CobaltMonkey wrote:

This is a Microsoft call, not purely Bethesda's. M$ pulls this crap as a condition on allowing any franchise they expect to sell big with large DLCs. The demand in their contract that they get timed exclusivity (usually one month). Bethesda has the choice of either saying no and losing out on roughly a third of their sales, or agreeing (speculation>) and probably getting a larger cut of the DLC profits.

When I feel fairplay has been violated I get riled up. I've always been that way. Microsoft is just like the playground bullies I faces when I was a kid. But I will Never pay full price or pre order a Bethesda game again , until I have a guarantee that they will be fair to all of their end users when it comes to distributing DLC. I'm actually thinking of looking into a class action lawsuit.

I am sick of it also, remember how we PS3 users got an inferior version of Skyrim on day one also ?, they repay us by giving us DLC a month late -_- .

I am going to be a fanboy here so be warned. Xbox is MAJORLY short of exclusive releases this year and has been the case for a number of years now. Thus Microsoft pay devs a ton of cash to get DLC first and give their fanboys something to brag about. I am tired of waiting 1 month extra for DLC, a week is OK but a month is a LONG time and , for COD, that's a big chunk of each release's yearly cycle. We pay the same amount for the game, why do we have to wait becauseMicrosoft wants to bribe devs with cash ?. I have had enough after 2 years of it with the COD franchise. Lucky us PS3 owners have all these awesome exclusive titles.

I'm sure the Xbox and PC players are whining about how PS3 gamers get the Battlefield 3 DLC earlier.

I'm not sure why people are surprised. They did this with Oblivion and Fallout 3... were people expecting something different this time around? Did anyone see the PS Blog post when Bethesda announced the PS3 was finally getting the DLC? That was 800+ posts of Bethesda hate for getting cozy with Microsoft. It's not like they didn't know people would get mad.

If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy it when it comes out. They obviously don't listen to voices, only the $$$ being thrown in their faces.

If I chose not to buy their great games than I will be at a loss , they will keep doing what they are currently doing and not change anything.1 person is no where near enough to enforce a change.

Yes we get BF3 DLC early but there is less of it and it is only 1 WEEK in advance, Microsoft is doing it for 1 MONTH in advance, big difference.

I'm a little less angry than before . I usually don't get that angry at game stuff but I think its a load of bull. I bought Battlefield 3 and have not yet touched it. My son plays it but he got into Skyrim like I did after Christmas. I looked up the BF3 exclusive content and it was a week.... thats a big difference from a MONTH and a little more fair. I didn't know about the DLC for Skyrim game being exclusive for Xbox when I bought it or I may not have. I will probably not pay premium first day $$ for any titles that I know will release the exclusive DLC content for any one console. I respect exclusive original content IP's but not the withold DLC business model.

Mitchell wrote:

If I chose not to buy their great games than I will be at a loss , they will keep doing what they are currently doing and not change anything.1 person is no where near enough to enforce a change.

Thing is, there are a million people out there, all thinking the same thing. They're just one person. Imagine if they'd stop thinking like that.
I don't think that way anymore. And hey, look at that! Now we're "just two people".
You're only 'just one person' as long as you choose to be by remaining silent and doing nothing.
Yes, it's cost me some fun with games now, but I think in the long run it's worth it. Because if I don't do anything, if I just continue to buy in, then the only thing that is certain to happen is that things will get worse.


Again though, here I don't think that this is Bethesda's call. It's M$. We certainly don't matter to them, so our not buying or complaining will fall on deaf ears.

Idk, I try not to compare my experience to other platforms. I paid full price on release day for Skyrim, and I did not think they would be any DLC. We did not get it with Oblivion. I would have paid the same happily if I knew from day one that maybe some DLC would be released for Xbox but not PS3. Even in that worst case scenario, I would have bought this game. Just because I feel it has enough quality and hours of gameplay as to justify my investment. Now, you ask me about Modern Warfare III and I did not buy it on release day, we bought it last weekend because it has half price and the game itself it is very similar to the ones before, it does not have any wow factor, so it was not worth for me paying the full price. Idk, would not buying their games do anything? Yes. Would not buying their games do what we want? I do not know. Maybe if they do not have enough PS3 sales they definitely do not create the DLC for PS3 nevertheless since there would be no market for it.

This is different than other cases where a business is doing something you definitely don't want, like Capcom's on disc DLC, Activision's price gouging, EA's...being EA, etc.
In this instance, because it's showing favor of one system over another, abstaining from buying might well send the wrong message as you say.

