While it's the cost to consumers that often drags downloadable content into the internet's argumentative din, the cost to publishers and developers is generally an infrequent point of discussion. Consider that issue brought into the limelight now, with MTV Multiplayer reporting on some brewing dissatisfaction amongst certain publishers offering content on the PlayStation Network.
According to comments made by several unnamed publishing sources, Sony's "PlayStation Network Bandwidth Fee," implemented in October of last year, asks publishers to pay 16 cents for every gigabyte of bandwidth distributed through the PlayStation Store. The charge, which applies to everything from demos to game add-ons, is one difference between Sony's network and Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace that's giving publishers pause. "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," explained one source. "It's a new thing we have to budget. It's not cool. It sucks."
Developers that choose to provide content exclusively to the PlayStation Network may be exempt from sticker shock. A publisher of popular PSN-exclusive titles told Joystiq, the fees "are so small [they do] not affect our business or attitude towards releasing games for PSN. The fees are extremely low for PSN-exclusive titles, and only slightly higher for non exclusives."
We've reached out to Sony, other PSN developers and content providers to ascertain just how not cool or possibly sucky they find the reported bandwidth fee. The real concern, of course, is whether this dissatisfaction will manifest as fewer pieces of PSN content. Now that would be decidedly not cool.
Reader Comments (179)
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 4:27PM The1stMJC said
Hey this prevents PSN from getting those crappy little games that plague Live
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 4:32PM (Unverified) said
bakerboi
Yes, that would mean that developers pay less on PSN than consumers pay on XBL.....
IF you assume that XBL offers it's users nothing but DLC.
Of course the part you are missing is that it also means that the PS3 version of the game has earned them $640,000 less than the Xbox 360 version earned them, and if they made less than $640,000 in net profits before those charges, the PS3 caused them to lose money.
Which of course means it would have been better for the developer to have no PS3 version at all.
And I can assure you developers have taken notice of that point.
Yes, that would mean that developers pay less on PSN than consumers pay on XBL.....
IF you assume that XBL offers it's users nothing but DLC.
Of course the part you are missing is that it also means that the PS3 version of the game has earned them $640,000 less than the Xbox 360 version earned them, and if they made less than $640,000 in net profits before those charges, the PS3 caused them to lose money.
Which of course means it would have been better for the developer to have no PS3 version at all.
And I can assure you developers have taken notice of that point.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 5:05PM (Unverified) said
"Of course the part you are missing is that it also means that the PS3 version of the game has earned them $640,000 less than the Xbox 360 version earned them, and if they made less than $640,000 in net profits before those charges, the PS3 caused them to lose money."
No it doesn't mean it earned them less. They aren't earning anything at all from either side from a FEE they pay. These amounts are what Microsoft and Sony respectively take away from the Developers and Consumers they charge.
Microsoft charges a fee from users that nets them 500 million a year. Developers dont get any of that, that's M$'s money. Then they take a percentage cut out of anything a developer sells on their service. Developers still losing money.
Sony (as far as we can see right now) only asks developers pay for the bandwidth they use on the PSN. Which is 16 cents per gig. Which would ultimately mean they are paying almost chicken scratch compared to Microsoft is charging consumers JUST TO USE THE SERVICE.
The developers aren't losing any money from putting their games and demos on PSN because it's the same as paying a Server charge on a website. But instead of paying 500 dollars a month they pay 16 cents for every gig their consumers download.
And with paying 16 cents the developers come away with however millions they make on the paid DLC with just a fee for storage.
Reply
No it doesn't mean it earned them less. They aren't earning anything at all from either side from a FEE they pay. These amounts are what Microsoft and Sony respectively take away from the Developers and Consumers they charge.
Microsoft charges a fee from users that nets them 500 million a year. Developers dont get any of that, that's M$'s money. Then they take a percentage cut out of anything a developer sells on their service. Developers still losing money.
Sony (as far as we can see right now) only asks developers pay for the bandwidth they use on the PSN. Which is 16 cents per gig. Which would ultimately mean they are paying almost chicken scratch compared to Microsoft is charging consumers JUST TO USE THE SERVICE.
The developers aren't losing any money from putting their games and demos on PSN because it's the same as paying a Server charge on a website. But instead of paying 500 dollars a month they pay 16 cents for every gig their consumers download.
