Steam game lending?

[ZaO]

You don't program games so don't know how hard it is.

I doubt that very much - if they were willing to pirate before, why wouldn't they just pirate the game if they liked the demo?

I know it doesn't happen. The reason most games don't have demos is nothing to do with crapness. Let's look at some recent games with no demo:
Skyrim - not crap
Tomb Raider - not crap
Crysis 3 - sort of not crap.

On the other hand, games with demos include the likes of Dragon Age 2, which was crap.

Because people are cautious to purchase games these days. Lots of crap around. Which includes unfinished games. People want to be sure a game will be enjoyable to play before risking a purchase.

I know some great games come out without demos. But some games have built up a good rep, and so demos are not as important for them (until they release a crap game). Some games really need demos. I like the Warfighter example as they used the fact it was built on frostbite 2 to sell it. Bf3 has it's issues, but it's still a great game. So many people were disappointed with Warfighter.. But I agree that they maybe wouldn't have released a demo for that game whether it was good or not. I'm not sure they even did a beta like with bf3.. But to say no one ever decides not to release a demo because they know there game is crap... I bet you that's happened! But probably neither of us can prove either way. Unless I try and dig up an article somewhere. But it's not that important..

I think mulitplayer betas are becoming the new demos. It's much simpler to implement and you can turn it off before launch.

In terms of the engineering requirements of games. It can be very deceptive. Take BF3 for example, 18 months old now. Successor was just announced to much fanfare. you'd think Bf3 would be 'finished' from a development standpoint, it isn't and probably never will be now thanks to it's successor coming along, seemingly simple things that proved unresolvable after numerous patches and their inherent time and money investment by one of the worlds largest and most successful developers;

70 tons tanks can be made to back flip by things such as shrubbery and children's toys,
Being shot in the face can cause you to jump a couple of thousand feet across the map,
Guns don't always fire
Guns don't always reload,
Guns sometimes fire other guns bullets,
Guns sometimes disappear entirely,
Various gadgets suffer similar bugs reviving people in particular is just a nightmare
Some maps runs like treacle no matter how fast your computer is,
Serious hit detection issues, hitting someone around a corner and 10 foot back from it isn't uncommon,
Flight controls are buggy as hell with anything other than a mouse and keyboard,
Kit selections and perks reset or change without warning,
The clipping, oh god, the clipping.

They did fix all the serious bugs in the single player campaign though... 15 months after launch.

Yeh I don't know how to write programs so I don't properly understand these things. When it comes to computers in general, I'm just an experienced end user at the end of the day. Things you mention about bf3 there are not all that common as far as I understand. Kit resetting is fairly common and damn annoying. But the thing that really get on my nerves about bf3 is that they never sorted out the issue where you get killed a second or so after you've found cover. Those delayed bullets. I wonder how much is a game bug and how much is our connections not being up to it. Based on other games I play which can be on a bigger scale, I would say it's probably more a game issue.

It's funny though about multiplayer betas becoming the new demos. It seems so and I kinda like that setup. It benefits everyone. But I now think that also, games are becoming the new beta tests. except we pay full whack for them!

[directhex]

I would love this as we get a severe lack of demos on pc!

There are some games I just never bought for ages, or at all, because there was no demo. Only to try them a couple years later when they were on sale for a few quid. And think, damn, I would've paid full whack for this!! Also some people will get pirated versions when there is no demo, then if they like it, well they already got it now so may as well finish it. Which = no money spent. I cannot get my head around most games not having pc demos. Unless of course, they're terrible games that they know wont sell well if people get to try them first. But they're causing themselves to lose money just by saving a little bit of effort in not releasing a demo.

I would love if someone could give a good explanation on why we don't get demos much?

Demos reduce sales in 6/7 cases.

Producing a demo is asking for your game to sell less.

See http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/demo-daze

[ZaO]

Demos reduce sales in 6/7 cases.

Producing a demo is asking for your game to sell less.

See http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/demo-daze

So basically that video is saying that if your demo sucks then the game wont sell as well *facepalm* It also says that if your demo is good then it will increase sales, or not affect them at all *facepalm*
Basically saying it's a good idea to hide the game when it sucks and not release demos, so that more people buy it. Which brings me back to my point - I think some games don't have demos because the game sucks. I also think the idea that people wont buy a game because they had their fill from the demo is ridiculous propaganda. The only way I can imagine that would be true is if the game is shallow as hell and didn't offer much more than the demo. So I can see the reasons behind all these devs justifying this - they want to release crappy games but not let people demo it first. Because they know that if the demo sucks then people wont buy the game. This is the point of demos. To let us know what the game is like.

Not having a go at you so don't interpret it like that. Just saying..

[Spank]

I can't remember playing a demo that wasn't an actual level from the game. TBH it's been so long since I got a pre release demo, it's probably as long ago as BF2 & COD2 (not MW2)

[fatguy666]

Even though there was a demo out for it, I did pirate Resident Evil Revelations recently cause it was out a week before I got paid and I was dying to play it. Finished the pirate copy then once I got paid bought it on Steam.

