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."
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
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).
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.
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
I stand corrected. (Although to be fair, this demo wasn't a true public demo, as one had to buy $200 worth of hardware to play it.)
Although, reading the review of the demo, apparently this isn't the demo I was thinking of. The HL demo I remember, was a series of levels that were cut from the final game. In these levels you were required to align a satellite dish so the scientists could send some sort of message. This demo was released much after the game was released.
It will expose the bugs to the consumer, but these exposed bugs won't get back to the developer.
If it does get back to the developer it will be through bad publicity(forums, direct complaints), by which time (assuming the demo is released before the final game) its too late. Demo's still go through N/MS/Sony's checks if being released before the game, and even then take a while to get into demo booths
Another point is highlighted here is that demo's dont go through proper lot checks if the game has already gone through them, its only tested for demo specific stuff (does it exit from menu's properly, does it fit in a specified size etc)
After buying this game I have vowed to never EVER buy another Sid Meier game. It was that bad.
It started off with me bored one day. I wasn't planning on looking at the game. I don't like golf. But I found a demo online and the fact that it was published by Maxis (a EA division, I think they suck too, and I blame them for much of this). I played the demo and had a great time, so I went out and bought the game.
I own the game, now the fun begins, right? The game was full of bugs. Lots of them. Golfers complain if they have to walk a lot. So you would create a golf cart rental place, then they wouldn't complain, right? That's the way it SHOULD work, and that's how it worked after a patch, but before that golfers riding in carts up hills would have little speach bubbles COMPLAINING ABOUT WALKING UP HILLS. The game was FULL of things like this. Not only these little annoyance bugs, but things that could prevent you from EVERY playing your course, which you had to do to further yourself in the game (and test your course). Bugs bugs bugs. Many MANY people complaining on the forums didn't get us anywhere. Bugs were documented, complained about, well known, NOTHING. When we FINALLY got a patch (the one mentioned above) there were still bugs, it didn't fix many of them. I would have returned the game but by the time all of this transpired, it was too late (and the store probably wouldn't have taken it back since it was opened).
The demo got me to buy a game that I would have never bought otherwise. I "enjoyed" the game. Result? I now refuse to buy from Sid Meier, hate EA, lost all faith in Maxis, don't like Firaxis (the developer?), and no longer buy games when they come out because of crap like this.
Demos are great things, and I think they should be released. I bought Castle Wolfenstein because of it's demo (I was tired of FPSes, but the demo was so great I had to buy it). There are many times demos have gotten me to look at games, buy games, or avoid games because I didn't like them. My only warning is this: if you're going to make a demo, the game better be as good. About all the bugs were out of the SimGolf demo, they weren't noticeable (I spent tons of time on it). But everything that would happen after the demo expired (you could only make 3 holes or something like that, play for X ammount of time IIRC too) went to hell.
Don't screw with me, I'm nearly impossible to win back as a customer.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I pirated UT long ago, and then bought it once I realized how much fun it was (about a week later). I was never a 'hardcore fan', but I did enjoy it a lot, played around with making mutators, etc. When I heard about UT2003, I went and played the UT2003 demo, and wasn't impressed enough to buy the game. The game was alright, I just felt that I could get the exact same amount of fun out of UT-the-original, which I already owned. If I hadn't had the benefit of the demo, I likely would've purchased UT2003 and then held a grudge against the entire UT franchise for selling me a blatant rehash with updated graphics. Instead, I just opted not to buy the game and harbor no ill will. May not seem like a win for them, but in the long run it is.
So now the UT2004 demo comes around, and I try it out. Whee! Vehicles! Whee! Tribes-like Capture-and-hold mode! Whee! The sniper rifle! I am SO getting this game! Had there been no demo, I would've just written this game off as Tired Rehash 2 and not even given it a second thought. Instead, I'm going to buy it the day it comes out. And Epic has made me into a loyal fan again, eager to check out their next offering. Score one for Epic, and score one for me.
So yeah. UT2004 Demo == Superb move. Even if they delayed UT2004 to get the demo into this superb state? Hell yeah it's worth it.
Random and weird software I've written.
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.
I agree as well. But the demo I played that most sticks with me was the demo for UT. I had played some LAN games of the original Unreal but UT was just a joyous paradigm shift. The first time I won a match by leaping the rockets that were shot at my knees and firing a clean shot sticks with me. In some ways, I'd rather be playing UT than 2K4, but 2K4 is good enough to get me excited again - even if it is too bouncy.
What's so great about the UT demos is that they are high enough quality that they allow a decent player base to form and folks to get fairly good. Then the game comes out and if you want the same level of competition you need to buy the game. If you aren't so good, the demo servers will be a good place to practice.
"Actually improved the final release of the game" What are you smoking?!? The demo was fantastic, particularly the Wake island multiplayer map. When the final game was released to shelves, the number of bugs that WEREN'T in the demo was truly staggering. There was tremendous multiplayer lag, the bots which worked well in the single player demo were all over the place walking into walls in the final. This was a case of them spending all their polish time on the demo and none on the final release. It took them 3 patches to finally get people to calm down and have a solid game to play. It's an amazing game now, but it was FAR from it at launch. I don't know if you remember, but they announced the game had gone gold 2 days after the demo was released. Hardly any time to make improvements.
Let's separate "beta" from "demo." Is it beneficial to have a limited-release beta? The beta probably has more bugs and less features than the eventual demo, but presumably will be played only by the "serious" gamers.
Does it make sense to end the beta phase with an open demo, or move right into the final product? MMO games tend to follow the beta path, since a "demo" of a persistent world doesn't really work.
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.