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
I wonder. According to Phill Spencer Game Pass effect game sales positively...So![]()
Ignores most of my points by ad homineming by calling me a "keyboard warrior".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.
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.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.
Not good.
1) Refunds should be available to EVERYONE. Not just people who pay $120 a year.
2) No dev should be forced to offer trials to EVERYONE.
People who PAY $70 for a game are in it because they WANT to buy the game.
This will bring in users who dont want to buy the game or on the fence and this will cost devs more sales.
It's good for both devs and consumers.Dumb idea. It isnt good for either devs or consumers.
Exactly.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.
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.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.
Ignores most of my points by ad homineming "keyboard warrior".
You post faster than you read and process words.
![]()
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.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.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?
Looks like a pro-consumer move. Try before you buy, thanks uncle Jim!
They are still fruits.You're literally comparing apples to coconuts here.
Probably.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.
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.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.
$34 and up, according to the article.But is seems like is only going to apply to 60+ games only. Right?
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.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?
Oh. Ok. Thanks.$34 and up, according to the article.
I like it. It's basically like Steams refund policy but without having to buy the game first.
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.
Is HipHopGamer a meme?HipHopGamer strikes again!
Bad news for EA and Ubisoft
But but but the devs!!!!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.
Is HipHopGamer a meme?
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.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.
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… “Try before you buy - good.
Pay to try - bad.
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.
That's genius. Let people pay for demos and let devs make the work and take the riscs.
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.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.
it could, if it would be part of the cheapest tier, because here we talk about large numbers, like 45 mio subscribers?Surely this could effect games sales massively?
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.
Surely this could effect games sales massively?
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.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.
Not so much I guess.Devs bitch about making demos for games for E3, how much are they going to bitch about this I wonder.
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.
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.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.
Only if there's a huge number of people subscribed to the highest tier, which I doubt.Surely this could effect games sales massively?
There are a couple of import differences more: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.
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.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.