Stemin Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I don't pigeon hole anyone's reasoning, I'm just saying how I interpreted it. You sound like a broken record saying the same things over and over again without explaining them, so I have to take the initiative to decipher what they mean like the damn da vinci code. "Well that's your opinion" "You have an agenda" "It's only $5" Yeah we get it mate. How about you just elaborate and explain for once what you mean. If everyone on this thread doesn't understand what you're saying, maybe it isn't our fault that we can't communicate what you mean.. Maybe you should spend less time "interpreting" it and just read it. It's all plain english. Frosty had no trouble understanding me. You've gone from simple debating, to confrontational, to now downright unpleasant. If you won't take my suggestion, that's ok. I'm telling you right now I'm not responding to anything else from you in this thread. I have no interest in blatent arguing. Have a nice day. Edited October 4, 2012 by Stemin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottym23 Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Maybe you should spend less time "interpreting" it and just read it. It's all plain english. Frosty had no trouble understanding me. You've gone from simple debating, to confrontational, to now downright unpleasant. If you won't take my suggestion, that's ok. I'm telling you right now I'm not responding to anything else from you in this thread. I have no interest in blatent arguing. Have a nice day. So let me get this straight. I ask a simple question to elaborate or show what you meant because I didn't see it, and you go ahead and tell me to just "read it". That's some nice deflection mate, well done. If you can't understand what the difference is between a conversation and an argument are, then i'm glad you aren't posting on this thread anymore. Please don't post on any of my other threads either, since your mantra seems to be to boost up your point, and when you clearly get called out on bs you just say you're going to not respond to seem as though you are better than the other person. News flash, mate. No one is dumb enough to fall for such a childish act. Have a nice day to you too, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianadoesitbest Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm not going to buy it. Yes, it's only $5 but its still $5. And I have no desire to download it based on what I have seen. $1.99 maybe I would consider it. But I firmly believe it was a business strategy for Bethesda. Having to perform updates for different platforms at different times because of their contract with Microsoft, actually costs them money and man hours. It also free's up their staff, to work on projects more efficiently. The Hearthfire DLC is actually a brilliant move. Not only does it give them a bit more revenue over a period of 2 months (the xbox and pc release dates.) But it will also enable to them to now release their next DLC across all platforms at the same time. Microsoft only had a contract for one month exclusivity for their first two DLC. I'm sure Bethesda has plans to release another more substantial DLC in the future, and it would be much easier having more staff on hand to work on it for all the platforms at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdark Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Whatever their next dlc will be I'm really REALLY hoping it will be something good. Something that could add hours and hours and hours and hours of new gameplay. Possibly a dlc that continues on to the decisiosn you've made if/when you finished the main story line. aka if you supported the rebels or the imperials and all the other political crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevkiev Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm not going to buy it.... But it will also enable to them to now release their next DLC across all platforms at the same time.... ^ this. All the power to anyone who wants to buy HF, but it doesn't interest me in the least. Nonetheless, the beneficial side effect of getting rid of the Xbox exclusivity for the next DLC is welcome. If that was part of Bethesda's strategy (which I think is likely), I agree it was a clever move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemin Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm not going to buy it. Yes, it's only $5 but its still $5. And I have no desire to download it based on what I have seen. $1.99 maybe I would consider it. But I firmly believe it was a business strategy for Bethesda. Having to perform updates for different platforms at different times because of their contract with Microsoft, actually costs them money and man hours. It also free's up their staff, to work on projects more efficiently. The Hearthfire DLC is actually a brilliant move. Not only does it give them a bit more revenue over a period of 2 months (the xbox and pc release dates.) But it will also enable to them to now release their next DLC across all platforms at the same time. Microsoft only had a contract for one month exclusivity for their first two DLC. I'm sure Bethesda has plans to release another more substantial DLC in the future, and it would be much easier having more staff on hand to work on it for all the platforms at the same time. If they're trying to target the PC crowd with their next DLC, then that explanation might make sense, but as it is, they cannot even find a way to optimize Dawnguard well enough to release it for PS3, let alone their next DLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianadoesitbest Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If they're trying to target the PC crowd with