Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Revenue share has fuck all to do with being pro-consumer.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony is requiring devs to offer timed game trials for PS+ Premium subscribers for games that cost more than $34 (Update: Wholesale Pricing)
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
- Rumor
Revenue share has fuck all to do with being pro-consumer.
Topher
Gold Member
Menzies
Banned
Thanks for your comment, when was I ever commenting about pro-consumer?
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Wait....I don't get a cut?
You best start seizing the means of production comrade
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
If you don't want to understand the context of the post you're responding to then that's your problem
FrankWza
Member
Sony is using their resources to create the demo. How are they “raking it in”? People don’t work for free
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
It’s not baked into the OS and there’s very little to do?
And Sony is demanding that 2 hours of 5+ years of developer labour is free.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Honestly wouldn't know, myself. Maybe R reksveks or
Heisenberg007
would have that type of data on them. I'd have to scavenge through a ton of links to maybe find it and time as short 
.Myself personally, I would probably take that option but only because my internet has a data cap and I wouldn't want to risk spilling over that cap on large game downloads (the bandwidth itself isn't an issue tho neither is connection (now) thanks to them coming out to repair the node in the area....love taking it directly up to the supervisor cuts past the BS).
Almost tempted to think this is the case, at least for now, and I'm not exactly sure how well it would hold out in the longer term. Technically speaking, Sony has enjoyed a large marketshare advantage over Microsoft, and while Nintendo tends to do as well if not better than Sony in total units sold, they are also in a much different segment and not directly comparable.
But I also can't ignore that, at least so far this year, MS's been getting more Series systems out there than Sony has PS5s. Those are facts, and due to that whatever unit sales gap there was earlier between the two has been shrinking, however gradually or by any whatever amount. If that for whatever reason, by whatever means, continues, then Sony may not be able to leverage that marketshare advantage on its own. They would need to provide some type of financial incentive as well.
Yeah in totality this is a net benefit for players mainly those on PS+ Premium. But I do understand some of the concerns, too. Also it's kind of wild to consider we might be finding out about this ahead of 3P partners!
It would be damning if a publisher like Take Two, EA or Ubisoft came out against it. But that likely won't happen...unless one of them (cough, Ubisoft) might just happen to be acquired by a certain other platform holder.
Because coming out publicly against it would likely erode some business relations between Sony and that particular publisher. They could even improve the terms for other 3P partners and shut out the one who comes out against it critically, partially out of spite. But before any of that, I think the idea itself needs to be given a fair chance to see how it works out, and there are probably other details both public-facing and privately behind-the-scenes we aren't even privy of which could really get 3P partners incentivized to be onboard.
How do we know 3P partners are not being compensated for providing the trails? There are probably more details to this than have been mentioned so far, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a financial incentive and the easiest would be to just reduce the 30% cut by 5% or 10% for the first 500K - 1 million units sold.
Which, since these are mainly for AAA games anyway, gives a good incentive for 3P publishers and good buffer for Sony on the money side, since almost all AAA games do at least 2 million copies these days, if not WAY more than that.
DrumNBassDanTTV
Member
Explain how this is good?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So you think publishers like the used game market, more than this? Are you people insane?!
Menzies
Banned
I speak for myself. If I were in their shoes I would have problems with;
1. Sony forcing me to offer this.
2. Sony making money by gate-keeping this behind their pay wall.
3. Sony not sharing any of their subscription fee.
If this is so win-win they would have offered this of their own volition.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
This literally does nothing positive for discussion.
The logic simply doesn't add up
...This is a pretty good, comprehensive summary.
Well, MS directly profited from netting Outriders for GP last year while PeopleCanFly basically not only got none of that money, but missed sales targets so they lost out on royalties, too. Can that be called unethical on MS's part?
Plus the only way Sony's benefitting from this is in getting more PS+ Premium subscribers...and we still don't know in what way 3P partners are (hopefully) being financially compensated for the trails.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I seriously doubt they will do anything but build some 2 hour DRM that applies to all games. Not like Sony is going to "build" demos, that would be ridiculous. For one, it's incredibly unlikely Sony ever sees any source code for any game that isn't yours. You submit signed builds, not code, to Sony.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
But the publishers don't have a choice in the matter with this new deal tho.
Even if Sony are doing all the work, supposedly there is no profit sharing based on the leaked info, so as someone pointed on the last page, Sony are monetizing on someone else's work.
You're just making a mountain out of a molehill now. Literally not one of the active posters in this topic made any noteworthy point about the trials in the last topic.
There was no info to make any point to in the first place. Expecting the level of discussion to be the same now and back then is a fools errand.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
This is what happens every time you respond to me without actually reading. Again. You do it everytime
Menzies
Banned
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.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sure they do, they can release it outside of that service for all consumers (if any of this is true).
Ask the publishers to be more pro consumer.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Do you know if the bolded is true?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nobody does. This is all concern trolling and assumptions.
Menzies
Banned
I’m commenting on the best available information at the time, which is all we can do.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So just console warriors? That makes these convos boring though. I should be having real conversations. I think I'm going to be out on this talk for now, if all we are doing is talking to warriors.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
So reading that article I noticed this.....
Where is this $18 a month thing coming from? Is this some Euro pricing or something? I saw $10 a month if you buy the year package. Or is he not going to reference that this is the price for most people?
And then the author says this.
What does he mean by "it doesn't appear"? According to who? Who did he call or email? He doesn't say. Weird. It's okay to allow things to play out before just saying things.
kyliethicc
Member
Do these trials at least have Variably Refreshing Automatic Low Latency?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That’s modern journalism for ya. Just use your own feelings, setting a narrative, without any facts.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
All this news is coming from vague unconfirmed sources, so it's weird to take half the things at face value and ask the other half to allow things to play.
All of this falls in the 'allow things to play' category right now.
For money. Did Xbox charge for demos when they required them for indies? Like I said earlier, offer them for free and then it’s a positive. Heck, at least do it as well as EA.
So only console warriors thinks it’s good or bad to pay for demos? This site has plenty, but saying paid demos is bad shouldn’t automatically lump you into one group.
I see it as some good, some bad. Having demos is good. Having to pay for them is bad.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Phil and Ybarra while still at Xbox actually gamed with clowns like Timdog (Only one I know for a fact)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6639197/vpavic_070616_1091_0165_wm.0.jpg)
Xbox head Phil Spencer says console tribalism is “one of the worst things about our industry”
“The biggest competitor we have is apathy.”www.theverge.com
Tom Warren Profile and Activity - The Verge
Tom Warren is a Senior Editor for The Verge. Tom previously founded WinRumors, a site dedicated to Microsoft news, before joining The Verge. Tom also used to work as an enterprise project manager in a variety of investment banks, and has a background in IT and Windows engineering. Tom has...
Was playing PUBG with Phil and Mike and Timdog wanted in and they let him play though actually while gaming he was a decent guy
Might have been COD Blackout it was one of the BRs
DarkMage619
$MSFT
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.
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.
yurinka
Member
Are you sure? Please tell me how many units did PS5 and Xbox sold worldwide this year.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
It should positively.
If it hurt game sales and whatever revenue Sony makes off third parties they wouldnt do it.
Calverz
Member
When this was originally announced, I believed it to be good for consumers in general. Because I believe demos should come back. I mean imagine if there was a demo for cyberpunk? Demos are good for us consumers.
However I hve since learned that it will be actually be the psn store creating the 2 hour demos which leaves me with mixed feelings on this.
In no way was I stating this was good value for their subscription service.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
That's the thing.
Good for gamers. Depending on the dev with their good or shitty game, it can be bad for them.
TheTony316
Member
So, this will only affect the biggest AAA games and Sony is handeling the trials through a systenwide timer, requiring no work from devs.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I used an example earlier of a couple of games I have bought but never would of if I played them first.
it can have a negative effect also.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
It’s not really a competitor to that service. It’s an offering on the PlayStation ecosystem only.
If they were both on the same system, then it would be a competitor. Maybe one day they will be.
Shmunter
Member
Elaborate
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Cool.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
I don't know if publishers are ready to yield so much control over their product to a 3rd party. I remember when Nvidia started its Geforce Now thing and then had to delete hundreds of games from its service because the publishers didn't want their games there. And these were games that have been paid for by customers. So I'm looking forward to seeing how publishers react to Sony's move.
Shmunter
Member
Yes, but this is wielding their power for the good of the customer. Needs support not slander no
ZywyPL
Banned
People are saying there is no value in effectively a try before you buy?
You know, it's up to the publisher/dev to convince me to their product, and that's vehat demos were all about, and here it's you who has to pay to maybe get convinced into buying bthe game... It's like paying for a test drive when looking for a new car, or paying a rent when you eant to look at the house you're interested in. This is simply not the way.
But nevertheless it all makes sense IMO, Sony needs something strong to differentiate 2nd and 3rd PS+ tiers and this is a really neat feature to convince people to pay a bit extra for it.
But like I said previously, that's something that shouldn't be put behind a paywall, never was, I personally feel this is a second XBL situation which made people OK with paying for online, and I have absolutely no doubts that when publishers notice people don't mind paid demos they'll abuse it even harder that we can even imagine, they always do.
dcmk7
Banned
Good to see this guy back for a week or two
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
So when Xbox offers a 14-day refund policy for digital games that also applies to non-XGS developers and publishers, publishers are ready to yield that much control over their product to a 3rd party (Xbox)? When do you expect that Xbox policy to spectacularly backfire?
(For the record, I appreciate and like Xbox's refund policy because it is pro-consumer and I wish Sony had something similar).
GHG
Member
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.
solidus12
Member
Seems like whatever they do, PlayStation are subjected to criticism.
Everything is scrutinized and journalists and other influencers are upset. Game trials were a thing back on the PS3 days with PS Plus.
What’s up with all the criticism and outrage; we don’t see that stuff happening with Nintendo and Xbox.
Everything is scrutinized and journalists and other influencers are upset. Game trials were a thing back on the PS3 days with PS Plus.
What’s up with all the criticism and outrage; we don’t see that stuff happening with Nintendo and Xbox.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Refunds are a different matter imo, there you have to buy the game first and you also can't abuse the refund policy much, at least with Steam I know that people who abuse it get banned from being able to refund games.So when Xbox offers a 14-day refund policy for digital games that also applies to non-XGS developers and publishers, publishers are ready to yield that much control over their product to a 3rd party (Xbox)? When do you expect that Xbox policy to spectacularly backfire?
(For the record, I appreciate and like Xbox's refund policy because it is pro-consumer and I wish Sony had something similar).
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's different to you, but it's not really different objectively. The end-result is objectively the same -- gamers are playing roughly 2 hours of the game for free, and the console manufacturer (Xbox/PS) are forcing this on devs, and devs have no say in it.
If anything, the refund policy can be even more damaging to developers because the person who has refunded the game is less likely to buy the game again. OTOH, the person who has just finished playing the 2-hour demo might be, comparatively speaking, more likely to buy the game.
Either way, your objection was that the publishers are not ready to yield that much control to a third-party console manufacturer and because of that it can spectacularly backfire for Sony. My question is why Xbox imposing a refund policy that can be easily abused and be detrimental to developers and studios haven't spectacularly backfired yet? And what makes you think this will?
Bernd Lauert
Banned
The refund policy can't be abused, as stated above. That's why it's also not usable as a way to get free demos. It's a completely different thing.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
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?
Similar threads
- Locked