The problem here isn't the publishers, but one of the console makers using this questionable business tactic to try to make itself look better than its competition. There are two ways to go about trying to look better than someone else. Improving yourself so that you actually do look better, or making everyone around you look worse. Essentially, it's like two neighbors with similar houses that both are proud of, but one wants to look better so he keeps sneaking over and egging the other's place.

Microsoft doesn't care if we don't buy it on PSN, or rather they're happy to see that. Abstaining will do nothing to persuade them to stop, and in fact, I believe it would only encourage them to try to include the condition in more of their contracts.
I believe we would need to appeal to Bethesda directly, and with large numbers of people, to encourage them not to accept any more contracts with M$ that contain this condition.

I was thinking about this last night while I was over at my neighbors egging his house.... Where would the best place be to appeal to Bethesda ? Privately, publicly, a blog, twitter, Facebook ? AZ mentioned the PS3 blog earlier but it seems counter productive to lay on the hate when Bethesda announces they are giving you what you want. I know some feel its ok for Bethesda to segregate customers but I do not. I won't support them and buy their products as a new release. PS3 customers are just as important as Xbox customers.The revenue PS3/PC players provides is important to Bethesda or they would not be making the game on those platforms. If a company says it is supporting a console then do it equally. I'm not worried about Bethesda not creating games for the PS3 because customers won't buy their games because they get treated like a lower class, thats Bethesda's marketing mistake not the consumers fault and they should be made aware that it is. Buying the new games because they are good even tho they wont support them equally is a lopsided relationship and very dysfunctional. I don't think there will be any new RPG games from Bethesda for the PS3. Remember the new consoles are right around the corner in game developer time. Suppose the PS4 is the new PS2 and doubles the Xbox 720's sales ? Will we be ignored still ? We could line up like sheep and bah, or be brave and intelligent consumers who demand to be treated the right way. I think I'll go buy Fallout 3 for 10 bucks and go play it for a while.

Mitchell wrote:

If I chose not to buy their great games than I will be at a loss , they will keep doing what they are currently doing and not change anything.1 person is no where near enough to enforce a change.

I see that as $60 to spend on a game that won't be riddled with problems for months after launch from a developer that doesn't take a hint.

Mitchell wrote:

Yes we get BF3 DLC early but there is less of it and it is only 1 WEEK in advance, Microsoft is doing it for 1 MONTH in advance, big difference.

rrwatch wrote:

I'm a little less angry than before . I usually don't get that angry at game stuff but I think its a load of bull. I bought Battlefield 3 and have not yet touched it. My son plays it but he got into Skyrim like I did after Christmas. I looked up the BF3 exclusive content and it was a week.... thats a big difference from a MONTH and a little more fair. I didn't know about the DLC for Skyrim game being exclusive for Xbox when I bought it or I may not have. I will probably not pay premium first day $$ for any titles that I know will release the exclusive DLC content for any one console. I respect exclusive original content IP's but not the withold DLC business model.

*shrugs. It doesn't matter if it's a week or a month, one group is getting the DLC before another and someone's going to complain about it.

For not seeing the DLC coming, all you have to do is look at Bethesda's previous titles and see what they did. They release a game with no talk of DLC at release, then months down the line they announce some and say that M$ will get the better deal.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

Again though, here I don't think that this is Bethesda's call. It's M$. We certainly don't matter to them, so our not buying or complaining will fall on deaf ears.

It's totally Bethesda's call. They could choose to release the DLC on all platforms at the same time to make their entire audience happy or they can accept the wad of cash from Microsoft and release it on the Xbox first. Obviously the wad of cash is more important to them than their PC and PS3 audiences.

Sorry... I don't know why I'm here. I haven't played this game in months. I've already decided that Bethesda is a waste of my time on so many fronts. I gave them a chance and they lost it. As far as I'm concerned all they do is make broken games (thinks of the pulling of FO3 DLC the same day they were released because of bugs and the near-daily redownloading of broken Skyrim files on Steam).

Yeah... sorry. Shouldn't be here.

I don't think I should have to research a IP or game's developer to see its DLC release history before I buy a game at release. I do think a weeks delay for the competition could be considered a marketing ploy for a console. A month is entering into scorched earth policy realm. I don't agree with any delay for any console it doesn't matter if the one I own has the advantage. I didn't have game breaking problems with the PS3 release , the 1.4 fix solved my intermittent stutter and I waited to install it. I put around 350 hours into the game and I still feel like a bridesmaid and not the bride. No more new Bethesda release for me until they treat all consoles equally.

