Topher
Gold Member
I find it very odd that a guy who is a professional in the industry isn't asking more questions rather than expressing outright negativity and sarcasm with no more details about this than anyone else.
Last edited:
They learned it from the best. Why give something away for free if you can charge for it and people won't think twice about paying for it?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.
There is so much shit out there right now about pissed off publishers, IDK why you keep doubling down on this.
Again you are missing the point about defaults but let's move onThe "no risk" outcome is the same.
I find it very odd that a guy who is professional in the industry isn't asking more questions rather than expressing outright negativity and sarcasm with no more details about this than anyone else.
Actually, this is a good point you're missing as well.Again you are missing the point about defaults but let's move on
You're assuming that people would rather spend $60 first and then get a refund later. Rather than pay nothing upfront, play the game for 2 hours, and just not buy the game if they don't like it.
If I understand you correctly, you are talking about corporations preying on people being less likely to ask for a refund even if they don't like something.Again you are missing the point about defaults but let's move on
There is so much shit out there right now about pissed off publishers
In that sense it's an improvement, I would accept this on Steam as a replacement for what we currently have (obviously not behind a paywall). Just ask for the person to agree that by not participating in the trial he is waving his two hours refund window, it simplify things and it works great against the pre-order practice that I don't see as a good thing for digital goods anyway.You're assuming that people would rather spend $60 first and then get a refund later. Rather than pay nothing upfront, play the game for 2 hours, and just not buy the game if they don't like it.
If those 2 hour trials were free I'd completely agree with you. Historically trials/demos didn't cost money as you acknowledged so it's not great to change that. Making it a requirement doesn't really sound like an amazing deal for the developers either. So customers are paying for something that was free and developers are offering something they may not have bothered with in the first place. I CAN certainly see the benefit for Sony and perhaps that is what some care the most about.Why would you as a consumer avoid a platform over a feature that nets you the user 2hr trial of every major title? Trials and demos don't cost money but the majority of developers don't provide it. This makes it a platform requirement for major publishers and studios. You as a consumer lose nothing as that same demo can be provided for free to everyone by the developers.
I find it very odd that a guy who is a professional in the industry isn't asking more questions rather than expressing outright negativity and sarcasm with no more details about this than anyone else.
Ya think he's being sarcastic here cause he's getting tired of being bombarded by keyboard analysts over twitter ?
I’ll give you a hint! Don’t bother. There’s a pattern here. ExamplesThen they can choose to not release the game on Playstation. That is an option. I think it'll be less than 5% of devs and publishers that will find this to be an actual issue. Only trolls and fanboys will find issues with this. You can see the logical breaking apart in this very thread.
1. Some trolls complain that it's behind a paywall and it only has access to a small "VIP" group of people
2. Some trolls say it'll hurt devs because they'll lose too much money
Well......which one is it? Is it too niche or will it be too widely accepted by gamers? Make up your minds!
I haven't trusted this dude since he tried to push the narrative that Gamepass makes people buy more games. I'll never believe this shit, doesn't make any sense to me, so he just came off as very untrustworthy pushing PR spins.I’ll give you a hint! Don’t bother. There’s a pattern here. Examples
Tossing money at big publishers and devs to be on the service - good
Making a showcase presentation of indies - bad
Taking out twitter from your console os - good
Dev disables twitter account - bad
Service with trials that could be a good thing for consumers - bad
And so on. It’s like we as a collective are asking to be screw over and over by these big corporations.
A demo created by a developer or publisher is made specifically as an advertisement to entice consumers to try the game and possibly could lead to a sale. This requires some work on the developer's end and the majority of developers don't bother with this because regular video ads and gameplay videos, twitch streams serve that purpose.If those 2 hour trials were free I'd completely agree with you.
Nothing is changing, developers still can provide demos just like they always had the ability to. As far as I'm aware nothing stops them from using this feature to provide a free trial outside of the PS+ sub. Sony did it from Sackboy and Death Stranding.Historically trials/demos didn't cost money as you acknowledged so it's not great to change that.
I am not a developer, I am a consumer and this benefits me. This does not even affect developers, it more concerns publishers and their relationship with Sony. No developer has to do any work to implement this.Making it a requirement doesn't really sound like an amazing deal for the developers either.
