they also want to include new customization options for these over time.

Reader
Hikari Kenzaki

I want to make sure I’m on the right page here. The Fallout First sub previously allowed you to have private servers, yes? These are just adding flexible rulesets?

Because I remember private servers being one of the selling points of Fallout First (and as a player of other survival games, I would have assumed customized rulesets would be available out of the gate).

Reader
Tanek

Maybe this is the FO76 version of “modding”?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Yes, this is giving FO1 folks the ability to have pretty granular control over the server to allow for all kinds of crazy stuff like building anywhere/no build caps, infinite ammo, custom spawns etc.

There will be a “public” version with a ruleset created by Bethesda that will rotate periodically that anyone can access without needing a FO1 friend.

The customizable rules seem like a lot of new tech that didn’t exist outside of dev tools. The private worlds were still good (no threat from capping workshops, no competition for some farming routes etc.), and they shared progress with adventure mode. These new custom servers seem like they have some sort of separate progression where you’ll have a clone of your character(s), but nothing you do on those servers will carry over to adventure mode.

They’re purely for funzies.

Reader
Hikari Kenzaki

Okay. I would have expected that sort of thing when they first launched the private servers, but if the goal of the original private servers was to still allow progression, I can understand why they would not want that.

Thanks for the info.

Reader
Vanquesse V

I should also point out that like with private worlds, non-subscribers can play on them, they just can’t customize their own.
For the current private worlds I think the world shuts down 5 minutes after the last subscriber leaves but I don’t know how the new ones work in that regard.

Oh and as you pointed out, a lot of people were frustrated with the current iteration as as customizing servers has been more or less promised since the unveiling of the game.