You absolutely should be here. Different viewpoints are always good. Agreeing with the majority is in no way a requirement to be part of a conversation.

Quote :

*shrugs. It doesn't matter if it's a week or a month, one group is getting the DLC before another and someone's going to complain about it.

For not seeing the DLC coming, all you have to do is look at Bethesda's previous titles and see what they did. They release a game with no talk of DLC at release, then months down the line they announce some and say that M$ will get the better deal.

Close. I'm not in favor of Battlefield getting DLC earlier for PS3 either. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or to what degree. A week, a month, a year. Doesn't matter.

As to the second part there, Skyrim is the very first Bethesda game for a large number of people. They wouldn't know any history, nor should they be expecting that a dirty scheme like this was in the wings. Me? I'm not surprised. I have been following the series since Morrowind, so I know what's gone down. It isn't fair to expect the same of newcomers not only to the series, but many of whom are new to gaming in general as well. That's why it's so important for those of us who do know, who can see where people (ourselves and others) are being taken advantage of, to help these newcomers. The more we educate, the more of us there are to take a stand, and the less there are blindly supporting the business practices.

Quote :

It's totally Bethesda's call. They could choose to release the DLC on all platforms at the same time to make their entire audience happy or they can accept the wad of cash from Microsoft and release it on the Xbox first. Obviously the wad of cash is more important to them than their PC and PS3 audiences.

I think you're right, but perhaps for not quite the right reason.
Here's what seems to be on the table.
If Bethesda doesn't accept M$' terms for their contract, then Bethesda loses roughly a third of their potential sales. TES games are a huge investment, so not making that part back is a serious blow.
On the other hand, if Bethesda actually did pass on it, M$ is going to lose out on a major franchise, with the risk that people choose PS3 over 360. Yes, there are people who buy a specific console just for certain exclusive games.
It seems like just as big a risk for either side in that offer, but it seems like if Bethesda did threaten to walk over the '360 first' provision in the contract, that M$ would lose more in the long run. They should have the upper hand. That can only mean that there's something sweetening the deal for them to stay. My guess is an extra percentage of the DLC sales for the publisher and parent company of Bethesda, Zenimax Media.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

You absolutely should be here. Different viewpoints are always good. Agreeing with the majority is in no way a requirement to be part of a conversation.

But I don't play it anymore.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

Close. I'm not in favor of Battlefield getting DLC earlier for PS3 either. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it, or to what degree. A week, a month, a year. Doesn't matter.

As to the second part there, Skyrim is the very first Bethesda game for a large number of people. They wouldn't know any history, nor should they be expecting that a dirty scheme like this was in the wings. Me? I'm not surprised. I have been following the series since Morrowind, so I know what's gone down. It isn't fair to expect the same of newcomers not only to the series, but many of whom are new to gaming in general as well. That's why it's so important for those of us who do know, who can see where people (ourselves and others) are being taken advantage of, to help these newcomers. The more we educate, the more of us there are to take a stand, and the less there are blindly supporting the business practices.

I recall saying New Vegas was going to riddled with problems before it was released (which it was) and was told off for doing so. If people are interested in buying the game badly enough they'll buy it, regardless of whether or not people say it will be a bad decision down the line.

"Yeah, Skyrim has dragons and duel-wielding of weapons and spells, and you can do this cool Shout thing, but don't buy the game. It will be broken and people will wonder if it was actually tested or not it will be so bad. Oh, and if Bethesda decides to make DLC - they haven't actually said they would, but if they did - all the Xbox players would get it first because that's what happened with Oblivion and Fallout 3."

"But it looks so cool and I've never played an ES game before!"

Yup, I wouldn't buy the game after hearing that if Skyrim was the first Beth game I tried. /sarcasm

I don't think "Skyrim is the very first Bethesda game for a large number of people". Oblivion was huge and Fallout 3 was even bigger. I doubt that Skyrim would have been as big as it was if it wasn't for the "success" of their previous two titles.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

I think you're right, but perhaps for not quite the right reason.
Here's what seems to be on the table.
If Bethesda doesn't accept M$' terms for their contract, then Bethesda loses roughly a third of their potential sales. TES games are a huge investment, so not making that part back is a serious blow.
On the other hand, if Bethesda actually did pass on it, M$ is going to lose out on a major franchise, with the risk that people choose PS3 over 360. Yes, there are people who buy a specific console just for certain exclusive games.
It seems like just as big a risk for either side in that offer, but it seems like if Bethesda did threaten to walk over the '360 first' provision in the contract, that M$ would lose more in the long run. They should have the upper hand. That can only mean that there's something sweetening the deal for them to stay. My guess is an extra percentage of the DLC sales for the publisher and parent company of Bethesda, Zenimax Media.

