Differences between xbl and psn(online only)

[Shifty Geezer]

You do realize that demos are only a natural extension/expansion of those in-store kiosks where vendors/publishers supply a demonstration disc for the store to keep in the console to attract users? Why not get rid of those demo kiosks in stores if developers/publishers are so afraid of demos?!

It's only some developers. Other developers are happy to release games. How many rubbish games were showcased in store? Plus the reach of the download is far, far wider than a demo kiosk. You may put off a few thousand potential buyers from in-store kiosk demos, but that still leaves masses of ignorant shoppers with no more understanding of your game than the hype you've been feeding them!

 

[Cheezdoodles]

That's only a plus to me, as a consumer. .

Thats cute, but you where just arguing that Demo's will increase your sales blah blah blah. You where NOT talking about how demo's are good for you as a consumer. This is obvious for ANYONE.

I understand that as a consumer it helps you choose, but this is beside the point. a demo doesn't necessarily incease your sales!

There is no evidence that demos will boost your sales in general. Its totally dependant on your product, whereas you just tried stating otherwise.

I'm fairly confident that the success of demos, as a whole, outweighs the negatives. If not for the businesses, definitely for the consumer. And the vast majority of us here are consumers.

Cute but your post didn't talk about how great it was for consumers. Your post tried to say that demos will increase your sales. Which as a general statement is totally absurd.

I don't really get those people who think demos are bad. For me as a consumer demos are always good, I prefer to test before I buy. It's not my problem if a game maker makes a bad demo out of a good product(grhm... heavenly sword for example).

Im not saying that demos are bad! IM SAYING THAT THEY DONT NECESSARILY INCREASE YOUR SALES!

I completely understand that demos are good for the consumer as it makes your choice easier, but this =\= good for the developer.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You do realize that demos are only a natural extension/expansion of those in-store kiosks where vendors/publishers supply a demonstration disc for the store to keep in the console to attract users? Why not get rid of those demo kiosks in stores if developers/publishers are so afraid of demos?! It's simply natural for anyone who has a product they want to sell to allow people to try it out. I coach a masters swim team. I tell everyone before they even pay a single dollar to try it out first to see if they'll like it; otherwise, it's not worth it.

Yes, but what the does this has to do with Ashers theory that demos allways boost sales?

 

[Asher]

Thats cute, but you where just arguing that Demo's will increase your sales blah blah blah. You where NOT talking about how demo's are good for you as a consumer. This is obvious for ANYONE.

I understand that as a consumer it helps you choose, but this is beside the point. a demo doesn't necessarily incease your sales!

There is no evidence that demos will boost your sales in general. Its totally dependant on your product, whereas you just tried stating otherwise.



Cute but your post didn't talk about how great it was for consumers. Your post tried to say that demos will increase your sales. Which as a general statement is totally absurd.



Im not saying that demos are bad! IM SAYING THAT THEY DONT NECESSARILY INCREASE YOUR SALES!

I completely understand that demos are good for the consumer as it makes your choice easier, but this =\= good for the developer.

I think you need to realize that no one is saying demos will always increase sales for every game. We're talking in general terms. If you make a crap product with a crap demo, it won't increase your sales.

We didn't talk about this because it's really obvious. We're speaking in general terms.

I don't care if it's good for the developer. I'm not a developer.

Yes, but what the does this has to do with Azbats theory that demos allways boost sales?

This is the same strawman you tried on me. No one said they always increase sales. We are speaking in general terms, not absolutes. There are no absolutes.

 

[Acert93]

Yes, but what the does this has to do with Azbats theory that demos allways boost sales?

A demo won't always boost sales. Games with flaws (or just plain bad) or a bad demo can turn customers away. In the case of a good game with bad demo it could be a negative for the company.

The other side of the fence is there are a lot of people who won't even consider a purchase without a demo. I know I would NOT buy an XBLA game without a demo. So it is difficult to get a 'net sum' on this but I am sure bad games with bad demos do themselves no good with a demo.

