Girugamesh

• 4:54pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 1

Eh, we're running into some sticky issues, should gamers pay for this or should publishers? It just depends on the content, if you ask me. I'm very glad PSN is free, but there are many situations publishers should not have to pay to host their things as well.

Sryche22

• 4:57pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 2

Maybe the developers will be more likely to keep certain content in the full retail game now, instead of trying to HAWK extra money out of gamers by making certian things "special DLC" 

empirex

• 4:58pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 3

Well it's free for us or free for them. Cant have them both. Just another reason for people to scream about the ps3. No one will ever be happy.

@2 I agree 100%

KillerInst2129

• 4:59pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 4

Hold up my maths might not be brilliant and i tried using a currency convertor, but i think (tho i could be wrong here) 16 cents is about 11p (in UK currency), now looking at a 1 gig DLC or Demo, is gonna cost a dev about 11p, umm maybe i read the article wrong but what are devs complaining about ?, ok the xbox has Live which is subscription based and i must admit has better online servers n such at the cost of £30 (again i could be wrong, having never paid for their service) a month, i wouldnt mind paying a monthly fee to PSN if it was cheaper than Live, for Sony to make a better service to us loyal Playstation users.

(oops edit)

Yes #2, i agree with your post, for example WWE Smackdown V`s Raw 2009, they released a half ass`d lame roster with a handful of guys and then charged us extra for 4 new guys (2 of them were already in the game and just needed costume changes) oh and few divas costumes, these should of been incudled with the game.

radgamer420

• 5:02pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 5

Hmm.. Not good.

Ivycrew707

• 5:05pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 6

Well now we know why aloy of Xbox games get so much more DLC on the same games.... GTA4 AND FALLOUT 3 come to mind

Robotron

• 5:33pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 7

So if I read this correctly publishers don't want to pay to advertise their games on PSN (let's face it demos and trailers are advertisments)...so now they whine that it's Sony's fault? Nice. Shouldn't they be the ones paying for us to see their game since it is our money they will get in the end? I like the free PSN.

I own a 360 and a PS3 and after buying my PS3 I never put another dime into Live. If I like a game I will buy it on PSN...if it's only on Live then they can shove it because no one else in my house can play it unless they logon as me.

Overcast

• 5:47pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 8

I love my PS3 but Sony is making mistakes and they should know better about things like this. Maybe it would be better if we had to pay. This hurts the system overall if publishers aren't going to want to host demos and trailers if this type of penalty is in place.

jaybiv

• 5:47pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 9

#4.  The publishers are charged for every download.  So it can get a bit expensive.  However, with regards to paid DLC, this is much ado about nothing.  Most DLC is under a gig anyway, so they are only paying an extra 16 cents per download.  Now where they get hit are on the freebies and demos.

They may not like it, but with the PS3 numbers increasing, they are going to have to pay the man.  Better them than us.

awesomemans

• 5:58pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 10

Let's look at it this way:

Let's say I buy a 4 gig game for 10 bucks. That means $10 -(0.16 x 4) which would be 10-0.64 which would mean a $9.36 profit. Hardly a sacrifice.

And demos are pretty much the same as advertising your game. Sony's gotta make money somehow.

Chronus

• 6:01pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 11

so they want to save 16 cents per gig rather than letting people have a taste of their game and potentially end up buying their full retail copy?

ephracis

• 6:07pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 12

Advertisement is another revenue model. Maybe make it game-related advertisement. I wouldn't mind.

O_G_H

• 6:20pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 13

This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!  PERIOD.

masonmcglasson

• 6:29pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 14

They should only charge if it's on downloadable content that the company makes money off of

Alpha2

• 6:30pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 15

They've been doing it for free for more than 2 years now so to suddenly see a charge makes them made, just as much as it would be for us to suddenly have to pay for PSN (an idea that has no place in reality.)

Some might see these fees as a way to force developers (like Capcom) to stop nickel and diming us with addons that could have been put on the game disk for a greater value. unfortunately the fees are  for GBs of information and unlock codes for things like costumes dont have to be more than a Meg at most, which you;d need quite a few of to really matter in terms of how much the publisher would have to pay.

In the grand scheme, EA could post hundreds of unlock keys and never pay a cent. All they have to do is put all the upgrades on a disk or in a patch and make who ever uses the information pay for it. Further even if you did post a game bigger than a Gig the game would probably cost 20 bucks and would pay for itself in no time. Demos should remain free or only be posted for a limited time. These are advertisments for games and Sony should want to publisize games to get people to actually buy them form the PSN.

