Next Fallout 3 DLC called Point Look?

By Robert Purchese Published 1 May, 2009

Bethesda says "no plans" for more.

A spokesperson for Bethesda has told Eurogamer "there are no announced plans for additional DLC beyond Broken Steel" for Fallout 3.

The publisher was speaking after US retailer eStarland outed a fourth add-on called Point Look as part of a DLC bundle with Broken Steel. A similar retail deal containing Operation: Anchorage and The Pitt was confirmed to Eurogamer earlier this week. There's no further information about Point Look on eStarland's website.

Another claim supporting this is that Bethesda has only used 350 gamerpoints out of a possible 750 so far, and only 14 Achievements out of a possible 30 as established by the new DLC rules confirmed this morning. That suggests Bethesda has left plenty of room to grow Fallout 3 further.

Broken Steel launches on 5th May, costs 800 Microsoft Points (GBP 6.80 / EUR 9.60), and raises the in-game level cap to 30, most notably.

There's much more besides, of course, that our Fallout 3: Broken Steel preview will fill you in on.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • convercide #1 3 years ago

    ^ How quaint. People buying MS points invokes international bigotry.

    I'm looking forward to Broken Steel and would be happy with another after it. Here's to hoping.

  • Cocytan #2 3 years ago

    Dear Bethesda,

    On behalf of PS3 owners the world over, I'd just like to invite you to go fuck yourselves. When Fallout 4 comes out, you can count me out.

    Thanks,

    A pissed-off PS3 Fallout 3 owner

  • robg #3 3 years ago

    Cocytan: blame MS! For trying too hard.

    Or Sony. For not trying.

  • DutchDemons #4 3 years ago

    yea, or buy a 360. srry but complaining about 1 company trying to outbid (and succeeding) another on DLC is just....silly. put up or shut up.

    oh and a fourth batch of DLC? no thanks. i still have to play the main game and so far i'm not that impressed by it (sure; pretty, brutal, but fun? not imho).
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 17:33

  • Cocytan #5 3 years ago

    No, this lies squarely at the feet of the game developers. I can understand games themselves being locked to a system - for a company to pay money to ensure that it remains exclusive to their own particular console. But to release a game multi-platform, then only create DLC for a couple of selected platforms because Microsoft 'convinced' them to? That's bullshit. I'd call shenanigans if it was the other way round as well, if Sony ever managed to organise itself well enough to get the upper hand in a game deal.

    I'm sick and tired of getting my balls squeezed left and right by greedy, cock-munching corporate execs who no longer give a flying fuck about the quality of the games they produce. Fallout 3 on the PS3 was a hideous, glitchy mess when it was first released, and we had to wait for a patch just so the game didn't hang horrendously every time someone logged in on your friends list. There should be some kind of system, not governed by software or hardware manufacturers, that ensures that gamers are protected when they purchase products, whether it's from platform-locked DLC, or from half-assed game coding.

    Bethesda could publish a game based on fellating monkeys and still see it enter the charts at number one. Why? Because of people like me who have supported them for years and years with software purchases. But as soon as some prick in a suit waves around enough cash, the fans are cast aside as a sacrifice to the almighty dollar.

    I won't be buying another Bethesda game, or any other game from a company who condones this practice. Instead, I offer them my balls to suck on.

    Peace out.

  • the_dudefather #6 3 years ago

    Get the PC version

    you get the DLC plus all the mods you want

  • AphoticCosmos #7 3 years ago

    "Fallout 3 on the PS3 was a hideous, glitchy mess"

    So buy a good console, then.

  • Cocytan #8 3 years ago

    I don't WANT the Xbox version, or the PC version. That's my point. I already paid for 1 version of it, the DLC should be standard across the board. I shouldn't have to purchase another console/computer just in order to play a game's DLC.

    Sigh, guess I'm the only one pissed off about this.

    Nevermind. We'll see what happens with The Elder Scrolls 5.

