Your 'demo' will kill your game

[B.Ultimus]

First, watch this video.

As you'll see (and in case you decided to skip the video) a demo 22% of the time (but realistically 11% of the time) will be of any benefit to your game.  To make a demo work, you need both a fantastic demo and a wonderful game (or in some cases, a great demo with a mediocre game, but that will harm people's view of you as a developer).

Second, and especially in the RPG Maker world, people's goal tends to push towards releasing a demo.  Why?  Because we want to show off our stuff, we want people to play the things we create and go, "Wow, that was pretty good!".  We like the recognition.

Sadly, this turns your goal into releasing a demo, instead of releasing a game.  You started your project to finish, not to quit 10% through because you wanted to create something to show off to other people and boost your street cred as a developer.

And you know we see a very VERY low % of games finished in this world.

Third, some may argue that demos allow people to try out your game and say what is right/wrong with it so you can make improvements along the line.  That is a alpha/beta test build NOT a demo.  Demos should be for finished products only (and even then, I still don't recommend it as a marketing tool).  Get a group of people interested in testing your game, and make it more of a private release.  By throwing it to the public, you potentially deter people from showing interest for your game in the future because they believe this is the final result.

That is the current issue with Steam's Early Release program...but that's another conversation for another time :3

 

[Ultim]

This...Helped me.

 

[cabfe]

The fact that we're calling "demo" a beta version asking for feedback is not helping either.

You're right in that it should be renamed "test build" or something.

 

[amerk]

While I do agree a demo can have the undesirable effect of turning people off the finished product, it's really nothing more than shifting the time/version a person loses interest in playing. What I mean is, if a demo is lousy, I can't see the final version being any more engaging. Just because the developer doesn't release a demo doesn't mean the player will suddenly find newfound interest in the complete product, especially if the developer hasn't been given incite on how to improve (which they can't without getting community input on their demos).

Plus: 

Third, some may argue that demos allow people to try out your game and say what is right/wrong with it so you can make improvements along the line.  That is a alpha/beta test build NOT a demo.  Demos should be for finished products only (and even then, I still don't recommend it as a marketing tool).  Get a group of people interested in testing your game, and make it more of a private release.  By throwing it to the public, you potentially deter people from showing interest for your game in the future because they believe this is the final result.

While Steam may be more for showcasing final stages of a project, RM communities play a higher role in helping one another develop their games throughout the process. So demos released here are more than likely not going to be for finished products. It wouldn't make sense for an RM developer to release a demo here when they already have the finalized product in hand and could have released that instead.

Sure, releasing a demo may hurt some interest in the product, but it also gives a developer the opportunity to see what the community thinks and make changes as they go along. I've played tons of demos in my time with the various RPG Maker communities, and one thing I will say - quite often the final product is nowhere close to what the demo is. Why? Because of community support offering the developer ways to improve their game, which wouldn't have happened if the developer did not release a demo at all.

The one gripe I have with demos is that too many get released, and oftentimes at the wrong stages of development. You get a demo in early tech mode, then another when the first chapter is built, then another when game bugs are fixed, then another when a sprite is colored, then another when chapter two comes out.... I'm fine with demos coming out in the middle of the project so the developer can quickly change course if the situation is warranted (something they may not be able to easily do if the game is already done), but they really need to think about when they are releasing that demo, and really only release one demo before the final product (unless situation dictates a second updated demo). But 3, 4, and sometimes 5 demo updates is overkill.

Second, and especially in the RPG Maker world, people's goal tends to push towards releasing a demo.  Why?  Because we want to show off our stuff, we want people to play the things we create and go, "Wow, that was pretty good!".  We like the recognition.

Sadly, this turns your goal into releasing a demo, instead of releasing a game.  You started your project to finish, not to quit 10% through because you wanted to create something to show off to other people and boost your street cred as a developer.

And you know we see a very VERY low % of games finished in this world.

The amount of finished games has nothing to do with releasing a demo. What usually kills a product? Over ambition and trying to implement things a developer can't handle; that and the fact that real life calls, and most people here are doing this as a hobby. Waiting until the product is finished is a sure-fire way of killing a project faster than a demo would. At least with a demo, you can build hype for the final project, figure what people like or dislike, get the community support to improve on your game design, and see if you're at least doing something right.

That is the current issue with Steam's Early Release program...but that's another conversation for another time :3

Keep in mind that communities like RMN, RMW, and VXAN are here to help with the game development. Steam is more for developers selling their final product, and for the players. There's not as extensive of development support there. I don't care for Early Release, because I don't believe the player should be charged for an unfinished product, but like you said "that's another conversation". 

