Fallout 3 DLC - Why Bethesda

[The_Night_Walker]

I am a total fan of Fallout, I think that it is one of the best games ever released but recently I have been getting really pissed off with it. why is all of the DLC going to the Xbox 360, I Can live with 'The Pitt and Operation Anchorage' being Xbox 360 exclusives as they just add small parts to the game, but with the new release 'Broken Steel' it actually changes the ending of the game thus affecting the storyline entirely so why should us PS3 owners be brushed aside by Money grabbing developers, surely they realise that this will affect how PS3 owners interact with there products, if I think that they will keep doing this then I am more likely to go to a game that treats Xbox and PS3 Owners the same way


Anyone have any thoughts on this

 

[BolognaBaloney]

360 is a bigger-market, so I guess they went exclusive with the dlc because of that.

 

[oliveira8]

Fallout 3 DLC is for the 360 and the PC.

And if you want to complain about FO3 for the PS3 complain about its bad quality, considering that the PS3 has the so fabled SUPAH hardware, FO3 for the PS3 is the worst version of the game.

 

[pdgeorge]

Personally I have decided to boycot bethesdas crap after how they treated fallout 3. I mean seriously, theres so many stupid problems like collision detection on the ps3 etc.

It's very obvious the playstation version was an afterthought. Especialy now.
"OHH!!! hey guys theres another system we forgot about"
"whats that?"
"playstation!"
"oh thank god I thought you qwere gonna say the wii... lol"
"yes yes, lol at that, but seriously we gotta get this thing ready for ps3 too"
"Ok we got... 2 days lets do it"

That would be a good indication of why it's not getting DLC. Because they never gave a toss about getting it on the ps3 to begin with. "If we release it and then ignore it, we won't have to look after it and ddeal with the mistakes"

 

[hydrahh]

They said that the DLC would be exclusive before Fallout 3 was even released. That's kinda like me buying MGS4 and being mad that it won't work in my 360.

I am also still kinda mad that we got Yoda instead of Vader for Soul Calibur, but meh, what can you do? *shrugs*

 

[pdgeorge]

Honestly I never heard about this whole "DLC won't be available on PS3" thing at all untill after I had purchased the game. I researched it and looked around alot to find out information about it and nowhere was it ever mentioned that.

Thats the sort of thing they need to make more information about. This just furthers the idea that bethesda are dicks

it's like charging full price for a half finished product, when your under the impression your getting the whole thing.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

It's actaully nothing to do with Bethesda being money grubbing, it's because of their issues with PSN, mALX could explain it a lot better than I can, but she's not here so you'll have to make do with me.

Sony charge developers for all DLC they put on PSN, whether it's free or not, Microsoft don't do this as they charge their users for Live, there are also some incompatability problems with the PS3, the 360 is similar to a PC in terms of architecture, while the PS3 is not, this means they have to code a lot of things again for the PS3 versions of their games, and with the already mentioned cost of putting DLC on PSN, it would be time consuming and costly for them.
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of all this, as I said mALX would do a much better job of explaining it.
And lastly, I am in no way, shape or form trying to start a squablle here, I too wish the DLC was available to the PS3 owners, I'm just hoping to help shed a little light on the issue.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

It's hardly an isolated case; 360-exclusive DLC for GTA IV raised similar complaints from PS3 owners.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Sony have some pretty stupid charges for DLC which outweigh a lot of the profit for developers/publishers. Thus, most of the companies are looking at Microsoft before any deals are signed.

 

[The_Night_Walker]

It's actaully nothing to do with Bethesda being money grubbing, it's because of their issues with PSN, mALX could explain it a lot better than I can, but she's not here so you'll have to make do with me.

Sony charge developers for all DLC they put on PSN, whether it's free or not, Microsoft don't do this as they charge their users for Live, there are also some incompatability problems with the PS3, the 360 is similar to a PC in terms of architecture, while the PS3 is not, this means they have to code a lot of things again for the PS3 versions of their games, and with the already mentioned cost of putting DLC on PSN, it would be time consuming and costly for them.
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of all this, as I said mALX would do a much better job of explaining it.
And lastly, I am in no way, shape or form trying to start a squablle here, I too wish the DLC was available to the PS3 owners, I'm just hoping to help shed a little light on the issue.

