In contract law, you can always back out of a simple "X for Y" contract, even if it lacks such a clause or expressly prohibits it. If Microsoft gave Bethesda $900,000 for the exclusivity, Bethesda has the choice to refund that money and go back on their decision, just like if you gave a company $5,000 to redo your roof, but they found out they couldn't do it in a timely fashion. They don't have to follow up on the contract. They can refund you before they start regardless of what the text is. If you tried to sue on the grounds that "it says they have to." you'd lose. The only time you cannot back out of a contract is when something non-refundable is transferred by the affected party. For example, if Microsoft helped Beth do optimization and QA as part of the deal there is no way for them to legally back out. Just like recording artists cannot back out of recording contracts (helping make an artist a public figure can't be refunded or undone). Assuming the exclusivity contract is simple, Bethesda can, if they choose, return MS' funds and go back on their decision with no consequences. If MS objected, they wouldn't have a case in court unless they had very reasonable terms for backing out.

Now, the PS3 version is totally screwed with save bloat, stuttering, bad performance, etc. Patches aren't enough, and users without internet on their PS3s are totally screwed. As an apology, Beth needs to do something for them beyond simple patches. Whether that means backing out on their DLC exclusivity (if they can), offering the first DLC free, or something else they need to do something. If possible I think they need to can the exclusive content, even if it's time-limited.

It's unethical [censored] by both parties anyway. Someone needs to ninja this sort of thing into the Sherman Act for the good of the industry, but I don't see legislators caring about gamer problems any time soon. By the logic in the Sherman Act, paid exclusivity SHOULD be illegal in the States, as it is an abusive, anti-competitive practice. Sadly I don't see anyone taking anybody to court on it, and it's not an issue for here. Some extremely similar things are illegal though. IMO the law just hasn't caught up to tech yet. If this was any other industry there would be an uproar. Gamers are extremely tolerant of unfinished / broken products and unethical business practices compared to just about anyone else.

tl;dr: PS3 should get something special. Get on it Bethesda?

You can't back out without paying damages if it can be demonstrated that failure to uphold the contract caused financial harm.

In addition, it irreparably harms the relationship with Microsoft for little benefit.

ROFL.
"Apology"? Lol. What a joke. As if the Xbox version of this game is ANY better. I've stopped playing until they actually fix this texture issue.

They can't do that. It's a contract. Microsoft would burn them to the ground.

Yeah they can't back out of a contract regardless less the other party says they can or they will take an arrow to the knee, to say the least

Just how the corp world works.

Are the console versions really that bad? You'd think - being a console - EVERYONE would be having the exact same issues.

Why did you make another thread of this?

Bethesda doesnt need to apologize for anything if you dont like the game you can return it

It can't. People here on forum bought Skyrim for 360 over PS3 because of the announcement. MS already got returns from it.

Really it would just be lying to the fans about the game pre-release. Beth already did it a ton anyway (sabotage economies, DX11, grizzly Dunmer voice).

This has to be one of the most moronic topics I've seen on this forum, and I've seen several 'arrow in the knee' topics.

The DLC exclusivity made Bethesda a ton of money, like it does for any company that enters an exclusivity deal with Microsoft. Good for them, as it helps them actually pay their damn employees, if you want DLC at all, think of the people needed to make it in the first place. They don't make it for us or for our benefit, they make it to make money, it is their job, not their life, they owe us nothing.

The exclusivity is also timed, they only get it a month early, just a month and not everyone is having the same, or even as many issues as you are with the PS3 version. I've had scarcely any trouble, and I'm on my second PS3 which needed a laser replacement.

Stop being a whiny child, accept that the game industry is only going to get more competitive and that the exclusivity doesn't endure as long as Fallout 3's did.

We are still getting the DLC, just a little later than the 360 will, I'm certain a month won't kill you.

Yes it's a dike move, no I don't like waiting for DLC that will inevitably be overpriced and bug-ridden but no amount of whining at Bethesda on their own forums is going to do a damn thing about it.

Gaming is an industry, Skyrim and it's associated DLCs a product, it is not a service, it is not a right, it is a convenience, Bethesda are a company and companies need to make money to survive.

It doesn't matter how much you, I or anyone dislikes it. DLC exclusivity is here to stay, no matter how irritating it is, simply be grateful the delay is only a month, it could be longer.

Bethesda already agreed and signed the contract with M$. If they decide to give the DLCs to PC and PS3 before the 30 days M$ can sue for breach in contract.

On the plus side.

Hopefully by the time you lot get the DLC they may have had to fix bugs on the 360 version and so rechecked the other versions.

TL;DR

but no they shouldnt, PS3 will get the DLC to probs just later on and also Assassins creed brotherhood DLC was ps3 exclusive so....

Yeah, if they just go ahead with it. If they give MS the money back and issue a statement first it makes it basically impossible for MS to do anything about it.

Unless MS gave them something that can't be easily refunded as part of the contract, EX help optimizing or doing QA.

And at above, DLC exclusivity is not here to stay. It is an anti-competitive practice in the vein of MANY practices that have been made illegal over the years. Eventually this kind of deal won't be legally kosher anymore. Microsoft was hit with a Sherman Act suit over similar practices with Windows + third party software devs in the early 2000s.

Really guy. I'm sosick of these threads. I'm a ps3 player with 130 hours played and it's locked up once on me. Once. Yeah ok 5-7 hours in it starts to lag.. I quit game, reload. Problem solved. Get over yourself..

Why would you want a DLC first that most likely going to be overridden with bugs?

I just made a post asking the same thing.

how would giving PS3 users DLC sooner even help if it is so bug ridden that you cant play it? you would just have that content there taunting you

Agree with the people saying let xbox users get the bugs first, so ps3 and pc users get the next set lol.

sorry mean surprise features.

So they should give back the untold amount of moneys MS gave them so they can release DLC on all platforms at once as an apology to one user base who got equal amounts of bugs as the other platforms?

How self-important do you see yourself as? Also, you would run a business into the ground.

So I guess you're entirely overlooking the remedy of specific performance then? Or that any money/resources reasonably spent in reliance can result in damages for the party having made the loss?

Don't make blanket statements about contract law unless you know what you're talking about.

Not for an open world game. Just because everyone has "the same hardware" (myth not actually true about consoles) doesn't mean they have the same errors at the same time considering what is causing the errors is not readily known.

Other platforms didn't get a reliable save-bloat bug that ruins the vast majority of saves 10 or so hours in. They have a save bloat bug, but it's rare. On PS3 it affects almost every save and reduces the game to a constant 5 fps on that save (eventually).

You can run a business without resorting to anti-competitive, abusive greed. Try offering a superior product? Valve seems to be doing very well with similar philosophies.

@ Above: I don't think MS spent anything in reliance beyond peanuts drafting quick "Exclusive!" stickers for the Live store. Whatever they did spend they def. made back already from switched PS3 sales.

Why would you suggest free DLC as an apology to people who don't have the internet? Wtf Charles?