Support NeoGAF

[prinz_valium]

What do you mean would be. Source?

The development requirements were updated. That's the only reason we know about this.
If there would be compensation for it, it would be stated.
But it isn't The stuff is under NDA, but you can start to publish games on PSN to see it for yourself.

Many developers were informed about the new policy via an update to Sony's developer portal. Our sources indicated they had not received any other communication about this change.

 

[Vognerful]

2 hours? not good enough.

 

[Filben]

How about no need for any subscription at all for trying out games, like on Steam via refund policy? No extra work for devs for demos, although they could still supply one of they think that represents the game better than the first two hours.

I already know the answer because it hurts sales. Is quite telling though about games. That it requires balls to actually put out a demo.

 

[iorek21]

Could that mean the return of demos?

Also, setting 2h of trial could mean the beginning of the end for 5h games in the long run.

 

[SScorpio]

Isn’t this piss easy , just put a 2 hour limit once you start the game?! Why is this extra work?

You would think so, but then you have things like the Yakuza 6 trial's initial demo time limit not working and people had access to the full game. Oops.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I've got 18 months of Psnow to go after the switch so I presume I'll be able to try this. It's not black and white in my eyes, I think it's basically a good idea if it stops people buying broken games like Cyberpunk and Battlefield, but developers who know they have such products will wait the three months, will it make people suspicious of games that don't offer launch availability?
Also some games don't click in that 2 hour window so some will lose sales the same as some will gain sales as people try games they wouldn't normally have purchased, so swings and roundabouts.
Once Devs are faced with this I can see MS doing the same and adding it to Gamepass Ultimate at some point for third party games not on the service day one.

We might see many of the big companies wait the three months regardless of what they think the response would be, just to avoid sending signals about their confidence levels. LOL Hopefully, they go the opposite direction and figure they better put it up day one as a show of confidence.

If this spreads everywhere it would be a massive pro-consumer shift. Amazing for cheap bastards too, because you can avoid any potential fomo buys or things that you knew probably weren't your thing but the graphics and the hype machine drew you in. If it proves profitable I can see MS, Nintendo, Steam, Epic etc. all falling in line.

 

[yurinka]

How about no need for any subscription at all for trying out games, like on Steam via refund policy?

This is not a demo, this is abusing a refund system and to steam 30% of the transaction to a dev every time you do it. Because when you pay the dev gets 70% of the transaction and when you refund the dev pays the 100%. Steam should ban the users who abuse this.

And well, according to the article Sony will continue allowing devs to make time limited game trials, demos or free weekends open to all players to thte devs who want to make them.

Sounds like a huge hassle for the developers.

There is none. Zero extra work required from there, but extra game sales from high payer users for free.

 

[Tomeru]

Im sorry for being dumb, but if the game is under the ps+p service, doesn't it mean I can just play it?

 

[nominedomine]

Could that mean the return of demos?

Also, setting 2h of trial could mean the beginning of the end for 5h games in the long run.

Why, people like to play just half a game?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Could that mean the return of demos?

Also, setting 2h of trial could mean the beginning of the end for 5h games in the long run.

5 hour games just need to stay under the price point to avoid the forced demo

 

[yurinka]

Im sorry for being dumb, but if the game is under the ps+p service, doesn't it mean I can just play it?

Full games included in PS+ Premium will be old games, game trials will be for new games:

• Over 700 OLD COMPLETE games from all generations of home PS consoles and PSP to stream or download (as exception no download for PS3 and during the first few months no streaming for PS5 games)
• At least 2 hours long demos or time limited game trials of every single futture 1st and 3rd party NEW (must be included there maximum 3 months after the game release) AAA game released on PS (and if the publisher desires it, smaller games too)

 

[DaGwaphics]

Why, people like to play just half a game?

Never underestimate backloggers. I'm still shocked when I get a "rare achievement" in a game that's been out for years, you hear the chime and the little diamond go off and are left thinking "for an achievement given for completing level 2"? Most hilarious one I've had is orbiting the mun being a rare achievement in KSP, WTF.

 

[iorek21]

5 hour games just need to stay under the price point to avoid the forced demo

Yeah, but I doubt that AAA studios would lower their prices because of that. Some publishers really like to throw short 60 dollar games up our asses (although I gotta say that this is becoming less common as of late).

