Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

These fanboys should try and be more consistent with their pro consumer narrative.

If this is MS you just know this boy is throwing a party.

 

[DeepEnigma]

MS: "People that subscribe to Gamepass buy more games!"

Gamepass suporter: "It's true, I honestly just use Gamepass to sample games but I still buy them if I like them."

Jimbo: "I'd like to announce a new feature. Trials."

Gamepass/Steam supporter: "This will hurt publishers and developers."

Everyone is shocked.

FTFY

 

[Topher]

We could get into the conversation about the fact that twitter accounts are used for both professional and personal opinions and the whole "these opinions are my own" .

Edited cause he does basically repeat my position.

I get your point on the "opinions are my own". I do think he could be more professional in how he portrays his opinion.

 

[GHG]

That's a nice idea but there's a bit of a problem there: what if I play the game via a trail digitally, but then decide I just want to buy it physically? If the financial incentive for publishers is tied through me clicking to buy the game through the trail then I can just easily skirt around it and buy a copy at Best Buy or whatever, and that kickback for the publisher is now lost.

In that case you'd still buying a game that you wouldn't have without the trial so it would be seen as a net win for the publisher. Not as good as you just following through and purchasing digitally (if there is a reduction in the fee) but the outcome is still far better than you just overlooking the game entirely.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's a nice idea but there's a bit of a problem there: what if I play the game via a trail digitally, but then decide I just want to buy it physically? If the financial incentive for publishers is tied through me clicking to buy the game through the trail then I can just easily skirt around it and buy a copy at Best Buy or whatever, and that kickback for the publisher is now lost.

You could even kind of cheese that digitally, if it's required I would have to click a button to purchase the game from that trail version downloaded. What if I can just delete that version, go to the marketplace and buy it regularly outside of the trail? What if there's nothing set up by Sony to track access to trails by user account?

Some of this is probably exaggerated; like I wouldn't expect them to not have a means of tracking users even if they delete the trail version of a game and just buy from the marketplace regularly. But it's just some examples where that way alone as a financial incentivization might not be enough. There IS another way that could work alongside it but, it's been said too many times already.

Great point in the bolded. I also think "secretly" this is motivation for Sony to get more gamers to buy games digitally too. I'm not sure how publishers will feel about the scenario that you just brought up. I'd like to know (we will NEVER know), how many gamers would play the digital game trial and then buy the game physically.

It has to be less than 10% right?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I also think "secretly" this is motivation for Sony to get more gamers to buy games digitally too.

 

[Ezekiel_]

I guess you shouldn't be allowed to try on clothes before buying, because you might change your mind...

This is a win for consumers and the big publishers will think twice before putting out a crappy full-priced product.

Ultimately, Sony gains from more software sales on their platform, so if they are doing this, they probably think it will lead to more sales.

 

[reksveks]

Actually, the consumer should have control of those decisions.

If they want it, provide it. Does he have the same energy for Steam's 2 hour refund? Should the content holder have that decision?

End consumers ? How far does that principle go? all the way to price?

 

[adamsapple]

You're right that's why people were up in arms about it when it was officially announced

Oh wait. They still weren't

Don't know what kind of up in arms are you expecting, but this thread, Matt's comments and comments from folks elsewhere are pretty telling. This isn't being received as universally well as you'd imagine.

Besides, this isn't even officially announced to publishers yet going by some other tweets. It's still unofficial.

These fanboys should try and be more consistent with their pro consumer narrative.

If this is MS you just know this boy is throwing a party.

Ah, Matt is an MS fanboy now, we've reached the logical conclusion of this discussion.

You know it’s a good idea if Xbox fans are all up in arms about it.

Nevermind, carry on then warrior

MS: "People that subscribe to Gamepass buy more games!"

Gamepass suporter: "It's true, I honestly just use Gamepass to sample games but I still buy them if I like them."

Jimbo: "I'd like to announce a new feature behind a paywall. Trials."

Everyone is shocked.

There is a history of years worth of collected data on game pass, there is nothing of the sort on this new feature yet.

We'll know for sure in a couple of years when Sony start revealing the pertinent information like MS does.

 

[DeepEnigma]

End consumers ? How far does that principle go? all the way to price?

Why not?

They have sales, don't they? Relatively quickly too. What does that tell you?

 

[Vognerful]

I really don't think Sony are or will be providing incentive to publishers to post trials; I think they will just use their position as market leader and influence. I mean for a company that charges publishers for enabling crossplay, I really don't see them parting away with ith money.

 

[mckmas8808]

We could get into the conversation about the fact that twitter accounts are used for both professional and personal opinions and the whole "these opinions are my own" .

Edited cause he does basically repeat my position.

The content holder does have control over that though. Either price your game under $60 retail or don't put it on Playstation. Nobody is "forcing" publishers to do anything.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I really don't think Sony are or will be providing incentive to publishers to post trials; I think they will just use their position as market leader and influence. I mean for a company that charges publishers for enabling crossplay, I really don't see them parting away with ith money.

So are we on board for a win for consumers or nah?

 

[adamsapple]

My assumption is that Sony is using that PS Premium money and giving it to these publishers on a "Click through Purchase" type of way. GHG has done a great job showing us what it looks like with EA's game trials stuff. When the time runs out the gamer can quickly and easily purchase the game on the PS Store. Or they can buy it before the time runs out.

Plus it's a legit value add because it'll give publishers and devs more bites at the apple to convert potential buyers into actual buyers. There are many times today where a publishers best time to pitch a game to gamers is on pre-order hype or the first few weeks the game comes out. But with this, they can create multiple waves of potential buyers. Plus, people need to realize that it's a 2 hour minimum. A publisher can make it longer if they like.

There's a couple of caveats to that, EA Play members get at least a 10% discount if they want to convert the trial to a full game, we have not heard anything about this service offering the same. So you're still left with paying full retail price for the game even after sampling the trial.

Secondly like I said before, EA Play is just one publisher making trials of their own games, this is requiring every game regardless of publisher to do that based on what the games whole sale price is.

And finally, in so many cases a player can just as easily play a 2 to x length hour trial and think "Yeah I think I've got what I needed" and not buy the game. That's a sale less, not a sale more.

I get the EA play comparison on paper, but they're extremely different in practice.

 

[Topher]

I really don't think Sony are or will be providing incentive to publishers to post trials; I think they will just use their position as market leader and influence. I mean for a company that charges publishers for enabling crossplay, I really don't see them parting away with ith money.

Sony does not charge publishers for enabling crossplay.

 

[FrankWza]

Is anyone else super surprised that DarkMage619 has a problem with it? Or is it just me?

I almost peed out of my butt. Thankfully I enabled vrr and things seemed to have smoothed out for me.

 

[reksveks]

The content holder does have control over that though. Either price your game under $60 retail or don't put it on Playstation. Nobody is "forcing" publishers to do anything.

That's why I find this interesting. I wonder if anyone complains enough or stands up to Playstation here. I agree they do have a choice, but it is a choice that is being forced onto them and not one that they would like to make.

I am off to play Road 96 anyways.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony does not charge publishers for enabling crossplay.

They can, and do, on a case by case basis.

Sony can charge publishers for cross-play compensation, Epic Games reveal in court | TheSixthAxis

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney has revealed that Sony can extract compensation from game publishers that implement cross-play in their video games, though

www.thesixthaxis.com

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney has revealed that Sony can extract compensation from game publishers that implement cross-play in their video games, though this only comes into effect in certain circumstances.

 

[Fafalada]

Either way, I don't think asking on twitter is probably going to be the way to get answers, I think it would have to be behind the scenes.

It's utterly lopsided/nonsense argument though.
When exactly did subscription services become forced participation? I mean users would probably rejoice if they did (imagine 100% of library on GamePass), but they clearly aren't - content owners are 100% in control here.

 

[mckmas8808]

I remember when articles about Guardians of the Galaxy was on GamePass that said "the Game has found it's footing". The devs themselves wanted people to know that people were now "Playing" GOTG due to GamePass, whereas before it was being overlooked completely (even though it reviewed well).

Yes, here's that article....

https://www.thegamer.com/marvels-gu...nding-its-audience-after-xbox-game-pass-deal/



How will this "NOT" be the same thing, just for more games?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Don't know what kind of up in arms are you expecting, but this thread, Matt's comments and comments from folks elsewhere are pretty telling. This isn't being received as universally well as you'd like

I expect consistency with this blatant concern trolling

I'm talking about the paywall, not the forced dev thing. Read man, read.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I remember when articles about Guardians of the Galaxy was on GamePass that said "the Game has found it's footing". The devs themselves wanted people to know that people were now "Playing" GOTG due to GamePass, whereas before it was being overlooked completely (even though it reviewed well).

Yes, here's that article....

https://www.thegamer.com/marvels-gu...nding-its-audience-after-xbox-game-pass-deal/



How will this "NOT" be the same thing, just for more games?

