Sony charging game makers bandwidth fee for downloadable content

WTF?! I guess someone has to pay for PSN

"mor911 wrote:

WTF?! I guess someone has to pay for PSN

Seriously, as much as I have defended the PS3's pricing/functionality this is utterly stupid to me.

Sure you set your online play apart by making it free, but it is also set apart because developers won't want to support it.

... You guys are surprised by this? How did you think Sony was paying the operating expenses of the PSN store?

Microsoft pays their Xbox Live expenses by charging us. Sony pays theirs by charging the publishers.

It explains why the Fallout DLC is on 360 and PC only. I had no idea

"Desides wrote:

... You guys are surprised by this? How did you think Sony was paying the operating expenses of the PSN store?

Microsoft pays their Xbox Live expenses by charging us. Sony pays theirs by charging the publishers.

I figured it was a built in cost.

Another instance of Sony pushing cost down someones throat. The publishers are gonna have to pay to get there content out there. Microsoft makes you pay only if you want to play on Live. Which is the lesser of two evils?

This is why I'll never get DLC for Fallout 3? What an idiotic move by Sony. I'd rather pay for PSN than miss out on these types of things. Unbelievable. The PS3 is a good machine and I do think it's a good value even at the current price point. It seems sometimes like Sony just wants to fail or doesn't care.

Eventually I'm going to be forced to buy an Xbox and hope it only red rings two or three times.

lol @ ps3

I dont like it. And while playing for free is nice I have no problem paying $30 a year (which is what a 13 month card is now on sale at any number of places) to play online as long as the service is good, which IMO it is.

My guess is that their hand was kinda forced though. Sony lost money last quarter for the first time and probably felt they needed to find new ways of creating revenue. They certainly couldn't bump up the price on of the PS3 and making people pay for PSN would negate one of the few advantages that Sony has on Microsoft. Long term though this could bit them in the tail big time if it ends up giving Microsoft an exclusive on even just a handful of games.

"dolphan117 wrote:

I dont like it. And while playing for free is nice I have no problem paying $30 a year (which is what a 13 month card is now on sale at any number of places) to play online as long as the service is good, which IMO it is.

My guess is that their hand was kinda forced though. Sony lost money last quarter for the first time and probably felt they needed to find new ways of creating revenue. They certainly couldn't bump up the price on of the PS3 and making people pay for PSN would negate one of the few advantages that Sony has on Microsoft. Long term though this could bit them in the tail big time if it ends up giving Microsoft an exclusive on even just a handful of games.

They should just charge for the service. I have been a loyal customer of playstation products for a while but if I miss out on any more DLC I want that's the end of it. I really am still that angry on missing out on the Fallout 3stuff. It was the first DLC that I was really excited about and then I find out I won't be able to get it. You have to take care of your customers, that's the bottom line. You get what you pay for and consumers understand that. If they feel they are getting their money's worth they'll pay. That's why I've mostly defended the PS3's price point. But they need great online service as well b/c they are not the Wii.

Well this does explain a lot. God is it possible for Sony to screw up any more this generation? I'm still not convinced this is why DLC goes to the 360 over the PS3 but it is now number 1 on my list of why it happens. Also if they charged for PSN I think even less people would buy the system because free online I do think is a major selling point (I know if I wanted to pay for online I would have a 360 by now).

Tough economic times necessitated this move.

"sking29 wrote:

Well this does explain a lot. God is it possible for Sony to screw up any more this generation? I'm still not convinced this is why DLC goes to the 360 over the PS3 but it is now number 1 on my list of why it happens. Also if they charged for PSN I think even less people would buy the system because free online I do think is a major selling point (I know if I wanted to pay for online I would have a 360 by now).

I couldn't disagree more. I don't even think that's generally taken into consideration. People have already made the decision to buy the most expensive console for whatever reason. Suddenly some of them will become so cheap they wouldn't pay 50 bucks a year for a top notch online service? Not likely. Plus if you're not offering the same level of service free isn't really that great anymore.

"DrAstroZoom wrote:

Tough economic times necessitated this move.[/QUOTE

I guess Sony had to do this because their online gaming is not up to par with Microsofts yet. There would have been a lot of pissed players if they had to start paying for this service.

The way Sony started this console war and the state of the economy has created a huge obstacle for them to overcome.

It's one of the biggest things Sony supporters used to throw in people's face. How Sony offers the same service as XBL but free. I personally never thought PSN even came close to touching XBL. To find out that they charge the gamer publisher for PSN bandwidth is ridiculous.

Why would I make DLC for your console if the bigger and better it is, the more it'll cost me because Sony eats off the top.

Well they need to profit off of it somehow what better way to scare off future developers?

:pity:

I wonder if Microsoft knew this when they bought the exclusive rights to the GTA DLC.

I love my PS3, I've only ever REALLY played Playstation products but they are really ****ting the bed here.

I don't want to be forced to buy an XBOX...I really really don't.

"unifiedtheory wrote:

I love my PS3, I've only ever REALLY played Playstation products but they are really ****ting the bed here.

I don't want to be forced to buy an XBOX...I really really don't.

Are you a fanboy????

"BuckeyeKing wrote:

Are you a fanboy????

Some people dont really want to spend money on 2 platforms, as expensive as they can be these days. :up:

"texanphinatic wrote:

Some people dont really want to spend money on 2 platforms, as expensive as they can be these days. :up:

Thats not what I meant.

"BuckeyeKing wrote:

Are you a fanboy????

Maybe he just doesn't want to have to buy a console that will probably break. The idea doesn't exactly thrill me. Warranties shouldn't be something you KNOW you're going to have to use.

"muscle979 wrote:

I couldn't disagree more. I don't even think that's generally taken into consideration. People have already made the decision to buy the most expensive console for whatever reason. Suddenly some of them will become so cheap they wouldn't pay 50 bucks a year for a top notch online service? Not likely. Plus if you're not offering the same level of service free isn't really that great anymore.

I knew we would disagree here and have been waiting for your response. :lol:

For me when I was deciding which next gen console to get the PS3 won out because of PS2 backwards compatibility for my sizeable PS2 library, the online play was free, wireless was built in, and it came with a Blu-Ray player. Now I don't think anyone can disagree that Sony included all of those things to get the buyer to choose them. Well since I have gotten my PS3 one of those items has been disposed of (PS2 backward compatibility) and the free online which I have grown to love because it does all that I want is now in doubt as Add-Ons and Demos will probably be reduced and that is not good. Of course I still have the PS2 backwards compatibility and overall I love my PS3 but the moves they are making make me wonder if I wasted my money. To tell the truth if I was picking between getting a 360 or PS3 now instead of in 2007 when I got my PS3 I would go with the 360. Now some may ask why not just get a 360 and I'll agree with texanphinatic who said:

"texanphinatic wrote:

Some people dont really want to spend money on 2 platforms, as expensive as they can be these days. :up:

Simply because I could probably afford a 360 and even the online but what I can't afford is to buy games for two systems. To me if I have two systems and one just sits there or has only a few games I have wasted my money (hence why I like to go with only one system).

So in short yes I think things like free online play has gotten people to get a PS3 but if the PS3 won't offer as much Add-Ons or even Demos I doubt as many people will buy the system (I say losing the PS2 backwards compatibility has hurt it some as well).

"muscle979 wrote:

Maybe he just doesn't want to have to buy a console that will probably break. The idea doesn't exactly thrill me. Warranties shouldn't be something you KNOW you're going to have to use.

truth