Support NeoGAF

[OCD Guy]

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.

Read this again:

Game Impress Watch: What about Sony Interactive Entertainment?

Ito: I think it will vary for each one of our titles

Game Impress Watch: What you’re saying is that there will be titles that have a fee [for the patch] and [patches for the] titles that are free.

Ito: That is correct.

Firstly the interviewer asks whether Sony will charge for the patches, and then the interview is trying to clarify whether there will be titles that have a fee for the patch i.e paid, and titles that have free patches.

There is NOTHING there that talks about developers having to pay and consumers receiving free patches. They're also not talking about whether Sony will pay themselves to release a patch.

It's almost as if people are reading the words but just making stuff up.

Finally look at this:

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.

You know what a licensee refers to right?

If they were talking about costs incurred to developers, it wouldn't vary, and certainly wouldn't be down to the discretion of the licensee. It's Sony Entertainment (the licensor) that mandate the fees. The licensee doesn't decide how much and whether they pay.

 

[wotta]

Lol. Close this thread. What a lot of nonsense. Moving on.

 

[nephilimdj]

Who dare to be the first to charge for pro patch? EA? Activision? Bamco? Konami?SIE?
My pitch fork is ready!

I think shadow of mordor, since has a ultra texture pack on pc and already has a goty edition on current gen.
Most likely rerelease it and sell the hd upgrade for older owners.

 

[spookyfish]

Eh, I'd pay a nominal fee for The Witcher and for GTA. Everything else? Nope.

 

[Insane Metal]

This can't be right. Holy shit.

 

[wesleyshark]

Lol. Close this thread. What a lot of nonsense. Moving on.

No need to close the thread until we get some clarification on these comments.

 

[gofreak]

It seems the thread title itself has entered the tug-of-war over the semantics of the interview...

 

[Badoink]

Read this again:



Firstly the interviewer asks whether Sony will charge for the patches, and then the interview is trying to clarify whether there will be titles that have a fee for the patch i.e paid, and titles that have free patches.

There is NOTHING there that talks about developers having to pay and consumers receiving free patches. They're also not talking about whether Sony will pay themselves to release a patch.

It's almost as if people are reading the words but just making stuff up.

We have moved to different translation though .

 

[CosmicQueso]

Charging consumers for patches? LOL. Not happening.

 

[benny_a]

Back. I haven't catched up but I updated the translation by MysticDistance.

 

[Clear]

I hate to break it to you, but allowing publishers to monetize enhancement patches for titles released pre-October is likely a smart move to encourage them to make an effort, when objectively speaking they don't have to do anything at all.

Its not like there's a compatibility issue, and it will cost time and money to go back and do a proper job on the title update. If companies choose to do that and not charge users, good on them. But you can't call villainy if some devs think their time and resources need to be applied to work that benefits them financially or at least covers costs for the additional work,and associated testing and certification process.

 

[Dunkley]

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.

Don't forget the trophy tax on PS2 classics and not being able to change your name still.

Sony has been really shitting the bed lately (...and yet I say this while playing on a PS3), and I do hope much that at least this is just a big misunderstanding since I can't believe it.

 

[Kyoufu]

Thread title changes have me confuzzled. What's the lowdown on what Ito said?

 

[duckroll]

――タイトルごとに有料になったり無料になったりすると言うことですね。

So you are saying that there are titles where it could be free and ones where it could have a fee right?

That is the only way to translate that question. It isn't hard.

 

[Kilau]

It is free.


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.

The Kotaku translation is correct.

Exactly.

Not if this is the real interview: http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/interview/1019310.html

Lol that's not what they are saying

 

[cyberheater]

I like the idea.

$5 for solid 30fps at 4K
$5 for HDR
$50 to remove chromatic aberration

etc...

 

[JayWood2010]

Honestly people are going to defend whatever they want to defend. I would wage a guess that the vast majority of people defending this as a translation error also doesn't know Japanese themselves.

The 1% that does on the other hand, who knows.

Wait for clarification from Sony if you think the article is wrong if you dont know Japanese. Arguing about something you dont know anything about is just pointless.

