Demo?

[borsook79]

There is no such thing as a game that does not "demo" well. Even Baldur's gate had a demo. I bought this game because I knew AT, for which People's tactics was a kind of demo for me. If not for this I wouldn't have bought this... There are exactly 9 Matrix games I considered buying and the main reason why I haven't done so was the lack of demo. BTW for this game - Netherlands scenario would be a good demo.

[Krupinski]

i think that a demo of a small scenario (which has been seed in the internet) could push the sales...

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Borsook

There is no such thing as a game that does not "demo" well. Even Baldur's gate had a demo. I bought this game because I knew AT, for which People's tactics was a kind of demo for me. If not for this I wouldn't have bought this... There are exactly 9 Matrix games I considered buying and the main reason why I haven't done so was the lack of demo. BTW for this game - Netherlands scenario would be a good demo.

Although I don't think a demo is necessarily needed for this game, I do agree with the first sentence of this post. A demo is a demonstration of the game with some limitations (time, scenarios, save games, etc.). I can't see any game being so radically different in demo version that it doesn't give you a good sense of the real game. Not sure why Vic isn't putting out a demo (again, I don't think he needs to), but it certaintly isn't because the game doesn't "demo" well.

[Misery]

Sorry for bringing up the demo issue again. However, the lack of a demo is prohibiting me from purchasing this game. Money is tight as it is, and I simply cannot throw my money away on a title that ends up gathering dust. CIV 5 is a perfect example. I have had my eye on it since it was announced. Unfortunately, I played the demo first and determined the game wasn't for me. Now I realize the demo cost the developer a sale, but at least there was consideration on my part. I can't even consider Decisive Campaigns at this time.

So, I ask again, is there any chance of a simple demo at some point in the future?

[IainMcNeil]

From our experience and the research we've seen demos work well for light games that are easy to get in to. When you give someone something for free (a demo) they do not value it. If they are not grabbed instantly (the first 5 minutes are when most players make up their mind) they move on to the next free thing. However when a user buys something they have already invested cash in it and so value it more. The first 5 mins are not as critical. They are very unlikely to give up if they are not having fun immediately. They persist for longer, getting through the learning curve and on to the point they are enjoying the game and it could take them hours. The person playing a demo might give up before they get to the point they enjoyed it, whereas with the bought game they don't and so the same person with the same game can come out with a completely different opinion based on their investment in it at the time if first playing.

Turn based strategy games by their nature rarely are able to grab you in the first 5 minutes which is essential for a demo. This is why we generally try to avoid them, or you have to invest a lot of time & money in making sure the demo does grab people in the first 5 minutes which is very different to making a strategy game that people enjoy for many many hours. Having said that we're planning demos on some of the recent releases but we're looking to do them in unusual ways that hopefully mitigate the 5 minute rule.

Unfortunately it is just human nature that this is how it works. Obviously this not true of everyone but the % is so high that demos can actually hurt sales rather than help them, and I don't mean because people can find out they don't like a game from a demo. We only create demos where we feel a demo will increase sales. Anything else would be crazy for us as a business

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

From our experience and the research we've seen demos work well for light games that are easy to get in to. When you give someone something for free (a demo) they do not value it. If they are not grabbed instantly (the first 5 minutes are when most players make up their mind) they move on to the next free thing. However when a user buys something they have already invested cash in it and so value it more. The first 5 mins are not as critical. They are very unlikely to give up if they are not having fun immediately. They persist for longer, getting through the learning curve and on to the point they are enjoying the game and it could take them hours. The person playing a demo might give up before they get to the point they enjoyed it, whereas with the bought game they don't and so the same person with the same game can come out with a completely different opinion based on their investment in it at the time if first playing.

Turn based strategy games by their nature rarely are able to grab you in the first 5 minutes which is essential for a demo. This is why we generally try to avoid them, or you have to invest a lot of time & money in making sure the demo does grab people in the first 5 minutes which is very different to making a strategy game that people enjoy for many many hours. Having said that we're planning demos on some of the recent releases but we're looking to do them in unusual ways that hopefully mitigate the 5 minute rule.

Unfortunately it is just human nature that this is how it works. Obviously this not true of everyone but the % is so high that demos can actually hurt sales rather than help them, and I don't mean because people can find out they don't like a game from a demo. We only create demos where we feel a demo will increase sales. Anything else would be crazy for us as a business

This is very true, but it seems you are assuming a general audience for the demo. Indeed in such a case a demo of a turn based game such as this may not be captivating enough. But here the case is different, no casual gamer visits Matrix, but rather people who play "hardcore" wargames. Their view of the demo would be in terms of comparing it to rather products, which develop at the same, slow pace. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this would work, after playing one scenario in this game I was able to tell if I like it or not.

[TPM]

[/quote]
This is very true, but it seems you are assuming a general audience for the demo. Indeed in such a case a demo of a turn based game such as this may not be captivating enough. But here the case is different, no casual gamer visits Matrix, but rather people who play "hardcore" wargames. Their view of the demo would be in terms of comparing it to rather products, which develop at the same, slow pace. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this would work, after playing one scenario in this game I was able to tell if I like it or not.
[/quote]

I don't think he's assuming this at all...in fact, it would have to be assumed that their research would indeed cover "hardcore" wargamers as well as "light" wargamers, otherwise the research wouldn't be worth much.