However, I can assure you the chances of me buying a commercial game in this day and age is less likely if I don't get a demo for it first, or at the very minimum see an extensive playthrough to sell me on it. So yes, it may kill my interest in buying the final product, but that's for my protection. Why should I be forced into buying a game I wind up not liking and can't be refunded on all because the developer was afraid people wouldn't buy the final product? If the developer thinks a demo will kill interest in his game, chances are high he needs to go back and fix his game.

With freeware, I'm a bit more lenient in downloading a final version of a game without having first played a demo, since I'm not spending money, but I still believe my time is valuable. I tend to look closely at what the game page is about, the screenshots, the features, the way the game is presented, any supporting or negative comments and reviews, and any playthroughs on youtube -- before I download the game.

 

[Matseb2611]

If the developer thinks a demo will kill interest in his game, chances are high he needs to go back and fix his game.

^That.

For one is that I think a demo should give a very good idea of what the game is like and to be as polished as possible. Yeah, it's true, you don't want the demo to undersell your game, but not having one at all would not necessarily make people more interested in the game. If the demo is no good, then it's worth asking yourself why that is the case. Is it a problem with the game itself or just with the demo? If it's a problem with the demo, then perhaps you should showcase a different part of the game as part of the demo. And if the problem is in the game itself, then the dev really needs to make some improvements to the core gameplay. At the end of the day, if you are not confident about your game's demo being good, then why should the players be?

A demo serves many purposes.

1. Getting early feedback from the testers about things that can be improved in the game. After all, if you don't release one at all, you could end up spending months or years making a game that ends up lacking simply because there was no input from potential fans. It's better to get useful feedback as early as possible before you go wasting time adding something to the game that might in fact only make it worse.

2. Many players want to try the demo before they buy/play the full game. One thing players really do hate is to be conned and ripped off, by spending money (or time) on a game that underdelivers. If they lose interest at the demo stage of the game, at the very least it's not so bad and they haven't spent tonnes of cash on the game that could essentially make them angry at you as a developer and no longer be willing to support you. Not only this. The players also want to know if the game will run on their machine at all. What if they buy the full game only to realise it doesn't run on their computer or runs badly?

3. Demo creates hype for your game. Sure, it might put some people off if they end up not enjoying it, but then so would the full game. Whereas some people will end up enjoying the demo and be even more eager to get their hands on the full game. Not only that, but they'll also tell their friends about the game and spread the word about it. Because nothing beats experiencing things first hand. Yeah, a bunch of screenshots and a story synopsis on the game's page might interest the player, but it's only once they experience some of the gameplay for themselves that they really fall in love with the game.

I think the issue is not about the act of releasing a demo kills the game. It's about making a good demo and making a good game.

 

[Fernyfer775]

I have personally found that putting my demo up on this website has completely evolved my project into something I could have never imagined it would be.

I am beyond glad that I uploaded a demo and allowed players to give me their feedback, in which I have applied to create what my game is today.

Plus, on the side of motivation, it always helps to see that there are actual people who play your game and then eagerly await for you to make more updates

to it and get them uploaded for them to try.

Without my demo being up and available, I would even say that I might have just dropped the project altogether months ago, but with so many people giving me

that push to complete my project so that they could see the finished project, I have stuck to it.

 

[Clord]

Actually a demo doesn't kill interest towards the game unless it is seriously abysmal.


However it makes it harder to push yourself to then finish your potentially rather good game due you have already released it in some form to public.

 

[SLEEP]

the demos we release here are mostly beta versions, which are just versions of what we're already working on with a stopping point. theyre for community feedback, and not an advertisement for selling our games. they dont take up much extra dev time, because they're basically just the content we've made already with maybe a splash screen or dialogue box to mark the end of what we've made. and still allow for release hype, when the games are finished and ready to be announced outside the rpg maker community. it's like an alpha public release, but the only public around is the rpg maker community, and nobody else is going to pay attention no matter how public it is.

i mean i like extra credits too, but its super-awkward whenever i see some kid watching it for the first time and believing they are now the sage of game knowledge.

 

[nio kasgami]

to my own opinion for me Beta - Demo - Alpha don't make a big sence's 

sincerely I don't rely the demo to a final project but more to a Final sketch

Beta is the term for a Really rought version who the story is style in construction the developpement is really at the basic states

Alpha : not quite perfect the story is not totally finish and the devellopement still have some flaw but the develloper correct a lot of error and major flaws

Demo : haa the most time people mistake is simply the final SKetch of the work the story is settle and really clear but the devellopement is not finish need to have some improvement

prototype Version : this is a finish version but not the complete is only serve for show the main feature and show a little the plot of the story

Release version : this is a the final version but need some correction 

Final Version : THis is qualified FInal version when the devellopper think they not need anymore Story /Developpement correction...only more Bugs fix or some Scene/ Spelling correction.

it is how I see the ''Demo'' for game 

it is also work for comics conception in my mangaka jobs just remove the ''bugs'' fix by Drawing corrections

 

[Simon D. Aelsi]

This is very insightful and will help me in the future. Great post.

