I played games back in the twilight past, before the idea of a console game demo had even fluttered in a publisher's waking thoughts. If I think back, I realize there must have been a decent amount of money wasted on the games I discovered I didn't care for after a half hour of play. Demos therefore amazed me from the very start, and I am eternally thrilled to be able to give most titles a spin before I buy them. According to a study from last week’s MI6 video game marketing conference, however, it seems that demos are actually less effective than trailers when it comes to selling games. Huh?
The study was presented by Gregory Short and Geoffery Zatkin, the main men on the Electronic Entertainment Design and Research group (EEDAR.) The study found that the big selling titles on the 360 and PS3 actually benefitted from trailers from the Live and PS3 networks, rather than demos. Perhaps the idea of a game is still more beguiling than the hands-on experience? Hit the jump for graphs, personal meanderings and possibly more cheeseburgers.
So here are the charts shown in connection with the research done by the EEDAR. I know charts are mind-numbing business and make you want to walk away from the computer, but give these a second to sink in.
Okay...so what you see there, in order of effectiveness, is that people seem to like trailers, demo & trailers, no demo or trailer and demo only best, in that order (for PS3.) The 360 stats make a little more sense at a glance, as no demo or trailer is the lowest stat, but you still find yourself saying: wait...some people like nothing better than they like an actual demo? Really?
It sounds incredibly odd, yet it got me thinking about the way I felt about games when I played the NES every day, and I remembered that the excitement I felt about a release had a lot to do with my own imagination, which was a good thing as it was pretty strong back in those days. In the modern age, information about any upcoming game is everywhere, from print to the internet, so even without a demo we can find out a tremendous amount of information about any upcoming title. Bottom line -- gamers will likely buy a game even if they haven't played it first based on their own emotions about it, which isn't so different from me skipping home from the game store at age ten holding a few brightly colored NES rental boxes.
It's nice to think that same feeling plays a role today, but a different viewpoint would suggest that publishers are smarter not to put out demos for games that perhaps are less than stellar, which means they sell copies anyway, but the gamer is merely disappointed when he or she gets home and plays the final product. Also, if one takes into account that the biggest selling titles are all huge series entries (Halo, GTA, Call of Duty, etc) and can have a huge effect on the "trailer only" demographic, the information above can't be viewed in a general light.
What's your opinion -- do you prefer to buy a game after playing the demo, or will you buy a game you are interested in no matter what?
[Via MTV Multiplayer]
Contest:
1:13 PM on 04.14.2008
| 
I mean look at little Vader... just look at 'em. Almost makes you wanna take him home until you realize he'd force choke your cat the first time it hissed at him.
I know myself that there were a few games I was considering buying, only to be saved by a demo which showed me how terrible the game actually was, compared to a trailer which maked it look OK.
demos at least give you some gameplay to see how the game will be. i bought many more games playing the demos first.
now with technology they have to put more demos on consoles there should be no excuse to have them for us to see if we would care for there games. trailers rarely show you anything and is a waste of there time. time they could of spent giving us at least 5 min of gameplay.
Demos = kissing the girl
Do you spend more money after you finally seal the deal? No.
My case rests.
(I didn't even touch on relationshi- I mean, microtransactions)
Demos are the truth, I can handle the truth.
Haven't read the study itself though :)
This is the feeling I'm getting from the press coverage of Fallout 3, for example. By leaking out tidbits of information here and there and only providing one trailer, players eagerly pay attention to the next release of news or information because the know it's all they'll get. Very smart move.
All this shows is statistical correlation, not causality.
"All this shows is statistical correlation, not causality."
Demos = power to the people.
FAR more crappy games are released with only trailers (or commercials, or print ads) than are released with demos. Demos cost money to make and aren't worth a developer's time on a crappy product. Also, I've seen TONS of trailers for Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed (not on PSN or Live, but on the net and on TV) so there goes that argument.
I think it comes down to this simple fact: It's easier to make a bad game look good in a trailer than it is to make a bad game PLAY well in a demo.
Trailers probably don't cause games to lose potential buyers as much as they bring in new customers or hype a game to look decent in general.
