Support NeoGAF

[Dick Jones]

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.

Liar. Even though there is no proof, Jason broke this 6 years ago. Please credit him now by referencing his unwritten article.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Price gating demos is back to the good ol' Silver and Gold tiers during the early 360 days.

They're essentially full game trials though. And demos are barely a thing nowadays, a small fraction of games have a demo online. So being able to play everything out there for a few hours is more a service than it used to be.

 

[DaGwaphics]

So now explain how gamepass is supposed to increase sales when taking that into consideration. Take all the time you need to think, I'll wait.

GamePass is opt-in and heavily curated, most of the indie games added are well reviewed with more than solid review scores. Plus, again that's totally opt-in and the game was purchased in some way for the service. It's up to the publishers to make good deals for themselves there. An amazing game that can't afford the largest promo budget will definitely benefit, a meh game will likely lose ground. Word of mouth is a double-edged sword for sure.

 

[mckmas8808]

Game demos can hurt sales, suggests research

Information from analytic firm EEDAR suggests that releasing a game without a demo can almost double sales.

www.gamespot.com

Steam did have good results with their demo thing however. Not exactly a lot of detail in the link I posted, LOL, but I assume it is somewhat accurate considering how few demos got released on X1/PS4 vs. PS360. I'm taking it that if the demos boosted sales by a good margin we would have kept seeing them. Opt-in it would be totally fine, forced isn't so good.

With stats, you have to be careful not do be manipulated. For instance.......read this very importance sentence in that same article.

One potential problem with interpreting the EEDAR data in this way, however, is that it is difficult to determine whether there is a correlation between some of the industry's best-selling titles--such as Call of Duty, BioShock Infinite, or Tomb Raider--generally opting not to release a demo at launch.

 

[GHG]

I think back to the Xbox360 generation when a plethora of games had demos behind not gating (if it did i stand corrected) and I just wish we could go back to that...this feels like nickle and diming. I'd love to try a demo but I'm not paying for that tier.

Yes I'd like that as well but the ship has long sailed on demos, hence I subscribe to gamepass if there's something I'd like to try (and it happens to be on the service) but I'm not sure enough yet to make a purchase - an hour or 2 is enough to make a decision. I used to subscribe to magazines primarily for the demo disks back in the day but that disappeared the moment the Internet became more widespread.

The fact this is for all games makes it a good enough alternative to what we used to get more recently with just a select few games.

GamePass is opt-in and heavily curated, most of the indie games added are well reviewed with more than solid review scores. Plus, again that's totally opt-in and the game was purchased in some way for the service. It's up to the publishers to make good deals for themselves there. An amazing game that can't afford the largest promo budget will definitely benefit, a meh game will likely lose ground. Word of mouth is a double-edged sword for sure.

If you are scared your potential customers won't want to purchase your game after a couple of hours of trying it then it means you have a shit product, and you know it. Why should anyone care about those developers/publishers?

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

it could, but requiring demos in a age where demos are very prevalent is a really strange and old school approach. Why should these companies spend money to create a demo that they aren't paid to make?? Basically you are making something that helps Sony make money on subscriptions, but the developer make next to nothing?

Why would we assume the dev makes next to nothing? Getting the foot in the door will open the game for millions of people to try as it's released and if the game is enticing enough, drive more sales of the game at full price.
This vs the current mentality of "I don't know, maybe i'll pick it up once it's on discount / used / gamepass".
Quality will be rewarded with sales and less disgruntled consumers / less buyers remorse. Yes, shit will suffer, as it should.

 

[mckmas8808]

I know plenty of people bought Watch Dogs just to experience the Ray Tracing on their fancy new systems and barely played the game. Games are visual. Some people will get their fill by these trials.

Then you know many people that have been "burned" by buying bad games. Maybe these demos\game trials will allow people to have more money for games that they actually like.

 

[mckmas8808]

I feel like I buy games due to everyone's hype and excitement for them, you get caught in the moment and want to play that game.

I've purchased many games for this reason.

