By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Skyrim Dawnguard PS3: Punished for choosing wrong console

DCOK on 16 October 2012

I see people arguing the system specs and what not.

The point that is still being overlooked is that this game should have never hit the shelves for the PS3. Halfway through development (if even that far) Bethesda knew the issues and obviously chose to ignore them and sell a shoddy broken product while claiming nothing was wrong with it, period.

Don't tell us that development is going great and that PS3 users will have nothing to worry about (as Pete Hines did many times) and then release the product they did. Completely unacceptable.

 

And it's been said many times that people, to this day, are still learning how to develop on the PS3. 



Around the Network
Ajescent on 16 October 2012
DCOK said:
I see people arguing the system specs and what not.

The point that is still being overlooked is that this game should have never hit the shelves for the PS3. Halfway through development (if even that far) Bethesda knew the issues and obviously chose to ignore them and sell a shoddy broken product while claiming nothing was wrong with it, period.

Don't tell us that development is going great and that PS3 users will have nothing to worry about (as Pete Hines did many times) and then release the product they did. Completely unacceptable.

Well said



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Adinnieken on 16 October 2012
sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.

If a HDD is present, the Xbox 360 caches.  Trust me.  I've gone through clearing the cache enough times with Oblivion to know that is in fact the case.  I've also gone through enough DVD drive failures to test it.  See, one of the steps to test a bad DVD is to remove the HDD and ensure the console isn't reading off the HDD in case it's a bad HDD. 

Yes, the Xbox 360 does cache.  Shame on you for saying that it doesn't.

Why would I disprove myself?  I'm the one saying it can use up to 480MB for the game.  And how is it impossible?  The amount of memory necessary at any given point fluctuates.  I'm not saying a game can use 480MB all the time.  I'm saying the game can have up to 480MB of memory, which is absolutely true.

Fair enough.  Do you know how big the PS3's cache is?  Let's say it's 128MB.  So in addition to the 218MB of RAM, developers have a 128MB disk cache to temporarily place data on.  They can still only hold up to 218MB into memory.  The Xbox 360 still has more RAM for it to actively work with data.

A developer could throw some data up to the PS3's GPU and utilize the GPU's memory as well, but again, this would be incredibly inefficient.  Which is why developers don't tend to use these types of features.  It's also one of the reasons why with the development of the Xbox 360 Epic encouraged Microsoft to include 512MB of RAM instead of 256MB, and it's the reason why they purportedly encouraged Microsoft double the RAM on the next Xbox.  It's also the reason why one of the most inexpensive, but beneficial upgrades you can do to a computer is the addition of memory and consistently has been since 1981.



pokoko on 16 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:
I'm gonna post this again because many in here don't seem to understand what the actual problem is.

It ISN'T that the RAM is too limited to render the gigantic open environment. It actually has to do with item movement and placement. Every item you ever pick up and drop in Skyrim will permenantly be rendered in the last location you dropped it. Over the course of dozens of hours of play and HUNDREDS of item movements it starts taking a serious toll on the RAM.

The reason they can't currently put Dawnguard or ANY expansion onto the PS3 version is due to the number of items in the base game alone being moved fry out the game not to mention all the EXTRA items that would be added in the DLC would just break the game even faster.

This is why most people don't encounter game breaking bugs early in the game on the PS3 but rather later and the longer they play. Its because as you play the game it starts requiring more and more RAM to render and load all the item movements away from their former locations and into their new ones.

Thats why Bethesda have said they don't believe its a fixable problem. Because it litteraly has to do with the hardware of the PS3. That doesn't mean that the PS3 sucks by any means its just that Skyrim requires more RAM than the PS3 has open at any given time.

You can say it until the end of time and it still won't matter.  It excuses absolutely nothing.  You cannot release a product, say it's going to perform exactly the same on every platform, then say, oh, you know, it's going to suck on one of the platforms because of limitations.  That kind of thing needs to be addressed in development.  It's not like the PS3 suddenly changed specifications.

