Fallout 3 DLC - Why Bethesda

Recommended Videos

Raaben387

New member
Mar 6, 2008
2
0
0
Look at it this way, when a large company like Tesco or Asda say they care about their customers, they are lying. in reality they care about their customers money and will do all they can to pretend to care about customer opinion because it brings them money, we all know this.

So when a large company like bethesda create a game and then go for the most profitable option for say dlc distribution, why are you all so shocked? they dont care, and why should they? they want money just like every other company out there looking to make a profit. Not evil, just good business.

Also, bethesda make awesome games :)
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
Hey, you're the ones who thought "free online" meant "free online". In reality it meant "Developers have to pay to have DLC on Sony machines."

Suddenly about $3 a month for actually having the chance to get DLC doesn't seem to bad now does it?
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
runtheplacered said:
KaMiKaZi014 said:
the PC is really the only gaming console I would ever need.
This.

The rest of you can have your petty console wars over your little outdated consoles, complete with the "can't upgrade it meaningfully ever" feature!

The console makers decided to make mini-PCs for gaming. Its no suprise that they now have all the same shortcomings as PCs and retain none of the benefit.
 

quack35

New member
Sep 1, 2008
2,197
0
0
It's because they probably FUCKING HATE working with the PS3?

I don't think they hate PS3 gamers or are out to get you, but the PS3 is probably too much of a hassle, and Microsoft are giving them money for it to be exclusive. Anyone would take that.
 

bodyklok

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,936
0
0
Given the state of the DLC and that I didn't think any of it was worth getting, I'm not going to miss any sleep on this one. Also I didn't like Fallout 3 that much anyway, though I do think in the grand scheme of things it's knida underated.
 

VoltySquirrel

New member
Feb 5, 2009
462
0
0
MasterStratus said:
Rowtree said:
we Payed for the game. Why are we not getting what we deserve, We pay Alot of out Money for a game, I personly Love Fallout 3 but am sick of Microsoft just buying deals because they have more money, sure sony make developers pay but who doesn't?
Microsoft doesn't charge as far as I know.
Also, you did pay for the game. And you got that. You payed the $60 for Fallout 3 and you got it. Live with it.
Well not all the time. The only thime I know of that Microsoft tried to get a company to pay for free DLC, or DLC to have a price tag was the 360 TF2 debate. Valve wanted the DLC to be free, but Microsoft wouldn't have it. They were already pissed about The Orange Box having 99 achievments.
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
Rowtree said:
we Payed for the game. Why are we not getting what we deserve, We pay Alot of out Money for a game, I personly Love Fallout 3 but am sick of Microsoft just buying deals because they have more money, sure sony make developers pay but who doesn't?
Microsoft and Nintendo.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
Oh please anyone saying the reason the 360 got the DLC exclusive is because the 360 is the winner is talking total shite. A unit difference of 7 million is nothing compared to the huge gap of the last gen and as has already been pointed out the difference in PS3 sales and 360 sales is closing very rapidly now.

The result is simple

MS exec: Here's a huge wad of cash make the exclusive content for 360 only
Beth exec: Okay.

It's THAT simple, nothing to do with server costs, or hosting costs because that would be recouped through the cost of the DL. It has nothing to do with the difference in sales between 360 and PS3 as anyone with a brain would have seen that the sales gap would be closed over the few years after the PS3s launch, which it has. It has nothing to do with coding because once you have the software to build the original game using it to build add on sections is a piece of piss.

It was cold hard cash right from the get go. It was a desperate bid by MS to retain some sort of premium for those that bought the 360. They knew that no third party developer in the modern climate would be stupid enough to launch a major console exclusive so they paid idiotically over the odds amounts to grab exclusive DLC.... and what's it got them

A DLC that was fairly fun but of no real consequence worth about 1 hour of your time.
A second DLC so broken that it still ain't fixed right
A thid DLC that no doubt will be yet another catalogue of fail

On the subject of DLC that actually resolves known issues with the game, well if the developer releases a game that is bust and then decides to release the fixes; such as the level cap and the continue playing after game end, as a DLC and then decides that the exclusive rights deal means they don't have to release the fixes on to a system that the game was released for then frankly the developer is just being a douche.

