Should Games Be Delayed To Release Playable Demos? 79
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."
Gotta do it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gotta do it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to view a demo as a really big beta test, but if it has bugs, I think it can be a double-edged sword
Re:Gotta do it (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the only time a demo is any sort of signifigant burden on your team is when you're releasing it off a game thats not ready to ship - the demo should be indicitave of the final game, simple as that. I don't WANT to play your hacked up beta of a demo. I want to play a 20 minute version of your real game with all the polish and performance thats going to be in the final version, and I'm going to base my buying decision off of that.
Re:Gotta do it (Score:4, Interesting)
If it does get back to the developer it will be through bad publicity(forums, direct complaints), by which time (assuming the demo is released before the final game) its too late. Demo's still go through N/MS/Sony's checks if being released before the game, and even then take a while to get into demo booths
Another point is highlighted here is that demo's dont go through proper lot checks if the game has already gone through them, its only tested for demo specific stuff (does it exit from menu's properly, does it fit in a specified size etc)
Re:Gotta do it (Score:1)
Re:Gotta do it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gotta do it (Score:5, Interesting)
After buying this game I have vowed to never EVER buy another Sid Meier game. It was that bad.
It started off with me bored one day. I wasn't planning on looking at the game. I don't like golf. But I found a demo online and the fact that it was published by Maxis (a EA division, I think they suck too, and I blame them for much of this). I played the demo and had a great time, so I went out and bought the game.
I own the game, now the fun begins, right? The game was full of bugs. Lots of them. Golfers complain if they have to walk a lot. So you would create a golf cart rental place, then they wouldn't complain, right? That's the way it SHOULD work, and that's how it worked after a patch, but before that golfers riding in carts up hills would have little speach bubbles COMPLAINING ABOUT WALKING UP HILLS. The game was FULL of things like this. Not only these little annoyance bugs, but things that could prevent you from EVERY playing your course, which you had to do to further yourself in the game (and test your course). Bugs bugs bugs. Many MANY people complaining on the forums didn't get us anywhere. Bugs were documented, complained about, well known, NOTHING. When we FINALLY got a patch (the one mentioned above) there were still bugs, it didn't fix many of them. I would have returned the game but by the time all of this transpired, it was too late (and the store probably wouldn't have taken it back since it was opened).
The demo got me to buy a game that I would have never bought otherwise. I "enjoyed" the game. Result? I now refuse to buy from Sid Meier, hate EA, lost all faith in Maxis, don't like Firaxis (the developer?), and no longer buy games when they come out because of crap like this.
Demos are great things, and I think they should be released. I bought Castle Wolfenstein because of it's demo (I was tired of FPSes, but the demo was so great I had to buy it). There are many times demos have gotten me to look at games, buy games, or avoid games because I didn't like them. My only warning is this: if you're going to make a demo, the game better be as good. About all the bugs were out of the SimGolf demo, they weren't noticeable (I spent tons of time on it). But everything that would happen after the demo expired (you could only make 3 holes or something like that, play for X ammount of time IIRC too) went to hell.
Don't screw with me, I'm nearly impossible to win back as a customer.
Re:Gotta do it (Score:2)
Re:Gotta do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it make sense to end the beta phase with an open demo, or move right into the final product? MMO games tend to follow the beta path, since a "demo" of a persistent world doesn't really work.
Anyone else like the demo more than the game? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: But you BOUGHT the game (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone else like the demo more than the game? (Score:2)
It performed _way_ better than the initial release.
I was very PO'd when I bought the game when it was actually released and my framerate dropped in half from what I was getting in the Demo. Totally soured me on that game, never really did get into it much after that. The problems were addressed in subsequent patches...but I vowed I'll NEVER buy another ID game without seeing the actual release version in action first.
If you do a good demo, the game sure as hell had better meet or e
I don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:1, Insightful)
depends (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Half-Life demo (Score:2, Informative)
I'm pretty sure half-Life had one of the most successful demos of all time, released with some video card, months before the official release.
Day One (Score:4, Informative)
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....
Re:Day One (Score:3, Interesting)
Although, reading the review of the demo, apparently this isn't the demo I was thinking of. The HL demo I remember, was a series of levels that were cut from the final game. In these levels you were required to align a satellite dish so the scientists could send some sort of message. This demo was released much after the game was released.
Re:Day One (Score:2)
Re:Day One (Score:2)
50+ hours of frustration later, I finally dumped the joystick, and used the keyboard...oh my god, what a difference!
(Not to be confused with the keyboard/console controller difference...where the games are designed for the controller from beginning.)
Re:depends (Score:1)
The question posed in this topic is completely wrong, companies aren't going to wait for a demo, they don't even wait until a game is finished before they sell it. That's what needs to be changed. The hell with a demo, how about not shipping a game full of known bugs with the intention (or not) to keep patching afterwards? If companies wou
Re:depends (Score:2)
You can't tell. May be they could have still sold 10% more copies if they had an early demo...
BF 1942 Demo (Score:4, Insightful)
S
Re:BF 1942 Demo (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah I guess I'm "part of the problem"
Re:BF 1942 Demo (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds great to me (Score:5, Funny)
Xtreme Demo (Score:5, Funny)
Some companies might not be too keen on letting someone play the game [gamespot.com] before they get the cash, for obvious [gamespot.com] reasons.
Why miss out on free advertisement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why miss out on free advertisement? (Score:2)
Demos of future products (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Demos of future products (Score:2)
Re:Demos of future products (Score:4, Insightful)
With that in mind, wouldn't it make sense to leave a standing order to the demo developers to: use the same game engine as the final game?
