BitterFigDanette
Neo Member
This is outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
And arrogant.
Let me remind you again, it's not my translation. There is no point in quoting me and expecting me to be able to respond about the translation.That doesn't make sense to me at all.
Every patch costs money. The 4K and HDR feature doesn't just sneak inside a game on its own. It always requires a resource to spend time on it. And that resource costs money over a given period.
I don't read it the way you do, because it's never free even if Insomniac said it costs one man-month to implement HDR which is relatively to the full game not a lot.
This interview is designed to test the market. I believe Sony is actively releasing mixed messaged PR to see how deep these wallets are.
This seems like a mistranslation..
Pretty sure he's talking about charging the dev for the patch or I'll eat my hat.
Game Impress Watch: What about Sony Interactive Entertainment?
Ito: I think it will vary for each one of our titles.
You're sounding like a conspiracy theorists. It's clear that consumers won't have to pay a penny for any patch, never have and never will.
Read again.
Why would Sony charge publishers fhough?
And how do they see how deep the wallets are with such a vague statement?This interview is designed to test the market. I believe Sony is actively releasing mixed messaged PR to see how deep these wallets are.
I'm just saying your interpretation of the translation is not undisputed and makes the thread title incorrect.Let me remind you again, it's not my translation. There is no point in quoting me and expecting me to be able to respond about the translation.
What a truly stupid decision. I guess they didn't learn a thing because this reeks of arrogant Sony again. Developers patching their old games to run better or look better on PS4 Pro is only going to make PS4 Pro more appealing to consumers. Why would you want to dissuade them any more then they already are (i.e. all that extra work)?
#MakeSonyHumbleAgain
People are easily confused by the word "patch", if you think it's basically a remastered version you know it costs money and someone has to take cost.
If the updated translation is anything to go by then it seems to be a completely inaccurate translation and they're saying that they'll paying some developers to do the patches but not others. Probably just for the higher profile games.
I don't speak the language though, it's not my translation.
DLC is a patch.
The words are the words that I quoted, it's not about me interpreting those words as all I'm doing is quoting somebody else.I'm just saying your interpretation of the translation is not undisputed and makes the thread title incorrect.
MysticDistance sees it the same way I do. Some may charge and some may not.
...it'll be free and some will be paid (to make a 4K patch)
The Most likely explanation is that Ito has no idea what he's talking about and made up a vague answer so he wouldn't have to say "no idea"
Did you read the first page?
Some devs will patch the game for free, and others will be paid by Sony to patch.
Polished it up a bit. It really does sound like Masayasu Ito is saying that depending on each title and each licensee/third-party, some will cost a fee to make, but will be free, or that some third-parties can choose to attach a fee for a while.
I have no idea where it being paid came from. Someone at Kotaku either got confused or something, because all of them being paid is not said once in the entire interview.
Basically, it depends on the developer. Some third-parties may choose to make it paid and later free, and some will be free off the bat.
This is what happens when a gaming company thinks they are above the purchasing power of the consumer.
.Polished it up a bit. It really does sound like Masayasu Ito is saying that depending on each title and each licensee/third-party, some will cost a fee to make, but will be free, or that some third-parties can choose to attach a fee for a while.
I have no idea where it being paid came from. Someone at Kotaku either got confused or something, because all of them being paid is not said once in the entire interview.
Basically, it depends on the developer. Some third-parties may choose to make it paid and later free, and some will be free off the bat.
I'm just saying your interpretation of the translation is not undisputed and makes the thread title incorrect.
MysticDistance sees it the same way I do. Some may charge and some may not.
Every patch costs money. The 4K and HDR feature doesn't just sneak inside a game on its own. It always requires a resource to spend time on it. And that resource costs money over a given period.
Where does it say Sony will pay devs to produce a patch??
DLC is a patch.
Did you pay the developers and artists and QA's in the teams spending work hours to produce and test the content for the Pro mode too?
I can understand that it would be really bad PR, but someone that wanted to push this evergreen super dreamy propaganda of forward compatible iterative consoles probably made people believe that all developers would put in quite a bit of work to produce 4K mode content and improved 1080p visuals...
Edit: I am not advocating for such patches not to be free to end users, especially if the developers do very little work on them.
What? Lol When I upgrade a GPU on one of my gaming PCs I don't have to pay for a patch to be able to turn up graphics settings in various games. In general, game engines are highly scalable and don't require a ton of extra effort if any at all to easily allow the use of different GPUs at various performance tiers. With current console architectures more like PC than ever, this isn't generally going to be some huge undertaking. Charging for performance patches is the very definition of milking the consumer.
No it is not. DLC is something you choose to to add to your game that may or may not incur a fine on you. A patch is a title update that every single user gets.
You dont pay for patches. Sony would never use the word PATCH to describe something any user would pay for.
Pretty much.Kotaku's translation is much better than the alternative one in the OP. There is no ambiguity. He says that whether the upgrade patches are free will vary by title regardless of it being third party or first party. In other words he is not committing to an answer because some patches may not be free.
Kotaku's translation is much better than the alternative one in the OP. There is no ambiguity. He says that whether the upgrade patches are free will vary by title regardless of it being third party or first party. In other words he is not committing to an answer because some patches may not be free.
Gamers can choose to add HDR to their games, Sony only has to give them the option too. We area already paying for early access DLC on steam. Really. Corporations are not your friends.
Kotaku's translation is much better than the alternative one in the OP. There is no ambiguity. He says that whether the upgrade patches are free will vary by title regardless of it being third party or first party. In other words he is not committing to an answer because some patches may not be free.
That doesn't make sense to me at all.
Every patch costs money. The 4K and HDR feature doesn't just sneak inside a game on its own. It always requires a resource to spend time on it. And that resource costs money over a given period.
I don't read it the way you do, because it's never free even if Insomniac said it costs one man-month to implement HDR which is relatively little compared to a full game or DLC. (Unless we're talking some skin or so.)
Kotaku's translation is much better than the alternative one in the OP. There is no ambiguity. He says that whether the upgrade patches are free will vary by title regardless of it being third party or first party. In other words he is not committing to an answer because some patches may not be free.
Does it in anyway come across as if he's asking whether developers will be charged a fee to produce a patch?
To me it seems crystal clear that the interviewer is asking on behalf of the consumer, with Ito's response being that whether there is a charge or not is down to the licensee.
How anyone has gotten that the question is asking whether Sony will charge developers/publishers to produce a patch, and then that Sony will actually pay some developers is mindblowing for me.