I think its a step in the right direction just should be on all tiers

And have seen people compare it to Steams 2 hour refund policy but I dont pay Steam yearly to allow me to do that

 

[Topher]

They can, and do, on a case by case basis.

Sony can charge publishers for cross-play compensation, Epic Games reveal in court | TheSixthAxis

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney has revealed that Sony can extract compensation from game publishers that implement cross-play in their video games, though

www.thesixthaxis.com

That isn't a charge for "enabling crossplay". Sony expects a payout if the threshold of gameplay on PSN exceeds the revenue generated by a certain margin. Basically, if PSN is where gamers are playing the game but some other platform is where they are spending their money then Sony expects to be compensated since their resources are the ones being used. And even then they allow a 15% variance in favor of the other platform.

 

[DarkMage619]

I remember when articles about Guardians of the Galaxy was on GamePass that said "the Game has found it's footing". The devs themselves wanted people to know that people were now "Playing" GOTG due to GamePass, whereas before it was being overlooked completely (even though it reviewed well).

Yes, here's that article....

https://www.thegamer.com/marvels-gu...nding-its-audience-after-xbox-game-pass-deal/



How will this "NOT" be the same thing, just for more games?

First off I don't see how this will be for more games when there is a price limit near $60. Secondly Game pass is a paid service that gets you access to complete games without a 2 hour time limit. Third Game pass is completely voluntary and devs are compensated for being on the service. I don't think paid trials and Game pass are the same thing at all.

 

[mckmas8808]

There's a couple of caveats to that, EA Play members get at least a 10% discount if they want to convert the trial to a full game, we have not heard anything about this service offering the same. So you're still left with paying full retail price for the game even after sampling the trial.

Secondly like I said before, EA Play is just one publisher making trials of their own games, this is requiring every game regardless of publisher to do that based on what the games whole sale price is.

And finally, in so many cases a player can just as easily play a 2 to x length hour trial and think "Yeah I think I've got what I needed" and not buy the game. That's a sale less, not a sale more.

I get the EA play comparison on paper, but they're extremely different in practice.

- But PS Premium is not "just" about the game trials. And with that sub you do actually get a discount off of games in general, just maybe not the games you demo. Don't forget this is part of a larger service. It's not "THE" service.
- Or a gamer could play a game for 2 hours and think, "Yeah I need more of that crack in my veins" and buy the game. Not sure why the narrative needs to be that people will most not buy a game if they test it out first. Why ever allow the public to play games at E3, Gamescom, PAX-West, PAX, East, TGS, etc?

 

[DeepEnigma]

First off I don't see how this will be for more games when there is a price limit near $60.

It will be for every third party and first party AAA. The games most pay attention to.

Stop being so disingenuous.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think its a step in the right direction just should be on all tiers

And have seen people compare it to Steams 2 hour refund policy but I dont pay Steam yearly to allow me to do that

Steam's "refund policy" forces the gamer to buy the $60 game first. So there is an upfront cost to that also. It's just a cost that you are used to and comfortable with.

 

[adamsapple]

I expect consistency with this blatant concern trolling

I'm talking about the paywall, not the forced dev thing. Read man, read.

When it was first announced, the expectation/leak wasn't that *all games above $40* would be required to have trials.

All of us assumed the trials would be for Sony first party stuff.

There's no concern trolling, just discussion based on this, as of yet unofficial, thing and reacting based on the little info we have.

I remember when articles about Guardians of the Galaxy was on GamePass that said "the Game has found it's footing". The devs themselves wanted people to know that people were now "Playing" GOTG due to GamePass, whereas before it was being overlooked completely (even though it reviewed well).

Yes, here's that article....

https://www.thegamer.com/marvels-gu...nding-its-audience-after-xbox-game-pass-deal/

How will this "NOT" be the same thing, just for more games?

Well, for starters, the GoTG thing happened after the game had completely run out its sales cycle, secondly the full game was on offer, not just a small 2~ hour slice so people were engaging with the game in its entirety and participating in discussion on social media. The engaged user metrics is what 'found its footing' means IMO.

A trial/demo would not have that effect or outcome.

I think its a step in the right direction just should be on all tiers

And have seen people compare it to Steams 2 hour refund policy but I dont pay Steam yearly to allow me to do that

Exactly.

Either that, or it's high time the major digital storefronts introduced a more robust refund/return policy.

