Nintendo Restricts The Number Of Times You Can Play A Game Demo For Some Reason
from the restrictions-for-restriction?s-sake dept
Nintendo has never been shy about being exceptionally aggressive with all things Nintendo. In fact, there are times when they’ve appeared downright sadistic in how they “protect” their brand, including choosing the takedown bully route on fan videos uploaded to YouTube. Still, while you’ll struggle to find an instance where we agree with this kind of aggressive protection, there’s at least a ghost of logic involved in them. Whether the excuse is piracy, trademark protection, or stifling competition, you at least have something to point to in order to explain their otherwise disagreeable behavior.
I don’t think the same can be said with how Nintendo apparently handles game demos on their latest consoles. Kotaku’s Steve Marinconz notes his own surprise at a popup he received after downloading one game.
I downloaded the demo for The Wonderful 101, and was surprised to find this message pop up telling me that I would only be allowed to run the demo 20 times. Now, of course I don’t plan on playing a demo more than once or twice, as I’m sure most people don’t. Which is why I find it so odd that Nintendo would put this restriction in place. If any game is good enough that I would play the demo more than 20 times, then I’ll be buying it to play the full experience before ever getting to that point.
It’s hard to imagine how this even begins to make sense. As Marinconz said, what players out there are going to play a limited game demo that many times? And, even if such a person existed, why would they continue to play a game demo they enjoy rather than moving up to the full version? I’ve been running this scenario through my mind trying to understand under what circumstances would I possibly find myself replaying a game demo so often without buying the full game and I’m coming up with bupkis.
The only answer that seems to hold water is that a culture of protectionism creeps into arenas where it couldn’t possibly be warranted. That would seem to jive with Nintendo’s history, but it sure doesn’t make a lick of sense otherwise.
Filed Under: demos, video games
Companies: nintendo
Comments on “Nintendo Restricts The Number Of Times You Can Play A Game Demo For Some Reason”
I love playing demos over and over.
I noticed that when I went to play Wonderful 101 myself (excellent game, btw)
My thought: It’s meant to restrict people into forcing them to buy the game after an indeterminate amount of time. Xbox does the same with certain demos, but those are based on a timer. This is based on number of times accessed.
Re: Re:
A friend had another theory: It’s a countermeasure to prevent people from recording it, since a let’s play may be redone over and over again in certain segments.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s neither…the game in question is likely still in development.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wonderful 101? It went gold not that long ago. It’s a month away from shipping.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Ah thanks for correcting that then 🙂 That must mean there is all the more reason not to complain about a demo that only lasts 20 plays as it is meant to give you an incentive to buy the game 😉
Either way, the old Shareware method is brutally honest and more challenging to developers because they have to keep with the expectation a game gets.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Either way, the old Shareware method is brutally honest and more challenging to developers because they have to keep with the expectation a game gets.”
Right. Because developers want having their game worthwhile to be MORE challenging.
I don’t know about you, but being told I can’t play anymore makes me forget it a lot faster than playing the demo all the way to payday. Now the 20 uses doesn’t fall victem to that, but remember the games that that gave you 30 minutes to decide if you cared about it?
No?
Me neither.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I have the US version of SSB Brawl so I never got to play the 10 minute demos of those games…however, since Wonderful 101 is already in shipment rather than development, it is still a moot point. During the SareWare hay days (note I grew up on pre MacOS8 and pre Mac System7.6.0) there were a few titles that are ingrained into memory…the ENTIRE Glider series by Cassidy and Greene are gems that come to mind…also, a Scorched Earth clone named Dome Wars limited the number of days (15) you could have it on your hard disk before it nagged you to buy it…I got Glider 4.0 and GliderPro as Christmas presents when they came out….
The point is that if you really want the game you can buy it. Nintendo is just doing what any other company would do back in the Shareware days…ask you to buy it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Nintendo is just doing what any other company would do back in the Shareware days…ask you to buy it.”
Right, and nothing says progress like doing what was done fifteen years ago. Look, if these demos were in such demand that they needed to be limited, they’d be pirated. I’m even afraid to look, but there CAN’T be all that many pirated versions of DEMOS around, can there?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s not so much as a similar distribution method to shareware as it is the same advertising used. Some game demos restricted numer game starts on a Mac before making the demo useless and the issue here is that it’s just advertising. The game is released now so there is an incentive to buy it if you enjoyed the demo…if this was going on during the development of Wonderful 101 I would see reason to complain, but honestly there really isn’t.
Besides, nobody to my knowledge has cracked the 3DS or WiiU yet, so I don’t think the restriction is an anti piracy measure.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
http://www.wiiuhacked.com/
or get the Dolphin emulator that some actually say is better than the Wii itself.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
http://wiiuhax.com/
Don’t trust that one here is another, there is even an article about Nintendo.
“Nintendo Re-Registers Eternal Darkness Trademark, Includes Digital Distribution”
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Awesome 🙂
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Shareware never stopped working if you didn’t pay up.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Not always…Dome Wars in particular did this…it’s a Scorched Earth clone for the Macintosh if you’re wandering. So I’m not worried about the method in which this demo is distributed. There’s a lot of risk that the developers are taking in making that demo because if it’s good enough demo and the plot line eventually busts as a full game…people aren’t going to recommend it.
However, the inverse could happen and it’s a crappy demo but a great game.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Then it wasn’t shareware, it was lameware or crippleware. The definition of “shareware” is that the full product is distributed freely (and you can freely share it with others). People who find it useful are expected to voluntarily pay. If it’s time-limited or has features restricted, it’s not actually shareware, it’s advertising.
Shareware still exists, and developers can do quite well by it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I don’t know about that. The term shareware was used to describe all kinds of demos and limited functionality programs back in the day. I always understood that the “share” in the term meant that users were free to distribute, or copy the disks/files and spread them to as many people as they wish. It was not suggesting that the companies were sharing the program with the populous.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
Shareware [wikipedia.org]
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
I’m going to bow out of this conversation here, as I’m old enough to remember the holy wars that were fought over just this issue: what counts as “shareware”? Like all holy wars, this was highly emotional and never concluded to anyone’s satisfaction.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I’d always thought of shareware as being something like WinZip (you can use it as long as you want, but you’ll get nagged to buy it after a certain amount of time of interrupted usage) or Doom (the first episode is free and unlimited but you have to pay to get the rest). That is to say, you can freely distribute the file but some features might not be available or you might have other restriction unless you pay.
Wally seems to be describing something different (fully featured then you can’t used it after that) that I’ve never come across in my life outside of demos for fully commercial products. To be fair, I wasn’t a Mac user before OSX so maybe he’s thinking of something unique to that platform – Dome Wars seems to be but it’s so outdated I can’t see what restrictions it might have had.
But, to my mind the important part of “shareware” was the ability to share the program without restrictions on the actual sharing. Which is not compatible with a restriction that only lets you run the file a certain number of times.
Re: Re: Re:11 Wikipedia covers the range of what is shareware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
A related anecdote, A friend of mine downloaded the Warhawks demo for PS3/PSN which I thought was pretty neat, but the demo just stopped working without warning with a You played enough – time to buy the real version message, which completely turned me off. Despite my appreciation for the design aesthetics of the game (and it wasn’t a bad battlefield-style multiplayer game) that just killed any buzz I had for it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Wikipedia covers the range of what is shareware.
The good thing is that at least unlike Sony and Microsoft…Nintendo warns you of the restriction in the actual demo you are going to play before you download it.
I don’t mean to be smug or anything by saying this, but I know this type of demo existed because of the various old Macintosh shareware titles of yore. My family’s first computer was a MacPlus so the method Nintendo uses on it’s demo system is really nothing new. I’m glad you had the sense to look it up on Wikipedia before responding 🙂
Re: Re: Re:13 Wikipedia covers the range of what is shareware.
I will grant credit where it is due, informing users of demo restrictions before downloading is at least a respectful move. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:8 Some stats would be useful
Shareware still exists, and developers can do quite well by it.
I’d be keen to know what approaches statistically work best, though that’s probably hard to say, given varying quality of software in the first place.
Trialware (Limited uses before you are forced to buy) I know is personally annoying for me, but common for utilities, and in my case, if I depend on them I’ll seek to hack the counter or find a less restrictive alternative.
Nagware (Shows a pop-up on startup or during use) isn’t terrible unless it renders the product ultimately impossible to use, in which case it’s becomes a form of trialware, above. I’ll keep it on my system, though, and have in some cases completed a purchase. Interestingly, the more polite the nag (say if it only pops up on startup) the more likely I’ll make the buy.
Crippleware (Disabled features in the demo version) I’ll keep for the undisabled features but will consider purchasing if the disabled ones might be worth it to me. But these generally stay on my system. Audiograb was notable in that it would grey out half the available tracks, so you just had to employ multiple job runs to get all the tracks on a disc. Eventually I bought a license when it was cheap.
Adware (Shows you ads unless you buy the complete version) I’ve never seen done without malware, or spyware that fucks with my system (such as rerouting hyperlinks in common webbrowsers). Maybe once someone goes this route, the temptation is too great to go full evil.
Parasiteware Super common now. (Offers or forces additional installations in lieu of charging) Even the Adobe Flash and Sun Micro’s Java runtime do this. Again, invariably the additional software is spyware (such as a webbrowser toolbar). I refuse when I can, and don’t proceed at all when I can’t. Again, I think the temptation to be evil ultimately becomes too great.
One of the problems is that much shareware is priced for businesses, so a small utility will be $50 or a worthwhile app will be $350, which puts them way out of my price range. In those cases some are nice enough to offer home-user licenses for free.
Re: Re: Re:9 Some stats would be useful
This is ancient data, but:
Nagware does the best in terms of getting people to pay. Time-limited “demos” are very nearly worthless. Software that has features obviously disabled does pretty poorly as well.
The best formula seems to be: a nagware version that is fully and completely useful on it’s own, and that nags the user once per day. Those who pony up some cash get a different, “deluxe” version that not only doesn’t nag, but has extra functionality.
Price point is also very important. You want to aim at around $10.
Re: Re: Re:10 Some stats would be useful
Also, the effectiveness of nagware is greatly affected by how the nagging is worded. Nags that attempt to guilt people into paying tend to backfire. Generic, bland nags are in the middle. Personal, pleasant messages from the author tend to to the best.
Re: Re: Re:11 Some stats would be useful
I know I respond better to:
“Thank you for your patronage and I hope this program serves your needs. If you find yourself wanting more, and have a few dollars to spare, we invite you to upgrade to our deluxe version.”
than:
“How long are you going to use this without paying you miser? We have to eat too you know! Get out your wallet you cheapskate!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be more specific, it goes on sale in one month! (9/15/13) This & Pikmin are Nintendo’s opening salvos at putting more games & new gameplay experiences on the Wii U.
As to why someone would want to play it more than 20 times, that’s easy. The Wonderful 101 Demo looks like it might be the very first level (give or take any tutorial, if it has one), minus the story elements. If that is really the beginning of the game, the scoring system will have some trying to perfect their run before the game even releases.
The Nintendo Direct specifically for Wonderful 101 even talks about people trying to get a Platinum rating on everything as replay value.
Also, I want to say this is OLD NEWS. The ZombiU demo lasts only 30 plays, iirc, & that was one of the first demos to go up on the Wii U.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I just realized something some people may not understand about this restriction.
It isn’t 20 plays. It’s 20 boots. Once you boot the game, you can restart once you get to the end & it takes you back to the title screen, w/o if counting against the remaining number.
The number only goes down if you back out to the Wii U Menu & boot the demo again. So, really, it should last you 20 days, which is most of the wait time until it releases.
I have no answer as to why it’s 10 days shorter than the ZombiU demo.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So ZombiU lasts 30 boots, Wonderful 101 lasts 20… and people say this isn’t a problem. I’m already seeing a trend here, and it does not go anywhere good…
How long you think before Demo’s only work once?
Re: Re: Re:3 When in doubt omit the apostrophe.
I know how long the once-use demo will last:
Once.
Kinda like persistent-online-connection DRM, people will break it and not buy it.
Re: Re: Re:4 When in doubt omit the apostrophe.
Shoot!
I’ve been catching myself most of the time with those.. I honestly don’t know why I keep typing Demo’s instead of demos….
Hot air...
Th following is hot air:
I downloaded the demo for The Wonderful 101, and was surprised to find this message pop up telling me that I would only be allowed to run the demo 20 times. Now, of course I don’t plan on playing a demo more than once or twice, as I’m sure most people don’t. Which is why I find it so odd that Nintendo would put this restriction in place. If any game is good enough that I would play the demo more than 20 times, then I’ll be buying it to play the full experience before ever getting to that point.
The bolded part tips it off.
Limited play demos are nothing new to anyone who grew up in the hay day of shareware distribution. If Steve Marinconz had really any clue, he’d realize that Nintendo doing this is nothing new. The Japanese versions of Super Smash Brothers Brawl allowed for the same amount of demo play time for any trophies unlocked if they were Virtual Console titles. I see no reason to complain about Nintendo informing you that you have a limited number of plays.
Re: Hot air...
I remember limited play shareware demos.
I mean… I don’t remember what the demos were for… I stopped being able to use them so I uninstalled and forgot about them long before I had the money to buy the full version…
But I certainly remember the concept!
Re: Re: Hot air...
You have to admit though, that at least it is a brutally honest way of finding out how well a game is going to sell. You have to not only make the demo memorable, you also have to live up to that memory some pee may get from the demo. You only tend to remember the things you truly want that way.
Re: Re: Re: Hot air...
Lets say a movie for a trailer comes out. The trailer is available on their website for download, but will only load a certain number of times before committing suicide and leaving behind traces so you can’t just redownload it.
Another movie lets you watch the trailer as many times as you want, download it, share it, e-mail it, see it online or whatever else you may like.
Which movie do you expect to do better?
Re: Re: Re:2 Hot air...
In the case of movies…yes I’d like to share as much as I like…that’s obvious. Software is a different story though. You don’t typically interact with a movie trailer (save Super 8’s interactive trailer on Steam) so it’s sort of difficult to compare the two.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hot air...
I disagree. From my perspective, both serve the same purpose. To drive interest in the full product by offering limited insight into the final product, usually in the form of the most compelling aspects of it.
Because videogames are an interactive medium, I find ‘game trailers’ to be fundementally flawed. They often times feature more cutscenes than gameplay, give no insight into how the mechanics feel to play, and even in cases where the trailer is gameplay heavy, they are usually tailored to display only the most polished segments of play, deliberately leaving out rough spots in the ‘feel’ of the game. They are advertising, so its not hard to see WHY they do that, but all the same.
Therefore, I find the comparison appropriate. You watch movies, and watch trailers. You play games, and play demos. If I wanted to ‘watch’ the game, I’d go to youtube. Watching a game trailer, to me, is akin to listening to the audio of a trailer.
Re: Re: Re:4 At Nintendo we do things the Nintendo way.
Because videogames are an interactive medium, I find ‘game trailers’ to be fundementally flawed. They often times feature more cutscenes than gameplay, give no insight into how the mechanics feel to play, and even in cases where the trailer is gameplay heavy, they are usually tailored to display only the most polished segments of play…
I very much agree, as was illustrated by the rather awesome Payday 2 launch trailer (No, I couldn’t help myself.) Even though I think the trailer has great artistic merit, I don’t get the game (or more accurately, elevate my price point) based on it.
And reviews are just as much bought-as-marketing, and generally give first impressions even when they aren’t.
But then there are Let’s-Plays, usually found on YouTube which are people who actually play through the game (and in the better cases, snark about it throughout) which does give a good sense whether or not a game is worthy of your money.
Curiously, Nintendo already took a giant shit on the LP model. Nintendo likes the full retard zone.
Re: Re: Re:5 At Nintendo we do things the Nintendo way.
I find video game reviews WORTHLESS.
Its a scale from 6-10. A 5 is supposed to be average, and a 10 is supposed to be ‘BEST GAME OF THE EVER WOO!’, but any game that has a 7 is considered bad? What the hell is that!
Combine that with what I often find to be self serving views of the game (Sometimes I feel someone reviewing a game just doesn’t like that kind of game rather than there being anything actually wrong with it.) and you have a poor way of learning whether YOU might like it or not…
Re: Hot air...
You know Wally, you are right. There really is no reason to complain about this…
Who am I to argue with them making their demo forgettable?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to play the Project Zomboid demo for the billionth time.
Re: Hot air...
“The bolded part tips it off.”
Tips what off? That the guy can quite honestly call this a silly or bad idea without personally being affected by it? What’s wrong with that?
“Limited play demos are nothing new to anyone who grew up in the hay day of shareware distribution”
Your tech knowledge fails you again.
Shareware releases were typically limited to a certain portion of the game (only episode 1 of Doom, for example, you had to pay to get the rest). Some were time limited, IIRC, in cases where the games couldn’t be easily split into discreet chapters, although that was more “normal” game demos than shareware. But you could play the game as many times as you wanted from the beginning up until the point where you were asked to pay.
Unless you have an example, I can’t think of anything that limited number of plays in the manner being discussed. In other words, you’re addressing something completely different. Do you have such an example?
“I see no reason to complain about Nintendo informing you that you have a limited number of plays.”
Then try listening to the arguments rather than launching into a factually incorrect know-it-all screed.
Re: Re: Hot air...
Your reading comprehension fails you more than your claims of my lack of historical technical knowledge…which is to say….I never said that was typical did I? I only said , “Limited play demos are nothing new to anyone who grew up in the hay day of shareware distribution.”
Tell me exactly where I said that the limited play demo was the only one typical method of shareware distribution in that…well? Oh I guess I didn’t… It is fairly obvious it wasn’t typical which is why I never claimed it to be, but it was an example of some of the methods methods that shareware developers used. Maybe you should read my comment a tad more carefully before you go on your rants about my “lack” of knowledge on the subject matter…
Oh the part that “tips it off”….look at my subject heading…it’s clear you didn’t read that either and assumed that I blundered and you just “had” to point out that I was “wrong”.
Re: Re: Re: Hot air...
Learn to write, then. Context matters. You responded to people having issues with demos being limited to the number of plays with crap about shareware that had nothing to do with the complaints in the article.
Yes, shareware had other types of limitations. You know else had limitations? Standard game demos. So why did you write 2 paragraphs criticising Marinconz when you probably both agree on this point?
The issue at hand is the limiting the number of plays of a demo, not the fact that a demo is limited. The time limiting appears silly in and of itself, and that even if it made sense, most people aren’t going to play it anywhere near 20 times.
Do you want to address these actual points, either with reasoning as to why it makes sense or with historical examples of where it’s worked? Or, is it just another example of you automatically having to defend whenever someone criticises Apple or Nintendo, no matter how founded the complaint?
“Oh the part that “tips it off”….look at my subject heading”
It appeared to be a warning about what you were about to type, which seems accurate. While that’s appreciated, it doesn’t excuse the content.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hot air...
“Learn to write, then. Context matters. You responded to people having issues with demos being limited to the number of plays with crap about shareware that had nothing to do with the complaints in the article.
Yes, shareware had other types of limitations. You know else had limitations? Standard game demos. So why did you write 2 paragraphs criticising Marinconz when you probably both agree on this point?”
Ok…really? You can’t comprehend that maybe, just maybe, that italicization can be used for quotes and emphasis? It’s very obvious that I was pointing out what Marincoz was saying was hot air.
Let’s take a good look at what your “correction” of my “lack” of knowledge:
“”Limited play demos are nothing new to anyone who grew up in the hay day of shareware distribution”
Your tech knowledge fails you again.
Shareware releases were typically limited to a certain portion of the game (only episode 1 of Doom, for example, you had to pay to get the rest). Some were time limited, IIRC, in cases where the games couldn’t be easily split into discreet chapters, although that was more “normal” game demos than shareware. But you could play the game as many times as you wanted from the beginning up until the point where you were asked to pay.
Unless you have an example, I can’t think of anything that limited number of plays in the manner being discussed. In other words, you’re addressing something completely different. Do you have such an example?”
Right….sure this isn’t the real reason you responded and saw what I said as wrong right?
Marincoz was surprised and annoyed that Nintendo did this on a digital download demo of a game getting released this month. As other an AC mentioned, Nintendo did this with another game that did fairly well. The criticism of the statement he made needed to be addressed…and really how can one seriously be surprised of the concept of limited use game demo boots as a teaser. He was “shocked” and surprised that Nintendo would inform people of it rather than leave it hanging.
No matter how you look at it PaulT, the entire italicized statement is nothing but hot air meant to cause outrage and a ratings increase.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hot air...
Wow, are you being deliberately obtuse! Re-read all the words you’re quoting, because they’re not saying what you seem to think they are. Nobody has said that demos don’t have restrictions.
“Marincoz was surprised and annoyed that Nintendo did this on a digital download demo”
That’s right, but the “this” is NOT the fact that there were restrictions. It’s the specific type of restriction.
Is that through your thick skull yet?
“No matter how you look at it PaulT, the entire italicized statement is nothing but hot air meant to cause outrage and a ratings increase.”
Then stop commenting on the post with your stupidity and increasing those said ratings if you’re so against that. Nothing you’ve said refutes a word of what either I or Marincoz have typed. You’re arguing against something nobody except you has asserted.
So, again, do you wish to refute the comment actually being made – against this SPECIFIC restriction – or are you going to continue attack fictional positions?
Re: Re: Re:4 Hot air...
“That’s right, but the “this” is NOT the fact that there were restrictions. It’s the specific type of restriction.
Is that through your thick skull yet?”
You have a superiority complex or something? I am well aware of the type of restriction….read my other comments outside of our “discussion” that I’ve had with a few of the AC’s. You’re just looking for anything to pounce on dude, and you’re the only person deliberately not comprehending what I’m saying so just chill.
“Then stop commenting on the post with your stupidity and increasing those said ratings if you’re so against that. Nothing you’ve said refutes a word of what either I or Marincoz have typed. You’re arguing against something nobody except you has asserted.”
Who says I was against the restriction like that when it’s used to give players a considerably open taste for the game….I am however aware that some writers of Kotaku like to blue things out of proportion. There was quite an interesting bit of FUD that was written about the Ouya Android game console and how it promoted illegal piracy because its easily open and hackable….
You’re committing straw man. Please just stop finding little things to complain about in my comments because I was quite more aware than you could imagine as to how the demos work on a WiiU.
Re: Re: Re:5 Hot air...
“I am well aware of the type of restriction….read my other comments outside of our “discussion” that I’ve had with a few of the AC’s.”
Strange. You’re responding directly to me, but I need to read other conversations to work out what you’re “really” saying? There’s the problem. I’ve read them anyway, some explain what you mean when talking about shareware. But none of them explain why you think that Marincoz’s specific issue with this specific type of restriction is just “hot air”. You know, the actual thing we’re discussing here.
Maybe you should try clarifying that. Here, in response to my question, not in some vague manner elsewhere.
“Who says I was against the restriction like that when it’s used to give players a considerably open taste for the game..”
Reading comprehension, moron. I was responding to you being so dead set against “outrage” generating extra traffic for this post while happily contributing to it. You know, the thing in the comment I quoted and responded to? That’s how these things work – the quoted text makes it clear what I’m responding to.
“You’re committing straw man”
You no English good. That’s probably why you’ve completely misconstrued at least 2 peoples’ points in this thread alone.
“I was quite more aware than you could imagine as to how the demos work on a WiiU.”
Seriously, stop being a smug jerk and pretending you know more than everyone else on tech issues. It’s embarrassing even when you are correct – and that’s a long way from every time. What makes you think you have such superior knowledge here?
Re: Re: Re:6 Hot air...
“Strange. You’re responding directly to me, but I need to read other conversations to work out what you’re “really” saying?”
Yes….and because I said practically the same thing and advocated the idea that there is no need to flip out as everyone is doing….clearly you are just too logically nit-picky to read anything between the lines.
“Maybe you should try clarifying that. Here, in response to my question, not in some vague manner elsewhere.”
So far you’re the only one who has disagreed with me base on the simple fact that I said it. So when I specify, I get nit picked at by you…and when it’s not the answers you want to see, I’m suddenly vague? I’m sorry, I apparently wasn’t aware that you wanted this conversation to go your way where you magically turn out right and prove me wrong just for having a valid opinion about what and how someone said something. Clearly you’re a god I must bow down to…
“You no English good. That’s probably why you’ve completely misconstrued at least 2 peoples’ points in this thread alone.”
Racism gets you nowhere in validating your “opinion”.
“Seriously, stop being a smug jerk and pretending you know more than everyone else on tech issues. It’s embarrassing even when you are correct – and that’s a long way from every time. What makes you think you have such superior knowledge here?”
Or maybe it’s that someone already mentioned it before you chimed in on this string a out how “wrong” and “vague l” I am and didn’t consider that I likely learned it from a commenter stead of PaulT Almighty.
Oh look…
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130813/10170624153/nintendo-restricts-number-times-you-can-play-game-demo-some-reason.shtml#c344
“Reading comprehension, moron. I was responding to you being so dead set against “outrage” generating extra traffic for this post while happily contributing to it. You know, the thing in the comment I quoted and responded to? That’s how these things work – the quoted text makes it clear what I’m responding to.”
You lost me there because you made no such agreeing argument on your own in the comments outside of this thread until I pointed out my validity into stance on the matter.
Re: Re: Re:7 Hot air...
You’re an idiot who can’t read. I get it, no need to keep proving it. I’ve asked a simple question, which you refuse to answer directly, and you keep making random accusations that are frankly bizarre. For example:
“Racism”
WTF? I was mocking your poor grasp of the English language. How did that get turned into racism?
“Or maybe it’s that someone already mentioned it”
Again, I’m, talking to you, you blithering idiot. I’m not keeping track of every random conversation you’re having on the side. The comment you linked does nothing to answer the question I’ve asked nor proves Marincoz wrong in his questioning of this particular restriction.
Why is it so difficult for you to quantify your opinion. It’s a simple question – why are you accusing Marincoz of “nothing but hot air”, when nothing he’s said is either wrong nor anything to do with the tangents you’re been going off on.
It’s a very thing to answer, and it’s amazing that you can’t answer it despite having typed reams of text in response to my simple questioning of what you think is wrong.
It’s really not that hard, just answer the damn question.
Re: Re: Re:8 Hot air...
“I was mocking your poor grasp of the English language.”
First off, I don’t have to answer to you because you’re too lazy to look at my other comments outside of this rather stupid and nitpicky conversation you’re trying to hold onto for dear life. You assume my English is somehow bad due to issues where Autocorrect wrecks havoc on me.
Second….I already answered your damn question…and you flipped out when I didn’t answer the way you wanted me to and proceeded to call me obtuse and a blithering idiot for giving my own valid opinion about something. Clearly you don’t know the nuance of subtext. Just accept the fact that I may be correct for once and move on. The fact that you admitted to deliberately mocking my English (which of course is my native language) indicates that you clearly wish to nitpick further on pointlessly until I bend to the answers you want from me….which will never ever happen because I have already given the same answer to everyone which I was going to give you. If you’re too fucking lazy to look through other strings of threads then I really have no reason to answer to you at all.
Now to answer your question so you can finally just fuck off and be merrily on your way.
You stupidly asked me “Tips what off?” to which I responded “The hot air”….and I left you to figure out what that was. Then you accused me of being obtuse and a blithering idiot for pointing out my opinion. In the same attack, you also stated that “lack of technological knowledge fails” me….when my opinion of the matter was VASTLY outside of what you comprehended.
With this:
“Ok…really? You can’t comprehend that maybe, just maybe, that italicization can be used for quotes and emphasis? It’s very obvious that I was pointing out what Marincoz was saying was hot air.”
“So, again, do you wish to refute the comment actually being made – against this SPECIFIC restriction – or are you going to continue attack fictional positions?”
Dude if you had already picked up on the fact that I stated the complaint from Kotaku was nothing more than hot air…you wouldn’t have to ask this question of me. Other users didn’t ask me to specify deeper than already bluntly indicated…and you accuse of having a thick skull?
Just give up being nitpicky because in your eyes, you will always find something wrong with what I say when it doesn’t conform to things you want to hear.
Re: Re: Re:9 Hot air...
“First off, I don’t have to answer to you”
Yet you keep doing just that. It’s a very strange way of doing things, especially since you could have typed far less words by answering me directly. I’m asking very simple questions here, which you are ignoring in favour of “look over there” without specifying where “there” is meant to be. Weird.
“Second….I already answered your damn question”
No you haven’t. I haven’t “flipped” out”, I’m just trying to get a straight answer out of you for a very simple question – why do you think that the comment you attacked was “hot air”? You won’t answer this directly, though, for some bizarre reason.
“If you’re too fucking lazy to look through other strings of threads then I really have no reason to answer to you at all.”
Why should I have to read reams of text elsewhere with no guide as to what I’m supposedly looking at, rather than you answering my queries in your responses? I’m asking a very direct question that’s not being asked elsewhere in the thread from what I can see. Yet, you’re referring me to unnamed responses to other points. All you’ve bothered to point to is a statement that there might be other WiiU games that do something similar, but that doesn’t come close to answering the original point made in the article nor why it’s “hot air”. It seems very strange unless you want an excuse to whine like a childish idiot.
” Now to answer your question so you can finally just fuck off and be merrily on your way.”
OK, childish idiot it is.
“Dude if you had already picked up on the fact that I stated the complaint from Kotaku was nothing more than hot air…you wouldn’t have to ask this question of me”
I’m questioning your reasons for attacking them about this, since you’ve neither shown that the comment is factually incorrect nor address the point being made. Nothing about the fact that he’s unlikely to be directly affected by the restriction personally makes him wrong for questioning the restriction. Unless you think that people can only comment on things that directly affect them, as per my original sarcastic comment. Why is questioning a restriction of which you’re not going to fall foul “hot air”?
But, you refuse to answer the question and have now reduced yourself to an immature whining swearing mass, while you could have clearly and concisely answered the question in far less words. This could have been an interesting discussion as to why Nintendo are doing this, what possible benefits such restrictions could have and what the implications would be in the future. You, with your constant claims of higher knowledge than everyone else, could have answered this in a constructive way. Yet, you refuse to even state why you have a problem with Kotaku mentioning this restriction in the first place, beyond the fact that the author’s not in personal danger of being restricted with this particular title and restriction level.
I don’t even really care. I was just curious originally as to why you attacked the original quote with examples that had nothing to do with the point being made. Now I’m just curious as to why you’re going to such lengths to avoid answering the question directly.
We’re probably done here, as by the look of things you’re just going to post 200 words of nothing but swearing within 2 more replies. It’s a shame you’ve taken such lengths to avoid any intelligent discussion, but there we go.
Re: Re: Re:10 Hot air...
“We’re probably done here, as by the look of things you’re just going to post 200 words of nothing but swearing within 2 more replies. It’s a shame you’ve taken such lengths to avoid any intelligent discussion, but there we go.”
You do realize that roughly 9/10 of those 200 words of “nothing but swearing” are actually quotes from what you said right?
“I don’t even really care. I was just curious originally as to why you attacked the original quote with examples that had nothing to do with the point being made. Now I’m just curious as to why you’re going to such lengths to avoid answering the question directly.”
I attacked the point made by Steve Marinconz’s here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130813/10170624153/nintendo-restricts-number-times-you-can-play-game-demo-some-reason.shtml#c61
I bolded the part that kind of set it in the tone that his complaint was nothing but hot air. He stated that he planned on only playing the demo only once or twice, but in the same breath he said he felt shocked that the demo would only last 20 days.
My point is this.. It’s a demo…it’s a trileware demo…very very similar to shareware distribution methods I saw when growing up. It lasts 20 starts of the app, not 20 playthroughs…and you don’t need to be an intellectual to understand that there’s no reason to complain or be shocked by a message stating that if you are only going to play said demo once or twice before throwing it away.
I gave a whole explanation as to an example where I saw this method of demo distribution in my past.
And you still jumped on it. You nitpicked at spelling, and my intellect, and my personal experience in the way of shareware. You could have asked me to be more specific in a short, decisive, explicitly polite manner and I got the same “Wally is wrong” crap out of you.
“Your tech knowledge fails you again.
Shareware releases were typically limited to a certain portion of the game (only episode 1 of Doom, for example, you had to pay to get the rest). Some were time limited, IIRC, in cases where the games couldn’t be easily split into discreet chapters, although that was more “normal” game demos than shareware. But you could play the game as many times as you wanted from the beginning up until the point where you were asked to pay.”
Now do you see why I shot back at you? I knew about various types of Shareware and mentioned them…but since you never experienced the types that limit the amounts of boots into a game, your intellectual arrogance, once again, postured and reared its ugly head towards me…and I called you out about it….and this is where we are. Are you done asking me to answer your question that I’ve answered a billion (figure of speech in case you don’t quite get it) times over.
Re: Re: Re:11 Hot air...
“You do realize that roughly 9/10 of those 200 words of “nothing but swearing” are actually quotes from what you said right?”
sigh
Again, reading comprehension fails you. I referred to your words in the future tense, not the past tense, so what you said previously is irrelevant. Learn to read properly.
“I bolded the part that kind of set it in the tone that his complaint was nothing but hot air. “
…and I asked why you think that this makes it “just hot air” if not because you don’t think he should be commenting on something that doesn’t personally restrict him. For all your blather, you STILL haven’t addressed that question.
“My point is this.. It’s a demo…it’s a trileware demo…very very similar to shareware distribution methods I saw when growing up.”
Except it’s not like any restriction on shareware I’ve ever seen. What you appear to be referring to is time-limited commercial demos such as Dreamweaver, which allowed 30 days (IIRC) of use before forcing you to buy it. Most correctly termed shareware was unlimited in its usage of the allowed functions, only requiring payment to open new features or remove nag screens. No correctly termed shareware I’ve ever encountered has the type of restriction described.
When I asked you to provide a counter example or accept that you’re talking about 2 different things, you ignored my question and then reduced yourself into a childish swearing wreck. Why did you not address this very simple point to begin with?
All it would have taken is to give an example , e.g. “well, program X had the same restriction”, perhaps proving a link and all would have been done. But you refused to do so. I apologise if I leapt to the incorrect conclusion that this was just another example of smug claimed tech knowledge that’s actually wrong, but given your words and many other examples of such behaviour from you, I had to make that assumption.
“Some were time limited, IIRC, in cases where the games couldn’t be easily split into discreet chapters, although that was more “normal” game demos than shareware.”
EXACTLY!
I asked for an example of shareware programs that do this. Not commercial demos (which I know did this) but specifically shareware. If you cannot think of one, you’re using the term shareware incorrectly and conflating 2 completely different things as I originally stated. Why you’ve been arguing like a child rather than either conceding this point or providing an example, I don’t know.
Re: Re: Re:12 Hot air...
fehdjaliohedgwsfojiuedwgahigedwafyhiowaegyefuifagha wuedfkwqa fhdjksfhdsjal fyhdujsalfhudwiaofghjdsal fdhjusfahdsafoiuhgdsa hfudsopafyhudwoafghdsiao fujhdisao;fhewtygfowegaf78o0ewqatry7403qty57843 902p567y4pytgrfua
Read goddamn you just fucking read…then use your grey cells to think a bit….
“The following is hot air:
I downloaded the demo for The Wonderful 101, and was surprised to find this message pop up telling me that I would only be allowed to run the demo 20 times. Now, of course I don’t plan on playing a demo more than once or twice, as I’m sure most people don’t. Which is why I find it so odd that Nintendo would put this restriction in place. If any game is good enough that I would play the demo more than 20 times, then I’ll be buying it to play the full experience before ever getting to that point.
The bolded part tips it off.”
*****The bolded part above tips off that the entire testament is slightly hot air.****
There…happy PaulT? I just pointed it out to you what I saw and now I will give you a “why I think that” which is a part of normal every day English writing and reading comprehension but first the following statement needs to be addressed:
“Except it’s not like any restriction on shareware I’ve ever seen. What you appear to be referring to is time-limited commercial demos such as Dreamweaver, which allowed 30 days (IIRC) of use before forcing you to buy it. Most correctly termed shareware was unlimited in its usage of the allowed functions, only requiring payment to open new features or remove nag screens. No correctly termed shareware I’ve ever encountered has the type of restriction described.”
In regards to the bold, italicized text…..this is because you never did your research into what types of shareware demo’s there were…Warning…tangent:
To give you an example to how old I am…..My family’s first computer was a MacPlus…we bought the machine brand new in 1988…I was 3 years old…I played Cyan Software’s “The Manhole” quite a bit until we got our first CD-ROM drive on that machine (used an effing caddy)…my first CD-ROM game was “Cosmic Osmo and The Worlds Beyond the Mackerel” and it was the RedBook audio edition which has metadata on it that iTunes can pick up for the sound track….Then…in 1993, my family upgraded to a Macintosh Quadra 605..it was a big deal to have color graphics that not only displayed at 640×480 on a 256 color pallet…but could actively change out the colors in the pallet to reduce dithering on demand of the application running. Given all that, we had a 14,400 bps modem and a lot of our games could fit on a floppy….The point is I grew up in Shareware concerning a GUI interface…one game we had sticks out in my mind..it was called Tubular Worlds…it had that type of distribution you haven’t seen for its Macintosh version demo.
OK…Tangent aside:
The reason why I thought it to be hot air was because of my above past experiences with certain shareware demo’s and personal experiences which made me want to play the full game…too this day..and I can thanks to emulation… I only cited one game that did that because it, quite frankly was one that stuck with me for a very long time. The only difference between the Tubular Worlds demo and Nintendo’s Wonderful 101 demo is that if you were savy enough with MacOS System 7, you could use ResEdit to find the offset counter and simply reset the counter back to 20 more starts of the app.
And on the flip side to all this…at least Nintendo was courteous to inform users of this before they downloaded the app.
Now let’s look at exactly what you said throughout this that got me sidetracked into throwing insults back at you….
Me: “First off, I don’t have to answer to you because you’re too lazy to look at my other comments outside of this rather stupid and nitpicky conversation you’re trying to hold onto for dear life.”
Me after your edit:
” ‘First off, I don’t have to answer to you’
Yet you keep doing just that. It’s a very strange way of doing things, especially since you could have typed far less words by answering me directly. I’m asking very simple questions here, which you are ignoring in favour of ‘look over there’ without specifying where ‘there’ is meant to be. Weird.”
See I do have a bit of a problem here to this claim because of this from you:
“Strange. You’re responding directly to me, but I need to read other conversations to work out what you’re “really” saying? There’s the problem. I’ve read them anyway, some explain what you mean when talking about shareware. But none of them explain why you think that Marincoz’s specific issue with this specific type of restriction is just “hot air”. You know, the actual thing we’re discussing here.”
Fair enough, and I did respond to you with the there by saying “the bolded part tips it off”
OH FUCK THIS NONSENSE!!!!hfjkdshlfagjdsalf
“Learn to write, then. Context matters. You responded to people having issues with demos being limited to the *number of plays with crap about shareware that had nothing to do with the complaints in the article.
This is you:
“Yes, shareware had other types of limitations. You know else had limitations? Standard game demos. So why did you write 2 paragraphs criticising Marinconz when you probably both agree on this point?”
What do you think shareware was back in the early mid 1980’s and early to mid 1990’s for Macintosh users?…clearly a demo is a type of Shareware………so when you have a restriction on that.
I have given you a long and rather fractured report on all this…good luck comprehending my age (27) and experience al these years.
“All it would have taken is to give an example , e.g. “well, program X had the same restriction”,
I don’t think calling me a moron or obtuse helped you get a straight answer. Sorry to be such a triangle about all this, but you should really read up on tech history before asking me about how this kind of stuff worked. I simply gave the example that some software titles on the Mac did have a limited boot or app start and then was hoping you would see that complaining about something that has a limit of 20 starts from the OS, which you planned to play only once or twice..especially if it is commercially available…why there should be any reason to complain.
Re: Re: Re:13 Hot air...
“In regards to the bold, italicized text…..”
Nice story. That still doesn’t explain why the bolded text makes any difference, and why his opinion is just hot air if he lacks the knowledge imparted to you by your Apple products. But nice anecdote.
“To give you an example to how old I am….”
If you’re older than 12, you’re embarrassing yourself. I asked 2 simple questions, and you’ve been unable to address them without acting like a toddler. Pretty sad.
Yes, we all know you masturbate over your Apple products, but those of us who didn’t spend their time doing that might not be aware of such things. I grew up with Sinclair, Atari, Amiga and PC products so if there’s something unique to Apple that covers the territory you’re covering, you could have just said that and cited the differences. Instead, you’re shown yourself to be a frigging lunatic.
Now that you’ve stopped trying to misdirect and actually named a goddamn title, we can continue. AND YOU’RE STILL WRONG!
Sadly, I couldn’t find something specific to the Mac version, so I admit that you could be right if you’re like to finally back up your words with a citation. But, according to this link relating to the PC version: http://www.classicdosgames.com/game/Tubular_Worlds.html
“There are 4 episodes in this game, with only the first episode playable in the shareware version.”
So NOT the frigging definition we’ve been arguing over. NOTHING says that there was any time/usage limitation along the lines of the demo being questioned. Pages of swearing and childish rants, and the first example you bother to give me proves my point, not yours!
“good luck comprehending my age (27) and experience al these years. “
I’m 38 and I completed the A+ certification you cite as your god-like knowledge on tech subjects in 1999, the first of many certs, most of which are far more advanced. Yet you keep telling me I’m wrong about things I do for a living. That’s why I think you’re an immature tosser who doesn’t know half the shit he claims to, and am quite happy to call you out on it.
Re: Hot air...
A Kotaku editor with a clue–and not desperately flailing for traffic at all costs–sure would be something else…
Personally, there’s some game demos I’ve played and been satisfied with. When I want to play the game, I load the Demo, play through the content offered, and leave happy and content.
Now I’m poor. Free content is my bread and butter. Still, I am lucky enough to get financial windfall’s from time to time! .
If one demo lets me play the first level or three of their game for free as much as I’d like, letting me get more and more excited for how much deeper the game gets, and another demo tells me when I’ve had enough and it’s time to make up my mind about buying it or not… guess which game gets upgraded to full version during those magical moneyful times?
Spoiler warning – Its the one I’m still playing when I get money.
Heck… I’ve been using throwaway e-mails for most of this year to play Eve Online’s free trial, imagining with relish the day that I am able to afford the luxury of a monthly subscription.