The fee sucks most for small publishers but the thing is it's a pittance, but no one wants to pay for something that was once free without a good enough reason. Consumers paying for PSN is NOT an option. To force us to pay is to destroy the thing that seperates it from Brand-X's greedy business.

hush404

• 6:47pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 16

Hmm. I think that'd a dumb move on Sony's part. How do you expect to get support for a service when you're charging the people who make games to use it? I can see why they do it... but still.

edward_moffet

• 7:05pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 17

 great job making a mountain out of a mole hill

@awesomemans THANK YOU im glad someone gets it!

Gtek500

• 7:06pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 18

 That is a lot even for small upcoming game developers. Though I'd rather not pay the 16 cents for a demo myself. I see why a demo now would come out later when the game has already been released.

itforensic

• 7:54pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 19

Developers should pay the fee and say:"Sony, thank you for making us rich!"

Look at all the developers of iPhone apps (although the best apps are open source) paying up to 30% of their revenues to Apple...they don't complain because there is a share of that delicious pie for everybody...

Also this affirms a rule that if the product is good it will make money without a doubt and mediocre games are "risky business"...

PSN is good example of the win-win situation!
 

FloodOne

• 8:28pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 20

That's BS... I'll pay $50 as year for PSN to keep developers on board. If there are no games, there is no ps3

SignalOne

• 9:15pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 21

I agree with #7. Demo's are a form of advertising made soley for the purpose of encouraging us to buy a certain game. Companies don't whinge when they advertise their products on TV or any other medium.

Furthermore, PC demo's are hosted on the web for end users to download for free, and that costs money in itself minimally for the hosting and bandwidth. Should developers start charging us for the costs associated with the hosting and bandwidth when downloading a PC demo?

I don't understand the problem with a company paying for bandwidth and the privilage of hosting their product on a web service when it's going to put their product in the lime light for millions of end users. Ultimately, 16c/gb isn't going to outweigh the revenue unless the game is rubbish and no one buys it. You need to spend money to make money, and what better way to spend money on advertising than sending a short demo directly into the living rooms of the people that are most likely to buy it (unlike a 30 second TV commercial which costs much, much more and where the target audience is only 0.001% of the people watching at any one time?

A triple A release costs enough on its own. I don't want to then be paying monthly fees for an online service. I already pay for my ISP account, and that's what that is for.

jack2pot

• 9:19pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 22

why cant ppl ge this ?

THIS IS THE SAME AS ADS ! and its just 16 cents a GIG seriously devs what more do you want

tristan88888888

• 9:20pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 23

 that update put it into perspective. thats a lot of money for them for dlc. 

melmacj

• 9:21pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 24

Well guys there's one solution, We Pay! Someone has to pay for those servers and storage space that host those demos. I really can't blame Sony. They are still taking a loss on every system sold. Microsoft charges for live so I would expect them to host demo and content for free. Nintendo I think is in a better position than Sony and Microsoft can aford not to charge. Although they could be making it up elsewhere. Keep in mind these guys are in this business for money. Bottomline.

whitegamer009

• 9:32pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 25

This is why M$ charges for their live and it works out for people because they get more stuff paying for live service than we do!  I hope that the next console Sony comes out with will charge $50-$60 per year for online service so they can use that cash to help themselves grow! Its working for M$ why not Sony? 

melmacj

• 10:06pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 26

Next Console! PSN is still active, it's not too late to start charging for it. A increase in quality just may result in that charge as well. I only own a PS3 but at one time own a 360. I have say Live is nice but you expect it to be since you're paying for it. I just want to see what happens if Sony does put the charge on the consumers. How many people will start griping then. I don't care either way but rather have it free since I'm already paying the ISP. On the other side of the coin 50-60 a year isn't a whole lot money either.

coverlord

• 10:09pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 27

If I was Sony, I would tell the developers that don't want to pay, go somewhere else.

Lets be honest, the great games will always pay to advertise on PSN, you would be stupid not too.

I can see alot changing in the future. PS3 is going to dominate this year, so if your not onboard with Sony, next year will be a nightmare.

LET THEM WHINGE!

I have a 360 and a PS3 and I don't see how the xbox has a better service, servers, etc...

Don't believe it, Gears of war 2 lags all day and I have a decent connection and Killzone 2 runs slick on the net.

Free all the way!

higgos22

• 11:55pm EDT - March 20th, 2009
• 28

@ 6 gta 4 cost ms 50million for the dlc which was probs payed for with the money they make from xbl

ms get alot of money say 17million xbl 50 a year means quite alot of money for ms which is pretty slack to the customers i prefer psn cus its free and im not to into the features

Stevie

• 12:09am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 29

If their game doesnt suck, they shouldn't worry about the fee

Syphon_Filter

• 12:42am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 30

I hope i wont pay anything lol.

