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