Game Dev Claims Demos Hurt Game Sales

[ron1n]

This is why they don't release demos any more.

Instead they call them 'Betas' so that when people play said beta and it's terrible, they fool themselves into thinking
'oh it's just a beta, all this will be fixed once the full version comes out'

 

[Furism]

If a demo halves your sales in half, it's because your game sucks. I know a couple of people who purposely download pirated versions of games to check them out because they are fed up of paying $60 for a game that doesn't deliver the expected/promised features. And I don't have to explain that it's hard to sell a game people already got for free (albeit illegally). So, yeah, bring back demos to us.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

Plus, since there's the chance that the demo could be only okay or bad, it's often better for a game that's already poised to earn money to just spend the time and resources into polishing the game rather than releasing something that could hurt sales. Also, an okay demo for a terrible game doesn't actually help too often, since even if the demo is serviceable the player may opt to wait for reviews to come out, and when they do it usually leaves the player disinterested or feel that they got the most they could get with the demo. The same problem applies to the okay/okay situation, in which a player is either going to get it regardless or they'll just wait for reviews.

the question is with "awesome game awesome demo" is that is it worth it to do the extra work for a demo compared to how many less sales a game will get if that game is good enough to become popular on its own? the only game i can come up with that worked like that is minecraft, and i'm still not really sure why it continues to sell even though you would think that by now it would have reached some sort of saturation point, even before the game became "officially a complete game".

Well, I suppose there are really two kinds of demos. The "release this way before the actual game" demos and the "here's a sample of what our full game will offer you" demos. I'll agree that the former are more of a risk and more work to put together, but the latter are much safer and shouldn't be a whole lot of extra work. Note that the latter also serve pretty well as a "will this run on my machine" demo. That's not so big a deal on consoles, but it's much more important on PC. All other things being equal, a gamer certain that the game will run is a gamer more likely to buy the game.

I'm pretty certain that adding a demo only hurts your game if your game sucks.

More importantly: if your DEMO sucks.

You CAN make a great demo for a crappy game, and vice versa. If you release a demo, do so in a smart manner.

I stand corrected; you're right on both points, of course.

1) They've got empirical data. You can spout theory all you like, but the real world data says otherwise.

No, no, no, no, no! Repeat after me: correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does not imply causation.

Maybe indie games with smaller budgets are both more likely to have demos released (because they can't afford a large ad campain, e.g.) and less likely to have massive sales numbers (because it's a previously unheard-of indie game). In this example, it's not that one causes the other; it's that both are affected by the budget size. Unless their data accounts for factors such as this (and, given that available development resources are not always public information, I rather doubt it does), their empirical data is of limited value at best. And even if it did, that still wouldn't be enough to show causation. Unless they're running double-blind studies with game releases to gather this empirical data, that conclusion does not necessarily follow from their data. It might, of course -- but then again, it might not.

 

[Flutterguy]

I miss the old "demo disks" I got with my xbox magazine as a kid. Games like Voodoo Vince, Burnout and others I would not have boughten had I not had a demo. Nowadays the problem is you have DOWNLOAD a demo, the only people who will download one are people who don't plan on buying any games or who already had interest in it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

A demo/Trailer is to sell your game to customers. If your game sucks then why are you surprised your sales go down. On the other side, without demo/trailer you wont sell many because no one will have no idea about your game. Catch 22. lol

 

[Aesir23]

I'm calling B.S. on this, at least in my case. Most of the time I will not buy a game based on faith and reviews alone unless it just means risking a ridiculously minuscule amount of money. The only time I've made exceptions is with pre-orders when I've been extremely confident regarding my purchase. Other than that, many of the games I buy I will have tried first either through a demo or through borrowing a friend's copy.

Captcha: Fishy smell

Indeed, Captcha, indeed.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I kinda agree with this. I'd say roughly a third of my gaming collection wouldn't have been purchased if I'd been allowed to see for myself what utter garbage said game was before I forked over £40.