But from a platform perspective this is a good thing. It is a passive way to weed out bad products while not outright banning them out right (afterall I know a lot of people who like BAD games!). Letting customers get a fair shake before they pay is good for consumers, helps quality games, and is good for the platforms general health and ecosystem. And while it is a tough pill to swallow for poor games there is no ignoring some would refuse to buy at all without a demo (so some net there) and the general platform health and robustness hurts (competition) but also has a bigger, more diverse pool who, you know, means there are people willing to pay for crappy niche games

I bought Havok Tanks e.g. Not a great game and I am sure the demo turned some people off. But it is a well done, straight forward "action" Scorched Earth. It was perfect for our little group for 4 way. Accessible, fun, and quick. No AI and online is basic and while there are options it is limited. Without a demo I NEVER buy this game. The demo prob turned people off. But it was exactly what I wanted so we paid $5 and got it. The game is small and this is the exact sort of game that you find all over the net supported by shareware and web serving via ad support. People overblow the cost of bandwidth because certain companies are charging just like a data facillity does for "overcharges for exceeding quota" which are *outrageous* in relation to the actual cost of BW. "We" used this strategy in the industry for host facillities to discourage high utilization customers and to upsell those that were while keeping margins large on other users. It was a excellent profit center that had no direct relation to real cost but with the assumed principle that customers who utilize more resources require more support and are more prone to track uptime, etc.

Ultimately a platform strategy is a very, very complex animal with a lot of variables. Balancing internal platform, consumer, and partner needs in a dynamic and expanding market isn't easy.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I think you need to realize that no one is saying demos will always increase sales for every game. We're talking in general terms.

I don't care if it's good for the developer. I'm not a developer.

The post i replied to said nothing whats good for the consumer. Want me to requote you? You are talking about how demo's will sell games, and how demos sell chairs etc.

Now your talking from a consumers viewpoint.... Read your own post? Nothing there about how its good for the consumer, but a lot about how demos is a really good way to sell your ****.

 

[Asher]

Your entire post said nothing about consumer choice, but just about how it boosts sales.

Word your self properly, as what your talking about now (im not a developer), has nothing to do with your initial post.

My wording is fine. If English is not your first language, I apologize.

We are speaking in general terms. That is, no one is saying releasing a crap demo of a crap game will increase your sales. It's just an effective way to boost sales, provided you have a title with at least some desirable qualities and your demo showcases those.

It's very simple stuff. If you're talking about the case of bad games where demos reduce sales, why do you care? Why do we care? Why would we ever talk about it? That's the purpose of the demo. Such cases do exist, I'm sure of it. I've been turned off of games by their demos before, too. But I've also purchased more games than I've been turned off by on the demo alone.

The demos help combat the nature of shovelware and awful games. It's no wonder some developers hate them so much. The fact that demos on XBL are mandatory will, if anything, help push up the quality of games because people know they can't get away with the equivalent of Harry Potter EA games on XBLA and have reasonable sales. The mandatory demos are good for multitudes of reasons, and yes, they do increase sales -- provided you have a mediocre or better game. Either way, it's a public service.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It's just an effective way to boost sales, provided you have a title with at least some desirable qualities and your demo showcases those.

This does not hold true in a generalized case either. Your game might have desirable qualities but this doesn't mean that it a demo will increase sales. Contrary to what your marketing classes might say.

Unless your game percieved to be better than the competition, your demo will reduce sales. ads would probably do a better job selling such games.

Its obvious that if you have the best game ever, a good demo will boost sales, but its far from obvious that a good game will increase it sales by creating a demo, rather than going by ads + review scores alone.

After all your game competes with the other games out there, even thought it might have desirable qualities, there might be other games that are percieved to be better. Without playing the demo, many consumers might not know, and choose to buy the game based on review scores or whatever. Playing the demo, many consumers might pass on the game, because they feel that while the game is good, i already have an excellent game in the same genre or whatever.

Without numbers, you cannot make absurd generalized cases that demos are good for the developers.

 

[Asher]

That's certainly an interesting theory but I cannot fathom how it could possibly be true.

Why do you think demos only serve to reduce sales? If that were true why are demos so popular on so many platforms? Why would they want to reduce their sales?

I've purchased more games over the years due to demos rather than be turned off by them. Combined with the fact that it IS something basically inherent to marketing (it's why we have PS3 kiosks, for example), I have a really hard time buying that demos only reduce sales in most cases.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Im not saying that they only reduce sales, they might increase sales, they might not.

Im saying that your generalized case is absurd. Demos dont automatically sell anything.

 

[Asher]

Im not saying that they only reduce sales, they might increase sales, they might not.

Im saying that your generalized case is absurd. Demos dont automatically sell anything.

Okay, I'm done in this thread...these strawmen really get my goat.

No one said anything about automatically selling anything. I don't know where you got that from...frankly, I don't care.

Fact is, product demonstrations are one of the best ways to sell a product -- provided it isn't a bad product. This is true in virtually every sector of business, not just gaming. XBLA is as successful as it is because it gave people the opportunity to try games before buying, it's certainly why I got into it along with many other people. Otherwise I'd probably ignore the market completely as too risky -- can't resell it, why bother?

If you want to disagree with the notion that product demonstrations of any reasonably capable product are good for its sales, you're more than welcome to do that. See if you can find any business forums and say that, but they may ban you for making such an "obvious troll".

 

[Cheezdoodles]

No one said anything about automatically selling anything. I don't know where you got that from...frankly, I don't care.

Think about it in basic Marketing 101 principles. You don't think product demos sell? My colleague just bought a $2000 massaging Panasonic chair because of a demo over the weekend. He was at The Ex (a big fair in Toronto) and they had a booth set up. He'd never thought of buying one, but he wanted to sit down. He sat down, he loved it to death, and he impulse bought it. A demo that generated sales -- what a foreign concept?

It's general consensus and common wisdom that when you can do a demo, you do it. Unless your product is really bad. If someone wants to argue against the general case for demos, which is really an absurd assertion, then they will need to provide the evidence that flies in the face of common sense and conventional wisdom and our anecdotal evidence.

This pretty much says that unless your product is crap, you do a demo.

Im confident i can make a very good case for tons of average games that have hurt from releasing demos, because people find out your product is indeed average and since games all costs $60 bucks, you tend to want a great game, not a good or medicore one. Thus a demo proving that your game is indeed not great(still might be good), can very well reduce your sales.

 

[patsu]

You do realize that demos are only a natural extension/expansion of those in-store kiosks where vendors/publishers supply a demonstration disc for the store to keep in the console to attract users? Why not get rid of those demo kiosks in stores if developers/publishers are so afraid of demos?! It's simply natural for anyone who has a product they want to sell to allow people to try it out. I coach a masters swim team. I tell everyone before they even pay a single dollar to try it out first to see if they'll like it; otherwise, it's not worth it.

I think the basic problem here is people are overreacting. The studies only say demoes are not necessarily good for every game. And this applies to the current demo mechanism.

People who make claims (or think others are claiming) that demoes are bad for all games in general are missing the point altogether.

Personally, for games and movies, I don't mind the consumers -- like me -- taking a bit of risk. It gives the devs more space to experiment. I actually am very interested to see if Noby Noby Boy had a demo, how many would buy. Sometimes, the novelty is the selling point. After I bought it, I played for 1-2 hours and get bored. Is it a bad buy for me for 5 bucks ?

Hardly. Turns out that my kid loves it. He didn't check out the demo. I certainly didn't buy NNB for him. Now he thinks it's some sort of skills to get NNB to swallow stuff and poop. Brings smiles to me every time I see him play and turn around to look at me. In my mind, I also see the NNB creator working hard on his next crazy idea. I will probably support him again. Intuitively I just think that it's important to keep people like him alive in the industry. We are not buying/selling shoes here.

In PSN and XBL context, the reason I said it's moot to take a snapshot to compare because networked services are ever changing. I mentioned that they both have their strengths and weaknesses. joker454 wanted some examples and I listed them. I call out Sony's problems all the time. Doesn't mean I hate it. In the same vein, I felt that the demo is always good mantra is not necessarily true. Then again, like I say, MS and Sony will evolve again to try to improve sales performance.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think the basic problem here is people are overreacting. The studies only say demoes are not necessarily good for every game. And this applies to the current demo mechanism.

I don't think anyone would argue with you. I think people were only reacting strongly because you and others seemed to be suggesting that demos were a waste of time, money and bandwidth that were better spent elsewhere. The conversation even broke down into a hypothetical and uninformed argument about infrastructure.

People who make claims (or think others are claiming) that demoes are bad for all games in general are missing the point altogether.

Personally, for games and movies, I don't mind the consumers -- like me -- taking a bit of risk. It gives the devs more space to experiment. I actually am very interested to see if Noby Noby Boy had a demo, how many would buy. Sometimes, the novelty is the selling point. After I bought it, I played for 1-2 hours and get bored. Is it a bad buy for me for 5 bucks ?

This does not make any sense at all. How does not releasing a demo allow developers to take more risks? There is no way in knowing if Noby whatever would have sold more or less, so it is irrelevant.

