Skyrim DLC (or lack thereof on PS3)

[lapan]

I make it a general rule to not buy first person games on consoles if avoidable, i prefer mouse controls for those. Especially if they have such a big mod-community as TES

 

[Something Amyss]

and in no way should I believe that I'm somehow inferior for my console purchase, a machine almost exactly the same as that other one.

Except that it can barely run games like this in the first place.

Look, I like the PS3 and all, and it'd be my primary if my friends didn't all have 360s. But they have a couple crucial differences, so you're going to get variations.

If you think not getting the same treatment in this case equals inferiority, maybe you need to put more worth in yourself than your toys. I get it. Money is important. Even if you can afford all the consoles, it doesn't mean you should buy them all. But you should also be mature enough to accept the fact that not everything will go your way.

Meanwhile, the 360 version outsold the combined PC+PS3 versions worldwide, and had almost 3 times the sales in the US (where they seem to care more). There's probably a strong reason they're going to favour XBox users. Hell, the devs have even been open about performance issues regarding the PS3.

Please consider that maybe there's a reason other than making you feel inferior for your console purchase.

 

[Voulan]

and in no way should I believe that I'm somehow inferior for my console purchase, a machine almost exactly the same as that other one.

Except that it can barely run games like this in the first place.

Look, I like the PS3 and all, and it'd be my primary if my friends didn't all have 360s. But they have a couple crucial differences, so you're going to get variations.

If you think not getting the same treatment in this case equals inferiority, maybe you need to put more worth in yourself than your toys. I get it. Money is important. Even if you can afford all the consoles, it doesn't mean you should buy them all. But you should also be mature enough to accept the fact that not everything will go your way.

Meanwhile, the 360 version outsold the combined PC+PS3 versions worldwide, and had almost 3 times the sales in the US (where they seem to care more). There's probably a strong reason they're going to favour XBox users. Hell, the devs have even been open about performance issues regarding the PS3.

Please consider that maybe there's a reason other than making you feel inferior for your console purchase.

Thank you for throwing your statistics at me. Are you seriously trying to start a console war? I bought the same product, and that's all there is to it. I should be getting the same value for the same product. It's not a question of maturity, but a situation where a consumer buys a product and expects it to be how it is advertised. Sorry if that seems like an immature and too outspoken expectancy. I paid the same money, and I'm just supposed to accept that "not everything goes my way"? That's not how money works, and no one should ever take that lying down.

The reason they favour the Xbox is because Microsoft keeps throwing money at them to build DLC specifically for the Xbox and give it exclusivity for a period of time, so the Xbox version looks better somehow. That's a stupid and shady practice, and look what it's done. Forgive me if that is not supposed to make me angry somehow.

 

[black_knight1337]

Saints Row 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Sleeping Dogs. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

AC 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Farcry 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Again, I could accept all these arguments were it not that it only seems to be one developer who can't get their act together on making something work on a platform. What are they doing wrong that the other companies are doing right?

-_- None of those are comparable to Skyrim. Those are open world action games, Skyrim is an open world rpg. Both of which are completely different genres. So it's not just a single dev doing something wrong when everyone else is going fine, it's a single dev dealing with issues in a genre very few devs even go near.

The reason they favour the Xbox is because Microsoft keeps throwing money at them to build DLC specifically for the Xbox and give it exclusivity for a period of time, so the Xbox version looks better somehow. That's a stupid and shady practice, and look what it's done. Forgive me if that is not supposed to make me angry somehow.

No no no no no. They don't favour the Xbox because of exclusivity deals. They favour it because it is the most powerful console this generation. And again, no, they don't build DLC specifically for the Xbox because they get paid by Microsoft, they build it initially on the Xbox because that is the primary console for the game. The only part where Microsoft and their money comes into it is the exclusivity rights. And all that means is that DLC is available of Xbox a minimum of 30 days before PC or PS3. And before you go and accuse me of trying to start a console war as well, I'm not, I'm simply stating the facts involved with this.

 

[Easton Dark]

-_- None of those are comparable to Skyrim. Those are open world action games, Skyrim is an open world rpg. Both of which are completely different genres. So it's not just a single dev doing something wrong when everyone else is going fine, it's a single dev dealing with issues in a genre very few devs even go near.

