Heh, bring back the shareware model

Multiplayer demos tend to have far more replayability than single-player demos.

Well the UT2004 demo is actually both single-player and multiplayer due to the game's included bots. It's not just an online or multiplayer experience, and it definitely hurt the full version's sales although the game still sold well.

If a player really enjoys a single player demo, there's a very good chance he'll buy the full version so he can access more areas, meet more characters, use more weapons and vehicles and just take in more of the story.

I agree, and you can certainly see that in demos from developers like Monolith. However in cases where creating a demo version of a game is cost or time prohibitive, a time-limited trial version of the full game or better yet a refund policy on the full game would certainly be a doable substitute for the developer/publisher and a desirable one for the consumer.

This comment was edited on Jul 13, 00:22.

I'll never forget Wake Island.

And now I own and play the game and all expansions every weekend.

I'll never forget getting the demo for Doom on diskette.

And now I own pretty much every game made by Carmack, et all...

For example the UT2004 demo had such a great selection of maps (Facing Worlds, Torlan, Rankin, etc.) and gameplay modes that a lot of people didn't bother buying the full game (at least until months or years later when it had dropped substantially in price) because the demo gave them all they were really looking for.

Multiplayer demos tend to have far more replayability than single-player demos. If a player really enjoys a single player demo, there's a very good chance he'll buy the full version so he can access more areas, meet more characters, use more weapons and vehicles and just take in more of the story.

yeah, like THAT won't be cracked in less than a day......

The full version of the game will be cracked in less than a day as well. That's still no valid reason not to have a time-limited demo. Trymedia's Trygames.com is full of full version games with time-limited trial periods. I don't like the restrictive DRM system built into these games as far as purchasing goes, but these releases are still a good way to try out a game for free before buying a copy of it on physical media from a retailer.

This comment was edited on Jul 15, 12:58.

If people like your demo enough to play it for 12 hours, doesn't that make them more likely to buy the full game..?

Not necessarily. I personally love a good full-featured demo, but as a business matter it can have a real averse effect on sales especially initial sales. For example the UT2004 demo had such a great selection of maps (Facing Worlds, Torlan, Rankin, etc.) and gameplay modes that a lot of people didn't bother buying the full game (at least until months or years later when it had dropped substantially in price) because the demo gave them all they were really looking for. The Halo PC demo is another one which is still quite popular online almost five years after the full game's release.

As for Far Cry 2's lack of a demo, there will be a trial version of the game after it ships. It will just be an unauthorized one and found on the network of Bittorrent sites.

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 23:48.

.... no demo, no sale. Back in the old days of gaming, so many games were released that rocked, we could get away with that and the pressure would actually work FOR us. These days?

How many AAA+ games are released a year now on PC? 1.... if we`re lucky? (and peeps still say PC gaming is alive and well? ;p yahuh) So we are hardly in a good position for picking and choosing. Other than FC 2, I see 1 lone game I am looking forward to for PC. GearBoxes AL()ENS: Colonial Marines. And that game will prolly slip to 2009 1st Quarter.

As for there not being an FC 2 demo, no biggy. I loved FC 1 (accept for the monsters lol). I really love what I am seeing in the FC 2 vids. That is my kinda game. Was hoping STALKER would have been more like what FC 2 looks to be offering. But dems da breaks.

So, with some luck maybe we will see a FC 2 PC release, more sooner than l8trs!

Obviously if you reduce it to demo / no demo then it's better to release one (if it's a good game) but the lack of a demo is simply not a reasonable criticism without knowing the full details of their business model.

I don't think their business model is really of any consequence to the player. I don't buy games unless I've played them first. I don't care if there are tons of trailers, screenshots, TV spots, press events, etc. Luckily, I have no issues with resorting to piracy to try out games. Without piracy, I simply wouldn't buy the games.

Well, they just lost me. I almost never buy a game without trying a demo first. I've simply been burned too many times.

I also see it as a bad sign. It's like the movie studios who won't let the reviewers see the movie before it comes out. The movie invariably turns out to be awful.

And you know this how?

Well I'm absolutely certain that I'm not the only one who had planned to buy FC2 but not without a demo first. NO DEMO = NO PURCHASE.

Thus, lack of demo = lack of revenue.

I refuse to buy a game based on hype alone and I'm sure I'm not the only one. For all I know, the game will be as shit-tastic as Crysis and run just as poorly. Without a demo, my $50 stays right in my pocket.

________________________________________________
Have a nice day
|
|
V

yeah, like THAT won't be cracked in less than a day......

Since demos are usually released a month or two behind the game these days, that wouldn't be the biggest issue. The game would in all likelihood be cracked by the time a demo hit the shelves.

Well I hope they're willing to accept the fact that their tough decision will ultimately result in decreased sales.

And you know this how? Their advertising budget may have been put to better use for all we know. Obviously if you reduce it to demo / no demo then it's better to release one (if it's a good game) but the lack of a demo is simply not a reasonable criticism without knowing the full details of their business model.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

"they have to make hard decisions along the way."

Well I hope they're willing to accept the fact that their tough decision will ultimately result in decreased sales.

Who am I kidding...they'll blame it on pirates to justify their piss poor development skills.

________________________________________________
Have a nice day
|
|
V

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.

Oblivion was a huge success, despite no demo and no copy protection - therefore a demo isn't required to generate sales. Although it seems a bad move to me there must be some logic to their decision. An advertising budget is designed for the promotion of a game, of which a demo is usually part of that - however, if they can generate more sales by spending that money elsewhere it would seem silly not to. Obviously the lack of a demo will lose some sales but if they make up more elsewhere then that doesn't matter (despite a bit of negative attention initially).

It's a business, afterall. If they thought a demo was cost effective I imagine they wouldn't hesitate.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

No demo for a big title like this is a recipe for disaster.

No matter how good someones intentions, if they download the full game to "demo" it, with the intention of buying if they like it, its still gonna be really hard for them to convince themselves to buy the game after they've already beaten it.

Yep no demo.. no sale. Which is why I avoided the new Rainbow 6 Vegas games like the plague and bought GRAW2 because that game had a demo.

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 13:26.

Simple, like some other demos--add a time limit.

yeah, like THAT won't be cracked in less than a day......

Anyhow, what it comes down to is that if they had a gun to their heads it could probably be done but theres a cost/benefit thing that they simply can't ignore. i don't like it and its obvious no one else does either but a game like this costs 8 figures to make nowadays and they have to make hard decisions along the way.

"I don't know too many people who are willing to give away a 12-hour game for free."

Gee that's funny, I do know many people who would give you a 12 hour demo and they just happen to be people who made the biggest PC games of all time. Doom, the Quake series, Unreal Tournament, Diablo 2, most MMOs, the Battlefield series. I could go on.

There have been claims by the developer that FC2 will have 50+ hours of game play, and now they are saying they won't give even 1/5th of that to demo?

This sounds like laziness to me and I am sure in he following months after it's release they'll be crying the game didn't sell well and blame the pirates again without thinking that there was a reason people decided to "demo" the game via usenet and bittorrent

I think if they really want to put their best foot forward offering a demo is a must. If there are some issues offering a because of the way the game is set up, then there are ways around that.

Looks like the real reason PC gaming is dying is arrogance.

I hate to say it but I really think PC gaming is on a decline. Practically no one makes demos anymore, and that's what used to get me to shell out $50 for a game.

Oh well, more money to blow on my astronomy toys I guess

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.