[N Only WhiTe girl]

My point was you kind of indicated that Beth has a good amount of experience with the PS3 and really they don't. A good amount of third party games have been ported to the PS3 which have been significantly worse than there 360 versions. It's becoming less common now, but it still happens. Is Skyrim the worse case? Possibly. But Beth isn't the only developer with this issue. This is why generally it's a good idea to buy 3rd party games for the Xbox and keep the PS3 for exclusives. Especially if your a gamer that plays older games.

In fact Sony even came out a said the "intentionally" made the PS3 harder to program for so it can last it's full 10 years and so it takes longer for developers to figure it out. That to me, makes this not only Beth's fault, but Sony's too. Making a console hard to develop for on purpose, hurts developers and consumers a like and is ridiculous.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/56844/ps3-intentionally-hard-to-develop

Again, gonna have to disagree with you and fundamentally this time.

Having multiple videogaming platforms is a personal choice from gamer to gamer. A few generations back, i had all the big boys so i could cover the spread. It made sense and still does to a certain degree. But the possibility of your customers having multiple platforms should never encourage a company that develops for multiple platforms to conduct business the way Bethesda is currently doing.

The converse is equally true, if not moreso. Customers should not have to own multiple platforms to fully enjoy a multiplatform game. Remember those 'developers with half a brain' i alluded to earlier? They get this. If they can neither learn to code for a platform and choose not to subcontract out to another developer to port a game for them; smart devs choose not to work on a problem(for them) platform. Which is what Bethesda should have done looking back.

And looking @ the bold, Sony has admitted as much and have decided to go in a different direction for the PS4-good for them. Coding for the PS3 being hard or easy is irrelevant however.

*Who made Bethesda choose to develop Skyrim for the PS3 even though they have had serious difficulties on the platform in the past? Bethesda.
*Who chose not to learn how to properly code for the PS3? Bethesda.
*Who chose to blatantly mislead customers and release a broken game(even by the standards set by their previous releases.) across the board? Bethesda.
*Whose new game engine was essentially the same old one they have been using 10 years at this point(inherently and obviously having the same issues)? Bethesda.
*Who has even come out and said unequivocally that they and only they are responsible for their current predicament? You guessed it, Bethesda.


What we gamers as a group need to do is stop tearing each other down and hold devs that muck up accountable and not go out of our way to repeatedly vindicate them.

[Ownie Zuliana]

To extend the car metaphor... I guess somebody Japanese, whether it be Honda or Sony, needs to explain to Bethesda that it is indeed possible to get more than 100 hp/litre... so they don't have to be all: "but... the S2000 is so HARD to tune."

[Sammygirl500]

Coding for the PS3 being hard or easy is irrelevant however.

But it's not...

What if I dropped new technology into your lap that was vastly different then the technology that you are use to using and told your do something with it? Sure each product will get you a little closer to figuring it out, but had that technology been something you were use to using from the beginning it would have resulted in a much better product.

Beth could had simply not made the game for PS3, but that would have made PS3 gamers mad too, and they would not be any closer to figuring out how to program for the PS3. Either way would have resulted in mad PS3 gamers.

I never said Beth was not at blame, they are... nor do I want to really argue this point. You don't want to acknowledge semantics, but it's vastly important in this issue. Sony made some bad decisions, and because of that developers and gamers have suffered. They gimped there system, which gimped developers when developing games.

But this has very little do with the initial point which was Beth lacks PS3 experience compared to other developers.

[Samantha hulme]

personally I have no intention of buying any product produced by Betsheda while possessing no DLCs of SKIRYM

^^this
I'm making sure Beth does not get another cent from me. If I do buy any product with Beth's name on it, I'll buy it pre owned like I did with dishonored.
I only saved $5 from buying dishonored 2nd hand, but at least I know Beth doesn't get a cent of that money

[Sophh]

^^this
I'm making sure Beth does not get another cent from me. If I do buy any product with Beth's name on it, I'll buy it pre owned like I did with dishonored.
I only saved $5 from buying dishonored 2nd hand, but at least I know Beth doesn't get a cent of that money

You're punishing innocent people, you know. Bethesda softworks isn't Bethesda game studios. Neither is Arkane Studios

[NeverStopThe]

I'd like to know if Bethesda's made ANY progress whatsoever with the DLC, they haven't updated us since August!!!

[meghan lock]

But it's not...

What if I dropped new technology into your lap that was vastly different then the technology that you are use to using and told your do something with it? Sure each product will get you a little closer to figuring it out, but had that technology been something you were use to using from the beginning it would have resulted in a much better product.

Beth could had simply not made the game for PS3, but that would have made PS3 gamers mad too, and they would not be any closer to figuring out how to program for the PS3. Either way would have resulted in mad PS3 gamers.

I never said Beth was not at blame, they are... nor do I want to really argue this point. You don't want to acknowledge semantics, but it's vastly important in this issue. Sony made some bad decisions, and because of that developers and gamers have suffered. They gimped there system, which gimped developers when developing games.

But this has very little do with the initial point which was Beth lacks PS3 experience compared to other developers.

Ok, let's do semantics a bit.

Bethesda goes to Sony and say, "Hey Big S, i think i want to start developing games on your hardware. Hook me up!"

Sony agrees to license Bethesda. Then sends them out a dev kit with all the tech specs on the PS3 a dev needs to be able to work on the platform and several non-region-locked PS3 units so Bethesda can get started. At this point, Bethesda is now fully set up to start working on the PS3.

Now the exercise is just like anyone else who is new on a job. Time to get to work. Ins and out of the new system are explored. How the system performs with what you put on it(ie-game engine) is anolysed and how your engine needs to be tweeked to run on the system stably is tested and mapped out.

Stop a moment now, some dates. The PS3 itself was released in '06. The first dev kits went off to developers in '05. Ok everything is fine and dandy,, 'til now.

Oblivion launches in March '06...on 360 and PC.

Wait a tick. PS3 version? Where? It doesn't come along until over a year later in Sept. '07. At this point with Bethesda being a top developer, they prolly got their kits at the earliest late third/early fourth quarter '05. Or if they drug their feet in requesting theirs, around Aug. '06. Let's split the dif and say they got dev kits ~Jan. '06.

Why all the dates? To tie down a start date of when Bethesda has had access to PS3 info and hardware. And guess what we come up with? Almost 6 years when Skyrim base game hits. Well into year 6 by the time Game Jam is shown to the public and Dawnguard is announced.

Sorry guy, i don't care how new a piece of tech is, if its your job to develop games and you can't successfully do so when you have had access to all applicable tech data, actual units, not forgetting you can call in Sony at any time for assistance-for 6 years; there is just no excuse. Either you aren't really trying or you just aren't up to the task and should write off the 2 grand you paid for your dev kits, walk away from the platform and call it a day. Not even gonna rattle off the companies that have thrived using the PS3, even if all they did was port. Or the companies that saw they(wisely) would not be able to invest the time needed to truly be a multiplatform developer and walked away.

Would have broken my heart if Bethesda had been a no-show on the PS3. Truly it would have, but i would have respected the decision on their part. As it is now, i see a company i've been a devoted follower of since i was in college, marginalize myself and millions of other customers because we chose to purchase an offered product on a platform Bethesda doesn't care about.

And that's on Bethesda. Not Sony, not Microsoft, not even STI((the guys who make the CELL processor: Sony/Toshiba/Ibm) and incidentally IBM makes the 360's XENON processor which happens to be a variation of the SAME tech in a PS3); Its squarely on Bethesda.

You're punishing innocent people, you know. Bethesda softworks isn't Bethesda game studios. Neither is Arkane Studios

But its all under the Zenimax brand. svcks hard having to suffer for a sister-companies antics, but that's business.

[ANaIs GRelot]

Ok, let's do semantics a bit.

Bethesda goes to Sony and say, "Hey Big S, i think i want to start developing games on your hardware. Hook me up!"

Sony agrees to license Bethesda. Then sends them out a dev kit with all the tech specs on the PS3 a dev needs to be able to work on the platform and several non-region-locked PS3 units so Bethesda can get started. At this point, Bethesda is now fully set up to start working on the PS3.

Now the exercise is just like anyone else who is new on a job. Time to get to work. Ins and out of the new system are explored. How the system performs with what you put on it(ie-game engine) is anolysed and how your engine needs to be tweeked to run on the system stably is tested and mapped out.

Stop a moment now, some dates. The PS3 itself was released in '06. The first dev kits went off to developers in '05. Ok everything is fine and dandy,, 'til now.

Oblivion launches in March '06...on 360 and PC.

Wait a tick. PS3 version? Where? It doesn't come along until over a year later in Sept. '07. At this point with Bethesda being a top developer, they prolly got their kits at the earliest late third/early fourth quarter '05. Or if they drug their feet in requesting theirs, around Aug. '06. Let's split the dif and say they got dev kits ~Jan. '06.