Whether it's an RPG or a Third person shooter makes no impact on performance. I'm not sure why you think that.

No no no no no. They don't favour the Xbox because of exclusivity deals. They favour it because it is the most powerful console this generation.

I think technically the PS3 is the most powerful.

 

[black_knight1337]

Whether it's an RPG or a Third person shooter makes no impact on performance. I'm not sure why you think that.

Err, it actually has quite an impact on performance. Especially with the way current gen consoles are set up. The thing is that they both have a pretty low amount of ram (ps3 has 256MB and 360 has 512MB). This is quite a big deal when it comes to an open world rpg in which ram usage is quite high compared to other genres.

I think technically the PS3 is the most powerful.

The GPU and Cpu are on roughly the same level and the 360 has twice as much RAM. And with an open world rpg like Skyrim, RAM is pretty damn important, especially when things start to go wrong which is unavoidable in a game like this.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The GPU and Cpu are on roughly the same level and the 360 has twice as much RAM.

No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of shared RAM between the CPU and GPU while the PS3 has 256MB RAM dedicated to the CPU and another 256MB RAM for the GPU.

The Xbox 360 has the advantage in that programmers can set how that 512MB is shared.

 

[black_knight1337]

No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of shared RAM between the CPU and GPU while the PS3 has 256MB RAM dedicated to the CPU and another 256MB VRAM for the GPU.

The Xbox 360 has the advantage in that programmers can set how that 512MB is shared.

It's specs beg to differ. Direct quote "512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 MHz". I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that RAM. Whether or not that can be used to substitute VRAM is irrelevant.

 

[Easton Dark]

Err, it actually has quite an impact on performance. Especially with the way current gen consoles are set up. The thing is that they both have a pretty low amount of ram (ps3 has 256MB and 360 has 512MB). This is quite a big deal when it comes to an open world rpg in which ram usage is quite high compared to other genres.

I'm not sure why you think open world action type games need less ram than open world rpgs. The difference I can think of between them is that the action games have really low quality building and environment textures, and with a lot of buildings they can afford lower draw distances. Maybe Bethesda should use that weird fog that they used for Oblivion on the 360 to reduce the draw distance, because I don't think they can reduce their texture quality any more.

Besides, I'm fairly certain that people consider the PS3 version of Oblivion to be the superior one of the two consoles, actually. The version that Bethesda didn't port.

The GPU and Cpu are on roughly the same level and the 360 has twice as much RAM. And with an open world rpg like Skyrim, RAM is pretty damn important, especially when things start to go wrong which is unavoidable in a game like this.

They both have the same ram it's just allocated differently. It's a problem for a game that needs less CPU and more GPU support like Skyrim but it's a solvable problem.

edits:

And I can't remember... I think I read somewhere that... I think the PS3 has the better processor but the 360 has the better GPU.

And as an aside, Dragon's Dogma works great on both consoles apparently. Not to mention Dark Souls.

 

[black_knight1337]

I'm not sure why you think open world action type games need less ram than open world rpgs. The difference I can think of between them is that the action games have really low quality building and environment textures, and with a lot of buildings they can afford lower draw distances. Maybe Bethesda should use that weird fog that they used for Oblivion on the 360 to reduce the draw distance, because I don't think they can reduce their texture quality any more.

I'm not sure why you'd think they wouldn't need more RAM. In an open world rpg like Skyrim there is significantly more content than in an open world action like, say, Saints Row 3. All of the quest status', item locations, npc dispositions and so on are being stored in the platform's ram. The stuff that Saints Row 3 would need is simple 'if bought/unlocked' and 'if equipped' settings for it's clothes, weapons, cars etc along with the usual stuff. All of which Skyrim has and significantly more on top of it.

They both have the same ram it's just allocated differently. It's a problem for a game that needs less CPU and more GPU support like Skyrim but it's a solvable problem.

No, the PS3 has 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM. While the 360 has 512MB RAM and some dedicated RAM thing in the gpu (can't remember that atm). So yeah, if you put VRAM and RAM into the same boat then they'd have the same, thing is that while RAM is flexible in it's dedication, VRAM isn't. As has been pointed out the RAM in the 360 can also be dedicated to the GPU if needed while still being able to do it's usual bit. VRAM is locked to the GPU. So even if the GPU is only using 150MB of its 256MB of VRAM the rest will just sit there doing nothing at all.

