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.
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."
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
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
Demo mission accomplished. You bought the 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.
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
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.