Developers Are "Not Allowed" To Charge For PS4 Pro Features Updates,Fees Are On The Developer

Two indie developers have clarified recent statements regarding PlayStation 4 Pro updates, confirming that teams are not allowed to charge customers for PlayStation 4 Pro features updates.

[Majin-vegeta]

So much egg is about to be thrown lol

[Relientk77]

Don't worry Justin Bieber throws eggs like a wuss

[cleft5]

I really like how Sony is handling developers making games for PS4Pro. I have no doubt that some developers would charge for extra features or make PS4Pro games that ran terrible on the standard PS4. Giving developers options is nice and all, but screwing over the consumer should not be one of those options.

[johndoe11211]

@cleft5
How....How.....How the hell do you get two disagrees for that statement? What the hell is wrong with people on this site???? I tell you, some gamers are a cancer to this industry.

[rainslacker]

@cleft

Think the updates they're talking about are for existing, already released titles. Basically, if a game is out in the wild, the indie dev would have to make their patch, then pay for the compliance testing(about $10K or so per update after their initial allotment of 2 free), and then not be able to charge for it.

Some devs will likely not go through the effort to update because it nets them no money in return for current owners of their games, nor is it likely that many additional people will pick up an indie game just because it supports some Neo features. For smaller devs, the costs outweigh the gains, unless they just want to be thankful to those who brought the game....which some likely will if it was successful and that will bring them more good will.

I agree that allowing devs to charge would probably be a bad thing, but maybe cutting a break on the compliance testing fees for Neo specific updates would be good to encourage devs so they can look out for their current customers, as well as promote their game that it has Neo support.

New unreleased games could have the Neo modes within the initial compliance testing, thus not incur additional fees.

[darthv72]

Sony should incur the cost as a sign of good faith to encourage both devs and consumers that the Pro is worth standing behind.

[donthate]

Yeah, I'm surprised this type of patch isn't free to encourage developers to patch their game for HDR/4K support. I thought it was free to devs for this type of update, and that it was a given we aren't getting charged for it.

Super surprised, and I hope at least MS will make it free to their developers so we can get all the games patched and optimized for Scorpio.

[_-EDMIX-_]

No.

That's like saying when AMD or Nvidia release a new GPU that they're flipping the cost of developers utilizing those features lol

No.

Do you pay extra for specific features on games running on newer gpus when they release?

[Angeljuice]

Don't be stupid.

Do Nvidia pay devs for the extra work required to get improvements on their newest GPU's?

I wondered how you would attempt to put a negative spin on this. A bit more effort next time please.

@donthate
You are surprised because you are completely clueless. Nobody expects any more from you.

[darthv72]

@angel, it's not stupid at all and actually makes perfect sense for Sony to cover the bill. At least for the start of the Pro's release cycle. Devs know they will have to create some things to differentiate the two moving forward but to all the games that are getting patched in support after the fact... Sony could help with the cost (if not all) of developing these patches.

Like I said, it shows the devs and consumers they are 100% vested in making Pro the go to platform for their games in HDR & 4K.

your example of Nvidia (or even AMD) is not quite the same as those are not platform holders that develop programming tools for game development. Those companies make the chips and create baseline drives that other companies (like ASUS, MSI, Gigabit) take those chips and drivers and can tweak them to get even more power and efficiency out of. Sony is not Nvidia or AMD but they are the platform holder with the final say in what does and does not work on their systems.

[Christopher]

I think you are thinking the 'cost' here is in having an update file. It's not. The cost is in updating the content and repackaging it to be available on PSN. That's overhead for the company, not a licensing fee or the like. Sony shouldn't be paying the developers for their overhead costs.

[rainslacker]

I think at least cutting them a break over the typical upgrade fees for a "neo patch" would be a nice gesture. There is work involved in compliance testing which Sony would have to pay for on their end, so it's reasonable to ask that to be covered. Update patches aren't particularly cheap on consoles, although an allotment is given with the initial licensing fees.

This won't actually affect unreleased games which haven't gone through compliance testing.

In addition, games that haven't had their free update allotment from the initial licensing can likely get it in there no problem with another update.

Ultimately, Neo compliance isn't mandated for already released games, so it's really on the dev to decide if they want to expend the effort and money, but certainly, cutting the costs, or removing them altogether for a Neo patch(sans any other updates...or maybe allow some additonal updates as well) would certainly encourage more Neo mode development for older games, which would be beneficial for the consumers.

@Ed and angel

The issue at hand here is the cost to actually update that Sony charges when devs issue an update to their games. It runs around 10K or so per update, with an initial 2 updates you get free from the original licensing of the game. NVida and AMD don't control the flow of content on their system, and devs are free to release any update that works for whatever hardware they choose, and that fee for compliance testing does not have to be incurred. Most devs don't charge for this on PC, or any that I'm aware of, so I can't imagine they'd do it for consoles, but they still have to incur costs to implement those features on their end.

Don't think it's the implementation costs on the devs end that are being complained about, rather the high fees which have to be paid in order to bring out a patch post release of the game itself. I could see some devs wanting to charge that to be able to make up those costs, but it will be entirely dependant on the dev, the game itself, and whether it makes sense financially to them.