I didn't believe your comment until I just searched myself - what is wrong with Sony are they such morons that they think developers wont care about the charge - I never thought badly of Sony until this point in time - my god what money grabbers

 

[RheynbowDash]

You chose.... poorly.

(If you know what movie that line is from, Kudos.)

On Topic: I have to agree with the consensus here, there are more 360s in more homes than PS3s so Bethesda went with the winner obviously. Sony kicks all kinds of ass with the PS2, but i guess you cant win em all.

 

[Nimbus]

Exclusivity agreements per MS money. Buy a 360 or a good PC. Seriously Sony is really falling apart in the console war.

More like catching up: http://nexgenwars.com/

This time last year the difference was twice as big!

 

[jdnoth]

It's actaully nothing to do with Bethesda being money grubbing, it's because of their issues with PSN, mALX could explain it a lot better than I can, but she's not here so you'll have to make do with me.

Sony charge developers for all DLC they put on PSN, whether it's free or not, Microsoft don't do this as they charge their users for Live, there are also some incompatability problems with the PS3, the 360 is similar to a PC in terms of architecture, while the PS3 is not, this means they have to code a lot of things again for the PS3 versions of their games, and with the already mentioned cost of putting DLC on PSN, it would be time consuming and costly for them.
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of all this, as I said mALX would do a much better job of explaining it.
And lastly, I am in no way, shape or form trying to start a squablle here, I too wish the DLC was available to the PS3 owners, I'm just hoping to help shed a little light on the issue.

I didn't believe your comment until I just searched myself - what is wrong with Sony are they such morons that they think developers wont care about the charge - I never thought badly of Sony until this point in time - my god what money grabbers

You're seriously surprised Sony charges to host third party content on their own servers?
Find me a company that's prepared to hand out free bandwidth and server space.

 

[jdnoth]

And yes, Bethesda are obviously dicks, we've been through this so many times.
The dlc hasnt exactly been well recieved so far, so I'm not really bothered about not getting to play it. Seems like Bethesda are just trying to milk as much as they can out of the franchise.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

It's actaully nothing to do with Bethesda being money grubbing, it's because of their issues with PSN, mALX could explain it a lot better than I can, but she's not here so you'll have to make do with me.

Sony charge developers for all DLC they put on PSN, whether it's free or not, Microsoft don't do this as they charge their users for Live, there are also some incompatability problems with the PS3, the 360 is similar to a PC in terms of architecture, while the PS3 is not, this means they have to code a lot of things again for the PS3 versions of their games, and with the already mentioned cost of putting DLC on PSN, it would be time consuming and costly for them.
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of all this, as I said mALX would do a much better job of explaining it.
And lastly, I am in no way, shape or form trying to start a squablle here, I too wish the DLC was available to the PS3 owners, I'm just hoping to help shed a little light on the issue.

I didn't believe your comment until I just searched myself - what is wrong with Sony are they such morons that they think developers wont care about the charge - I never thought badly of Sony until this point in time - my god what money grabbers

Well they have to pay for server maintanance somehow.

 

[massau]

i just hate it that its not on ps3 and i hate it that Microsoft is now invading the living room doesn't they have enough power and money. (and maybe because i sad that i get banned trough Microsoft)

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

You chose.... poorly.

(If you know what movie that line is from, Kudos.)

On Topic: I have to agree with the consensus here, there are more 360s in more homes than PS3s so Bethesda went with the winner obviously. Sony kicks all kinds of ass with the PS2, but i guess you cant win em all.

Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade

EDIT:
And yes, it does suck for ps3 owners. It just seems messed up that the game is not console exclusive, but the dlc is.

 

[pdgeorge]

I spent about 3 weeks googling up about fallout 3, and the worst I ever heard for it was that "dispite the fact the Ps3 has better hardware, the graphics are worse in this version".

And if I have a PS3 and not an xbox, why would I be looking up microsofts announcements? I, myself, and a large number of other people don't go to the extent of searching up announcements made at E3 about consoles they don't own (let alone the times they bother to search up their own console).

The only thing I'm saying is they should not be allowed to sell half a game to one group of people, who for the most part, won't find out that they spend more time on google then they do playing the game.

So good boy for being an xbox fanboy, but I really don't care about that. I just think it's bad business ethics to have disclaimers about things that people for the most part don't find out about untill they already have bought it. (Sure the people who follow every piece of video game news knew about it, but what about other people?)