 

[Raiden1018]

This is crazy.
maybe arrogant Sony really is back?

 

[OCD Guy]

――タイトルごとに有料になったり無料になったりすると言うことですね。

So you are saying that there are titles where it could be free and ones where it could have a fee right?

That is the only way to translate that question. It isn't hard.

Not only that but certain people conveniently ignoring the response regarding the licensee.

Why would a licensee decide whether they have to pay a fee or not to the Licensor lol.

The licensor (in this case Sony) determine that, not the licensee (developer/publisher)

 

[Arttemis]

――タイトルごとに有料になったり無料になったりすると言うことですね。

So you are saying that there are titles where it could be free and ones where it could have a fee right?

That is the only way to translate that question. It isn't hard.

This begs the question - is it free / fee for the consumer or publisher/developer? A license indicates the latter.

 

[Septic360]

Guys relax.

No way on Earth will Sony charge gamers for patches. That would be ridiculous.

Obvious misinterpretation there.

 

[Pifje]

This is going to be such a shitshow if true.

 

[Guymelef]

Does it matter the translation?
Because it's not going to happen, mainly because few devs are going to waste resources patching old games.

 

[therealbigrich]

So from what I understand the Dev will be charged extra to do more work on a game to increase the assets and take advantage of the extra pro power? If that's it and I'm the Dev why would I pay more to put in more that may not sell much better that the slim version

 

[wesleyshark]

Guys relax.

No way on Earth will Sony charge gamers for patches. That would be ridiculous.

Obvious misinterpretation there.

 

[OCD Guy]

This begs the question - is it free / fee for the consumer or publisher/developer? A license indicates the latter.

According to Ito the licensee (developer/publisher) can decide whether they charge consumers for a patch.

The simple fix to this is the Licensor (Sony) issues a mandate that updates for ps4 pro are free.

End thread lol.

 

[Curufinwe]

I like the idea.

$5 for solid 30fps at 4K
$5 for HDR
$50 to remove chromatic aberration

etc...

Bloodborne gets patched for free to 1800p, but to remove frame pacing issues you must agree to surrender your firstborn son.

 

[Kyoufu]

I like the idea.

$5 for solid 30fps at 4K
$5 for HDR
$50 to remove chromatic aberration

etc...

I'm not paying for any of those features on a software basis.

That's like, the whole point of upgrading hardware. If any corporation thinks they can get away with charging a fee for software patches, they've got another thing coming and it isn't my money.

 

[GHG]

I like the idea.

$5 for solid 30fps at 4K
$5 for HDR
$50 to remove chromatic aberration

etc...

LMAO, many a user on Neogaf would go broke.

 

[wesleyshark]

This begs the question - is it free / fee for the consumer or publisher/developer? A license indicates the latter.

Up to the publisher/developer to decide if it's free for the consumer or not

 

[Dunkley]

Does it matter the translation?
Because it's not going to happen, mainly because few devs are going to waste resources patching old games.

But what if they can... charge people for them?

Given the translation is mostly correct, there definitely is money to be made here on old games.

Bloodborne gets patched for free to 1800p, but to remove frame pacing issues you must agree to surrender your firstborn son.

Turns out beating the DLC and the main game on NG+6 will remove the frame pacing issues and chromatic abberation.

 

[duckroll]

This begs the question - is it free / fee for the consumer or publisher/developer?

When first asked if it is free or if it will have a fee, he says that it will vary because it'll be up to the licensees to decide. The entire interview is about what the PS4 Pro means to consumers - new features, etc. It is not about developers.

 

[Oemenia]

#1080p@60fpsorbust crowd just got even more obnoxious.

 

[The Faceless Master]

makes sense to charge for updates.

free updates? leaving money on the table.

 

[UrbanRats]

I like the idea.

$5 for solid 30fps at 4K
$5 for HDR
$50 to remove chromatic aberration

etc...

*the game suddenly pauses*
*"Pay 2$ to continue" appears on screen*
*pays 2$*
*The on screen 60 minutes timer resets*.