 

[Ladioss]

I don't get the point of demos in 2022 when you can just adopt Steam's system of 2h refund on the complete game. It feels uselessly messy.

If there would be compensation for it, it would be stated.
But it isn't The stuff is under NDA, but you can start to publish games on PSN to see it for yourself.

Still a little annoyed about that. Asking devs for additionnal free labor without compensation just to help Sony sell Premium would be really crass.

 

[nominedomine]

Never underestimate backloggers. I'm still shocked when I get a "rare achievement" in a game that's been out for years, you hear the chime and the little diamond go off and are left thinking "for an achievement given for completing level 2"? Most hilarious one I've had is orbiting the mun being a rare achievement in KSP, WTF.

You made it to the moon in KSP? What a nerd.

 

[ReBurn]

Yeah butbmaybe is a way of sony avoiding the refund shitshow with some games. I mean bf and cp2077 was clusterfuck for everyone involved.

It should be free yes, but what can we do? They don't need to do it.

Sony already avoids the refund shitshow by just not allowing people to get refunds. They've only allowed refunds for those two games outside of places where laws force them to offer refunds for bad games.

If the new tiers came with the ability to get a refund for a bad game, or just not being charged until two hours after I started playing a game, I would be much more on board to pay for that kind of plan than one that forcing developers to create a guided experience that will probably hide the worst parts of their game, anyway.

 

[DaGwaphics]

You made it to the moon in KSP? What a nerd.

I have like 600 hours in that game on PC. LOL, I made it everywhere. Landing on Tylo was a bitch, and I never returned a craft from Eve, but oh well. Maybe in KSP 2.

 

[Heisenberg007]

From a purely competitive point of view, this also eliminates one advantage of Xbox Gamepass -- when people say "they have found so many games via Gamepass that they otherwise would not have found out."

But this improves upon that advantage 100x because that policy would apply to all games that release on PlayStation, not just the ones that are added to the subscription (which are usually 4-8 games per month at most.). At the same time, by increasing awareness among the public, Sony can pave way for more sales (assuming the game is good).

Something like the Guardians of the Galaxy could have really benefited from this.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

From a purely competitive point of view, this also eliminates one advantage of Xbox Gamepass -- when people say "they have found so many games via Gamepass that they otherwise would not have found out."

But this improves upon that advantage 100x because that policy would apply to all games that release on PlayStation, not just the ones that are added to the subscription (which are usually 4-8 games per month at most.). At the same time, by increasing awareness among the public, Sony can pave way for more sales (assuming the game is good).

Something like the Guardians of the Galaxy could have really benefited from this.

I agree its huge I just didn't plan on buying the top tier so I will miss out on it

It just should be on all tiers just find some other bonus for those paying for the top tiers

But yeah I have found several gems through GP I wouldn't have bought for myself

 

[DeepEnigma]

Because nobody gives a fuck about some shitty old games and streaming.

Spoiler

Some do when it's time to cheerlead an argument

I agree its huge I just didn't plan on buying the top tier so I will miss out on it

It just should be on all tiers just find some other bonus for those paying for the top tiers

But yeah I have found several gems through GP I wouldn't have bought for myself

Being on the top tier tells me they have incentive deals in place with publishers/developers.

 

[prinz_valium]

I don't get the point of demos in 2022 when you can just adopt Steam's system of 2h refund on the complete game. It feels uselessly messy.

Still a little annoyed about that. Asking devs for additionnal free labor without compensation just to help Sony sell Premium would be really crass.

Exactly. It's typical Sony. Want to have their cake and eat it, too.
They could make this a free service, but they don't. They could refund games if buggy, but they don't. They could give developers a choice and/or pay them for the demo, but they don't.

They only want stuff that benefits them and everyone else has to burden the work, costs ND risks.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They could give developers a choice and/or pay them for the demo, but they don't.

We have no clue if they're doing this or not. But...

Having it in the top tier points to it being incentive based, and devs have the option to do them outside the tier (non-incentive based). Sounds more logical.

I still think we are not getting the whole story, much like these little leaks always are at first glance.

 

[yurinka]

Still a little annoyed about that. Asking devs for additionnal free labor without compensation just to help Sony sell Premium would be really crass.