Why all the dates? To tie down a start date of when Bethesda has had access to PS3 info and hardware. And guess what we come up with? Almost 6 years when Skyrim base game hits. Well into year 6 by the time Game Jam is shown to the public and Dawnguard is announced.

None of this was needed, can we keep it to the point? Beth didn't even port Oblivion to PS3. Sure they may had done some work with it, but there first major work on the PS3 was Fallout 3.

Sorry guy, i don't care how new a piece of tech is, if its your job to develop games and you can't successfully do so when you have had access to all applicable tech data, actual units, not forgetting you can call in Sony at any time for assistance-for 6 years; there is just no excuse. Either you aren't really trying or you just aren't up to the task and should write off the 2 grand you paid for your dev kits, walk away from the platform and call it a day. Not even gonna rattle off the companies that have thrived using the PS3, even if all they did was port. Or the companies that saw they(wisely) would not be able to invest the time needed to truly be a multiplatform developer and walked away.

Again I didn't say Beth isn't to blame. But developers were gimped, FROM the get go because of Sony. Sure some developers have figured it out, and it took many games to get there. Beth makes huge games that take years to make, where as another developer may get 2 or more games out in that time frame, resulting in less experience and less games on the PS3 by Beth. Comparing them to any other developer in that regard is crazy.

Had Sony stuck with more traditional PC tech, as MS did... developers would have had close parity from the get go, instead it took most developers 3 or 4 years after the PS3 release to really achieve that. But because of how large Beth's games are, and how long they take to do... they really didn't have that luxury of learning to code for the PS3 or push the system as fast as other developers have.

A lot of sandbox developers suffer from this. Compare RDR on the PS3 to 360, on the PS3 is was stripped down and blurred the hell out of to achieve the same FPS as the 360 version.

However the PS3 coding, is not even the big "if" here. We have no way of really knowing if the game would still be able to run correctly if it was properly coded for PS3 or if it would still need more RAM. It would help the situation of course but doesn't mean it would solve it. That is mainly Beth's fault for trying to run a game that really needs better hardware that what is on the PS3, and for not fixing the simple bugs that are taking the memory... however again, Sony had an entire year to match the RAM of the PS3 to the 360. They should have seen these issues if they were trying to make there console last 10 years.

EDIT: And when I say match, I mean realize they would need more because of the the split memory pool of the PS3 to match what the 360 can do performance wise.

Would have broken my heart if Bethesda had been a no-show on the PS3. Truly it would have, but i would have respected the decision on their part. As it is now, i see a company i've been a devoted follower of since i was in college, marginalize myself and millions of other customers because we chose to purchase an offered product on a platform Bethesda doesn't care about.

Not saying I don't agree with you here, but the backlash would have been big either way.

[Christine]

@Coby

While I agree with you that Sony made some questionable choices regarding the structure of the PS3, the instant Pete Hines told everyone that they had managed to get the PS3 version of Skyrim to reach a level of parity with the 360, I believe that Bethesda assumed full responsibility for Skyrim's failings. They said that whatever the problems one platform had versus the other, they had managed to overcome, and both versions stood at a level of equivalency.

Having made that statement, Bethesda can no longer use the "PS3 is HARD!" argument, even if they are inexperienced with the platform. They took on full responsibility, and so I believe even if they were gimped by Sony's decisions regarding the structure of the PS3, they are completely responsible for the problems they are having now.

And if the lack of experience working with the PS3 was such an issue for them, they should have compensated for it by expanding their staff to have more people who knew what they were doing when it came to designing a game on the PS3. If you don't have the skills necessary to do something, you either learn how to do it yourself, or find people who can. From the way things are now, it would appear that Bethesda did neither of those things.

[I love YOu]

@Coby

While I agree with you that Sony made some questionable choices regarding the structure of the PS3, the instant Pete Hines told everyone that they had managed to get the PS3 version of Skyrim to reach a level of parity with the 360, I believe that Bethesda assumed full responsibility for Skyrim's failings. They said that whatever the problems one platform had versus the other, they had managed to overcome, and both versions stood at a level of equivalency.

Having made that statement, Bethesda can no longer use the "PS3 is HARD!" argument, even if they are inexperienced with the platform. They took on full responsibility, and so I believe even if they were gimped by Sony's decisions regarding the structure of the PS3, they are completely responsible for the problems they are having now.