    @ AphoticCosmos - do you really have to reduce it to another retarded fanboy argument? I've got nothing against the Xbox, but it doesn't appeal to me.
    Edited by 1 at 01/05/09 @ 17:47

  • CunningLinguist #9 3 years ago

    Meow!

  • metalnut #10 3 years ago

    "I shouldn't have to purchase another console/computer just in order to play a game's DLC. "

    No-one should have to buy another console just to play a GAME, period. The whole idea of exclusivity is total bullshit and is just a result of the silly situation where hardware manufacturers control an industry that is content driven. How about if a new film would only play on Panasonic DVD/Blu-Ray players? There would be outrage. It's just bollocks caused by an immature industry having to rely on subsidised hardware. It'll change, hardware is becoming less and less important every generation (see the Wii, which sells by the ton despite actually just being a cereal packet filled with old bits of string and paperclips). I can't wait for hardware manufacturers to have their greedy fingers prised off the controls and the *real* heroes of the industry - the game developers - put back in control.

  • Cocytan #11 3 years ago

    @metalnut

    Thanks for an intelligent observation! I was starting to despair of some of the people who have been posting on EG recently....

    I agree in principle with you saying that all games should be multi-platform, but I really don't mind with some games being locked exclusively to a particular console. Halo, Mario, GOW, these are all iconic games which immediately conjure up the names of the respective console makers, and I think it's good that we have the choice.

    I also agree that hardware is likely to become less and less important as time goes on - but I hope that there is still a level of individuality in whatever platforms will be released in the future. I still wish that there were an independent agency governing games and DLC, a group who really aren't answerable to the gaming industry, but regulate themselves and have the interests of consumers at the front of their minds.

    Then again, I also wish that I were 6 foot 5, with a Ferrari and a string of supermodel girlfriends. Sigh.


  • GamesConnoisseur #12 3 years ago

    Hey!!! I bet Coco would be one of the crowd who wrote angry letters to Capcom for bringing RE5 and DMC4 to X360?!!

    Exclusive games as other said WORKS both way, both companies are guilty of this and all in the name of increased market share. Sure its darn annoying when the 'rival' owners get to play an extra that you wont do, better than being 'denied' the whole game such as MGS4?

    Next time around it could be that PS4 owners who get to enjoys extra for Fallout 4 and you gonna still refuse to get the game cos of the 'snub' with Fallout 3?

  • makeamazing #13 3 years ago

    "Fallout 3 on the PS3 was a hideous, glitchy mess"

    Played it for quite a few hours and not had any problems, now Mirrors edge ive had that hang at least 4 times and ive not played that as much as Fallout... so epic openworld game 0 crashes, very small linear world 4 crashes, go figure.

  • Hobo #14 3 years ago

    I thought a dev on this had already said they working on "loads" more DLC?

  • Cocytan #15 3 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur

    As I stated previously, yes I would boycott it. I don't agree with this practice, whatever the company, whatever the system, whatever the game. I understand perfectly what you mean when you talk about being 'denied the game', particularly with a AAA title like Metal Gear Solid, but I also think it is things like exclusivity that gives a console its 'personality', so to speak. I couldn't imagine playing Mario on a console other than a Nintendo one, the same goes for Halo on the Xbox. Take Sonic for example - I've played every Sonic game released (unfortunately), and it just feels...different...on a console which wasn't Sega's own.

    I'm just pissed off at this DLC situation - you pay for a game, you should get access to everything the developer offers for that game. Even things like additional levels only being offered on one system (a la Mirror's Edge) annoys me. It's unfair, and it creates a system where people have to buy multiple consoles with multiple copies of the same game just to experience it fully. It's not just the fault of the publishers - game developers are to blame here as well, for allowing their heads to be swayed at the prospect of easy money, and condoning this practice.

    Bethesda might not notice the money I won't be spending on their products in the future, but I really believe that this business practice is wrong.

