Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Bethesda 'Close' to Bringing Skyrim DLC to PS3

By - Source: Game Informer | B 19 comments

Skyrim DLC may finally be coming to PS3.

Skyrim's relationship with the PS3 has been tumultuous. Soon after the popular open world RPG's launch on the console, complaints of a "save glitch" arose, where Skyrim save files ballooned in size as more and more hours were logged onto a game, causing lag to the point that the game became unplayable. The only temporary fix for PS3-Skyrim players was to restart their console every time the lag became too bad.

The permanent solution didn't come until Patch 1.5, which dropped half a year after Skyrim's release.

A few months later, Bethesda released Skyrim's first DLC, Dawnguard, which first hit Xbox 360 and PC two months after. Bethesda revealed that the DLC wouldn't be landing on PS3 in the near future, possibly ever, because of the issues that the developer had with the platform.

When Hearthfire, Skyrim's homebuilding DLC, released in September, PS3 players found that they were to be spurned again.

Now, with Dragonborn, Skyrim's third DLC, landing in a month, Bethesda's announced hopeful news for Skyrim on PS3. "We’re also close on new Skyrim content for PS3 and PC," stated Bethesda on its official Twitter feed.

Unfortunately, that's all the developer was willing to reveal. It's said nothing of what DLC will be made available on PS3 and when. Here's to hoping that the developer will be able to make at least Dragonborn, if not Dawnguard and Hearthfire, available to the PS3.


 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 19 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    assasin32 , November 11, 2012 6:02 AM
    I generally think of buying games like Skyrim, and a lot of the other games which have toolkits for you to build content for the game which result in some amazing mods on anything other than PC is a disservice to the game if you don't have the ability to take advantage of all the wonderful content people create for these games.

    For me the only acceptable answer I really take for not buying PC for a game like this is if your computer won't run it but you have a console that will.
Other Comments
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , November 11, 2012 4:51 AM
    What are you talking about. Bethesda is not releasing any DLCs for the PS3. and they never will.
  • -4 Hide
    alidan , November 11, 2012 5:51 AM
    Con-BethesdaWhat are you talking about. Bethesda is not releasing any DLCs for the PS3. and they never will.


    bethesda cant code for the ps3, whats surprising is people will still buy a game for that system that uses a bethesda engine.
  • 11 Hide
    assasin32 , November 11, 2012 6:02 AM
    I generally think of buying games like Skyrim, and a lot of the other games which have toolkits for you to build content for the game which result in some amazing mods on anything other than PC is a disservice to the game if you don't have the ability to take advantage of all the wonderful content people create for these games.

    For me the only acceptable answer I really take for not buying PC for a game like this is if your computer won't run it but you have a console that will.
  • 1 Hide
    guardianangel42 , November 11, 2012 7:14 AM
    assasin32I generally think of buying games like Skyrim, and a lot of the other games which have toolkits for you to build content for the game which result in some amazing mods on anything other than PC is a disservice to the game if you don't have the ability to take advantage of all the wonderful content people create for these games.For me the only acceptable answer I really take for not buying PC for a game like this is if your computer won't run it but you have a console that will.


    There's another very valid reason to buy console: if you have local friends that have consoles. If I buy a console game, I can lend it to a friend and they can play it while I continue to play my other games.

    If I buy a PC game, and specifically Skyrim which is tied to Steam, I have to give my friend access to my Steam account (which I'm willing to do) and that leaves me unable to play my other games while said friend is playing Skyrim.

    Another one is lack of local splitscreen support in a title like Borderlands. On consoles playing with a friend in the same room requires no more effort than selecting a menu option. On PC if I want to play Borderlands with a friend on the same computer I need to basically juryrig the solution so that I emulate input on a second controller and run two instances of the game simultaneously.

    That or buy two copies of the game and have two gaming computers linked through LAN.
  • 0 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , November 11, 2012 8:49 AM
    Bethesda, at the least, need to make all the Skyrim DLC work on the PS3 fully or else they have to officially apologise publicly to Sony, if it's not really Sony's fault, and they have to give all PS3 customers of the game, free license to play the other platform versions which is what game publishers should be pretty much doing nowadays anyway.
  • 0 Hide
    john_4 , November 11, 2012 11:19 AM
    Sadly Bethesda is in bed with MS and their Direct X. PS3 support sucks and Bethesda does not even bother coding for OS X is proof of that.
  • -2 Hide
    blppt , November 11, 2012 12:30 PM
    Bethesda can barely code for an x86 processor system (witness the non-LAA and Skyboost fiasco, the latter being a solution by a single third party programmer)---which has been around forever. What hope would they have coding for the complex Cell/RSX combo?
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , November 11, 2012 1:52 PM
    No one cares! 400 hours on that game is enough! PS3 owners are waiting for much more important games like The Last of Us & God of War Ascension. The Assassin's Creed 3 DLC that was exclusive to the PS3 is amaznig. With games and DLC like that, who needs Skyrim DLC? Not me.
    Seems like the only one complaining about Skyrim DLC on the PS3 is a few obscure web sites.
  • 4 Hide
    alextheblue , November 11, 2012 2:14 PM
    alidanbethesda cant code for the ps3, whats surprising is people will still buy a game for that system that uses a bethesda engine.

    Each system has its pros and cons. However, the PS3 is a beast to code for to start with, let alone develop a massive open-world multiplatform title like Skyrim. The memory architecture is less flexible than the 360, as well. If it was a ground-up PS3 project it would be better able to play to the PS3's strengths, without having to worry about a consistent gameplay experience. I doubt Skyrim will ever run quite as smoothly on PS3 as it does on 360, but they don't want a botched hastily launched DLC that brings back memories of the large save performance issues.

    Oh also even after all the latest updates, the PS3 still uses ~50MB RAM for the OS, 360 is still 32MB as always. Although 50MB is still a massive improvement over launch 120MB and later 96MB. They did a pretty good job considering they don't have a MS-sized pool of OS developers to tap. I'm hoping both the next gen consoles use at least 4GB of memory. Consoles don't have all the overhead of a full-blown OS running all sorts of background tasks (guilty as charged) but they still need to prepare themselves for increasingly large and detailed worlds. Elder Scrolls VI, anyone? ;) 
    john_4Sadly Bethesda is in bed with MS and their Direct X. PS3 support sucks and Bethesda does not even bother coding for OS X is proof of that.
    They're not doing this on purpose. They want to sell DLC to as big an audience as possible. This has nothing to do with DirectX. They use it on PC because it's easier and generally better. The PS3 version certainly doesn't use DX, but that's not what is causing these issues. The 3D engine works fine on PS3.

    As for your proof? The reason they don't port it to OS X is because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to port and support the game for an OS with such a small gaming audience. Especially since any serious gamer with a Mac (assuming they have decent graphics) should be using Bootcamp anyway.
  • -1 Hide
    Kami3k , November 11, 2012 3:19 PM
    guardianangel42There's another very valid reason to buy console: if you have local friends that have consoles.


    That isn't a valid reason why Skyrim is single player only.


    guardianangel42If I buy a PC game, and specifically Skyrim which is tied to Steam, I have to give my friend access to my Steam account (which I'm willing to do) and that leaves me unable to play my other games while said friend is playing Skyrim.


    You're steam excuse is bull too. Since Skyrim is single player only, only one player could be playing it at one time. Unless you admit to illegally copying it.

    guardianangel42Another one is lack of local splitscreen support in a title like Borderlands. On consoles playing with a friend in the same room requires no more effort than selecting a menu option. On PC


    No one on PC cares about splitscreen support.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , November 11, 2012 4:10 PM
    @guardianangel you're obviously a PC troll. Consoles are great for all of those reasons and more. You're just too diluted in what you believe to listen to others. Get off the post and put your PC to better use, boy. Lol
  • 0 Hide
    Warsaw , November 11, 2012 4:32 PM
    guardianangel42There's another very valid reason to buy console: if you have local friends that have consoles. If I buy a console game, I can lend it to a friend and they can play it while I continue to play my other games.If I buy a PC game, and specifically Skyrim which is tied to Steam, I have to give my friend access to my Steam account (which I'm willing to do) and that leaves me unable to play my other games while said friend is playing Skyrim.Another one is lack of local splitscreen support in a title like Borderlands. On consoles playing with a friend in the same room requires no more effort than selecting a menu option. On PC if I want to play Borderlands with a friend on the same computer I need to basically juryrig the solution so that I emulate input on a second controller and run two instances of the game simultaneously.That or buy two copies of the game and have two gaming computers linked through LAN.