Dark souls 3 (loved it thankfully, would've purchased regardless, if it had a trial)
Fallout 4 (I would've probably never purchased after playing a trial)
Lego Star wars skywalker saga (same as above)

And I probably loads more games.

I think it's quite common in all honesty.

Some of you guys have pretty high disposable income I see. Just flushing money down the toilet huh?

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Demos aren't a bad idea and should be universal...a pice gate to demo is a bad idea.

Demos take time and cost money to make, resources that are pulled out of the game development. A timer is free.
edit: to clarify further, part of the price gate is to give the publisher a cut of lost revenue by trialing the game to the masses. Carrot at the end of the stick.

 

[DaGwaphics]

If you are scared your potential customers won't want to purchase your game after a couple of hours of trying it then it means you have a shit product, and you know it. Why should anyone care about those developers/publishers?

Enjoy an even more risk-adverse selection of games to play, LOL.

A big studio can afford to cancel a project that's millions of dollars into development, smaller studios can't. Doesn't even necessarily mean the game is bad, maybe it just turned out niche and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's a good move for consumers in the sense that they don't buy things they just kinda like but don't love, it's just that those buys might be keeping the lights on in some situations.

But, like I said, I have no issue with demos as a player, why would I. Sony can even hire Julie Uhrman to do the sales pitch.

 

[Orbital2060]

I smell a riot.

If I were a game developer I wouldnt take kindly to any publisher/console maker demanding my game to be playable for free for two hours. It might give a wrong impression in my optics - not all games are made to be «understood» in two hours. Might drive me to avoid the platform and make deals elsewhere.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Demos take time and cost money to make, resources that are pulled out of the game development. A timer is free.
edit: to clarify further, part of the price gate is to give the publisher a cut of lost revenue by trialing the game to the masses. Carrot at the end of the stick.

Thats always been the case...they usually weren't price gated unless it was attached to a magazine or something...they don't need to be price gated.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

I smell a riot.

If I were a game developer I wouldnt take kindly to any publisher/console maker demanding my game to be playable for free for two hours. It might give a wrong impression in my optics - not all games are made to be «understood» in two hours. Might drive me to avoid the platform and make deals elsewhere.

Good luck avoiding the most popular platform because the depth of your game can't be perceived in 2h, yet you expect someone to pay full price with 0h of game experience

I know you're playing devil's advocate ofc

 

[chonga]

Ughhh how about just give your customers the right to return the game if they haven't played for more than 2 hours?

That is not a better solution.

Even not withstanding that payment gateways and merchant banks don't like you to have high refund rates and will charge you more if you do, paying for something, then having to get it refunded, checking you actually receive the refund etc if I don't like it is not as good as not having to pay for something, just giving it a go on a complete whim and then only paying if I like it is far, far superior.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Thats always been the case...they usually weren't price gated unless it was attached to a magazine or something...they don't need to be price gated.

Again, there is a carrot there to sweeten the deal. The publisher gets a kickback for their game being played for "free" for 2 hours. Besides, this increase over the middle tier is pretty small. We're talking what, $20 a year over the previous tier + you get ps1-2-3-psp games included in the price? No one is forcing anyone to sub to it anyway.

 

[anthony2690]

Some of you guys have pretty high disposable income I see. Just flushing money down the toilet huh?

I don't smoke or drink, so I guess I do have a little extra disposable income towards my hobby.

And wouldn't really call flushing it down the toilet, sadly not every game is for me, despite looking like they may take my fancy.

But a trial, would've wet my appetite to try the game and probably lost them a sale. (Not saying fallout 4 or Lego Star wars skywalker saga are bad games, because they are not)

I had bf2042 preorder £90 version and cancelled it, after playing the trial. (I just didn't like it) but like many others I was really excited for the game prior to launch and had it pre-ordered like millions others. (In this case though, the game was pretty bad)

The majority of games I buy or preorder though, I tend to really enjoy.

 

[GHG]

Enjoy an even more risk-adverse selection of games to play, LOL.

A big studio can afford to cancel a project that's millions of dollars into development, smaller studios can't. Doesn't even necessarily mean the game is bad, maybe it just turned out niche and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's a good move for consumers in the sense that they don't buy things they just kinda like but don't love, it's just that those buys might be keeping the lights on in some situations.

But, like I said, I have no issue with demos as a player, why would I. Sony can even hire Julie Uhrman to do the sales pitch.

There's a difference between a game that takes risks but is still well made and/or has charm, and a game that is fundamentally broken or downright shit.

Taking risks does not mean releasing a broken/shit game. I don't know why you're associating the two.

 

[ToadMan]

I know plenty of people bought Watch Dogs just to experience the Ray Tracing on their fancy new systems and barely played the game. Games are visual. Some people will get their fill by these trials.

And those same people who won’t spring for game after a trial are the same ones who won’t subscribe to premium tier for long if at all.

 

[Topher]

Ughhh how about just give your customers the right to return the game if they haven't played for more than 2 hours?

I agree that should be an option, but two hour refunds and two hour timed trials can coexist as well.

That is not a better solution.

Even not withstanding that payment gateways and merchant banks don't like you to have high refund rates and will charge you more if you do, paying for something, then having to get it refunded, checking you actually receive the refund etc if I don't like it is not as good as not having to pay for something, just giving it a go on a complete whim and then only paying if I like it is far, far superior.

Who gets charged more for "high refund rates"?

 

[DaGwaphics]

There's a difference between a game that takes risks but is still well made and/or has charm, and a game that is fundamentally broken or downright shit.

Taking risks does not mean releasing a broken/shit game. I don't know why you're associating the two.

I'm not making that association at all. Just pointing out the reality that most gamers have purchased a lot of games they never finished/barely played. It has more to do with taste than quality, but nonetheless that's a lot of $$$ removed from the market and developers in general. That game you bought and didn't love enough to finish might be nothing to you, but the sale might have been important to the company that made the game.

 

[BeardGawd]

Then you know many people that have been "burned" by buying bad games. Maybe these demos\game trials will allow people to have more money for games that they actually like.

No now Sony just gets the money instead of the publisher.

If this was for the consumer it wouldn't be behind a sub.

 

[GHG]

I'm not making that association at all. Just pointing out the reality that most gamers have purchased a lot of games they never finished/barely played. It has more to do with taste than quality, but nonetheless that's a lot of $$$ removed from the market and developers in general.

That's not how it works. Those funds can be redirected towards games users feel are more worthy of their time. Due to the amount if games available there's an opportunity cost with every purchase.

In the unlikely event it ultimately results in less money being spent across the industry then it would mean there's a net misalignment between what players want and the games being made. From there adjustments can be made, sometimes industries need to crash in order to move forward.

 

[arvfab]

Some of the takes on this thread are hilarious. Assuming a rumor is true AND assuming every single PS+ subscriber will upgrade to premium...

 

[StealthGoblin]

I had assumed that this would be select games so I’m very pleased about this. There are many games I become somewhat interested in, but I don’t want to have to spend a significant amount of money to find out whether it’s for me or not.
This is a very pro-consumer move.

 

[Tripolygon]

While I don't like subscription service and would be a nice feature for all users, it is still a cool feature like EA game trials.

 

[DarkMage619]

thats what sony is doing. you can either roll out a custom demo build, or we'll do the 2hr timer for you.

I didn't catch that. If Sony will be the one controlling the 2 hour time limit and dev would have to do nothing for demos I'd be completely OK with this. Sony controls the licensing process they could easily block or allow players access to game based on time limits or whether or not they have PS+ Premium.

This could be like Game pass where players have access to all games on PlayStation for 2 hours for Premium members and then lock them unless they pay full price for each individual title. It'd be worse than Game pass but it would be better than nothing I suppose.

 

[Xeaker]

poor devs

 

[Hollowpoint5557]

Lock any earned achievements (trophies) during the trial to only be unlocked if full game is purchased.

 

[mckmas8808]

No now Sony just gets the money instead of the publisher.

If this was for the consumer it wouldn't be behind a sub.

It's for the consumer that actually cares about the Playstation ecosystem more than most. If you don't, then it's cool. Don't worry about it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

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.

No argument here. I think the benefit to devs of offering timed trials is strong enough that it should be a universal policy across every digital store.

With the exception of smaller games and ones that can be completed well within the timed trial period.

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.

Well then you should be cheering for this because if anything it disincentivises developers including long, shitty, boring tutorials at the start of games, and incentivises games that jump straight into the action.

That's what we want!

And yeah, anyone buying Death Stranding or Yakuza know absolutely what they are buying and so trial or not, it's kinda irrelvant for those game.

This is more important for B and C tier games that review in the high 70s and low 80s on MC, games by no-name devs.

The biggest top tier AAA games are publicised and hyped to kingdom come already, so the vast majority buying those games know what they are and what they play like (since many are sequels or derivative of popular genres).

Retail allows you to trade in your games. Some places like Gamestop offer $55 for a trade in if you can finish it in three days after launch. Regardless, I cant trade in my digital purchases which is why refunds are important.

Digital games let you boot up a game from the comfort of your couch and not have to change discs, so it offers other different benefits as well as drawbacks. So digital games =/= physical games. Consumers know this and so there's no reason to expect or feel entitled to an analogue for every physical games benefit with digital games and vice-versa.

I am ok with trials for PS+ members. I just dont like devs being forced to do it. That's all. Not every game is for everyone, but a lot of times people get swept up by the hype and make purchases they wont make. Devs unfortunately need those suckers. Sometimes those 2-5% (going by trophy percetanges for early game trophies here) are the profit margin for some of these devs.

Games that so marketed that players will blind buy because of getting swept up in hype are the AAA games that sell multi million units. The numbers of people experiencing buyers remorse and wanting a refund that would otherwise not buy with this trial system are so small as to be neglibile.

So I disagree that publishers of these types of games need the sales from players who buy based on hype and later regret it.

AAA games will live or die on their metacritic scores, player word of mouth, gaming media hype and in-built franchise IP interest. Trials or no trials, these are the types of games that will be the most unnaffected by this.

It's the B and C tier games by mostly unknown devs that receive middling review scores that will be advantaged / disadvantaged by this. And this type of system merely incentivises that category of devs take more creative risks, to innovate and produce higher quality games.

Any to your initial point about devs being forced to do it. Devs are forced to do a shit tonne in order to publish their games on console. No-one cares about all the other platform policies they have to comply with. This is no different, frankly. It's the nature of doing business on consoles.

Again, it ties back to the fact that I cant trade in my digital games. I personally dont like the whole 2 hour return period. Like i said above i agree that you should make your decision before you buy a movie or a game, but if you go to a theater and walk out within half an hour, most movie chains will refund you the ticket. I think Sony just needs to offer refunds for games you accidently purchased which they currently dont do if you started the download which can happen automatically in some cases. They are very rigid about returns.

Then I'm confused why you're against this?

Trials allow you to try the game without parting with any cash. So in some ways it's superior to trade-ins on physical copies.

You can't enjoy a game, beat it and then trade it in with this. But physical games still exist and aren't covered by this policy, so you can still do that with physical versions if you want.

The fact of phsyical games still existing and being fully supported means there's even less reason for you to expect ditigal games to work in the same way. But again, regardless, I don't see why you keep labouring the point about phsyical trade-ins or refunds as a counter-argument against this game trial system.

Game trials are a net benefit if you are interested in trying out a game before you commit to a permanent purchase.

Yeah, i knew it didnt completely make sense while I was writing it but my thinking is that you need to think about both devs and gamers. This option does not benefit the gamer or the dev. One is forced to make trials available to everyone while the other is forced to buy a $120 subscription just to be able to get a refund.

It's not a refund. It's a game trial. I can agree with you that placing this behind the PS+ permium paywall is less ideal, but we can't have everything we want. Sony is a business after all.

The dev burden of this is miniscule. The benfits to devs aren't just on paper. The GamePass data Xbox talks about demonstrates this in real terms.

People wanting to be able to try games out before they buy are a signfincant measurable portion of the market. And so attending to that need by providing timed game trials, games on PS+ or services like GamePass, allows those discriminating consumers with less disposable income to try out more games and so buy more games than just the most overhyped AAA blockbuster titles.

Any obscure scenarios you're dreaming up to try to paint this as a negative for developers and publishers exist only in your head. They aren't in anyway a meaningful portion of the market for publishers to be concerned about.

And fundamentally, as a gamer, I think it's bizzare that you claim to be advocating for devs and gamers on the one hand, while stating that gamers who buy a game and regret it should be stuck with their undesirable purchase and not have the opportunity to try out the games for free before they buy them.

Your arguments are a little logically inconsistent, slimey.

 

[BeardGawd]

It's for the consumer that actually cares about the Playstation ecosystem more than most. If you don't, then it's cool. Don't worry about it.

The ecosystem also includes Publishers. I'm sure they're worried about it.

 

[Chronicle]

Some will cry about this. Some will think this is good.

 

[Topher]

The ecosystem also includes Publishers. I'm sure they're worried about it.

Why are you assuming this worries publishers?

 

[BeardGawd]

Why are you assuming this worries them?

We have linked research showing demos have equated to less games sales. There's a reason Nintendo puts time limitation on pretty much all their demos. Unless Sony is compensating publishers (which I hope so) them forcing this on pubs would naturally be concerning. There's a delicate balance there and some games could lose out on revenue with the policy.

 

[saintjules]

Time to revisit that 2018 PS5 leak. That first bullet point. Would not be surprised if they would do beta stuff in early access.

 

[Clintizzle]

Am a big fan of EA's 10hour trial. Am a big fan of this move.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So apparently the $34 refers to the wholesale price, not the retail.

Not sure what that actually puts the retail price at but I'm guessing in the $50+ range

 

[nominedomine]

The ecosystem also includes Publishers. I'm sure they're worried about it.

Sony is doing this to sell more games. They tested this thing already, it makes sense.

This is the exact oposite of something publishers should fear. Publishers should fear people waiting for games to release on subscription services and being taugth to stop buying games.

If Gamepass or PS+ becomes the way people get their games all the power goes to plataform holders and they have very little incentive to pay publishers once that happens. That's why MS is so bullish about pushing the market in this direction and the only reason why they are expanding their internal studios so agressivelly (so they dont have to pay other publishers for their games).

 

[DaGwaphics]

That's not how it works. Those funds can be redirected towards games users feel are more worthy of their time. Due to the amount if games available there's an opportunity cost with every purchase.

Certainly possible. As an opt-in idea I think it is cool for sure.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Sony is doing this to sell more games. They tested this thing already, it makes sense.

This is the exact oposite of something publishers should fear.

If they tested it out and the sales numbers looked encouraging, why are they instituting a rule across the platform? Seems like devs would be lining up on their own. Makes you wonder.

 

[Topher]

We have linked research showing demos have equated to less games sales.

Not really.

"One potential problem with interpreting the EEDAR data in this way, however, is that it is difficult to determine whether there is a correlation between some of the industry's best-selling titles--such as Call of Duty, BioShock Infinite, or Tomb Raider--generally opting not to release a demo at launch."

Lesser known games are more likely to have demos than more popular games.

 

[mckmas8808]

Lock any earned achievements (trophies) during the trial to only be unlocked if full game is purchased.

Good point. This has to happen.

 

[DJ12]

Oh wow. Using 3rd party games to push your higher subscription tier without having to pay them anything?

We have linked research showing demos have equated to less games sales. There's a reason Nintendo puts time limitation on pretty much all their demos. Unless Sony is compensating publishers (which I hope so) them forcing this on pubs would naturally be concerning. There's a delicate balance there and some games could lose out on revenue with the policy.

Yet people not buying games be as it will eventually be on gamepass is good I guess.

I'm sure ms pay devs the full retail price for every game download.

 

[mckmas8808]

So apparently the $34 refers to the wholesale price, not the retail.

Not sure what that actually puts the retail price at but I'm guessing in the $50+ range

So in "theory" a publisher could release their game for $40 retail and NOT have their game be a guaranteed demo, right?

 

[Helghan]

This is good for gamers, but why only for premium + subscribers... That's such a dick move again

 

[bushwookie]

I'm not necessarily against the practice of games having a trial period. I'm not even sure I'm completely against the practice of it being somewhat required under normal circumstances. To be honest, I haven't found a place to dismount on it yet, so I'll continue to ride this fence for the time being.

What I am sure of though, is that Sony surely could've found a better way to do this. Sony could've gotten MS on board with this, and presented more of a combined front to developers. Just tell Phil upfront that you'd like a year exclusivity for the trial feature, and he'd have gone for it. Phil is a people pleaser, and loves to collaborate on things like this. If Sony didn't want to go that route, or I'm completely wrong on Phil's willingness to cooperate, then Sony could've asked devs to implement a trial if they wanted to be included in any part of the new sub service. If they wanted this viewed through good optics in any capacity, they should've not tied this feature behind a paywall. Especially seeing as Sony's return policy is by far the worst among gaming platforms.

By flat out making demands the way it seems they have, they're taking advantage of their marketshare position, but I'm sure some devs will see it as abusing it's position... Which is currently shrinking. Down the road, this is just another pebble on the scales that devs will weigh when deciding what platform to lead from or sign an exclusivity deal with.

I go back and forth on the pros and cons. My only hang up is that while it may very well benefit gamers. I can't really consider the pros point blank because it only applies to those paying for the top tier, instead of all PS users. At best, Sony is making a pro-consumer move.... but for only a select few consumers.

 

[BeardGawd]

Sony is doing this to sell more games. They tested this thing already, it makes sense.

This is the exact oposite of something publishers should fear. Publishers should fear people waiting for games to release on subscription services and being taugth to stop buying games.

Sony is doing this to sell more PS+ higher tier. If this was to sell more games it wouldn't be behind a sub.

Not really.

"One potential problem with interpreting the EEDAR data in this way, however, is that it is difficult to determine whether there is a correlation between some of the industry's best-selling titles--such as Call of Duty, BioShock Infinite, or Tomb Raider--generally opting not to release a demo at launch."

Lesser known games are more likely to have demos than more popular games.

Which is why it should be up to the publisher and not mandated. One size does not fit all in this regard.

Yet people not buying games be as it will eventually be on gamepass is good I guess.

I'm sure ms pay devs the full retail price for every game download.

MS isn't forcing games to be put on GP and they compensate publishers when they decide to put them on there. If Sony is compensating pubs then no harm no foul.

Just to clarify from a consumer point of you view I would love a 2 hour trial for every game. But looking at it from all perspectives I can definitely see why some pubs would have issues with this.

 

[nominedomine]

If they tested it out and the sales numbers looked encouraging, why are they instituting a rule across the platform? Seems like devs would be lining up on their own. Makes you wonder.

Same reason why they charge money for the multiplayer, because they can.

 

[nominedomine]

Sony is doing this to sell more PS+ higher tier. If this was to sell more games it wouldn't be behind a sub.


Which is why it should be up to the publisher and not mandated. One size does not fit all in this regard.


MS isn't forcing games to be put on GP and they compensate publishers when they decide to put them on there. If Sony is compensating pubs then no harm no foul.

Just to clarify from a consumer point of you view I would love a 2 hour trial for every game. But looking at it from all perspectives I can definitely see why some pubs would have issues with this.

Is online multiplayer behind a paywall an attemt to sell less games? They just figure that people will pay for it anyway.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So in "theory" a publisher could release their game for $40 retail and NOT have their game be a guaranteed demo, right?

In theory yeah, but what's the point? They'll get most of their sales from the three months before they need to even offer a trial