  • metallicorphan #16 3 years ago

    "there are no announced plans for additional DLC beyond Broken Steel"

    that really doesnt give us much,they could be working on 10 lots of new DLC,its just that they havent announced any yet

    i am loving the game on the 360,just doing my third playthru now,to get ready to buy all 3 DLC packs when the third comes out

  • metallicorphan #17 3 years ago

    funny how people moan about not getting DLC for their console...they paid for the content thats on the disc,and you got value for money still..with or without the DLC this game still blows 90% of current games out of the water

  • jeebthegreat #18 3 years ago

    Remember how games used to be console exlusive? Some still are, sure, but not as many as the previous generation. And you know how everything's going digital these days? Put 2 + 2 together, some people may just end up with 4. Exclusive DLC will become a console seller, ergo Microsoft are doing everything in their power to make sure their console outsells the PS3. Sure it's unfair, but it's business. I do feel sorry for PS3 owners though (haven't bought the DLC yet but plan to) and I know where you're coming from; business is a bitch!

  • Mark1412 #19 3 years ago

    However much you don't agree with it, we're talking about a business here, and at the end of the day it's the almighty dollar/euro less almighty pound that controls business. Sure for PS3 owners it sucks but exclusivity isn't going to go away and if Sony aren't willing to throw some money about, then this is a trend that is going to be maintained. And no doubt Microsoft can claim it's pulling potential customers towards the 360, great for them. Lost and Damned and three slices of Fallout DLC would be enough to sway me that's for sure.

    S'all business at the end of the day, not to say that shunning customers is a good tactic by any means, but judging by how much Microsoft paid Rockstar for GTA DLC exclusivity, a few pissed off PS3 owners is probably a price worth paying. At least in the short term/ before more people rise up and start boycotting, which, realistically, is never going to happen.

  • Kazzahdrane #20 3 years ago

    Sorry, but there's no point in complaining about the PS3 not getting Fallout 3 DLC and feeling ripped off.

    We knew the DLC would be 360 + PC exclusive months before the game was released. You chose to buy it for the PS3 (which obviously wasn't much of a choice if you don't have a 360 or PC good enough to play it - that's quite reasonable after all), but since you're posting on Eurogamer I assume you knew what you were getting yourself into. If you were so angry you should have boycotted Fallout 3 entirely, rather than pay money for it then complain that things stayed the way they were planned.

  • smelly #21 3 years ago

    Why on earth play it on ps3? That'd be like playing one of those early 1900's naughty seaside flick movies which you have to look through those binocolars to see!

    Fallout is a distinctly average game, which is made better by the visuals. So therefor surely it's better to play on the best system for the job?

  • DutchDemons #22 3 years ago

    @Kazzahdrane

    exactly my point. whining (which it is by now) about exclusive DLC is really not necessary at this point.

    @cocytan

    somehow you managed to obscure for yourself the fact that these DLC releases were 360-exclusive all along. you chose to ignore that and bought the game on the PS3, good for you, but then it's rather silly to scream bloody murder at MS for conducting a business.

    and you insinuate that Sony isn't doing the same with your 'That's bullshit. I'd call shenanigans if it was the other way round as well, if Sony ever managed to organize itself well enough to get the upper hand in a game deal.

    excuse me? are you new to the gaming scene (awaits claims of 35+ years of gaming) or is this another case of ignoring certain facts? Sony does the same thing, they somehow fail to dominate this game during this generation.

    but again, i don't see the problem anywa, seeing F3 isn't that great a game:-)
    Edited by 2 at 01/05/09 @ 23:09

  • M_of_the_sys #23 3 years ago

    Poor old Cocytan tried to bring a reasonable point to EG and got jumped on by fanboys.

    @DutchDemons

    and you insinuate that Sony isn't doing the same with your 'That's bullshit. I'd call shenanigans if it was the other way round as well, if Sony ever managed to organize itself well enough to get the upper hand in a game deal.

    excuse me? are you new to the gaming scene (awaits claims of 35+ years of gaming) or is this another case of ignoring certain facts? Sony does the same thing, they somehow fail to dominate this game during this generation.

