Support NeoGAF

[Three]

IOT: people who play a game for a month on gamepass will then go out and buy it if they like it.

ITT: People who play a game for 2 hours will not buy the game anymore.

 

[adamsapple]

So you're going to tell me PS Now and gamepass aren't rental services?

You pay money, you own nothing and you're entitled to access the game for a limited time determined by the owner (in this case the publisher).

If there's another way to digitally rent games then let me know.

You may classify them as rentals but neither cases are the same as a limited time trial (2hrs) being locked behind a pay wall.

Those "rentals" are the complete games, you're not forced to stop playing after a very small time window and asked to pay ON TOP of your rental service fee to buy and play the game more.

It's not an equal comparison in the slightest.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Liar. Even though there is no proof, Jason broke this 6 years ago. Please credit him now by referencing his unwritten article.

You almost got me

A big studio can afford to cancel a project that's millions of dollars into development, smaller studios can't. Doesn't even necessarily mean the game is bad, maybe it just turned out niche and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's a good move for consumers in the sense that they don't buy things they just kinda like but don't love, it's just that those buys might be keeping the lights on in some situations.

I'm really not seeing how 2-hour game trails have any more of an impact on game sales than 3P games going directly into something like GamePass for people to play for "free" through the subscription.

I'm not making that association at all. Just pointing out the reality that most gamers have purchased a lot of games they never finished/barely played. It has more to do with taste than quality, but nonetheless that's a lot of $$$ removed from the market and developers in general. That game you bought and didn't love enough to finish might be nothing to you, but the sale might have been important to the company that made the game.

Again, the same would be the case with 3P games that go into something like GamePass, especially if they are Day 1 releases. If you seriously think these trails will hurt 3P game sales that much then you can kiss the idea of 3P AAA Day 1 releases into other services like GamePass goodbye permanently, because that, by this logic, would mean even more money lost on the open market.

And, while Microsoft could theoretically pay each of those games out based on lost sales, they'd create a net negative income flow from the GP service by doing so. This doesn't even consider that we don't know if Sony are providing compensation for publishers in some way with this program, such as a reduced cut of software royalties for the first 1 million sales, or something like that. Again, if publishers were adverse to this we'd be seeing a lot of grumblings and dissent among them right now or even earlier if that were truly the case.

I didn't catch that. If Sony will be the one controlling the 2 hour time limit and dev would have to do nothing for demos I'd be completely OK with this. Sony controls the licensing process they could easily block or allow players access to game based on time limits or whether or not they have PS+ Premium.

This could be like Game pass where players have access to all games on PlayStation for 2 hours for Premium members and then lock them unless they pay full price for each individual title. It'd be worse than Game pass but it would be better than nothing I suppose.

So....you're in a way saying a 2-hour trail would somehow be enough of a fill for most people to then not want to buy the full game, even when that trail represents a sliver of the game's content? And that regardless of the trail's quality the publisher stands to lose sales because of this? Are you thinking more about the publisher or the customer here?

Because when you compare to some of the other alternatives, logically speaking they both have gains here rather than losses. Publishers stand to gain a new buy if the trail is impressive, and customers gain some playtime with a 3P AAA release they would've otherwise had to shell out $60/$70 outright in order to get that same amount of playtime for feeling out the game. And unlike other alternatives you'll at least be able to play all 3P AAA releases through it Day 1 if just select portions of them.

So apparently the $34 refers to the wholesale price, not the retail.

Not sure what that actually puts the retail price at but I'm guessing in the $50+ range

Yeah, $50 - $70 range it seems. Can't find any AAA 3P releases coming out at $50 these days but it's there.

I'm not necessarily against the practice of games having a trial period. I'm not even sure I'm completely against the practice of it being somewhat required under normal circumstances. To be honest, I haven't found a place to dismount on it yet, so I'll continue to ride this fence for the time being.

What I am sure of though, is that Sony surely could've found a better way to do this. Sony could've gotten MS on board with this, and presented more of a combined front to developers. Just tell Phil upfront that you'd like a year exclusivity for the trial feature, and he'd have gone for it.

Why would Sony's plans for expansion of their own service need to go through Microsoft's approval? Did Microsoft ask Sony about whether to provide pricing discounts for games on GamePass? And why stop at 3P developers; Microsoft could've asked Sony about doing all 1P releases Day 1 into the service before deciding to do so themselves, going by this logic.

I mean, the 3P developers operate on their platforms so this would also be about what's best for Sony & Microsoft as well. And why leave Nintendo out of it? They work with many of those same 3P developers & publishers, too.

Phil is a people pleaser, and loves to collaborate on things like this. If Sony didn't want to go that route, or I'm completely wrong on Phil's willingness to cooperate, then Sony could've asked devs to implement a trial if they wanted to be included in any part of the new sub service. If they wanted this viewed through good optics in any capacity, they should've not tied this feature behind a paywall. Especially seeing as Sony's return policy is by far the worst among gaming platforms.

Phil Spencer is a cooperative person only as far as what is deemed best and most beneficial towards the company he works for. And, some of the things that would be beneficial for Microsoft in such a situation, may not be the most beneficial for Sony, or fit into Sony's own roadmap for product rollouts. There's only so much cooperation to be had anyway when both companies are effectively competing for marketshare through console sales, subscriptions, software revenue etc.

It could be argued (in a more pessimistic take) that part of this initiative IS to do something about the refund policy; play the game for a bit and if it's not to your tastes, you don't need to spend money on it so it saves you the purchase and also saves you on going through the refund process. It's not the best way to address that issue of course, if anything it's merely a stopgap that ironically might help in that regard. But it would inadvertently help with that for a temporary time.

Ultimately, you or I are not the ones who can decide for Sony if this was something worth paywalling. They are trying to grow their subscription install base, and for various reasons cannot seemingly justify the inclusion of all new 1P AAA games Day 1 as a driving factor, at least not now. And for other reasons, probably deem it ineffective to pay huge sums to 3P publishers for Day 1 of their games into the service, when even Microsoft, who has way more in financial resources than Sony (and thus are able to spend much more to sustain that type of business model regardless of the revenue it generates), have paid for at most 3 AAA 3P Day 1 releases into GamePass over the past two years, 2 of those being happenstance from third-party organizations (MLB) and the third arguably a AA release that needed a player boost anyway (Outriders).

By flat out making demands the way it seems they have, they're taking advantage of their marketshare position, but I'm sure some devs will see it as abusing it's position... Which is currently shrinking. Down the road, this is just another pebble on the scales that devs will weigh when deciding what platform to lead from or sign an exclusivity deal with.

They aren't making demands; again if it were truly that draconian you'd see multiple people coming forth at least hinting as such, if not a publisher outright coming out and stating why they are removing this or that or won't be supporting them. We'd see a lot more dramatic theatrics if that is what Sony were doing.

No, whatever way they are implementing this sounds like it require as little work from publishers & developers as possible, and like a few others were saying ITT, could be at the OS-level. They may also be providing incentives for publishers; bringing up the idea again that they could waiver part of the royalty cut on the first 1 million or so sales, as such an incentive. That would mean instead of taking 30% they could take say 20% on the first 1 million copies sold, and now the publisher is getting an extra 10% in revenue from that game on PS platforms which could be on top whatever deals they have aside that.

I go back and forth on the pros and cons. My only hang up is that while it may very well benefit gamers. I can't really consider the pros point blank because it only applies to those paying for the top tier, instead of all PS users. At best, Sony is making a pro-consumer move.... but for only a select few consumers.

This is something I can kind of agree with, and hopefully they do open this up to the lower tiers and maybe even for a very limited selection of games outside of PS+ altogether. They could scale the trail time length and selection of available games to play via trail as they move down the tier brackets.

So to your point about publishers, the only ones who might be worried about this are those who publish shitty games. So why should we care about them? Why should low effort shitty games be rewarded? It's a commercial industry where competition is the aim and a huge benefit to the consumer. The moment we start rewarding and incentivising mediocrity is the moment we lose the competition aspect and the overall quality of games drops off a cliff, because pubs realise they can fart out shit low quality, low effort games and still make money.... nah... fuck that.

Not even just that but for the people worried game developers will lose out on sales from this (and since this is conceptually closer to demoes, I've never heard of demoes causing a game's sales to drop unless the demo was absolutely horrible or exposed ugly truths of the game being mediocre), don't seem to be considering the possible incentives Sony could have lined up here.

They aren't outright getting the full games into the service Day 1 so they don't need to pay per game in lump sums or pay based on engagement levels the way Microsoft are doing it. But, they could easily have a royalty cut incentive for the first 1 million copies (since these are effectively AAA games, they are probably going to do at least a couple million in sales especially the bigger titles), in exchange for those games having trails in the service. That's an extra 10% in revenue for the publisher on that platform ecosystem, which adds up.

We don't know if they're doing something like that, but even from having a limited perspective on the finances side of a games publisher and platform holder (since I don't work for any of them) this sounds like an incentive that could work, and pretty much get everyone onboard.

 

[SLB1904]

are people trying to argue like this is a bad thing? what?

 

[SLB1904]

Would be awesome to see someone like Rockstar or Call of Duty saying

As a customer, It would be pretty great. As a dev, I would be pissed.

Locking it behind Premium is so, so stupid tho

so you will be pissed because you cant scam your customers what?

 

[Craig of War]

So you're going to tell me PS Now and gamepass aren't rental services?

You pay money, you own nothing and you're entitled to access the game for a limited time determined by the owner (in this case the publisher).

If there's another way to digitally rent games then let me know.

I know those are rental service i have no problem with rental service as i used them
im saying having to pay to get game trials is shitty that is the difference here
stop thinking every critic at Sony is a attack on Sony

 

[TidusYuna]

I think this trials are a good thing for the video game industry and for consumers. If gamers take advantage of trials, this will discourage publishers/developers(mainly publishers/higher ups) from releasing/launching games in a broken/unplayable state. If publishers launch a game in a broken state, this will hurt their launch sales as some gamers will be able to try their games and spread the word to other gamers. There are certain developers/publishers who you can trust to preorder as they always deliver and they have a great track record. But some usually consistent developers as of late have recently launched games in an unplayable/broken state and gamers need to make them earn that trust back. Don't go preordering from a dev/pub that just burned you with their previous game or you will encourage more broken releases as they only listen to the money. Now that they are required to offer trial, this will allow gamers to verify quality before purchase.

 

[GHG]

You may classify them as rentals but neither cases are the same as a limited time trial (2hrs) being locked behind a pay wall.

Those "rentals" are the complete games, you're not forced to stop playing after a very small time window and asked to pay ON TOP of your rental service fee to buy and play the game more.

It's not an equal comparison in the slightest.

When publishers get to decide when games can be removed from a service and there's nothing you can do to stop it, it's a rental. Physical rentals were/are also the full games. Since when did the availability of the full version of the product stop it being a rental? When you rent a car you don't only get given the wheels.

It's not about comparison either, it never was, it was in addition to the list he produced.

I know those are rental service i have no problem with rental service as i used them
im saying having to pay to get game trials is shitty that is the difference here
stop thinking every critic at Sony is a attack on Sony

Yawn. So that's where you don't have a problem? How convenient.

If the widespread availability of trials was already a thing then you'd have a point, but it isn't. They are offering it in addition to all of the other subscription benefits without additional cost. It's called bolstering a service.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

Again its down to taste when you say games that suck.

For me God of war and I just dont gel. I can see its high production values but i dont like the game. I bought it and fair enough i dont like it, if i had the 2 hour trial they would never of got my money.

on the other hand i love the Spider-Man game but you may not, its all down to taste and with the 2 hour demo there’s a chance it can impact sales both positivly and negatively

So you worry about the game sales and the dev, instead of the consumer doing a bad choice and buying a game they're not going to like and now is stuck with it. Sony can't never get away with it, is arrogant and anti consumer and when it's not,...
It's arrogant and anti devs.
Those poor game sales!

 

[Aenima]

If something like Elden Ring had a trial I definitely think it would have affected sales negatively. Hype sells.

Pubs will have to consider a lot with these demos.

Elden Ring had a public Beta. And ppl could already see how crappy the framerate was on the Beta. Game still sold like crazy. Devs trying to release broken trash like Cyberpunk will think twice before releasing the game in crappy state.

No one should be against this, this is pro consumer, and only negative about this is being tied to a subscription. But the big positive is that this might become common practice the same way Trophies and achievements are. For devs that want to create a proper demo, they have the choice if they want to put it on PS+ Premium or give it away to everyone.

 

[schaft0620]

It's not a demo, it's a time limited trial of the full game.

A similar policy already exists for new release EA Play titles, the infrastructure is already in place at the OS level.

Why is logic so tough for people today?

Anyone who thinks this isn't any additional bandwidth on the already stretched devs in unequivocally wrong.

 

[Rivet]

Great news for PS users. It may actually make me subscribe to the higher Premium tier. There are a lot of times when I don't know if I'll like a certain game or not. Playing 2 hours would be enough to know. I suspect MS will copy this idea for Game Pass if it's successful.

 

[phil_t98]

So you worry about the game sales and the dev, instead of the consumer doing a bad choice and buying a game they're not going to like and now is stuck with it. Sony can't never get away with it, is arrogant and anti consumer and when it's not,...
It's arrogant and anti devs.
Those poor game sales!

Kinda funny how people were anti game pass saying it hurt devs and now Sony does things like this is pro dev pro consumer.

 

[GHG]

Anyone who thinks this isn't any additional bandwidth on the already stretched devs in unequivocally wrong.

I'm listening, what extra things will developers have to do?

Kinda funny how people were anti game pass saying it hurt devs and now Sony does things like this is pro dev pro consumer.

The developers who are worried about this can get fucked. It would be the same devs that cried about the 2 hour refund period on Steam when it was introduced. The solution is simple - don't make games that are steaming piles of crap.

 

[phil_t98]

Read what I said again, do you notice that I'm not actually saying that MS is literally forcing devs to put their games on Gamepass? They are just pushing for it as much as possible.

I reread it, you said you could think MS IS forcing game pass on devs, they ain’t . This is massively different to what Microsoft do but ok

 

[phil_t98]

No reason for them to get compensated. Make a good game and the trials can help push more sales

Again it’s all about taste. My example is god of war, it just doesn’t gel with me. Not saying the game is bad but if I had a trial they wouldn’t of got my money.

The dev is loosing money, is god of war a bad game? No but they would loose money off me

 

[SLB1904]

Kinda funny how people were anti game pass saying it hurt devs and now Sony does things like this is pro dev pro consumer.

What moronic comparison. You have access to the full game on gamepass, there is no need to buy the game, this is only 2 hours.

Ficking hell some of you

Again it’s all about taste. My example is god of war, it just doesn’t gel with me. Not saying the game is bad but if I had a trial they wouldn’t of got my money.

The dev is loosing money, is god of war a bad game? No but they would loose money off me

You are irrelevant, the same way someone who might have tried the game would have bought

So now Sony will be seen as anti developer and devs will choose other platforms? Is that what your saying?

Lmfao. As if devs would say no to over 100mil potential customer.

Man this guy

 

[phil_t98]

I'm listening, what extra things will developers have to do?



The developers who are worried about this can get fucked. It would be the same devs that cried about the 2 hour refund period on Steam when it was introduced. The solution is simple - don't make games that are steaming piles of crap.

So now Sony will be seen as anti developer and devs will choose other platforms? Is that what your saying?

 

[GHG]

So now Sony will be seen as anti developer and devs will choose other platforms? Is that what your saying?

I said this when we had this discussion regarding the 2 hour refunds on Steam and I'll say it again:

If they want to go elsewhere because they have zero confidence in their products that's their choice. Good luck to them.

 

[Aenima]

What moronic comparison. You have access to the full game on gamepass, there is no need to buy the game, this is only 2 hours.

Ficking hell some of you


You are irrelevant, the same way someone who might have tried the game would have bought

The mental gymnastics to try spin this as a negative is trully amazing, when stuff like this should be standard everywhere and would prevent so many nasty situations involving broken/ poorly optimized or simple unfinished games.

