• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sony charging publishers bandwidth fees. May affect demo and DLC availability.

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Per MTV Multiplayer Blog

Publishing sources told us that Sony?s previously un-reported new ?PlayStation Network Bandwidth Fee? is forcing them to think twice about what content they offer to PS3 gamers for download.

Until October 1 2008, video game publishers who wanted to offer downloadable content on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 didn?t have to worry about getting a bill from Microsoft and Sony.

The million-plus downloads that a popular demo or map pack might receive could delight gamers, but rack up some expensive bandwidth costs. No problem: the publishers, who already pay a licensing fee to get their games on the two big platforms, could count on the platform holders ? Microsoft and Sony ? to pay the cost of piping that digital content to gamers.

That situation changed with the PS3 on October 1 of last year, when Sony implemented a 16 cents per Gigabyte fee to publishers for paid and free downloadable content, according to publishing sources familiar with Sony?s policy.

Game publishers are not happy about it.

MTV Multiplayer has verified that a letter sent to publishers last fall detailed the policy. It applies a 16-cent charge to every Gigabyte of content downloaded from the PS3?s PSN online store. For free content, like demos, those charges apply only during the first 60 days of the content?s release. 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.

This ?PlayStation Network Bandwidth? fee has been unpopular with game companies, according to at least three publishing and development sources who spoke to MTV Multiplayer about the policy on the condition of anonymity so as not to get their companies on Sony?s bad side.

?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.?

Publishers already pay costs for creating a demo, a process that can run six figures. Sony?s fees add a new expense. For a demo that is sized at exactly 1GB and is downloaded one million times, that would add an extra $160,000 that Sony is now charging and that, according to publishing sources, Microsoft isn?t. That?s what could scare publishers from placing content on the PS3.

The cost estimate is relevant because demos can be that big and that popular. Demos typically run at close to 1GB, with Ubisoft?s ?Hawx? demo weighing in at 834MB, ?Resident Evil 5? at 942MB and the demo for the upcoming ?Legend of Wrestlemania? at 1003MB, which is just over 1GB. On the Xbox 360, the ?Halo Wars? demo has exceeded two million downloads. The ?Resident Evil 5? demo, across the Xbox 360 and PS3, was downloaded more than four million times by late February.

Sony declined to comment on why the new policy was put in effect, how the 16 cents figure was determined or what kind of feedback it?s dealing with from publishers. But the company did address what might be the most pressing concern for gamers regarding this matter: whether the new charges will scare publishers from placing content on the PS3 online store: ?Appreciate the opportunity to jump in here, but we respect the confidentiality of our business agreements with our publishing partners,? Sony Computer Entertainment of America spokesman Patrick Seybold said in an e-mailed statement to MTV. ?Of course we work closely with them to bring their amazing content to our growing audience, and we are focused on ensuring we, and our publishing partners, have a viable platform for digital distribution. We foresee no change in the high quality or quantity of demos and games available on PSN.?

So far, the content on the PS3?s PSN store supports Sony?s claim that publishers aren?t pulling material. MTV Multiplayer found that eight of the most recent demos from games ranging from Atari?s ?Wheelman? to Namco?s ?Afro Samurai? and Take 2?s ?MLB 2K9? are available on the PS3 and Xbox 360 online store. One of the only major pieces of free content not on the PS3 is the recently-released ?Call of Duty: World at War? demo from Activision, which is on the Xbox 360. Activision reps did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story. It is possible that it is too soon for Sony?s policy to cut into the number of demos and extra content available on the PSN store ? or that publishers, despite their complaints, can and will stomach the charges.

One publishing source who has worked with Sony in the past year and said the new policy is an unwanted burden and is concerned that the Network Charge will be a turn-off to publishers. One problem, he said, is that publishers will be caught by surprise at what the charges are going to be, as they do not have up-to-the-second data on how much of their content is being downloaded. ?It?s like leaving your phone off the hook for a long distance call,? the source said. ?The meter is still running.?

While Microsoft?s policy of not charging publishers for downloadable content might sit well with game-makers, it does suggest that Sony is simply tapping a different source to generate money to help pay for the downloading of popular content. Sony is asking publishers to foot the bill, but the content remains free for gamers who own PS3s. Microsoft, however, charges users an annual $50 fee for Xbox Live Gold membership and has been delaying access to some of its downloadable content to non-paying Silver members in favor of those Gold subscribers.

Without further comment from Sony, it is impossible to determine what the new policy means for the free PSN service. The new charges could be the price of keeping the service free to users. But it could have nothing to do with that and instead reflect general financial woes at Sony as a whole.

What gamers will want to be most concerned about ? and watchful of ? is the range of content available on the PS3?s online store. If the variety of demos, map-packs, wallpapers, trailers and other DLC offerings for multi-platform games on the PS3 store begins to fall behind the offerings on the Xbox 360, gamers will have at least one 16-cent guess as to why.
 
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Maybe the publishers should be allowed to host it themselves
That would be a nightmare for Sony. Broken links in the PSN store, anyone?

This is an exceptionally stupid thing for Sony to be doing. Some publisher puts a popular demo on their service, they should be freaking happy - it's selling the game, which means licensing revenue for Sony. The last thing they should want to do is dissuade publishers from putting up demos...
 
This will only widen the disparity between XBOX Live and PSN. This is not a good thing. Sony needs to be doing more things to encourage developers on their platform, not driving them away by nickel and diming them.

Typical Sony nonsense. At least the PS3 is a grand Blu-ray player!
 
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
This will only widen the disparity between XBOX Live and PSN. This is not a good thing. Sony needs to be doing more things to encourage developers on their platform, not driving them away by nickel and diming them.

Typical Sony nonsense. At least the PS3 is a grand Blu-ray player!

My thoughts exactly, PS3 is already losing the console wars sales wise and (IMHO) "online content-wise" against the 360, they need to be doing everything they can to encourage publishers to put out as much content as possible, not push them away. At first $0.16/gig seems super cheap, but as you said have 1 million people download that and it's $160,000? Heck, I wanna say 5 million people downloaded the RE5 demo when it came out, what developer is gonna pay an additional $800,000 to sony for that when they can put it out on XBL for free?
 
Originally posted by: Auryg
What the heck is Sony thinking? Say goodbye to demos on PSN.

Or say hello to demos with a price tag, and/or a disparity in pricing between PSN and XBL DLC (need more three letter acronyms).

People complain about XBL costing money, but you get what you pay for. No, you don't have to have a Gold account to download demos, but that doesn't mean your subscription money isn't directly contributing to the content, infrastructure, and quality of the service overall (i.e. all of XBL's services).
 
Originally posted by: R Nilla
Originally posted by: Auryg
What the heck is Sony thinking? Say goodbye to demos on PSN.

Or say hello to demos with a price tag, and/or a disparity in pricing between PSN and XBL DLC (need more three letter acronyms).

People complain about XBL costing money, but you get what you pay for. No, you don't have to have a Gold account to download demos, but that doesn't mean your subscription money isn't directly contributing to the content, infrastructure, and quality of the service overall (i.e. all of XBL's services).

Haha, yep. It's funny to see this happen after listening to fanboys talk about how PSN is better because it's free.

Nothing's free, kids.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: R Nilla
Originally posted by: Auryg
What the heck is Sony thinking? Say goodbye to demos on PSN.

Or say hello to demos with a price tag, and/or a disparity in pricing between PSN and XBL DLC (need more three letter acronyms).

People complain about XBL costing money, but you get what you pay for. No, you don't have to have a Gold account to download demos, but that doesn't mean your subscription money isn't directly contributing to the content, infrastructure, and quality of the service overall (i.e. all of XBL's services).

Haha, yep. It's funny to see this happen after listening to fanboys talk about how PSN is better because it's free.

Nothing's free, kids.

B-b-but the park is offering free lunch at the park? 🙂
 
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.
 
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

QFT.
 
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

QFT.

Yea I have them both too, the PS3 has been really good at catching all the dust in my room lately though.

And you don't get what XBL offers for free... you get something truly inferior.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.

Thats probably why. I own both and the quality difference purely from a content perspective is absolutely amazing. XBL has a few specific individual titles (Halo comes to mind) with more dedicated content than the entire PSN library. =/

I utilize my systems heavily as media devices, watching movies, playing demo's, and keeping up to date. XBL is like an Amex Black Card and PSN is like an Amex Blue Cash.

Sony has the capability to fix this and make more money in the long run, but they're too fucking worried about the bottom line of today to do so.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.

Let's see, I get more lag when I'm on PSN - it's pretty damn apparent and rather annoying in games like Warhawk. I'd let you know about trying to game with my friends, yet no one I know actually games on their PS3 except the exclusive games and rarely play the multiplayer for them. Download speeds are better on XBL as well, without having to configure a proxy on my PC. And Silver members get that also! Granted, I do like the browser but it's not a make or break deal.
 
Originally posted by: Saga
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.

