DOS Games Discussion

I'm not sure if this is a coincidence or not but the number of games that were released via the classic Scott Miller shareware model - split into complete episodes, the first of which is free to distribute - seems to have declined around the same time as DOS gradually became replaced by Windows as a gaming platform in late nineties. Maybe the advent of the Internet had something to do with that but this is not an issue here.

What I'm interested in is the games that still were released as episodes even in the Windows era. It is true that some games and game genres preclude this kind of distribution because of their internal structure (e.g. there is no actual progression form level to a level). But many that could follow this model used limited demo versions instead (if any at all).

The important distinction here as I understand it lies in (a) whether the demo/shareware is marketed as an "episode" and (b) whether said episode can indeed be regarded as a complete, albeit short, game. Additionally, a shareware episode does not have the "hard" limitations which are sometimes present in demo versions, such as the inability to save or load a game (provided this feature is available in the full version), or limited playing time.

This should also be distinguished from the more recent development of episodic video games where all episodes are commercial from the start.

There are of course some early Win3.x games that follow the same model, like Epic Games' Castle of the Winds, Spiderweb Software's Blades of Exile or Fantasoft's Realmz. These however were released in the time when the Apogee model was still widely used.

So far, I can only name a few Windows games that were released in episodes:

• Arabian Nights
• Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project
• ShadowFlare (although initially, only a limited demo was released)
• Siege of Avalon

Also, some demo releases that are not openly presented as episodes may be considered as such. For example, the trial version of Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings comes with the full William Wallace Learning Campaign, which is a tutorial in the campaign form. Since the entire game is split into campaigns, each with a separate storyline, this can be considered a complete "episode" from the full game.

Similarly, the demo version of Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom includes the full tutorial campaign that is set in the Xia Dynasty period.

I fancy there should be more games like that (I mean the ones released in the "free first episode" format), although not as plentiful as in early to mid nineties.

I've just remembered that the trial version of Dungeon Siege includes the entire first chapter (the game is divided into chapters). However, the trial version also allows you to play a bit further into chapter two, and doesn't have any real conclusion to the game - rather, the path is simply blocked at some point with a message that the player can't go further in the trial version.

I was sad Siege of Avalon didn't do better and provide more sequels. I was hoping that company would be more like Spiderweb and now Basilisk. But I always had technical problems with that game, so I assume that really hurt their chances if others had the same experience. And I bet my problems were because I was running Win2K and XP and it was happier on '98.

I've recently been wondering if the Win98 -> XP transition killed off a lot more indie game series and developer houses than I realized. I've been trying to run some early '95 & '98 games, and it's surprisingly hit and miss. It got bad enough I'm building a gaming machine just for those in spare hours, and I'm praying that the next DosBox release will host a Win95 install out-of-the-box with some Voodoo card emulation. I know the community has custom builds with all that stuff in it, so it's not a matter of solving the issue, just choosing to bundle and support it.

But then, I've got a strong opinion about Microsoft's history providing a gaming platform from '95 through the modern Win-8. (Pre-DirectX GameLib, DirectX multiple breaking changes from 3 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 11, XNA, XNA NoMore) They really only seem to want to play with big gaming houses who focus on a game every year or so (technology at least), and MS obsoletes their platform faster than I could keep up as a hobby. All my old trial code is unusable even if I wanted to resurrect it.

Still, I'm glad that MS OS stability and general computer power has come far enough to allow for the "current" Indie gaming and emulator booms. I just wish I'd stuck with learning OpenGL 15 years ago rather than getting enticed by DirectX 3. That code still works. Of course, at this point, we can use dos game technologies and just run them in a software renderer in a desktop window at acceptable framerates. I'm surprised we don't see more of that outside of Retro-Remake style games. (Ok, yes, I'm whining and wandering OT. I'll stop! )

Good point about the old shareware market. I've tried some recent indie games, but they are either free games or trial "buy now to continue your adventure" stuff. The latest Monkey Island mini-adventures all came out in self-contained chapters, but I don't know if the first was free. Same with Sam & Max.

You don't think the internet had a big impact on this? You don't draw a correlation between disk-of-the-month and bulletin boards as an uncontrolled distribution method that encouraged "free small first taste" that changed when the internet allowed for controlled "download from our site" and bandwidth increases? Of course I don't know, but I'd think it is an interesting question worth some further thought - the bandwidth/distribution platform limitations guiding the form of the distribution model.