- But PS Premium is not "just" about the game trials. And with that sub you do actually get a discount off of games in general, just maybe not the games you demo. Don't forget this is part of a larger service. It's not "THE" service.
- Or a gamer could play a game for 2 hours and think, "Yeah I need more of that crack in my veins" and buy the game. Not sure why the narrative needs to be that people will most not buy a game if they test it out first. Why ever allow the public to play games at E3, Gamescom, PAX-West, PAX, East, TGS, etc?

1. For the first, you're right PS + does have discounts but they're not universal to everything on the service to the best of my knowledge. Unlike EA Play (or even Game Pass based on everything that's on that service at any given time).

2. Sure either case is just as likely, we can't say for certain how each individual player may react after playing a trial. Stage demos I wouldn't put in this as they are almost always work in progress stuff and not really a part of the final retail game, and often aren't even from the beginning of the game. They're just vertical slices out of context.

 

[Topher]

Playstation continues to be the worst gaming platform for both consumer and developers.
But it's a good platform for Sony shareholders

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

When it was first announced, the expectation/leak wasn't that *all games above $40* would be required to have trials.

All of us assumed the trials would be for Sony first party stuff.

There's no concern trolling, just discussion based on this, as of yet unofficial, thing and reacting based on the little info we have.

Once again, the subject i'm talking about is the paywall. Which was confirmed months ago. Whether it's just for first party or third party is irrelevent.

You really do struggle with reading huh?

 

[GHG]

Steam's "refund policy" forces the gamer to buy the $60 game first. So there is an upfront cost to that also. It's just a cost that you are used to and comfortable with.

It's also worth noting that with Steam refunds you can get a warning and then barred from refunds if they see that you're frequently playing games up to the 2 hour time limit and then refunding. It exists for the purpose of consumer protection, not to be abused.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

MS: "People that subscribe to Gamepass buy more games!"

Gamepass suporter: "It's true, I honestly just use Gamepass to sample games but I still buy them if I like them."

Jimbo: "I'd like to announce a new feature behind a paywall. Trials."

Everyone is shocked.

The difference is, Microsoft pays devs to publish their games on Game Pass, while Sony is forcing them to put games on PS Premium with 2 hour trials without giving them a penny. Sony is profiting, not devs.

 

[Craig of War]

If the Publisher wants you to have access to the trial, then sure, you won’t need premium.

Sony is just *requiring* it for premium subscribers. The devs make the trial available - they can give the trial to whoever they like and the statement this thread is based on explicitly says that.

So Sony isn’t locking it behind a paywall, the publishers are if they choose to only do the bare minimum Sony require.

If Sony said devs could only offer to trials to premium subs, you’d have a point. Which you don’t …

It seem your just guessing lol anyone listen to you without a single shread of proof
is in for a rude awakening more info since then have come out
that Sony themself may offer the trial themself and that
no work from devs are needed if that is true it will be locked
behind Premium for sure no way Sony does it for free
no company do anything for free they need to make a money return

 

[FrankWza]

Steam's "refund policy" forces the gamer to buy the $60 game first. So there is an upfront cost to that also. It's just a cost that you are used to and comfortable with.

Yeah. I have read plenty of posts complaining about PlayStation refund policy and this helps there. As far as it being on the highest tier, the tweet a page back claims that Sony is doing the work to get the demos added. Doesn’t stop developers from putting demo’s up if they want on lower tiers. Demos have been scarce for some time now.
This may give them a push in that regard at least.
If the numbers come in after a while and indicate a potential sales boost then devs can add demos to the lower tiers. If it’s detrimental to sales then they can rest easy knowing it’s exposed only to the highest tier and what is already,theoretically, the bigger spending consumers anyway.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

It's also worth noting that with Steam refunds you can get a warning and then barred from refunds if they see that you're frequently playing games up to the 2 hour time limit and then refunding. It exists for the purpose of consumer protection, not to be abused.

Huge difference

I only use Steam as intended and have only refunded a few games in my life

Demos I would download the shit out of much like I do on Gamepass

But again I just felt it should be on all tiers but maybe incentivize the top tier with a larger discount of then buying the game or something

 

[remember_spinal]

The difference is, Microsoft pays devs to publish their games on Game Pass, while Sony is forcing them to put games on PS Premium with 2 hour trials without giving them a penny. Sony is profiting, not devs.

And you know this how?