There is no current platform that provides a free 2hr trial of all major games currently. If you subscribe to the service you get free trial just like EA offers 8hrs? of their games, if you sub to EA Play.So customers are paying for something that was free and developers are offering something they may not have bothered with in the first place. I CAN certainly see the benefit for Sony and perhaps that is what some care the most about.
For me anything that is written on twitter, I immediately assume is an irrelevant opinion or marketing PR.I haven't trusted this dude since he tried to push the narrative that Gamepass makes people buy more games. I'll never believe this shit, doesn't make any sense to me, so he just came off as very untrustworthy pushing PR spins.
He got relevant by supposedly being a guy that would just put out numbers.
A trial shouldn't cost any money at all. Also unless Sony allows for streaming of these trial games it would be quite cumbersome to download a full 50+GB title to play it for 2 hours. This should be part of the baseline PS+ Essential at most.
"Baked into the OS"
Gald to hear Sony is doing the work internally.
A voice of reason, someone with a little clout that understands what all this means.
"Baked into the OS"
Gald to hear Sony is doing the work internally.
"Baked into the OS"
Gald to hear Sony is doing the work internally.
EA Play trials are 10 hours long too.Dude...EA Play already has trials on PS5. This isn't something new.
But wasn't one of the reasons for the push for subscription that it was good for publisher? Can't have it both ways.The more I think of this the more I hate it. It is Sony requiring demos but using that to entice people into buying their service which is something that actually competes with publishers of games not on the service.
Dude...EA Play already has trials on PS5. This isn't something new.
He posted that sarcastic tweet immediately in line with the previous ones and it wasn't in response to anyone. Either way, he is supposed to be a professional.
The feature is already there as evidenced by the existing trials on the store and through EA Play.
But please keep going.
Dude...EA Play already has trials on PS5. This isn't something new.
Dude...EA Play already has trials on PS5. This isn't something new.
A trial shouldn't cost any money at all. Also unless Sony allows for streaming of these trial games it would be quite cumbersome to download a full 50+GB title to play it for 2 hours. This should be part of the baseline PS+ Essential at most.
EA Play's trials are 10 hours long, and they're on the lower tier of their subscription service where the higher tier straight up gives full access to the game.
This (PS Now) is relegated to the highest tier of their sub service and the two lower tiers are shit out of luck.
EA creates the trials as part of their subs, I am not saying its something new, I am saying it takes labor.
The idea that there are like two of you in here that think this isn't going to take any labor blows my mind and I am done trying to convince you.
EA Play's trials are 10 hours long, and they're on the lower tier of their subscription service where the higher tier straight up gives full access to the game.
This (PS Now) is relegated to the highest tier of their sub service and the two lower tiers are shit out of luck.
That's not what is being discussed. Not at all.
There's a 28~ minute gap between his original tweet with the news and him saying this will receive pushback from publishers and the next tweets where he's sarcastically saying 'but please tell me how publishers work'. 28 minutes may as well be an eternity on twitter.
That's not what is being discussed. Not at all.
It could be an hour and it doesn't matter. He posted three tweets in those minutes and none of them were in response to a tweet from anyone else.
Maybe because there a difference between a platform holder and a single developer doing this policy? I can easily avoid EA titles as a whole. A lot harder to avoid the entire PlayStation ecosystem. Generally as a rule of thumb trials/demos don't cost money.
Y'all keep changing what the active discussion point is so frequently.
From what I can see the two main points are that 1/ the trials are locked behind the highest tier and the lower tiers get nothing and 2/ forced trials would probably piss off publishers.
For point 2, the comparison with EA Play is still a bit irrelevant as EA Play trials are EA's choice on their own published games, they're not making every publisher to do that.
-
The one remedy for point 2 is that/if Sony is taking full ownership of creating 'trial' time gates on games and letting people download them and locking after the two hour is over, but that still leaves the other issue of this being locked behind the highest tier of their sub service. Value adding, yes, but they're basically locking demos behind a paywall no matter how anyone wants to paint it.
I find it very odd that a guy who is a professional in the industry isn't asking more questions rather than expressing outright negativity and sarcasm with no more details about this than anyone else.
You are aware that multiple threads of discussion can happen in a single thread right? Neither of those things you've decided to write paragraphs about are being discussed in either of the posts you previously quoted. If you want to discuss what you're writing about then find the appropriate posts and quote those.
It's one of Sony's most gamer friendly things that they've come up with in the last 5 years and it's some of the "gamers" that are upset about it. Weird.....