Singularity producer Kekoa Lee-Creel recently spoke with Develop about the upcoming FPS, and while the majority of the interview is comprised of details we mostly knew, one tidbit of info will come as a delight to those anxiously awaiting Raven Software's flux-fest: it seems there will be a demo for the game prior to its release. Activision views the demo release as "absolutely critical" to the game's success, as Lee-Creel believes there is no better way to convey how good a game feels than to let folks get their hands on it.
Well, we'd have to agree with that, but mostly because we like getting free stuff. You guys don't want to see us at a grocery store on free sample day, we assure you.
Reader Comments (26)
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 2:23PM (Unverified) said
There really is no reason for a company to not release a demo before release. If you think your game is truly fantastic, then a demo should only help sales.
It's kind of similar to what movie studios do to movies. Most movies are pre-screened for critics, except for a select few that the studios know suck and just want to make a big first week profit on a unsuspecting audience.
Reply
It's kind of similar to what movie studios do to movies. Most movies are pre-screened for critics, except for a select few that the studios know suck and just want to make a big first week profit on a unsuspecting audience.
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 2:37PM HydrophobicFish PSN ID Hydrophob said
Well, the major problem is that typically, demos actually stifle sales, not promote. People play the demo, and either that satiates their appetite for the game, or they find a minor flaw in it and go "GAWD IF THIS IS IN THE GAME THEN I DON'T WANNA DEAL WITH IT!"
Perfect annecdotal evidence of this... I was kinda excited for the game Flock... it looked kinda fun, and interesting. But then I played the demo, and I absolutely hated how it was controlled. So, I didn't buy it. (Didn't help that the game got moderate instead of good reviews).
Reply
Perfect annecdotal evidence of this... I was kinda excited for the game Flock... it looked kinda fun, and interesting. But then I played the demo, and I absolutely hated how it was controlled. So, I didn't buy it. (Didn't help that the game got moderate instead of good reviews).
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:01PM Zoot Suit Jedi Grammar Hammer En said
@hydrophobicfish
Conversely, demos have persuaded me to purchase games that, otherwise, I might not have ever considered.
Reply
Conversely, demos have persuaded me to purchase games that, otherwise, I might not have ever considered.
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 5:12PM EJ A said
From the view of the developer, putting out a demo is like putting out a whole other game; it's another project. A demo takes resources that can be used to make the final product better or push it out faster. It takes another team (devs and QA) to work on it or it's given to the team already working on the main game, giving them more work on their currently heavy load.
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 2:24PM Youthinized said
lol, thats so hilarious.
I always love Sam's Club for the samples. Go in hungry come out full!
Reply
I always love Sam's Club for the samples. Go in hungry come out full!
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 12:51AM RageOverdose said
Swagman:
You make a good point, but unfortunately a developer or publisher cannot wait for many months or else time runs out and the game suffers. Consoles cycle through generations quickly, and while this generation is expected to be longer, new hardware technology will be developed that can better suit the needs of gamers and even developers, and the length may not be because the hardware can move longer, but because it takes longer to develop for such complex hardware.
When making movies, there isn't a technological barrier, especially when CGI is heavily used, like there is in game development. These people are programming very specific code that utilizes the core hardware advantages of each system in order to maximize code efficiency and increase content. Not only that, they are given a framework and interface they have to learn and abide by in development, because each system uses it's own proprietary operating system. Algorithm analysis is also a long and painful process, requiring a lot of detailed examinations of not only the code but even the hardware configuration to determine the most efficient process. While there is programming in movies, they use tools already programmed and developed to create CGI in massive render farms, such as Maya, which features it's own language implementation. Plus, these render farms don't have the technical limitations, so efficiency wouldn't be nearly as important. Also, the code can be more general, because the hardware used for 3-D design goes by industry standards, much like video game hardware for computers.
But if you take too long to develop a game, a new console may be released that overshadows the older one and if you don't move the game over, it may not be as big of a hit or have as big of an impact on the industry. You can't just move code over either; you have rework it so it not only fits into the new interface, but also uses the power of the system. Sure, you could be lazy, but the results will be sub-par as a result.
So, I wouldn't just call the publishers greedy and be done with it. The developers use up money as they keep developing a game, and they can't be given as much time because of how new hardware will be released that will overtake the old. It probably isn't greed as much as punctuality and fear of losing that timeframe when the game could be a hit.