Further, I believe their research is right on the money...I downloaded the demo for Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge, and since I couldn't get into the flow of it in the 15 minutes I sat there trying to learn it (even with the tutorial, etc.), I passed on it. Two thoughts:

1. If I had paid the money for the game, you're damn right I'd have spent more time trying to figure it out.
2. Notwithstanding my decision not to buy, I don't think making a demo for this particular game (Battles from the Bulge) was a bad idea. It's a very different kind of wargame, and prospective buyers need to be able to check that out.

All in all, I have absolutely no problem with companies not putting out demos...yes, in some cases it gets you to buy, but in others it doesn't. For Decisive Campaigns, I do not feel a demo is needed. This game is being discussed ad naseum on these forums...there's screen shots, AAR's, a detailed combat example, GREAT input from the creator of the game, comparisons to other games, etc., etc. I believe there is enough there to help anyone make a decision about it.

[bairdlander2]

agree,I bought just based on the screenshoots,old school board wargame exactly.

[Toby42]

It's a Great Game! Buy it!!!

[JD Walter]

Agree, Treale.

One of my favorite purchases from Matrix.

DC:WtP reminds me very much of the old SPI "Kursk" series of boardgames (Kursk/Kharkov/France '40 etc.) ... With the added extra of limited intellligence, much like Jim Dunnigan tried to emulate with his idea for untried units in Panzergruppe Guderian (another of my favorites).

[Misery]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

From our experience and the research we've seen demos work well for light games that are easy to get in to. When you give someone something for free (a demo) they do not value it. If they are not grabbed instantly (the first 5 minutes are when most players make up their mind) they move on to the next free thing. However when a user buys something they have already invested cash in it and so value it more. The first 5 mins are not as critical. They are very unlikely to give up if they are not having fun immediately. They persist for longer, getting through the learning curve and on to the point they are enjoying the game and it could take them hours. The person playing a demo might give up before they get to the point they enjoyed it, whereas with the bought game they don't and so the same person with the same game can come out with a completely different opinion based on their investment in it at the time if first playing.

Turn based strategy games by their nature rarely are able to grab you in the first 5 minutes which is essential for a demo. This is why we generally try to avoid them, or you have to invest a lot of time & money in making sure the demo does grab people in the first 5 minutes which is very different to making a strategy game that people enjoy for many many hours. Having said that we're planning demos on some of the recent releases but we're looking to do them in unusual ways that hopefully mitigate the 5 minute rule.

Unfortunately it is just human nature that this is how it works. Obviously this not true of everyone but the % is so high that demos can actually hurt sales rather than help them, and I don't mean because people can find out they don't like a game from a demo. We only create demos where we feel a demo will increase sales. Anything else would be crazy for us as a business

Great feedback from a developer. Thank you very much. I guess my only follow up question is what are the determining factors in deciding which games get demos? Or is it simply as you stated, the "lighter" games = demo?

As for the comments from other posters, thank you. I appreciate your feedback. Regardless of the positive forum discussions, developer comments, screenshots, AAR's, etc...those are all subjective factors. When it's $50, I need to try the game out for myself. I've been burned too many times in recent years by buggy releases, under-delivered promises, and secondhand opinions. Guess it's a lose-lose...no sale for Matrix, no game for Misery. The only person who benefits is Mrs. Misery becase she hates my gaming habits. [:)]

[helm123456789]

ORIGINAL: Misery

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

From our experience and the research we've seen demos work well for light games that are easy to get in to. When you give someone something for free (a demo) they do not value it. If they are not grabbed instantly (the first 5 minutes are when most players make up their mind) they move on to the next free thing. However when a user buys something they have already invested cash in it and so value it more. The first 5 mins are not as critical. They are very unlikely to give up if they are not having fun immediately. They persist for longer, getting through the learning curve and on to the point they are enjoying the game and it could take them hours. The person playing a demo might give up before they get to the point they enjoyed it, whereas with the bought game they don't and so the same person with the same game can come out with a completely different opinion based on their investment in it at the time if first playing.

Turn based strategy games by their nature rarely are able to grab you in the first 5 minutes which is essential for a demo. This is why we generally try to avoid them, or you have to invest a lot of time & money in making sure the demo does grab people in the first 5 minutes which is very different to making a strategy game that people enjoy for many many hours. Having said that we're planning demos on some of the recent releases but we're looking to do them in unusual ways that hopefully mitigate the 5 minute rule.

Unfortunately it is just human nature that this is how it works. Obviously this not true of everyone but the % is so high that demos can actually hurt sales rather than help them, and I don't mean because people can find out they don't like a game from a demo. We only create demos where we feel a demo will increase sales. Anything else would be crazy for us as a business

Great feedback from a developer. Thank you very much. I guess my only follow up question is what are the determining factors in deciding which games get demos? Or is it simply as you stated, the "lighter" games = demo?

As for the comments from other posters, thank you. I appreciate your feedback. Regardless of the positive forum discussions, developer comments, screenshots, AAR's, etc...those are all subjective factors. When it's $50, I need to try the game out for myself. I've been burned too many times in recent years by buggy releases, under-delivered promises, and secondhand opinions. Guess it's a lose-lose...no sale for Matrix, no game for Misery. The only person who benefits is Mrs. Misery becase she hates my gaming habits. [:)]

Same here Misery......really don't buy a thing any more unless I can kick the wheels first. Too many times I have bought something that didn't meet my expectations after reading AAR's and such. I have always wondered how many of the AAR's are posted by BETA testers that are jaded since they helped the baby (game) take it's first steps. Another developers BETA testers are terrible for that.