The LittleBigPlanet pre-release Saga

[patsu]

If people have to pay for user-created levels, it will go nowhere.

Payment will encourage better quality content by rewarding them. I think they need to leave it to "market forces" to decide whether something is worthwhile.

In general, subscription or flat-rate may not work as well unless the market is full of high quality user work.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Make it Giana Sisters then...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Payment will encourage better quality content by rewarding them. I think they need to leave it to "market forces" to decide whether something is worthwhile.

Exactly. Forcing paid content will kill community content, and thus they won't do it. But not having an option for content creators to get something back is going to limit the investment in level creation. Creating a high-quality level with custom objects and art is going to be a time-consuming process. IMO it's only fair to pay those creators something for their time in producing something I enjoy. Anyone giving anything away free, good for them, but I'm not going to expect the world for freebies. By offering both solutions, we get the best of both worlds. People don't mind paying game developers for extra content, right? So why not be willing to pay third party content creators if they're producing tsuff to the same high standards?

 

[wco81]

The appeal of community content, and the game in general, would be diminished if you're nickled and dimed for every new level.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Every new level, yes. That's not what's being proposed though!

 

[betan]

Payment will encourage better quality content by rewarding them. I think they need to leave it to "market forces" to decide whether something is worthwhile.

In general, subscription or flat-rate may not work as well unless the market is full of high quality user work.

There is also the approval process which I guess means free quality/popular levels.
Without that, while I think p2p payment is a plus, they should have delayed the announcement to sometime after the release.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You're probably right, just to avoid the confusion and the loud misunderstandings of people up in arms!

Turns out Media Molecule got hate mail and an official clarification was released.

"SCEE and Media Molecule can guarantee that all consumer-generated content will be free at launch. We know how important this is to the LBP community and what we want most is for people to enjoy playing, creating and sharing their content," Sony told Eurogamer.
"Obviously, we're also excited about the future and David was talking about how user-generated content could potentially evolve in the long term. Any decisions that are taken to evolve LBP in the future, will include the community and focus purely on enhancing the user experience."

 

[wco81]

There's a backlash to it when developers like EA try to do it with micropayments.

Not going to be that much better for user-created content.

Remember when J. Allard introduced the idea of velocitygirl putting up cool levels and you pay for them? Did that take off?

 

[patsu]

There is also the approval process which I guess means free quality/popular levels.
Without that, while I think p2p payment is a plus, they should have delayed the announcement to sometime after the release.

I am inclined to agree.

It's probably a one-off move for Sony since LBP is a Worldwide Studio effort. IMHO, the consumer-to-consumer trading platform + DRM should be at the PSN level. If they don't get this part right -- which is highly likely, they miss another opportunity to redefine the platform.

There's a backlash to it when developers like EA try to do it with micropayments.

Not going to be that much better for user-created content.

Remember when J. Allard introduced the idea of velocitygirl putting up cool levels and you pay for them? Did that take off?

It really depends on how they package it. It may be seen as bad form to extend your hand and ask for money "blatantly" (even though the author has the complete, perfect, god-d*mn right to do so).

Sony can do it as donation for the creators, or they can choose the better ones and value add on top to resell it, or they can license the say... original music for sale, etc.

As for the uproar for LBP, I don't think they should stop what they want to do. They need to come up with the specific mechanism first.

 

[betan]

I am inclined to agree.

It's probably a one-off move for Sony since LBP is a Worldwide Studio effort. IMHO, the consumer-to-consumer trading platform + DRM should be at the PSN level. If they don't get this part right -- which is highly likely, they miss another opportunity to redefine the platform.

I'm not sure why you think DRM is a big issue here. Worst case they put a non-editable, non-sharable flag in the level data, and it's done. It's not like we can go and rip off stuff from PS3 HDD or transfered save files. They will probably add another security layer on top of that which shouldn't be any difficult.

 

[patsu]

It depends on the content in the circulated level. If it also includes say original music they sell over other channels, the author(s) would hope to protect it somehow. I am referring to (close to) commercial quality work released on personal capacity. The security layer you mentioned will likely be part of the (one-off) DRM scheme.

 

[betan]

It depends on the content in the circulated level. If it also includes say original music they sell over other channels, the author(s) would hope to protect it somehow. I am referring to (close to) commercial quality work released on personal capacity. The security layer you mentioned will likely be part of the (one-off) DRM scheme.

Can you give me an example where they mass it up (i.e. not using PSN DRM)?
Is ripping that music will be easier?

edit: I don't think save file circulation will be an issue, if that's the concern here.

 

[patsu]

Generalizing the DRM scheme here can enable more flexible distribution and usage model. e.g., Using commercial songs (or even short video clips) in user-created level.

 

[Cornsnake]

Any levels you have to pay for will have to compete with the massive amounts of free levels. That should keep the prices down. And if that's the case, then I wont mind paying for a level someone's put a lot of time and effort in. This will just be another way to find high quality levels easily. And it will encourage people to make levels as good as they can.

 

[betan]

Generalizing the DRM scheme here can enable more flexible distribution and usage model. e.g., Using commercial songs (or even short video clips) in user-created level.

OK, a bit of content is DRMed (audio, video, boss, etc.), and another professional level designer either buys the rights to use that in his commercial level for a constant fee, or the system allows some kind of payment redistribution like a portion of the revenue directly being transfered to the original author.
Is this the generalization you have in mind?

Because I'm not sure. Alternatively system can bypass any agreement between content owners and let the user buy the optional second content (like audio) in addition to the first one.

Or are you talking about simply just letting level designers DRM arbitrary parts of the level? For example a guy may be very proud of his music and only wants to protect that, while keeping the rest editable and sharable?

 

[-tkf-]

Any levels you have to pay for will have to compete with the massive amounts of free levels. That should keep the prices down. And if that's the case, then I wont mind paying for a level someone's put a lot of time and effort in. This will just be another way to find high quality levels easily. And it will encourage people to make levels as good as they can.

This is the exact same thing as with the DOOM/QUAKE games.

There is a million levels for free, and you could still buy high quality levels ass expansion packs.

If someone sits down and spends the time and manhours on high quality levels it will sell.

Much noise about nothing.

 

[patsu]

OK, a bit of content is DRMed (audio, video, boss, etc.), and another professional level designer either buys the rights to use that in his commercial level for a constant fee, or the system allows some kind of payment redistribution like a portion of the revenue directly being transfered to the original author.
Is this the generalization you have in mind?

Because I'm not sure. Alternatively system can bypass any agreement between content owners and let the user buy the optional second content (like audio) in addition to the first one.

Or are you talking about simply just letting level designers DRM arbitrary parts of the level? For example a guy may be very proud of his music and only wants to protect that, while keeping the rest editable and sharable?

These are all possibilities that will be missed (or left unexplored) in a barebone and closed system, without an enabling DRM platform. Right now, LBP does not allow music import I think (although technically it could).

There can be workarounds (e.g., play default music if the "embedded" one is unavailable). But then again, the right music/lyrics may make a difference in gameplay.

It's a huge can of worm for sure. I am just hoping that Sony as a content owner and a platform holder knows how best to navigate the maze.

 

[wco81]

Actually, what might be interesting is downloading someone else's levels and then editing them.

Would the DRM allow that?

And a better starting point for user content might be to be able to edit the levels which come with the game. Edit, extend, modify, tweak, etc.

 

[deepbrown]

Actually, what might be interesting is downloading someone else's levels and then editing them.

Would the DRM allow that?

And a better starting point for user content might be to be able to edit the levels which come with the game. Edit, extend, modify, tweak, etc.

You can do that.

 

[patsu]

I doubt they have any form of DRM right now.

But you can still build on top of existing levels I supposed
They are free but net ethics would require proper credits to be given (Muahaha).