can we PLEASE get a DLC announcement... : V - Skyrim

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:07 pm

i'm sorry but this is just getting to be frustrating. i mean you guys said xbox would get DLC before everyone else a month after release. well, here we are, what, 3 months almost 4 after release and not a single dlc whisper? i don't get it. just at least tell us what you're working on, it's not that big of a deal for you to just tell us...we're your fans we want some new content..

Dude.. relax. It's only been 3 months. Probably won't here anything for at least 3 more months.

This isn't Dragon Age where the DLC will be one castle and some armor.

But this is what happens when people rush through the game. Not the way TES is meant to be played.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:44 pm

do you guys think the dlc will be huge, like si?

I would assume it's a possibility, nothing more. Think along Fallout 3 lines, you won't be disappointed.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:51 am

TES DLCs usually come a while after the game is released, just be patient.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:29 pm

I suspect they will announce the first one at the start of March. The first of these is probably nearly complete by now, as the Bethesda quest-writers, modellers and world builders are not the sort who would be working on the patches which is more of a scripting job.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:51 am

The games not long been out give them a chance to actually rest, patch experiement new mechanics, concieve a great story (unless they already have) and start production, its not ''sweet 6months of 14hour days, guys lets do it again!''

have some thanks for the dev team in this (and many other) studios and tittle putting in this much time and effort.

i mean you guys said xbox would get DLC before everyone else a month after release.

which you will do, and in all honesty official DLC should be released accross the board at the same time, anyway mainly they said ''you will get it a month before everyone else'' they did not say ''a month after release is our first DLC''

i prefer it when devs take the stance of ''it is done when it is done'' .

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:44 am

Yeah xbox gets it a month before the rest of us do, that gives Bethesda a full month of fixing any sort of bugs that might be in it. We should thank our testers.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:31 am

Apparently, the offical release date is exactly 1 calendar month before Diablo 3's. Whilst waiting, you may get a new wallpaper.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:46 am

Apparently, the offical release date is exactly 1 calendar month before Diablo 3's. Whilst waiting, you may get a new wallpaper.

Source?

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:47 am

i'm sorry but this is just getting to be frustrating. i mean you guys said xbox would get DLC before everyone else a month after release. well, here we are, what, 3 months almost 4 after release and not a single dlc whisper? i don't get it. just at least tell us what you're working on, it's not that big of a deal for you to just tell us...we're your fans we want some new content..

Feeling a bit self entitled, are we? Us fans will get our DLC when it comes out. Let's also not forget that Bethesda said they would like to do larger sized dlc, so maybe that's what they are doing. I'd rather they not rush this, they base game has already fallen a bit flat and I really don't want to have a repeat of that again.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:17 pm

i'm sorry but this is just getting to be frustrating. i mean you guys said xbox would get DLC before everyone else a month after release. well, here we are, what, 3 months almost 4 after release and not a single dlc whisper? i don't get it. just at least tell us what you're working on, it's not that big of a deal for you to just tell us...we're your fans we want some new content..

they lied again, they gave PC a bunch of free DLC just recently.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:51 pm

Some people are lucky. Some people, even after four patches, have a broken game on their hands. This is not spouting off nonsense. This is a statement of fact. Unlike the OP, which contains a falsehood: see DevenTarn's post.

Genuine question : was this thread started to engender a discussion, or merely to complain?

and some people had no problems until the recent patch.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:25 am

they lied again, they gave PC a bunch of free DLC just recently.

They got a texture pack or something? No big deal there. And they never said we'll get something a month after release. They said that Xbox will get the DLC a month before the rest of us.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:18 am

They got a texture pack or something? No big deal there. And they never said we'll get something a month after release. They said that Xbox will get the DLC a month before the rest of us.

An HD pack that could of easily been put on the 360, and in fact, they owe it to the 360 and ps3 due to the ridiculously pathetic 3.8 gig install size of the game, the PC already had a 6 gig install size, so their textures were FINE comparatively. And from what I read, also some weapons.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:09 pm

An HD pack that could of easily been put on the 360, and in fact, they owe it to the 360 and ps3 due to the ridiculously pathetic 3.8 gig install size of the game, the PC already had a 6 gig install size, so their textures were FINE comparatively. And from what I read, also some weapons.