    Seems to me like Cocytan WAS talking about THIS generation and just stating that Sony are too crap to get as many exclusive DLC deals. Cocytan also states that he/she disagrees with this across ALL platforms! So pretty please, with sugar on top, stop taking this as a personal afront to your pretty little platform of choice and get a life?

    @DutchDemons & Kazzahdrane

    You're both assuming that Cocytan KNEW that the DLC was planned for the 360 all along? Did you ever stop to wonder if he/she didn't?

    I agree with Cocytan to a point that DLC on a multiplatform game should not be exclusive. Hell, if I'd known I wouldn't have bought Fallout 3 for my PS3. Fortunately I haven't found the staying power to finish the game and therefore am not fussed about the DLC.

    PS - not a Cocytan fanboy :p

  • M_of_the_sys #24 3 years ago

    On another note, why is this even under the PS3 news if it's not coming to PS3?

  • geeza2020 #25 3 years ago

    oh dear

    another article which has nothing to do with the difference in consoles becomes a war between 360 and ps3 owners.

    Whats the point in all this?

  • M_of_the_sys #26 3 years ago

    @geeza2020

    To be fair, there's been one PS3 owner making the point that whilst games are ok to be exclusive to consoles, DLC should not be. This PS3 owner even pointed out that the PS3 version of Fallout 3 was crap. Somehow, people took this as a direct assault on the 360.

    Go figure.

  • Cocytan #27 3 years ago

    Lol, I love how some people take simple complaints almost as seriously as an insult to their mother - there simply isn't any need to be so defensive if you've bought an Xbox or a PC - I DON'T CARE.

    Yes I knew the DLC would be locked, and yes I still chose to buy the game. That's not my point. I'm just saying that the DLC SHOULDN'T be locked, it should be available across all platforms which host the game. Of course I'm living in a utopian world, where beer is cheap and pigs can fly, but I'm simply expressing a dream. Untwist your panties, people! I wish someone would start a gaming website where the merest HINT of fanboyism gets you banned. Sigh, there goes my crazy imagination again...

    @dutchdemons - no, I haven't been gaming for 35+ years. I'm 29, have been gaming since I was 6, and have owned every single console from each generation at one point or another. I gave up on the 360 6 months after release due to the fact that 2 of my consoles RROD'd on me, and purchased the PS3 soon after its own release. I hope that this is acceptable enough for you for me to be allowed to comment on these hallowed forums, o great one...


  • jeebthegreat #28 3 years ago

    aye, and I wish Killzone 2 was on 360. Never gonna happen though

  • Shakey_Jake33 #29 3 years ago

    I don't understand the 'it's your own fault for buying it on the PS3' attitude. That's silly, people who bought it on the PS3 are Bethesda customers just as much as people who purchased it on the Xbox 360 and PC. If we're going to blame, lets place the blame where due.

    I have nothing to add to the discussion because we've already had excellent comments from both sides of the fence that echo my thoughts (they were a pleasure to read actually), but it is difficult for me to see DLC exclusivity (on a multiformat title) as good for anyone, it is ignoring a sizable chunk of the customer base, and while I am aware of the financial realities, these short-term financial gains could come back to haunt them.

  • Darth_Flibble #30 3 years ago

    If Sony got exclusive rights to the content then the people complaining (not just on this forum) would be saying "tough, buy a ps3 now if you want to play it!" I never had a ps2 and there was all these exclusives I couldn't play and the response was buy a ps2. DLC is the new 3rd party console exclusives, I can understand the complaint but the double standard does my head in. its a bit like when the Cube got Resident remake, Zero and 4 as exclusives, the angry comments from ps2 owners telling capcom to eat shit/fuck off etc because they wanted the game to all themself

  • DonLimey #31 3 years ago

    I don't understand why people get so upset over exclusive DLC. I can understand the frustration if you've enjoyed the game and want to continue playing but the only obligation to you the consumer is to provide you with the product you purchase.

    Its not like they've sold you a copy of Fallout 3 with a promise of DLC.

    Unless I've missed something...

  • Twin_snakes #32 3 years ago

    Ahh Cunt fapula, the voice of reason as always.

  • Xerx3s #33 3 years ago

    Cocytan: Quit moaning or buy the pc or 360 version. It's an exclusive. Do you hear people moan because KZ2 isn't released on the 360?

  • Xerx3s #34 3 years ago

    "I don't WANT the Xbox version, or the PC version. That's my point. I already paid for 1 version of it, the DLC should be standard across the board. I shouldn't have to purchase another console/computer just in order to play a game's DLC. "

    It was known well in advance that this would be the case. Wtf did you expect?

  • Retroid #35 3 years ago

    Now, now, play nice. Let's try to not make this into *another* console fanboy slapfight.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #36 3 years ago

    It is true that people knew in advance that the DLC was exclusive. However, some of us are talking in more general terms, when X company releases a product targetting 3 different audiences, but denies one of those audiences the post-sale service, is that a positive situation? Lets put the format war aside here and think about whether this is a good way to engaging with the customer base.

    To say Killzone 2 (for example) isn't released on the 360, so that audience suffers isn't a comparable analogy because that's not the customer base. If we're to go with the general industry concensus that the future of the industry is in post-sale services, then it's poor show from Bethesda to take the 'quick buck'.

    Honestly guys, lets look outside this singlular example of Fallout 3.

  • Mark1412 #37 3 years ago

    Like you infer it's not just Bethesda. Rockstar with the two GTA expansions being Microsoft exclusive, then on a smaller level the Soul Calibre character exclusives (ish) and most recently perhaps the announcement that the PS3 version of Arkham Asylum would have the Joker as an exclusive.

    Obviously they're not as powerful examples, five/ten hours extra gameplay is hardly comparable to a character but still, some people will probably be upset they don't get to play as the Joker.

    That example I understand less as the chances of Sony having paid for that is surely zero... I understand why Microsoft and developers make deals, it works out for both parties, definitely financially for the developer and more than likely financially for Microsoft in the long run. Not so much the AA one.

  • metallicorphan #38 3 years ago

    PS3 owners should always be aware about DLC....you know SONY are unwilling to put their hands in their pockets

    think on in future,especially when Elder scrolls 5 or that next Fallout game is out

  • JJrabbit #39 3 years ago

    @Cocytan and M_of_the_sys:
    I'm not a fanboy of any console, but I think you blaming Bethesda is out of order. They're running a business, not some sort of charity.

    "No, this lies squarely at the feet of the game developers. I can understand games themselves being locked to a system - for a company to pay money to ensure that it remains exclusive to their own particular console. But to release a game multi-platform, then only create DLC for a couple of selected platforms because Microsoft 'convinced' them to? That's bullshit."

    DLCs are separate from the main game for a reason. You purchased a game, which was the same on all consoles. The fact that there are additional features for a certain platform is not the game developers fault. They need to make money, so if Sony don't feel it's worth paying for, then that's not Bethesda's problem. Also, PC versions of games are often modifiable and allow greater customisation than console versions. That doesn't mean I'm going to boycott Valve games since they didn't bring out an SDK on all platforms.

    I don't believe this is the right way of doing things, as it affects us consumers, but that's the reality we live in and so you have to make more informed purchases in the future.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/09 @ 17:36

  • Mongoose #40 3 years ago

    I wonder if this was EA whether people would be more willing to assign blame (but as has been said, it's just business). I just wish quality control for ports was higher. Not everyone has the patience to wait weeks for a patch to fix an essentially broken game (and the 360 has had its own problems on certain titles, maybe not the same degree of single-player glitches as the PS3 from certain lazy developers).

  • lmephisto #41 3 years ago

    Well reading all this articles i came to the conclusion that i am lucky i have Xbox 360 :)))))) Cant wait to get the dlc :p