Sony's policy just puts up a barrier to keep more Neo updates from being implemented or released, which is what darth is getting at....and honestly, he does make a valid point in some ways.

However, going forward, Neo compliance is mandated after a certain date, so any implementation will be part of any updates and the initial licensing that the devs decide to put out there on release.

If darth was talking about the actual cost to implement it on the developers end....then no....Sony should not incur the costs. That's up to the dev to decide if it's worth it to them, or how they want to support the game, and subsidizing those costs on Sony's end would lead to a flood of money being expended as all these devs rush out to implement something which likely isn't even necessary for the level of games that are being talked about here.

[donthate]

Chris:

Why wouldn't Sony eat that cost?

Because Sony is the one convincing consumers to buy the PS4 Pro. They are the one benefit from it the most to see more support for it. This is another missed opportunity for Sony, and if MS comes out with stronger support for this and all for free. Guess what?

That is another win for MS.

All this negative Sony news keeps piling on, and sooner or later that mountain is going to be harder to climb over for fanboys.

[Christopher]

***Why wouldn't Sony eat that cost? ***

Seriously? Do you not understand how abused this would be and how massively it would be abused by companies let alone cost more over here for Project A solely because of human error, which Sony has no control over?

***if MS comes out with stronger support for this and all for free. Guess what? ***

First of all, IF? You are seriously arguing on an IF? Seriously? That's just stupid right now. How about you wait and see?

Second, guess what? Every other developer is going to have to spend extra overhead to do the same thing and you can bet MS isn't going to pay for those overhead costs. That just doesn't happen. What Sony and MS will do is offer the best tools they can to get it done and possibly offer some incentives in the form of lowering/getting rid of licensing fees for new purchases of the game on the new system for a while. That's it.

If... seriously... You're getting so silly now, it's not even funny.

[Genuine-User]

It seems as if some people have lost their common sense after the PlayStation meeting.

How on earth can anyone believe that Sony would charge us for the pro patches; that's how ridiculous it's getting now.

[darthv72]

Obviously sony wouldnt directly charge the consumer but that isnt to say the costs of such things would not be part of the PS+ subscription. That is increasing recently if not already.

[Anonymous_Gamer]

@genuine-User my thoughts exactly

[Silly gameAr]

People are reaching so hard to find anything that they consider negative, that its past ridiculous. All common sense has definitely been thrown out the window.

[rainslacker]

Don't think anyone ever believed they would. Patches, by their nature, tend to have the expectation to be free. For those who aren't completely entitled, then a patch like this isn't even always expected for every game.

Think in this case though, it's a couple devs saying they can't charge, which implies they want to, to cover the cost of development and compliance testing.

I do think it's right to not allow the devs to charge, although I feel such things would likely lead to negative feedback for the dev themselves if they tried should it be allowed, but I think it wouldn't be bad for Sony to remove or heavily subsidize the cost of the actual compliance testing which can put updates out of the range for some smaller games....which admittedly probably won't see much benefit with a Neo mode unless the devs add in extra content....which itself makes it more than just a Neo update.

[Neonridr]

So you have a guy from Sony who says that it may cost money, then you have these indie devs saying they aren't allowed.. Would someone get their facts straight and tell the damn truth.

[MasterCornholio]

May cost money to who though?

Because patches do cost developers money on occasion. Never heard of a consumer being charged for a patch.

[TheUndertaker85]

Capcom charged people to get Move support for RE5 by locking it to the Gold Edition. Users also had to buy a new version of MotorStorm Pacific Rift to receive 3D.

[badz149]

MS on the other hand charges you a whole new console for HDR

@Vega

I care little about 4k or HDR at the moment because I don't have the setup to take advantage of them but what do you mean by "true HDR"? is there a version of fake HDR out there?

I know Sony caught many by surprise with their HDR plan and now people are starting to doubt it even before it's out...like you just did. but Sony is a tad bit more advanced and skilled at handling hardware compared to MS. remember stereoscopic 3D last gen on the PS3?people said it can't be done on PS3 because it needs HDMI 1.4 but Sony proved them wrong and the PS3 runs them just fine. so I don't think they are bluffing of lying when they announced all PS4s will do HDR.

[vega275]

@badz

Funny i thought you were being charged for a 4K Blu-ray player you know something sony would rather not add to the ps4 pro because they are trying to push their subscription service and know you people like will you would go for it.

Beside every article I've read says it can't be done on hdmi 1.4. So the real question no sony fanboy can answer... will it be true HDR? Since the ps4 uses 1.4 just like the X1

[darthv72]

Well... isn't the subscription price of PS+ going up soon?

[rainslacker]

@Vega

Every article you've read about HDR not being available on HDMI1.4 is just as wrong as you are about it not being supported. The original 4K/HDR spec only called for HDMI 1.4. HDMI2.0 became required for the UHD spec, which has a higher bitrate due to more allowing for higher bitrate audio.

