Bethesda’s Pete Hines ‘Rarely Plays DLC’, Must Have A PS3?

With the Skyrim PS3 DLC still missing in action a disgruntled gamer took to Twitter to say they would not be buying any future Bethesda games on the platform as they may get short changed when it comes to extra content.

“There are plenty of reasons not to buy a game. If that’s yours, that’s up to you,” responded Pete Hines, VP of PR and Marketing at Bethesda.


The Tweeter described this as an “appalling answer” and asked a pretty valid question: what about future Bethesda games? Will PlayStation gamers who purchase Dishonored miss out on extra content?

“I don’t buy [games] on the promise of DLC, regardless of platform. But I rarely play DLC anyway. For me, it’s about the game,” replied Pete.

An honest answer but probably not the reassurance gamers required, in fact his comment prompted another Tweeter to say “Just cancelled my pre-order because of your ignorant attitude about DLC. Your customer base isn’t as malleable as you think.”

It wouldn’t hurt Bethesda to do a weekly blog post and let the community know how things are progressing. Perhaps if they explained in a little more detail why they are having problems it may help calm the fans.

Source: Twitter



  1. This exchange just goes to show how fickle gamers are…. On the one hand they don’t want games to have DLC, but then they somehow feel short-changed if a game doesn’t have DLC.

    • Well that is because their are a lot of gamers and they different opinions.

    • I don’t think it’s so much not wanting DLC, I mean when DLC comes out 3 or 4 months after the game, would you rather wait another 2 months for the game and have no DLC? There comes a point when the game must be released, often due to publisher schedules obviously, but there still comes a date. I personally have no problem with paying for DLC that’s worthy of the price. What’s going on here is stupid though. He’s head of PR and marketing basically and he’s said DLC isn’t important to me. He should be trying to sell DLC to everyone under the moon!

      • A game can and should stand on it’s own irrespective of DLC though…. otherwise it just plays into the hands of those that think gamers are getting robbed and fed ‘incomplete’ games

  2. There’s something a bit messed up about that view.

    “I want your game but now as we’re not (or may not be) getting the DLC I’m not going to play the game I want to play.”

    It’s not like they were saying they’d get in on a different platform to get the DLC.

    I don’t buy a game based on content I may or may not get the chance to purchase in the future. I buy it based on what I get when i buy it. Not buying a game because of there may not be getting DLC seems a pretty poor reason to me.

    • i don’t know, finding out there’s going to be content for the game that you might forever be denied access to seems like a good reason to avoid something to me.

      • To avoid the whole game? Unless of course all you wanted to play was the DLC but then that would make it one expensive game.

        I can think of lot of better reasons not to play a game like game breaking bugs, bad controls, poor plot, missing modes (co-op/split screen etc…), too expensive, lack of inovation

  3. kind of an ironic statement from somebody from the company that brought the world horse armour.
    the piece of dlc that could be said to have started the current trend for rip off dlc.

    his attitude shows, to me at least, that he really doesn’t care about the consumers.
    for somebody who is “VP of PR and Marketing at Bethesda” that is frankly an appaling attitude.

    but then he fits right in with what the rest of the industry is doing lately, where the gamer/consumer/customer is seen as the least important part of the business.

    any other luxury industry, which is what gaming is remember, it’s not a public service, the customer would be seen as the most important part of the business, how does gaming get it all so backwards?

  4. In my opinon, it doesn’t matter that if he plays DLC or not but the major problem that many PS3 bethesda fans have with them is the lack of communication regarding Dawnguard. I think many people would not have minded so much if they said a week after it was supposed to be released that they were having trouble getting it to run on the PS3 and they apologise for the inconvince as well as giving us an update every few weeks regarding the status of it if possible.

    But if you are going to refuse to play a game just because of the lack of DLC, then you are shooting yourself in the foot as Skyrim does have 100+ hours worth of content. Although Hines probably shouldn’t have responded in the way he did and probably should have done a formal response.

  5. @blarty (can’t reply directly to you) I totally agree, games should be able to stand on their own two feet, without the need for DLC to be announced around launch. Games like skyrim, oblivion, the fallouts, they all did that. The problem is, unlike many other games people who play RPGs get very into the story etc and many want to see every story unfold that’s possible. To know that a dev is allowing some to play the full story, so to speak, and other not isn’t easy to take. I have skyrim on 360 and haven’t bothered with dawnguard / hearthfire so I realise that contradicts a bit what I said… haha but for those options not to be available to a large percentage of gamers for no exclusivity reason is crazy to me and I can totally believe it’d be enough to put people of buying. It may not stop many, but even if it stops a few, that’s going to hurt Bethesda the hardest it can, less profit.

    • Agreed, but if you’re going to have DLC, push it onto all platforms you publish the main game to, but at the same time… stop giving vague and nebulous answers to legitimate concerns from large sections of your customer base or you’ll just alienate them. I perhaps hate the timed-exclusivity agreements more than the fact they haven’t yet released Dawnguard for the PS3. I have Skyrim on 360, PS3 and PC so it’s not a big deal personally, but from a purely professional point of view, mess-ups like this don’t look good for Bethesda

    • Quite right.

      But I think the main reason why people are angry with the lack of DLC is that it is available on another platform that they have no access to. Probably better of not producing a PS3 version if they can’t give it equal support.

      As someone that has owns both console versions of Skyrim I really do believe Bethesda has short changed PS3 gamers. Lack of DLC is just another item to add to the list.

      My time on the 360 version has not suffered due to crashes, the graphics is sharp unlike PS3 version which just blurs the whole frame, and the loading times are faster (providing the game is installed).

  6. AS much as people say above. I agree, I wouldn’t buy a game just for DLC, but I would feel short changed if I loved that game and bought it on the promise of DLC that was never released.

    Based on that I think its perfectly fair to say you wouldn’t buy another game from them. The replies are crazy and Bethesda shouldn’t allow such person on twitter.

  7. Although i think he was being 100% flippant (not a good quality for a PR man) it could be considered by the consumer that it is also indicative of their after sales support.If another platform has dlc then it’s only logical to assume they have more support.

Comments are now closed for this post.