Slashdot Mirror
For-Pay Demos Coming to Xbox Live?
The Opposable Thumbs blog is talking about a disconcerting new idea being floated by the Official Xbox Magazine. Most people only buy the mag for the demos; they're considering just offering up the exclusive demos on Xbox Live, along with the included trailers and such. The catch? They're going to charge you $2.50 for the privilege. From the article: "We're used to paying for Xbox Live at this point--the feature set is worth the money--but it was sold to us as something of an all-inclusive deal. You're a part of the Xbox network, so you get the demos and the videos and that's part of what you're paying for. Now there is even more of an incentive to offer for-pay demos to people with this new distribution model. In some ways the magazine is already obsolete, and they could conceivably soon be in the business of selling demos." Would you pay money for a downloadable demo?
That's my short answer. I'm already paying to be on the network, and if I want to buy the game I'm not going to get a $2.50 discount. Now I don't want to sound like a cheap wad (which maybe I am), but the demo of the game is for me as the consumer to determine if I want to buy a game. Putting an additional barrier between me and your demo certainly isn't going to endear me to buy your game. Not to mention I have purchased games after playing the demo, so I can easily see this stopping me from buying games that I may have bought after trying out the demo (for free).
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
The title was supposed to be '$2.50 (less than symbol) $10.00'
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
But I thought the point of a demo was to try BEFORE you buy?
And you'll all have the privilege of reading it, just as soon as everyone on Slashdot sends me a dollar each.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
1. Demos are advertisements. Paying for advertisements is stupid.
2. The biggest exclusive demo they have isn't exclusive if you have a Japanese account set up (Eternal Sonata- if you D/L the Trusty Bell demo it comes out Eternal Sonata when you play it)
3. Exclusive demos existed as a way to get you to buy the magazine, before. Now you're just paying for the demo?
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
I would love to, but I just ran out of Slashdot Points and I don't want to buy another 800 if I'm only going to use 150.
Or, I could pay twice that (tops) and rent the whole game when it comes out, which I may get my fill of during some weekend. Micro-payments might work ($0.25-$0.50, say), but $2.50 is completely ridiculous.
People buy Xbox Magazine just for the demos?
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
They way I would envision this working is that the demos normally included with the magazine will cost $2.50 or whatever for the month associated with that issue's release. When the month is up they would make them free to everyone. Thats the only way I can see them doing this without pissing everyone off.
I suppose the real question here is whether publishers that currently offer free demos will, on seeing the nonfree ones, suffer an attack of shortsighted greed outweighing their business judgement. Should that happen, the number of free demos available through Xbox Live will rapidly dwindle to nothing.
And I'll be buying fewer games.
Would you pay money for a downloadable demo?
Yes. I rarely have time to take on an entire 40/80/hundreds hours game, and am not inclined to spend upwards of $60 on it.
I do have a few hours to fiddle with a demo and be amused by that.
I recall playing "Kingpin" - a demo long enough to be a fun, short session.
There is a category of more sophisticated (than Tetris etc.) players who want the game equivalent of a short story.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
If it sounds like FUD to you, then you don't really know what FUD means.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Just because you vote with your dollars doesn't mean you should only vote with your dollars. Explaining exactly what you are unhappy with and why makes it more likely that it will be corrected in a way that you want rather than just made different but still crappy or all out taken away.
umm, take your $2.50 go to the store and rent the full game...
People are still quite entitled to be offended at the suggestion that they should pay for a demo. Or for anything else for that matter. XBox magazine come across as being incredibly money-grabbing.
At $2.50 for a demo (correct me if I'm wrong, but it IS just one demo, right?), you might as well wait until the game comes out and pay $5 to play the whole game and really "try before you buy". After all, demos do tend to change a little bit by the release date.
But if it's $2.50 for, say, four or five demos, then that might be worth it, especially because the alternative is to pay around the same price for that and a magazine (that apparently "no one reads") as well.
People are stupid enough to BUY the permission to TRY BETA software from MS.
P aris&btnG=Search&meta=)
Why not games.
A fool and his money are soon departed.
(Just like that Paris bitch!! http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=disinherited+
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Ha! true, but this is slashdot so I had my microsoft-is-a-bunch-of-asshats overlay turned on.
:P
It's hard not to read anti-microsoft propaganda into every ms article.
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
I understand that due to rising budget costs in game development, the previous use for using demos as a try-before-you-buy demonstration of the game is now obsolete and outdated.
But if we could get a demo of the demo before buying, it would let us make a well informed judgement.
On a serious note, I have mixed feelings about this. Previously, those demo magazines were a bit more expensive than usual magazines. I understand this to be due to the cost of compiling the content on the discs, producing the discs, etc. That's fine.
But at this point, you're eliminating that step, but still charging? What are you charging for? Does the game company get a cut of that? Or is this a deal where the demo magazine is paying a game company for exclusive use of their demo, then charging for it on the hopes of netting a profit?
On the other hand, there have been a handful of games I've wanted to get a taste of badly enough that I went out and bought an $8-$9 magazine just for that demo. I might have leafed through the magazine, and played a couple of other demos as well, but pretty much, I was after a specific demo. Paying a couple of bucks for one, where I don't have to even leave the house doesn't sound so bad.
I think paying for advertising is bullshit and I want to convince others of the same. When I don't like something, I do more than not buy it. Depending on how much I don't like it, I may tell a few friends about it if they ask, I may post something online, I may call the BBB, or even write a letter to my representative.
I don't think you really find that amusing. I think it pisses you off. I think maybe you are even a little put out by the idea of anything being free, and relish the commoditization of everything that was once cooperative and social. It all smacks of hippie liberal activism, doesn't it? All these tiny, unimportant people, talking amongst themselves and screwing with the God given right of important people to make a profit, it's horrible, isn't it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The answer is more than likely the latter. I don't expect this to change.
Silly slashdotters - the market usually solves questions in the consumers favor.
The movie industry will begin charging consumers to watch trailers.
Pricing info has yet to be released, but it is expected that trailers made available on the internet will be cheaper and probably different than the Pay-per-View trailers made available for television.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
It is likely that this has been pointed out already, but the for-pay demo is not new. Back before the Internet--back when the concept of the "demo" was still mostly a benefit of being a PC gamer--there not only existed shareware but actual for-pay demo disks. Shareware is obvious: vend a small portion (up to a quarter) of the actual game for a reduced price--maybe it was free on BBSes, but I think the "masses" (what masses there were) paid for these disks. Shareware was often much more than just the one or two level taste that the modern demo more or less always seems to be--in the case of episodic games, it was usually an entire episode. There did exist, however, for-pay demo disks; I remember a display in a Babbage's that had $5 or $8 demo CDs for some kind of sea combat game. Assumedly, the cost of these demo CDs was to cover the cost of the physical medium and distribution.
With the rise of the Internet, however, I feel PC gamers (at least) have grown to expect that a demo will be released for free. Those magazine demos--again, at least for PC games--were usually quick to show up on the Internet after the release of the magazine. Lately, with the exclusive demos hosted by sites such as fileplanet, we're seeing a trend towards charging money for a demo without necessarily providing a demo that is worth the price. I suppose the bottom line is that if people would like for us to lay down money for a demo and nothing else, at _least_ scale the price to the proportion of content in the demo versus the game. Maybe in the days of limited bandwidth people didn't mind paying for a CD to save themselves the hassle of downloading that huge, 100 Mb demo, but I very much doubt people will be happy paying for nothing more than a demo without any additional content or convenience above the norm.
Since the world seems so pent up on taking pre-orders for unreleased games, how about applying that "demo fee" towards some pre-order price?
This way, if we like the game we get first dibs AND that payment is already applied to the purchase price. If we don't like it, MS keeps the money and there's no hard feelings.
It makes it feel more like a rent-to-own than a scam, the difference being that there's now some value besides the soul-crushing sadness that comes from the "honor" of paying for advertising.
What exactly will I be receiving for my annual membership? I thought my annual subscription entitled me to
1. 24/7 access to play online multiplayer games (unless there is an additional mmorpg fee)
AND
2. Instant access to new demo's, trailers, etc.
I have noticed that sometimes magazines will get an occassional demo before it hits the Live Marketplace, but it usually is only a week or two difference. What would happen if this new money-making model is rolled out? Will I ONLY be able to download certain demos if I shell out some additional money?
If so, give me half of my money back.
come on the Official XBox Magazine disks. They aren't normally on XBox Live at all.
They're considering offering them on XBox Live for a nominal fee, vs. needing to buy the Magazine to get them.
Crippling a modern method of distributing demos for the sake of propping up a somewhat out of date method of distributing demos (magazines) seems ridiculous on the face of it.
Also what game developer or publisher would possibly want to limit access to their demo in this manner?
Wow. That is quite an inference you just made. It more sounds like you hate the idea of someone making a buck much more than I like the idea of someone making a buck.
Did I just feed the troll?
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
The only way I could see this working is if they only charged for the demos that are on the disc for a month....after the month is up, release them for free.
I know for certain games I would be willing to pay to have a playable demo (Bioshock, Fable 2, and Mass Effect come to mind) but in general, I likely would be able to wait it out until the demo was either free or the game was released.
Living With a Nerd
OXM disks have always had a fee attached..the price of the magazine with or without the disk had a differnce in cover price of several dollars. They generally have had one timed exclusive demo and the rest was filled with the demos already on live, interviews, screenshots and other crap. As long as they stay with the same format...where is the problem? If they suddenly only offered demos if you purchased the OXM content (which would be suicide IMHO) that would be a different story, but so far every indication is that this is just a convenience for subscribers or non-subscribers who dont want to shell out $10 just to see whatever is on them.
Totally agreed, yet it constantly amazes me how much big AAA develoeprs do NOT want me to see their product.
.exe link (Download manager friendly), with no adverts, queuing or other bullshit to get between you and my demo. :D
They release the demos exclusive to paid-subscription websites which I am not a member of
Then they insist on me 'waiting in a queue' to download it
Then they plaster pop up adverts over multiple pages in order for me to get to my download link.
Then there is the slow 6k download connection for 'non subscribers', mixed in with streaming ads.
Then they try and persuade me to buy it before I've tried it, pester me to 'pre-order' it, and have nag screens I cannot quit.
As a game developer myself, this all seems insane, and naturally I do things the more sensible way. Every one of my games has a free demo, thats always updated to be the very latest code (i patch my server copies of the demo the day I patch the main game). Each one is on a server hosted by me, with an uncapped connection, and a direct
My demo is my advert, I *WANT* everyone to get the demo as quickly and easily, and as hassle free as possible. I cannot understand the mentality of doing it any other way. Just another reason to stick with the PC and not get an XBox I guess
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Yeah, you fed the troll a little bit. But I was more over-reacting than really trolling.
Making money is okay. Sure, I made a big leap of inference there. Something about the attitude pissed me off. It's not just you, I've seen it before and I guess I took it all out on you, sorry. It really feels like some people have a knee jerk reaction towards people complaining about commercial things, like the only legitimate way to express one's dissatisfaction with a commercial product is by not buying it. Complaining about it to others is too much like collectivism, and we can't have that! I don't know if that's what you really think or feel, but it's the impression I get whenever anyone makes those kind of anti-free-speech, shut-up-and-just-don't-buy-it arguments.
So, okay, maybe I over-reacted. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why people complaining about something they don't like is so bad. When people complain, they are providing free information to the producers of the goods being complained about, who would otherwise have no idea exactly why people aren't buying their product. Maybe we should charge for our complaints.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Pay for everything!
You even have to pay for the privilege of paying (this is actually already true, because you need a creditcard to pay in the first place).
Now Micro$oft is going to start charging for demos? This will only hurt them in the long run. When I play a great demo I go out and buy the game, for example I just pre-ordered Heavenly Sword after playing the awesome demo. If the demo didn't exist OR wasn't free then I wouldn't have played and would have never bought the game.
Yet another misstep for Microsoft and the abortion that is the Xflop 360.
OK. Wait. WTF? This absolutely makes me cringe. First of all, it's ridiculous that Microsoft even has the guts to make people pay for XBox Live. You pay for the console, you pay for the game, online play is fucking part of the game! A monthly/yearly fee is just nuts! Next, it's demos that people have to pay for. And this is only for the simple reason that Microsoft saw that gamers would bend over and take it for the online play--demos only logically follow. Instead of charging $600 per console, they nickel-and-dime us to death. They drop the price to $400, and in just four years, ($60 per 12-month subscription), you've paid for more than a PS3 (and you still have crappier hardware). And they've probably lost more money than Sony has (for replacing your console, what? three times now? four?) Now, I'm not a Sony fanboi, but it seems to me like Sony's receiving way too much flak for their price, and Microsoft's not receiving nearly enough for theirs.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Gamers are gradually getting nickle and dimed for everything. Games like WoW started with a monthly fee AND an upfront fee, AND you have to pay for the expansion. Then there's things like Shadowrun, which would basically be worthless without a Live subscription. Some games are shipping where you have to pay to unlock content that shouldn't be locked in the first place. And soon we'll be expected to pay for demos.
I personally refuse to purchase any of these games, but as long as there are those willing to (of which there are many), we can only expect things to get worse.
Ok, I can download the demo for 2.50... OR I can go rent the full version for a week for $4-5. I'll go with option 2 where the game won't quit on me and give me a bunch of stupid splash screens after 5 minutes on why I should buy it!
you have a point although when you buy a subscription to magazine, you are really paying for articles and insight written by the editors and journalists rather than just a disc of demos.
again to your point, before xbox live, I would regularly see demo discs for sale at the checkout counters of stores like Gamestop for a price.
still, what are we paying for when we sign up to xbox live? the ability to pay MORE for demos?
I regularly download demos from xbox live - even games I'm not really interested in. I'll surely stop doing that if it costs more money.
i wonder if the $1billion hit on the warranties is behind this...
certified elipsis abuser
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I doubt it's the warranties, since this is almost certainly driven by the game developers rather than Microsoft...More likely, it's just recognition by the developers of certain highly anticipated titles that gamers are willing to pay for demos in the aforementioned magazines and considering this an unexploited revenue stream. The sad part is, they're probably right.
> Silly slashdotters - the market usually solves questions in the consumers favor.
But business usually solves the market (or the government) in their own favor...
It's not A demo for $2.50. It's OXM's entire disc content for the month for $2.50. Demos, interviews, themes, pics, etc. So if you are just interested in the disc contents and not the magazine you can get it for $2.50 instead of whatever OXM sells for now ($6?).
I don't even pay for the full games.
So your saying instead of releasing a video of Viva Pinata, they should have released a demo of Viva Pinata for $2.50 instead? Maybe then it would of sold more units then it actually did?
Seriously, if this is true then their just abusing the market and the gamers. I already commented on the exclusive title garbage today and now they might charge for demos. Give me a break.
Welcome to the new model for just about everything.
You will be gouged ^H^H charged, for everything.
Want to play a demo?
-1.25 bandwidth fee
-0.25 download micropayment fee
-0.10 paypal fee
-0.20 credit card fee
-0.10 fee collection fee
-remainder we will charge you just cause we feel like it fee
Don't like it? Don't buy the crap. Look where software/hardware is going. Get used to renting things, you will not be owning things much longer.
I would probably pay $2.50 for some demos, especially if they were extended demos (more maps/bosses/options/whatever). The idea of making the subscribers pay for it, however, is ridiculous. I would say that the content should be free to subscribers (with a code to enter, perhaps) and let everyone else download the stuff for $2.50 and not have the bathroom fodder that comes with the demos. That way, if you want the magazine, you get it AND the demos; if you don't want the magazine, you can still get the demos.
I'm fine with paying for a demo. Just give me a sampling of what the demo is like, and then let me decide whether or not it is worth $2.50.
>But if we could get a demo of the demo before buying, it would let us make a well informed judgement.
they call them reviews IIRC.
but as you mentioned, demos are becomming a thing of the past. Be it they cost too much to make or done to long before the main release so are not related.
Either way it is said to see them go.
Some demos like one of the Unreal games comes to mind. The demo with two multiplayer maps was more popular than the game was.
>OR if enough people bitch and moan about the cost, they might decide to remain keeping it free.
no, first they will offer a discount, later followed by a "bulk purchase" deal.
then they might offer it back how it was (if they do not dress it up as something else first).
ie: access to the beta testing group.
The fact is, there are thousands of people that already are paying for demos. Whether in the form of discs included with the gaming magazines, disc exchanges for beta games, or premium memberships to download sites, there are several avenues where demos are effectively 'purchased', rather then had for free. But the article is implying that the content of the magazine would be available along with the demos. Essentially, everything digitized. To me, that seems like a good deal for only $2.50 a month if you're buying the magazine already. And, with it accessible over live, that's just a matter of convenience. No worries about it getting lost in themail, or the cd getting destroyed, or the news stand not having it in stock, and so forth. Small price to pay if you really really want the content or demos. -Krozy
There are 10 types of cliches in this world. Those that are new, and those that aren't.
Like others I am amazed at how grudgingly some publishers offer demos (sometimes not at all).
However, in some cases the demo is a very worthwhile, if small, game in itself. I am thinking in particular of Unreal Tournament 2004, which made a demo with several maps on several game types, including online play. This demo is still being played today, 3 years later, so in fact that was a very entertaining ame in itself (albeit a bit limited).
Epic might have gone too far with UT2004. But the fact remains that often a demo can be an entertaining diversion in itself, as well as an advertisement for the full game. PERHAPS there is sometimes a case that a demo could be worth paying a small amount of money for.
Incidentally, it's clear the demos are quite costly; they have to package it and test it like a full release, and then someone has to pay the rather large download costs (on a 500MB demo thats going to be significant).
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Remember when you paid to go to a movie and you sat down and the movie started instead of having to watch 20 min of advertisements. Or you bought a video and when you played it the movie just started instead of having to fast-forward it 10 min to get past all the advertising.
It seems like this is starting to be a trend. Just look at some of the magazines out there. They are like 15% content and 85% advertising.
Looks like MS is trying to pull off the exact same thing.
Complaining about a product/service is arguably one of the more important aspects of free speech in our society. It is often our only defence against the abuses of large businesses.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
I'm curious as to why everyone thinks this means that ALL demos will cost money. Only the OXM demos will cost money; there will still be free demos released on market place. Relax, put away your torches and pitchforks, drink some tea...
Demo magazines would simply turn into scalpers.
Really i don't.
I think it's just a "twisted" way of looking at what's REALLY happenning and put it in the worst negative view possible for the customers / gamers.
XBOX magazine is loosing in sales. All gaming magazines are.
So they decide to put XBOX magazine on Live, which makes sense. Download your issue through Live. Now you'll have to pay a small fee to get the magazine, just as you do now for the "paper" version. All of that is understandable.
XBOX magazine included a disc with trailers and Demos. Some of these demos were exclusive, just like it's "paper" counterpart. When you buy your magazine over xbox live, you're going to get the same demos and trailers you would have if you bought the "paper" version.
So really what's changing from what's available now besides the format of delivery of the magazine?
Saying: "now you will have to PAY for demos" is just a way to make a "splash" for journalists. You don't PAY for demos, you pay for the magazine. If you bought the magazine only for the demos, then what's really different? You already paid for the demos and you'll still pay for them.
And guess what? the xbox live version of the magazine looks to be much cheaper than it'S paper version.
So what are people exactly complaining about? I mean, outside those who have fallen for the journalists trap into making them think that the intention was to BEGIN making them pay for demos, when in all reality nothing has changed with the magazine but the method of distribution?
I just don't get it.
Actually, nothing. Access to demos requires only silver, which is free.