I guess long term, if shareware chapter model still worked well, it'd still be in use. I assume it stopped because it stopped working, either because the novelty wore off, or "buy now think later" out-competed "try now and remember to buy later". Does consumer psychology play here? Probably.

I guess the most popular incremental models now are DLC "add a level for [cheap]" or fremium "pay to play less and get ahead now." Are they natural extensions of the shareware model, or new things themselves? Curious, I hadn't thought about it.

Quadko wrote:I guess long term, if shareware chapter model still worked well, it'd still be in use. I assume it stopped because it stopped working, either because the novelty wore off, or "buy now think later" out-competed "try now and remember to buy later". Does consumer psychology play here? Probably.

I think that one of the major reasons was that the developers no longer felt it necessary to include large portions of their work in what was essentially a demo release. Here's what John Carmack says on this:

Doomworld: Doom's Episode 1 was one of the first (and one of the last) widely distributed shareware programs. Why was there no Doom2 demo/shareware of any sort?

Carmack: DOOM 2 was explicitly a commercial release. We sort of half heartedly did some shareware distribution with Quake, but I think the industry has almsot unanimously decided that the three or so level demo is the best test vehicle. [source]

Allen Pilgrim, creator of Xargon and Kiloblaster, said something very similar recently:

Tim's philosophy was to provide the best possible Volume One that we could so they would want to purchase the entire trilogy. On reflection, and I have not said this in public before, I believe I included too many FREE levels. On any new games I do I will only include 3-5 levels. I believe three should be sufficient for a person to get the idea of the game as well as have some fun if all they want to do is those levels. [source]

Another thing is that many shareware games from Win3.x era onward did not use the episodic model because of the game structure itself: either the game would be split into self-contained scenarios (like strategy games), or episodes would not entirely be possible because of the lack of any consistent storyline.

Quadko wrote:I guess the most popular incremental models now are DLC "add a level for [cheap]" or fremium "pay to play less and get ahead now." Are they natural extensions of the shareware model, or new things themselves? Curious, I hadn't thought about it.

I guess that freemium, DLC and the "pay now to play further" shareware model, as well as donationware and even kickstarters have become widespread these days because of how easy it is to purchase something online. The "get for free" drive no exists alongside the "shopping" drive. It is not surprising that even more people complain about the "stack of shame" phenomenon, when they buy a lot more games online than they actually have time to play.

Great quotes. A few years back I tracked down and bought Solar Winds part 2, in the "I always wanted to play it but was broke back then" kind of mood. I was surprised, because while it was fun and definitely the same engine, it seemed a lot less polished and had a lot less content like planet descriptions in it. No regrets to get to put it to bed and to pay for "both parts" by buying the second, but it felt a little anticlimactic. "Got your money, don't have to try so hard." Probably wasn't the developer's attitude, they probably just ran low on time, but it felt like it.

Stacks of shame

Aargh. I know that phenomenon too personally and too well.

But in the other direction, I'm so often surprised these days to download a demo, enjoy it, buy it, and not have to download any further content, just an unlock code. Given my mental shaping in the episodic shareware days, something seems wrong there...

But the worst thing I've run into lately was on the MS Surface. I spend a weekend browsing their store while watching TV, downloading likely looking demos, then got busy elsewhere. I returned sometime later - weeks? - when I had both hours and interest to devote to the games and inspect my haul, and all the demos were expired without ever having been run once. Imprecative time-window demo system. They don't earn my money that way, that's for certain. Now I've got "major disappointment" associated with thinking about game playing on the Surface; surely not the outcome they planned.

Quadko wrote:No regrets to get to put it to bed and to pay for "both parts" by buying the second, but it felt a little anticlimactic. "Got your money, don't have to try so hard." Probably wasn't the developer's attitude, they probably just ran low on time, but it felt like it.

I'm also pretty sure that this isn't what the developers wanted, but the very fact that they tried to put the best (or at least very good) stuff into the shareware version would make it difficult to surpass that in the registered episodes.

It's also very important that the novelty factor works in a different way when the player is already familiar with the "basic" features of the game. It had been very accurately observed by someone that the episodic shareware Apogee model is essentially free games with optional add-ons you have to pay for. With the more limited demo versions, it is much easier to show off some important aspects of the game while holding back interesting features until the payer purchases the full game.

Come to think of it, this is probably why some developers have opted to go an extra mile and include unique content into their demo or shareware versions (Rise of the Triad, Warcraft II, Age of Empires, Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri to name a few examples).

