Forums > MobyGames > Can cancelled games with playable demos be added?
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/10/2014 4:12 PM · Permalink · Report
Sorry if this has been asked before, but since a playable demo/alpha/beta version technically does count as a release, can such games be featured on MG? There are also incomplete shareware series like Aethra Chronicles (although in this particular case I think the shareware version is limited compared to the registered version of Volume One; however the trilogy the author planned to create was never completed).
Opipeuter (17205) on 1/10/2014 8:59 PM · Permalink · Report
For reference: http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/demo-versions
Игги Друге (46651) on 1/11/2014 4:55 AM · Permalink · Report
What? Then I could have added Putty Squad for Amiga years ago instead of waiting until the full version was released this christmas.
Indra was here (20746) on 1/10/2014 5:15 PM · Permalink · Report
Add first, think later, prepare for possible entry escalation. Wait for approvers to fight amongst themselves. You know, the usual routine. :p
Pseudo_Intellectual (67062) on 1/11/2014 3:37 AM · Permalink · Report
Provided the demo is a playable game vs. a tech demo, slideshow, etc. I think it should be fair game.
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/11/2014 9:46 PM · Permalink · Report
A few questions on a related note, if you don't mind.
Fist off, if a demo of a game does not have any unique content, does it make sense to add the demo release date (if known) to that game's entry? It seems logical enough to me but I don't know if this was ever practised at MG (haven't noticed any such entries so far).
Second, there are games that have been made fully available as pre-release versions (below v1.0), and it's not only free/open source projects but perfectly commercial or shareware games.
Indra was here (20746) on 1/11/2014 10:35 PM · Permalink · Report
My rule of thumb is just publicly released. Limited beta (restricted audience) however, does not count. Whether or not it's for sale, is irrelevant. That's apparent enough in today's indie and social media gaming trends. There would be no logic to justify freeware games if commercialism were an integral requirement.
Which reminds me, I need to fix all the Mount&Blade titles to Mount & Blade.
Indra was here (20746) on 1/12/2014 12:57 AM · Permalink · Report
I started getting suspicious when I began checking out their website. It seems they only put Mount&Blade when they're grammatically lazy. Any official site of theirs either puts Mount&Blade, Mount & Blade, MB. No M&B though.
When I was browsing through one of their news entries and their entire page was filled with the Mount & Blade spelling variation instead of the Mount&Blade version, it seemed that they don't really care how it's written. So I opted for the grammatically correct one.
It's like Command & Conquer or C&C or Command&Conquer (rare). If we were really going to rely on cover art alone to identify the name, it would be Command ---&--- Conquer. :p
Игги Друге (46651) on 1/12/2014 1:27 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--]First off, if a demo of a game does not have any unique content, does it make sense to add the demo release date (if known) to that game's entry? It seems logical enough to me but I don't know if this was ever practised at MG (haven't noticed any such entries so far).[/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--]
No, because that would put the release date of the game, as far as the system is concerned, at a date before the game was released.
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/12/2014 10:52 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start MrFlibble wrote--]First off, if a demo of a game does not have any unique content, does it make sense to add the demo release date (if known) to that game's entry? It seems logical enough to me but I don't know if this was ever practised at MG (haven't noticed any such entries so far). [/Q2 --end MrFlibble wrote--]
No, because that would put the release date of the game, as far as the system is concerned, at a date before the game was released. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Not all demo versions of the kind that I referred to are released prior to the retail version. In fact, in many cases it is just the opposite.
Игги Друге (46651) on 1/12/2014 11:44 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--] [Q2 --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q3 --start MrFlibble wrote--]First off, if a demo of a game does not have any unique content, does it make sense to add the demo release date (if known) to that game's entry? It seems logical enough to me but I don't know if this was ever practised at MG (haven't noticed any such entries so far). [/Q3 --end MrFlibble wrote--]
No, because that would put the release date of the game, as far as the system is concerned, at a date before the game was released. [/Q2 --end Игги Друге wrote--] Not all demo versions of the kind that I referred to are released prior to the retail version. In fact, in many cases it is just the opposite. [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--]
Yes, but it would be even more stupid to allow those games whose demos were released after the full version.
