next »

[Garthy]

Is it just me, or are there more games out there that seem to lack playable demos recently, and leave it to you to make a blind faith purchasing decision off some screenshots and videos, with no idea how well the game will even run on your hardware, or if you'll even enjoy it?

Is this a positive direction for us to be heading in?

Does it bother people?

Has the lack of a playable demo for a game become more acceptable in the last few years?

Consider a couple of recent games, both quite successful and lacking in the demo front: Minecraft and Terraria.

For Minecraft, you can try out an *extremely* old version browser-based version of the game, or a more-recent but still somewhat old magazine-branded version, which isn't readily found on the official pages. The actual release is somewhat more resource intensive, and plays somewhat differently. You can't get a demo of a recent version.

For Terraria, as far as I can tell, there is nothing. You just can't try it. Not for a minute to see if it works.

Now, people have asked about this sort of thing on official forums and countless unofficial threads (self included), and you'll get a number of responses, generally from other forum participants, including these sorts of comments:

- Comments saying "it's only $x", with the implication that it is okay to drop $x on something you might not even be able to use, since relatively speaking, it isn't "much".
- To try out the "pirated" version as an unofficial demo. But if the honour system is the right thing to do, wouldn't the developers put out their own version? What if you'd rather not run dodgy software as an evaluation?
- Attacks on the character of the person asking. For Minecraft, I've seen people being attacked as being "entitled brats" for daring to ask about a demo version that they could try before purchase!

I'm not sure I've ever seen the developers themselves comment on such threads, no doubt as they're a touchy topic that could cost them sales, but they certainly seem to close them fast.

Now, it certainly goes beyond games. There was a certain engine I looked into a bit back (I won't mention which one, they probably don't deserve the bad publicity), and there was no way to evaluate a part of its technology. When I asked on the forums, it was suggested to me that since $150 was pretty cheap compared to the overall cost of development, I should just pay $150 to try it out. Some years ago, when evaluating the potential use of a very expensive piece of software (many thousands of dollars), contacting the local sales area that sold the software of this gigantic multinational corp and explaining the problem resulted in a suggestion that we try to find a "pirated" version of the software, evaluate against that, and if it was suitable, then buy the product. So it's not just limited to games, but let's keep the focus there for the time being.

Have attitudes toward such games changed recently? Is it acceptable to ask for a blind faith jump and pay to take a chance, when the price is "good enough"? Are games moving toward parity with many other products, where you can't really try the product out before you buy? Is it reasonable to expect a demo of a game? Is it really okay for people to buy a product, discover they can't use it, and then struggle to get a refund, all because there was no way for them to try it beforehand? Does that strike people as dishonest? Are "pirated" versions of software the new demonstration versions? Does the lack of a demo version of software bother you? Does it affect your buying decision? Does it stop you from buying? What if the game just doesn't work- what do you think, and what do you do? Surely every "just shut up and buy it" forum post isn't a sockpuppet, is this a fundamental shift in our thinking as a whole?

What do people think?

[Paul Eres]

i think this is kind of an exaggeration; despite a couple of prominent examples, the ratio of indie games without demos to ones with demos is probably 1% or less. for every game you can name that doesn't have a demo, i can name 99 games that have demos

[Garthy]

i think this is kind of an exaggeration; despite a couple of prominent examples, the ratio of indie games without demos to ones with demos is probably 1% or less. for every game you can name that doesn't have a demo, i can name 99 games that have demos

That would be an interesting challenge. I won't take you up on it, but if I did, I'd say there'd be a good chance that you'd win anyway.

Still, there are a couple of very successful high-profile indie(-ish) games that have become very successful despite lacking demos, which means a lot of people are buying them, based on.... I'm not sure exactly. That really leads to the purpose of this thread. Are they no longer important, do people not care about demos, is it a poor direction to go in, or completely unimportant? I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Which bit do you feel is exaggerated, by the way?

[Paul Eres]

the part that i feel is exaggerated is the idea that this is a new thing. it's not; the ratio of indie games without demos to those with demos has remained pretty much constant over the last 20 years, in my experience. you can find many topics exactly like this one on indie game forums over the last 20 years, as well, so it gets a bit repetitive to see a topic like this every few months

also, with minecraft, it does have a demo, the demo isn't just updated or to your personal liking as to what a demo should be. that's different from not having a demo. so the only example you actually named is terraria. and considering that terraria is often on sale for $2.50 or less on steam, that wasn't a particularly big deal to me; the time it'd take to download a demo and try it out to see if i like it isn't even worth saving $2.50 to me, i'd rather just buy it, have the actual game, and see if i like it after that, and if i didn't like it or it can't install, i only lost 2 dollars and a half, which is a drag but isn't a big deal, i lose way more than that when i, say, buy a snack that i don't finish eating

can you name more examples of indie games besides terraria which don't have demos? i can't think of any

[C.A. Sinner]

Does the lack of a demo version of software bother you?

application software: yes, games: not really

[Garthy]

the part that i feel is exaggerated is the idea that this is a new thing. it's not; the ratio of indie games without demos to those with demos has remained pretty much constant over the last 20 years, in my experience.

Ah, I see. Thankyou for your opinion on that one- although there were nicer ways to say it. From my perspective, it seems as though things are changing a bit, perhaps spurred on by two games (Minecraft, Terraria) I have found interesting (ie. I'm saying that they have changed my opinions, not necessarily reality!). From yours, nothing much has changed. Fair enough, I want to find out what people think. Am I alone in my thoughts, or am I just biased due to the particular games that interest me? I'd like to get a rough idea as to what people think, and not just in a "right" or "wrong' kind of way.

you can find many topics exactly like this one on indie game forums over the last 20 years, as well, so it gets a bit repetitive to see a topic like this every few months

You do not have to read or participate if it does not take your interest! The thread will die fast if nobody cares. There are plenty of topics on mathematics, for example, that go over topics that have been done to death hundreds of years ago. It still gets discussed.

also, with minecraft, it does have a demo, the demo isn't just updated or to your personal liking as to what a demo should be.

My personal liking? I don't think that it is necessary to turn this into a personal thing, in fact, part of my post touches on how people attack others over the matter (the "entitled" attack). Does it seem right to you?

that's different from not having a demo. so the only example you actually named is terraria. and considering that terraria is often on sale for $2.50 or less on steam, that wasn't a particularly big deal to me; the time it'd take to download a demo and try it out to see if i like it isn't even worth saving $2.50 to me, i'd rather just buy it, have the actual game, and see if i like it after that, and if i didn't like it or it can't install, i only lost 2 dollars and a half, which is a drag but isn't a big deal

Yes, this is another thing I touched on- is there an amount at which it becomes "okay" to just gamble the money? Is this a good thing?

can you name more examples of indie games besides terraria which don't have demos? i can't think of any

I'm more interested in discussing the topic than playing who-is-the-indiest (besides, I suck at that game), so I'll leave this one alone. I'm mostly interested in hearing people's thoughts on the topic. If it helps, I can't think of one off the top of my head- I listed the two that I did think of (and two examples of non-game, non-indie software). I'd have to dig around to find more. If I dug around, I'd find one, eventually. What then?

[Garthy]

Does the lack of a demo version of software bother you?

application software: yes, games: not really

Why is that? Does it relate to the cost, that one is a tool and one is an entertainment product, or something else?

[Paul Eres]

i agree that people shouldn't be personally attacked for asking for a demo of something, but i also think that they are not entitled to one. it's the game developer's decision, not the audience's decision. if i wanted to release a game without a demo that costs $400 to buy, that's my right; it's also the right of people not to buy it. the fact that minecraft is succeeding wildly without an up-to-date demo shows it isn't exactly hurting sales much to do it that way

i think it's also notable that the only games which really do this tend to be games that are very popular. if you know that people are going to buy a game whether it has a demo or not, why bother with the demo? it'd be suicide for an unknown game to not have a demo, but popular games don't really need one

another way to think of it is that the top 0.1% of most popular indie games are not "shareware" in the traditional sense. they are not sold on the virtues of the demo. the demo isn't their primary marketing tool, the way it is with others. instead, they are sold on their popularity, and on hype, and on word of mouth. so the rules that apply to them don't apply to most indie games

so the reason i asked for examples other than terraria and minecraft is absolutely not to "play the indiest" or whatever, it's to ask: do you know of any non-popular indie games that do not have demos? or is it only the very popular games that sell millions of copies that don't have demos? might there not be a reason for that?

[C.A. Sinner]

1. a piece of application software is usually expensive and is usually something im going to use for a long time.

2. i dont like playing game demos. i dislike having to replay part of the game when i buy the full version and taking the plunge is just more fun for me. id rather have the whole experience all at once. i can usually tell if im going to like a game by watching gameplay footage, looking at screenshots etc.

just to be clear i still think its a good idea for game devs (or publishers) to offer a demo for people who want it.

[Udderdude]

As an aside, having a demo that's >500 MB is almost as bad as not having a demo, since few people are willing to burn the bandwidth just to try it out.

[Garthy]

i agree that people shouldn't be personally attacked for asking for a demo of something, but i also think that they are not entitled to one. it's the game developer's decision, not the audience's decision. if i wanted to release a game without a demo that costs $400 to buy, that's my right; it's also the right of people not to buy it.

Of course, it is the developer's decision. Similarly, I would also be entitled to offer a game, but refuse to tell anybody what it's about. I could just say "just pay me $50, everyone else does!". I would- and *should*- be called on such poor behaviour, even if I retorted that I have every right to make that decision, and I was completely right. I think this is the difference between what you can do, and what you *should* do. Or, at least, what I should consider. I'd say that my position would lose me the moral high ground, and I'd wonder as to someone's motivation if they then stood up for me, and attacked someone who questioned my stance as "entitled". That seems odd to me. I'd better understand someone who criticised my decision to remove the ability to make an informed purchase.

But then, part of my post wonders about that too. Are games held to a higher standard, should it be enough to just show demos and screenshots? I mean, you don't get a trial period on a new watch, or a rented movie (no matter how bad it is). Maybe the premise that games should have a demo is completely wrong?

the fact that minecraft is succeeding wildly without an up-to-date demo shows it isn't exactly hurting sales much to do it that way

I know, and I find this absolutely fascinating personally. One reason is this: Suppose we work on the premise that a demo is important, or unimportant. If it is unimportant, two big hits, such as Minecraft and Terraria, certainly seem to suggest that the "unimportant" premise is true, especially if we consider demoless games as a rarity. If a demo is important, then it suggests games like these are either sufficiently strong on their own merits that they can somehow overcome this hurdle, or have some property by which the hurdle becomes insignificant. That property might be as simple as fame, which you mention (as in, relating to popularity) in the rest of your post.

[Udderdude]

I think the only way a demo could hurt sales is if your game looks great but plays poorly, and has a very low (impulse buy level) price tag.  If people try the demo and realize it plays like crap, they won't buy it, while if it had no demo, they might impulse buy it and only regret their decision later .. or shrug it off as "It was only $0.99/$1.99" or whatever.

[sublinimal]

I still think the shareware model is the optimal way of releasing (indie) games. Remind me again why it went out of fashion.

[Udderdude]

I still think the shareware model is the optimal way of releasing (indie) games. Remind me again why it went out of fashion.

Shareware was basically just another fancy term for Demo.  It had a small portion of the game you were free to pass around, while the registered (Read as: Full) version had the rest of the game content.  It was just a catchy term.

I think some Shareware games were the full versions you were free to pass around and pay for if you wanted to, though.  Those are more like today's free games that ask for Paypal donations .. haha.

[Garthy]

1. a piece of application software is usually expensive and is usually something im going to use for a long time.

Ah! I'm guessing the two go together, ie. you'd pay a lot for application software *because* you're going to use it for a long time if it's good, *but* you're certainly not going to pay that much money for it unless you can check it out for sure first? Is this right?

Suppose (and this might be a stretch), you found a game that you *knew* you were going to enjoy for a long time, say ten years. It costs $500. It *might* have a demo, but you're not sure.

What would you do?

(I'll share my thoughts on the same questions if you like, just let me know)

2. i dont like playing game demos. i dislike having to replay part of the game

I'm with you on that one, I personally *hate* that. I know that personally my preferred way is to play a game, have it stop at some point, and basically say "that's enough of a taste, pay for the full meal if you want it". If I've been having fun, I'll pay  . But not all games do that.

- I only play game demos if I've checked the price beforehand, and I've decided that if I like it, I'll buy it. I find game demos too jarring otherwise.

when i buy the full version and taking the plunge is just more fun for me. id rather have the whole experience all at once. i can usually tell if im going to like a game by watching gameplay footage, looking at screenshots etc.

It can certainly give a fair idea. Personally, for me, this is the sort of thing that makes me track the demo down in the first place.

just to be clear i still think its a good idea for game devs (or publishers) to offer a demo for people who want it.

Yeah, that's pretty much my position too.

Thanks for sharing.