Akvod said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
Akvod said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
Akvod said:
If I were them (assuming that they had no ultra secret game ready to be released 2009/early 2010) I would showcase multiplatform games like FF. Bolster that by teasing everyone with 2010-11 releases such as ME 2.
They have a big advantage going before Sony. If they could they should show off games like AC2.
They should also showcase games like (1 vs 100) and reinforce their online community aspect and claim that it's better than PSN. |
What would the price ratio of the PSN with DLC taxation..?
|
Could you rephrase that? Do you mean what would the price ratio of the PSN be with DLC taxation? How should I know? I never even brought it up...
I'm just trying to give my perspective into how I would spin something if I was a MS spokesperson, just like how Sony people do as well (Nintendo doesn't have time to respond with all the money counting they have to do [lol j/k, please don't ban me]).
All companies over exagerate everything to at least some extent. I think, given with the information we have now, it would be in the best interest of MS to bolster their exclusive lineups with multiplatform games like Assassin's Creed 2 or Final Fantasy XIII, and games coming out near the next E3 (sorta like Sony did last year with MAG, GOW, HR, etc. Although they had plenty to showcase as well with LBP, R2, etc) like ME2, Alan Wake, SC: Conviction (I'm really sad how Ubisoft killed such a great franchise =( ), etc.
They should definetly showcase, in HUGE letters, the 30 million bench mark, to sorta kill a bit of the excitement out of Sony's boast that they broke the 20 million mark.
I'm also guessing that they're trying to appeal to the casual gamer, and that if they do have anything with the avatars they should showcase it. They should also showcase the online games that will utilize avatars like 1 vs 100.
So it kinda looks like last year, except without the goliath of a lineup they had for the holidays with GeoW, Fable, etc.
|
from what I heard Sony charges tax on Downloads...and what I meant by ratio is that...If in a year you download enough content over the psn to rack up 40 or more dollars then the PSN is not free on a yearly basis.....On XBL you are not Taxed for DLC purchases....Can you confirm that Sony charges tax for DLC purchases?
|
Sony charges game publishers bandwith costs, 16cents per Gig. So it doesn't affect gamers like you and me.
Here's an article: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694179/Sony-Charging-Publishers-to-Host-DLC-Uh-Oh.html
I didn't really think too much about this to have a solid defense/attack, but as a Sony fanboy, I say that this is better than having us pay for it.
I THINK, that the "tax" only applies to DLC/Demos after a month or so, as the first month is when millions of people will be downloading stuff.
Finally Sony is going to match the development costs for indie game developers, giving an incentive for them to release games on the PS3, rather than Xbox. So we will keep/attract the small indie games. Huge game developers like Activision only want to get as many people as possible, so they won't shy from releasing demos and such.
|
Here is where PSN meets it's problems
That is major. I cannot stress enough how this could effect the amount of content available on the PlayStation 3. I don't know for sure why Sony is doing this, but I can make an educated guess: the PlayStation Network is free for users.
Bandwidth is NOT cheap. YouTube pulled in $500 million in revenue last year and didn't make a profit. Of course, YouTube has higher traffic than 99.9% of websites and services out there, but the rule of expensive bandwidth holds. Why do you think so many ISPs are beginning to throttle downloads and charge for overuse?
You might be saying, "16 cents is pretty cheap. What's the big deal?" Well, let's do some math:
1GB Game Demo downloaded 1 million times = .16 * 1 million = $160,000 to the publisher.
I think DLC packs will mostly be safe because they are paid, but we might see a price increase to account for bandwidth costs to the publisher. Free content like demos, however, will most likely slow down. Now, take a look at multiplatform games and a publisher's hypothetical thought process:
I can put my demo up on the Xbox 360 for free, but putting it up on for the PS3 will cost me money. In fact, the better my game is and the more people that download it, the more I'll have to pony up to Sony.
Clarification: Publishers will only rack up charges for free content during the first 60 days of life on the service. Paid content will be charged as long as it is live.
It's not a big leap at that point for a publisher to forgo a PS3 demo. "You get what you pay for..." I've said time and time again: I willingly pay for Xbox Live and deem it a valuable expense. I prefer Xbox Live to PSN for almost everything and I hope Sony finds a way to avoid hurting publishers.
