Length and "Value for Money"

[Welrain]

again..comparing different media pointlessly. Not the way to prove a point.

[Matt]

Actually Demo's are meant to have a seperate thread....

but whatever, have it your way, You'll find me in the 'Christoper Nolan's Inception' thread commenting on the quality of the plot and action film despite having only seen the trailer

See, that kind of attitude - I'm sure you're only joking, but different media, different exposure. If you saw the first 30 mins of the film and decided you didn't like it, that would be fine, correct? Well, same with games.

"But it gets better, you're missing out on so much!!" Well, then the developers are idiots. Because if you put out a demo that's not a true representation of the game, that's not going to show the demo audience just how great your game is, then I'd argue your game can't really be that great because if you don't know how to make a compelling demo, I'm not likely to believe you can make a compelling game. And anyone who plays a demo, dislikes it, yet still buys it, is an idiot.

Demo's need not be the first level.

Disclaimer - not played any of Limbo yet, but greatly looking forward to giving the demo a go, I like the art style

[merf]

Evil Boris, I was in tesco today where a nice lady was handy out samples, or demos if you will, of some blue cheese. I took a small piece but didn't like it so told her I didn't intend to buy any. She told me my view was only valid if i ate a whole block of it and paid full price in order to understand the whole piece of cheese experience.

Should i buy a whole cheese i don't like to prove her wrong or just trust my taste buds and go with my first instinct ?

[Daragon]

Personally, value for money comes down to the experience and the impression that is left with me. For example, i may pay ?10 on a game and complete it beginning to end, spend fifty hours plus doing so, and yet never really caring... Value for money? No...

On the other hand i can spend ?10 on a title that only takes me three hours to complete, yet i find myself inspired by the title, totally engrossed with the experience, left in awe. Value for money? Absolutely.

Value for money is very unique to each and to all of us

I've no objection to that in the slightest, my beef is when I'm expected to pay three, perhaps even four times the amount for an experience which may not match that.

I must say, companies like Zavvi have the right idea - they're noticing that buying trends aren't what they're used to be and find themselves having to slash prices of recent releases just days after launch because of disappointing sales, perhaps driven by the cost to content ratio. Greater care needs to be taken, you can't just knock out a 3 hour so-so game with a tacked on multiplayer mode for value's sake, sit back and wait for the pay dirt.

[Adam Stone]

In regard to value for money... Could we perhaps look at things a little differently?

Personally - and perhaps this is only because I'm strange? - after I play / complete a game i tend to ask myself, 'how much would i have willingly paid for this this experience?'

There are games that i've played, fully completed yet conclude I wouldn't have willingly paid more then a pound or two for (in fact i would rather a packet of sweets that last a few minutes or a refreshing beer that i could enjoy in a quiet evening). However, there are titles - lets go crazy and say Ocarina of Time, which i personally couldn't put a price on. That experience alone is worth a lot and a whole lot more...

And then we come to a particularly new and personal experience for me, Limbo, a game that i initially completed in six hours yet have - so far - already played over 20hours. Value for money? It was the moment i sat back and went wow.

A game's value has absolutely nothing to do with the time spent with it - it is truly based on how that title makes me feel. And yes, as sad as it may sound, some of those experiences are completely priceless.

[Matt]

A game's value has absolutely nothing to do with the time spent with it - it is truly based on how that title makes me feel. And yes, as sad as it may sound, some of those experiences are completely priceless.

"Priceless" is far too expensive for me

I do consider £ per hour. I don't want to feel ripped off. Portal - wonderful game, but not worth £40 and Valve knew this.

I expect quantity as well as quality for my money. Say I buy a multiplayer game and it's only got 1 map in it - the best map of all time, but still only one map. I'd feel ripped off. [Quick disclaimer for the anal out there; obviously this wouldn't apply to say a monsterous MMO where there really is only one map but covering 100 square miles]

Part of my issue with L4D is, regardless of how good the game is, there's not enough content in it. I felt I was paying full price for a game with only one level designer on it. Who only worked for a few months as an intern.

