The PS3 may never get Skyrim DLC ..how dumb.

G

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1407614-update-on-ps3-dlc/

Earlier in the month, we provided an update on Dawnguard's status for PS3.

It's been a few weeks, and we wanted to make sure everyone knows where we're at with Dawnguard. Skyrim is a massive and dynamic game that requires a lot of resources, and things get much more complex when you're talking about sizable content like Dawnguard. We have tried a number of things, but none of them solve the issue enough to make Dawnguard good for everyone. The PS3 is a powerful system, and we're working hard to deliver the content you guys want. Dawnguard is obviously not the only DLC we’ve been working on either, so the issues of adding content get even more complicated. This is not a problem we’re positive we can solve, but we are working together with Sony to try to bring you this content.

We wish we had a more definitive answer right now. We understand the frustration when the same content is not available on all platforms. When we have an update, we will certainly let you know. We deeply appreciate all the time and support you have given us, and we’ll keep doing our best to return that.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that the PS3 is somehow at fault or Sony is. Every other game can have DLC for the PS3 and run well but Skyrim seems doomed on the PS3. Makes me feel bad for any Skyrim PS3 owner. Talk about getting screwed.
 
Bethesda has had a lot of trouble with the PS3 versions of its games. Fallout 3 was a disaster.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Bethesda has had a lot of trouble with the PS3 versions of its games. Fallout 3 was a disaster.
Click to expand...
Yeah I fooled around with NV and that was a freeze fest as well. It really makes sense though, they can't even get Skyrim to run right let alone any DLC. I don't know why these console kids keep buying these games from beth, none of them work worth a dam, oh well.
 
FO3, Skyrim Vanilla run fine on my PC, but Vegas crash happy, though still more than playable.
 
Who cares?

My PS3 died a few months ago. I only used it to stream movies. Never again Sony.
 
J Macker said:
Who cares?
Click to expand...

Seriously.... Saying "Who Cares??" is such an in depth thought to share , thanks for that incredible insight into this ridiculous problem that only exists for Bethesda games on the PS3 :rolleyes:

There are 63.9 million PS3's sold as of the latest update to its wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3)... if even only 1-5 percent of them have played Skyrim then that's a lot of fucking people who CARE.

Oh and if you can't do the math for the US user base that's up to 2.7 million people that give a shit based of the most recent sales figures of Skyrim for the PS3. Surprisingly people do actually play consoles and to not be mad at Bethesda over this issue would be even more insane.
 
Last edited:
iTYPE said:
Yeah I fooled around with NV and that was a freeze fest as well. It really makes sense though, they can't even get Skyrim to run right let alone any DLC. I don't know why these console kids keep buying these games from beth, none of them work worth a dam, oh well.
Click to expand...

Freezing was terrible in NV on 360 as well. Pretty sure it was more of an Obsidian thing than console.

I put 90 hrs into Skyrim on PS3 from day one. I haven’t had any problems from what is supposedly “the worst version”. Shame about the DLC though.
 
I'll fill everyone in on what the problem is. The problem is they developed the game on the XBOX then tried porting it to the PS3. This does not work well, and is evident in many horrible and shitty port jobs that the PS3 has received over the years.

I've read numerous game developer articles on cross platform developing with the PS3. They all say the same thing; Develop your games on the PS3 as the lead platform then port them to the 360. This does not mean the 360 gets the horrible and shitty port but rather has to do with the way the PS3 CPU and GPU are designed. The developers say it's easier to take the PS3 code and change it to work on a more normal chip design (XBOX) than it is to take the XBOX design and change it to run on PS3. I can almost guarantee what's happening is that Bethesda is trying to take code running on XBOX's 3 core CPU and stuff it all into the PS3 dual core CPU general processing core, which is slower than the XBOX's CPU and is not designed to handle the same workload. The PS3 is designed to use the 6 additional SPE's to offload programming.

The many PS3 exclusives (God of War, Uncharted, etc.) show that the PS3 has plenty of horse power for games that look incredible, it all comes down to the competence of the developers. Of course, Bethesda's history shows they make buggy products, so by them demonstrating with this product that they have no idea how to develop for consoles doesn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
bigdogchris said:
I'll fill everyone in on what the problem is. The problem is they developed the game on the XBOX then tried porting it to the PS3. This does not work well, and is evident in many horrible and shitty port jobs that the PS3 has received over the years.

I've read numerous game developer articles on cross platform developing with the PS3. They all say the same thing; Develop your games on the PS3 as the lead platform then port them to the 360. This does not mean the 360 gets the horrible and shitty port but rather has to do with the way the PS3 CPU and GPU are designed. The developers say it's easier to take the PS3 code and change it to work on a more normal chip design (XBOX) than it is to take the XBOX design and change it to run on PS3. I can almost guarantee what's happening is that Bethesda is trying to take code running on XBOX's 3 core CPU and stuff it all into the PS3 dual core CPU general processing core, which is slower than the XBOX's CPU and is not designed to handle the same workload. The PS3 is designed to use the 6 additional SPE's to offload programming.

