Support NeoGAF

[Three]

They can, and do, on a case by case basis.

Sony can charge publishers for cross-play compensation, Epic Games reveal in court | TheSixthAxis

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney has revealed that Sony can extract compensation from game publishers that implement cross-play in their video games, though

www.thesixthaxis.com

This isn't what you think it is. This isn't money for cross-play. It's mtx revenue share. Meaning you can buy Fortnite content from other stores where Sony don't get a cut from the sale and then end up downloading/using that content on PSN.

 

[oldergamer]

The pubs/devs have the option to make them available to all.

Blame them.

Releasing to all then defeats the purpose of saying demos are a feature only for premium. In practice this demo thing isn't a good idea and i expect they may change course on it.

 

[Shmunter]

I didn't say it wasn't

But you wanted to

 

[Heisenberg007]

Releasing to all then defeats the purpose of saying demos are a feature only for premium. In practice this demo thing isn't a good idea and i expect they may change course on it.

Why do you think it's not a good idea?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I did read and i call bullshit anyone defending this crap is a shill

A pro consumer shill?

Well, that’s a first.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Releasing to all then defeats the purpose of saying demos are a feature only for premium. In practice this demo thing isn't a good idea and i expect they may change course on it.

Please explain why trials are a bad idea when one of the biggest talking points about a service like gamepass is how it lets you try games you wouldn’t otherwise.

Please go ahead, try.

 

[phil_t98]

But you wanted to

No at all. Made my thoughts clear earlier in the thread.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

gamepass [...] lets you try games

Publishers actually get paid for that. Big difference.

 

[Tripolygon]

Publishers actually get paid for that. Big difference.

Are you a publisher? Why are you as a consumer worried if publishers are being paid or not? What makes you think publishers aren't getting compensated?

 

[Rivet]

Publishers actually get paid for that. Big difference.

Guys, you told us we paid too much with our $80 games, but now we don't pay enough because of free trials. It's spinning so fast my head hurts. I don't know what to do anymore.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Are you a publisher? Why are you as a consumer worried if publishers are being paid or not? What makes you think publishers aren't getting compensated?

It's not even officially announced yet. We'll see how it goes. If they're getting compensated then all is good.

Guys, you told us we paid too much with our $80 games, but now we don't pay enough because of free trials. It's spinning so fast my head hurts. I don't know what to do anymore.

You should stick to leaving reactions.

 

[nominedomine]

Guys, you told us we paid too much with our $80 games, but now we don't pay enough because of free trials. It's spinning so fast my head hurts. I don't know what to do anymore.

You got to understand that publishers make most of their money from the subscription fee people pay to play online. That $15 getting split among all of them is a lot more sustainable for the industry.

That's why I don't buy games anymore, I want to give maximum support to devs so now I just wait for them to be on PS+, Gamepass, Prime Gaming or for Epic to give them away for free.

 

[Rivet]

You got to understand that publishers make most of their money from the subscription fee people pay to play online. That $15 getting split among all of them is a lot more sustainable for the industry. That's why I don't buy games anymore, I just wait for them to be on PS+, Gamepass, Prime Gaming or for Epic to give them away for free.

Yes, now that you explain it to me like that, it totally makes sense. I promise I'll never buy their games again, I don't want them to go out of business.

 

[nominedomine]

Yes, now that you explain it to me like that, it totally makes sense. I promise I'll never buy their games again, I don't want them to go out of business.

I have hundreds of games on Epic store, never paid for a single one, I'm doing my part.

I was looking at the list on the Epic Store and I'm impressed by how many of them are actually decent games, best deal in games by far and the most pro-consumer company in gaming:

Here is the list of games they have given away in the last 4 years: https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_free_Epic_Games_Store_games

The entire recent Tomb Raider trilogy, the Batman trilogy, Civ 6, Alien: Isolation, Prey, Control, City Skylines, GTAV, Hitman, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light, A Plague Tail, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Pillars of Eternity and more. That's without even getting into good the indie games.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Publishers actually get paid for that. Big difference.

