A few days ago, GameDaily ran a short story from EEDAR (Electronic Entertainment Design And Research.)

In this piece, the gist was that one in five games becomes a “success”, and that games which do not have playable demos before release sell better than games that do.

Although they may have come to this conclusion by a statistical, scientific means, I think anybody with more than three brain cells can figure out anecdotally that what's going on here is that crappy games don't sell when people get a hands-on chance to see how crappy they actually are.

Even the worst piece of software can look like a superstar when the developers snip and edit selected pieces of footage to highlight non-playable cutscenes or clips from dramatic angles that couldn't possibly represent actual gameplay. I can think of dozens of games offhand that got me pumped after seeing a slick trailer, only to find that the final product was nothing near the grandeur of what was represented.

Granted, there have been several instances where the demo itself has not given a complete picture of what the final game really is—for example, games that employ complex mechanics that are introduced to the player over time through a series of tutorials usually seem like jumbled messes when someone checks them out at a kiosk for two minutes. The same goes for RPGs or games that incorporate lots of mood and atmosphere. These sorts of titles just can't be done justice without first laying the fundamentals down for the player. Honestly though, I think most gamers get this and don't count it against a game when the demo fails to capture the substance.

I may not be a researcher, but I believe that the essence of these findings is not the value of a demo, but rather, a statement on the quality of software being shoveled onto shelves with the take away message being:

If your game sucks, make a great trailer and don't put out a demo to guarantee higher sales… because gamers will get suckered by the hype and waste their money on it.”

Great research there, guys… I don't think anyone is surprised.

Brad Gallaway

Brad Gallaway

Brad Gallaway has been playing games since arcades were a thing and Atari was the new hotness. He's been at GameCritics since 2000. Currently, he's juggling editing duties, being a homeschooling dad, a devoted husband, and he does try to play a game once in a while.

Brad still loves Transformers, he's on Marvel Puzzle Quest when nobody's looking, and his favorite game of all time is a toss-up between the first Mass Effect and The Witcher 3. You can catch his written work here at GameCritics and you can hear him weekly on the @SoVideogames Podcast. Follow Brad on Twitter and Instagram at @BradGallaway, or contact him via email:

bradgallaway a t gmail dot com
Brad Gallaway

Latest posts by Brad Gallaway (see all)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew Fletcher
Andrew Fletcher
12 years ago

I think the problem is that few games actually intrigue within the space of their demo. Once you have a vertical slice of gameplay, usually the only decision is whether you want to devote another [insert stupid number] hours to it, and pay for the privilege. It must be hard to construct a demo that makes a game feel accessible, entertaining of itself, AND loaded with potential.

Demos that managed it in my opinion: Metal Gear Solid 2, TimeSplitters 2 (demo cruelly better than game), Frequency, ICO, Sphinx & the Cursed Mummy, and maybe Rez.