Demo

One more thing you numbskulls haven't considered: how is anyone supposed to check if games runs on their hardware from just watching YouTube videos? It isn't like with console games, where you know everything is optimised for one set of hardware. And keep in mind, Planetary Annihilation intends to push hardware boundaries, just like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation did.

You don't need a Demo for that, you need a working knowledge of your system's specs and the Requirements as set forth by the developer for the 'Release' version of the game.

Mike

Totally agree...

Actually, I know a few friends who got totally turned off by the SC2 demo.
If you want to know more about PA, you will be able to watch plenty of coming Youtube Vids, am pretty sure of it. That will give you enough insight if the game is worth it or not.

Officially declared system requirement have historically been dubious at best. And you don't just want to know if a game 'runs', but to compare graphics and performance. Lest you're stuck with a game that runs like sh!t.

So solve the actual problem instead? I imagine trying to craft a Demo is going to be more labor intensive and split off valuable assets compared to defining better System requirements.

Mike

Do you realise how extensive a thorough system requirements analysis would have to be? You would have to review every possible configuration of every processor, graphics card, amount of RAM, operating system, graphics driver, and tell things like "this is how many units, under this detail setting, can appear on screen before performance drops below 60 frames per second" - for this is the kind of stuff people want to know.

Regardless of how much work a demo takes, how else are you supposed to reach out to the audience who just wants to test your game on their hardware? Are they genuinely expected to just cough up and hope for the best?

I find it hilarious how you talk up the work involved for better System Reqs but right away just ignore the work involved with a Demo.

There are over 8000 potential KS Alpha Testers and almost an additional 12,000 KS Beta Testers(plus whatever pre-orders and upgrades there have been), that should be enough to form a very good basis for the System Reqs.

Mike

And how do you propose to present all this information? - How would it even fit on something like the back of the box or a pamphlet? - Your list would have to look like:
"..."
"Windows 7, 8gb ram, GTX 550: Medium graphical fidelity with this amount of units simulated at 30fps on one 1680x1050 resolution monitor."
"Windows 7, 8gb ram, GTX 550: Low graphical fidelity with this amount of units simulated at 30fps on one 1680x1050 resolution monitor."
"Windows 7, 8gb ram, GTX 550: Low graphical fidelity with this amount of units simulated at 30fps on two 1680x1050 resolution monitors."
"Windows 7, 8gb ram, GTX 550: Low graphical fidelity with this amount of units simulated at 60fps on two 1680x1050 resolution monitors."
"Windows 7, 8gb ram, GTX 560: Medium graphical fidelity with this amount of units simulated at 30fps on one 1680x1050 resolution monitor."
"..."
...yada yada.

Compare to something brief like this:

(Above: I guess I'm supposed to know the graphical fidelity my hardware can get just from reading "recommended"; "highly recommended". And there's no indication for measuring up to 60 frames per second.)

Brief system requirements like we are familiar with don't give you the information you want to know. But could you imagine sliding a gigantic list I just described onto the back of a box or under the title description of a wikipedia or gaming network page?

I'm sorry, but what box? Seems your expectations are out of whack all over the place.

What you're looking for is Performance Requirements. The whole point of having options is so that users can tweak the output of the game to thier liking. This is where Standard model for System Requirements come in, the minimums are just that, the minimum to play/run the game/program, while the recommended requirements usually detail average or above average settings/performance.

Frankly, without playing the actual game, it's difficult if not imppossible to know exactly how you're particular system will perform. Not even a Demo would help, it's certainly more accurate, but seeing as they aren't even based on the actual engine used in the release version. This will be especially true in PA's case as the game will continue to evolve over time so a Demo would be even less accurate maybe even after as little as 3 months.

Frankly nothing will live up to the standards you have. Your best bet is to wait and do some research yourself to see how others with similar systems compare.

In the end, Garat has already spoken on the possibility of a Demo, considering Uber's capabilities and limits, I doubt anything has changed in that regard.

Mike

I know this game won't have a box. In this case it's box in a metaphorical term - something which can be read from a glance.

And whatever.

and a demo will probably have slightly different hardware requirements anyhow, given that you get to test the game usually on smaller test cases. With that in mind, halfway decent requirements given at release might be just as accurate if you know your system a bit and can relate your specs to the given ones.

This is all put into perspective when you realize the whole Uber Ent. team is around the 20 person amount. Any other game/RTS game that had a demo I can most certainly bet that company had either A. A FAR bigger development team or B. A greater amount of funds/time to develop.

My original argument wasn't so much me demanding Uber Entertainment to make a demo. (It makes no difference to me personally since I already backed the game.) It's that demos for games aren't as useless as are being made out.

I maintain that Total Annihilation's texture and simulation could not've been conveyed through mere videos, and those were what drew me into the game, and separated Total Annihilation in my mind from being another RTS game.

The problem with substituting video playthroughs as tasters is the enjoyment of video games largely depends on how you the player interface with them, and seeing your desicions affect the game. This can't be conveyed by watching someone else play.

I share the concerns about system specs - demos are very useful for working out if a game will run acceptably.

However, after what Knight said about the number of testers I had a thought. A quick and simple way to get some good data about system performance would be for Uber to distribute a replay amongst the testers. That replay would include various stress tests.

A manual or automatic reporting system would then give the performance info back to Uber and a hugely detailed table of performance combinations could be assembled for relatively minimal effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QM6LoaqEnY
Why did nobody posted this one yet?

Also, I think PA can make Spore-like demo. Remember this? They had Creature maker as a demo. And PA can have System maker. It will be easier to cut one solid part of the game than cut small bits of everything. We even seen this part working before the game was playable. Through, this is not a real demo, of course, but it's something.

Demos take more than a day to whip up? It's just the game with less stuff.

Although, some industries go to great lengths to remove features from their games...

Have you read the dev posts in this thread? It's not that easy.

As if just hitting delete is all they have to do. :roll:

^You just comment out every other line of code, and if it compiles you call it a day (everyone knows if it complies it has to work)!

Seriously though, not sure if I should laugh or cry at that. I suppose it mostly depends on the amount of sarcasm in bobucles' post (no offense meant, I can understand if you've never done any programming before. Suffices to say, it's a little more complicated than taking a machete to a few lines of code).

Do you guys want us working on demos or making the game? It's really that simple of a choice as every second we spend on a demo is time we aren't working on the game.

Demo's generally speaking are a ******* nightmare btw. I've never worked on a game where we could just slam together a demo. You tend to have to do a ton of custom work.

This entire thread is, quite frankly, rampant speculation about the best way to market the game. Demos are seriously old school and if we were to do something along these lines there are better ideas (and no I don't want to write a novel about it right now).