All publishers make more money from the PlayStation platform than any other platform anyway because of the PS brand recognition and huge userbase. They surely can give some value back, right?

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I have 183 games on Epic store, never paid for a single one, I'm doing my part. I was looking at the list and I'm impressed by how many of them are actually pretty good, best deal in games by far.

Yes...and they are losing money as hell with those offers...people still only use that store to collect the games and go back to steam, lmao.
But yes for consumers it's great for sure.

Consoles will always be cheaper in terms of hardware but when you look at the money you spend overall, it's much more expensive. I basically play on Sony consoles for the studios they have, the fact i install a game and i know it's gonna work and how easy it all is. If not for these things i'd be all over PC gaming.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

All publishers make more money from the PlayStation platform than any other platform anyway because of the PS brand recognition and huge userbase. They surely can give some value back, right?

Exactly...you're basically giving your biggest platform a way to try your library of games. if anything, sales will increase for these publishers. Unless they try Cyberpunk or another shitty game.

 

[oldergamer]

Why do you think it's not a good idea?

Common, I've already explained why, but i will repeat it.

Demos should not be behind a paywall. Period. They should be free for all to access. The paywall restricts access to the demo, when the entire purpose of demos in the first place, is to allow as many people as possible to try before you buy.

Why any developer would want to make a demo or timed trial that could only be accessed by users paying for premium ( a smaller pool of gamers) is beyond me. Its a waste of budget unless everyone can access it.

It might make sense to some here that intend to justify paying more for premium plus, but for me sony adding demos doesnt make sense. Those demos should be free like all other platforms.

 

[Shmunter]

All publishers make more money from the PlayStation platform than any other platform anyway because of the PS brand recognition and huge userbase. They surely can give some value back, right?

Sony will make it worth their while somehow. It may for instance be backloaded instead of front e.g. a sell through from the trial may attract 20% cut instead of the usual 30, etc.

So devs for 0 work may get the opportunity for a better deal so there may be little friction.

- Sony gets its Tier with an attractive all encompassing AAA catalog.
- Devs get a whole new sales channel at an attractive return

win win?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Exactly...you're basically giving your biggest platform a way to try your library of games. if anything, sales will increase for these publishers. Unless they try Cyberpunk or another shitty game.

Exactly. If someone is on the market to buy a game, they can try hundreds and hundreds of games and choose the one that they like the most.

More incentive for developers to produce good games; healthy competition among developers that encourage better-quality games for PS gamers; more exposure for games as millions of people can try them and see if they like; more convenience for users. Super pro-consumerism!

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not even officially announced yet. We'll see how it goes. If they're getting compensated then all is good.

You should stick to leaving reactions.

You should stick to MS threads. Your fake concern is painfully transparent.

*incoming 'empathy' emoji*

 

[Heisenberg007]

Common, I've already explained why, but i will repeat it.

Demos should not be behind a paywall. Period. They should be free for all to access. The paywall restricts access to the demo, when the entire purpose of demos in the first place, is to allow as many people as possible to try before you buy.

Why any developer would want to make a demo or timed trial that could only be accessed by users paying for premium ( a smaller pool of gamers) is beyond me. Its a waste of budget unless everyone can access it.

It might make sense to some here that intend to justify paying more for premium plus, but for me sony adding demos doesnt make sense. Those demos should be free like all other platforms.

You're getting it all wrong.

1. It's not a "demo" that anyone has to "make". It's a timed trial. The game is already on PSN. You can download it and play it for a few hours before it gets locked. We've already seen it in action with Sackboy, Death Stranding DC, Biomutant, and Cyberpunk 2077. You download the full game that is already available on PSN. There is no extra slice of the game that either the dev or Sony needs to make.
2. Sony isn't stopping devs from offering these trials to everyone on the PSN. They are free to do so if they want to. And many likely will because we already get a bunch of demos on PSN. What's the problem then? I really don't understand it.

 

[nominedomine]

Yes...and they are losing money as hell with those offers...people still only use that store to collect the games and go back to steam, lmao.
But yes for consumers it's great for sure.

Consoles will always be cheaper in terms of hardware but when you look at the money you spend overall, it's much more expensive. I basically play on Sony consoles for the studios they have, the fact i install a game and i know it's gonna work and how easy it all is. If not for these things i'd be all over PC gaming.

They have deep pockets and all that Unreal and Fortnite money coming in, it's all about making money in the long run no? At least that's what I was told countless times, profit is something that only matters in the far future. Tim Sweeney is a gamer like us and he gets it.

When you combine how pro consumer and pro devs Epic is with their store and with Unreal Engine, giving so many things away for free, how they are so far ahead in the metaverse with Fortnite a game that is also given away for free, there is just no way Microsoft or Sony can ever compete. Eventually Epic will buy Steam so that gamers can combine their libraries and they'll go to the courts to fight for open stores and consumer rights.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Exactly. If someone is on the market to buy a game, they can try hundreds and hundreds of games and choose the one that they like the most.

More incentive for developers to produce good games; healthy competition among developers that encourage better-quality games for PS gamers; more exposure for games as millions of people can try them and see if they like; more convenience for users. Super pro-consumerism!

There's no evidence that demos improve sales, quite the opposite actually. That's why I think Sony will have to directly compensate publishers in some way, otherwise they won't play ball.

 

[Topher]

Common, I've already explained why, but i will repeat it.

Demos should not be behind a paywall. Period. They should be free for all to access. The paywall restricts access to the demo, when the entire purpose of demos in the first place, is to allow as many people as possible to try before you buy.

Why any developer would want to make a demo or timed trial that could only be accessed by users paying for premium ( a smaller pool of gamers) is beyond me. Its a waste of budget unless everyone can access it.

It might make sense to some here that intend to justify paying more for premium plus, but for me sony adding demos doesnt make sense. Those demos should be free like all other platforms.

But the timed trials would not exist at all if not for this service. Are you really going to say it is better for them to not exist for anyone if they don't exist for everyone? If Sony were saying no demos can exist outside of PS+ Premium then I'd agree, but these are timed trials created specifically for this service by Sony. So not sure why you keep suggesting the developer is making these demos when they factually are not. It isn't a waste of their budge for that exact reason.

 

[Heisenberg007]

You should stick to MS threads. Your fake concern is painfully transparent.

*incoming 'empathy' emoji*

I gotta say, some people are really, really shook by this news and just want to convince themselves and everyone else how awful this feature is. "I mean you get to try every AAA game for free to see if you like it or not before you spend $60 / $70? Horrible. Atrocious! Bad Sony!"

Have to admit I underestimated these trials when they were first leaked. This will be a game-changer.

 

[Heisenberg007]

They have deep pockets and all that Unreal and Fortnite money coming in, it's all about making money in the long run no? At least that's what I was told countless times, profit is something that only matters in the far future. Tim Sweeney is a gamer like us and he gets it.

Eh, to be honest, profit doesn't even matter -- not even in the long term, or ever ... actually. The real profit is the countless prayers and blessings these corporations receive by offering free games to people.

 

[nominedomine]

Eh, to be honest, profit doesn't even matter -- not even in the long term, or ever ... actually. The real profit is the countless prayers and blessings these corporations receive by offering free games to people.

Exactly, Tim already has plenty of money, he's mostly doing it for us at this point and for his legacy. I'm tempted to make a thread to expose how Epic Games is the innovative and the most pro-consumer company in the market, unlike Valve, Sony, MS and Nintendo, who just think about money and charging for games. There is nothing more anti-consumer than charging for games.

 

[PropellerEar]

 

[Shmunter]

I gotta say, some people are really, really shook by this news and just want to convince themselves and everyone else how awful this feature is. "I mean you get to try every AAA game for free to see if you like it or not before you spend $60 / $70? Horrible. Atrocious! Bad Sony!"

Have to admit I underestimated these trials when they were first leaked. This will be a game-changer.

Yeah I feel the same way. Thought it a cheap and throwaway nothing initially. But with further consideration this is huge. A guaranteed try before you buy in this sector is long overdue and really reinvents the entire subscription approach.

It’s the fact that it’s universal that makes it so attractive and worth some chowder. A few select titles wouldn’t be the same.

Xbox had it right with Xbox Arcade, but it was limited to the then small non AAA games.

However there are risks to the industry here that need to be explored. Another nail in the retail coffin, what off the smaller indies when everyone is galavanting in the bounty of AAA games? Etc.

 

[nominedomine]

Yeah I feel the same way. Thought it a cheap and throwaway nothing initially. But with further consideration this is huge. A guaranteed try before you buy in this sector is long overdue and really reinvents the entire subscription approach.

It’s the fact that it’s universal that makes it so attractive and worth some chowder.

Xbox had it right with Xbox Arcade, but it was limited to the then small non AAA games.

However there are risks to the industry here that need to be explored. Another nail in the retail coffin, what off the smaller indies when everyone is galavanting in the bounty of AAA games? Etc.

What's the risk for retail? You play the trial on PS+, then you buy the disc if you are not into digital, then if you still end up regretting it you can still sell your copy.

One of the worst things of buying a disc these days is that you need to wait for the shipping, now you can take the edge of with those 2h trials. Jim Ryan is a business genius and just saved PlayStation from being completely doomed.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Yeah I feel the same way. Thought it a cheap and throwaway nothing initially. But with further consideration this is huge. A guaranteed try before you buy in this sector is long overdue and really reinvents the entire subscription approach.

It’s the fact that it’s universal that makes it so attractive and worth some chowder. A few select titles wouldn’t be the same.

Xbox had it right with Xbox Arcade, but it was limited to the then small non AAA games.

However there are risks to the industry here that need to be explored. Another nail in the retail coffin, what off the smaller indies when everyone is galavanting in the bounty of AAA games? Etc.

For indies, I think -- if it works in favor of game developers and studios -- indie developers can join the fun and become a part of it.

For now, Sony is mandating bigger $60/$70 games to have trials. They are not mandating it for indies (which kind of makes sense). But they aren't stopping developers from offering trials, right? So if Indies want, they can offer something similar to everyone on PSN without Sony mandating them.

 

[adamsapple]

Please explain why trials are a bad idea when one of the biggest talking points about a service like gamepass is how it lets you try games you wouldn’t otherwise.

Please go ahead, try.

Well for starters trials are not the same as full release and in most cases many of the smaller scope games people talk about when they say they wouldn't have played it if it weren't on the service would fall under the $40 price range, so they'd be ineligible for trials in the first place.

Sony will make it worth their while somehow.

Have faith brother. They will make it worth somehow.

I gotta say, some people are really, really shook by this news and just want to convince themselves and everyone else how awful this feature is.

I, for one, welcome universal trials. But should have been available on all PS+ services. Locking demos/trials behind the highest paywall is the concern ™

As others have theorized, this could just lead to publishers releasing similar demos and trials on all platforms the game is on, so they don't make half their userbase feel alienated. If that happens, the whole point of locking trials behind the highest paywall will become completely redundant.

 

[Shmunter]

What's the risk for retail? You play the trial on PS+, then you buy the disc if you are not into digital, then if you still end up regretting it you can still sell your copy.

You already have the game downloaded, one click purchase to continue past the time limit etc. Barrier of entry to the digital drops its skirt.

 

[nominedomine]

You already have the game downloaded, one click to continue past the time limit etc. Barrier of entry to the digital drops its skirt.

If that's what is going to convince someone to make the switch to all-digital, that person was already long gone.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I, for one, welcome universal trials. But should have been available on all PS+ services. Locking demos/trials behind the highest paywall is the concern ™

As others have theorized, this could just lead to publishers releasing similar demos and trials on all platforms the game is on, so they don't make half their userbase feel alienated. If that happens, the whole point of locking trials behind the highest paywall will become completely redundant.

But that really shouldn't be a concern. Sony isn't a charity NGO. They are a business, and they gotta make money.

Every service offers something unique, otherwise why even subscribe? xCloud games aren't available to everyone on the Xbox, right? Only GPU members can stream games. Similarly, even EA Play is locked behind the $15 GPU and isn't available for $10 GP subscribers.

It is common sense to offer unique perks to a subscription tier.

And Sony isn't stopping anyone from offering trials or demos to everyone. It's up to developers. They can offer if they want to, so literally there is no issue of "locking" trials/demos, because Sony literally isn't locking anything. They are offering these trials to PS+ Premium subscribers and are telling devs they are free to offer these trials to everyone if they want to.

 

[nominedomine]

But that really shouldn't be a concern. Sony isn't a charity NGO. They are a business, and they gotta make money.

Every service offers something unique, otherwise why even subscribe? xCloud games aren't available to everyone on the Xbox, right? Only GPU members can stream games. Similarly, even EA Play is locked behind the $15 GPU and isn't available for $10 GP subscribers.

It is common sense to offer unique perks to a subscription tier.

And Sony isn't stopping anyone from offering trials or demos to everyone. It's up to developers. They can offer if they want to, so literally there is no issue of "locking" trials/demos, because Sony literally isn't locking anything. They are offering these trials to PS+ Premium subscribers and are telling devs they are free to offer these trials to everyone if they want to.

Ironically you get a lot of trials as perks for Gamepass, they just aren't game trials.

At least on PC there is a Perks section that includes a 30 days trial of Paramount+, 4 months of Spotify, 3 months of Discord Nitro and there used to be Youtube Permium and Crunchyroll trials as well. When you get a Gamepass trial you get trials within your trial.

All locked behind the Gamepass paywall, some see this as very anti-consumer practice apparently.

 

[adamsapple]

But that really shouldn't be a concern. Sony isn't a charity NGO. They are a business, and they gotta make money.

Every service offers something unique, otherwise why even subscribe? xCloud games aren't available to everyone on the Xbox, right? Only GPU members can stream games. Similarly, even EA Play is locked behind the $15 GPU and isn't available for $10 GP subscribers.

It is common sense to offer unique perks to a subscription tier.

And Sony isn't stopping anyone from offering trials or demos to everyone. It's up to developers. They can offer if they want to, so literally there is no issue of "locking" trials/demos, because Sony literally isn't locking anything. They are offering these trials to PS+ Premium subscribers and are telling devs they are free to offer these trials to everyone if they want to.

Yes the only real silver lining I can see here is that (at least from the leaks) Sony isn't mandating the trials as some kind of an exclusive and publishers are free to do the same elsewhere if they want.

I guess that's also the reason why supposedly Sony will be the ones taking initiative on creating the trials not the publishers.

Ironically you get a lot of trials as perks for Gamepass, they just aren't game trials.

Correct, you get perks for things elsewhere like a couple of free months of YT Premium, Paramount+ etc.

 

[Punished Miku]

I gotta say, some people are really, really shook by this news and just want to convince themselves and everyone else how awful this feature is. "I mean you get to try every AAA game for free to see if you like it or not before you spend $60 / $70? Horrible. Atrocious! Bad Sony!"

Have to admit I underestimated these trials when they were first leaked. This will be a game-changer.

I think it essentially ends pre-orders for all PS+ subscribers of this tier. Zero reason to ever pre-order now when you can try the game for a few hours first. It's possible I haven't considered some hidden, unknown negative effect - but it sounds like a kick ass policy to me.

 

[nominedomine]

I think it essentially ends pre-orders for all PS+ subscribers of this tier. Zero reason to ever pre-order now when you can try the game for a few hours first. It's possible I haven't considered some hidden, unknown negative effect - but it sounds like a kick ass policy to me.

There was never any reason to pre-order digital games anyway. You get discount sometimes and some bonus items I guess and that doesn't change with this.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think it essentially ends pre-orders for all PS+ subscribers of this tier. Zero reason to ever pre-order now when you can try the game for a few hours first. It's possible I haven't considered some hidden, unknown negative effect - but it sounds like a kick ass policy to me.

Partially, yes. It'll definitely slow down pre-orders and day one purchases, but not entirely. For instance, when God of War Ragnarok releases, you know we're buying it day one

Also, if a developer chooses not to have the trial ready on day one, they can get pre-orders just like they normally used to do. They can then decide to release the trial on the 89th day after the release. I think there is a lot of flexibility and options here for everyone.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think it essentially ends pre-orders for all PS+ subscribers of this tier. Zero reason to ever pre-order now when you can try the game for a few hours first. It's possible I haven't considered some hidden, unknown negative effect - but it sounds like a kick ass policy to me.

On a site that yells to everyone to stop pre-ordering... here we are.

That is why they have pre-order perks (like EA with the play early even though every game is on their service, with a trial timer), and I am pretty sure pubs/devs have 3 months from launch (if this preliminary information is accurate) to have a trial timer put on the game. So they can do it 2 months after launch.

 

[Punished Miku]

Partially, yes. It'll definitely slow down pre-orders and day one purchases, but not entirely. For instance, when God of War Ragnarok releases, you know we're buying it day one

Also, if a developer chooses not to have the trial ready on day one, they can get pre-orders just like they normally used to do. They can then decide to release the trial on the 89th day after the release. I think there is a lot of flexibility and options here for everyone.

Yeah, for games you don't even need to try you'll probably still pre-order to get a physical copy shipped to you in time. But otherwise, it has potential to alter purchasing habits a bit. Definitely seems like it could also result in further digital sales as well, since you'd have to wait on shipping or go to the store for a copy as opposed to just continuing to play the digital trial you already have with a brief unlock.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, for games you don't even need to try you'll probably still pre-order to get a physical copy shipped to you in time. But otherwise, it has potential to alter purchasing habits a bit. Definitely seems like it could also result in further digital sales as well, since you'd have to wait on shipping or go to the store for a copy as opposed to just continuing to play the digital trial you already have with a brief unlock.

Not going to lie, I think that is a behind the scenes goal by them as well.

Far more revenue and profit when you cut out the distribution chains.

 

[Tripolygon]

Well for starters trials are not the same as full release and in most cases many of the smaller scope games people talk about when they say they wouldn't have played it if it weren't on the service would fall under the $40 price range, so they'd be ineligible for trials in the first place.

The trials are fully released games with a timed limited license to play. The service is set up so smaller scope cheaper games don't have to be on it but the majority of AAA releases which tend to be more expensive have to be on there. I don't mind paying $5 to $30 to play an indie game but this service allows people to try the $50 to $70 retail releases for "free" without putting any money down. That is the point of the service. It does not have to cater to every type of game.

Have faith brother. They will make it worth somehow.

If one thing is guaranteed, publishers will not do anything for free that does not benefit them. Nvidia tried that and publishers pulled their games as it was within their right to do until Nvidia negotiated with them. That is how these things go but that does not concern you as a consumer what type of deals are being negotiated behind the scene.

I, for one, welcome universal trials. But should have been available on all PS+ services. Locking demos/trials behind the highest paywall is the concern ™

Nobody is locking demo/trials behind a paywall. Publishers are still free to release their demos to everyone as they currently do. You are staying concerned ™ for no reason.

As others have theorized, this could just lead to publishers releasing similar demos and trials on all platforms the game is on, so they don't make half their userbase feel alienated. If that happens, the whole point of locking trials behind the highest paywall will become completely redundant.

So why are you concerned again if this could lead to publishers releasing similar demos and trials on all platforms thereby making this entirely redundant?

 

[mckmas8808]

Well I’m not convincing you, and I don’t care.

It’s up to you to be influenced or dismissive to counter points as you wish.

You made the claim that only publishers that hate money, won’t like this. There’s a video at least to address that. However, I would argue more importantly is the evidence of how rare demo’s and trials have become as the real answer. Any sane publisher wants to maximise sales and revenue - the current market forces/dynamics aren’t encouraging them to do so, so what does that tell you?

That CEOs of publishers aren't leaders or smart. They've made demos and game trials for public gaming shows for years. Covid hits and that made that impossible. They lack imagination and are scared of change.

 

[adamsapple]

The trials are fully released games with a timed limited license to play. The service is set up so smaller scope cheaper games don't have to be on it but the majority of AAA releases which tend to be more expensive have to be on there. I don't mind paying $5 to $30 to play an indie game but this service allows people to try the $50 to $70 retail releases for "free" without putting any money down. That is the point of the service. It does not have to cater to every type of game.

No it doesn't, but I was replying specifically to a question asked to draw a parallel between the two competing services and this is a big difference.

When people talk about 'x game they wouldn't have played if it weren't already on a service', they're generally talking about games with a smaller scope/scale and what mostly qualifies are an indie title, not a big budget $70 AAA game.

If one thing is guaranteed, publishers will not do anything for free that does not benefit them. Nvidia tried that and publishers pulled their games as it was within their right to do until Nvidia negotiated with them. That is how these things go but that does not concern you as a consumer what type of deals are being negotiated behind the scene.

This shouldn't concern anyone when talking about profitability of X game and publisher on Y service, but hey here we are, that gets discussed almost every other week.

If we're OK discussing that for one, we shouldn't have an objection to discussing the same for another as well. It's just discussion after all, we're not setting policies here.

Nobody is locking demo/trials behind a paywall. Publishers are still free to release their demos to everyone as they currently do. You are staying concerned ™ for no reason.

So why are you concerned again if this could lead to publishers releasing similar demos and trials on all platforms thereby making this entirely redundant?''

If this leads to publishers releasing free demos elsewhere anyway, it makes the aspect of the service people are praising as pro-consumer redundant.

Also, you've misread my point. I don't concern ™ with how publishers are making the money, I'm talking about how the feature is locked to 2/3rd of PS+ subscribers.

 

[DarkMage619]

Well, what makes you think the developers won't be compensated with Sony's approach? I probably don't even need to say how these trails can be a buff to the attention of these games, and give them a boost if they need it.

For other sub services the titles are selective and available titles are curated. This is supposed to encompass all titles that are over $45. I never said Sony wouldn't pay devs to make their games available for trials but depending on how they want to compensate those devs the costs could get unwieldy. Perhaps that's why they are putting it behind a paywall. If they are charging us they better be paying devs for trials.

But PS+ Premium has a lot more for it than just the trails?

OK but it still doesn't change the fact that gamers are paying to access a trial something many don't think should have a cost. It's like an interactive ad essentially.

Yeah, the value would decrease if they did that, and could also make more 3P publishers hold off until months after to put out trails. Which would more or less defeat the purpose, hence why I'm almost 100% certain Sony's games will have trails present on Day 1 or potentially even earlier.

We'll see. Sony has been pretty adamant about avoiding day 1 access to their games on a sub services. It will be quite interesting to see if this is the way they choose to change their perspective. Put me down for thinking they will do their trial between 1 month and 3 after release.

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

This. I also didn't dev choice in these trials. If they did make a free demo does that mean they could avoid a trial? If they'd prefer to have no trial is that an option outside of keeping their price lower?

 

[DeepEnigma]

THERE ARE NO "DEMOS" ... ONLY TRIAL TIMERS HANDLED BY SONY STORE TEAM FROM THEIR OS LEVEL FEATURE.

From what we know so far, if any of it is true:

The option is 2 to 10 hours, minimum 2 from an OS level feature. (like EA Play utilizes)
They have 3 months after launch to add one. (preorders saved!)
They can choose to offer these trials outside the sub tier as well. (pro pro-consumer!)
This applies to games with a $34 wholesale price and above. (mainly AAA)

 

[StreetsofBeige]

But that really shouldn't be a concern. Sony isn't a charity NGO. They are a business, and they gotta make money.

If thats your over-arching reason for companies to get a pass so they can make a buck, then dont criticize anything any platform holder does to make cash.