So the PS3 version may never get the DLC....

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by probablytuna (3623 posts) -

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

#2 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2295 posts) -

I mean, its better than releasing it and breaking people's games and also charging them 20 bucks for it.

Online
#3 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3. 
#4 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

Yep. This is why in industry is going to shit. No standards anymore. Skyrim should have never been released for the PS3.

#5 Posted by Hailinel (24425 posts) -

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

Online
#6 Posted by adam1808 (1457 posts) -

@algertman said:

Yep. This is why in industry is going to shit. No standards anymore. Skyrim should have never been released for the PS3.

There should have been parity between both the 360 and PS3 versions, if Bethesda had actually cared they would have retooled their engine to be more compatible with the PS3 architecture. Everyone should have access to a quality version of a multiplatform game and it's the developer's responsibility to ensure that. Skyrim should be on the PS3, but in a better form and supported with the same content as the 360.

#7 Posted by probablytuna (3623 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3.

I'm surprised in the fact that it's so problematic that they're basically saying the PS3 version won't have any DLC that the 360 or PC will be getting.What are they doing differently in Dawnguard that they can't get that content to work on the console when they've been able to for Fallout 3?

#8 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3.

I'm surprised in the fact that it's so problematic that they're basically saying the PS3 version won't have any DLC that the 360 or PC will be getting.What are they doing differently in Dawnguard that they can't get that content to work on the console when they've been able to for Fallout 3?

A new engine. I played the Fallout 3 DLC on PS3 on release. Nearly 3 months after it they never talked about fixing massive issues with it.  
 
Bethesda is a shit company when it comes to support stuff like this. 
#9 Posted by SortedeVaras (111 posts) -

Bethesda games have always and will always be built with the pc in mind, most ports are inferior versions of the game. Their games are so complex with so many systems running on that it is tough to translate it 100% into a more constrained piece of architecture like a console, a pc lets you have a million workarounds and fixes to any performance problem. I feel bad for PS3 owners but I am not sure who's really to blame, Sony for having a console that is hard to build games on or Bethesda for letting themselves work on a machine they know from past experience (Oblivion, Fallout New Vegas) they can't program for. The other question I am asking is did Sony order Bethesda to rush out a non 100% working copy of the game to meet Xbox release date or was it Bethesda that smelled the dollars and released it before it was ready?

#10 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

If they insisted in perfect parity, then the game itself would have probably been gimped for all platforms. It's better to have two fully featured versions than three lesser versions.

#11 Posted by deox (210 posts) -

That's really shitty news. I'm using the PC version, but I can't help but feel bad for everyone who purchased Skyrim for PS3. Bethesda messed up, big time.

#12 Posted by Toxeia (729 posts) -

I can't help but think "This is what you get for buying a PC game for your console." Still sucks though. Haven't a number of people come out saying the PS3 is harder to develop for? Not that it gives them free pass to fuck up a port or anything, but if other people can do it they can damn well do it too. Hopefully Sony's next platform isn't a mess when it comes to this compatibility jazz.

#13 Posted by probablytuna (3623 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3.

I'm surprised in the fact that it's so problematic that they're basically saying the PS3 version won't have any DLC that the 360 or PC will be getting.What are they doing differently in Dawnguard that they can't get that content to work on the console when they've been able to for Fallout 3?

A new engine. I played the Fallout 3 DLC on PS3 on release. Nearly 3 months after it they never talked about fixing massive issues with it. Bethesda is a shit company when it comes to support stuff like this.

I doubt it is actually a new engine like they claim. The problems that had plagued Fallout 3 and New Vegas also persists in Skyrim. If it is a completely new engine then they wasted money investing in something equally broken as Gamebryo.

#14 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Toxeia said:

I can't help but think "This is what you get for buying a PC game for your console." Still sucks though. Haven't a number of people come out saying the PS3 is harder to develop for? Not that it gives them free pass to fuck up a port or anything, but if other people can do it they can damn well do it too. Hopefully Sony's next platform isn't a mess when it comes to this compatibility jazz.

And why do you think that? Im yet to have a issue with Skyrim or Fallout 3 on my 360. Bethesda have real issues with ONLY the PS3.  
 
