NeoGAF

NBtoaster · 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by JehutyRunner:

Dawnguard's now up on Steam. Linkylinkylinkylinklinklink.

$25?!

edit: I thought Bethesda stopped aussie taxing :(

MikeE21286 · (08-02-2012, 10:02 PM)

Originally Posted by Zabuza:

Now I can platinum the vanilla game before the DLC comes out.

Silver linings

At least Bethesda PR didn't spin it that way :p

canedaddy · (08-02-2012, 10:02 PM)

Originally Posted by RoboPlato:

Area any of Bethesda's games worth playing on PS3? I've been tempted to buy the GotY editions for FO3 and New Vegas but I've only heard terrible things about them. I plan on getting Skyrim at some point but it needs a price drop.

Only if PS3 is your only option and you have a pretty high tolerance for technical problems. I fall into that category... played Oblivion, Fallout 3 GOTY and New Vegas on PS3, and had a pretty good time with all three. Like you, I'm waiting for Skyrim to get cheap.

Zabuza · (08-02-2012, 10:02 PM)

I can see Xbox getting the next DLC before PS3 gets Dawnguard.

StuBurns · (08-02-2012, 10:02 PM)

Originally Posted by goodfella:

The engine is not broken, the PS3 doesn't have enough ram. There is no fix for this.

No, that's not how a product works. Imagine if MS released Halo 4, designed for Xbox 3 specs on 360, and it ran at 4fps, and they said "well, of course, 360 doesn't have sufficient processing or memory to run this competently".

The PS3 has the RAM it has, Skyrim requires too much for that SKU, if that is the case.

Lingitiz · (08-02-2012, 10:03 PM)

Dawnguard PC worth it? I haven't followed the general opinion on the 360 version.

whalleywhat · (08-02-2012, 10:03 PM)

Originally Posted by TurkishEmperor:

I didnt have problems with other open world games on ps3. Red Dead, GTA 4 and inFamous worked great with the "limited ram".

That's subjective.

MikeE21286 · (08-02-2012, 10:04 PM)

Originally Posted by NBtoaster:

$25?!

$19.99?

goodfella · (08-02-2012, 10:05 PM)

Originally Posted by TurkishEmperor:

I didnt have problems with other open world games on ps3. Red Dead, GTA 4 and inFamous worked great with the "limited ram".

Those games don't use up as much ram. That Obsidian guy (Josh Sawyer I think) explained how it all works, from his experience on NV.

Beth engine games have a hell of a lot of persistence, and keeping track of all that takes up memory

Red Dead, GTA and infamous are all linear.

JehutyRunner · (08-02-2012, 10:05 PM)

Originally Posted by whalleywhat:

That's subjective.

TBH, I didn't notice any issues of the PS3 version of GTA IV. I had both console versions and it was fine for me on PS3 (both vanilla and retail Episodes from Liberty City).

Zaventem · (08-02-2012, 10:05 PM)

Originally Posted by TurkishEmperor:

I didnt have problems with other open world games on ps3. Red Dead, GTA 4 and inFamous worked great with the "limited ram".

It's.. it's not the same!1! Bethesda is the gold standard everyone should look up to!

Ingueferroque · (08-02-2012, 10:05 PM)

$20 for DLC? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

NoirVisage · (08-02-2012, 10:06 PM)

Originally Posted by ReaperXL07:

Oh don't worry, knowing Bethesda if this is true, and they are waiting to make sure it runs well on PS3 that just means that it will never be released on PS3.

Thats what i read from that quote, and its cool with me. i personally don't care about skyrim anymore, unless its a massive difference, i can't get into the vapid combat.

whalleywhat · (08-02-2012, 10:07 PM)

Originally Posted by JehutyRunner:

TBH, I didn't notice any issues of the PS3 version of GTA IV. I had both console versions and it was fine for me on PS3 (both vanilla and retail Episodes from Liberty City).

I don't know about the framerate, but the game looks like my tv's been smeared with vaseline.

Arya Stark · (08-02-2012, 10:07 PM)

Originally Posted by Zaventem:

It's.. it's not the same!1! Bethesda is the gold standard everyone should look up to!

The gold standard of making terrible, unfinished "AAA" games? Sure.

