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

[WickedSkin]

Well Bethsda needs better quality control. Well most developers do these days tbh.

Best solution to this problem would be that we got rid of consoles all together and all those stupid things that comes with them.

We don't need stupid shit like that on PC Microsoft. So keep Windows 8 away from the market until you have removed all the new stupid console shit you are trying to cram down our throats. You should also forget that horrible nightmare -GFWL- because it's a useless and hateful idea.
All that leads to is slowly turning PCs into consoles and sooner or later we PC gamers will have to suffer through problems like this. Apple wannabe nazis.

Let's try to keep PC as the last great and free place for gaming. FREEDOM! MODS! It's what makes good gaming and games great. We don't want console problems.

 

[Groenteman]

Ok what the hell. These bethesda programmer guys are... Shit. Everything I seen from them is just clumsy, sloppy and broken. Just kinda barely hanging together with ducttape and tie-rips.

Im gonna make a list, with points and stuff.

- ALL versions of Skyrim were bugged massively at launch.
- More than a year later most of that is still there, theres a community made patch for the PC version with a gigantic list bugs they fixed.
- The DLCs are bugged. They made an entire subforum for just Dawnguard bugs and its quite lively there.
- These PS3 DLC... Theres people willing to toss money at a realy rather pointless DLC and they just cant get it to work.
- I have not been able to play my PC version of the game for months now, ever since friggin Dawnguard came out. No amouth of reinstalling, restarting and updating has been able to keep it from crashing every 5 minutes. Made a topic on the tech support forum, detailed everything I could find and everything I tried to fix it, no good. Just found out a lot of people have the same problem.

Does anyone know if this is the same team that did Dishonoured? Because if so I dont care how good it is, im not touching anything they made untill their older games at least stop exploding every other minute.

 

[Jaythulhu]

What a surprise. Bethesda's shitty engine and hopeless programmers once again fail to fix a massive problem with the software they release, and gamers suffer as a result. Ho hum, I'm shocked.

How many dodgy products do we have to accept and how much abuse of trust do we have to put up with before we'll all actually take a stand against the shit we're being peddled at top price?

 

[Zagzag]

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.

The thing is, I don't think that they did realise it was in inferior product. The performance issues only start once your save file reaches a certain size, assuming that no DLC is installed. I remember someone saying, (althought I dont't remember the source right now), that the QA testers never played any single save file for long enough for the problem to become apparent, and it was only noticable for actual end users. You are quite possibly right in saying that they should offer exchanges (although patching most of the movable clutter out of the game WOULD fix this problem for most people for a fair bit of time).

Basically, the product is inferior, and whether that means exchanges are in order is debatable. However, I don't think that they definitely KNEW that this would be the case beforehand. If someone can prove this not to be the case, then I'll happily change my mind.

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.

The problem that Skyrim has (specifically with DLC) is that the world in the game is absolutely massive, and in contrast to other game with similarly large worlds, is actually fairly persistent. If you knock over a wine glass in someone's house, then the glass will still be on the floor the next time you go there. If you were to store the position of every object in the world in save files, they would take up gigabytes each and saving and loading could take tens of minutes each, so a solution was required, and instead the game only actively stores objects that have moved from their default position. These changes in position all have to be stored somewhere, and unfortunately the PS3 doesn't have enough memory to actually hold all of this, once you have made ehough changes to the world. (although it wouldn't have enough space to hold the entire world either, so this is much better than the alternative, which is simply not making the game anywhere near as big)

DLC however actively takes up memory space just by being there, and for this reason the game on PS3 is basically unplayable. Once the game runs out of memory objects and level geometry don't load. (you can even get this on an amazing gaming PC with PC mods, since the game has a stupid arbitrary cap on the amount of memory for mods, since it seems to think your PC has the same RAM as an Xbox, and DLC is installed the same way as a mod.)

It isn't strictly incompetence that caused this change, it is Bethesda making gigantic worlds in all of their games, and making them persistent.

 

[Epona]

The thing is, I don't think that they did realise it was in inferior product. The performance issues only start once your save file reaches a certain size, assuming that no DLC is installed. I remember someone saying, (althought I dont't remember the source right now), that the QA testers never played any single save file for long enough for the problem to become apparent, and it was only noticable for actual end users. You are quite possibly right in saying that they should offer exchanges (although patching most of the movable clutter out of the game WOULD fix this problem for most people for a fair bit of time).

Basically, the product is inferior, and whether that means exchanges are in order is debatable. However, I don't think that they definitely KNEW that this would be the case beforehand. If someone can prove this not to be the case, then I'll happily change my mind.

- These problems existed for all three TES and Fallout games released on the PS3 prior to Skyrim.

- They purposely withheld requested PS3 versions from reviewers.

I would say that Bethesda was well aware that the PS3 version had the same issues we had seen with previous games but they weren't going to miss their iconic 11/11/11 release date.

 

[Don Superior]

Although Bethesda makes games we all want to play - their bug response track record is horrible. I think the only reason they fixed Skyrim's bugs is because they had that 1200 pound gorilla (EA) breathing down their banana tree. Every game they have released prior to Skyrim had bugs that they addressed WHEN THEY DAMN WELL FELT LIKE IT. Unfortunately, PS3 players are fresh meat and had no idea about Bethesda's history as an apathetic game company. For example, Fallout New Vegas players had to wait almost a year before Bethesda would give major bugs any attention. The game had serious plot glitches (many of which they NEVER fixed), but they were too caught up in releasing DLC than taking any time to address the problem of not being able to finish quests. That didn't stop them from accepting Game of the Year awards, for a game that was barely playable for almost a year, though.

Morrowind and Oblivion had issues, too - the modding community (which has suffered major shrinkage due to DLC) had to fix Oblivion. Morrowind was more tolerable - and ony 3 people actually followed the story anyways (I have thousands of hours of doing nothing quest related in Morrowind). But the point is that Bethesda never has been diligent in putting bug crushing first, and so I am not surprised by this development. Sad to say, but the longer they take the less likely you will see any type of DLC, PS3 users. They also have a habit of "moving on" and forgetting all about their audience... Welcome to our world, console users.

Its strange to me that they even released console versions, not long before they did that they stated that they only cared about PC gamers, and Single Players. They said they mad enough profit with them and didn't want to degrade the quality of their product by having to port it to consoles... I guess that gorilla had other ideas and they had no choice but to eat their words. Goes to show you who the real boss in the EA / Bethesda relationship is.

 

[JagermanXcell]

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.

First of all you are misunderstanding me. I was not calling the PS3 itself faulty but rather that it was the platfrom the game happened to be faulty on. I thought I made that fairly clear but am sorry that you took it in such a manner.

As for releasing a game and that state... you try to tell investors, large share holders, and CEOs who are looking for a large yearly bonus on why you didn't release on one of the major platforms that it was expected on. Watch how fast you become jobless.

As for it biting them in the ass? Not really, we live in world where the top 3 publishers are Activision, EA, and Ubisoft. All of them have done things to gain them a terrible reputation and yet there they are the giants of the industry. If anything their shady practices helped them get where they are today. So Bethesda suffering from this is very unlikely. Bethesda scored millions by releasing on the PS3 without long term consequences.

In-fact I am going to offer you a wager. I say Bethesda's next big title if it gets positive reviews on at-least the other platforms still manages to sell very well on the PS3 or Sony's next console if the game is released on it. Despite their previous failures on Sony's console. How about we both choose a accept amount of money and each choose a reputable charity. Whoever is wrong has to donate to the charity of choice.

Nice little bet you have there.

But think about this, most Ps3 owners now won't be getting another Elder Scrolls game now or will wait for them to be used, because all us PS3 owners are now 100% aware of what to expect from Bethesda. Thats basically thousands if not millions of lost sales. Its called "customer satisfaction", if they can't provide we move on and they don't get our money its that simple, so yes in a way this may hurt their future sales, nothing truly damaging but if tactics like these continue it can lead to problems in their business.

Plus this is the gaming industry we're talking about, devs need to realize share holders won't always save them when they dig themselves deep, without the consumers game devs would get no where. We've fought against shady business practices and its shown to provide outcomes and change for the good (A slow progression, but progression none the less).

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

See, if you play a lot of open-world games on PS3 you know that Skyrim is a botch job and Bethesda is the only culprit to blame.
I can hardly admire them admitting it now. It's like admitting child abuse after you've been caught in the act 5 months ago by a whole crowd.