It would prevent some promises you can't keep, would allow the demo to sorta pre-beta the engine of the game(hence you'd make sure the beta is out first...), and you'd save on work, as your demo developers wouldn't have to develop the engine, just the demo scenario...(Code and skills re-use) ?
I'm sure some games already follow this model, and save money to the developers, by not being detrimental to the game release, but instead, by being a part of it...
Depends on the game (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Demo's prevent piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's the fucking demo? I mean, I've heard "Halo runs great on my Powerbook" to "Halo runs like a turd on my G5 with a 3 Gigabyte memory card".
So how can I tell? Demo! What don't I see? Demo. So my options?
Well, either not buy it, or pirate the game, test it, then buy a copy. And since I can't do the latter without getting arrested, I guess I'll just never know. And I'm not about to play the game on the Xbox. I
Re:Demo's prevent piracy (Score:1)
ROTFL
Do you really think you get arrested everytime you break the law?
*00420 hits joint*
Re:Demo's prevent piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the fucking demo? I mean, I've heard "Halo runs great on my Powerbook" to "Halo runs like a turd on my G5 with a 3 Gigabyte memory card"."
Apparently, the Mac Halo demo is in the works at the moment. It's a pity it wasn't released nearer to the game's launch date, though.
UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:4, Informative)
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:3)
However, I second your opinion. The UT 2004 demo simply rocks. Not only does it showcase Assault mode in just unspeakable glory (Try it. It's one of the coolest levels of all time), but the Onslaught mode is simply amazing.
Not exactly real, physics wise, but as far as the cool shit quotient goes, it's just unbelievable. From GTA style vehicular mayhem,(A
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that a lot of cheaters have already moved in, it should motivate Epic and whoever else has the means, to develop a kickass anticheat system.
I'm not a big fan of Assault, but I love Onslaught. Onslaught is not without problems though, mostly player-side behaviour, but this should help in the long run to motivate people into building maps to cater to the redeemer/raptor-obsessed lamers.
Personally, I hope someone does a 100% accurate Vic
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:3, Interesting)
What's so great about the UT demos is that they are high enough quality that they allow a de
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:2, Informative)
der Joachim
Re:UT2004 demo was a good move (Score:2, Informative)
Good test for your system (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good test for your system (Score:3)
As far as buggy demo's go, that's why you can release them as 'alpha' or whatever. Let the community sort it out. I'd far rather voluntarily help a developer fix bugs *before* a release then sluggishly wait for patches *after*.
Re:Good test for your system (Score:2)
Most game reviews are to me crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Biased Source (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one take little notice of demos (Score:1, Redundant)
Of course not. (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Any demo can do good (Score:2)
While I think demos are nice and what-not, I think demos shouldn't always put their best foot out. While wearing gold plated shoes. And silver lined socks. Even the original Doom didn't put their BEST foot out. It held back some of the best weapons, levels and monsters. In the case of
Re:Any demo can do good (Score:1)
It can hurt the game (Score:2, Informative)
On top of that, they released it with the Xbox settings on. A company that doesn't care about demos turns me off.
YES YES god YES! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh. Of COURSE it's important for a demo to be out before or at game launch. It's a demo of Deus Ex II that won't run on my crappy video card that deterred me from buying the full
Re:YES YES god YES! (Score:1)
Of course demos are important and competitive pressure SHOULD force all companies to release demos.
After playing Deux Ex I was pretty excited about Deux Ex II. However, even though I was above the minimum system spec (by a decent amount) the game wouldn't even load on my computer. So, no sequel for me.
I am against demos (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I am against demos (Score:3, Insightful)
Me, I don't need demos. If a game is good, I'll hear it's good and buy it. If it sucks, I'll hear about that (or not) and won't buy it. Besides the fact that demos can be deceptive at times in terms of content and quality, there are enough reviews of most games for
Easy. That depends... (Score:1, Redundant)
Shareware != Demo (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, back in my day a demo was something put together at The Party or Assembly by groups with names like Dust or Future Crew.
Re:Future Crew (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Future Crew (Score:3, Interesting)
You were possibly thinking about Triton, which went on to form Starbreeze Studios [starbreeze.com]. They have released a few games already.
They should release on schedule, and with demos. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
PC Halo Demo (Score:1)
I was planning on getting Halo for the PC so I downloaded the demo and it crashed about 1 second after the menu screen appeared! The sound looped and I had to do a hard reset. How can something so simple crash? It's just a picture with a few bits of text that you highlight! If they can't get that right what must the rest of it be like?
So there is no way I will bu
Great demos (Score:3, Informative)
I also think that its possible for a demo to become a memorable gaming experience in and of itself. Some standouts:
Civilization (Atari ST): A limited demo that ran from the start to 0 AD. No limits to what you could do in the time. I must've played this nonstop for months, trying desperately to get just one step more advanced before it timed out.
Unreal Tournament (PC): Jeez, I've never been so blown away by demo level than I was by Mobious in this demo. Played online and off for weeks.
Far Cry (PC): Was fairly nonplussed by the build up to this game, but the demo fair blew me away. So much detail, so much to see and do. So many ways to accomplish your objective. And it looks lovely.
Just a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Willing to overlook... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Waste of developer resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Also if the final game isn't being pressed as we speak and going into boxes then there's always time for more
I miss demos (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a little hesitant over buying games without playing them first and have been gutted numerous times with games not living up to their promise.
Nowadays I just seem to download the full version as their are no demos. The problem with this is when you've downloaded a great game, it's quite hard to motivate yourself to go out and pay the cash for exactly the same game. It's not that I object to paying the developer, it's paying the shop, the distributor - people whose service I didn't really even want.
Maybe services such as Steam will overcome this problem, I hope so.