Should Games Be Delayed To Release Playable Demos?

Posted by simoniker on Monday February 23, 2004 @11:41AM from the well-duh dept.

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."

4 of 79 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sounds great to me by narftrek · 2004-02-23 11:56 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Xtreme Demo by jmlyle · 2004-02-23 11:58 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Re:BF 1942 Demo by narftrek · 2004-02-23 12:02 · Score: 4, Funny

OH I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I like to download all my demo's from Kazaa. For some reason though, I NEVER like any of them so I never actually buy them. But I keep the demo just in case ;)

Yeah I guess I'm "part of the problem"
Re:Future Crew by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-24 05:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Which reminds me... When is Future Crew's game coming out? They released a demo for it back in 1995.