Hardly. Turns out that my kid loves it. He didn't check out the demo. I certainly didn't buy NNB for him. Now he thinks it's some sort of skills to get NNB to swallow stuff and poop. Brings smiles to me every time I see him play and turn around and look at me. In my mind, I also see the NNB creator working hard on his next crazy idea. I will probably support him again. Intuitively I just think that it's important to keep people like him alive in the industry. We are not buying/selling shoes here.

Wait, so you're saying that because there was no demo available you purchased a game that your son coincidentally really loves because of the eating pooping mechanism, which in turn makes you happy .... What does this have to do with supporting developers, or keeping creative minds in the industry alive? Why does this have to do with shoes? And you son enjoys Noby Boy .... ok .... If there was a demo, would he have enjoyed it less, and would you have not tried it or bought it for him? This conversation isn't making a lot of sense.

In PSN and XBL context, the reason I said it's moot to take a snapshot to compare because networked services are ever changing. I mentioned that they both have their strengths and weaknesses. joker454 wanted some examples and I listed them. I call out Sony's problems all the time. Doesn't mean I hate it. In the same vein, I felt that the demo is always good mantra is not necessarily true. Then again, like I say, MS and Sony will evolve again to try to improve sales performance.

What does this mean? So in some cases demos will be bad, but in a general sense are you really saying they are not a positive value add for the customer, or what?

 

[patsu]

I don't think anyone would argue with you. I think people were only reacting strongly because you and others seemed to be suggesting that demos were a waste of time, money and bandwidth that were better spent elsewhere. The conversation even broke down into a hypothetical and uninformed argument about infrastructure.

I said demo is a waste of bandwidth if it's ineffective.
I mentioned that I'd rather spend my money on something that has confirmed value and much better utility (like dedicated server game hosting) if given a choice.

This does not make any sense at all. How does not releasing a demo allow developers to take more risks? There is no way in knowing if Noby whatever would have sold more or less, so it is irrelevant.

Because the selling factor is the novelty. Once you have tried it, the magic is gone. It's possible to measure sales performance with and without demo if the vendors conduct a proper test.

Wait, so you're saying that because there was no demo available you purchased a game that your son coincidentally really loves because of the eating pooping mechanism, which in turn makes you happy .... What does this have to do with supporting developers, or keeping creative minds in the industry alive? Why does this have to do with shoes? And you son enjoys Noby Boy .... ok .... If there was a demo, would he have enjoyed it less, and would you have not tried it or bought it for him? This conversation isn't making a lot of sense.

In my view, shoes are commoditized. Creative titles are not. The experience may also change along the way. They tickle the mind even if the reaction may be negative at first. A bad/inadequate demo -- which is not uncommon -- may not capture the essence. Naturally not all games are like that.

If I had tried the NNB demo before my son ? I may let him play the demo and skip the game. But eventually, I may buy it when I overcome the inertial. BTW, I have done that to Sudoku too. Played the demo repeatedly. Never bought it... until I came across a B3Der in the chatroom who happens to compose the music for the game.

What does this mean? So in some cases demos will be bad, but in a general sense are you really saying they are not a positive value add for the customer, or what?

See my first paragraph.

 

[makattack]

Yes, but what the does this has to do with Ashers theory that demos allways boost sales?

Simple... my point in comparing demos with kiosks, is that the kiosk demo discs are:

more expensive -- you have to press those discs, mail them out, etc. Other than the material costs, it costs more in terms of man-hours to make.

Do you really expect companies to do this just because it's fun and won't necessarily translate into more sales, or worse yet, result in lower sales?

I'm sure, if you are privy to market research data that asks consumers about how important demos are in influencing their purchase decision, you will see that should that data indicate to the companies people are not influenced, those demo kiosks will disappear, or at least be stocked by individual stores themselves (perhaps with game returns, etc).

I've seen plenty of these research questionnaires/surveys to know they do ask those questions. I have also been involved in implementing demos myself for non-gaming software, that is absolutely critical to our marketing efforts for said software.

Demos are as proven and old as the first human invention. Some people call it a prototype/proof-of-concept that's used to sell full production. I imagine whoever invented the wheel went through something similar:

"Hey guys, look at this new gadget I just designed! I think it'll really help us in the future. Let me show you how..."

 

[Acert93]

This pretty much says that unless your product is crap, you do a demo.

Im confident i can make a very good case for tons of average games that have hurt from releasing demos, because people find out your product is indeed average and since games all costs $60 bucks, you tend to want a great game, not a good or medicore one. Thus a demo proving that your game is indeed not great(still might be good), can very well reduce your sales.

All true to a degree, but the flip side is the 360 has seen a strong attach rate as the install base grows and in the past XBL has been contributed with part of that success.

I said demo is a waste of bandwidth if it's ineffective.
I mentioned that I'd rather spend my money on something that has confirmed value and much better utility (like dedicated server game hosting) if given a choice.

Repeating the point about dedicated servers, as if there is any correlation, doesn't make it any more true.

No one is debating demos of bad titles or bad demos of good titles can hurt sales (they can and in many cases do) but those are by no means the only metric to weigh in regard to "effectiveness." Dance around all the points about the general ecosytem and platform accessibility (and just plain and stupidly obvious points like allowing consumers to sample a product ahead of time to purchase with confidence which is a huge issue that any *service* needs to consider if they want to be anything more than a selective storefront) but the continued suggestion that somehow dumping Demos somehow creates space for Dedicated Servers for online games just shows how obstinate you are being.

It would be like repeating over and over again, "Sony should give away PS3s because they will make money on game and BDR royalties and online marketing" as if there is a direct relationship. Repeating it over and over is just annoying because it doesn't make it any more true or show you grasp how these things relate. Obviously Sony has an invested interest to deflect on the issue of charging developers stupidly excessive prices for bandwidth and the best way to deflect is to set up a proposition concerning the competitors short comings ($3-$5/mo and few ded servers?!) but there is no relationship between XBLA demos and ded servers.

As an aside, building off of NavNuc, demos may be one of the reason for the disparity gap between haves and have nots this gen. People can readily assess the differences between titles so general marketing and appeal based on 'theme', a catchy commercial, art, concept, etc are neutralized by how much pull the real product has with a consumer. This probably hurts a lot of studios with products that like refinement or have appeal but don't "click" with consumers. This, on conjunction with the increase in social gaming online, really changes the dynamics of the industry.

As we have seen with Trials HD a good game with a good demo can result in stellar sales. This doesn't negate word of mouth (look at Braid) but I am sure there are games that, if there were no demos at all, would do better because frankly they cannot compete on a "level" playing field. But that isn't necessarily bad for a platform or consumers (both good actually) and for the industry this form of self criticism should draw more attention to releasing quality products. That said XBLA games sell relatively well and from a console perspective platforms like Live are effectively new outlets to reach consumers. Look at Trials HD: it about tripled its sales compared to the Steam version in 1 month on XBLA. I find it is interesting that the "Sony talking points" don't point to the obvious conclusion regarding effective/ineffective demos:

Let consumers choose which demos are effective and ineffective.

We are the best guide to what we want--not MS/Sony and not even developers. But this comes back to is your online platform a service or is it a storefront.

As a strategy the benefits of a consumer and developer centric service cannot be taken in simplistic isolation.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the basic problem here is people are overreacting.

I think the basic problem here is the thread has past it's Best Before date! We're well past the OP's intentions. Now people are comparing features, which is an okay discussion and a worthwhile follow-on, but, at least as I skim it, the ideas are getting muddled. One person is reading about demo's and seeing a different context to someone else, such that they're arguing on points they agree with.

Might be time to close this thread. If the past pages of discussion had happened in a thread entitled 'Does releasing download demos harm game sales?' then most of the disagreements wouldn't have happened because the core argument would be spelled out.

 

[RobertR1]

+1 on Josh's post. The idea that we should be ok with developers wanting to protect their shitty games by not releasing demo's and hoping enough marketing tricks dupe people into buying the game anyway, just so the developer stays in business is *the* worst stance in gaming I've seen this generation. A sucker might actually be born every mintue at this rate....With broadband and online infrastructures in place, easy access to demo's has been one of the best things this generation.

When your frame of reference is that different, I simply know to ignore you in the future. Something good has come out of the thread, afterall.

 

[DrJay24]

The drama here is all show. The 360 just happens to have demos for it's XBL game (check box indeed), therefore it is a necessary feature. Yet plenty of us buy $60 games with no demos. Like I said most of the biggest selling or highest rated games this gen have no demo or ones casting them in poor light. I for one hated the Crackdown demo and didn't give it a chance until I bought it for $20 after word of mouth.

The thread never really had a point, it is just another versus thread full of twisted logic.

When your frame of reference is that different, I simply know to ignore you in the future.

Wow, mature...