Since this is going to also be on the PS3 and Xbox...

[dragonlightning]

On the 360 i don't think the updates go to microsoft. If you check the game box you need 10gb to install the game so its likely to follow in the footsteps of FFXI and bypass microsoft servers. It should mean they can update what they like when they like since it would operate outside the microsoft walled area.
Even if they don't bypass the microsoft servers the update process may have been agreed in advance like Minecraft was and they get it free.

[SweetMadness]

On the 360 i don't think the updates go to microsoft. If you check the game box you need 10gb to install the game so its likely to follow in the footsteps of FFXI and bypass microsoft servers. It should mean they can update what they like when they like since it would operate outside the microsoft walled area.
Even if they don't bypass the microsoft servers the update process may have been agreed in advance like Minecraft was and they get it free.

True, but without an official statement one way or the other from Trion or Microsoft/Sony, we can only expect that the standard business model is in practice.

[Mindfix]

[QUOTE=SweetMadness;28496]...
DLC has NOTHING to do with patches. Comparing them against one another isn't even logical.


lol it was "logical" to compare them..... sorry.

Also i seriously doubt anyone on here has any idea what microsoft and sony charge for patching/updates but i would certainly hope this is something that's been ironed out by Trion/SyFy and microsoft/Sony.

[SweetMadness]

lol it was "logical" to compare them..... sorry.

Also i seriously doubt anyone on here has any idea what microsoft and sony charge for patching/updates but i would certainly hope this is something that's been ironed out by Trion/SyFy and microsoft/Sony.

We're talking about patches. It's been no secret that often times QA holds the patches back. Also-your example was subject to an exclusivity clause/contract. DLC and patches are far from the same thing. Sony could have chosen to make similiar considerations in attempt to keep Bethesda from agreeing to the exclusivity clause/contract. But now we're straying from the topic.

I know the charge for patches is large enough to have prevented some games from ever seeing a necessary patch. And you don't have to hope, most of this basic business stuff is negotiated long before the games are even beta testing.

[Mindfix]

We're talking about patches. It's been no secret that often times QA holds the patches back. Also-your example was subject to an exclusivity clause/contract. DLC and patches are far from the same thing. Sony could have chosen to make similiar considerations in attempt to keep Bethesda from agreeing to the exclusivity clause/contract. But now we're straying from the topic.

I know the charge for patches is large enough to have prevented some games from ever seeing a necessary patch. And you don't have to hope, most of this basic business stuff is negotiated long before the games are even beta testing.

The length of the delay for Skyrim DLC had nothing to do with an exclusivity clause/contract. Microsoft did purchase it exclusive for a short amount of time but it was slated for PS3 in fall and kept getting pushed back because of numerous issues that Bethesda has said was on Sonys side.

I am not arguing that Sony/micro charge for updates thats well known but what is unknown is what they charge. I'm not to worried about all that though because as you have said i'm sure this has already been figured out.