Not Offering A Demo Better For Indie Games? 56
Thanks to DIYGames for their article showing surprising results from an independent game developer who offer games for sale directly on their website. According to the piece, "Every other visitor to the website is given an alternative page for each game that does not give them the option to download a demo of the game. The idea is to see how sales are affected by not giving users a free demo." So, while the article points out that "the results are less than scientific", 43.3% of total dollar volume came from 'demo available page', and 56.7% of the dollar volume from the 'no demo available page'. The developer concluded by working out that "not offering a demo increased sales revenue by roughly 31%." Does not offering a demo increase the sales of a game, sometimes, or is this just crazy talk?
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Crap game. Releasing a demo just lets people find out ahead of time how crap it is. Sales plummit.
2) Great game. Releasing a demo allows people to discover how great the game is. Sales increase.
3) Average game - in this case I am not sure what happens. Do people buy it because it doesn't suck? Or do they skip it because it doens't rock?
I would think that the choice is pretty easy. If you have a great game, you should always release a demo. If you have a good game that people aren't that convinced about, you should release a demo. But if you have a crap game, never, ever, ever release a demo...
Re:Depends (Score:3, Interesting)
hed.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
I've also had the personal experience where I've enjoyed a demo quite a lot and played it for many hours, but subsequently found myself shopping for a game and ended up buying something else o
Re:Depends (Score:2)
Probably more likely if its a good RPG (Score:1)
If you've ever read a good book where after every page you just couldn't stop reading, this is kind of the same. The demo would have to stop at a certain, suspensefull point in the plot that leaves the user wanting to continue to play. As long as
Like they said (Score:2)
Re:Like they said (Score:1)
You need to read it a little more carefully. That is exactly what they did.
Re:Like they said (Score:2)
Ah well, the other point still stands. Is this an example of people being jerks, or an example of people being tricked into buying something they don't really want? Unfortunatly i can't think of an easy experiment to do which would give you an accurate answer.
At least ask the right question! (Score:2)
I think you mean: "does sometimes not offering a demo increase the sales of a game?" That's a much different (and more relevant) question, and the answer is probably yes.
If they added a survey... (Score:3, Interesting)
just do the math (Score:5, Insightful)
Of those 100, 50 hit the 'no demo available' page and make a purchase.
The other 50 hit the 'demo available page' and download the demo. They like it and come back to buy. When they come back to buy 25 will hit the 'no demo available page' and make their purchase. The other 25 hit the 'demo available' page and make their purchase.
The result: Of the 100 people 75 make the purchase from the 'no demo page' and 25 from the 'demo' page, thus proving demos are a bad idea???
Re: (Score:2)
Re:just do the math (Score:2)
1. a different account
2. a different browser
3. a different computer
just do the reading (Score:3, Insightful)
Those that had cookies blocked were put in a separate pool and not counted for the experiment. The amount that had cookies blocked was apparantly non-significant in any event (1% or so)
Of course, there's still a couple of problems with the data. Presumably those who grab the demo will be making their decision to purchase somewhat later than those who do not have the option to get the demo. Which means the results are going to be skewed by whatever that time-period differ
Re:just do the reading (Score:2)
Were people with cookies blocked given the opportunity to download the demo? I almost always block nonessential cookies. So if I went to that site, I would have blocked the cookie and then downloaded the demo. If I liked it and wanted to buy it, I would have returned to the site and accepted the cookie and then bought the game, regardless of whether I was given the chance to download the demo at that time.
Only... (Score:3, Funny)
if your game sucks.
Interpreting meaning of results (Score:2)
If you can definitively tell me "people who had the option to play the demo were 13% less likely to then buy our game"..
I am not going to interpret that as meaning "demos make people less likely to buy games"...
I am going to interpret that as meaning "your game sucks"...
Re:Interpreting meaning of results (Score:2)
I am going to interpret that as meaning "your game sucks"...
That only works if you also make the corresponding interpretation that "people are more likely to buy the game if they don't know it sucks." Unfortunatly that second assumption can form the basis for a reliable buisness model if you don't care about repeat customers and are willing to stake your company's future on "there's a sucker born every minute."
Other variables (Score:2)
Lets say you give the users a choice: "Download and Try then Buy" or "Buy"... if you've already downloaded and tried it, which are you going to click on when you decide you want to buy it? Probably the buy link, unless you loved the demo so much you're wanting to download it agian.
The only way real
Re:Other variables (Score:1, Interesting)
However, the demo was still available on download sites, so it was quite possible for people to come to the site and get the no-demos version after already having played the demo somewhere else.
Or is it simply... (Score:2)
No, this is not a very scientific test. Perform it with the Wind Waker, and you'll get numbers in favor of the demo. Perform it with Daikatana, and you'll get results in favor of no demo.
What the demo does do is let you know if a game holds up to the promises made by the marketing team. This isn't so useful with companies that make bad games because they haven't suckered the customer out of their money yet.
Re:Or is it simply... (Score:2)
Battlefront (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is, games are expensive. I'm not just going to blindly buy a video game. For console games I'll rent them before I buy them and for computer games I get a demo first. It's how it is. I'm not going
Probably has to do with impulse buying. (Score:1)
The differences in sales are so small, and the test probably not rigourous enough for any conclusions.
Demo versions of games are a good idea. So that we can try out games before buying them.
I think demo versions are good for developers too. So they avoid refunds, and agry people. Unless they really believe they have a rock solid game that will work well on everyones weirdo computer setups. Oh and if the
10 days (Score:5, Insightful)
The test was over 10 days. People who get the option to download a demo will usually do that first, even if they plan to buy anyway. If they like the game, come back to buy it. Probably, say, a few days later.
There is no such delay in people coming to the site, planning to buy it anyway, seeing no demo, thus buying the game.
Which means that if you only test for 10 days, this effect is significant. Not everyone who downloaded the demo and will buy it after a few days has come back yet.
And worse, half the people who do come back happen to get the "no demo available" page that time, so that they're counted wrong (as someone else mentioned).
In total, this is meaningless until you a) keep track of which page people got, and always give them the same one, and b) do it over a longer period.
Which is why they said it was "less than scientific". Which makes me wonder why they still tried to conclude things from it, if they knew the numbers were bogus...
Re:10 days (Score:2)
Steve Pavlina of Dexterity Software detailed the tracking procedure in a post to the relevant topic [dexterity.com] on the Dexterity forums:
"A cookie does remember the odd/even distinction, so it's the same on every return to the site, unless something has wiped out the cookie or it's been blocked. Visitors who block cookies are tracked separately, so their data isn't par
I remember the day . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect, if free demos abounded, I would never have bought half of the games I paid for. Today, the market is quite different -- we are not all hobbyists anymore, prices are higher, we are mostly jaded about what are computers can do and games no longer astonish merely because they exist.
Still, I think that property -- for marginal games -- may account to some degree for this behavior.
Demo files also end up on other sites! (Score:2, Interesting)
Quality of the game? (Score:1)
Also... large publishers like Activision release free demos all the time: if it really weakened demand for the final game, I think they'd be able to detect that and they wouldn't be doing it anymore.
Opportunity to evaluate (Score:1)
Study is Short-term Only (Score:1)
However if they hate the game and they've spent money, it'll feel like wasted money and they probably won't come back for more. Thus on a longer time scale you may lose more money since you could have less repeat customers.
There are two solutions to this as far as I can see. Produce 100% excellent games t
It's all relative (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the game the type that the viewer likes? RPG, RTS, FPS etc.
Do the graphics 'sell' the game adequately?
Does the buyer have $xx in their pocket to gamble on an unknown game?
In the case of multiplayer, are there enough others using multiplayer? That's for those out there who prefer multi over single.
Are there reviews attesting to the quality of the game?
All of this makes the 'demo vs. no demo' a superficial argument.
Demo or Not I want a Review! (Score:2)
I rarely play demos, they tend to be too large, which does not feed my fix of playing now, and they are too limited, which does not give me a good idea of the scope of the game.
The thing I look for when deciding to purchase a game is a review, usually on Gamespot. I can get a general comparision of what the game is about from the article, but I generally use the reader's score over Gamespots score which gives me a better idea of the quality of the game. The problem most indy games don't get reviewed on s
Re:Demo or Not I want a Review! (Score:1)
I mean, I just don't care how good or bad you say that Neverwinter Nights is if it goes only at about 3FPS in my computer.
For not so demanding games reviews are usually enough, given enough of them. You have to read between the lines and guess what are the problems the game has and if you could live with them.
No game is perfect.
A couple of other things to check... (Score:2)
Also, how many people that bought the game from the demo page actually tried out the demo? That is, how good was your "pitch" of the demo? Did people try it?
Very scientific that one.... (Score:1)
On another note, it has been found that 64% of all statistics are meaningless...
Neglected to mention (Score:2)
If its good, people will buy it and spread the word.
If its bad, a few suckers will buy it based on what they've read in press releases and spread the word that it sucks, and others won't buy it.
Now, lets say that another game is
Best way to make money (Score:2)
If you're expecting people to send you a cheque or money order you will see little to no money.
If on the other hand you have something like a 1 click paypal button or e-commerce site such as regsoft.com, you will see greater returns.
Unscientific but does a point exist? (Score:2)
Having no demo leaves the consumer with little choice to try the game based on impressions that the company gives you. Much like seeing the best parts of a movie before you go to see it only to find out all you needed to see was the preview.