Demos...when are they justified - Page 2

vee4473 · January 13, 2003, 20:06

I'm wondering why so many people are expressing the opinion of "no demo" because they think the company should spend their time finishing the game.

That can only mean that the "no demo" crowd doesn't believe the company when they say that the game is done.

And if you don't believe them, what does that tell you?

I would like to make one thing clear about my whole reason for starting this demo debate.

I only asked for a demo because I believed the company when they said the game was done. Also, when various previews stated that the SP game was done. So I thought "why not a demo to tide us over until they hunt down the so called MP bug".

I totally agree that if the game is not done, that no time or manpower should be wasted on a demo.

As I said, my request for a demo was based on me believeing the company when they said the game is done except for a few tweaks.

I'm also wondering if the company knew all along that the game would never be ready until late 2003, but just kept putting out bogus release dates in an attempt to keep fans that were fed up with the delays interested.

vee4473 · January 13, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Don K Hotay
how would you go about creating a demo for this game? Are you a CivIII fan, and if so, did it matter that Firaxis didn't release one?

Well, you got me there.

No, it didn't matter to me that Civ3 had no demo. I bought it hook, line and sinker regardless.

Although, I must say that the somewhat disappointing nature of civ3 only cements my theory that only game companies with something to hide dont do demos...

kalbear · January 13, 2003, 20:10

I guess my definition of 'done' is different than yours.

A game is done and the dev's job is finished when there is no more work to be done on it. No more bugfixing, regression testing, etc.

I believed from the various reports that the game was finished development and that nothing new was to be added. I didn't believe that it was done. And I never thought they implied otherwise. In fact, I'm confused what would make a person believe that the game was finished, since it's not out in stores. Do you think that they enjoy holding the game back?

Therefore, I feel that the dev resources are better utilized tracking down and fixing the bug in question, than releasing a SP demo.

The pathology of some of these posters is just...amazing to me.

vee4473 · January 13, 2003, 20:22

First, you say that the dev's job is done when there is no more bug fixing, then you say they should hunt down bugs...

secondly, I would like to say that I don't know why you make the "pathology" statement. My or any other posters comments are as relevent as yours Kalbear.

I was just bringing up valid points, I think.

And as to your question about why someone would think the game is finished?

Well, maybe the 700 supposed release dates?

If the company leads you to believe the game is finished, how can you ask that?

And the previews and some beta testers (at least if they can be believed) saying the SP is done had something to do with it.

no need for insults, i'm just talking here. I know you're a big programmer and all that, but try looking down from your high horse every now and then.

kalbear · January 13, 2003, 20:34

Quote:

First, you say that the dev's job is done when there is no more bug fixing, then you say they should hunt down bugs...

And where's the dichotomy there? Devs hunt bugs. They don't find them, they hunt them. Hunting is a means to KILLING. Or fixing.

It's a common term in SE. I'm sorry that the terminology eluded you. I'll put it another way: As long as there are bugs to fix, devs should make it their #1 priority to fix those bugs.

We have been told there are more bugs to fix. Therefore, I believe devs should fix them.

Pathology means 'causes of'. As in, what causes people to post what they do, when they do it. I enumerated my reasoning on another post. The validity of your posting was never in question.

Again, I ask, what do missed release dates have to do with whether the game is done or not? Do you believe that the game is hanging out somewhere, sitting on a shelf, while IG says 'nope, not yet'? That's the reason why I asked about the pathology (or rather, stated). I am curious what makes people believe that there is some kind of conspiracy RE: releasing this product.

The company has not made me believe that the game was finished. I don't believe it. I'm not sure how many missed release dates would indicate that - to me, missed release dates imply that it's not finished.

BTW, as a counterexample for a game that was hideously bad that had a demo - daikatana had a demo. A MP one, even.

Finally, I'm not insulting you. Big words aren't always an insult. Look them up first.

Asmodean · January 13, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by kalbear

Big words aren't always an insult. Look them up first.

ROTFLMAO

Asmodean

vee4473 · January 13, 2003, 20:50

I cannot debate SE with you. I am not a software engineer, I am a mechanical designer.

My whole point of this was to question why one company can produce a first rate demo while at the same time working on bugs.

Many people, you among them, have stated that it's either one or the other.

Your counterexample is fine, but I still believe, as does anyone who creates products, if one person or company can do something, then it is possible and should be strived for.

You seem to be saying that it is just impossible to kill bugs and create a demo at the same time.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

And is your "pathology" for staunchly defending QS and IG based on your bias of being a SE and understanding the difficulties inherent in developing a product for market?

If that's true, then fine. But to cut down anyone who questions them and who doesn't have as well of an understanding of SE as you do, is just wrong I think.

kalbear · January 13, 2003, 21:07

Well, I'm not trying to cut you specifically down, or anyone that doesn't know about software. I'm trying to give some glimpses into the process, and give examples of when things don't work so well.

I believe that it's possible to do a demo while debugging provided that you've budgeted the time and resources for it. Given that in April, IG came down from on high and blew away a huge amount of design AND dictated that X-mas was the release date or else, it sounded like a demo was not budgeted or designed for in any way, shape or form.

That's when I say that doing a demo isn't possible. Doing a demo and a finished product is possible, obviously, as many companies have done it in the past. Even doing so as a TBS is possible - witness SMAC.

SMAC's a good example here, because there's a good case of bugs not being squashed heavily enough. I can't say for sure whether releasing a demo caused more resources to be allocated away from squashing bugs, and if those resources were there then it would have been bug-free. But that's a lot more likely than not.

It is hard to develop for another product release while simultaneously chasing bugs; this is especially true when attempting to fix the bugs on both the demo and the main release.

My pathology for defending QS and IG is partially because I work in the industry and understand it. It's also because I honestly want them to release the best game they can, so it attracts the most and best players, and so I'll have competition.

I'll say it this way - at this point in the lifecycle of MOO3, I think it's unreasonably difficult to expect a demo that does not cause some delay in the product's release.

I also believe that, in QS's case, a demo should have been released. They should have planned for it, because they are a total unknown with respect to a product release, and just because they have the name "moo" means nothing about their quality of workmanship. That they didn't do so likely has caused more problems than if they simply had and had caused the game to slip more.

I don't want them to do a demo now, but I wish they had. Fair enough?

vee4473 · January 13, 2003, 21:28

Kal, fair enough. I don't really mean to argue. I think we are really on the same page of wanting a great game.

although I would like to say that this notion that software engineers need more time than any other engineer to develop a product is something I do not have sympathy with.

A mechanical engineer/designer that needs to design the plastic or metal enclosure/casing for a product gets no mercy when expected to put the mechanical aspect of a product to market in 6 months, at least from my experience.

Nevermind all the variables of plastic flow into a mold, parting lines, mold release points, strength of materials, preventing sink marks in plastic, adjusting for tolerances, draft angles, putting a slide into a mold process etc.. that are unique to every product.

all of which cannot be determined until prototypes are made and then designs adjusted.

But, we don't get to push back release dates because we can't find that "elusive draft angle or that perfect place to put an injection molded release point so that it prevents a sink mark in the plastic that makes the whole thing look half ass".

I guess I myself have a bias that comes from being a mech. desiger that gets no mercy and then I hear about software guys that need so much time for projects, and they get the time as if their job is more difficult than mine.

I guess you changed my mind. Maybe a demo is not practical at this point.

Friends?

TheMaestro · January 13, 2003, 23:52

It's not like a demo actually hurts things. It generally shuts the public up.

Even a 100 turn demo would be cool, as one species or something...give us all something to tinker with for awhile.

Organ001 · January 14, 2003, 06:06

Im going to buy MOO3, wheather they release a demo or not (probably like a lot of other people on the board), but with all the fluxuation release date I think a demo would help sales as it will get the word out about the game WHEN it comes out.
There's already enough competition for the gaming dollar out there and I think TBS games already have enough competiton from the popular type of games (FPS,RTS), that a demo might help sales enough so that we see a MOO4 in 2021 (assuming MOO3 is out by 2011)

Zed-F · January 14, 2003, 12:16

Software and computer hardware design ARE both more complicated than mechanical design, and more subject to unforeseen problems cropping up during development, in my experience. The products that I work on have all three -- mechanical design for the "box" including airflow, heat dissipation, fire retardant, cable management, etc. issues, as well as the computer H/W and S/W that goes inside the box. We always have a much smaller staff working on the mechanical side of things and we almost never have unforeseen things crop up and bite us on the mechanical side. Things are just a lot more predictable there, which means it's far easier to accurately plan and staff appropriately.

booje · January 25, 2003, 04:32

Ok, so maybe no demo but for those who have highspeed why don't they step up some servers to allow you to download the game for an extra price (to more than cover bandwidth) and then ship you the game when it's ready.

93143 · January 26, 2003, 01:18

The complexity of mechanical design versus software design really depends on what you're designing. I'm not sure it's fair to compare an OS to a computer box.

Injection molding - or this #### ice climbing wall I'm working on - aren't all that complex compared to, say, the Space Shuttle project. Which is a good example of a significant budget/schedule overrun...

TCO · May 24, 2003, 22:41

what is kazaa?