Why The Elder Scrolls Never Got Its Own New Vegas-Style Spin-Off

The Elder Scrolls has spent decades as one of Bethesda's defining role-playing series, but it has never taken the same detour as Fallout. While Fallout received the much-loved Fallout: New Vegas, developed by Obsidian Entertainment between Bethesda's own major entries, Bethesda's fantasy franchise has remained much more closely tied to its internal teams.

Veteran Elder Scrolls developer Kurt Kuhlmann has offered one possible explanation for that difference. Speaking in a recent interview with FRVR, Kuhlmann suggested that the intense debate created by Fallout: New Vegas may have discouraged Bethesda leadership from inviting another studio to make a comparably high-profile Elder Scrolls game. In his view, Todd Howard's deep protectiveness over the series was likely a major factor.

Kuhlmann's comments are not a formal account of a specific canceled project or an announcement that Bethesda once planned an Elder Scrolls spin-off. Rather, they offer perspective from someone with extensive experience on the franchise and at the studio. Kuhlmann worked as a lore-focused developer, served as a quest designer on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and was co-lead designer on The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim before leaving Bethesda in 2023.

The New Vegas comparison still looms large

Fallout: New Vegas remains unusual within modern Fallout history. Bethesda Game Studios developed Fallout 3, while Obsidian handled New Vegas, which arrived in 2010. Obsidian's game used the technology and broad framework established by Bethesda's earlier title, but brought its own writing, faction design, regional setting, quest structure, and role-playing priorities to the Mojave Wasteland.

For useful background on this topic, read Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 Multiplayer Mod Opens Bohemia to Persistent RP Servers.

Its legacy has only grown louder over time. Many players see New Vegas as one of the strongest entries in the entire Fallout series, particularly praising its branching choices, political conflicts, character writing, and willingness to let players shape the fate of competing groups. That acclaim has also fueled a recurring community argument: whether Obsidian or Bethesda is better suited to make Fallout games.

Kuhlmann pointed to that perceived competition when discussing why The Elder Scrolls did not get an equivalent project. He described the way New Vegas inspired a persistent portion of the fanbase to argue that Obsidian should take over Fallout completely. From that perspective, a successful external Elder Scrolls entry would not merely expand the brand. It could also produce a new, highly visible comparison between the studio traditionally responsible for the series and the team behind the spin-off.

"The whole New Vegas thing did create this, at least the perception of this, 'who makes a better Fallout game?'" Kuhlmann said, describing the fan discussion around Bethesda and Obsidian.

That kind of discourse is common around long-running game series, especially ones with distinct creative identities. A franchise can support different tones, systems, and storytelling approaches, but fans often treat those contrasts as a contest with one winner. For a studio leader overseeing a flagship property, that can make a partnership look more complicated than simply finding a talented developer with an interest in the setting.

Kuhlmann describes Howard as protective of the series

In Kuhlmann's estimation, Todd Howard did not want The Elder Scrolls to enter that same debate. He characterized Howard, based on his time at Bethesda, as "very protective" of the fantasy RPG franchise.

That description fits the central role The Elder Scrolls has played in Bethesda's identity. The series has evolved over numerous generations of hardware, from the earlier open-ended ambitions of Arena and Daggerfall to the densely authored worlds of Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. Each major installment carries enormous expectations around worldbuilding, player freedom, exploration, and the treatment of Tamriel's established history.

Handing a major Elder Scrolls game to a different studio would therefore involve more than approving a licensed adventure. It would mean trusting another team to work within a setting that has accumulated a vast amount of lore, recognizable design conventions, and a particularly dedicated audience. It would also create inevitable expectations that the game either match or deliberately depart from Bethesda's own design philosophy.

For fans, that hypothetical can be exciting. Different teams could potentially explore new provinces, periods, genres, or character perspectives that Bethesda itself may not prioritize. A smaller-scale story set in one city, a political role-playing game focused on court intrigue, or an adventure following an unfamiliar corner of Tamriel are easy ideas to imagine. But none of those possibilities should be mistaken for announced plans. Kuhlmann was discussing why such a project may not have happened, not revealing that one is now underway.

Protectiveness does not necessarily mean conflict

The comparison between Bethesda and Obsidian is frequently framed as rivalry, but the available public comments do not point to a personal feud between the studios. Howard has previously spoken positively about Obsidian's role in Fallout history. Late last year, he said Obsidian was "the only choice" to make a new Fallout game after Fallout 3, acknowledging the developer's suitability for the assignment at the time.

Howard has also expressed strong respect for Obsidian's people and output, including the studio's slate of 2025 releases. Those remarks matter because fan arguments can easily turn ordinary creative differences into a story of hostility. Bethesda's Fallout games and Obsidian's New Vegas emphasize some different strengths, but that does not mean the developers themselves see each other as enemies.

Kuhlmann's observation is better understood as a comment on brand stewardship and audience perception. A company can respect another studio's work while still deciding that a particular series is too important, too personal, or too vulnerable to constant comparison to delegate. The reaction to New Vegas may have demonstrated both the benefits and the complications of bringing an outside perspective to an established Bethesda property.

Xbox's reshuffling adds a new context

The question has gained another layer because Bethesda and Obsidian now sit within a changing Xbox structure. Bethesda has taken over management of Obsidian following further Xbox reshuffling and restructuring. Bethesda president Jill Braff has reportedly said Obsidian will retain its "creative identity," a significant reassurance given the studio's long history and the distinctive approach it brings to role-playing games.

Even so, structural changes of this kind naturally raise concerns. Michael Douse, publishing director for Baldur's Gate 3, responded to the news by saying he could not imagine the change "feels great" for developers. Such reactions reflect broader uncertainty about how reorganizations affect teams, autonomy, and the projects players may eventually see.

There is also an unusual irony in the present moment: Bethesda and Obsidian are working on a new Fallout game together while their corporate relationship is being redefined. That reality makes the old Bethesda-versus-Obsidian framing seem increasingly simplistic. The companies' histories, staff, projects, and management structures are all more interconnected than a decades-long fan argument can comfortably capture.

What this means for The Elder Scrolls

Kuhlmann's comments do not close the door on outside-developed Elder Scrolls projects forever. Corporate structures change, creative leaders change, and franchises can take unexpected forms over time. The Elder Scrolls has already expanded beyond numbered single-player RPGs through projects such as The Elder Scrolls Online, demonstrating that Tamriel can support experiences made through different development arrangements and aimed at different audiences.

Still, a prestige single-player spin-off in the mold of Fallout: New Vegas would be a particularly loaded proposition. It would not only have to satisfy players hungry for more Elder Scrolls while they await the next mainline chapter; it would be judged against Bethesda's entire legacy with the series. If it were acclaimed, some fans would almost certainly ask whether its developer should get another turn. If it disappointed, the decision to outsource part of Tamriel would face equally intense criticism.

That is the dilemma at the heart of Kuhlmann's suggestion. The absence of an Elder Scrolls equivalent to New Vegas may not be because no capable developer could make one. Instead, it may reflect the reality that Bethesda has regarded the franchise as too central to its identity to invite a comparison it could never fully control.

For now, it remains a fascinating "what if" rather than a confirmed path forward. And as Fallout's evolving partnership between Bethesda and Obsidian shows, the history behind a beloved spin-off can be much more complicated than the familiar question of which studio made the better game.