Demo Man

Here's a hint for game developers: If you're going to release a demo of your Next Big Thing, make sure it's actually good enough for people to want to get the full thing. There's nothing worse than spending ages downloading a massive new demo only to find that you might as well have not bothered. Here're a few of the more recent examples:

On the face of it, War World was everything I was looking for. Fast-paced, Unreal-style multiplayer madness, with giant robots - a winning formula in my eyes. But when all you've got to go on is a Trial Version that features one playable mech, a single map and gametype - and a mere 50 seconds with which to get to experience it - you've got something so pointlessly short and restricting that savvy consumers are going to avoid shelling out for the full game just to see if it's actually any better. Worst part is, it's not even that bad a game - but the demo lost me completely.

Going back in time a bit here, but I'm a real sucker for alternate histories, and the concept be hing Turning Point: Fall of Liberty intrigued me. The demo was more than enough to put me off the full game though - it was one of the buggiest and most unpolished games I've ever seen. What did amuse me though, was the fact that the devs, Spark Unlimited, did their utmost to reassure everyone that all the problems would be fixed for the gold versions. Damage had been done, lads.

Beautiful Katamari was another let down. Great concept, wonderful visual style and beautifully realised controls - but less than two minutes to actually play the game. It took longer to boot and load the demo than it did to actually play it. LucasArts saved me £40 on Fracture by putting the bulk of its gimmicks in the first level. Unreal III showed me that the game wouldn't run properly on my PC, and even if it did, I wouldn't like it because it felt too consoley.

It doesn't stop there. Tie-ins that come out long after the actual event has finished, demos that don't actually work (I couldn't download last year's Pro Evo demo, and had to make do with Fifa), demos of peripheral-based games (I don't understand why you'd want to play Guitar Hero without the controller - the guitar is half the fun).

What developers don't seem to realise is that these demos can make or break their game - units are frequently shifted solely on the strength of the demo. I've found a number of little gems that I wouldn't otherwise have bothered with -Skate, Stuntman: Ignition, Mirrors Edge- and this is a habit that goes back to my early days as a PC gamer.

Savvy spenders will always want to try before they buy, and the relatively new luxury of free downloadable trial versions is formidable new power for the console consumer. Those that make the games we play are in for an interesting choice - to release a demo, and allow the public to make their minds up before launch date, or not release a demo at all, and lose the potential sales to those that wouldn't otherwise have given it a second look?

In any case, which is the greater crime - the good demo of the bad game, or the bad demo of the good one?