• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PS4 Pro patches won't cost users money, like duh

Status
Not open for further replies.

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,878
131
1,135
What?? Really? How come I never heard of this?

It also included all the DLC and some game balance improvements I believe. That's how they got away with it. If it was just the dx11 patch then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,047
1
0
Are people here really thinking conumers will have to pay anything? Lol

This is dev thing, same as all other patches. First patch is free, rest cost money for cert.
 
Aug 30, 2009
3,482
1
685
I'm not entirely sure what you mean there. To be clear - all legacy games will work on Pro. They don't need to be patched, they're not being held for ransom. If a dev wants the game to Pro optimisations, a specific Pro mode, then they'd have to patch them.

If a pattern emerged of publishers charging for those patches, then we could talk about Sony not standing up for what's in the interests of Pro appeal/penetration. In the meantime we're arguing about a technical possibility based on licensee agreements - not a Sony policy about how patches should be handled.
I mean if your trying to attract new consumers to market they would naturally explore the backlog they missed only to find the PS4 Slim basically treats the backlog the same way. Joe Average doesn't give a shit what you consider legacy. He sees a game on a shelf and expects his machine to run it. Like it runs the other Pro comparable games - not like a slim.
 

duckroll

Member
Jun 7, 2004
114,759
1
0
37
It also included all the DLC and some game balance improvements I believe. That's how they got away with it. If it was just the dx11 patch then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have.
Tell that to the people who already bought all the DLC. :)
 

Equanimity

Member
Jun 20, 2015
3,272
0
0
London
Why is Sony using devs as a human shield? Just call it the PS5 rather than confusing consumers with more types of optional paid "content"

Even if the charge is for older games the second hand market is huge and this situation is just confusing to the point where. Consumers would just buy an S or a Slim.
Good God.

That's exactly what potential PlayStation Pro consumers will do instead. smh
 

Lady Siara

Member
Nov 27, 2013
2,480
0
0
I'm willing to pay up to $10 for an old game to receive a patch that enhances the performance on Pro. You can't expect every company to hand out upgrades for free when the idea of this console didn't even exist when the game released.

New games will obviously be free.
Please don't give them any ideas.
 

OCD Guy

Member
Oct 15, 2014
3,544
0
0
Your lost in translation.

Costs the COMPANY to patch...... not the customer to buy a patch.

Why are so many people misunderstanding this?
Why did the developer ask if Sony pays themselves to patch then? Make sense does it?!

Why did Ito say the fee depends on the thinking of the licensee?

You think developers simply choose how much they want to pay?

Look at the question and answer again

Game Impress Watch: For the 4K HDR patch for existing titles, will it cost money? Or will it be free?

Ito: It will be different for each title. I believe it will depend on the thinking of each licensee.
How is anyone getting the context that they're talking about the fees incurred by developers to release a patch from the above?!

Game Impress Watch: What about Sony Interactive Entertainment?

Ito: I think it will vary for each one of our titles.
Why would Sony then pay themselves, but not only that, but they would pay themselves a different amount depending on the title lol
 
Aug 30, 2009
3,482
1
685
Good God.

That's exactly what potential PlayStation Pro consumers will do instead. smh
Have you read Neogaf lately? That's exactly what people are considering for 4K discs. They would be feeling even better now that Sony is trying to bring paid resolution into play.
 

Dragon1893

Member
Feb 20, 2013
12,388
0
0
I wouldn't be surprised. I actually made a post saying exactly this several months ago. Most publishers won't bother if they can't charge for it.
Fortunately it will be mandatory from here on out.
 

Gaius

Banned
Mar 22, 2016
72
0
0
I'm almost certain something is lost in this translation. There is no way Sony would let third party publishers to charge for a patch. If anything, it's Sony who should pay third party publishers to bring a pro patch, to make the refresh more appealing.

Pay From Software to make 60fps Bloodborne patch.
Pay CDPR for 60fps or ultra setting patch.
Pay Bathesda for Fallout 4 patch.

It's not even funny if this is true. Sony has to pay up.
 

Yurikerr

This post isn't by me, it's by a guy with the same username as me.
Jun 3, 2013
2,144
0
0
Guys Sony will never pay 3rd party devs to make pro patches to older games.

