-
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
- Thread starter benny_a
- Start date
- Status
LukasTaves
Member
No way that's right, they can't possibly think it's ok to allow charging for updating old titles.
Maintenance
Member
Now we kinda know why the nickname was Neo, the first one was good but the following ones had you like "what the hell are they thinking."
Didn't they do that already in 2011?
Didn't they do that already in 2011?
Lady Siara
Member
So we may have gone from having paid remakes of games from last gen to paid remakes of games in the same gen.
The fuck is happening in console gaming?
The fuck is happening in console gaming?
Japanmanx3
Member
Thread got me like
That's probably why they're leaving it to the discretion of developers/publishers, and will deal with it on a case by case basis with their first party titles.
To be honest they should have mandated that all patches were fre, and I thought I had read something along those lines in the leaked documents but I could be mistaken.
Someone disagrees with me about the value of something - therefore they are a shill!
I haven't bought any PS2 classics, but the $10 I paid for the PS4 version of FF7 with trophies and speed boosts was a very fair price.
The Jackdog
Member
yet there are people in this thread encouraging it.
the gymnastics some people do in their heads to defend a thing....
We already pay for endings, on-disc content and removed costumes.
I can see this happening.
wesleyshark
Banned
Something tells me that they would.
You'd be surprised.
If From released a 60fps patch for Bloodborne priced at $5 you think it wouldn't sell?
All it takes is someone to have the balls to test the waters, and you can be sure if they taste success other's will want to get in on that action.
Whether we'll see paid performance patches or not is someething we don't know, but the fact Sony has apparently not mandated that they are free is the biggest shock.I wouldn't even be mad at developers and publishers. Don't hate the player, hate the game and all that. They'd only be playing within the confinements Sony set.
What we need either way is someone like Andrew House to clarify things, that way there will be no doubts at all.
mangochutney
Member
Because developers work for free right?
It is entirely conceivable that you might look at the effort required to make a tangible upgrade Pro patch/update and say well this is going to cost us x amount, we could do it in the hope that it drives some new sales, or maybe we think it won't. Perhaps we could charge for the update and recover our costs in that way.
You're not entitled to a free upgrade and if a developer or publisher decides it wants to charge for it, then they can do it. You don't have to buy it and I doubt many would.
But frankly I cannot see anyone having the balls to do it - but as I posted already, that Sony employee can't say they will all be free because they cannot guarantee it as publishers and developers can charge for what they want.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Nope, what I take from this and from what's been said previously is that for any titles put through Sony cert post October must be aware of the fact that Pro exists.
Titles released prior to that will not have any in-game support for Pro and thus will operate identically to before, most likely with a standard scaling applied to whatever its native res versus that of the current output device. Basically, exactly what Xbone S does.
If devs/pubs wish to put out patches that directly support the extended capabilities of the Pro on older titles, they are allowed to charge for it because it would be punitive and self-defeating to tell them that they can't.
tl;dr - Many companies aren't going to go back and do extra work on old titles if they are told they can't charge for it. Kinda obvious really.
They would. We accept more and more scummy things, it will just escalate and evolve. I have the Pro pre-ordered, if they start charging for PRO patches I'll cancel my pre-order.
I still don't think someone would be that stupid.
RealityCheque
Banned
And just like that, the concept of third parties updating older titles is DOA.
YuriLowell
Member
Well thats some bullshit if true.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Well, I never.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
if we have to pay or if developers need to pay either way this is bad for us. no chance in hell would i pay for a patch and if developers need to pay then they just won't bother.
if this happens then i will most definitely not get a ps4 pro or any other console again. i'm already on pc and i would just make it my main platform.
if this happens then i will most definitely not get a ps4 pro or any other console again. i'm already on pc and i would just make it my main platform.
Saint of Killers
Member
Are people reading the updated posts in the opening post, or just the thread title? 
It looks likely that it was a mistranslation and it will be publishers who have to pay and not the end consumer. (Yeah, still shitty, I know, but hopefully this is a cost the pubs are happy to eat and won't pass on to us.)
