Yep. Pretty much.LordLundar said:
Demo's just do what they do - demonstrate. If you demonstrate a shit game, you drive away customers. One would think that would be an incentive to stop making shitty games.
Game Dev Claims Demos Hurt Game Sales
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Demo's just do what they do - demonstrate. If you demonstrate a shit game, you drive away customers. One would think that would be an incentive to stop making shitty games.
Well, I know that I personally am far less likely to buy a game sight unseen that has no demo, especially if I am unfamiliar with the developer or the IP.I think it's more likely that people will play a demo, and decide they don't want to buy it instead of taking the gamble.
I've been burned by too many bad games to give them blind trust any more. It wasn't so bad years ago, but it's more than more common as time goes on that games that are obviously incomplete and overly buggy get shoved out the door at full price, and it's a bunch of crap. THAT is what hurts their sales.
There is a growing and shocking disregard for quality and pride of work in the gaming industry these days. Some games are outright fraudulent lies that should be punished legally. Like the War Z from what I hear, and Legends of Pegasus from first hand experience for example. That game was released like it was a completed project when it was OBVIOUSLY in late alpha at best.
Even bigger high profile studios are dropping the ball on quality control, and what is their excuse? They are far too comfortable with kicking it out the door knowing full well the game still needs a lot of bug fixing. The customers are being relied upon, too much, to test games.
People won't let you walk over them and abuse their trust forever, that's what is going on here.
I've been burned by too many bad games to give them blind trust any more. It wasn't so bad years ago, but it's more than more common as time goes on that games that are obviously incomplete and overly buggy get shoved out the door at full price, and it's a bunch of crap. THAT is what hurts their sales.
There is a growing and shocking disregard for quality and pride of work in the gaming industry these days. Some games are outright fraudulent lies that should be punished legally. Like the War Z from what I hear, and Legends of Pegasus from first hand experience for example. That game was released like it was a completed project when it was OBVIOUSLY in late alpha at best.
Even bigger high profile studios are dropping the ball on quality control, and what is their excuse? They are far too comfortable with kicking it out the door knowing full well the game still needs a lot of bug fixing. The customers are being relied upon, too much, to test games.
People won't let you walk over them and abuse their trust forever, that's what is going on here.
When you release a game, there are a total of 12 possibilities.
1. Your game is bad, and the demo is bad.
You have just lost sales. The demo is bad, and reflects how bad the game is. You won't buy it.
2. The game is bad, the demo is okay.
If the game doesn't offer anything that sticks out, and its just "meh", you're not going to rush out and spend $60 on it. More than likely, you'll wait for the reviews - see that its crap, and just skip it.
3. The game is bad, the demo is great.
This is nearly impossible to pull off, but, assuming you do, you get an increase in sales.
4. The game is okay, the demo is bad.
Lost sales. No one wants a shitty game.
5. The game is okay, the demo is okay.
Once again - $60. Most statistics show that this will actually not increase sales - but I'll just put that to the side for a moment. In most cases, gamers won't spend $60 on something unless they have faith that it's great. If its just okay, most of the time, they'll wait for reviews, or get their fix from the demo.
6. The game is okay, the demo is great.
Not as impossible, but really hard to do. Once you play the game, you have a feel for what its like. Its hard to simulate greatness without actually being there. Assuming you could, I would imagine this would probably generate additional revenue, assuming the consumer flat out ignores reviews and is just intent on getting this game.
7. The game is great, the demo is bad.
You just lost sales. You provided the worst the game had to offer - as well as wasted resources.
8. The game is great, the demo is okay.
You'll probably see a sales decrease. If its just okay, its not going to convince people to blow their hard earned money. To push those AAA games, you something to pop out for the experience. If you can't capture that pop, its gonna be something you wait for on a sale.
9. The demo is great, the game is great.
You successfully captured the pop. You may increase sales, but it's still risky. You have to hope that the awe inspiring demo gets more people enthralled then people that say "already, that was fun. I've had my fix." It's a risky positive.
10. The game is bad, there is no demo.
Now, this one is interesting, as you can branch it off into so many different subsections - but I wanted to keep this a semi reasonable length. You can easily create hype for bad games. If you staple a trailer onto the experience, you can direct what the viewer will think of the experience. I'll cite Dead Island. That trailer was amazing. I can guarantee you that game would not have sold enough units to warrant a sequel if they had allowed people to play it first. Demos pop the hype bubble. A bad game can be dressed up easily with CGI. If it doesn't have a huge marketing push, it will more than likely have people checking reviews. Word of mouth will eventually sink the game, no matter how awesome its made to look.
