Bethesda “Not Positive” That Dawnguard Will Ever Make it to PS3

The Skyrim DLC schedule will soon see its second release, in the shape of Hearthfire, on the Xbox 360. That expansion is expected on the PC around a month later, as was the case with the first DLC expansion: Dawnguard. But the prospect of ever seeing any Skyrim DLC on a PlayStation 3 is looking uncertain.

A locked thread has gone up on Bethesda’s forums to address the ongoing absence of Dawnguard on the PlayStation 3:

– ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW –

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.

So it seems like there’s some kind of problem with expanding content on the PS3 – something that other developers seem to have found a way to make work. It’s well known that the PS3’s architecture is more complicated than most developers would prefer but we’re now almost six years into its life and Bethesda has put out multiple titles on the console. You’d think they’d know it inside out by now.

It would be quite interesting to know what the actual problem is, we’re sure there will be plenty of assumptions made in the coming days.

Source: Bethesda forums

– PAGE CONTINUES BELOW –

75 Comments

  1. IMO the ps3 doesn’t handle open wold game very well. gta4 , fallout 3, la noire, red dead r, mafia 2, and now this. it’s got to be a lack of memory.

    MGS5 OH SHIT!

    • Depends if its build from the ground-up as a PS3 game. The inFamous games are cracking :)

    • All of those are multi platform titles – they always perform worse anyway. Look at PS exclusive open world games.

    • What was wrong with Red Dead? Never had any issues with it.

    • That’s a bit of a strange (& somewhat untrue) generalisation – I have played plenty of open world games on my PS3 & rarely had a problem with any of them;

      The Amazing Spiderman, Assassins Creed 2, Brotherhood & Revelations, Arkham City, Borderlands, Brutal Legend, Darksiders (to an extent), Dead Island, Dead Rising 2 & Off The Record, Driver San Francisco, GTA IV (can’t say I had any problems with it tbh), Infamous 1 & 2, Just Cause 2, Mafia 2, Mercenaries 2, Prototype 1 & 2, Red Dead Redemption, Red Faction Guerrilla, Saints Row The Third, Sleeping Dogs, The Godfather 2, The Saboteur, The Yakuza games. I suppose you could also include skateboarding games in that too.

      All played well enough & as expected & I rarely encountered a bug in any of them. Not that caused me undue stress at least.

      Blimey, looking at it, I have actually played a LOT of open world type games!

      I agree that fallout 3 was buggy, but it was still more enjoyable than some of the tripe that hits the shelves.

      • do you know what i like best about your comment? all the games are listed in alphabetical order. nice.

        On topic though, I too have never had a problem with open world games. Fallout 3, yes. New Vegas, not so much (less said about Skyrim the better). but the others have been fine!

      • same for me forrest the only games that run bad in open world are Bethesda games I have had problems with all of them.

      • @McProley: Haha – They are indeed. They were plucked from my ‘spreadsheet of wonder®’ as my memory is so goddamn awful! I am a little OCD when it comes to that sort of thing though & I do get a little hung up on whether ‘The’ should be classed as part of the title or not. Seems Spiderman threw me off on that one! :)

        @skib: I can’t say I have had problems with all Bethesda games (Brink runs fine & I think WET was also a Bethesda game & that was fine too), but Fallout 3 certainly did have its share of bugs & freezes & New Vegas is apparently prone to the odd thing too (although I haven’t encountered anything in my short playtime so far).

      • open world games mate brink & wet were fine for me to.

      • Nothing untrue about it gaphics were 640 on ps3 and 720 on 360. On most games i listed. I did’nt mention bugs.

      • But RDR still looked excellent and i can’t even tell the difference between the PS3 version and the 360 version. Graphics don’t make the game. Imo.

      • @Nickboss1 – But when you talk about the PS3 ‘not handling things well’, that shouldn’t relate to graphics at all, as the games still play well… Therefore are ‘handled’ well.

        I mean, it isn’t like they look like 8 bit games is it? If they did, i think you would have cause for concern, but all of the games i listed were definitely current gen.

        Please tell me you haven’t skipped these games just because you feel that because the visuals were ‘sub-par’ (personally, i thought that they all looked great & portrayed what they needed to), it was any less of a good game. That would be a crime.

        Wise man once say – Man who lives life by graphics & comparison sites, lives no life at all.

        @steve – We are basically talking about the odd missing bush here or there in Red Dead. Pfft. Not exactly something to be up in arms about & no-one would even notice if comparison sites didn’t exist.

      • Excalty, if you are going to refuse to buy a game just because it’s not 720p, then you are a bit of a fool.(not aimed at anyone) as most of the time, you can’t tell the difference between both versions. I suspect GTA5 will probably not be 1080p on the PS3 but i suspect it will still look beautiful before procceeding to mug us again.

      • 360 win ps3 fail end of.

      • Actually you win as you end up enjoying the game you bought regardless of console. Or at least that what i like to think. As long as the game doesn’t possess my console and cause it to vomit all over me, then i’m fine with the half arsed port. Unless it’s an unplayable mess.

      • All i’m saying is most people tend to buy thier games on the 360 due to the differents in performance and graphics. I can’t disagree with that cus most games apart from sony 1st party ones look and perform better on 360 fact. I’m the biggest sony fan boy going so don’t take what i’m saying the wrong way. I sold my 360 about 2 years ago cus i refuse to pay 40 pound a year just to go online and most of my games are ps3 exclusives now cus sony make the best. i’ve seen first hand the differents in red dead and gta4 running side by side on ps3 and 360 and apart from graphics there’s a lot of pop in issues.

        I’m just the messenger :)

    • it can if you code for it, the ps3 uses different hardware to the xbox, it uses SPE’s to play games, but the problem is, game devs have to code for it to use the SPE’s, right now, skyrim’s workload is being all put on the processor, and the 7 SPE’s ALL running at 3.2Gh.z are just sitting there, getting dusty, if they were used by devs and devs coded games to use these 7 SPE’s, games would run alot better, there would be no problems with skyrim appart from quest bugs, there wouldnt be performance issues, uncharted 3 is an example, this game IS using these 7 SPE’s, and it runs brilliantly

      • Thanks for the info. I guess it all comes down to lazy developers?

      • Can you quote any reputable sources for any of that?

        I can pretty much guarantee that UC3 is not using 7 SPEs. The PS3’s Cell BE only has 7 SPEs and one is reserved for the OS, so there are only 6 available for games.

  2. It’s brave of Bethesda to come out and admit they’re having problems. You can understand why, given the venomous bile repeatedly spat at them, they would be extra keen to avoid a flawed release.

    Glad they’ve got Sony’s engineers on board too.

    Question for the all haters, would you prefer flawed DLC or no DLC?

    • That’s what i said on another site. If Bethesda released this content 2 months ago people would complain about it having tons of problems, but people are also complaining about it not being released.
      The only problem i have with this whole situation, is the lack of communication between Bethesda and us. Personaly they shouldn’t release it untill it’s ready

      • agree. reminds me of SCEE.

        Now where the F is CSGO!

    • They didn’t seem to have a problem releasing the main game in a shitty state… I guess they learned their lesson.

  3. As mentioned it is most likely a RAM issue. Despite the size of the game the 360 copy I downloaded from Games on Demand only weighs in at just over 4GB, and that’s with the Dawnguard DLC too!
    I assume with PS3 they have either made gamers install the whole game or they have duplicated code on the Blu-Ray to reduce seek times again. So my money is on the RAM setup.
    Just a damn shame, I played both versions and the performance difference is very apparent. Though visually they are not far apart at all.

  4. I swear, if PS3 owners have any sense they will avoid Bethesda games from now on. Shocking developer.

    • Agreed. When they created the Creation Engine [or whatever Skyrim runs], they knew it was going to be multiplatform, though they obviously didn’t give much thought to the PlayStation players.

    • I swear, if PS3 owners have any sense they will understand it’s a problem with the game engine used for the Fallout and Oblivion series’ of games and not something that is generally symptomatic with the publisher. E.g., there’s no reason to expect Dishonored to suffer from similar problems on PS3.

      • There was nothing wrong with the Oblivion engine. It was developed by a 4j Studios in Dundee, UK and not in-house and imho did a sterling job. All the problems started when Bethesda brought the engine in-house for fallout 3.

  5. Oh well, if this is the cast I’ll trade in my copy of Skyrim this weekend. If the DLC does ever get released I can always rent it.
    At lease they had the guts to come out and tell us rather than just stringing it out.

  6. Whatever happens they are going to lose a lot of revenue.

  7. TBH I’d be glad if it never came out. got so bored of playing it while going for the Plat due to all the bugs etc, that I really don’t fancy going back to it to retain my 100%.

  8. If the DLC doesn’t get released they’ve just lost this customer. As usual, I was waiting for a GOTY edition before making my purchase, and having never played any of the Oblivion games I was really looking forward to Skyrim.

    Having over 60 games still to 100% trophy wise maybe it’s a good thing? And who knows I might obtain it, through questionable methods, for the PC at some point.

  9. Time to convert to the PC version it seems now.

  10. Seeing as they are having major trouble with porting over DG, i’m not annoyed anymore as i know the reason for the delay. The lack of information was the thing that annoyed me the most. But if they are having trouble with DG, then how on earth did they managed to get Skyrim working? As i would imagine coding add on content is a lot easier then developing an entire game. I wonder if they will end up including it on the GOTY/UE?

    I can see ND or other Sony developers being brought in to help them due to their knowledge of the PS3. So does this mean that we won’t get any DLC for Skyrim on the PS3? If so then i’m going to be midly annoyed but would understand the reason for it. Looks like i may ditch the PS3 versions of Bethesda developed games and wait untill i get a PC that can run them. Hopefully, this is just a one off incident due to it being the first add-on and they are trying to figure out how to get it to work.

Comments are now closed for this post.