Daz2399

• 1:01am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 31

OK, so here is the deal. There are a lot of games that I have purchased due to the demo. Games that I would have never rented let alone purchased. So the developers need to quit complaining. I would not pay for the PSN, just like I would not pay for LIVE, or WOW. If it came down to a monthly or yearly sub to play game, I would not play games. If it was just for the store, I would not go on the store. This also means that I would not be purchasing movies or renting them. This would be a lot of revenue lost for them. I know I wouldnt be the only one who stopped using it.

Kopkiwi

• 1:13am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 32

 You guys can point the finger at the publishers for this all you want. But look at it like this they have the choice of putting it for free on XBOX Live for PAY to have it on PSN?? What would YOU chose, I know where my DLC would be going. This is why I have no problems paying for the service as gamer if it means more content and faster content. Sony need to look at their thought process for a lot of things this gen.. least of all the PSN and it's content.

radgamer420

• 2:00am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 33

Kopkiwi is right. These publishers arent a charity. If publishers can put DLC on Live without these fees and maximize their profit then thats where theyre going to go. Thats just smart business for the publishers.

BlueDragoon0

• 2:05am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 34

It'll teach third party studios, leaving out content just for the sake of earning that extra bit of cash. Basically what Sryche22 said. [comment number #2]

Either Sony have a fee to use this service, or developers pay to host content.

It's a lose, lose situation. But I'd be able to pay for PSN, if more content came.

jigglespsu

• 3:01am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 35

Hmmm, it's a bit of a buzz-kill really.

Seems like Sony need to be charging more for the tiny pieces of DLC than the bigger bits to encourage big slabs of DLC instead of this micro transaction nonsense.

If it's free then Sony should host it for free because it is good for the brand.  Perhaps they should have a comp for the best content each week and that gets hosted for free.

They need to be making sure the experience is good for both devs and useres but PSN must always remain free for users.

roflmuffins8

• 3:13am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 36

I thought I read on Gamespot that the devs only had to pay the fee for the first 60 days a demo was out. Then the fee for the demo would be dropped.

dragon1989 | abdesalam

• 3:15am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 37

it free for us so that just good. keep it up sony

JoeReno

• 3:27am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 38

Let me first say that I've been a long time lurker, but felt that I must create a user account just so that I may throw my 2 cents in on this topic, and you may never hear from me again. I would like to use the game killzone2 as my example for my 2 cents. I just read on this site that killzone2 sold 324k units for feb. You take that 324K and times that by $59.99 or the equal in pounds, yen or euro and that's a lot of money by the math in my head. Now I'm guilty of downloading the demo but have not purchased the game as of yet, but I really don't think that they will miss my .16cents. You make a good product, and you will get a greater return. Seems like the publishers have been trying to boss Sony around. Demanding price cuts, complaining about "its hard to program for it", and now this. The bottom line is publish a quality game and we will buy it, and the map packs, costume changes, and so on. But its really up to them. I don't think any of us should have to pay for the PSN, and I refuse. We've invested in our game systems, and the games so there is no need for a pay subscription to the PSN when it is mostly an ad for the games due out soon. Let the people know you have a crap game coming out with a demo, then you might have a problem with the .16cents adding up. So, let's hope this will push the game developers, publishers, and the like to make only top notch games. Frankly if the PSN does go the route of a subscription for the users.. I will stop. The content is cool (for the most part) but $60 a year is another full game i could get, and enjoy more than downloading demos like Ironman. I'm very suprised that most of the comments on here were all in favor of going that route.

stelf_21-

• 4:00am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 39

exactly

Im-a-Cleaner

• 4:08am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 40

Shouldn't affect MGO! kojima produtions are doing such a good job with downloadable stuff as well

Paranoimia

• 4:29am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 41

I run a website, and my files are hosted on another company's servers... for which I have to pay, and which equates to significantly more than $0.16 per gigabyte, despite getting nowhere near as much traffic. We're always hearing about how the games industry is going from strength to strength and now rivals the movie industry... it's not as if they can't afford it.

It's a similar thing to the OPM coverdisc... I don't see why we should pay £1 extra (over other mag prices) for that - it's basically full of adverts, and the game companies should cover that cost - especially since I can get the same content FREE via PSN. It's equivalent to me having to pay Sky for viewing the adverts during Lost.

Let's not forget, not only do Microsoft charge for Live access, but they also plaster it with adverts, as well as taking fees from publishers. With the PSN setup, since it's based on downloads, publishers only pay if their game is successful and has a lot of downloads... in which case, they can afford it.