And with paying 16 cents the developers come away with however millions they make on the paid DLC with just a fee for storage.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 4:48PM Crusty Magic said
Doesn't Microsoft also charge for hosting things like content updates?
Would that explain why Team Fortress 2 hasn't gotten the ass load of updates it's been needing?
Would that explain why Team Fortress 2 hasn't gotten the ass load of updates it's been needing?
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 6:00PM Brando Calrissian said
PS3 charges publishers, xbox charges us. Sounds like we are going to continue to get screwed and Sony is about to take a hit.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 6:16PM bolix said
I wonder if PS3 users buy more DLC and games than on other platforms. PS3 has a more mature audience and has extra money from not paying Xbox Live, I think they can handle spending a penny more than the rest.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 6:19PM (Unverified) said
I cant believe this turning out to be a soon 200+ comment-frenzy. Keywords in this "news" is;
"According to comments made by several unnamed publishing sources,"
and
"It's a new thing we have to budget. It's not cool. It sucks."
Obviously there's nothing to report really. Some unnamed publishers thinks its "sucks". Any respectable person involved with breefing communities, media and is in charge of marketing and information would not use the frase "It's not cool. It sucks" C'mon people! And like someone said.. go public with your thoughts on this and we'll just stop downloading your DLCs if it hurts oh soo much. Pathetic!
"According to comments made by several unnamed publishing sources,"
and
"It's a new thing we have to budget. It's not cool. It sucks."
Obviously there's nothing to report really. Some unnamed publishers thinks its "sucks". Any respectable person involved with breefing communities, media and is in charge of marketing and information would not use the frase "It's not cool. It sucks" C'mon people! And like someone said.. go public with your thoughts on this and we'll just stop downloading your DLCs if it hurts oh soo much. Pathetic!
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 6:41PM Korwyn said
What are you all fighting about, anyway?
To those who think it's unfair for the publishers to pay and you believe that you all should be the ones paying for the issue, awesome!! why don't you guys just transfer 16 cent into those game publishers for every GB you download. I'm very sure they will be more than happy to accept your generousity. see? easy.
To those developers who don't want to pay for the download fee everytime gamers download your add-on content? that's very easy to avoid actually. Put those add-on on along with the disc when you sell them. I bet if that game can be made on 360, there will be planty more room on the Blu-ray disc on the PS3 version. What about the free demo? oh that's something called "advertising fee". I own a restaurant business. I have to pay every single time I want to put any ad on the papers, and they are free papers for readers to pick up. Everytime I need to do any buy 1 get 1 free promotions for my customers to come into my restaurant. I DO have to pay for those costs too in order to get customer to keep coming back to buy my products (food). If you hope to make $$$ at all don't be cheap.
To those who think it's unfair for the publishers to pay and you believe that you all should be the ones paying for the issue, awesome!! why don't you guys just transfer 16 cent into those game publishers for every GB you download. I'm very sure they will be more than happy to accept your generousity. see? easy.
To those developers who don't want to pay for the download fee everytime gamers download your add-on content? that's very easy to avoid actually. Put those add-on on along with the disc when you sell them. I bet if that game can be made on 360, there will be planty more room on the Blu-ray disc on the PS3 version. What about the free demo? oh that's something called "advertising fee". I own a restaurant business. I have to pay every single time I want to put any ad on the papers, and they are free papers for readers to pick up. Everytime I need to do any buy 1 get 1 free promotions for my customers to come into my restaurant. I DO have to pay for those costs too in order to get customer to keep coming back to buy my products (food). If you hope to make $$$ at all don't be cheap.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 11:06PM (Unverified) said
That's the oldest rule of business. You gotta spend money to make money.
Reply
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 6:52PM Tez said
I'm guessing this is the explanation for the severe lack of demos on PSN...
Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 10:18AM (Unverified) said
was there a demo for SFIV on 360 ?
Just out of curiosity. ?
A lot of multiplat games dont have demos and those that do we also get on the ps3.. Seriously this news is nothing more than rubbish..
We even get home integration eg RE5 has its own little virtual world within home Games developers / publishers are giving us more content not less. Which only proves that this unnamed source really doesnt know what they are talking about..
Reply
Just out of curiosity. ?
