Its quite obvious you want to...Jumplion said:
I dont know if you read the title but it says Todd Howard and his team shunning the ps3...
Todd Howard called out for blowing off PS3 owners.
- Thread starter GonzoGamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dont know if you read the title but it says Todd Howard and his team shunning the ps3...
ok, sooo exactly why would he be answering the questions from this site in particular? It doesn't look to impressive to me and I think I can most certainly assume its not a main stream site.
The author must certainly know that he's not going to waste his time with such a site because its so unknown. He would more likely go to a site like IGN, The Escapist, or even WIRED to answer questons such as that.
To me it just looks like the writer of the article is looking for a reason to say "LOOK LOOK, HE REALLY DOESN'T CARE!!!", and thus garner some justificaton when he comes back at a later date to rant on the topic.
Saying "not at this time, no" most definatley means that they are looking into the prospect of releasing DLC for the ps3. Frankly I don't blame them if they don't want to, the ps3 currently has a very low number of players compared to either the 360 or PC.
The author must certainly know that he's not going to waste his time with such a site because its so unknown. He would more likely go to a site like IGN, The Escapist, or even WIRED to answer questons such as that.
To me it just looks like the writer of the article is looking for a reason to say "LOOK LOOK, HE REALLY DOESN'T CARE!!!", and thus garner some justificaton when he comes back at a later date to rant on the topic.
Saying "not at this time, no" most definatley means that they are looking into the prospect of releasing DLC for the ps3. Frankly I don't blame them if they don't want to, the ps3 currently has a very low number of players compared to either the 360 or PC.
To suggest that they were bribed by microsoft, and to openly accuse him of that in their questoins is rude and unprofessional. If they seek to be taken seriously they should focus on writing articles such as this from a less fanboyish perspective. Sorry but the notion of such a thing sounds very improbable, and even more like an angry forum poster.
Because if they didn't the community would have reacted with the same hostility we're seeing now about the DLC.
This one does rather perplex me, even if they find it financially unprofitable to release DLC for the ps3 shouldn't they at the very least give a patch for post ending gameplay? I haven't finished the game myself, so I'm unsure if they may have written themselves into a corner making it canonically impossible to continue with the game after the main story line.
He's kind of "damned if he does damned if he doesn't" by putting this out there. If you read down to the update about the call he put into bethesda, he got redirected to marketing...and left a message. Now, this kind of goes back to an earlier statment I made about the site hosting this article in the first place. It doesn't exactly radiate profesionalism, and if I were Todd looking at this aritcle on this site it would look to me like a bloger got a little high on his horse and thinks he's some tough shit now. I'm sure the man gets hate mail on a daily basis from fans, what makes this guy so special that he would respond?
PC FTW ... less "loading..." messages when outside in big bad Cyrodiil
Addendum ... lol forgot to quote ^^^
Addendum ... lol forgot to quote ^^^
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "It's quite obvious you want to..." If you mean I want the DLC, then read some of my latter posts. If they would release a simple patch I wouldn't care about the DLC at all, but Bethesda are too lazy to care about their PS3 customers.BLOONINJA 503 said:
But I've been over this argument, no need to start it again.
The reason is simple. If they had released it on the PS3 they would have had to deal with real people using real money and thus wouldn't have had the opportunity to screw everyone over by forcing you to buy more stupid console cash than you actually needed to buy the DLC. I own Fallout 3 on PC and I refuse to go through the nonsense of GFWL only to then be forced to buy more Microwank cash than I need for the DLC I want.
Cough cough, no they didn't. If you're talking about the fancy lighting effects they added to the PS3 version they actually included that function in the PC patch that came after the PS3 release.
No one was talking about what you said when I quoted you before...You started an entirely different subject... we are talking about Todd Howard and his apparent disregard for PS3 ownersJumplion said:
What? I'm sorry, I still don't get what you're trying to say, that was exactly what I was arguing the entire time. My argument was that Bethesda completely shunned the PS3 with "nary a teet to suckle on" and that they couldn't even be assed to satisfy their customers with a problem that everyone complained about.BLOONINJA 503 said:
You know why MS uses the Points system, right? To cater to international customers. No matter where you're located, the Operation: Anchorage pack will always cost 800 MS points. In America, 800 points == $10 USD. In Europe, it can be Euro equivalent of $10USD. Rather than having to go and set prices for each region and currency, they can just adjust the points/currency rate per region, a far more sensible idea.Laughing Man said:
To the people talking about Bethesda being 'bribed' by MS. They weren't bribed. They were hired. There is no serious reason for Bethesda to not make it for the PS3 unless they were being paid compensation to not make it for the PS3. It's not really complicated. It's not really wrong. And it's somewhat unethical, but it's good business sense.
Also, would you all listen to yourselves? "I want to keep playing after the game is over!" "I want to keep playing after my character dies!" Don't you guys realise how stupid you sound saying this? I don't mean to come across as flaming or trolling or to insult anyone, but c'mon guys, when the game is over it's over. When you die it's time to reload a save of before you died. It's not Prince of Persia and it's Fable II. This isn't Oblivion, GTA, or SR. When you die, you die. And when the game ends, it ends. Yes, I know that the last DLC will allow you to live after that, but, y'know what? I don't fucking care. I don't want it. The end of the game is the end of the game. Admittedly, they should have structured it better so that you couldn't complete the end game unti you'd been to a ton a ton places, due to it's difficulty, but Bethesda, and they love scaling enemies.
I am not part of either side of the fan boy war, however two things need to be understood before assumptions get the best of everyone:
1. Games have release dates set by the publishers and are expected to abide by them. There are rare cases when games are pushed, but all that does is cost money to the game developers in the end. That's why games are sometimes (or in the atari/nes days, often) released with bugs or seemingly unfinished. It costs less to create patches than it does to push a date.
2. There is a different code structure between the 360 and PS3, mainly due to Sony's choice of BluRay formatting and capabilities, while the 360 and PC have identical formats. It is cheaper and easier to start out with PC format, since it's more easily recognized in the industry, and port it to 360 games than it is to format entirely for the PS3 and then reformat it for the other two. So therefore the game that this thread is discussing was originally created for the PC, easily ported to the 360, and then reformatted to work on the PS3. Due to time restrictions, they only had so much time to play test both versions of the game, and leaned more towards fully play-testing the PC format due to it being easier to work with. It is easier and less time consuming to apply the downloadable content to the PC version (and thus to the 360) than it is to make DLC and implement it to the PS3.
It has nothing to do with one paying the guy more or the guy's preference of one system, it's all to do with cost-effectiveness, time constraints, and format familiarity.
1. Games have release dates set by the publishers and are expected to abide by them. There are rare cases when games are pushed, but all that does is cost money to the game developers in the end. That's why games are sometimes (or in the atari/nes days, often) released with bugs or seemingly unfinished. It costs less to create patches than it does to push a date.
2. There is a different code structure between the 360 and PS3, mainly due to Sony's choice of BluRay formatting and capabilities, while the 360 and PC have identical formats. It is cheaper and easier to start out with PC format, since it's more easily recognized in the industry, and port it to 360 games than it is to format entirely for the PS3 and then reformat it for the other two. So therefore the game that this thread is discussing was originally created for the PC, easily ported to the 360, and then reformatted to work on the PS3. Due to time restrictions, they only had so much time to play test both versions of the game, and leaned more towards fully play-testing the PC format due to it being easier to work with. It is easier and less time consuming to apply the downloadable content to the PC version (and thus to the 360) than it is to make DLC and implement it to the PS3.
It has nothing to do with one paying the guy more or the guy's preference of one system, it's all to do with cost-effectiveness, time constraints, and format familiarity.
I disagree with #1. It may be cheaper in the short run to patch a glitchy game than delay it. Sooner or later if this trend continues ppl will stop dropping 60 bucks on release day anyways because they would rather have a game delayed than spend 60 bucks on a game and be forced to wait for a patch to make it playable and enjoyable. Either way forces them to wait and with a delay at least they aren't paying 60 bucks to be a tester.Quaidis said:
I can understand online MP needing to be patched just not this SP glitchfest trend.
Disagree with it all you may, but that's generally how the world works when it comes to publishing, whether it be games, books, or movies. Without an exact release date, nothing will ever get done and people will be sitting there wondering where the next good game is. That and game companies will suffer under heavier bills and other such money pressures the more time progresses. Look at it this way: If they sign a contract to make a game under a longer time period, long enough to release a complicated game, a perfect game, with no feared bugs or glitches, the higher the price tag on that game is going to be; or, equally troubling, the more money overall the company is going to loose out of the deal.squid5580 said:
You are forgetting one factor, the consumer. We don't have to buy a game at launch. We can wait weeks, months or even years to buy a game after launch. And the longer we wait the more likely we will find it cheaper (with the exception of a few games). So if the companies force us into buying broken games for more than the fixed version a month down the line sooner or later more consumers will buy it from the bargain bin than the new release shelf.Quaidis said:
I don't see why they can't overshoot the release date. It seems stupid to announce this game will be released this day and try to make the game fit into that schedule. Either make the release date a month or two later than the actual company deadline to account for a glitch and patch it before release or say "yes we are making it" and when it is close to completion then announce a release date. I have also never met a person who boycotted an anticipated game because of some unforseen delay.