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.
{ Jun 17th 2009 at 2:15PM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Michael Amory @ Jun 17th 2009 2:23PM
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.
Hydrophobicfish @ Jun 17th 2009 2:37PM
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).
BigFat @ Jun 17th 2009 2:45PM
Demo only stifle sales of a game if the game was not good to begin with or the developer picked a bad level to start with.
Zoot Suit Jedi @ Jun 17th 2009 3:01PM
@hydrophobicfish
Conversely, demos have persuaded me to purchase games that, otherwise, I might not have ever considered.
E.J. @ Jun 17th 2009 5:12PM
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.
Youthinized @ Jun 17th 2009 2:24PM
lol, thats so hilarious.
I always love Sam's Club for the samples. Go in hungry come out full!
The Pie Pieper @ Jun 17th 2009 2:25PM
Booooooo Activion
Mazrael @ Jun 17th 2009 3:02PM
I was thinking that...
Didn't we boycott Activision over sueing Brutal Legend..?
Huey2k2 @ Jun 17th 2009 2:25PM
Demos are almost never critical to the success of the final product.
In fact most of the time demos are buggy pre-release builds that are very poor representations of what the game will be when it is released.
jkanownik @ Jun 18th 2009 7:56PM
Dead Rising and UFC ... suck it.
BigFat @ Jun 17th 2009 2:34PM
the main reason why Bionic Commando flopped...........
BigFat @ Jun 17th 2009 2:36PM
The main reason why Fight Night Round 4 will be a sales disater...........
Just kidding.....
or maybe not....
Swagman @ Jun 17th 2009 5:56PM
And that is no one's fault but the publishers.
The game industry is just a very greedy industry, and as such, practice a lot of very counter-productive business practices.
One such practice is releasing games just a weeks after wrapping final code. In no other (mature) entertainment industry do they practice this. It's literally shooting oneself in the foot, type of practice.
Game code needs to be wrapped up at least six months before a game ships. This way, you can firmly lock in release dates with no worry of that date shifting. You can properly market your game prior to release (how many times have we seen game videos, with features or even entire levels that do not make it into the final game). As part of the proper marketing of games, you can give game reviewers time to spend with the game. Under the current system, most game reviewers only get a couple of days with any game they review, and they have to review that game while they are reviewing half a dozen other games. Ever read a game review of a game you just played, and wonder if the reviewer actually played the same game as you? Ever wonder why game reviews are so messed up half the time? Well there is part of your answer right there. Think about it. If reviewers had a whole month (or two) to sit and play through a game and experience every nuance it had to offer (the way most videogamers play their games), instead of just rushing through in less than 48 hours, do you not think that it would lead to more accurate reviews and review scores? After all, a movie reviewer does not watch a film with the fast-forward on, so why should game reviewers be forced to play reviewables in the same manner because the game publisher is in a rush to get the finished game code onto store shelves? The more accurate reviews occur when reviewers are allowed to play games the way that gamers play game. This is one reason why review scores were so much more accurate back in the days of game cartridges. It took three months from the time game code was finalized until it reached store shelves. Game reviewers back in the day were given plenty of time - weeks, even months in some cases, to review a game properly. These days, because DVDs and blu-rays can be on store shelves litterally five days after game code has gone gold, what time is there for reviewers to go through a game properly and have a review wrapped up before release?
I digress . . . but only slightly. Wrapping up game code six months before release allows publishers the time to put out actually finished, glitch-free code in their demos.
Outside of word of mouth, nothing sells any product like a well polished preview of that product. Whether we are talking music, TV, film or even books, almost every segment of entertainment understands this fact and practice it as SOP. For example, the principle shooting on most films are finished as much as 9 to 12 months before release - it is really a rare case to see anything less than that. How else do you think the film industry is able to deliver such polished movie trailers almost a year away from release . . . or how are they able to lock a release date for a film down, almost a year away from release?
I'm not saying games need to wrapped up 12 months before they come out, just that publishers need to stop being greedy and schedule development, where principle coding on a game is wrapped up six months prior to release. They can make much better use of their marketing dollars, by concentrating their marketing into a nine month window (the six months before release, and the three months after) than over a period that could be years of development. They can lock in their release dates. And most importantly to your comment, publishers can finally start to delivering on a consistent basis, demos based on final code that are truly representative of the final, retail game. And at the end of the day, that is what every gamer wants anyway. It is what we used to get on the PC for over a decade.
It's a win solution - for publishers and consumers. Publishers save more money this way, and if their games are good, they will make more money when their games sell better, because they released a polished demo based on final code. And gamers, when we play a demo, we can be 100% certain, whether this is the kind of product that we wish to purchase or not.
RageOverdose @ Jun 18th 2009 12:51AM
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.
PSN: Wild_Pegasus @ Jun 17th 2009 2:38PM
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!
BigFat @ Jun 17th 2009 2:43PM
if feel the exact same way
NO BUTTONS, NO SALE
AND IF THE BUTTON CONFIG IS GIMPED, NO SALE!
The Dark Wayne @ Jun 17th 2009 2:55PM
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 : (
PSN: Wild_Pegasus @ Jun 17th 2009 3:01PM
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.
The Dark Wayne @ Jun 17th 2009 3:18PM
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
BigFat @ Jun 17th 2009 3:45PM
i actually thought everybody used config, 3 (perfect blend of TPC and buttons ) but what your talking about is config. 5 i think.
LaughingTarget @ Jun 17th 2009 3:02PM
Confirmed. Demo only available with a GameStop pre-order.
Tep @ Jun 17th 2009 3:06PM
Sadly I can see this happening
dark_inchworm (on Steam!) dark inchworm (on XBL!) @ Jun 17th 2009 3:23PM
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.
Dirty @ Jun 17th 2009 3:41PM
anger rising....
John Perkins @ Jun 17th 2009 3:07PM
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?
Petebot330 @ Jun 17th 2009 3:28PM
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.
Amanda @ Jun 17th 2009 3:41PM
totally
Amanda @ Jun 17th 2009 3:42PM
Im very excited for the game, but i would like to see a demo first
David @ Jun 17th 2009 3:56PM
Is this gaming coming for PC? plz
Komrad @ Jun 17th 2009 10:14PM
Wait. What day is free sample day at the grocery store again?
Brian @ Jun 18th 2009 8:59AM
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.
Timerider @ Jun 18th 2009 1:14PM
Considering that Raven is a local company, I can't wait to see it.