Pre-Purchase Fallout 4 on Steam

Yeah, for that price you are better off getting a physicall copy, those prices are bullshit.

Hang on it shows as $99 NZD for me in the steam store, did you guys in aussie not get your own steam store currency? I cant even access the USD steam store.
Also it's $99 for a PC physical copy too. So not buying off steam, will look elsewhere (like GMG who have a 23% off store wide voucher, and yes you can use it on Fallout 4 and even with currency conversion still works out cheaper.)

But if you bought retail you would still need Steam to activate so there for you would still be renting it,so that still would not solve your problem.Pretty much most games work like that now.

The only thing a disc version gives you now is a break on your cap and the time it will take to download it.

I am just saying either way your at the mercy of Steam

The funny thing is that, even if its more expensive in our countries, our purchases(talking about Fallout 4) will be region locked. Logic...

weird here in argentina is 60 USD i though we were suposed to have the same "lesser" prices, and that was why region lock exist sigh

Overpriced. I will say no more.

Welcome to the digital age,where things can be patch or fixed on the fly,or at least an attempt,gone are the days where the game has to work damn good on launch as they only get one crack at it.

Though for the rest of the dlc and silly stuff,well that is just business they need a steady income to please the masses who buy there stock,and selling a game or two every few months will not do it.

On the bright side you get rid of those pesky dvds and such,and easier access to the game and it content,but in turn you get buggy releases and crap prices.

region lock :)

That's true

A lot of people feel that New Vegas was closer to being a Fallout game -- and having Obsidian develop the game certainly helped bridge the two (since many of the developers who worked on the Fallout series work at Obsidian) -- but there's still a lot of traditionalists who yearn for the original vision that was Van Buren -- especially given to how close the game was to completion.

Anyway, I hated "Fallout 3" for a bunch of reasons, not just because it wasn't Van Buren. Aside from that, the game was really dumbed down in the name of multi-platformism (i.e. pleasing console gamers). Even if it had been in a totally different universe from Fallout, it still wouldn't have been a great game. It might have been decent, yes, but not great. But when they claimed it to be the heir of Fallout and Fallout 2, there's no way it could compare to the the original series and, thus, fell completely short. I'm sure console gamers and PC gamers who'd never played the original games loved it, but I personally hated it. I feel that the 1990s (and early 2000s) was really the golden age of PC gaming (especially where RPGs are concerned) and there's a lot of nostalgia associated with that.

Yeah, I'm very supportive of inXile, too. Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and hopefully Van Buren. As for what it'd be called, it'd be virtually impossible to use the term "Fallout" (or related terms) anywhere in the game -- unless Bethesda allowed them to, which I seriously doubt. After all, don't forget: even though Interplay had the rights to create the Fallout MMORPG ("Fallout Online"), Bethesda was still able to shut it down (using their lawyers) before it could launch. The inXile Van Buren project would just be a "spiritual re-make" of Van Buren, the same way that Pillars of Eternity is a "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate series (even though, officially-speaking, they aren't connected).

It was much easier for inXile to make a game using the name Wasteland (since the original was released in the late 1980s acquiring its rights wasn't too difficult) and even though Torment: Tides of Numenera uses the term "torment", it's not set in the Dungeons & Dragon's universe (since Wizards of the Coast, who own the rights to the Planescape universe, would not license them to inXile) but rather uses Monte Cook's setting and tabletop rule-set instead. (However, Monte Cook was one of the major designers for the Planescape universe -- along with many other Dungeons & Dragons settings.)

In short, if inXile ever finishes Van Buren, the new game will be what the original Fallout was to the original Wasteland: a spiritual successor of sorts.

I liked the trailer, too, but it's not much to go on; trailers never are. So many trailers have depicted things a certain way only to later show that it was a form of deceit to attract attention. Anyway, I have no doubt that "Fallout 4" will get high marks from PC Gamer (and other now-worthless PC gaming magazines) and also see a very large financial return for Bethesda. I also expect that most contemporary PC gamers will extol and adulate the game. But the real question (for me) is: how will it compare to Fallout traditionalists? Personally, I think it may be New Vegas-esque, in that regard; it may even surpass New Vegas in that regard. That said, it's all speculation at this point.

Everything said, I'm more interested in seeing what inXile will do with Van Buren than what Besthesda will do with "Fallout 4". Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Bethesda (not yet, anyway). I love some of the original games that Bethesda is responsible for developing and/or publishing: namely, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Dishonored (though they just published the latter, Arkane Studios developed it). I'm just disheartened by Bethesda's attempts to recreate series from other, now-defunct developers. But I feel the same way about any developer trying to either reboot or make sequels for a game they had no connection with.

P.S. Since Prey 2 was (unfortunately) canceled, I wonder if this means that Arkane Studios will be able to devote time in creating a sequel for Dishonored? I definitely support Bethesda publishing Dishonored 2.

Yeah, I had a few links (and I think I even posted them in the SG forum a while ago though it could have been on the GOG forum) but I was able to find at least two of the news articles (that I posted previously) which specifically mentions this:

On September 9, Bethesda Softworks filed a complaint against Fallout's original developer Interplay in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint, as stated by Gamesatura, is requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction against Interplay's manufacturing, sale and distribution of Fallout Trilogy. Although Interplay is permitted to sell the three classics included in the bundle--Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout tactics--the company was required to "submit to Bethesda all relevant packaging, advertising, and promotional material prior to bringing the catalog titles to market."

Bethesda is now accusing Interplay of trademark infringement, claiming that the company never approached Bethesda for pre-approval for the materials used in the Fallout Trilogy package. Bethesda said that consumers will now be confused between Interplay's classic PC games and Bethesda's snazzier and meatier Fallout 3. While this may sound insulting to PC gamers worldwide, the company is looking to avoid confusion for consumers overall.

Thanks to Interplay's Trilogy, Bethesda is also taking substantial damage, although no sword or other weapon was involved. According to the company, Interplay crossed the line when it signed licensing agreements with online retail outlets such as Steam, GameTap, GOG.com and more. Apparently, these actions have caused the studio "immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm." (Source: "Bethesda Sues Interplay Over Fallout Game")

I believe the original source for the news comes from this article:

Bethesda filed a complaint -- obtained by Gamasutra -- in the U.S. District Court of Maryland on September 9 requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction against Interplay's manufacture, sale, and distribution of Fallout Trilogy, which includes the classic PC games Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

[...]

But Bethesda claimed that Interplay never sought pre-approval for those materials. The plaintiff said because of the alleged trademark infringement, consumers have become confused between the makers of the pre-existing Fallout games and Bethesda's more recent Fallout 3 -- a situation that Bethesda wanted to avoid.

Bethesda also accused Interplay of breaching the trademark agreement by signing licensing agreements with digital distribution sites like Steam, GOG.com, and GameTap to sell older Fallout games. The company claimed Interplay's alleged actions have caused the studio "immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm."

[...]

Bethesda accused Interplay of trademark infringement, two counts of breach of contract, and unfair competition. Bethesda is asking for injunctions against Interplay's manufacture, sale, and distribution of back catalog Fallout games, that a judge declare the trademark licensing agreement terminated, and that Interplay pay for damages and legal fees. (Source: "Bethesda Sues Interplay Over Use Of Fallout License")

The article above also goes into some detail about how Bethesda prevented Interplay from creating the Fallout MMO, in case you're interested in that.

i knew about Obsidian.
will try. but thtat doesn't help F4 in anyway.

that's even making it worse