Evil^Virus

• 4:34am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 42

This is perfectly normal! If defs want to give the public a demo they have to pay for the space. Advertising is just the same. People don't pay a penny for advertising, the company's do to bring there products into people's home. And i think ths sort of advertising is mutch better then the expensive ones on tv! Demo's just replaced that sort of thing, cus how rare are tose become! Online demo-content is the future, those devs just have to suck it up!!!

MMDs

• 6:58am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 43

 Totally 100% agree with everybody saying that the Developers need to quit whining, 16cents a gig, Big Whoopty Devs, Commercial advertisers pay way more for TV air time.

Traveler

• 8:25am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 44

Are there any "Free" games? I mean other than the Grand Turismo game they came out with, prior to GT5 prolouge...  So the money we pay for these games, far outweighs the 16 cents/GB download cost the publisher has to pay.  They are still turning quite a nice profit considering most new PSN games are around $9.99 at this time.

As far as "Free" content such as demos, videos, etc... that is adverstising cost. At 16 cents/GB downloaded, it still comes out no where near what it would cost the publisher to advertise on TV, no matter how many people actually download the content. Publisher's do this in hopes of selling their games upon release and believe me at $59.99 a pop or even a PSN game at $9.99 each, they are making back way more than the 16 cents/GB downloaded "advertising" fee they had to pay to make the content available to us for free. 

I do not feel sorry for the publishers one bit. Why should they get free advertising? They want us to buy their crap right? If they want to complain about a 16 cent/GB downloaded advertising fee, so be it. They can stop offering the content, and we can stop buying their products.

Personally, I am a try before I buy kinda guy. If you offer up a free demo or video, and I like what I see, then I am going to buy it.

If it's crap, then not only am I not going to buy it, but the Publisher is an idiot for making the advertising content available to us for free in the first place. They should keep it a secret, and hope that people will buy the crap anyways. That like saying "Hey, check out this crap. It's so crappy, we wanted to pay Sony to have the opporunity to show you just how crappy it was. So go out now and buy our crap right away, because you know... just how much you love to pay for crap!"

Bah they can keep their 16 cents/GB downloaded. In fact, lets all offer them some cheese to go with their whine!!!

sh3-rg

• 8:53am EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 45

As a percentage of a sale, 16c per gig is nothing. All this means is lazy devs need to make much more optimised, considered demos. It's not difficult & it's not expensive to do.

bobtheduck

• 12:33pm EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 46

Um... They should not be getting charged for putting demos on, really... But next time a company I hate puts a demo on PSN, I need to make sure to download it about 200 times, just to make sure they get charged up the butt for it!

Heh...

UltimateCripple

• 12:46pm EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 47

I honestly wouldnt mind paying $50 dollars a year for PSN, especially if it means keeping the demos free and the devs free of charges for demo hosting.

I pay $50 a year for xbox live and the features on it are outstanding. I would love to be able to play a single player game like Ratchet and Clank or Heavenly Sword while talking to 7 other people in a party chat, it would make the online so much more interesting. I would as well like a better friends list, with more detailed information and maybe a profile system. This could all happen if people paid for PSN. And for $5 a month?? Just save yourself a trip to a fast food restaurant and viola! You've got enough for a month of online goodness.

Paranoimia

• 1:23pm EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 48

One thing I should have said in my earlier reply, but somehow forgot...

Does anyone think that the devs are really going to be the ones paying this fee?

Like every other industry, this charge will find it's way into the cost of the product, meaning that the fee will ultimately be paid by us, the consumer. Even the charge on 'free' demos will be recovered by increasing the cost of DLC for the full game. However they work it, at the end of the day, we will be the ones paying this fee. You can guarantee that the industry won't be out of pocket.

TekkenLord

• 2:32pm EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 49

you go sony make them pay.

Daz2399

• 4:09pm EDT - March 21st, 2009
• 50

@47

It could also happen without paying a subscription. HOME is a place that is generating a ton of money for the companies using it, Diesel Jeans for sure, Capcom I would imagine has as well. Companies make a return on there investment by a purchase. How much did it cost them before back when they would put out demos on a disc? I remember the PS1 and two days of demo discs. I would bet they paid more for those. There were also a lot of great games that bombed due to the lack of a demo. Having to pay to host is a much better system for the end user. Why should we have to pay a monthly service fee to play a game that we already purchased. Or to see content that should have been in the game to begin with. I am paying enough already with my 59.99 for the game, 400 for the console, 40 for a camera to support game features, and extra controller to play with friends, a headset to chat online and the internet service. Keep it "free" to the people that are buying your games. Another aspect to that is trophies. If it doesnt support trophies I dont buy it. UTIII was a rent until the last update. Only now does it warrent a purchase, and it got one.