Support NeoGAF

[SLB1904]

Mate you just hot back from a ban and you're immediately at it again with encouragement from the usual clowns?

Stop throwing yourself into the fire.

Nah let him be.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Now you're just making up things, aren't you? Why can't it be abused. Of course, it can be abused.

Take a look at the official Xbox refund policy page.

And here is how people have been abusing it.

There you go. There is literally evidence of how some people have abused this policy in the past and continue to do so. Because of course this policy can be abused.

Now, back to our question: when do you think it'll "spectacularly backfire" for Xbox? And if it still hasn't, and if you think it won't, why do you think it'll for Sony?

No, the policy can't be abused. If you use it too much you get banned from being able to refund. That's why the two situations aren't comparable, you can't use refunds as a way to get free demos.

 

[oldergamer]

For me, demos should not be behind a paywall. Period.

 

[cragarmi]

For me, demos should not be behind a paywall. Period.

Demos cost money to make, someone has gotta pay for it. Also EA play does exactly this and hasn't had nearly as much heat over it.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Demos cost money to make, someone has gotta pay for it. Also EA play does exactly this and hasn't had nearly as much heat over it.

EA Play is not comparable because it's EAs own games and their own decision to do it.

 

[jumpship]

For me, demos should not be behind a paywall. Period.

You do realise game trials are "FREE" ?

That's right.

For a certain period of time I'll be able to play all future AAA games from first and third party FREE on Gamepass PS+ Premium

 

[cragarmi]

No, the policy can't be abused. If you use it too much you get banned from being able to refund. That's why the two situations aren't comparable, you can't use refunds as a way to get free demos.

Oh sure I'm sure noone has ever lied to get a refund right? The fact is every system has and will be abused, there is always a loophole, some are more deliberately left open, such as the loophole to convert GamePass into ultimate for a dollar par exemple

 

[cragarmi]

EA Play is not comparable because it's EAs own games and their own decision to do it.

It is Sony's own games, third parties haven't been contacted about this yet, and it will be opt in, not opt out. To think anything otherwise is ridiculous, and not how the industry works.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Oh sure I'm sure noone has ever lied to get a refund right? The fact is every system has and will be abused, there is always a loophole, some are more deliberately left open, such as the loophole to convert GamePass into ultimate for a dollar par exemple

Paying 60 bucks for a game in the hope that you can try it for a couple of hours and not be banned from a refund is not comparable to having a free 2 hour demo. Not even close. Bringing that comparison up is borderline trolling tbh.

It is Sony's own games, third parties haven't been contacted about this yet, and it will be opt in, not opt out. To think anything otherwise is ridiculous, and not how the industry works.

As far as we know, that's exactly how it currently works. I also believe Sony will pivot and make it opt-in.

 

[adamsapple]

It is Sony's own games, third parties haven't been contacted about this yet, and it will be opt in, not opt out. To think anything otherwise is ridiculous, and not how the industry works.

That's not what the leaked info implies, it directly implies all games above the $40 range will be required to have a trial within 3 months of the games release.

The only thing is that none of this news is official right now, it's all from unconfirmed sources. So it all should be taken with grains of salt.

 

[cragarmi]

Paying 60 bucks for a game in the hope that you can try it for a couple of hours and not be banned from a refund is not comparable to having a free 2 hour demo. Not even close. Bringing that comparison up is borderline trolling tbh.

As far as we know, that's exactly how it currently works. I also believe Sony will pivot and make it opt-in.

So we agree that it's better in the eyes of the consumer to have a 2 hour demo to try a game, and then buy it if they like it, rather than take a risk on a game and then rely on the refund system, great!

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So we agree that it's better in the eyes of the consumer to have a 2 hour demo to try a game, and then buy it if they like it, rather than take a risk on a game and then rely on the refund system, great!

That was never a point of dicussion, it's objectively better for the consumers. I just think that publishers won't go along with it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That was never a point of dicussion, it's objectively better for the consumers. I just think that publishers won't go along with it.

Agreed.

Any kind of demo or trial feature is great for gamers. As for game makers, youd think it would be great as its free advertsing. Sony is even doing the legwork building the feature, its 2 hours, and there's wiggle room to offer it 3 months later so it doesnt squash day one sales (which day one reviews and YT videos havent). And the trials are only available for prem subbers too.

But there will be many game makers balking at it because they want to suck in gamers with their prelaunch marketing hoping they blindly buy their shit games.

