Just for the record, I agree with your reasoning

We were led to believe that only the first two DLCs would be exclusive. It doesn't mean that Bethesda lied to us, but they definitely worded their statement in an ambiguous way.


If you sell all your possessions and go on one last trip around the world, then discover you're going to live for another 20 years but sadly you're homeless and jobless - I'd say you'd be pretty mad at the doctor

Actually that doesn't prove your point because the doctor isn't giving you a fact, you could possibly live longer or shorter.

I hope that doesnt mean any PS3 players are feeling stressed over a game release...

Anyway, it's been a long day over here and I honestly dont know how effectively i brought up my point, but I'll leave it at that.

I give up.


donuts for everyone.

it's probably not coming to PS3 any time in the foreseeable future. PC about a month after Xbox 360, and the PS3 probably a little after 2020/2021.

Obviously, they are. Perhaps you've noticed, if you've even glanced at the forums.

Seems legit.

In may, they made this tweet:

https://twitter.com/Bethblog/status/197393138900410370

If they respond to questions of a PC release date like this again - by affirming exclusivity - then that can be taken as confirmation. It is also the way they have made this confirmation in the past without specifically mentioning other platforms - which is likely due to marketing exclusivity being part of the agreement. They have responded to tweets regarding releases in a similar manner. Interestingly the one I linked to and others I;ve seen in the past don't show up in their feed so they can be really hard to find after the fact.

Is it not possible that Bethesda has signed another exclusivity agreement with Microsoft? They might have finished their contract and then Microsoft says "we liked that, here's a million dollars if you'll do it again". I doubt if Bethesda would make a big announcement about such an agreement since it's likely to be upsetting to those customers who are on other platforms.

The Dragonborn trailer did not end with the Xbox logo, like Hearthfire and Dawnguard did so I think the contract has ended. The reason people are confused is that there is no mention of the other platforms, only Xbox, which is curious.

Context is everything. In context of "how many exclusives does xbox have" and the response is 2, that is in no way the same context of, "Is there 2 exclusives for skyrim?". At the very minimum it is a lie of omission, assuming that it is a timed exclusive, I'm not sure how you could get around that. It isnt like it is easy to confuse the context of such a question or statement. There would be no point in telling people that there are 2 exclusives, but then internally knowing they have more then 2, that wouldnt even make sense.

So honestly, all these "examples" trying to equate the statement to "well technically they were not lying", is really missing the point.

It doesn't bother me.

This has probably already been mentioned, but remember that the exclusivity deal was for a whole year, which ends officially on the 12th. Until then, they are likely unable to announce DLC for any system other than the Xbox. So let's be patient and wait a few more days.

This. Now can we leave it at that?

Skyrim was apparently built for the Xbox first, and as such the base for Dragonborn will likely be based off the Xbox, and as a result will likely be the first platform it's released for while everyone has to wait for it to be converted to the PC format. That said, that doesn't mean we're forced to wait a month before it becomes available to PC players.

Actually that hasn't been mentioned. Interesting.

Im also going to let this be the last thread I update, because a few people are being arseholes. If someone else wants to continue it in order to keep all the inevitable discussions about exclusivity in one place (or at least until the mods make an official PC/PS3 release thread), be my guest.

Never heard the deal was for one year after release exactly. Is there a source for that?

I. Preface
Let me start off with the fact that I hate these types of debates, because in the end we all (Xbox, PC, Ps3) get screwed in one way or another.

I'm going to point something out and then leave. If you think my point is wrong please put it up and discuss among yourselves, but I won't be reading it.

My current field of study is Law, specifically Contracts, which is what we are talking about.

II. Point
It is entirely possible (I haven't looked) that either there was an option to extend the exclusivity in the contract to additional DLC/Add-On in the original contract between Bethesda and Microsoft

OR

Microsoft and Bethesda entered into a new contract giving Microsoft exclusivity on Dragonborn for 30 days.

NO ONE HAD TO LIE ABOUT IT. THIS HAPPENS IN BUSINESS ALL THE TIME.

Microsoft CANNOT say to Bethesda, give us more exclusivity or we won't let you make games for the Xbox. That is called business duress. Companies cannot do that. The contracts do not hold up in court. The reactions on these forums and elsewhere on the internet are enough proof to satisfy most courts standard of harm to the recipient of the contract and there is a strong argument that the result does not significantly benefit Microsoft. There is a strong argument that it is fact harms Microsoft as well.

More importantly, it doesn't pass the common sense of most individuals. Sure it was cool in the Godfather, but you cannot just put a gun to a guy's head and tell him to sign or you shoot. Microsoft strong arming Behtesda into more exclusivity would be just that. So any extension of the exclusivity would have to be done freely by both parties.

III. Opinion
No matter how you slice it (short-term/long-term) this is a bad move for Bethesda.

I'm a PC player. I do not own an Xbox. I do not own a Ps3.

I can honestly say that I would feel exactly the same no matter my platform, because this kind of business practice by large companies screws all of us. In this case it has really screwed the Ps3 players. In the past I have had to wait a year or more for games to appear on PC. While I cannot think of a multi-platform game that favored the Ps3 at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if it existed or will in the future. Companies want to drive a wedge between all of us based upon the hardware we use to enjoy an experience. It prevents a concerted effort on our part from forcing them to bend to our complaints.

We should all be pissed about this. But what I observe in majority is Ps3 owners [censored]ing. Xbox owners being [censored]s. And PC owners joining in on one side or the other depending on if it is post the 30 day limit. We all should be pissed regardless of platform because we all pay for it!

Thank you. I'm done.

I don't want to pick a side in the ridiculous console flame-war but I guess it looks like I will. If Bethesda signed a new contract, knowing they would release a new add-on for Christmas, they must have no sense. Christmas is the best time of the year to release content. I have to admit that if the PC doesn't get the content over the Christmas period, I probably won't buy it until July or next Christmas. The only reason why I would wait so long is because I don't have time during the rest of the year to play Skyrim. By releasing the DLC after Christmas, they have effectively lost my sale(When I do buy it, it will probably be on sale). I would guess there are many people in the same situation as me as well.

I don't think Bethesda have signed a new agreement however. I would have thought the original agreement stipulated that it covered the two first DLC that were also released on the PS3 and PC. As of yet, none of the DLC's have been released on the PS3 and thus Bethesda are still in the agreement to release DLC 30 days before the PS3 and PC.


I think the Donut argument is petty but I will use some pseudocode to show that {3...} is false
void DLC_still_in_agreement()
{
DLC_released = 3;
if( DLC_released &--#60;=2){
printf("Agreement still stands");
}
}
In English, this would mean, "The DLC is in the agreement if the released DLC is less than 3"


The below however would be true

void DLC_still_in_agreement()
{
DLC_released = 3;
if( DLC_released &--#60;= 2 || DLC_released &--#62;= 3 ){
printf("Agreement still stands");
}
}
In English, this would mean, "The first two DLC are in the agreement as well as subsequent DLC"

The original press release seems to only apply to the first case but like I said, the original agreement could still stand or Bethesda announced the first two DLC were exclusive in order to ensure people bought the PC and PS3 versions of the game

After 10 minutes of googling, I also deem myself as an expert in Contract Law. I can confirm what Eichlos is saying.

This ridiculous semantics argument died already, please leave it. It simply proves that Bethesda's communication (im getting fed up of using that word ) was not clear enough, after all, you're arguing about it.

NO ONE HAD TO LIE ABOUT IT. THIS HAPPENS IN BUSINESS ALL THE TIME.

?While what you said, on a whole is true, the fact that the "2 exclusives" statement was made would if anything, make the situation look worse. If they knew of a the possibility of an extension or a re-negotiation, there would literally be no justifiable reason on a business level, to give a expectation like that. Honestly, I think this has more to do with the PS3 then anything. I would be shocked if the dlc is limited to "just" the xbox, but I could very easily see it coming ot he pc but NOT the PS3, which would probably encourage them only mentioning the xbox, because mentioning both the xbox and the PC, well...probably wouldnt look the greatest as a pr piece with the trailer itself.

I could be off base here, but honestly, I see no other reason why they would mention the 2 dlc, idea, unless this was the case. If there really was a chance of an extension of any sort for xbox, and they still said 2 dlc's for xbox, honestly, that would paint them in a somewhat incompetent light, in terms of such a statement, and honestly, still would result in, if not a lie of omission, dishonest to a point.

Semantics does matter when a word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.

Flames and console bashing posts have gone away. Warnings and suspensions are forthcoming.

Has anyone bothered to tweet or email Bethesda and ask whether or not its part of the 30-day exclusive deal or not?

I don't think it would be too much of a bother for Bethesda to come in here and say, "We have only announced this for the Xbox 360". I feel that the fact that they have only named the price in MS Points speaks volumes but it would be great if they would just say their usual. "We have not announced this for any systems other then the 360" bit. I'm a PC player but I would just like confirmed what I already expect.