Slashdot Mirror
Bug-Filled Demos Are Game Anti-Marketing?
Thanks to GamersWithJobs for their piece discussing early, bug-filled releases of videogame demos (actual link here, broken website referrals currently in effect.) The author points out that if the downloader "...doesn't like the demo, the player will probably skip the game which will hurt the publisher in the end. That makes me really wonder why some of them appear to insist on early trial versions." He concurs that sometimes PC demos are 'leaked' from magazine cover-discs, but wonders "why such a poor representation of a product would be released anywhere in the first place", and concludes: "I tried to understand the reasons for the release of rather 'flawed' demos, but short term gains such as marketing deals or market timing are usually clearly outweighed by the overall consequences."
Ooooooo I have bugs all over mah nuts from that dirty skank Andy! Whooo-nee!
Bugz- evra whe!
The opposite is true too. The Thief Demos are as good as the game (and both Thief I & II had levels not included in the full game).
People don't clamor for a demo until the marketing hype has gone too far.
In the case of Duke Nukem Forever, releasing a bug-riddled demo is better than showing nothing at all. At least there is progress...
It 's odd that when posted as an actual link in /. it goes awry.
the link from the article brought me to a /. mirror of an older article on GWJ about the HL2 code leak... But it's the same URL as what I get from GWJ's main page - maybe they're filtering referrer-from slashdot?
The bug-ridden demos only represent the bug-ridden final products that suddenly populate 90% of the industries releases.
People have come to accept that games are buggy, which scares me, because they whine and complain about it but continue giving away their money to the same publishers that poop on them time and again. So the only thing that will change in this scenario is the publics acceptance of poor craftsmanship.
I appreciate that Devil's Whiskey is a game that runs on Linux, and the authors are very open source friendly, but in the end, it's still a proprietary game they wrote for money.
The demo was more like a public beta test. The game was basically unplayable, major bugs everywhere, and really annoying gameplay (I'd like to make it two steps from the pub before getting my lvl 1 party slaughtered!). Yes, it was a big turn-off in regard to later purchase prospects.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
This doesn't seem like a huge issue to me. I only play a demo to get a feel for the game, to see if the graphics and the gameplay appeal to me. Unless the demo is so riddled with bugs that it is unplayable (in which case I can't imaging why the demo would be released in the first place), I can forgive a few bugs for a chance to sample the game prior to release, just like a beta test. If the game goes GOLD and the bugs are still there with expected patches, that's where players get irked!
I think the bigger problems these days is bug filled releases, not demos.
Remember MOO3? The AI was so buggy, it couldn't win even if you never did anything.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Ok, we all know games are not coming out perfect, a few bugs. But UBISoft has made some mistakes releasing demos with enough problems to warrent a new demo release. You dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. When 10 new games comes out, which one are you going to buy? Demos, trailers, movies, commericals, reviews are going to get people. If a game is good enough with 1 level to get people to buy it, its worth the money.
Ive been burned the last few years on hype. I wont even buy before doing research now. 15 minutes of research can save me 50 bux. Demos get more time.
Yeah, I agree. There are so many games out there that I don't have time to waste if it's going to be buggy. Case in point: I couldn't get the demo for XIII to work at my LCDs resolution (note to game developers: just support every reasonable resolution!! It's not hard. At a very minimum, support standard LCD resolutions like 1280x1024, because it will look like shit if it has to up-sample to display on a LCD!), and my mouse was like 100x more sensitive than it should have been, making it impossible to aim at anything. Despite that the demo did look cool, but in general it drove me away more than it attracted me. Rabid fans will love the game when it finally comes out no matter what, and, believe it or not, nobody else is actually sitting around checking the website every day to see if there's any new news. We can wait!
In the old days, the game development schedule went as follows:
- finish game
- release game
- rework a demo
- release demo
- work on expansion
- start sequel
Nowadays, the schedule goes:
- leaked copy
- work on game
- release game
- warez version available
- finish game
- release gold edition
- start sequel
The nice things about leaking a beta are:
- you don't have to actually customize anything
- it's completely not your fault if it sucks.
Between the warez version coming out right after release, and the number of leaked betas from E3 or whatever, I think the market for official demos has completely dried up. Especially considering the longer development times for products nowadays, and the fact that most of these companies live hand-to-mouth.
When Q3A was in development, the ppl at iD issued a Q3Test package which was more of a technology test than a demo. It was meant to test rendering systems, drivers, etc. The gameplay was totally not an issue. The NPC bots didn't work. Multiplayer barely worked. It was also issued cross-platform, for Windows, Linux & MacOS.. each platform had a number of issues.
None of the problems stopped Q3A from being a commercial success across all of the above platforms. Indeed, I would think that the release of q3test actually helped the popularity of the game.
Just my 2 cents.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Is this about demos or released games?
The discription of a buggy product turnign people off just seams like most actual packaged releases to me.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The numbers say it didn't hurt StarWars too bad to release an entire game at beta status. Who's so worried about demos?
Besides, if you steal the source code to certin long awaited games not to mention any names, you can debug, write patches, hack, and write mods for games ahead of time.
Demos suck.
... release dates being scheduled around trade shows.
"Derp de derp."
I know the fact that the Tron 2.0 demo locks my system certainly convinced me to not buy the retail game. What happened to just releasing a crippled version of the retail game, ie. Wolf3d?
The user should kinda expect the full version to have more features. Also, they're going to make patches for the full, not the demo.
Jonahweb.com has stuff.
Is Gamers With Jobs an organization of gamers who side with the Apple Computer CEO?
I wonder if he shit his pants when he found out about this organization of allies.
I would guess that they sit around and play chess with Steve, since there are no games available on the Macintosh.
"He concurs that sometimes PC demos are 'leaked' from magazine cover-discs, but wonders "why such a poor representation of a product would be released anywhere in the first place", and concludes: "I tried to understand the reasons for the release of rather 'flawed' demos, but short term gains such as marketing deals or market timing are usually clearly outweighed by the overall consequences.""
See, you're looking in the wrong place. Many of these corporations don't really care how their games do in the long-term. Their goal is to build up hype to attract short-term money from short-term investors. Think "dot-com bubble" or "Enron economics" for relatively recent examples of this trend.
Way back when, MacSoft released a pre-demo of Fallout. The demo was based on early code and the performance was so bad, it put many people off buying the game.
Performance on the final game was pretty reasonable. However, a lot of people skipped buying because of the horrible demo.
Not only do half-baked demos hurt a game's pre-release reputation, but they can also waste months of valuable game development time, which in turn hurts the final product. Unencumbered game development makes better finished games. Finished games make better demos.
Here's a text mirror, since there's some broken redirection stuff at the main site after a previous Slashdotting.
--
Buggy Demos - How To Anti-Market A Game
Posted by: Spunior on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 09:26 AM EST
Experienced demo trouble lately? Patch required? You're probably not the only one. Read on for a brief look at quick publishers, the concept of second-class consumers, local releases and why they are a disservice to both sides.
Demo bugs aren't something we haven't seen before. However, Ubi Soft seems to be on a hot streak lately, having released three demos in the past weeks which either required a patch, are crash-heavy or look somewhat unfinished. In one case they complained about the early availability, in two other cases functional "US demos" were promised. First of all, a demo release depends on what the publisher demands. The developers aren't too keen on releasing early trials as they are only snapshots of what still is unfinished code and since they also have to dedicate resources for the production of them. It seems that Ubi's PR department believes in what actually seem to be rather questionable concepts.
Local release: The Beyond Good & Evil demo apparently made its way onto the internet from the CD featured in the French mag Joystick. Magazine demos leaking into the web is something that happens so frequently the marketing sections had to be aware of it. Now there's quite a number of players who have trouble getting the trial running without crashes. Which brings up the questions why such a poor representation of a product would be released ANYWHERE in the first place. Joystick is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) mags in France. Even under the illusionary premise that the demo is not going to be made available for download on the internet, there would still be quite a few subscribers who would experience the aforementioned problems. It's definitely a shame this happened with Beyond Good & Evil since the PS2 version I got to play at the Games Convention was very entertaining.
In the case of Lock On: Modern Air Combat it appears that the marketing department also needs to get some information on the release date of certain media outlets. Ubi Soft producer Matt "Wags" Wagner on the demo release.
I have no idea why it was released before ECFS. The plan was to release CD versions atECFS on 05 Oct and online on 06 Oct with mirrors. I hope to know more on Monday after I talk with Paris. However, it sounds like Gamestar jumped the gun and released it before they were told to do so. There's nothing more I can say at this time, but I hope you enjoy this early taste.
I'm quite sure Gamestar wouldn't have put the demo on their CD without the approval of the publisher. The monthly mag ships to stores on the first Wednesday of each month. Which clearly was October 1st this month. And subscribers naturally receive their issues on the weekend before that. Well-known fact since we're talking about a magazine here which has a reader base of several hundred thousand people.
