Bethesda Admits Missing Skyrim DLC Isn't Sony's Problem

[Frostbite3789]

People need to stop complaining. If it wont run on the system, it wont run on the system. We don't get mad when Skryrim doesn't run on N64s.

They sure didn't have a problem with releasing a broken $60 game for the system. Multiple times.

Now they get cold feet when it comes to DLC?

 

[Frostbite3789]

If they sold it for the ps3 it should work on the ps3, if it does not they should fix it or refund it simple as that imo.

Skyrim does work for the PS3, they're not selling the DLC yet because it won't work and they're trying to fix it. If they released content that didn't work your argument would suddenly make sense and they'd get a lot of complaints from PS3 users.

...they did get a lot of complaints from PS3 users. For a long time after launch. Hell, I still have friends who are still having problems with it on PS3.

 

[tangoprime]

Had it on PS3, saw what an atrocity it was, sold it. Bought it for sale on steam (all Elder Scrolls games were 50% during midweek), just bought Hearthfire last night for $4.99. Far better on PC than either console, esp. along with the construction kit. Bethesda should just stick to making them for PC, feels like a different game.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

Wasn't one of the selling points of a console that it's hardware was standardised and thus easy to design/create games for?

It gets harder when the hardware gets old because you have to work to get the best performance over a somewhat limited machine. Developers are taking the current gen of consoles to their limits and sometimes it blows back in their face.

 

[Baresark]

I feel their pain, if Bethsoft is going to release a game on a platform, it should work and it should have all the same DLC available as the other platforms. That said, this is the most useless waste of $5 anyone could spend on the game. I really am kind of mad at them for releasing the equivalent of Horse Armor.

Edit: That is part of the problem with Capcom and PC. They release games on the PC months afterwards, and then their is never DLC for them. I am just about done with them, and I have loved their games since the 1980's. But the fiasco's with my favorite blue bomber as well as the wholesale abandonment of the MegaManX series and the MegaMan Legends thing.... Don't forget the horrible fighter that was Capcom X Tekken.... I'm complaining again, aren't I?

 

[Rainboq]

-Snip-

-Snip-

I've been asked this question 1,000 times since yesterday XD

It's from Darker than Black. I should make that my custom forum title >.>

XD That's what happens when you have an awesome avatar.

Most of the questions were geared more towards, "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CHANGE IT FROM THE CAT!?"

Thanks though, I like it too :3

Those people are silly You chose your avatar wisely.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Oh ffs, Bethesda. All of your games have this problem on the PS3. Fallout 3 and New Vegas both lagged out the ass with either large save files or all the content added on. 40 minutes in and the game would start to slooooooooow dooooowwwn. If it's a conflict between how your engine actually runs and operates the game and the existing hardware, short of building a whole new engine for a potentially soon-to-be-replaced console, there's not much you can do except suck it up, release the content to those that want it, and say "We know there's a problem, we'll try and fix it for the future, have the same content at a slightly reduced price for the disadvantage. The issue lies in how our tools access their system, so it's not their fault, but there's little we can do at this time. Sorry."

Seriously who cares that much about Hearthfire anyway? I want to play Skyrim not Fable 3.

It's the principle of the thing. If you release a multi-platform game, then abandon a third of the people interested, you're failing to serve the customers you already have. Nintendo ran into the same problem when they shifted to broadening their audience, and look at the vehement despair/rage that came of that from the dedicated gaming community. A game touted as equal on three platforms is expected to hold that standard. It dramatically shifts buying preferences if large amounts of content don't appear on one of the platforms (see: Team Fortress 2 on the Xbox, though I can't imagine why you'd want to see that).

All of this.

I don't even care about the DLC anymore since they've been so clumsy about it for the PS3. It's just the principle of the matter now, and it's just so stupid that they would release both DLC for only two of the three platforms, and an 'I dunno, whenever it's done' for the PS3 version.

This whole thing makes me feel like I'm being tossed aside and ignored.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Bethesda...what is your damage?

Dead Rising 2. Saints Row 3 and 2. Splatterhouse. Sleeping Dogs. All of these games use the SAME BLASTED ENGINE, Havok, just like Skyrim. Yet none of them have any issues developing their DLC cross platform. So tell me, Beth, what are Capcom, Squenix, and THQ doing correctly with the same engine that you can't seem to get your act together on?

But hey, if you don't want me to keep spending money on your game, that's fine too. I got plenty of other franchises to go that don't have these issues.

Actually Skyrim uses the Creation Engine in conjunction with the Havok Engine. You've got the right issue to attack though, Bethesda seems to be the only bigger developer that still has issues with the PS3. Why? Because they favour the more PC friendly coding of the 360 and PC. They haven't managed to wrap their heads around making a multiplatform game work on all platforms. Hell, they haven't wrapped their heads around launching a game without crashing issues...

Now that they have some ex-Bioware employees at Bethesda we'll hopefully see less of this crap. I'm sick of seeing Bethesda get a pass on launching unfinished games. I love the games to death but falling through the ground during a quest sucks. Its worse when your game crashed for what could be 1 out of 124 reasons.

 

[Epona]

If they sold it for the ps3 it should work on the ps3, if it does not they should fix it or refund it simple as that imo.

No, the hardware is standardized but there is no promise that it will be easy to develop for. If Bethesda is going to sell games on any console, it is their responsibility to ensure that it works. Blaming Sony is silly and Bethesda knows that too.

This is exactly what they are doing. They have decided not to (yet) release the DLC for the PS3 because it won't work. Would you rather they release it anyway, and have to put up with the same shitstorm they got when people discovered the save file issue on the PS3 in the first place? Given that the way their game's engine works, adding extra plugins will definitely increase the PS3 lag issues, and I'm not convinced that this can actually be solved.

The problem that they were having in the first place was the ever increasing save file sizes taking up too much RAM, and therefore causing lag. Since installing plugins (mods or DLC) on the PC increases the game's RAM usage, it would be natural to assume that this also happens on consoles. Due to the RAM architecture on the PS3 this would probably make the game nigh unplayable right off the bat, even if your save file isn't exactly huge. I'd very much like to be proven wrong, but I suspect that there just isn't enough RAM on a PS3 to run Skyrim + DLC.

Which is why they shouldn't have released Skyrim on the PS3 in the first place. PS3 owners paid the same $60 for an inferior product compared to the PC and 360 versions. Bethesda had known about this problem with their engine long before they decided to release Skyrim on the PS3.

I think they should be offering exchanges to Skyrim PS3 owners.

 

[charge52]

People need to stop complaining. If it won't run on the system, it won't run on the system. We don't get mad when Skyrim doesn't run on N64s.

We don't get mad because we were never promised that it would run on N64, they did say it would run on PS3 though. People were sold a full price game for their system that half the time barely works, they haven't even been given a release date for the first DLC, meanwhile even the PC, which has to wait a month because of Xbox exclusivity already have the second. Hell, at this rate, allot of people even doubt that PS3 will ever get the DLC.

 

[Epona]

People need to stop complaining. If it won't run on the system, it won't run on the system. We don't get mad when Skyrim doesn't run on N64s.

We don't get mad because we were never promised that it would run on N64, they did say it would run on PS3 though. People were sold a full price game for their system that half the time barely works, they haven't even been given a release date for the first DLC, meanwhile even the PC, which has to wait a month because of Xbox exclusivity already have the second. Hell, at this rate, allot of people even doubt that PS3 will ever get the DLC.

Oblivion never got the DLC on the PS3, this is an old problem that Bethesda has been aware of for years.

 

[scw55]

You can flame Bethesda all you want, but in this world be grateful when a company admits being to blame.

It would horrify you how many professional people puck the blame around.

I admire them owning-up.

It's still a rubbish problem though.

 

[Playful Pony]

I remember how they struggled not long ago with getting the Ceation Kit out for PC users, and when it finally did it still had many problems that they explained they simply were not able to fix. I'm not going to pretend it's easy to fix those things, cause I'm sure it's not! The Kit was free though, so it's not that big a deal that it doesn't work perfectly. It is functionable and has only minor problems, and it's some of the best mod support you can get these days so we can't really complain.

I think its good that they don't just release this stuff for PS3 if it wont work properly. People would get much angrier if they finally got to buy it, and it turned out it was buggy and at times unplayable. They got in enough trouble from the game itself not working like it should, putting out more non-functional DLC would hardly be a good idea!

 

[TakerFoxx]

And to think, I came this close to getting a PS3 instead of a 360. Bullet, it has been dodged.

Still sucks though. Hope they can find a way to fix the problems, but considering how they're still trying to get the vanilla version to work properly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Zom-B]

Oblivion never got the DLC on the PS3, this is an old problem that Bethesda has been aware of for years.

Well it got Shivering Isles, which was a pretty huge add on. Probably bigger than Dawnguard. Is there other DLC for Oblivion I'm unaware of?

 

[Supernova1138]

People need to stop complaining. If it won't run on the system, it won't run on the system. We don't get mad when Skyrim doesn't run on N64s.

We don't get mad because we were never promised that it would run on N64, they did say it would run on PS3 though. People were sold a full price game for their system that half the time barely works, they haven't even been given a release date for the first DLC, meanwhile even the PC, which has to wait a month because of Xbox exclusivity already have the second. Hell, at this rate, allot of people even doubt that PS3 will ever get the DLC.

At this point I don't think PS3 will get any of the DLC. Bethesda is running against a cripplingly low memory limitation, and by the looks of things they can't fix it without doing major rewrites to the game engine just to get it to work on PS3. Performance with the DLCs is probably unacceptable right now on PS3 because the only thing they can do is constantly swap data in and out of RAM from the hard drive, and that creates a huge bottleneck that will kill game performance. If they spent a huge amount of time and effort optimizing the engine to work with such limited memory and got the disk to memory swapping time to as low as possible, they might get acceptable performance; but that would likely cost more money than they would make with PS3 DLC sales. Kind of makes you wish the current gen consoles could do memory upgrades like the Nintendo 64 could if Sony and Microsoft wanted to drag out this generation as long as they have. We have hit a brick wall with the current consoles, and the whole Skyrim PS3 debacle is just one consequence of that.

Yeah, when Bethesda hit this technical hurdle in development, they probably should have considered cancelling the PS3 version if they couldn't figure out a way to fix it. They could have just said the PS3 does not meet the game's requirements. It might have helped motivate Sony to get off their asses and get moving on the next Playstation a bit faster.

 

[Epona]

Oblivion never got the DLC on the PS3, this is an old problem that Bethesda has been aware of for years.

Well it got Shivering Isles, which was a pretty huge add on. Probably bigger than Dawnguard. Is there other DLC for Oblivion I'm unaware of?

Shivering Isles was an expansion and part of the GOTY as was Knights of the Nine. There is lots of DLC not included in that:

- Fighters Stronghold
- Horse Armor
- Mehrunes Razor
- Orrery
- Spell Tomes
- Thieves Den
- Vile Lair
- Wizards Tower

 

[cerebus23]

I seem to be quoted alot in this thread but i was just stating a simple point, i have skyrim for pc and i can barely play it just cause i dont like it much.

I have no first hand knowledge of how well it runs or does not run, just that if a company is going to sell a product they out to do everything they can in a timely manner to make sure it runs properly.

I have a ps3 i know it can do some amazing things and do it better than even the other system can, excluding pc, but it takes games nearly coded from the ground up to take proper advantage of how the ps3 likes to do things, sony is so damn stubborn with their cell and complex programming tools that it gets a bit tiresome, only real plus to it is it take 2 or 3 years for developers to squeeze every cycle and bit of ram out of that thing they can so games look that much better a year or few down the line.

But ports often suffer the worst out of all that complex coding and architecture.

 

[Epona]

I seem to be quoted alot in this thread but i was just stating a simple point, i have skyrim for pc and i can barely play it just cause i dont like it much.

I have no first hand knowledge of how well it runs or does not run, just that if a company is going to sell a product they out to do everything they can in a timely manner to make sure it runs properly.

I have a ps3 i know it can do some amazing things and do it better than even the other system can, excluding pc, but it takes games nearly coded from the ground up to take proper advantage of how the ps3 likes to do things, sony is so damn stubborn with their cell and complex programming tools that it gets a bit tiresome, only real plus to it is it take 2 or 3 years for developers to squeeze every cycle and bit of ram out of that thing they can so games look that much better a year or few down the line.

But ports often suffer the worst out of all that complex coding and architecture.

So now we're complaining because the HD Twins aren't identical?