I'm sure this has been asked before, but why do demos have limited uses?

#91aamotPosted 1/19/2013 3:18:17 PM
Good God, people are bad at analogies out here.
---
"I dare you to make less sense."
#92Grand KirbyPosted 1/19/2013 3:19:22 PM
From: Faelor | #087
People keep looking at this issue from the POV of the consumer, and not the provider. By limiting the demo, the provider gives incentive to the consumer to buy the full product. Even if the consumer doesn't buy it, they can't enjoy something from the full product forever. This may not result in a sale, but it never results in a lost sale, because it's free to distribute but doesn't cost them because it's limited. This is most likely what providers think.


The problem is limiting a demo will not result in any more sales than an unlimited demo, nor would an unlimited demo lose any more sales by being so. It's a demo. People are either going to buy the game or not after playing it and that's it. No one is going to sate themselves forever on the demo by itself. So being overprotective of it is pointless. The provider won't lose anything from not doing it.
---
Okay, I rolled a 14. What's that mean? Hsu
That you're a cheater. This is a 12-sided die. Chan
#93king_darksPosted 1/19/2013 3:20:01 PM
Grand Kirby posted...

That would never, ever happen. Demos are too short for anyone to get filled up with an entire game.

Oh but it almost has. Reading this very thread there is a poster who played halo wars almost to the point of being burnt out by it. If this isn't enough consider what I said. Demo takes the core assets of the full game and allowed it to be played. Those that like it will play this and enjoy it however the content in the full game might not be compelling enough to buy it. So why buy it if they can enjoy the free portion for now? Limit it and they'll have to buy the full version to get any enjoyment. Don't start assuming such things when there is evidence to the contray.



That's why I said it makes sense for food samples. Samples of games work entirely differently.

The unlimited sample was the analogy. A rather apt one I believe.

Movies offer significantly less content then a demo and last for a far shorter time.

What. The longest demos I've played would be about 30 minutes long, and none of the 3DS demos match that. What demos are you thinking of?


That 15 times larger. Fire emblem demo lasted me that long on lunatic. So did mutant mudds and kingdom hearts 3d and heroes of ruin.

Aside from the fact that many games are the same way,

No they aren't. Video games allow exploration. Movies don't. Video games allows multiple way to challenge a problem. Movies don't. Video games allow customization. Movies don't. Video games allows interactions. Movies don't. There is far, far more content in a demo then a trailer. It isn't even funny.

this only means would mean a full game would have much more to offer than a demo, making the ability for someone to fulfill themselves on only a demo completely ludicrous.

How so? Yeah the full game offer much more content then the demo but this doesn't specify how much content is in a demo in the first place. Reading the above is a indicator on what a demo can include. Companies that are fairly generous in what they allow can offer quite a bit to be demo'ed. People can milk a 25 hr game for up to 250 hours. I know I did this with Tp screwing around.

Look at the Fire Emblem demo. Do you really think someone is going to go, "Well I could buy the game and enjoy the expanded story, all of the additional characters and the extra levels, but hey, I have unlimited demo uses, so I'm just going to play that?" No.

I'm sorry but I deleted some stuff >.< hope it wasn't anything important. Looking at the Fe demo... I got 5 hr out of it already LOL. Using myself as a example let say I'm tight on money and could only afford fire emblem or dark souls. Personally I'll kick fire emblem ass to the curve and play the crap out of dark souls. However I'll play the demo to tide me over untill I can purchase it. Now in this instance I played all of the FE uses. I realllllllly want the game. I need to play it so the full copy is more appealing then it was before.
---
School days are back.
#94ManuKesnaPosted 1/19/2013 3:21:14 PM
wow LOL at the nintendo fanboys in this topic
---
PSN: Manu-Kesna
GT: ManuKesna
#95king_darksPosted 1/19/2013 3:22:46 PM
Sir_Haxor posted...
king_darks posted...
Sir_Haxor posted...

I don't know how else to break this down.


If I keep playing my Wind Waker demo but never buy the actual game devs are not losing a sale. There is no proof that I would have paid for the full game had there been no demo.

There is also no proof that limiting a demo can result in a loss of a sale. So this is why I'm confused.


Why would a developer give you a part of a game to play at your leisure if it wouldn't benefit them in anyway? The answer is they wouldn't. However drawing in a customer that might potentially be interested in the product IS beneficial to developers so thats why demo's exist. For those whom don't want the game but just want free stuff to enjoy.., limit the demo. This way those who are interested by the taste they received of the product are going to have to eventually buy the whole product to get their fill as the demo won't last forever. The only losers here are people who want freebies.


People who play demos infinitely are not getting access to free content.

Part of the game =/= Content.
You can't be serious.


So watching a 5 minute preview for The Avengers and not seeing the movie is getting free content and cheating companies? Are you really this daft?

And no, there are plenty of demos which feature things not present in the final build. Sorry but I don't consider scrapped material as free content.


LOL 1 less voice I have to listen to then.
---
School days are back.
#96Sir_HaxorPosted 1/19/2013 3:23:12 PM
Iceberg73e posted...
From: Faelor | #087
People keep looking at this issue from the POV of the consumer, and not the provider. By limiting the demo, the provider gives incentive to the consumer to buy the full product. Even if the consumer doesn't buy it, they can't enjoy something from the full product forever. This may not result in a sale, but it never results in a lost sale, because it's free to distribute but doesn't cost them because it's limited. This is most likely what providers think.


Bingo. It's really not about whether you like or dislike the policy. But there is an underlined reason behind it.


So because the providers believe it's justified the rest of us should too?

IDC what the providers think. It's stupid and only shows how rotten the industry is becoming.
---
3DS Friend Code: 0559-6940-0140
The Official Anguished One and Chaos Hero of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board
#97king_darksPosted 1/19/2013 3:25:13 PM
Sir_Haxor posted...
Iceberg73e posted...
From: Faelor | #087
People keep looking at this issue from the POV of the consumer, and not the provider. By limiting the demo, the provider gives incentive to the consumer to buy the full product. Even if the consumer doesn't buy it, they can't enjoy something from the full product forever. This may not result in a sale, but it never results in a lost sale, because it's free to distribute but doesn't cost them because it's limited. This is most likely what providers think.


Bingo. It's really not about whether you like or dislike the policy. But there is an underlined reason behind it.


So because the providers believe it's justified the rest of us should too?

IDC what the providers think. It's stupid and only shows how rotten the industry is becoming.


Capitalism. That all I have to say.
---
School days are back.
#98FaelorPosted 1/19/2013 3:31:30 PM
Grand Kirby posted...
From: Faelor | #087
People keep looking at this issue from the POV of the consumer, and not the provider. By limiting the demo, the provider gives incentive to the consumer to buy the full product. Even if the consumer doesn't buy it, they can't enjoy something from the full product forever. This may not result in a sale, but it never results in a lost sale, because it's free to distribute but doesn't cost them because it's limited. This is most likely what providers think.


The problem is limiting a demo will not result in any more sales than an unlimited demo, nor would an unlimited demo lose any more sales by being so. It's a demo. People are either going to buy the game or not after playing it and that's it. No one is going to sate themselves forever on the demo by itself. So being overprotective of it is pointless. The provider won't lose anything from not doing it.


They don't lose anything from doing it either, and this way they create incentive. I'd also like to address the bolded part. Can you prove this? Can you prove that not one person, nor even a sizable percentage of gamers, would be perfectly satisfied playing the same section over and over? If you can't, you see the dilemma from the provider's point of view.
---
3DS Friend Code: 3437 3093 1478
Pokemon White 2 Friend Code: 4599 7588 5979
#99LOLRIFANPosted 1/19/2013 3:34:33 PM
the industry gives us thing like disc locked content as dlc and forced updates that can brick your console even if your a legitimate costumer(it happened with the wii) and don't forget ACTUAL pirates can UNBRICK a bricked system meaning forced updates that brick systems ONLY hurt the innocent people who DON'T hack.

let's not forget about paying twice to play the SAME game on two different systems(3ds and wii vc) were as if i buy a dvd i can play said dvd on ANY dvd player i own,yet you defend video game companies when they treat there constumers worse then movie companies,tv stations,or book sellers.
---
I am a furry AND PROUD to admit it.
Also guess what I AM SMASHKING84
#100SSJ2__GohanPosted 1/19/2013 3:52:37 PM
Faelor posted...
Grand Kirby posted...
From: Faelor | #087
People keep looking at this issue from the POV of the consumer, and not the provider. By limiting the demo, the provider gives incentive to the consumer to buy the full product. Even if the consumer doesn't buy it, they can't enjoy something from the full product forever. This may not result in a sale, but it never results in a lost sale, because it's free to distribute but doesn't cost them because it's limited. This is most likely what providers think.


The problem is limiting a demo will not result in any more sales than an unlimited demo, nor would an unlimited demo lose any more sales by being so. It's a demo. People are either going to buy the game or not after playing it and that's it. No one is going to sate themselves forever on the demo by itself. So being overprotective of it is pointless. The provider won't lose anything from not doing it.


They don't lose anything from doing it either, and this way they create incentive. I'd also like to address the bolded part. Can you prove this? Can you prove that not one person, nor even a sizable percentage of gamers, would be perfectly satisfied playing the same section over and over? If you can't, you see the dilemma from the provider's point of view.


No, they take away incentive. People will feel it's a waste to use up a use when they don't know if they're going to enjoy that use that: that use is better saved for when you're certain you're going to enjoy that use. So, the demo gets left untouched, collecting dust.

Instead, if a demo is unlimited, people will immediately try as there's no loss. If they like it enough, they will buy it. If they don't like it enough, they wouldn't buy it anyway, but they might still continue playing the demo, getting more and more persuaded until they finally crack. A limited demo also lacks this "crack"-factor, as a limited demo has to be played in moderation instead of getting addicted to it to finally crack and get the complete game.