If you buy brakes for your car, brakes which are listed as working on your car by the manufacturer of those brakes, would you be OK with them failing if the reasoning was, "well, they only kind of work, but that's the fault of your car--we designed these brakes to work on something else."  Who would you blame?  Who would you hold responsible?

I don't care if the PS3 had 2.56MB of RAM, if someone sells a game for it then it should work.  If it doesn't, then don't sell it.

The fault rests with the developers for not understanding the limitations they were working with, or if they did recognize those limitations and communicated them to management, then the fault rests with the leadership at Bethesda for publishing a version that they knew would have serious problems.



BenVTrigger on 16 October 2012
pokoko said:
BenVTrigger said:
I'm gonna post this again because many in here don't seem to understand what the actual problem is.

It ISN'T that the RAM is too limited to render the gigantic open environment. It actually has to do with item movement and placement. Every item you ever pick up and drop in Skyrim will permenantly be rendered in the last location you dropped it. Over the course of dozens of hours of play and HUNDREDS of item movements it starts taking a serious toll on the RAM.

The reason they can't currently put Dawnguard or ANY expansion onto the PS3 version is due to the number of items in the base game alone being moved fry out the game not to mention all the EXTRA items that would be added in the DLC would just break the game even faster.

This is why most people don't encounter game breaking bugs early in the game on the PS3 but rather later and the longer they play. Its because as you play the game it starts requiring more and more RAM to render and load all the item movements away from their former locations and into their new ones.

Thats why Bethesda have said they don't believe its a fixable problem. Because it litteraly has to do with the hardware of the PS3. That doesn't mean that the PS3 sucks by any means its just that Skyrim requires more RAM than the PS3 has open at any given time.

You can say it until the end of time and it still won't matter.  It excuses absolutely nothing.  You cannot release a product, say it's going to perform exactly the same on every platform, then say, oh, you know, it's going to suck on one of the platforms because of limitations.  That kind of thing needs to be addressed in development.  It's not like the PS3 suddenly changed specifications.

If you buy brakes for your car, brakes which are listed as working on your car by the manufacturer of those brakes, would you be OK with them failing if the reasoning was, "well, they only kind of work, but that's the fault of your car--we designed these brakes to work on something else."  Who would you blame?  Who would you hold responsible?

I don't care if the PS3 had 2.56MB of RAM, if someone sells a game for it then it should work.  If it doesn't, then don't sell it.

The fault rests with the developers for not understanding the limitations they were working with, or if they did recognize those limitations and communicated them to management, then the fault rests with the leadership at Bethesda for publishing a version that they knew would have serious problems.


Solid points. 

But people on forums are the huge minority.  I deal with customers ever day.  While no doubt people are annoyed with the PS3 versions glitchiness they are still glad they got to play the game for the most part.  It takes a special kind of person to take time out of their lives, go on the internet, and bitch about video games.  95% of actual gamers don't do that.

I still see no reason for Bethesda to have not released the game.  For some people it works fine, for others its glitchy.  That sucks for sure but most still enjoyed the experience.



Around the Network
VGKing on 16 October 2012

I think PS3 owners have every right to boycott Bethesda games. Skryrim isn't even the first time PS3 owners got screwed by Bethesda. So IF this Skyrim DLC ever comes to PS3 it should be FREE at least for Playstation Plus owners. Regular PSN users should get it at half the price of the 360 version.

Bethesda has done nothing to show it is sorry for screwing PS3 owners. Nothing. Now, I didn't buy Skyim, because its just not my type of game.....just seeing the name Bethesda on a PS3 game makes me think twice.



pokoko on 16 October 2012
BenVTrigger said:

I still see no reason for Bethesda to have not released the game.  For some people it works fine, for others its glitchy.  That sucks for sure but most still enjoyed the experience.

I can't really argue with that.  I bought Fallout NV knowing it was going to have the exact same problems and bugs that Fallout 3 had, and that I would love it anyway.  But then, I went in with my eyes open, knowing what I was getting into, but also that the modding community on the PC would improve the situation a lot.  I had to use a mod just to overcome the game's horrible 32-bit based RAM usage, for example.

