I just think it's bad business and it irritates me the more I think about it. Even if it was limited, wouldn't playing something be better than nothing? For me, I think it would.

I can see cases where there might be some hesitation (limited scope, a short demo doesn't show how good/bad the end story/game will be, limited interaction,) but I would still rather have something than nothing at all.

Even on the micro scale, it helps to determine things like performance, proper widescreen support, level of customization, quality of graphics/sound effects, responsiveness, A.I., etc.

Otherwise...it just comes down to trusting the company's word? I guess you can rely on the reviews from game sites, but I still have better judgment than those companies do (for knowing my tastes.) That's to say nothing of the payola system that exists in the industry nor the tendency to positively review highly advertised titles (what a coincidence :o) and so forth.

This is even more important since you cannot return PC games, the used PC game market is nearly non-existant, the company will not offer a refund, and the developer aspect (pre-existing game going in a new direction with a new developer.)

I can test drive a new car, I can try on new clothes, I can listen to music before I buy it, etc. There are other industries where this is now allowed, but they are generally a lower cost structure ($1 candy bar, $10 movie) and/or a direct, once-through experience. There is something to be said for gaming and the way people play through them, interacting with and controlling the world.

The only reason they won't do a demo is because it's viewed as a negative thing, an additional cost, or extra work. It's the mentality which is at fault here. Why not plan ahead for the demo? Factor it into the marketing?

Why not drop all sound from the title? That saves money, that is less work, it would save them from being reviewed as having poor sound quality, it might let them focus even more on graphics, etc. But they've deemed sound effects important and have planned/budgeted for them accordingly while they do not think a demo is important.

And it's not like we're asking companies to perform a drastic change, to give us something which has never before been attempted, much less accepted. However, there are more and more cases of the industry moving backwards from the demo model - that's a negative for the end user.

I really enjoyed Far Cry. However, I don't know what to make of Far Cry 2. It really doesn't have much in common with the first game, it's in a radically different setting, it seems to be focusing on different objectives, and it's coming from a different developer. I'm interested in it, but I have my doubts of it being a cash scam (use the name, get some free sales!) and I would like to try it out. They are specifically stating that I will not be allowed to try it so I'm stuck on reviews. Given my pre-existing hesitations, it will likely need to have some very strong reviews - in the 90%+ range - or I'll just skip it.

For $50, I can go buy a game I've played a demonstration of, one I have much stronger feelings for, pick up two older games I've missed, take a chance on a much more inventive release, etc. Or go play Far Cry for no additional cost.

There is an argument that I am not the target audience, but that seems really short sighted. I'm interestedin the title and I am asking to be convinced to buy the title, but I need more than nothing or the idiotic PR releases.
Seriously, let ME decide if I want to purchase it. Not a paid reviewer.
Slowling moving to a non-purchase as I mull the demo decision,
Ray

-----
I'm looking for some alien toilet to park my bricks; who's first?
http://www.flagshipped.com/
I love you, mom.