Demos are a deal-breaker for A LOT of games. I can't tell you how many games I originally wanted but decided against after playing a demo.
If I want a game, a mediocre trailer doesn't automatically put the game in the "NO BUY" pile, but a mediocre demo pretty much always does.
Although, if I didn't read reviews, the pre-release trailers for Kane and Lynch would have sold me in a heartbeat (well, up until the last few gameplay clips which were less encouraging). Turns out I was broke when it came out anyways, but I read the reviews, saved my cash when I had it. Later I played the post-release demo on XBL, hated it, and was glad I didn't base a purchase descion on a trailer.
Demos or GTFO.
Seems...wrong.
Also, I'd be more than a little sceptical as to the accuracy of these results. did unit sales include those from proven franchises like Call of Duty or Halo? If the respective developers were to put out messages saying "Our latest installment is shit" it would still sell well, so including those skews things.
All things considered, this was some pretty worthless research actually, I hope someone didn't pay a lot for it :P
pretty much agree with this guy....but as far as me personally a demo is more effctive
I would much rather play a demo, but a trailer can certainly pique my interest, if it's presented well. The recent Resistance demo, for example, doesn't really interest me, but the actual mechanics of the gameplay (as we know them, currently) sound interesting to me. If I got to experience them firsthand, that might do more for me.
At the same time, though, a demo isn't always a good representation of the game. Generally, developers try to put good content in the demo, but sometimes they misstep and don't show the game's best face, so to speak. A crappy demo might put me off a game, but a good trailer could convince me to rent it anyway. It goes both ways.
Any game with a trailer will suck 87% of the time of course they do not want you to play it with a demo.
Otherwise, if they are indeed linked by causality, I could imagine that there are people out there who play only demos of games, because they're cheap. I could also imagine that people play a demo, find out the game sucks, and then don't buy it, where companies who opt not to release a demo don't give consumers the luxury.
Case in point: Turning Point: Fall of Liberty. All the trailers and everything I had seen leading up to the game’s release had me really psyched for the game. It looked awesome, and I thought the premise was very original. However, pretty much everyone said the demo sucked, and I never gave the game a second thought.
I agree that trailers tend to get you hyped for a game, like movie trailers trying to make the film look good even if its a piece of crap, the same holds true for any type of trailer. Its meant to get you interested in the title.
But demos are another matter. Its usually an unfinished product meaning the gameplay might be different in the final version than the demo. The problem is if the demo is shit then people think the same will be true of the game. Which it could definatly be that way, but there is a chance it might not be. I think that's why companies are reluctant to release a demo vs. multiple trailers as these charts partially demonstrate.
There have been cases where I downloaded a demo, liked it, bought the game and was happy. Also the opposite, tried a demo, didn't like it and skipped the game. Would I have bought it had I only seen trailers? Maybe. But with games costing $60 I have to really think if I want it or not. Personally, I like demos, it lets me get a feel for the game before I plunk down $60 on it rather than go in blindly basing my decision on trailers.
Me after playing Jericho demo (on PC): That's a pile of dogshit.
So publishers, if your PC port is god awful you shouldn't release a demo so folks won't realize it's impossible to play without a 360 controller until it's too late.
1) Demos shouldn't be released until the final build of the game-- or at least there should be a new/finalized demo when the game goes gold. Doing otherwise is like releasing a movie trailer before there's been any editing or post-production.
2) Demos should give full option menus and interfaces, with full controller-setup options. The game content is already restricted (obviously), so it can only harm the demo and turn off the consumer if the very mechanics are restricted too. It's just weird.
Needless to say I'm pretty thankful for the new era of downloadable demos for console games. Saved me a lot of money.
While I don't like it, I can live without demos. But, I better see some actual gameplay, along with some essential game rules. If they won't release actual gameplay, I'll automatically assume that they are embarrassed by their own product, or they actually believe this focus group BS. In both cases, their product probably sucks.
And if their product really DOES suck, well... buyer beware. If people buy things at random, they deserve what they get. I'm not going to cave in to that crap.