 

[nominedomine]

I reread it, you said you could think MS IS forcing game pass on devs, they ain’t . This is massively different to what Microsoft do but ok

Between quotes dude, it wasn't meant to be interpreted literally, do you lack common sense or are you just pretending that you do?

 

[Craig of War]

Yawn. So that's where you don't have a problem? How convenient.

If the widespread availability of trials was already a thing then you'd have a point, but it isn't. They are offering it in addition to all of the other subscription benefits without additional cost. It's called bolstering a service.

A bunch of games have trials already on Steam on Playstation on Xbox & on Switch
are you trying to say that game trials did not exist before Sony lock them behind a paywall
come on man you don't need to defend Sony at every turn they are not paying your bills lol

 

[GHG]

The dev is loosing money, is god of war a bad game? No but they would loose money off me

Do you not see how ridiculous this statement is?

You get to take that money and put it towards a different game that is a better fit for your tastes. You win, another developer wins, god of war still sells well without you, nobody is left unhappy.

A bunch of games have trials already on Steam on Playstation on Xbox & on Switch
are you trying to say that game trials did not exist before Sony lock them behind a paywall
come on man you don't need to defend Sony at every turn they are not paying your bills lol

Those free trials will still exist (just like the EA Play trials will still exist and be available as part of that subscription). The only difference is that now any game that doesn't have a free trial as determined by the publisher will now have one via PS Now.

Stop being antagonistic. I'm affording you respect (for now), I expect the same back.

 

[phil_t98]

What moronic comparison. You have access to the full game on gamepass, there is no need to buy the game, this is only 2 hours.

Ficking hell some of you


You are irrelevant, the same way someone who might have tried the game would have bought


Lmfao. As if devs would say no to over 100mil potential customer.

Man this guy

first up

not every game is on Gamepass, this is not gonna be a 2 hour gamerplay window for games on PS+ is it? this is for games out side of PS+ people will get access to play

second

I am irrelevant because I bought a game and don't like it?

third

so you are saying that 100 mil customer base is gonna play the 2 hours window? hahahah so everybody who has a ps is gonna sub to that tier

 

[SLB1904]

Do you not see how ridiculous this statement is?

You get to take that money and put it towards a different game that is a better fit for your tastes. You win, another developer wins, god of war still sells well without you, nobody is left unhappy.



Those free trials will still exist. The only difference is that now any game that doesn't have a free trial as determined by the publisher will now have one via PS Now.

Stop being antagonistic. I'm affording you respect (for now), I expect the same back.

i would have used the battlefield money on the Black Friday deals

 

[phil_t98]

Do you not see how ridiculous this statement is?

You get to take that money and put it towards a different game that is a better fit for your tastes. You win, another developer wins, god of war still sells well without you, nobody is left unhappy.



Those free trials will still exist (just like the EA Play trials will still exist and be available as part of that subscription). The only difference is that now any game that doesn't have a free trial as determined by the publisher will now have one via PS Now.

Stop being antagonistic. I'm affording you respect (for now), I expect the same back.

the point is the dev is loosing money. yes good for the consumer ie: me but this will not be good for devs in the long run.

like I said people blind buy without playing games. preorders make up big numbers also obvs this will impact that. just can't see the devs being happy about it

 

[GHG]

i would have used the battlefield money on the Black Friday deals

I'm sure we can all point towards games that we bought but ultimately wouldn't have if the trial had existed. It's very rare and unlikely someone will take that money away from the industry as well, it's already been allocated and the person will have determined they want a new game to spend their time with. As an example I always ask for the money to go to my steam wallet when I get a refund there - it goes towards another game.

the point is the dev is loosing money. yes good for the consumer ie: me but this will not be good for devs in the long run.

like I said people blind buy without playing games. preorders make up big numbers also obvs this will impact that. just can't see the devs being happy about it

Why are we concerned about developers that aren't satisfying their customers?

 

[SLB1904]

first up

not every game is on Gamepass, this is not gonna be a 2 hour gamerplay window for games on PS+ is it? this is for games out side of PS+ people will get access to play

second

I am irrelevant because I bought a game and don't like it?

third

so you are saying that 100 mil customer base is gonna play the 2 hours window? hahahah so everybody who has a ps is gonna sub to that tier

dude deep down you know you are being dumb, you just don't want to admit it.

first, every game that's on the game pass is the full game, people will play and won't buy it period, unless is some gaas that will leave the service and you might want to continue play.
you are irrelevant because, you are an xbox fanboy saying you dont like gow is as shocking as water is wet, which brings us to my next point, people that might be bored and want to try something new will try gow and will find out is one of the best games ever and will buy it
PlayStation has potential 100mil customers, go look up the word potential instead of making yourself look like a fool

 

[phil_t98]

due deep down you know you are being dumb, you just don't want to admit it.

first, every game that's on the game pass is the full game, people will play and won't buy it period, unless is some gaas that will leave the service and you might want to continue play.
you are irrelevant because, you are an xbox fanboy saying you dont like gow is as shocking as water is wet, which brings us to my next point, people that might be bored and want to try something new will try gow and will find out is one of the best games ever and will buy it
PlayStation has potential 100mil customers, go look up the word potential instead of making yourself look like a fool

xbox fanboy? Jesus get a life

obvs not seen my posts praising Spiderman on my ps4 and other games but yeah whatever

 

[Menzies]

How many will satisfy this requirement with the least amount of effort?

200GB download for a 2 hour trial of the next CoD?

Or worse(?) highly polished vertical slices that don’t match the lower quality for the rest of the game. Can we pay for a premium-premium tier with access to refunds?

 

[TheDreadLord]

I feel like I buy games due to everyone's hype and excitement for them, you get caught in the moment and want to play that game.

I've purchased many games for this reason.

Dark souls 3 (loved it thankfully, would've purchased regardless, if it had a trial)
Fallout 4 (I would've probably never purchased after playing a trial)
Lego Star wars skywalker saga (same as above)

And I probably loads more games.

I think it's quite common in all honesty.

All the games you listed can be purchased by less than what the service costs. My point is, you should avoid impulse buying.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

the point is the dev is loosing money. yes good for the consumer ie: me but this will not be good for devs in the long run.

like I said people blind buy without playing games. preorders make up big numbers also obvs this will impact that. just can't see the devs being happy about it

If publishers are really worried about pre-orders then they can until the 3 months are up before they enable a trial

 

[Rivet]

the point is the dev is loosing money. yes good for the consumer ie: me but this will not be good for devs in the long run.

like I said people blind buy without playing games. preorders make up big numbers also obvs this will impact that. just can't see the devs being happy about it

I mean if all you care is devs losing money, they lose a lot more money when they get for a small sum on a subscription service like monthly PS+ games or Gamepass and make zero game sale afterwards.

A least here they can sell their games to people who liked the demo. You must have had a heart attack when subscription services were introduced. They're the ones bringing devs revenue (and ultimately quality) down.

 

[yurinka]

The ecosystem also includes Publishers. I'm sure they're worried about it.

Platform holders talk with top publishers about these kind of movements before implementing them and do their research testing them etc. EA even implemented their own one. Top publishers must be ok with this if it got greenlighted.

On top of that, they are demos of big games for a small portion of players, who prettty likely are high spenders. Demos & time limited game trials are a promotional tool that helps them sell more games. It will help them sell more games -and from high spenders- at no extra cost. I don't see why are they supposed to be worried.

Most of these AAA games have dozens or hundreds of hours of gameplay and this barely gives a couple: they aren't giving away the whole game for free.

Not really.

"One potential problem with interpreting the EEDAR data in this way, however, is that it is difficult to determine whether there is a correlation between some of the industry's best-selling titles--such as Call of Duty, BioShock Infinite, or Tomb Raider--generally opting not to release a demo at launch."

Lesser known games are more likely to have demos than more popular games.

Publishers often lock demos or betas behind preorders or make free weekends and so on. EA has the 10 hours trials in EA Play. They know it helps them make money.

But a demo for the dev is different than a full game trial: a demo -or a beta- requires to make a separate build, a separate SKU with its own programming and Q&A. So often they don't have time for it because they are too busy with the game, which often gets finished months after release with many patches, fixes and balancing.

A game agnostic full game trial implemented at OS level that doesn't require extra work, a separate build and SKU with its own Q&A ettc it's a very different thing, specially if limited to high spending players. It must be free money for them.

I think demos are specially positive for those games that when played you realize how good they are, in a way that can't be explained on screenshots and videos. But instead I think demos may be bad for those games who looked very cool on screenshots an trailers but when playing them you realize they are crap. So a bit like with games included in PS+/Gold/Now/GP but with the difference that here instead of getting the whole game you get a small sample of it so if you want more you buy the whole game at full price.

So for publishers it must be way more appealing these demos than to include their games on Plus/Gold/Now/GP specially single player non-GaaS ones. For GaaS games infested of microtransactions and dlcs they may prefere Plus/Gold/Now/GP because they want to have the biggest amount of players possible players playing for the longer amount of time possible.

 

[Esca]

This sounds pretty good for me. Demo's on most games is a nice feature. Sucks you're paying for it but I I wasalready going to be switched over to the ps premium once it starts so I can see if it all is worth it which I'm guessing it will with how I goabout playing games now

 

[phil_t98]

I mean if all you care is devs losing money, they lose a lot more money when they get for cheap on a subscription service like monthly PS+ games or Gamepass and make zero sales aftewards.

A least here they can sell their games to people who liked the demo. You must have had a heart attack when subscription services were introduced. They're the ones bringing devs revenue (and ultimately quality) down.

so how much revenue are the devs getting from the free 2 hour demo?

sub services pay the devs when the game is played on there, bit different don't you think?

 

[Dr Bass]

Great news for PS users. It may actually make me subscribe to the higher Premium tier. There are a lot of times when I don't know if I'll like a certain game or not. Playing 2 hours would be enough to know. I suspect MS will copy this idea for Game Pass if it's successful.

Why would you need a free demo of a game you can just download and play for free anyway?

Unless you're referring to games not on GP. But I don't see the connection there. That would be more of an XBL feature if so.

 

[Craig of War]

Those free trials will still exist (just like the EA Play trials will still exist and be available as part of that subscription). The only difference is that now any game that doesn't have a free trial as determined by the publisher will now have one via PS Now.

Stop being antagonistic. I'm affording you respect (for now), I expect the same back.

PS Now? You mean PS Plus Premium
& ok im just saying i think game trials behind a paywall is shitty no matter who does it
i will not defend anyone that does it so EA is shitty for doing that to

 

[Menzies]

Platform holders talk with top publishers about these kind of movements before implementing them and do their research testing them etc. EA even implemented their own one. Top publishers must be ok with this if it got greenlighted.

On top of that, they are demos of big games for a small portion of players, who prettty likely are high spenders. Demos & time limited game trials are a promotional tool that helps them sell more games. It will help them sell more games -and from high spenders- at no extra cost. I don't see why are they supposed to be worried.

If demos are such great and useful tools to promote more sales, why does it take a mandate for publishers to release them?

 

[Rivet]

so how much revenue are the devs getting from the free 2 hour demo?

sub services pay the devs when the game is played on there, bit different don't you think?

They get money from all the people who buy the game afterwards because they liked the demo... I'm not sure it cost them a lot either since all you have to do is an automatic timer blocking the full game after 2 hours. Let's see how it's made.

 

[BeardGawd]

I don't think anyone here is arguing this isn't good for consumers. My only qualm is this should be standard and not behind a paywall. Since it is behind a paywall and Sony is mandating it for all games (over a certain price) they should give a kickback to the developers for adding value to their service. That is just my opinion.

Platform holders talk with top publishers about these kind of movements before implementing them and do their research testing them etc. EA even implemented their own one. Top publishers must be ok with this if it got greenlighted.

On top of that, they are demos of big games for a small portion of players, who prettty likely are high spenders. Demos & time limited game trials are a promotional tool that helps them sell more games. It will help them sell more games -and from high spenders- at no extra cost. I don't see why are they supposed to be worried.

Very true but a percentage of those high spenders would have purchased the game to try it. People pay to try games all the time. That is revenue for those publishers. If they miss out on this revenue due to the trial they should get a kick back no? That's all I'm saying.

 

[SLB1904]

If demos are such great and useful tools to promote more sales, why does it take a mandate for publishers to release them?

jesus demos have been around for ages, people already know how it works.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

I know those are rental service i have no problem with rental service as i used them
im saying having to pay to get game trials is shitty that is the difference here
stop thinking every critic at Sony is a attack on Sony

You don’t have to pay to get game trials, you have to pay to get psplus premium _ game trials is one of the perks to attract customers to the service...

Kinda funny how people were anti game pass saying it hurt devs and now Sony does things like this is pro dev pro consumer.

This is not pro consumer?
And where do i say it's pro dev, don't put words in my mouth,
the only pro to devs about this is that maybe, just maybe, they will think twice before releasing bugfests to consumers.
Now about the 'anti game pass', 'it hurt devs' persecution complex, and since we are talking to each other and nobody else, point out in my post history a single negative comment about Gamepass, im waiting.

 

[Craig of War]

You don’t have to pay to get game trials, you have to pay to get psplus premium _ game trials is one of the perks to attract customers to the service...

Actually you do have to pay to get game trials if that specific game trial is locked behind PS Plus Premium
as it won't be available outside of it

 

[Rivet]

I love how we had $1 humble bundles, $1 game sales, tons of free games on Steam, $5 subscription services and $1 Gamepass ultimate upgrades and everything was great, but now we should panic for game devs money because someone will introduce mandatory demos in a subscription tier. I mean really ? Did nothing else worry you before for devs ?

 

[Hugare]

so you will be pissed because you cant scam your customers what?

No, I'll be pissed for more cost/dev time because Sony demanded

Even putting a timelimit in your game is not as easy as pressing a button.

Indies/AA devs like Ember Labs (who made Kena) would get fucked the most, since they have limited budget/people

Your post about demos: how many releases have demos nowadays? Demos are a thing of the past due to dev costs/time, and sometimes hurting sales

Despite their quality, not even one of Sony 1st party titles have demos since the PS3 days

 

[Rivet]

Why would you need a free demo of a game you can just download and play for free anyway?

Unless you're referring to games not on GP. But I don't see the connection there. That would be more of an XBL feature if so.

Obviously I'm referring to games not already available on GP. It could just be a new perk of the subscription. Nothing forces Gamepass to be just a list of free games. They can do whatever they want with it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No, I'll be pissed for more cost/dev time because Sony demanded

Even putting a timelimit in your game is not as easy as pressing a button.

Indies/AA devs like Ember Labs (who made Kena) would get fucked the most, since they have limited budget/people

This doesn't affect indies since they won't be selling $60 games

 

[SLB1904]

No, I'll be pissed for more cost/dev time because Sony demanded

Even putting a timelimit in your game is not as easy as pressing a button.

Indies/AA devs like Ember Labs (who made Kena) would get fucked the most, since they have limited budget/people

Your post about demos: how many releases have demos nowadays? Demos are a thing of the past due to dev costs/time, and sometimes hurting sales

Despite their quality, not even one of Sony 1st party titles have demos since the PS3 days

thats a lot of assumptions, sony could have a system in place for that, its a timer and nothing else. resident evil already did that

This doesn't affect indies since they won't be selling $60 games

that too, imagine thinking there is a downside of free advertisement lol

 

[phil_t98]

You don’t have to pay to get game trials, you have to pay to get psplus premium _ game trials is one of the perks to attract customers to the service...


This is not pro consumer?
And where do i say it's pro dev, don't put words in my mouth,
the only pro to devs about this is that maybe, just maybe, they will think twice before releasing bugfests to consumers.
Now about the 'anti game pass', 'it hurt devs' persecution complex, and since we are talking to each other and nobody else, point out in my post history a single negative comment about Gamepass, im waiting.

Fair play dude my bad