I don’t know the specifics of the Outriders deal with GamePass, except for just that, it was a 2-party opt-in negotiated deal.
Not a gun to the head like this.
A gun to the head? Really? Did you miss the part where it says partners can also provide demos as normal if they wish?
I see it as some good, some bad. Having demos is good. Having to pay for them is bad.
We always had to pay for demos one way or another, though? Even on 360, if you wanted demos you needed to pay for XBL Gold to have access to download them. With older demos on PS2, Gamecube, Dreamcast, Xbox, PS1 etc. you had to buy $5 magazines to get them, sometimes whole other games to get them (like ZOE on PS2 to get the MGS2 demo).
So what Sony are doing here actually isn't that far out from how it has normally been done.
I have no idea if developers were compensated for their demos on the 360 but there is a reason that policy ended. I wouldn't be surprised if developer push back was a big part in that policy changing. A trial 3 months later doesn't seem like something gamers should be paying for. Poor sales generally are because the the game's aren't great and trial won't change that.
But by this logic we can argue games like GotG sold poorly because they weren't good games, either. Which from what most people who've played it these days are saying, isn't the case. Carrying that logic onward, though, we could even say stuff like a game that isn't great can avoid bad sales by simply being offered through a subscription service, which is an even more extreme take.
Bringing that up to hopefully show that poor sales for a game isn't always so much due to quality as it is lack of marketing and in some cases, availability (especially with older games that did not have digital options). So you never know, there could be some AAA games that just get skipped on due to a clogged release schedule and/or lack of marketing, and a solid trail demo could give them the WOM and attention needed to get a big sales boost.
I would certainly hope so. Sony SHOULD be compensating devs for a policy they can't opt out of. We can all tell how serious Sony is if they put their first party game trials up day 1.
It's their policy and they should lead by example. They also wouldn't have to worry about losing sales because their games usually can't be beaten in 2 hours and the quality is implied. Perhaps it will be an inspiration to all the devs who will have to provide a trial as well.
I thought it was pretty much a sure thing Sony would be offering their own games in this trail service feature? Has that not been confirmed? NGL it would be weird if their own games aren't going to be in there; I can understand not putting their full games on a service Day 1 for a multitude of reasons, but not offering limited trails for 1P games when requiring 3P games to do so would be a bad look.
Are you sure? Please tell me how many units did PS5 and Xbox sold worldwide this year.
Hey I still find it hard to believe myself especially without MS providing upfront numbers, but I'm just going off the NPD results and UK sales results and (frustratingly) VGChartz estimates. Those have been our only big sources until Sony provides quarter results next month I think?
I think you forgot that Sony has around 80-90M PS4 still active monthly, so buying games, paying game subs and so on. And his is why they make more money than MS.
No I'm definitely not forgetting the PS4 in this, but realistically we have to remember that over time, that number is going to
decrease (as it should) while PS5 install base
increases, with hopefully as many of those PS4 active users upgrading to PS5 as possible, on top of getting new people into the ecosystem.
Realistically speaking Sony are not going to have 80 - 90 million active PS4 users by 2025; a lot of them will have either upgraded to current gen or will want to seriously do so by that point. And it's on Sony to ensure they have enough of their systems on the market for those people to purchase, at least primarily if not exclusively. However, as the current chip shortage shows, that can absolutely be impacted if stock isn't improved in good order, and there is the reality that they are, at least temporarily, losing sales to rivals like Xbox Series, at least in some type of capacity.
When I say 'temporarily', I mean you probably have some group of people who were considering getting a PS5 first, but might've just gone for an Xbox instead, yet will still pick up a PS5 once they become available. I think a lot of whatever sales gains Xbox are seeing from the current availability situation are of that type, so we're looking at a decent number of dual-console owners in that case. What Sony doesn't want, though, are those to be permanently lost sales, which is a risk (however small) that could happen the longer it takes for sufficient numbers of PS5s to be available for those who were waiting but went and picked up another system in the meantime.
These are people who are going to want current-gen systems and favor for 8th-gen systems (which is what PS4 falls under) will erode, that's just natural. So, Sony can't rely on that PS4 active base forever as it will decline over time, same as it has for Microsoft's XBO systems (tho that decline was much sharper and quicker). That's all I'm saying, really.
Why should they be against it? And well, ask a publisher if they prefer to continue focusing on selling games and have trials for premium games or to move to an strategy where they would put all their AAA games day one on GP. I bet all of them will prefer the demos.
I agree with you that for vast majority of publishers, the model of selling the game as-usual & trails to boost sales is preferred over putting their games Day 1 in a service like GP. Unlike MS, those 3P publishers can't really absorb any losses of potential sales, both at the corporate level and also in terms of having other revenue flows that can offset (MS has their 30% cut from 3P sales, XBL Gold and GP revenue (tho I don't think GP revenue is nearly as high as some people want to think), etc.). They also may just prefer having the financial independence of their current model and not be beholden to payouts from a platform holder like MS to buy up inclusion of their game into a service Day 1.
