Rumor: Sony Plans To Screw Third Party Publishers

According to Kotaku several industry insiders report that to cover demo download costs, Sony is currently considering charging third party developers. Here's what Sony is apparently thinking: Every time an individual downloads a demo, a service charge will be passed onto the third party developer. So they will pay for you to try out their games, instead of vice-versa. Unconfirmed, but it seems that this way the PS3's online service stays "free," Sony cuts its loses and third party developers get reamed.

[marcusfenix]

LOL

[SjaakHaas]

Thats 3 words :D

[Sphinx]

...wouldn't just charge $50 a year for premium online service like the 360. Do you have how much $50 a year is? Less than $1 a week.

[marcusfenix]

Their online is crap and would be ripping people off charging for it. If they charged it should be $5 a month. Resistance doesn't even have 12 players online at any given time during deathmatches. Whats the point of 40 player online if there are only 15 people online LOL. Not enough people will use their online so they shouldn't lose very much money.

[OutpostCommand]

The other day I counted 800 ppeople online.

[Tut]

Eh, why not charge them? It makes sense when comparing to every other product in the world. When it is sampled who pays for the samples? The company producing it does. Why? To get the name out there and get people interested.

It sucks if your product is crappy, but maybe it will encourage people to not be lazy and produce the best results they possibly can?

I couldn't see a huge cost on each download anyway, but it could add up to some substantial losses. We'll see though haha!

[BIadestarX]

I like your logic. Too bad it does not work. Why? Because there is a small little console and a tiny little company called microsoft that does not charge game developers to advertise their games by publishing their demos. Where do you think these developers will go? Yes... to the 360. Eventually if you wan't to play demos you will have to get the 360 or subscribe to a magazine. It cost developers enough developing games for the PS3; what make you think they are willing to pay more to advertise their games? Sony needs to stop sh**ing where they eat. 3rd party developers place Sony where it's at. Without all these 3rd party exclusive game; Sony is dead.

[CyberSentinel]

So True, Bladestar. I cant believe some "gamers" can't see this. Have they learned nothing from Nintendo's Third Party Abandonment? (N64-GC)

$ony Loves You.

(unless you develop games for them)

[Boink]

developers are already pissed at sony, this would help that immensly.

[DJ]

you just want to see them go down in flames, huh?

[Boink]

I think they need to be taken down a few pegs as

[Boink]

all I want is them to be taken down a few pegs as their arrogance and lack of respect for the ps2 fanbase that has kept this company alive when every other department was failing annoys me to no end.

they seem to think that SONY=god and everyone will buy their stuff regardless. (even without games [end quote])

I have said before, I wouldn't want them to dissapear as that would lead to less competition from MS and nintendo. but sony finishing 2nd or 3rd might be the best thing for gamers as it mean they will actually work harder in the next round.

and with tough competition, we win:)

[DJ]

"Sony's too successful, so we need to take them down! Then Microsoft can be number one for videogames!! Bwahaha."

God, gimme a break. I guess that means we need to take down Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, and Myspace for being too successful too, huh?

[CyberSentinel]

The unfunny thing is DJ, their doing it to themselves. Sony's Arrogance is their own worst enemy.

[CyberSentinel]

It's not like that for me DJ. Sony came along when we really needed an alternative to Nintendo's monopoly with their cartridge based proprietary format. Remember paying 59.99 and 69.99 for "inferior limited megabytes of memory" games, because they weren't satisfied collecting licensing fees, from each and every game manufacturer for each and every game! No, they wanted royalties for their non standard format to. They did not believe they could be toppled. They really believed that 800 pound gorilla hype. Then came along this little company named Sony and saved us from Nintendo's arrogance. They gave gamers what they wanted. They had all the base's covered, from (E) rated titles to (M). Third party devolopers supported them and abandoned Nintendo, and made Sony the company it is today. Who here has never had a playstation? we all loved our playstation 1 and playstation 2. Unfortunately, I see history repeating itself, in so many similarities, its scary.

