Yeah if Steam had a delayed-payment process that way, then that would make for an OK demo approximation -- although for some game types, the first 2 hours of gameplay aren't a great substitute for a slice that is specifically crafted as a demo.

It would really screw over short games though, unless Steam allowed developers to opt out of the delayed-payment model for individual games. 

Steam needs to actively tell players that are approaching the 2 hour cut off so that they may stop playing and get a refund.

That's a good idea.

The next step would be to allow everyone to download and play any game for 2 hours without even paying and then being asked for payment when the 2 hour gate is reached.

I feel a little weird about this one, but I'm not sure why. Maybe this could be an opt-in for devs.

With the abundance of reviewers and 'let's players' on youtube, demos seem almost obsolete. With 10 minutes of research one could determine if a particular game will suit them or not with reasonable accuracy. 

Definitely not a one size fits all thing. I like the opt-in idea! 

If a developer can't be arsed to make a PC demo, then we're talking about a developer who can't be arsed about a lot of things. 

This studio has a perfect track record and are actually dedicated to their craft. I give more credence to what they say than some other AAA studio. Arkane also has put a third of Dishonored 2, one of the very best games by far to come out in the past decade, for free, with compatible saves and all. I can't think of any other big studio that does anything remotely like this. We're talking about 7-8 hours worth of gameplay here.

Also like #9925 says, making a demo is very taxing. I know it since we made one for EYE and it took us a very long time. 

you basically want shareware back 

The problem with a "free for two hours" scheme is that it can really hurt smaller games. For instance, according to steam I played both Quake mission packs in 3 hours each - it's not inconceivable for someone to beat them in less than 2.

There are a lot of smaller games out there that people buy and enjoy. The developers currently enjoy the freedom to sell their game, and gamers don't particularly mind paying for such games.
I'm sure that smaller/shorter games like that are hit pretty hard already by refunds from frugal customers. But similarly, there are plenty of customers who either appreciate the developer's effort enough to support them or are too lazy to bother with requesting a refund when they finish the game.

But if players never had to commit any money to play the game in the first place, only those with copious amounts of spare cash would ever bother to actually pay for these games. Given that almost all (if not all) of these titles are "indie" titles created by up-and-coming devs, it seems a shame to hurt them and their market so drastically...


In other news, it's interesting to see that people are still complaining about the lack of demo versions. It's <current year>, not 2005. 

This would also pervert games to being great for the first 2 hours then meh :D 

Demos usually end up being these weirdly paced, Frankensteined snippets of the game, so I don't think they're a good way to judge whether you'll like the full game. They might be a good way to see if you like the mechanics, the "feel", etc. but they are usually not a good metric for whether the end product is worth your money.

There are so many review sites and places for end users to write reviews that I don't think it's that hard to figure out via word of mouth whether a game will be up your alley or if it's a buggy piece of shit or whatever.

Daz's idea is cool but like Killes says above, there could be (and there have been) some games that have amazing first hours that then kinda fizzle out. 

If some sort of MLM-ish "recruit X to gain Y" model was used. 

For this reason:

They might be a good way to see if you like the mechanics, the "feel", etc.

Obviously the 2 hour refund option on Steam (which I'd never heard of otherwise I'd be about �100 richer from BS games I wasted money on cos I couldn't try a demo) is not at all the same. 

The boycott, which might not be entirely serious, is NOT about not having a demo, it's about the LIE that Steam refunds are equivalent to a demo, and the pandering to consoles for a game the devs describe as a "PC game". 

I'm not sold on the 2 hour refund demo prospect. A demo allows you to try before you buy. Not buy and then refund.

Also some games are only worth 2 hours of your time. I have bought cheapo games (2-3 quid) and played them for a couple of hours but not refunded them. I got my moneys worth in that instance IMO.
I look at it in the same light as a cinema ticket. I paid �10 and got my entertainment. I don't get to refund my cinema ticket because I didn't enjoy the film (unless there is a technical problem with the experience, bad picture or sound). 

 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/442780/STRAFE/ 

Judging by the copious negative reviews, people who were excited by the marketing feel mislead by the actual gameplay. $20 is no big deal and I was excited to play this but now I am going to watch a few "let's plays" before buying. 

Firstly, congrats to the devs for shipping a first game. Seeing others without prior experience simply finishing a game is inspiring.

That said, I would have to agree with the negative reviews. Personally, I expected strafe to be what it is and I think others did too. I hope the team is able to turn the negative feedback into positive changes. We shall see! 

I feel bad because I would have liked for this game to be good.
I'm still holding out for Gibhard to be good since it seems to have got a lot of the gameplay elements correct. I also feel like Dusk will probably be a better game too.

Most of the issues with Strafe could be patched out tbh. 

Being that the guy behind Strafe even remembers the original game, he must be around our ages 30's and 40's. He must have been an avid gamer in the 90s so he'd have been gaming for a good 20 years at least. He must like his twitch shooters from that era. So I'm reading over these steam reviews and it sounds like the game completely misses the mark everywhere. Even looking at it, all I see is flying colours of jizz all over the screen. Roguelike design. Chokepoint combat. Low ammo, almost no health and enemies that rush you the minute the second starts. Looks like the best thing about is the box cover art.

It just amazes me that he and many indie developers fuck this most basic shit up, when trying to recreate 90s styled action games. 

I'm not surprised by those reviews. The game's marketing was awesome, but that's because the project author has a degree in marketing/video editing (something along those lines; it's in his resume, which I saw long ago).

The public made a mistake in believing that great moviemaking skills would translate into great game development skills. The public always make this mistake, which is why honest trailers can't compete. Developers are almost obligated to bullshit their audience nowadays, which is kinda depressing. 

from their latest kickstarter email:

"We started receiving comments on youtube and twitter accusing us of shilling the game and antagonizing people on websites and forums we don�t use. Some people are impersonating us and trolling around with the intent to generally just make us look bad it seems. This has happened before around the time we released the beta and thought it was a one time thing but we learned yesterday that it never stopped. Only trust our official updates here on kickstarter, steam forums, twitter and official news outlets.

For a few hours we got hit with a surge of negative reviews before they died down they all got recommended to the top and are now the only reviews visible on our front page even though we currently have more positive ratings than negative by a third"

I agree the game has serious issues that will hopefully be addressed by the devs, but unfortunately the internet is full of cunts that do stupid shit like this to people trying to make fun games :/ 

The influence of current gen trends is very strong. People expect randomisation to extend longevity, they also expect being able to upgrade shit, shops etc...

I think it hurts a game such as this that were very much known for exceptional and fiendish level design. 

The positive reviews doesn't sound much better either.

The negative reviews I've seen doesn't sound like they're from internet trolls. If the negative reviews are getting more upvotes, that may well be because the negative opinions about the game are stronger, despite being in the minority - certainly stronger than positive reviews that ends with "Is it worth $19.96? Honestly, no."

In the few times I've tried developing indie games, sometimes I've noticed that people were going too easy on me. People like to root for the underdog, and they get afraid of giving negative opinions because indie developers aren't perceived as faceless corporations, but as regular people.

People take everything too personally, and they also expect others to take everything too personally. I've had to actively search for opinions on websites that I never visited before to find raw, unfiltered negative opinions about the projects I was developing. And most of them made sense, despite of how harsh they were.

Doom 4 also got a ton of negative reviews early on, because of its multiplayer. Afterwards, the public realized that its true strength is in singleplayer; the multiplayer audience went to play other games, and the singleplayer audience got stronger. This is normal.

Every product at launch sells mostly because of expectations, and expectations are usually inaccurate. Also, it's hard to blame the public for their inaccurate expectations when Strafe advertises itself as a 1996 FPS, even going as far as using the strafe1996.com URL for their website.