The PC is a lot more powerful than a console. It's got more capacity so why wouldn't they have a bigger install size of the game? They have more things in the game than us.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:33 am

The PC is a lot more powerful than a console. It's got more capacity so why wouldn't they have a bigger install size of the game?

You are missing the point, every major 360 game has an install size of 6 - 8 gigs now a days, PER disc, this game is almost half the size of almost any major game. The 360 AND ps3 could have handled better textures, but for some odd reason, they said F it. This game is about the size of a large arcade game at the moment.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:03 am

An HD pack that could of easily been put on the 360,

Only if you want single digit frame rates and your xbox to overheat.

Only the seriously top end pcs can run the HD texture pack. The mid range PCs (Those similar to console specs) have no chance. Reccomended GBs for the HD pack are 4GB minimum, xbox doesn't come anywhere close to that.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:59 pm

You are missing the point, every major 360 game has an install size of 6 - 8 gigs now a days, PER disc, this game is almost half the size of almost any major game. The 360 AND ps3 could have handled better textures, but for some odd reason, they said F it. This game is about the size of a large arcade game at the moment.

It all depends on what you're installing. Skyrim doesn't install a bunch of weapons, HD packs and all that stuff.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:53 am

Only if you want single digit frame rates and your xbox to overheat.

Only the seriously top end pcs can run the HD texture pack. The mid range PCs (Those similar to console specs) have no chance. Reccomended GBs for the HD pack are 4GB minimum, xbox doesn't come anywhere close to that.

They could of upped the graphics and textures regardless, as said, every 360 game has better textures and graphics than skyrim now a days, at least every major game, and they all have install sizes of 6 - 8 gigs, and they have NO problems.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:13 am

It all depends on what you're installing. Skyrim doesn't install a bunch of weapons, HD packs and all that stuff.

Um, it installs the whole game, all weapons included, where do you think they come from, thin air?

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:30 am

Um, it installs the whole game, all weapons included, where do you think they come from, thin air?

Of course, I never said that it didn't. But it doesn't install a lot of things that other games have. Probably why the install size is so low. Maybe to make room for future DLC's?

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:53 am

Guys whats going on? A texture pack is just what it is,it's not really new Dlc and i seriously don't think the box could handle those 2k textures when 2 year old 1 gb gcards are having trouble compared to the 6 year old tech the box has, i'm not knocking the consoles,i'm knocking the companies that has enforced a six year wait on the next console generations.

Other games have a small map size not a continuous load.

there is one bone to pick "Why the hell was the pc version so small"

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:01 am

Of course, I never said that it didn't. But it doesn't install a lot of things that other games have. Probably why the install size is so low. Maybe to make room for future DLC's?

There is no excuse for the ridiculous install size, "For future dlc's?" Absolutely not, that has nothing to do with the install size, unless the DLC is already on disc, in which case, should be free, and already available. Zero excuse. They saw that the PC disc size limit was reached, and they already had the graphics dumbed down for 360 and ps3 and they were like "Better leave it, dont want to have to pay for two discs to be created for pc" God forbid.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:44 am

Guys whats going on? A texture pack is just what it is,it's not really new Dlc and i seriously don't think the box could handle those 2k textures when 2 year old 1 gb gcards are having trouble compared to the 6 year old tech the box has, i'm not knocking the consoles,i'm kmocking the companies that has enforced a six year wait on the next console generations.

The new xbox and PS should be out this year, but instead they keep bumping it back, it is annoying, i dont think there has ever been a system that has been out this long without a hint of when the new ones will be released.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:38 pm

There is no excuse for the ridiculous install size, "For future dlc's?" Absolutely not, that has nothing to do with the install size, unless the DLC is already on disc, in which case, should be free, and already available. Zero excuse. They saw that the PC disc size limit was reached, and they already had the graphics dumbed down for 360 and ps3 and they were like "Better leave it, dont want to have to pay for two discs to be created for pc" God forbid.

I don't really care about the install size myself. It doesn't mean anything. The next generation consoles will probably be better for this type of game anyway. They should just develop it for each platform anyway.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:39 pm

Install size doesn't mean a thing compared to RAM. The PS3 is faring even worse with it's partitioned RAM. And install sizes for games with non-game-engine rendered cutscenes have much larger install sizes, doesn't mean more game.