Trials give patient gamers the opportunity to test for shittiness.

The reason you dont see tons of demo/sample kiosks in grocery stores is because it costs a lot of money to hire people, stores charge a fee, and all a cookie maker is really getting is testers that week at that location. Pretty limited. Also, the vast majority of those demo kiosks arent even run by the manufacturer. They sped extra money to hire marketing companies to set it up. Those arent Nabisco employees. It's Bob and Susie hired from Premier Marketing Services USA.

But if a chain of stores said they'd handle the kiosk, pay for the sample lady, pay for all the free cookies given out, and do it all year for free ZERO manufacturers would say no. That's because food makers dont try to jam shit products down all of our throats because there's something called a store refund that'll bite them in the ass if it's moldy cookies. Game makers are blessed the default refund policy is zero unless a gamer goes through the hassle of contacting CSR and MS, Sony or Steam CSR gives them a break. And disc purchases are definitely zero refund too. Game makers know most people will get stuck with a shit game.

 

[GHG]

I just hope that publishers won't go along with it.

Fixed.

Because let's be honest, that's all this is really about.

As it stands:

• It's good for PS+ premium subscribers.
• It's a good option to have available for all non subscribers
• It bolsters the PS+ service and increases it's value
• It's something that will only be available on Playstation (as far as we know)

Therefore...

Get your knives out, sharpen them as much as possible, dig deep and find any reason possible to make this negative, this is bad.

 

[cragarmi]

That was never a point of dicussion, it's objectively better for the consumers. I just think that publishers won't go along with it.

Depends how much they are willing to pay them to be on their service I suppose?

 

[MasterCornholio]

I guess the positive thing about this when compared to the refund system is that you don't have to buy the game first. I guess since no money is exchanged between the consumer and developer its probably less of a hassle for the store if the consumer doesn't want the title.

But a great refund system is always appreciated.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Fixed.

Because let's be honest, that's all this is really about.

As it stands:

• It's good for PS+ premium subscribers.
• It's a good option to have available for all non subscribers
• It bolsters the PS+ service and increases it's value
• It's something that will only be available on Playstation (as far as we know)

Therefore...

Get your knives out, sharpen them as much as possible, dig deep and find any reason possible to make this negative, this is bad.

People have the right to point out that this seems like a bad deal for the publishers. We'll see if they'll go along with this, I personally doubt it.

 

[GHG]

People have the right to point out that this seems like a bad deal for the publishers. We'll see if they'll go along with this, I personally doubt it.

If it were a bad deal for publishers then they all would have fled from Steam a long time ago.

The only ones that need to sweat are those that rely on hype driven marketing in order to make profit on shitty products.

 

[yurinka]

It is Sony's own games, third parties haven't been contacted about this yet, and it will be opt in, not opt out. To think anything otherwise is ridiculous, and not how the industry works.

This is going to affect all 3rd party AAA publishers and is a big change, so Sony must have researched, tested, negotiated the details and agreed it with them before they anounced that PS+ Premium was going to have game trials month ago.

After that they shown it on Sony's developer portal, and it's when some other devs saw it. Probably small devs who won't be affected by this, or programmers from big publishers, who aren't the ones who contact Sony for deals or to submit a game.

People have the right to point out that this seems like a bad deal for the publishers. We'll see if they'll go along with this, I personally doubt it.

It isn't bad news for the publisher. It's good news, they will have demos/time trials limited to premium users from all their big games with no extra development/testing cost required since it's an OS feature already implemented in the console. It will provide them extra sales from users who spend a more money than the average.

It only may be bad for AAA games who made unrealistic marketing and made look their game better than really is to the point that if a player who was going to buy it tests the game changes his mind. Which will make publishers to avoid these, which is also good for them.

You do realise game trials are "FREE" ?

That's right.

For a certain period of time I'll be able to play all future AAA games from first and third party FREE on Gamepass PS+ Premium

In EA Play and PS+ Premium aren't free, you have to pay a subscription to have access to them. But yes, unlike abusing refunds you don't have to pay the price of the game to get it and don't risk being banned or to get your refunds blocked.

EA Play is not comparable because it's EAs own games and their own decision to do it.

EA Play uses the built in time limited game trial built in the PS OS, like the free trials other AAA publishers like Capcom, Square Enix or Ubisoft to name a few of them implemented to make free time limited demos on PS. It's the same, game trials using the OS level feature to try new games behind a subscription, but in their case ran by them and with 10 hour long trials instead of "at least 2 hours" long trials.