There is no such thing as true HDR. There are two HDR standards for the consumer market. HDR10 and Dolby Vision. HDR10 runs fine on HDMI1.4, and DV requires HDMI2.0. PS4 uses HDR10, which is the most ubiquitous standard. There is another less utilized standard which is fairly new, but as of right now, only Sony TV's(and maybe Samsung) support it in some of their newer TV's....but the UHD spec itself only requires HDR10 by mandate, everything else is optional.

Here's the deal. If what Sony is delivering through PS4 isn't HDR10(or DV) then it won't run on anyone's TV. HDR is something that the TV takes care of on the decoding side, to produce colors more accurate to the display, thus bringing more parity between TV's so the colors are more representative of what the content producer wants to be seen. Much the way THX standards brought parity or minimum qualities to audio and video production back in the day. Some TV's are still better displays, but all the consoles do is encode the HDR to what it's supposed to look like, with the TV doing the grunt work of making it look pretty. All HDR is is more metadata for the display to draw the appropriate pixel color. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have no idea how all this misinformation of "fake HDR" continues to gain any traction, and how everyone saying "not true HDR" seems content to live in ignorance, and how more articles, or Sony themselves, haven't clarified the issue for those people who wish to show their ignorance.

So, the real question every Sony fan boy has answered, as evidenced above, is that yes, it is true HDR.

The one question that no Xbox fan boy seems to be able to answer, or is unwilling to, is what is "fake HDR".

The question I pose to you is what is fake HDR, and if it's fake, how can it even run on anyone's TV? To answer it, you're going to have to make something up for fake HDR, and then do research on the latter part which will refute every article you've read, and your own implication. Best research would be that paragraph in the middle of my comment, which can be easily verified.

To keep it simple since I'm unlikely to get an answer.

I've asked many times, no one answers, not even these so called informative articles which don't even tell us what this "not real HDR" means or is.

WHAT IS FAKE HDR?

[Thatguy-310]

You have a guy that was translated to saying that. They could've easily been translated the wrong way which I'm sure was the case. How is a consumer going to be charged for a patch??? Man people are really reaching with this ps4 pro announcement

[Angeljuice]

They are probably just countering the endless misinformation being peddled by the other camp.

One less claim for them to make;

"you're going to have to pay extra for the upgraded graphics", won't wash now will it?

[Lon3wolf]

Well it will cost the devs the money (time and resources = money). So the statement is correct it will cost just not picked up by the end user.

[Eonjay]

They will not be charging for Pro patches. There. Are you satisfied?

[Neonridr]

yep, strange that the exec would even bring it up, regardless if there was a translation error. I can't see how the conversation would even make sense, why would the exec even be talking about charges if they weren't to the end user. I mean it's one thing to mistranslate a word, but an entire section of a conversation?

[Eonjay]

@Neonridr Actually I would need an accurate translation and context to explain. Was he directly asked the question? Also, they need to get devs to support the patches so it makes sense. So basically there is a rumor that the Pro has a sort of default auto patch for PS4 games. Supporting this would essentially be free but for things like better textures or LODs more work needs to be done. This is not free. Programming and development are not free.

[Neonridr]

@Eonjay - oh of course, but who ever asks whether Bungie has to pay to release DLC or update Destiny for example? Well technically the employees have to do the work and Bungie has to pay the employees, so there is that correlation. But that is common sense stuff, not something that needs to be asked.

The entire conversation just seemed weird if it was in fact not what he intended to say.

It's ok, I am happy that it was quashed and will be in fact free.

[Angeljuice]

@Neonridr

"strange that the exec would even bring it up"

Not really, there are thousands of trolls trying to spread as much BS as possible to play down the PS4 Pro release.
I believe that the statement is designed to take ammunition away from you and your kind.

[Maybay]

That's whats puzzling to me. Are they barring indie developers from charging, and allowing AAA third party devs to? Who's to say developers won't disguise resolution patches in the form of DLC's? Sony needs to address this issue as clear as possible.

[jb227]

All patches across the board have always costed the developers to implement. That goes for every platform. Not like this is some new practice specifically for Pro upgrades.

There is no need for Sony to address this issue whatsoever because it is an inside issue. Just like devs & publishers have to pay to develop their games, they will have to pay to develop any upgrades and they will have to pay to patch their titles just like they always have. This isn't really an "issue" at all, this was either an honest mistake from a gaming journalist unaware of the way development works, or it was a quick way to grab some clicks from gamers that are also unaware of the way development works.

[rainslacker]

Implementing them at the development level will cost the developer money in time and resources. No way to avoid that, and that's not Sony's burden, nor should anyone reasonably expect Sony to pay for it outside their own 1st/2nd party published work, or deals where they'll pay the publisher for Neo compliance(possibly with some of the 3rd party games we see now like ROTTR(assumed) or FFXV PSVR content or things of the like).

Indie and regular devs are allowed to issue Neo patches.

Indie and regular devs ARE NOT allowed to charge for Neo patches.

Indie and Regular devs still have to pay the compliance testing that goes into any patch, regardless of if it's for a Neo patch, or just a standard content/stability patch.

