Do you think demos/betas should be required by law?

[Bob_McMillan]

Or at least by Steam, Playstation, and Microsoft.

Anytime I would mention online that I decided to get or not get a game because a reviewer changed my mind, people would tell me to "formulate my own opinions". How exactly am I supposed to do that? Renting a game seems to be a bit of an inefficient way of deciding whether you like it or not, you have to pay for it, install all of it, etc. Lets Plays are even less effective. I was going to get DA: Inquisition because I thought the combat looked fun, but I learned that it's basically point and click, and I abhor games like that. So why not demos? The only demos I've seen on the Playstation store are for the LEGO games and small indie games. Apparently most AAA devs don't think that demos are worth it. I think that demos could solve a lot of problems, like learning beforehand whether your PC rig can handle the game, or if the game is just too unpolished, or if you just really don't like the game. Of course, they would have to be strictly regulated, or devs could just make 30 minutes of amazing gameplay that doesn't represent the full game at all. This could also help the devs as well. If they treated the demos like beats and released them sometime before launch, they could start working on patches already before the game comes out.

What do you think? Would demos make everything better, or would it make no difference on how you decide on getting a game?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I would love it if there were more demos, and I really do think that demos should be a requirement for all games (not by law, but an industry standard).

There have been quite a few games where the demo completely convinced me that I needed to buy them day one (Batman Arkham Asylum), and there have also been ones where I was interested in the game and the demo convinced me to stay far the fuck away (Kingdoms of Amalor). In general though, they've been the best determination for me, the consumer, of whether or not a game is worth my money. Better than any reviewer or gameplay video because it allows me to feel what the game is like for myself without having to trust that a dev likes the same style of gameplay I do, and without the possibility of a review spoiling a game for me.

 

[Abomination]

The cost of making a demo is not small, also I don't think it would solve the issues facing a lot of games.

A good example would be Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader. The game started off with a right hiss and a roar, perfect for a demo but after that point it turned into a combat slogfest and had obvious signs of a rushed/incomplete game.

Given how also Aliens: Colonial Marines went the demo would probably look awesome but the actual gameplay of the end product would be poop.

Rather than placing such on the industry it would be better for consumer law to apply to digital purchases allowing at least for "store credit" on the return of a game that didn't meet expectations. Presently if a game is crap, doesn't live up to hype, or was sold to you for far more than it turns out to be worth you have no recompense.

Of course proving this is difficult as it's not like a broken toaster or expired milk. The measure of worth is very subjective but there are times when games have been advertised incorrectly and if not completely refunded some kind of discount or compensation is due.

 

[Story]

Hehe no.
I love demos, and I've made purchasing decisions off of them, but a company shouldnt be required to release one if they don't want to.
Also funny that you don't mention Nintendo they are actually pretty good when it comes to releasing demos.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Hehe no.
I love demos, and I've made purchasing decisions off of them, but a company shouldnt be required to release one if they don't want to.
Also funny that you don't mention Nintendo they are actually pretty good when it comes to releasing demos.

Oh yeah, now that you mention it. My friend has been playing the Smash demo for months now on his DS.

 

[Nazulu]

No, but I wish there were a lot more demo's, like for Grey Goo for instance. I don't really want to spend a whole lot just to find out how it feels. Unfortunately, I hear that making demo's is not cheap, and even if they make a demo it could be very different from the final product in every function, which is no good.

On the other hand, I have enough experience now to tell exactly what interests me just by seeing some game play.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed had an awesome demo, then the game turned out to be pretty boring.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Not by law, nor by standard but it would be nice if games at least gave us an honest showing of what they're about whether its a demo or teaser trailer.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Required by law? Absolutely not. How the hell do you regulate that? How do you define whether or not enough content has been included in the demo to make legal? How do you define whether a demo is "too polished" compared to the actual release?

I like the idea of demos, but demanding it by law just seems ridiculously authoritarian for comparatively little gain. Publishers will find plenty of ways to game the system (no pun intended), just like they have done with screenshots, reviews, game-play trailers and game-play footage.

 

[NoeL]

Every game having demos would be great for the consumer, but there's a good reason why most games don't have them. Take it away, EC boys!

Spoiler: tl:dr

They hurt sales more than they help.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Not by law, that's fucking asinine to the nth degree. I'd love for them to come back in a big way, but with the internet's ability (for good or for ill) to spread information out at an almost transporter like speed it isn't likely. Plus, while I'm no law expert, I imagine that since a demo would count as advertising then any serious deviation (disclaimer or no) from what is expected due to that demo could leave them open to legal action. So most publishers have a vested interest in not making them.

 

[laggyteabag]

Would never happen. If a game comes out with a demo, and the demo shows how bad your game is, then you have pretty much just killed all of your sales. Sure, it'd be great on a consumer standpoint, but If it doesn't make sense on a business standpoint, then it just wont happen.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I would love for games to have demos as a norm rather than law. It should be the game dev choice to use demos but if the consumers show some form of interest maybe it will work. I do not think the government should interfere with the game studios tho. And who will write this law to begin with? Which country have the authority?

 

[J Tyran]

No, to be honest I think it's a bit silly. It would be better if existing consumer protection laws got applied more often when it comes to "broken" games. Consumers should have an easier time when demanding refunds for broken games like Assassins Creed: Unity, sure they patched it but at the point of sale it was barely working

 

[Silvanus]

Not at all. Demos and betas do justice to some games and genres far better than others, and they're not equally suited to everything.

 

[Squilookle]

To be honest, if it DID become law, I would struggle to feel sympathetic towards those that didn't like it.

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

anytime someone says "there ought to be a law" chances are there "oughtent"

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Doesn't this imply we trust demos and/or betas? I mean did Aliens: Colonial Marines teach us nothing?!

 

[Doom972]

I think digital stores should incentivize demos by offering to give games with demos more exposure on the front page and other such incentives. If demos are hard to produce then 30-minute trials should do the work as well.

As for Betas - I don't see the point on incentivizing, let alone forcing developers to release buggy versions of their games as a marketing tool.

 

[Pyrian]

Face it - as consumers, it's our responsibility. If consumers only bought games with demos, they'd get the message right quick. Instead, we seem to mostly do the opposite.