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

[Fappy]

Demos are incredibly risky for both consumers and developers and offering them should absolutely not be a universal principle.

How can it be bad for a consumer?

- Developers can jam in the best bits of the game into a demo like how the best jokes in shitty comedy movies all appear in the trailers. When you get the main game and realize you've already seen all it has to offer, you'll be disappointed.
- Developers can set unrealistic expectations for the game by offering better graphical fidelity and stability in a demo that doesn't not actually represent the finished product.

How can it be bad for a developer?

- Some games are too complex and/or nuanced to represent in a 30-60 minute demo. Bravely Default is a good example of a crappy demo that didn't represent the finished product.
- It can also end up being a waste of resources to develop a demo that few people will actually download and play.

Overall I think demos are good, but in some cases they can be very bad.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

As much I'd like for it to be, I already understand why everything doesn't have a demo. Shame too, I really want to cut out the middleman of reviewers, entirely, gameplay trailers are helpful, demos are preferred. Thankfully I've been lucky and most of the games I look forward to have demos, and most of the demos are very transparent.

 

[Smooth Operator]

By law? Absolutely not, not every dev has the money and time for that.
Should that be mentioned at the forefront of all coverage (specifically reviews), absolutely. Demos are a huge plus point because they let everyone try for themselves how shit will or will not work, and a lack of demo should be pointed out prominently as it is likely devs would not like you to see what you buy.

 

[Tiger King]

I don't think it is necessary to make demos mandatory but yeah it would be nice.
Are demos not as available nowadays?

I recall as a kid that there would be CDs in gaming magazines that held a range of demos, do we not get these anymore?
Saying that I suppose it's all digital now?

 

[elvor0]

By law? That's mental. Also, a beta is NOT a demo; it /can/ demonstrate things, but that is not its primary purpose, it is to test the game to ensure it is functioning, hence why it is called a beta test.

Most people just aren't the type of people Betas are for, as they'll complain that the game is broken or buggy and not bother to report stuff, as they've been spoiled by "betas" that are in fact demos. So that's risky from a publisher/developer POV because it hurts the game through peoples own stupidity.

 

[Oly J]

I'm all in favour of more demos, I would never have even known about Yakuza (one of my favourite series) if I didn't stumble across a Yakuza 4 demo on the Playstation Store, I played that demo and said to myself "WHY HAVE I NOT BOUGHT THIS YET!?"

 

[MetalDooley]

By law no.How would you even bring in that law.After all we don't insist on other forms of entertainment having demos so singling out games would seem a bit harsh.

That said I do think games being sold digitally should be required to have a demo/trial by the store owner similar to the way all XBL Arcade games were required to have a trial on Xbox 360.One of the worst decisions MS made was to get rid of this requirement on Xbox One imo as there was loads of games I bought on 360 after playing the trial whereas I'm much more hesitant to buy games now

 

[Flames66]

I think it would be a good thing (not the law part, I am against government involvement in anything). There either need to be demos, or I need to be able to get a full refund for a game I didn't enjoy.

 

[loa]

I'd like more demos because "can I play this game with my computer" is something you can never truly be sure of since there are so many parts to it.
Maybe the game hates your controller, there goes controller support. Too bad if it's a game made with controllers in mind.
Maybe there's a rare conflict with a specific kind of hardware you use. Can't predict that without running the game.
Maybe this game does weird things like overheating your gpu/cpu for no reason while everything is fine and dandy for others.
Maybe it says it's compatible with your old OS like windows XP while it's really not. Maybe it actually is compatible even though it says it isn't.

Some benchmarks to see if there aren't any issues would be nice.

 

[Sansha]

Not law, that's hyperbole extremist, but I really wish more gamers demanded it, so more developers would make 'em.

 

[Major_Tom]

Demos or benchmarks should be required for PC games. 'System requirements' are a joke. Also, fuck you, CAPCOM.

 

[chadachada123]

- Some games are too complex and/or nuanced to represent in a 30-60 minute demo. Bravely Default is a good example of a crappy demo that didn't represent the finished product.

Whoa, what? The Bravely Default demo was both quite long AND is the very reason I bought it. I came into this thread with it in mind as a good example. Of course, they shouldn't be forced by law, but I'd absolutely love to see more lengthy demos like BD's.

 

[Fappy]

- Some games are too complex and/or nuanced to represent in a 30-60 minute demo. Bravely Default is a good example of a crappy demo that didn't represent the finished product.

Whoa, what? The Bravely Default demo was both quite long AND is the very reason I bought it. I came into this thread with it in mind as a good example. Of course, they shouldn't be forced by law, but I'd absolutely love to see more lengthy demos like BD's.

I heard from a lot of people who tried the demo that it was terrible, but I honestly never played it myself. The issue many of them had was that it was out of context grindy combat.

I got the game without ever playing the demo and loved it.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

You know what I think should be required from now on? P.T's. From now on. No more pre-rendered trailers. Put what you are announcing and advertising right in our hands.

 

[RJ 17]

Would it be nice if there were more demos out there? Certainly. Should it be "required by law"? Not really.