Indie and regular devs(non-1st/2nd party) pay for the initial compliance testing before the game is released which is part of the licensing costs to publish a game on a PS platform(same as with all consoles). With Sony, they get two updates free of charge from that initial licensing costs. After those two, they have to pay for each additional patch(which is around $10K last time I looked). I'd imagine, although can't say 100%, if a dev hasn't reached their two "free" update limit, they could release a Neo patch without paying for it.

For the most part, both indie and regular devs have to play by the same rules. Things like Destiny may have agreements with their timed DLC deal, where they get discounts or free updates, but those are all negotiated behind the scenes. Actual compliance and licensing standards are the same across the board.

And yes, I believe the restriction of not charging for Neo mode is indeed to prevent them from hiding it in some sort of DLC content patch, and most definitely is meant to prevent a patch solely meant for Neo upgrades to be charged for.

Not sure the restriction is required, as any dev who tried probably wouldn't get a lot of good will over doing so.

Theoretically, A content/stability patch could also include a Neo patch. Some games offer content/stability patches free of charge, others don't.

It's not really an issue that needs to be addressed. People just misunderstand what's being said or implied, or how it actually is affecting the devs and the chance they make a Neo patch. For the most part, nothing has changed....although it's possible some devs could consider a Neo patch added content, which they may feel they have the right to charge for, but I doubt they're the devs who get a lot of good will to begin with, or would even bother if they can't afford the patch to begin with.

Going forward, Neo modes are mandated for most games(PSN indie type titles are actually excluded but can include them). These modes can't be charged for separately, and have to be included in the game.

Hope that clears some things up, even though I didn't mean to go into so much detail.

[Majin-vegeta]

Japanese to English&Vice versa Translation isnt always the same meaning

But sony already commented.
http://www.polygon.com/2016...

[donthate]

I think there is a mistranslation, because the original statement seems out of whack. I think the cost is for the patch to developers, not to consumers. It is unclear when a developer incurs a cost when patching.

[ziggurcat]

well, there's paying the staff/devs, and the cost of having to have the patch submitted for certification...

[rainslacker]

Cost incurred to developers is on the development side where they implement said features. Additionally, depending on how many updates they've issued, they may incur a cost when submitting for compliance testing, which would be true for any update really.

These are both back end costs.

Sony's original comment was that they wouldn't charge for Neo patches to the consumer, and another dev via NeoGaf stated that Sony won't allow non-Sony published titles to charge either.

[iTechHeads]

Us gamers won't be able to buy "Pro Mode" features, you get it?

It will cost money to developers though who have to spend some extra development time and manpower to patch older games.

[Neonridr]

but that is common sense.. who would honestly ask a dev if they have to pay their employees to work on a game?

[Tussin187]

The guys was just misquoted from the translation. This is not the first time in history this has happened. People, sometimes we need to use a little common sense. Why would they charge for this? It's up to the developer to do it or not. ITS FREE FOR US!!!

[PhucSeeker]

Sony say that they might charge money for Pro patches of games released before Pro announcement. Games that come after that won't be charged.

[slate91]

More work for developers. Im not liking where this is headed.

[DeadlyOreo]

Same way it was going to head when Scorpio released.

[darthv72]

and you know this... how exactly? not saying you are wrong but it sounds more like you are saying that because one is doing it then the other must also.

[slate91]

For both consoles Im not liking where this is headed. Why am I going to fork out money for scorpio or psP if it is not a guarantee you will get a better experience playing your favorite game?

[Aenea]

@darth

You believe that Sony or MS should pay developers to patch the games to add Pro/Scorpio support?

That's nonsensical. It's a service to the paying customers of those games and it sounds like some Indie developers aren't inclined to support their own games, which is mind boggling to me.

Come to think of it: this really is "for the players" since it means we don't need to pay for those patches!

[darthv72]

@arena, no I dont think MS or sony should pay the devs for the work but they could at least offset the extra costs by incurring them themselves. These are platform holders and want to deliver the best experience to the consumer moving forward. And what better way of showing the consumer support and support for the devs hard work than to cover the bill for these patches.

Naughty dog will have to create patches for UC4 and TLoU and Sony will cover those because they are part of Sony so why can't sony extend that support to others who might not be able to afford the cost on their own? Sony wants to promote the features of HDR and 4K so at least for now, they should do what they can to make it not so $$$ on the devs.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Because on PC they're making a single configuration right?

I play my Playstation 4 religiously much more than I do my gaming PC, but I feel that many gamers on here are confused and don't necessarily understand what is going on because they're not familiar with the current concept of PC gaming, they know of it but they don't use it enough or don't own a gaming PC to understand that this is absolutely normal. when you get a new GPU the developers are not just charging you extra money per game to utilize certain features....

They're also not killing themselves to support 4-way SLI...

Support of new hardware is the choice of the developer, it's up to them to decide if they want to support the newer gpus that released AMD and Nvidia are not going out paying thousands of developers to support their new gpus, those developers very much know they need to if they want their games to continue to sell.

So to say you don't like where this is headed is to say you don't even know where it's actually is currently with PC gaming. ..

[slate91]

I get the pc side. Ig what Im saying is, if a developer has released a game on the base platform, and that game will work on the upgraded platform, what incentive is there for the developer to go back and optimize fully for it. If you have a psP you will be able to play bf1 on it and it doesnt matter if they optimized for the psP or not, they still have your $60.
So again my question is, what is their incentive for doing the extra work?

[uth11]

@Slate- games releasing starting next month are obligated to support PS Pro in some way.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@slat- why are you purposely trying to form your question to fit a specific narrative? You're basically saying what if somebody purchased Battlefield 1 and it doesn't do anything on Pro simply because they've already purchased Battlefield 1.

Is there a reason you're asking the question based on after-the-fact someone's already purchased the game? What I'm trying to say is that a person that owns a PlayStation 4 Pro or Scorpio has games that they're going to want to play and if Battlefield one doesn't support PlayStation Pro or Scorpio mode or whatever they might side with Call of Duty to test out those extra features.

why would Electronic Arts not want to be at The Cutting Edge? Why would Electronic Arts want Activision having one more reason why consumers want Call of Duty? The reality is somebody is going to purchase PlayStation 4 Pro this fall as their first current Generation console and when they do they're going to ask themselves what's the top first person shooter I should play. do you seriously think they're going to play the game that doesn't utilize what people have been bragging about with the mode? They're probably going to side with a game that uses all the bells and whistles.

So to answer your question what incentive would a developer have, it would be to get sales on consumers that are purchasing that sku in the first place. I'm not entirely sure why you are moving goalposts and deciding to ask bizarre specific loaded questions lol

What we're talking about is competition and what we're talking about is the idea of a consumer purchasing a game or choosing another game. I'm not sure why any publisher would want their game not having a feature that very much can be bragged about by their Rivals.

[Tussin187]

Don't worry. There is always going to be that one person who has to make more complicated and confuse other people than it really has to be. I fully agree with your comment. Unfortunately now days, people lack that thing called common sense. Does everything have to be an issue? Sometimes the simple answer is the correct one. We don't need to make controversy out of everything. I don't understand some people sometimes and it can get frustrating. I'm really thankful that the gaming industry is not ran off this site. If it was, we would be in big trouble.

[slate91]

Why do you have to accuse me of moving goalposts and having an agenda. Ill admit my initial comment was vague, but thats why human beings talk to one another and ask questions to gain understanding. I had a legitimate question. Typing through a phone on n4g while at work isnt the most comfortable thing in the world so I try not to write pages.
Back on topic. I agree with that they would want to look the best compared to competition. I guess that can be their incentive to say their game "looks like this" and thats why you should buy it on the psP or scorpion

[rainslacker]

@slate

For many games, particularly the smaller indie titles, there may be no incentive. For many bigger titles which aren't selling more, there may also not be any incentive.

Thing is, the incentive is up to the developers to decide if they want to implement it. Either as a way of continuing support, or maybe bringing in additional sales or bringing players back to the game in some way....which can be beneficial for games which rely on micro-transactions in some way.

Could Sony incentivize making a Neo mode somehow? Sure. but that doesn't meant hey need or should be expected to change their entire licensing and compliance standards to make it happen. They certainly shouldn't be expected to pay for it out of pocket, because as you say, it's not really necessary for the game to actually need a Neo mode. It's up to the devs to decide if it's worth it to them for whatever reason.

It's not that complicated really. Patches and features have always been at the whim of the developer or publisher, not the console makers themselves, and on PC, it's entirely up to the devs or pubs regardless of the outlet.

[iTechHeads]

For those of us who will buy the PS4 Pro, it is good to know that developers are forced to support it with their new games. I mean otherwise there would be no point in releasing a console that may or may not get supported.

[InTheZoneAC]

where do you people come from?

what do you think nvidia/amd does each time they have to support a new gpu/system or what do you think devs have to do for pc games to support various configs as well? Do they charge?

I can't believe people have to explain this...

[slate91]

Read respnse to edm

[uth11]

A lot of the games have locked framerate and are optimized for the current hardware. Devs would have to patch them to use the extra features.

A lot of people seem to think if you get the new hardware, you will instantly get 1080p/60fps minimum on every game you own, that's not how it works. Games release before October are under no obligation to support PS Pro at all. It's developer's discretion.

[raWfodog]

This is already a cost incurred by developers in order to support their already existing games.

Quotes from a couple of devs in the article:

"We are not allowed to charge you for patches or pro feature updates.
The “fees” include anything we have to swallow to update our past games for you.
The internet can calm down. There is nothing we can do to leverage pro features or patches with price. Nothing."

"I mean…it’s the most non news ever. Patches after launch can sometimes cost money (not fees but costs associated with making a patch), and supporting Pro when required is just absorbed into the launch checklist and approval.
Patches can never be charged, nor can exclusive Pro content can be charged either."

Bottom line, a developers costs don't end once the game is released. They are obligated, more likely through contract, to continue to provide support and make necessary updates to their software in order to support emerging hardware features.

[slate91]

Thank you. That answered the concern I had.

[rainslacker]

not aimed directly at you as I meant to replay to darth in oreo's comment below, since I don't know your stance in the past.