Should get this set up for my fiancée, give her something to play other than The Sims.

[ZaO]

Even though there was a demo out for it, I did pirate Resident Evil Revelations recently cause it was out a week before I got paid and I was dying to play it. Finished the pirate copy then once I got paid bought it on Steam.

Should get this set up for my fiancée, give her something to play other than The Sims.

Haha. Did you really buy it after you completed the pirated version? I admire that if you did! This also makes me think of something funny about previous comments. Someone said that betas are the new demos. And I said fully released games are the new Betas. Well, pirated versions of games are the new demos now really aren't they! Just a shame for us who prefer not to do that haha.

[scaryjim]

So basically that video is saying that if your demo sucks then the game wont sell as well *facepalm* It also says that if your demo is good then it will increase sales, or not affect them at all *facepalm*

Not quite - it's saying that a good game with a bad demo will lose sales, a good game with a good demo probably won't make any difference because people will buy a good game anyway, and a bad game is very unlikely to benefit significantly from a demo, even if that demo is great - and a great demo of a bad game is near impossible to pull off.

I'd have to put in some thought, but I'm pretty sure I've played demos where I've enjoyed the demo but decided it wasn't worth spending more money on the game. Given the cost of new games, it's actually pretty easy to see that happening from a demo.

And given the time and money that has to go into making a *good* demo, it makes no commercial sense. To spend that money on a demo you need a concrete business case and CBA (that's a cost benefit analysis incidentally, whatever the forum software may think ) that says making the demo will long term make you more money than you spend making it. Otherwise, you're just throwing money away.

[ZaO]

Not quite - it's saying that a good game with a bad demo will lose sales, a good game with a good demo probably won't make any difference because people will buy a good game anyway, and a bad game is very unlikely to benefit significantly from a demo, even if that demo is great - and a great demo of a bad game is near impossible to pull off.

I'd have to put in some thought, but I'm pretty sure I've played demos where I've enjoyed the demo but decided it wasn't worth spending more money on the game. Given the cost of new games, it's actually pretty easy to see that happening from a demo.

And given the time and money that has to go into making a *good* demo, it makes no commercial sense. To spend that money on a demo you need a concrete business case and CBA (that's a cost benefit analysis incidentally, whatever the forum software may think ) that says making the demo will long term make you more money than you spend making it. Otherwise, you're just throwing money away.

I appreciate what you're saying. I noticed that pc demos started to die out around the time when games started getting released as unfinished pieces of crap all the time. It must just be part of the whole cost cutting scheme. And knowing that when people play a demo of their unfinished piece of crap it wont help sales, well it's clear to see one reason why they don't release demos.

Consoles still have quite a lot of demos though. I wonder why that is..

Also, why are Steam potentially setting up a game lending service if they don't estimate it will boost game sales? You would think Steam would have a lot of insight into this subject...

[kalniel]

I appreciate what you're saying. I noticed that pc demos started to die out around the time when games started getting released as unfinished pieces of crap all the time.

I take it you're new to the PC gaming scene then? There have been unfinished pieces of rubbish throughout the entire history of PC gaming, it's really nothing new.

It must just be part of the whole cost cutting scheme.

Which is interesting, given how game budgets are higher than they used to be (though admittedly, they cost the end consumer less than they have done historically.)

And knowing that when people play a demo of their unfinished piece of crap it wont help sales, well it's clear to see one reason why they don't release demos.

It can't be the reason, as we've already shown that there's no correlation between crapness of game and the presence of a demo.

Also, why are Steam potentially setting up a game lending service if they don't estimate it will boost game sales? You would think Steam would have a lot of insight into this subject...

I don't think it's got anything to do with demos, more sharing. Steam has been used as a negative example of DRM compared to consoles and one of the main reasons is precisely because of the lack of sharing. If Valve want PC gaming to continue thriving in the presence of new generation consoles it has to step up to the plate and address the negatives.

[Dooms]

I guess its due to the fact that due to the way steam & PC gamers are, we are always connected and these days the majority of PC games have some focus on multiplayer, so you lend the game to your mate and he plays it but alas you can't play together online so both have to buy it. A purchase they might not of been made if your friend didn't lend it first... Then 2 mates are playing together and having a blast, more should join in!

They are pushing the steam community to a new level recently.

The only exceptions to the above I can think of in recent times is Skyrim but its such a huge game with constant updates from the community that I keep going back and so wouldn't want to lend it out in the first place

[kalniel]

Or think about family gaming. Some Xbox users were in arms at the (incorrect) rumour that siblings for eg wouldn't be able to play the same game on the same xbox because of user profiles.. well we've been in that situation for years with Steam. Theoretically you should not be sharing your Steam account details with other people, so each would need to buy the game for their own account to play it on the same computer. With lending that won't be an issue.

[ZaO]

I take it you're new to the PC gaming scene then? There have been unfinished pieces of rubbish throughout the entire history of PC gaming, it's really nothing new.

Which is interesting, given how game budgets are higher than they used to be (though admittedly, they cost the end consumer less than they have done historically.)

It can't be the reason, as we've already shown that there's no correlation between crapness of game and the presence of a demo.

I don't think it's got anything to do with demos, more sharing. Steam has been used as a negative example of DRM compared to consoles and one of the main reasons is precisely because of the lack of sharing. If Valve want PC gaming to continue thriving in the presence of new generation consoles it has to step up to the plate and address the negatives.

No I'm not new. I have been doing this since the 90s. There always has and probably always be unfinished pieces of crap getting released, I agree. But it just blew up to a whole new level from sometime around 2006 I would say. It's out of control now. It's just become the norm to release a game like this, rather than the exception.

Game budgets get higher as money becomes devalued. That's one reason to not forget. Everything keeps getting more expensive in that respect. The price of things is genuinely rising too. Living is very expensive today.

I don't think anyone has shown that. I've just seen a couple of propaganda videos from developers.

What is the goal of this sharing? If people get to try out a game they will more likely buy it so they can play it with their friends. If all these game devs don't believe that helps, then I wonder how the hell Steam have potentially managed to get them to agree to this sharing. They're not trying to lose profits now are they.

I guess its due to the fact that due to the way steam & PC gamers are, we are always connected and these days the majority of PC games have some focus on multiplayer, so you lend the game to your mate and he plays it but alas you can't play together online so both have to buy it. A purchase they might not of been made if your friend didn't lend it first... Then 2 mates are playing together and having a blast, more should join in!

They are pushing the steam community to a new level recently.

The only exceptions to the above I can think of in recent times is Skyrim but its such a huge game with constant updates from the community that I keep going back and so wouldn't want to lend it out in the first place

Yeh this seems to make sense to me too. And it will work!

[kalniel]

No I'm not new. I have been doing this since the 90s. There always has and probably always be unfinished pieces of crap getting released, I agree. But it just blew up to a whole new level from sometime around 2006 I would say. It's out of control now. It's just become the norm to release a game like this, rather than the exception.

Respectfully, I disagree. I'd actually say that for the most part games these days are far more polished than they used to be, *especially* if you factor in the increased size and install base.

Game budgets get higher as money becomes devalued. That's one reason to not forget. Everything keeps getting more expensive in that respect. The price of things is genuinely rising too. Living is very expensive today.

Then in real terms the budget isn't changing. I'm saying that in real terms the budgets are also increasing - more people are working on games than ever before. Take a 'small' studio making indie games like Obsidian Entertainment - the staff size is over 100 employees...

What is the goal of this sharing?

I thought I explained - to compete with consoles.

[ZaO]

Respectfully, I disagree. I'd actually say that for the most part games these days are far more polished than they used to be, *especially* if you factor in the increased size and install base.

Then in real terms the budget isn't changing. I'm saying that in real terms the budgets are also increasing - more people are working on games than ever before. Take a 'small' studio making indie games like Obsidian Entertainment - the staff size is over 100 employees...

I thought I explained - to compete with consoles.

I don't understand what increased file size of the game has to do with quality? Everything increases in file size as more detailed audio, visual and other objects are used. Games will have more detailed textures these days which requires more space, for example. But that doesn't indicate the game is of better quality for it's time. The time it was released is totally relevant too. As we all know how tech progresses. But maybe I missed a point in what you said there..

I get you said the budget is increasing and I agree. I've noticed over the years how long the damn credits have gotten in games. They're like films. So many people working on them..

Yeh it will be useful for the Steam Box, or whatever they're calling it. And of course, nice for everyone who uses Steam. Let's discuss in future, if this does happen with Steam, and Steam release some sales info, what affect it's had on sales

[kalniel]

I don't understand what increased file size of the game has to do with quality?

The more code there is, the larger the game world, the more the art assets etc. the more scope there is for bugs to crop up. That the bug level hasn't increased anything like as much as these factors means that if you factor in the increase in size then there are relatively fewer bugs even *if* the absolute number had not decreased.

I like using The Elder Scrolls games as examples - they've got larger and larger, and more ambitious etc., yet the bugginess peaked with Battlespire and they have been getting released more stable and polished as time goes on.

[ZaO]

The more code there is, the larger the game world, the more the art assets etc. the more scope there is for bugs to crop up. That the bug level hasn't increased anything like as much as these factors means that if you factor in the increase in size then there are relatively fewer bugs even *if* the absolute number had not decreased.

I like using The Elder Scrolls games as examples - they've got larger and larger, and more ambitious etc., yet the bugginess peaked with Battlespire and they have been getting released more stable and polished as time goes on.

Ah yes. I see your point. It is a very good one! Not something I've overlooked in my own thoughts about games. Which is probably why open Betas are becoming so common.

I don't know if I'm the exception, but I've never found TES games to be as much of a mess as some people claim. I've definitely had some problems with them though. But nothing game breaking surprisingly enough. Until it comes to modding with Skyrim. The way scripts attach themself permanently to your save has broken my game. Never used to happen to me with Oblivion. But skse and some others seem like they're slowly figuring out ways to get round it. Once I can get my save working I will finally finish the 2 expansions. No way I'm starting the damn game again. Even with cheats to level up...