Memorable demos get me to buy by convincing me after the nth time playing through it that this is a rare gem actually able to keep my admittedly limited attention and therefore worth the investment.
TL;DR Version
Demos that get tired of being played before I tire of playing them just wind up forgotten. Usually a few minutes into the next demo I download.
Demos that give me a reason to keep playing them, long after I should have grown sick of them, usually stay at the top of my ‘Yay I have money!’ list.
I downloaded the 3DS Castlevania demo a few months ago out of curiosity thinking I might get into it. It had 30 plays (which I think is pretty generous), and it seemed alright, but it took up a whole lot of space on the SD card and I’d have to delete that PLUS another 3-4 games to make room for the full version. Maybe I’ll get out of the house long enough to buy the cartridge at Gamestop. Maybe.
Re: Re:
Castlevania is tough for sure…get it…if you loved the demo, it only gets better after that.
Yeah, limited play demos freak me out. It’s an indicator to me (my subconscious, whether true or not), that the developer or publisher is going to be too tight with play rights. I expect they won’t be forthcoming with cheat codes, modding tools or anything else in the future either.
So I just won’t even give such the product the time of day until much later when the unlimited product is available for the cost of a coffee in the bargain bin.
Of course I’m the sort that won’t play EA games because of the spyware that is their Origin client required to play. They can release a Steam version or they can do without my sale entirely.
I played the Just Cause 2 demo over and over and over until the game finally became available. It was time-limited (30 mins or so), but in that time I managed to do things so many different ways that by the time the full game came out, I was even more eager to play it. Had there been a maximum number of plays, I probably would have hit that early on, and then a month later when the game was finally released, I might have very likely forgotten about it by then…
Locking the number of plays of a demo, even when the game is also available immediately, just doesn’t make sense – what if, as mentioned above, you’re waiting until next pay before you can buy? That could be some time away, and in that time, with everything that is competing for our money these days, there’s every chance people will simply have forgotten by that time.
Re: Re:
If you are waiting for next pay to get the game….it should be remembered because you set yourself a goal.
Really? Guess I’ll just buy a PS4 then.
I’ve been pondering why Nintendo puts this insulting restriction in their demos for a while. The best answer I could come up with is that Nintendo thinks all of their customers are children that will play the same demo over and over endlessly, then beg their parents to buy the game for them when the demo stops working.
I played the warcraft 2 demo too many times to count as I was only 9 and my parents did not want me to spend time in front of the computer. I had to beg until I was 10 almost 11 and save my pocket money before they would let me purchase it. During that time I played the demo around a hundred times.
The only way I can imagine sticking with the demo is if I can’t afford the full game, In which case only having a limited time to access it clearly doesn’t help Nintendo’s sales.
Unless by helping you mean annoying someone who could potentially be a customer in the future
“As Marinconz said, what players out there are going to play a limited game demo that many times?”
I could imagine younger children being happy with short demos, in the same way they often watch the same 10 minute TV program over and over. Their parents will probably be happy to let them get as many hours of entertainment out of it if they can’t afford to buy many full games.
But, unless the demo has exclusive content not in the full game (unlikely) then it will have served its purpose for most people long before it’s been played 20 times.
Re: Re:
Agreed….honestly this is just giving me more reason to see why there shouldn’t be any shock or reason to be surprised that a demo
has that type of restriction.
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed….honestly this is just giving me more reason to see why there shouldn’t be any shock or reason to be surprised that a demo
has that type of restriction.
If the number of people that play a demo more than 20 times is so vanishingly small, why bother taking the time to program in that restriction?
Re: Re: Re:
Some people don’t like these restrictions, myself included, so its less a shock and more a reason not to bother.
Others are likely upset because of the precedent it sets. 20 activations is plenty you say? What about the developer who inches down to 15? 10? 5? If its done gradually, most of the complacent folks won’t particularily mind… until its already a broad standard and its too late to offer up dissaproval.
I don’t like it, so I avoid it. If someone else doesn’t mind it, well thats their business and I wish them no ill will 🙂
I've done it
When Star Trek: Armada came out, I got a demo disk from a gaming magazine then.
I played the demo (two missions) far more than 20 times. Then again I was like 10 or 12, so I wouldn’t have been able to buy the game anyway. I didn’t care, the demo was fun enough for me back then.
I bought the sequel when it came out, then the original when it was re-released by another company.
Nintendo is sadistic
And gamers are masochistic.
Just peruse the parade of stories carried here about the way that gaming companies rip off, mistreat, steal from, lie to, sue, threaten, gouge, and generally abuse their best customers and it quickly becomes apparent that ONLY a masochist (or an idiot) would ever even consider touching the products of these companies.
Yet gamers keep throwing money at them and expecting different results…which is why I say that gamers are abysmally stupid morons who deserve to be ripped off, mistreated, stolen from, lied to, sued, threatened, gouged and abused. They are on their knees begging for it — and then whining when it inevitably happens. These are ignorant, short-sighted, immature idiots who are so eager to play these ridiculously childish, utterly worthless games that they can’t muster up the self-control and restraint to stop themselves. If they could actually manage that for, oh, a year, then they could break the balls of EA or Sony or Microsoft…but noooooo, they have to have the latest greatest garbage at any cost. I’m sure the executives of these companies laugh their asses off at them: I do. They deserve to have their pain mocked, and they most certainly deserve ZERO sympathy or help.
Shorter version: fuck gamers.
Re: Nintendo is sadistic
Funny you mention the very companies that continually perpetuate the problem and fail to notice that Nintendo doesn’t work like they do.
Re: Re: Nintendo is sadistic
Nintendo are just as guilty of all this as the rest. The executives of these companies aren’t stupid — well, not compared to gamers, although that’s not saying much. Those executives know that all they have to do is dress up the same-old same-old with new graphics and a catchy title, hire some booth babes to promote it, and they can impose whatever draconian terms they want. (“Hey, watch this: we’re going to make them hook up electrodes to their genitals to the play this game…no, really…yeah, they’re DOING IT HAHAHAHHAHAHA, oh wait, I dropped my stack of hundred-dollar bills.”)
The companies have this power/control because gamers have given it to them. And they’re still giving it to them, as fast as they can pull their wallets out to buy the newest first-person shooter that’s just as shitty as the last eighteen first-person shooters. (Seriously, what kind of brain-damaged imbecile actually plays these things? How amazingly stupid do you have to be?) So the companies, naturally, are not going to pass this opportunity up: it’s far too profitable.
Gamers are like drug addicts: they have to have it, no matter what it costs or how awful the terms are. Game companies are like drug dealers: the first sample is always free. But once they have the customers hooked, then they turn the screws. And gamers go right along with it, whining and crying all the way.
Re: Re: Re: Nintendo is sadistic
“Gamers are like drug addicts: they have to have it, no matter what it costs or how awful the terms are. Game companies are like drug dealers: the first sample is always free. But once they have the customers hooked, then they turn the screws. And gamers go right along with it, whining and crying all the way.”
Not that I don’t somewhat disagree, but methinks you’ve never really get very far trying to troll people mindlessly to getting a console war going.
No friends?
Outside of anything else that limit does severely limit the ability to do a ‘here, try this’ if you have a friend over at your house. I don’t know about you but I’m not all that likely to actually download and try a demo on a friends say so but any number of times Ive been handed a controller at their place and tried a game for a few minutes, or had them try a game when they were over at my house. In many ways they are simply defeating the number of people the demo can reach by putting a counter on it.
Nintendo exec: Meh, what a shitty, rainy day.
Nintendo exec 2: Yeah.
Nintendo exec: We should limit the number of times people can play “The Wonderful 101” demo to 20.
Nintendo trainee: Why?
Nintendo exec: Because rain.
Profit!
I'm gonna have to play Devil's Advocate, here...
There are many cases where people will simply play the demo over and over and get what they want out of it instead of buying the full game. Hell, demos in general are highly problematic, especially in this day and age. Extra Credits did an episode on demos highlighting the potential problems and why making a demo for a game is an extremely risky thing, especially if the demo is either bad or mediocre.
It’s not a pleasant reality, but Nintendo does have a perfectly valid reason for restricting the number of times you can start up a demo. It may not be the best solution, but all things considered, 20-30 start-ups is plenty, and if you want more than that, well, you’ve just made yourself an example of why it was done in the first place.
Give Nintendo a break already
C’mon Tim, give Nintendo a break. They have a real and legitimate concern here. If you could play a demo game as much as you like, you might actually discover that you like the game, and then (gasp!) this could lead to you actually buying the game.
Re: Give Nintendo a break already
Or they could not buy the game and simply get their fix from the demo. Seriously, dude, that’s an actual problem with demoes. It’s not as black and white as you make it sound. Nintendo have a legitimate reason for implementing the limit, and it’s not nearly as bad as some of their other “slip-ups”.
And if need to boot up a demo more than 20-30 times to figure out if you actually like the game or not, you have to be incredibly indecisive.
Re: Re: Give Nintendo a break already
If someone is ‘satisfied’ with the demo, then limiting them to 20-30 boots is unlikely to drive sales, since when the demo they are playing is finished being played, they’ll just move on to the next demo.
Its like trying to force sales out of chronic pirates. They aren’t going to buy one way or another. Take away their free medium, they’ll move on to another one. Hell I haven’t watched TV in YEARS (not that I could afford a cable subscription even if I was inclined to) but there’s plenty of free content on the internet competing for my attention.
TL;DR
People who are only satisfied with the demo are more likely to feel resentful rather than pressured to buy, because there is a ton of other demos out there when the last one doesn’t like you anymore. Try giving me a reason to keep playing, rather than an ultimatum if I play too much.
Re: Re: Re: Give Nintendo a break already
“If someone is ‘satisfied’ with the demo, then limiting them to 20-30 boots is unlikely to drive sales, since when the demo they are playing is finished being played, they’ll just move on to the next demo.”
Yet DOOM and Prince of Persia are among the top selling games of all time….
Re: Re: Re:2 Give Nintendo a break already
And I wonder how many of those sales were from the game going above and beyond what players expected out of a video game, vs. gamers being told they couldn’t play the demo endlessly.
I won’t say diffinitively you are wrong, because I have no evidence to support that.
My opinion however is think there are factors at play other than limited demo time. I can’t speak for Doom, never really got into it, but Prince of Persia (assuming we mean the 2d platformer of old) had a sort of pressured exploration to it that drew me into the world, and thats what made me buy it. Living up to, and then surpassing my expectations, not telling me to hurry and make up my mind whether I wanted to buy it or not.
Sometimes people buy a product because of something, sometimes people buy a product in spite of something. Which is at play here? I can’t say for sure, I only know which was more motivating for me.
Funny, I was just thinking of those PlayStation demo discs. Obviously you could play them over and over again without a cap limit. Perhaps the reason for Nintendo limiting the Wonderful 101 demo to 20 times is to conserve bandwidth? Don’t really know.
Maybe after playing the demo 20 times, it gamevolves into the full game?
Re: Re:
Dee do dee do
Oh god.. Press B… PRESS B!!!!
You don't have kids
You apparently don’t have small kids. My 6 year old loves games, and we get him new games all the time! They’re all demos, usually playing the first couple of levels allowed over and over and over again for weeks. Thanks to my XBOX 360 LIVE, once he’s done with them, I delete them and get new demos.
*munching popcorn*
Why blame Nintendo?
Unless every Wii U demo is doing this, it doesn’t sound like a Nintendo decision, but a developer one. Fruit Ninja only gives around 3-5 plays for the Kinect demo. That doesn’t mean it’s MS enforced.
seriously? upset at a demo that has restrictions? what?
does the game? you know, the part I pay for? no? then what’s the deal?
Demo!!
I typically don’t play demos more than a few times, but I played the Fur Fighters demo on my Dreamcast a hell of a lot more than 20 times. The multiplayer was awesome. And I did eventually buy the game as a result of its awesomeness.
Screw Nintendo.
Id had it down.
Doom worked. You play the first part for free. You get the rest for a fee.
People who a) play the demo a lot, and b) can afford the full version are going to buy the full version.
And, distrustful shareware limitation tactics tend to be a distrust not of people, but of the market. A developer who is feeding her family isn’t going to be worried about piracy or about coercing demo-users into buying in. It’s poverty and uncertainty about the future that drives people to depend on these methods.
The REASON is this!
All of you are not understanding the ones who should be playing wii u are 5 year olds, who CAN NOT purchase the full version. and some parents like myself can’t afford to buy the full version for them…. EVER. So this is how it goes. I want to download demo’s for my kids to play them for free, that is in fact the exact reason demo’s exist, to play, not LIMITED PLAY. Kid’s don’t care if it has 50 levels, or just 1 or 2, little kids will just play. it’s like practice to them, they’re still learning how to use the console, they’re still learning how to read.
Having demo limit’s is completely unfair, rude and bad practice.
this is the single most angering issue about wii u, i wish i never involved myself or my family with Nintendo because they’ve become disgusting and pathetic. The old Nintendo’s were fine, it’s just Wii and Wii: U that are garbage.
Samples of Games AND Play Limits
I dislike play limits not just because of the restriction, but because I think of the uses remaining as “lives”. Each time I merely start the game, I lose another life that’s impossible to gain back. In a way this actually discourages me from playing a demo because I don’t want all my lives to run out and receive a permanent “game over”. I think I speak for a lot of us here.
Usually demos either include the full game but with a time/play limit, or a minor sample of the game that could range from a few levels to just part of one level, possibly with some features left out. If the latter is the case, there’s generally not a time/play limit.
The 3DS and Wii U however, seem to do both. Their demos are often nothing more than part of a random level or game mode, yet Nintendo still thinks it’s too generous to let us keep playing that little part. All demos on 3DS and Wii U are required to have a play limit, not because of 3rd party developers, but because that’s just what Nintendo decided to do. The maximum that a play limit can be set to is 30 (Theatryhtym briefly had unlimited uses, but that was probably a mistake since it’s been 30 ever since it got changed).
It may be unlikely that someone would want to play a small demo 30 times without buying the game, but that’s not necessarily the issue here. Most of us like it when we know we have the freedom to do something, even if we might never do it. There’s no good reason why they should be limiting the the amount of times we can play a small demo, especially when that limit happens to be even less than 30. Some demos only have 12, 5, or even just 3 uses before they permanently ban you.