That's not what the leaked info implies, it directly implies all games above the $40 range will be required to have a trial within 3 months of the games release.

The 'over 33€ ($33)' price was the wholesale price, which means that games that will be mandatory to be included here are the ones with a retail price of maybe $49.99 (or $59.99, not sure) and above. Basically they made it mandatory only for AAA games, for the cheaper games is optional.

 

[Kilau]

Still seems like a good refund system would be better but that's not something Sony wants to entertain.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

This is going to affect all 3rd party AAA publishers and is a big change, so Sony must have researched, tested, negotiated the details and agreed it with them before announcing the feature.

After that they shown it on Sony's developer portal, and it's when some devs saw it. Probably small devs who won't be affected by this, or programmers from big publishers, who aren't the ones who contact Sony for deals or to submit a game.

It's $34 US wholesale, which is about $45 retail. Unless a small dev (or even smaller indie team) is making games at that price, this trial thing is a non-issue. At that kind of price, I'd hope the game being made is long enough so a 2 hr trial isnt beating half the game already.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If it were a bad deal for publishers then they all would have fled from Steam a long time ago.

I guess you're going with that false equivalency. It just doesn't work because it's an entirely different thing.

 

[GHG]

I guess you're going with that false equivalency. It just doesn't work because it's an entirely different thing.

Other than the consumer putting up a deposit that's equivalent to the cost of the game on Steam, explain how its different.

 

[adamsapple]

I guess the positive thing about this when compared to the refund system is that you don't have to buy the game first. I guess since no money is exchanged between the consumer and developer its probably less of a hassle for the store if the consumer doesn't want the title.

But a great refund system is always appreciated.

Agreed. I've only had to refund one thing from PSN till yet and that was such a fucking hassle. The whole process needs to be better across the board.

But one way this is not better or comparable to a refund system is that it's locked behind a specific tier. Not even all PS+ members will have access to this feature.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Other than the consumer putting up a deposit that's equivalent to the cost of the game on Steam, explain how its different.

You can't use Steam refunds as a way to get free demos for games, that's not its purpose at all. If you try, you're getting banned from refunds. Steam explicitly warns you about it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Still seems like a good refund system would be better but that's not something Sony wants to entertain.

This sentiment is outright baffling to me.

Sony is letting you try out a game for a few hours before you commit to a permanent purchase.

The only functional difference between this a more liberal refund system is that YOU, the player, don't have to temporarily pay anything upfront.

Players having to pay money upfront to try a game out is objectively worse in every conceivable way.

With this system, you get to try the game for free. How does that magically make it worse than buying it and getting a refund.

The mental gymnastics of some of you in here is utterly bewildering.

 

[GHG]

You can't use Steam refunds as a way to get free demos for games, that's not its purpose at all. If you try, you're getting banned from refunds. Steam explicitly warns you about it.

Are you talking from experience or did you just go to Google and find an image from 2015?

This is something I'm aware of and have already spoken about in this thread. You get a warning, then you get banned. What you have to do to get a warning I don't know because I average over 10 refunds a year.

But I commend you, because one of the unintended consequences of you bringing up the refund ban system that's in place on Steam is the fact that it highlights how good a system that can be abused by design would be for consumers.

 

[Menzies]

This sentiment is outright baffling to me.

Sony is letting you try out a game for a few hours before you commit to a permanent purchase.

The only functional difference between this a more liberal refund system is that YOU, the player, don't have to temporarily pay anything upfront.

Players having to pay money upfront to try a game out is objectively worse in every conceivable way.

With this system, you get to try the game for free. How does that magically make it worse than buying it and getting a refund.

The mental gymnastics of some of you in here is utterly bewildering.

*free for Sony

 

[Thirty7ven]

Will be incredible if and when Sony comes out with hard data showing this approach is increasing game sales and MTX, all while preserving game value.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Are you talking from experience or did you just go to Google and find an image from 2015?

This is something I'm aware of and have already spoken about in this thread. You get a warning, then you get banned. What you have to do to get a warning I don't know because I average over 10 refunds a year.

But I commend you, because one of the unintended consequences of you bringing up the refund ban system that's in place on Steam is the fact that it highlights how good a system that can be abused by design would be for consumers.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Steam refunds are not comparable to free demos of games. And again, the consumer point of view was never under discussion.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

Still seems like a good refund system would be better but that's not something Sony wants to entertain.