And if the lack of experience working with the PS3 was such an issue for them, they should have compensated for it by expanding their staff to have more people who knew what they were doing when it came to designing a game on the PS3. If you don't have the skills necessary to do something, you either learn how to do it yourself, or find people who can. From the way things are now, it would appear that Bethesda did neither of those things.

And that is a good point, but as consumers I still think we should be throwing some of the blame at Sony, not just for Skyrim but for all third party games that have suffered because of there choices. Which is why I put most of the blame on Beth.

[Sian Ennis]

You're punishing innocent people, you know. Bethesda softworks isn't Bethesda game studios. Neither is Arkane Studios

Either way, their name is on the game, which means they will get a percentage of the profits.

**EDIT** - they should be careful who they work with. I know Beth didn't develop dishonored, but they published it. People looking to publish games might just need to rethink who they use.

At the end of the day, I won't buy anything with Beth's name on it unless it is pre owned, that way they don't get a cent from me. I know I'm not the only 1 who feels this, they dug their own grave tbh.

[priscillaaa]

And that is a good point, but as consumers I still think we should be throwing some of the blame at Sony, not just for Skyrim but for all third party games that have suffered because of there choices. Which is why I put most of the blame on Beth.

Lol why would I blame Sony? My ps3 has been working for yrs and still going strong. If anything kudos to Sony for making a durable system. My system runs great, it's my copy of skyrim that is not properly supported. In my eyes this puts Beth and only Beth in the cross hairs. The only thing I don't understand is why they waited until after the dlc was released on other platforms first before they decided to ask Sony for help.

[Sarah Knight]

Lol why would I blame Sony? My ps3 has been working for yrs and still going strong. If anything kudos to Sony for making a durable system. My system runs great, it's my copy of skyrim that is not properly supported. In my eyes this puts Beth and only Beth in the cross hairs. The only thing I don't understand is why they waited until after the dlc was released on other platforms first before they decided to ask Sony for help.

And that is good for you, still doesn't change the fact that a majority of the PS3 games released since it came out have had worse performance than the 360 versions. It has nothing do with how the system runs but how games run on the system. If you only play on PS3, your won't notice this difference.

[Mrs. Patton]

1)None of this was needed, can we keep it to the point? Beth didn't even port Oblivion to PS3. Sure they may had done some work with it, but there first major work on the PS3 was Fallout 3.

2)Again I didn't say Beth isn't to blame. But developers were gimped, FROM the get go because of Sony. Sure some developers have figured it out, and it took many games to get there. Beth makes huge games that take years to make, where as another developer may get 2 or more games out in that time frame, resulting in less experience and less games on the PS3 by Beth. Comparing them to any other developer in that regard is crazy.

3)Had Sony stuck with more traditional PC tech, as MS did... developers would have had close parity from the get go, instead it took most developers 3 or 4 years after the PS3 release to really achieve that. But because of how large Beth's games are, and how long they take to do... they really didn't have that luxury of learning to code for the PS3 or push the system as fast as other developers have.

4)A lot of sandbox developers suffer from this. Compare RDR on the PS3 to 360, on the PS3 is was stripped down and blurred the hell out of to achieve the same FPS as the 360 version.

5)However the PS3 coding, is not even the big "if" here. We have no way of really knowing if the game would still be able to run correctly if it was properly coded for PS3 or if it would still need more RAM. It would help the situation of course but doesn't mean it would solve it. That is mainly Beth's fault for trying to run a game that really needs better hardware that what is on the PS3, and for not fixing the simple bugs that are taking the memory... however again, Sony had an entire year to match the RAM of the PS3 to the 360. They should have seen these issues if they were trying to make there console last 10 years.

6)EDIT: And when I say match, I mean realize they would need more because of the the split memory pool of the PS3 to match what the 360 can do performance wise.

7)Not saying I don't agree with you here, but the backlash would have been big either way.

@1-Those were the semantics i skipped earlier and i agree, they might not be totally relevant. Only added them because you questioned their absence.

@2-You are making this seem like an isolated thing. I say thing because its a non-issue. Every time a new gen of console arrives all the 2nd party devs have a learning curve to contend with in working on the new hardware. Even the 1st party devs initial efforts are not going to be comparable to what they will be able to achieve after they have some time with the architecture under their belts. This happens EVERY time. We are on 7th gen consoles at this point i believe, go take a look at some of the past gens.

@3-Architecturally, the 360 is not much different from the PS3. Like i said in passing above, the two consoles derive from a common technology even. STI made the CELL to be able to handle huge amounts of data in parallel and reduce the need for copious amounts of system RAM. Microsoft made a deal with IBM to essentially tone down a CELL and make it need more system RAM than a pure CELL processor-the result is the Xenon processor that is in every 360 today.

Its an issue of finesse. One setup is designed to put more of the processing load on the CPU and the other puts more of the load on the system RAM. One is not inherently better than the other. And it takes time to become good at either. Bethesda chose to specialize in one, which was a mistake. They should have had teams specializing on both instead of what could only have been a setup of one team specializing in actually working on 360 architecture and another only being able to port FROM 360 architecture.

@4-Not in dispute.

@5-Whether or not Bethesda ever admits it, the game engine is the issue here. Claims of an all new engine were swimming all about before Skyrim hit. That doesn't appear tto have been completely accurate. http://peter.corrosivetruths.org/2011/12/21/is-skyrims-creation-just-gamebryo/ fellow makes a very cogent case, imo, that the 'all new' Creation engine Bethesda built up like there was no tomorrow, was really just a revamped Gamebryo variant. The same game engine they have used since Morrowind.

Now if this is true, and seeing all the old issues PS3's suffered with Bethesda's build of Gamebryo popping up all over again, i think it has the ring of truth; that definitely says 'engine problem' to me. Would a total-from the groud up- PS3 version of Skyrim have eliminated some of the issues the PS3 version is having? I think so, but ultimately we will never know as that's not what Bethesda did. What the PS3 got was just another bad port.

@6-Wrong. What was most likely needed was a version of Skyrim codes for the PS3 architecture bottom to top. A version that worked with the CELL and not against it. Square peg, round hole-possible? Yes. But round peg, round hole will always be better.

@7-Just like ripping a band-aid or popping out sutures, do it hard and fast; its over and done. People would have realized in time no version would be preferable to a situation like the one PS3 Skyrim customers are in now. Angry they would have been, i know i woulda. But then it would be over in a few weeks and on to other things. Bethesda has been stringing us all along for months now. Which way you think is ultimately better?

[Luna Lovegood]

I'm back !!

[Isaiah Burdeau]

I'm back !!

Welcome back! No fascinating updates as of now, but still nice to see you back in your thread

[LuCY sCoTT]

Any updates????

[RAww DInsaww]

Welcome back! No fascinating updates as of now, but still nice to see you back in your thread

thanks! I missed everyone. I took a 3 day vacation. Closer to Dawnguard it looks like!

[danni Marchant]

Maybe soon. I like to think of myself as an optimist, but given this long wait I'm a little cautious. Hopefully the line of code directed at the PS3 the beta testers found in the 1.8 files is a good sign of incoming DLC. And on that subject, I really hope Beth has truely optimized the DLC to run decent on the PS3, but given Beth's track record I think I'll be waiting for the performance reviews before I shell out money.

[luke trodden]

I'm back !!

Welcome back.

[Jhenna lee Lizama]

So today I decided to dust off Skyrim and make a new character because I was bored. It started off pretty well, I made a Bosmer, got to the end of the cave at the tutorial and was greeted with a loading screen. This isn't unusual, Skyrim has lots of loading screens. Except after 5 minutes I was still sitting there looking at it. At about the 8 minute mark I restarted the PS3 and continued on from my last save point.

This time I actually managed to get outside and continue down the path to Riverwood. Upon the path me and Hadvar encountered 3 wolves, upon attacking them the game froze. So I restarted it again, willing to give it one more try. My Ps3 at this point was making an awful chugging sound, almost as if the disk was making it sick but I still managed to get on the game and continue on towards riverwood. The game froze again as Alduin flew over head.

Skyrim is pretty sweet.

[Nick Pryce]

So today I decided to dust off Skyrim and make a new character because I was bored. It started off pretty well, I made a Bosmer, got to the end of the cave at the tutorial and was greeted with a loading screen. This isn't unusual, Skyrim has lots of loading screens. Except after 5 minutes I was still sitting there looking at it. At about the 8 minute mark I restarted the PS3 and continued on from my last save point.

This time I actually managed to get outside and continue down the path to Riverwood. Upon the path me and Hadvar encountered 3 wolves, upon attacking them the game froze. So I restarted it again, willing to give it one more try. My Ps3 at this point was making an awful chugging sound, almost as if the disk was making it sick but I still managed to get on the game and continue on towards riverwood. The game froze again as Alduin flew over head.

Skyrim is pretty sweet.

Yours... has quite a bit of problems. Even when I was on PS3 my game didn't freeze withing 2 minutes of each attempt of playing lol. It took 15-30min of playtime before each crash xD

I'm assuming you're one of those who didn't benefit from the last update, which brought back the large save files lag/crash problems?

[Alyesha Neufeld]

Yours... has quite a bit of problems. Even when I was on PS3 my game didn't freeze withing 2 minutes of each attempt of playing lol. It took 15-30min of playtime before each crash xD

I'm assuming you're one of those who didn't benefit from the last update, which brought back the large save files lag/crash problems?

Before the patch Skyrim did not crash once for me. This is the first time something like this has happened.

[james tait]

@2-You are making this seem like an isolated thing. I say thing because its a non-issue. Every time a new gen of console arrives all the 2nd party devs have a learning curve to contend with in working on the new hardware. Even the 1st party devs initial efforts are not going to be comparable to what they will be able to achieve after they have some time with the architecture under their belts. This happens EVERY time. We are on 7th gen consoles at this point i believe, go take a look at some of the past gens.

Very true, every new gen does have a learning curve... however this gen Sony made it more difficult that it needed to be. No Sony generation has been as difficult for developers as this gen.

@3-Architecturally, the 360 is not much different from the PS3. Like i said in passing above, the two consoles derive from a common technology even. STI made the CELL to be able to handle huge amounts of data in parallel and reduce the need for copious amounts of system RAM. Microsoft made a deal with IBM to essentially tone down a CELL and make it need more system RAM than a pure CELL processor-the result is the Xenon processor that is in every 360 today.


Its an issue of finesse. One setup is designed to put more of the processing load on the CPU and the other puts more of the load on the system RAM. One is not inherently better than the other. And it takes time to become good at either. Bethesda chose to specialize in one, which was a mistake. They should have had teams specializing on both instead of what could only have been a setup of one team specializing in actually working on 360 architecture and another only being able to port FROM 360 architecture.

This doesn't change how it makes development significantly more difficult for developers on PS3. The Xbox was designed more like a PC, something developers are more use too.

@5-Whether or not Bethesda ever admits it, the game engine is the issue here. Claims of an all new engine were swimming all about before Skyrim hit. That doesn't appear tto have been completely accurate. http://peter.corrosivetruths.org/2011/12/21/is-skyrims-creation-just-gamebryo/ fellow makes a very cogent case, imo, that the 'all new' Creation engine Bethesda built up like there was no tomorrow, was really just a revamped Gamebryo variant. The same game engine they have used since Morrowind.

Now if this is true, and seeing all the old issues PS3's suffered with Bethesda's build of Gamebryo popping up all over again, i think it has the ring of truth; that definitely says 'engine problem' to me. Would a total-from the groud up- PS3 version of Skyrim have eliminated some of the issues the PS3 version is having? I think so, but ultimately we will never know as that's not what Bethesda did. What the PS3 got was just another bad port.

The game engine is part of the problem, that is not being disputed. Again, if this was changed however it doesn't mean it would solve this issue.

@6-Wrong. What was most likely needed was a version of Skyrim codes for the PS3 architecture bottom to top. A version that worked with the CELL and not against it. Square peg, round hole-possible? Yes. But round peg, round hole will always be better.

Either way the game runs out of memory, split 256 MB of video memory is not nearly enough... it wasn't back then and it defiantly isn't today. You can program the game to effectively use the PS3 architecture all you want, if the game still pushes more memory than available as it does now, your will still get late game lag. Sandbox games are heavy on RAM and you can't unload everything on to the cell.

@7-Just like ripping a band-aid or popping out sutures, do it hard and fast; its over and done. People would have realized in time no version would be preferable to a situation like the one PS3 Skyrim customers are in now. Angry they would have been, i know i woulda. But then it would be over in a few weeks and on to other things. Bethesda has been stringing us all along for months now. Which way you think is ultimately better?

Truthfully, with next gen so close they probably would have been better off waiting for the PS4 and then possibly porting it over as a launch title. What's done is done though.

But I really don't care debate this anymore, and I think were better off to agreeing to disagree on this issue.

[Cassie Boyle]

^^this
I'm making sure Beth does not get another cent from me. If I do buy any product with Beth's name on it, I'll buy it pre owned like I did with dishonored.
I only saved $5 from buying dishonored 2nd hand, but at least I know Beth doesn't get a cent of that money

Too late you gave them a cent when you bought that used game The gamestore like any gamestore is going to use their money to help restock inventory meaning buying more Bethesda products, along with paying the bills oh the awful bills. New or Used you can't escape giving them your money, unless you get it for free.