Fallout 3 DLC - Why Bethesda
- Thread starter The_Night_Walker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And its also Sony's fault, due to the way they fund PSN, Bethesda would have to be made to have not go exclusive.elitepie931 said:
Look at it from their point of view they are offered x amount of cash to not have to pay to have the DLC on PSN and then pay everytime its downloaded?
The way PSN works they may not have even released the DLC on the PS3 even if they didnt have an exclusivity deal. So it is not just MS's or Bethesda's fault some of the blame also lies with Sony.
But this agument falls on deaf fanboy ears, they want what they cant have and that is that, they will ***** and moan untill God of War 3 comes out then go on about how great that is and how all the xbox owners are missing out and stupid for not buying a PS3 for that one good game.
I've only played Fallout 3 on the PC. It's awesome! BUT THEY NEED MULTIPLAYER. Like Fable 2's co-op mode where player 2 is just a random person that helps player 1, the real hero.
But V.A.T.S. will be a problem to do. Both players are frozen if you use it.Schnippshly said:
You could give both players 50% of their normal points and both players could shot a target in V.A.T.S.. That might work but I don't think Bethesda will do that.
That makes no sense? So what if the 360 is a bigger market, they are cutting out a portion of what they could get. PS3+360 market > 360 only market.BolognaBaloney said:
Doesn't affect me either way, I got it on PC even if I wanted to play it again, but that post confused me slightly ^^
I was more going for:elitepie931 said:Ah, I see.scarbunny said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but what your saying is...
Bethesda just had a better deal with Microsoft.
If I'm wrong, I didn't read it right.
Considering how Sony treats DLC and content on PSN generally is it any wonder that Bethesda jumped at the chance of not only not having to pay for having the DLC hosted and everytime it is downloaded, but also an up front lump sum, and not having to spend time/money codeing for the PS3?
I'm not saying its right I'm just saying it is completly understandable and, from a buisness perspective at least, the most sensible course they could have taken.
Is it fair? Not at all.
Yeah, in theory it would be better to have both markets, but Microsoft pays a fee to keep it exclusive, has the same basic structure as the PC's DLC and don't charge the developers for content.DeadRow said:
Then with the PS3 it's more work, they'd have to pay to for it, less people play it, etc.
If the profit for the PS3 doesn't equal the exclusive bonus with Microsoft they won't release it for the PS3. Although I don't know they exact numbers I'm fairly certain that's what happened.
Yeah, it's not fair. But they don't see you as people, they see you as revenue.
Why is this even an argument? Am I one of the few that actually remember reading that the PS3 version won't be getting any DLC, because Microsoft payed Bethesda to keep it exclusive?
And the only games I can remember that have 360 exclusive DLC are FallOut 3, GTA4 and The Orange Box. The Orange Box was ported to the PS3 by EA, so that doesn't count, and the other two were both payed for. I haven't heard anything about Sony's costs making any developers only release something on XBL.
And the only games I can remember that have 360 exclusive DLC are FallOut 3, GTA4 and The Orange Box. The Orange Box was ported to the PS3 by EA, so that doesn't count, and the other two were both payed for. I haven't heard anything about Sony's costs making any developers only release something on XBL.
Why is it unfair or Bethesda "are dicks" for not putting fallout 3 DLC on the PS3?
Its thier game, they designed and produced it, so its thier choice what they chose to do with the game.
They Chose to Give it to Microsoft, for whatever reason it doesnt matter, They are not Obliged to produce any DLC at all, let alone produce it for everyone.
Buy buying the game that does not grant you equality with everyone else, nor more importance than anyone else. those PS3 users purchased a PS3 Format version of the game, which is differnt to PC and different to Xbox360.
Argueing that "We Deserve the DLC because we bought Fallout 3" has no validility nor relevance, the DLC is a Seperate Addon package to the game that users have to PAY and i Emphasise PAY for. it is not a free addon that is included into the game, thus making a transaction for the Addon (DLC) in this case removes all Rights to "I should have it cos i bough Fallout 3" This isnt a communist society/gaming industry we live in where everyone has equal rights to a piece of software, its a free capitalist market controlled by economics and the exploitation of resources to make the most $$$$. If someone wants or not wants to do something (release a DLC to a certain Console), its within thier freedom to do so.
Thats my 2 cents on the debate.
and for those that want to know Yes i Have the PC version, and Yes i have all 3 DLC. And yes i would be dissapointed about missing out on extra content if i had the PS3, but i understand Markets and economics, And also the Rights for developers to do whatever the fuck they want with thier itellectual property.
