Apparently rumours and speculation about Fallout: New Vegas 2 has been around the fake news gaming press lately. This has led to some comments from Chris Avellone on Twatter, which turned into a Q&A session of sorts. He doesn't know why Bethesda didn't want Fallout: New Vegas 2 even though it was proposed by Obsidian. They even proposed to do Elder Scrolls spinoffs, which was news to me. I've put the questions and answers below and hope it's at least of some interest!
Chris Avellone said:
Questions & Answers
Q - Do you think that these days Xbox/MS would overwrite the decision? Essentially taking the choice out of Bethesda's hands? In a hypothetical where Bethesda wants nothing to do with it, couldn't MS just overrule that? Just not sure how all that mumbo jumbo works.
MCA - That doesn't feel like Phil Spencer's way. My understanding from what I've heard is he's being generous about letting acquired studios make their own calls/creative direction vs. GENERATE CASH NOW, FUCKERS decisions.
Q - Would you work on it if asked?
MCA - I won't get asked. Even if an additional mountain of evidence is presented against the 2020 allegations, there will always be key people who will never believe the evidence staring in them in the face, and that's why false allegations are so damaging. Welcome to the world.
Q - Isn't it up to Microsoft, not Bethesda?
MCA - Not if they're allowing studios to maintain their creative direction of their products. My understanding is that if Todd Howard tells Phil Spencer "nope," it probably isn't going to happen.
Q - That just sounds weird to me. Ive always taken the "We'll give them freedom in their creations" more of freedom while creating. Not "Well that was our IP and if we dont want you to use it we can say no". Sure Fallout is Bethesda IP, but technically its an Xbox IP now. Right?
MCA - It's a question of having the authority and knowing when best to use it, something that not all managers have figured out. I respect Phil's take, frankly. I wouldn't want to be bought by someone to have creative control taken away, it's not why devs get into games.
Q - I can understand that. But is it really taking creative control away. You arent forcing a studio to make a game. Nor telling them what to do in their excisting game. Your just giving another studio under the Xbox umbrella a chance to work on a IP now owned by Xbox.
MCA - Yeah, but some creators take their IP personally because they care, despite player feelings on the matter, which is a dissertation for another day as to what's best overall. That passion for the IP is likely what made it amazing, so you have to be careful when messing with it.
Q - Tbf Bethesda only cares about Fallout as far as it being a cash cow for them. Sadly the people who truly cared have been replaced by talentless hacks. Cough cough Emil, cough cough Todd. I hope one day people who truly care get to work on fallout again.
MCA - I don't think they feel that way at all based on discussions, they seem to really enjoy working with the franchise (and the devs do too, obviously). Not sure about the higher-ups, but there were times they had to make calls on quality for the IP vs. cost, and they made the quality calls (animation improvements in FNV, for example, which they could have shrugged off). More QA would have been nice, though, but even all the QA in the world won't help if the devs can't fix the bugs fast enough - or if they're still introducing bugs. It happens.
Q - New Vegas 2 means literally nothing without you and obsidian involved.
MCA - Uh, John Gonzalez lead writer, Tim Cain creative director, Leonard Boyarsky on board... there were a lot of people involved with Fallout other than me, there's other great hopes.
Q - Well, I guess I meant whatever your concept for a New Vegas 2 was, since on August 31 of last year, you said you wanted to write an essay-long answer to explain how Lonesome Road would set the stage for your NV2.
MCA- JC, I owe you many answers, but this answer, strangely, would not be relevant to this discussion.
A lot of it is establishing the set-up for Van Buren, and just generate more conflict between the factions initiated by player action.Q - It's been confirmed to be in early early talk. We'll probably see it announced in 2024 or so and then released some time between 2028-2030.
MCA - I do not see the connection between your first sentence and the second based on my experience with game development talks. I do hope it's true, though.
Q - From everything I read, it's people up the chain at Microsoft itself getting keen on the idea.
MCA- I wouldn't be surprised, it's a good idea, but Bethesda never wanted to pursue it after NV1.
Q - Could you please share your understanding as to why this is the case? Why didn't Bethesda want F:NV2?
MCA -Oh gee, the question that kept me awake nights for years
Q - Are you legally allowed to even answer this kind of question?
MCA - I don't even have an answer is the point. We did ask. Repeatedly. Even to do Elder Scrolls spinoffs in the style of FNV doing side games in the same franchise (or alternate worlds). Nope.
Q - You and tim working together on new vegas 2 would be amazing, crossing my fingers.
MCA - I cannot work with Tim. I would spend the day staring into his eyes and sighing wistfully. This would only be possible because I would be disguised as his computer monitor, which would mysteriously never turn on and be vaguely in the shape of my head.
Q - Too bad we would have to pry that out of Todd's tendrils
MCA - Todd's a good guy and was always nice and respectful toward us. In fact, he would often say that we should check with him whenever anyone in his studio would say, "well, Todd said..." because chances are, he didn't.
Q - That's good then, I would hate to think that he would stonewall the idea of another studio taking a crack at a future game. Also, if you ask me, the writing is on the wall for a North West setting; Idaho, Montana, etc. As much as I love NV, let's break some new ground.
MCA - Well, I'd probably start speculation with an area with a BIG MAJOR CITY and then go from there, since that's usually the pattern for the single-player releases.
Q - Would you join the team if you were invited?
MCA- I'd rather Tim Cain step up to the plate again, despite his creaky old age (which we share, just a joke).
Q - I mean both him and Leonard Boyarsky aren't listed for The Outer Worlds 2, so it is possible.
MCA - Really? That's a surprise, more for Leonard than Tim (I thought Tim might have retired, but have no idea).
Q - Mhh i guess Microsoft need to allow it now or not?
MCA - As mentioned in another thread on this, I don't think it's solely a MS decision. Phil Spencer doesn't seem to be a "here's the hammer, you're the nail, so do what I say," kind of guy.
Q - if you do get involved, please don't try to just wipe the slate clean again. a post-post apocalyptic setting is interesting in its own right.
MCA - I never wipe the slate clean, it's disrespectful to the players who love the franchise. I prefer to mess up the slate a little so there's more conflict and drama in the setting (that was the intention with Van Buren).
Q - I wonder if they'd bring Brian Fargo and some of the writers from InXile over to help especially with MS talking about open collaboration between studios (not that Obsidians writing has been bad)
MCA - I guess the two would have to bury the hatchet, things between them were pretty poor (from an outside observer) during Demon's Forge. I'm would suspect they've made peace after the acquisitions.
Q - I don't think Bethesda have any say in it, it will be Microsoft who gives the green light to that project.
MCA- I believe they will if they want Todd's support and his presence as a figurehead for the game.
Q - Outer Worlds managed to be worse in every way possible.
MCA - Oh come on, that's a pretty broad critique
Q - I really liked Outer Worlds but sadly it was not an AAA title. If you guys worked your magic with a much higher budget it would be perfect which can be the case with Fallout New Vegas 2.
MCA - I think they always were pitching AA level, but the media coverage seemed to forget that (probably because of the Fallout comparisons, which marketing and the team encouraged, so not sure what the best answer here is, if there is one).
Q - I feel Bethesda and Obsidian don't despise each other as some youtubers say. If a New Vegas 2 comes out I think a spiritual succesor is better than the direct sequel.
MCA - Yeah, I don't really think there's any bad blood. Plus, the power disparity is such that neither side benefits from bad blood, but who knows.
Q - I kind of suspect they'd have to be forced into agreeing to that. I could be wrong but I get the impression they have some resentment towards the older games and NV, especially when since the latter tends to spark some criticism towards how they design their games.
MCA - I couldn't say, and I doubt it would have been mentioned while I was present.
Q - Bethesda does not own the IP anymore, so it's up to Microsoft to allow it.
MCA - Read the other responses to this
Q -Microsoft bought zenimax so the rights of fallout is now owned by Microsoft. Am I wrong?
MCA - See other threads, that is correct but there's more to it, and the reason there's more to it is because I assume MS is being respectful to each studio's IP.
Last edited:
