And with "dead at launch" you mean potentially hugely successful of course. Welcome to reality! There are plenty of games with no modding, heavy online components, and "shitty game design" (=somewhat subjective) that are successful (popular, sold well).

What is CC?

Re: opinions on Fallout. I got to know the series with Fallout 3 and it's the only one I played so far (still doubting if I'll play Fallout or FO:NV next), but I enjoyed the game a lot, mostly because of the exploration aspect, but the story (as well as the fact that you can mold the character's face in the opening to your liking) made me get attached to the main character as well.

Creation Club - a system of microtransactions designed for Skyrim and Fallout 4.

What i mean is yes the game will sell well because let's be realistic here, most people (especially the more casual audience) won't care even if i do about connectivity, creation club and it sucks because it hurts the longevity of the games imo but it's the reality.

About longevity of Bethesdas Games, i do think modding is the main contributor here on PC that is since consoles are very limited in this regard and if Bethesda goes the usual way and release barebones game like Skyrim and Fallout 4 without the ability to fix them then i think it will take a hit in the long run especially among us who's been around a long time and is used to Bethesda mod friendly attitude.

I did exaggerate on purpose and it will sell well because multiplayer and instant gratification is still very popular among the fire and forget crowd who don't care about those things i and other do from the days of Daggerfall/Morrowind, specificially deeper rpg systems, lot of content in faction/guilds, better writing etc without the ability to mod in stuff outside of CC to improve those aspects.

Times have changed - Bethesda, like most big publishers these days, only care about longevity if they can profit from it (read: selling remasters).
Personally, I think mods are great, but I prefer playing most games in their original state.

Indeed and i hate it which is why i barely ever play AAA games anymore except from the few that are actually good and that list for me is extremely short because i do not buy into hype and journalist reviews.

I also agree with playing game is their original state because too many mods imo don't fit into the world and backstory but i personally simply can't play newer Bethesda Games without them.

Dude their games are huge on console and I bet a lot less PC players mod than you think. This idea that Bethesda games are only popular because of mods is silly.

I already adressed this issue and i said it was exaggeration but there's a grain of truth in it tho, no it won't kill Bethesda or their games because they are far too popular among gamers who simply don't care much about buiness practices or games to dig into for a long time, exceptions exist ofc.

As for those players who value their modding and despise forced online connectivity especially for a single player campaign etc will think twice about buying Bethesda games in future if they continue down this road and continously disappointing players will result in some backlash sooner or later.

Now not everyone is as negative as me when it comes to the modern AAA market and many have still fun in the worlds Bethesda make and i'm not here advocating people to stop playing their games, if you like their games then that's fine and yes they won't go away anytime soon but i simply wish Bethesda wouldn't go down the fast food equivalent of video games and still have as much detail in their worlds and rpg mechanics as Daggerfall/Morrowind had.

Personally thought 3 was better than 4. Though that is judging them as RPGs.

EDIT: My list from best to worst.

-Fallout (This title was so important to the genre and was a huge influence on me in 97'. I don't replay it much these days as I've beaten it so many times I can practically recite the script from start to finish.)
-Fallout: New Vegas (Perfect mix of old and new. Choices branch like a big beautiful tree.)
-Fallout 3
-Fallout 2 (I know I put it after 3... but imho it just got too silly. Too much focus on pop culture and gimmick towns)
-Fallout 4 (It may have the best shooting in the series, but that isn't what I'm looking for in Fallout)
-Fallout Shelter
-Fallout Brotherhood of Steel
-Fallout Tactics (Not a bad game, and a far better game than BoS, but I just could never get into it. Far too much micromanagement for my tastes.)

I'm having a hard time finding a vanilla playthrough on youtube. Makes you think, wouldn't you agree?

I've played both Fallout 3 and 4 without using mods. Felt no need for further modifications. Also, I was able to properly assess their work. Which honestly left a lot to be desired.

I agree, their popularity stems from different factors, but the ability to mod the games may very well be a major selling point. As I see it, the first and foremost is the open world aspect. Instead of focusing on creating compact, rich, believable, well-written worlds, Bethesda ends up with large, underutilized maps, in order to fulfill the customers' needs: roaming around, doing who knows what. Shooting mutants, raiders and something else perhaps.
Several locations in Fallout 3 made little to no sense, like Dukov's Place, The Republic of Dave, or even Arefu just to name a few. Do they really expect me to believe that an old man with faulty vision is able to defend a settlement placed on top of a crumbling overpass? And how about Big Town, Canterbury Commons, or Girdershade?

If this is a game like Rust or Ark then it will be judged as that. People who are singleplayer only like myself and big Fallout fans might be bummed the new game wasn't made for us, but an online requirement and lack of mods wouldn't be weird at all for that online community survival kind of game. It is what it is.

A lot of complaints about stuff like this are rooted in the fact that many, MANY consumers want experiences that a lot of us old farts don't. That doesn't mean their tastes (or money) are somehow invalid. Companies can and will go where the money is, and if they did otherwise their shareholders would have a fit.

what patrikc said, an Annoying micro transaction delivery system that they beta tested in FO4 and Skyrim SE. imagine playing a game where you have installed a mod that turns your pet from a dog ro a gorilla for free, then suddenly the same mod appears for sale on the micro transaction platform for 15$ (or equivlent) wouldn't you be a little outraged? That's exactly what Bugthesda did with CC for the first 3 months. only when you installed these "paid mini DLC's" about 60% of the time it broke the game due to free mods being installed prior to the paid one.

Modding is more popular then people think, exspecialy for Bugthesda games, for the simple fact that the Modders make the game enjoyable, fix glaring issues, or just improve the looks.

Depends on the RPG aspects you're talking about really. While FO4 lost skills I do think the larger focus on perks makes you pigeon-hole your character for longer. Also there's an actual faction system with some choice and consequence, which FO3 has zero of.

I'm sure they'' figure out some way making money while trolling the fans.

do you really think a 6 year old game would hold anyones attention like Skyrim has without mods? It's ONLY because of mods skyrim is still a game people play without the numerous fixes or added content skyrim would have died out in it's 3rd year, but a modder brought out forgotten city and people flocked back to skyrim, when that slowed down along came Beyond skyrim Bruma and becoming High king Skyrim None of these ideas came from Bugthesda, they came from small groups or individuals that loved to write fan fiction for skyrim, who happen to also be good at scripting, I'd say better then the team at BGS.