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."

1 of 79 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:I don't buy it by Goldberg's+Pants · 2004-02-23 12:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Doom was shareware. You got episode 1 for free, and episode 2 and 3 you got when you paid. Just dig out an old copy and run it, it'll say about registering when you quit or finish the game.

Demos in general are pointless in my experience. I've played demos which sucked for games that ultimately rocked. I've played demos that rocked for games that ultimately sucked.

About the only use for demos in my experience is to see how the game will run on your machine.