11. The game is okay, there is no demo.
These will probably sell modestly. People won't rush out to buy it on day one, but if its an interesting concept, there will be a crowd of people who will buy it to try it out. If peoples curiosity peaks, they'll cave and buy it. And these games tend not to be too offensive, so the user is generally happy. If it doesn't have a huge marketing push, people will probably check out the reviews, and decide from them.
12. The game is great, there is no demo.
This is where you can let word of mouth do its work. Do you think Skyrim would have blown people away if it hadn't been for all those memes and talk about it? Its a cultural icon. MineCraft was a game that was sold completely by word of mouth. Any of the popular series - Halo, CoD, Half Life, Pokemon. They sell by the droves because people talk about them. And, aside from MineCraft, none of them give you a demo - if you want to have your fix, you have to pay. And even with that, I know people who played the incredibly poor done demo and got their fix of that game.
It sounds really great to consumers - yeah, lets have a demo. Thats mainly because its free for us - and it lets us pop our hype bubble. On the industry side of thing, they WANT us to have a hype bubble. Popping that bubble takes time and money from them, and results in a decent chunk of customers saying "thank you, but I'm good" after trying it.
Of the 12 situations posted, 9 have to do with demos. Only 3 are positive - and one of them is nearly impossible to pull off. The other 6 are either negative or no net gain.
The other 3 are entirely positive though. You can have a good, bad, or meh game - consumers won't know. If you can make the game look interesting though, you can peak tons of peoples curiosities. And thats what can really sell games. Who would have really bought a game like Dead Island or Halo 3: ODST if they have actually gotten to play it first? Probably not as many people who actually purchased it.
1. Your game is bad, and the demo is bad.
You have just lost sales. The demo is bad, and reflects how bad the game is. You won't buy it.
2. The game is bad, the demo is okay.
If the game doesn't offer anything that sticks out, and its just "meh", you're not going to rush out and spend $60 on it. More than likely, you'll wait for the reviews - see that its crap, and just skip it.
3. The game is bad, the demo is great.
This is nearly impossible to pull off, but, assuming you do, you get an increase in sales.
4. The game is okay, the demo is bad.
Lost sales. No one wants a shitty game.
5. The game is okay, the demo is okay.
Once again - $60. Most statistics show that this will actually not increase sales - but I'll just put that to the side for a moment. In most cases, gamers won't spend $60 on something unless they have faith that it's great. If its just okay, most of the time, they'll wait for reviews, or get their fix from the demo.
6. The game is okay, the demo is great.
Not as impossible, but really hard to do. Once you play the game, you have a feel for what its like. Its hard to simulate greatness without actually being there. Assuming you could, I would imagine this would probably generate additional revenue, assuming the consumer flat out ignores reviews and is just intent on getting this game.
7. The game is great, the demo is bad.
You just lost sales. You provided the worst the game had to offer - as well as wasted resources.
8. The game is great, the demo is okay.
You'll probably see a sales decrease. If its just okay, its not going to convince people to blow their hard earned money. To push those AAA games, you something to pop out for the experience. If you can't capture that pop, its gonna be something you wait for on a sale.
9. The demo is great, the game is great.
You successfully captured the pop. You may increase sales, but it's still risky. You have to hope that the awe inspiring demo gets more people enthralled then people that say "already, that was fun. I've had my fix." It's a risky positive.
10. The game is bad, there is no demo.
Now, this one is interesting, as you can branch it off into so many different subsections - but I wanted to keep this a semi reasonable length. You can easily create hype for bad games. If you staple a trailer onto the experience, you can direct what the viewer will think of the experience. I'll cite Dead Island. That trailer was amazing. I can guarantee you that game would not have sold enough units to warrant a sequel if they had allowed people to play it first. Demos pop the hype bubble. A bad game can be dressed up easily with CGI. If it doesn't have a huge marketing push, it will more than likely have people checking reviews. Word of mouth will eventually sink the game, no matter how awesome its made to look.
11. The game is okay, there is no demo.
These will probably sell modestly. People won't rush out to buy it on day one, but if its an interesting concept, there will be a crowd of people who will buy it to try it out. If peoples curiosity peaks, they'll cave and buy it. And these games tend not to be too offensive, so the user is generally happy. If it doesn't have a huge marketing push, people will probably check out the reviews, and decide from them.
12. The game is great, there is no demo.
This is where you can let word of mouth do its work. Do you think Skyrim would have blown people away if it hadn't been for all those memes and talk about it? Its a cultural icon. MineCraft was a game that was sold completely by word of mouth. Any of the popular series - Halo, CoD, Half Life, Pokemon. They sell by the droves because people talk about them. And, aside from MineCraft, none of them give you a demo - if you want to have your fix, you have to pay. And even with that, I know people who played the incredibly poor done demo and got their fix of that game.