I disagree. Sony and their gamers won't want to constantly charge their card, make sure to stop the game within 2 hours, so you'd probably stop around 1 hour just to be sure, then go through the process to get a refund for each AAA game. That sounds horrible. I'd much rather pay for a service that gives me guilt/conscience/credit card free gaming without having to think about the clock, for every AAA game.

 

[GHG]

*free for Sony

Citation needed.

Before it was "it will be more work for developers" and that swiftly got debunked.

Now it's "but Sony are just doing this for free and are charging money for it". But, stick with it I say, enjoy it and push that narrative as much as possible while you can.

We know how these things always end.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Steam refunds are not comparable to free demos of games. And again, the consumer point of view was never under discussion.

They are not demos, they are trials of the full game. They are not free for the consumer either. Keep up Bernd.

 

[Kilau]

This sentiment is outright baffling to me.

Sony is letting you try out a game for a few hours before you commit to a permanent purchase.

The only functional difference between this a more liberal refund system is that YOU, the player, don't have to temporarily pay anything upfront.

Players having to pay money upfront to try a game out is objectively worse in every conceivable way.

With this system, you get to try the game for free. How does that magically make it worse than buying it and getting a refund.

The mental gymnastics of some of you in here is utterly bewildering.

A refund system is simple and regardless of what happens with this plan, Sony needs to implement one.

I’ll withhold finally judgment until details are revealed.

 

[Menzies]

Citation needed.

Before it was "it will be more work for developers" and that swiftly got debunked.

Now it's "but Sony are just doing this for free and are charging money for it". But, stick with it I say, enjoy it and push that narrative as much as possible while you can.

We know how these things always end.

They are not demos, they are 2 trials of the full game. They are not free for the consumer either. Keep up Bernd.

Already cited the source if you can be bothered reading.

Love this. I’m the one accused of lying and spreading a false narrative when multiple gaming publications have reported that Sony is monetising others work without sharing revenue. Yeah keep defending Sony at all costs.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

They are not demos, they are trials of the full game. They are not free for the consumer either. Keep up Bernd.

They are free from the POV of the publishers, since they get $0 for it (presumably). That's likely gonna be their biggest problem. A lot of them weren't fine with what Nvidia was doing with Geforce Now, and there was nothing free in that.

 

[yurinka]

It's $34 US wholesale, which is about $45 retail. Unless a small dev (or even smaller indie team) is making games at that price, this trial thing is a non-issue. At that kind of price, I'd hope the game being made is long enough so a 2 hr trial isnt beating half the game already.

Consider it was 33€, not $33. In Europe the VAT is included inside the retail price, which varies per country (~20-25%). So I assume the minimum price where it's mandatory to include a trial I assume will be 49.99€, which gets translated to $49.99.

Small indies or super short games don't price their games that high, so won't affect them. For them it will be optional, will be able to include a game trial there. As they can also ask to have a free time limited game trial open to all users or to release a demo.

Agreed. I've only had to refund one thing from PSN till yet and that was such a fucking hassle. The whole process needs to be better across the board.

But one way this is not better or comparable to a refund system is that it's locked behind a specific tier. Not even all PS+ members will have access to this feature.

A year or two ago I had an issue with a Street Fighter V DLC on PS5: I bought it and downloaded it but it didn't get activated in the game. I contacted Sony's Customer Support, asked me to redownload the DLC and the game, and didn't fix it. They tried to do something in the server side and didn't fixed. Then they told me that would refund it to me and would remove the DLC from my library, so I'd be able to purchase it again.

The thing is they gave me PSN credit for the value of the DLC and also sent me the money back to the credit card (I assume this was a mistake, that meant they were paying me twice) but the DLC still was listed on my library/transactions and I wasn't able to purchase it again. A day or two after that, there was both a console OS update and a SFV game update and my DLC started to work, recognized by the game. And I had the money both in PSN and the credit card, so I did use it to buy another dlc.

I assume it was a weird and super rare case (on their database the transaction was listed as ok, the dlc appeared on my library but for some reason it wasn't activated while no other player apparently complained about this issue anywhere), but the whole process took me a week or so involving multiple mails and calls because they had to ask for to their server guys or I assume Capcom to do and verify stuff.