Its thier game, they designed and produced it, so its thier choice what they chose to do with the game.
They Chose to Give it to Microsoft, for whatever reason it doesnt matter, They are not Obliged to produce any DLC at all, let alone produce it for everyone.
Buy buying the game that does not grant you equality with everyone else, nor more importance than anyone else. those PS3 users purchased a PS3 Format version of the game, which is differnt to PC and different to Xbox360.
Argueing that "We Deserve the DLC because we bought Fallout 3" has no validility nor relevance, the DLC is a Seperate Addon package to the game that users have to PAY and i Emphasise PAY for. it is not a free addon that is included into the game, thus making a transaction for the Addon (DLC) in this case removes all Rights to "I should have it cos i bough Fallout 3" This isnt a communist society/gaming industry we live in where everyone has equal rights to a piece of software, its a free capitalist market controlled by economics and the exploitation of resources to make the most $$$$. If someone wants or not wants to do something (release a DLC to a certain Console), its within thier freedom to do so.
Thats my 2 cents on the debate.
and for those that want to know Yes i Have the PC version, and Yes i have all 3 DLC. And yes i would be dissapointed about missing out on extra content if i had the PS3, but i understand Markets and economics, And also the Rights for developers to do whatever the fuck they want with thier itellectual property.
What other plan? If it exists, I have seen no evidence of it. What's the plan, play dead by releasing a long series of lackluster games while Xbox dominates sales? Besides, how does 360 breed failure? Are you actually going to support any of that, or just try ball-busting (because that's worked in the past, right?)Reg5879 said:
Don't worry your not missing much.
The Pitt and Ancorhage sucked and were hardly worth 12 bucks. While broken steel is just an extra what 4 missions on the main storyline.
The Pitt and Ancorhage sucked and were hardly worth 12 bucks. While broken steel is just an extra what 4 missions on the main storyline.
Heavy Rain (The game without a game over screen), MAG (256 players), also some good exclusive like Uncharted 2, Infamous, tell me, what do Xbox have planned??? Just think of what else Sony have in store for us. Also, sales does not mean a system is better, it just tells me alot of people are too cheap to buy a PS3, also the Xbox 360 has reached it's peak, the PS3 can still do much more. Finally, the Xbox breeds failure because of RROD and scratching up your games and that they offer u nothing but crappy Halo games.Lord Kofun said:
The Wii is a sellout? Are you serious?Reg5879 said:
These are companies. With money on thier minds.
They will always choose what they percieve to be the best option for generating income, they were never non-business orientated in the first place.
Calling a company a sell out is like calling shit stinky.
Nintendo went from breeding Hardcore fans to catering to non-gamers. I'm not saying it was a poor business decision. I'm saying it was a brilliant one, but from a gamer's perspective, it was a sellout.miracleofsound said:
= "Nothing but crappy Halo games"... really? I haven't seen this much denial since Bill Clinton, right before he fessed up.Reg5879 said:
= Heavy Rain = Incapability of failing/dying? I'm sure that'll be good. Besides, it's made by the same people who did Farenheit. Until I play this game for myself, I'm just going to assume it is going to be as awful as their first go at it.
= MAG = Ambitious, sure, but I would have a hard time believing that the load times and internet connections could be bearable. Think about it, you would still have to act on the existing "host" system, and that is faulty when it's only eight people. Even if the system could handle it, could ALL of the player's internet connections?
= Uncharted 2 = The first one was.. cliche and weird? I have no reason to doubt the second won't be as weird.
= Infamous = Granted, I've been waiting for something like this. Congratulations, PS3 got one more point! Woooo!
= Logical fallacy: False Dichotomy. Just because they didn't buy the PS3 means that they must be cheap. Are you sure they didn't realize that they would have just liked the 360 better?
= PS3's and 360's have not reached their peak. I'm sure that the PS3 could outperform engine-wise when it came down to it, but what game is REALLY using it? (A SUCCESSFUL one, mind you.)
= RROD is behind us. Yeah, a new system had problems at its beginning. It appears more hardware has that problem than those who don't. That is true for non-consoles as well.
= It doesn't scratch them up? I own several of the 360 launch games, bought when they were first released, and they don't have a scratch on them. That's called being careful.
True, the release of the wii has sealed nintendo's spot at the head of the casual race, but thinking back to my childhood with Nintendo, I'm sure they were well aware mario 3 was gonna sell buckets! Not to mention Mario Kart. Nintendo have always just been a kinda family friendly, brightly coloured company.Lord Kofun said:
I have absolutely no interest in the Wii though so I agree it doesn't appeal to hardcore gamers as much.