And as an aside, Dragon's Dogma works great on both consoles apparently. Not to mention Dark Souls.

Never been near Dragon's Dogma so can't say anything about that but Dark Souls is pretty much the definition of what I tend to refer to as 'Linearity in an open world environment'. While it is technically an open world game it's pretty much impossible to deviate from a set path because the enemies are so much stronger than you. But that's getting off track, the main difference is that Skyrim has everything open (quests, weapons, armour, npcs etc) Dark Souls pretty much only has the weapons and armour (and pots and such). It also doesn't have the issue of having item X with Y enchant in Z chest in B house while wearing C helmet and weilding D sword kind of bugs. Which are a part of the memory issues of Skyrim. Plus, from what I've heard some parts of Dark Souls have pretty bad performance on consoles.

 

[Eddy-16]

Clearly that nasty old Bethesda is purposely going out of their way to fuck over and isolate a major part of their sales /sarcasm.

 

[Voulan]

The reason they favour the Xbox is because Microsoft keeps throwing money at them to build DLC specifically for the Xbox and give it exclusivity for a period of time, so the Xbox version looks better somehow. That's a stupid and shady practice, and look what it's done. Forgive me if that is not supposed to make me angry somehow.

No no no no no. They don't favour the Xbox because of exclusivity deals. They favour it because it is the most powerful console this generation. And again, no, they don't build DLC specifically for the Xbox because they get paid by Microsoft, they build it initially on the Xbox because that is the primary console for the game. The only part where Microsoft and their money comes into it is the exclusivity rights. And all that means is that DLC is available of Xbox a minimum of 30 days before PC or PS3. And before you go and accuse me of trying to start a console war as well, I'm not, I'm simply stating the facts involved with this.

Still, that deal means the Xbox takes priority. But don't worry, I'm not going to scream console wars on everyone - telling me that PS3 users should have expected to get a worse deal and that they should have got an Xbox just really ticks me off. Shouting about how great the Xbox is does not solve my problem, and I couldn't care less.

 

[Auron]

Saints Row 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Sleeping Dogs. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

AC 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Farcry 3. Open world game. Recent. No problem cross platforming.

Again, I could accept all these arguments were it not that it only seems to be one developer who can't get their act together on making something work on a platform. What are they doing wrong that the other companies are doing right?

lolno, all have inferior graphics and scale or are heavily instanced, not the same amount of interaction, quests, persistence and they have linear stories and quests(with the possible exception of farcry which I didn't play yet.) which don't depend as much on each other and gameplay.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It's specs beg to differ. Direct quote "512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 MHz". I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that RAM. Whether or not that can be used to substitute VRAM is irrelevant.

VRAM is a specific type of video/graphics oriented RAM and was supplanted a looooong time ago. Neither console uses VRAM. 360 has 512MB of GDDR3 and the PS3 has 256MB XDR DRAM (CPU) and 256MB GDDR3 (GPU).

GDDR is designed primarily for use in GPUs, hence the name Graphic Double Data Rate.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thank you for throwing your statistics at me. Are you seriously trying to start a console war?

Yes, the reason for my statements about pragmatism and being mature were to start a flame war. You got me red handed.

...Seriously? I pointed out valid reasons for inequity, and you accuse me of trying to start a console war?

I bought the same product, and that's all there is to it.

So if I buy the same product as you, but I'm running a PS2 or Original XBox, I should get the same value, too? Like, itshould perform the same?

It's not a question of maturity, but a situation where a consumer buys a product and expects it to be how it is advertised.

Where did they advertise that you'd get the exact same DLC on the exact same time scale? I agree, that's HORRIBLE advertising. You should sue or something.

Except it didn't happen.

I paid the same money, and I'm just supposed to accept that "not everything goes my way"? That's not how money works, and no one should ever take that lying down.

You really should have looked at the product before you bought it. You chose a system with memory issues. You chose a game with problems specifically related to memory. As for DLC, you didn't pay your money to get the DLC, did you? No? Then you didn't pay the same money and get something different.