Loxley · (08-02-2012, 10:07 PM)

Isn't this supposed to be as substantial as an expansion pack? People remember those, right? $20 doesn't seem unreasonable if that's true.

GoofsterStud · (08-02-2012, 10:07 PM)

Originally Posted by Ingueferroque:

$20 for DLC? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah I'll wait for 66% off :-P

An expansion pack with less content then a 9.99 dlc pack for KOA. SURE... :-P

ilnadmy · (08-02-2012, 10:09 PM)

It would be hilarious if the PS3 version clocks in at $25 due to "extra development time required."

goodfella · 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by StuBurns:

No, that's not how a product works. Imagine if MS released Halo 4, designed for Xbox 3 specs on 360, and it ran at 4fps, and they said "well, of course, 360 doesn't have sufficient processing or memory to run this competently".

The PS3 has the RAM it has, Skyrim requires too much for that SKU, if that is the case.

Yeah, the halo engine would not be broken in that case, the 360 would just not be able to run it.

I will quote from myself, which you so gracefully deleted in your reply.

*Ahem*

Originally Posted by goodfella:

The engine is not broken, the PS3 doesn't have enough ram. There is no fix for this. I would rather them not change the whole game in order to accommodate the PS3.

They should have done a better job at optimisation for the release of the base game, but at least they have fixed it, and they have now learnt their lesson, and are optimising DG more.

Originally Posted by Arya Stark:

The gold standard of making terrible, unfinished "AAA" games? Sure.

Oh, their games are terrible now? Gosh, what was I thinking enjoying every game of theirs I have played. Silly me. I guess I better spread the news to all those other people who thought they enjoyed the game.

Mikey Jr. · (08-02-2012, 10:09 PM)

Originally Posted by RoboPlato:

Area any of Bethesda's games worth playing on PS3? I've been tempted to buy the GotY editions for FO3 and New Vegas but I've only heard terrible things about them. I plan on getting Skyrim at some point but it needs a price drop.

Rule of thumb, never buy a bethesda game on ps3. Trust me. Fo3 was terribad. One of the dlc's ran at like 20fps the whole time. Terrible experience.

comrade · (08-02-2012, 10:10 PM)

Originally Posted by GoofsterStud:

Yeah I'll wait for 66% off :-P

An expansion pack with less content then a 9.99 dlc pack for KOA. SURE... :-P

I'm with you. Hopped on Steam to take a look and did a double take at the price. Will wait for sale.

Pinko Marx · (08-02-2012, 10:10 PM)

I understand people are still bitter over vanilla being so bad but why the anger now? They're being up front, honest and are working towards fixing the issues. What are they doing wrong here?

StuBurns · (08-02-2012, 10:11 PM)

Originally Posted by goodfella:

Yeah, the halo engine would not be broken in that case, the 360 would just not be able to run it.

I will quote from myself, which you so gracefully deleted in your reply.

*Ahem*

I deleted it, because you don't know that at all. They haven't fixed it. They might be fixing it with the DLC, or they might be just trying to get it to the same dog shit standard the base game is.

fluffydelusions · (08-02-2012, 10:12 PM)

$19.99 for dawnguard DLC?? Yeah...passsss will wait till winter sale.

CaptainAhab · (08-02-2012, 10:12 PM)

I haven't played a Bethesda game on any platform that didn't come with game breaking bugs.

Jerkapotamus · (08-02-2012, 10:12 PM)

Microsoft's exclusivity deal for DLC seems pretty unnecessary at this point.

goodfella · (08-02-2012, 10:14 PM)

Originally Posted by StuBurns:

I deleted it, because you don't know that at all. They haven't fixed it. They might be fixing it with the DLC, or they might be just trying to get it to the same dog shit standard the base game is.

I was not aware of the current state of the PS3 version, I thought it was much better.

In that case, Bethesda should have either spent more time optimising the game, or just not released it at all. (The engine remains unbroken, though I have no idea why I insist on arguing semantics here.)

(Also, that is the first time I have used the word semantics, so if it used incorrectly, my apologies.)

Alex · 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by TurkishEmperor:

I didnt have problems with other open world games on ps3. Red Dead, GTA 4 and inFamous worked great with the "limited ram".

