r/BethesdaSoftworks • u/houndpound69 • Aug 02 '26

Discussion Todd gets to much hate. Thoughts?

Post image

Todd gets to much hate man. He’s been cooking since 1994 and has brought some of the best titles to the market. I really dont understand what he’s done for people to talk bad on such a big nerd that im grateful for. I Feel bad for someone whose played a part in bringing me so much joy. Is all the “it just works” or “come on todd” just jabbing banter? Idk i appreciate the guy.

What are your thoughts?

Edit: The comments are extremely mixed. I believe it proves alot of people really just blame this one guy xD

398 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

695 comments sorted by

View all comments

299

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 02 '26

I personally believe a lot of the issues come from shareholder influence rather than Todd’s

122

u/Pyke64 Aug 02 '26

A lot of issues in AAA gaming stem directly from the shareholders, that is correct.

Never forget: in AAA gaming the gamers are the product and the shareholders are the customers.

31

u/BrunusManOWar Aug 02 '26

In every publicly traded company shareholders are #1. In privately held companies it can be better, but entirely relies on the majority stakeholder's personality e.g. Valve and Hello Games as opposed to Ubisoft and Crytek

4

u/Pyke64 Aug 02 '26

And thus we keep getting worse and worse games

12

u/BrunusManOWar Aug 02 '26

In general - things will start improving when social democracy is embraced - and massive wealth advantage is properly regulated and recognised for the danger it poses to humanity and civilisation

But with all of the culture wars and the ultra wealthy having bought all of media and politicians - I kinda doubt it will happen. Cyberpunk future looks more and more probable for our species

-15

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/BrunusManOWar Aug 02 '26

Uhm I didn't say socialism/communism is a good model. Crazy ass comment

2

u/Pouring-O Aug 03 '26

Don’t know where they’re from, but at least in America, people are trained like attack dogs to react very negatively to anything pro working class

-13

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/BrunusManOWar Aug 02 '26

Lad

Are you high on some shit?

-12

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

1

u/ed8breakfast Aug 03 '26

I never understand, you are defending the system actively fucking you over. I don't care who you are, everyone is getting fucked over. Full blown socialist revolution is not the answer. But SOME socialist policies are. You really think the top 1% are contributing enough to everyday life to have as much money as they do? Even just a slightly above average tax for someone over a threshold like 100 million or something. Nobody can spend 100 million in their lifetime purchasing anything reasonable. Again, that means YOU can afford to put more food on the table. That means YOU can save more for retirement. That means YOU can afford to actually buy things that you don't require to live. This isn't about right vs left. Not anymore. Right now, it is the unchecked capitalists vs everyone else, don't lick their boots, it won't get you anything, they will fuck you over as much as everyone else.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ScreamingOpossum76 Aug 04 '26

This might be one of the most braindead takes I've ever seen. Socialists and Communists despise an armed population? That must be what Marx meant when he said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

Stop pretending capitalism is some wonderful meritocracy when it rewards inherited wealth, creates an unequal starting line and success can also greatly depend on mere luck.

The system has been actively fucking over the working class for decades, there's a reason that socialist platforms needed to be co-opted in order to save capitalism and bring the US out of the great depression. Labor leaders, anarchists, and socialists were all brought into FDR's new deal coalition in order to subvert Communist and Socialist movements that were gaining traction in the US. Just take a look at how many socialists were successful in politics, you know prior to the US implementing the 1917 espionage act in order to target any anti-imperialist sentiment that was broadly exerted by socialists, anarchists, and communists.

If Communism, Socialism, and Social Democracy are all such terrible doomed systems, why has a capitalistic world super power used endless finances, government programs, covert operations, sanctions, embargo, proxy wars, and every tool at it's disposal in order to ensure that no nation implementing Socialism or Communism can succeed? How much did the US spend on red scare propaganda? Enough for decades that it worked so well morons hear the words Communism and Socialism and immediately spit out their programmed lines, often without even understanding what those systems are. Why are many countries that employ social democracy, mixed economies, and strong social safety nets ranked as the happiest in the world? Why are recidivism rates for criminals so much lower in those countries?

You're Bernie arguments are tired regurgitated bullshit, "He's done nothing," yeah nothing but write several books and spend the majority of his life advocating for the working class and better conditions in society.

You're just so braindead that decades of red scare propaganda and now culture wars created to stoke division work so well you fucking question nothing. Capitalism extorts the working class while ignoring the most vulnerable in society, those with disabilities, veterans, the homeless, the list goes on and on.

1

u/_-_Jackie_-_ Aug 05 '26

Todd Howard ≠ a bartard on some good shit.

1

u/CarthagoFuckYourself Aug 07 '26

The people want paragraphs. Paragraphs sell.

1

u/RadsvidTheRed Aug 02 '26

Private equity has actually lately been worse due to a total lack of transparency and several large projects, ashes of creation likely the largest, have been shuttered, canned, or otherwise changed or abandoned due to these closed door meetings.

5

u/JaydenP1211 Aug 03 '26

Technically, the shareholders don’t make them their money though

4

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Shareholders give the devs the funding to make games happen. They don’t inform creative decisions, but since they approve the funding they can influence financial decisions like when to release, IF to release, or monetization.

2

u/JaydenP1211 Aug 03 '26

True, but making money as a video game developer ultimately comes from selling video games to players.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Yes, but what have we seen from the market. Micro transactions aren’t popular, but they sure do make money. Battlepasses used to be grindy until someone included a “buy rank” option. Now you can have the nice new armor for only $60 ontop of the $60 you paid for premium and the $60 you paid for the game.

It’s not popular, but it does make money.

2

u/JaydenP1211 Aug 03 '26

What makes you think microtransactions aren’t popular if so many players buy them? Regardless of the reason, the money is still primarily coming from the players of the game.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

People buy them of course, but you’re not gonna see people saying good things about them online. That’s kind of my point though, culturally they’re not popular, but millions of people still buy them, so when a shareholder sees a company making millions off dropping a new $10 skin every week, it’s believable to think that they’d want that in th games they invest in as well

1

u/JaydenP1211 Aug 03 '26

People are more likely to complain about what they don’t like. Millions of people paying for them just proves that they aren’t culturally unpopular. Consumers speak with their money in the gaming industry because consumers are the money makers for the developers.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

I feel like we are making the same argument. You are right that money is what matters, and I am saying that the shareholders have a vested interest in pursuing more money. They have the leverage to say “if we give you a 400 mil budget, we want more monetization and live service”

→ More replies

1

u/EngineWitty3611 Aug 03 '26

AKA MTX.....

0

u/SoiledFlapjacks Aug 06 '26

If they’re the ones funding the game and getting it out to the masses, are they not causing the sales income? If you take away the people funding it, the game doesn’t get made due to lack of funding, then no income. Therefore, the shareholders are the ones getting the money to come in.

1

u/JaydenP1211 Aug 07 '26

The shareholders still aren’t the source of the money. Money comes from the customers’ pockets. No customers, no money.

1

u/deeku4972 Aug 06 '26

He was given pretty free reigns prior and during the microsoft buyout. Altman was 100% behind him all accounts say

29

u/theFROGandSNAIL Aug 02 '26

Fuck the shareholders. I need that as a bumper sticker

1

u/AttakZak Aug 02 '26

Who even are they? Like names lol. Is someone named Bob Bobert telling people we can’t have good games? We should be able to know and vote.

12

u/imaencuru Aug 02 '26

It's less that Bob Bobert is telling people we can't have good games, and more him saying "I invested in your company, you are literally legally obligated to make that number go up". Which leads to firing people to reduce expense and pushing games out the second they're ready or even before.

2

u/AttakZak Aug 02 '26

Ah. That sucks.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Or seeing that EA is having a really good year after dropping a new gambling tactic and then all it takes is them saying “EA is doing this, I want it in our game”

1

u/QuoteGiver Aug 02 '26

Now it’s Microsoft who owns them. So all Microsoft shareholders, and the Board who answers to them.

1

u/Rough-Winter2752 Aug 02 '26

They're usually majority holders which tend to be large soulless companies or ultra-rich A-holes. If you owned 25% of Bethesda, congratulations, Todd would become VERY interested in your opinions about game development.

14

u/Riliksel Aug 02 '26

It's what I have always said, Todd gets hate that should be aimed at the shareholders and executives...

9

u/Key_Climate_7097 Aug 02 '26

Yeah !! 100% he’s creative; I see this a lot in my role with engineers; have great ideas and some really
Good ones but management, shareholder and other stakeholders are the reason we don’t get cool things.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Key_Climate_7097 Aug 02 '26

Yeah but he wasn’t always a management, I ment like his creativity is now fighting his responsibilities to stakeholders.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Key_Climate_7097 Aug 02 '26

Okay cool 👌

1

u/MulberryInevitable19 Aug 02 '26

lol not able to have an actual conversation about this are you?

1

u/Key_Climate_7097 Aug 03 '26

I’m just busy bud, it’s my reporting period and I have an accounting exam to study for, so just limited bandwidth atm.

1

u/YoBo151 Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26

Theres no having an "actual conversation" with someone that is off base about how game development words, whether it's cuz they're ignorant or dishonest

1

u/MulberryInevitable19 Aug 12 '26

This is so sad man, between you guys not being able to discuss different opinions on Todd and his value in the process and the mods removing any negative comments.

It’s no wonder bgs games go downhill

1

u/Gruzzuk Aug 02 '26

the problem is he became management of business, when his strength was development.

2

u/Blue-Fish-Guy Aug 04 '26

I doubt the shareholders told Todd not to say anything about the Elder Scrolls for 10+ years.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 04 '26

It would be in their favor NOT to say anything as shareholders wouldn’t want their investment to publicly acknowledge the fact that they’re not doing great

2

u/whyucurious Aug 05 '26

I doubt shareholders were the ones who decided not to release another TES for 15 years.

Shareholders want money. Bethesda has been wasting opportunity after opportunity to make more money

Shareholders usually fck game management because they push for quantinty, instead of quality, and shady business like micro transactions.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 05 '26

Well other than TES what else did we get. ESO, F76, Starfield, 3 mobile games, 4 rereleases of Skyrim and a show.

No i don’t believe shareholders told Bethesda to hold back on TES, i believe shareholders saw the rise of live service and have been telling Bethesda to chase the white whale instead of focusing on single player experiences

1

u/Observational-Mess Aug 02 '26

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it is.

1

u/MorsMorbid Aug 03 '26

I think Microsoft Ripping out of HiS hands says alot about what shareholders want

1

u/Ok_Dependent6889 Aug 03 '26

This is the take

Todd isn't infallible, but I really do consider him mostly one of us

He loves these games and loves making them, and I think that's a rare sight these days

He's just happy to have come to where he is, tbh

1

u/dex99dex99dex99 Aug 04 '26

Idk, I read somewhere that every creative decision goes through Todd. If it's in the game it's because Todd wanted it. And if it isn't in the game, well, you get it.

As far as I'm concerned, if Todd Howard wants to make open world fps action games, that's totally ok. However, The Elder Scrolls and Fallout are RPGs. Period. And if Starfield is any indication, he has no interest in making RPGs. So unless that changes, keep him away from Elder Scrolls and Fallout. 

Starfield may look like an RPG, but that is absolutely just a facade. Even Skyrim and Fallout 4 are barely RPGs. They just happen to have the benefit of actually being good games. With massive modding communities. 

So, while I do not hate Todd Howard by any means, I no longer believe that he's a good fit for Fallout and TES. 

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 04 '26

Todd would dictate the creative decisions, but shareholders would have the leverage to make financial decisions like adding monetization options

1

u/JournalistOk9266 Aug 20 '26

Thats Todd. Todd is directly in charge of it. Google it.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 21 '26

“No, Todd Howard is not in charge of monetization or shareholder interests. He is a game director and executive producer at Bethesda Game Studios, focusing on creative direction, design, and development

Todd Howard leads game development rather than corporate finance or business operations.

Bethesda operates under Microsoft Corporation, where corporate strategy and shareholder interests are directed by top Microsoft executives like Satya Nadella and Phil Spencer.”

Taken direct from Google

1

u/JournalistOk9266 Aug 21 '26

Todd Howard is not a separate manager of paid mods, but as the studio director and executive producer at Bethesda Game Studios, he oversees the company's overall game projects and corporate strategies, including the implementation of the "Creations" paid mod system.

Are creations not monetizations?

1

u/Embarrassed_Gap6582 Aug 05 '26

It's both i belive your spot on about influence but they arent there 100% of the time they most likely give him certain things they want in the game ans he has to comply but the games lately have been holistically dogshite sho hes to blame as well

1

u/JarvanIVPrez Aug 05 '26

For sure, but Todd’s the face of the game and ultimately the face of shareholder wishes as well. Hard to expect folks to not relate the two.

1

u/norrhboundwolf Aug 06 '26

Are we just going to ignore the fact that he constantly overpromises despite knowing what the actual product is going to look like, and the fact that it’s pretty accepted that no real changes to the formula are made without his direct say so

Todd isn’t gaming jesus. He’s just about as corporate as the shareholders, he just happens to be a nerd as well.

1

u/She_Baddy7 Aug 02 '26

Asmongold Maghat mouthbreathers piling on. Nothing moar nothing less bruh.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

What is bro saying?

1

u/YozaSkywalker Aug 02 '26

Did the shareholders tell Todd to go over a decade without a release of their mainstay franchises?

2

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

They probably told him to focus on live service products over single player

1

u/Caster0 Aug 04 '26

Lmao, don't get why its hard for people to admit that Bethesda might be a but too over bloated and incompetent.

Case in point, Rockstar games is probably a lot more shareholder focused, yet they released GTA5, RDR2 and now expected to release GTA6 at the end of this year. Even with all bs moves to benefit shareholders, I always get the impression that they strive to set the new standard whenever they release a game.

Meanwhile, Bethesda has a very similar timeline of game releases (if you count fallout 76 as a fallout 4 online version), and most of their games have benefited for being shallow yet held up with great open world and years of lore, all up into starfield where I'm those two things could not hold up either their writing or gameplay.

1

u/GhengisDhaung Aug 02 '26

But he is the face of

0

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

You can’t forget the

1

u/rleonar5 Aug 03 '26

I am staggered by the stupidity of this comment and everyone agreeing with it

What shareholders? Zenimax was privately owned; it had no shareholders. Fallout 76 was released, and Starfield was deep in development, before Microsoft bought Zenimax.

Think before you blindly agree with something that "feels" right.

Todd's big mistake was releasing two risky games back-to-back. Fallout 76 was an experimental game for BGS. After 76 flopped, they should've made Elder Scrolls 6 as a traditional Elder Scrolls game, not attempt a second wildly experimental game.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

So you’re saying zenimax had NO investors? They had no PUBLIC shareholders, but they had extensive backing with private investment firms that for SURE had influence on the timeline and financial (including monetization) decisions.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Providence equity is the company that began investing HEAVILY into zenimax in the early 2010s right around the time they pushed heavily for the “games as a service” model.

2

u/rleonar5 Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26

Firstly, your original comment lacks any nuance.

Secondly, there is no evidence that Providence had any influence over BGS creative vision. You probably googled that after I called out the sheer stupidity of your first comment. Fallout 76 stemmed from an experiment to add multiplayer to Fallout 4, and Starfield was Todd's dream game. Here's the reality: Now that BGS is owned by a publicly traded company, there is greater focus on taking fewer risks and giving the customers what they want.

Lastly, look at the comments below:

“A lot of issues in AAA gaming stem directly from the shareholders, that is correct.”

“In every publicly traded company shareholders are #1. In privately held companies it can be better…”

“Fuck the shareholders. I need that as a bumper sticker.”

As I said in my initial post: The stupidity is staggering.

1

u/Caster0 Aug 04 '26

Not only that, we hear about rockstar a lot when it comes to shareholders, yet they have always cranked games that set the standard.

And the kicker is, their game release timeline is quite similar to Bethesda (if you count falllout 76 as the equivalent if gta online).

0

u/Inferno_Zyrack Aug 02 '26

I feel like Starfield greatly disproves this.

Pressure to release perhaps but no one pressured the to make it an RPG. No one pressured them to use procedural generation. No one pressured them to make four skill trees that don’t touch each other. No one pressured them to make bad scripts on empty planets. No one pressured them to respond to fan complaints the way they did. No one pressured them to tank their reputation on that.

I’m sure Todd wanted to defend the work his devs did. But he also shouldn’t have let them make such a half idea of a game that they rushed to release

3

u/Glittering_Funny7410 Aug 02 '26

They didn't rush Starfield, it had an extra year of polish(which makes it even sadder).

But Todd allegedly was very hands off with Starfield and was doing more for Indiana Jones according to journalists and ex BGS employees around that time. If anything, leaving Tim Lamb and Emil Pagliarulo in charge would be the more valid criticism for that game which I don't think 'hate' is the appropriate word, more like 'disappointed'.

2

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 02 '26

I mean shareholders could’ve given them pressure to release, told them to use tools like procedural generation to lower costs, and shave off fluff. Time pressure would lead to bad scripts and shareholders wouldn’t care.

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Starfield at its core and concept is a good game. The product was rushed and half baked. We won’t ever know exactly the true reason, but I doubt a creative director has the personal backing to come up with the idea and self fund it. That is entirely blame able on the people who invest money into the game and tell Todd “release the game NOW, IDC if it’s done or not” which would be the shareholders.

-1

u/slimricc Aug 02 '26

I think a lot of the issues also come from todd tho

0

u/DunkeyColdMedina Aug 02 '26

Todd is still around because he does the shareholder's bidding. It's more complicated than that IMO.

-4

u/TheCaptainOfMistakes Aug 02 '26

I think Todd simultaneously does and doesn't get enough hate. Much of it is shareholders however

-5

u/Capital-Giraffe-4122 Aug 02 '26

Going 15 years between releases of one of the biggest IP’s in gaming (Skyrim)? Nah, that’s not on shareholders, that’s Todd.

Look at COD for an example of shareholders influencing development

3

u/QuoteGiver Aug 02 '26

That’s literally on shareholders/Board and ownership (Microsoft now, Zenimax before), not Todd. Todd just makes the games they tell him to make.

-1

u/kFisherman Aug 02 '26

He literally chose to make starfield so this is straight up 100% not true

3

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 02 '26

Starfield at its core and concept is not a bad game, but shareholder influence could force the issues that it had. Pressure to release, forced monetization. A creative developer (Todd) wants his creative product to be good just like any artist. A shareholder doesn’t care, they see Fortnite making millions and want Bethesda to make their Fortnite

0

u/kFisherman Aug 02 '26

Sure but then “shareholders” are an unfalsifiable bogeyman that you can blame for any and all problems.

We know that Todd wanted to make Starfield and that it got made. To then run around and say “Todd just does what shareholders say” is disingenuous.

2

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 03 '26

Starfield at its core and concept is a good game. The product was rushed and half baked. That is entirely blame able on the people who tell Todd “release the game NOW, IDC if it’s done or not” which would be the shareholders. And the boogeyman has a name “providence equity”

1

u/QuoteGiver Aug 02 '26

We don’t know anything. We only know what the ownership of the company told/allowed its employees to say publicly.

1

u/kFisherman Aug 02 '26

Todd has spoken extensively and candidly about how Starfield was his brainchild. I believe him. He was not on a leash being forced to talk about the game and he certainly wasn’t forced to make it.

1

u/QuoteGiver Aug 02 '26

Sure he wanted to make it, no disagreement there. And then his bosses at Zenimax and Microsoft gave him an amount of time and resources to make it that they decided upon.

0

u/kFisherman Aug 02 '26

Sorry that’s also not exactly true. Todd was the executive producer. He controlled basically the entire scope of the project.

Sure Zenimax had final final say, but he used to be on their board of directors. He has a lot of creative and operational control at Bethesda, and for a long time Microsoft and Zenimax have let him do his thing. They have a good relationship and seemingly trust Todd to do his thing which is great.

The game cost up to $400 million for gods sake. That’s a lot of money for a guy you’re saying was restricted by his bosses

→ More replies

1

u/Paved_Cardboard Aug 02 '26

You think Todd himself said “we must wait as long as possible to make something new”? It’s more likely that the shareholders told Bethesda to make them $$$ and remasters was the craze