Support NeoGAF

[yurinka]

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

They are not mandated to release demos. They are mandated to give time limited game trials (or optionally demos instead) for high spenders/subbers of the most expensive subscription only. Demos need budget and time to be made, time limited game trials don't.

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

Sony already implemented it in the past, and the article says the devs have the option of using for this a custom made demo or to use time limited trials. If devs whould have to implement the trials themselves that would be a custom demo. So unless we have a surprise, it's a OS level game agnostic feature that doesn't require anything from the dev other than to say Sony the amount of hours (minimum 12) it will include and the amount of time they want to have it there (at least a year).

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

Seems the price limit to make the trials mandatory is full priced AAA games (the 33€ price limit was wholesale pricing, not retail pricing), this won't affect indies. And seems trials won't require any work from the dev because they will be a game agnosic OS level feature, unless the dev decides to put there a custom demo instead of a standard full game time limited trial.

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.

It isn't like witth Plus/Gold/Now/GP where the sale to the subscriber is lost. In this case if the subscriber likes it and wants to play the whole game still has to buy it (at full price). This subber will be a happier consumer because will be more sure that he likes the games that will buy. Sure, if tests a game and think it's crap won't buy it (and won't get pissed off/will spread less shit in social media because won't have paid for it), but instead will buy some other game that without the demo wouldn't have bought.

So basically if something will help discover games, to be happier with purchases and will force devs to make better, more polished games because bullshots and downgrades will be more harmful to them.

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

We don't know it, maybe they don't pay them nothing other than the extra full priced game sales they'll make thanks to the demo.

But if desired, Sony could do something like to save a % of the PS+ Premium revenue made that month to pay the publishers who have demos there, dividing the payments proportionally to each publisher demo playtime during this month vs total demo playtime during this month.

 

[adamsapple]

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 ?

Doesn't feel good being on the other end of the "but how will the developers earn money off of it ?" discussion for a change ... does it ?

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

Bad thing ?

No.

Or at least I don't want to argue that.

I do, however, want to point that locking trials behind the highest tier subscription is a bit scummy. This should have been standard on all PS Now memberships.

Also, 2 hours is pretty low. Even EA Play offers 10 hours trial for each new game.


-


edit: I'm not fully up to date on PS Now tiers, so if all tiers already offer trials than that's my bad.

 

[kyliethicc]

Letting the people who are paying $10 / month for PS+ Premium have 2 hour trials of all $50-$70 games seems like a cool idea.

Interested to see how Jimmy will fuck it up.

 

[DaGwaphics]

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.

True. I guess the upside is that if the trials are successful we'd likely see that spread across other ecosystems by publisher choice and not via a measure of force. It would devalue the sub attached to it anyway and make it all a moot point from that aspect. Everybody likes a demo, but it should be by choice.

I used to love the demo disks from PS mag, ign etc. Of course the developers were not forced to include anything in there. I'd never expect this from game pubs anymore than I expect the theater to allow me to watch the first quarter of the movie before I bought my ticket, it just isn't reasonable or realistic. If they want to offer some kind of extended preview that's on them.

It isn't even remotely comparable to a refund policy either.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If the $34 is wholesale price, then the retail price will apply to games around $45 US.

 

[SLB1904]

Doesn't feel good being on the other end of the "but how will the developers earn money off of it ?" discussion for a change ... does it ?

holly shit, that's personal to you inst it lol

 

[adamsapple]

holly shit, that's personal to you inst it lol

 

[Rivet]

Doesn't feel good being on the other end of the "but how will the developers earn money off of it ?" discussion for a change ... does it ?

Ah ah. Well, the question is legit. But it should have been asked when subscription services were introduced, or when we started getting free monthly games, or even before. There's nothing new with adding demos in my opinion.

I certainly think any time you don't pay a hefty sum to the devs, you're risking reducing quality on the long run and devs could disappear. That's a worry I still have about subscription services. That's also why I have no problem paying $70 or more day 1 for a new AAA game, though I understand if you don't have much money, it could be a problem.

 

[SLB1904]

Doesn't feel good being on the other end of the "but how will the developers earn money off of it ?" discussion for a change ... does it ?





Bad thing ?

No.

Or at least I don't want to argue that.

I do, however, want to point that locking trials behind the highest tier subscription is a bit scummy. This should have been standard on all PS Now memberships.

Also, 2 hours is pretty low. Even EA Play offers 10 hours trial for each new game.


-


edit: I'm not fully up to date on PS Now tiers, so if all tiers already offer trials than that's my bad.

scummy.... scummy, you know they didn't have to do shit right? you are not entitled to it
keeping using words that you have no idea what it means.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So basically a feature which has been part of PS+ since the beginning of the service, but was heavily underused, is now part of the highest tier and "enforced"/supported more...

Never used it in the past, never will use as I'm not going to sing up for higher tiers than essential.

Still think demos/trials should be free.

It was during the 360/PS3 era. Just about every game had a demo or trial. It was even mandated for XBLIG games at 10 minute playtime.

Yet the One/PS4 era starts and the number of demos/trials dropped like 90%.

Someone earlier said today one of the reasons why demos were dropped was because it tied up resources of the dev team to make a demo. And also, devs would complain over the years a demo/trial isnt good either because it might be some year old beta build..... "Hey gamers, that demo was Beta 1.6 from 8 months ago.... blah blah blah. Trust us the final game is better"

Ok fine. If the One/PS4 era somehow made demos a big drag on development and PR, now you got Sony doing full game trials which dont tie up any resources and are the final game. Should be a slam dunk right?

Well, lets see what other excuse devs have for not allowing Sony to allow gamers a test of games on the premium tier.

 

[SLB1904]

damn that's embarrassing lol

be careful with blood pressure.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Ah ah. Well, the question is a legit one. But it should have been asked when subscription services were introduced, or when we started getting free monthly games, or even before. There's nothing new with adding demos in my opinion.

How is forcing developers to allow you a demo the same as any other subscription service (where negotiations take place and developers agree on acceptable terms on a game by game basis)?

 

[adamsapple]

scummy.... scummy, you know they didn't have to do shit right? you are not entitled to it
keeping using words that you have no idea what it means.

If you don't have an issue with it, that's fine.

But I'm hardly the only person either on this topic, or the greater internet discussion forums, whose bringing this up.

You don't seem to be taking that people may have objections to this well, i'll leave it at that

Ah ah. Well, the question is legit. But it should have been asked when subscription services were introduced, or when we started getting free monthly games, or even before. There's nothing new with adding demos in my opinion.

I certainly think any time you don't pay a hefty sum to the devs, you're risking reducing quality on the long run and devs could disappear. That's a worry I still have about subscription services. That's also why I have no problem paying $70 or more day 1 for a new AAA game, though I understand if you don't have much money, it could be a problem.

The discussion about subscription services is a valid one and deserves a more saner venue.

But this is fundamentally different cause what's being locked behind a tiered paywall isn't even the full game, it's a glorified 2 hour demo. That's where this takes a nose dive IMO.

 

[nikolino840]

I guess sony gotta find ways to make the premium tier attractive. Did we really need 3 tiers though? It should have been just ps plus basic and ps plus premium.

Psychology... Just like the size of popcorns/cokes in the theaters

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Who the hell would had guessed Paid Trials would be part of the value chain.

Add sub plan trial $$$ to Mona.

 

[Rivet]

How is forcing developers to allow you a demo the same as any other subscription service (where negotiations take place and developers agree on acceptable terms)?

Well, here the money they get is the result of people buying the game after trying the demos. I doubt it would cost them a lot to make at least technically since all you need is a 2h counter that blocks the standard game.

I see what you mean though. In a way it forces the hand of the publisher. And you could argue there will be lost sales due to people trying the game and deciding they won't buy it, people who maybe would have bought it otherwise.

Overall financial impact is quite difficult to assess... We'll see.

 

[SLB1904]

If you don't have an issue with it, that's fine.

But I'm hardly the only person either on this topic, or the greater internet discussion forums, whose bringing this up.

You don't seem to be taking that people may have objections to this well, i'll leave it at that

due you literally confirmed in your previous post you are just concerned trolling because people are bullying daddy microsoft.
lmfao.

is like you just scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something that makes this news remotely bad.

 

[anthony2690]

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

I grabbed these day one when they came out (not sure if my post made this clear)

But yeah I probably should tbh, especially as it left me purchasing both Nier Automata and guardians of the galaxy what I really didn't enjoy haha

 

[adamsapple]

due you literally confirmed in your previous post you are just concerned trolling because people are bullying daddy microsoft.
lmfao.

is like you just scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something that makes this news remotely bad.

You mean the post where I agreed with some of your points, and the comment you're talking about was to another user and out of context ?

ok.

If the $34 is wholesale price, then the retail price will apply to games around $45 US.

I'm sure publishers like R* will try to find loopholes to get around this lol.

I just don't see this sticking long term with every single $60 game.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Well, here the money they get is the result of people buying the game after trying the demos. I doubt it would cost them a lot to make at least technically since all you need is a 2h counter that blocks the standard game.

I see what you mean though. In a way it forces the hand of the publisher. And you could argue there will be lost sales due to people trying the game and deciding they won't buy it, people who maybe would have bought it otherwise.

Overall financial impact is quite difficult to assess... We'll see.

Comes down to if the game maker wants to take part in the deal. By the looks of it during the One/PS4 era, most companies dont want to do demos/trials. But looks like Sony is allowing it on their own with a time limit.

Think of it like Costco. Costco will tell suppliers if they want to sell shit there you got to be willing to take back returns even if some old lady wants to return a used bottle of weed killer from 5 years ago. And in this case, whatever game shows up on the premium service might be mandated to allow gamers playing a trial.

Agree and do business with them. Dont agree and they'll say thats fine. Sell to another store.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Well, here the money they get is the result of people buying the game after trying the demos. I doubt it would cost them a lot to make at least technically since all you need is a 2h counter that blocks the standard game.

I see what you mean though. In a way it forces the hand of the publisher. And you could argue there will be lost sales due to people trying the game and deciding they won't buy it, people who maybe would have bought it otherwise.

Overall financial impact is quite difficult to assess... We'll see.

I'll admit that I didn't realize the three month delay was part of this in my early responses, that does make it a bit more tenable in situations where publishers think it might hurt (which will definitely happen from time to time). Kind of lessens the value of the whole thing, I was assuming day and date with release. I guess we'll see how it goes.

 

[schaft0620]

If I'm a AAA publisher I'm hiding a small team to manage this and I'm doing it for all platforms.

 

[SLB1904]

You mean the post where I agreed with some of your points, and the comment you're talking about was to another user and out of context ?

ok.




I'm sure publishers like R* will try to find loopholes to get around this lol.

I just don't see this sticking long term with every single $60 game.

rockstar games are like 50hours long games, 2 hours aint nothing, hell publishers have been doing free weekends left and right, there is literally no downside to this.
they release the game people buy into the hype, sales slow down, release demo boom everyone wins.

only some users on gaf cant make this sound bad lol

 

[schaft0620]

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.

My guy, they have teams of people handling Tweets. Do you think that the stop and start points are just going to appear out of thin air? Do you think that this is going to be a button press by an intern?

Time = money

 

[ZywyPL]

People cheering for paid demos, wow, what this industry has become...

 

[adamsapple]

rockstar games are like 50hours long games, 2 hours aint nothing, hell publishers have been doing free weekends left and right, there is literally no downside to this.
they release the game people buy into the hype, sales slow down, release demo boom everyone wins.

only some users on gaf cant make this sound bad lol

Only a minuscule amount of games get free weekends, and in those cases they just do full access dumps for 2, 3 days.

The main point people are trying to raise is that will burden *all* developers and publishers to make timed slices, not just the ones who choose or want to do it.

It's not trying to make it sound bad, we're just reacting on the extremely limited info we have right now.

For all we know, this trial thing won't even come to fruition.

 

[Rivet]

The discussion about subscription services is a valid one and deserves a more saner venue.

But this is fundamentally different cause what's being locked behind a tiered paywall isn't even the full game, it's a glorified 2 hour demo. That's where this takes a nose dive IMO.

I don't see it as "locked behind a paywall demos" since the way I understand it you could potentially get the same demo elsewhere. They're not locking anything, as much as I can see. It's only a small perk of the subscription service. Though I can see why some publishers wouldn't like it if it's mandatory.

I think we need more information and clarification about how it will work first. At least I do.

It's unlikely to bring any advantage to a subscription service over the other anyway, demos are typically the kind of perks you get everywhere or nowhere. It's pretty easy to copy if people like it.

 

[ManaByte]

Really this is better than GamePass since you can try any major release.

Reminds me of these days:

 

[StreetsofBeige]

rockstar games are like 50hours long games, 2 hours aint nothing, hell publishers have been doing free weekends left and right, there is literally no downside to this.
they release the game people buy into the hype, sales slow down, release demo boom everyone wins.

only some users on gaf cant make this sound bad lol

There is a downside if the game allowed to have a 2 hour trial is really short and you can blow past half the game in that time.

 

[SLB1904]

Only a minuscule amount of games get free weekends, and in those cases they just do full access dumps for 2, 3 days.

The main point people are trying to raise is that will burden *all* developers and publishers to make timed slices, not just the ones who choose or want to do it.

nah bruh, i called that mental gymnastic, durante can fix a game on his own you tell me this developers dont have a person to put a clock in their games? come on dude, in fact they can add that in their engine or whatever tool they have. with a press of a button they can time their games.

There is a downside if the game allowed to have a 2 hour trial is really short and you can blow past half the game in that time.

2h minimum, and so what if you manage to get half the game in 2hours that means you already like the game. why wouldn't you buy it?

 

[Rayderism]

Maybe make the trial a requirement to have the game up for pre-order. No trial, no pre-order.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Do you think that this is going to be a button press by an intern?

Lmao yes? I'd expect even an intern can make a countdown on his own

 

[adamsapple]

nah bruh, i called that mental gymnastic, durante can fix a game on his own you tell me this developers dont have a person to put a clock in their games? come on dude, in fact they can add that in their engine or whatever tool they have. with a press of a button they can time their games.

This is one of those things whose impact we really can't gauge until it actually starts happening. The extra work on devs, possible fan perception seeing 'demos' locked behind paid tiers etc etc, a ot of uncertain caveats.

 

[SLB1904]

possible fan perception seeing 'demos' locked behind paid tiers etc etc, a ot of uncertain caveats.

where were the fans when playing online is locked behind a paywall? arguably the worst shit this industry pulled off

 

[yurinka]

Or lower conversion. There's no way to know what it will mean. There are a lot of games I would have never bought if I'd been able to play them for two hours.

This will allow you to test all new 1st and 3rd party AAA released on PS. It means most games you were going to buy you'll buy them. Some other games you weren't considering to buy will surprise you and you'll buy them. And other ones instead you were going to buy them you'll avoid them because when playing them they dissapointed you.

But if you buy a lot of games before, with this you'll still buy a lot of games compared to the average player who plays a demo open to everyone. That average player buys a game or two per year. So the % of demos played that end on the game purchased will be higher when limiting the demo to high spenders (bigger conversion, the publisher and platform holder make more money).

You'll make better informed purchases so you'll be happier with them. And since you're a high spender, it's more likely that if you liked it and buy the game you'll buy more DLC, mtx, sequels or other games from this dev than the average gamer who buys a game or two per year (so better conversion + better LTV, even if sales of this game keep being the same the publisher and platform holder make more money).

Compared to normal open demos where only some games have them, to have demos of all AAA games behind a big paywall means that those who play them will be happier players with the games they buy, and both the platform holder and the publishers (unless their game is a turd) will earn more money. The amount of players with access to these demos will be a small portion of the total userbase, so the impact of these demos shouldn't be so big and publishers who made a turd won't be very negatively impacted by them because most players who were going to buy it will do it without testing it. Win/win for everybody.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Really this is better than GamePass since you can try any major release.

Reminds me of these days:

Hell no. I'm cheap, I want to finish the games I like without additional purchases. I don't want to pay for Netflix to only get the first 15/30minutes of things either.

 

[adamsapple]

where were the fans when playing online is locked behind a paywall? arguably the worst shit this industry pulled off

While I don't have any posts on hand, but I can say with some confidence people lost their shit at that as well, especially when the 360 was asking for $$ while PS3 was free.

 

[DarkMage619]

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.

I see it as a way to give Premium subscribers a way to play new games day and date yet still allow Sony to charge full price on top of the sub. Otherwise I am not a huge fan of paying for demos and trials.

 

[tmlDan]

where were the fans when playing online is locked behind a paywall? arguably the worst shit this industry pulled off

remember when PS was free? and how shit it was? are we okay with shitty free online or more fleshed out and modern online?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

2h minimum, and so what if you manage to get half the game in 2hours that means you already like the game. why wouldn't you buy it?

Because they already got through most or perhaps all of the game. And they had enough.

 

[ZehDon]

Really this is better than GamePass since you can try any major release...

... you think a paid demo of Assassin's Creed 27: Redemption is better than a full release of every game from Xbox Game Studios, every game from Zenimax Media, and every game from Activision Blizzard?

 

[SLB1904]

remember when PS was free? and how shit it was? are we okay with shitty free online or more fleshed out and modern online?

pc is free, just saying.