At the end the issue was solved and I got refunded (I assume that twice by mistake), or maybe for having me around a week with multiple mails and calls to investigate and test possible things. Maybe it was a bug or something, but the case is that I didn't ask for the refund (I wanted the DLC an got my issue fixed), they were the ones who offered it to me the refund. But who knows, I'm in EU so maybe it's because there's some different / related refund policy here.

 

[Kilau]

I disagree. Sony and their gamers won't want to constantly charge their card, make sure to stop the game within 2 hours, so you'd probably stop around 1 hour just to be sure, then go through the process to get a refund for each AAA game. That sounds horrible. I'd much rather pay for a service that gives me guilt/conscience/credit card free gaming without having to think about the clock, for every AAA game.

If Sony is just going to stick a timer on the full game then it might work. It’s hard to say until details come out.

It’s just knowing how scummy some publishers are, I can envision them trying to get around the system and then players are still stuck without a refund system.

 

[mckmas8808]

People have the right to point out that this seems like a bad deal for the publishers. We'll see if they'll go along with this, I personally doubt it.

It's only a bad deal for publishers, if Publishers hate money. As it stands, there's no reason to believe that publishers will make less money due to this.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

If Sony is just going to stick a timer on the full game then it might work. It’s hard to say until details come out.

It’s just knowing how scummy some publishers are, I can envision them trying to get around the system and then players are still stuck without a refund system.

If it's game you wanted to try in a trial, you probably won't buy it without trying it. The studies that show that demos/trials lead to less sales are misleading, cause people don't need to try games they know they'll want. So anyone playing a trial is leaning towards not buying it, and seeing if the demo wins them over.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

It's only a bad deal for publishers, if Publishers hate money. As it stands, there's no reason to believe that publishers will make less money due to this.

Could also just be about control. With Geforce Now they were only set to make more money, not less, and yet a lot of the big ones opted out of Geforce Now.

 

[Menzies]

It's only a bad deal for publishers, if Publishers hate money. As it stands, there's no reason to believe that publishers will make less money due to this.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ironic the side that is fighting against a pro-consumer move.

Ironic, indeed.

 

[GHG]

Already cited the source if you can be bothered reading.

Amazing source.

They are free from the POV of the publishers, since they get $0 for it (presumably). That's likely gonna be their biggest problem. A lot of them weren't fine with what Nvidia was doing with Geforce Now, and there was nothing free in that.

I'm glad we've (finally) got to the crux of the matter. It's the fact that there's the possibility Sony will charge for this while not giving anything back to developers/publishers.

Like I said above, have at it. This is your window before the facts arrive.

 

[FrankWza]

.

*free for Sony

Already cited the source if you can be bothered reading.

Love this. I’m the one accused of lying and spreading a false narrative when multiple gaming publications have reported that Sony is monetising others work without sharing revenue. Yeah keep defending Sony at all costs.

We don’t know this. If Sony is working on the demos themselves then I wouldn’t classify it this way. If they forced devs to take their time and make a demo for every game I could see your argument. It’s 2 hours play time and Sony is using their own teams to make the demo.

 

[Menzies]

Amazing source.



I'm glad we've (finally) got to the crux of the matter. It's the fact that there's the possibility Sony will charge for this while not giving anything back to developers/publishers.

Like I said above, have at it. This is your window before the facts arrive.

If the facts change then I will 180 my position, no issue whatsoever.

Just not sure why you’re so convinced that Sony can do no evil and to just trash the initial reports?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I'm glad we've (finally) got to the crux of the matter. It's the fact that there's the possibility Sony will charge for this while not giving anything back to developers/publishers.

Like I said above, have at it. This is your window before the facts arrive.

Yes, we're discussing on the basis of the original article. If facts change, the discussion will change.

 

[Menzies]

.


We don’t know this. If Sony is working on the demos themselves then I wouldn’t classify it this way. If they forced devs to take their time and make a demo for every game I could see your argument. It’s 2 hours play time and Sony is using their own teams to make the demo.

I can’t keep up. Is it baked in to the OS and there’s no effort or Sony needs to slave for months to do devs a massive solid?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I can’t keep up. Is it baked in to the OS and there’s no effort or Sony needs to slave for months to do devs a massive solid?

If it's baked into the system and configurable for ease of use then who do you think does the work?

 

[Menzies]

If it's baked into the system and configurable for ease of use then who do you think does the work?

So it’s not a push of a button and there’s several hours of labour involved? I honestly don’t know

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So it’s not a push of a button and there’s several hours of labour involved? I honestly don’t know

It's the push of a button on the third parties' end.