I mean if your trying to attract new consumers to market they would naturally explore the backlog they missed only to find the PS4 Slim basically treats the backlog the same way. Joe Average doesn't give a shit what you consider legacy. He sees a game on a shelf and expects his machine to run it. Like it runs the other Pro comparable games - not like a slim.
If this potential consumer is only interested in playing the older games he should be buying a slim.

It's like saying that people wouldn't buy a PS3 because it ran PS2 software enhanced to PS3 levels.
 

Jotaka

Member
May 17, 2013
2,557
0
0
Serious question here, how are old games going to be treated in relation to HDR on the Xbox S and PS4 Slim?

Is the inclusion of HDR something that devs need to patch too?
AFAIK to show HDR devs need to go back and change assets.
 

disco potato

Member
Nov 6, 2015
116
0
0
I thought one of the reasons that games currently aren't updated very often is that client side patches have to get approved by sony and fees have to be paid? How is this any different?
 

OCD Guy

Member
Oct 15, 2014
3,544
0
0
Sounds like OP is trying to stir drama. They're definitely charging the devs if anything to release a patch for PS4Neo updates. Customers who bought the game should not have to pay for these.
So apparently the devs choose if they want to pay or not right? Depending on the title.

Game Impress Watch: For the 4K HDR patch for existing titles, will it cost money? Or will it be free?

Ito: It will be different for each title. I believe it will depend on the thinking of each licensee.
Seriously how are people thinking that the questions asked would be relating to a developers point of view. It's clear as day the question is asked from a consumer point of view.

Why would the PS4 Pro suddenly create a change in how charges for patches work for developers and publishers?

For anyone insistent that the interview is about how much developers pay, why would Sony pay themselves, and not only that but only for certain titles?!
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
1,645
I mean if your trying to attract new consumers to market they would naturally explore the backlog they missed only to find the PS4 Slim basically treats the backlog the same way. Joe Average doesn't give a shit what you consider legacy. He sees a game on a shelf and expects his machine to run it. Like it runs the other Pro comparable games - not like a slim.
Charging for patches or not, that's not going to happen - the vast majority of older games won't be patched.

I think it's a huge stretch also at this stage to say Sony 'is trying to bring in paid resolution'. The guy simply acknowledged what is an existing reality - licensees have control over what they make paid or not in DLC vs patches ( i guess outside of game-breaking fixes). There's many miles to go from that to 'Sony is advocating a paid-resolution-patch marketing policy'. If first party games charge for Pro-mode patches then there's something to talk about there.
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,290
3
690
Minnesota
I thought one of the reasons that games currently aren't updated very often is that client side patches have to get approved by sony and fees have to be paid? How is this any different?
While there's still a cert process, both Sony and MS had stopped charging for title updates by the end of last gen.
 
Aug 30, 2009
3,482
1
685
Older games are cheaper and PS4 Pro will have 4K all over its ads, I don't think many will read the small font so this is why it's a bad move.

Shit I know retail workers and they tell me all the time that people go straight for new console and preowned bundles. It's economics. Old content is new content if your eyes haven't seen it so if the Pro isn't capitalising on it then I guess people will buy the Slim or S leaving the Pros primary market as what; Neogaf users and Gamers too lazy to pay someone to build a PC?
 
Jan 27, 2011
7,635
16
640
Nevada, USA
Reading the translated interview again, it almost seems as if the interviewer is asking about the costs of updating their games. Will it be free (as in quick easy) or will it cost money (doing it properly, adding in a lot of features, more visual assets, improved resolution, framerate). And then Ito is responding, the costs will depend on the developer. If you do it quick and dirty, it shouldn't cost anything. If you do it well and proper, it'll cost the developer R&D.

And that mindset holds true for the follow question for Sony's games. It depends on the title.

I mean, with that mindset, re-read the translated interview.
 

JayWood2010

Member
Sep 16, 2014
1,954
0
0
Why is Sony using devs as a human shield? Just call it the PS5 rather than confusing consumers with more types of optional paid "content"

Even if the charge is for older games the second hand market is huge and this situation is just confusing to the point where. Consumers would just buy an S or a Slim.
Its not a big enough leap to call it ps5.
 

