Support NeoGAF

[Menzies]

A whooping two hours. Probably keeping Phil up at night just thinking about it

The two hours is immaterial. Sony charging and collecting revenue, while sharing none to me is the thing keeping Phil up at night

 

[Topher]

If it all plays it according to Sony’s script, then yes - their consumers will benefit.

I think it’s easy to speculate the greater industry repercussions and publisher backlash may be an issue in response, with the information we have on hand.

If all of a sudden I’m made to give something away for free that I don’t want to and am not compensated for, then why would I just play ball?

I might be encouraged off the back of this news to release my game on Xbox for the first 12 months, or give the same trial to their customers for free for example.

Then all of a sudden this doesn’t appear so pro-consumer for PlayStation subscribers paying for a service to get delayed trials.

So publishers are going to bail on the entire PlayStation install base because Sony gave a subset of their customers access to those games for two hours?

 

[Menzies]

So publishers are going to bail on the entire PlayStation install base because Sony gave a subset of their customers access to those games for two hours?

Literally didn’t say any of that. Try again.

 

[FrankWza]

The two hours is immaterial. Sony charging and collecting revenue, while sharing none to me is the thing keeping Phil up at night

So, if someone downloaded a trial and then presses the buy button that means Sony was further responsible for that sale happening. Should they get a bigger cut than usual in that scenario?

 

[Topher]

Literally didn’t say any of that. Try again.

Geez....long day. My eyes are getting crossed. This is literally what I read....

"If all of a sudden I’m made to give something away for free that I don’t want to and am not compensated for, then why wouldn't I just bail?"

Time to push away from GAF for a bit, I think.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The two hours is immaterial. Sony charging and collecting revenue, while sharing none to me is the thing keeping Phil up at night

Trust me

Phil doesn't give a fuck

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The massive take out that I didn't consider till pondering the bigger picture is the "3P partners will be required to provide minimum 2-hour trail demos for all games with a wholesale price >= $34" = every single AAA game will be playable on the service. The magnitude of this is staggering.

Now how this effects the gaming industry is another topic. If anything - such a gargantuan proposition potentially eliminates fomo and backlog purchases. Play, like, buy -or- move on. Stacking games incase you may want to play it at some point is eliminated.

Getting rid of FOMO would be such a general benefit; as a phenomena it only really took root in the past generation, but it's already kind of overstayed its welcome. In its own way, trails could help gamers save a ton on games they may've otherwise not played. GamePass does something similar, but gamers save money on games they likely would've purchased if they weren't in the service.

MS's approach centralizes power towards Microsoft, if you really think about it. In other words it makes publishers more dependent on Microsoft, since Microsoft are the ones who'd be paying them for their software into the service. But that also gives Microsoft a lot of the bargaining power, and for people who prefer a market that isn't dependent as much on platform holders, that could be a bad thing.

Sony's is more decentralized in that aspect. The work is still on the developers and publishers to make the game and make sure the quality is there to where the game can compete well in the open market; trails will just enable those games to compete even better by potentially drawing in more sales. The open market, the actual customers, are the ones driving the revenue for the game, not the platform holder. So the upper limit potential is going to be higher, and that in turn means more for the publisher and the platform holder.

In fact if you really think about it, these trails could even help boost sales of 3P AAA games on Xbox, Nintendo, and PC platforms, too. Because maybe the trail demo is on PS5, but the PC version might have better performance or graphics, so the trail nets an extra sale on PC for that game. That may not happen too often, but there might be a small group of people who would.

Imagine you are on the fence unsure which console should you buy. "Play any AAA game you want for 2-6 hours for FREE!" has a fantastic ring to it.

*Free = As long as you pay for PS+ Premium

Technically tho the same as when people say you get "all these games" in GamePass for "free"...yeah as long as you're paying for the service

Regarding this:
-Time limited full game trials is something embedded in the OS of the console, can be activated for any published game. No demo has to be programmed or tested. The publisher only has to specify how many hours long is going to be (minimum must be 2)

I saw GHG mention this in a post couple days ago but wasn't sure where they heard it from. I only heard the PS Store team were handling them to take the burden off 3P partners, but it'd be even better if it's a built-in OS style feature.