A lot of multiplat games dont have demos and those that do we also get on the ps3.. Seriously this news is nothing more than rubbish..
We even get home integration eg RE5 has its own little virtual world within home Games developers / publishers are giving us more content not less. Which only proves that this unnamed source really doesnt know what they are talking about..
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 8:38PM Lekko said
If it's that big a deal, I'd be willing to pay 16 cents per every gig downloaded of whatever content. I think over the course of a year I'll probably only have to spend less than a dollar. I can easily blow $.16 on a download, plus it will make prepaid PSN cards all the more attractive to have cash already sitting on my account.
if PSN started charging customers for their service, $5 a year is still overcharging to cover these costs, so why can MS get away with asking $30-$40 per year?
if PSN started charging customers for their service, $5 a year is still overcharging to cover these costs, so why can MS get away with asking $30-$40 per year?
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 9:19PM muir666 said
I don't know about other people who have both a 360 and a PS3 but i do.and my brother uses live and i use the PSN and he has bought nothing off live.EVER. i however have a download list on my psn account of over 170 items.ok alot of it is free demos and costumes for LBP BUT atleast 50items of it is paid content.i wouldn't have bought any of that if id had to pay for live.which is the only other "option" for sony.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 11:12PM (Unverified) said
Boy is this ever some top-notch journalism. "Mystery source claims batboy spotted in train station hanging from ceiling" carries about as much weight as this article.
Let's get Sony or someone with a name to comment on this story, otherwise it's all speculation and bullshit to me. Then again, publishers are probably supposed to be under NDA when it comes to the terms of this agreement, so conveniently, no publishers will ever discuss this on the record without expecting a lawsuit.
Let's get Sony or someone with a name to comment on this story, otherwise it's all speculation and bullshit to me. Then again, publishers are probably supposed to be under NDA when it comes to the terms of this agreement, so conveniently, no publishers will ever discuss this on the record without expecting a lawsuit.
Posted: Mar 20th 2009 11:34PM Overgauss said
omg the non-jedi economic tardery is so strong in this thread. Holy mcf**knuggles.
That goes to the publishers too. You can't continue to sell a game for ten dollars when everyone knows it's a three dollar and eighty cent game.
You can't will it into a premium pricing scheme if the product isn't worth a premium price. As if the higher price somehow makes the product innately more awesome.
I understand that they are emboldened by apologist fool consumers that are easily separated from their cash. However in the long run the market can't support paying well and beyond the worth of these virtual goods at addict prices.
That goes to the publishers too. You can't continue to sell a game for ten dollars when everyone knows it's a three dollar and eighty cent game.
You can't will it into a premium pricing scheme if the product isn't worth a premium price. As if the higher price somehow makes the product innately more awesome.
I understand that they are emboldened by apologist fool consumers that are easily separated from their cash. However in the long run the market can't support paying well and beyond the worth of these virtual goods at addict prices.
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 1:28AM CrabBattle said
Ahhh so thats why some publishers give demos as a pre-order bonus...
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 3:08AM (Unverified) said
As long as I can buy Flower and Noby Noby Boy off PSN, I'm not too worried. But it appears the publishers of games are worried. Which makes me worried. Don't you hate being worried? Anyway, I would have been able to use Playstation Network this morning, even if it was just to play Street Fighter IV online, if there wasn't a sign in error gremlin which I don't know if it's been fixed yet. So no PS Store either for now. TT______TT Had to play Disgaea 3 instead. Which by the way hasn't got European Store DLC yet. So more TT_____TT for us Down Under.
I would say Nintendo wouldn't do something like this, but considering the nature of humanity I've come to expect more evil scheming from corporations, even ones like Nintendo with warm fuzzy family reputations. As for Microsoft's Xbox I don't own one, and my friend who owns one never downloads games off Xbox Live, so I guess I will never know.
I would say Nintendo wouldn't do something like this, but considering the nature of humanity I've come to expect more evil scheming from corporations, even ones like Nintendo with warm fuzzy family reputations. As for Microsoft's Xbox I don't own one, and my friend who owns one never downloads games off Xbox Live, so I guess I will never know.
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 9:21AM (Unverified) said
I love how BIssy has been down voted.. It just proves that there are MS shills in here.
