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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Crono1973:

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?

charge52:

Braedan:
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.

Zom-B:

Crono1973:

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

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.

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.

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

Crono1973:

Zagzag:

cerebus23:
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.

Crono1973:
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.

If they didn't release Skyrim on the PS3 they would be getting an even BIGGER shitstorm, and it would last a hell of a lot longer. Just like Transformers Fall Of Cybertron did when Highmoon said it wasn't going to be released for the PC. They eventually gave in and released it, and that particular version i believe has the most problems. Yet it is their fault that fans bitched and whined.

Either way, Bethesda would get thousands of screaming fans so they decided to keep a good few thousand happy that Skyrim was at least released on the PS3.

The Bethesda admitted, or ~ was kindly recommended to admit it ~?

Well... I wouldn't exactly say I'm "missing" it. rdrr
Seriously though, the Skyrim dlc has been pretty lame so far; it's surprising that many people are upset about it.

I'm amazed that they actually released Hearthfire on the pc where you can get mods that do the same thing, but better.

Crono1973:

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.

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

No but sony could make stuff more user friendly and ditch the cell all together. Especially in light of while the cell can do some rather wiz stuff that stuff is not that zomg better than the other console, and the box they built cannot really make use of all that nice blu ray space for hd textures since it simply cannot handle them. Another gen blu ray will pay off and we see those 40 gb disks finally be used for something.

Braedan:
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.

But it wasn't released on the n64. However i don't know if you missed this, it was released on the ps3, and if it didn't run on the system it shouldn't of been released on the system.

arc1991:

Crono1973:

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.

If they didn't release Skyrim on the PS3 they would be getting an even BIGGER shitstorm, and it would last a hell of a lot longer. Just like Transformers Fall Of Cybertron did when Highmoon said it wasn't going to be released for the PC. They eventually gave in and released it, and that particular version i believe has the most problems. Yet it is their fault that fans bitched and whined.

Either way, Bethesda would get thousands of screaming fans so they decided to keep a good few thousand happy that Skyrim was at least released on the PS3.

Skyrim was released on the PS3 so you will never know how people would have reacted if it hadn't been. However, there is a possibility that people would realize no port is better than a bad port that could never get the DLC.

If Bethesda had said before launch that the PS3 version would have framerate problems and that it wouldn't get the DLC (like Oblivion), how many would have given $60 for it?

cerebus23:

Crono1973:

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.

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

No but sony could make stuff more user friendly and ditch the cell all together. Especially in light of while the cell can do some rather wiz stuff that stuff is not that zomg better than the other console, and the box they built cannot really make use of all that nice blu ray space for hd textures since it simply cannot handle them. Another gen blu ray will pay off and we see those 40 gb disks finally be used for something.

So you want them to drop the cell right now, in the middle of a generation? That's not possible and from what I hear the PS2 was a bitch to program too, didn't hurt it though. I know, you are suggesting Sony should have had a crystal ball before the PS3 so they could see the future.

Your Blu-Ray issue misses the point, Sony was using the PS3 to push Blu-Ray, not the other way around.

Braedan:
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.

Ivan Carvalho Carli:
The Bethesda admitted, or ~ was kindly recommended to admit it ~?

Either way they're just admitting the obvious, it was apparent out the gate that it wasn't optimized properly.

Crono1973:

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?

disgruntledgamer:

Crono1973:

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

Crono1973:

cerebus23:

Crono1973:

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

No but sony could make stuff more user friendly and ditch the cell all together. Especially in light of while the cell can do some rather wiz stuff that stuff is not that zomg better than the other console, and the box they built cannot really make use of all that nice blu ray space for hd textures since it simply cannot handle them. Another gen blu ray will pay off and we see those 40 gb disks finally be used for something.

So you want them to drop the cell right now, in the middle of a generation? That's not possible and from what I hear the PS2 was a bitch to program too, didn't hurt it though. I know, you are suggesting Sony should have had a crystal ball before the PS3 so they could see the future.

Your Blu-Ray issue misses the point, Sony was using the PS3 to push Blu-Ray, not the other way around.

Obviously not but as market opens up more to varied devices streaming gaming and the like and those things mature if sony runs the ps4 as they have been ps1 only game in town, and ps2 first, ps3 was dead last and how many former sony only devs were suddenly developing for xbox 360 because the sony never got out of the gate well and shot itself in the foot trying to do the same old same old that worked in the previous gens.

xbox became the lead platform it had a better install base most everywhere but japan and then the ps3 became the console you ported stuff over to, xbox used simple direct x unreal etc tools that everyone in the industry is familiar with, then you cut the resolution down and slap it onto the ps3 because the ps3 does not do well with ports.

If ps3 was first again if it had a big lead if it had all those developers locked up then it could have replicated the greatness of the ps2, as it is now it is the low man on the totem pole and people as a whole are not going to be arsed to bother to learn sonys convoluted coding tools that they typically have to send technicians out to teach developers how to use, i mean lets be realistic.

