Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas director, Joshua Sawyer, has piped up to try and explain the technology problems currently plaguing the PS3 version of Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.
Sawyer, whose game ran on seemingly similar base tech to Bethesda's epic RPG, has told fans on Formspring that the game's PS3 lag issues are likely an "engine-level issue" that would take a "large time commitment" to fix.
Sawyer explained that, on Bethesda's tech, the size of save files "can easily be a big problem, especially if you're on the PS3.
Asked by a user if the engine problems are exclusive to PS3, Sawyer answered, "As with Fallout 3 and Skyrim, the problems are most pronounced on the PS3 because the PS3 has a divided memory pool."
He added: "The Xbox 360 has a unified memory pool: 512 megs of RAM usable as system memory or graphics memory. The PS3 has a divided memory pool: 256 megs for system, 256 for graphics. It's the same total amount of memory, but not as flexible for a developer to make use of."
Skyrim's problems are "an engine-level issue with how the save game data is stored", he claimed.
"We're talking about how the engine fundamentally saves off and references data at run time. Restructuring how that works would require a large time commitment."
Sawyer of course had no involvement in Skyrim's development - and it's not even clear how similar that game's technology is with its Fallout predecessor - but it's interesting to hear his insight at least.
In a blog post last week, Skyrim developer Bethesda promised it will treat future game updates with more care.
For Skyrim tips, consult the Skyrim guide.
Comments
78 comments so far...
l1nc on 5 Dec '11 said:
Im loving it but its p**sing me off, Its broken and any other game would have been returned to the shop by now.
Barca Azul on 5 Dec '11 said:
Im sure all those that have bought it are pleased to know you built a game that wont work properly!
I dont see its a viable excuse, just cause the PS3 has less memory. You knew that when making it!
spunwicked on 5 Dec '11 said:
Beth ought to make a public statement regarding this - push them CVG!
Would you be happy if you bought a brand new car and it stopped working after 40 hours, or a lightbulb, microwave, etc? You get the idea.
BOYCOTT BETH.
It's the only way they will learn.
Ali_ on 5 Dec '11 said:
So, despite the fact that we all paid £40-50 on their game in it's unfinished state, they can't actually be bothered finishing it because it would take too much effort? That'll be the last Betheseda game I buy then.
Soviet1918 on 5 Dec '11 said:
Skyrim PS3 fix would require 'large time commitment', claims Fallout dev Is it me or am i detecting a "it would take to long to fix" & cant be bothered attitude.
ps Maybe they should have a warning on the box "This game is still under construction"
jim2wheels on 5 Dec '11 said:
This industry needs regulating. What other industy could get away with fleecing several million people with a duff product?
Ali_ on 5 Dec '11 said:
Also, how can it be an engine problem when it links to the size of the save file. It runs perfectly fine initially. I detect more of an "we haven't a clue how we f**ked this up and we currently have no idea how to fix it, so we'll blame the platform, not our poor programming and pathetic quality control" attitude.
flash501 on 5 Dec '11 said:
It's looking increasingly likely that this issue simply won't be resolved on PS3.
Bethesda may as well go PC, 360 exclusive from now on. This will surely finish them on PS3.
The_KFD_Case on 5 Dec '11 said:
Just FYI Obsidian developed FNV which was published by Bethesda.
Bethesda developed Skyrim and published it.
The two companies are not the one and the same.
appyday on 5 Dec '11 said:
surely SONY should step in soon, and demand some sort of action on behalf of its users? It is not doing SONY's name any good.
SKYRIM will be a contender for game of the year, but after all the issues with the PS3 version why should the devs at BETHESDA get that honour? It should be blacklisted until they sort it out.
I am playing it on PS3 and deliberately only playing for an hour or so every couple of days in an attempt to avoid the lag issues, but i want to play it.... after all i paid £40 for it!
Just sort it out please....
plightstar on 5 Dec '11 said:
They shouldn't have got a director to respond to the PS3 problems, an engineer should be coming forward with the problem and solutions. Engineer's will be the ones to fix the problem and knowing most engineer's they won't just leave a problem like that.
What were Bethesda thinking?
The_KFD_Case on 5 Dec '11 said:
Bear in mind that the fellow you're quoting does not work for Bethesda, had no part in developing Skyrim, and doesn't officially speak for Bethesda.
