Support NeoGAF

[TheTony316]

So the $34 price point refers to wholesale, not retail. Does that mean only games that sell over $59.99 retail are affected by this? English is not my first language, so i hope somebody can clarify this. xD

 

[Topher]

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

Nah.....if a publisher is confident enough to sell their game for $60 then they should have no issues giving a gamer two hours to try it.

 

[GHG]

So the $34 price point refers to wholesale, not retail. Does that mean only games that sell over $59.99 retail are affected by this? English is not my first language, so i hope somebody can clarify this. xD

Yep looks like this applies for full priced titles only.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

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.

Aren't we assuming the kickback since its tied into the service? every developer is getting a kickback from ps+preminum since its a requirement? Seems more like an assumption than anything because them saying "to be on our platform requires a demo" doesnt sound like "were raising the fee of being on playstation from 70 to 75%..."

 

[DeepEnigma]

Going to patiently wait for all information to come out.

With stories like this, there are always things missing in the details.

 

[balls of snow]

Good as it should be. Now i might sub for the highest tier.

 

[Zeroing]

Nah.....if a publisher is confident enough to sell their game for $60 then they should have no issues giving a gamer two hours to try it.

I agree at least people will play first hand and make their own judgement. It should be the norm, before the all digital era, there were game demos disks. I think the only reason devs are ok with is move it's because it is tied to a service.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

So the $34 price point refers to wholesale, not retail. Does that mean only games that sell over $59.99 retail are affected by this? English is not my first language, so i hope somebody can clarify this. xD

So much fake outrage and apparently only huge AAA titles fully priced will have to have these, lmao.

 

[remember_spinal]

So much fake outrage and apparently only huge AAA titles fully priced will have to have these, lmao.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

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.

This is the most disingenuous post I've read in this thread. You must be trolling.

Conceptually, I can't even think how any meaningful research on this subject can be done in a way that would draw meaningful conclusions.

All games are different and have different levels of appeal and don't even maintain the same level of compelling gameplay throughout the duration of the gaming experience.

So how would they even test for this? Compare game sales with a demo to regions without a demo? The regional market for said game is different.
Compare games sales with a demo to different game sales without a demo? Different games offer different consumer appeal.
Compare sequels with a demo to sales of their predecessors without? Sequels often sell less or more than their predecessors, regardless of demo availability.

There are so many influencing factors involved in consumer purchase decisions on games that any research you can point to regarding the effect of demos on game sales is gonna be either utterly worthless or not actually making the conclusions that you're trying to push in this thread because it lacks wholly the evidentiary backing to be able to make such conclusions.

Intuitively, game demos allow for players to try games before they buy. So if that results in net lower sales across the industry in a single year, it's more likely that the games released in that year were shit and lacked the appeal to generate sufficient player interest.

So to your point about publishers, the only ones who might be worried about this are those who publish shitty games. So why should we care about them? Why should low effort shitty games be rewarded? It's a commercial industry where competition is the aim and a huge benefit to the consumer. The moment we start rewarding and incentivising mediocrity is the moment we lose the competition aspect and the overall quality of games drops off a cliff, because pubs realise they can fart out shit low quality, low effort games and still make money.... nah... fuck that.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Oh there will be something else

 

[DeepEnigma]

Going to patiently wait for all information to come out.

With stories like this, there are always things missing in the details.

So the $34 price point refers to wholesale, not retail. Does that mean only games that sell over $59.99 retail are affected by this? English is not my first language, so i hope somebody can clarify this. xD

So much fake outrage and apparently only huge AAA titles fully priced will have to have these, lmao.

 

[remember_spinal]

Oh there will be something else

Theres a juicy 56 games leaving ps now thread.

 

[BeardGawd]

Nah.....if a publisher is confident enough to sell their game for $60 then they should have no issues giving a gamer two hours to try it.

Good point. Now that I'm thinking about it more perhaps this will encourage pubs to launch at a lower price if they are unsure about a game instead of defaulting to the standard full price games release at.