Thats probably why. I own both and the quality difference purely from a content perspective is absolutely amazing. XBL has a few specific individual titles (Halo comes to mind) with more dedicated content than the entire PSN library. =/

I utilize my systems heavily as media devices, watching movies, playing demo's, and keeping up to date. XBL is like an Amex Black Card and PSN is like an Amex Blue Cash.

Sony has the capability to fix this and make more money in the long run, but they're too fucking worried about the bottom line of today to do so.

Funny, I use my PS3 as a media center as well and it just works. I play mostly racing and fighting games. The FPS on a console just doesn't work for me so I've never bothered to purchase any games like that. I upgraded the HDD and don't have to worry about the hardware going bad. I also have my PS2 for old-school games. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the PS3 and the online service suits me fine. Again, I wished I knew what XBL did better that would make me want to get it but I'll let Microsoft fix the engineering problems they've had with their box before moving on to higher level services.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Saga
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.

Thats probably why. I own both and the quality difference purely from a content perspective is absolutely amazing. XBL has a few specific individual titles (Halo comes to mind) with more dedicated content than the entire PSN library. =/

I utilize my systems heavily as media devices, watching movies, playing demo's, and keeping up to date. XBL is like an Amex Black Card and PSN is like an Amex Blue Cash.

Sony has the capability to fix this and make more money in the long run, but they're too fucking worried about the bottom line of today to do so.

Funny, I use my PS3 as a media center as well and it just works. I play mostly racing and fighting games. The FPS on a console just doesn't work for me so I've never bothered to purchase any games like that. I upgraded the HDD and don't have to worry about the hardware going bad. I also have my PS2 for old-school games. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the PS3 and the online service suits me fine. Again, I wished I knew what XBL did better that would make me want to get it but I'll let Microsoft fix the engineering problems they've had with their box before moving on to higher level services.

The engineering problem has been fixed for quite some time, and if you do have an issue it takes minimal time to fix it.
 
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Saga
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dougp
Originally posted by: Dari
Damn right it's free...free for the gamer. This policy change has been going on for 6 months now and I haven't noticed any changes. I'm not sure what Xbox fans are gloating about. At the end of the day, you're still paying for something I get for free.

Quality of PSN is nowhere near the quality of XBL, period. I own both and game online with both and PSN sucks.

I've played on both and can't tell the difference that people swear by. Maybe there's a bias considering you actually spent money on something you'd get free on PSN and the vast majority of PC games.

So, if you could indulge me in the "quality" difference(s) it'd be great. BTW, I play online games once every couple of weeks so maybe I wouldn't notice (or care about) the "quality" that those who play on a regular basis see.

Thats probably why. I own both and the quality difference purely from a content perspective is absolutely amazing. XBL has a few specific individual titles (Halo comes to mind) with more dedicated content than the entire PSN library. =/

I utilize my systems heavily as media devices, watching movies, playing demo's, and keeping up to date. XBL is like an Amex Black Card and PSN is like an Amex Blue Cash.

Sony has the capability to fix this and make more money in the long run, but they're too fucking worried about the bottom line of today to do so.

Funny, I use my PS3 as a media center as well and it just works. I play mostly racing and fighting games. The FPS on a console just doesn't work for me so I've never bothered to purchase any games like that. I upgraded the HDD and don't have to worry about the hardware going bad. I also have my PS2 for old-school games. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the PS3 and the online service suits me fine. Again, I wished I knew what XBL did better that would make me want to get it but I'll let Microsoft fix the engineering problems they've had with their box before moving on to higher level services.

The engineering problem has been fixed for quite some time, and if you do have an issue it takes minimal time to fix it.

Minimal as in two weeks? I read this forum and people talk about that length of time when it comes to turnaround. Sorry but I'm not a very forgiving person when my $200+ electronics fails on me periodically. Personally, I don't understand how people can tolerate shitty engineering for so much money. Then again, as you and others here have proclaimed so many times in this thread, you get what you pay for.
 
Mine failed once, 1 week turnaround. No problems since (1 1/2 years).

Course, you get what you pay for, like a company touting how backwards compatible their system is and then axing it...

We can point fingers back and forth all we want, both consoles have their strengths and weaknesses, lets celebrate the fact that they aren't two identical boxes...
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Minimal as in two weeks? I read this forum and people talk about that length of time when it comes to turnaround. Sorry but I'm not a very forgiving person when my $200+ electronics fails on me periodically. Personally, I don't understand how people can tolerate shitty engineering for so much money. Then again, as you and others here have proclaimed so many times in this thread, you get what you pay for.

If people didn't tolerate dying hardware, there never would have been a PS3. The PSX and PS2 had serious flaws in their early incarnations, flaws that Sony did NOT fix for free.
 
Back
Top