This thread's topic title is a quote from Pete Hines, Bethesda's VP. So obviously the rapacity factor is more important to these Corporate criminals(thanks Grace Jones for springing the nomenclature to mind here for me)than any sentiments the fans on both consoles, not to mention pc, may have for this 'franchise' and it's canon. Yes, I'm flogging a dead horse of a subject, but I feel incensed enough to actually log into my account here in the hope that my disgust for this practice sifts thru all the levels to Pete's desk. I mean, what company are we dealing with here? Activision? It smells like their kind of creed & it's practise repulses me nearly as much as the treatment meted out to Infinity Ward's former leaders. All I can say is stop it. It's as illogicol as not providing any online co-op capabilities in the two Fallout titles as yet released by you(Imagine all the extra sales if folk could actually play these brilliant games online with a mate!). I can understand the need for a quick buck off of a bigger, sometimes carnivorous "partner", but to what expense are you signing yourselves away when you practice what is repugnant to those of us whom are your real bread & butter? Food for thought next time MS comes circling for exclusivities 2 years down the track...

I agree with everything you said except the whole online co-op thing. If you look at Bethesda Game Studio's track record, their sole game development experience is based on massive open-world RPG's, not multiplayers. Other than that, I share your disgust at how the marketing department seems to completely shrug off PS3 and PC users, in particular the PS3 players. I am a PC player and I personally see the way that Beth have been treating PS3 users since Oblivion as terrible, the bottom of the barrel time and time again with inadequate efforts to fix it. I'm hoping Beth stops this trend with Skyrim, but hope is a mere word, not a promise of a better tomorrow.

Bethesda doesn't do online/co-op games. Zenimax has a separate studio for that.

Going by the threads here on the forums, its the same people constantly posting about co-op and multiplayer. And you have the people who constantly post against the idea. I haven't seen a game that has a fantastic single player campaign that also has a fantastic multiplayer campaign. If one is outstanding, the other one isn't. I want Bethesda to continue to do the single player games with the lore and detail. Let the other Zenimax studio do the multiplayer/co-op in a separate series, so I can peacefully ignore it. Whatever would happen with the lore, balance, and details wouldn't matter in the single player games.

I buy Bethesda's games. Does that make me part of their bread and butter? If so, their adding multiplayer/co-op is what would be repugnant to me. Or don't I count, since my opinion differs from yours?

And the exclusive thing doesn't bother me either. It might if they actually announced that it would never, ever, at all for all eternity, be released for pc. However I've never seen an announcement that the dlc is exclusive forever.

If anything, the temporary exclusive for XBOX (as in XBOX gets the DLC first) can actually be seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, the 360 players get the DLC before the PS3 and PC users. However, just because the 360 users got DLC first does not mean that it necessarily better. 360 users may end up with game-breaking glitches that either effect the DLC or the game as a whole. Perhaps an NPC has a dialog problem, or a boss is still considered "necessary", and therefore cannot die when fought. Heck, it could even goes as far as the DLC's world malfunctioning (ala The Pitt when it first came out). If anything, the 360 users are lab rats that "test" the DLC, and if adjustments or fixes are needed they are made as an update for the 360, and built in for the PS3 and PC when the DLC comes out for them.

Point is that there is some good and bad for all three sides of the consoles. Though the PS3 and PC users have to wait, at least the DLC will come to them patched, while on the other hand, 360 users get the DLC first, they have to deal with any malfunctions the DLC has come with (if there are any) until an update comes out to fix it.

Now I know that there are still factors that seem unfair. Unfortunately, money makes the world go around. It's not about what you take from it; it's about letting it go (couldn't resist saying that :thumbsup: even though I may have not gotten the quote exactly right).

If the DLCs were a PC exclusive, PS3 and X-Box fans would complain.
If the DLCs were a PS3 exclusive, PC and X-Box fans would complain.

We live in an instant-gratification society. Patience is a virtue. I know it's hard to wait and I feel lucky I'm on X-Box, but the DLCs will become available. And, as pointed out above, probably patched.

These games cost millions to produce and promote. Any studio that passes up a chance to recoup some of that cost with an exclusivity deal is being foolish.

But Bethesda comes out with a patch for Xbox within a month, yet PS3 and PC don't get it until six months later...

Atleast PC has the G.E.C.K. and can make a mod similar to the DLC but people on PS3 (like me) are stuck either waiting, buying an X Box (which is exactly what Microsoft wants those [censored]), or visiting a friend who has an X Box and the DLC...

It's a terrible thing to do to PC and PS3, if Bethesda didn't make incredible games I would avoid everything made by them just for these reasons...



So in a perfect world where game studios listened to their fans everything would be released on every platform at the exact same [censored] time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're right. It is unfair for one to go before the others in line, but it is not unethical nor unheard of. As I said, money makes the world go around (at least in our society), so therefore those who have the cash are giving out the bribes. As you said, it is another way for Microsoft to sell their products, and even though it may seem evil, it is actually quite clever. This is more or likely why PC also has to wait, because even though Microsoft also has PC the date is still delayed for DLC on that platform.

My guess is that Sony may have had an opportunity to do the same, but either they lacked the funds, were outbid by Microsoft, or simply did not see the need employ this tactic. Whatever the reason(s), obviously Microsoft saw an opportunity and has taken it.

As for the update debate, I am guessing the same (or similar) scenario is happening here.

I hear this bandied about a lot, but I don't think it's really true. Xbox and PC got the DLC first in Fallout 3 and yet when they made their way over to the PS3, many of the same bugs were still there.

Speaking as PS3 Fallout 3 player, the DLC arrived to us in HORRIBLE condition... worse than the 360 and PC version, which came first. Trust me on this one. The game was a lagging/freezing nightmare and it seems that very simple things (such as not having purified water in front of the Jefferson Memorial with Broken Steel or not being able to light the lighthouse in Point Lookout) were completely overlooked. There was no advantage to those who waited, none at all. Bethesda never even bothered to acknowledge, apologize for, or patch the DLC.

DO you remember The Shivering Isles?

That is DLC exclusive good waiting at its best.

Shivering Isles worked great for me, but did PS3 players really get a better version than Xbox players? If Bethesda did that then, then what is the excuse for what happened with Fallout 3's DLC? Fallout 3's DLC was a nightmare, for me.

Yup, the reference bug was fixed before it got to the PS3.

I agree and disagree with what you said. First off multiplayer is illogical for a Fallout game from Bethesda, it couldn't work and in my opinion, would ruin the "magic" of the game. I'll suggest you go to Interplay's website who is the original company that published the Fallout series and is currently in the alpha stages (from what I've heard) of Fallout Online.

Do I think it's wrong on many levels to abandon the fans who have made Fallout what it is and stuck with the series for so long? Of course! But the thing is Bethesda is a company. Whether we like it or not it's main purpose is to make money and succeed. Microsoft have bottomless pockets full of money and Bethesda likes that. Why release the dlc onto all consoles when they can wait a while for even more cash? It's just the way it is. Expect the future dlc's to be Xbox exclusive as well.

I'm even a little offended that you would compare Activision to Bethesda. They don't even come close. If you look at most of the multi-console games, their dlc comes to Xbox first. So this isn't nothing new. I don't see Bethesda promising Obsidian millions worth of dollars in bonuses and claiming they never made any agreements to that. I can see why your angry but lets simmer down here, they're nothing alike. For now.

Not in the Pitt, Mothership Zeta, Broken Steel, or Point Lookout... I had to wait until the Game of the Year Edition came out for PS3 (which was like six months before Vegas came out)...After that it worked alot better but I bet PS3 and maybe even PC users would spen an extra five dollars to get the DLC at the same time...

And I find evil a very strong word for this maybe cruel or douchie

Should have commented on my previous reply but I'd like to put out there that so far, Obsidian is being excellent with the quality of the dlc. I didn't experience any problems at all which was a big surprise for me thinking that it would be invested with bugs and glitches. On the other hand it was very clear the engine was struggling to keep up with the effects in the dlc. But yes, everybody wins in some way. :tops:

If rationalizing it that way makes you feel better, more power to you. The way I rationalize it is we members of the X-Box Elite are the bold pioneers, fearlessly striding out into the Great Unknown, braving the dangers of bugs...all for the priceless experience of being the first to lay eyes on the wonders of the content the Developers came up with, then reporting what we found to the less adventurous...the SDF...and those pre-occupied with the GECK...PC players..back East. As I staggered to the Vault Elevator with half a ton of gold bars, Elijah's screams and fists hammering in vain against a permanently locked Vault door ringing in my ears.....victory became a whole lot sweeter when I realized that the Devs would certainly patch this out for the version of the DLC the SDF eventually gets and they would never know such a complete Triumph. :cookie:

I agree to most of the topic except for the disgusting idea to add online co op.Ill be damned if i ever buy another fallout game if they add that disease to one of the few good single player games left.If ppl want onlien co op theres the vermin called fable X D.Gut out the story the size of map the complexity for a online buddy?Hell N O.I will fight against online co op till im worm food lol.Had to fix the hell no addition best describes my fervor*

I just want to experience this game's awesomeness with a m8(and one whom normally would not buy these games), your disgust and it's accompanying vitriol I share, almost, for online multiplayer games anyway(particularly due to the fact that being in New Zealand brings unwelcome latency issues to a match, especially one with 6+ players), tho mp games do have their place(CoD bedamned), but no not as far as I can see, with my limiting opinionated vision, within Fallouts 3 & New Vegas.

