What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
215 Comments
- username9000, on 03/21/2009, -30/+113Wow. This will definitely keep the indie devs away. Nice work Sony!
- Coopjust, on 03/23/2009, -10/+57Paid devs: OK, it makes it less attractive.
But free content? It's like Sony is trying to kill the PS3. Why are they trying to push people away from PS3 development that attracts more users...
EDIT: They're charging publishers for demos for the first 60 days too....REALLY boneheaded. - Maynza, on 03/23/2009, -25/+69Microsoft pays for bandwidth through yearly subscriptions, PSN is free and must get their money for bandwidth elsewhere. I see no problem with this.
- username9000, on 03/21/2009, -8/+51No they don't.
"It definitely makes us think about how we view the distribution of content related to our games when it is free for us to do it on the web, on Xbox Live, or any other way - including broadcast - than on Sony's platform," one publishing source said. "It's a new thing we have to budget. It's not cool. It sucks."
3rd digg submission. 3rd time you have made up that nonsense. Man, you are a relentless sony fanboy NeoTechni. - doshindude, on 03/21/2009, -8/+48actually, they don't. Sony is the only company out of the 3 console companies that charge for this.
- username9000, on 03/22/2009, -9/+48"While 16 cents may not sound like much, as MTV Multiplayer points out, a one gigabyte demo downloaded one million times equals an additional $160,000 a publisher has to pay Sony, on top of licensing fees to get their games on the PlayStation 3 in the first place." Kotaku.
http://kotaku.com/5177036/publishers-unhappy-with- ...
Wow. You are retarded.
btw. I do have a PS3. - superkendall, on 03/23/2009, -8/+39News flash, bandwidth costs money. This has been since October and nothing is gone...
- petethepanda, on 03/23/2009, -3/+25Indeed. It's strange that so many people fail to see this.
- username9000, on 03/22/2009, -10/+30Also, you are confusing consumers with publishers. You are definitely an idiot.
- jasmus, on 03/23/2009, -13/+33This is one of the reasons xbox live costs money.
- pradaaddict, on 03/23/2009, -5/+25Something that is paid for thanks for Gold users.
- Murphious, on 03/23/2009, -1/+19I stared at this for a good 30 seconds and I'm still confused..
- vagrantwade, on 03/23/2009, -8/+25We are referring to a charge to the developer. Read the ***** article sherlock. That should go without saying when you post a comment.
The developers are charged nothing. And I'd pay $3 a month for the rest of my life to prevent Xbox live to end up as generic as PSN. - paradigmx, on 03/23/2009, -3/+19exactly, Live Gold members are the backbone of the Live network, we foot the bill for Bandwidth, upgrades, maintainance. We allow the Developers to use the network to it's fullest potential without fear of increased budgeting costs on their end, they are able to provide all the features we want. PSN forces that cost onto the developer which mean they either have to pass that cost on to the user, or soak it up some way, or possibly, not offering that feature because they don't want the cost incurred.
- fanfablebig, on 03/23/2009, -11/+27my uncle susan has about 3 loafs of breaded hams
- barc0001, on 03/23/2009, -5/+20<citation needed>
- jameskong15, on 03/23/2009, -10/+25Seems like a bad move to me, but they have to get some of the costs covered if they are going to keep it free. It will keep smaller devs out of demos though I have a feeling long-term, maybe even keep them from producing content on the platform at all (much lesser chance imo since they can include the bandwidth costs into the price).
One thing I noticed in the comments there was a bunch of people going rabid defending Sony pointing to the huge "cost" of xbox live gold. Now I don't own either system (pc gamer 100%), but if someone is tripping out over 50 bucks a year, with the number of hours you can get out of the service, they need to quit playing video games and get a better job. Sure 0 is better than 50, but acting like a 50 a year cost is some huge deal breaker that magically makes Sony the better choice, give me a ***** break. - ChinezePanda, on 03/23/2009, -5/+19Misleading.
Publishers stated that the cost of the bandwidth is only a very very small fraction and does not put that much of a dent into the budget of (said) publisher. - wem003, on 03/23/2009, -5/+19Yes... Sky is falling.
Look $0.16/gig is a great rate on a private network. The dev kit itself is still what over $5k? $10k maybe? If developers are in a position to work independently, I see this as a good thing. They know they have to make their content count, or they will not recoup the costs of online distribution. Look at PixelJunk - they make good cheap games and won't have an issue with it.
For bigger studios - they don't care. Look at Little Big Planet and the like. Do you think Media Molecule give a flying f**k about this charge when they spew out $3 costume packs like they are going out of style? Those are what like 50mb max? Yeah I can see how that is going threaten the business model.
