I know before people were saying something about PS3 having a weird internal memory or something to that effect. That's still no excuse for PS3 having the worse version of Skyrim even after all the patching. I would have preferred Bethesda to push back the release of PS3 Skyrim until they were confident of having acceptable performance. I'm hoping beyond the miniscule graphic comparisons between consoles, PS4's Fallout 4 doesn't significantly stagger behind X1's performance.

Problem is that (unlike what the cynical pc players may say) is that skyrim was made for pc first and then ported, it was this porting process that was cumbersome on the old gen, especially to PS3, however as Todd remarked in a recent interview, both PS4 and Xbox One has both software and hardware structure much more similar to a pc, so porting will be a much more smoother process.

There's no excuse with them improperly porting to the PS3's architecture. Look at all of the blockbuster titles that PS3 had last gen, Uncharted for example, leaps and bounds above Bethseda. They were just too lazy to properly utilize the PS3 as others did successfully.

Now, the whole timed release BS. That needs to end and sure as heck better not happen this generation, for ANY platform. If they do that this generation, they have no excuse since PS4 leads in system sales and the differences in architecture are null. They pull that crap again, I'm done. After last generation and putting up with that on PS3, I bought all their games used. I've done so on PS4 to date for this reason alone! This is their chance to redeem themselves to Playstation and PC gamers.

If not, I'll continue to buy their games used if at all. Because I can't support that crap with my wallet. And I KNOW I'm not alone in that sentiment.

I hope so. It's bad enough we'll have to deal with inevitable quest bugs and glitches. The last thing I want is to regret buying Fallout 4 on the wrong platform.

You're definitely not alone in that statement. Metal Gear Solid V and Fallout 4 are two reasons why I will finally get a PS4. I'm pretty confident MGSV will perform pretty stable. After revisiting Skyrim on PS3, I'm somewhat leery with how Fallout 4 will perform on PS4, given Bethesda's track record with past RPG's and nightmarish gameplay with Skyrim on PS3.

This is an issue I am concerned about too, given that this time around I'll be playing on PS4 instead of XBox. I'm sure Beth still has their "exclusivity deal" with Microsoft, though this is entirely speculation on my part as I can't prove it.

Part of the angst was Bethesda pulling the sheets of their continued romance for Microsoft AFTER New Vegas shipped last year...I mean WTF Bethesda?!?! They only announced timed release DLC after folks had it in their hands. That was the "straw that broke the camel's back" for me. They lost all credibility and unabridged loyalty with that. I just hope they realize MANY fans have yet to forget that.

PS3's hardware architecture was a troublemaker for a lot of gamedevelopers not only Bethesda. Gladly Sony has come to their senses and made something more reasonable to develop on with the PS4. So I don't see here any troubles for FO4.

The timed exclusive DLCs? Yes as PC user I hate them too and I am pretty sure they will come back, sadly. MS pays simply to much money for them.

You can't place a value on lost loyalty from fans and those steadfast in buying their games used for doing such timed release BS. If I were a stakeholder, I wouldn't want to tick off two thirds of the fan base to satitate one third. But what do I know, I only have three business degrees...

Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure, once Fallout 4 is released, Bethesda will announce 'timed exclusive' DLC that will hit PC and X1 first. It's all part of a marketing scheme that was most likely planned years ago.

Areas like dungeons was made and tested by the developers on pc with the CK.

It was however balanced to run on 360.

Both consoles had their own engines, the problem was that PS3 used graphic and main memory 256MB of each while 360 had 512 unified, having separate graphic memory increases performance however as the 350 was able to use more than 256 MB as system memory and the game was designed around this, if the game+other junk require 257 mb of main memory it will crash the game. 512 MB was little then 350 was released, at the time Skyrim was released good moblie phones had 512 MB or more. Sony Vita has more memory than PS3.

For current generation its not an issue, both has 8GB unified who is pretty much the same as an standard PC has, yes an pc tend to have 2GB of grapic memory too but still.

Memory was the main change from PS3 to PS4, memory increased 16 x GPU performance 6x.

And yes as both PS4 and One use a AMD CPU/GPU its no harder to port an pc game to them than to port it to mac or linux

Ooohh, get you! Meeoow!

OP: I share your concerns as I'll by playing on PS4 this time around, at least until I get around to building a new PC. I'm not too worried, however, as both of the new consoles are much closer to PCs in how they operate (apparently). I think the PS3 issue was something to do with its memory set up, but I don't think that'll be an issue this time.

Today exclusive=time exclusive pretty much, and it will be way harder for MS to pull that tricks now as they are the underdog.

MS used an sick and carrot deal, if we don't get an time excursive on DLC we don't want it, then offer an pile of money or that they took an smaller cut themselves.

Try that today and they will loose serious money on each dlc as its an serious danger that many pc and ps4 players moves on and return for the GOTY version and they outnumber the One players 3-4/1

You see they play underdog, eager to get mod support for one.

Posts removed.
Console bashing and/or insults aimed at people that choose a certain console is flaming.

You can criticize all you want, but when it's an insult aimed at fans, you're breaking the rules.

It was, but unlike Bethesda, most game developers got a good handle on it a year or two after the console was on the market and even some games were better off on the hardware than others (well, not newer PC hardware...that's a different beast). I'm not talking about Playstation exclusive or PS-primary ported to other platforms either.

Just look the port job for Oblivion and the port job for Oblivion GoTY edition. One was done by 4J, the other by Bethesda and the latter became really screwed up.

Fact remains is that Bethesda simply was not that good with the system while others caught up and utilized it properly. There was no good excuse for it .

I don't think your outrage is shared by the majority of people. As a PC player, timed exclusives don't bother me. It's not like we paid for the DLC through a season pass and then were told to wait while Xbox players get to have access to it for a month. Demanding DLC you haven't purchased yet is simply being entitled.

PS3/PS4 players do have plenty of reasons to distrust Bethesda though. The performance of their games I've seen in videos on YouTube is abysmal.

Except Bethesda makes an big open world game, which needs a lot of memory and CPU power both things that the PS3 wasn't that big. (Cellular CPU sounds good on paper but in the real world its actually weak).

Few other games was open world games with 10 thousands of objects. Corridor shooters don't use much memory. Notice how open world has become the new cool, TES and GTA has been it since 386, now Dragon Age and Witcher joins the club.

Oblivion also don't push the system limits very hard. Fallout NV with DLC, Skyrim and GTA 5 does. Dragon age Inquisition drops DLC on previous gen consoles.

Memory is an very physical limit, its like getting negative attitude while flying an fighter jet supersonic. More advanced OS like Unix, PS2 and Windows NT can get around it using virtual memory but this don't help you much in an game as you would get 0.1 FPS.

Again its an reason why memory was priority 1,2 and 3 on PS4 and One, this was not an Bethesda oly complain, Crytec fronted the 8gb+ campaign.

Be that as it may, it's still no excuse to release a half baked, ported game. What's really wack is that Bethesda abandoned ship with patching Skyrim, right after the Dragonborn DLC.

Many PS3 users opted out for the PC version and reliable modders who picked up where Bethesda left off. Since mods are supposedly coming for all consoles regarding Fallout 4, it will be interesting to see how long Bethesda will actually support Fallout 4 after all DLCs are released.

It's one thing to rebuy the same game for PC because of mods. It's another thing to rebuy the same game for Xbox because the PS3 version plays like crap, the bigger your save file gets.

Funny thing you say that, the Skyrim DLCs for PS3 were delayed multiple times because of performance issues, and were people happy about it? Certainly not, there were a lot of vocal complaining going on.

You can't really compare a linear game on rails with an open world game, completely different technical beasts. Not to mention that Uncharted was exclusive to the PS3, no porting involved at all.

Yep, pretty much all multi-platform games ran slightly worse on the PS3 than on the 360, and some ran a lot worse like Bayonetta and Red Dead Redemption.

Yep, this time the table has turned. Pretty much all multi-platform games run slightly better on the PS4 than on the XB1.

Which is not surprising, cause Oblivion was a lot less complex and needed less resources. It didn't run well because 4J were good porters, it ran well because Oblivion wasn't so demanding. And then GOTY added a bunch of content, filling the game with lots of more objects and whatnot, so it needed more resources pushing the already limited 256MB system RAM to the extreme. And with Fallout 3 they went further as the game draw about 3 times more polygons than Oblivion, there's a lot more clutter in the game world the player can pick up and so on.

Fixed your font problem. FO4 can't be compared here anymore because it won't come out for PS3. The PS4 has similar (slightly stronger) specs as the XBox One and actually are both consoles basically PCs. The support cycle will be pretty sure the same for all three plattforms because of this. About mods: First Sony has to give its ok that the PS3 will get mods. Bethesda wants to as was clearly stated at E3 but can't do it without Sony's blessing.

I assume the official support pretty sure will end with the last DLC. Was always that way for Bethesda games. (One exception was Skyrim PC which got a last update that no one wanted but don't let us talk about this disaster )

I completly understand the frustration of PS3 users and I actually don't understand that Bethesda even supported this plattform which wasn't able to work well with their engine (as I said Beths engine is memory hungry and needs CPU power, interestengly it doesn't go so hard on the GPU at least for FO3 & NV).

Entitlement has nothing to do with it, and you're introducing dangerous words to the debate. As a "gamer" (regardless of platform), it leaves a pretty sour taste in your mouth when you support a game day one and then watch others get "support" back from the developer before others...it's an equality issue...supporting all "fans" equally. The fairness doesn't lay in the eyes of the developer/publisher, doing so would be beyond short-sighted. If folks don't think that their profits would have been greater with such equality, on ALL platforms, then they'd also argue that 2+2=/=4. One of the largest intangible assets any company has is their public perception and reputation, and getting in bed with Microsoft helped neither in the long run; me still discussing it six years later proves as much.

Equate it to the car industry. How well do you think one car manufacturer would fair over the others if consumers buy the "luxury" model (Honda EX-L for example) afforded you early access to new features (paid or not), over those that opted for only the EX model, especially when they let you know AFTER you bought the car, while the entire time the car manufacturer knew this fact and it was painfully obvious they just wanted to complete the deal to "earn" your money.

How insane would it be for the same scenario across multiple car manufacturers where NAVTEQ offered Honda map updates six months to a year before offering them to Toyota. The backlash would be horrendous. Just because you didn't witness the public outcry, there indeed was one, and I assure you many shared the sour taste and still taste it.

Rockstar had zero issues making their games not only work but excel on the PS3. It's because they cared about their entire fan base and showed it, aside from their test of timed release DLC for GTAIV. No PS3 or PC gamer would have cared for Bethesda to have held the game until it was fully polished for their system. It was all about money in the short-run, making short-cuts to minimize their costs, and their relationship with Microsoft, and their covert public acknowledgement of such...all hurting them in the long run.

You're former reposnse is a fallacy, several games were developed on PS3 then ported to other systems, it was an example, as you know, yet you allude that only linear games excelled on the PS3; it was a singular example in that developers would take the time to understand and utilize the technology, first-party, exclusive, or whatever. The latter response is troll bait, and I'm not falling for it.

You're the one who brought Uncharted into this discussion and compared it with Skyrim, not me. I just pointed out they are technically very different games.

And yes, several games were developed on the PS3 and then ported to 360 which ran the game fine. And you know why? The 360 Xenos graphic chip is more powerful than the PS3 RSX graphics chip. Even a "bad" port would run well.

Not at all, that RDR run noticeably worse on the PS3 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-red-dead-redemption-face-off. It's not a small difference, everyone would notice the smaller resolution and worse textures and so on, if they were shown side by side.