So this could actually be a good thing even for non-playstation plus subscribers if pubs lower their prices due to this policy.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

'Premium' as in the more expensive plan?

If so this is starting to stink the closer we get to this service launching.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Theres a juicy 56 games leaving ps now thread.

Let me check that. Wanna see how many people are over there complaining about games they don't play for 15 years in a platform they probably don't even own anymore

 

[TheTony316]

Let me check that. Wanna see how many people are over there complaining about games they don't play for 15 years in a platform they probably don't even own anymore

Remember the CMOS outrage?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Let me check that. Wanna see how many people are over there complaining about games they don't play for 15 years in a platform they probably don't even own anymore

On a service they never liked or cared to sub to.

 

[yurinka]

The fact that they'd have to code both a timer and an in-game purchase check in order to create a time limit trial function is, most certainly, "extra work". It's code they wouldn't be required to write otherwise. And that's the easiest solution.

I stand by my original comment: If Sony wants to give 2 hour trials on their top tier subscription service, the onus should be on them to make that a platform-specific perk that they control, not mandate developers add more development time to meet Sony's new criteria for selling on their platform.

They don't have to implement anythting, it will be an OS level feauture common to all games that don't . In the form where they submit the game they select option "full game time limited trial" instead of "custom demo" and specify the number of hours in a textbox, that's all.

Notice the article mentions: "Sony is also open to releasing custom game demos instead of time-limited game trials, but these will only be approved on a case-by-case basis." Meaning that in in the case of the game trials are the games themselves, if they had to implement something different for another SKU would count as custom demo. And well, if they would need to implement themselves the timer and the purchase button that would open the store that would be implemented by a single coder in less than an hour.

I assume it will be exactly the full game trials they already had in PS+ years ago: the timer and popup there were on a OS level, not implemented in-game.

SONY ITSELF

I think we need to consider the source on this here. SELECT GAMES, by Sony's own clarification of the "perk" does not mean ALL GAMES.

We all got caught up in the quoted source to consider what SONY THEMSELVES HAVE STATED.

It's an exciting(to some) to think about getting a 2 hour trial of ANY NEW GAME, but in reality this will probably be as useless as their OLD trail system on Plus of the past, where very few devs bothered with the game trials.

According to the article all future new 1st and 3rd party games that aren't VR games and cost over 33€ are mantadory to be there for at least a year.

While for the games cheaper than 34€, VR or for games released before PS+ Premium launch, it's optional and up to the publishers to release a demo or not.

So it will include an insane amount of games including all the new AAA games, but won't be the whole catalog of PS4/PS5. To put it in a short term: "select games".

 

[DeepEnigma]

I assume it will be exactly the full game trials they already had in PS+ years ago: the timer and popup there were on a OS level, not implemented in-game.

That's exactly what it is.

 

[Captain Toad]

Some people are happy trying a game out and getting it out their system

Sure, but other people will start a game they had no intent to buy, but ultimately do just that. If demos only resulted in fewer sales, no one ever do them, but that's obviously not the case.

I am concerned that the first two hours is often not the best indicator of how longer games are overall.

 

[BeardGawd]

This is the most disingenuous post I've read in this thread. You must be trolling.

Conceptually, I can't even think how any meaningful research on this subject can be done in a way that would draw meaningful conclusions.

All games are different and have different levels of appeal and don't even maintain the same level of compelling gameplay throughout the duration of the gaming experience.

So how would they even test for this? Compare game sales with a demo to regions without a demo? The regional market for said game is different.
Compare games sales with a demo to different game sales without a demo? Different games offer different consumer appeal.
Compare sequels with a demo to sales of their predecessors without? Sequels often sell less or more than their predecessors, regardless of demo availability.

There are so many influencing factors involved in consumer purchase decisions on games that any research you can point to regarding the effect of demos on game sales is gonna be either utterly worthless or not actually making the conclusions that you're trying to push in this thread because it lacks wholly the evidentiary backing to be able to make such conclusions.

Intuitively, game demos allow for players to try games before they buy. So if that results in net lower sales across the industry in a single year, it's more likely that the games released in that year were shit and lacked the appeal to generate sufficient player interest.

So to your point about publishers, the only ones who might be worried about this are those who publish shitty games. So why should we care about them? Why should low effort shitty games be rewarded? It's a commercial industry where competition is the aim and a huge benefit to the consumer. The moment we start rewarding and incentivising mediocrity is the moment we lose the competition aspect and the overall quality of games drops off a cliff, because pubs realise they can fart out shit low quality, low effort games and still make money.... nah... fuck that.

Shitty game? Is Demon Souls a shitty game? Is Elden Ring a shitty game? Perhaps a game has a high learning curve or takes time to ramp up. It's more complex than just being a shitty game. A purchase sometimes forces a player to give a game more of a chance versus a free trial. Some people just want to experience the graphics or some are caught in the hype. Those people might have purchased the game and then due to the financial commitment actually put effort and time into the game. Versus trying it for a short time and putting it down if it doesn't click. If something like Elden Ring had a trial I definitely think it would have affected sales negatively. Hype sells.

Pubs will have to consider a lot with these demos.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

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

Didn't know SIE became a non-profit organization all of a sudden

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Shitty game? Is Demon Souls a shitty game? Is Elden Ring a shitty game? Perhaps a game has a high learning curve or takes time to ramp up. It's more complex than just being a shitty game. A purchase sometimes forces a player to give a game more of a chance versus a free trial. Some people just want to experience the graphics or some are caught in the hype. Those people might have purchased the game and then due to the financial commitment actually put effort and time into the game. Versus trying it for a short time and putting it down if it doesn't click. If something like Elden Rings had a trial I definitely think it would have affected sales negatively. Hype sells.

Pubs will have to consider a lot with these demos.

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Demon's Souls and Elden Ring are AAA blockbuster games marketed to hell and back by their respective publishers. They are top tier critical darlings, loved by game reviewers the world over.

In what world, should the publishers of those games be worried about players playing a timed demo of those games and deciding it's not for them?

Those players were never going to buy those games in the first place anyway.

Are you really trying to argue that a meaningful proportion of those tens of millions of players who bought those two games would have not done so had they first played a 2-hour trial?

If so, you're on crack. There's no other explanation. You're being totally absurd.

 

[Decontamination Silo]

This is an interesting solution to their stance on refunds.

 

[N0S]

Bring back the demo disc!

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Aren't we assuming the kickback since its tied into the service? every developer is getting a kickback from ps+preminum since its a requirement? Seems more like an assumption than anything because them saying "to be on our platform requires a demo" doesnt sound like "were raising the fee of being on playstation from 70 to 75%..."

Unless you saw some Sony official position/wording on this, you're throwing your own bias into the mix. If it was a straight mandate with no incentives, then why limit it to $60 and upwards games? Why then put it behind a paywall?
Yes, these deals are made both from a position of strength, but these same publishers are partners too. They deserve compensation for value they are providing and they enter this partnership voluntarily.

 

[BeardGawd]

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Demon's Souls and Elden Ring are AAA blockbuster games marketed to hell and back by their respective publishers. They are top tier critical darlings, loved by game reviewers the world over.

In what world, should the publishers of those games be worried about players playing a timed demo of those games and deciding it's not for them?

Those players were never going to buy those games in the first place anyway.

Your arguments are absurd at this point.

Please look up the percentage of players that have purchased but not completed these games. I am making very logical arguments here.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Bring back the demo disc!

"Those were the days..."

 

[MarkMe2525]

I agree with the sentiment that a more robust return policy is preferable to this. Locking this behind a paywall is bizarre. I'm aware that other companies have offered a similar service (EA) but in that case it was a 10 hour trial which is not a trivial amount of time.

 

[nominedomine]

This is an interesting solution to their stance on refunds.

More like an interesting way of avoiding having to implement a solution.

 

[mejin]

Sony is doing good

 

[reksveks]

Hmm, what if your game is 60/70 for the first three months and then go down to 40 usd aka under the 34 whole sale price?

 

[schaft0620]

Sony should help them make the demos, this is not going to be easy for devs to do.

There are 100 other things Sony could do to make PSN as good a Steam and this is not where I would start.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Hmm, what if your game is 60/70 for the first three months and then go down to 40 usd aka under the 34 whole sale price?

They'll still need to keep the trial up for at least 12 months

 

[yurinka]

'Premium' as in the more expensive plan?

Yes, the one that includes over 700 PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5, PSP games to download and stream (no download for PS3 games, no stream at launch for PS5 games), these demos, monthly games, PS Plus Collection, discounts, online multiplayer and cloud storage.

Sony should help them make the demos, this is not going to be easy for devs to do.

These are not demos, these are time limited full game trials. Devs don't have to do anything, but if desired the devs instead of putting there the full game trial they can make a custom demo instead.

 

[Fafalada]

34 quid is the cut off point for this , why?
in any case game trials/demos are a good thing

Impulse buy-price range.
Everyone's tolerances are different - but most people are more comfortable blind-buying at lower price tiers (it's also psychology of why sales work).
I'm sure they've ran the numbers (which are literally in billions of software units from the PS4 era) and computed where that threshold is for most people, and worked back from that.

 

[jshackles]

I'm assuming they'll put some pretty hefty restrictions on this.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Ps plus is worth millions.

 

[GHG]

If something like Elden Ring had a trial I definitely think it would have affected sales negatively. Hype sells.

Pubs will have to consider a lot with these demos.

Steam offers a 2 hour refund policy. Meanwhile:

Elden Ring Has Sold 10 Million Copies on PC Already

Elden Ring is a resounding success, and a report claims that the game's PC version has already sold more than 10 million copies.

gamerant.com

And that's even with the substandard PC port.

The only thing publishers need to consider with this is how to up their game because they will no longer be able to get away with duping players on a major platform.

 

[GHG]

Sony should help them make the demos, this is not going to be easy for devs to do.

There are 100 other things Sony could do to make PSN as good a Steam and this is not where I would start.

It's not a demo, it's a time limited trial of the full game.

A similar policy already exists for new release EA Play titles, the infrastructure is already in place at the OS level.

Why is logic so tough for people today?

 

[yurinka]

Hmm, what if your game is 60/70 for the first three months and then go down to 40 usd aka under the 34 whole sale price?

I assume only the launch price counts, and the game must have the game trial/demo there during at least a year.

 

[K' Dash]

Sony looking like Yamauchi era Nintendo, lol

 

[Decontamination Silo]

You could blow through most of Ghostwire or RE3make in that amount of time. Maybe even some COD Campaigns. Hell I only buy COD for the campaign and this would save me some dough.

To me this is a big ask to all their partners.

 

[GHound]

Why is logic so tough for people today?

Everyone's too concerned to think straight.

 

[Craig of War]

locking game trials behind a paywall is something i will never agree with same with locking online play behind a paywall & same as locking cloud save behind a paywall

 

[GHG]

locking game trials behind a paywall is something i will never agree with same with locking online play behind a paywall & same as locking cloud save behind a paywall

Locking digital rentals behind a pay wall is pretty poor as well but here we are.

 

[Craig of War]

Locking digital rentals behind a pay wall is pretty poor as well but here we are.

How is that the same? do you know what a rental is lol

 

[GHG]

How is that the same? do you know what a rental is lol

So you're going to tell me PS Now and gamepass aren't rental services?

You pay money, you own nothing and you're entitled to access the game for a limited time determined by the owner (in this case the publisher).

If there's another way to digitally rent games then let me know.

 

[ReBurn]

which may mean a higher conversion than normal demos

Or lower conversion. There's no way to know what it will mean. There are a lot of games I would have never bought if I'd been able to play them for two hours.