PSN downloads cost publishers 0.16usd/GB Posted by XanTium | 21-3-2009 0:07 EST

From gamespot.com: [QUOTE] One of the most immediate differences between Microsoft's Xbox Live online platform and Sony's PlayStation Network is that one is free to console owners and the other is not. For Xbox 360 owners to receive the full benefits of Microsoft's online service, including networked play and guaranteed day-one content downloads, Xbox Live users pay a minimum of $50 annually. On the other hand, PSN users receive full access to the system's online service free of charge. However, that free experience changed on October 1, 2008--though it wasn't consumers who suddenly found themselves footing the bill. Citing a number of publisher sources, MTV reports today that Sony began charging companies $0.16 per gigabyte for paid and free content distributed through the PSN. Reportedly, the surcharge is dropped for free content such as demos after the first 60 days, but paid DLC will be subject to the fee permanently. As one publishing source told MTV, "It's like leaving your phone off the hook for a long-distance call. The meter is still running." [/QUOTE] Full Story: gamespot.com

oh my capcom must be pretty upset about the timing of their resident evil 5 demo. i heard there were 4 million+ downloads of it over psn and xbox live which i am sure they are happy about, but if they had to pay for half of those downloads, that would be $320k.

better capcom pays than we have to

This will either do one of 2 things:
1. Producers will be more careful with what they have available on PSN only releasing quality downloads - hopefully meaning less crap will be produced

or

2. Producers will simply not make add on content or charge more for it or they will not have as many demos or videos on PSN.

sony just needs to get their online game in check so they can charge for it and people will be willing to pay for it. most of my friends that have a ps3 say they wouldn't pay for psn in its current state (they claim lack of features). i have a ps3 too but, i rarely use it so, that's why i cite my friends (who are ps3 exclusive) and not myself.

a little bit more on topic, i think it's ridiculous that sony charges the publishers. either suck up the costs of running a "free" online service or don't offer it for free.

Why shouldn't publishers pay? they are in effect advertising their game via providing a demo., so they do reap benefits from a popular demo that results in sales.
Sony's online service is fine. The store is good and has plenty of choice and I have no problems in multiplayer.

Considering most of these games you can get on PSN are ~ 1GB anyway, they're really not paying anything. Average d/l leaves $9.83 profit after paying that hosting charge. Sure sounds unfair

You already bought the game, why pay more to publishers that you gave ~50$ to... It makes complete sense for publishers to pay the fee to fully support their product.

It's not that they shouldn't, but to make them is also a turn off to developers. If the publisher needs to pay to give out free content to their people they are losing the money they made on game released, which is in their reserves.. It might not exactly be a big deal, but it sure as hell isn't a good thing.

And depending on how much is being downloaded or put out, it may become a bigger problem. Regardless the revenue amount drops as margins tighten. Making the Xbox 360 easier to generate revenue on. Not to mention the software development tools for the PS3 is garbage already, even the Wii's SDK is more friendly to developers. Xbox 360 being the top in developer friendliness..

Overall it adds another negative quality to publishing game content up there. Being a big publisher it shouldn't matter anyways..

And I don't want to hear any fanboy crap.. I like both consoles. I'm not stating opinion, I'm stating fact..