Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

For-Pay Demos Coming to Xbox Live?

Posted by Zonk on Mon Jul 30, 2007 02:37 PM
from the defeats-the-point-a-bit dept.
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?
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hell No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thyamine (531612) <thyamine&ofdragons,com> on Monday July 30 2007, @02:42PM (#20046993) Homepage Journal
    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).
    • if they'd actually put 2.50 worth of entertainment in a demo, I'd be all for it. But all too commonly these demos last about 10 minutes and don't let you get much of a feel for what you get with a 60 dollar purchase. if they made it more like the shareware games from 10 years ago it might work, they often contained a good 1/5th of the entire game content or so.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Good idea, the problem is tho (least imho) majority of the games out if they let you play 1/5th the game you'd have pretty much played the game.

        I've played numerous demo games, then bought the game to find out the "demo" was the best level of the game and the rest is just horrible.
      • The Heavenly Sword demo actually lasted all of 5 minutes, including cut scenes. And it's a gigabyte download. I'm hoping there will be a second, longer demo for the game.
    • Re:Hell No (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xenocide2 (231786) on Monday July 30 2007, @03:03PM (#20047379) Homepage

      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
      .

      There's certainly a cheapwad in the room and I don't think it's you. A demo is advertising for a product. By charging your customers to sell them something else, they've earned the title cheapwad.

      And at 2.50, plenty of people are making a profit off of the demo itself. This is essentially an attempt by publishers to cash in on AAA status titles before they've truly hit the shelves, and isn't the first time. The trouble with AAA games is that they take a damn long time to make, meaning they take a long time to go from spending money to making money. Metal Gear Solid 2 had a demo released around six months before the game actually shipped. In an attempt to shorten the time from spending to making money, they packaged the demo with an otherwise weak game, "Zone of Enders". Sold like gangbusters simply on the market demand for that demo. I shouldn't have to mention how upset people were at how different the demo was from the game released six months later. (gameplay-wise, it was fine, but the setting and characters radically changed, which upset many longstanding fans of the series).

      I believe, if you want to sell demos, make shorter games and sell them instead. 50 dollars or 2.50, it's the principle that matters here -- everyone knows its not about finding new customers.
      • by cliffski (65094) on Monday July 30 2007, @03:33PM (#20047905) Homepage
        Totally agreed, yet it constantly amazes me how much big AAA develoeprs do NOT want me to see their product.
        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 .exe link (Download manager friendly), with no adverts, queuing or other bullshit to get between you and my demo.
        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 :D
        • I bet you have also considered this, but using bittorrent here could also be useful. (At least if you pay for the bandwidth)
        • Just another reason to stick with the PC and not get an XBox I guess

          Yeah, but...

          4 of the 5 gripes you listed apply only to PC demos. I don't have to sign an agreement with FilePlanet, FileShack, 3DFiles, WorthPlaying, et cetera to get my Xbox Live demo - just gotta subscribe to Live. I don't have to wait in a queue to download it unless I've already queued up several other Live downloads. There aren't any pop up ads on Live, though there are sponsorships and blade page ads off to the side. My speed

    • Yeah. Not only would I not pay for the demo, but I also would not buy the game without playing the demo first.
  • But I thought the point of a demo was to try BEFORE you buy?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        $2.50 protects me from a potentially larger loss by making me disinterested in the game altogether so I save the $60 AND the $2.50.

        If I really (and I mean, REALLY) want to take a crack at the game, why not just rent the full thing (as opposed to an incomplete, cherry-picked demo) for a few bucks more?
        • If I really (and I mean, REALLY) want to take a crack at the game, why not just rent the full thing (as opposed to an incomplete, cherry-picked demo) for a few bucks more?
          Because the local independent video game rental store doesn't carry the platform I prefer. Rental stores typically do not carry handheld games, nor do they carry PC games (the rental, lease, or lending of which requires the permission of the copyright owner, which permission is not available to smaller firms).
  • And you'll all have the privilege of reading it, just as soon as everyone on Slashdot sends me a dollar each.
  • No way. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by webrunner (108849) on Monday July 30 2007, @02:50PM (#20047127) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • Rental "demo" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EMeta (860558) on Monday July 30 2007, @02:53PM (#20047201)
    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.
  • Wait! (Score:4, Funny)

    by CaptainPatent (1087643) on Monday July 30 2007, @02:54PM (#20047213) Journal
    People buy Xbox Magazine just for the demos? [penny-arcade.com]
  • Probably timed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MooseMuffin (799896) on Monday July 30 2007, @02:54PM (#20047227)
    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 agree. If they set it up in this fashion, so that I can still eventually get the free demo, it wouldn't bother me so much. I'm not such a hardcore gamer that i need the demo right when it comes out.

      Otherwise, I'm like a lot of the other posters. I'm not going to pay microsoft or the developer money for the honor of playing whats basically an advertisement and possibly a QA test.
  • 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.
  • People are stupid enough to BUY the permission to TRY BETA software from MS.
    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+P aris&btnG=Search&meta= [google.ca])
  • by llevity (776014) on Monday July 30 2007, @03:05PM (#20047433)
    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.
  • As a developer, do you want to charge people for your demo or give it to them for free?

    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.

  • In Other News (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Strange Ranger (454494) on Monday July 30 2007, @03:12PM (#20047537)
    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.
  • 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
  • by Alzheimers (467217) on Monday July 30 2007, @03:19PM (#20047683)
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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 indic
    • Say it twice. People seem to be assuming that this means all demos will become $2.50 when the truth is that OXM is trying to stay in business by offering their exclusive demos over XBL for a fee. My take is this: OXM (along with virtually every other videogame magazine) deserves to be out of business. They give their readers less than they can get for free over the Interwebs and all that keeps them in business are publishers who let them have first crack at demos. Said game publishers would be much bet
      • Say it twice. People seem to be assuming that this means all demos will become $2.50 when the truth is that OXM is trying to stay in business by offering their exclusive demos over XBL for a fee.

        Yes, but there are a couple factors working against the article (and OXM) here.

        1) It's on Slashdot, so nobody RTFA.
        2) It's on Slashdot, so people see 'pay' and freak out.
        3) It's on Slashdot, which means the summary is sensationalized and completely wrong.
        4) It's on Slashdot, which means if its Microsoft its automagically bad, unless it hurts Sony, then its good.

        Did I miss any?

      • They give their readers less than they can get for free over the Interwebs and all that keeps them in business are publishers who let them have first crack at demos.
        Some people like reading magazines now and again, of the ye-olde physical variety.
  • 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).
  • WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

    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
    • [crotchety old voice]
      I remember when vid'o games only cost a quarter! And you could play as long as you could stay alive. And these were in, what we called then, Arcades. Had to walk a mile to get there just for the honor of playing. None of this sittin' on your couch bullcrap! We'd walk it and we were happy to walk it! Up hill, both ways! Which weren't so bad if it hadn't been for those snow drifts. Bigger than your head boy! But we did it, and we liked it.

      Now its all-day with the online, and t
  • 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 (o
  • Didn't anyone RTF? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Is0m0rph (819726) on Monday July 30 2007, @04:49PM (#20049235)
    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?).
  • 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.
  • 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 oft
  • ...honestly, I got more enjoyment out of the Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, and Soldier of Fortune 2 demos than I have from MOST of the games I paid $60+ for.
    • Re:Amusing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jimmy King (828214) on Monday July 30 2007, @02:58PM (#20047287) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      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.
    • Re:Amusing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by spun (1352) <[loverevolutionary] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Monday July 30 2007, @03:09PM (#20047477) Journal
      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?
        • Re:Amusing (Score:5, Interesting)

          by spun (1352) <[loverevolutionary] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Monday July 30 2007, @03:40PM (#20048035) Journal
          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.
          • 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.
    • If you don't like it, don't pay for it. It is pretty simple. If enough people refuse to pay for it, it will go back to being free.
      OR if enough people bitch and moan about the cost, they might decide to remain keeping it free.
    • Maybe independent game stores allow you to rent for that price, but game rentals at Blockbuster run about $8 these days.
    • Multiple other systems give you both of those things for free. I'd ask for all of your money back if I were you.
      • Name one console platform that gives you an experience like XBL for free then (HINT: it sure as hell isn't the same on the PS3, Wii or the PC).
        • Who said anything about console?

          And the "experience"... Held on high as if it were the second coming by yet another person who hasn't even tried a PS3. Yeah, maybe matchmaking is slick, but it's not $50/year better. If I had to come up with a single adjective to describe how much better it was I'd pick "marginally".