Game devs - Demos only hurt your game if it is a bad game. If it is a good game then a demo is simply free publicity.

 

[Daverson]

Perhaps he's right, but I'm sure the effect of dishonesty will have an even greater impact on the sales of future titles.

Case in point, how many people are biased against games from Ubisoft or EA simply because of the publisher? (heck, how many people pirate games just because they're by EA? Remember Spore?) People are naturally vindictive, if they feel you've slighted them, they will remember.

 

[Longstreet]

If people dont buy your game because of a demo, then

*inhales*

IT FUCKING SUCKED DONKEYBALLS

seriously, they blame absolutely EVERYTHING for their low(er than expected) game sales EXCEPT their own goddamn incompetence.

idiots

 

[havoc33]

You expect me to drop 60USD on a game without anything but METACRITIC to back it up?

What...are you retarded...or high...or highly retard?

Well, back in the day you only had a few reviews and word of mouth to go by, and I can't say we suffered because of it. Games were more expensive then too, a SNES game could cost up to 150USD. People's expectations have just changed. Back then you bought a couple of games a year and were happy about it, nowadays that is just not gonna fly.

Back to topic though, I can totally understand what the guy is talking about. With all the games coming out nowadays, I'm extremely picky about which games I buy. So in effect, if a demo does not blow my mind, I won't buy the game, although I probably would have finished it if I had bought it. So yes, from my personal experience, game demos has certainly made me more often than not decide against buying the game, and it's not necessarily because the demo was total shit.

 

[Zaeseled]

Well yeah, they do. But the demo is supposed to hook people in, if it fails to do that and instead satisfies your will to play the game, it's the fault of the developers.

 

[IronMit]

He uses a chart that shows sales figures of games with trailers against games with trailers and demo's.
The Games with only trailers sell twice as much as the one's with the demo's and trailers.

I find it interesting that you make demo a possessive but trailer a plural. Not an attack or grammar Naziing, but...Weird.

I was thinking that when I typed it..but 'demos' just looked really weird. It's like you would pronounce it D-mos.

 

[karloss01]

I think reviews hurt the sales more. i'm no longer getting Aliens: Colonial Marines because its getting below average scorres. I'm not adding another Limited Edition Duke Nukem Forver to my collection.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Here is a chart from the report from EEDAR that basically sums up the points made. Also I am going to repost a video made by Extra Credits that goes into much greater detail on this research than I can do justice to, what with me being completely tired right now.

Extra Credits: Demo Daze [http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/demo-daze]

 

[Kiardras]

It hurts game sales because people realise a game is crap, then don't buy it.

Without demos, people take a chance, spend money then find its crap.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

Instead of not making demoes to hide crappy games so they actually sell units, why not just stop making crappy games? I think the industry really needs to change it's model on game production (same goes for a lot of industries though); I honestly feel like I was playing more amazing games in the 90s, when now modern technology should be making today's games a step beyond and give a new creative freedom in development.

Anyone else remember replaying a demo over and over a hundred times because it was just that good? (The game usually followed suit!)

 

[Nazulu]

Anyone else remember replaying a demo over and over a hundred times because it was just that good? (The game usually followed suit!)

Funnily enough, I do. I remember wishing they were a lot longer.

Games these days don't seem like they have their own look and feel a lot of the time. I do a little research on every game and can easily predict what most is going to be like. I really shouldn't be able to.

 

[devotedsniper]

Maybe make a good game which doesn't rely on multiplayer? If a demo is good i will buy the game, if its bad i won't and if there isn't one i will usually download the entire game to try it.

Yer Yer piracy is bad but i play on pc and there are so many bad ports i can't afford to drop £30-40 on a game i CAN'T return, where with a console game i could (provided it didn't have an online pass). And i've seen a few of you mention reading reviews, most places will give a game 7 out of 10 just for being playable i've seen some terrible games (games which are universally hated by most) which get 8-9's.