Reply
You make a good point, but unfortunately a developer or publisher cannot wait for many months or else time runs out and the game suffers. Consoles cycle through generations quickly, and while this generation is expected to be longer, new hardware technology will be developed that can better suit the needs of gamers and even developers, and the length may not be because the hardware can move longer, but because it takes longer to develop for such complex hardware.
When making movies, there isn't a technological barrier, especially when CGI is heavily used, like there is in game development. These people are programming very specific code that utilizes the core hardware advantages of each system in order to maximize code efficiency and increase content. Not only that, they are given a framework and interface they have to learn and abide by in development, because each system uses it's own proprietary operating system. Algorithm analysis is also a long and painful process, requiring a lot of detailed examinations of not only the code but even the hardware configuration to determine the most efficient process. While there is programming in movies, they use tools already programmed and developed to create CGI in massive render farms, such as Maya, which features it's own language implementation. Plus, these render farms don't have the technical limitations, so efficiency wouldn't be nearly as important. Also, the code can be more general, because the hardware used for 3-D design goes by industry standards, much like video game hardware for computers.
But if you take too long to develop a game, a new console may be released that overshadows the older one and if you don't move the game over, it may not be as big of a hit or have as big of an impact on the industry. You can't just move code over either; you have rework it so it not only fits into the new interface, but also uses the power of the system. Sure, you could be lazy, but the results will be sub-par as a result.
So, I wouldn't just call the publishers greedy and be done with it. The developers use up money as they keep developing a game, and they can't be given as much time because of how new hardware will be released that will overtake the old. It probably isn't greed as much as punctuality and fear of losing that timeframe when the game could be a hit.
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 2:38PM (Unverified) said
The UFC demo made me fall in love with the game it went from off the radar to first day purchase. On the other hand Fight Night Round 4 did the complete opposite and turned me off completely. No face buttons EA, NO SALE!
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 2:55PM TheDarkWayne said
the only reason I enjoyed FN3 was because I could just make a giant heavyweight character and press the haymaker button and I would almost always win. Now, I actually have to Lrn2play : (
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:01PM (Unverified) said
There was a haymaker button in FNR3!? I could only pull them off with the total fight control, just doesn't feel accurate enough using it for jabs etc, though that could be down to me sucking at using it.
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:18PM TheDarkWayne said
it was the right bumper on the 360. With existing boxers it was their signature move, but with create a boxers it could be customized, but i just went with left handed haymaker
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:02PM LaughingTarget said
Confirmed. Demo only available with a GameStop pre-order.
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:23PM darkinchworm said
Whoever came up with the idea of handing out demos with pre-orders, especially exclusive demos, needs to be put out of his/her idiotic misery.
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:07PM johnperkins21 said
It's kind of a catch-22 for publishers. I've avoided buying games because there was either no demo, or the demo turned me off of the game. On the other hand, I've also bought games specifically because of how much I enjoyed the demo.
I wonder if his point isn't that having a demo is critical, but having a good demo is critical. Which I can absolutely agree with. A great demo will get me to purchase a game any day of the week. You don't release a demo and I'm wondering why, are you afraid I'll see that it sucks?
Reply
I wonder if his point isn't that having a demo is critical, but having a good demo is critical. Which I can absolutely agree with. A great demo will get me to purchase a game any day of the week. You don't release a demo and I'm wondering why, are you afraid I'll see that it sucks?
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:28PM Petebot330 said
The only time a demo convinced me to get the game was last week with the Simpsons game. It probably helped that the game is only 20 bucks, but the demo was great once I figured out what I was supposed to do.
The Mirror’s Edge demo was good too, but I still haven’t picked it up.
Reply
The Mirror’s Edge demo was good too, but I still haven’t picked it up.
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 3:42PM (Unverified) said
Im very excited for the game, but i would like to see a demo first
Reply
Posted: Jun 17th 2009 10:14PM (Unverified) said
Wait. What day is free sample day at the grocery store again?
Reply
Posted: Jun 18th 2009 8:59AM (Unverified) said
Damn right demos are mandatory. If prototype had a demo on the 360, I probably would have bought it. Without a demo, I probably won't buy it until it's on sale for $30.
Of course, not just ANY demo will do. Bionic Commando COMPLETELY SCREWED THE POOCH with that piece of crap level.
Reply
Of course, not just ANY demo will do. Bionic Commando COMPLETELY SCREWED THE POOCH with that piece of crap level.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 108 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments










