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

[KoudelkaMorgan]

People still play Skyrim? Seriously though I didn't see anywhere in the actual article that these comments append from that sheds any new light on the situation.

Hines had never said it was Sony's or anyone else's fault, there was no "admitting" anything. They have always stated that they are completely incompetent at their jobs, and that they sure do appreciate that people buy their tyro attempts at coding shit properly like every other developer currently in business.

Perhaps the latter statement is heavily implied.

Having played Oblivion, Skyrim, and FO3 extensively I have to figure that Morrowind must have been unaccountably amazing to have given Bethesda such blind and unfaltering devotion by the industry and fans alike. They can literally overhype and under deliver on every aspect of their games from the broadest features to the most remedial of technical/performance issues and then take over a year to get around to fixing 20% of their problems.

Its a good thing they aren't in the business of making cars. They would put out one decent model, then for the next 10 years they would have recalls and class action lawsuits when the headlights microwave the car in front of you and the airbags are full of nails.

 

[Epona]

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.

Than they shouldn't have released the game for that system, they didn't release Skyrim for the N64 they did for the PS3 that's the difference if they can't make it run issue a recall.

If you can't make it run don't step up to the plate that simple.

I Can't respond to every time I've been quoted about this because I would be here all night but I will say this:

It seems to me that Skyrim does run on the PS3. It would be a much bigger deal if it didn't. But we're talking about DLC here, which DOESN'T run on the PS3, because it can't handle it.

This isn't me being an Xbox fanboy, I own a PS3 and a PC. I would just rather have no DLC than super shitty DLC.

Sure it runs on the PS3, until the save file gets too big. It's like Super Mario 64 running fine until you got 30 stars.

I like how you left out the best option for DLC "DLC that works". See, they had the same problem with Oblivion and they ignored it and released on PS3 anyway and here we are again, PS3 owners not even getting the option of DLC.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

I hope you're joking. Surely it's not unreasonable for a consumer to expect a game they buy on a platform it's marketed for to actually work.

 

[Blaster395]

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

Except that the PS3 is brutally difficult to develop for, considering it has a Supercomputer-type cpu (8 core CPU, but each individual core is very weak so you have to program to multithread on all of them or it will run terribly) and 256mb of its 512mb total RAM cannot even be used for games.

Overall, ports from other systems to PS3 end up looking slightly worse than equivalents. However, the exclusives for PS3 can perform slightly better than the other consoles could as they are specifically designed to take advantage of the very unusual hardware. It is a mixed bag.

 

[Doom972]

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

Right, but since this generations tried make the consoles into PCs (better graphics, expanded functionality, etc) without having the ability upgrade the hardware, the consoles became obsolete after about 5 years, like any PC would. With some creative programming, you can get a console to use its hardware more efficiently, but even that has its limits.

I think that the PS3 should be able to run it as well as the X-box 360, but it seems like Bethesda just won't make the effort. I base that on the fact that Bethesda neglected many problems with the game that were fixed on the PC by the Unofficial Patch.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

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

Um Yes yes it did, where did you hear that it didn't?

No it didn't. I quote myself from earlier on this very page.

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

The biggest and best DLC the PS3 got and the little ones that it didn't had nothing to do with performance. Stop blindly defending Bethesda

 

[HippySteve]

I'm tired of people blaming Bethesda Game Studios, the developer has less to do with a games issue's on any specific console than the publisher, in this case, Bethesda Softworks, does. Todd Howard shouldn't be bearing the blunt of anyone's blame, and the fact that people are putting it on him shows a level of ignorance that is staggering.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Regardless of the reasons this doesn't do Sony any favors and may effect people's choice of console next time around. DLC has become a huge part of the industry so much that it now expected in every AAA title.

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.

You certainly are going to get a-lot of attention with this illogical post, certainly that is what you wanted however.

Ok Bethesda, sit down for a second lets chat. Let me ask just one very simple question. WHY did you not just test the PS3 version of the game before shoving it in stores?!?!?!?! I could care less if the DLC will ever hit the PS3, I just want to know why you don't bother to test your own games?! Its mind numbing!!!

Ask yourself this. If you had a video game that worked well on 2/3rds of the platforms you aimed for. The faulty system that you already invested into the development of would you rather release it and make literally hundred of millions of dollars? (Skyrim quickly mad $650 million soon after release and I am sure PS3 sales are a decent chunk of that.) Or would you toss the game on that platform and lose the money you invested into it?

I'd like to think I am a man of ethics but for a hundred of millions of dollars I would have released it too, in-fact I would have released far worse for that kind of money.
I'm pretty sure you would have too.

Just because the PS 3 is harder to develop for doesn't make it a faulty system. Your logic is as illogical as the person you accused of having faulty logic.

There's also a thing called quality control and assurance, and no I would not release Skyrim on the PS 3 in it current condition, because I have enough foresight to see how it would bite me in the a$$ latter on. A lot of people who bought Skyrim will question buying another Besthesda game for the PS 3 again or buying a Bethesda game in general.

