is it fine for the pay content though? PSN doesn't exist in a vaccum and if there are other services that don't charge that fee then they can go there. Esp if the other services are offering advertising deals and other things to get timed or full out exclusives.
Sony charging editors for PSN?
- Thread starter liolio
- Start date
is it fine for the pay content though? PSN doesn't exist in a vaccum and if there are other services that don't charge that fee then they can go there. Esp if the other services are offering advertising deals and other things to get timed or full out exclusives.
Well, there are other services that offer something similar, but no, there's no other way to get to PS3 owners than to go through PSN. Is DLC a consideration when a game is initially bought? GTA4 and Tomb Raider say not really, Fallout 3 says yes.
In the world of 21 million PS3 owners they can go to a Demo disc on the cover of a Magazine. Then can release Addons on a Disc or they can release it on PSN, where everyone have full access to all the services from the get go. Including free multiplayer service that should prelong your product and make it easier to nickel and dime your customers.
If PSN was a pay for service there is a fair chance that Multiplayer games would see less sales on the PSN store since fewer would be using it.
No, both are connected via ethernet and about 3 feet of ethernet cable (right next to the switch). It's been the case where I lived in Calgary (west coast, Shaw as the ISP), it's been the case when I lived in Toronto (both in West Toronto with Rogers, and Scarborough with Bell). I've had 3 ISPs and been on both coasts of Canada over the past couple of years, and the PSN download speeds have always been MUCH slower than Live's.
I run DD-WRT v24 SP1...that's not the issue.
specwarGP2
Regular
So publishers are gonna just yank their pay for content because they don't want to pay $0.16/GB? Which pay for DLC on PSN is even 1GB in size?
In fact they won't release 500MB DLC for free like the Titan pack for UT3... oh wait.
Someone has to pay for this stuff, the free market will sort it out. As a gamer I'm not concerned. I already subsidize Silver members on XBL, maybe my purchases will do the same for PSN.
Jashua's post reminded me; I would like to thank all paying Gold members for practically supporting PSN for us, in addition to Live for Silver members.
I mean, they are, after all, paying for content providers' distribution costs on Live, thus sparing more money for PSN. So your annoyance is totally understandable.
Seriously, who should pay distribution costs for promotional material such as demos, trailers and video docs?
a) Users
b) Platform owner
c) Content provider
Wow, that's like trying the find the meaning of life. Or not.
I mean, they are, after all, paying for content providers' distribution costs on Live, thus sparing more money for PSN.
So your annoyance is totally understandable.Seriously, who should pay distribution costs for promotional material such as demos, trailers and video docs?
a) Users
b) Platform owner
c) Content provider
Wow, that's like trying the find the meaning of life. Or not.
It just boggles my mind.
Publishers have been wasting a lot of money for ages. For instance:
o Did Eidos really think ads all over the web were going to spark interest in Kane and Able? It's really easy to see that no one was interested in the game, why not just spend that money on a Demo that highlights the games strengths, or a good TV campaign?
o Why am I seeing commercials for RE5 on A&E? Just doens't seem like the right demographic to me.
o Why did I see Halo 3 commercials on the History Channel?
If Publishers spent more time optimizing where they spent their money for marketing, maximizing revenue through meaningful DLC, and play testing their games with betas and consumer feed back, they would save TONS of money. On the topic of betas and "demos" they could make way more money by creating a product that is actually fun.
Good games don't sell well by chance, they sell well because they are good. If a publisher funded a beta program that would cost them a few hundred thousand, it could improve their product greatly.
I think Publishers / Developers in general should start up programs to identify indivudals abroad to beta test their titles. People can apply, sign NDA's, and be held legally responsible just like anyone else in the industry, but simple Q&A and "Focus Testing" (ugh!) do not cut it for 80% of the games that hit retail shelves.
Publishers have been wasting a lot of money for ages. For instance:
o Did Eidos really think ads all over the web were going to spark interest in Kane and Able? It's really easy to see that no one was interested in the game, why not just spend that money on a Demo that highlights the games strengths, or a good TV campaign?
o Why am I seeing commercials for RE5 on A&E? Just doens't seem like the right demographic to me.
o Why did I see Halo 3 commercials on the History Channel?
If Publishers spent more time optimizing where they spent their money for marketing, maximizing revenue through meaningful DLC, and play testing their games with betas and consumer feed back, they would save TONS of money. On the topic of betas and "demos" they could make way more money by creating a product that is actually fun.
Good games don't sell well by chance, they sell well because they are good. If a publisher funded a beta program that would cost them a few hundred thousand, it could improve their product greatly.
I think Publishers / Developers in general should start up programs to identify indivudals abroad to beta test their titles. People can apply, sign NDA's, and be held legally responsible just like anyone else in the industry, but simple Q&A and "Focus Testing" (ugh!) do not cut it for 80% of the games that hit retail shelves.
The End user ALWAYS pays, either buying a magazine or getting a €20 internet connection to connect to a "free" network.
In Steam's case the fee for downloading is included in the price of a software purchase. And it's part advertisement supported. As Newell said, their profits come from games that are advertised heavily as discount items. But I'm pretty sure their bandwidth costs are quite large, especially when they release a game themselves. But by reverting to P2P they can keep their costs down.
So the end user always pay, either by donating it's bandwidth (upload fee) Charges on games (deterring publishers from making content available on the free network) or by a monthly fee.
But I guess the PS3 users already payed a 5 year "PSN Network fee" in the retail price.
In fact they won't release 500MB DLC for free like the Titan pack for UT3... oh wait.
Haha, yeah, but there's like 6 people who still have the game on PS3, Sweeney probably can sneeze and pay the bandwidth fees.
