Skyrim tailored for consoles: you're doing it wrong, Bethesda

Digitally Downloaded's Zane writes: "Skyrim is the realisation of a five year wait and countless hours of hard development work; and of course an RPG fans’ wet dream. What gets my goat (metaphorically and literally) is the wisdom of doing a console to PC port, rather than the reverse."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Bigpappy2323d ago

Chill PC guys. Your game will look better than our's and I am sure mouse and keyboard are supported with custom interface to boot.

Oblivion and fallout were developed the same way, and you played those games and had a great time. Just go play the game and enjoy it. Stop crying even before playing the game. They can't change anything at this point, and it looks like this will be their biggest selling game yet.

Majin-vegeta2323d ago

I'm a console player not pc.

Thrallia2323d ago

Without the benefit of playing the game beforehand, I think this article is nothing but scaremongering from yet another PC-elitist.

superrey192323d ago

Well if you read the article you would see he makes valid points.

Developing for PC and porting to consoles is the best route to ensure every version of the game is as good as it can be. It just takes that extra bit of effort. Bathesda is relying on modders to do the work for them which is a shame.

Thrallia2322d ago

oh, I read the article. And by doing so, I found that he has not yet played the game, yet is casting judgment on it anyway, despite the flurry of high reviews by various PC-centric establishments.

Thus my point stands.

superrey192320d ago (Edited 2320d ago )

considering the points he was making, he didn't have to play it. The game IS 6gb and graphically, on PC, it's nothing mind blowing. He's also right about the same console hud and UI being used in the PC version, it's very tedious to use. Plus, in his title it says "Opinion" so it's just his point of view, which, in the end, turned out to be pretty valid.

The game is great, no doubt about that, but like every game, it has some flaws.

PirateThom2323d ago (Edited 2323d ago )

I wish PC gamers would just realise, for publishers and developers, their sales come from consoles and, even though they complain, PC gamers buy whatever game is set down in front of them anyway. Crytek, DICE and Bethesda know this. You need to stop looking for big publishers and developers to look after PC gamers, it's going to be the indie devs.

decrypt2323d ago

Lol dude what are you on about, Have you seen the latest sales figures from EA. Here is what it looks like:

PC 153m usd
Xbox 360 150m usd
PS3 110m usd

PC is ahead of both PS3 and Xbox. Why do you think Dice is treating PC the way they are? its because they see potential.

You realise Digital sales on PC are much much more profitable then a hard copy sold on console. Here is how the comparison looks for EA:

Hard copy sold for console net return: 20usd
Digital copy sold on Origin net return: 60usd

The console version would have to outsell the PC version 3 times to make the same profit. Why do you think EA is hyping origin so much despite losing potential sales to Steam? Its because they know they are sitting in a gold mine.

In fact EA are sitting on the opportunity to become a platform holder just like MS and Sony, lol on the PC they dont even have to take any shit from any hardware maker, since its an open platform, no royalties what so ever.

Incase you dont know Digital is so profitable because:

No transport costs,
No damages
no returns
Instant promotional sales (simular to what steam does)
Games keep selling they dont get taken of shelf

The advantages keep going on.

Dlacy13g2323d ago

I think the PC sales figure you so happily run out there is a bit skewed though. I would venture a big if not biggest portion of EA's PC sales comes from its "social/casual" game services like BF3 no doubt sold well on PC via Digital but I think the hardcore games are doing far less than you think for EA, its their casual stuff that is helping elevate/inflate those numbers.

sirdrake2323d ago

according to your stats, console sales dollars combined is almost double that of PC. So why would they tailor games to PC when the console market is almost twice the size?

frostypants2323d ago

decrypt, NOW provide those figures with social media games and F2P stuff removed...until you do that, you're numbers are padded with fluff that doesn't apply to this debate. That is, unless you think the future of gaming is stuff like Farmville. No thanks...

T9002322d ago (Edited 2322d ago )


You do realise chartz for kids doesnt track PC digital sales, which is where most of the PC BF3 copies were sold.

Even if Xbox manages to sell 3 million and PC sells 1 million the profits would be the same, this is due to how profitable DD sales are, the profits scale much higher then retail sales.

Lastly you should check number of users online on the game, its all about even, which means the game probably sold about equal on all platforms. Remember any console platform needs to outperform PC 3 times just to get the same level of profit. Also remember that console sales tend to dry up very quickly, PC sales keep going on, because its DD and doesnt get removed from the shelf. Hence the game on the PC will have lot longer legs, not to mention when sales do dip they can provide insane discounts on DD and get the sales running again from time to time.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2322d ago
pctrollv42323d ago

thats fine, but why not pc then port to console? we all get the best in that point in lmiting pcs when they are 10 times more powerful, better to push consoles at their fullest by porting to them from pc.

ronin4life2323d ago

Because it is harder and costs more money to develop that way, for one.
It is also harder to downgrade than to upgrade, I would imagine.

nycredude2323d ago


If you are talking pc vs consoles the your numbers should reader.

Pc=153 usd
consoles=260 usd

more money on console sales.

T9002323d ago (Edited 2323d ago )

That still doesnt mean PC is a niche is it? Like most of the people on this site would like to believe.

I am too lazy to dig this out, however one of the cheif engineers at AMD who envision where the high end GPU tech goes got fired. We dont know how the next guy will envision the future.

However imagine if devs really didnt care about PC market, didnt take advantage of the hardware, People will stop buying high end hardware. This will end up in a slow down. Which can potentially lead to a slowdown in tech, it will just mean the next console wont be as good as it could have been.

AMD is already in problems with their CPU business with Intel being so much better, imagine what would happen if a GPU slow down were to occur, which potentially can because of software not taking advantage.

Hence a slow PC market is bad for the console gamer too, imagine if AMD or Nvidia left the GPU industry what a loss that could lead to.

Any of the current console makers would have to spend billions of usd to develop a GPU and still fall short of what AMD and Nvidia are capable of. Sony tried with the Cell, see how they failed? they had to run to Nvidia for help at the last moment. The development of the Cell cost them billions, would they want to repeat the same when making their next console? i doubt it, they would rather get tech from AMD or Nvidia.

PirateThom2323d ago (Edited 2323d ago )

And that's with Origin's pure profit vs console licence costs, transportation, retailer share etc

Face it, even with all those issues consoles just make more money and, thus, console ports are acceptable.

kaveti66162323d ago (Edited 2323d ago )

More money to be made on PC than on any other platform.

This is reason enough for the developer to lead development of a game on PC, and then port to consoles later.

It's also better for each version of the game if the lead development platform is PC. DICE has supported this claim with Battlefield 3.

Leading development on 360 has been shown to cause problems for the PS3 port, especially with an open-world game. Remember GTA4?

Leading on PC means the developer can take full advantage of the PC, which will please the PC gamers who invest in powerful hardware and encourage those with weaker harder to upgrade (if they wish).

Porting to PS3 from PC is the next step and doesn't cause major problems. Then Bethesda can focus on the PS3 version for a longer period of time, and then port to 360 from PS3 without any major problems.

The way Bethesda did it, they spent more time on the 360 version, then they ported to PS3 and regardless of how much time they spent trying to make the PS3 version on par, they're going to miss a lot of problems. And the PC gamers have to deal with inferior textures that were up-rezzed, cheap lighting, low-fidelity audio, etc.

If a PS3 fan can complain about how 360 is holding games back, why can't this PS3 fan appreciate the fact that consoles in general hold games back for PC? Why is it so hard for them to get that through their skulls?

Christopher2323d ago

***More money to be made on PC than on any other platform. ***

Only if you turn Skyrim into an MMO, F2P, or casual micro transaction game. Software sales on PC are dwarfed by console numbers. Look at NPD numbers where the order is most of the time 360, PS3, and then PC.

That's why I said before in that link you've posted about PC making more money that you have to look at it without those type of earnings to see that software sales are a lot less than consoles. Games put out on console and PC make more money on the console.

MaxMurdoch2323d ago

@nycredude that is a stupid argument. That is not a valid comparison at all. You cannot lump the profits from 360 and PS3 together because those are not identical version of the game. They each required SEPARATE development and have separate DEVELOPMENT COSTS. Unless you want to tell me you can play xbox games on ps3 and vica versa. There are 3 separate platforms, and PC is making the same or more than 360, while ps3 is behind (speaking for BF3 specifically).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2323d ago
Chuk52323d ago

Have they played the PC version extensively?

jianaprent2323d ago

at least todd confirmed they won't leave PC players behind.

Orpheus2323d ago

Crytek also confirmed .....
Elder Scrolls doesnt support tessellation , 3D at launch .... this game could benefit the most wth these ... dragons with tessellation in 3d :-( .... hope they will patch ...

@Console fanboys ... without the PC putting the consoles to shame , your much honored MS or Sony would never upgrade your toys .... admit it !!!

SuperKing2323d ago

If we want better graphics, then the developers can just optimize their engine to suit the PS3/X360 better. The difference between us and you is that we don't pay out of our pockets to get better graphics, but you do.

And at the end of the day, you still get stuck with console ports, so who again is the smarter gamer?

mynameisEvil2323d ago

Actually, we are. We're not stuck with dated hardware or player limitations (24 players in BF3's huge maps, anyone?!).

Also... STEAM. Enjoy paying $60 for your games. We get out new ones around $30-$45 only weeks (or days, if somebody gets happy over there) after release.

Hope your wallet is happy losing weight!

reynod2323d ago


Instead you pay more per game, which ends up being alot more in the end, you just dont know it :) Even if you bought 20 games a year, multiply that by another 15(since PC games are generally 15usd cheaper on avg), you end up with a difference of about 300usd extra paid per year, plus charges to go online. Console gaming is much more expensive in the end, you just need pick up a calculator and add the numbers.

And no you dont get any significant graphics upgrades with just engine optimizations, you are on some fine crack if you do think so.

Heres an example:

BF3 on console looks no better then BC2,
UC3 looks no better then UC2,
KZ3 ended up looking worse then KZ2,
MW3 on console looks just the same like MW1,

Bottom line if all we had to do was improve engine to get better graphics then no one would introduce new hardware, people would just bring new engines, Its the sort of crap console gamers are fed so they can rush out buy the next game.

mynameisEvil2323d ago

@ reynod
I was agreeing with you up to a point.

"UC3 looks no better then UC2,
KZ3 ended up looking worse then KZ2,
MW3 on console looks just the same like MW1"

To fix that, Uncharted 3 looks much better than the already stunning Uncharted 2.

Killzone 3 DID look better than Killzone 2.

MW3 looks just the same as MW2, not MW1.


kaveti66162323d ago

"The difference between us and you is that we don't pay out of our pockets to get better graphics, but you do."

Right. So your consoles evolved into their current form? You paid for them.

reynod2323d ago


Please drop the fanboism.

KZ3 looks very simular to KZ2 its worse infact.
UC3 only has minor improvements of UC2, its not the same jump we saw from UC1 - 2.

Bottom line is you wont be seeing significant graphics jumps with optimization alone. More powerful hardware is needed. The same conclusion can be drawn with many of todays sequel releases, most of them look just like their predecessors.

Christopher2323d ago (Edited 2323d ago )

***Also... STEAM. Enjoy paying $60 for your games. We get out new ones around $30-$45 only weeks (or days, if somebody gets happy over there) after release. ***

I haven't paid full price for a game on day one in ages. For example, my Skyrim copy is on its way from NewEgg where I paid only $40. Check some of the weekly news of new Amazon or WalMart deals here and you'll find that console gamers get the same deals, if not more of them, as PC gamers.

fragnificent2323d ago

ah *cough* id play the snes, all u seem to care about is the graphics, ye on crysis, but not on skyrim, get over it, also i play on both formats

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2323d ago
Show all comments (64)
The story is too old to be commented.