Hard to believe i like sony isnt it? :P I think they still have the better games even tho they lost many of their old stand bys. I think they take more chances and therefore make more interesting games in general. And i like that they dont rip people off for online something pc gamers never had to pay for outside their internet costs. MS comes along and oh no you want to play you have to pay, insult to injury is how people tend to behave on xbl chat and your paying for all that wonderful goodness.

cerebus23:

Crono1973:

cerebus23:

No but sony could make stuff more user friendly and ditch the cell all together. Especially in light of while the cell can do some rather wiz stuff that stuff is not that zomg better than the other console, and the box they built cannot really make use of all that nice blu ray space for hd textures since it simply cannot handle them. Another gen blu ray will pay off and we see those 40 gb disks finally be used for something.

So you want them to drop the cell right now, in the middle of a generation? That's not possible and from what I hear the PS2 was a bitch to program too, didn't hurt it though. I know, you are suggesting Sony should have had a crystal ball before the PS3 so they could see the future.

Your Blu-Ray issue misses the point, Sony was using the PS3 to push Blu-Ray, not the other way around.

Obviously not but as market opens up more to varied devices streaming gaming and the like and those things mature if sony runs the ps4 as they have been ps1 only game in town, and ps2 first, ps3 was dead last and how many former sony only devs were suddenly developing for xbox 360 because the sony never got out of the gate well and shot itself in the foot trying to do the same old same old that worked in the previous gens.

xbox became the lead platform it had a better install base most everywhere but japan and then the ps3 became the console you ported stuff over to, xbox used simple direct x unreal etc tools that everyone in the industry is familiar with, then you cut the resolution down and slap it onto the ps3 because the ps3 does not do well with ports.

If ps3 was first again if it had a big lead if it had all those developers locked up then it could have replicated the greatness of the ps2, as it is now it is the low man on the totem pole and people as a whole are not going to be arsed to bother to learn sonys convoluted coding tools that they typically have to send technicians out to teach developers how to use, i mean lets be realistic.

Hard to believe i like sony isnt it? :P I think they still have the better games even tho they lost many of their old stand bys. I think they take more chances and therefore make more interesting games in general. And i like that they dont rip people off for online something pc gamers never had to pay for outside their internet costs. MS comes along and oh no you want to play you have to pay, insult to injury is how people tend to behave on xbl chat and your paying for all that wonderful goodness.

Your post was incomprehensible. I am sorry but I am just guessing with my answer because I can't make heads or tails out of what you are trying to say. Commas are your friend.

Anyway, this is Bethesda's fault, not Sony's. Somy releases a console and it's up to developers to either make games for it or not and if they choose the former, they need to make sure the games work competently. This is Bethesda's failure and even they admit that. Atleast Bethesda is honest in that regard.

Bethesda knew from Oblivion that they would run into this problem but they went ahead and released it on the PS3 anyway, at the same price as PC and 360. Now, PS3 owners bought an inferior product and they will likely never get the DLC.

I repeat, it isn't Sony's fault when developers make bad ports! Sony released a console and the specs of that console have not changed.

It. Is. A. Bethesda. Game.

Bethesda games are buggy on all platforms. Always.
If you make products that are buggy, of course on a platform that's more difficult to work with, they will be more buggy.

Yes, it's Bethesda's fault, but why are people surprised when their games don't work?

Dear Bethesda

It may be time to go Unreal

Sincerly

Me

Danceofmasks:
It. Is. A. Bethesda. Game.

Bethesda games are buggy on all platforms. Always.
If you make products that are buggy, of course on a platform that's more difficult to work with, they will be more buggy.

Yes, it's Bethesda's fault, but why are people surprised when their games don't work?

Why are people so accepting of it? People expect something they drop $60 for to work, people that are accepting of games not working are the problem.

To be honest, I'm just waiting for the 'we can't do this, sorry' announcement. I'm not mad or anythin', kind of sucks but hey, what can ya do?

The issue (probably) goes along with save file issues, which goes along with the PS3's split ram issue. So, I'd imagine Bethesda would have to rework their saving mechanisms in-order to get it to work, which probably requires a-lot of work, or work-arounds.

I'd imagine they would have released it but Sony[1] is kind of stickler for stuff, considering the ME3 MP events.

[1] Not that is bad, I wouldn't want to buy DLC and have it completely ruin my files, wreck my frame-rate or something

Lucem712:
To be honest, I'm just waiting for the 'we can't do this, sorry' announcement. I'm not mad or anythin', kind of sucks but hey, what can ya do?

The issue (probably) goes along with save file issues, which goes along with the PS3's split ram issue. So, I'd imagine Bethesda would have to rework their saving mechanisms in-order to get it to work, which probably requires a-lot of work, or work-arounds.

I'd imagine they would have released it but Sony[1] is kind of stickler for stuff, considering the ME3 MP events.

...and Bethesda knew about these problems before they decided to put Skyrim on the PS3.

[1] Not that is bad, I wouldn't want to buy DLC and have it completely ruin my files, wreck my frame-rate or something

disgruntledgamer:

Braedan:
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.

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!!!

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.

cerebus23:
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.

If only they could do that for the other consoles, let alone the PS3.

Braedan:

disgruntledgamer:

Braedan:
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.

Braedan:
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.

Ed130:
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.

Ed130:
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.

Crono1973:

disgruntledgamer:

Crono1973:

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'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.

NuclearShadow:
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.

Braedan:
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.

Xcell935:
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.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here