Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

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.

Saying that a company doesn't have to provide a service for free is not the same as suggesting a company should be allowed to do anything to make a buck.

 

[Thirty7ven]

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.

So trials aren’t bad, you would just like trials to extend to cheaper games. And I didn’t say trials are full games, they are trials after all.

So you or anyone else have yet to pinpoint a negative.

 

[Heisenberg007]

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.

No, that's my reason why a high-value feature is only offered to paying subscribers. It's common sense.

 

[adamsapple]

So trials aren’t bad, you would just like trials to extend to cheaper games. And I didn’t say trials are full games, they are trials after all.

So you or anyone else have yet to pinpoint a negative.

I never said trials are bad, if you've been following my posts in this topic I'm all for universal trial style implementation on all consoles. I was only answering your question about the difference in the services and the point you raised about people playing games they wouldn't have played otherwise.

I'm actually pro-trial believe it or not. The implementation is the only thing I'm questioning.

 

[Topher]

I never said trials are bad, if you've been following my posts in this topic I'm all for universal trial style implementation on all consoles. I was only answering your question about the difference in the services and the point you raised about people playing games they wouldn't have played otherwise.

I'm actually pro-trial believe it or not. The implementation is the only thing I'm questioning.

You can make those arguments about any tiered service though. For example, it doesn't make sense to me that xCloud is only available through GPU. But Microsoft decided they wanted to make GPU more attractive and so that is the decision they made. Same here. Sony created this specifically for the Premium tier. In either case, I'd rather the features be available for the higher tier customers than not exist at all.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You can make those arguments about any tiered service though. For example, it doesn't make sense to me that xCloud is only available through GPU. But Microsoft decided they wanted to make GPU more attractive and so that is the decision they made. Same here. Sony created this specifically for the Premium tier. In either case, I'd rather the features be available for the higher tier customers than not exist at all.

I think the difference is demos/trials vs xcloud is the nature of the service itself.

Trial kinds of features is a holistic thing any gamer can take part of to increase sales and promotion of games. No different than any gamer testing out an old 360 or PS3 demo or trial. It's a basic kind of feature which anyone would take part of it's available.

Cloud gaming is a specialty kind of feature. Not everyone has the gear to do it, not everyone even cares about streaming games, and only like 100 Xbox games are even streamable. Its a complementary feature more attune for hardcore gamers trying to game anywhere from home to a bus to at a campsite. As opposed to trials which are tests to drive purchases for anyone.

 

[ToadMan]

The leaks suggest all games must have a trial ready within 3 months of release. Sony are likely going to do the leg work on that themselves mostly, it's not up to the publishers discretion.

Nope. The publishers decide who gets access to the trial. Sony mandate it for premium as a minimum but don’t limit publishers to only giving trials to premium.

 

[Topher]

I think the difference is demos/trials vs xcloud is the nature of the service itself.

Trial kinds of features is a holistic thing any gamer can take part of to increase sales and promotion of games. No different than any gamer testing out an old 360 or PS3 demo or trial. It's a basic kind of feature which anyone would take part of it's available.

Cloud gaming is a specialty kind of feature. Not everyone has the gear to do it, not everyone even cares about streaming games, and only like 100 Xbox games are even streamable. Its a complementary feature more attune for hardcore gamers trying to game anywhere from home to a bus to at a campsite. As opposed to trials which are tests to drive purchases for anyone.

What do you mean not everyone has the gear to do it? Anyone with a phone, laptop, or tablet can access xCloud. Cloud gaming was not designed for the hardcore gamer at all. Quite the opposite. It is designed for "anyone" regardless of whether they have dedicated gaming equipment or not.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think the difference is demos/trials vs xcloud is the nature of the service itself.

Trial kinds of features is a holistic thing any gamer can take part of to increase sales and promotion of games. No different than any gamer testing out an old 360 or PS3 demo or trial. It's a basic kind of feature which anyone would take part of it's available.

Cloud gaming is a specialty kind of feature. Not everyone has the gear to do it, not everyone even cares about streaming games, and only like 100 Xbox games are even streamable. Its a complementary feature more attune for hardcore gamers trying to game anywhere from home to a bus to at a campsite. As opposed to trials which are tests to drive purchases for anyone.

Cloud gaming is by its very nature supposed to be accessible by all and everyone without any gear. You can stream games using a phone -- everyone has a phone. xCloud streaming also works on Xbox consoles, so no special gear is required, right?

 

[Thirty7ven]

I never said trials are bad, if you've been following my posts in this topic I'm all for universal trial style implementation on all consoles. I was only answering your question about the difference in the services and the point you raised about people playing games they wouldn't have played otherwise.

I'm actually pro-trial believe it or not. The implementation is the only thing I'm questioning.

But I didn’t ask for differences between services. It seems to me like there’s a lot of finessing by you and others, that this isn’t good because it’s not universal or whatever.

There’s no negative for the subscriber or otherwise, no loss whatsoever.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What do you mean not everyone has the gear to do it? Anyone with a phone, laptop, or tablet can access xCloud. Cloud gaming was not designed for the hardcore gamer at all. Quite the opposite. It is designed for "anyone" regardless of whether they have dedicated gaming equipment or not.

Cloud gaming is by its very nature supposed to be accessible by all and everyone without any gear. You can stream games using a phone -- everyone has a phone. xCloud streaming also works on Xbox consoles, so no special gear is required, right?

I'd disagree.

To me, streaming is something more hardcore gamers would do - at least right now. Like when PC started OnLive (might be the first big attempt at game streaming). I doubt casual PC users were the ones doing it. It were core gamers.

When xcloud was announced and launched (or any other streamable service), how many casual gamers do you know do it?

 

[Topher]

I'd disagree.

To me, streaming is something more hardcore gamers would do - at least right now. Like when PC started OnLive (might be the first big attempt at game streaming). I doubt casual PC users were the ones doing it. It were core gamers.

When xcloud was announced and launched (or any other streamable service), how many casual gamers do you know do it?

Microsoft has made it clear who they are targeting with cloud gaming and it is not the hardcore gamer:

"Microsoft's focus going forward is going to be on cloud-based gaming, with Project xCloud's focus being "first on Android phones because there's over a billion Android phones on the planet and it's a place that the content that we've natively built up over the past decades on our platform hasn't been able to reach."
...
"Talking about what will set Microsoft's subscription service apart from its competitors, Spencer said, "it's all about how we reach 2 billion gamers. If you build the market around a couple hundred million people that are going to own a game console or a high-end gaming PC, then your business model diversity can actually narrow because your customers are narrow."

"But when you think about reaching a customer with this content where their only computer device could be an Android phone, you think about, well, what are all the ways that that person pays for content if they do at all today?""

Phil Spencer Wants Xbox Game Pass to Cross Over with Project xCloud

Phil Spencer's strategy has paid off.

me.ign.com

 

[nominedomine]

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)

This is really impressive, all Sony needs to do now is confirm that all future Knack games will be releasing on PS+ day one.

 

[FrankWza]

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.

Also their refund system. The don’t want to go the route of other stores policy and this will probably be a good way to keep them from needing to. Maybe the cyberpunk situation out them over the edge

 

[DeepEnigma]

Holy shit, there is nothing "hardcore" about game streaming. Not even the technicalities are hardcore.

 

[Tripolygon]

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.

The comparison is apt. There are lots of games, big and small on either service for people to try, and on top of that this adds the potential for every new major AAA game to be on there as well, day and date or within 3 months of launch. It is not an either-or situation, there are full games you can play through as well as the 2hr trials.

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 both services aim to get people to try different games then it is fair to compare, just one is taking an extra different approach which is totally normal. They don't have to be identical to compare them. There are smaller scope games on the service for people to try not just big-budget $70 AAA games included in the 2hr trials.

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.

This would make sense if the game trial were making publishers lose money, it is not. Ok, let's go with your profitability angle.

Sony is using this as an incentive for people to sign up for the higher tier which brings them more money thereby giving them enough capital to compensate developers who put their game on the service. So you shouldn't be concerned about them "locking it" behind the higher tier.

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.

You are free to discuss whatever you feel like, it just does not make sense. What does profitability have to do with offering 2hr game trial?

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

Then why be concerned at all? Does this not render all your concern in this thread 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.

That is how these services work. Gamepass has tiers that offer certain things that are exclusive to that tier and so does PS+.

 

[oldergamer]

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?

Sony will not foot the bill on development of every timed or full demo. I dont know where you would get that idea.

 

[FrankWza]

Sony will not foot the bill on development of every timed or full demo. I dont know where you would get that idea.

It’s in the OP

 

[Shmunter]

Sony will not foot the bill on development of every timed or full demo. I dont know where you would get that idea.

Still with the “demo” eh?

Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
And I don't like it anymore than you men.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Still with the “demo” eh?

Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
And I don't like it anymore than you men.

He's being purposely obtuse.

 

[nominedomine]

Holy shit, there is nothing "hardcore" about game streaming. Not even the technicalities are hardcore.

There's nothing casual about it either, given that casuals don't care about it.

Best use for it so far is probably for people that play a lot of games (hardcore?) to sample games without having to download all of them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

There's nothing casual about it either, given that casuals don't care about it.

 

[nominedomine]

It’s in the OP

Apparently Sony should charge devs extra for all their work setting up trials for their games.

 

[FrankWza]

Apparently Sony should charge devs extra for all their work setting up trials for their games.

To be fair, it only says they’re going to do the work. How long until someone theorizes that they’ll send the devs a billbfor their work?

 

[Shmunter]

To be fair, it only says they’re going to do the work. How long until someone theorizes that they’ll send the devs a billbfor their work?

How to setup timed trial by Sony….

 

[DeepEnigma]

To be fair, it only says they’re going to do the work. How long until someone theorizes that they’ll send the devs a billbfor their work?

Discords are spinning as we speak.

 

[FrankWza]

Discords are spinning as we speak.

 

[PixelatedBeast]

One crazy thing in all this, if Sony pulls this off; it would literally mean every single AAA game would be playable on PSPlus premium. Being a trial also means progress is intact - if you play and like - purchase - and continue on. Being able to start playing every AAA game, think about it - this is a whole new thing altogether.

Many people probably churn through the download waltz only to try shit out on all you can eat anyway - and the platform holder is paying the studio for the privilege. Here seemingly the deal has been altered completely between holder and studio, with opportunity for sale conversion too. The consumer benefit is off the charts.

Megaton!?!?

Yes, you figured out the root cause of why a certain crowd dont like this. This could present a higher conversion rate for consumers to buy more AAA games, rather then just base their purchases off of reviews...Get ed

 

[adamsapple]

The comparison is apt. There are lots of games, big and small on either service for people to try, and on top of that this adds the potential for every new major AAA game to be on there as well, day and date or within 3 months of launch. It is not an either-or situation, there are full games you can play through as well as the 2hr trials.

The comparison between the services as a whole is apt, the point the user was raising about "i wouldn't play X if it wasn't on Y service" is most often brought up against smaller indie games, like Tunic for example. Games that don't get the kind of coverage in the media that helps people make distinctions that whether it's something they'll want to play or not.

If both services aim to get people to try different games then it is fair to compare, just one is taking an extra different approach which is totally normal. They don't have to be identical to compare them. There are smaller scope games on the service for people to try not just big-budget $70 AAA games included in the 2hr trials.

That's what I was saying, often the smaller scope/scale and what you may call AA or Indie games don't sell at full price, so many of those will be excluded from the Trial service in the first place.

Besides, I'm still not sure why we're drawing a direct parallel between trials and full games. They're not the same things by their nature.

This would make sense if the game trial were making publishers lose money, it is not. Ok, let's go with your profitability angle.

Sony is using this as an incentive for people to sign up for the higher tier which brings them more money thereby giving them enough capital to compensate developers who put their game on the service. So you shouldn't be concerned about them "locking it" behind the higher tier.

You're confusing me with someone who cares about Sony's finances. I haven't made a single comment to that effect. I don't care what deals are made to bring games to people, just that they're there is more important.

You are free to discuss whatever you feel like, it just does not make sense. What does profitability have to do with offering 2hr game trial?

See above. I'm pointing out the nature of discourse that happens, not perpetuating it. However, let's not beat around the bush, you would also agree that so much of the game pass discourse boils down to the 'but how are publishers making money' angle. That's what I'm pointing at.

Then why be concerned at all? Does this not render all your concern in this thread redundant?

We keep using the word like it's gonna run out of style, this is a discussion forum and we're having a discussion on an as-of-yet unannounced feature.

That is how these services work. Gamepass has tiers that offer certain things that are exclusive to that tier and so does PS+.

Sure. I can agree that different tiers offer different things on services.

I'm still gonna stand on that demos/trials shouldn't be locked behind paywalls, or the highest tier paywalls for that matter.

 

[Topher]

It’s in the OP

 

[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.

This is the conversation we just had. I explained in bullet #1 that it's not a demo. You didn't respond to that reply and move on only to restart arguing about "demos"?

Sony will not foot the bill on development of every timed or full demo. I dont know where you would get that idea.

---

Still with the “demo” eh?

Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
And I don't like it anymore than you men.

He's being purposely obtuse.

He literally is being obtuse on purpose and just derailing the thread with his fake concerns. I did explain to him in detail that these aren't typical "demos". He ignores the explanations and then continues on crying about demos and development costs. See above. This is exactly the type of issue that the mods are sick of.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is the conversation we just had. I explained in bullet #1 that it's not a demo. You didn't respond to that reply and move on only to restart arguing about "demos"?

---

He literally is being obtuse on purpose and just derailing the thread with his fake concerns. I did explain to him in detail that these aren't typical "demos". He ignores the explanations and then continues on crying about demos and development costs. See above. This is exactly the type of issue that the mods are sick of.

Cut him some slack... he's "older."

 

[oldergamer]

It’s in the OP

Well that is good to clarify. That sounds much better if developers don't have to take care of this.

 

[oldergamer]

Still with the “demo” eh?

Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
And I don't like it anymore than you men.

don't be a dumb ass, that they needed to clarify what sounded like a bad idea. If it was as good as people in this thread seemed to make it sound, they wouldn't have needed to clarify

 

[Topher]

don't be a dumb ass, that they needed to clarify what sounded like a bad idea. If it was as good as people in this thread seemed to make it sound, they wouldn't have needed to clarify

You really should not be calling anyone a "dumb ass" when you are the one who is uninformed. Factually, Sony has not made any official statements about any of this. There is nothing for Sony to "clarify" at all.

 

[JTCx]

best value in gaming.

 

[Heisenberg007]

best value in gaming.

 

[oldergamer]

This is the conversation we just had. I explained in bullet #1 that it's not a demo. You didn't respond to that reply and move on only to restart arguing about "demos"?

---

He literally is being obtuse on purpose and just derailing the thread with his fake concerns. I did explain to him in detail that these aren't typical "demos". He ignores the explanations and then continues on crying about demos and development costs. See above. This is exactly the type of issue that the mods are sick of.

I don't give a shit what you want to call it. demo, timed trial, beta test, sample, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. If you want to mince words you can do it with someone else. I wasn't arguing about other demos not being possible if you noticed.

I'm sure you feel good since your argument was weak, and now you have someone on twitter that added more information ( despite not being official? ). Good for you kid. Samples of games still shouldn't be behind a paywall imo. You want to call that obtuse, psh go right ahead.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I don't give a shit what you want to call it. demo, timed trial, beta test, sample, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. If you want to mince words you can do it with someone else. I wasn't arguing about other demos not being possible if you noticed.

I'm sure you feel good since your argument was weak, and now you have someone on twitter that added more information ( despite not being official? ). Good for you kid. Samples of games still shouldn't be behind a paywall imo. You want to call that obtuse, psh go right ahead.

Should have just stuck with that and you wouldn't look like a clown

 

[Topher]

I'm sure you feel good since your argument was weak, and now you have someone on twitter that added more information ( despite not being official? ). Good for you kid. Samples of games still shouldn't be behind a paywall imo. You want to call that obtuse, psh go right ahead.

Now? He posted that two days ago.

Further confirmation:

Translation: "I take this opportunity to refine a subject: I have confirmation that by default the future PS+ Premium limited time trial program will not impose additional work on the studios. The devs provide the usual full game, Playstation takes care of generating the trial version."

 

[StealthGoblin]

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have game trials to almost every substantial game as a perk to subscribers. I’m likely not going to have Premium but I’m not upset about it. I’m also not bothered about PS1, PS2, PS3 and PSP being in that tier. That particular value offering is better than Nintendo’s by a wide margin.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I don't give a shit what you want to call it. demo, timed trial, beta test, sample, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. If you want to mince words you can do it with someone else. I wasn't arguing about other demos not being possible if you noticed.

I'm sure you feel good since your argument was weak, and now you have someone on twitter that added more information ( despite not being official? ). Good for you kid. Samples of games still shouldn't be behind a paywall imo. You want to call that obtuse, psh go right ahead.

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?

 

[Dick Jones]

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?

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

 

[Topher]

1. Why are you so angry?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Why are you so angry?

Leave the old guy alone.

 

[Banjo64]

You can make those arguments about any tiered service though. For example, it doesn't make sense to me that xCloud is only available through GPU. But Microsoft decided they wanted to make GPU more attractive and so that is the decision they made. Same here. Sony created this specifically for the Premium tier. In either case, I'd rather the features be available for the higher tier customers than not exist at all.

Likewise basic Game Pass PC comes with EA access and obviously free online play. Basic Xbox Game Pass has no EA Play and no online play. Pretty anti-consumer huh?

Think of muh devs… really? Fuck me am I sick of whiny arse lazy fucking devs. They don’t want to optimise for Series S, they don’t want trials so people can make an informed decision on whether their game is wank, they want to charge £70 for incomplete MTX bug fests and then complain about ‘unrealistic fan expectations’ - just shut the fuck up and make good games. Devs are well at the bottom of my priority list, I just want good games and I fail to see how Sony offering trails, even if it’s tiered, is a bad thing. Worst case scenario, stay unsubbed and carry on getting no demos like right now, or sub and get demos for once. How is that anti-consumer I don’t fucking know.

 

[Menzies]

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.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

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.

Sounds absolutely terrible until you realise no one will do this

 

[Menzies]

Sounds absolutely terrible until you realise no one will do this

I’m sure Microsoft’s chomping at the bit to give away the next instalment of CoD to line Sony’s coffers.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I’m sure Microsoft’s chomping at the bit to give away the next instalment of CoD to line Sony’s coffers.

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