It sounds really great to consumers - yeah, lets have a demo. Thats mainly because its free for us - and it lets us pop our hype bubble. On the industry side of thing, they WANT us to have a hype bubble. Popping that bubble takes time and money from them, and results in a decent chunk of customers saying "thank you, but I'm good" after trying it.
Of the 12 situations posted, 9 have to do with demos. Only 3 are positive - and one of them is nearly impossible to pull off. The other 6 are either negative or no net gain.
The other 3 are entirely positive though. You can have a good, bad, or meh game - consumers won't know. If you can make the game look interesting though, you can peak tons of peoples curiosities. And thats what can really sell games. Who would have really bought a game like Dead Island or Halo 3: ODST if they have actually gotten to play it first? Probably not as many people who actually purchased it.
One of my favourite demos, and something that enticed me into buying the game, was Starcraft's.
It gave you a taster of the gameplay and it was essentially a prequel to the main game. Making a demo a side story or something like that is one way of avoiding the 'cut a level out and chuck it in the demo'.
It gave you a taster of the gameplay and it was essentially a prequel to the main game. Making a demo a side story or something like that is one way of avoiding the 'cut a level out and chuck it in the demo'.
Yep. I simply don't buy a game unless I'm able to try it first or they come Yahtzee recommended. I tried Ass Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 at a convention last year, liked 'em so I bought 'em, Yahtzee told me to buy Skyrim, Painkiller and Just Cause 2, so I did and I love 'em.The_Great_Galendo said:
A demo needs to be short and sweet, offering a mere taste rather than a full meal. They're supposed to whet your appetite, and frankly if your demo or game is shit, that's why people aren't buying it.
A good demo for Skyrim, for example, would be the run through Helgen Keep with Ralof (better Helgen Keep run of the two imo), ending at the loading screen when you exit at the end. No story spoilers, a big taste of combat, an experience of the game.
Aren't I right in saying that most games without demos are open-ended/ open-world games, where making a demo is next to impossible/ too big/ time consuming? Also, these games happen to be the most successful games in the market i.e. GTA, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 3, etc. That might explain it.
Personally, I rarely buy a game unless I play a demo first. If a company doesn't release a demo, I'm suspicious of its quality. If you think your game is that good, why are you afraid to let us play a piece of it?
Personally, I rarely buy a game unless I play a demo first. If a company doesn't release a demo, I'm suspicious of its quality. If you think your game is that good, why are you afraid to let us play a piece of it?
Sure, demos hurt game sales.
And if I tell someone the box of jewels I'm selling isn't able to be opened until they buy it and I'm a hundred miles away, they're probably going to just assume it's a box of rocks, or shit. And that'll hurt my sales.
Can't let your customers know that what you're selling is a complete piece of crap, now can we?
And if I tell someone the box of jewels I'm selling isn't able to be opened until they buy it and I'm a hundred miles away, they're probably going to just assume it's a box of rocks, or shit. And that'll hurt my sales.
Can't let your customers know that what you're selling is a complete piece of crap, now can we?
Hey, look at me, I'm a self-entitled gamer who wants free stuff from game developers. Don't take away my demos!
I haven't regretted a single video game purchase I've made in the last 5 years. So I'm pretty sure I'm not blindly paying for crap.incal11 said:
What he doesn't mention is that most games are middle of the road at best and don't merit much mileage to begin with.
In other words, there are two sides to this, like there are to everything else. He probably has a point; I'm sure some developers do lose money on this, and gosh darn it, business is about making money.
But if more effort was put toward making an entertaining experience rather than just making money, maybe more people would be willing to buy it after having a taste. It's the same "get what you put into it" model a lot of extremely successful businesses have bought into, and when some of those businesses are Google, Amazon, and Steam, standing as examples of what can happen when you try to make money by making a product people want to buy and find value in, it doesn't seem so crazy.
In other words, most developers are to blame here too when their numbers go down; you didn't make a compelling enough product, and that's your fault. The focus shouldn't be "make this game to make us some money", it should be "make this game that people want to play, and that will in turn make us money". Why don't you crack out the sales figures for obscure, cult classic games with demos out there that went on to become very successful because the product was meant to be enjoyed, Mr. Schell? I bought five games last year because I got to try them first, although I'll be the first to admit I'm not an impulse buyer and don't give in to hype or word of mouth, which is hardly the case for most people.