Personally, if it were me - eating the cost of some free themes to the point where its a problem means at least enough people know about the product I built to want to keep coming back.
It's called a marketing cost. - ChicoLeon, on 03/23/2009, -5/+19Yeah it sucks, but had Sony started charging the gamers instead of publishers, there would have been the same outcry. It was a lose-lose situation for battered Sony, but they knew this and they still made the decision that favors gamers..that's gotta count for something, right?
As for content, I think their first-party efforts are still incredible this generation, and every indie developer who's worked with SCE has praised them profusely for their continued support towards original and risky releases. I really don't think Sony are the devil they're made out to be..maybe they should be given a break?
Btw, I was there when Gamespot started charging for subscriptions to cover the costs of their increasingly popular website, this is similar. Judging by the outcry then, you'd think Gamespot was gonna be overrun and their offices burnt down, but they did it, they survived, and they evolved.
Business is a bitch. - phosphor112, on 03/23/2009, -17/+30Sony has been doing this for 5 months now. This is nothing new. Xbox fanboys are just making a butthurt deal about it just to make Sony look bad. Sony is charging the devs this and not the consumers because the devs are the ones making the money, not the buyers.
- SSUK, on 03/23/2009, -0/+13They already do this in some cases.
It's *****. - hybridxephon, on 03/23/2009, -2/+14So Microsoft has a good business plan, charge the end user, and Sony has a bad one charge the publisher. Personally I would rather pay a bit more so I don't have to pay for a demo in the future.
- nllx, on 03/23/2009, -3/+14Why are there so many idiots who assume everyone is a 360 fanboy?
- mobislink, on 03/23/2009, -1/+11 quote:
Developers that choose to provide content exclusively to the PlayStation Network may be exempt from sticker shock. A publisher of popular PSN-exclusive titles told Joystiq, the fees "are so small [they do] not affect our business or attitude towards releasing games for PSN. The fees are extremely low for PSN-exclusive titles, and only slightly higher for non exclusives."
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03...ar-among-publishe ... - aegis9975, on 03/23/2009, -0/+10So its either publishers pay for bandwidth, or I do. Sorry, but it isn't going to be me.
I'd rather have publishers pay for demos then me paying for subscriptions. If the demo/game is good I'll buy it. 16 cents/per person (assuming the demo is 1GB) is a fair price to pay to advertise directly to a potential buyer. - ABombbmoBA, on 03/23/2009, -4/+13Ok... enjoy having less content!
- InfernoX, on 03/23/2009, -16/+25Great idea. This means developers will actually make good DLC worth buying instead of street fighter IV costumes.
- Elranzer, on 03/23/2009, -3/+12Seems like the irrational Sony apologists are in full force on this thread.
- vagrantwade, on 03/23/2009, -7/+16I don't really understand this. I mean it may not seem like much in the short term, but if your game is popular enough you could see a large amount being paid out for bandwidth. It may not exactly prevent a profit, but in principal it is pretty weak. I'd personally rather pay $30-$40 a year to pay for bandwidth, than have Microsoft start charging the developers.
- paradigmx, on 03/23/2009, -7/+15The problem with PSN is that all the costs are put on the developers who are already working within a limited budget. When sony requires them to pay a Licensing fee + bandwidth + develop their own connection to the PSN network, they are seriously limiting what Developers may offer. On Live, I front the cost for that bandwidth, the developers are supplied a template connection system to the Live network, and therefore, even the most indie company with less budget than I make in a month can develop for the platform and still use all the services offered.
There are some things I feel I shouldn't have to pay for, and there are other thing thatI feel are worth every cent they ask of my, the Live network is worth it. - paradigmx, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9you forget how much bandwidth can add up, it only takes 2.5 downloads of that DLC. now maybe that was a bad example because chances are you'd be changed a minimum of $20 for that expansion. But 16 cents/GB when offering free content can make or break whether it sees the light of day.
- HappyScrappy, on 03/23/2009, -1/+8This doesn't amount to much. These bandwidth costs are not out of line with what companies would spend to distribute demos themselves anyway.
- paradigmx, on 03/23/2009, -4/+11there are always exceptions to the rule, PS3 is one of them. besides, get a 360 elite w/Live Gold and a second controller + chargers, you pretty well have the price of a PS3.
- IdanE, on 03/23/2009, -3/+10MS Doesn't charge the publishers. It does charge users for live accounts. This is something that the user can choose to use or not to use.
Sony wants the publishers to pay - that's nice on paper, but since a publisher primarily wants to make money (weird, I know), and they can create DLC for X360 and not pay an additional overhead, whereas they would have to pay Sony more in order to do the exact same thing, well, that makes a publishers choice of an exclusive DLC platform easy, don't it? - coffeerox, on 03/23/2009, -2/+9>>>For free content, like demos, those charges apply only during the first 60 days of the content’s release.<<<
Demos aren't going to cost much to put on PSN. The direct advertising GENERATES sales which recoup the bandwidth costs AND THEN SOME.
>>>For paid content, like map packs, the charges rack up in perpetuity, or until that content is removed from the PlayStation 3’s online store.<<<
Here's the thing guys. These game comanies are getting free advertising and a money making platform and somehow Sony has to foot the bill for it? Do you not see how this makes no sense whatsoever? SOMEONE has to pay for it, and it aint us, and it aint Sony. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft charges publishers a fee for hosting DLC, keep in mind, this is DLC, not demos. Anyways, DLC is small anyways so they aren't really going to pay a lot. - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -1/+8You get what you pay for.
- JayD16, on 03/23/2009, -5/+11That makes no sense.
What, do you think Sony is charging $5 a download? If a game is downloaded, any developer will get charged, but they'll still make far more in revenue.
It's probably just a way to keep file sizes low. Sony decided to not put a hard cap on size. This is a good way to soft cap it.
Free content being charged is a little lame though... - Chirp08, on 03/23/2009, -1/+7If you think $0.16/GB is cheap you've clearly never owned any kind of web server. That will add up incredibly fast, one game alone is enough to hurt your bottom line, let alone having multiple games/types of content out there. I can honestly see it being cheaper to for devs to just burn an expansion disc with minimal packaging and distributing that for a few bucks instead of even bothering with free dlc.
- NeoTechni, on 03/23/2009, -2/+8They don't offer DLC/demos
- paradigmx, on 03/23/2009, -5/+11being that I'm being dugg down, I should point out, there are no ads on an Xbox Live Gold account! None!
There's recommended content, but no ads! not anymore anyway, there where some before but the new interface doesn't have any - quentinp, on 03/23/2009, -1/+6I'd rather play $5 for Live, than $0 for Home and the PSN...heh I remember the PS3 Fanboy hype, Home is coming, Home is coming! Then'll you see! Hallowed is the PS3! Just wait Home will beat live and it will be free!
Of the 3 systems I tend to play 360 the most, then the Wii, and last is the PS3. The PS3 is a big fat gaming disappointment overall. Every exclusive and next big thing for PS3 has ended up being very lackluster in the end. But it does play Blu-ray and that is 95% of what it does in our household. Heck my wife plays the 360, but has only ever been interested in PAIN on the PS3.
(well that's my annual posting-in-a-console-flamewar-thread quota of one post used up for the year hehe) - EskNerd, on 03/23/2009, -1/+6People will complain either way. It's best to just lean back and relax while they get themselves worked up into a frothing rage over nothing much at all.
- phosphor112, on 03/23/2009, -4/+9@ daridave
I don't think I should be charged to play online games. That is how all PC games are (excluding MMO's and the such). Sony has made great choices with their PSN, most games having their own dedicated servers, others P2P and some even both! I already have to pay for my craptastic monopolized internet, so why should I have to pay more? Also, I'm a full time student that can't afford to do such a thing. I don't play enough games online to pay a monthly fee, when sometimes I don't even get to play for weeks on end. - TrancePhreak, on 03/23/2009, -7/+12Silver is free and can still get demos.
- computershack, on 03/23/2009, -2/+7Considering that they've been charging for nearly half a year, I'd love to know where the money goes. It certainly isn't on servers or bandwith because PSN's network performance is unbelievably ***** compared to XBL.
- LupeFiasco, on 03/23/2009, -2/+7I am assuming that the paid subscriptions for XBOX live subsidize the bandwith cost for DLC? XBOX live doesn't seem so bad anymore if this is the case. Sucks for Ps3 dev's though, I'm loving Little Big Planet, I hope this doesn't stifle creativity.
- theaceoffire, on 03/23/2009, -3/+8If I made a 1GB game (Which is around average, or they are smaller), and I charge $1, I still make $0.84 per sale...
And the more you charge, the larger your percentage of profit. A $10 game gives you $9.84... 98.4% of all the money goes to you.
I would *LOVE* to get that kind of opportunity, to have my game at the top of the "New Download" list for a giant console. It would be almost pure profit. - Shaflugi, on 03/23/2009, -0/+5They've been doing that since the 360 first came out, and people were bitching about it THEN. You know what it means to put stuff on the disc and lock it? They gave you an incomplete game for 60 bucks, and you have to pay the extra 10 dollars to get the full game. It isn't EXTRA content that they added on, it's part of the game that they removed as an easy way to make quick cash.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 226 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is