Euro twits: Now in two cases the publisher was quick to point out that there will be functional US demos available soon. Now the nature of the internet - which seems to be new to Ubi - makes information and data basically accessible to everyone and everywhere. Which means that US gamers are likely to download the Euro versions as well instead of waiting for the 'proper' release to show up. There's something else that makes one wonder: under the assumption that Euro demos will not run in NA (look forward to the 'enjoyable miracles' Digital Rights Management might provide), why would releasing a buggy demo in Europe look like a clever idea? The EU PC games market is on par with the NA market, not to mention the growing ones in Eastern Europe. Quite a number of PC titles - especially certain genres or products developed in Eastern European countries) sell a lot better here. For instance, in the case of Vietcong or Ubi Soft's very own
Check out the "buzz" surrounding the 3.5E D&D turn-based RPG Temple of Elemental Evil (developed by Troika, published by Atari). The game shipped too early with many obvious bugs. Atari was supposed to release a demo within a week of the game coming out, but once there was a 10+ page thread on their official forums with descriptions of bugs, they kind of shelved that plan.
I guess it works both ways. In this case, better to let someone just hear about the bugs than to give them the chance to experience them firsthand for free and possibly ruin their desire for the game.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Bug-Filled Demos Are Game Anti-Marketing?
Well, duh! I don't need an article to point that out. Why do people even take the time to write such non-sense?
I wonder if most of the demos gamers receive are actually intended for mass consumption. It seems to me that those in the industry, (i.e. potential publishers, supporters, gaming mags, etc,) would be much more tolerant and maybe even expectant of early demos, which of course may be buggy.
As a consumer, (I hate that word,) I've found myself rather tolerant of buggy demos, as I truly do understand that they probably aren't a reflection of the end product. What does irk me is when I play a flawed demo, but overall enjoy the game, and then base my purchase decision on it, only to discover that the bugs I'd experienced are still evident in the game.
However, I feel the need to point out that this is much more prevalent with PC games than with console games. The general consensus on PC games seems to be "release them as soon as they're even remotely viable, and then patch the hell out of any problems." With console games, they have to be spot-on right out of the box, as patching isn't an option. (Well, at least until online console gaming takes off a bit more. Krom forbid...)
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Wow, the gamers do it again.
So which is it? Should a publisher put out a demo before the game is gold or after?
If they put out an official demo before, OF COURSE its not final code. In fact, at least part of the development team has to stop working on the main sku to get the demo out so it slows both projects down. So the demo gets into gamers' hands before the game hits the shelf, but everyone gets pissed off because its not bug-free.
If the official demo comes out after the game ships, everyone complains about that and uses it as an excuse to infringe the publisher's copyright and download a warez copy. Huh.
How can the publishers make you happy when you don't even know what you want?
I work for a game company, and I get to talk to developers. It's the marketing people. They are usually neither engineers nor gamers, and all they want is a marketing "product". They think of the game in the same terms as concept art and feature lists, some negotiable tangible item that can be used to gen up customers.
Since they don't actually "play" the games, they don't really know what they're doing, but they have enough power (especially if they are in-house) to demand most everything they want.
The developers have a difficult time convincing their bosses that this is a bad idea because they are very talented at software and content development, not negotiation and public speaking. The bosses are sometimes engineers, but often they are MBAs who may also not actually "play" the game.
Believe me, as a QA, I have screamed and screeched for this or that and gotten no response, but one jackass from outside the company asks for a preview of some new app and it gets sent off... regardless of whether it has been finished, and it may in fact be the wrong release or a version that has not been properly tested.
Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
Some enterprising fans have already reverse engineered much of the engine and have released a patch that corrects many of the bugs (as well as putting content that was removed to at Atari/WoTCs request back in). I think it's a pretty fucking sad state of affairs when a publisher not only releases a game before it's ready (not just a little bit, but a LOT before it's ready), but gets beaten to a patch release by it's users. And thats even assuming that there will be a patch, Atari was being bitchy about that, too.
If you could get the demo to work, the gameplay was awful and nothing like the actual game. I got the actual game after seeing some good reviews of it and it turned out to be a darn good game. Guess you can't judge a game by it's demo. I still don't get why they even bother with the demos though.
I tried to understand the reasons for the release of rather 'flawed' demos, but short term gains such as marketing deals or market timing are usually clearly outweighed by the overall consequences.
This comes as a suprise to whom? I've yet to see a company in the software field where a single dollar today wasn't valued far more than a C-note tomorrow.
"yeah , I played the (enter any upcoming big release)-game. I got a demo from my friend, I'm so 733T that I play games before they are built... bla bla bla"
...
In this fastmoving scene like the gamedevelopment todays stuff is allready old
So a bunch of kiddies who want to bragg against their friends DL these demo's. Oh and BTW. it's free so why not...
Also as mentioned elsewhere game development cycles seem to take longer now.. how long have we waited on the next release of unreal2003 while their marketingmachine was doing overtime?
--> Insert Funny Sig Here