"Bringing demos to the consumer always seems like a solid way of marketing a game, right? Of course. But publishers like EA have considered putting a separate price tag onto their trials, and in turn changing them."
I hate that idea Alot. A whole lot.
That's one rip-off too many.
Depends on the demographic. I know plenty of people who would have paid say 15$ to play even a gimped version of modern warefare 2' multiplayer early
People download demos to get a taste of a game free, in order to decide if its worth their well earned cash. It also reduces the likelyhood of piracy on some titles, because of lot of people just want to try before coughing up any cash. Having to pay for any even 'extended' demo is thus a seriously flawed business model...
More piracy lmao
Actually I bet somewhere an activision exec is pissed that he didnt think of this first. Next they will charge us for looking at the box art in the store.
If they do that. I would just rent the game for $5 to try it out, if I was really interested in it. I don't think I would ever pay for a demo.
I'm not surprised that EA wants part of this. I can see Activision and Ubisoft joining the fray.
This is on developer's wish list and EA mentioned it before. One developer is talking about this. I think it is in everybody's best interest to keep demo's free. A demo is and advertisement. I am not going to pay a developer to advertise to me. That is plain stupid. If a demo is costing your studio too much to make, don't make the demo. If it cost too much to advertise don't advertise. The problem with that is that I am not going to buy games and then get home and find out that they suck. Mean while these guys got my $60 and I am eating crow. I am also NOT going to pay you to let me test your game to see if I want to pay for the full thing. This is already a dead issue as far as I am concern and I will no speak on it any further.
And people thought EA is a better company than Activision. That, EA actually "changed". The only change here is the difference in the sub-total at the end of my receipt before tax.
The fact that any consumer would be in favor of this is frankly shocking to me. I mean wake the **** up. You're not paying for an extended demo, you're paying for the intro to a full game. It's no longer a demo once you're opening your wallet. The whole point of playing a demo is to get a taste of what a game is like BEFORE you go to the bank so that you don't end up with $60 worth of **** on your shelf. There's nothing wrong with half-scale or quarter-scale games like BF1943 or Fat Princess. They're just fine the way they are. This entire model they're suggesting seems ass backwards. You'd be paying to extend BF1943, not sample Bad Company 2 which again, defeats the whole purpose of a DEMOnstration. Stupid.
A money hungry company will always be a money hungry company. However lets not forget that EA has improved game development wise lately. Its naive to think of companies as people however credit must be given were credit is due. I have been very surprise with Dead space, Mirrors Edge, Fifa 10 and BC2 this gen. Lets not forget ME 1 $ 2 as well as Crysis 2 which is shaping up to be a stellar game.
Wow, just wow..... You know there was a time I would have said there is just no way in hell this would work... people/ gamers can't be that stupid, can they ? The scary thing is they will launch it and we will be seeing VGcharts numbers on x millions of demo or at least in the 100's of thousands paid for. what is happening to gaming, i don't know if it's the hobby I once loved. The games I onced loved are all being dumbed down for the noobs while the publishers just reach deeper and deeper into our pockets. they can F=the F%$K OFF !
I don't pay to view advertisement/trailers for a movie, this is not much different.
guys I don't think they mean regular demos but I could see a rise in 90 minute to 2 hour demos like THQ did with Darksiders. Basically paying for a really long good taste of the game. That I see happening...will suck but that's probably what they mean.
Seriously, all gamers of the world should boycott this sh!t..
there's a huge difference between "publishing" a game and "developing" it. Of all the games you've listed, only Dead Space is one developed by EA themselves (EA Redwood to be specific). Any other talent that came through EA is either. A. Publishing contract (Crytek) B. Bought out and owned (Bioware, DICE) The only thing game-development wise that EA improved is how to milk its customers for more money. Whether it's reducing the value of used-games, charging for DLC that should've been in the game, charging for cheat codes, placing very annoying in-game ads and didn't bother to warn the customer ahead of time, not allowing their fanbase to host their own servers but forcibly rent through the "EA approved list". I can really go on about how much EA sucks, and I wouldn't be short on my list of points because they've been pulling this stunt for over 3 generations of gaming. I wish more people would wise-up to EA's schemes, but they're so blind-sighted by "good games" they don't see the ramifications of what happens when you accept paying the same for less content. FFS, look what they did to CnC4!