Everyone who’s not a console warrior can see through the fake concern here. You guys aren’t really fooling anyone

 

[GHG]

Huge difference

I only use Steam as intended and have only refunded a few games in my life

Demos I would download the shit out of much like I do on Gamepass

But again I just felt it should be on all tiers but maybe incentivize the top tier with a larger discount of then buying the game or something

Yep, I think it's something that should be on all tiers as well. It's just worth outlining the difference between what is being proposed here vs what is essentially a refund policy. With the PS+ thing you can abuse these trials till your heart's content and nobody is going to tell you to stop - I guess that's what you're paying for.

Although if Sony were to turn round and implement exactly what Steam is offering instead of this then I'd say that's a huge win for everyone as well, and would be my preference in fact.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, for starters, the GoTG thing happened after the game had completely run out its sales cycle, secondly the full game was on offer, not just a small 2~ hour slice so people were engaging with the game in its entirety and participating in discussion on social media. The engaged user metrics is what 'found its footing' means IMO.

A trial/demo would not have that effect or outcome.

We don't know if this is true or not. MS does not let us know what an "engagement" means when someone plays a game through GamePass.

 

[Shmunter]

We don't know if this is true or not. MS does not let us know what an "engagement" means when someone plays a game through GamePass.

A button was pushed, the player engaged

 

[mckmas8808]

A button was pushed, the player engaged

LOL! If that's the case then player "engagement" will be OUT THE ROOF when PS Spartacus drops!

 

[FrankWza]

Huge difference

I only use Steam as intended and have only refunded a few games in my life

Demos I would download the shit out of much like I do on Gamepass

But again I just felt it should be on all tiers but maybe incentivize the top tier with a larger discount of then buying the game or something

Yep, I think it's something that should be on all tiers as well. It's just worth outlining the difference between what is being proposed here vs what is essentially a refund policy. With the PS+ thing you can abuse these trials till your heart's content and nobody is going to tell you to stop - I guess that's what you're paying for.

Although if Sony were to turn round and implement exactly what Steam is offering instead of this then I'd say that's a huge win for everyone as well, and would be my preference in fact.

At this point if Sony is the one doing the work I’m ok with it. Like I said in the post above, If the numbers come in after a while and indicate a potential sales boost then devs can add demos to the lower tiers. If it’s detrimental to sales then they can rest easy knowing it’s exposed only to the highest tier and what is already,theoretically, the bigger spending consumers anyway. They also seem to have an unpopular refund system and this can help to offset some of that issue that people have with their refund system.

 

[nominedomine]

The difference is, Microsoft pays devs to publish their games on Game Pass, while Sony is forcing them to put games on PS Premium with 2 hour trials without giving them a penny. Sony is profiting, not devs.

But if people are going to buy more games anyway why does Sony need to pay devs? If anything devs should pay Sony or do trials voluntarily.

 

[nominedomine]

There is a history of years worth of collected data on game pass, there is nothing of the sort on this new feature yet.

We'll know for sure in a couple of years when Sony start revealing the pertinent information like MS does.

Oh I get, Gamepass makes people buy more games because they can play the entire game, but PS+ makes people buy less games because they only get to play a 2h trial. Makes sense.

 

[yurinka]

They can, and do, on a case by case basis.

Sony can charge publishers for cross-play compensation, Epic Games reveal in court | TheSixthAxis

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney has revealed that Sony can extract compensation from game publishers that implement cross-play in their video games, though

www.thesixthaxis.com

This doesn't say that Sony charges publishers for using crossplay. To use crossplay is free.

What it does say is that for games using crossplay if their % of revenue made on PSN is too unproportionally small compared their % of gameplay time spent on PSN they must compensate Sony. So basically Sony protects themselves from Epic, EA, MS and CD Project for the case these companies would be selling their MTX/DLC cheaper on their own stores to avoid paying Sony the 30% cut.

Sony asks their revenue and gameplay share to be more or less proportional, with a 15% error margin, and if it's worse than that for PS then the publisher should compensate it.

Oh I get, Gamepass makes people buy more games because they can play the entire game, but PS+ makes people buy less games because they only get to play a 2h trial. Makes sense.

MS didn't say GP makes people buy more games. They said that on average their users with GP buy more games than their users without GP (or the average player). They didn't say people started to buy more games after subscribing to GP or because of GP.

I'd bet these people already bought more games on average before GP, and that the type of player who gets interested on GP is the one who buys more games than the average player.

I think we can make the same assuption for PS+ Premium: the player who will pay $120/year on the subscription very likely already spent more in games than the average player before subscribing. But this doesn't mean PS+ Premium will make him buy more games, in fact pretty likely will still buy more games than the average player but prettty likely will buy less than before subscribing because will spend time playing the games and demos of that service. And same goes with GP.