I think end of the day, quantity would come in it for everyone. At the extreme end would be paying £50 for the most intense game ever devised. That only lasted 2 minutes and you could only play the once. A great experience, but I know I'd not pay that! Though I'd want to know why it was so great

As I've said, Limbo (for that bloody game seems to have spawned this thread) at a tenner for a 4 hour game looks good value to me. £2.50 an hour. I've no issues with that. If it only lasted an hour, I'd not even consider it though.

Saying that, I must have picked up a £40 title that only lasted 4 hours, which would be the same £ per hour.

[Matt]

Evil Boris, I was in tesco today where a nice lady was handy out samples, or demos if you will, of some blue cheese. I took a small piece but didn't like it so told her I didn't intend to buy any. She told me my view was only valid if i ate a whole block of it and paid full price in order to understand the whole piece of cheese experience.

Should i buy a whole cheese i don't like to prove her wrong or just trust my taste buds and go with my first instinct ?

Did the nice lady not tell you that the out part of the cheese, which you'd just tasted, was not a fair representation of the rest of the cheese because it gets SOOOO much better the further through the block you get?

[ezee ryder]

Actually Demo's are meant to have a seperate thread....

but whatever, have it your way, You'll find me in the 'Christoper Nolan's Inception' thread commenting on the quality of the plot and action film despite having only seen the trailer

Some of us played the trial, demo or whatever you want to call it and didn't have the same opinion as you. Get over it dude.

Oh and there is supposed to be a new (separate) thread created for full games but that doesn't seem to happen all the time either. Rules eh?!

[EvilBoris]

See, that kind of attitude - I'm sure you're only joking, but different media, different exposure. If you saw the first 30 mins of the film and decided you didn't like it, that would be fine, correct? Well, same with games.

"But it gets better, you're missing out on so much!!" Well, then the developers are idiots. Because if you put out a demo that's not a true representation of the game, that's not going to show the demo audience just how great your game is, then I'd argue your game can't really be that great because if you don't know how to make a compelling demo, I'm not likely to believe you can make a compelling game. And anyone who plays a demo, dislikes it, yet still buys it, is an idiot.

Demo's need not be the first level.

Disclaimer - not played any of Limbo yet, but greatly looking forward to giving the demo a go, I like the art style

Can't you see where I'm coming from though? if I had just watched the first 10 or 15 minutes of a film but then came on here and commented on how boring and art-house it was , when in fact you, having watched the film, knew that it got significantly better after those 15 minutes.

Would you not feel you were in a more suitable position to judge the product?


I actually didn't like the demo, and I didn't buy the full game til much later in the day after thinking about if for a while. People comparing it to other titles I had liked. I'm really glad I did though. The developers should of picked 2 or 3 puzzles that were better than the demo ones.

[Matt]

Can't you see where I'm coming from though? if I had just watched the first 10 or 15 minutes of a film but then came on here and commented on how boring and art-house it was , when in fact you, having watched the film, knew that it got significantly better after those 15 minutes.

Would you not feel you were in a more suitable position to judge the product?

Yes I can see where you're coming from, but it's different. The first 15 minutes of a film aren't there to sell you the full product. By that time, you're sat down in the theatre. They already have your money

A demo of a game should show a prospective buyer what they'll get for their money.

Sometimes, on films with poor word of mouth, they may release the first 5, 10 minutes of footage online to try and drum up business. An example would be Elektra from a few years back. Now, as it happened, I didn't see that 10 minute / first scene preview, and watched it on DVD some time later. I wish I'd watched the preview, because it showed all I needed to know - that the rest of the film would be ****. And it was

OK, so you watch 15 minutes of a film and it's a dark, graphic horror experience like one of those POS Hostel or Saw movies. You don't like it, you leave the theatre. Not your thing. If you then found out that the moment you left the film turned into a comedy musical. Then, and only then, would the "But it gets better!" argument stand.

There's a tone throughout a movie, and it should be there from frame 1. You're taking someone to another world for 2 hours. The director sets the tone and will look to retain it throughout. If the viewer doesn't like the tone within 15 minutes, they'll unlikely start appreciating it 2 hours later.