And the industry wonders why people pirate... -_- In this bad economy... maybe they should just suck one up for the team smh at this rate games are set to hit 70 maybe 80$ next gen... First Kotick then my manuals
remember when games cost $60 back in the early eighties ..? Yeah, they did. a lot has changed. and will. not that I would consider paying for a demo. and no GT5P is not a demo.
I think that's exactly what they're talking about though. Something like GT5P. And call it what you will but essentially it was a "demo". Just not in the traditional sense. More of an "extended demo". And I think that's what they're talking about here. Not the lil 15minute demos that you see on PSN all the time. GT5P was nothing but an extended demo, don't care how you want to spin it. I was satisfied with it for the money, and it was a good lil taste before we get the full GT5, something to tide me over. But it definitely was not a full game. It was a preview to the full game. And last I checked, that's pretty much exactly what a demo is: a preview/demonstration. Doesn't bother me all that much. Though I would argue that this isn't a business model that would work well if you did ALL games like this. Maybe just the big games. Still need to have some of those free really short demos. Those free ones would work best for unknown/under the radar type games. Nobody is going to pay to play a game they've barely heard of just to see if they want to buy the whole game. But yea, doing something like GT5P would be ok with certain games here and there. Definitely doesn't need to become too widespread though, and not something that becomes the norm. Like somebody mentioned down below, I think the "problem" here is the phrasing. Don't think so much of it as a "demo" (cause they're not talking normal demos), but think more like prologue. Examples would be, like I mentioned before, GT5P..or R&C: Quest for Booty, or the whole Taxidermist part of Heavy Rain, instead of releasing it as DLC, why not make it so it can run on it's on and make that into one of these "demos". Matter of fact, I think that's a good way to look at it. Take something that would normally be DLC, but instead make it standalone and allow it to be played without having the full game. No real harm in any of that. Another good idea would be to find a way to allow what you spent on the "demo" to be credited towards the purchase of the full game a bit if you do end up buying the full game. Anybody that had no problem paying $30 for GT5P or paying a full $60 for ODST shouldn't really have a problem with an idea like this (unless it does in turn completely eliminate all free demos). Getting rid of free demos completely though would be stupid and could hurt the industry in that lesser known titles would sell less and nobody would be able to try out games that they would otherwise never even pay attention to.
I used to go in magazine section of a grocery store and steal the demo disk out the PS magazines lol I wouldnt pay for it then and i wont pay for them now
I would be gameflying alot more, might even have to up my plan....
I like it but it starts off with one charge, then another, and then another... I can't wait for Pay-Per-Play; oh, wait; that's the Arcade.
Paying for demos??? Disgusting! Good luck with that EA, hardly anyone will do it resulting in less people likley to buy the full game
This is going way to far...charging for demo's...I don't even want to read that...I never will pay for a demo...PERIOD...
More money for MS pockets? Can't see how MS wouldn't go for this.. However it's all about it devs think its feasible as even making DLC content costs money.
That's like paying for a 15 second sound preview on iTunes...
Just like there are still people who pay to play online... This is just one more stupid way to rip off the consumer on something that should be free to begin with.
My god people have no clue. Ok for the less informed this has nothing to do with xbox live or with MS. It has been going around for a while now they are thinking about charging for demo's and just not EA and not just on the Xbox. It's kinda funny cause GTP was the ones that started this, but i didnt hear the sonyfanboys boohooing then. @despair Give me some names of racers with less than 6 tracks? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk. Lets see i bought Forza 3 for 50 bucks and it had close to hundred tracks and about the same on cars. GT5P had 6 tracks and what like 30-50 cars (not for sure) and it cost 40 bucks.
nope.. i hope this fails, and that it doesnt also cross over to the playstation store (we would be screwed twice!). i like my demos free.
I hope whatever they release as a premium demo that it will be included in the final game, then I don't care if some sucker is willing to pay. Now if they are basically breaking up the game and selling it in pieces, then that is messed up!
So your saying GTP is a demo .. A demo that just happen to take about a year to finish ? by finish i mean finish all the races . i havent even drove all the cars yet and I had it since it came out Thats one hell of a demo .. Its sorta like a real game :p Just imagine paying for that Skate 3 demo .. youd have to be the dumbest person to pay for that LOL
I had no doubt this news wouldn't fly at N4G, bastion of PS3 fanboyism. A people so used to getting PSN for free that they will riot anytime someone asks them for money. Well, never fear... those demos will have to be good enough to warrant your money. And if the market doesn't go for it... these kinds of Prologue content will disappear. Just remember... GT5 did it first. I'd love to know what you disagree with: if N4G is inundated with PS3 fanboys, if we live in a free market society, or if GT5 had a Prologue?
The only way I see this working is if you pay something like 20% of the games full price to play 20% of the game. If you decide to purchase the game you can then pay the rest of the money. Paying for a trial and then paying full for the full game takes the piss.
.. if I must pay for a demo, I won't.... and therefor ... not buy the game. This is a greedy and stupid idea. Whoever came up with this can stick it where the sun don't shine.
I don't hate it if the games become like Battlefield 1943. That game was great. The demo's would just need to become sizeable levels.
... when the full game gets released and needs all the server-space. Demos are fine the way they are now. Why change it? And I will never pay for a demo.
that many many people feel the same way. paid demos? GTFO, EA. Let's all pay to beta test all of their games for them too! It'll be great!
1943 is basically a demo for BC2.... I was VERY happy with the amount I paid for it.
Do what? 1943 is basically a demo to BC2. Surely your are not that dumb. You was joking right?....right?
You will never pay for a demo? What if it's a demo with 3 hours of solid Triple-A gameplay? What if they make it worth your cash? Are you going to avoid that kind of content on principle alone? Well, that's your choice. As for me... I'm not decided yet. Each any every time they will have to earn my money, same way a free demo has to earn my valuable time.
until you've paid for it, played it and found out that it was a bust. Unless you want to start trusting this broken as hell review system that is the norm these days
To me, this sounds like little more than extending the concept of shareware into the console arena. Remember Fable 2's fragmented digital distribution, where only the first chapter was free? I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see downloadable games going further down that path. As for having to pay for these so-called "premium demos"? I'm alright with it, on the sole condition that the amount I pay for whatever initial chapter/segment/quest that is being offered is deducted from the full version. That is, if the developers (be it EA or others) feel it necessary to market demos the same way episodic content is marketed, then I would expect to get the same value of said demo than I would similarly priced episodic content. Failure to offer some kind of discount/deal on the full product (whether digital or packaged) would seem like double dipping in this case.
XBOX live arcade games are just like shareware games, download the full release, with a limited demo and if you like it you can unlock the full game for a fee
The only way I would think about supporting this is if my money went towards the purchase of the final game but then I would be stuck if I did not like it.
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Thanks alot:( i will never ever pay for a demo EVER
I wouldn't pay for a demo either, but with games that I'm on the fence about I would be willing to pay little to get like an extended amount of time through game.
I don't blame you since demos are a bad presentation of a game.
I don't understand this entitlement people have, where they just believe gaming companies owe them things. They're companies, they have investors, employees, and responsibilities to turning a profit. If they can validate this idea with worthy "demos" (not the right verbage, obviously carries a lot of negative connotations that is getting everyone's panties in a bunch), then maybe it's not a terrible idea. Especially if it gets more people to buy the game and therefore helps ensure sequels, DLC, or new IP's from the developer. And as someone mentioned earlier, games have cost the SAME AMOUNT for nearly 30 years, with certain systems going well above (N64 and the notorious $200 neo geo cartridges). Getting the 10 dollar increase this generation was an absolute necessity as budgets have skyrocketed in summer blockbuster levels. Gas goes up, milk goes up, movie tickets go up, but gaming has really held a constant level. Games should cost closer to a $100 dollars or more according to inflation, so you should actually be celebrating the decades of reasonable prices you've been enjoying instead of crying about dropping 10 measly dollars on something YOU'RE NOT FORCED TO BUY.
I disagree with the idea of paying for a demo, but I think that term may be misleading. For example, I would never pay for a demo on XBL now, as I'm sure most people wouldn't, because most of them aren't long enough or substantial enough to warrant a price. But maybe if size of the demos were increased a lot then I would start to consider it... Maybe. Still a tall order when we already pay for the XBL service and that demos have been free since the beginning.
i agree, but i think the problem is EA calling it a demo. if instead the offered something like Rachet and Clank: Quest for booty, or some kind of epilogue, then i would be more than fine with that. If it was AAA quality game with 3-4 hours of gameplay, why not pay $15 for it. even if its a MP with 2-4 maps. now, if EA just wants to sell me a 30 section of the actual game they can screw them selfs.
Man don't anyone read, It's not Xbox live doing it is the publishers and it will cost you on the PSN also. The article is just saying what would happen to live is this takes place.
I believe the idea of having to pay for these demos is to make money, not be a preorder bonus. If this does happen, you will most likely only see a fraction of what you paid for the demo go back towards your purchase of the game.
I think that they would be cool preorder bonuses... Get to play the multiplayer to the next CoD early.
Can anyone say GT5 prologue...I wonder where EA got this idea from.
@KingME GT5 Prologue was bigger than most retail racing games at the time with better graphics than most available now. So I doubt they will release it with that much content. The whole idea is offensive to gamers as its another way to milk every last cent they can. The sad part is many will say it will never work but I clearly remember people selling starcraft 2 beta keys on ebay for 200-300$ so just proves how stupid and gullible many people are.
I can't really disagree that GT5 Prologue was sort of a demo in comparison to the amount of content promised in GT5. I still enjoyed it a lot and have played it well over 100 hours. For me it was completely worth the money, and since I've already owned it and enjoyed it for two entire years, I do not feel ripped off in the least bit.
Kingme me is actually right. Although Prologue had great graphics and lots of content it was still declaired a demo my the dev and most users. EA saw this and decided, if we make demos with more content why can't we charge for it also. So, you can add or take away whatever you'd like be Prologue was considered a demo that was for purchase. I don't know why people disagreed with Kingme, he is actually speaking the truth. The funny thing is some of you guys saying that you would not buy a demo has already purchased Prologue.
You have no idea what you talking about. Prologue is a demo compared to full fledged GT game which are monsters in terms of content. On its own, GT5P had more content than most racing games released at that time. It had twice more cars than GRID ffs
I hope they dont go with this crazy system.
I think most gamers would through a fit on the internet.
did you read anything in this article? i think it clearly says that EA was wanting to charge. not ms. wow you ps3 girls are stupid. oh yeah, happy 4/20!
First the article sites Patcher=Fail... who knows how ligit it is. I would not pay for a demo the way they are today, but if they offered like 3 levels of the game, then I might be willing to pay 5 dollars, but not 10-15...unless that 10-15 dollars also included some exclusive DLC should I decide to purchase the full game.
"Rock Band Unplugged Lite ($4.99) Rock Band Unplugged creates a full band experience in the palm of your hand by mixing beat match gameplay with key elements from the Rock Band series. Try out the entire game in this full featured, reduced song version, including five top hits. Purchase more songs in the fully-featured in-game music store. For more details, visit http://www.rockband.com/gam... ESRB Rated T File size: 428 MB" -From the Playstation Blog. It's already sort of happening on PSN. It's not a demo, but it's a dumbed down version of the full game. It's not Sony and MS who are doing this.
To Shaka and the sheep that agreed with him, try reading the article first. I was relieved to see that this is EA's doing, not MS's. Charging for demos will fail miserably...at least I hope so. Who would be stupid enough to shell out that much for a demo?
GT5: P has sold 3.68 million so far...does that answer your question?
I think it does answer to his question, cause GT:P (also known as a demo) is outsold the "DEFINITE RACING GAME OF THIS GENERATION" lol
LOL, got ya Maxx!