How about a option to play the game first and than pay?

[Dekinai]

With more gaming companies making promises they don't end up living up to and companies that make it their life's work to deliver unfinished games (ubisoft) , overhyped games, (Destiny) how about a option to play first and than pay?

If publishers set a pay gate at 50% of the game. People would have had enough time to see if they like the game and buy it.

What does the Steam Community think about this. Is this more "Fair" for the Gamer?

[Black Blade]

So you saying we need to allow users to download play the game then give it back, saying that they did not think it was good? ya sounds great i am sure the publishers will die to do that...
Honestly now, what will push someone to pay for the game then? i really cant see these work

And here are a few points that may help
overhyped - Dose the publisher have some type of control on these? users hype the game, if there is a problem with these its the users, not the Publishers or Dev problem

So you can do what you suggest... or... maybe just take the time, wait for the game to come out, then read reviews? that is after all why there were they are, there there for users to read and see what the game is form users that were ready to take the risk, or from people that got the game early to make the review

[Dekinai]

Reviews yea....

It's someone his opinion and not a objective view on the game and it's technical state, bugs etc etc etc.. Also they are sponsored by some of these companies so yea, even dare to say something evil about the game and give it less than a 9/10 rating...

[Black Blade]

Originally posted by d.servais:

Reviews yea....

It's someone his opinion and not a objective view on the game and it's technical state, bugs etc etc etc.. Also they are sponsored by some of these companies so yea, even dare to say something evil about the game and give it less than a 9/10 rating...

Well then
I like to point something
These is the World Wide Web, there are much more then a few reviewers out there...
And not all of them are corrupted if at all any of them are

Search for someone you can trust, and follow that, also honestly will you really want a objective review? with no feeling in it?
Games work on feeling, and its not something that works for all, each game type has its own reviewer..
Best way look for two of the sides of the coin, the bad and the good, then you can decide
And Steam even offer you a Review system that split the good and bad, so you can see what some like abut the game, and what some hate abut it

Then decide your self if these game is good for you or not...
So why are you even talking abut reviews that you do not trust, when there are soooooo many others?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Reviews are not objective by definition. They're just what someone thinks about the game.

It's not really clear what you're asking for...or maybe it is clear but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because devs already have the ability to release demos, but making them mandatory is a terrible idea.

Now, I think I this age of fast internet and cheap storage, the option for devs to just drop "end demo here" functions into their main Steam build, and deliver the whole thing as an all-in-one demo/full version could be pretty neat. But it has to remain up to the dev whether to participate and where to end the demo. Because what's 50% of Minecraft?

[The Ballad of Minerai]

This actually use to happen back in the 90s. This was called Shareware episodes, which the episode consisted of the first episode of the game. Episodes varied in lenght, usually between 4-8 levels, and allowed the gamer to experience the game to see if they wanted it.

Publishers today do not want that because they love shoveling out unfinished crap so they can get a quick buck. Imagine how much a loss Ubisoft would lose if they did this? It's better for them to *surprise* gamers with thier crap than letting them know what is in store for them.

[WhiteKnight77]

Demos have gone by the wayside for the most part due to publishers not wanting to pay to have a team make one. They feel that the money is better spent on regular development.

If it were like RSE used to do, make a regular map/level, and either use that, less some weapons or something or rework part of it as an MP map and use that instead. It worked for them and they didn't cost a whole bunch.

Would it be nice to have demos again? Of course. Will we get them? Doubtful, at least from the AAA publishers, but maybe from indie studios.

[The Ballad of Minerai]

Even if they made demos, most publishers would "dress them up" to make them more appealing than the actual game is.

Prey being an example. The demo, while good, is the only part of the game where the player is able to intereact with the world old school style. The game is still pretty good, but you expected more after playing the demo.

[supertrooper225]

I can understand why someone might want this idea to happen. But I am also realistic. Old shareware and demos were one thing. But a pay wall at the halfway point of a game? You are dreaming if you think something like that would ever begin to cross someone's mind. Most just wouldn't buy the game. Just pay for the game if you want to play it.

[Tortle_Chan]

Sometimes you know that a game is already worth buying from the looks of it. It would only sound cheap, if you were to demand to drink half a bottle of vintage wine, before you decide to buy it.

[AI Sin || SinNoAria]

I miss the age of demos. These days, it feels like I'm expected to pay to beta test, or in some cases, it feels like I'm expected to pay to alpha test a demo version of the game. When hundreds of people can't even run the game (BF4 on the PS4 anyone?) in the release state, you have some serious issues with the game. Right now though, people just don't care enough. If the game doesn't work, many people don't actively demand that it gets fixed or that their money is returned-some people even defend the company. When false promises are given for a game, people often don't actively demand the the promises be met or that their money is returned-again, some people even defend the company.

Essentially, the consumers (that is really what most people are, not customers, but consumers) are allowing the companies to get away with sub-par quality.

Also, to be fair, in some places, they do give you a small sample of wine before letting you decide whether or not to buy it.

Now, what I disagree with is the 50% part. That is a bit much, honestly.

I'd say have a demo sample.

What I do say though is this: If a game promises certain things and those things are not met, it should be perfectly reasonable to expect to have a refund for the game. If the game is so buggy that it is barely playable, then it should be reasonable to expect to have a refund for the game.

I think sellers such as Steam should really consider enforcing such a policy as to allow refunds for games that just simply don't work or don't give what was promised.

And I don't mean a few weeks down the line. I mean when it is officially released. Early Access is one thing, but if the description promises something, I should be able to buy it on release day and expect it to deliver. I should be able to buy it on release day and baring online, expect it to be fully playable on release day. (Online is somewhat forgiveable assuming it is an actual online game and not simply online-based DRM).

Otherwise, these sellers are simply enforcing the idea that it is ok for developers and publishers to push out sub-par and incomplete work.