But "hey, maybe we should make better games" is not what's going to be taken from this story, of course. Everyone wants to take the easy way out; everyone wants to point the blame at someone else.
In other words, there are two sides to this, like there are to everything else. He probably has a point; I'm sure some developers do lose money on this, and gosh darn it, business is about making money.
But if more effort was put toward making an entertaining experience rather than just making money, maybe more people would be willing to buy it after having a taste. It's the same "get what you put into it" model a lot of extremely successful businesses have bought into, and when some of those businesses are Google, Amazon, and Steam, standing as examples of what can happen when you try to make money by making a product people want to buy and find value in, it doesn't seem so crazy.
In other words, most developers are to blame here too when their numbers go down; you didn't make a compelling enough product, and that's your fault. The focus shouldn't be "make this game to make us some money", it should be "make this game that people want to play, and that will in turn make us money". Why don't you crack out the sales figures for obscure, cult classic games with demos out there that went on to become very successful because the product was meant to be enjoyed, Mr. Schell? I bought five games last year because I got to try them first, although I'll be the first to admit I'm not an impulse buyer and don't give in to hype or word of mouth, which is hardly the case for most people.
But "hey, maybe we should make better games" is not what's going to be taken from this story, of course. Everyone wants to take the easy way out; everyone wants to point the blame at someone else.
I have to say I sort of agree. I think demo's in general would hurt your game sales. (apart from pc spec testing)
The only thing you can tell from a demo is if a game is definitely going to be shit (not even that it definitely won't be shit). Personally a demo is never enough to convince me to buy a game, but it can write it off completely.
Before I buy a game I read/watch 3 reviews/gameplay videos and it's served me pretty well so far.
But in general, demos rarely if ever represent the actual game. The quality of the story can't shine through, the gameplay mechanics can't be that deep, it has to be completely accessible/get bogged down with tutorials, it has to be easy enough to get through guaranteed in one playthrough. Everything boils down to tepid mediocrity and lacks context.
Think about some of your favourite games, think about how much you got out of them in the first ten minutes (or before fully appreciating the backstory/gameplay), and think about how much could be conveyed in a demo.
HOWEVER, if it's the only way you can afford to market your game and you put enough time and effort to make a GOOD demo, then that;s an ideal scenario.
The only thing you can tell from a demo is if a game is definitely going to be shit (not even that it definitely won't be shit). Personally a demo is never enough to convince me to buy a game, but it can write it off completely.
Before I buy a game I read/watch 3 reviews/gameplay videos and it's served me pretty well so far.
But in general, demos rarely if ever represent the actual game. The quality of the story can't shine through, the gameplay mechanics can't be that deep, it has to be completely accessible/get bogged down with tutorials, it has to be easy enough to get through guaranteed in one playthrough. Everything boils down to tepid mediocrity and lacks context.
Think about some of your favourite games, think about how much you got out of them in the first ten minutes (or before fully appreciating the backstory/gameplay), and think about how much could be conveyed in a demo.
HOWEVER, if it's the only way you can afford to market your game and you put enough time and effort to make a GOOD demo, then that;s an ideal scenario.
I don't remember the last time I bought a game without trying it out beforehand. Oh no wait, I do, it was Dead Island and one of my biggest gaming regrets. Yeah, lesson learned. Before I can play a game, I never buy one, unless maybe when I really already know that it will be great, like hl3 for example.
Also, don't put that much trust into those numbers, they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. He just uses them in a way, that's most favorable for his arguments.
Also, don't put that much trust into those numbers, they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. He just uses them in a way, that's most favorable for his arguments.
Good for you, but that's just your personal experience.smithy_2045 said:
I was being sarcastic, just in case you didn't see.thebobmaster said:
Doesn't help that some haters really seem to think like what smithy or I said, at least when they're arguing.
My personal experience is as such because I do my research about whether I want to buy a game, and very rarely does it involve playing a demo.
Furthermore, my initial point is that a free demo costs additional time and money to make the demo and make it available for distribution. If it reduces their overall return on the game, which appears to be the typical case, why should they make a demo? The answer is, they shouldn't, despite what gamers may want. It'd vary from person to person, game to game and from company to company, but the overlying trend would almost certainly be demos increase costs and reduce revenues, neither of which are positives.
Furthermore, my initial point is that a free demo costs additional time and money to make the demo and make it available for distribution. If it reduces their overall return on the game, which appears to be the typical case, why should they make a demo? The answer is, they shouldn't, despite what gamers may want. It'd vary from person to person, game to game and from company to company, but the overlying trend would almost certainly be demos increase costs and reduce revenues, neither of which are positives.