Also. For Oblivion on the PC you could not get fighters stronghold any normal way. Not to mention they disabled the ability to register your game. And many tech issues where ignored by tech support. O and 90% of the bug fixes where user made. 
#15 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3.

I'm surprised in the fact that it's so problematic that they're basically saying the PS3 version won't have any DLC that the 360 or PC will be getting.What are they doing differently in Dawnguard that they can't get that content to work on the console when they've been able to for Fallout 3?

A new engine. I played the Fallout 3 DLC on PS3 on release. Nearly 3 months after it they never talked about fixing massive issues with it. Bethesda is a shit company when it comes to support stuff like this.

I doubt it is actually a new engine like they claim. The problems that had plagued Fallout 3 and New Vegas also persists in Skyrim. If it is a completely new engine then they wasted money investing in something equally broken as Gamebryo.

It is a new engine. Well kinda. They tweeked the first engine. Face it. They can develop for PS3. And what problems in Skyrim? I have had no issues at all. Not even the texture issue. 
#16 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

#17 Edited by EXTomar (4687 posts) -

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

#18 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

It's so weird to see how the $600 PS3 monster machine has so many damn problems. This isn't a fanboy post, I own a PS3 and like it a lot.

#19 Posted by probablytuna (3623 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@probablytuna said:

According to Bethesda, they're having real trouble getting the content to work properly on the PS3 and that "this is not a problem we’re positive we can solve". As someone who owns the PC version of the game, I feel really bad for PS3 Skyrim owners. I hope they do find a way to release the content because that is fucking ridiculous.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/skyrim-dlc-on-playstation-3-may-never-happen

Are you surprised? This has all ways been an issue with Bethesda games and the PS3.

I'm surprised in the fact that it's so problematic that they're basically saying the PS3 version won't have any DLC that the 360 or PC will be getting.What are they doing differently in Dawnguard that they can't get that content to work on the console when they've been able to for Fallout 3?

A new engine. I played the Fallout 3 DLC on PS3 on release. Nearly 3 months after it they never talked about fixing massive issues with it. Bethesda is a shit company when it comes to support stuff like this.

I doubt it is actually a new engine like they claim. The problems that had plagued Fallout 3 and New Vegas also persists in Skyrim. If it is a completely new engine then they wasted money investing in something equally broken as Gamebryo.

It is a new engine. Well kinda. They tweeked the first engine. Face it. They can develop for PS3. And what problems in Skyrim? I have had no issues at all. Not even the texture issue.

Like the save files kept getting bigger causing slowdowns or even crashes? I played the PS3 version at my friend's place and I remember the save files being just over 6MB. I didn't find it especially laggy at that time though but other users have had really bad experiences with it. You might've been really lucky then to not have gone through that.

#20 Posted by Hailinel (24425 posts) -

@Napalm said:

@Hailinel said:

It continues to boggle my mind as to how Bethesda could fuck up the PS3 version of Skyrim so badly. I'd have thought that they would have gotten their shit together after their troubles with Fallout 3.

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

I would, apparently. But I've learned my lesson.

Online
#21 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

And I was thinking about waiting for the game of the year edition... maybe I should just play regular Skyrim.

#22 Edited by Ocean_H (290 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

#23 Posted by xyzygy (9953 posts) -

... yet ANOTHER reason why you should never buy a Bethesda PS3 game if you have the choice of the other two platforms.

#24 Edited by algertman (852 posts) -

@SortedeVaras said:

Bethesda games have always and will always be built with the pc in mind, most ports are inferior versions of the game. Their games are so complex with so many systems running on that it is tough to translate it 100% into a more constrained piece of architecture like a console, a pc lets you have a million workarounds and fixes to any performance problem. I feel bad for PS3 owners but I am not sure who's really to blame, Sony for having a console that is hard to build games on or Bethesda for letting themselves work on a machine they know from past experience (Oblivion, Fallout New Vegas) they can't program for. The other question I am asking is did Sony order Bethesda to rush out a non 100% working copy of the game to meet Xbox release date or was it Bethesda that smelled the dollars and released it before it was ready?

Good lord, do you work for Bethesda? Bethesda released a broke ass game on PS3. That's all there is to this. A lot of it has to do with them still using the old engine for the game even thought they lied and said it was brand new.