[Chronical]

Another reason for third parties to prefer the 360. im not surprised sony got no money to pay for that sh!t

[specialguest]

to 360 fanboys, don't wet your panties over this

to PS3 fanboys, don't get your panties in a bunch

/thread

[2tired2day2hate]

yeah this is just a rumor. although it seems like something sony would do, i dont know that i can truely believe this will happen.

[AudioRage]

but likes nothing is ever free, someone gotta pay the costs. and why the hell would any company that are tryin to make a profit want an overhead like this. to be honest, i can see game developers havin to pay a sum of money for these kinda services (placing demos online, themes, etc, even their online multiplayer features)

so wud these costs not be reflected in game prices?

[r1000]

Sony is really making it easier and easier for me to convert to bullshyt ass xbox.... Who are making these F'in decisions up at SONY... pretty soon no one is going to want to work with them...pretty soon they will no longer have any games... yea thats right.. I'll say it I have been a sony fanboy... but this console may be a bust....

[THAMMER1]

it dose smell like Sony.

[mishmosh]

You think X360 demo's get up there for free? In the end, developers are bearing some of the cost. Remember, Silver Live is free. MS charges no small amt to certify games.

[BlackCountryBob]

Xbox live silver is free, that's why us gamers who pay and have Gold Xbox live get demos and videos around a month before silver users!

[smitty]

It's a very established concept known as advertising, and it should come at a price. Better the advertiser pays than the viewer...

[highps3]

I say stick it to the developers that have been bashing the Ps3 anyhow. Just my two cents. Why be nice at this point?

[CyberSentinel]

If you really feel that way, be prepared to have it stuck back to you. You will either NOT see demos on ps3 or you will be charged a "small free" for them, since they will be paying only for the numbers of DOWNLOADS and not the demos themselves.

[PS3n360]

fewer demos to download.

[lalaland]

Wake up! Demos are primetime advertising -- where else do you get consumers to be 100% focused on your product...

Are you guys completely ignorant in marketing?

Companies already pay to get their demos on magazine cover discs. Companies pay thousand of dollars to get advertised on TV... Demos have always proved to be one of the most effective ways of advertising...

Ofcourse publishers will pay if they have to...

[UrbanJabroni]

You probably should examine your outdated paradigm in light of the present market situation before you call people "ignorant." I'll make it simple for you by using small words:

Let's say I make widgets.

I have to sell my widgets, of course, and nothing quite beats good-old fashioned advertising to increase awareness (and hopefully sales) for my widgets. Let's say I decide that the best venue for my product is television. I research the network affiliates and discover the following:

Network A gets somewhere between 400,000 to 2,000,000 viewers in my target demographics. A 30 second spot for my widgets will cost me (in addition to production fees) $15,000.00 per airing during prime-time.

Network B has 7-10 million viewers in my target demographic and a 30 second spot for my widgets will cost me nothing.

Under what circumstance would I chose to advertise with Company "A"? Here's why things aren't as cut and dry as your outdated look at the basics of marketing...SONY'S COMPETITOR HAS MORE "VIEWERS" AND LETS YOU ADVERTISE FOR FREE!

Sorry to yell, but I can't believe someone would call the posters on this site "ignorant" and ignore the most obvious of facts. Publishers WILL NOT choose to "...pay if they have to..." as you put it, because quite frankly they don't have to pay...on the Xbox 360. Plus, it is always a good idea to alienate the publishers and give them reason to prefer the competitor's platform.

/end rant. Watch your manners and don't call people ignorant, as one will always find there is someone smarter than oneself our there.

[UrbanJabroni]

I wanted to mention that, despite the rather over-the-top "jerkishness" of my post above, it really isn't personal (although I know I came across that way). I actually like your usual contributions to the site and find you to be a great poster...the ignorant part just sort of pissed me off.

That said, Cheers.

[lalaland]

You are ignorant... This is not about choosing "network", it is about selling products. And as you probably know, the PS3 has wide industry support from game publishers.

These publishers want to sell their products. The best way to sell their products, is to get a demo in their consumers hands (like in store, on a magazine coverdisc or as a downloadable on the Sony network).

They will pay for it, if it will give them better chances at making a profit.

It has absolutely nothing to do with their competitors network (although their competitor could be tempted to follow suit, if they aren't alreade -- they could be doing this already, as it makes business sense).

And you know what... I actually know a thing or two about this... Maybe because I've got 13 years experience in the advertising industry as a senior figure...

[TheMART]

This ain't anything new.

Sony already screws anyone for years already. They screwed us with the PS2 and now they try the same with the PS3. I hope Sony get screwed this time around

[NubreedLive]

screwed us with the PS2?? last i checked the ps2 turned out to be the best console last-gen, and i dont mean by my point but from the majority of the people; i asume you dont have one and asume your gonna say something like "no i dont need one"

[Ugly American]

The majority of the people are always right?

RIIIIIGHT.

[TheMART]

Nope.

PS2 drives quit working after a very short period, like mine that's catching dust in the closet. And repairing was expensive. So expensive many people just need to buy a new one. So sold so many? What if 50% is replacement? It wouldn't surprise me

Second, lying about specs:

The most powerfull console? Nope, Dreamcast and XBOX were better in graphics, Gamecube equal.

Emotion Engine? Never worked

Great online network? PLEASE only Socom is what you hear all the fanboys about. But it's sh!t compared to Live. As is the PS3 service.

Again things like TFLOP with PS2 that didn't bring the best graphics and what about covering the specs of the GPU like Nintendo covers up their supercharged Gamecube/Wii???

[lalaland]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but please don't project your own experiences or opinions on to the rest of us as universal truths.

I have a PS2 bought on launch day and a two year old slimline PS2 -- both work perfectly fine (one in the livingroom the other in the bedroom). In fact, of the five-six of my friends that bought a PS2 back at launch, none of us have had any problems with it.

Regarding X360, just listen to a IGN podcast, and you'll hear of editors that have had to get up to 5 (yeah five) new X360 because they just died on them. You just can't generalize from a few instances...

Regarding powerful consoles, the XBox was released at a later date, and ofcourse it was more powerful. Dreamcast on the other hand is actually a clear example that the PS2 was more powerful. The gap in performance was easy to see on second generation games for both platforms (yep, I do know that on first generation PS2-games, the Dreamcast version actually looked better as they were second generation games -- a bit like the X360/PS3 situation).

The Emotion Engine did work... Afterall I still play PES/WE on it...

I don't think anybody has ever said the PS2 network was better than XBL, but it certainly still is the most popular console online (this might change in january).

TFLOP's did bring better graphics than the Dreamcast. And regarding this "next-gen" one thing you should take note of, is that the PS3 is so far struggling at keeping a good framerate, but just about every review states the shader quality on the PS3 is actually better than on the X360 -- and that is launch games compared to second gen.

If the framerate had been constant, the visual quality would overall have been better on the PS3. It might not be spectacularly better... but still better...

History tells us, that most devs will get framerates under control...

[PS3n360]

Sony is taking money from the developers then turning around and offering demo downloads as a key feature for their service to justify the huge price tag. If Sony wants to offer demo downloads which are essentially a product offering to the consumer perhaps sony should be paying the developers for the content to prop up their feable attempt at a free marketplace. Its like starbucks charging a columbian to take his coffee beans then selling the coffee for 5 bucks a cup.

[PS3n360]

The demos are not just ads for developers they are ads for sony which showcase the systems secondary function which is games.

[EnforcerOfTheTruth]

They gain both from the demos, so they should both pay for it.

[PS360PCROCKS]

Here ya go tho, if this is true than developers will surely do this and your games will be more expensive...theirs no where else the developers can recoup the cost from, only if this is true tho, and for the sake of Sony, I hope their not pulling this, cause that's just not fair

[kornbeaner]

MS charges $50 a year and the demo downloads are "free", but the same can be said for charging a developer for trying out their product. Let say that we get charged $5 to try some new IP for a certain developer and it's crap. That loss of $5 is gonna leave a foul taste in a lot of people mouths. I say charge the developer for the first demo of said developer's IP and if it's a hit then charge the consumer for a little more of a taste. This way we don't get stuck with a foul first taste of a crappy game and only get charged next time if we decide to taste the second servings.