Go read the Microsoft Get The Facts campaign.. Should be Microsoft Read our FUD.. They have been doing this to Linux for years. Yet Linux dominate the server Arena.
Its all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.. I hope this whole exercise blows up in Microsofts face properly and they lose complete consumer confidence, to the point where no on is even willing to advocate them even for money..
What is bad is that Microsoft is willing to buy support, what is worse is that people are willing to be bought.. which is worse ? Its disgusting to think about..
I had a feeling that ps3fanboy would be destroyed with the merger of the three sites. Generally speaking PS3 fans/owners are older and are capable of having decent discussions without bringing in xbox360 into their discussions. The MS 360 fans, have nothing to play nothing to do other than come onto playstation related articles and try and make out the PS3 is some how the worst console ever..
They have nothing else to argue about so now its about price...
Go read the Microsoft Get The Facts campaign.. Should be Microsoft Read our FUD.. They have been doing this to Linux for years. Yet Linux dominate the server Arena.
Its all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.. I hope this whole exercise blows up in Microsofts face properly and they lose complete consumer confidence, to the point where no on is even willing to advocate them even for money..
What is bad is that Microsoft is willing to buy support, what is worse is that people are willing to be bought.. which is worse ? Its disgusting to think about..
I had a feeling that ps3fanboy would be destroyed with the merger of the three sites. Generally speaking PS3 fans/owners are older and are capable of having decent discussions without bringing in xbox360 into their discussions. The MS 360 fans, have nothing to play nothing to do other than come onto playstation related articles and try and make out the PS3 is some how the worst console ever..
They have nothing else to argue about so now its about price...
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 12:33PM Omnistatic said
The one thing I don't get, if a publisher can't even afford the bandwidth costs for distribution and advertising, how in the hell are the even going to afford develop the game in the first place?
Hear me out... the costs associated with developing games on the PS3 is probably out of range for many independent developers, it takes a lot of resources to make a game that a lot of people are going to want to play.
If for some strange reason you've made a huge game (over 1GB), and is insanely popular (gets lots of downloads), yet somehow manages to commercially flop, you're doing something wrong... and bandwidth costs are the least of your worries.
And as far as I know, smaller publishers are NOT making games over 1GB, and most demos (IF they even release a demo) for said games barely reach the 200MB mark, and cater to a smaller audience then triple A titles.
Publishers are not forced into creating free demos on the PS3, they can avoid paying out of pocket by either a) not releasing a demo and hoping reviews and good press will work in their favor (each paid download should be more than enough to cover the bandwidth costs incurred) or b) releasing their game on the PC or elsewhere, and seeing how the market receives it. Publishers have to make the call if they feel their game could benefit from extra advertising on the PSN.
So my main point is, if you don't have the confidence that your game can generate enough interest to warrant the expense of bandwidth and advertising, you should probably stick it out in the lab for awhile longer or work your up to that point.
If Sony didn't do this, I'm sure we'd see a lot of garbage and shovelware on the PSN.
Hear me out... the costs associated with developing games on the PS3 is probably out of range for many independent developers, it takes a lot of resources to make a game that a lot of people are going to want to play.
If for some strange reason you've made a huge game (over 1GB), and is insanely popular (gets lots of downloads), yet somehow manages to commercially flop, you're doing something wrong... and bandwidth costs are the least of your worries.
And as far as I know, smaller publishers are NOT making games over 1GB, and most demos (IF they even release a demo) for said games barely reach the 200MB mark, and cater to a smaller audience then triple A titles.
Publishers are not forced into creating free demos on the PS3, they can avoid paying out of pocket by either a) not releasing a demo and hoping reviews and good press will work in their favor (each paid download should be more than enough to cover the bandwidth costs incurred) or b) releasing their game on the PC or elsewhere, and seeing how the market receives it. Publishers have to make the call if they feel their game could benefit from extra advertising on the PSN.
So my main point is, if you don't have the confidence that your game can generate enough interest to warrant the expense of bandwidth and advertising, you should probably stick it out in the lab for awhile longer or work your up to that point.
If Sony didn't do this, I'm sure we'd see a lot of garbage and shovelware on the PSN.
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 12:40PM (Unverified) said
gotta love the amount of comments over some anonymous reports.. Wow the 360 fanboys are on fire recently..