Curious how it would work; do you think it might leverage the Activity Cards feature in some type of modified way?

Ok & that shows that the trials demos will still be locked to PS Plus Premium
Game trials is 1 of the many perks of PS Plus Premium along with cloud streaming PS3 games
3rd Party Devs can choose to release their own demos ok cool
but if they choose not to the trial will be behind the highest tier of PS Plus
so again my point still stands that i don't like locking trials behind a paywall

I'd suggest reading yurinka's response to my post where they clarified points in the post with more details, because I think you're not really getting a good feel on the specifics of how these trails will work :/ .

 

[Menzies]

So, if someone downloaded a trial and then presses the buy button that means Sony was further responsible for that sale happening. Should they get a bigger cut than usual in that scenario?

I’m not interested in going round in circles again. You either default believe that billion dollar companies are so inept that they can’t realise up to this point, that trials lead to more sales. Or you might assume that they have access to resources and analytics pointing them to the converse, which is what they have been doing.

So anecdotally there will be some that play the trial and convert to sales, but they must believe the net effect is the opposite.

 

[yurinka]

I saw GHG mention this in a post couple days ago but wasn't sure where they heard it from. I only heard the PS Store team were handling them to take the burden off 3P partners, but it'd be even better if it's a built-in OS style feature.

Curious how it would work; do you think it might leverage the Activity Cards feature in some type of modified way?

I think the trials will be exactly the same game you can buy digitally. With the only difference of having the timer an the popup to the store. So they will feature exactly the same Activity Cards, trophies and everything else.

Regarding the OS level full game trials, when PS+ debuted back in 2010 it already featured them. EA Play too, I posted a screenshot in this thread. And there are many AAA games who had PS4/PS5 demos that were full game trials using it (OS level clock and link to store). But in any case, if it wasn't at OS level to iplement it would be so easy and quick.

A separate demo -which isn't the game itself with the timer- instead requires a lot of work more because as dev you have to make the same paperwork as if it would be a different game, make additional coding etc and stuff including testing everything.

 

[FrankWza]

I’m not interested in going round in circles again. You either default believe that billion dollar companies are so inept that they can’t realise up to this point, that trials lead to more sales. Or you might assume that they have access to resources and analytics pointing them to the converse, which is what they have been doing.

So anecdotally there will be some that play the trial and convert to sales, but they must believe the net effect is the opposite.

You’re not answering the question. There’s no going round in circles. You’re saying PlayStation is profiting from the trials and that the devs should be compensated. If someone decides to buy that game after a trial, shouldn’t PlayStation get a bigger piece? You can answer yes or no and it doesn’t need to go any further. I think everyone will have a full understanding of where you’re coming from based on your response.

 

[nominedomine]

MS's approach centralizes power towards Microsoft, if you really think about it. In other words it makes publishers more dependent on Microsoft, since Microsoft are the ones who'd be paying them for their software into the service. But that also gives Microsoft a lot of the bargaining power, and for people who prefer a market that isn't dependent as much on platform holders, that could be a bad thing.

This is why they are so much into it and willing to spend so much to grow now. Once the way to make money on video games is to put your games in a subscription service those that run these service will have all the power, specially if there aren't many of them.

In the case of MS they are becoming so big as a publisher that they'll have less and less incentive to pay good money to put third-party games in their service (their new business model requires that to work). They'll remain the middleman but in a way more arbitrary role, they won't just take their cut, they'll put a price on how much your game is worth before it releases. If a studio refuses they could just be left in the dust trying to sell a game in a market where people got conditioned to not buy games anymore (like what happened to mobile).

 

[Menzies]

You’re not answering the question. There’s no going round in circles. You’re saying PlayStation is profiting from the trials and that the devs should be compensated. If someone decides to buy that game after a trial, shouldn’t PlayStation get a bigger piece? You can answer yes or no and it doesn’t need to go any further. I think everyone will have a full understanding of where you’re coming from based on your response.

The problem with your formulated question is that there’s no way to prove that the existence of the trial is what led to the sale conversion. Maybe they were always going to buy it anyway. And then there’s.. why do they need Sony’s involvement in the first place, when they can set up their own countdown timers?

What would Sony have done exactly to earn a bigger share? They’re already collecting 30% of the game, which more than covers their hosted servers and bandwidth costs.

 

[nominedomine]

So publishers are going to bail on the entire PlayStation install base because Sony gave a subset of their customers access to those games for two hours?

Bethesda will lead the charge.

 

[BadBurger]

Yea baby, more stuff for me to try out for free. I miss the days when demos weren't a rarity. I suppose they were never that common outside of PC gaming, but shit, at least a few would come along each year to the PS360Wii.

 

[Dlacy13g]

The question I have is, if I am a 3rd party dev and I am required to make this demo... am I prohibited from releasing the demo for all tiers? Or is Sony keeping all demos now behind this third tier paywall? I mean if I have to make a demo as a Dev I certainly would want to maximize who can get it in the ecosystem.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The question I have is, if I am a 3rd party dev and I am required to make this demo... am I prohibited from releasing the demo for all tiers? Or is Sony keeping all demos now behind this third tier paywall? I mean if I have to make a demo as a Dev I certainly would want to maximize who can get it in the ecosystem.

Demos are open as always. So a dev can do both regular demos for everyone and the prem tier trial.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is why they are so much into it and willing to spend so much to grow now. Once the way to make money on video games is to put your games in a subscription service those that run these service will have all the power, specially if there aren't many of them.

In the case of MS they are becoming so big as a publisher that they'll have less and less incentive to pay good money to put third-party games in their service (their new business model requires that to work). They'll remain the middleman but in a way more arbitrary role, they won't just take their cut, they'll put a price on how much your game is worth before it releases. If a studio refuses they could just be left in the dust trying to sell a game in a market where people got conditioned to not buy games anymore (like what happened to mobile).

That's a very real possibility, and I've thought about it from time to time. The answer some people want to put to this is, why doesn't everyone else just make directly competitive subscription services too?

But the problem there is, maybe other competitors can't specialize in that approach, because it requires too much money. Or perhaps they just don't want to. The fact is, it isn't like the gaming market at large wants to shift to a subscription model or that the subscription model has proven to be a driving factor in pushing game design forward. It arguably provides a value proposition in terms of saving money, but a lot of hardcore & core gamers aren't going to be that price-conscious, and even some casual gamers may not be.

There is no factor present currently where the traditional model of selling games directly, and providing capable hardware to play those games locally, has failed or in the process of failing due to widespread changing gamer tastes or even economic pressures. Some people can try arguing the chip shortages represent a sign of the latter, but the shortages are just temporary and can be resolved with future designs that rely less on smaller-and-smaller chips, and rely more on smarter packaging techniques that can mix-and-match chips of various process sizes and still deliver big results.

The amount of oversight MS, Sony and Nintendo already exert in the process for 3P devs and pubs can border excessive in some cases; I think a subscription-only future would be an unfortunate grounds for that power of theirs to only escalate, as you've mentioned. And given the way these companies are set up and how they tend to do business, out of the three only MS would be able to really survive and grow off of that type of model, IMO.

 

[GHG]

I saw GHG mention this in a post couple days ago but wasn't sure where they heard it from. I only heard the PS Store team were handling them to take the burden off 3P partners, but it'd be even better if it's a built-in OS style feature.

Curious how it would work; do you think it might leverage the Activity Cards feature in some type of modified way?

It looks like they use the OS DRM system. It's the same timer UI that gets displayed when you pre-order a game and you're waiting for it to unlock. They use the system on EA Access trials, video below:

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The one thing I'll toss out there to debate MS is being too big or an oppressive subscription king is that Xbox is still way behind Sony in users and game sales.

It's not like MS is top dog by a mile and trying and now finish everyone off cornering the market forcing game makers to do sub plans.

Sub plans are optional by both gamer and game studio.

And considering studios are signing up to GP (including day one) it shows the money involved is good enough to do the deal. Nobody has ever said (or proved) MS forces a dev to do a GP deal. So if both parties shake hands, then thats the deal. If the deal stinks, then sell the game the traditional way for $60 or $70. Or as an indie sell it for $20. The option is there.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It looks like they use the OS DRM system. It's the same timer UI that gets displayed when you pre-order a game and you're waiting for it to unlock. They use the system on EA Access trials, video below:

Gotta squeeze in that quick soccer match before the trail ends!

