Sony charging editors for PSN?

[inefficient]

FYI the pricing structure is very similar to what other vendors are offering.

http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/#pricing

So calling it highway robbery etc is misinformed.

 

[inefficient]

Also it is noteworthy what Konami pioneered with their downloadable PS3 MGO game and expansion pack. They allowed downloading from peers ala bittorrent style.

This is the benefit of an open network platform. It could become more common to purchase and DL some 1-5MB stub launcher file from the PSN store. Then launch it up, it allocates space on your disc, and uses the peer2peer DL hosting system for the bulk of the content. This way your actual users are helping to distribute the file.

Of course this has to be optional since some people will complain about the peer to peer part due to Upload caps or whatever. But to the very cost conscious developer/publisher this could be a strong option.

 

[Crossbar]

It really doesn't need to be this way though. You look at long-standing demo sites and free services like Xfire on the PC and you realize there are other means. Quality floats to the top and by its merits is successful. The problem is when your strategy requires you to float an ambitious non-exhistant platform with zero users and the initial offering is essentially subsidized until it can become compelling... if it ever does. Moves like this make it just another hurdle to reach that goal. The irony is that this may discourage some bad games not to do demos, and in turn they may see higher sales. But this isn't a good thing for the platform or users.

FYI the PSN already has compelling content, that is not Sonys problem at this point of time.

 

[specwarGP2]

It doesn't work that way.

I would gladly pay $1 per demo or something like that to cover the cost - it's still better than the gamble of a demo-less $60 game.

Which is exactly why publishers put out demos - unless the game has good word of mouth or built up good will gamers will just pass on it. A demo is a marketing tool for publishers, why in the world should end users have to pay for advertising???

 

[-tkf-]

Of course this has to be optional since some people will complain about the peer to peer part due to Upload caps or whatever. But to the very cost conscious developer/publisher this could be a strong option.

11 Million World of Warcraft players use peer2peer to get updates.

 

[szymku]

I don't care if developers pay or not for their advertisement as long as I'm not charged for using my PSN account....

From a consumer point of view those fees are irrelevant. They have impact on publishers income... not game pricing

But theres always someone who will say:

just add this one to the long list of Sony blunders this gen

 

[neliz]

But theres always someone who will say:

If you expect Total Domination by Sony and it turns out to be the bottom rung console you can say the execution of the whole affair was less than stellar.

This goes for both PS3 and PSP.

 

[-tkf-]

If you expect Total Domination by Sony and it turns out to be the bottom rung console you can say the execution of the whole affair was less than stellar.

This goes for both PS3 and PSP.

PSP is not a success? And there is more to the current PS3 sales than just "blunders".

 

[szymku]

If you expect Total Domination by Sony and it turns out to be the bottom rung console you can say the execution of the whole affair was less than stellar.

It's a bit harsh, dont you think? Gap between xO and PS3 isn't that big..

Theres no doubt that MS marketing machine is far superior than Sony's, and to me this is the main reason for Sony loosing it's dominance this generation... They made some mistakes but free PSN is not one of them
Perfect example for MS marketing techniques is topic of this thread....
Now I'm waiting for PS3 users who wants to be charged for PSN service instead of letting Sony charge the publishers.... Because it's proper and good thing to do

 

[eastmen]

It's a bit harsh, dont you think? Gap between xO and PS3 isn't that big..

Theres no doubt that MS marketing machine is far superior than Sony's, and to me this is the main reason for Sony loosing it's dominance this generation... They made some mistakes but free PSN is not one of them
Perfect example for MS marketing techniques is topic of this thread....
Now I'm waiting for PS3 users who wants to be charged for PSN service instead of letting Sony charge the publishers.... Because it's proper and good thing to do

I'm not really sure how you can spin the ps3 in a postive light for sony. Last generation they sold over 150m units and still selling. They were in first place shortly after they released their system. This time we are 2 years after the fact and they are still as far behind as they were when they launched. They had a 125m unit lead on the xbox last gen and now they are what 8 m behind. I don't see how you can spin it to a postive.


As for psn. If staying free causes then to miss out on demos and other content , then i'd rather pay for it. Being free has its own set of trade offs. It has nothing to do with it being the proper and good thing to do. I pay for fios because i get more content than I do with just broadcast tv. It can turn into the same situation in regards to psn vs xbox live. There is already alot of exclusive content from multiplatform games on xbox live that doesn't exist on psn. It could be bandwidth costs , it could be money hats. However both those things come about from ms charging $2-3 a month for service.

 

[szymku]

I'm not really sure how you can spin the ps3 in a postive light for sony. Last generation they sold over 150m units and still selling. They were in first place shortly after they released their system. This time we are 2 years after the fact and they are still as far behind as they were when they launched. They had a 125m unit lead on the xbox last gen and now they are what 8 m behind. I don't see how you can spin it to a postive.

Sales says nothing about one product being inferior to another or being blunder...

I'm old enough to remember:

- PC selling better than Apple and Amiga
- Windows selling better than OS3
- MS Word selling better than Word Perfect

Of course those MS marketed products became better over time and now I'm using all three of them, but at the time there were better ones that weren't so popular

What I'm trying to say is that PS3 is decent machine which despite flaws should be considered as good product... It doesnt deserve the amount of negative press it gets...
Especially when you take exclusive titles into consideration

As for PSN, it gets many great titles Like Flower, Pixel Junk series and others. According to recent news it will get plenty of PS One classics. I don't think it is handicaped in any way

 

[Asher]

FYI the pricing structure is very similar to what other vendors are offering.

http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/#pricing

So calling it highway robbery etc is misinformed.

There's a huge difference in quality of service.

For me, for the past couple years I've had my PS3, PSN download speeds are atrocious compared to the 360 and also compared to Amazon CloudFront-hosted content.

PSN is not a first-rate content provider, so they should not be billing as if they were. Further yet, Sony has potential to make money from the content they are being paid to deliver as well, which should be taken into account (DLC, game royalties).

 

[neliz]

I'm old enough to remember:
- Windows selling better than OS3

I think just about everything sold better than OS/3 .

All in all, it really does not matter if your product is better or superior, it matters which the end-user ends up buying.
If you think the PS3 doesn't deserve bad press than that's entirely Sony's fault for creating false expectations and besides, people just like to see heroes fall.

 

[szymku]

people just like to see heroes fall.

I agree to that

For me, for the past couple years I've had my PS3, PSN download speeds are atrocious compared to the 360 and also compared to Amazon CloudFront-hosted content.

I'm just guessing, but do you have PS3 connected to the inetrnet over WiFi and XBox over the cable?

 

[Arwin]

There's a huge difference in quality of service.

For me, for the past couple years I've had my PS3, PSN download speeds are atrocious compared to the 360 and also compared to Amazon CloudFront-hosted content.

PSN is not a first-rate content provider, so they should not be billing as if they were. Further yet, Sony has potential to make money from the content they are being paid to deliver as well, which should be taken into account (DLC, game royalties).

For every guy complaining about PSN download speeds there's a guy complaining about Xbox Live download speeds, and these days even more about Xbox Live NXE lag.

 

[tha_con]

So now publishers shouldn't pay for bandwidth....right.

Maybe this will stop them from wasting money on crappy advertising during times when they can't get their target demographic, etc.

Publishers waste far more money on advertising that almost always ends up being a waste of money.

 

[obonicus]

For me, for the past couple years I've had my PS3, PSN download speeds are atrocious compared to the 360 and also compared to Amazon CloudFront-hosted content.

I had this problem, but I installed custom firmware in my router and now it's as fast as my XBL connection. Seems the PS3 doesn't deal well with a few off-the-shelf routers.

 

[tha_con]

Well, it's all location dependent too. If you're in an area that has is very populated, you may get reduced DL speeds at peak hours.

You also have to factor in individuals who may live in "remote" areas, where the population isn't so high, so they are getting data off of a server that is quite the distance away, etc. There are a lot of factors that can be taken into consideration when talking about DL speeds.

 

[Arwin]

That's interesting obonicus. I think the PS3 really excels when a router has UPnP(2?) support, but less so when a router doesn't ... is that possible? I've always really liked UPnP support on the PS3, it has made my online experiences (well together with more server side hosting of course) a lot more pleasant on the PS3 than on the 360, at least when it comes to the basics (like being able to connect to games and other players).

 

[AzBat]

They can add 16 cent pr GB on pay for content and not loose a dime.

Yeah, that's fine for the pay content. But how much more would they have to charge on the pay content in order to cover all of the bandwidth costs of all the free content? As an example, does that change the cost of a map pack from $10 to $11, $12 or more? What about those publishers that only have free content & no pay content? Sony is in a predicament here: damned if they do & damned if they don't.

Tommy McClain