Support NeoGAF

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

Is it always for technical reasons, or what? I don't imagine it's in case of 'screw ups' since at the very least they could just pre record a demo and show it off.

Specifically, people were saying the Bloodborn demo looked great, but was running at like 10-15FPS, so is that why? Would showing off the footage to the public or releasing a demo with some disclaimers attached not be fine? Is there any difference if every single person who saw the demo points out the bad FPS?

Similarly, why didn't Konami bother to show off The Phantom Pain gameplay demo? I didn't hear about any technical problems with that, so why not show it off? What is the purpose of forcing all information to go through journalist middlemen?

Yami · Jun 11, 2014

Three words: the hype train.

Blablurn · Jun 11, 2014

So journos have something to write about. Creating hype without showing the whole game to the public.

Nemesis_ · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
Specifically, people were saying the Bloodborn demo looked great, but was running at like 10-15FPS, so is that why? Would showing off the footage to the public or releasing a demo with some disclaimers attached not be fine? Is there any difference if every single person who saw the demo points out the bad FPS?

Given how people have (alleged) to have cancelled their pre-orders for games that are anything less than 1080p, I can understand their hesitancy.

It's a fucking dumb and terrible attitude but it seems to be more and more common these days so they're playing ti carefully I guess.

Takamura-San · Jun 11, 2014

Some games can't recover from the bad perception of a bad demo presentation. If they know that the game has rough edges, better show it to the press which can put it on better context.

People here shred games to pieces from CGI.

piratethingy · Jun 11, 2014

For the same reason writers let their close friends/business associates read rough drafts before the average consumer.

That's a pretty bad analogy imo

Smurf · Jun 11, 2014

A relic from the past like much of E3, journalists are no longer required to relay the information. Nintendo treehouse and live twitch streams seem like the way forward

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

Yami said:
Three words: the hype train.

There's no way this is the real reason, is it (._. )

Blablurn said:
So journos have something to write about. Creating hype without showing the whole game to the public.

As for the first part, I doubt it's just to keep the 'gaming journalism' industry alive. And if they wanted to show off hype couldn't they just show short snippets or something? I don't think hype would deflate if they showed off 3 minutes of gameplay footage or something.

Nemesis_ said:
Given how people have (alleged) to have cancelled their pre-orders for games that are anything less than 1080p, I can understand their hesitancy.

It's a fucking dumb and terrible attitude but it seems to be more and more common these days so they're playing ti carefully I guess.

I just assume this is hyperbole to not get mad at everyone. I know even if they attached 500 disclaimers to footage saying ALPHA NOT FINAL WE KNOW IT'S LOW FPS!!!! people would still complain, but I don't know if that would change anything once the final product is out.

Lord-Audie said:
Some games can't recover from the bad perception of a bad demo presentation. If they know that the game has rough edges, better show it to the press which can put it on better context.

People here shred games to pieces from CGI.

True I guess, though it's not like they wouldn't keep showing progressively better footage over time, right? Someone isn't going to buy a game because "that first footage I saw a year ago had a low frame rate, I don't care if it's improved now!"

Smurf said:
A relic from the past like much of E3, journalists are no longer required to relay the information. Nintendo treehouse and live twitch streams seem like the way forward

Here's hoping, but I wonder.

Hanmik · Jun 11, 2014

what games have such a show this year..?

Metallix87 · Jun 11, 2014

Lord-Audie said:
Some games can't recover from the bad perception of a bad demo presentation. If they know that the game has rough edges, better show it to the press which can put it on better context.

People here shred games to pieces from CGI.

Agreed with this. Remember during the Zelda: Skyward Sword live demo with Miyamoto when the motion controls weren't working due to interference? People tore the game apart initially over that, despite Miyamoto promising it would function better on the show floor, which it did.

BigTnaples · Jun 11, 2014

Because unlike the internet, most journalists are used to seeing early versions of games and understand not all textures etc are final. When you see magazine or website previews that are text only, if you actually saw the builds they saw, you may have a negitive impression of the game unless you take into account it is a work in progress. Which the internet fails to do most of the time.

