Things were far simpler when I was a lad. Multiplayer meant you had to buy another one of these fragile one button joysticks that lasted approximately two rounds of Daly Thompsons Decathlon. 128k was a bucket load of horsepower and game demos were designed to sell games before their full release.
Things have moved on of course, and the eventual progression of technology had improved the gaming experience immeasurably. Well apart form gaming demos of course; they have evolved into something quite different from what they were originally intended to be.
Since X Box live started to distribute demos en mass into peoples living rooms, it’s commonly accepted that demos of games should be free and distributed without prejudice or payment. It seems like utter lunacy to exclude any portion of your target demographic from your marketing campaigns van guard. But that is exactly what’s happening, with conditions being attached to entry and some of which involving the splashing of cash. It is almost like the demo is a commodity in itself, something of value that carries with it the potential for exploitation.
But is it exploitation or the maximisation of opportunity? There is a thin grey line separating the twain and if developers can create new or bolster existing revenue streams then why the hell shouldn’t they? Particularly in a murderous economic climate that has seen profit margins slashed and massive shareholder unrest.
Take Qore for example. Despite never having seen the virtual magazine, I have it on good authority that it is very poor in terms of content. And 
being virtual in nature, it can’t even be used to line the bottom of bird cages or clean posteriors in times of emergency.
Of course for some people this means its usefulness is halved even further. Throw in a few exclusive demos such as Socom however and people are cueing up to pay for it, and at a price that would cover a chunk of some of the PSN’s top notch DLC.
The blame could maybe lie at the feet of 360 exclusive, Crackdown. Giving purchasers a code for the in demand Halo 3 beta paved the way and opened the doors for similar tactics to increase sales of an entirely unrelated product. Microsoft never released figures but it wouldn’t be a complete stretch to imagine most people with a 360 picked up Crackdown on day of release. Of course Beta’s are different in purpose and scope, but the principle remains the same.
The latest and most obvious example of this kind of strategy that has raised eyebrows across the pond is the Killzone 2 demo. Amusingly, perplexed commentators have expressed their bewilderment publicly and then ran straight down to GameStop to place a five dollar pre order. To me, it says that the demo has become something more than a snippet of code to wet the appetite in preparation for the main course. It’s become a product in itself, something of value that people will hand over whatever method of exchange is used in that part of the world to obtain.
In truth it’s always happened, with magazines of the 80’s and early 90’s plonking demos on discs and cassettes to shift their rag, so in that 
respect it’s nothing terribly new or inventive. The difference is now that demos are available to freely download, as they should be, whereas at that time magazines were nearly the only way to pick them up. With limited channels for distribution, the magazines at that time were a necessary evil for getting the demo into the public domain. With the advent of the PSN, Live and Steam that reasoning no longer applies.
The truth probably lies somewhere in-between exploitation and morally acceptable business practices. But to be honest my opinion is rather lopsided. I’m all for developers expanding their bottom line and gathering the resources to create and publish quality content. But not when their hawking me something indirectly that should by rights be free and I for one will not be paying a penny for it, no matter how it’s dressed in the window.
I agree dude, there should be no cost for a demo if the publisher/developer wants people to be encouraged to buy it. Usually you can tell if a publisher/developer has faith in their game as you get a demo well ahead of release, whereas those who bring out demos after the game is released are usually trying to boost flagging sales and usually met with much more cynicism from myself.
The Killzone 2 example is rediculous and you can bet once most people have played it, those not happy enough to buy the full game will be straight down to Gamestop to get their $5 credit note.
Agreed Johnny, I wonder how many of these “pre orders” will actually go through as sales? If it was me, I’d get the demo then cancel the pre order and buy the game elsewhere, just to make a point.
The Killzone 2 demo fiasco shows a strange lack of confidence in the product… as if they think that by playing the demo, people would be put off the full game en masse.
Perhaps they believed that by restricting access to the trial it would give the game a greater aura of exclusivity?
Microsoft are proudly shouting out, to anyone who’ll listen, about the record breaking number of downloads for the demo of their latest platform exclusive. Sony seem keen to deny themselves the same opportunity.