Recent Posts
Advertisement
Article Sections
Game Servers
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
Show All Albums
Private Message
View Friends
View Articles
View Blog Entries
That is increasingly the question faced by many developers and publishers.
In a presentation at DICE 2013, Jesse Schell, the CEO of Schell Games and a Game Designer at Carnegie Mellon University, delivered a speech where this topic found center stage. I found the speech enjoyable, his delivery interesting enough to maintain my attention, and the topic (Games) was, of course, easy to be motivated about. While the speech focused on changing and emerging trends in the gaming world, human consumption patterns, and the shifting focus of the 21st Century's economy, there was a portion of the speech I took issue with. So, too, did a contributor at PCGamesN.com, which is where I saw the article and viewed a video of the keynote speech.
Jesse Schell: Releasing a demo harms your game sales | PCGamesN
Schell spends some time talking about various things such as the "Hype Curve" seen here:
To illustrate his point, which by the way I don't doubt the accuracy of his figures, he provides the following slide:
Kudos.
However one must ask: What is missing from this talk? What key element is notably absent from the above concept espoused by Mr. Schell (and I presume hundreds of others in the industry)? Where are the opinions and needs of the persons ultimately funding this venture, and all others, in the first place?
Why, as a consumer, are demos and the ability to "try before you buy" such an important factor? A keystone if you will. It is for the simple fact that not all games, systems, applications, interfaces, developers or publishers are equal. Meaning, to wit, that while some games are, without question, amazing and crowd pleasers and the "bestest thing since sliced bread" others (and I would argue that the majority fall into varying shades of this category) are decidedly less so.
Issues ranging all the way from from a simple "Eh, I didn't care for it," to the atrocious "This game fails to even launch properly."
The fact that many games are now released in unfinished states is even more reason, for a consumer, to want some verifiable (as tangible as a digital product can offer) proof of quality and general salable state. When we, as consumers, enter into any other type of commerce (clothes, movies, food) satisfaction with the product controls all. In terms of clothing, we have the ability to "try before we buy." Sounds an awful lot like a demo to me. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. And even if we do buy it, if we're unsatisfied with it or change our minds post-purchase we still have the ability (in many places) to return that item for a complete refund. When it comes to film, if a movie is terrible, we have the ability to get up, leave, and ask for a refund of the ticket price. Food is slightly different, in that many places do not offer samples, but again if we're dissatisfied with the meal we can request the price be removed from the tab, even if we've already begun eating it. This same type of "customer care or satisfaction" mechanism is in place throughout most forms of public commerce. Why then is software design, and specifically game design, held in a totally separate class?
For a developer or publisher to "cry foul" when customers realize their product is utter tripe before shelling out hard earned cash would be laughable if it weren't so seriously screwed up. Yet this is precisely the case, and they have learned this well and so do not provide demos in many instances. Shame on them.
I'll tell you what 'game designers and publishers of the world,' make your compelling products original and fun (and above all COMPLETE) and we'll pay you. Consider it meeting us halfway.
Graph images courtesy of The Secret Mechanisms - DICE 2013
vBulletin Message