On the flip side, this can lead to overhype stemming from text previews.

Takamura-San · Jun 11, 2014

I suggest you look at the devils third thread. A good case in why you don't show games early.

TheDarkKnight774 · Jun 11, 2014

Gamers can't handle seeing unfinished products and over react. Just look at what happens here with early looks of games months or a year out that are shown/leaked.

Zeuanimals · Jun 11, 2014

Nemesis_ said:
Given how people have (alleged) to have cancelled their pre-orders for games that are anything less than 1080p, I can understand their hesitancy.

It's a fucking dumb and terrible attitude but it seems to be more and more common these days so they're playing ti carefully I guess.

Those people didn't have the games preordered and weren't planning on buying the game anyway.

zackmorris · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
Would showing off the footage to the public or releasing a demo with some disclaimers attached not be fine? Is there any difference if every single person who saw the demo points out the bad FPS?

Are you new to the internet? Of course that wouldn't be fine. You could plaster every frame with a disclaimer about it not being finished, it doesn't matter, people will still lose their minds over it.
Take something like the Order. After that demo a few of the people who saw it said that it wasn't running well. One of them said, based off how it looks he can't possibly see it meeting the 2014 release date. People instead got upset with the journalists saying they are lying, misreporting etc. Cut to 2 months later and the game is delayed to 2015. Clearly what they saw wasn't great and if shown to the public probably would have hurt the games reputation, at least until it was shown to be running better a few months later.

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

Hanmik said:
what games have such a show this year..?

Bloodborn and MGS5 are all I've followed, but perhaps some others?

Green Slime said:
Agreed with this. Remember during the Zelda: Skyward Sword live demo with Miyamoto when the motion controls weren't working due to interference? People tore the game apart initially over that, despite Miyamoto promising it would function better on the show floor, which it did.

Yeah I suppose, though kind of weird everyone would blow up at 15FPS Bloodborn footage but are fine with every "impressions" article mentioning the low FPS.

BigTnaples said:
Because unlike the internet, most journalists are used to seeing early versions of games and understand not all textures etc are final. When you see magazine or website previews that are text only, if you actually saw the builds they saw, you may have a negitive impression of the game unless you take into account it is a work in progress. Which the internet fails to do most of the time.

Again though, this is assuming all of these gameplay demos have some sort of technical issue. Bloodborn seemingly did, since everyone mentioned frame rate, but with something like MGS5, no one said anything negative with regards to how it was performing technically.

Lord-Audie said:
I suggest you look at the devils third thread. A good case in why you don't show games early.

I think that looks bad as well ( ≖‿&#8790

zackmorris said:
Are you new to the internet? Of course that wouldn't be fine. You could plaster every frame with a disclaimer about it not being finished, it doesn't matter, people will still lose their minds over it.
Take something like the Order. After that demo a few of the people who saw it said that it wasn't running well. One of them said, based off how it looks he can't possibly see it meeting the 2014 release date. People instead got upset with the journalists saying they are lying, misreporting etc. Cut to 2 months later and the game is delayed to 2015. Clearly what they saw wasn't great and if shown to the public probably would have hurt the games reputation, at least until it was shown to be running better a few months later.

I just wonder how much this affects things in the end. 15FPS footage this month, lots of people whine and moan, but at least there's an idea of what the game is like. months later, vastly improved footage is released, and so on until release. How much impact on the final product could that initial, acknowledged technical issue have? Maybe I'm underestimating it.

zackmorris · Jun 11, 2014

Lord-Audie said:
Some games can't recover from the bad perception of a bad demo presentation. If they know that the game has rough edges, better show it to the press which can put it on better context.

People here shred games to pieces from CGI.

Personally all I know about Ryse was how terrible it ran for the first few gameplay demos. I don't have an XBO so I never needed to go back and see if it was fixed, but I feel like a game running poorly is always bigger news than one that runs as it's supposed to.

larrybird33 · Jun 11, 2014

IMPRESSION CONTROL

Lazlo · Jun 11, 2014

Because even though the public is becoming more aware of the stages of game production they aren't mature enough as a whole to avoid resorting to hyperbole and complaining at the slightest issues.

Ninja Kn1ght · Jun 11, 2014

The general public really isn't capable of appreciating that a game in development might crash, run poorly, or have all kinds of glitches, etc. It makes more sense to restrict it to journalists who can see beyond those flaws (and will basically print whatever the publisher tells them).

Plasma · Jun 11, 2014

Sometimes games just aren't far along enough to show, look at the new Batman game that popped up at the Sony press conference it looked amazing. Apparently they showed a similar behind doors demo at GDC but the framerate was just awful, you put that video up on the internet and then that's all people will be able to talk about.

I do think with early access games people are getting more aware of what games are like during development but at the same time the stakes are different with those games. A big publisher does not want the average person to search on youtube and find early footage of the game that could paint it in a bad light.

zackmorris · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
Again though, this is assuming all of these gameplay demos have some sort of technical issue. Bloodborn seemingly did, since everyone mentioned frame rate, but with something like MGS5, no one said anything negative with regards to how it was performing technically.

I think for these games it's just a matter of being set in their ways and unsure of what impact changing things would have.
Publishers have always used journalists to generate "press" for their games by allowing them to post reports about them. It comes from a time before social media. But even with social media I think having every video game website on the internet writing about your game is better than just posting a trailer to YouTube and then tweeting about it.

arne · Jun 11, 2014

I can tell you why we do it. The show floor is way too noisy and distracting (people stopping by to say hi, people waiting in line behind you, etc.). Headphones don't provide the best sound environment over a dedicated room/theater with good surround sound. So for us, it's about letting the person be focused on and immersed in the game, and focused on their experience with it, rather than compete with the thousands of other distractions and noises of the show floor.

I can only speak for our games though.

halfbeast · Jun 11, 2014

don't the journalists have to send the publisher/developer their written previews before publishing the story?

KJRS_1993 · Jun 11, 2014

Because the Neogaf Vocal Minority Collective shit themselves instantaneously and activate Armchair Dev Mode at footage that is nowhere near completion. Who then proceed to mouth off about the game to any poor sod who might even mention the games title.

Just not worth it.

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

Lazlo said:
Because even though the public is becoming more aware of the stages of game production they aren't mature enough as a whole to avoid resorting to hyperbole and complaining at the slightest issues.

Do you think this impacts how the game is received when it's released or sales or something? Maybe it does and I'm assuming it doesn't.

Ninja Kn1ght said:
The general public really isn't capable of appreciating that a game in development might crash, run poorly, or have all kinds of glitches, etc. It makes more sense to restrict it to journalists who can see beyond those flaws (and will basically print whatever the publisher tells them).

What about a pre-recorded video they post online, free from technical issues or crashes, mistakes, etc? I'm sure a Phantom Pain demo video will be posted soon enough, but it will probably be exactly what was shown so that makes me question the reasons even more.

1.21Gigawatts · Jun 11, 2014

Because behind closed door they can show stuff without polishing it before.

If you want to show something to the public you better make sure its looking as close to the final game as possible so you usually have to spend extra time to polish a certain area just for showing it off.

The public usually focuses on the graphics when you show them stuff, so releasing something that looks unfinished and bad won't help your game, even if your goal was to show gameplay and gameplay looked great.

Also, you have more time and can dig deeper into the game.

NoMoreTrolls · Jun 11, 2014

Because sensitive gamers on the internet like to pick apart the smallest of issues. We've had countless claims of cancelled preorders over ultimately meaningless shit like dithering, small frame drops, and other performance blemishes. You think it's a good idea to show incomplete, possibly buggy, rough gameplay to such a hyper critical community?

If gamers on the internet weren't generally a pack of rabid animals, maybe such demos wouldn't exist, but devs have found that they need to do things that way to avoid having their game trash talked to oblivion.

oti · Jun 11, 2014

Games can be rough around the edges sometimes, publishers do not want the general public to see those. I remember the Witcher 3 demo crashing three times behind closed doors at gamescom, or Mad Max (where is this game by the way) having a few rough edges here and there. Whether behind closed doors demos need to exist is another story though.

Well, the answer in one word: Control.

KJRS_1993 · Jun 11, 2014

arne said:
I can tell you why we do it. The show floor is way too noisy and distracting (people stopping by to say hi, people waiting in line behind you, etc.). Headphones don't provide the best sound environment over a dedicated room/theater with good surround sound. So for us, it's about letting the person be focused on and immersed in the game, and focused on their experience with it, rather than compete with the thousands of other distractions and noises of the show floor.

I can only speak for our games though.

So do you release your "behind closed doors" videos on YouTube for everyone to watch and be immersed at home as well?
If not, is their any particular reason?

Takamura-San · Jun 11, 2014

arne said:
I can tell you why we do it. The show floor is way too noisy and distracting (people stopping by to say hi, people waiting in line behind you, etc.). Headphones don't provide the best sound environment over a dedicated room/theater with good surround sound. So for us, it's about letting the person be focused on and immersed in the game, and focused on their experience with it, rather than compete with the thousands of other distractions and noises of the show floor.

I can only speak for our games though.

If thats the only reason for your games, why not do both?

kitch9 · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
Is it always for technical reasons, or what? I don't imagine it's in case of 'screw ups' since at the very least they could just pre record a demo and show it off.

Specifically, people were saying the Bloodborn demo looked great, but was running at like 10-15FPS, so is that why? Would showing off the footage to the public or releasing a demo with some disclaimers attached not be fine? Is there any difference if every single person who saw the demo points out the bad FPS?

Similarly, why didn't Konami bother to show off The Phantom Pain gameplay demo? I didn't hear about any technical problems with that, so why not show it off? What is the purpose of forcing all information to go through journalist middlemen?

Have you never seen people pick over alpha footage as though its a finished product on forums?

rain elbows · Jun 11, 2014

Control access and you control the narrative

figadapaura · Jun 11, 2014

To create hype. People get far more excited about what could be, rather than knowing what is.

fallen_dawn · Jun 11, 2014

As others have said, I always thought it was because they know that rough footage won't be perceived well by online masses. All it becomes is fodder is someones biased agenda arsenal. And that has the real potential to hurt sales. Sure, most people could probably understand, but that vocal minority ruins it.

And the media does a good enough job at creating hype.

velociraptor · Jun 11, 2014

Because gamers will shit on any game which looks rough and it will negatively affect the image of said game.

KJRS_1993 said:
Because the Neogaf Vocal Minority Collective shit themselves instantaneously and activate Armchair Dev Mode at footage that is nowhere near completion. Who then proceed to mouth off about the game to any poor sod who might even mention the games title.

Just not worth it.

This. Lol.

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

zackmorris said:
I think for these games it's just a matter of being set in their ways and unsure of what impact changing things would have.
Publishers have always used journalists to generate "press" for their games by allowing them to post reports about them. It comes from a time before social media. But even with social media I think having every video game website on the internet writing about your game is better than just posting a trailer to YouTube and then tweeting about it.

How so? I guess it does create 'hype' if the impressions are positive.

arne said:
I can tell you why we do it. The show floor is way too noisy and distracting (people stopping by to say hi, people waiting in line behind you, etc.). Headphones don't provide the best sound environment over a dedicated room/theater with good surround sound. So for us, it's about letting the person be focused on and immersed in the game, and focused on their experience with it, rather than compete with the thousands of other distractions and noises of the show floor.

I can only speak for our games though.

Sounds reasonable, though is this for anyone to join or just journalists? I meant specifically journalist only previews.

halfbeast said:
don't the journalists have to send the publisher/developer their written previews before publishing the story?

For things like E3 demo impressions, I don't imagine so.

KJRS_1993 said:
Because the Neogaf Vocal Minority Collective shit themselves instantaneously and activate Armchair Dev Mode at footage that is nowhere near completion. Who then proceed to mouth off about the game to any poor sod who might even mention the games title.

Just not worth it.

T..thanks a lot NeoGAF (._. )

NoMoreTrolls said:
You think it's a good idea to show incomplete, possibly buggy, rough gameplay to such a hyper critical community?

If gamers on the internet weren't generally a pack of rabid animals, maybe such demos wouldn't exist, but devs have found that they need to do things that way to avoid having their game trash talked to oblivion.

Haha well I guess so, but again this is why I included The Phantom Pain example in the OP and not just the Bloodborn example, since as far as I've read no one has been stating that TPP demo had any technical issues, so it wasn't for that reason.

kitch9 said:
Have you never seen people pick over alpha footage as though its a finished product on forums?

Sadly, but what does this change in the end? If they keep showing off improved footage up until a game is released, will the initial technically inferior impressions have cause irreversible damage?

figadapaura said:
To create hype. People get far more excited about what could be, rather than knowing what is.

Maybe I'm the odd man out then. Reading all these impressions, my thoughts are "I don't care about this person's opinion just show me pls" rather than any hype building.

Garrett Hawke · Jun 11, 2014

arne said:
I can tell you why we do it. The show floor is way too noisy and distracting (people stopping by to say hi, people waiting in line behind you, etc.). Headphones don't provide the best sound environment over a dedicated room/theater with good surround sound. So for us, it's about letting the person be focused on and immersed in the game, and focused on their experience with it, rather than compete with the thousands of other distractions and noises of the show floor.

I can only speak for our games though.

I understand that but I don't think the OP is getting at the environmental reasons for doing it. Obviously a behind closed doors demo is going to be a much more relaxed and immersive environment.

I think what they're talking about is the fact that we only ever get screenshots or impressions from these demos - never video footage, like we do from the show floor.

Ninja Kn1ght · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
What about a pre-recorded video they post online, free from technical issues or crashes, mistakes, etc? I'm sure a Phantom Pain demo video will be posted soon enough, but it will probably be exactly what was shown so that makes me question the reasons even more.

If a game is pretty early there just might not be enough there to make a video polished enough for the public. Plus creating a nice vertical slice to show off takes time that might be better spent just making the game. I do think we are seeing increased openness about the development process this year like at EA's press confrence.

KnockOneOff · Jun 11, 2014

I only need to mention 2 game's.

The Last Guardian & Agent

Dont show anything untill you know its 100% confirmed and going to release

TheBowen · Jun 11, 2014

1. A Small reason is hype, as written articles about the game get people excited as the manner in which the journos writer them is usually more exciting then what was actually on screen and hearing things like ' we saw a glimpse of something ' and ' X feature was shown off' generates some intrigue and excitement

2. Most of the games shown of are most likely from games, or parts of games, that are still unfinished. So buggy AI and odd graphical glitches are relatively common , but showing this to the public usually results in them believing that this is the 'final version' of the game, and leads to people immediately dismissing the game.

co1onel · Jun 11, 2014

With Kojima its because he wanted crowds to show up to see the game like in the old E3 days before the internet blew up.

ponpo · Jun 11, 2014

Ninja Kn1ght said:
If a game is pretty early there just might not be enough there to make a video polished enough for the public. Plus creating a nice vertical slice to show off takes time that might be better spent just making the game. I do think we are seeing increased openness about the development process this year like at EA's press confrence.

Yeah maybe, but everything I've read about the 30 minute Phantom Pain demo says to me they could have shown me this or put a video online or included 5 minutes of it in a conference or blah blah.

Like I said earlier, they'll probably do just that sooner or later (re: game journalists saying 'this is the same demo we played last year') but if so that makes me more bitter.

co1onel said:
With Kojima its because he wanted crowds to show up to see the game like in the old E3 days before the internet blew up.

Oh, I see. So was this shown off to the public or just to journalists? If it was shown on screen or something like at old E3s then that's an understandable reason.

TheBowen said:
1. A Small reason is hype, as written articles about the game get people excited as the manner in which the journos writer them is usually more exciting then what was actually on screen and hearing things like ' we saw a glimpse of something ' and ' X feature was shown off' generates some intrigue and excitement

2. Most of the games shown of are most likely from games, or parts of games, that are still unfinished. So buggy AI and odd graphical glitches are relatively common , but showing this to the public usually results in them believing that this is the 'final version' of the game, and leads to people immediately dismissing the game.

Someone needs to come up with a way to prove this. It's apparently a common answer, but am I in the minority when I say I'd be more interested in seeing it rather than reading about someone else seeing it?

Would watching a clip of Big Boss using a fulton recovery balloon on a car get people less excited than reading "then they showed Big Boss using a fulton recovery balloon on a car"

zackmorris · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
How so? I guess it does create 'hype' if the impressions are positive.

It's just a much larger reach and puts your game on more peoples radar. IGN gets millions of hits per day, why would you want to lose that type of press? Add that with every other website and your talking about losing a lot of coverage. For a lot of publishers, they are just getting the games name out there, most previews aren't overly bad.

Huff · Jun 11, 2014

exposes games in rough shape to media

dont have to deal with moron interneters

PranooY · Jun 11, 2014

KJRS_1993 said:
Because the Neogaf Vocal Minority Collective shit themselves instantaneously and activate Armchair Dev Mode at footage that is nowhere near completion. Who then proceed to mouth off about the game to any poor sod who might even mention the games title.

Just not worth it.

Well said. LOL! ^-^

I'm Ok with this. Coz i don't wanna see the game until the developer have full confidence on his/her game.
Seeing incomplete footage can kill the excitement for many folks, even if the end/complete game is super awesome.

hodgy100 · Jun 11, 2014

KJRS_1993 said:
Because the Neogaf Vocal Minority Collective shit themselves instantaneously and activate Armchair Dev Mode at footage that is nowhere near completion. Who then proceed to mouth off about the game to any poor sod who might even mention the games title.

Just not worth it.

lol this. look at the people that went crazy over the battlefield hardline footage looking uncomplete. It wasnt even intended for public viewing and yeah it was uncomplete, what did you expect!

Joni · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
True I guess, though it's not like they wouldn't keep showing progressively better footage over time, right? Someone isn't going to buy a game because "that first footage I saw a year ago had a low frame rate, I don't care if it's improved now!"

Look at the E3 2006 showings of MotorStorm and Killzone 2. People still think those games look that bad as they did there.

co1onel · Jun 11, 2014

ponpo said:
Oh, I see. So was this shown off to the public or just to journalists? If it was shown on screen or something like at old E3s then that's an understandable reason.

I don't actually know, but on Kojima Station they were going on and on about how giant crowds used to show up to watch the trailers and how they got more sparse over years as the internet grew. They said they were showing gameplay at E3 so that it would be like back then. It's really a silly reason.

Dangoesforth · Jun 11, 2014

The Witcher 3 did that demo last year behind closed doors, if I remember rightly it won game of show from GT for that reason.
When there has been no gameplay shown (a cgi trailer or just cutscenes) I think it works as a tester to see reaction and to build hype.
Someone at IGN has seen The Last Guardian running also.

Support NeoGAF

Why are 'behind closed doors' gameplay demos a thing?

( ââ¿â)

Member

Member

Member

Member

Self professed bad raider

Banned

( ââ¿â)

Member

Member

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account

Member

Member

Member

Member

( ââ¿â)

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

( ââ¿â)

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

( ââ¿â)

Member

Member

Banned

Sat alone in a boggy marsh

Member

( ââ¿â)

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

( ââ¿â)

( ââ¿â)

( ââ¿â)

( ââ¿â)

( ââ¿â)

( ââ¿â)