So, yeah, I can't blame anyone who had little experience with Bethesda for being angry with what they got.  I can't blame anyone who believed what Bethesda said about the PS3 version being equal.  The blame goes completely on Bethesda.  They are responsible.

I think it will be a shame if people are so wary of Bethesda that they avoid games that are simply published by them, but again, that goes on Bethesda's head.  Most people don't understand how game publishing and development work.  This situation has probably cost Bethesda a lot of future profit, but I can't say I feel bad for them.  Rather than hurting them as a company, however, I hope it instead pushes them to be more responsible to their customers.



sergiodaly on 16 October 2012
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.

If a HDD is present, the Xbox 360 caches.  Trust me.  I've gone through clearing the cache enough times with Oblivion to know that is in fact the case.  I've also gone through enough DVD drive failures to test it.  See, one of the steps to test a bad DVD is to remove the HDD and ensure the console isn't reading off the HDD in case it's a bad HDD. 

Yes, the Xbox 360 does cache.  Shame on you for saying that it doesn't.

Why would I disprove myself?  I'm the one saying it can use up to 480MB for the game.  And how is it impossible?  The amount of memory necessary at any given point fluctuates.  I'm not saying a game can use 480MB all the time.  I'm saying the game can have up to 480MB of memory, which is absolutely true.

Fair enough.  Do you know how big the PS3's cache is?  Let's say it's 128MB.  So in addition to the 218MB of RAM, developers have a 128MB disk cache to temporarily place data on.  They can still only hold up to 218MB into memory.  The Xbox 360 still has more RAM for it to actively work with data.

A developer could throw some data up to the PS3's GPU and utilize the GPU's memory as well, but again, this would be incredibly inefficient.  Which is why developers don't tend to use these types of features.  It's also one of the reasons why with the development of the Xbox 360 Epic encouraged Microsoft to include 512MB of RAM instead of 256MB, and it's the reason why they purportedly encouraged Microsoft double the RAM on the next Xbox.  It's also the reason why one of the most inexpensive, but beneficial upgrades you can do to a computer is the addition of memory and consistently has been since 1981.

probably we are talking apples and oranges here...
480 are used for game data (what i mention in my post) and graphics data (textures and so on) if its filled up with 480 of game data nothing appears at the screen. no one play a black screen.
if people separate the data between game data and graphics for PS3, its the same with xbox 360... i know that the merged ram of xbox gives devs more flexibility but is slower moving graphics data around... if the game loads up all necessary graphics data to RAM not a lot more than 200 MB will be available to game data... you r wrong if you think other wise.

the OS can cache for sure... for what i know devs shouldn't trust on HDD to cache since not all units have HDDs.
funny that now it is not a useless feat. :)
BTW 128mb a bit over kill, devs could only need around 30 to 50 mb of cache in the HDD witch is loaded to RAM in about a second... not that great but better than nothing.

my view still stands... bethesda are to blame... and in my opinion, are a sub par development team. might be a creative one but not very good in implementing their creativity.

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

deskpro2k3 on 16 October 2012
Ajescent said:
deskpro2k3 said:

bethesda need to call up naughty dog, kojima, and guerilla games for help. they seriously can use some tips and pointers. even square enix can help them. they're porting over FF14 Online, an MMORPG.

Hmmm....SE is a better shout, but I dunno...wait till 14 comes out on PS3s before giving them praise.

No to mention SoE did DCuniverse and....that...really good F2Pmmo aimed at kids that I've forgotten the name of for some reason. As part of Sony they will most likely be helping out already- then again, Skyrim is not an MMO, it's an open world WRPG, two different beasts...


a game such as a mmo will no doubt be using a lot of ram for textures, character display etc. and SE have the balls to say it will be the best looking mmorpg. I'm waiting to see how this goes as well.



slowmo on 16 October 2012

You can finish the original game on PS3, I dont believe they sold anyone a guarantee of DLC so no harm done. If the original game was unplayable then fair enough but thats not the case. Im sure Bethesda are still happy they released on the PS3 as it will have been a good revenue booster for not much cost.