Gorillaz

Member
Jun 13, 2012
29,866
0
0
Gonna assume they mean developers will have to pay. Otherwise if it meant consumers then there is no point even putting this console out.
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
24,280
3,432
800
37
Brazil
Not necessarily. Sony isn't ruling out any scenario.
It is free.

GW: So, each title will have a fee, but it will become free?

Masayasu Ito: That's right.
It has a fee (for developers) but it will become free (for consumers).

The Kotatsu translation didn't even match the Japanese words... they added things that didn't happened.
 

Yurikerr

This post isn't by me, it's by a guy with the same username as me.
Jun 3, 2013
2,144
0
0
Older games are cheaper and PS4 Pro will have 4K all over its ads, I don't think many will read the small font so this is why it's a bad move.

Shit I know retail workers and they tell me all the time that people go straight for new console and preowned bundles. It's economics. Old content is new content if your eyes haven't seen it so if the Pro isn't capitalising on it then I guess people will buy the Slim or S leaving the Pros primary market as what; Neogaf users and Gamers too lazy to pay someone to build a PC?
Why are you talking like this "old" game wouldn't run on PS4 pro?

As far as we know all games will be automatically upscaled to 4K, but without a patch there won't be any added enhancement like better frame-rate, textures, effects.

You're trying to create a problem that, for now, only exists in your head.
 

JayWood2010

Member
Sep 16, 2014
1,954
0
0
Sounds like OP is trying to stir drama. They're definitely charging the devs if anything to release a patch for PS4Neo updates. Customers who bought the game should not have to pay for these.
Kotaku published this article. I saw it on twitter before seeing it on neogaf
 

OCD Guy

Member
Oct 15, 2014
3,544
0
0
Gonna assume they mean developers will have to pay. Otherwise if it meant consumers then there is no point even putting this console out.
Why are you assuming that?

And if that is the case, why would the fee suddenly be waived just because.

If they were talking generally about a fee to produce and publish a patch that fee would be fixed, the same way licencing is charged to developers and publishers.

The costs to an indie developer to release something on the PS4 are the same, they don't change depending on the indie developer, or what game it is.

But yet people on here think it makes perfect sense that fees to release patches will vary depending who does it.

Not only that but people on here thinks it makes perfect sense for Sony to charge themselves depending on the title lol.

Also has anyone read the kotaku link?! They make it clear it's from a consumers point of view.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Jun 8, 2004
43,347
1
1,645
Older games are cheaper and PS4 Pro will have 4K all over its ads, I don't think many will read the small font so this is why it's a bad move.

Shit I know retail workers and they tell me all the time that people go straight for new console and preowned bundles. It's economics. Old content is new content if your eyes haven't seen it so if the Pro isn't capitalising on it then I guess people will buy the Slim or S leaving the Pros primary market as what; Neogaf users and Gamers too lazy to pay someone to build a PC?
We're moving into a different argument here.

But I think very few people buy a new console with eyes purely on older games. Most are going to be interested in at least the new 'annuals' (CoD, Fifa, whatever) as well as future games. I find it difficult to believe many people buy a system mid-way through a cycle without any interest in future content.

If a new Pro owner feels aggrieved at the lack of benefit for old games, they can always return or sell on the machine and get their 100 bucks back, and enjoy half the hard-drive space, less than half the GPU grunt on new games etc. Indeed, if you are only interested in older games, a Slim would be right for you.
 

wapplew

Member
Mar 1, 2012
13,776
6
450
Who dare to be the first to charge for pro patch? EA? Activision? Bamco? Konami?SIE?
My pitch fork is ready!
 

Slaythe

Member
Apr 18, 2014
13,391
0
0
Keep being cocky Sony, good for you.

Shitty battery in new DS4.

Shittastic CPU in Pro.

Underwhelming Pro marketing (or console flat out).

No UHD bluray.

Psn+ more pricey.

I think it's fine.

Throw in paid patches, and you, with no hyperbole, shit the bed.
 
Aug 30, 2009
3,482
1
685
Regardless of points of view on the interview. Redefining DLC to include resolution for games old or new is a bad thing. For consumers and for gaming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.