    Umm....i don't know if you think you know what you are making an analogy of, but it definitely isn't the same. What you're speaking of is physical medium to digital download. Using that same example, it would be as to saying someone trading off a PC physical disc, to downloading a game off PS3 and not being able to trade it.

    At least if you bring up a difference, make it a valid one.
  • -1 Hide
    Shin-san , November 11, 2012 4:51 PM
    IndignantSkepticBethesda, at the least, need to make all the Skyrim DLC work on the PS3 fully or else they have to officially apologise publicly to Sony, if it's not really Sony's fault, and they have to give all PS3 customers of the game, free license to play the other platform versions which is what game publishers should be pretty much doing nowadays anyway.
    The game development toolkits provided by the platform maker would affect the end result.
    john_4Sadly Bethesda is in bed with MS and their Direct X. PS3 support sucks and Bethesda does not even bother coding for OS X is proof of that.
    DirectX isn't usually used for things like saved games
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , November 11, 2012 10:50 PM
    alextheblueEach system has its pros and cons. However, the PS3 is a beast to code for to start with, let alone develop a massive open-world multiplatform title like Skyrim. The memory architecture is less flexible than the 360, as well. If it was a ground-up PS3 project it would be better able to play to the PS3's strengths, without having to worry about a consistent gameplay experience. I doubt Skyrim will ever run quite as smoothly on PS3 as it does on 360, but they don't want a botched hastily launched DLC that brings back memories of the large save performance issues.Oh also even after all the latest updates, the PS3 still uses ~50MB RAM for the OS, 360 is still 32MB as always. Although 50MB is still a massive improvement over launch 120MB and later 96MB. They did a pretty good job considering they don't have a MS-sized pool of OS developers to tap. I'm hoping both the next gen consoles use at least 4GB of memory. Consoles don't have all the overhead of a full-blown OS running all sorts of background tasks (guilty as charged) but they still need to prepare themselves for increasingly large and detailed worlds. Elder Scrolls VI, anyone? They're not doing this on purpose. They want to sell DLC to as big an audience as possible. This has nothing to do with DirectX. They use it on PC because it's easier and generally better. The PS3 version certainly doesn't use DX, but that's not what is causing these issues. The 3D engine works fine on PS3.As for your proof? The reason they don't port it to OS X is because it wouldn't be worth the time and effort to port and support the game for an OS with such a small gaming audience. Especially since any serious gamer with a Mac (assuming they have decent graphics) should be using Bootcamp anyway.


    yea, ps3 is a pain to code for, ill give you that.
    take a look at most other multi platform game, how many of them still have problems with the ps3?

    brethesda basically refused to learn how to code for it right this generation.
  • -1 Hide
    pliskin1 , November 12, 2012 3:22 AM
    So...they could give the PS3 DLC for Oblivion, but now they can't with Skyrim? Honestly that just sounds lazy to me, especially coming from a large developer.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , November 12, 2012 7:11 AM
    pliskin1So...they could give the PS3 DLC for Oblivion, but now they can't with Skyrim? Honestly that just sounds lazy to me, especially coming from a large developer.


    rather than give players broken as hell dlc, they are spending their time to fix the game.
    so instead of takeing their money and giveing them bug filled crap, they are redoing much of the code for skyrim ps3.

    over all i say this is good
    but really, they should have got it working at launch, like i said above, everyone else figured out how to code ps3.
  • 0 Hide
    cats_Paw , November 12, 2012 9:42 AM
    Bethesdas Logic: Make a Console game, make a terrible port, make DLC not for console. So in the end, the game sucks on all platforms? Nice going !

    This is exactly why i dont buy games when they are released and wait till some form of GOTY edition. No worth to waste your free time wiht something that frustrates you.
  • 0 Hide
    omega21xx , November 12, 2012 6:28 PM
    You can use mods on hacked PS3's. The files are exactly the same as PC (some with lower res) but texture and model files are encrypted, so all mods have to use existing content/models/textures on PS3 until it can be decrypted. Haven't looked at it in a long time as I've been playing all games on PC for quite a while now.
  • 0 Hide
    techguy911 , November 12, 2012 7:52 PM
    Dragon's dogma much better than skyrim less bugs more replay value, skyrim is better on pc with all mods wis dragon's dogma came out for pc.
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter