[carrie roche]

You'd get nothing at all. Others have tried tweeting/emailing them.

This isn't a "Sony" issue. This is a Bethesda issue that's come to entangle Sony. As they have already said, "[They] support all of their developers and try to help them overcome these types of issues."

Regardless, the truth is that they can't do anything if gamesas's coders are incapable of getting it to work. It's not like Sony sent their coders to gamesas. They're most likely just chatting on the phone about the issues and the Sony experts are probably quietly judging the Gamebryo Engine/Creation Engine in the back of their minds while wondering how in the world gamesas's PS3 Platform Specialists are even employed at this point.

According to some, this is a Sony issue, in part for having half the RAM of the 360, and infinitely less than practically any actual PC, and in part for being so hard to develop for. And you can hear that from a lot of developers.

[Nice one]

According to some, this is a Sony issue, in part for having half the RAM of the 360, and infinitely less than practically any actual PC, and in part for being so hard to develop for. And you can hear that from a lot of developers.

I'm tried of fully going in on this agruement, so i'll just say this those some are wrong, sony didn't port the game & dlc, bethesda's ps3 porters did air go its bethesdas issue.
again i could go into a full & better reason for this but i'm tried of typing it at this point.

[Rebekah Rebekah Nicole]

According to some, this is a Sony issue, in part for having half the RAM of the 360, and infinitely less than practically any actual PC, and in part for being so hard to develop for. And you can hear that from a lot of developers.

It has the exact same amount of RAM as the 360, only each half is partitioned in order to run the graphics and memory separately. Open world games can often struggle on the PS3 because of the vast memory requirements, yet graphics can often suffer on the Xbox due to the RAM usage.

And the PS3 has been called "difficult to develop for" by two American developers. And the Japanese hate developing for the Xbox (and often call it "difficult"). It just depends on what you're used to and how you have developed the game (or what engine you're using). However, it is often considered infinitely easier to port from the PS3 to the PC/Xbox than the other way around. Part of that is due to the Cell Processor.

However, in gamesas's case, these issues are mostly due to the vast memory consumption of Skyrim eating up the PS3's memory, the age of the Gamebryo Engine, and their investment in the development of the game. gamesas is notorious for under-investing in the PS3. Unfortunately for them, the PS3 outsells the Xbox in Europe/Asia and a little over a third of their consumers for Skyrim purchased the game on the PS3.

Edit: I would also add that if a company is incapable of developing for a system, regardless of the reasons, then they shouldn't develop for the system. No one should have to pay money for an inferior product. I don't care what platform it's on.

[Kayleigh Williams]

Bethesda svcks, this is the second foul for ps3 users. They launch hearthfire for the other consoles and nothing for playstation users. From this moment i never buy a bugthesda product. They are racist with ps3 users.

[Bitter End]

The way they could fix this whole issue is by making the games for the PS3, and then porting it to the PC and Xbox, since the other way around causes huge problems for them.

[electro_fantics]

Yeah, I guess that is just odd to me since I've been here a long time. When DLC content was first offered for sell (Oblivion) there was an out pour of angry members who refused to pay for additional content and felt it was a way to "nickle and dime" folks to death for what was offered as expansions in Morrowind. So many didn't ever buy DLC's and some still don't. So it just seems odd somehow that now folks buy a game because they can also buy DLCs. But I do understand your position.

For me it would be equal to someone announcing a game and folks getting excited to buy it and then the game is never released.

I think that's actually a very appropriate way to describe the situation actually.

Almost every game releases DLC now, it's become a norm to check up and see if a game has new maps, new missions, new items, or at least new skins.

But seeing how this was an entirely new storyline that was simply implemented into the game, it's more like being told a game is coming out and it never did.

[Sami Blackburn]

The way they could fix this whole issue is by making the games for the PS3, and then porting it to the PC and Xbox, since the other way around causes huge problems for them.

More like a change of developers.

[lisa nuttall]

Yeah it seems they have.... dishonored us.