The reason they favour the Xbox is because Microsoft keeps throwing money at them to build DLC specifically for the Xbox and give it exclusivity for a period of time, so the Xbox version looks better somehow.

OMG. ARE YOU TRYING TO START A CONSOLE WAR?

Sorry, but it doesn't seem like such a good thing when it's aimed at you, does it?

Meanwhile, how much did MS pay for this? Do you have numbers? Evidence? People seem to just be speculating, despite known performance issues and candid statements from the dev.

 

[Voulan]

I'd completely forgotten about this argument. I'm actually over it now, but I'll have a crack at it anyway.

Yes, the reason for my statements about pragmatism and being mature were to start a flame war. You got me red handed.

...Seriously? I pointed out valid reasons for inequity, and you accuse me of trying to start a console war?

Listing some off-hand reasons about how fabulous the Xbox is does not solve my problems in the slightest, nor should I care. If my car breaks down, do I really want to know about how great the competitor sells, as a way of coming to terms with it? In no way does that help my problem. It came across as having dirt thrown in my face while I'm down, so sorry if that seemed harsh.

So if I buy the same product as you, but I'm running a PS2 or Original XBox, I should get the same value, too? Like, itshould perform the same?

It should at least have the same amount of content, yes. Otherwise, that's just not right.

Where did they advertise that you'd get the exact same DLC on the exact same time scale? I agree, that's HORRIBLE advertising. You should sue or something.

Except it didn't happen.

Well, they certainly did promise DLC across all platforms when they first announced them, and Bethesda has released a statement stating that the PS3 is likely never to see two of the three so far. Does that not make my anger understandable? And I know it was never going to be at the same time, thanks to Microsoft.

Also, there's no need to be condescending and belittling. You are in the point of privilege, so of course you won't see the same issues as me and other PS3 users do. That doesn't mean they are non-existent.

You really should have looked at the product before you bought it. You chose a system with memory issues. You chose a game with problems specifically related to memory. As for DLC, you didn't pay your money to get the DLC, did you? No? Then you didn't pay the same money and get something different.

Well, since I'm in New Zealand, my Skyrim game cost me $140. That's right. That's the price of the ordinary game, and likely all the DLC anyway for people in the US. But I digress.

That is a pathetic excuse. Now I'm to blame somehow? How the hell could I have known, since I'm not a tech expert? I was lead to believe that the game would run smoothly as any other, and offer the same content. It's unbelievably arrogant to tell me that this is all my fault for being mislead. Nor does it help my problem.

OMG. ARE YOU TRYING TO START A CONSOLE WAR?

Sorry, but it doesn't seem like such a good thing when it's aimed at you, does it?

Meanwhile, how much did MS pay for this? Do you have numbers? Evidence? People seem to just be speculating, despite known performance issues and candid statements from the dev.

Actually, I couldn't care less. Is it supposed to be gaming taboo or something? And, yet again, there's no need to be so immature and belittling. That almost ruined your whole argument.

What? It's been common practice for a long time. You even said earlier that the DLCs were never intended to be released in the same timeslot, because that's how it's always been with Microsoft. They give a little extra (and no, sorry, I'm not knowledgeable about two business exchanges from companies I'm not a part of) so the Xbox would have the content first, which usually means it gets built on there first and ported, rather than built individually, to save time and money.

This has happened to me before, hence why I'm quite vocal about the issue. As a Tomb Raider fan, I was really excited for TR: Underworld and its DLC packs, in which one allowed you to play as a new character. Microsoft had given their money, so Crystal Dynamics announced that they would get timed exclusivity, blatantly stating that this was common practice from them. A few months after that, they announced that they would be only Xbox exclusives. Rage ensued from PS3 and PC users, naturally. So forgive me if I'm not just a little cynical towards that particular corporate practice. And since at the time it affected both PS3 and PC, there was no argument about which-system-is-better or you-should have-known-you-brought-it-on-yourself. Because it really was because of Microsoft.

But seriously, I don't care how great the Xbox is. It doesn't solve my issue in the slightest. Thanks for winding myself up again I guess, I'd completely got over it.