Why do I have to nail Sony to the right position ? They do what they do.
Bandwidth cost is variable. The service is free. It is a natural that someone needs to foot for the bill. The traditional way to handle this for any Internet business is to calculate it into their business plan. As a consumer, I certainly don't want to pay for demos. In fact, I have complained about bad demoes for some time now.
I don't see how it's spinning. Microsoft may be exceptionally nice to developers to foot for all the bandwidth cost. It doesn't mean everyone has to follow. In fact, releasing the demoes on XBL first is a smart move to gauge the demo conversion rate -- if the developers are unsure.
I fail to see how they are related. I am sure the developers have total freedom on what game size to deploy. If you're referring to Blu-ray size, then ask the developers who complained about insufficient space.
Irrelevant. And perhaps you're looking at the wrong place ? For what it's worth, I only have 2 games on PS2. I have 10 games on Xbox and 6 games on GameCube. And most game demoes still s*ck compared to the real game.
That's why I asked how effective are game demoes. If the conversion rate is very low, there may be better ways to promote the games.
Yes, but how many sales can you make per 1 million 1Gb download ? It's been 2 years, there should be some industry average now.
It's driven by the market. The developers will have to make some judgment call. I am sure on Sony's end, they are also exploring ways to promote games better.
But digital distribution does not mean free distribution. Internet businesses have been dealing with bandwidth cost since day one. At least all my businesses did and still do.
Sony needs better marketing mechanism. I am not convinced that demo is the only way to go. In addition, I don't think it's the end of the story. There are opportunities to get people to foot for the $0.16/Gb fee (e.g., Getting advertisers to sponsor demoes).
Yes, because it's a hard problem and people are not thinking hard enough about it.
From here.
Demos are good for consumers, not so much for publishers. Occasionally demos help, as we know anecdotally from Bioshock 360.
I got my Titan pack and I'm playing it, I guess I should thank the Gears 2 DLC buyers for subsidizing me.
Same here. Well, I haven't played it much, but I made sure to use their bandwidth.
End user doesn't pay to watch ads though. At least I for one, hope you don't pay a lot to look at them. In fact most sane people look at them in order to pay less. I know, it's genius, no need to thank me.
And it's free online service, not free internet connection, I'm quite puzzled how it's even slightly related.
Keep telling that, maybe it will become true.
I think it's more like 8 years of PSN with free PS3.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Another thing I'm wondering is how this is affecting patch release schedules for some games.
For example I seem to remember WaW on PS3 seriously lagging behind X360 in getting patches to fix exploits, etc...
Are there any other multiplatform games that exhibit this? Only mentioning multiplatform since you can't really compare exclusives in this regard.
It's quite possible that a publisher for PS3 might just decide it isn't worth it to have to pay to to fix a game, especially if sales have slowed.
Also another way to think of this is that MS helps other publishers with advertising (silver membership is still free remember), while Sony decides that they don't need to help their devs with advertising.
So it shouldn't be a surprise that devs are more friendly and look more kindly towards developing on the X360 versus the PS3.
Regards,
SB
For example I seem to remember WaW on PS3 seriously lagging behind X360 in getting patches to fix exploits, etc...
Are there any other multiplatform games that exhibit this? Only mentioning multiplatform since you can't really compare exclusives in this regard.
It's quite possible that a publisher for PS3 might just decide it isn't worth it to have to pay to to fix a game, especially if sales have slowed.
Also another way to think of this is that MS helps other publishers with advertising (silver membership is still free remember), while Sony decides that they don't need to help their devs with advertising.
So it shouldn't be a surprise that devs are more friendly and look more kindly towards developing on the X360 versus the PS3.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
End user doesn't pay to watch ads though. At least I for one, hope you don't pay a lot to look at them. In fact most sane people look at them in order to pay less. I know, it's genius, no need to thank me.
And it's free online service, not free internet connection, I'm quite puzzled how it's even slightly related.
Keep telling that, maybe it will become true.
I think it's more like 8 years of PSN with free PS3.
Actually yes, end users do pay for advertising. If you buy ANYTHING from ANY company that advertises, you've just paid for watching their advertisement. Oh and the fun thing is that even if you don't watch an advert you helped pay for it.
Money for advertising doesn't just magically appear.
Although I suppose if you don't buy anything that is advertised then you can claim to not pay for advertising, but I'm pretty sure if you're here you've bought an X360 or PS3 (advertising dollars) or games for them (more advertising dollars).
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Granted just like the PSN download fee's it's "hidden" from you, but you are still paying for it. Unfortunately due to the way it's structured if it's a multiplatform game, then people that buy the X360 version of the game also helped pay for your download.
It'd be nice if publishers just discounted the game for X360 or raised the price of the PS3 game to pay for PSN fees, but that probably won't happen. Instead Pubs might be just that teeny tiny bit more pre-disposed to releasing on X360 instead of PS3 (or always developing on X360 as the primary source with ports to PS3) due to the fact that MS is willing to help offset their "advertising" and patch release fees.
Regards,
SB
inefficient
Veteran
Studies have shown that you are wrong.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/02/02/which-console-downloads-games-fastest/
No offense, but are you aware that Canada and the USA are different countries? I'm sure you are aware of the difference in geography as well, North America is huge.
Further still, at least one of the results from that article shows Live being faster -- the one where the 360 is using ethernet (as mine is). And I can tell you, at least in Toronto and Calgary in Canada, Xbox Live is significantly faster than PSN for downloads.
I take offense to being told I'm "wrong" when I've used these consoles and downloaded many things from both services over several years. Especially when you link to results from another country. And especially when one of those results corroborate me.
Last edited by a moderator:
