Slashdot Mirror
Should Games Be Delayed To Release Playable Demos?
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing how important it is to release a playable demo of your games before the game debuts. Although he points out: "If your demo does not go over well with the public, it may end up being detrimental to the retail product", the writer notes: "My observations have consistently indicated that a demo's impact can be far more significant if it is released before, rather than after, a game. Look at Doom and Quake. Look at Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Battlefield 1942. The demos made these games." He even suggests games deserve delaying to get a representative demo released: "Given that resources are limited, should a game be delayed just so a demo can be released? ...I'm going to say the answer is yes."
These demos often expose horrid bugs so that they can get squashed before the games hit the shelves, since they have a much larger playing base than just the beta test group.
When the Ghost Recon demo came out, I played it online non-stop for like 3 months and loved it, but when I bought the game I found that it was buggy and the online play was not as tight as the demo... I found this also to be the case with Tiger Woods 2003.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
I'm pretty sure Doom and Quake would have been successes without demos.
Blizzard doesn't intentionally release demo versions of their games ahead of time, and I don't think it has hurt their sales. All of their demos have come out months after the game has been on shelves (months after they've sold their million plus copies).
The one exception to this was the original Diablo which had a leaked demo from a gaming magazine come out a couple weeks to a month before the game's release. That leak probably contributed greatly to the initial sales success of the game (as it was a new genre for Blizzard) So who knows.
Half-life didn't have a demo until 6 months after the game came out? And the demo was probably downloaded more by the current players who wanted to see the "cut" levels, than it was by people interested in testing the game out before buying.
I think if it's a new genre or a release by a developer who isn't established/recognized, then a demo probably is useful. But for hardcore fans, the demo probably won't have much affect on their purchase (unless the demo really sucks).
The release of the demo for Battlefield 1942 and bugs found in the demo actually improved the final release of the game... I usually don't buy a game unless I can demo it first. Nothing worse than plopping $60 on a game that you hate.
S
Oh yes! More delays. Look, we've waited long enough to play Duke Nuke 'Em Forever. I DON'T want to wait for a "playable" demo.
I'm not sure that this is the best strategy for certain games.
Some companies might not be too keen on letting someone play the game before they get the cash, for obvious reasons.
I have misplaced my pants.
Favorable "word of mouth" advertisement is better than gold. I'd think the game manufacturers would jump at the chance to get the word out their game was "hot", before it hit the shelves. Of course, if their game really sucks I can understand why they might not be too excited about providing a free peek.
I'm pretty sure half-Life had one of the most successful demos of all time, released with some video card, months before the official release.
I have misplaced my pants.
My boss related to me an experience that happened at his previous employment. The company that he worked for produced a very successful system for doing typesetting and layout for newspapers. A few years ago, they decided to put together a mockup of what their product might look several years down the road, and give an example of where their development was heading. So they put together a very convincing demonstration "movie" complete with scripted typos and mistakes. No one who saw the demo ever once thought that the whole thing was faked. They thought this was the real deal. The demo turned out so good that customers immediately dropped any and all demand for their existing product, wanting to wait for the new version. The problem was the new version wasn't even started yet. At best it would be 2 to 3 years down the road. That little demo just about bankrupted the company.
A bit of an extreme example of how a premature demo can really hurt a company. I imagine with games it could be similar, except that gamers are rarely the type to stop buying while they wait for new things.
Yup
GameSpot recently received a preview version of Half-Life: Day One, an OEM version of Half-Life that contains the first few hours of the game. It will be available this month in bundles with the Diamond Monster Sound MX300, Guillemot Maxi Gamer Voodoo Banshee video card, and Thrustmaster Frag Master joystick. Now that GameSpot has finished playing Day One, we give you our impressions of Half-Life and update our preview with what we've learned....
I have misplaced my pants.
This question is so dependent on the game that's under development that it's not really worth trying to answer. If the game's good, and the demo is made to reflect that goodness, then blammo you've got a marketig tool. If the game's good, but the demo sucks, then blammo, you've got an uphill battle with the final product. Don't worry, I'm not going to run through all the permutations of what could happen here. Just pointing out that it really can go either way.
Can your game be successful with a demo? Yes. Can your game be successful without a demo? Yes. Do some of us want to play a demo before buying the game? You betcha. Are some of us more likely to buy it if the demo goes over well? You betcha.
I've answered a few things here, but I'm not sure my info really pushes anybody in any particular direction. It's just too vauge. I do have one piece of advice, though: If your game relies on the "Open your mouth and close your eyes" profit strategy, don't put out a demo.
"Derp de derp."
Huh? You might ask. But it's something I've noticed about the OS X version of Halo:
Where's the fucking demo? I mean, I've heard "Halo runs great on my Powerbook" to "Halo runs like a turd on my G5 with a 3 Gigabyte memory card".
So how can I tell? Demo! What don't I see? Demo. So my options?
Well, either not buy it, or pirate the game, test it, then buy a copy. And since I can't do the latter without getting arrested, I guess I'll just never know. And I'm not about to play the game on the Xbox. I tried that for about 5 minutes.
Controllers do not a keyboard/mouse replacement make.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
After UT2003 got mixed reviews (okay - bad reviews, but I liked it) the release last week of the 2004 demo has probably guarunteed they'll have a hit when the retail game hits stores. I've rarely, if ever, seen any demo get better reviews, and in this case, I think it will pay off well for Epic. They have used this tight demo to win back a fan base.
I like demos cause it gives me a chance to try a game on my hardware before laying down 60 bucks for a game that might run sluggish on my system.
Sometimes the requirements listed aren't always on the mark and nothing convinces me more than the demo. If it wasn't for battlefields smooth demo play on my system, I would have doubted I could have run it. But now I have bf1942 + expansions. woot!
of course, people might say "well if it ran sluggish you wouldn't have bought it and that's a loss in sales" but I say any company that would lie about specs only to give me a frustrating game experience would not sell ANY expansions and i'd be vary wary about purchasing their other titles.
Some games even have user made content before the finished game is in the shops. OFP had more user made maps then were on the cd when it came out.
I don't buy the delaying crap either. A demo doesn't have to have all the extra's. It can be just a single mission/level without all the extra's that make a finished game. Also considering there is a gap between a game going gold and a game being on the shelves there is no real excuse for their not being a demo.
Basically a game without a demo is like buying a car you are not allowed to testdrive. I don't care what reviewers say about such a product. I smell something fishy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
While I love demos and think they are good this is a REALLY biased source. Gamespot makes a lot of advertising money from offering downloadable demos.
meep
Their demo probably hurt sales IMO. The demo was for the beach map which is the best and still most popular map in the game. If you were to play this game today you would still run into people playing the demo.
In fact I'm trying to think if I ever used one. Of course, I tend not to buy games brand new, so I can get oppinons on finished products before I buy them.
I would rather wait the long amount of time before the game comes out to get the full experience rather than let the demo come out first.. then get burnt out on it.
I'm sure a lot of people can bash that opinion... and I may be a hypocrite in certain cituations (UT2004).. I love dishing out my full craving for a game right as it comes out. That way, none of my addiction crave goes to waste by playing the sample over... and over... and over...
But for some games that we can never tell if they will be good or not, it MAY be okay...
I don't think we should "delay" any game for a demo though... just make the developers work harder and get a demo faster!
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
While I think demos are nice and what-not, I think demos shouldn't always put their best foot out. While wearing gold plated shoes. And silver lined socks. Even the original Doom didn't put their BEST foot out. It held back some of the best weapons, levels and monsters. In the case of cases (independent developers), yes a demo can make or break them.
Deus Ex: IW sucked. It just did. I don't care how fun it is. It isn't the same game I wanted.
On top of that, they released it with the Xbox settings on. A company that doesn't care about demos turns me off.
Demo mission accomplished. You bought the game.
YES of course, why is this question even being pondered over?! Does test driving a car help people make up their minds to purchase? Does trying a sip of a friend's drink help you decide if you want one too? Do free samples of shampoo help people decide if they like it, or are samples given out at the whim of marketing madmen??
;-D
Sheesh. Of COURSE it's important for a demo to be out before or at game launch. It's a demo of Deus Ex II that won't run on my crappy video card that deterred me from buying the full game.
I am one of the few people that are actually against demos for 60% of the games.
The idea for demo is good if the game requires serious hardware testing. Problem being, most people try the demo with failed hardware and don't know how to provide proper feedback to the copmanies. Forums and messageboards aren't exactly the most organized method of feedback.
Most games that have only a couple levels shouldn't even give demos. If you game has 8 levels, you just gave away 1/8th of the product for free.
...Is the game good or not?
Then again, back in my day a demo was something put together at The Party or Assembly by groups with names like Dust or Future Crew.
The drooling fanboys run out and buy the game at $50. The demo comes out at $45. The first patch when the game is $40. It starts being playably fun (if ever) when the game first breaches $30. Not to mention the demo has also been patched by now and has 90% of the fun of the game. IF you love it, pay $20-30--what it's worth--otherwise let the idiots prop up a stupid practice.
A demo release shouldn't result in product delay.
It doesn't take that much work to "Nerf" a game down to demo grade. Just take out the pay-to-play content, and insert the stubs that say "sorry it's just the demo, to order click here." recompile. Should take less than a week, even with a burnt out development team. I claim that's not a substantial delay.
On the other hand, if you're asking "should companies release demos?" I'd say yes. A demo extablishes consumer trust -- trust that the game is worth plunking down $35-50. (potentially nonrefundable) My claim is that it's that level of trust which can pursuade consumers to buy.