With games, it's a bit different. Maybe someone doesn't like the art style. Maybe someone doesn't like the controls. Maybe someone doesn't like the puzzles. Maybe someone just flat out doesn't like the genre. All of those are valid reasons to ignore the game. And all of those things can be judged after only a demo. In my experience, it can take a little bit of time to "get" a game, and for the controls to click. And I'm sure there are demos I've tried and passed on after 5 minutes that I would have enjoyed in some way if I'd sat there and put a few hours into it. But I'm not going to take the risk financially, and I'm not going to waste my time either. And in an increasingly disposable industry, there's no need to do that because it's not like we're scraping around trying to find good games; we're flooded in the things

The fact is, a 15, 30 minute demo (how long is the Limbo demo?) should show the player what they're getting. It's not like you're playing a platformer in the demo, and it stops just as the "proper" game starts - and it's really a driving sim

[prinnysquad]

Well, then the developers are idiots. Because if you put out a demo that's not a true representation of the game, that's not going to show the demo audience just how great your game is, then I'd argue your game can't really be that great because if you don't know how to make a compelling demo, I'm not likely to believe you can make a compelling game. And anyone who plays a demo, dislikes it, yet still buys it, is an idiot.

Quite happy to be an idiot after paying for Chromehounds on a friend's recommendation, even after despising the demo. This truly was a game where the demo was a jarring misrepresentation of the game (did they even do online demos back then?), and it grew in stature the more I played it, until it became one of my favourite games ever. Had I only ever played the demo, and not took someone else's advice, I would have missed out badly. Instead I would have made sweeping generalisations about a game that I came to love, because I don't tend to like the genre that much, and my bitesize experience was poor.

For this reason I tend to treat demos as things that provide assistance, but to be approached with a degree of caution.

[Matt]

Quite happy to be an idiot after paying for Chromehounds on a friend's recommendation, even after despising the demo. This truly was a game where the demo was a jarring misrepresentation of the game (did they even do online demos back then?), and it grew in stature the more I played it, until it became one of my favourite games ever. Had I only ever played the demo, and not took someone else's advice, I would have missed out badly. Instead I would have made sweeping generalisations about a game that I came to love, because I don't tend to like the genre that much, and my bitesize experience was poor.

For this reason I tend to treat demos as things that provide assistance, but to be approached with a degree of caution.

That demo only had the single player component right? Whereas the main game was online.

Which makes the developers / publishers idiots for releasing a demo not representative of the game.

[prinnysquad]

That was not the point I was addressing. I'm not arguing against that whatsoever.

You said:

if you put out a demo that's not a true representation of the game, that's not going to show the demo audience just how great your game is,

which is fair enough, then said

then I'd argue your game can't really be that great because if you don't know how to make a compelling demo, I'm not likely to believe you can make a compelling game.

This is the reasoning I don't agree with. I provided an example where the bad demo - bad game link wasn't at all true. Yes, precisely because the developers were idiotic enough to misrepresent the game, for the online/ offline disparity reason I'd already originally mentioned. But fundamentally, it's not always true that bad demo = bad game.

I think any developer could make a faux pas and misinterpret their game through a demo, for better or worse. It's happened many times that I can recall.

[Matt]

For every rule they'll be an exception. For every game that has a demo nothing like the game, they'll be a hundred that do. Not my fault developers put out poor demos and put me off a title.

I for one will not buy every game that has a bad demo just in case I end up liking the full title. I'd also argue that with enough reptition, you'd start liking any game anyway

Anyway, you're missing the point. People avoiding a game because they don't like the demo are entitled to do so. People who buy a game based on a demo they disliked, well.... to quote you location "I've seldom seen people so dumb."

I'm sure many of us avoid a game based purely on screenshots or descriptions, or maybe a developer's track record. Nothing wrong with that either.

People have judgement. I'm sure all of us have bought a full title based purely on a demo. The argument some are making here would then be opposite - "It's a great demo but maybe after 30 minutes it gets **** so I won't buy it."

A slight aside. I'm currently "watching" Pathfinder on BR. After only a few minutes you could tell it'd be a **** film. Rather than turn it off, I've kept it on in the background. I really shouldn't have, as it's without doubt one of the ****test, more dumb films ever imagined. See, I should have followed my instincts

We all base our purchases on certain criteria. Not Liking The Demo is the strongest reason for not buying a title I can think of

[Welrain]

So if I shoplift how does that affect the value for money calculation....