 

[Zoltor]

If a demo kills the game, it means one thing, and one thing only, that was a pretty crappy demo/game concept in general.

Otherwise a demo, can only get people interested for the finished game, this is even more so the case with RM made games.

The only thing you should keep in mind, is anything that is gonna be in the demo version, should be a complete concept(not half of a concept, missing aspects of a feature), and polished.  

 

[nio kasgami]

If a demo kills the game, it means one thing, and one thing only, that was a pretty crappy demo/game concept in general.

Otherwise a demo, can only get people interested for the finished game, this is even more so the case with RM made games.

The only thing you should keep in mind, is anything that is gonna be in the demo version, should be a complete concept(not half of a concept, missing aspects of a feature), and polished.  

I agreed with you when you are in the states of ''demo'' you story should be enough complete...but in same time demo not signify to a full polished game (it is more reserved for a Prototype type) I think the demo can let open the new possibility to new features, since demo is a ''final sketch''.

 

[richter_h]

Killing, in some ways. For the developer and players alike. Killing the developer's will to make the game to be fully released, and killing players' interest to play the buggy demo, but not if the demo gives nice promises to players and they're willing to wait the full version of the game...

For myself, there are many differences between test build and demo. Demo shows a portion of the completed game as well with many limitations (like restriction to access further equipment tiers, restricted access to other areas, and such) and it's supposed to be bug-free, without exceptions to rare bugs occured in demo version. Anyone can play a game's demo, indeed.

The test build, or I prefer to call it 'bleeding edge build' doesn't need to be completed because one of its main intentions are to identify errors so th developer would fix it. And yes, only groups of testers or community who can play the test build, as it's not considered as a release.

"Finish what you've done" is the only motto that fits the most of developers who currently are working on their demo.

My 50 cents, and by the way, great topic, fella.

Cheers~

 

[Zoltor]

I agreed with you when you are in the states of ''demo'' you story should be enough complete...but in same time demo not signify to a full polished game (it is more reserved for a Prototype type) I think the demo can let open the new possibility to new features, since demo is a ''final sketch''.

Actually the "story" is the least important aspect of the demo, because It's a god damn demo lol, they aren't gonna see enough of the story to make any difference either way.

What I meant about polish, is #1, any systems/features, events or whatnot you put in the demo should be bug free, and 2, they should atleast "seem" complete, plus not sloppily added to the game, in any sense of the word..

Lets face it, if a developer can't even make sure a demo is bug free, they shouldn't be developing a game in the first place, because that's pretty damn sad.

 

[Kes]

Some of the differences of opinion here seem to stem almost entirely from different understandings of what a 'demo' is.

There is the 'demo' that you often find when you got to a site selling RM games and it consists of a portion of the game which the potential buyer can try out before committing any money.  This must be bug free, polished etc. etc., and there is no excuse for it being anything else.  As it is the beginning of the game, it will accurately reflect the qualities of the game - good, bad or indifferent.

Then there is the 'demo' which can be nothing more than a "proof of concept" /early build which is being put out specifically for feedback on ideas/implementation etc.  At this stage there will definitely be rough edges, because the developer is not going to get it to crystalline perfection before having had some feedback from a community such as this one.  Personally I don't think that these should be called a 'demo'; call it an early build, call it an alpha build, or beta build or whatever.  Anything to avoid the confusions about what we are dealing with which seem to lie behind some of the posts in this thread.  

Speaking for myself, I expect such early builds to have bugs, glitches etc.  It goes with the territory.

 

[Zoltor]

Some of the differences of opinion here seem to stem almost entirely from different understandings of what a 'demo' is.

There is the 'demo' that you often find when you got to a site selling RM games and it consists of a portion of the game which the potential buyer can try out before committing any money.  This must be bug free, polished etc. etc., and there is no excuse for it being anything else.  As it is the beginning of the game, it will accurately reflect the qualities of the game - good, bad or indifferent.

Then there is the 'demo' which can be nothing more than a "proof of concept" /early build which is being put out specifically for feedback on ideas/implementation etc.  At this stage there will definitely be rough edges, because the developer is not going to get it to crystalline perfection before having had some feedback from a community such as this one.  Personally I don't think that these should be called a 'demo'; call it an early build, call it an alpha build, or beta build or whatever.  Anything to avoid the confusions about what we are dealing with which seem to lie behind some of the posts in this thread.  

Speaking for myself, I expect such early builds to have bugs, glitches etc.  It goes with the territory.

Yea, and like you said, that shouldn't even be called a demo, it should be called a proof of concept or called a early, very early beta build, if not a alpha build(calling such a beta, is pushing it, since in beta, the game should be more or less complete, it wouldn't be a small fraction of a game, plus most of the game should already be finalized once it hits beta).

 

[whitesphere]

I think a proof of concept build as ksp17 calls it, is a valuable tool for playtesting.  After all, I assume any responsible developer playtests his/her games extensively.  However, even when we do, we wrote the entire game, so we may not know what happens if, say, the player goes somewhere unexpected, or if there are enough NPC hints to the player for the next stage, and so forth.

It sounds like as developers we should have some type of early build so we can get feedback on what we need to improve.  Maybe we need more explicit hints in a puzzle, or maybe it doesn't make sense why the players should do Y once they've completed X.

I would agree that a demo is more a tool made AFTER the entire game is complete, tested, polished, etc.    

Personally, I'm not sure when to release an early build, since I have around 2 hours of content so far, but my push has been to flesh out the skeleton of the game, then add NPCs, side-quests and the likes.  I don't think the side-quests are important, nor is a lot of polish important, but I've no desire to waste people's free time if I feel the game is buggy/not playtested enough/etc.   I want it to be good enough so even an early build is enjoyable.

After all, I tend to rant a lot about developers who blithely release their "completed" games without sufficient playtesting, etc.  So I feel I'd be a rampant hypocrite to do the same, even if it's tagged as an early build.

 

[amerk]

There is the 'demo' that you often find when you got to a site selling RM games and it consists of a portion of the game which the potential buyer can try out before committing any money.  This must be bug free, polished etc. etc., and there is no excuse for it being anything else.  As it is the beginning of the game, it will accurately reflect the qualities of the game - good, bad or indifferent. 

And I believe this is what the video is talking about. More so about the demos you play of already full versions that will then entice you to go out and buy the product rather than what we in the RM cycles call "demos" which is really nothing more than a "WIP".

However, even assuming the video is talking about finished "for sale" games, they're basing the majority of their assumptions on the negativity of demos from a developer's perspective. But from a consumer perspective, I have to take a different route. I'm all for supporting developers that have earned my support, but I'm not willing to throw caution to the wind and money to boot for a game I'm blindly buying because the developer is worried I may decide not to buy it, especially if that developer has used shady tactics in the past or I'm not aware of the developer's history.

However, that's the gamble the developer has to take. If they believe they can convince enough people to buy a game without first playing a demo, then all the more power to them. But they may find the opposite to be true, in that their sales plummets as a result of not allowing people to give it a test play first. And even if they do manage to get people to buy without testing a demo first, they still risk sales in the long run if people feel the finalized version that they paid for was a big disappointment or were somehow ripped off, so much that future sales and projects may suffer as a result. The backlash is often harder if money is on the line than if somebody had been given a chance to try it first.

One thing that should be noted is that there is seldom an arbitrary rule for things in life. What works for one developer will oftentimes not work for others. For this video to lump developers and consumers together and boldly distinguish that demos hurt the finished product seems a bit one-sided and doesn't take into account a lot of factors.

 

[B.Ultimus]

Interesting conversation folks!

There may be some confusion about the post, so let's get to the point

tl;dr:  Releasing a prototype for feedback is wonderful (and should be encouraged!).  However, a lot of makers here attempt to release a demo to get the back pats, thus making 'release a demo' a goal.  With that, people will spend time polishing up a demo for release on the boards. That shouldn't be your goal.  Your goal is to release a game; put all your efforts into that. 

 

[nio kasgami]

Actually the "story" is the least important aspect of the demo, because It's a god damn demo lol, they aren't gonna see enough of the story to make any difference either way.

What I meant about polish, is #1, any systems/features, events or whatnot you put in the demo should be bug free, and 2, they should atleast "seem" complete, plus not sloppily added to the game, in any sense of the word..

Lets face it, if a developer can't even make sure a demo is bug free, they shouldn't be developing a game in the first place, because that's pretty damn sad.

Ho now I understand yes a demo should avoid Bugs but I think some minor bugs should not to much bother people

and yes the system features should be complete  like you say and I agree the game seem need to be more complete it is why I only use the ''term'' demo when I am in the final sketch states 

@b.ultimus : I admit yes people should work more on the game unless the game...myself the ''demo'' for my game  alone is simply the chapter one but I want to polished the system features and everything before enter in the next chapters