Hey everyone,

about an hour ago i remembered that BRINK is about to come out soon and after a long disapointing time of meh-ish online shooters i get my hopes up that BRINK might be something a little different. After checking a bunch of Videos to see where the game ended up right now i came to the conclusion to pre-order it. Now my gaming rig is getting older and hardware requirements become a bigger concern every month. As for online games you dont want to end up with 15 frames on the lowest settings possible.

What makes it even worse is this oonka-boonka Steam registration. While im a big fan of steam ESPECIALLY when it comes to special offers it is just horrible when you basically have to verify 100% that this game is not going to let you down. Once you played it you cant resell it. Back in the days video game magazines and online platforms were packed with demos of games that sometimes have not even been released yet. You were able to check out games and then buy them if you enjoyed them. Today all you get from developers is "neyh, we dont plan to release any demos. Maybe in 6 months or so". Needless to say that even a year after release a doonka is given about ever bringing up that topic again.

Why is that? Do game studios have no trust in their product and believe that more people might actually be turned off by testing their game first? Is there any research which prooves that demos hurt sales? Im sure that to many people its not just about the gameplay when considering a purchase. For me it becomes more and more important to actually be able to play the game in an enjoyable way, which is highly dependant on personal opinion! Now while im suprised that my PC is holding up fairly well with todays games there are always a few odds and ends. Lets look at crysis. This game has a fantastic amount of graphics settings which allow you to customize everything in a way that the game will run smooth and still look as decent as possible. I for instance dont care about bloom and blur. In fact i highly dislike them so i turn them off in every game and i helps performance alot while i sacrifice NO quality. Others might really like these effects and turning them off will highly impact how happy they are with the visuals. Some games handle quality settings better than others. Some look good even on low-medium settings others start looking godly aweful even if you just lower texture quality a bit below maximum. Then there are those games that look awesome and run suprisingly well like (again) crysis. Downgrading to shader 2.0 was sufficient to have the game run smooth. Starcraft 2 and Modern warfare 2 (tell me about meh-ish online shooters. I was DESPERATE!) were pleasant suprises too. Almost maxed out, no problems. Then there is this abortion named borderlands which looks avarge at best and presents you lots of blurry, blant textures from 5 years ago and guess what... it runs horrible for what it shows on screen.

My point is that i dont want to buy games and play them in "fugly-mode" just because the engine is not efficient, the visual settings are super limited and/or are just an on/off switch giving you the coice between "100000 items on screen at once" or "have 2 items with 4 types of textures used on everything". The specifications on the box are close to useless because they cant tell you HOW the game will look. It just says that it has a 99% chance to boot up under given conditions. Now what exactly am i supposed to do instead of not buying the game that id really like to play? No demo, no details on how customizable the graphics will be, no refund once you bought the game and for the same reason no option to RENT the game first. For 10-20 bucks i take the risk (did with oblivion on steam) but for 40-60 i dont feel like wasting my money.

You did never let me down bethesda but what am i gonna do now?
What do others think about this?

Take care!

I see your point, however it is a lot of effort to put a demo together, and Id rather get game early than wait another few weeks for it on top. Well, all i can say to you is just to have a look at the system requirments.

i agree fully that there always should be a demo for games for exactly the reasons you stated. to test if it works on your system and to get a general feel for the game. however splash damage said it takes a lot of resources to prep the demo and get it out to the public which would have delayed the release date. im happier to get the actual game sooner since i know im buying no matter what. you do make a good point however...

Demos are expensive, some games and studios release them. This is just not one of them.

Maybe they trust it so much they thought they didn't have to release a demo?

I see your new
Here's a :turtle:

The issue is that if they do release a demo, players will treat it like a final product. Any issues or glitches that the game has will be badly representing the game, and with the internet what it is these days, those complaints will spread like wildfire.

On the otherhand, if they release a demo, and change something for balance that the players happened to like, then there will be a similar outcry.

Its much easier for marketing to secure sales by more or less controlling the information until release.

If you want a demo, just wait until after release, and ask a game rep to let you try it out in the store, or get a steam demo, or try a friend's copy.

Thanks for the welcome.

I'll give them that. There are always two sides to consider. But as you said, knowing the internet, people go crazy regardles. Heck, just the background picture of the forums could be considered "dangerous" to sales. In general i think that hardware requirements are not given the attention they should. If i got a great product like you said schwarzeis, why not brag about how good the engine is beyond just the maximum visuals? Remember when quake 3 came out and there were tons of articles everywhere explaining how the engine works and where they get the perfromance for such a fast paced game?

Shadowcat, I take from your statment that indeed financial concerns are one of the biggest factors here which i totally second. Chances that customers are turned off the game seem to be evaluated higher than it could encourage a purchase. Yet it makes me wonder. Instead of releasing a demo, they decide to have people buy the game full price without a chance for a refund and expect to earn enough on day one to outweight the customer gain that a demo version might provide? So the viral outcry of angry customers on day one complaining about buying a 50 buck release they dont like, is better marketing than some "demo-first impressions" only a handfull of people would take serious? No matter what you do, it will spread on the net in no time. I am expected to trust the developer about the overall quality of the game and on how it performed on the systems they tested it on. No demo and forced steam registration then render me helpless if my trust got abused. I pay 50 bucks and resell it for 30-40? I dont care! But being stuck with a bad purchase because im treated like a 10 year old by a company... meh.

Trying it out in a store is no option. It wont help me at all to predict performance at home. Steam demo? Anytime but thats the thing... there is none even though steam is the perfect platform for this. A friends copy would mean using his login details aswell, as the game is linked to one specific account. Even with my best friends i dont share that kind of information and its not allowed by steam policy anyways.

It might take a long time but i see a revolution on the horizon. On-Live seems to point in the right direction and im suprised that steam has not announced something similar yet. Have a library of games and be able to test any of them on the fly via a 10 minute demo pass. This would solve any gripe that i have with no demos, hardware issues and online registration with no refund options. Just give me a chance to see if i am capable to EVEN RUN IT! Heck, even if its just 1 cutscene in ingame graphics that i can download and run like a benchmark maybe with the option to run it in different quality settings to determine how adjustmens reflect in the ingame visuals.
Buying a game that you dont like is different than buying a game which you like but cant play. Its like buying an ugly car versus buying a broken car.

Splash Damage stated that to release a demo they had to push the release date further back.

They didn't want to do that. Would you?

No.

The home stretch wait is killer enough. There's no way I could wait another week, or another month.

I have full faith in BRINK, no need for a demo for me

.. I don't want them to push it back ._.

Beta testing is much more important than demos! I′m all for Beta even I can′t be part of it

I couldnt have says it better - And i agree 100%.

What alot of people here wont understand and didnt actually catch onto is that, you stated "Gaming companys" in plural - Not just "splash damage" - So straight away people are already making an assumption that your talkin on behalf of SD, Which is not the case - Its only that SD are apart of this conclusion.

But that all aside - Im in the same boat when it comes to "performance + resales/returns".

I HATE known that theres 50/50 chance and possibility that when purchasing a game online - There is always that chance of "low fps" on low settings.

I fear this most in Brink - The recommended system spec are some what fierce and arent your average "Typical gamer" rig.

In order to play games nowa days on a good and competitive level = $$$.

And alot of it - I dont a tally on the "Rec specs" for brink, And what they asked for added upto ￡500 minimal - including GFX card, CPU, MOBO, RAM etc.

This may not be alot to some - But for me? I would love to splash ￡500 into a pc straight of the bat - unfortunately, i have bills,debts, house to run etc etc.

And then comes the "resell" - You cant....plain and simple, What you buy is what you get - regardless to whether it Doesn't install, Doesn't run, or is just plain crap and you dont want it anymore, unlucky.

So many factors come into play when it comes to gaming nowa days that is making the "gaming market" fierce and competitive for game makers to succeed and keep up with.

Thats why my conclusion comes to that this being the reason ALOT of company's do not release demos, Cause it would sore on sales.

So many big franchises out there have swept the market completely, Its hard for others to keep up.

This still doesnt excuse the fact that Gaming now days - Is nothing more than a gamble.

So even though i agree with absolutely everything you says - There is only 1 conclusion to it all...Welcome too 2011.

You could buy a console! Thats the reason why I don′t play on PC anymore. Oh and all consoles (PS3 Xbox) support a mouse and a keyboard its only up to the games to support it.

Lets say you got 400.000 bucks and i'd offer you your favorite sports car which happens to cost said 400.000 bucks and you wont ever get a chance to buy it anywhere else, but i wont let you test-drive it even though there is information available to you that there might not be an engine in this car.

Buy it blind! Would you?
Propably not. Does it annoy you as someone wo would like the product in general? Most likely. - Please take this as my answer to your last line.

