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."
I'm pretty sure Doom and Quake would have been successes without demos.
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
So what does exposing the bugs accomplish from the gamer's perspective? Are you more or less likely to buy a game based on a demo that crashes every 15 minutes? Developers that are forced to support a demo in order to ensure positive PR, are developers that are not actively finishing the product that's going to pay their bills.
It's nice to view a demo as a really big beta test, but if it has bugs, I think it can be a double-edged sword
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.
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."
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.
Aren't most demos released just a month before the game hit's the shelves (if that). It's awfully hard to squash bugs when you've just Fed Ex'd your gold masters to the manufacturer.
meep
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
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
With that in mind, wouldn't it make sense to leave a standing order to the demo developers to: use the same game engine as the final game?
It would prevent some promises you can't keep, would allow the demo to sorta pre-beta the engine of the game(hence you'd make sure the beta is out first...), and you'd save on work, as your demo developers wouldn't have to develop the engine, just the demo scenario...(Code and skills re-use) ?
I'm sure some games already follow this model, and save money to the developers, by not being detrimental to the game release, but instead, by being a part of it...
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.
" 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"."
Apparently, the Mac Halo demo is in the works at the moment. It's a pity it wasn't released nearer to the game's launch date, though.
Me, I don't need demos. If a game is good, I'll hear it's good and buy it. If it sucks, I'll hear about that (or not) and won't buy it. Besides the fact that demos can be deceptive at times in terms of content and quality, there are enough reviews of most games for me to make an educated guess as to whether I'll like one 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.
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
In any case, the only time a demo is any sort of signifigant burden on your team is when you're releasing it off a game thats not ready to ship - the demo should be indicitave of the final game, simple as that. I don't WANT to play your hacked up beta of a demo. I want to play a 20 minute version of your real game with all the polish and performance thats going to be in the final version, and I'm going to base my buying decision off of that.
I agree with this whole thread, but I'd like to add a few things.
;)
Given that a lot of cheaters have already moved in, it should motivate Epic and whoever else has the means, to develop a kickass anticheat system.
I'm not a big fan of Assault, but I love Onslaught. Onslaught is not without problems though, mostly player-side behaviour, but this should help in the long run to motivate people into building maps to cater to the redeemer/raptor-obsessed lamers.
Personally, I hope someone does a 100% accurate Vice City map in UT2k4.
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.
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.