 

[ReBurn]

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.

I have to cop to the fact that playing something on game pass has not yet led me to purchase it. Almost bought Nier Automata when it left but even with the 20% discount it felt too expensive for that game. I'm holding out for like a 60% off sale or something.

 

[SLB1904]

Because they already got through most or perhaps all of the game. And they had enough.

what? thats a weird way to see things, first is almost impossible to get half of the game in 2hours for the first time, second i can see people going half way through a game their are enjoy and be like fuck it, not playing anymore. also people will just outright buy the game they want, i doont need no demo for gran turismo, spiderman 2 or gow ragnarok

 

[ReBurn]

pc is free, just saying.

It was always free. But let's be honest, it wasn't always good. Shitty, inconsistent PC online play with its rampant cheating problems is one of the reasons I quit PC gaming over a decade or so ago.

 

[adamsapple]

I have to cop to the fact that playing something on game pass has not yet led me to purchase it. Almost bought Nier Automata when it left but even with the 20% discount it felt too expensive for that game. I'm holding out for like a 60% off sale or something.

I've bought two or three smaller scale indie games before they went off (or even when they're on) to support the devs. The discount helps

 

[tmlDan]

pc is free, just saying.

PC has a culmination of apps from different companies that provide the same that one has to provide.

it's not the same when you need employees to maintain and build upon your online infrastructure, UI, store, cloud storage, private chat, trophy system and guide etc.

PC uses valve as a store/game storage, discord for chat, twitch/youtube/facebook for streaming which isnt built into steam (they have a shitty live nobody uses) and that's it......i guess you can count on using the internet for tips.

 

[SLB1904]

It was always free. But let's be honest, it wasn't always good. Shitty, inconsistent PC online play with its rampant cheating problems is one of the reasons I quit PC gaming over a decade or so ago.

That still doesn't contradict what I'm saying.
Regardless all the improvements are locked behind a paywall. The same way people that will pay more than me will have access to those 2h demos.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

So uh, I actually thoroughly found out the details on this just now and...Sony...did they only just recently contact 3P partners on this game trail stuff? And telling them this is a new requirement?

That...that is sloppy if indeed true. And I might have to give out a couple apologies if so . I was under the impression they had been in touch with 3P partners for a while on this, and off some other suggestions on the topic, thought maybe it would be Sony taking up most of the work on their end at the OS level. It's possible these may not be the case, which would mean they may not be providing any incentives for 3P publishers either for doing this.

But, I find it hard to believe they are telling 3P devs/pubs to implement game trails for essentially all their big AAA games and not provide them the actual dev/pub any incentives in doing so, tho it's obvious PS+ Premium subscribers will get benefits from such. If that IS how they're doing this, then it's extremely sloppy and even crass IMO; this kind of stuff seems like you would be talking with 3P partners a lot earlier and have something lined up to where they see some type of financial incentives for doing something that's ultimately for the benefit of your platform's subscription service.

Again, if what I'm recounting on this news is true (if I've interpreted anything wrong please correct me) then it would be a very heavy-handed move Sony's part and potentially damaging one unless they actually take up some of the suggestions going around like a 10% reduction on royalties for the first 500K - 1 million copies of games sold providing these trails. I was making a lot of my earlier arguments in good faith that this was (and for all we know, could still be) part of a longer-term plan that's been in the works with Sony & 3P partners for at least a year now. Someone else, kyoji I think, even posted a link to an earlier Reddit rumor posting that mentioned trails going back to 2020 so if that was in any way true then Sony would have been having internal discussions and planning going years back, why wait until now to bring 3P partners onboard?

So I honestly don't know if I believe that part of this news, because it makes it sound like they're springing this on 3P partners suddenly with no planning and that just seems very uncharacteristic of Sony, they've never hastily put together plans and spring shocking business stipulations on 3P partners before. That's some mid-90s SEGA corporate dysfunction-level shit, and why would Sony suddenly start making those type of mistakes after almost 30 years as a platform holder and market leader in this space?

 

[ReBurn]

I've bought two or three smaller scale indie games before they went off (or even when they're on) to support the devs. The discount helps

I'm getting cranky in my old age but I'm hating indies more and more every day. Mostly the storytelling just isn't good, so the dialog tends to be terrible. But I could just be old. I know they're small shops with limited budgets but I hate the 15 minutes of required reading so many of them push prior to letting you actually play. Most of them would do better to publish fun action where the story doesn't matter. At least for me.