Another thing is that many games in the days when the Apogee model thrived did not offer too much variety in their architecture so to speak, and making a game longer inevitably meant just more levels, plus maybe more weapon/bonus item/monster/obstacle types etc. This certainly contributes to the "more of the same" feel in the registered episodes.

Quadko wrote:I returned sometime later - weeks? - when I had both hours and interest to devote to the games and inspect my haul, and all the demos were expired without ever having been run once. Imprecative time-window demo system. They don't earn my money that way, that's for certain. Now I've got "major disappointment" associated with thinking about game playing on the Surface; surely not the outcome they planned.

Well, this certainly sounds like an outright stupid feature. One could probably only forgive it when taking into account that companies are experimenting with some features, exploring this relatively new field. But the customer usually ends up at the receiving end of those experiments :-/

BTW, speaking of Echalon, I have only downloaded the demo of Book I and didn't play it much for the lack of time (although the game looks good and plays well too). How far does the demo go? Is that the full book or what? I noticed that Book II comes as a "full version with a demo area" which is probably unlockable Exile style.

It's been a while since I played the Echalon demo, and I beat both 1 & 2 and am looking forward to 3. Solid fun games. I remember the demo being limited to certain areas of the map. You can complete a number of the starting quests, I think, and there's a town and some enemies to get a feel for the game, but you have to buy the game to continue past the boundaries. The games themselves aren't divided into chapters or milestones; you just get stronger or the occasional quest to be able to access choke points on the map, but nothing is one way. (And fast travel between towns, as I recall.) And by "map", it's just a set of linked screens that you walk around on, with enemies and buildings all at the same zoom level - simple and fun. (And up and down stairs to different levels.)

It is amazing how much more complex games have gotten, from single mechanic arcade games and simple adventures through the modern games with unique stuff around every corner, and attempting to pretend or give the impression that most games are just a corner of our complex universe.

The biggest surprise on the Surface demos is that I thought Microsoft did a great job with demos on the Xbox 360. The same session timeout would have worked great on the Surface. I'm not sure if it was MS imposed or if these games chose this method of several, I guess, but I haven't messed with it further after such an experience.

I'm trying to think through where I get modern games and what demos look like: console, with console supplied demos and unlocks, Steam, GOG - no demos, places like Retro Remakes, and directly from the dev's websites. The PC stuff either is one-off demos like Eschalon, or just no demo at all. Console demos don't count, and are mostly in the unlock code arena. Terraria and Minecraft? I forget how they do demos.

Quadko wrote:Terraria and Minecraft? I forget how they do demos.

IIRC Minecraft (I never played it myslef but I've heard about it) used a model where an alpha or a beta version of the game (which naturally lacks some of the features) is for free but the full product is not.

I'm glad you brought this up since I'm interested in this model as well. Another game I know works this way is Desktop Dungeons, and I think there are other games that do the same as well.

I forgot about Desktop Dungeons! I had fun playing an early release.

The pre-release for free is an interesting model. It makes great sense on paper, but I think it has some odd potential reactions along the line of "you've suffered through bugs and betas, now you can pay us to play it again polished!". Replay value may matter there, though, sandbox (minecraft), random (desktop dungeons), and "sport arena" (quake/UT) style games may work better than a new story adventure would.

MS does that with Windows OSs and TechPreviews, doesn't it! Very much more irritating to have your OS expire after 6 months than a game.

Did you see this article on Gamasutra? The Demo Is Dead (p2). (Or maybe you even wrote it. )

Interesting, and it's even saying that in sales numbers a demo doesn't make sense for them. (Assuming they are measuring accurately - given my habits I think I'd often get counted a no-demo person even if I played the demo. I use a different computer, I uninstall demos then install the real version later, stuff like that.)

Of his off-the-cuff potential reasons, I've definitely done his first 4

1. I got my fill of gameplay already from the demo.
2. I've had 90% of the initial delight of the game for nothing. Paying some money for the remaining 10% is a waste of money. (Note disconnection between "delight" and actual content)
3. I can't be bothered to pay for it when I can go and play another free demo somewhere else.
4. I've already got a bunch of games I've paid for but not yet even played. Maybe I'll not bother getting this one yet.

It's sad (for the company) when playing a demo convinces me to *not* buy a game I was planning to purchase. I'm looking right at you, Dungeon Siege 3!

Quadko wrote:Did you see this article on Gamasutra? The Demo Is Dead (p2). (Or maybe you even wrote it. )

Haha, nope, I didn't write that for sure Thanks for the link, it's quite interesting - even more so that I've also been thinking about the impact of the easy and fast video access over the Internet these days.

The guy there makes a statement that gameplay videos are a fine replacement for demo versions, and he's right at that. I've also noticed that they nicely replace screenthots, a previously popular non-interactive way to show off a game.

However, videos, especially Let's Plays and other types of walkthrough, are also not proof of the "99 Reasons To Not Buy Your Game".

In fact, I'm hearing more and more of "I'll just watch someone play it on YouTube." from people. Something like: "I'm not going to play StarCraft: Heart of the Swarm multiplayer anyway, so I'll just watch SP campaign videos when I have the time." (this is what a real person said in another forum I frequent). And in fact, I'm noticing the same kind of thinking for myself - well, I haven't got much free time to actually play games ATM. But at any rate Let's Plays and stuff offer a very tempting alternative, especially since you don't have to do anything - buy, install, or actually play the game -and you also get an added bonus in form of comments from the let's player (if the person's good at it you get lots of fun from that too), and if there are no comments then you can just compare playing styles with yours (if you're familiar with the genre that is, or played some similar game).

It's not likely that everyone is going to switch to watching games instead of playing them, but there is no denying that such videos are a form of entertainment in and of itself.

Quadko wrote:It's sad (for the company) when playing a demo convinces me to *not* buy a game I was planning to purchase. I'm looking right at you, Dungeon Siege 3!

I'd say that if a demo convinced you not to buy a game, then it has fulfilled its primary function - in the original shareware "try before you buy" spirit Even if the decision wasn't like "I don't like it therefore I won't buy it", but "I kinda like it but the demo still wasn't motivating enough to actually make me buy it". (BTW, another problem a developer who releases a demo version has to face is not only how to limit content so as not to give away too much interesting stuff, but also how, vice versa, not to limit the game too much so that it may not become unappealing, or, even worse, fail to properly represent the full product).

So back to the article, I think the guy overestimates the power of demo videos in avoiding the "reasons not to buy the game". He probably doesn't take into account that (a) non-interactive demos were abundant in the early to mid nineties, which nonetheless did not make episodic shareware and other types of interactive demos obsolete, and that (b) some game development companies have always had a policy of not publishing any demo versions at all (for various reasons), relying on other ways of promoting their games (IIRC Paradox Interactive is one prominent example).

I'll just watch someone play it on YouTube.

I've started doing this a little - a few years back reading about Night Trap and just wanting to see what the fuss was about, then deciding to let someone else do the hard work of installing and playing Phantasmagoria, and just watching fun cut-scenes. Alternate endings for games I played and don't want to replay. Stuff like that. I'm not there yet, but I can see the trend to just watch highlights - "the game was so good they made a movie of it!"

I'd say that if a demo convinced you not to buy a game, then it has fulfilled its primary function

I certainly think so from a customer perspective, but from a business perspective, epic fail on the company's part! The best customer is the one who just forks over the dough and adds the game to their stack of shame. No install issues, no customer support... I guess even better if they talk about how excited they are about the game so others also buy it to add to their shame tower. Next best is a devoted fan talking it up, of course!

Ha: that somehow makes me think of this Dilbert; with a cool video and a stack of shame effect, do you ever have to finish an actual game to be a successful company?
[/img]

Quadko wrote:I certainly think so from a customer perspective, but from a business perspective, epic fail on the company's part! The best customer is the one who just forks over the dough and adds the game to their stack of shame. No install issues, no customer support... I guess even better if they talk about how excited they are about the game so others also buy it to add to their shame tower. Next best is a devoted fan talking it up, of course!

I'd like to think that not every game developer is like that. And I'm pretty certain that the developers who really care about both their product and their customers, will not want literally everyone to buy and play their games; rather, it is in their interest that those who really like their game play it.

I suppose that even a big company that falls into the "profit is paramount" stereotype does not try to make everyone buy their products - they want their "market share" and that the "target audience" buys the game.

I know, it's cynical, but working for years in small software (non-game related) companies and observing larger ones - even when we want to be helping people out, on bad days the best customers are the ones who pay the bills and don't require support. Hopefully the good days and big vision is better than that. But "paid and went away happy" is exactly what we want out of a customer, at least until time to upgrade/repurchase. If that means they never installed the software, fine with us, as long as they don't want a refund!

The Valhalla Classics games also follow the episodic distribution model with the first episode being free.

Here's a modern game called Steel Storm: Burning Retribution that also seems to be distributed by episodes, with Episode I being free. It also has some awesome music.

Another Windows episodic shareware game was mentioned here in the forums recently, Eat This.