Bethesda admits they can't get Skyrim Dawnguard running on PS3
geek.com
geek.com
Most other games 'solve' the memory limitations of the PS3 by chopping up the game world and introducing lots of load screens, or by streaming as much of the content as possible. My guess would be that the Skyrim engine does the latter, which doesn't fit the PS3 memory model very well. The Blu-Ray drive is very slow for random-access, and I don't think you can stream textures and geometry directly to the 256 MB RAM segment accessible to the GPU, which means you would have to allocate part of the already-scarce 256 MB RAM in the other segment, and DMA it to the GPU-segment.
I'm not a PS3 developer and I don't know anything about the Skyrim engine, but it's well-known that the PS3 memory model can be a real PITA, and I can imagine this makes it very hard to get certain optimizations that work well on other systems to work on the PS3.
Give developers 4GB of RAM and better CPUs to play with, and we're going to see some more interesting cross-platform games.
Dawnguard on the Xbox is ~600MB, while Skyrim itself is ~4GB.
> releasing sizeable DLC is a complex issue
By comparison, Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut DLC is ~2GB.
There may be some weird technical limitation, but it's not just size.
EDIT: See w0utert's comment in this thread for more info: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4459260
It's certainly less complex than any of the expansions to The Elder Scrolls series.
While these issues where patched later, its not surprising that the Dawnguard DLC which includes new animations that stress the XBox and low end PCs, when combined with existing PS3 issues would mean they can't get tit to work.
http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/06/fixing-skyrim-would-take-a...
Still, this is not a new problem - Las Vegas had it, Skyrim has it again. Its not like it hit them suddenly. I imagine that Dawnguard basically goes over the top in that regard. Still, it seems like they chose an implementation of a specific problem that does not address the specifics of a major target platform, which sucks.
One of the best mods I have installed for New Vegas is CASM, which saves the game every 10 minutes with a rotating number of autosaves. Very helpful if the save file jumps from 500k to 10mb.
Their dev teams can't code themselves out of a paper bag. I'm not at all surprised that the PS3 is giving them serious troubles, given how it requires concurrent software to use all of the hardware (8 smaller cores over the Xbox's 3 larger ones, iirc).
Given the complexity of the world simulations they are building and that they basically are successful at creating, I don't think I'd use such strong language. It takes a lot of talent and hard work to ship something like Skyrim.
Bug ridden technical nightmare? I don't think I'd go that far either. Skyrim was very playable on the Xbox 360. Not too many bugs that I noticed, but I'm sure they are there if you look for them.
On top of that Bethesda is one of the few companies that still create games with very high replay value, there are not many (i currently cant come up with even one) who still create games "with endings" (i.e. not MMO/RTS type games) where you can put in that many hours and still be entertained.
If you actually hate bethesdas creations, I simply think you hate the type of games, not the product itself.
They are one of the few development studios capable of making large open-world games that are fun to play, and they make it fairly easy for PC gamers to mod the game as well.
I'll take buggy Skyrim over no Skyrim. Same goes for a game like Dark Souls. Not the most stable game ever made, but probably the best action RPG ever made and one of the best overall games.
If they are so bad at game development, surely it should be easier for another group of developers to beat them at their own game?