The many PS3 exclusives (God of War, Uncharted, etc.) show that the PS3 has plenty of horse power for games that look incredible, it all comes down to the competence of the developers. Of course, Bethesda's history shows they make buggy products, so by them demonstrating with this product that they have no idea how to develop for consoles doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

And, that's EXACTLY the problem with nearly every developer nowadays.

They make games using the lowest common denominator, the easiest platform to develop for, and the one that'll generate the most revenue-- the Xbox 360. The tools, code and development cycle are more familiar to every game developer-- console or PC-- because it's something that saves the company time and money. It's nothing more than using C++/C#, DirectX, and Visual Studio, and other custom IDEs and APIs for the 360. Using a few changes in code and the game is ported to the PC in mere months.

Developers can't do that with the PS3. It's a different beast entirely. If they took the time to learn about the platform and its hardware, very good games can be made on it. But, time is something many developers cannot afford. Those that have developed many very good games for the PS3 started out as PS3 exclusives and many remain that way. They show what the console is capable of.

The problem with this is that when you develop a game from the lowest common denominator, the other platforms they port a game to suffer. You take the easy route and you are bound to have problems. It also shows the developers as being lazy. LAZY. I have yet to see a game that was first developed on the 360 then ported to a PS3 or PC, and take advantage of the hardware and have zero problems. We've seen it in Oblivion, Fallout 3 New Vegas, and several other console games that started out as a 360 game.

The PC is more powerful than the console yet we, as gamers, get graphics no similar to the 360 games in terms of graphics, UI and controls. And, why in the fuck does nearly every 360 port need a 360 controller to control properly? Also, there are other gaming controllers out there that isn't a 360 controller such as those from Logitech and Saitek. I have seen some games not even working properly at all with non-360 PC controllers.

DiCE is a studio that is a good example of doing something right: Take the PC version of Battlefield 3 and work it down to the 360's and PS3's hardware. Crytek in a way did that with Crysis, the first one. (However, I think they went the console to PC route with Crysis 2, then lowered the Crytek engine down a little more for Crysis 3.)

As long as the PS3 continues to use gcc and OpenGL and multiple chips, development will never be easy for game developers. And, so long as the PC platform and its gamers get branded as "95% pirates" (Ubisoft) and supposedly having a smaller gaming community than console gamers, the PC platform will suffer.

You are right when you mentioned developers should start on the PS3 first then go down from there. I've read those same comments before as well. Start with the hardest hardware first then work it down to the 360 and PC, hardware that's more familiar to the developers.

I don't think this will change when the PS4 is out. There are currently two rumors for the hardware-- one is using an updated CELL processor and the other is traditional x86 processor. So long as Sony continues to use a non-traditional approach to the console design like the PC and 360, and tools that are different than the 360 and PC, it's going to suffer again the same fate. Developers don't want to put more effort than they want to into a hardware platform that are two things:
  • Easy to develop for.
  • Makes the most revenue.
The PC suffers the second problem and the PS3 suffers from both. Bethesda is unwilling to put the effort in re-coding the game properly for both the PC and PS3 platforms. Why bother? The 360 has the most user base of gamers and will generate the most revenue.

That's both stupid and lazy, and downright unfair to both PC gamers and PS3 gamers.
 
I agree that PC gamers are going to get hit at the end of the day, not sure what can be done about that.

<Devil's Advocate>

As a developer, with limited resources of time/money, why would I develop for the hardest platform first, when it stands to make me the least amount of money? I'm talking about making the PS3 the lead on a multi-platform game.

Why did Sony choose the hardware design it did with the PS3? The system came to market (slightly under) a year after the 360. That may be partially due to the hardware choices. So the competitor starts out with a market lead, enticing game developers. Furthermore, the competitor's tools are more familiar and thus easier to work with than yours. Additionally, games made with these tools can be ported to the PC with relative ease, further enticing game developers. Going beyond that, games made with these tools are tough to port to your system. So now the PS3 has four disadvantages to overcome.

I'm primarily a PC gamer (in need of an upgrade) but I've played the Uncharted games, God of War 3, etc and they are indeed beautiful games that take advantage of the PS3's hardware. But those games have never released anything on any other platforms, and don't seem likely to. Thus they wring out the PS3 hardware, they have no excuse not to.

But multi-platform developers were given their reason not to by Sony. Is it too far-fetched to say that Sony's decision to go with the cell is the reason that multi-platform games suffer on the PS3? Did Sony not make the PS3 the development community's step-child?

In an ideal world, a passion for delivering a quality product would push developers to lead with the hardest platform and work their way down, or at least lead with the most capable platform (pc). But in the real world, even the passionate developers are (generally) paid by someone whose concern is the business. Lazy devs or not, it doesn't seem to make business sense to start with the PS3.

</Devil's Advocate>

That being said, if you're going to port your game to the PS3, and accept people's hard earned money for said game, you owe them a certain level of quality from/support for your product. I play Skyrim (slowly) on my PC, but if certain DLC doesn't make it to the PS3 that really is a disservice to a great many players..
 
bigdogchris said:
I'll fill everyone in on what the problem is. The problem is they developed the game on the XBOX then tried porting it to the PS3. This does not work well, and is evident in many horrible and shitty port jobs that the PS3 has received over the years.

I've read numerous game developer articles on cross platform developing with the PS3. They all say the same thing; Develop your games on the PS3 as the lead platform then port them to the 360. This does not mean the 360 gets the horrible and shitty port but rather has to do with the way the PS3 CPU and GPU are designed. The developers say it's easier to take the PS3 code and change it to work on a more normal chip design (XBOX) than it is to take the XBOX design and change it to run on PS3. I can almost guarantee what's happening is that Bethesda is trying to take code running on XBOX's 3 core CPU and stuff it all into the PS3 dual core CPU general processing core, which is slower than the XBOX's CPU and is not designed to handle the same workload. The PS3 is designed to use the 6 additional SPE's to offload programming.

The many PS3 exclusives (God of War, Uncharted, etc.) show that the PS3 has plenty of horse power for games that look incredible, it all comes down to the competence of the developers. Of course, Bethesda's history shows they make buggy products, so by them demonstrating with this product that they have no idea how to develop for consoles doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most of what you said but lets keep in mind this is Bethesda , not some small development group or puny publisher. They have the money and the game has the audience to make it worth while to have a larger programming team if that's what is required to get the game fully functional because of the PS3's lack of ease in the programming department.

This does not excuse the problems they've been having. They've released more than a few games based off the engine Skyrim is running and time and time again the results are the same. Its lazy development , I'm sure the results were replicated before release and they just figured "we will find a solution and patch it" which works most of the time but its obvious that the Skyrim engine doesn't play well with the PS3. SO in that case , throw more programmers at it , more Q/A testers and involve Sony directly in the pre-release process. From the sound of it Bethesda did exactly NONE of this and just released it as is.

I'm sorry but Bethesda dropped the ball for PS3 owners and continues to do so. If the game is in this sorry of a state before release and simply saving your game causes it to turn into a stutter fest then you do the responsible thing and delay it until you can dig out the problem (when your development team is at its highest performing and largest in size as well) and release it properly. If this was happening to Xbox 360 owners and PC owners there would be a massive outcry and people would be calling for blood on the forums..
 
bigdogchris said:
I can almost guarantee what's happening is that Bethesda is trying to take code running on XBOX's 3 core CPU and stuff it all into the PS3 dual core CPU general processing core, which is slower than the XBOX's CPU and is not designed to handle the same workload. The PS3 is designed to use the 6 additional SPE's to offload programming.
Click to expand...

Loved your post, but just wanted to add that the PS3's Cell is actually a single-core, not a dual. It's one primary core with those additional 6 SPEs.
 
Medion said:
Loved your post, but just wanted to add that the PS3's Cell is actually a single-core, not a dual. It's one primary core with those additional 6 SPEs.
Click to expand...
Multi-threaded single core, yes - I should of specified 'logically' 2 cores, like Hyper threading.
 
The main problem with the PS3's CPU is that the local SPE units can't get data directly from main memory, only from their own 16k local cache. Keeping that cache filled is not always an easy thing to accomplish, especially if the title was not developed with the PS3 in mind.

My suspicion is that Bethdesia did NOT spend a significant amount of time ensuring the engine they use worked well for the PS3, leading to performance problems on just about everything released on that console. PS3 is more powerful then the 360, when the SPE's are properly fed.
 
I have seen a few articles various places where Sony seems to have put some dev resources towards this problem with Bethesda. I've read rumors a few times about Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica devs going around to help other studios with development so maybe this will help.

I have still not played any Skyrim, but I would like to I think. I probably will not unless some major patch comes out that helps the way it runs on PS3 in a major way. My biggest hope is that if they find a magic pill to fix these issues, they can release all of the DLC on disc with a GOTY edition type of disc. I would probably jump at that opportunity.
 
Wheresatom said:
I've read rumors a few times about Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica devs going around to help other studios
Click to expand...

Ultimately this boils down to a poorly developed SDK with a lack of documentation for devs.
Don't get me wrong, they do great work, but the setup is obviously flawed when this is their go to fix.
 
I don't understand why people are mad at Bethesda over this. You act like they don't want your money... Obviously if they had a product they though was worth selling, they would. If they released it with issues, you'd instead be up in arms that you wasted $15 on something that is broken. They can't just magic it into being exactly what you want. Be patient and let them do their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top