CSI Bethesda

Anywho back on topic, I do agree thats where this rage is stemming from is Bethesda going "Oh look at this shiny, look at it, nope you can't have it!". In all honesty had I actually cared for FO:NV I would have done research and not bought this game (FO:NV has 0 replayability for me, just found it very boring) And the tired explanation of "Well PS3 is hard to code for" was fine......four years ago, now its just a pathetic excuse, if you know something is hard to do, first time is fine for a botch, after that Bethesda either needs to kick their current PS3 coders out on the streets (or out of the bars, considering you would have to be hammered to think the PS3 release was suitable), or figure out something that works, and this should have been done with FO:NV, personally I hope Sony is actually helping Bethesda, and instead of charging Bethesda $, they force Bethesda to do a PS3 one month (the vindictive side of me says longer just to force the Xbox 360 trolls to know how it feels(as a note I do not feel all of the users are trolls, but some are)) exclusive DLC.

[Madeleine Rose Walsh]

SoPC and Xbox have both DLC, but PS3 have none. I'm pretty disappointed.

Time to trade in the PS3 for an Xbox, methinks.

[Krystina Proietti]

Time to trade in the PS3 for an Xbox, methinks.

If making a transition, I'd recommend going one step further and getting a PC. You'll never look back.

[Terry]

Doing so for one game?

Never worth it.

[john palmer]

SoPC and Xbox have both DLC, but PS3 have none. I'm pretty disappointed.

Time to trade in the PS3 for an Xbox, methinks.

Why do that? There's still a lot of great games on the PS3. Plus, and this is a big point to consider: The next gen consoles will be coming out before too long. Is it really worth getting a whole new (actually very old) console for one game that will still be bug ridden and less than stable?

If you're really going to go toss your PS3 aside for the sake of playing Skyrim, why don't you just get a PC?

[Chris Ellis]

If making a transition, I'd recommend going one step further and getting a PC. You'll never look back.

If they have the money then I'd say to do the same as it gives every game much longer life, but you'll have to update your RAM and graphics every so often for optimum gaming

Doing so for one game?

Never worth it.

and I agree here too.




For me personally I wouldn't do it because most 360 exclusives are shooters so I prefer PS3 exclusives.

[Brentleah Jeffs]

If making a transition, I'd recommend going one step further and getting a PC. You'll never look back.

Absolutely!!!

Doing so for one game?

Never worth it.

I did, sure I got it for one game but it won't stay that way for long. Microflops exlusive 30 day DLC's backfired in my case.

[Da Missz]

Why do that? There's still a lot of great games on the PS3. Plus, and this is a big point to consider: The next gen consoles will be coming out before too long. Is it really worth getting a whole new (actually very old) console for one game that will still be bug ridden and less than stable?

If you're really going to go toss your PS3 aside for the sake of playing Skyrim, why don't you just get a PC?

This whole line of argument... about what sort of different hardware to invest in to satisfy the vagaries of gamesas is crazy. If your local service station were to suddenly tear out their diesel pump and declare they'd only be supplying high-octane in future ('cause it's easier to pump, or something), you wouldn't say "Ah well, I guess I'd better chuck my truck in a landfill and buy a Ferrari."... you'd just fill up elsewhere.

[Manuela Ribeiro Pereira]

I did, sure I got it for one game but it won't stay that way for long. Microflops exlusive 30 day DLC's backfired in my case.

That's great for you, but what other titles are you now looking at? There are no titles on PC that would capture my interest except for Skyrim, and even then that's a game I would prefer to play with a controller, with my feet up, and a big tv like I do all games I invest into hardcoe with the exception of SW:TOR.

[Neko Jenny]

I'm in no way making light of the situation but nobody has paid for this DLC who didn't get it. Paying for Skyrim does not entitle anyone to get added content and some don't buy any dlc's for their game.

That is not what the poster was arguing.

We paid, not only for the base Skyrim game, but also for the opportunity to extend that game via DLC. As someone pointed out, it says that there will be DLC in the manual. Hence, by that opportunity being denied us, we did not get all we paid for. Among the things that people commonly purchase are options to purchase future goods. PS3 Skyrim players are fully justified in complaining about that.

However, I realise that Bethesda's failure to properly port Dawnguard to the PS3 is unintentional, even if their communication with customers about it is sub par.

I've enjoyed playing Skyrim, and unlike others on the PS3, I have had very few problems with the game. However, I will hold off buying any new game from Bethesda until I can be sure that it works as advertised, and that it will include everything that was promised.