[power of Green]

$50 BUCKS A YEAR FOR STATE OF THE ART MEDIA AND GAMING.|
jUST stf UP MAN!/DUDE I SPEND THAT ON BEER A MONTH AND LOSE THAT AMOUNT IN THE SOFA DO NOT SAY ANOTHER WORD GUY! YOU SOUND LIKE THE RETARDED CRANK YANKER SAYING YAY! I GET FREE ps3 ONLINE.

[kornbeaner]

Are you talking about you f'n MS fanboy, i didn't even attack you beloved MS in this post. read it again, don't just go looking at the fact that i said $50 a yr for service. I was simply commenting on the fact but gamers don't want to pay for crap ass demos even if they are "free" READ THE WHOLE POST BEFORE REPLYING.

[power of Green]

Anybody play Small Arms? it's off the hook, I really believe it's MS's answer to Super smash Brothers the only thing is i grew up with the Charectors with SSB so i respect it but SA is tons more fun and cooler with better graphics.

[gnothe1]

it works a little differnt!! example
if sony had 100 million PS3 users, then it would be more likely that developers would pay sony to host their demos because they know theres a mass of people available.an if MS only had 800k xbox users, the developer would feel its not really worth it for them to put there demo on the xbox unless MS wanted it an therefore MS would have to pay for it!!

in this case MS has the bigger userbase so therefore developer would want to put there product with MS because they know MS has the userbase needed!!

another example!
ps2 vs xbox 1. why do you think the ps2 had so many games, not because it was the better system, but because it had 5 times the userbase.some companies were actually paying sony to put there games on the ps2, while MS had to pay developers to put games on xbox because why!! it didnt have the userbase!!

[lalaland]

Platform marketshare is irrelevant when deciding direct-marketing budget (as in demos), and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Platform marketshare is VERY relevant when deciding wether to publish a title on a platform, or when deciding mass-marketing budget for a title -- but that has nothing to do with this particular article.

[CyberSentinel]

Another benefit of a "FREE" Online Service. Lets see how developers feels about this. I guess $ony really doesn't like that "Game Attach Rate" thing. If you lose your third party support Sony, it will be "Game Over" for you. I dont care how much "Name Brand Recognition" you have.

[kingboy]

screw sony..lol

[FadeToBlack]

They have to make up that $307 loss per consol somewhere huh? They survived all of thier previous failed formats i wonder if they can survive this one. At 5 million consols sold they will have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 Billion dollars. Will a free online service, someone is going to have to pick up the tab and it will most likely be the consumer who is buying the games in the end.

[FadeToBlack]

They have to make up that $307 loss per consol somewhere huh? They survived all of thier previous failed formats i wonder if they can survive this one. At 5 million consols sold they will have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 Billion dollars. Will a free online service, someone is going to have to pick up the tab and it will most likely be the consumer who is buying the games in the end.

[FadeToBlack]

When i said format i was refering to Blu-ray and not the ps3 even thought its main function is to get a bluray player in your house.

[soccerstar]

i know that this is off topic but i just got my game informer yesterday and gears and resistance were tied for game of the month and both got a 9.5. i was wondering what u guys thought of that. i have played both and i think gears is a tiny bit better

[chitown]

both games are awesome. Gears has better graphics but RFOM has better weapons and is faster paced, kinda like halo. gears is strategy based, with you having to take cover a lot. both games are really really good.

[MicroGamer]

that Sony is losing all their 'exclusives'?? Sony volunteered to make their online service available for free. Nobody twisted their arm. If they weren't prepared for the burden of running a free online service, they should have made it subscription only. I can see even more devs jumping ship for Microsoft and Nintendo over this.

[ChickeyCantor]

sony still having finance problems, they just want to get rid of it by trying to get money from things like this.

[HaKeRsCanRotINHEL]

Sounds like something Sony would do, bastards !