@Darth

Funny, when I mentioned this as a concern over this mid-gen upgrade paradigm, I got a lot of people who said "nu-uh, it's easy. They do it on PC all the time", or "dat scalability".

Now it's, "oh no, it's going to cost too much money!!!".

But here's a reality check for everyone acting like it's a huge thing.

Of course it's going to cost money. You can't do anything in game development without it costing money. Adding a crate to a level, moving a wall in a level over 1 millionth of a degree on the X axis, increasing the draw distance, and any time spent making or changing the game in some way involves more work...thus more money.

That's where I said it was headed, that's where it's at, and now people act like it's a problem, or seem surprised about it, as if more powerful hardware just suddenly makes everything better by default. What's more laughable is expecting Sony to fund the development of these improvements to the devs across the baord.

About why wouldn't Sony subsidize the costs?

Well...there are over 1000 games on PS4 right now. If each one costs 10K on average to implement a Neo mode(low end), that's 10 million dollars. Since the cost for bigger games will cost more, then you could easily be looking at a hundred million dollars.

It's only reasonable to expect Sony to support their own published or funding backed titles. It's not reasonable to fund the development of every developer out there. Never will be.

I can concede that it would be nice if Sony cuts these devs a break on the compliance costs involved in issuing a patch, which itself will probably be the biggest thing preventing a lot of smaller devs from creating a Neo patch.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

So in a nut shell.....the updates / upgrades to existing games cost the devs to make as it is extra work no matter if its small or large...its more work. Some would potentially like to charge for it but Sony is saying No, any upgrade to existing games or features upgrades that would be exclusive for PS4 Pro can't be charged for to the consumer....which likely means you aren't going to see many 3rd party games get "updates" that are already released. More likely it will be new games that get bumps as the cost can be part of the current development and not feel like an added expense.

[Eonjay]

its really a case by case basis. As a developer, you have to think whether the effort of adding Pro support will increase sales of your game which might have been out for a year or more. Sony's more here is consumer advocacy and I appreciate it. Had they charged gamers, the headlines would be even more incendiary and those who don't like Sony or PlayStation would have been blasting them for that.

[donthate]

I think the news here is that there is a charge for patches to developers, and this should be free to developers to encourage them to update their old game imo.

I don't think charging consumers for patches makes sense. In fact it would be completely bonehead decision.

[Aenea]

"I think the news here is that there is a charge for patches to developers, and this should be free to developers to encourage them to update their old game imo. "

No, it's not about that at all, it's about the fact that it costs developers money (time and resources) to create a patch and are not allowed to ask money for it from the consumers.

"I don't think charging consumers for patches makes sense. In fact it would be completely bonehead decision."

Exactly, and Sony is preventing companies to charge for these patches. Which is actually a good thing.

[rainslacker]

That's not really what's being said.

They are saying it does costs money on their end to actually make the patch and release it.

However, part of that cost will be the compliance testing fees to get the patch put up on PSN for users to update, which is what you're referring to, and what is meant when they say "fees are on the developer".

This is kind of a multi-layered quote, and involves a part of the release/licensing process that many aren't familiar with, where devs actually have to pay to get their games up on PSN(or XBL) before you ever see it in the store.

I do agree for a Neo only type patch, maybe Sony could forgo the fee, or reduce it significantly, just to encourage more devs to do it. Sony isn't obligated to, but you are 100% correct on that part, at least on the matters of principal and making more content available to Neo owners for the consumer to enjoy, and that it would be pretty lame to charge for such patches.

[iTechHeads]

Games with active communities need to put out a Pro patch. It only makes sense that gamers who play Destiny, Overwatch or even GTA V will want to continue playing it on their PS4 Pro but with better graphics or performance.

It's fan service and its good PR.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I think games that have a healthy community likely would see a patch as you laid out but those games are in the minority so overall I still don't think you are going to see lots of retro patch support for many older games that aren't 1st party.

[DragonDDark]

Free patches do sell games. Look at rocket league. Even when it was lifted from PS+ I
It still sold well cause the devs supported it

[Chaos_Order]

"Just a better spec PS4."
"No complications."
"Just an option, it's better for everyone."

Oh man... I am enjoying every second of this. XD

[NarooN]

The confusion is the fault of the users on the web too stupid to do any research or use critical thinking skills, as well as terribad "journalists" who have no idea what it means to be concise and accurate with their reporting.

It's simple:

1) Devs have to use money for the patches because it requires manpower and time to create them (manpower + time = money), as well as potential DEV charges for hosting the patches (this has been a thing for the devs for both Sony & Microsoft since last generation, so it's literally nothing new.)

2) End-users (i.e. us) don't pay anything because devs aren't allowed to charge for these patches.

Simple.

[slate91]

Its not really simple...
If Im a dev, what incentive do I have to develop for psP or scorpio if Im not a first party studio? Ms/sony better fork out some dough.

[Aenea]

@slate

Because you can then send out a press release that your game now supports PS4 Pro/Scorpio and you get free advertising and more sales for your game. That is the incentive.