The one thing I'll toss out there to debate MS is being too big or an oppressive subscription king is that Xbox is still way behind Sony in users and game sales.

It's not like MS is top dog by a mile and trying and now finish everyone off cornering the market forcing game makers to do sub plans.

In absolute terms yes, they're still behind Sony when it comes to revenue in the console gaming market. But they'll be closing in on that significantly in short order, and that's been accomplished through purchasing other publishers with their own revenue streams that are then being combined with Xbox's post-acquisition.

In that sense their approach is closer to Tencent's than it is to Sony's.

Sub plans are optional by both gamer and game studio.

For now they are, anyway.

And considering studios are signing up to GP (including day one) it shows the money involved is good enough to do the deal. Nobody has ever said (or proved) MS forces a dev to do a GP deal. So if both parties shake hands, then thats the deal. If the deal stinks, then sell the game the traditional way for $60 or $70. Or as an indie sell it for $20. The option is there.

TBF, most of the studios doing Day 1 that aren't 1P have been AA and indie teams, not 3P AAA. It was kind of telling when Phil Spencer himself, though, came out and said there were developers who felt their games weren't viable on Xbox unless they put them on GamePass.

At the very least that might signal that there are a number of studios out in the industry who feel Microsoft might have conditioned certain habits in a notable portion of their install base that would rather wait for a game to come to GP than buy it outright. There are maybe a few games out there which prove those fears could be unfounded, like Elden Ring, but Elden Ring is somewhat an exception even by most AAA standards, let alone AA or indie. It was bound to sell well on all platforms of availability.

 

[oldergamer]

He wants you to use official sources for something that isn't announced

I think Its funny how you are patting each other on the back to make yourself feel better. Do go ahead. Its so typical.

 

[oldergamer]

1. As Topher highlighted, I actually posted that a couple of days ago. And that information came from a news journalist.
2. Mince words? You keep spreading misinformation about it, saying these would be demos that someone will have to make. I kept explaining to you that's not how it works, not because "someone on Twitter" said it, but because we have already had these game trials before with Sackboy, Death Stranding, etc. and after using them, we know exactly how it works.
3. Why are you so angry?

Thats fine my posts were in response to the thread title (which is now misleading) and i didnt see everything posted after.

I didnt make the thread title dude, i replied to it. So if you want to talk misinformation start there.

Again none of that matters and doesn't change the fact trials shouldn't be behind a pay wall.

 

[Dick Jones]

I think Its funny how you are patting each other on the back to make yourself feel better. Do go ahead. Its so typical.

Okay

 

[yurinka]

The question I have is, if I am a 3rd party dev and I am required to make this demo... am I prohibited from releasing the demo for all tiers? Or is Sony keeping all demos now behind this third tier paywall? I mean if I have to make a demo as a Dev I certainly would want to maximize who can get it in the ecosystem.

According to the article Sony will continue allowing any dev to release demos or time limited full game trials open to all users (subscribers and not subscribers). So whoever wants to release a demo for everybody will continue to be allowed to do so.

And well, the current PS+ from time to time gets some exclusive demos or time trials for PS+ subbers. PS+ Essential is supposed to be exactly like the current PS+, same features and content, so I assume it means that if some dev wants to make a demo or time trial available to PS+ Essential (which means available to all tiers) will be free to do it.

The stuff for PS+ Essential or non-subscribers is supposed to continue as it has been as of now.

The only change regarding demos and time trials is that now PS+ Premium subbers will geat 2+ hours full game trials or demos for any non VR AAA published on PS maximum 3 months after the game release, and once published will remain there at least for a year. For cheaper games (indie/AA/VR/games released at budget price) to release a demo or trial for PS+ Premium subbers will be optional.

Unlike the normal demos, the time lmited full game trials don't require any extra work for the dev: it's the normal full game that is sold digitally on PSN, but locked by the OS with a timer. If later you buy the game or they include it in PS Plus or PS Now, the trophies and savedata (so game progress) is shared and compatible.

 

[Papacheeks]

Again its down to taste when you say games that suck.

For me God of war and I just dont gel. I can see its high production values but i dont like the game. I bought it and fair enough i dont like it, if i had the 2 hour trial they would never of got my money.

on the other hand i love the Spider-Man game but you may not, its all down to taste and with the 2 hour demo there’s a chance it can impact sales both positivly and negatively

There’s nothing tasteful in how Cyberpunk and battlefield 2042 launched.

 

[Warablo]

So publishers are going to bail on the entire PlayStation install base because Sony gave a subset of their customers access to those games for two hours?

I could see some publishers not putting any of their games on PS+ game service thing. Of course they would still be purchasable on the Sony store though.

 

[phil_t98]

There’s nothing tasteful in how Cyberpunk and battlefield 2042 launched.

Did you buy them both?

 

[Papacheeks]

Did you buy them both?

No. But millions bought cyperpunk based off of a fake 2018 demo.

And to combat all the refunds requests Sony took it off PSN.

Timed trials makes so the consumer has a better buying and gaming experience.

Also no one on this forum including nuckleheads on YouTube and publications brought up EA play Pro. Which Sony basically took more of a cue from then game pass.

Ea play pro let’s you play first couple hours of madden/FIFA early as part of the selling point for higher tier compared to EA PLAY.

I do agree with Sony should pay developers for having their trial ready. But also demos use to be a thing. And Steam let’s you play up to 2 hours and still let’s you get a refund.

With so many unoptimized games like Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, straight up broken games like battlefield it’s nice to know what you are buying.

 

[Spukc]

What a waste of time and cash.
Also pointless when the eu forces them to offer refunds anyway

 

[dcmk7]

What a waste of time and cash.
Also pointless when the eu forces them to offer refunds anyway

Hopefully the EU forces this.

Trials would undoubtedly help consumers when being in two minds about purchases however. Quite a good consumer move.

Not best implementation but certainly beats the present day alternative of nothing. Surprised that people are upset when you consider the alternative.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Hopefully the EU forces this.

Trials would undoubtedly help consumers when being in two minds about purchases however. Quite a good consumer move.

Not best implementation but certainly beats the present day alternative of nothing. Surprised that people are upset when you consider the alternative.

EU law isn't really effective since your rights are void once you start the download

 

[Banjo64]

Did you buy them both?

I did. They’re both shite.

 

[NewYork214]

Going to assume that almost no developers will do this on launch. Would hurt their preorder sales, I would thing. I would love this feature. So many games that I want to try. Could make me not wait for sales on some games as well

 

[jaysius]

Sony has used this selling point 8 years ago.

PlayStation Plus Introduction​

Was this answer helpful?
Yes No
[PlayStation®Network] Updated 03/25/2014
PlayStation's premium game membership supplies you with an instant collection of blockbuster games, cloud saves, discounts, and much more, for less than $5 a month.

• Instant Game Collection Access - Popular titles such as Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, inFamous 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Saints Row 2, Virtua Fighter 5, are just a few examples of the many PlayStation 3 and PS Vita games, that have been available on demand and to play as long as you are a PlayStation Plus subscriber. See what's available now in the Instant Game Collection by visiting the PlayStation Plus page.
• PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3 and PS Vita Supported - Your PlayStation Plus membership applies to both PS4, PS3 AND PS Vita. It's like two memberships for the price of one! For more information on PS Plus for PS Vita features, click here.
• Discounts - Save money on select PlayStation®Store purchases with limited time, rotating discounts from 20-80% off.
• Full Game Trials - A great way to try before you buy - play a game for up to one hour, then purchase the game to unlock your trophies and continue your progress.
• Online Multi-player PS4 - Access to online multi-player on the PS4.
• Online Storage - Access to online Cloud game save storage (Up to 3GB).
• Exclusive Offers - Access to select avatars, themes, and other items other folks can't get.
• Select Early Demos - Get early access to select demos before anyone else.
• Priority Beta Invitations - You'll be the first to receive invitations on select Betas.

Source Had to use wayback machine because Sony got rid of the original page.



They had a few game trials, but it really quietly died and did NOT get replaced by another perk.

This thing can be dropped, don't put too many eggs in this basket. WAIT and SEE.

 

[Menzies]

Also no one on this forum including nuckleheads on YouTube and publications brought up EA play Pro. Which Sony basically took more of a cue from then game pass.

Ea play pro let’s you play first couple hours of madden/FIFA early as part of the selling point for higher tier compared to EA PLAY.

EA play and their 10 hour game trials have been mentioned throughout the thread.

However, an interesting point that has not is ‘how does EA feel about this?’ - this would certainly cannibalise anyone paying to subscribe to the EA service for their early trials. And more broadly kills off avenues for more publishers adopting their own ‘EA play’ ventures.

We’ll have to see how this plays out. My concern is that the bigger publishers can negotiate for split revenue behind closed doors, but smaller publishers with less clout get 2/5ths of fuck all and told to like it.

 

[Shmunter]

Going to assume that almost no developers will do this on launch. Would hurt their preorder sales, I would thing. I would love this feature. So many games that I want to try. Could make me not wait for sales on some games as well

Could work in opposite, many more downloading and trying - paying to continue. Sort of like f2p, the tall barrier has been removed.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The amount of oversight MS, Sony and Nintendo already exert in the process for 3P devs and pubs can border excessive in some cases; I think a subscription-only future would be an unfortunate grounds for that power of theirs to only escalate, as you've mentioned. And given the way these companies are set up and how they tend to do business, out of the three only MS would be able to really survive and grow off of that type of model, IMO.

Everything on GP is for sale. Any game can be on Xbox and not be on GP. They really haven't forced any changes. They are offering buyers the opportunity to move to a different model and that seems to have reinvigorated their hardware business. Right now GP offers the ultimate in flexibility, devs can completely ignore it if they wish. I can't see them ever forcing subscription only.

If anything, this move by Sony is much more forceful as it removes the decision making from the dev/publisher.

 

[NewYork214]

Could work in opposite, many more downloading and trying - paying to continue. Sort of like f2p, the tall barrier has been removed.

very true. this will be interesting. i hope it is true

 

[Torrent of Pork]

I'd rather a no-questions-asked 2 hour return policy for everybody like Steam and Xbox, than demos held behind a paywall.

 

[Hendrick's]

The big 3rd parties are gonna be like

 

[DaGwaphics]

The big 3rd parties are gonna be like

You'd think that would have to be the first thought in at least some situations. But, maybe Sony had a real good sales pitch.

To be fair, I guess we'll just need to see how it goes. If this proves to increase sales, everybody will love it. This would be quickly adopted by all the stores and I doubt anyone else would limit it to a certain user group with a fee.

 

[Jigsaah]

A nice perk for those already committed to buying into the service. That almost makes the $70 price for games a bit more palatable. Am I sensing a consumer-friendly Sony being reborn?

 

[ToadMan]

The big 3rd parties are gonna be like

Who are the big third parties? I mean - there’s been so many acquisitions the 3rd parties that remain independent now are already pretty weak and dependent.

Ubisoft? They didn’t say no to steam refunds and PS seems to be a good sale platform for them.

Take 2 - not that big these days but GTA is still a big deal - however with Free to play stuff I suspect GTA will side step the requirements.

EA had their own thing already. They’ll either let Sony slap a 2 hour trial in or just release demos for the big sports games.

And that’s about it. The other big third parties are in MS now and presumably going exclusive.

 

[Niegenaamd]

Paying for demo's lol, ok ...

 

[DarkMage619]

A nice perk for those already committed to buying into the service. That almost makes the $70 price for games a bit more palatable. Am I sensing a consumer-friendly Sony being reborn?

Putting the perk into the highest tier and removing the ability to stack subs to get that high tier when the system changes over muddies that sentiment. They certainly could have made more consumer friendly moves.

 

[Jigsaah]

Putting the perk into the highest tier and removing the ability to stack subs to get that high tier when the system changes over muddies that sentiment. They certainly could have made more consumer friendly moves.

Stack subs, kinda like what happened when gamepass first released? Yea I suppose you got a point there...but still,,,on it's face it's something that Xbox isn't offering right now even for folks like me who have GP Ultimate.

 

[yurinka]

Sony has used this selling point 8 years ago.

It was there 12 years ago, back in the 2010 original PS+ release.

The difference was that was with a single game per month and a single hour. Now it's going to be minimum all non VR AAA games and the trials will be at least 2 hours long.

 

[DarkMage619]

Stack subs, kinda like what happened when gamepass first released? Yea I suppose you got a point there...but still,,,on it's face it's something that Xbox isn't offering right now even for folks like me who have GP Ultimate.

I suppose but I think the things MS is offering that Sony isn't outweighs Sony's offerings in the reverse. It IS better than offering absolutely nothing so there's that at least.

 

[Faithless83]

Are people seriously fighting for "publishers rights to not give things for free" over a 2 hours trial?

You geniuses should be glad that this will likely cut down the bug messes of games on release on PS platforms.

 

[yurinka]

The big 3rd parties are gonna be like

Jim Ryan said about the new PS+:
“I’m going to play a little hard to get on that one, but I can tell you free that we have massive publisher participation in this program. We have all the big names present.We have big publishers, we have small indie publishers. We have over 200 partners working with us to put their content into PlayStation Plus, so the lineup is going to be really strong.”

According to the trials info leak all the full priced AAA games will have their time trial or demo there. A move like this pretty likely was discussed with the big third parties that will be affected before announcing it. So if they made it mandatory it's because they are on board.

Who are the big third parties?

The ones who release full priced AAA games on PS an aren't owned by Sony: Activision, Microsoft, EA, Take 2, Ubisoft, WB, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Capcom, Square Enix, Koei Tecmo, the Embracer Group AAA publishers and devs, Sega etc.

Are people seriously fighting for "publishers rights to not give things for free" over a 2 hours trial?

They did it in 360 and having to manufacture demos as separate sku. Now it's going to be limited to high payers, won't require extra work and won't be required for medium sized and small games. If they did it for 360 I don't see why they would have any issue with it now.

I'd rather a no-questions-asked 2 hour return policy for everybody like Steam and Xbox, than demos held behind a paywall.

They should ban your account for abusing refunds. The dev loses 30% of the transaction with every refund: instead of paying back the 70% they got when the payment was made they return 100% (at least in the Apple App Store). And well, they exist -on PS too, it's mandated by law at least in EU- for justified cases, not to test products.

In addition to this, I don't see where the benefit is having to pay every single game you want to test and having to count yourself the 2 hours instead of paying a single fee for the sub having a counter controlled by the console.

Everything on GP is for sale. Any game can be on Xbox and not be on GP. They really haven't forced any changes. They are offering buyers the opportunity to move to a different model and that seems to have reinvigorated their hardware business. Right now GP offers the ultimate in flexibility, devs can completely ignore it if they wish. I can't see them ever forcing subscription only.

If anything, this move by Sony is much more forceful as it removes the decision making from the dev/publisher.

All games included in PS+ or PSNow are also in the PSN store and can be buyed.

Devs aren't forced to include their games in PS Plus/PS Now: as happens in GP and since before GP did it, the platform holder and the publisher agree a deal for some games to be included in the subscription. For some games they have a deal, for other games one of them doesn't want so the game isn't included.

There is nothing negative on offering a short time limited trial of the AAA games -which doesn't require any work or cost for the publishers- to higher payers, a small subset of the whole userbase, to encourage sales among them.

Sony is "forcing" them to get extra game sales from their best customers, they must be super worried about i. Guillemot and Kotick must be crying.

Going to assume that almost no developers will do this on launch. Would hurt their preorder sales, I would thing. I would love this feature. So many games that I want to try. Could make me not wait for sales on some games as well

I think it would only slightly (the player with access to this is a small subset of the total) negatively affect them AAA games that end being way worse than advertised to the point a player was decided to buy the game after watching a trailer but after playing it got so disappointed to the point that changes his mind. Something that applies for very little amount of AAA games.

I think for most games will have no impact or a slight improvements in sales due to discovering games thanks to this, or the games perceived way better than expected after playing them for a couple of hours. And these extra sales would come from high payers, meaning that if they love the game they also would buy more DLC than average or could repeat later with more games from the studio.