Now I own Fallout on PC and I've refused to pay for any of their DLC. This is because

a). They insist that you use the god awful GFLW system to pay for and download the DLC; fuck that!
b). Their downloads have been a mix of bland limited expansion to plain game breaking fail

for sony being a dick about dlc most of us don't have or won't use a credit card to buy dlc and with no dlc on disc we are screwed and the psn cards aren't available where i live
Yeah right, please, you can use a debit card to pay for DLC and that's something a god damn ten year old with a savings account can get.
 

SamuelT

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2009
3,324
0
41
Country
Nederland
BolognaBaloney said:
Straitjacketeering said:
hydrahh said:
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.
IT DOESN'T WORK IN YOURS EITHER!?
Someone should write them a stern, nicely worded letter!
Oh, I've done that.

With 'Gosh' and 'darn it' and everything!
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
Look at this from a business perspective.

It would be difficult for them to add the DLC to the PS3. It would be time consuming and they wouldn't generate as large a profit as they would like. Microsoft comes along and offers them money to make the DLC exclusive, the amount of money offered probably being larger than the predicted profits for the PS3 DLC. So what would you choose to do?
 

balimuzz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
596
0
0
The_Night_Walker said:
SmilingKitsune said:
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
This raises some good points about the quality of the PSN as a whole, and about the development of games for the PS3. On 360, MS has created a developer toolset that even a new developer to the console can use quite easily to develop their games successfully. The PS3 version of Fallout 3 failed because Sony has no such toolset. They send developers off on their own to develop the game without any sort of guidance. MS also sends consultants to work with developers and they do a great deal to help with the success of online games. Sony is very hands-off with the way that 3rd party is expected to develop games, and it results in 3rd party games on PS3 actually being of a slightly lower quality than their 360 counterparts.
 

cordeos

New member
Apr 2, 2009
275
0
0
balimuzz said:
This raises some good points about the quality of the PSN as a whole, and about the development of games for the PS3. On 360, MS has created a developer toolset that even a new developer to the console can use quite easily to develop their games successfully. The PS3 version of Fallout 3 failed because Sony has no such toolset. They send developers off on their own to develop the game without any sort of guidance. MS also sends consultants to work with developers and they do a great deal to help with the success of online games. Sony is very hands-off with the way that 3rd party is expected to develop games, and it results in 3rd party games on PS3 actually being of a slightly lower quality than their 360 counterparts.
so what is the explanation for the PS3 getting the bioshock DLC and the Free Unreal Tournament 3 expansion?
 

balimuzz

New member
Apr 15, 2009
596
0
0
cordeos said:
balimuzz said:
This raises some good points about the quality of the PSN as a whole, and about the development of games for the PS3. On 360, MS has created a developer toolset that even a new developer to the console can use quite easily to develop their games successfully. The PS3 version of Fallout 3 failed because Sony has no such toolset. They send developers off on their own to develop the game without any sort of guidance. MS also sends consultants to work with developers and they do a great deal to help with the success of online games. Sony is very hands-off with the way that 3rd party is expected to develop games, and it results in 3rd party games on PS3 actually being of a slightly lower quality than their 360 counterparts.
so what is the explanation for the PS3 getting the bioshock DLC and the Free Unreal Tournament 3 expansion?
I wasn't talking about DLC, I was talking about developing games for the PS3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think that this was the first time that the team assigned to make Fallout had ever developed for the PS3, and with no help, a first time 3rd party will have some trouble.
 

cordeos

New member
Apr 2, 2009
275
0
0
balimuzz said:
so what is the explanation for the PS3 getting the bioshock DLC and the Free Unreal Tournament 3 expansion?
I wasn't talking about DLC, I was talking about developing games for the PS3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i think that this was the first time that the team assigned to make Fallout had ever developed for the PS3, and with no help, a first time 3rd party will have some trouble.[/quote]

well bethesda released Oblivion for the PS3 and i think at least some of the team members were the same
 

GodsOneMistake

New member
Jan 31, 2009
2,250
0
0
Wow that must suck to have bought it on the PS3 like i did by accident :'( . Oh well i sold that game a while back
 

Shapsters

New member
Dec 16, 2008
6,079
0
0
Although I am a slight Xbox fanboy (PS3 is teh sux) I do agree that it isn't fair for one console to have game changing DLC and not the other. I mean, PS3 sad enough that they own the PS3, games now are just rubbing it in. Give the poor guys a break.
 

tenlong

New member
Apr 26, 2009
548
0
0
i glad i waited. i knew the game would be buggy so 1 waited a few months. i only ran into a few bugs tho.