However, the reason I said there could be a scenario where maybe some ARE against it, comes down to market share. The person I was responding to said they thought Sony could push this through due to their market share. If that's including PS4 as well as PS5, that's 100% correct. But in reality, PS4 market share is going to matter less and less as 8th-gen is naturally left behind, so a lot of publishers are only going to consider current-gen market share. That's PS5/Series X/Series S etc. Again, there's stuff out there including even word now from Satya Nadella himself, that Series have been seeing majority of current-gen console sales in major markets for what sounds like the past two quarters (or at least the past quarter for sure). That would mean US, Canada, Mexico, and Western Europe.
My thoughts on this are, if that continues (and I have a strong suspicion it
WON'T persist for that much longer, as long as Sony gets more PS5 stock in those territories relatively soon), and the gap between Xbox & PS ends up looking notably smaller this gen vs. last gen, then as current-gen becomes the by-far focus of software development, if you have a platform holder like Sony implement a policy one too many major publishers might not like, that publisher might see it worth "gambling" to oppose Sony on it more openly than they would've last generation. It would put Sony in a pickle: if push through anyway, that's a publisher who might favor the competition, and it becomes a balancing act of weighing the risks.
All of this applies equally to Microsoft, but I was focusing on this trails stuff which is what Sony want to put through. Now if you're asking for my PERSONAL opinion, I don't think there's anywhere near the amount of "controversy" with this trails feature between Sony & 3P partners as some people (and especially content creators like Destin, who is just showing his ass on this topic IMHO) want to make it seem like there is. But supposing there by some freak chance IS, and it happens down the line...if by some chance Series systems continue to sell at a rate where the gap between them and PS5 narrows more and more, that creates an increased risk for Sony.
But really I'm just playing devil's advocate on this; again my response to the person I quoted was me looking at it from their perspective and considering their concern on fair grounds. I personally don't think any publishers will be against these trails...though I do think any lack of financial incentive on Sony's part (if there isn't any planned right now) could
potentially cause some issues down the line.
Pretty likely they will be incentivated with getting the 70% revenue share of the extra game copies, DLC, MTX and season passes sold to high spender users thanks to these demos.
That's a possible incentive, yes, but it still predicates a lot of the risk on behalf of the publisher, not Sony. The publisher would need to assume how many copies they feel they would sell normally (without having a trail demo available), then need to actually gather results in real-time upon release to see if the trail brings in a higher net of sales than otherwise.
And, to ensure that it's only the presence of the trail leading to the increase, they'd have to do EVERYTHING else the exact same way. So, no pricing the game differently, no different means of providing sale of the game, etc. All of that could be too much of a factor in driving sales and then you wouldn't know if it was that or the trail being the catalyst for the sale.
EA is a data driven company so if they keep having these trials behind the subscription is because it works for them. If it works for them why should it be bad for the other publishers? And if it's good for them and doesn't require them any extra cost why should Sony compensate them?
I think the big difference between EA Play and PS+ Premium here is that, with EA Play those are EA's own games. It's their own service, and only their software uses that service. That's a complete chain of vertical integration, right there.
Sony's trails are actually better in some ways IMO, at least going by the sound of it. Also it's neat that they will be making the trails themselves (though this might lead to more basic trails that take the opening part only). But there's a bit of timing discrepancy between when both sides financially benefit from these trails, at least going off the info we have right now.
Sony benefits well earlier, with an increase in PS+ Premium subscriptions to use the feature (among other benefits of the tier). The 3P publisher, has to first wait and see if the trail leads to an increase in sales, and then wait for the sale itself. All the while, they are required to provide a trail regardless, so that's something extra they will have to consider as development is finalized on the game (for example, due to the design of the game they may need to do a very custom trail demo to avoid certain spoilers or present more interesting gameplay sections early on).
What I was suggesting earlier was a slight reduction on the 30% cut for the first 500K or so sales. That doesn't resolve the time difference in terms of when each side sees financial benefits from the trails, but it does (IMO) remove the possible feeling of mandatory/obligated compliance to a policy (that could be seen as of reduced value by a 3P partner) and replaces it with a financial benefit that can stack on
TOP of overall selling more copies, making 3P partners more willingly receptive and cooperative to implement the feature.
Because they'll know what an 80% cut on 500K - 1 million first sales looks like,
immediately, and that combined with selling more units thanks to providing a good trail demo itself will easily foster more goodwill and active participation vs. simply only having the latter of those two to look forward to. And in that way, it can wholesale surpass the benefits of an EA Play model and also make partners like EA that much more interested in supporting the feature (I think someone else ITT mentioned EA & EA Play earlier in a context of where some contention could be had between them and these PS+ Premium trails that I thought was interesting).
I can see why they would need to gate it lol.
