4 ms·
That is at least a negative indicator for me, and a deal breaker in many cases. I've played demos in the past and sometimes that has led to a purchase of a ful
by ronaldx 13y ago
That is at least a negative indicator for me, and a deal breaker in many cases.
I've played demos in the past and sometimes that has led to a purchase of a full game, and sometimes not. A difference/problem with this newer model is that paying could lead me to being asked for more payments: I don't necessarily know.
If the game was advertised at free, but then charged me after a point (i.e. if I didn't know in advance that it was a demo), that would be an immediate deal-breaker.
Unless it was clear exactly what I was paying for, I would be unwilling. Will I have to pay for level 16? If it was possible I would be asked repeatedly for more money later, I would be unwilling.
- gfodor 13y agoJust so you know this is exactly how many games were distributed in the 90's, under the shareware model. Like DOOM and Quake. The first entire level was free, and was a substantial amount of content. Then you paid for the rest.
- ronaldx 13y agoYep. I think there's a difference. When you had to physically get your software out there and into people's hands, that was perhaps a good model. Now, it's more awkward. Asking me for payment for partial content is a dangerous indicator that you might ask me for more, later. There's also reasonable evidence that demos reduce sales figures (i.e. that demos act as negative indicators): http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing-a-game-demo-can-cut-sales-in-half http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing...
- joesmo 13y agoThe payment is for the full content of the game, not partial content, and there is no chance of asking for more later since there is no additional content. That's the way demos and shareware worked in the past.