their next DLC, then that explanation might make sense, but as it is, they cannot even find a way to optimize Dawnguard well enough to release it for PS3, let alone their next DLC. Exactly that had to focus for dawnguard to be released for the xbox, first, they also had to do it in a timely manner as part of their contract, not giving Beth enough time to actually make sure the game would be ready for release across all platforms. At least this way they can actually have time to provide something with real content without hte restraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottym23 Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Exactly that had to focus for dawnguard to be released for the xbox, first, they also had to do it in a timely manner as part of their contract, not giving Beth enough time to actually make sure the game would be ready for release across all platforms. At least this way they can actually have time to provide something with real content without hte restraints. Couldn't have said it any better myself :P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemin Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Exactly that had to focus for dawnguard to be released for the xbox, first, they also had to do it in a timely manner as part of their contract, not giving Beth enough time to actually make sure the game would be ready for release across all platforms. At least this way they can actually have time to provide something with real content without hte restraints. Unless I misunderstood you, you're thinking about this backwards. You don't develop a dlc and then decide you have to finish the 360 version 30 days early. You plan the DLC for the 30 day exclusivity and then the rest of it falls into place and you have 30 days to worry about the rest. I doubt Bethesda is going to do much different for the PC version. They certainly haven't for Dawnguard or Hearthfire and there's very little "porting" involved from 360 to PC as they basically have the same architecture. The timed exclusivity clause doesn't say they have to come out with a DLC within a certain time, it just says if they do come out with a DLC, Microsoft has first dibs. At least as far as its been explained by the media. I'm no lawyer. Like I said, the real issue they can't seem to get a handle on is the PS3. If they were truly interested in making a game that's playable across all platforms, they'd develop for PS3 and port to the others. And they'd probably run much better because the PS3 requires a lot more optimization. But then this is Bethesda we're talking about. And besides I can already hear you PC exclusive users screaming at me about how PC deserves a dedicated copy and shouldn't be held back by consoles. :rolleyes: As I told the PS3 crowd, you don't develop 3 separate copies of a game because that takes 3 times the amount of payroll and it isn't going to happen. I guess it hardly matters now, they won't be making another TES for this generation of consoles anyways. Edited October 6, 2012 by Stemin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiftyTifty Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Exactly that had to focus for dawnguard to be released for the xbox, first, they also had to do it in a timely manner as part of their contract, not giving Beth enough time to actually make sure the game would be ready for release across all platforms. At least this way they can actually have time to provide something with real content without hte restraints. Unless I misunderstood you, you're thinking about this backwards. You don't develop a dlc and then decide you have to finish the 360 version 30 days early. You plan the DLC for the 30 day exclusivity and then the rest of it falls into place and you have 30 days to worry about the rest. I doubt Bethesda is going to do much different for the PC version. They certainly haven't for Dawnguard or Hearthfire and there's very little "porting" involved from 360 to PC as they basically have the same architecture. The timed exclusivity clause doesn't say they have to come out with a DLC within a certain time, it just says if they do come out with a DLC, Microsoft has first dibs. At least as far as its been explained by the media. I'm no lawyer. Like I said, the real issue they can't seem to get a handle on is the PS3. If they were truly interested in making a game that's playable across all platforms, they'd develop for PS3 and port to the others. And they'd probably run much better because the PS3 requires a lot more optimization. But then this is Bethesda we're talking about. And besides I can already hear you PC exclusive users screaming at me about how PC deserves a dedicated copy and shouldn't be held back by consoles. :rolleyes: As I told the PS3 crowd, you don't develop 3 separate copies of a game because that takes 3 times the amount of payroll and it isn't going to happen. I guess it hardly matters now, they won't be making another TES for this generation of consoles anyways. Never thought about that. The PS3 has a bunch of mini-cores doesn't it? Heck, if Skyrim was made for the PS3 and not the XBOX360, we could have had better multicore support. Alas, money constraints would have made Skyrim a blunder if that was so. The PS3 is supposed to be expensive to develop for. I will agree that the whole PC VS Console thing is getting old. Take your pick, and shaddap already. @OP I find Hearthfire to be quite fun, actually. The dlc is a complete mess in the CK, but it is a nice money sink, and gives all the gajillion NPC followers I have recruited in my adventures something to do. Was pretty cool watching them defend my home from a dragon. Edited October 6, 2012 by FiftyTifty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts