I’m just sharing what I observe Blizzard is doing with their Starcraft 2.
The tactic these guys employ really made me rethink the purpose and benefits of the way a demo is conventionally used.
Starcraft 2 did NOT have a demo when it was released. Instead each account could share two trial accounts (I believe a limited singleplayer and a a couple of days multiplayer).
I think the reason they didn’t include an open demo like this is to maintain a sense of exclusivity, a sense of value to playing the game. If that’s the case then I think it’s brilliant.
If you think about it, demos can be REAL hype killers. The ETQW valley demo was awesome to play, but at the same time, it really gave a complete and full experience (valley is one of the most diverse maps in the game) enough to last a month or two on it’s own. Raven Shield had the same issue, I was so content with the demo back then, I bought the official game in the budget bin.
Demos gratify the urge to play a new game, so in this perspective, demos can really hurt the sales and thus popularity of a game.
You hear people say on this forum that demos are absolutely essential for them before they buy the game. I’d say: These people are not the ones Bethesda wants to spent a demo on right at the release. In micro economics these are what anyone would call the ‘laggards’. Laggards are the people not overly excited about the game and a little hesitant. A good marketing strategy is to simply leave these people be for now and focus on the ‘pioneers’ (the ones lying in a sleeping bag for the stores on release day) these people won’t need a demo and will be doing much of hyping for you. Call them fanboys if you will.
So what did Blizzard do differently?
Half a year after the release Blizzard released an open demo of the game. So apparently 6 months is enough for them to start catering to the laggards. You want their money as well after all. This way they maintained exclusivity at the release, kept the value of the limited amount of guest passes and didn’t bend over for the hesitant and critical customer who would only spoil the fun during the release phase.
What’s more, these days demos are expected before or on the day of release. Making it available 6 months later however, is news. It’s worthy of a press release in magazines, some may even reevaluate the game, and it could be paired with another marketing campaign.
The point of all this is to keep the tension and sense of value intact during the release of the game. On the release date, all a developper wants to hear are the praises of the fanboys (as it’s this word of mouth that generates a substantial amount of sales), and not the whining of the skeptical laggards that tried the game during the same time.
So here’s one to consider, a demo generating sales is not always a given. Demos have become a form of tradition rather than a valid sales strategy. Publishers have picked up on this notion and have reevaluated what to do with this. This isn’t just about what customers want, what customers want isn’t always good for the sales and thus for the size of the playerbase itself, which in turn is all what matters to me.
And yes, that thread title was intentionally ambiguous.