 

[adamsapple]

Oh I get, Gamepass makes people buy more games because they can play the entire game, but PS+ makes people buy less games because they only get to play a 2h trial. Makes sense.

No you're just inserting irrelevant tangents, we don't know how the metrics for this new trial thing will play out until we have some sample data.

It may turn out that Sony reports next year that people who used the trials ended up buying more games, that's just info we don't have right now.

We don't know if this is true or not. MS does not let us know what an "engagement" means when someone plays a game through GamePass.

True, they don't go into that detailed specifics. But in the latest earnings they made a point to mention that game time played on game pass games has increased 50% YoY.

So it's not just "a button was pushed, therefore engagement" like some would joke.

Once again, the subject i'm talking about is the paywall. Which was confirmed months ago. Whether it's just for first party or third party is irrelevent.

You really do struggle with reading huh?

Yeah and like I said, the assumption was that it would be first party trials only, that's what was being pay walled, we didn't know back in January what we know now.

Throwing shade and jabs doesn't really get your point across any more clearer my dude.

 

[dcmk7]

Playstation continues to be the worst gaming platform for both consumer and developers.
But it's a good platform for Sony shareholders

 

[nominedomine]

This doesn't say that Sony charges publishers for using crossplay. To use crossplay is free.

What it does say is that for games using crossplay if their % of revenue made on PSN is too unproportionally small compared their % of gameplay time spent on PSN they must compensate Sony. So basically Sony protects themselves from Epic, EA, MS and CD Project for the case these companies would be selling their MTX/DLC cheaper on their own stores to avoid paying Sony the 30% cut.

Sony asks their revenue and gameplay share to be more or less proportional, with a 15% error margin, and if it's worse than that for PS then the publisher should compensate it.


MS didn't say GP makes people buy more games. They said that on average their users with GP buy more games than their users without GP (or the average player). They didn't say people started to buy more games after subscribing to GP or because of GP.

I'd bet these people already bought more games on average before GP, and that the type of player who gets interested on GP is the one who buys more games than the average player.

I think we can make the same assuption for PS+ Premium: the player who will pay $120/year on the subscription very likely already spent more in games than the average player before subscribing. But this doesn't mean PS+ Premium will make him buy more games, in fact pretty likely will still buy more games than the average player but prettty likely will buy less than before subscribing because will spend time playing the games and demos of that service. And same goes with GP.

So gamepass makes core gamers buy less games than they did before and doesnt really apeal to casuals? With this I can agree and now I see where the spin was.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

To me there are very few drawbacks to a 2 hour time trials. Although some people said above it's minimum 2 hr up to 6 hours. Didn't know that. I must had missed reading a tweet or article say 6 hr max.

It should available to everyone for these reasons. But in it's current state behind a premium tier it still applies.

Pro
- Gamers get to test a game before buying
- Gamers are testing the final version (devs cant complain that gamers are only playing an old beta build)
- Dev doesnt have to spend time or money making a demo, but still have the option to
- It's a limited time trial. Not forever active demos like the 360/PS3 days
- Limited to higher budget/priced games. So indie maker launching a $15 game that can be beat in an hour doesn't apply here
- Dev has to do it within 3 months of launch. Games are a front loaded industry. Even with day one reviews and YT videos, gamers dont wait anyway
- IMO, the long run is devs will make better high budget games
- Sales increase as gamers test out games because the game is good or it's a game with zero marketing, but now there's their opportunity to try it

Con
- Eats up tons of bandwidth as gamers download games and dont convert to buying
- Devs making shit or short games are fearful gamers wont like it and avoid buying. So their buyer beware sales tactic is less effective
- Sales decrease due to reasons like it's a shit game, or cheapskates never buying games again as they milk it only playing trials forever

 

[Stuart360]

Dont really see the problem with this to be honest. Sony has every right to demand what they want with their platform, just like Microsoft and Nintendo can. And this is not going to be a pain for devs, and cause them more work. They could just do it like EA does with its 10 hour trials on EA Play, just have the game boot back to the title screen after 2 hours of play is up.

The only thing i would say is why have it locked behind the top tier sub plan?, why not just have this as standard?. I mean would 2 hour trials really make some of you sign up to the top tier of a sub plan for this?. It wouldnt for me. Full games would like on Gamepass, but not trials.

Still like i said, i see nothing wrong with this to be honest.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Playstation continues to be the worst gaming platform for both consumer and developers.
But it's a good platform for Sony shareholders