Posted: Mar 21st 2009 7:12PM (Unverified) said
awwwwwwww... so bad it sucks for you to have to pay for bandwidth like the rest of the mortals. Maybe that will teach you people not to ship incomplete games just to score some extra bucks with DLC.
Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 11:22AM (Unverified) said
More from Sony Shill johnny!!!
Seriously hook us up with how to get on the sony payroll too!!
I'm sure a TON of others would like to post sony love for pay like you.
Seriously hook us up with how to get on the sony payroll too!!
I'm sure a TON of others would like to post sony love for pay like you.
Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 3:30PM KillaChaos said
"discusses the implications of MS's long standing anti-competitive practices"
MS as in Microsoft? The company? The one that wants to avoid competition? Like all companies?
Don't blame the company for practicing "long standing anti-competitive practices" blame the consumer.
MS as in Microsoft? The company? The one that wants to avoid competition? Like all companies?
Don't blame the company for practicing "long standing anti-competitive practices" blame the consumer.
Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 3:47PM Scuba Steve said
I dont see what their complaining about xbox live gives it to them for free cause they charge us the users who dont make money from the games, but PSN has a better system in my opinion as they charge the people making the profit not the people spending money on the games. And 16c/Gig is hardly worth complaining about anyways.
Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 9:42PM (Unverified) said
sk8,
You mention all of those things you get on x360, what about stuff like home ?
Nearly every publisher is adding worlds into home again this costs us nothing, something you dont get in x360 and is a very nice feature.
We also get occasional free stuff, sometimes by promotion. Sony posted me Casino Royale on bluray free when I signed up to PSN :)
Games Publishers make an absolute killing, its a multi million dollar industry, they can well afford to pick up the tab for publishing demos, the amount Sony is charging them is chicken feed man honestly..
Very few people like paying. I buy a game on a platform that has multiplayer, I shouldn't be expected to pay to play online .. Thats one of the reasons I refuse to buy a xbox360.. Nintendo also doesn't charge, you are aware of this right ?
These sort of charges should be dealt behind the scenes with the publisher / developer and the console manufacturer / Network Provider (same as console manufacturer).. This should not be a bill we should be expected to pay, we pay when we buy the game.. We buy the game because we are impressed with the demo.. Think about how much publishers spend on billboard advertisements and TV advertisements, believe me thats much more than 16 cents per GB bandwidth :)
You mention all of those things you get on x360, what about stuff like home ?
Nearly every publisher is adding worlds into home again this costs us nothing, something you dont get in x360 and is a very nice feature.
We also get occasional free stuff, sometimes by promotion. Sony posted me Casino Royale on bluray free when I signed up to PSN :)
Games Publishers make an absolute killing, its a multi million dollar industry, they can well afford to pick up the tab for publishing demos, the amount Sony is charging them is chicken feed man honestly..
Very few people like paying. I buy a game on a platform that has multiplayer, I shouldn't be expected to pay to play online .. Thats one of the reasons I refuse to buy a xbox360.. Nintendo also doesn't charge, you are aware of this right ?
These sort of charges should be dealt behind the scenes with the publisher / developer and the console manufacturer / Network Provider (same as console manufacturer).. This should not be a bill we should be expected to pay, we pay when we buy the game.. We buy the game because we are impressed with the demo.. Think about how much publishers spend on billboard advertisements and TV advertisements, believe me thats much more than 16 cents per GB bandwidth :)
Posted: Apr 15th 2009 12:44PM kenjimeadu said
LAST!
Posted: Apr 15th 2009 2:28PM zochmenos said
PSN users prefer the network because it costs them nothing. Publishers prefer XBL to distribute their demos because it costs them nothing.
Poetry.
Ultimately, Sony is attempting to recoup some of the losses it has been experiencing. They are committed to free PSN, so they pass the cost on to devs. This will result in less DLC, demos or otherwise, for PSN unless the publishers can sell enough product to recoup their losses.
It isn't hard to understand, it's capitalism.
Poetry.
Ultimately, Sony is attempting to recoup some of the losses it has been experiencing. They are committed to free PSN, so they pass the cost on to devs. This will result in less DLC, demos or otherwise, for PSN unless the publishers can sell enough product to recoup their losses.
It isn't hard to understand, it's capitalism.




