I wish they would. That's what DICE are supposedly doing with Battlefield 3 (DX 11 optimization for the PC, SPE utilization for the PS3). Full optimization for each platform simply seems like the "right" thing to do, to me. If one version ends up looking better than another and yet another ends up looking far better than that one, then it's fine if that's what the hardware capabilities result in.

PC hardware also gets very complex, you have XP holdouts and people who are confused by what version of Windows 7 to upgrade to. There are casual PC gamers who dont know what kind of hardware capabilities they're PC has so they have no idea if they want Home Premium or Ultimate and then 32-bit versus 64-bit. People who prefer Radeon chipsets to Nvidia and vice versa; to sum it all up optimizing the PC version means creating a registry of about five million plus hardware setups not including motherboards or processors. While optimizing PS3 and 360 are doable with time, a true optimization for PC seems out of reach for developers which is why they've given us the option of optimizing our systems for ourselves with forceware and modification.

Of course, but that doesn't mean developers can't still do their possible best to make a game as well-optimized and friendly for a platform as possible... including providing options for both high-end and low-end computers for PC players. There is still variety in the level of optimization done on a general level for PC games, isn't there?

After viewing Red Dead's comparison and the sluggish port nature of NV, and F3 on the Ps3 I am definately converting to PC if my laptop can handle it more than adequately. The silence around this worries me as well as it will definately be a port from the Box and I've never had much faith around the developement for two platforms much less 3.

I have absolutely no confidence in BGS making a game with awesome depth. I most likely will not buy Skyrim until it is 75% off on a Steam sale and I am not enthusiastic about FO4.... and I love me some Fallout.

It's not totally impossible to do something like that. ArenaNet is trying to do that with Guild Wars 2, ensuring that even somebody with a 3 year old computer can run the game, but still allowing people with high end models to enjoy the visuals (which are amazing by the way, considering GW2 is an MMO). I hope this is what Bethesda does because it allows for the least amount of alienation.

As for the PS3, I hope they speak up about it soon, considering we're about 4 months away from release. If there are any problems though, I don't think we can really blame Bethesda fully. For most multiplatform games, the 360 is the primary dev console, just on the simple notion that the developing kit is much easier to use. While the PS3 has the better potential output wise, it's downfall is the complicated nature of its dev kit, considering some of it is proprietary Sony tech, which Sony is terribly notorious for doing in all their products, not just video games. This unfortunately leads to bugs and glitches that may only be found in the PS3 version, much as we saw when Oblivion was ported to the PS3. I hope those who use the PS3 don't have to suffer for not being the primary dev console, because it only means less people will be able to enjoy the game (which isn't what you want, regardless of what system you play on). Best of luck to all of you, and God forbid it doesn't work out, there's always the PC or 360 version you can use.

Yes, and they could provide a PC-centric interface and API support, as well. People with DX 11 capable graphics cards might appreciate some DX 11 support.

Still, what worries me is that BS is taking no action whatsoever. I truly hope that the PS3 version will look and play as the 360 (or god forbid even better), but seeing as how BS is holding back any possible news it makes PS3 users wonder. This truly is not fair from a consumer point of view.

Like I said in the previous thread, learn patience, and all will be revealed.

Spend the time you spend worrying about the PS3 version on here earning some more money to get a good PC.

No, it isn't. Pre-order or not, pre-order not, pre-order or not... this dilemma is stuck in my head. Simply because it's a Bethesda game, I have little doubt I'll end up playing it, eventually, but I'm not comfortable blindly assuring that I will pay a full $60 for a product I can't see anything about (in this case, the PS3 version of Skyrim). Bethesda don't want to show a screenshot, Bethesda doesn't want to show gameplay footage, Bethesda don't want to answer this question with a little bit of depth beside a simple and generic "we're doing the best we can or the PS3 version looks sharp", Bethesda don't want to release a demo. They don't even seem to know how to comment on that collector's edition. Apparently, there's a pre-order map available, but I don't want to pre-order until I can go for a collector's edition and some information about the game on my platform, yet there's still nothing. I don't follow a lot of game developers and their actions too closely, but Bethesda's being too secretive... too detached from their fanbase to even acknowledge certain worries with a deserved response.

I know, developers must not be people or something, but I'm sure it couldn't be too hard for one to be given permission by Todd to come on, detail how the situation is working out, and post some screenshot in a five minute post. Again, though... they're strangely detached... unable to even assure fans with an explanation of what's going on... as if they've been told not to do so. Why could that be? If this is some ridiculous marketing strategy, IT'S NOT WORKING. IT'S SIMPLY ANNOYING THAT ONE PLATFORM'S USERS GET INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PRODUCT AND THE REST OF US DON'T. Of course, not everyone not playing the 360 version minds as much as I do, but it's still unfair. We're all still going to be purchasing the same game for the same price, so we deserve just as many updates about our versions. Meanwhile, Bethesda will probably continue to use a 6+ month long strategy of only showing off the 360 version in screenshots and footage.

If they don't have the demo running on Ps3 for QuakeCon I would be majorly concerned. All we have seen is Xbox.

That would make my day... to see Todd Howard knowingly and willingly playing the PS3 version of Skyrim on a recorded, downloadable video from QuakeCon. I honestly doubt that will happen, but I'd love to see it.

Why should anyone have to? If your going to deliver a product on the most outdated system you should expect the same quality time put into the other home console to make it just as viable. So far that hasn't happened frequently. PC gets scaling but thePs3 just gets a port? And usually thats not a good port.

Didn't the July edition of Playstation Magazine have some screenshots of Skyrim?

look at the bright side, atleast we don't have to upgrade our computers every six months

No clue, but even that I wouldn't trust unless the magazine explicitly says that the shots are from the PS3 version, otherwise it's just the 360...sadly.

Saying that ,skyrim will be just as good on the PS3 as the xbox i reakon. Which will be very good. Don't worry.


Why do people think we have to upgrade every six months? it's a myth mate. You will get atleast 4 great years out of a high end PC. Sorry but that argument just isn't valid. The only plus of console gaming is...hmm. tBH i can't think of any .

Sit on a comfy couch? You can do that with a PC

Use a controller? You can do that with a PC?

Play it through your 42" TV? Guess what?

Sorry but Consoles are holding back the quality of games. Like it or not.

As far as the PS3 version goes,i'm sure it will be as good as the Xbox version. Both will be as good as they can be .

Great, but that is not the point of this thread; we're trying to find out and hopefully move BS to remedy the lack of info for the PS3 (and the PC) as it is becoming nonsensical as the release dates draws closer and closer.

Not true. False. Otherwise incorrect.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sfsignal.com/mt-static/images/darthVader.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2007/05/darth-vader-was-a-loon/&usg=__blrVsC7cAakPmLZRpF5cG8f1rts=&h=310&w=450&sz=23&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=-zuXWpEbZ8KbuM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=183&ei=bQAjTrbuKMnagQfj_M2-Cw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddarth%2Bvader%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D771%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=176&vpy=286&dur=162&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=97&ty=93&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

In a Hypothetical world where consoles weren't limiting PC graphics, It would be nearly every year for a new GPU, Every second year for CPU. And while upgrading the CPU you would have to think about MoBo limitations due to different sockets and whatnot.

But that's all hypothetical, i won't upgrade anytime soon due to consoles.

That's the nonsensical part. Those are most likely 360 screenshots... in the official PlayStation Magazine. I thought I would ask just to confirm it or not, though, so I contacted Gstaff about it. I haven't gotten a reply, yet (I'm assuming he gets weekends off and is busy enough, as is.), and am just waiting.