When you screw over you customers it's going to eventually come back and bite you.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I find it hard to believe that the PS3 can't run what the 360 can. I thought the PS3 was supposed to be good at handling games with better graphics and whatnot.
Either way, I haven't even bought Dawnguard yet, and I don't think I will for a while. I still need to finish playing Oblivion, for gods' sake.

 

[Epona]

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

Um Yes yes it did, where did you hear that it didn't?

No it didn't. I quote myself from earlier on this very page.

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

The biggest and best DLC the PS3 got and the little ones that it didn't had nothing to do with performance. Stop blindly defending Bethesda

I am not defending Bethesda, I am saying Bethesda is to blame because they KNEW this problem existed before they released Skyrim on the PS3 and they didn't have a solution for it.

Yes, the PS3 didn't get the DLC for the same reason Skyrim isn't getting the DLC. Also, your opinion of the quality of the DLC is not relevant.

 

[Epona]

I find it hard to believe that the PS3 can't run what the 360 can. I thought the PS3 was supposed to be good at handling games with better graphics and whatnot.
Either way, I haven't even bought Dawnguard yet, and I don't think I will for a while. I still need to finish playing Oblivion, for gods' sake.

It's not about the graphics, it's about system RAM. The 360 has 512 MB shared while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to system RAM and 256 MB dedicated to graphics. This means that when the game needs more than 256 MB system RAM, it has it on the 360 but not on the PS3.

That's how I understand it anyway. It's not a new problem and Bethesda should have fixed it or not released Skyrim on the system at all.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

Now correct me if they were wrong but during testing didn't only a small portion of testers registered the lag bug? I mean it it was seen as a smaller problem that needed to be fixed because they thought it would only affect a small portion then it is somewhat understandable as to why they would realise the game the way it was when on a deadline. I mean you tackle the most reported problems right? The ones that affect all the testers. For all we know there could have been a bug that turned the character into a chicken and that was the most reported bug. Makes sense to tackle something like that and leave something that only a small percent of testers experienced for another day.

 

[Epona]

Now correct me if they were wrong but during testing didn't only a small portion of testers registered the lag bug? I mean it it was seen as a smaller problem that needed to be fixed because they thought it would only affect a small portion then it is somewhat understandable as to why they would realise the game the way it was when on a deadline. I mean you tackle the most reported problems right? The ones that affect all the testers. For all we know there could have been a bug that turned the character into a chicken and that was the most reported bug. Makes sense to tackle something like that and leave something that only a small percent of testers experienced for another day.

We were told it only affected a small portion of testers but then Bethesda purposely hid the PS3 version from reviewers too. So whatcha gonna believe?

 

[justnotcricket]

Except that the PS3 is brutally difficult to develop for, considering it has a Supercomputer-type cpu (8 core CPU, but each individual core is very weak so you have to program to multithread on all of them or it will run terribly) and 256mb of its 512mb total RAM cannot even be used for games.

Then why do so many other companies have no problem developing DLC for it? I pointed it out earlier, Saints Row 2/3, Sleeping Dogs, Dead Rising 2, ect...none of them had any issue releasing cross platform DLC (with the DR being the exception, and that wasn't because of technical issues, it was an exclusive deal with MS). Why is this only seeming to plague Bethesda? What is it doing wrong that THQ, Capcom, and Squenix are doing right?

Basically this. I won't claim to be any kind of expert in programming/console system architecture/anything of the kind, but from my experiences as a player, every single game I've bought for the PS3 *except* Skyrim, hasn't had a single problem in running, DLC or no. This includes any number of games that were released cross-platform.

I'm more inclined to think that Bethesda is really the problem. If they can't deal with the PS3, fine. Then don't develop for it. I won't hold it against you - everyone's got their preferences. What I will hold against you is knowingly releasing a hideously bugged game, then taking ages to *partly* fix the problem, and then making vague statements about the DLC you're failing to produce, and generally treating (a portion) of your customers like crap.

 

[likalaruku]

The part of me that hates console exclusivity feels bad for PS3 fans, but the PC gamer side...Well you can guess what that side thinks.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

-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

Well..... WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CHANGE IT FROM THE CAT!?

OT: Thats a shame for PS3 users, and reasons like this is why I bought Skyrim for my 360. Well I couldnt have forseen this, but going from my Fallout experience I just kinda assumed the 360 version would run better.

 

[Fappy]

-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

Well..... WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CHANGE IT FROM THE CAT!?

OT: Thats a shame for PS3 users, and reasons like this is why I bought Skyrim for my 360. Well I couldnt have forseen this, but going from my Fallout experience I just kinda assumed the 360 version would run better.

Whelp, here's a whole thread to answer that question for you: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.390134-10-000-Posts-Later-Fappy-Edition

If you miss it you can always find it in my profile