#25 Edited by algertman (852 posts) -

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Pretty much this. Bethesda threw around enough money advertising on all the sites and courting the people that run them to make their game critic proof. It's sad that the gaming media is so anti consumer.

#26 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10919 posts) -

@Napalm said:

I think it was a situation akin to, "we have it working in this way for this system, hardware and specifications, but are finding it difficult to transfer/convert the game to this other hardware set."

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

That's not true. The game worked fine for the first 30 or 40 hours. IGN put up a video after playing a few hours where they said the PS3 version was perfectly fine and to buy the PS3 version (and I suppose people would counter that by saying I shouldn't have been checking out stuff on IGN in the first place). And with the promise of it being a new engine (which it wasn't, not entirely at least), people like me ended up buying the PS3 version because all signs pointed toward it being totally okay. And people forget that the 360 version had that texture bug at launch that the PS3 version didn't, so for a day or two it actually looked like the PS3 version was slightly better.

Of course, in retrospect, I should have just bought the 360 version, like how I played Fallout 3 and New Vegas on 360. I just wanted to make the point that those of us who played the PS3 version didn't buy it knowing that it was busted, we went in thinking it was fine.

Moderator
#27 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -
@adam1808

@algertman said:

Yep. This is why in industry is going to shit. No standards anymore. Skyrim should have never been released for the PS3.

There should have been parity between both the 360 and PS3 versions, if Bethesda had actually cared they would have retooled their engine to be more compatible with the PS3 architecture. Everyone should have access to a quality version of a multiplatform game and it's the developer's responsibility to ensure that. Skyrim should be on the PS3, but in a better form and supported with the same content as the 360.

Yeah sure, just get a whole new engine, that's real easy. Why didn't they just think of that?

It sucks for PS3 owners, and Skyrim probably shouldn't even be there. Sounds like Sony is going to use standard equipment for the next console though, so it shouldn't be an issue then. You'll just have standard jank then.
#28 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -
@Ocean_H

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Maybe, maybe not. It may just be that the technology that Beth uses doesn't play well with Cell technology in the PS3. The only major bug I heard about on PS3 was the save issue. But saying that just because other games using other tech work, Skyrim should too isn't right.
#29 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Bethesda has a consistent record with releasing games with tons of bugs. They really need a better Q&A team, because this crap has been going on since ES: Arena(there are still game-breaking bugs in the game today)

#30 Edited by AndrewB (7590 posts) -

Interestingly enough, I just read an old article pointing out the truly revelatory notion that Bethesda will be using the same engine for their next game (internet sarcasm!). Anyway, if plans haven't changed because of the new console cycle, I'd have to say that you might not want to buy the PS3 version of whatever game that may be (Fallout 4).

Also, wouldn't the issue have more to do with the smaller system memory than the Cell architecture?

Online
#31 Posted by Sackmanjones (4688 posts) -

Well this really blows. In glad I traded in my ps3 copy for the pc version. That way if I want dawnguard I can get it. Unfortunately this isn't the situation with everyone so it's a big bummer. Maybe they can make it up to ps3 players and include useable ladders.

#32 Posted by adam1808 (1457 posts) -

@Leptok said:

@adam1808 Yeah sure, just get a whole new engine, that's real easy. Why didn't they just think of that? It sucks for PS3 owners, and Skyrim probably shouldn't even be there. Sounds like Sony is going to use standard equipment for the next console though, so it shouldn't be an issue then. You'll just have standard jank then.

It was almost 5 years of PS3 by the time Skyrim was released. I think that's enough time for Bethesda to make an engine that isn't several orders of magnitude more janky on the PS3 than it is on the 360.

#33 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -
@adam1808

@Leptok said:

@adam1808 Yeah sure, just get a whole new engine, that's real easy. Why didn't they just think of that? It sucks for PS3 owners, and Skyrim probably shouldn't even be there. Sounds like Sony is going to use standard equipment for the next console though, so it shouldn't be an issue then. You'll just have standard jank then.

It was almost 5 years of PS3 by the time Skyrim was released. I think that's enough time for Bethesda to make an engine that isn't several orders of magnitude more janky on the PS3 than it is on the 360.