An OS level time limited full game trial doesn't require extra labor and we don't know if they are compensated or not for having their games there. And even if not compensated directly, Sony is giving them visibility among their high payer (so most valued for publishers) customers which would result on more game/DLC/MTX sales.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

So now explain how gamepass is supposed to increase sales when taking that into consideration. Take all the time you need to think, I'll wait.

Microsoft pays Game Developers a one off fee to publish their games on Xbox Game Pass for Console and PC.

You'll get 20% off games for Game Pass games and 10% off DLCs.

 

[GHG]

Microsoft pays Game Developers a one off fee to publish their games on Xbox Game Pass for Console and PC.

You'll get 20% off games for Game Pass games and 10% off DLCs.

Yeh all of that helps game sales but trials do nothing but decrease sales. Gamepass good, game trials bad.

Got it.

 

[Filben]

This is not a demo, this is abusing a refund system and to steam 30% of the transaction to a dev every time you do it. Because when you pay the dev gets 70% of the transaction and when you refund the dev pays the 100%. Steam should ban the users who abuse this.

I think Steam and big publisher has responsibility in this because they got the leverage and money (for me, spending +50 bucks on a game is considerable in terms of relative cost to my income). They shouldn't keep those 30% of the price when it got refunded. It could also be avoided if there had been proper demos.

Also, Steam gives the option that says something like "The game isn't how I thought it would be" or "I don't like it" or something along those lines. And as someone who's country's laws usually grant you a 14 day return policy for many digitally ordered goods, this is a certain standard I expect.

Most companies are earning already big times. They should back this up by quality products I don't want to return.

But I think this is an entirely different discussion for another topic.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Further confirmation:

Translation: "I take this opportunity to refine a subject: I have confirmation that by default the future PS+ Premium limited time trial program will not impose additional work on the studios. The devs provide the usual full game, Playstation takes care of generating the trial version."

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

This is just another way Sony plans to compete with game pass.

When their games are $70 the least they could do is provide these game trials. The only issue now is these trials shouldn’t only be available for PS Plus subscribers, it would be for everyone. Especially the $70 games.

 

[yurinka]

I think Steam and big publisher has responsibility in this because they got the leverage and money (for me, spending +50 bucks on a game is considerable in terms of relative cost to my income). They shouldn't keep those 30% of the price when it got refunded. It could also be avoided if there had been proper demos.

Also, Steam gives the option that says something like "The game isn't how I thought it would be" or "I don't like it" or something along those lines. And as someone who's country's laws usually grant you a 14 day return policy for many digitally ordered goods, this is a certain standard I expect.

Most companies are earning already big times. They should back this up by quality products I don't want to return.

But I think this is an entirely different discussion for another topic.

Refunds are (or should) to return stuff that doesn't work or it's an insulting crap. Not to use them to test products or use them for free.

Specially when by doing so the publisher/dev loses money every time is done because they don't refund only the part of the transaction they got, but also the part that the platform holder got.

Only a couple of dozen companies earn big times. The insane majority of devs and publishers don't make much money or at least not enough to have profit due to shits like this one (others are lack of visibility, huge revenue cut taken by platform holders etc).

 

[ReBurn]

Yeh all of that helps game sales but trials do nothing but decrease sales. Gamepass good, game trials bad.

Got it.

I wonder if Sony is going to pay developers when people play game trials that they are making to support the subscription service. Hopefully developers get paid for their effort if people who play the trial don't buy the game.

 

[Topher]

I wonder if Sony is going to pay developers when people play game trials that they are making to support the subscription service. Hopefully developers get paid for their effort if people who play the trial don't buy the game.

There is no effort on the developers part. Sony creates the trial version.

 

[reksveks]

There is no effort on the developers part. Sony creates the trial version.

Whilst true of the trial, still think devs should get paid especially if they can't opt out of the service. Otherwise it seems like Sony are just increasing their money/margin and devs are taking the risk.

 

[ReBurn]

There is no effort on the developers part. Sony creates the trial version.

As in they're letting people try the full game for two hours? Or they're dicing up the game to make the trial?

 

[Topher]

Whilst true of the trial, still think devs should get paid especially if they can't opt out of the service. Otherwise it seems like Sony are just increasing their money/margin and devs are taking the risk.