You are pointing out the obvious. Dont expect them to release the game early because they are so generous towards us poor souls. Ofcourse they are under pressure by those giving out the money and this is what i assume you are referring to. Understandable? Yes. Acceptable? Not entirely. Strange how demos were much more common in a time were video games were not as big as they are now. If overall quality of games would be great all the time and advertisemants would actually be honest, no big deal but as you are facing exaggarated statements everywhere and delivering a quality product is not the number 1 priority today, how can i trust anything except my own experience with something.

Ive tried it - Ive had 3 xbox 360s and ended up selling them all, Cause they end up sitting there collecting dust.

Its amazing how much i loved my xbox - but sorely neglected it because the fact i had my pc.

Im quite proud of my PC built - I made it from scratch, So i know for now my gaming rig should still handle pretty much anything i throw at it.

But the main reason i chose pc is pure convenience.

Me and my girl dont watch TV - normal TV.....I have my PC hooked upto my HDTV in my living room - So anything we do watch, is all through the pc - from gaming - torrenting, films, tv shows etc.

If an xbox could do just that - Id probably chose it over my PC.

Get an Xbox.

No out-dated video issues.

Ability to trade in games.

Problem Solved.

Im so sold on that one! Would i buy BRINK for PS3? I'd friggin love to! Problem is that a gamepad for a shooter is the most rediculous thing i can think of and the ps3 controller with its centered anolog sticks is killing me. I looked for alternative controllers but there are none that suite my needs and if they do they end up having other issues instead of the old ones. Do games support mouse and keyboard? No, as you imply correctly. Is there a chance that they do anytime soon? No! Because consoles are sold with gamepads and adding mouse support would ruin competition online. They gear the game towards the common control devices and cant split the players in 2 seperate categories.

As long as a different controller device isnt shipped with the console right from the getgo there will NEVER be an alternative way for console gaming. There is some mouse kinda thing for PS3 but as i said, they tend to have other flaws and just emulate a mouse.

Would i love to use my PC for work only and play EVERYTHING on console? Absolutely! But only in an ideal scenario where my gaming box provides all the luxury of a pc without the drawbacks of the same.

This is one of the main reasons that I switched to consoles for gaming, upgrading the rig got too expensive and time consuming for me. The last time that I had a gaming rig was when CS:S came out. I bought several games that I couldnt run, even on minimal settings and switched.
Granted I prefer FPSs on PC, but I like how consoles everyone has the same hardware. Mainly bc I dont know enough about computers so I was at a disadvantage to those that did.
So if you dont have the $ or the ability to upgrade your current rig, getting a console will keep you update for 3-4 years at least if being able to play is a main concern.

Thanks for pickung up those details again. I lost focus on pointing that out more precisely somewhere along the road.
Gaming is no longer a thing you can do without switching your brain on every now and then. Copy protection issues, online registrations, picking up second hand stuff which you have to investigate on first because there MIGHT BE a 1-time-use code to access online gameplay, active internet connections required for the entire playtime in SOLO games. More and more rules are enforced on the customers and when you dont pay attention you are left standing in the rain because you cant expect ANY help. Welcome to 2011 - Buy games and have them taken from you any minute when a gaming company goes bankrupt and takes down their Login servers.

Im not just some casual gamer. I LOVE games and i play whenever i get the chance. That means that i want to play all games out there that seem interesting because i adore them as art.
Bioshock. It wasnt that good of a game really but the world it showed me will be stuck in my head and just thinking about it doesnt make me regret just one cent i spent on this game.
I do not demand perfect games and "the best game ever". I just demand that there is one aspect that makes a lasting impression on me in a good way.

BRINK might deliver great multiplayer with nice imersion (it starts with the way the gun moves around) because of art style and the fusion of solo/multiplayer with a bit of storytelling added on top of that.
I want it! It showed that it is worth my time and money BUT why do i have to put up with worrying about things that have nothing to do with what a game is about? The idea behind it and not the structure its sitting on.

You're right, there is no steam demo right now, but I said to wait until after release. If Brink is as fun in multiplayer as i expect it to be, then SD would be smart to allow players to give their friends a timed steam demo.

All I really took from this was oonka-doonka fugly mode.

But on a serious note, it makes sense why console players such as myself are able to sell back the games. When console players sell back games for any reason, we cannot play those games anymore. We don't have the disc, what are we supposed to do? Unlike PC players where you can install it through Steam, and never even look at the disc again. They could make another way to approach this situation, but it still just doesn't look good.