Why would they make a whole new engine for the smallest platform? Making a whole new engine is a massive massive undertaking. Why do you think the unreal engine is so popular?
#34 Posted by charlie_victor_bravo (999 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

@algertman said:

Yep. This is why in industry is going to shit. No standards anymore. Skyrim should have never been released for the PS3.

There should have been parity between both the 360 and PS3 versions, if Bethesda had actually cared they would have retooled their engine to be more compatible with the PS3 architecture. Everyone should have access to a quality version of a multiplatform game and it's the developer's responsibility to ensure that. Skyrim should be on the PS3, but in a better form and supported with the same content as the 360.

It was Sony's decision to make console with wonky-ass architecture that would hinder developers that work mainly with PC-games. Everybody said this, but Sony was arrogant with their plan to make 600$ "cell-super computer". Remember that when you buy your next gen consoles.

#35 Posted by Fattony12000 (7310 posts) -

Gotta get those emotions.

#36 Posted by Nentisys (889 posts) -

Really sucks for PS3 only duders.

Although it really baffles my mind why anyone would play Skyrim (or any Bethesda game) on a console when numerous fan made bugfix mods are required to make shit work.

#37 Posted by familyphotoshoot (653 posts) -

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

#38 Posted by Dragon_Fire (368 posts) -

That really blows for PS3 owners really badly.

And I'm pretty sure this whole problem is due to the fact that the PS3 only has 512 MB of ram, BUT only 256MB can be used on Graphic Rendering (Anything thing that has to do with Graphics), and the other 256 MB can be used on everything else. (Sound, positioning, etc) This is usually the problem with only FPS games (Like Open world ones)

Also the engine isn't new it's the same shitty engine but they don't want to pay whoever made Gamebryo, so they changed as little as possible. This creation engine is shit, the game will render anything if it's on the same plane, Example: If you make a hallway really long, the game doesn't know were to stop rendering it at. (So it won't) That is why some long hallways have a stairway in them so it cuts it off from that.

This game in reality isn't really even made for PC, Yes MOD are awesome and they help fix the problems of this game (Which in reality shouldn't even need to have modders fix your shit in the first place) and this game is so made for PC modder actually had to make a bloody Script Extender, that right there should just show that this game being for PC isn't really true. Now it is BETTER then how Oblivion was where you couldn't add any new skills you could only replace existing skill with the new one.

#39 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Napalm said:

Also, I'm just going to say it: the PlayStation 3 version has been nearly bogged even before launch. Who on earth would purchase it for the PlayStation 3 when it is barely in a running state? Even if that's the only system one has?

That's not true. The game worked fine for the first 30 or 40 hours. IGN put up a video after playing a few hours where they said the PS3 version was perfectly fine and to buy the PS3 version (and I suppose people would counter that by saying I shouldn't have been checking out stuff on IGN in the first place).

But it is true. Sorry, but you're posting a lot of nonsensical theoreticals that don't hold true anymore now that the game is out, so I chopped that out of your quote. The lag problem completely crippled the PlayStation 3 version, and even after their update to fix the issue, many would still face the problem. I'm sure some PlayStation 3 players would say that version is fine and to buy it, but just because you had a decent experience doesn't mean you can discount legions, literal legions of players who cannot play that version.

#40 Posted by Aleryn (704 posts) -

Well that sucks for PS3 owners if they never get it to work and release. However I think after the horror of the PS3 version of the main game it's better they never release more flawed content.

#41 Posted by The_Nubster (2099 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

#42 Posted by N7 (3587 posts) -

They shouldn't be able to develop for the PS3 anymore. I'm willing to take the "hit" of not being able to play the "high quality" games Bethesda has released. It's also funny that Oblivion was pretty much perfect on PS3, Fallout 3 crashed a lot but ran fine, same with New Vegas.

There's only so far you can go blaming the PS3. Sure, the memory is an issue. But they are developers, it's their job to figure it out. If they can't build an engine for a platform just because it's "relatively smaller" in capacity to the other platforms, then don't make games for it at all. And then let's not forget Bethesda did an interview where they said they "Finally mastered the PS3." and that all games developed for it from here on out will be just as good as other platforms. I bet if they said that about the 360 and then it came out as broken as the PS3, there'd be a witch hunt.