I disagree. Sony doesn't force the devs to allow trials at launch and Sony does all the work. A timed trial after launch is like a free promotion that the developer did not have to create. The risk, at that point, is minimal.

As in they're letting people try the full game for two hours? Or they're dicing up the game to make the trial?

The full game is available for whatever you can do in two hours.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Further confirmation:

You mean the fake outrage just became even more embarrassing?

 

[NickFire]

Whilst true of the trial, still think devs should get paid especially if they can't opt out of the service. Otherwise it seems like Sony are just increasing their money/margin and devs are taking the risk.

What risk are they taking that makes them sympathetic? Seems to me their only risk is not being able to swindle people as easily on bad games.

 

[kyliethicc]

As in they're letting people try the full game for two hours? Or they're dicing up the game to make the trial?

Full game.

They tested this earlier in the UK.

Sony is offering free trials of Death Stranding and Sackboy in the UK

The trials are available until October 28th.

www.theverge.com

And they did this with Cyberpunk last month.

 

[ReBurn]

I disagree. Sony doesn't force the devs to allow trials at launch and Sony does all the work. A timed trial after launch is like a free promotion that the developer did not have to create. The risk, at that point, is minimal.



The full game is available for whatever you can do in two hours.

Ah ok. No effort for the dev, but Sony gets subscription revenue to potentially turn people off from buying new games. I disagree with your assessment that the risk to the developer is minimal. Devs depend on customers having to pay before finding out that their games suck. While I'm a fan of being able to try first some developers are going to lose sales. But that's kind of ok with me.

 

[Topher]

Ah ok. No effort for the dev, but Sony gets subscription revenue to potentially turn people off from buying new games. I disagree with your assessment that the risk to the developer is minimal. Devs depend on customers having to pay before finding out that their games suck. While I'm a fan of being able to try first some developers are going to lose sales. But that's kind of ok with me.

There is just as much potential to turn people on to a game as there is turning them off from a game. And I say the risk is minimal due to the fact that the developer does not have submit to the timed trial until up to three months after release. If devs are smart then they will time their trail with a promotion or sale. They can turn this into a positive.

 

[kyliethicc]

Ah ok. No effort for the dev, but Sony gets subscription revenue to potentially turn people off from buying new games. I disagree with your assessment that the risk to the developer is minimal. Devs depend on customers having to pay before finding out that their games suck. While I'm a fan of being able to try first some developers are going to lose sales. But that's kind of ok with me.

Many people won’t spent $70 to see if they like a game.

But if they can try it first, they might decide to buy it.

Some who try it won’t buy, sure, but many of them were never going to buy it anyway.

It can go both ways.

 

[mckmas8808]

But for real, the user you quoted said a valid point and probably the bigger issue people have raised in the topic.

No it's a stupid point in my mind. Because game trials isn't something that's standard with any of the big 3. So needing this highest tier sub to get something that NO ONE is offering makes sense. Sony would need MS and Nintendo (at the very least MS) to offer game trials for free or for a lower fee, for it to make Sony look bad.

As is.........most gamers don't remember a time when demos were free. Just us 35+ year olds.

 

[jaysius]

Further confirmation:

Confirmation in the form of some random french independent journalist.

This "TeamTakesNoEffort" is starting to look worse than that awful not Silent Hill thread.

Not every dev wants the first 2 hours shown. It's not as simple as you people think.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Ah ok. No effort for the dev, but Sony gets subscription revenue to potentially turn people off from buying new games. I disagree with your assessment that the risk to the developer is minimal. Devs depend on customers having to pay before finding out that their games suck. While I'm a fan of being able to try first some developers are going to lose sales. But that's kind of ok with me.

If it's true that a study shows more demos/trials = less sales because gamers think the game is shit, that's fine by me. More demos and trials the better.

It's on devs to make a good game, as opposed to buyer beware tactics of the games industry. One of the few that doesn't allow refunds unless you call customer service and hope they refund your digital copy. Physical games youre shit out of luck.

As for devs crying gamers will refund a game after they beat it, too bad. It's not like a 2 hour trial is going to have anyone coming close to beating any game unless it's an indie game. And this $34 whole/$45 retail threshold excludes all those small scale games. So the only devs who have to worry are ones who make big budget games that are shit or short games at about $45 US.

Believe it or not, you can even refund a book to a bookstore. As long as it's not tattered, you can technically plow through a novel over a weekend and refund it as long as it's still in good condition.

 

[reksveks]

I disagree. Sony doesn't force the devs to allow trials at launch and Sony does all the work. A timed trial after launch is like a free promotion that the developer did not have to create. The risk, at that point, is minimal.

At launch, no but there is a forced trial after 3 month that devs have to allow/take without recompense.

There is still a risk however minimal (I can agree that that it is probably) and the devs are the ones who are taking it.

I don't like the principle of Sony or any platform holder being able to force this on devs/publishers.

I am interested to see how this plays out.

 

[DenchDeckard]

If Sony is doing all the work then no stress. I don't see what the issue is.

Make a good game, get sales.

 

[mckmas8808]

I just saw it mentioned that if it is a trial you might end up having to download a full game and have 2 hours to play it. At least with a demo it would be smaller and most likely wouldn't need a time limit either.

I am really struggling to see the value here especially since I'd have to pay for the highest tier of Sony's service. Couple that with the fact that it could be up to three months after a title comes out before the trial is even active it looks more and more like this shouldn't cost money or at the very least be on the LOWEST tier of PS+ not the top.

Do you guys realize that the highest tier cost $10 a month? Like......who we fooling? Some of yall are acting as if Sony is asking people to pay $20 a month just for this feature alone. It's only "ONE" of the features of the $10 a month tier! The value is in the full offering of that $10 a month tier. Not any one feature.

 

[ReBurn]

Many people won’t spent $70 to see if they like a game.

But if they can try it first, they might decide to buy it.

Some who try it won’t buy, sure, but many of them were never going to buy it anyway.

It can go both ways.

X doubt

Cyberpunk 2077 and Call of Duty proves that people will spend full price to see if they like a game and then they will complain bitterly and demand refunds when they don't. There are tons of morons on this website that still preorder games in the year 2022.

It's sketchy that people have to subscribe to try before they buy, but I guess it minimizes the collateral damage to bad developers as opposed to just letting everyone try everything for two hours. Which is what they should really do.

 

[Topher]

At launch, no but there is a forced trial after 3 month that devs have to allow/take without recompense.

There is still a risk however minimal (I can agree that that it is probably) and the devs are the ones who are taking it.

I don't like the principle of Sony or any platform holder being able to force this on devs/publishers.

I am interested to see how this plays out.

I would think Sony has already pitched this idea to publishers beforehand rather than just sending out a mandate without feedback. The selling point being Sony would take on the task of creating the trial. I'd bet publishers are going to turn the availability of the timed trial for their game into a promoted event. Since the sales rates of most games plummet after the first few weeks, I can actually see this being a positive from their standpoint. If publishers are unhappy with this there is nothing preventing them from voicing their displeasure. So yeah....if this doesn't turn out well then I'm sure we will hear about it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If Sony. I don't see what the issue is.

Sony

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I would think Sony has already pitched this idea to publishers beforehand rather than just sending out a mandate without feedback. The selling point being Sony would take on the task of creating the trial. I'd bet publishers are going to turn the availability of the timed trial for their game into a promoted event. Since the sales rates of most games plummet after the first few weeks, I can actually see this being a positive from their standpoint. If publishers are unhappy with this there is nothing preventing them from voicing their displeasure. So yeah....if this doesn't turn out well then I'm sure we will hear about it.

I dont see how this trial can be bad for any game maker unless it's such a shit game the dev purposely wants to prevent gamers testing it in hopes millions of gamers buy it blind on day one. Not exactly ethical. It's only a 2 hour trials for higher budget/priced games, Sony is doing the work, and it's not like 2 hours is enough time to beat a game or come close to it.

If anything devs should be happy.

The key excuses devs make (or gamers make for them) about demos/trials is 1. It's some kind of monumental costly task to make. 2. It's a demo/trial of a year old beta build. Well, those two issues are solved. Sony is doing the work and it's the final game.

A lot of game makers put out their own beta/trials anyway a month or two before launch. So this new process gives gamers a test of the final game.