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/12/2014 11:58 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] Yes, but it would be even more stupid to allow those games whose demos were released after the full version. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]
What's stupid about that? We're talking about documenting various releases of a game, and to the best of my knowledge a playable demo version counts as a valid release. What would be wrong in adding an entry to a game's database saying that a demo was released at a certain date? That would provide information that a) the game in question had a demo (not all games have demo versions) and b) that demo version (or versions) was released at a particular point in time (sometimes people are confused as to whether a demo version was released prior to the full game or not).
I agree that adding a separate database entry for a demo version without any unique levels or other content might be too much, but I certainly do not think anything would be wrong in adding the release date of a demo version into the game's release history.
Patrick Bregger (305447) on 1/12/2014 12:20 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
At the moment we don't support the documentation of demos or pre-release versions outside of the mentioned boundaries. I certainly agree that we should document demo versions, but it is not expedient to use game release info for that. For one, it is not a full release of the game and therefore a misleading database entry. We'd need a new feature to document demos properly, similar to patch info.
In the long run, if the new owners ever manage to introduce the urgently required parent-child structure for game entries, demos should be documented as child entry so we can document the releases on magazine covermounts. In my opinion there is no use trying to shoehorn it into the existing structure.
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/12/2014 1:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]For one, it is not a full release of the game and therefore a misleading database entry.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--] That's certainly a valid argument, although one could point out that shareware versions are also not full games yet they are documented in the respective full games' entries (at least, that's how Duke Nukem 3D and Doom are documented for example).
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]In the long run, if the new owners ever manage to introduce the urgently required parent-child structure for game entries, demos should be documented as child entry so we can document the releases on magazine covermounts. [/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--] That would probably be the best solution, or perhaps even a more detailed categorization could be introduced (e.g. having separate groups for electronic download releases and physical media releases)?
Simon Carless (1833) on 1/12/2014 5:29 PM · Permalink · Report
In general, my 2c is:
-
If a game made it all the way to public Beta and is therefore completely playable, sure, it should be added.
-
For now, let's not do complex things with 'cancelled games with playable demos', because I think we should only have full games in the database if at all possible. Sure, we could have an entry that said 'Unreleased Game (Demo)', but it seems like it could cause some confusion.
I do think we have some longer-term sorting out of game linking to do before we start getting more complicated - as others have pointed out, all these variant 'Game Of The Year' titles with different unlinked (well, unlinked other than URL links) entries is already a bit of a mess so I feel like documenting things like this could spaghetti things up even more...
Rola (8478) on 1/12/2014 1:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
No, a playable demo doesn't count as a release here. We've only made an exception for those demos you are interested the most, namely ones with unique content. Note that they use separate game entries (in order not to mess up the primary entry).
As for fully-playable public-release beta versions I'm all for adding them.
I agree with Patrick Bregger here - for adding regular demos we'd need to upgrade our database structure with said dependencies.
Indra was here (20746) on 1/12/2014 2:45 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'd say add it, just to annoy Iggy. :p
Anyway, the only problem this poses to the system, is the presentation of release info, if the demo release has the first/last? date release. Which may provide inaccurate or misleading information when the system shows mentioned date in (a) the rapsheet (b) this day in gaming (c) or whichever search engine result may warrant that info to appear. The damage to the integrity of this site with this approach, is astoundingly zero. That is, if you don't use drama queen logic.
Just as long as the comments section of the release info is clear e.g. demo release.
Игги Друге (46651) on 1/12/2014 5:04 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--] [Q2 --start Игги Друге wrote--] Yes, but it would be even more stupid to allow those games whose demos were released after the full version. [/Q2 --end Игги Друге wrote--] What's stupid about that? [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--]
Sorry, I meant to write "to allow only those games".
MrFlibble (18408) on 1/12/2014 7:19 PM · Permalink · Report
Ah, alright. Thanks for the feedback guys! I understand that documenting demo releases (I do believe those count as releases, albeit certainly not of the same kind as shareware or full versions) is not a pressing issue when there's a lot of cleanup to be done with full releases already in the base :)
One more thing though, you've mentioned the term "covermount" which refers to what I am accustomed to calling "magazine cover CD demo". Since there are several demo versions with unique content (and therefore warrant a separate entry) that were exclusively published on cover CDs (of which the Computer Gaming World Magazine was most famous for unique content demos), what would be the correct term to call such demo versions? ">Game Title< (Covermount Demo Version)"? Or ">Game Title< (Computer Gaming World Magazine Exclusive Demo Version)"? (in the case of a CGW demo that is) or something else entirely? I'm asking because in some cases there are more than one unique content demo versions, one of which was CD-exclusive and the other downloadable.