It would be silly that Sony/MS would pay those developers to do that.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@sla- what incentive? So you're actually telling me that if you were a developer you were going to allow all your competitors to have better features than you?

Buddy seriously tell me you're not this slow....

That's like saying this fall Call of Duty was going to have a pro mode that enhance the game and the next Call of Duty is going to have a Scorpio mode that enhances the game but Electronic Arts is not going to have this for any of their first person shooters so you're basically going to allow your competition to steamroll you in features?

Ummmm ok.

Does AMD or Nvidia give money to developers to support their gpus? Why would Sony or Microsoft pay Developers to upgrade their games when developers are openly choosing to even develop on the PlayStation and Xbox in the first place?

Lol maybe you better take a look at PC gaming to better understand what's going on as it sounds like many gamers on here are just completely oblivious to PC gaming.

[northpaws]

@slate91

Do you really need to ask why a dev wants more people to play their games? Some people will be eager to try their shinny PS4Pro with games that support 4k, and they will pick from the list of games that support 4k.

[Angeljuice]

@Slate91

If you are a 3rd party dev what incentive do you have to develop for PS4 or XBOne at all?
Sony and MS aren't paying you anything.
The better the game you make, the more copies you sell, that is the incentive.

[uth11]

yup, the sound of reality finally setting in!

I need more popcorn.

[DillyDilly]

Sony is going the same with they did at the start of the PS3 gen. They are getting cocky thinking gamers will just fall in line

[Battlestar23]

I agree it's time gamers give $ony the boot.

[Doabarrelroll]

How, they just clarified that the fee is for developers and they said NO to charging US the consumers for patches, that's a good thing. Oh wait your just another troll, can you and battle star you know **** off please

[Aenea]

Think for a second before you start typing.

This is about the fact that devs have to do some work to make the patch which costs them money of course and Sony is not allowing to ask for money from us consumers which is more than fair if you ask me.

Sony is protecting US. That is a good thing, nothing cocky about it!

[NotanotherReboot]

Sony isn't your guardian angel. They're a corporation that wants your money. Learn to differentiate these.

They've messed with consumer before, and they'll do it again for sure.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I know right I can't believe they're offering consumers choice and options all for the same price as the launch PlayStation 4 all while having a slim model replace the current model, completely disgusting it would have been better to have absolutely no choice and just the same PlayStation 4... /s

[NotanotherReboot]

I'm glad some people have sense on this site and aren't blind to the blatant truth before them.

[peewee11016]

Like i said it would be

[NohansenBoy]

Yet devs can push out updates for free on PC.

[Aenea]

Yeah? Wow, didn't know making patches, putting time and effort into a patch didn't cost developers one bit at all on PC!

You learn something new every day!

/s

[jaycptza]

Youre missing the point? Do they charge PC gamers?

[NohansenBoy]

Get mad at the big three for making devs pay out the pocket to push out an update, not me or PC gaming. In fact come join us on the side of PC gaming. I just got about $200 worth of games for about $40 on my gaming PC that I only upgraded recently, because I felt like it.

[Aenea]

@jaycptza

No, you are missing the point. This is all about the fact that it costs devs money and they are not allowed (by Sony) to ask money from us the consumers for such a patch.

That is what this is about.

[raWfodog]

NohansenBoy,

Why are you differentiating between PC and console developers? ALL developers incur a cost to patch their software, regardless of whether it's a major update or a minor update to simply fixing bugs or errors. The cost is the money that you have to pay the programmers to do the work. This is the same thing that is going on for the console developers. It will cost developers money to upgrade their existing software to take advantage of new features that PS4 Pro and Scorpio will provide. Once they develop the updates, the users will download them on their individual systems just like any other update. Furthermore, these potential (and likely) updates are already factored in to a competent project plan from the start so its usually not a blindside cost.

[NohansenBoy]

I'm pretty sure devs/publishers still need to pay a premium to Sony and MS for each update to go through though unless it's different this gen and they stopped with that BS just to make a quick buck off devs/publishers. You don't have and never had to do that on an open platform.

[rainslacker]

And?

Now if they want to update, they can push them out for free on PS4P. Sony is just mandating they can't charge. If people expect this to be free, then what's the problem with Sony mandating it to prevent unscrupulous devs trying to charge for it, which ironically, Sony would simply get blamed for anyhow.

Devs still have to pay to develop those updates on their end on PC or consoles, so again, nothing has changed....so what's the big deal here?

Maybe it's the fact Sony charges for compliance testing after the two free updates, and many devs would have to pay Sony to release the game on PSN. In which case, I can kind of agree, it'd be nice if Sony cut them a break, but don't think they are obligated to just because we feel it necessary.

Overall, nothing at all has changed in any way shape or form for these devs. If they want to support their game, regardless of Neo or not, they would have to pay. Devs are not allowed to charge for updates at all on PSN, and in practice, most devs do not charge for updates.

Nothing has changed except future compliance standards, and Sony mandating something that is for the consumers benefit.

The actual compliance standards state something along the lines of "Publishers are not allowed to charge for updates"

There is no explicit mention of the Pro.

Then goes into details on fees which varies depending on the game type.

The biggest point being missed here by some

NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR THE DEVELOPERS AT ALL!!!!

NOTHING WILL CHANGE ON THE CONSUMER SIDE SINCE WE NEVER PAID FOR UPDATES AND SONY NEVER ALLOWED DEVS TO CHARGE FOR ANY UPDATE!!!!

My god, it's so simple, yet people make it so complicated.

[NohansenBoy]

Just saying I feel for the devs/publishers is all. If they're needing to charge the consumer then I can only assume the fee they need to pay for console updates screw them over a bit.

Consoles really are becoming more and more outdated and the people behind them need to be knocked down a few pegs. I will find it completely unsurprising if there's a 2017 video game crash.

[Ethereal]

This is a concern for both console makers. As they create two separate devices and offer additional power to developers and not demand certain criteria be met for the higher end console, I can see the support of Pro or Scorpio features diminish as it results in additional work for the developer/publisher. While we are seeing first-party and some third-support now, how will support be a year from now? Right now this is my issue with picking up these higher end devices. Will we continue to see developers utilize the additional power down the road?

[Angeljuice]

How many possible PC hardware combinations are available?
Every piece of PC software is scalable to thousands of possible hardware configurations.

All of a sudden 2 different configurations becomes a problem? Seriously?

[Ethereal]

Don't get me wrong. I want one. Hell, I have one pre-ordered. I understand what you are saying and its not about the technical aspect of having two configurations it's about the support. At some point in development of a game the team has to decide to scale up, or scale down a project depending on the initial approach. Do they just figure to shoot towards to the platform that has the highest market share (ex. the standard PS4) and offer minimal enhancements for the higher end models. I could see this being the case as game development is already costly and perhaps many third-party development teams will avoid spending the extra time and money to enhance a game for a smaller market. I would really like to know if Sony has implemented any criteria that states that the game must run at X resolution and Y fps for the Pro unit so it guarantees that the Pro users are continually getting the boost in performance over the standard model.

[iNathan]

no shit sherlock lmao

Oh yeah and i forgot to mention, when Scorpio launches, they will have even more work because they will have to make updates for "ALL" Xbox One Games to run on Scorpio at 4K + HDR OR update to give better graphics for people with 1080p tvs.

Same here.

We pay 60e for games, don´t tell me they can´t afford to do that, if they say they can´t, they are just lazy ass devs.

[gangsta_red]

"Developers Are "Not Allowed" To Charge For PS4 Pro Features Updates,Fees Are On The Developer"

Well hell... I would hope so.

[ziggurcat]

considering the reactions we've all seen from the various decisions that have been made over the last three years, the internet would implode from all of the rage if people had to pay for these patches...

[Fishermenofwar]

Read every article posted on n4g via the web site.....99% in the feed are about Ps4....Give it a rest...LOL

[TheOptimist]

Haa...... So basically all 3rd party developers are not gonna utilize this, only the first party exclusives because the third party developers already have the head-ache of optimizing for thousands of variety of PCs

[StormLegend]

As you can see it'll still come from developers like Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Rockstar, 2K, insomniac, and other upcoming games. So I don't see the problem here.

[Antifan]

If they want their game to sell, they better.

[TheOptimist]

Nah.... Most of the people still have PS4 (40mn) and I doubt PS4 Pro is going to sell much, considering that 4K TVs are rare, the Pro is more costlier, many people who were interested in the PS4 exclusive games have already bought the PS4. I dunno, I don't think the sales will cross 25 mn (Yeah Xbox One is still less lol)

[TWB]

"I mean…it’s the most non news ever. Patches after launch can sometimes cost money (not fees but costs associated with making a patch), and supporting Pro when required is just absorbed into the launch checklist and approval.

Patches can never be charged, nor can exclusive Pro content can be charged either."

Sooo...whats the issue here? Developing patches costs money, possibly submiting it for approval isnt either free for the devs.

Its right in the title that we cannot be charged money for these updates.

[Twinblade]

Coming soon to gaming; game patch update: $1.99

[hiawa23]

Well good, are there different prices for PC games?

[jwillj2k4]

my question is why would a dev ever patch their old game for hdr. If sony is asking them to patch, but they have to eat the cost, theyll likely say go f yourselves.

[Skankinruby]

You clearly know nothing about maintaining business relationships

[jwillj2k4]

This isn't Walmart dictating to companies what they are going to sell and how much they can sell it for. It is an agreement between the two. Devs create the product and decide which platform they want to release it on. The platform owners allow/deny content or sometimes actually ask devs to bring their content to the platform. Devs have the leverage at the end of the day due to their being competition, so Sony won't be able to bully them into eating costs to support a feature that satisfies a very niche audience.

[Ristul]

jwillj2k4: Look up the words goodwill and customer service, any developer that cares about their future success will have very robust system in place to offer the best possible experience for the paying customer. It's for their own benefit to make us happy, most companies understand this, those who don't tend to go out of business.

[AizenSosuke]

So much Sony is trying to be friendly?

[ziggurcat]

why would they charge people for, basically, a patch?

[thana108]

So few old games will get patches that y'all wish you could pay for em.