What the topic says. You CANNOT play a save made with the 1.6 patch in any lower patch level game. And this is an incompatibility by design, as you get an error message telling you that it is not only incompatible, but also that it will not play. So you CANNOT roll back to a previous version and use your existing 1.6 saves. They are toast.

And I am irritated.

Even worse, I THINK that it also 'marks(?)' the previous three saves as well, as I also had three prior (I think) saves flagged as not playable also. That's just rumour for now... But I'll be testing, and if it is more than rumour, well... Think Dr. Banner.

Ignore rumour. Only saves made using patch 1.6 are not playable in prior versions. New message is :

This save game was created on a later version of
Skyrim. Please download any updates.
____________________________________


Ok

I believe that is because they have optimized some data structures to be more efficient and smaller in size. behippo was able to report about that in conjunction with updating the SKSE, as he apparently has to delve deep into the bowels of the game and sees stuff like that. The change is for the better in principle, as it reduces resource requirements while playing and while saving.

While the later game version is able to read the old data as well as the new, it does not work the other way around, hence the incompatibility. This is the same reason why the prematurely released Creation Kit 1.6.91 had to be pulled, because it used even further data optimizations, and was similarly incompatible with the current game version 1.6.89. Any mods edited on the pulled CK 1.6.91 have armor and race data, that is not understood and is totally skipped by the current game. If you have seen underdressed NPC's lately, that is why.

Actually, I've never known any game where saves made with a later patch version can play reliably on an earlier version.

In fact, I've seen a lot of games where it specifically warns you before you start the patch that save games made on the new version will not work on the old.

Unfortunately, warning against patching or even giving the option to avoid it is the last thing Steam would ever do. Well, better not go any deeper into that, as it has the tendency to derail threads. Besides, in principle it is not an issue as Steam does not support rolling back to a previous version.

It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that this would be the case. With a lot of software it is understood, tacitly or otherwise, that saves/structures created with previous versions will not necessarily work with newer versions.
It's an accepted part of software release and management.

That does make sense, and if so is a good thing.

Not having warning though, is not a good thing. And not having a choice as to getting the download... But Hey!!! We've got HORSE COMBAT!!!

Things that break things should carry warning signs, not pretty ribbons.

Now, THIS would be acceptable. The way it was done, well, stealth in corporate-consumer relations is not a good thing, to be polite.

I take it that you've never worked in the corporate software world, yes? Get your new, improved office software NOW! Too bad your precious old documents won't work...

Which is in fact exactly where I do work, except I deal with databases and so am both the controller and the implementer of any changes and thus can filter out "game-breakers" as it were.
And so I have in some senses rendered my own argument invalid!

Indeed. Would YOU have implemented this, in this fashion? No backwards compatibility, and no warning of such? Not even getting into other aspects of bugs that were known from beta being released...

Bethesda should thank their lucky stars that no one really needs their software, well, not like, say, SAP. To name just one. Or MS, to name another.

Well, see, the thing is - sometimes to make something better you have to take a hit on backwards compatibility so yeah, if it's required and in scope I would.
BUT - I would have made sure it was documented and that expectations in that respect were managed, certainly. And I would want to see that done.

Normally I am a Big Supporter of Bethesda but if they slipped up - (IF, might have been Steam) - then was naughty there. Not everyone - (surprisingly lol) - who plays RPGs works in IT so not everyone would have expectations of that sort of thing, or an understanding of it.

It would be a lot worse if saves that were made with the previous versions of the game were incompatible with version 1.6, wouldn't it?

Actually this.

Actually, not really. Temporarily, of course. And the screams would've been louder, probably loud enough that some sort of provision would have been made to maintain two code-streams for a period of time. A Skyrim 1 and a Skyrim 2 sort of thing. The way it is now, the casual people, the ones that don't maintain good backups, they are the ones left in the lurch. And they might well and truly be fine with that, after all they have horsey combat.

But let's give this a test. When Skyrim MMORPG comes out, let's merge the two code streams and not tell anyone. See if they notice.

And there goes your credibility if you weren't joking.

There's no such thing. There's an Elder Scrolls: Online, but no such thing as Skyrim: Online outside of user made mods.

Indeed - this fact seems to get rather lost in the hysteria surrounding the online game - it's an entirely and completely separate thing.

Wow... And there goes your eyesight AND your sarcasm meter, all in one go. And doesn't change the point, either. Face it, Beth. did we consumers no favours in their rush to give us horsey combat. I'd sure hate to be in charge of change control over at Bethesda... Did he jump, or was he pushed?

Take a tip from MS... Don't mix fixes and features in the same 'patch'. (MS NT SP4)