It's a lot of guessing right now. All that we know for sure is that Bethesda doesn't really care about their fans.

I never said it would be easy.
Yes, you will be spoken against. And no, you're not going to win every person over. It's easy to be blinded by fanboy/girl-ism or hype. It's definitely an uphill battle.
But when trying to tell others to expect something bad, did you just say it, or did you prove it?
Then again, even with tons of evidence, you'll still get those who'll say, "But this one will be different!" You'll never win them over, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Oblivion went over well. Fallout 3 went big, as did New Vegas.
But Skyrim was huge, with more of the new casual crowd flooding in. They were the target audience this time. And each of them would be almost completely uninformed of the publisher/developers' history.

And you don't have to play the game to have an opinion on what is or isn't a bad business practice. I don't play Battlefield either, but I'm still against its exclusive DLC.

Quote :

All that we know for sure is that Bethesda doesn't really care about their fans.

I think that's all you've decided is certain.
Though it's true, you have a lot to back it up.
PC games in general have been pushed into the realm of crappy ports (and good indie games) in recent years; Skyrim is no exception. That's not Bethesda's hate or indifference, but rather the decision of the major publishers of this generation. They use the excuse (valid or not) of piracy to say, "Why should we bother with quality ports? They'll just get "stolen" anyway." The truth is that the PC market just isn't as exploitable as the influx of casuals on the consoles. By and large, the PC crowd is experienced and knows when something is bull.
But again, that's the publisher's call.

I enjoyed Skyrim, it was my first rpg. Maybe there are better RPG console games out there, I really don't know. I read the reviews and the boards and knew what I was getting into with Skyrim . I made an informed decision to buy the game. I was lucky I had the stuttering problem but it wasn't unplayable. I did feel like Bethesda didn't give a hoot about PS3 gamers. They released a game that had major problems they had to know about. I didn't research the companiy's history nor did I read of DLC being withheld until after I bought it.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

I think that's all you've decided is certain.

At this point I've gone past the point of no return because I'm just so ****ing fed up with Bethesda. I really am. They can't do anything good anymore (did they ever at any point?) and IMO they won't change. They haven't changed. All I can do is not give them my money. They don't deserve. (I didn't buy the game, one of my sibs did and everything gets shared around.)

I guess I didn't say here what happened that one night where I couldn't do anything in the game because it wouldn't let me do ten different quests and let me fast travel between two locations only. Probably because everything I'd type would be censored and even those words would be inadequate for expressing my frustration with the game.

I just started playing Skyrim again... sweet jayzuz I have no idea what I'm doing... I just run around placing buckets on everyones head

Dawnguard DLC is now out on Xbox360 and if you want to check out this link, you will find a lot of info on what's included. In short, 10-20 hours of new quests, crossbows, a new brand of weapons better than daedric, werewolf and vampire lord perk trees and new locations+enemies. I'm hoping for some new unique armor and weapons too !

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Dawnguard

It all looks nice, but I'm not that excited for it, honestly.
The PS3 release of the game was so ridiculously buggy it wasn't funny, and everything they did to fix it seemed to make it worse. (Bear in mind that I haven't played it since after the patch that broke elemental resistances.) I really don't have any faith that this will work right out of the gate, so I'm not in any hurry to get it. Probably just trade in my Skyrim and pick up the inevitable GotY edition. Then again, New Vegas' GotY doesn't work right either.

I would give it a shot with the latest patch Monkey. It drastically decreased framerate issues many were experiencing and it was labelled as the update that would go a long way to help fix them in the first place. Try it !!

Lame about Fallout, I bought it a few months back, I will just make multiple saves/characters . 1 for the base game and 1 for the DLC's etc

I'm more concerned with the freezes 5 to 15 minutes in playing the game that locks my system up and gives me a warning about corruption everytime I boot it back up.

The 360's dlc files apparently work on PC. If I can find the sauce I'll post it.

EDIT: This is as close to sauce as a source can get.

Hehehe "sauce"

I edited the post above.
Best served saucey. Gimme dat Skyrim saouce!! (bacon strips?)

So this DLC is selling for 16 dollars ?? Seems pricey for 10 to 20 hours of gameplay.