Support NeoGAF

[reksveks]

Waiting for the first dev to refuse to do this.

How many devs do it at launch?
How many devs wait for the 3 month deadline?

What happens if someone really decides to not to do it?

 

[TheTony316]

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

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

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

But what about games with major technical issues? I wouldn't be surprised if Sony does this to prevent another Cyberpunk situation. This could force publishers to not release unfinished crap.

 

[adamsapple]

I wonder. According to Phill Spencer Game Pass effect game sales positively...So

You're literally comparing apples to coconuts here.

On topic:

On paper it doesn't sound like a bad thing, but I can foresee developers being annoyed by this real quick if they're forced to carve out slices of every game for this trial purpose.

 

[jaysius]

Holy shit. if it's mandated and you don't have the time or want to put in the work to do a curated experience, then plop the timer on and be done with it. No, that's not difficult to do

And again before you go keyboard warrior mode, my post wasn't about whether it's difficult to implement. It was about whether it would hurt initial sales.

Ignores most of my points by ad homineming by calling me a "keyboard warrior".

"Don't counterpoint my simple comment that ignored the complexities of what I tried to say was simple".

You post faster than you read and process words.

 

[dcmk7]

Looks like a pro-consumer move. Try before you buy, thanks uncle Jim!

 

[mitch1971]

New category of speed run? ‘Can you plat/ complete a free trial game in 2 hours?’

There will be games that you can sequence break and beat within 2 hours for sure.

There is a resident evil speed runner who has been doing just that lately on YouTube. All steam achievements in under 2 hours, then gets a refund.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Not good.

1) Refunds should be available to EVERYONE. Not just people who pay $120 a year.

I know it's an unpopular opinion on here, but I disagree.

Players should do their research and be more discriminating about what they buy with their own hard-earned money.

Refunds should be available to everyone for broken games, but Sony already offers this.

You shouldn't be automatically entitled to a refund just because you disliked the game after buying it. You don't get this in many other retail sectors.

Regardless, this isn't about refunds. It's about a higher tier PS+ option also offering timed game trials.

We don't currently have any trials on PS Store at the moment. So this would be an addition available to those who choose to sub to the higher service.

2) No dev should be forced to offer trials to EVERYONE.

It's a timed trial rather than a demo. So the dev effort required to facilitate this is much less than what MS imposed on devs back in the 360 days when every game had to come with a demo (and people applauded them for that).

MS forced devs to have to develop for an entirely different Xbox hardware target in the form of the XSS, and the dev burden as it pertains to testing and optimisation there is much less than what Sony is requiring here.

Fundamentally, it's not a big ask to devs. And if it ends up being such that many start to complain, Sony will probably drop the requirement.

People who PAY $70 for a game are in it because they WANT to buy the game.

You say this, while claiming that refunds should be freely available to all. Which is it then?

Either people should know what they're buying, take responsibility for their own purchases and not be entitled to a refund just because of buyers remorse, or they shouldn't be responsible and can be offered free access to refunds or timed trials/demos. They can't have both.

This will bring in users who dont want to buy the game or on the fence and this will cost devs more sales.

Wut?!? Not following your logic here.

If a gamer is initially uninterested or on the fence, tries the game, then finds they like it and go through with a purchase, surely that increases sales?

It sounds like you're advocating for gamers not having the option to try before they buy so that those who buy and dislike the game will be stuck with it; as long as the dev gets a sale.... how is that consistent with your refund comment?

Dumb idea. It isnt good for either devs or consumers.

It's good for both devs and consumers.

There will be more gamers trying the game who on the fence and deciding to buy it afterwards... proof? Phil Spencer's comments on the impact of GamePass on game sales on the Xbox platform.

Devs will also benefit from the increased visibility that a timed trial can give, as a game with middling reviews can still resonate with players through word of mouth and go on to be commercially successful. Trials like this will facilitate that.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Holy shit. if it's mandated and you don't have the time or want to put in the work to do a curated experience, then plop the timer on and be done with it. No, that's not difficult to do

And again before you go keyboard warrior mode, my post wasn't about whether it's difficult to implement. It was about whether it would hurt initial sales.

Exactly.

XBLIG had I think a 10 minute timer and EA Play trials are 10 hours. I forget. If it works here, I don’t see how MS or Sony cant just do a simple 1 hour timer for all games. It gives every gamer enough time to dabble with it without killing the content or plot as you can’t do much in 1 hour unless it’s a tiny indie game where you might be done half the game.

Maybe game companies and console makers are afraid someone will figure out a hack to unlock the game 100% forever.

But sure doesn’t seem to faze EA’s trials. So can’t be that bad.

 

[AJUMP23]

Interesting. Probably a good move to use their position as the platform to force developers to offer demos for premium members.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

There's a reason why demos had sometimes special content that you wouldn't see in the game.

Demo's are typically a "taste of everything and a tease of what's to come".

The first 2 hours of a game aren't always ideal for those purposes.

First 2 hours of any AssCreed game will get you awful story, boring gameplay and a little bit of fun.

A "first 2 hours" is a weird mandate, it's not as simple as you've stated. Developers don't design their first 2 hours of a 10-20 hour game to have all the elements or fun parts in it.

It's like if Netflix implemented a FIRST 20 MINUTES of EVERY SINGLE MOVIE RELEASING mandate, the first 20 minutes of a movie doesn't give you a great idea sometimes of what the movie is about.

With all the people glitching games to make the best speedrun many games without the right weird gates could be completed by those glitchers.

An open world game can't just be "gated to 2 hours" it'll have to have gates in the world to prevent being finished in 2 hours.

UNLESS they're saying there's a 2 hour TIMER on the game, but still people will figure out ways buck the system.

There is a screenplay/storytelling rule of thumb: you need to engage your audience in the first 10 minutes. Usually means that at the 10-minute mark the "Detonate" is introduced.

I think game devs should consider this rule. (Not explicitly the first 10 minutes) but probably the first Hour or so. To find and introduce a compelling story/game loop/mechanic.

Great games usually do this already.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Ignores most of my points by ad homineming "keyboard warrior".

You post faster than you read and process words.

You should have just thought your post through for a second before getting triggered

 

[Omali]

Waiting for the first dev to refuse to do this.

How many devs do it at launch?
How many devs wait for the 3 month deadline?

What happens if someone really decides to not to do it?

Presumably if they refuse to do it the game will get delisted and the developer may or may not have a harder time getting games approved for release unless they have a trial available at launch for future games. Assuming Sony doesn't just blacklist them from releasing games altogether.

 

[tmlDan]

Waiting for the first dev to refuse to do this.

How many devs do it at launch?
How many devs wait for the 3 month deadline?

What happens if someone really decides to not to do it?

why are you so adamant to find a negative in this? Sony will handle any of these scenarios that are likely built into contracts.

Jeeze, focus on yourself as a consumer and less about making Sony look bad.

 

[adamsapple]

Looks like a pro-consumer move. Try before you buy, thanks uncle Jim!

I actually agree with this in theory.

In an ideal case *EVERY* game should have some kind of a demo or limited trial so people can sample it.

But implementing it in practice is a whole different thing.

Even in this case, I don't see this sticking long term, or for every single release, on PS5 either.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You're literally comparing apples to coconuts here.

They are still fruits.

On topic:

On paper it doesn't sound like a bad thing, but I can foresee developers being annoyed by this real quick if they're forced to carve out slices of every game for this trial purpose.

Probably.

But is seems like is only going to apply to 60+ dollars* (I have been corrected) 34+ USD games only. Right?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

There's a reason why demos had sometimes special content that you wouldn't see in the game.

Demo's are typically a "taste of everything and a tease of what's to come".

The first 2 hours of a game aren't always ideal for those purposes.

First 2 hours of any AssCreed game will get you awful story, boring gameplay and a little bit of fun.

A "first 2 hours" is a weird mandate, it's not as simple as you've stated. Developers don't design their first 2 hours of a 10-20 hour game to have all the elements or fun parts in it.

It's like if Netflix implemented a FIRST 20 MINUTES of EVERY SINGLE MOVIE RELEASING mandate, the first 20 minutes of a movie doesn't give you a great idea sometimes of what the movie is about.

With all the people glitching games to make the best speedrun many games without the right weird gates could be completed by those glitchers.

An open world game can't just be "gated to 2 hours" it'll have to have gates in the world to prevent being finished in 2 hours.

UNLESS they're saying there's a 2 hour TIMER on the game, but still people will figure out ways buck the system.

If a game maker is too afraid to have a demo of the first few hours because those early sections are boring, they got issues making boring games.

If they made fun exciting games right from the start it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[Omali]

But is seems like is only going to apply to 60+ games only. Right?

$34 and up, according to the article.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Waiting for the first dev to refuse to do this.

How many devs do it at launch?
How many devs wait for the 3 month deadline?

What happens if someone really decides to not to do it?

Man why are so many of you worried about this? Are you guys developers? I don't see so much concern when there's a crunch topic around here.

This is good for you...a consumer. That's all it matters.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

$34 and up, according to the article.

Oh. Ok. Thanks.

 

[SSfox]

Bad news for EA and Ubisoft

 

[Bridges]

It wasn't that long ago that pretty much all digital games had a free downloadable demo (or if XBLA, a trial), then with the PS4/XB1 that went away and we were told it was a good thing because now devs have more time to focus on the actual game.

Now it's back again behind a paywall and we're back to thinking this is a good thing?

Paid demos is an asinine concept, full stop, unless it's something completely unique from the full title like Dead Rising 2: Case Zero or MGSV: Ground Zeroes.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I like it. It's basically like Steams refund policy but without having to buy the game first.

EGS has the same policy. Only downside here is you have to buy a top tier sub to get their equivalent of refunds.

 

[FingerBang]

This, if implemented well, might convince me to actually get the highest PS+ tier.

I imagine they will provide an API with a timer that will make the implementation much smoother, and also will make sure no one can publish a game over $35 that lasts less than 2 hours.

I do wonder whether developers would be able to change the beginning of their game for a demo version. That'd be interesting.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

HipHopGamer strikes again!

This, if implemented well, might convince me to actually get the highest PS+ tier.

I imagine they will provide an API with a timer that will make the implementation much smoother, and also will make sure no one can publish a game over $35 that lasts less than 2 hours.

I do wonder whether developers would be able to change the beginning of their game for a demo version. That'd be interesting.

Same; I was considering the middle tier at most, unless the top one blew me away with features for the retro games (like, stuff comparable or better than the better emulators out there today like RetroArch), which it might still.

But getting a preview for new 3P releases I could be iffy on is a great way to see if I'd want to go ahead and buy the game. This is probably what Sony meant when they said they had a ton of 3P devs and publishers already onboard.

 

[SSfox]

Personally speaking i'm not that interested into those trials things, to me either i'm interested in a game, buy and play, either i'm not interested, that's why Demos exists in case i'm in doubts of buying games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

HipHopGamer strikes again!

Is HipHopGamer a meme?

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Bad news for EA and Ubisoft

EA offers timed trials like this already.

 

[remember_spinal]

Man why are so many of you worried about this? Are you guys developers? I don't see so much concern when there's a crunch topic around here.

This is good for you...a consumer. That's all it matters.

But but but the devs!!!!


Square enix literally just did this with triangle strategy and it sold really well.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Is HipHopGamer a meme?

To some people probably; I'm actually being kinda legit tho. He was talking about these new PS+ features like two years ago, way before Grubb or Schreir.

At least, he definitely was about the retro support.

 

[SafeOrAlone]

I don't feel good about it being tied to a premium service. It's just another way for Sony to capitalize on not offering any type of fair refund policy.

 

[TheDreadLord]

At the age of YouTube and streaming platforms this sounds a bit dumb. Anyway, more options better for the consumer.

 

[SSfox]

EA offers timed trials like this already.

Oh yeah indeed, my statement in reference on how their games and shitty and buggy af on release, so they would be the ones that be scared to make offers like this.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Oh yeah indeed, my statement in reference on how their games and shitty and buggy af on release, so they would be the ones that be scared to make offers like this.

Wouldn't matter. They can delay the trial by 3 months

 

[Zeroing]

Try before you buy - good.
Pay to try - bad.

I also feel the same, we already pay for online in all consoles! Between broken games and devs refusing to made demos, we consumers always have to make concessions… it’s always “here’s a good thing but… “

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

I am saved....

 

[Wohc]

That's genius. Let people pay for demos and let devs make the work and take the riscs.

 

[TheTony316]

Man why are so many of you worried about this? Are you guys developers? I don't see so much concern when there's a crunch topic around here.

This is good for you...a consumer. That's all it matters.

Some people are already doom & glooming on other forums. How this will make developers avoid Playstation etc. Sounds like wishful thinking.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

That's genius. Let people pay for demos and let devs make the work and take the riscs.

It's not a demo. It's a timed trial.

It's a few lines of code and a splash screen that pops up after the trial timer elapses, preventing further play.

People trying to make out that this is a big deal or that devs weren't even already briefed up front on Sony's plans for this beforehand are being disingenious.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Wonders to self how long this feature lasts once sales drop for most games once the trial is available.

Seriously though, good games should get boosted by this. Games that are less than stellar on the other hand... If devs are not being compensated in any way upfront, I can't see them being overly thrilled about it.

I always liked trying the demos back in the 360 days when they were so common.

Isn't this actually perfect for the consumer? Meaning, good games actually get a boost in sales, while the shit sinks and dies. I'm 100% on board with it and Steam does it already too.
I want more good games, less bad games.

 

[Mahavastu]

Surely this could effect games sales massively?

it could, if it would be part of the cheapest tier, because here we talk about large numbers, like 45 mio subscribers?
I guess that less then 15-20% of those will go premium, making the advertising effect of the demos much smaller then it could be

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It's not a demo. It's a timed trial.

It's a few lines of code and a splash screen that pops up after the trial timer elapses, preventing further play.

People trying to make out that this is a big deal or that devs weren't even already briefed up front on Sony's plans for this beforehand are being disingenious.

Yeah I'm surprised at how much people are conflating and confusing the two. I don't think Sony would be proceeding with this unless their 3P partners were onboard and part of that probably has to do with how relatively easy it should be to implement.

It would be nice if this were available on the lower tiers, even if the range of games/amount of time for trail were more limited. Hopefully they are considering that as an option.

Surely this could effect games sales massively?

Not any more than demos already did, and this is a lot easier for devs to implement since it's working with a finished build, not a vertical slice of game still in development.

If the game is good, the trail feature might convince a lot of people to buy it if they otherwise wouldn't of. If the game's trash, an honest trail could make people realize it's not worth wasting their money on it. Either way, sales potential will remain generally the same as it's been before, and a lot more stands to be gained in sales if anything.

 

[Wohc]

It's not a demo. It's a timed trial.

It's a few lines of code and a splash screen that pops up after the trial timer elapses, preventing further play.

People trying to make out that this is a big deal or that devs weren't even already briefed up front on Sony's plans for this beforehand are being disingenious.

You know what i mean with demo and actually are timed trials even worse for some devs. Think of games with bloated boring tutorials or games where you don't see the real game(play) within the first two hours like Death Stranding or Yakuza 7. I can't imagine how many people wouldn't buy games like this after the trial.

 

[remember_spinal]

Also, this isn’t a paid tier JUST for demo’s it include the legacy library and ps5 games also, this is another perk

 

[Mahavastu]

Devs bitch about making demos for games for E3, how much are they going to bitch about this I wonder.

Not so much I guess.
When this time limited demo has to be made, the game is ready and the change is quite small.

Doing a demo for E3 is much more work (you need to bugfix and polish part of the game "good enough" that it can be shown to the public, which can occupy large part of your workforce for weeks), while the new time limited demo is just a minor change and it happens when the game is pretty much finished.

 

[ToadMan]

Man why are so many of you worried about this? Are you guys developers? I don't see so much concern when there's a crunch topic around here.

This is good for you...a consumer. That's all it matters.

Yeah - apparently a game bargain bin like gamepass is fine, but insisting people get to try something they’re about to spend $70 on is now a hand wringing case of worrying about devs implementing a timer in their game.

Honestly - if the dev can’t get their least experienced team member to reliably implement a play-timer in short order, they have no business in software at all.

 

[Fbh]

That's pretty cool I guess.
Shame it's behind a paywall.... and just a regular steam-like refund policy would still be better.

 

[nominedomine]

You know what i mean with demo and actually are timed trials even worse for some devs. Think of games with bloated boring tutorials or games where you don't see the real game(play) within the first two hours like Death Stranding or Yakuza 7. I can't imagine how many people wouldn't buy games like this after the trial.

You can still buy it without trying if you want. Maybe if a dev feels like 2 hours isn't enough he can offer a bigger trial. I doubt Sony is stopping devs from providing a trial outside of that PS+ tier as well.

What is actually better for devs, all of them splitting the $15 that someone paid for Gamepass or people actually buying their games? If people allegedly were buying more games because they were on Gamepass imagine now that they get a trail to get just a taste of it but than a required to buy.

More incentive for good games, everybody wins.

 

[MadPanda]

Surely this could effect games sales massively?

Only if there's a huge number of people subscribed to the highest tier, which I doubt.

 

[yurinka]

So basically a feature which has been part of PS+ since the beginning of the service, but was heavily underused, is now part of the highest tier and "enforced"/supported more...

Never used it in the past, never will use as I'm not going to sing up for higher tiers than essential.

Still think demos/trials should be free.

There are a couple of import differences more:
-Now will be mandatory for all games that cost over 33€. Which means all 1st and 3rd party AAA will be there, not only a few ones.
-Demos will be added maximum 3 months after the game release, so games won't be added there when old.

The article says that in addition to this devs will continue to be allowed to make demos, free weekents, trials, etc for all users.

You can still buy it without trying if you want. Maybe if a dev feels like 2 hours isn't enough he can offer a bigger trial. Nothing is stopping devs from providing a trial outside of that PS+ tier.

What is actually better for devs, all of them splitting the $15 that someone paid for Gamepass or people actually buying their games? If people allegedly were buying more games because they were on Gamepass imagine now that they get a trail to get just a taste of it but than a required to buy.

Sony requires these demos to be at least 2 hours long, doesn't limit them to two hours. If devs want to make it longer, they can make the demo/time limited trial longer.

 

[Hugare]

Would be awesome to see someone like Rockstar or Call of Duty saying

As a customer, It would be pretty great. As a dev, I would be pissed.

Locking it behind Premium is so, so stupid tho