That svcks. I actually had no idea it was that bad. Kinda shoddy of them to put out something and just leave, but as I said bribes are incentive to "give perks" to the briber.



Yeah, rationalizing would be the best way to describe most of my first post. As I said, I had no idea that PS3 got shanked in such a manner. Too bad we do not live in a perfect world with but one console, as it looks as though there is always going to be an up and down for playing on one console, or another.

So long as Microsoft has the leash known as cash, companies will do as they say. Nothing can be done until the high roller breaks, or a bigger high roller takes over.

If they do not let us know something soon about whether or not the PC is ever getting Dead Money I will probably lose interest and after that they can stuff their "exclusive" DLC crap where the sun don't shine.

I don't think I have ever loved a company so much and had them treat me badly enough to make me turn 180 degrees and utterly despise them like Bethesda has done. They really have dropped to the bottom of my list with this stupid exclusive DLC garbage. Whoever was idiotic enough to think this crap was a good idea should be terminated and sued for damages.

What MS is doing is perfectly logical, while I don't think it's fair, or nice....the world isn't fair or nice. The people that really torque me off is Sony....if you read the drivel that Jack Tretton and Kutargi were putting out when the PS3 launched, they thought merely releasing the PS3 won the Console Wars for Sony and they didn't have to do anything but show up and it's over. They didn't line up developers and games to have some titles at launch, they did nothing when MS went around passing money-hats to keep games (or at least DLC) off PS3...they just spewed delusional nonsense about the upcoming "Halo-Killer" like Haze that would turn everything around but turned out to be awful. I ended up getting a X-Box...which gets a lot more use than my PS3.

That quote from Hines makes me highly concerned that all future DLC will be exclusive to the 360.

People are still waiting on an announcement for Dead Money on PS3 and PC. I'm not, I've already written it off. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it comes out, but I'm not holding my breath.

Garnering ill will from two parts of your market in exchange for what amounts to a bribe from Microsoft. Shame, Bethesda.

Do a google search for "Embrace Extend Exterminate" (or their euphemized "Embrace Extend Extinguish"). Microsoft is now in the "Extend" phase for the gaming industry.

You are correct. Microsoft is being smart and logical in what they are doing, though it still seems a bit vile what is currently going on (whether it actually is vile or not).

It is also interesting that you brought up that your XBOX is getting more use than your PS3. I know this is a little off topic, but the 360 does seem to be the more practical of the current three (PS3, 360, Wii), and also that most games that can be bought on a PS3 can also be bought on the cheaper 360. Perhaps it is due to the fact that a good amount of gamers seem to play the 360 version of Bethesda's current games, and therefore this may also be a reason why the tend to put the 360 over the other two platforms (PS3 and PC). Now this is just speculation and more rationalizing, but it does seem probable.

One thing that does surprise me a little and pleases me alot is the fact that this topic and it's content has not denegrated into a pointless xbox/pc/ps3 troll-fest with folk running down what they might consider inferior Hardware to what they might use(I will say ps3's gutless 256MB of RAM confounds and frustrates me on a daily basis. Hopefully the Playstation Phone's purported(sic)512MB RAM & the PSP2's 1GB of RAM will spell better & bigger capabilities for the upcoming PS4). This lack of trollery goes alot for the mindset and intelligence level of people whom post in this forum. Tell me, could ps3's shortcomings have in any way forced Bethesda into leaving the dlc 'as is(or was)', in order to gauge how they might run on the ps3's hardware before making the decision to patch the by then known faults? What I mean is would it have served them to have waited to see if those bugs would come out on release and how they might fix them on what I think was a first(dlc from Bethesda on psn)?

It seems to be a trend....they did it for Oblivion (though PS3 players eventually got the two major DLCs), did it for FO3 and I figured they would do it for NV. I bought the XBox version because I figured I would get the DLC quicker and I wanted the achievements.