That said, it doesn't look good for the PS3 version of Skyrim. I would advice any potential PS3 buyers to hold off or spring for the PC or Xbox 360 versions instead.
The Bossman on 5 Dec '11 said:
That's me out then, and to be honest the whole setting has never interested me. Laziness with their new engine, who'd have thought it.
Metagen on 5 Dec '11 said:
Yeah that's an excellent idea
As far as I understood it this guy didn't work on Skyrim and is not working on the patches either. All he stated was IF this is an engine level problem it isnt an easy fix. Not that Bethesda can't be bothered to fix it because it's too much hassle, that's just stupid and I don't know how some of you pulled that out from what he said.
I think Bethesda owes the early buyers of this game on PS3 some compensation. Perhaps the first DLC free? I'm happy I won't have the money to afford this until after Xmas now as I'm sure I wouldn't be lucky enough not to be effected by this lag issue. I still can't wait to play it though. This whole incident has probably put to sleep any chance of this winning GOTY however.
TheCrimsonFenix on 5 Dec '11 said:
Thanks Sawyer, it's not like everybody already came to this conclusion about data from the world being kept rather than dumped to save space in areas. There's just no reason to have a damned body of a highwayman still there weeks after you killed him. Think I can dump that little bit of "realism" for actual functionality.
Beth shouldn't be allowing any of their games to be released with problems of this magnitude and just goes to show how crappy they can be at coding when they refuse to do something beforehand to fix problems like this which can plague future titles. As big and deep as their games are it doesn't excuse them for making games with glitches and bugs this bad. This guy may be from Obsidian but they still worked on what is essentially the same but modified engine that Beth have been doing with Skyrim. They simply should have seen this coming if they even bothered to playtest it for more than an couple of hours.
Beth should be keep people at least in some way updated on the matter rather than wasting time on patches which do nothing more but delay the problem.
flash501 on 5 Dec '11 said:
You'd prefer if the kept releasing broken games like Skyrim or New Vegas on it?
Ali_ on 5 Dec '11 said:
Think I'll be trading mine in ASAP, before word gets around. Nice game, but a bit repetitive. and if I want to look at wet mountains and moors, I'll look out the window instead.
DavidVM on 5 Dec '11 said:
Hang on, hang on, hang on, so this means we'll see this same issue on the Xbox as well after about 60-70 hours. I had the same problem with Fallout 3 and it made my last 20 hours with that otherwise excellent game a pretty miserable experience. Bethesda really need to optimise their engines so that decisions that have no bearing on the game anymore are dumped from the save file to allow room for your progress. I've been weighing up whether to risk going back into Bethesda's choppy waters with this game and I think I've just found the answer: keep going with Dark Souls and wait until this f**ker is properly fixed!
a3HeadedMonkey on 5 Dec '11 said:
The divided memory pool on the PS3 is f**king ridiculous though. What were they thinking? It's something that has plagued the PS3 since day one.
appyday on 5 Dec '11 said:
Does anyone know if the dev who did the speed run on skyrim did it on PS3? Maybe that's the way forward....
sammikid on 5 Dec '11 said:
I never bought oblivion, fallout etc. But I was willing to take a chance on skyrim because of all the hype and critical acclaim, but I held off purchasing it on the ps3 as my brother bought it on PC and wanted to take a look at it before making the decision to pick it up. It seems a little slow to me and probably isn't my genre of game but after all these issues ill just write it off all together, future Bethesda products will be a tough sale for me, even if it was my kinda game I'd not be willing to support it with so many bugs and game breaking elements, especially on my platform of choice.
RichPerry on 5 Dec '11 said:
Ugh, I've stopped playing for now in the hope that something can be done. I'm loathe to trade in my PS3 copy for an XBox one as if I do, there goes all my progress made thus-far. Chances are I'll end up trading it in anyway if they don't fix this because I frankly want a game that works.
How this was not found in testing I do not know.
Imaduck on 5 Dec '11 said:
Yeah, this has been kind of apparent since FO3. There's a memory leak of some sort, or various sorts in the engines core seemingly. Even on the PC, games like Fallout 3 and NV slow a bit over play time, length of "session" and with save size. The difference is, on PC's there's generally enough extra power to nuke the s**t out the problem and make it miniscule, the consoles sadly don't have that to use.
I wish I could say "I can't believe they'd use the same core engine", but I really can
Moorpheus on 5 Dec '11 said:
I just don't understand how this problem was missed during the game's development time.
Surely Bethesda played the PS3 version enough for it to get laggy? It's only about 40 or so hours apparently (I don't own the game - waiting till Xmas and will get it on 360)
It's the same with the texture/install problem - did Bethesda never install the game to make sure it worked?
I feel sorry for PS3 owners cos Skyrim looks awesome - looking forward to Xmas
ste hicky on 5 Dec '11 said:
seen this point made elsewhere and have to concur entirely: hopefully next time the qa team will actually do some work looking for problems instead of 2 hour speed runs.
i think bethesda should've stayed quiet about that one.
Metagen on 5 Dec '11 said:
Ideally, I want them to properly test the game on all systems which isn't much to ask to be honest. However I'd still rather have the opportunity to play a bugged copy than no option at all since my PC has kicked the bucket recently and my laptop doesn't have the power to run them.
Izo on 5 Dec '11 said:
I think it's diabolical, I saw my friend playing his PS3 copy and it became like a slide show and after the patch it started crashing randomly, were the testers blindfolded for this to slip through?
luttman23 on 5 Dec '11 said:
They should have commited a large amount of time to changing the engine before releasing in on the PS3 then, they obviously knew it would be a problem if the same thing happened with FO3. Glad I bought it on the PC!
dangermou5e on 5 Dec '11 said:
No you won't see the same problem on 360, You need to read to article properly before posting.
I've yet to play Skyrim as I'm still loving BF3 at the mo but I do know a couple of people who have already put well over 100 hours in to the game so far on the 360 with no lag issue's to date.
kirankara on 5 Dec '11 said:
Been saying this for ages, theres a lot of laws need clarifying in context of industry etc, so that we as customers stop getting screwed.
So, it appears they knew of an issue, but didn't fully realise the extent if they knew of it, they should have either adequately optimised.engine for ps3, or simply not released it. I can see a huge amount of people entitled to refunds with this game, and a giant stink hitting headlines.
Paranoimia on 5 Dec '11 said:
Then Bethesda need to drastically re-think their engine. There are numerous other open-world games which don't suffer this horrendous slow-down, so there's no reason this should either, regardless of the PS3's memory configuration.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bethesda can only be described as incompetent.
PS3 lag aside, every game they produce has major bugs on every single platform, many of which should be picked up well before release.
Mr. Bubb on 5 Dec '11 said:
The PS3 has flawed architecture. Developers, Microsoft and even Sony knows it. The only way Sony has been trying to compete (unsuccessfully) with Xbox 360 is through their exclusives (which aren't that great btw). If you want to experience the glory that is Skyrim then do what the people with intelligence, insight and forethought have done and get a 360 and stop your whining!
vilvic on 5 Dec '11 said:
This cannot be the problem. Why on earth would they put saved data in Graphic memory - that make no sense what so ever.
This divided memory pool exists in all PC's. Your graphics card has memory and so does your base PC so Sony were following a standard model. Having said that PC's have typically more memory than the PS3. It's usually considered better because the graphics card has a bus direct to it's own memory. Shared graphics/base memory is usually slower.
Developers are having to swap memory between base memory and the graphics memory which usually means you have to have spare cache memory. This is where streaming comes in, either from the blu-ray disk or from the hard disk. It's usually also means that the dev teams have to be more clever about what assets are in memory at any one given time. Where the 360 has the advantage is that they don't need to have as much or any graphic memory cache.
Weezer on 5 Dec '11 said:
This has class-action lawsuit written all over it in the US. Just you watch...
almanac2015 on 5 Dec '11 said:
Considering this issue has appeared in more than one game...and considering there is a duty to make a product actually playable I'd say make the bloody time commitment.
You're kidding right? 360.
Fair enough buy it on a 360 instead of a PS3 but...PC.
SuperCinos on 5 Dec '11 said:
Love how a dev from a different game and company offers an explanation as to why the PS3 is having such issues playing Skyrim and why it's taking so long to fix, and so many here immediately assume he is responsible. :p
Obsidian =/ Bethesda
almanac2015 on 5 Dec '11 said:
The games use the same engine however don't they?
Barca Azul on 5 Dec '11 said:
Let me guess, you're here all week?
Sammy_bham on 5 Dec '11 said:
and yet... my ps3 version works great.
ah well. back to skyrim
SuperCinos on 5 Dec '11 said:
Nope.
It's supposedly a new engine developed internally by Bethesda.
Cogglesz on 5 Dec '11 said:
Perhaps what he's saying is true, you've got to think for a moment about all the things that can be changed about and moved especially within big city's, that uses up a hell of an amount of ram and 256mb is just not enough, the games are starting to really catch up on the old consoles now, i'm sure even the xbox 360 version will get pretty bad if given enough time, if memory is the problem behind it then theres nothing that even a patch could do in my opinion, people will just go about blaming bethesda for a problem that probably can't be fixed, we need some next generation consoles that have atleast 1 or 2gb's of memory as games are becomming even more advanced and refined, skyrim might not be the best looking game but it certainly is super demanding on the ram with all thats in the world of skyrim, there wouldn't have been 4gb fan released patch for skyrim on the pc if that wasn't the case, in my opinion 256mb is just too little without really changing how the game works, plays and probably how fun it is.
Headsrinker on 5 Dec '11 said:
Like pretty much everyone else, im loving this game (on PS3). I've only been playing for about 12 hours so i dont think my saves are near to slowing the game down yet. However, i think its a disgrace that a game can be released like this with this kind of HUGE problem. They must have known about this problem aswell, thats the most annoying thing. Its not like it appeared out of nowhere!! They have soured an otherwise EPIC game with lies and deceit (for PS3 users)
TheLastDodo on 5 Dec '11 said:
Yep it's a "new" engine that somehow retains the same "issues" the old engine had in the PS3 versions of Fallout games, which happen to be what over three years old now?
Which means Bethesda are either A. Lying about the engine being new. Or B. It is a new engine and Bethesda are the most incompetent game developers around (not named Yukes).
New engine or not, they've had at least three years to get their games working on PS3 and they've failed, minor bugs are forgivable, I don't expect perfection, but games shouldn't deteriorate.
verynaughtyboy on 5 Dec '11 said:
Quiet please, the grown-ups are trying to talk!
kirankara on 5 Dec '11 said:
Dodo is right, if a dev from a game that has an engine that is 3-4 years old now, is already able to highlight the issue, based on this engines similarities with that used in game he used, it means, that what Bethseda have done, is ether create a new engine that is fundamentally based on old one (frostbite 2 shares lot with frostbite 1 and 1.50), or actually just optimised it a lot, and are in fact using the old engine. Either way, it stinks of incompetency.
SuperCinos on 5 Dec '11 said:
You're not going to see me argue different. :p
I was just pointing out how lots of people are blaming this guy from Obsidian (and the company in general) when he actually had nothing to do with the game.
Mr. Bubb on 5 Dec '11 said:
"US Xbox 360 sales double that of PS3 in November analyst says"
Yep, looks like there are a lot of people who wisened up. Skyrim is the BEST game of ALL time! I love it! I conquered Alduin, won the civil war, have 5 houses fully upgraded and the magic effects in the game are gorgeous. The framerate is beautiful and the graphics are unparalleled. I play on an Xbox 360 so I am having no issues.
jim2wheels on 5 Dec '11 said:
Replace that guy with whoever oversees the PS3 version of Skyrim and all comments are validated again. Obsidian and Bethesda are both responsible for their sheer ignorance and inability to develop across multiple platforms.
The bottom line is they developed this game on the 360 and they don't have the resource or willingness to do a proper port. People can bang on about ram all they like, the fact of the matter is they simply do not know how to make games on the PS3. Games developed on the PS3 don't have these problems because it's far easier to port to 360 than to port from the 360 - there's no history of bad ps3 ports to other platforms that I know of.
kirankara on 5 Dec '11 said:
How its this relevant to a skyrim thread?
360.always out sells ps3 in USA,.and with thanksgiving recently, this was always likely outcome.
Jayseph on 5 Dec '11 said:
Sorry for the double post
Jayseph on 5 Dec '11 said:
Come on Bethesda, this is silly now. Just come out with a statement apologising to all those loyal fans who have splashed out hard earned cash on a game that is not fit for purpose and commit to getting it resolved. I'm dying to play this game bit not in it's current state. Just outline your action plan and give people some idea when this is going to be fixed. Only then will I take the plunge.
I know that there are some jammy sods merrily playing through it on PS3 with no issues but I'm sure as hell not going to risk £40 on that gamble.
Imaduck on 5 Dec '11 said:
Here's a crazy solution: start hiring games testers in huge amounts, or at least having more expansive Betas. Create jobs in the industry, fix games, sell games, win/win.
dazmeister on 5 Dec '11 said:
What a load of crap. Yeah blame your lack of effort on the PS3. I wonder how something like Just Cause 2 runs smoothly and that looks beautiful and has a huge open world. Maybe they should of thought about the system they were working on and tailoring the game to what the system has rather than going "oh well we will make it on the system that takes the least amount of effort, and who f**king cares about people who own another console. Then we will sell to those losers a broken, unfinished game and we still get all their money." Greed and laziness, that is all.
I was looking forward to skyrim, but after seeing the s**t state Fallout 3 PS3 version was, i thought i better wait. I can wait, but until Bethesda release a game that is completely playable, then i will not buy any game from their company again.
Flamestrike on 5 Dec '11 said:
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/18645672/view/1/producttypecolor/196/type/png/width/280/height/280/fanboy-alert_design.png
flash501 on 5 Dec '11 said:
I have absolutely no doubt that Bethesda encountered the lag on the PS3 version during development. How could they not? It's far too widespread. They probably just decided to brush it under the carpet and hope that a patch would fix it post-release.
El Mag on 5 Dec '11 said:
Really? fecking wondered where he'd gone.
gmcb007 on 5 Dec '11 said:
This.
Fair trading needs to be brought into the industry so incidents like this and dirty DLC do not go unpunished. So devs will have pressure on them to actually sort this stuff out before release.
Gaming is one of the worst things to be a consumer in right now ( unless you're a pirate)
jim2wheels on 5 Dec '11 said:
Hahahaha! Vintage Maggio.
porlino87 on 5 Dec '11 said:
BETHESDA has FAILED. Not only they have failed, but they are also LAZY for not testing the game out fully. They have NO EXCUSE. The game runs flawlessly without a large save file. They simply didn't take the time to optimize the save system with the split memory. Oblivion was fine.
As consumers, we expect a PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT from Bethesda. We expect SONY to take some action, and prevent future failures. Both Bethesda and Sony will have their reputation seriously affected by this.
And what about those people who bought the "special edition"? Their edition should be called "the broken edition"
Ali_ on 5 Dec '11 said:
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/troll_detected.png
Ali_ on 5 Dec '11 said:
Really? Only Betheseda has egg on their face. People with PS3s have played the likes of Killzone 3, the Uncharted series, BF3, NFS The Run etc etc etc. They know what the PS3 can do in the hands of people with half a brain cell. And they've seen ports that are as good as, if not better than, the 360 versions. Sony's reputation doesn't need Skyrim. But I bet Betheseda are kicking themselves at the probable lost sales, not just for Skyrim, but for future games on this engine, just as Codemasters are unlikley to get any more support for their F1 series after the disasterous F1 2011 port, because most PS3 owners are sick of their excuses. The machine is 5 years old. The architecture is not new. So making a game engine that can't cope with the architecture is verging on negligence, never mind laziness, at this point in the cycle.
The_KFD_Case on 5 Dec '11 said:
Come now, that's just belligerent. I have no love for Sony and I'm generally quite happy with my Xbox 360, yet in this particular case it would be just as easy for me (a PC gamer at heart) to make the same statement to you but with the Xbox 360 being the whipping boy and the PC the glory boy. I agree that rigidly locking the PS3's memory in to two sections that can not be shared seems an idiotic design decision, yet that still does not get Bethesda off the hook in regards to the PS3 version of Skyrim. They developed it, it is their product, and thus the responsibility of testing for issues and resolving them rests on their shoulders. While I do not expect Bethesda to pick up on each and every single bug in a game the size of Skyrim along with the it's many, many different possible outcomes, I do expect them to pick up on such a glaring issue as the save file expanding to the point that the game becomes a slide show. That sort of issue really does not seem to be one that can be overlooked unless all of their PS3 testers got lucky and didn't experience it, or they didn't play the game long enough to experience it, or they knew about it and opted to ignore it.
360_Fan on 5 Dec '11 said:
I still think this deserves game of the year, but only for the 360 version. It would be a bit of a slap in the face to ps3 owners to have this named their game of the year.
Looking forward to the comments when they announce dlc for this game. In all fairness ps3 owners will probably get it for free as compensation, then all will be forgiven.
The_KFD_Case on 6 Dec '11 said:
I don't know how it is on the Xbox 360, but it sure is a mighty purrrty and immersive game on my desktop and laptop! (Even with some of the technical glitches and bugs.)
Windowlicker79 on 6 Dec '11 said:
Only Bethesda would try to get away with selling 7+ million copies of a game which is essentially in a beta, possibly alpha stage of production.
If the problem really is as deep rooted in the programming as it seems to be then it could result in the biggest patch ever made. Imagine if its actually so bad that they have to completely replace entire sections of the games code. The ensuing chaos when millions of people simultaneously try to download the same bloated 10gb "patch"
This really won't end well. It could be very damaging for them in terms of consumer trust if they don't come up with something to fix it properly, and quick.
leon452 on 6 Dec '11 said:
umm is it me but it is not Bethsteda, the developer making this claim but a guy who developed fallout. two different companies and isn't looking into the problem. guess work in my eyes
Grapple on 6 Dec '11 said:
Skyrim used to be a great game, then it took an arrow to the knee
TheCrimsonFenix on 6 Dec '11 said:
Everybody already knows this. Fallout 3 uses the same engine that Skyrim does, only difference being that it is modified. Bethesda games mostly use that Gamebryo engine which has always brought bugs with it, sadly Bethesda don't do a lot to iron out bugs which have always caused these sort of problems with their games.
ste hicky on 6 Dec '11 said:
the answer lies with the qa teams speed run story a month or so back.
2h 13m.
they were far too busy doing speed runs, f**k the job and the fans.
btw, how anyone can say the 360 version is up to scratch is beyond me: i got the patch, it looked a tad better and i made a tentative restart last night inbetween zelda stints (wiped my broken esv save) and certain people are walking f**king backwards now, while animation is more jittery.
the v-sync is a bad joke too and i had to drop the res' to 720p to get it to run half ok.
it's better sure but perfect? don't believe the hype sony fans, it's far from it.
and yeah, i do own the 360 one (pardon the reposted pic): http://s1-04.twitpicproxy.com/photos/large/464158017.jpg
gmcb007 on 6 Dec '11 said:
I thought Bethesda ditched that horrible Gamebryo engine for a new engine?
ste hicky on 6 Dec '11 said:
nope, they ditched speed tree.
a new engine is stretching the bounds of truth on beth's part.
gmcb007 on 6 Dec '11 said:
Well that's a shame. Gamebyro needs to be done away with. It's always causing some major problems plus prior to Skyrim, it looked so old.
TheCrimsonFenix on 6 Dec '11 said:
It is just "heavily" modified version of the Gamebryo engine. I remember a news article on here with Bethesda stating that seeing as it is heavily modified, it means it is virtually an all new engine. Funnily enough there is now no sign of that article anywhere in CVGs database..
AvatarIII on 6 Dec '11 said:
a "large time commitment" eh? Maybe Bethesda should put their money where their mouth is and commit to that large amount of time. as long as they keep using this engine, it will only have the same problems, and if they fix it now they will have a lot of happy customers, and more people returning for their next game. if they don't fix it, their next game will most likely flop.
ste hicky on 6 Dec '11 said:
the strange thing is: a lot of tech problems actually seem to be hangovers from morrowind code on the xbox/pc.
it would seem the engine is older (at a base code level) than a lot of people think.
davelk on 6 Dec '11 said:
Its called consumer rights if the product is not as advertise then under law you are entitled to a refund.
jim2wheels on 6 Dec '11 said:
Isn't there a time limit associated with that?
Dougnhymer on 30 Dec '11 said:
Couldn't they reset some of the less important things to keep the file size smaller.