Over/Under on Fallout 4's first Sex Mod

[Comfortblynumb2]

How long will it take for the first Sex mod to come out for Fallout 4?

 

I'm calling it, at 4 months.

 

btw, is Bethesda releasing a Creation Kit with it again?

[Saviorsrd]

How long will it take for the first Sex mod to come out for Fallout 4?

 

I'm calling it, at 4 months.

 

btw, is Bethesda releasing a Creation Kit with it again?

 

Well, yes, but four-six months after the game comes out.  Plus, I think, the general expectation is that a lot more is going to be locked down, and may require another replacement/supplement executable like SKSE just to reach similar levels of moddability compared to what we get in Skyrim (because consoles)

 

Short version - Bethesda is going to try their very hardest to keep sex mods out of FO4, and that's likely to slow down their release tremendously.  Call it 12-18 months before the equivalent of FNIS becomes available, and THEN we can start talking porting Sexlab.

[lordescobar666]

Short version - Bethesda is going to try their very hardest to keep sex mods out of FO4, and that's likely to slow down their release tremendously.  Call it 12-18 months before the equivalent of FNIS becomes available, and THEN we can start talking porting Sexlab.

They cannot keep sex mods out of FO4 without also making "legitimate" mods difficult to make, and that would counter their intentions of bringing mods to the masses. Consoles will only get mods via bethesda.net, which will act as a gatekeeper keeping sex mods away from unsuspecting console users. Additionally implementing means in CK to hinder sex mods is just wasted effort and has too many undesired side effects.

 

When we will see the first sex mod on FO4 depends on how Bethesda implemented animations this time. If it is exactly the same as Skyrim, then a FO4 version of FNIS should be relatively easy to implement. If they changed significant stuff, then it may take longer. And if Bethesda is wise, then they provide means to get animations into FO4 without the use of third-party tools like FNIS. Actually this is the only way to bring new animations to console users as they will not be able to run third-party applications like FNIS on their consoles.

 

Personally I hope it will the the third option as it would mean that we can use non-replacer custom animations right from the start. But this depends on how serious Bethesda takes this mods on consoles thing.

[Tepi]

 

Short version - Bethesda is going to try their very hardest to keep sex mods out of FO4, and that's likely to slow down their release tremendously.  Call it 12-18 months before the equivalent of FNIS becomes available, and THEN we can start talking porting Sexlab.

They cannot keep sex mods out of FO4 without also making "legitimate" mods difficult to make, and that would counter their intentions of bringing mods to the masses. Consoles will only get mods via bethesda.net, which will act as a gatekeeper keeping sex mods away from unsuspecting console users. Additionally implementing means in CK to hinder sex mods is just wasted effort and has too many undesired side effects.

 

When we will see the first sex mod on FO4 depends on how Bethesda implemented animations this time. If it is exactly the same as Skyrim, then a FO4 version of FNIS should be relatively easy to implement. If they changed significant stuff, then it may take longer. And if Bethesda is wise, then they provide means to get animations into FO4 without the use of third-party tools like FNIS. Actually this is the only way to bring new animations to console users as they will not be able to run third-party applications like FNIS on their consoles.

 

Personally I hope it will the the third option as it would mean that we can use non-replacer custom animations right from the start. But this depends on how serious Bethesda takes this mods on consoles thing.

 

 

It doesn't matter if it makes "legitimate" mods harder to make. That was made very clear with custom animations for skyrim. There was no reason for bethesda to make it "impossible" to add animations other than try to eliminate sex mods from being made. If that wasn't the case beth could've added some sort of animation adding feature to CK or make a separate program for that, just like FNIS.

 

As for possible mods for FO4, CK/Geck will most likely be released Q1 of next year and after that it will probably be at least said 4 months. Likely more to have anything remotely good. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see any until 2017.

[lordescobar666]

It doesn't matter if it makes "legitimate" mods harder to make. That was made very clear with custom animations for skyrim. There was no reason for bethesda to make it "impossible" to add animations other than try to eliminate sex mods from being made. If that wasn't the case beth could've added some sort of animation adding feature to CK or make a separate program for that, just like FNIS.

Did Bethesda specifically say that they did it to hinder adult mods?

 

To the best of my knowledge it is a license issue. Bethesda didn't implement the animation sub-system themselves, but they use Havok animations. And they don't have the permission to provide the required tools to modders. If you own a copy of Havok animation studio, you can add animations without FNIS, but it's fucking expensive.

[fore]

 

It doesn't matter if it makes "legitimate" mods harder to make. That was made very clear with custom animations for skyrim. There was no reason for bethesda to make it "impossible" to add animations other than try to eliminate sex mods from being made. If that wasn't the case beth could've added some sort of animation adding feature to CK or make a separate program for that, just like FNIS.

Did Bethesda specifically say that they did it to hinder adult mods?

 

To the best of my knowledge it is a license issue. Bethesda didn't implement the animation sub-system themselves, but they use Havok animations. And they don't have the permission to provide the required tools to modders. If you own a copy of Havok animation studio, you can add animations without FNIS, but it's fucking expensive.

 

No, you can't.

 

First, it's a Bethesda specific version of HBT. And I doubt that this is available even for licensing.

 

But second and above all, Bethesda didn't provide it's project files (basically it's "source codes"). And it is impossible to recreate the project files from the behaviors.

[Tepi]

Did Bethesda specifically say that they did it to hinder adult mods?

 

To the best of my knowledge it is a license issue. Bethesda didn't implement the animation sub-system themselves, but they use Havok animations. And they don't have the permission to provide the required tools to modders. If you own a copy of Havok animation studio, you can add animations without FNIS, but it's fucking expensive.

 

 

Not that I know of but they have said at some point something along the lines "we don't like sex mods". And I'm quite sure Bethesda doesn't want their games to be branded with "the ultimate sex adventure". Animations are the only thing that really is mandatory for all kinds of pervy mods to exist, apart from plain outfits ofc. In comparison barely any other type of mod needs to add new animations to be achievable so it makes kinda sense to limit things in animation part of the modding tools.

 

I might be completetly wrong and it just as you said, licensing stuff. But it's certain that adult mods, especially stuff thats available here, hurts the image bethesda wants for their game.

[Taskmaster]

 

Did Bethesda specifically say that they did it to hinder adult mods?

 

To the best of my knowledge it is a license issue. Bethesda didn't implement the animation sub-system themselves, but they use Havok animations. And they don't have the permission to provide the required tools to modders. If you own a copy of Havok animation studio, you can add animations without FNIS, but it's fucking expensive.

 

 

Not that I know of but they have said at some point something along the lines "we don't like sex mods". And I'm quite sure Bethesda doesn't want their games to be branded with "the ultimate sex adventure". Animations are the only thing that really is mandatory for all kinds of pervy mods to exist, apart from plain outfits ofc. In comparison barely any other type of mod needs to add new animations to be achievable so it makes kinda sense to limit things in animation part of the modding tools.

 

I might be completetly wrong and it just as you said, licensing stuff. But it's certain that adult mods, especially stuff thats available here, hurts the image bethesda wants for their game.

 

 

Let's start seeing some proof and links to quotes.

[fore]

There is a strange coincidence which supports the licensing theory.

 

Everything from Havok is free of charge. It is subsidized by some Intel education program. Even HBT was free. Until 2009. Probably the time Bethesda decided to make their animations based on it. But I think it was simply because Havok realized, that it could make more money than from an Intel scholar support.

 

The main reason, in my opinion, why Beth kept their animation system locked is very simple. HBT is not suited for modding. Behaviors are a big chunk of xml. Though seperated into several files just to keep their gigantic size controllable. But astill one big tree. No way that different modders can put their different modules together like we are used in the CK.

 

Something like FNIS was only possible because there were only VERY few players on the playground, and FNIS got sort of a monopoly very quick. But FNIS is is incompatible witrh every other mod that provides behaviors (unless it implements specific patches). Unimaginable what had happened if modders had gotten an easy to use GUI tool, but each output would be incompatible with every other attempt.

[aqqh]

It doesn't matter if it makes "legitimate" mods harder to make. That was made very clear with custom animations for skyrim. There was no reason for bethesda to make it "impossible" to add animations other than try to eliminate sex mods from being made. If that wasn't the case beth could've added some sort of animation adding feature to CK or make a separate program for that, just like FNIS.

They are perfectly aware that this is a problem for mod makers - and not only Sex mod makers. I'm not exactly sure they are aware that something like Loverslab even exist.

Say you would want to introduce a new type of weapon and you want a new fighting anims for that weapon only (say a spear for example). You cant do that without replacing vanilla animations (at least you couldn't without FNIS 6)

 

There is a reason - Havok license.

Even if they would want to share it i doubt that they would be allowed to do so.

 

And it VERY likely FO4 would use Havok just the same as Skyrim.

So I bet it would be the same story - you will need some application to generate behavior files for custom anims.

[Tepi]

 

They are perfectly aware that this is a problem for mod makers - and not only Sex mod makers. I'm not exactly sure they are aware that something like Loverslab even exist.

Say you would want to introduce a new type of weapon and you want a new fighting anims for that weapon only (say a spear for example). You cant do that without replacing vanilla animations (at least you couldn't without FNIS 6)

 

Yes not only, but it mostly hurts sex mods as pretty much every mod needs animations. You can still add weapons to the game without the need for new anims even if they are just swords or axes. Pretty sure they are well aware of LL. Even when searching some common skyrim stuff, LL links often come up pretty high in results. Even some mods in Nexus and Workshop guide ppl to find our lovely site.

 

Let's start seeing some proof and links to quotes.

 

 

Don't have any and not going to spend hours for searching them. It was years ago when I read about it. Around the release of Skyrim.

[afa]

Last I heard bethesda is pretty hands free for adult modding or any modding in general, I think I actually read that off an article that was linked here a while back. Now rather that means they really don't care or if it is in the interests of preventing backslash or it is just not significant enough to care is another story.

I think we are living in a bubble of adult modding that make it seems like it is bigger than it really is.

Considering the number of copies of Skyrim sold across all platforms only PC has access to any modding, and then people who actually engage with mods relatively deeply is an even lower number, and then take a part of those who actually engages with adult modding we are probably dealing with a very low number in terms of %. Not to mention the fracture between screen shooting and actual sex mods within the adult mod community.

 

Also as for the original question, 1 year.

[Saviorsrd]

I think the big difference here is that there's two new, major players involved - Sony and Microsoft.  We'll see how things go, but I suspect the situation could boil down in a few ways, and based on what we know so far it's hard to see which.

 

1)   "All mods have to go through Beth.net."  Put that in quotes because PC will break that in a little while, but it will be annoying and probably require cracking the game to get around.  But MS and/or Sony might insist on it, to achieve parity with the console version (Yes, they've done this kind of thing before.)  From there, go back around to Skyrim's development cycle.

 

2)  Non-Bethesda.net mods allowed on PC, animations are easy to import.  In this event, someone will be stupid and upload a sex mod to Bethesda.net, leading to a rapid game of patch-and-counter-patch to try to get around it.  Sony and MS have been clear in the past - allowing this sort of thing WILL NOT be on the table, and they'll shut the console mods experiment down before allowing it.  Eventually they'll stop, but probably not before they stop patching the game and probably shutting the Workshop equivalent down.

3)  Non-Beth.net mods allowed, but animations are difficult.  This is essentially a repeat of what happened with Skyrim.

[VinAri0807]

Well first of all, I don't think they are going to release the developer tool till 2~3 monyhs after the game comes out just like they did for Skyrim.

[Joomla]

as for what people have talked about before yes for TES games it might not be as important. but try to add new gun to fallout 4 that uses different reloading lets say it reloads on top like p90 does. pretty much all guns can have different reloads depending on how their mags are located how big/small they are. so adding new guns without ability to somewhat easily add new animations limits entire group of non-adult mods that could very easily add lots to base game.

 

 

and honestly i think bethesda knows not to fight mod community. Eventually we find workarounds for lots of stuff. And even Skyrim with its huge amounts of sex mod hasnt gotten bad reputation rather more often when sex mods are topic people go blame sites like this instead skyrim.

[ANGRYWOLVERINE]

I don't think it's a licensing issue.

I think Bethesda doesn't want some Fox pundit slamming them on tv or a Fox news reporter standing outside their headquarters.

Bioware went through some of that I recall.

I think it would be against Bethesda's philosophy to drm the game.I don't see how they can prevent adult mods from being created.

They can just keep them off of consoles and say they aren't responsible for what pc modders do.

[Halstrom]

 

Not that I know of but they have said at some point something along the lines "we don't like sex mods". And I'm quite sure Bethesda doesn't want their games to be branded with "the ultimate sex adventure". Animations are the only thing that really is mandatory for all kinds of pervy mods to exist, apart from plain outfits ofc. In comparison barely any other type of mod needs to add new animations to be achievable so it makes kinda sense to limit things in animation part of the modding tools.

 

I might be completetly wrong and it just as you said, licensing stuff. But it's certain that adult mods, especially stuff thats available here, hurts the image bethesda wants for their game.

 

Let's start seeing some proof and links to quotes.

 

Its common sense really, no game company is going to want their games release tarred by negative media by having someone release a bestiality breeding mod within 6 months. Imagine if someone released a kiddie sex mod?

 

Officially any company is going to not help sex modding of their game, unofficially yes it can lead to increased later sales from people like us in the future, but they don't want the game to be shown on national TV with deviate modding to the public and banned by nanny/religious lobby groups.

 

Also they are going to have enough bug reports to deal with in first months without worrying about false bug reports caused by mods.

[Taskmaster]

 

 

Not that I know of but they have said at some point something along the lines "we don't like sex mods". And I'm quite sure Bethesda doesn't want their games to be branded with "the ultimate sex adventure". Animations are the only thing that really is mandatory for all kinds of pervy mods to exist, apart from plain outfits ofc. In comparison barely any other type of mod needs to add new animations to be achievable so it makes kinda sense to limit things in animation part of the modding tools.

 

I might be completetly wrong and it just as you said, licensing stuff. But it's certain that adult mods, especially stuff thats available here, hurts the image bethesda wants for their game.

 

Let's start seeing some proof and links to quotes.

 

Its common sense really, no game company is going to want their games release tarred by negative media by having someone release a bestiality breeding mod within 6 months. Imagine if someone released a kiddie sex mod?

 

Officially any company is going to not help sex modding of their game, unofficially yes it can lead to increased later sales from people like us in the future, but they don't want the game to be shown on national TV with deviate modding to the public and banned by nanny/religious lobby groups.

 

Also they are going to have enough bug reports to deal with in first months without worrying about false bug reports caused by mods.

 

 

This was a few weeks ago. I don't remember what my exact line of thinking was when I posted that. Might've been the matter of factly tone the post gave me(which is ironic, given my own posts tend to come off in a very matter of factly tone).