None of those games go anywhere near as far as the Bethesda stuff in what it has to store and sculpt in memory.

Two of those games also have significantly worse PS3 versions despite that. The only unscathed product is Infamous, which is basically just an action game with an open world backdrop. It's also first party and thus coded to the metal on the platform.

I'm not going to really sit here and defend Bethesda, because I don't like Elder Scrolls titles and they are fairly slipshod, but it's not some amazing secret six years later that the PS3 has obnoxious hardware and RAM issues.

That's why it'll be nice for Sony to actually get out some more standardized hardware next cycle. I'm sure the exotic nature of what they ran for the past two cycles is exciting to some, but it's really not worth the headaches in a multiplatform world, especially when your primary development is coming from another language and you're waiting for documentation to catch up.

CorrisD · (08-02-2012, 10:14 PM)

Originally Posted by goodfella:

The engine is not broken, the PS3 doesn't have enough ram. There is no fix for this. I would rather them not change the whole game in order to accommodate the PS3.

They should have done a better job at optimisation for the release of the base game, but at least they have fixed it, and they have now learnt their lesson, and are optimising DG more.

Maybe broken was the wrong word, but it is an issue with the core engine that they have yet to change from previous incarnations, regardless of the lies they first spout out about how it is a new engine or how much they had changed.

The issue might have just affected the PS3 at the time, but they didn't learn their lesson, this issue also cropped up in Fallout 3 GOTY, New Vegas and wasn't solved by the time Skyrim was out which has a lot more going on. It might not be affecting the 360 like it is the PS3, but the very same thing can happen on it or any console platform theoretically because of how the engine was built and is uses memory.

Not that it really matters at this point just before we move onto next-gen, but someone needs a smack in the face with a lightly padded pillow for thinking having so much loaded into memory at the same time was a good idea instead of coming up with a streaming alternative in the engine overhauls they have done.

StuBurns · (08-02-2012, 10:16 PM)

Originally Posted by goodfella:

I was not aware of the current state of the PS3 version, I thought it was much better.

In that case, Bethesda should have either spent more time optimising the game, or just not released it at all.

I blame Sony as much as Bethesda, I can't believe they'd want a game out under their name that performs so poorly, and I can't believe Sony would allow them to do so.

Nilaul · (08-02-2012, 10:17 PM)

Originally Posted by jayb:

Man, why does Bethesda suck so bad at making PS3 games? Most other ps3 devs are able to make a stable game.

Good on them for actually doing better QA for this at least.

PS3 is like the girl thats really complicated to get and understand

goodfella · (08-02-2012, 10:18 PM)

Originally Posted by badchoiceboobies:

Maybe broken was the wrong word, but it is an issue with the core engine that they have yet to change from previous incarnations, regardless of the lies they first spout out about how it is a new engine or how much they had changed.

The issue might have just affected the PS3 at the time, but they didn't learn their lesson, this issue also cropped up in Fallout 3 GOTY, New Vegas and wasn't solved by the time Skyrim was out which has a lot more going on. It might not be affecting the 360 like it is the PS3, but the very same thing can happen on it or any console platform theoretically because of how the engine was built and is uses memory.

Not that it really matters at this point just before we move onto next-gen, but someone needs a smack in the face with a lightly padded pillow for thinking having so much loaded into memory at the same time was a good idea instead of coming up with a streaming alternative in the engine overhauls they have done.

You are right.

This is the most I have ever posted in a thread and I have no idea why, lol.

Nilaul · (08-02-2012, 10:19 PM)

Originally Posted by StuBurns:

I blame Sony as much as Bethesda, I can't believe they'd want a game out under their name that performs so poorly, and I can't believe Sony would allow them to do so.

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

Nugg · (08-02-2012, 10:21 PM)

I'm curious about what they consider poor performance on PS3. I mean, Skyrim won't even start at all on my PC since I installed Dawnguard. Is it worst than that on PS3? Is the console exploding or something?

StuBurns · (08-02-2012, 10:23 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

Indeed they should. But Skyrim is by far the worst performance I've ever seen on the console, or any console, and it's really far into the generation. Initially PS3 had a lot of bad ports, but the last couple of years has been evening out for the most part. It's too late for Sony to redesign the PS3, it's not too late for Sony to decline games certification.