It looks likely that it was a mistranslation and it will be publishers who have to pay and not the end consumer. (Yeah, still shitty, I know, but hopefully this is a cost the pubs are happy to eat and won't pass on to us.)
Maintenance
Member
MicrosoftToo
For something like performance improvement - rather than content - I think they should either do it in anticipation of new sales and promotion of their game (Pro modes in legacy games = a marketing opportunity), or not at all. That's always been the reason - or nearly always! - for that kind of update in the past (vs content DLC): for the reputation and appeal of the game in order to induce sales, rather than to monetise existing players.
Agreed. What the license technically allows a pub to do and what they actually do are too very different things. There are probably all sorts of things pubs could try within the bounds of platform licenses. The market is a constraint too however.
If only to one up Sony I think it might be, if paid patches does end up being a "thing".
Are people reading the updated posts in the opening post, or just the thread title?
It looks likely that it was a mistranslation and it will be publishers who have to pay and not the end consumer.
There is no mistranslation.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
That's what people said about PS4 after Microsoft announced their always online plans. We all know how that turned out.
Link_enfant
Member
Please no. That shouldn't happen. Must be a translation error.
It's funny because this is exactly the response there was when MS announced online only and no used games.
People saying "You think Sony won't do this too?".
blue_phazon
Member
Sony wouldn't do paid patches. C'Mon people that would be a PR nightmare.
Scorpio will be the same, you really think companies will waste man hours updating an old game for free when they can be working on a new game that will bring in more money?
This isn't a Sony too, this is for third parties.
IMO, Scorpio will be the same. Publishers are in the business of making money. They aren't going to patch old games that won't get a significant boost in sales for free. It'll be no patches for most old games unless people are willing to pay for it. Recent games, and games receiving "definitive or GOTY" re-releases will likely get free patches.
Link1110
Member
Sounds bad, but if it means I can play my game without update s being forced downloaded and wasting my time, I'm down for it. Especially since I have no intention of buying pro for a good long time. (Just bought the dq le ps4 in January)
Now can steam do this with client updates? Please Gabe?
Now can steam do this with client updates? Please Gabe?
Are people reading the updated posts in the opening post, or just the thread title?
It looks likely that it was a mistranslation and it will be publishers who have to pay and not the end consumer. (Yeah, still shitty, I know, but hopefully this is a cost the pubs are happy to eat and won't pass on to us.)
So the Licensee get's to decide if and when they pay the Licensor?
C'mon. Ito said when asked whether patches will cost money or be free
If the interview was about how much publishers pay Sony, then the publisher (licensee) couldn't just decide whether they wanted to pay Sony (licensor) or not.
Moral Panic
Member
Please help clean up the OP to reflect this. Having 2 conflicting interpretations on the first post makes things very confusing
Saint of Killers
Member
*shrug* Opening post isn't very clear. Apologies if it is about consumers being charged.
GHG
Member
N-not to me...
Pre-order your Bloodborne PS4 pro patch today and get 10% off.
All features to be announced at a later date but pre order before our announcement to be eligible for the special discounted price of $4.99.
paperspace
Member
Well, a lot of people are paying for online, which is more asinine than paying for a game upgrade.
PeskyToaster
Member
It's not really up to sony though is it? If the publisher's want to charge then they can. It's dev time and effort and that costs money.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Very different scenario. You can't expect people to do work for free, particularly on legacy products generating minimum income. Especially when leaving the product "as-is" is in no way a barrier to entry.
TheSpoiler
Member
Edit: Nah, it costs the company money, not the consumer.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I'm going PC exclusive.
plagiarize
Banned
This. I mean, it's 100% clear what the interview is saying, and it's 100% reasonable to expect that some developers might want or need to recoup the costs one way or another.
I think you're right that no one will likely have the balls to charge for the upgrade. Anyone who does is going to look pretty bad given that other people won't, and these upgrades will drive new sales (which is why I presume a title like Shadow of Mordor got dusted off).
What does Sony gain by telling people they can't charge for the patches adding in Pro support? All that will achieve is that the people who were planning on charging for the patch to recoup the costs won't bother making the patch in the first place. If that's a victory, it's a pyrrhic one imho.
- Status