Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

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

Are you suggesting he might be a fanboy? That would be impossible since he owns all platforms.

 

[Topher]

So ? The sarcastic reply is likely a response to people DM'ing him with stupid commentary. You don't write a reply like that without anything provoking it.

Nonsense. He doesn't address that sarcastic tweet to DMs or even suggest they were in response to DMs. It wasn't a "reply" at all as it was addressed to absolutely no one.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't think gamers are upset about the trial thing itself, in an ideal case every game on every platform should either have a free trial, or a trial window in which they can safely refund the game.

This being kept behind a pay wall is what seems to be the problem, or at least that's the way I'm reading it.

How about the disingenuous "this will hurt publishers/developers" BS that is repeated ad nauseum?

 

[adamsapple]

How about the disingenuous "this will hurt publishers/developers" BS that is repeated ad nauseum?

Hurt ? Probably not 'hurt' but I can foresee some people choosing not to buy a game after the 2 hr trial that they might have bought otherwise. I know because I've done that a few times with EA Play trials.

But annoy them for sure, even Matt thinks so and he's probably in a better position than most to make comments like that.

Nonsense. He doesn't address that sarcastic tweet to DMs or even suggest they were in response to DMs. It wasn't a "reply" at all as it was addressed to absolutely no one.

I thought about writing "but then we're gonna ask him to prove it by posting pics of his DMs" but let it go, should have added that in lol.

Again, you don't write a sarcastic/witty reply like that almost half an hour after the initial tweet unless something prompts it.

People generally don't tend to do that. Matt doesn't have a history of being sarcastic against people in his communication, he's generally pretty professional about it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hurt ? Probably not 'hurt' but I can foresee some people choosing not to buy a game after the 2 hr trial that they might have bought otherwise. I know because I've done that a few times with EA Play trials.

But annoy them for sure, even Matt thinks so and he's probably in a better position than most to make comments like that.

I fucking knew it.

 

[DarkMage619]

And Sony charges zero money for trials.

They’re forcing developers to implement a trial system but they aren’t limiting that to subscribers.

If anyone without premium subs cannot get the trial - that’s the publishers decision, not Sony.

But the pubs have no excuse - the system will be implemented because Sony insisted it is implemented.

Oh and streaming - lol. See you in 20 years.

Can all PlayStation users benefit from these 'forced' trials or are they behind a paywall? Just like anyone can use Sony's game save cloud storage you just have to pay for it.

Sony is the one with the mandate and it is not up to the publishers so I have no idea what you are talking about it being their decision. Can they decide to not bother with a trial at all? That would be the real choice.

Streaming in this case would allow instant access to a title without having to sit though a lengthy download and install process. For a 2 hour trial. Why should anyone wait 20 years for streaming when it is available on other platforms now?

They don't cost money to who? The dev\publisher? Or the gamer?

The gamer! We care most about the gamer and here the gamer is paying for a trial access. This also might cost money to the devs too if they arent compensated for that access.

Y'all keep changing what the active discussion point is so frequently.

From what I can see the two main points are that 1/ the trials are locked behind the highest tier and the lower tiers get nothing and 2/ forced trials would probably piss off publishers.

For point 2, the comparison with EA Play is still a bit irrelevant as EA Play trials are EA's choice on their own published games, they're not making every publisher to do that.

-

The one remedy for point 2 is that/if Sony is taking full ownership of creating 'trial' time gates on games and letting people download them and locking after the two hour is over, but that still leaves the other issue of this being locked behind the highest tier of their sub service. Value adding, yes, but they're basically locking demos behind a paywall no matter how anyone wants to paint it.

Pretty succinctly put. Sure it's a value to have some trials added but as Matt Piscatella stated it might cause some pushback from publishers. As long as Sony is doing all the heavy lifting and publishers are compensated for the access they are granting to the paying PS gamers, people are completely able to pay for this trial access. I still hope this forced participation doesn't become a thing beyond Sony's platform.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Hurt ? Probably not 'hurt' but I can foresee some people choosing not to buy a game after the 2 hr trial that they might have bought otherwise. I know because I've done that a few times with EA Play trials.

But annoy them for sure, even Matt thinks so and he's probably in a better position than most to make comments like that.

Saved me from buying 2042

 

[mckmas8808]

I haven't trusted this dude since he tried to push the narrative that Gamepass makes people buy more games. I'll never believe this shit, doesn't make any sense to me, so he just came off as very untrustworthy pushing PR spins.

He got relevant by supposedly being a guy that would just put out numbers but turns out he is most likely a paid shill.

You're telling me Matt stated that GamePass™ encourages gamers to buy "MORE" games, yet this new PS+ Premium feature will be bad for publishers and devs? HOW?! How can the same person hold both points of view?

 

[Topher]

I thought about writing "but then we're gonna ask him to prove it by posting pics of his DMs" but let it go, should have added that in lol.

Again, you don't write a sarcastic/witty reply like that almost half an hour after the initial tweet unless something prompts it. People generally don't tend to do that.

Who writes a "reply" without addressing who they are replying to? Sorry....not buying it. Either way, his tweet makes him come across as just another twitter fanboy rather than a professional working for NPD.

 

[adamsapple]

I fucking knew it.

Saved me from buying 2042

This guy gets it.

 

[Zeroing]

The more I think of this the more I hate it. It is Sony requiring demos but using that to entice people into buying their service which is something that actually competes with publishers of games not on the service. I think demos are great and should be available to all potential customers because if they are on the fence, they are more likely to give you a couple of hours to try out your game then they are to plop down 70 bucks. It should be a win-win, but instead it is being kept behind a paywall.

Now think why is behind a paywall and why on the other site we have people saying poor devs… while the devs are saying this is bad!

Those poor devs would rather not make trials and demos.

PR marketing, hype and hoping for good reviews are better than putting your game to be evaluated by everyone who wants to buy the game. Yes I agree it should be universal to try a game before you buy.

All this to essentially say. Unless “forced” they would not do it!

 

[jroc74]

@schaft0620 and @jaysius

We all feel dumber right? Well let me help you to feel more dumb:

I find it funny that some ppl just seemed to not know game trials are a thing right now, or how they even work.

Interesting.

 

[mckmas8808]

There's a 28~ minute gap between his original tweet with the news and him saying this will receive pushback from publishers and the next tweets where he's sarcastically saying 'but please tell me how publishers work'. 28 minutes may as well be an eternity on twitter.






EA Play's trials are 10 hours long, and they're on the lower tier of their subscription service, and essentially bundled in 'free' with game pass ultimate, and their higher tier straight up gives full access to the game.

This (PS Now) trial feature is relegated to the highest tier of their sub service and the two lower tiers are shit out of luck.

The BOLDED is a good thing for publishers and developers. So what's the problem now?

 

[nominedomine]

You're telling me Matt stated that GamePass™ encourages gamers to buy "MORE" games, yet this new PS+ Premium feature will be bad for publishers and devs? HOW?! How can the same person hold both points of view?

I don't know if he started it, but he is the one that gave credibility to it, given that people assumed he was looking at the numbers and not just taking them for a PR spin.

To me the claim was always absurd to begging with, there's definitely a sleight of hand somewhere (like who are they comparing the Gamepass subscribers too when making that claim?)

Any wild claim not backed up by numbers I just assume is an attempt to deceive people. Yet the same people that believe these wild claims seem to get really suspicious when Sony doesn't provide the number of sales of their games (hypocritically, but likely correct in this case, because you only hide numbers that don't make you look good).

 

[Tripolygon]

You're telling me Matt stated that GamePass™ encourages gamers to buy "MORE" games, yet this new PS+ Premium feature will be bad for publishers and devs? HOW?! How can the same person hold both points of view?

Lol

 

[Thirty7ven]

This will just expose trash publishers and developers. Price your game accordingly if you don’t want people to try before buying.

 

[adamsapple]

The BOLDED is a good thing for publishers and developers. So what's the problem now?

If you had bolded the line about all games having a free trial or trial window to refund, I would have been with you 110%.

But I'm not fully getting how gatekeeping trials behind the higher end of their tier subscription is a good thing for either the publisher or developer.

If it was even something like a few days or week(s) earlier access to day 1 games, that I can see as a legit value add, but this is basically locking free demos behind a paywall.

 

[yurinka]

EA Play trials are 10 hours long too.

The PS+ Premium trials will be 10 hours long if the publisher of the game decides so. They must be at least 2 hours but the publisher is free to decide its length.

This is all the work required for the publisher and Sony. This and after a year to decide if the game continues there or not.

But I'm not fully getting how gatekeeping trials behind the higher end of their tier subscription is a good thing for either the publisher or developer.

It helps them earn more money from high spender playrs with no extra cost/work for them and at a very low risk. It has been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I find it funny that some ppl just seemed to not know game trials are a thing right now, or how they even work.

Interesting.

It's called, gamer amnesia. Only pops up from tribe to tribe.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Game Pass has historical data for a few years that shows the trends of people buying things while subscribed increasing compared to Xbox gamers who aren't subscribed to the service.

That doesn't tell us a lot, though. It doesn't tell us what they're buying; it could be other games, or it could be DLC & MTX. It could be them buying games already in the service, or not in the service. For all we know it could be them buying games on completely different non-Xbox consoles or platforms.

We also don't know if what people are buying is equivalent in costs to the games they would've otherwise purchased had they not been in the service.

For this service, we don't have any point of reference like that so far. So we can't really compare them right now.

Well that's true, but the new PS+ service is mainly the old PS+ and PS Now rolled into one. I don't think the intent of either service was to get people to buy more games per se, since PS+ gives away free games monthly and PS Now was mainly for streaming older releases. Their purpose was different from GamePass in that respect.

Besides that, the one big difference between what GP offers and what this is that you get full new releases on day 1, this is only promising trials.

But those new releases are limited to 1P XGS & most Zenimax games, and some 3P indie games. The way Sony's trails look to work you'll have partial access to all 3P games, from AAA to indie, as well as Sony's 1P games, on Day 1. They're two different approaches driven by two different fiscal models and financial strategies; at the end of the day it's up to the gamer to decide which one fits their preference.

So GP is mitigating the need for people to buy new games, since they're getting a lot of them day 1 anyway.

That's true, but in order to ensure that MS have needed to either purchase studios & publishers to own them outright (thus cutting down on the amount of money they'd have to pay over time for licensing agreements for 3P AAA games to come Day 1 regularly), or pay out lump sums & quota-based payouts for games licensed for inclusion into the service, which can add up over time in costs.

It's a reason why we don't see very many 3P AAA games Day 1 in GamePass; the costs required to do that regularly would quickly negate whatever revenue the service brings in annually. Sony probably saw that as one of the big weaknesses of Microsoft's strategy, and took what they felt was the best approach to address that weakness with their own offering.

Of course, now that means they had to make some compromises of their own, just like Microsoft had to with their own approach, and again it just comes down to which one you end up preferring.

Apologies, I don't have actual written evidence for you yet so I only have my memory to go from as of now. From what I remember, Xbox 360 required them at launch as it was one of the features they advertised for the console's launch. I remember launch game achievements either being ridiculously easy or ridiculously hard until gears of war showed developers how to do them better. I remember trophies being added either late 2008 or 2009, right before the "It only does everything" slim rebrand and right after MGS4. I remember people begging Konami for trophies on this game specifically because it released so close to the launch of trophies.

No problems dude; I appreciate the clarifications regardless tho. Also I had forgotten Sony were so late introducing trophies

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think gamers are upset about the trial thing itself, in an ideal case every game on every platform should either have a free trial, or a trial window in which they can safely refund the game.

This being kept behind a pay wall is what seems to be the problem, or at least that's the way I'm reading it.

Sony isn't forcing anybody to keep it locked behind the PS+ Premium paywall. Any publisher can allow it to every PS gamers for free if they choose to. It's up to the publisher to do that. Are you saying Sony is to blame because they aren't forcing every publisher to make all game shave 2 hour game trials for every PS gamer?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The paywall whining would look more genuine if this started months ago. We've known about these trials since last year

But where's muh sony gamepass was more important

 

[mckmas8808]

The gamer! We care most about the gamer and here the gamer is paying for a trial access. This also might cost money to the devs too if they arent compensated for that access.

The gamer is NOT paying for game demos. They are paying for the FULL PS+ Premium subscription. This is only one part of that subscription.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony isn't forcing anybody to keep it locked behind the PS+ Premium paywall. Any publisher can allow it to every PS gamers for free if they choose to. It's up to the publisher to do that. Are you saying Sony is to blame because they aren't forcing every publisher to make all game shave 2 hour game trials for every PS gamer?

Pretty amazing, huh?

They self defeat their own arguments all in one mental gymnastic post.

Sony bad for forcing devs
Sony bad, this could hurt devs
Sony bad for forcing behind paywall (even though devs can do it outside the paywall if they say yes to it)
Sony bad, this could hurt devs
Sony should force it outside the paywall.... no wait wait wait.
Sony bad, this could hurt devs

Sony is anti-devsumer!

 

[Heisenberg007]

During the 360 days, I bought shit loads of XBLA and XBLIG because they had demos/trials. I probably bought 10 twin stick shooters on XBLIG alone. And believe it or not I'd say most of them I bought were better than Geometry Wars. Even though these games are dirt cheap it doesn't matter. I'm not rolling the dice on a potentially shit game even if it's only $5 or 400 Xbox pts back then. And same holds true now.

And the same hold true for bigger budget games. I'm not going to randomly buy a $60 game unless it's a tried and true kind of franchise (sequel-itis).

I've bought way fewer of these kinds of budget games since Xbox One because demos/trials are rare for these budget games now.

The 2 hour trial should be welcomed even more than back then because 360 demos you could play forever (although indie games were 10 minute timers). So a gamer who doesn't want to pay a dime buying a game could download and play 1000 games. 2 hr timers and only for some games gets a cheap gamer only so far.

True. Similarly, I've sometimes jumped the gun and purchased the game only to realize that it wasn't for me. I think this will be a really good thing for gamers. And I've a feeling that Xbox will also adopt this or a similar feature if this works out for PlayStation -- which, again, would be fantastic for gamers.

P.S. And the 2-hour timer is the minimum amount of time for the trial. These trials can currently go up to 6 hours.

 

[Zeroing]

For those complaining about demos being behind a paywall I ask you this!? Did you complained when online went behind a paywall with Microsoft? Or when Nintendo and Sony did it years after?

If you didn’t complain, congrats your are too late! The worse has already been done! Years ago!

 

[Topher]

True. Similarly, I've sometimes jumped the gun and purchased the game only to realize that it wasn't for me. I think this will be a really good thing for gamers. And I've a feeling that Xbox will also adopt this or a similar feature if this works out for PlayStation -- which, again, would be fantastic for gamers.

P.S. And the 2-hour timer is the minimum amount of time for the trial. These trials can currently go up to 6 hours.

Geez.....new information seems to be revealed all the time. Probably a good idea, at this point, to just wait for official word from Sony as to what is what in all this.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony isn't forcing anybody to keep it locked behind the PS+ Premium paywall. Any publisher can allow it to every PS gamers for free if they choose to. It's up to the publisher to do that. Are you saying Sony is to blame because they aren't forcing every publisher to make all game shave 2 hour game trials for every PS gamer?

No, I'm saying the trials shouldn't of been locked behind the Premium tier, this should have been on all PS+ tiers to make every tier get more value.

And you are right, developers/publishers will kind of get their hands forced to release more demos on other platforms as well to make sure they don't make the rest of the player base feel left out, which will end up making this decision to lock trials behind the premium sub even more redundant.

The paywall whining would look more genuine if this started months ago. We've known about these trials since last year

But where's muh sony gamepass was more important

Everything from last years Schrier leaks was rumor and heresy until officially confirmed, it took a long while after the initial leaks for the PS Pass to be official as well, there was little point in people arguing about it back then, besides the PS Pass was the much bigger and more relevant news of the two at that point. So that's where most discussion went.

Nothing nefarious about it really.

 

[dcmk7]

This is going to get more people playing and trying different games and genres that they wouldn't typically take any notice of. So it looks like a win for the consumer.

People here complain about the lack of demos and the amount of broken games released nowadays but when a platform holder offers a try before you buy, it's a big issue? C'mon.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Geez.....new information seems to be revealed all the time. Probably a good idea, at this point, to just wait for official word from Sony as to what is what in all this.

 

[mckmas8808]

If you had bolded the line about all games having a free trial or trial window to refund, I would have been with you 110%.

But I'm not fully getting how gatekeeping trials behind the higher end of their tier subscription is a good thing for either the publisher or developer.

If it was even something like a few days or week(s) earlier access to day 1 games, that I can see as a legit value add, but this is basically locking free demos behind a paywall.

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.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Everything from last years Schrier leaks was rumor and heresy until officially confirmed, it took a long while after the initial leaks for the PS Pass to be official as well, there was little point in people arguing about it back then, besides the PS Pass was the much bigger and more relevant news of the two at that point. So that's where most discussion went.

Nothing nefarious about it really.

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

Oh wait. They still weren't

 

[Topher]

Apologies.....as you were folks....

 

[DarkMage619]

The gamer is NOT paying for game demos. They are paying for the FULL PS+ Premium subscription. This is only one part of that subscription.

Just like we are not paying for game save cloud storage only online play access? If you like this fine but I remain unconvinced that we should be paying for trial access. Like I said if devs are compensated for their forced participation people are free to pay if they are so inclined.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

A trial shouldn't cost any money at all. Also unless Sony allows for streaming of these trial games it would be quite cumbersome to download a full 50+GB title to play it for 2 hours. This should be part of the baseline PS+ Essential at most.

The downloads could be an issue but they could also just offer portions of the game with the trail content which would cut down on the download sizes significantly. I agree though that at least a more limited selection of games with trail features should be available at the lower tiers; this feature seems like it should be easily scalable anyway so why not.

I would agree with this if Sony didn't come out and clarify that implementing the trails requires no extra work on the developer's part. Apparently it's being handled by the PS store team, which is good news. That was always one of the bigger potential issues.

Of course, Matt still kind of brings up a good point about where the incentive is for publishers financially. Because otherwise it could kind of end up like as he phrases it, seeming as though 3P partners are being required to do something that mainly only benefits Sony's service but may not benefit them in a tangible way that's somewhat guaranteed.

I guess this same issue could've been the case for achievements and trophies back in the day too, but arguably the appeal those could've had was getting more gamers to buy your game to boost their scores in the ecosystem, and the game isn't really taking any "risk" on its part since it could've elected to provide a demo or skip it altogether. There's more of a risk with the trails because, like a demo, you can have well-designed trails and poorly designed trails, and the latter might hurt sales for the game, whether the game itself is genuinely good or trash. And it hinge on the developer to ensure the trail is a good one to put out there, meaning they have to consider what section of the game to use for it (or sections, potentially), how long it'll need to be, what parts of the story are covered and which aren't, etc.

Basically it can be as easy as taking the first two hours and cutting that off with a timer, or almost akin to building out a demo (except unlike say E3 demos it wouldn't be a vertical slice prettied up from a build-in-progress game, so it's still a lot less work comparatively). For those reasons I still think Sony might want to consider a financial incentive and, I'm gonna keep saying this, the simplest way would be to just waive a portion of their 30% cut off the first half-million or so sales for all games providing trails. They can then get the normal 30% for sales after that point.

If there's something like that, it's less a financial risk on Sony's end and publishers are immediately financially incentivized to make it work, and the service sees benefits too. All-around wins. But if they are doing that or considering, it would be behind-the-scenes type of stuff. The most we would hear is word that they are indeed doing something to that effect.

 

[mckmas8808]

For those complaining about demos being behind a paywall I ask you this!? Did you complained when online went behind a paywall with Microsoft? Or when Nintendo and Sony did it years after?

If you didn’t complain, congrats your are too late! The worse has already been done! Years ago!

I'd love for those same people to also tell me when we used to get demos for "free"? I've been playing video games since 1987/1988 when I was a young kid. I never got demos for "free".

For context, I only owned the following..........

- NES
- SNES
- Game Gear
- Sega Saturn
- PS1
- PS2
- PS3
- PS4
- PS5

 

[reksveks]

I find it very odd that a guy who is a professional in the industry isn't asking more questions rather than expressing outright negativity and sarcasm with no more details about this than anyone else.

My hope is that he is asking questions behind doors but given my understanding of an analyst, I am not 100% sure that's in his roles and responsibilities. I would hope that other journalists are.

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.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.

Very good points I didn't consider.

 

[Shmunter]

Platform holders should be enforcing this sort off stuff since Xbox Arcade. It’s consumer friendly and makes devs pay attention to the added scrutiny driving quality.

However, this should be totally free on the platform.

 

[reksveks]

If I understand you correctly, you are talking about corporations preying on people being less likely to ask for a refund even if they don't like something.

How is that good for consumers?

With this route, the default is you can try before you commit to buying instead of having to put your money upfront. It is the same tactic corporations use when they offer free trials but you have to give them payment information because often people forget to cancel.

I didn't say it was good for consumers (my very first comment on this thread was as a playstation player, i would be very happy). I was highlighting the fact that there is a difference from a 2 hours playtime refund policy and a 2 hour trial where someone said they are the same thing. It is not.

I am able to look at a scenario from multiple viewpoints.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'd love for those same people to also tell me when we used to get demos for "free"? I've been playing video games since 1987/1988 when I was a young kid. I never got demos for "free".

For context, I only owned the following..........

- NES
- SNES
- Game Gear
- Sega Saturn
- PS1
- PS2
- PS3
- PS4
- PS5

Free demos were rare and not wide-spread. Hell, most came with a paid for magazine on the rack or a subscription.

But those that made cut out demos themselves, were not as common as something like this would be.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

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.

 

[Topher]

My hope is that he is asking questions behind doors but given my understanding of an analyst, I am not 100% sure that's in his roles and responsibilities. I would hope that other journalists are.

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.

He says in later tweets he is reacting to the same article posted in this thread. I'm not saying he should be investigating. He isn't a journalist. As a professional in the industry, however, I think if he is going to say anything then he should be reserving judgement until the information is officially released. And even then....making assumptions isn't a good idea. I would think NPD would rather appear neutral.

 

[Zeroing]

I'd love for those same people to also tell me when we used to get demos for "free"? I've been playing video games since 1987/1988 when I was a young kid. I never got demos for "free".

For context, I only owned the following..........

- NES
- SNES
- Game Gear
- Sega Saturn
- PS1
- PS2
- PS3
- PS4
- PS5

I remember my uncle buying magazines with tons of pc game demos disks.

We did had indeed had “free” game demos but those were rare and tied to a digital store only. Last one I remember was a demo of dreams by Sony and you had to have ps plus if I am not mistaken! Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Thirty7ven]

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

 

[remember_spinal]

“Is it legal?”

 

[reksveks]

He says in later tweets he is reacting to the same article posted in this thread. I'm not saying he should be investigating. He isn't a journalist. As a professional in the industry, however, I think if he is going to say anything then he should be reserving judgement until the information is officially released. I would think NPD would rather appear neutral.

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.

 

[Warablo]

Consumers shouldn't care about trial or not, but I don't think Publishers will too happy with this development. No more demos because they actually hurt sales, and less betas recently.

 

[nominedomine]

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.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.

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?