 

[CosmicQueso]

So from what I understand the Dev will be charged extra to do more work on a game to increase the assets and take advantage of the extra pro power? If that's it and I'm the Dev why would I pay more to put in more that may not sell much better that the slim version

Some pretty easy answers there:

- Patched version makes it an easier sales story to go to retailers and get your game back on shelves if it has been delisted
- Allows for repromotion of older games that have been patched
- Get lapsed players back to playing, hope to sell DLC to these re-engaged players
- Build a brand story for potential sequels
- Sets foundation for porting to next gen hardware down the line

Lots of good business reasons to patch.

 

[Rey]

Charging consumers for patches? LOL. Not happening.

Well, they are charging people for hd remakes. Aren't they providing a similar thing? Same game with better textures, lighting, higher framerates etc.?

Not that I'm for the idea of charging for patches but I could see them doing exactly that.

 

[wapplew]

Guys relax.

No way on Earth will Sony charge gamers for patches. That would be ridiculous.

Obvious misinterpretation there.

Not if they label it as 4K HDR remaster DLC.

 

[foxbeldin]

The communication around this console is just confusing.

-Clever way to show improvements? Nope, compressed 1080p SDR stream for you, low bitrate videos for medias like DF.

-Improvements on HDTV? Wanna see tangible comparisons? Nope. One paragon gif will do.

-Improved framerate on unpatched titles dropping frames? Doesn't seem like it.

-Paid 4k patchs? Might be.

Not even talking about things that aren't confusing but just plain stupid like the 4k bluray player.


Are you trying to be MS2013 Sony? Because that's how you become MS2013.

 

[Omnii-chan]

If the developer isn't close to Sony and the game is long since released and isn't going to spur sales and it costs money to do this, why would they bother?

Terrible news if true.

 

[The Jackdog]

makes sense to charge for updates.

free updates? leaving money on the table.

this guy is right.

and you know what? why arent games 200 dollars anyway? By not charging 200 dollars, they are just leaving money on the table.

and you know what? bug fixes? you think bug fixes are free? they should charge for them too. if you dont charge for bug fixes youre just leaving money on the table.

 

[jbug617]

I don't think Sony charges developers for patches and I think that doesn't change with Pro. What I think they are saying that the consumers might have to pay for some patches (Pro mode features) and some patches might be free.

 

[NBtoaster]

Why should a patch which adds 4k/etc cost money while other patches which have fixed bugs and add new features don't? Especially if it's partially automated as Sony claims.

 

[Oemenia]

Is the hivemind finally cracking, because I remember the hardcore shilling that went on for PS2 classics.

#4thepayers

 

[maouvin]

I'm paying for Pro Senran Kagura and Dead or Alive. Sorry GAF.

Destiny Pro Patch - 19.99, with 3 free emotes.

Destiny marks a new low in Unlocking and Microtransaction systems.

 

[Curufinwe]

Turns out beating the DLC and the main game on NG+6 will remove the frame pacing issues and chromatic abberation.

Nice. I already beat the DLC so I just have to run thru the main game five more times...

 

[Boke1879]

There are games right now getting Pro patches and you aren't being charged for it.

Games going forward are required to have a Pro mode. Very doubtful you will get charged for patches.

But it's good to see the console warriors on both sides interjecting with their opinions that have nothing to do with this issue.

 

[UrbanRats]

this guy is right.

and you know what? why arent games 200 dollars anyway? By not charging 200 dollars, they are just leaving money on the table.

and you know what? bug fixes? you think bug fixes are free? they should charge for them too. if you dont charge for bug fixes youre just leaving money on the table.

Just ask for free access to people's bank accounts, or you'll leave money on the table.

 

[OCD Guy]

What I think they are saying that the consumers might have to pay for some patches (Pro mode features) and some patches might be free.

That is EXACTLY what is being said.

Ito clearly states that the costs will be depend on the thinking of the licensee (the developer/publisher).

There is no discussion at all about the costs between licensee (developer/publisher) and licensor (Sony)

 

[Pooya]

For the future of their own system, they should not let anyone charge for it. It's better to not get any patch if it's going to cost money, it sets up a really ugly precedent. Either patch it for free or leave it be.