But that's cool. I'm over here with my God Of Wars and Uncharteds and those run great. Hell, 99% of third-party games run better than anything Bethesda makes.

#43 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

They were paid well.

#44 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

#45 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

What lesson to be learned? The gaming press is weak and refuses to call companies out on this shit. Hell, you even praise them and even give them awards. Don't defend this garbage.

#46 Posted by Ulain (315 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

Did you just skip to the latest post and ignore everything said in between the OP and it?

Bethesda has ALWAYS had problems with their programming; someone said they've had it since Arena, the first game in the series from 1994. This is not an exclusive Skyrim problem, and since it's already been said, all I can say is learn to fucking read.

Anyway, this sucks for PS3 users, but it should just drive home the point to get their games for either PC or Xbox. Drop in PS3 sales, maybe they'll try harder to fix their issues, or just scrap it from the platform and focus more efforts for PC and Xbox.

Now I'm worried about that Dishonoured game coming out....

#47 Posted by TheHT (11155 posts) -

@The_Nubster said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

And Jeff Even said you can't ignore 1/3 of an entire game, in regards to Battlefield's shitty campaign. Ha.

1/3 of a game itself is not the same as a version of a game on one platform versus that same game on two other platforms. And weren't they explicit about their discussion not including the PS3 version because it's so royally fucked?

Anyways, this is just another bummer for PS3 users. But I imagine anyone who bought Skyrim there won't be blown away by this news.

#48 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

@algertman said:

@Vinny_Says said:

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

What lesson to be learned? The gaming press is weak and refuses to call companies out on this shit. Hell, you even praise them and even give them awards. Don't defend this garbage.

The lesson that if you can't develop for a platform, don't go and release DLC for said platform, and I have better things to do then defend a faceless corporation. I do find it funny that you are so livid about this situation and seeing things like this makes my day:

@algertman said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Giant Bomb's 2011 Game of the Year, folks.

They were paid well.

Keep the truth out there, don't let them shut you up!

#49 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

@Ulain said:

@Vinny_Says said:

@Ocean_H said:

@EXTomar said:

It seems more like a problem with Bethesda's technology and choices than Sony or the PS3. I would suspect that if they tried to do a Mac version it would be saddled with the same issues. Bethesda has had a long history of ambitious and unstable if not broken engines where trying to add in the a complexity like cross platform engine did not help at all.

In other words, Bethesda programmers are seriously incompetent big time compared to the majority of other programmers, even indie ones who are able to program and port to the PS3 or those who make crappy multiplatform games.

Yeah, because there are a ton of games out there that are just like Skyrim.....oh wait.....When your average developer poops out a game with that kind of complexity on the regular then maybe your argument can hold up.

As for the topic, this is a real bummer for PS3 owners because Dawnguard is actually pretty good. But maybe it's best they don't fuck up that version any more, maybe they've learned their lesson this time around.

Did you just skip to the latest post and ignore everything said in between the OP and it?

Bethesda has ALWAYS had problems with their programming; someone said they've had it since Arena, the first game in the series from 1994. This is not an exclusive Skyrim problem, and since it's already been said, all I can say is learn to fucking read.

Anyway, this sucks for PS3 users, but it should just drive home the point to get their games for either PC or Xbox. Drop in PS3 sales, maybe they'll try harder to fix their issues, or just scrap it from the platform and focus more efforts for PC and Xbox.

Now I'm worried about that Dishonoured game coming out....

This guy was calling them incompetent, and I thought comparing the development of an indie game (or crappy multiplatform game) to that skyrim is ridiculous; I don't even know what you're arguing with me about.

I read most of it, and my comment still stands. Back in 1994 the situation was almost the same. If what you got from my reply was that the problem is exclusive to skyrim then too fucking bad.

#50 Posted by familyphotoshoot (653 posts) -

@TheHT: Do you not remember when Bayonetta was disqualified from GOTY discussion because the PS3 version was garbage? I'm not equivocating Skyrim with Bayonetta, but it's the principle of the matter that bothers me.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.