MrFlibble (18408) on 2/17/2014 3:26 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Sorry for bumping, but since we have discussed pre-v1.0 public releases here I've got a relevant question now.
Currently, the MG entry for C-evo shows the date when v1.0 was released as the game release date. I'd like to submit the v0.0 release date, should I do that as a correction or as a new release entry? Or should the entry be left as it is? (contrary to what we discussed here)
[Edit] Also the release info for C-evo lists the latest version, v1.2.0, as a separate release, whereas I suppose the correct way to reflect this would be a patch info entry?
Indra was here (20746) on 2/17/2014 9:44 PM · Permalink · Report
Submit as a correction, if all you need to change is the release comments. If it's missing a company or two, submit as a release info replacement.
Send in separate version releases as release info, not as a patch.
MrFlibble (18408) on 2/18/2014 2:22 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Send in separate version releases as release info, not as a patch. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
So the games that are only distributed as downloads and do not have explicit patch file releases to update from previous versions should be submitted as releases, not as patches? Basically, you mean that the C-evo page for example should properly have as many release information entries as there are downloadable releases?
What about downloadable games that had both a patch and a full installer update? Should the info be duplicated in the patch and release info section? What for the games where an updated installer also doubles as a patch (i.e. you don't need to re-install the game to get an updated version, just use the installer to get updated files)?
I thought that the "Patch Info" section could make for such a good general version history outline, but apparently I was wrong.
[Edit] Well yeah, the division of downloadable releases and patches proper is actually a good idea. I'm sorry, I was just a bit confused by all this stuff.
Indra was here (20746) on 2/18/2014 3:14 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MrFlibble wrote--] [1] So the games that are only distributed as downloads and do not have explicit patch file releases to update from previous versions should be submitted as releases, not as patches? Basically, you mean that the C-evo page for example should properly have as many release information entries as there are downloadable releases?
[2] What about downloadable games that had both a patch and a full installer update? Should the info be duplicated in the patch and release info section? What for the games where an updated installer also doubles as a patch (i.e. you don't need to re-install the game to get an updated version, just use the installer to get updated files)?
[3] I thought that the "Patch Info" section could make for such a good general version history outline, but apparently I was wrong. [/Q --end MrFlibble wrote--] [1] Yep. All release info. See Example.
[2] Well, you'd have to identify whether or not it's a patch (e.g. uses an automated updater) or a separate downloadable release. Admittedly it's tricky (e.g. online games). If you can't detect which technology is being used, best to avoid mentioning it.
[3] Blame the permanent beta indie scene. They screwed this up.
Karsa Orlong (151770) on 2/18/2014 5:21 PM · Permalink · Report
My case: The game was released for the Amiga and was supposed to be released on PC. PC playable Demo was released, advertisements reached the press. The game never showed up. Can I add this as separate Demo version or only as trivia in Amiga entry?
MrFlibble (18408) on 2/19/2014 8:15 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Karsa Orlong wrote--]The game never showed up. Can I add this as separate Demo version or only as trivia in Amiga entry? [/Q --end Karsa Orlong wrote--]
As vedder said in this thread somewhere above:
Since we allow demos of games where the demo features unique content, I'd say yes. Indeed all content in these demos is unique if the game never had a release.I suppose this suggests that a separate demo entry is called for here.
Patrick Bregger (305447) on 2/19/2014 8:40 AM · Permalink · Report
But if the game was released for another platform, the content is not unique.
MrFlibble (18408) on 2/19/2014 6:53 PM · Permalink · Report
Personally my understanding is that the unique content requirement is a temporary excuse until the database fully supports documenting demo releases. (But I'm known to have misunderstood things here in the past so it might be just my own wrong impression)
That said, the demo in such a case as described by Karsa Orlong is the only release for a platform, it was publicly available and can be played, so technically it should count as a separate release.
Also there might be cosmetic differences between the versions on different platforms, or minor tweaks to the demo levels, which may count as "unique" content (not without a stretch, but still).