I can't see any argument from Bethesda or anyone else that could convince me, and thousands of other PS3 owners, that we would not be rational to do this. The company owes its PS3 customers an apology, and real, honest communication. It's not rocket science - take a leaf out of Tim Cook's book re iOS maps.

[ONLY ME!!!!]

That is not what the poster was arguing.

We paid, not only for the base Skyrim game, but also for the opportunity to extend that game via DLC. As someone pointed out, it says that there will be DLC in the manual. Hence, by that opportunity being denied us, we did not get all we paid for. Among the things that people commonly purchase are options to purchase future goods. PS3 Skyrim players are fully justified in complaining about that.

However, I realise that Bethesda's failure to properly port Dawnguard to the PS3 is unintentional, even if their communication with customers about it is sub par.

I've enjoyed playing Skyrim, and unlike others on the PS3, I have had very few problems with the game. However, I will hold off buying any new game from Bethesda until I can be sure that it works as advertised, and that it will include everything that was promised.

I can't see any argument from Bethesda or anyone else that could convince me, and thousands of other PS3 owners, that we would not be rational to do this. The company owes its PS3 customers an apology, and real, honest communication. It's not rocket science - take a leaf out of Tim Cook's book re iOS maps.

Bethesda tends to be oldschool when it comes to PR and marketing, so I can't imagine them apologizing or showing any fault at all.

Also, Bethesda is only "liable" from a legal perspective if someone is able to prove that they falsely advertised Skyrim to PS3 players, which would be pretty difficult. Bethesda's PR department knows this, so they've begun calling the patched kill cams and mounted combat "DLC" and "add-on content" because they want to avoid potential legal trouble.

I sincerely doubt anyone would actually sue Bethesda over this, but I don't blame the company for covering their butts.

[Alkira rose Nankivell]

A PC is a lot more expensive - my laptop lets me play Morrowind, Oblivion and the Sims, as well as surf the net and do work. I can't ask for any more.

I can trade in my PS3 and my handful of games at my local EB games, and get an Xbox and Skyrim for a big discount. And I only have a PS3 for any other games - if not for Skyrim, I would have sold it months ago.

[Guy Pearce]

This whole line of argument... about what sort of different hardware to invest in to satisfy the vagaries of gamesas is crazy. If your local service station were to suddenly tear out their diesel pump and declare they'd only be supplying high-octane in future ('cause it's easier to pump, or something), you wouldn't say "Ah well, I guess I'd better chuck my truck in a landfill and buy a Ferrari."... you'd just fill up elsewhere.

Agreed. I don't see the point of it honestly. I'm not jumping hardware just because Bethesda can't be bothered to figure out how the PS3 works. There's other games I can find out there that are probably less frustrating. I've still yet to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

[Dragonz Dancer]

I want Dawnguard for free on PS3.

[courtnay]

Still trying to wrap my mind how 4J managed to get Gamebryo working perfectly when they ported Oblivion to the Ps3...but Beth can't do the same.

[Jade MacSpade]

Agreed. I don't see the point of it honestly. I'm not jumping hardware just because Bethesda can't be bothered to figure out how the PS3 works. There's other games I can find out there that are probably less frustrating. I've still yet to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

True there are other threads for platform debates (most usually end badly) and this one is for when and if the DLC's are coming for PS3, after all it seems a thread on these forums is all it's getting.

[Courtney Foren]

I can't believe I want to do this, but I think I'm going to offer my Skyrim game for trade-in when Assassin's Creed III comes out. I have no interest in playing Skyrim anymore, the DLC would change that, but I just don't want to go through the same stuff over and over again. I haven't played the Thieves Guild quest line, but that's such a minor thing that it's not enough to compel to play the game again.

If this DLC thing gets straightened out, and it's available on a GOTY edition of Syrim, I will buy that version.

[maddison]

I can't believe I want to do this, but I think I'm going to offer my Skyrim game for trade-in when Assassin's Creed III comes out. I have no interest in playing Skyrim anymore, the DLC would change that, but I just don't want to go through the same stuff over and over again. I haven't played the Thieves Guild quest line, but that's such a minor thing that it's not enough to compel to play the game again.

If this DLC thing gets straightened out, and it's available on a GOTY edition of Syrim, I will buy that version.

Play it, it is probably the best written questline in the whole game, after that trade it in