Microsoft no longer charging for patches/updates

[bdoughty]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-microsoft-no-longer-charges-developers-to-patch-their-xbox-360-games

Microsoft has always charged a fee when developers first submit their games to Microsoft's certification process so they can be approved for release, and the company normally grants developers one title update free of charge. This remains the case, but sources have told Eurogamer that subsequent re-certification as a result of a title update is now free. This applies to Xbox Live Arcade games and full retail games.

There are caveats, we understand. If a developer is deemed to be making an excessive number of re-submissions due to an update failing certification, for example, Microsoft reserves the right to issue a charge. But the changes should make critics of Microsoft's closed platform happier - and align the Xbox ecosystem more closely with the likes of Steam.


More at the link.....


Well no more excuses about patching games for developers due to the cost.

[CLW]

MS reacting again to Sony's "superior" policies. This was a big reason Indy developers preferred Sony. They still prefer Sony b/c Sony allows them to self-publish. Will MS retract that policy and drop its price point stay tuned.....

[I OU a Beatn]

Should have never been a charge in the first place.

As for Sony, they used to charge for patches as recently as last year, and I haven't heard anything since then. Has it been confirmed somewhere that they don't charge for patches, either?

[bdoughty]

Should have never been a charge in the first place.

As for Sony, they used to charge for patches as recently as last year, and I haven't heard anything since then. Has it been confirmed somewhere that they don't charge for patches, either?

They stopped doing it but I can't say when. They did it a little different as they charged devs by the bandwith for demos, updates, etc.

One source (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-13-dean-hall-in-talks-to-bring-dayz-standalone-to-ps4)

Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates. Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates.""

[I OU a Beatn]

They stopped doing it but I can't say when. They did it a little different as they charged devs by the bandwith for demos, updates, etc.

One source (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-13-dean-hall-in-talks-to-bring-dayz-standalone-to-ps4)

Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates. Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates.""


Must be a new thing for PS4 then. I know for a fact they did it the entire life of the PS3 and were still doing it as of late last year.

Like I said, though, good for both Sony and Microsoft for getting rid of it. Developers shouldn't have to pay a fee to improve their game.

[bdoughty]

Must be a new thing for PS4 then. I know for a fact they did it the entire life of the PS3 and were still doing it as of late last year.

Like I said, though, good for both Sony and Microsoft for getting rid of it. Developers shouldn't have to pay a fee to improve their game.


Agreed, just think how much money Bethesda will save in update fees. Might save enough money to have one of their games functional on the PS4. ;)

[I OU a Beatn]

350367972101066754

[CLW]

But you still have to find a publisher and pay them to publish your game? Makes no sense to me especially for a digital download only Indy game.

[I OU a Beatn]

Those are 2 completely unrelated things, IMO. Never mind the fact that there's been rumors for weeks now that Microsoft is going to allow self publishing, but the patching costs didn't just affect indie developers, it affected big time publishers as well. Why should anyone have to pay a fee in order to improve the game? I could understand something like Bethesda or Call of Duty that releases 12 patches per game, but for something that only needs 2 or 3, there should be no fee.

Absolutely retarded policy by the both of them to even have it there in the first place.

[JBHuskers]

On PS3, the first patch was free then $10k

[bdoughty]

On PS3, the first patch was free then $10k



They also charged bandwidth fees, even if it was free content, demos, patches, anything that required the use of bandwidth. (http://www.pastapadre.com/2009/03/20/psn-bandwidth-charges-may-explain-no-mme-on-ps3). Probably not still doing this but it did exist.