[kevingadd]

The core problem is that it appears player-friendly, but in practice it is not, because it wounds developers. If you're an indie with limited resources, being forced to build a demo means you end up having to ship a bad demo (actually reducing your sales in many cases) or not ship on the platform at all.

In an ideal world, 'all games have free trials' is good. The realities of game development mean that even for games where it's possible to build an excellent trial, it may not happen. Budget cuts happen, resources you thought you had go away, your schedule slips or deadlines draw closer - in those scenarios, it would be unreasonable to make the core game suffer in order to have a demo ready by the deadline. Most developers would instead focus on the most important part - the core game, the thing people are paying for.

There are also games for which it is near-impossible to build a free trial. A recent example is The Stanley Parable; the nature of the experience made it impossible to have a 'free trial' version of the game, so they had to instead build an entirely separate game that they then gave away for free, and tried to use to convince people to buy the actual game.

That solution worked great for them, but it took time and resources. I wouldn't be able to bring myself to tell every developer they had to do that just to be on my store.

Note that demos and trials are great when they work: They help convert slight interest into sales. However, many successful games sell entirely on the strength of good reviews, word of mouth, and press coverage. This is part of why sometimes the wisest choice is not to have a demo.

[sp332]

You can just add a timer, like Bomberman did, or limit the number of levels or something. I played a puzzle game where the free version was limited to a certain number of moves per day. A timer would have worked fine for The Stanley Parable.

[ollysb]

Maybe OUYA could take care of this automatically, just freeze the game after the time limit had been hit. The developer could just specify how long they want the trial to be.

[ytjohn]

I like that. But what I would like to see would not be a total hours timer, but so much time in a given period. This should be set by developer per game.

I'm thinking of the scenario mentioned in the article where the owner tried it once and put it away. If he had tried a couple demo games that first day by himself, then came back to it months or a year later, then those games might no longer allow the trial.

I think a great thing would be based more on total game time. You get 8 hours of in-game time to try this, then you must pay. Then another factor could be "the trial resets after 30, 60, 90 days".

As long as these are options the developer can pick and tweak, that would be great. It would also be good for the developer (though maybe not for privacy) if the Ouya could report game play stats (avg times opened per day/week/month, avg time played per session, users that "max out" their trial vs those that "abandon" the game).

[ericd]

I'm very reluctant to buy a game if there's no demo, unless it's throwaway-cheap, the reviews and word of mouth are stellar (they're usually not for any but the biggest hits), or the concept immediately clicks for me. It's worth putting a bit of time into making a good demo.

[sexmonad]

I take this sentiment a bit further - unless it's throwaway-cheap, the reviews and word of mouth are stellar (they're usually not for any but the biggest hits), or the concept immediately clicks for me, I will pirate the game to try it out. If I like the pirated version, I _usually_ purchase the full game (but not always). Not having reasonable demos just increases game piracy.