Personally I don't have that much difficulty in deciding what games I'm interested in getting. Most of the time I already know full-well that I'm going to be getting a game. Arkham Knight, for instance, won't be out for another few months but I'm certain I'll be picking it up as soon as I can. There are cases, though, in which I'll see a new game that piques my interest. However if I'm not completely sold on it, that's when I turn to reviewers to see what their opinion on the matter is. A lot of things can look great "on paper", but in execution they turn up lacking. This is what I use reviewers or Let's Plays for: to uncover the smelly turds hiding beneath the golden paint. After reading a review/watching a Let's Play for a game that I'm on the fence about, it generally gives me a good idea of whether or not the game is worth pursuing.

Just look at it this way: reviews aren't there to formulate your opinion for you, they're merely a tool to help you formulate your opinion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with reading a review and have it change your mind about a game you were interested in. Something to keep in mind, though, is that you are reading someone else's opinion on the matter, and everyone has their own distinct tastes. As such, even a review that comes across as negative can still convince me to go out and pick up a game. It could simply be made evident by the reviewer that they don't like a certain type of game that I do, or they don't like a certain aspect of a game that I would be interested in.

So yeah, as I said before: the trick is to simply use a review as a tool to help you formulate your opinion on whether or not a game is worth pursuing.

 

[Evonisia]

PC games should have demos because a vague system requirements list won't cover everything, but I don't think demos should be universal given how easily exploited they can be.

 

[Fasckira]

I remember as a kid buying magazines like PC Gamer and PC Zone purely to get the demo discs (christ, some of them were floppy disks too thinking back). Back then I wouldn't cough up cash for a game unless I'd played a demo first - money was a rarity at that age, and I certainly wasn't about to waste it based solely on a review.

These days though we have Lets Play videos on YouTube, access to a wide range of reviews, a wealth of content really. No need for a demo unless its a new concept game (fun fact, I recall when The Sims first came out and a lot of the reviews were like "Ehh... this wont last, its some kind of soap opera thing").

 

[BeerTent]

Let's be honest here. It's the AAA industry, could they tell their own ass from their face?

The main reason that Indies can deliver a demo and the AAA industry cannot is that most indies are find with delivering an incomplete part of the final product, adding some polish, and saying, "This is what we're about. Please buy if you enjoy it." And this is a great way of doing it!

When the AAA industry is faced with a similar idea, they need to get bureaucracy involved. And that costs a lot of money. We have a massive expense. On top of that, we have numerous scenarios.

The game is terrible, and the demo is terrible.
The game is good, and the demo is terrible.
The game is terrible, and the demo is good.
The game is good, and the demo is good.

In the first two scenarios, you've lost sales.
In the 3rd scenario, most people will wait for reviews, which then says the game is terrible. You've lost sales.
In the 4th option, you've succeeded.

So that's a 25% chance that a demo will actually help you out. Instead of the significantly higher chance that just having the PR Department smack your game with a sweet freakin' pre-rendered cutscene and "gameplay."

As for should it be a legal requirement? Pff, Fuck no. It's their decision on how to advertise their game, just like how it's our decision to decide if you really want it. I think we should step away from "required legislation" because someone might be offended. Put on your big-boy pants, and learn how to manage your fucking finances. If it's not worth $60 in your eyes, then don't goddamn buy it.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

- Some games are too complex and/or nuanced to represent in a 30-60 minute demo. Bravely Default is a good example of a crappy demo that didn't represent the finished product.

Whoa, what? The Bravely Default demo was both quite long AND is the very reason I bought it. I came into this thread with it in mind as a good example. Of course, they shouldn't be forced by law, but I'd absolutely love to see more lengthy demos like BD's.

I heard from a lot of people who tried the demo that it was terrible, but I honestly never played it myself. The issue many of them had was that it was out of context grindy combat.

I got the game without ever playing the demo and loved it.

I actually played the demo after getting the game (because you're supposed to be able to get some bonuses transferring data from the demo to the full game), and it is context-less grindy combat, but it also shows how the battle system works, as well as how some jobs perform (it even was fairly difficult if you didn't abuse the ninja at the start). I thought it worked fine in itself, but maybe the fact that I had played the main game coloured my view of it.

OT: I'd be OK with more demo being available, but I understand that not every game needs them, or that they don't always do a game justice. One example I played was Lightning Returns. I disliked the demo, because I thought the gameplay elements shown were too restricting (also I had a hard time wrapping my head around the change in style). Got the full game anyway, and I loved it.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

For all the flak XBLIG games got for poor signal-to-noise ratio and being difficult to find from the dashboard, one thing they did correctly was to always have a fully functional demo. If I remember correctly, this was a rule that couldn't be broken if you wanted your game published.

Perhaps Microsoft only enforced this rule so that customers were forced to view the big XBLIG disclaimer intro screen (saying the game had not been reviewed or quality tested by Microsoft) before potentially buying anything? Not sure, but in my opinion the policy did its job very well - bad games could be quickly eliminated without purchasing.

I can scarcely believe some of the responses in this thread from a crowd that's generally pro-consumer. It costs too much money? It isn't fair to certain genres? It might be poor marketing? Conflating trailers with playable demos? You can bet a mandatory demo would stop companies from releasing broken games like AC: Unity real quick. Marketing would still have its place, it would just enable players to see through the hype more easily. This is a bad thing somehow?

As for claims of false advertising that might come up because the final product turns out very different than the demo. If that's the case then the developer wasn't ready to release their demo in the first place. This could easily be corrected by releasing a second demo before the game hits store shelves.