On the other hand.. If there's no demo, I can reasonably ask whether the company's hiding a bad game behind flashy splash screenshots on a box.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
I always play demos of PC games (after the fiasco I had with Morrowind) because of the high probability that it isn't going to work properly.
I was planning on getting Halo for the PC so I downloaded the demo and it crashed about 1 second after the menu screen appeared! The sound looped and I had to do a hard reset. How can something so simple crash? It's just a picture with a few bits of text that you highlight! If they can't get that right what must the rest of it be like?
So there is no way I will buy the game bacause the real thing will probably do the same and there is no way for me to try it to see if it will even play at a reasonable speed on my 850Mhz processor.
I tend to fall into the camp where I'd like to see things moving before I lay down my money. I can certainly remember times in which I've been looking forward to a game, and then been warned off it by playing a demo: Deus Ex 2 springs instantly to mind.
I also think that its possible for a demo to become a memorable gaming experience in and of itself. Some standouts:
Civilization (Atari ST): A limited demo that ran from the start to 0 AD. No limits to what you could do in the time. I must've played this nonstop for months, trying desperately to get just one step more advanced before it timed out.
Unreal Tournament (PC): Jeez, I've never been so blown away by demo level than I was by Mobious in this demo. Played online and off for weeks.
Far Cry (PC): Was fairly nonplussed by the build up to this game, but the demo fair blew me away. So much detail, so much to see and do. So many ways to accomplish your objective. And it looks lovely.
http://www.davetansley.com - you proba
no text
Which reminds me... When is Future Crew's game coming out? They released a demo for it back in 1995.
How about releasing a game that's worth playing, then making a demo? What good is it to release a great demo for a bad game? Or a bad demo for a good game (perhaps because the demo is based on an early, busted version)?
Having beta tested several games in the last year or so, I know that personally, I'm willing to overlook quite a few bugs during beta if the game shows true promise to me. Even if it crashes, I try to take into account what the game would be like after it's fixed and working as intended.
Granted, I only allow so much latitude, and if I don't see improvement before release, which, sadly, happens all too often, I'll completely disregard the game after a time.
Overall, I think avid gamers, and even not so avid gamers with a technical thought process, are willing to overlook a certain amount of bugs in a demo/beta if the game shows true potential. It's the casual gamers that don't put up with those types of things, or at least don't keep an open mind, and I suppose that's the larger market share.
I guess mileage varies.
As a games developer I have to say this is a really bad idea from my standpoint. All this would do is add another long delay to the development process where the team is in limbo. It's impossible for a publisher to sit on a completed title - that's a real cash flow problem as during that period it could cost in the order of a million just to keep the developers running for a big established team.
Also if the final game isn't being pressed as we speak and going into boxes then there's always time for more tweaks, work and polishing - which will invariably get done. All this will do is mean that your early demo is now non-representative. It'll also mean (sigh) that your poor development team will be stuck in limbo this entire time - nearly finished game, no closure. There'll also be a lot of stress caused by this - effectivley adding months to the really nasty end of the development cycle. During this time there'll be effectivley no holiday, working all hours including weekends and generally not a lot of fun going on for that development team. That really isn't something that you want to drag on if you want those developers to stay sane, still work in games and to provide you with the sequel!
I would also argue the point about demo's selling games. For a first game in a franchise perhaps that is the case but after that your demo is just PR. The ID software example is also a poor one as these games were effectivley shareware to begin with - a rather different business model then in widespread use in the industry today.
Demo's are all well and good but I don't personally see the need for them to come out significantly before the release of the game - a month is plenty to generate interest, anymore than that and it'll probably not do you much good in terms of sales. I am not in marketing though! If you want to try out a game before you buy it then you can always hire it or buy it and return it if you're not too happy with it. I realise this is more difficult for the PC market of course.
Also these days with the internet etc then word of mouth is actually really important. The speed at which news speads about a really good game is only slightly slower than the news of a really bad one! The only games I can remember buying on release dates were sequals to incredible franchises (Namco's Soul Caliber II and EA's NBA 2004) because I'd had all the previous games in that franchise and _knew_ they'd be great. Other than that there's a lot to be said for waiting until monday and seeing what people say on the web - assuming games all get released on a friday still.
You mean, Max Payne? There hasn't really been anything closer to a Future Crew game than that. You can read the FAQ here to learn where their members are now.
You were possibly thinking about Triton, which went on to form Starbreeze Studios. They have released a few games already.
and fondly remember playing demos for games like GTA and System Shock, getting hugely addicted and practically camping outside my games shop to buy on their day of release.
I'm a little hesitant over buying games without playing them first and have been gutted numerous times with games not living up to their promise.
Nowadays I just seem to download the full version as their are no demos. The problem with this is when you've downloaded a great game, it's quite hard to motivate yourself to go out and pay the cash for exactly the same game. It's not that I object to paying the developer, it's paying the shop, the distributor - people whose service I didn't really even want.
Maybe services such as Steam will overcome this problem, I hope so.