By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Publishers forced to pay fee for PSN bandwidth

jetrii on 21 March 2009
NJ5 said:
jetrii said:
ssj12 said:
JamesCizuz said:
People know Microsoft does this to right? Live is P2P, and if a game uses P2P, it's free for the developer, but games which use dedicated servers, such as left 4 dead, need to pay ALL cost of the servers. As well as XBL licensing fees are more per game on the marketplace, though they don't charge for bandwidth there.

 

and this is why there is lag. P2P is not designed for gaming. It is designed for file sharing and downloading. Even with people getting faster connections it will never be enough to properly stream content for games.

 

I really dont see why publishers are complaining. Even with these added fees the PSN is still free for users to use which allows for more content to be purchased off the PSN versus off Live.

You are both a little misinformed. Xbox Live and PSN work in essentially the same way. When youl og into Live/PSN, your ifno goes to the server and you're logged in. When you want to play a game online, you're taken into the server for that game where you can select which match/level to play. For most games on both platforms, once you find a game, a host is selected and the rest are clients. However the clients are fairly smart and should the host leave, they quickly and seamlessly select a new host and the game continues. Some older games don't do this and there is a second or two lag.

Both Xbox Live and PSN do this for most games. There are a gew games in which the host is actually run by a server on Xbox Live and PSN, but this is not the case for most games so don't pretend it is. The main difference is that once an Xbox 360 developer finishes a game, they give Microsoft the code and Microsoft handles everything for them. PSN developers need to either run all the servers themselves or pay Sony an additional fee to do it for them.

Also, 16 cents per GB is very reasonable compared to other distribution companies. It's not for games, but the company in which I work in pays around 50% more to distribute very large content around to clients.

 

Judging from the links I found, your company is either pushing a small amount of traffic or you're getting ripped off, because the average CDN seems to charge less than $0.10 per GB.

 

 

There is a huge difference between "your files will be up 99.99% of the time" and "your files will be up 100% of the time with full insurance." We are not getting ripped off, we just require higher service than others can provide.



Good news Everyone!

I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!

Around the Network
NJ5 on 21 March 2009
jetrii said:
NJ5 said:

Judging from the links I found, your company is either pushing a small amount of traffic or you're getting ripped off, because the average CDN seems to charge less than $0.10 per GB.

 

 

There is a huge difference between "your files will be up 99.99% of the time" and "your files will be up 100% of the time with full insurance." We are not getting ripped off, we just require higher service than others can provide.

 

Notice the part where it says "pricing is for major CDNs who focus on global delivery". What is the CDN you are talking about?

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

jetrii on 21 March 2009
NJ5 said:
jetrii said:
NJ5 said:

Judging from the links I found, your company is either pushing a small amount of traffic or you're getting ripped off, because the average CDN seems to charge less than $0.10 per GB.

 

 

There is a huge difference between "your files will be up 99.99% of the time" and "your files will be up 100% of the time with full insurance." We are not getting ripped off, we just require higher service than others can provide.

 

Notice the part where it says "pricing is for major CDNs who focus on global delivery". What is the CDN you are talking about?

 

Again, none of those sites guarantee 100% uptime with full insurance. I said the one we use isn't for fun and games, it's for extremely large sensiutive data which is encrypted to hell and back which needs to be delivered to a lot of people. If I recall correctly, Amazon charges around 15 cents per GB, which would keep Sony pretty competative considering this is a closed service and Sony is the only provider. 

 



Good news Everyone!

I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!

Megadude on 21 March 2009
blazinhead89 said:
Better they pay, than us.

ftw



JWS on 21 March 2009
Vetteman94 said:
antfromtashkent said:
ummm thats a good thing since now the developers will think twice before offering DLC that should have been in the original game >:(

I agree with this

 

 

 Agreed. Maybe it will also cure games that need patched to make them playable too.



Around the Network
Mirson on 21 March 2009

Bad move from Sony. We might see less demos appear on PSN.



madskillz on 21 March 2009

I am shocked at the number of folks who are steadily saying 'Stick the publisher with the cost.' Tell me again why would a dev make a demo, spend extra cash in this time of recession for what?

If I were a dev, I'd be looking at the bottom line - and if that means having to pay nada to put it on LIVE vs. paying to put it on PSN, you already know the answer.

Something tells me this gravy train for the days of free online play is about to derail.



Jo21 on 21 March 2009
madskillz said:
I am shocked at the number of folks who are steadily saying 'Stick the publisher with the cost.' Tell me again why would a dev make a demo, spend extra cash in this time of recession for what?

If I were a dev, I'd be looking at the bottom line - and if that means having to pay nada to put it on LIVE vs. paying to put it on PSN, you already know the answer.

Something tells me this gravy train for the days of free online play is about to derail.

 

its up to them to do it or not, not all games have demos even they ones they do like re5 got the demo on the PSN anyway.

 

while we are not the one playing its okay.

demos will come, we also have a FF13 Demo exclusive =).



Jereel Hunter on 22 March 2009
Dgc1808 said:
I like this idea. SONY gets money, and I don't have to pay.

 

 I don't understand comments like this. It's not a magical money tree that Sony can just pluck cash from that doesn't trickle down. Every penny a developer or publisher spends comes from us. Now, since prices aren't going to be going up, this means:

Lets say a developer has a budget of $15 million. To advertise their game, they planned to release a nice demo, a trailer, and some free skins and other goodies on PSN. As development is reaching the 80% mark, Sony adds this unexpected cost, forcing the developer/publisher to budget in an extra couple hundred k, just incase these goodies receive a lot of downloads. If the dev is small, and they can't just increase the budge ton their game, you may find they had to leave out a little polish, or a couple extra multiplayer options, or an extra couple maps, etc, to make up the cost.

In short, the money comes from somewhere, and if it's not from you, it comes out of the finished product.



Jereel Hunter on 22 March 2009
djs said:
The fee should be much bigger to force publishers include the "extra" dlc that should be on the disc on the first place!

 

Yes, because that's how the world works. They should be charged an arm and a leg to make DLC not worthwhile. Because they'll gladly increase their development budget with no potential gain in view. Side bonus - this would cripple well deserved DLC too! When a dev works hard to give people DLC really worth their extra money, they'll get to eat massive costs and lose their shirt! Yeah baby, there's no downside for us gamers in that scenario.