Arya Stark · (08-02-2012, 10:24 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

To be fair, Bethesda should learn to make games for the platform (seriously, they've done four or more games now) or just not make games for it. There's a ton of games on PS3 that put Skyrim to shame in every single aspect. But yea it's obviously Sony's fault that Bethesda are inept.

HomerSimpson-Man · (08-02-2012, 10:24 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

And to be completely fair, it's also inexcusable to release a game that reaches not only reach single digits but flat out 0 frames per second making it look like the game froze. That's not a excuse when other devs don't release such a mess.

Stitch · (08-02-2012, 10:24 PM)

20 bucks for DLC ? Ahahaha I think I saw Sleeping Dogs for 25 somewhere lol

El-Suave · (08-02-2012, 10:25 PM)

It's funny that they've managed to get paid for their incompetence. Apparently Microsoft could have had console exclusivity on dlc for free and maybe not even timed.

Freedom = $1.05 · (08-02-2012, 10:26 PM)

Is the ps3 version of skyrim competent now? I haven't played a Bethesda game since fallout 3 and that was a broken nightmare on the ps3

Synless · (08-02-2012, 10:26 PM)

Originally Posted by SolidSnakex:

New Vegas with DLC on the PS3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3gWvxHWFuI

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454358

Please tell me people sued for this...

Sotha Sil · (08-02-2012, 10:27 PM)

Originally Posted by Freedom = $1.05:

Is the ps3 version of skyrim competent now? I haven't played a Bethesda game since fallout 3 and that was a broken nightmare on the ps3

No, it's not - and most likely never will be.

diamount · (08-02-2012, 10:28 PM)

GOTY edition it is, no way am I spending that much for DLC.

wsippel · (08-02-2012, 10:30 PM)

Originally Posted by JehutyRunner:

Dawnguard also releasing on PC today on Steam.

It's out, but... €20!? For DLC? That's what I paid for Skyrim as a whole! They're honestly out of their fucking minds.

fluffydelusions · (08-02-2012, 10:31 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

Isn't the issue with the PS3 the way the RAM is split up? IIRC that is what they said anyway why PS3 version has issues.

Macmanus · (08-02-2012, 10:32 PM)

Dawn Guard is awesome. More of a mini expansion. 20+ hours of play with relative ease.

I suppose I should feel bad for the PS3 folks, but I really don't. It really is a fool me once sort of thing with Bethesda at this point. The Xbox version was competent but I really can't imagine playing the crux of this game on anything other than a PC.

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

Yup.

Nilaul · (08-02-2012, 10:32 PM)

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson-Man:

And to be completely fair, it's also inexcusable to release a game that reaches not only reach single digits but flat out 0 frames per second making it look like the game froze. That's not a excuse when other devs don't release such a mess.

Im not saying that they should release the game, Im saying that theres also a fault in Sony :P

sleepykyo · (08-02-2012, 10:33 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

No question that Sony should be sued for such shoddy quality standards and rejected Skyrim (even though it would have hurt financially), but Bethseda isn't partially accountable for repeatedly releasing broken games? Every generation there is weaker hardware, it isn't like next gen the WiiU, PS4 and 720 are going to be identical. Can't say I like the implication that publishers should get free reign and benefit from releasing broken software.

Nilaul · (08-02-2012, 10:37 PM)

Originally Posted by fluffydelusions:

Isn't the issue with the PS3 the way the RAM is split up? IIRC that is what they said anyway why PS3 version has issues.

One of the issues,

With that ram (or was it core) the game had it be re-written once on the blueray for every ram pool/core it uses. So textures had to have multiple copies on the disk, or something like this.

Some one verfify this, it was so long ago before I read this.

Synless · (08-02-2012, 10:38 PM)

Originally Posted by Nilaul:

To be fair, sony should had created a more developer friendly console in the first place

Oh, it's Sony's fault now...? No, the only thing they are at fault for is allowing Bethesda to release such a shitty bug ridden game. Bethesda should learn to code better on the platforms they are releasing their games on or not do it at all. They got away with it with New Vegas, they thought they could do it again and it almost worked.