Eventually you're probably going to want to release an updated demo with all the bugfixes and more features from the previous demo to give people a better impression of what state the game is at right now. What I think is that a future demo should have very limited multiplayer, perhaps a limit to the number of players able to play, and have it so there's a map specifically for the demo. It would be a simple map, very small and closed in sort of like an arena, with no capture objectives, just shoot enemies. Perhaps also limit it to only one weapon, and have AI capped at 10 or 20. This should give them a taste for what playing with other players is like, while not giving them the full experience paying customers get. Thoughts?

_________________
Ozymandias, King of kings, God of Caves, Wizard.

Hi Ozy,

we already discussed about a new demo with pasik, and we thought that the demo may be multiplayer only (no AI) with only one map. It would be a small, pretty packed map without big open spaces, for like max 6v6 PvP.
I wouldn't limit the weapons, maybe just drop either the G36 or the AK47 since they are pretty similar aynway.
The objectives would remain, but maybe just 3-4 bases.

I have to be honest here, I have no idea what the next demo should be like.

Some options that have been thrown around:

a) another single player demo, probably with map2, no other restrictions
b) a multiplayer-only demo, without AI code, with rank cap, with all maps, i.e. can host PvP games only, can join any game having AI or not, unable to use mortars or steer vehicles, e.g. sniper rifle would require a certain rank in the future
c) what OzyThesage said
d) what JackMayol said, multiplayer-only, one map, no rank cap

The worst thing about a multiplayer demo which is compatible with the full beta multiplayer is that it needs to be kept compatible in the future as well. So each time I'm about to make a new release, I most probably have to update the demo as well, causing more burden on releasing. On top of that, there's going to be a Linux port, so I'm going to have to handle 4 different builds when releasing something.

This can not go without having an impact on the release schedule.

Why a need to be compatible in the future? Only demo clients could play together and the version would stay the same, no matter if the beta has been updated or not. And in the server browser there should be a sign that shows which are demo servers and which are not (When using the demo, the beta server should be greyed out and the other way round too). Or make just 2 serverlists so that the demo players would not see what's going on in the beta server list (for the ingame server browser).

The idea to keep the builds similar would be that the demo players would act as play buddies to the game players and vice versa. This way it would be more probable that there's always someone to play with, someone to try the demo with, as you can't play with AI in the demo.

If the demo will fall behind with updates, I think the demo arena will be empty within a month after its release, and the new potential players then will barely have anyone to play with in the demo.

hmm ya, that makes sense.

What about making it only single-player until the game is fully out of beta?

Arn't you working your self a bit too hard Pasik?

Also as a suggestion why don't you focus on getting the main game out for a full stable non-beta release instead of trying to handle 4 different builds of the game? Just get the main builds for Windows, Linux, & Mac outta the way before you start thinking about the demo?

Or let a couple of your knowledgeable fans take care of the demo so its community driven? *wink* *wink* (I'm a web dev... umm, I could probs pick up C++ & Ogre pretty quickly, im not saying im the right person or anything just pointing out I have coding experience.)

That's exactly why it's still undecided what to do As I said, the biggest problem with multiplayer demo is the maintenance work it might cause, which makes the decision lean towards something else. I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of having to maintain 4 builds, albeit that's a valid option too.

Ok then, if we think about the single-player demo more carefully, what new does it bring over the current demo? A lot of minor fixes and adjustments sure, but given map1 will be the only map in the demo, is making a new demo even that meaningful right now? Of course it might be that I've just lost the touch of how old 0.4 really is, and any update in the demo would be welcome Luckily, this would be the easiest of the options to pull off while being the most insignificant too, I think.

Also, it has been said that many of the demo players would like to at least try multiplayer before buying the game, and single-player demo won't help there at all really.

Anyhow, if one would build on the idea of a multiplayer-only demo a bit, it might start to look like a free-to-play restricted multiplayer-only variant of the game. There would be a lot of demand for such a version I'm sure, but to avoid the build burden, I'm better off making such a version after the game's almost final, if ever.

The only way to make the free-to-play and paid versions out of the same build would be to lock the extra goodies and make them unlockable with a key which can be purchased. I hate handling serials in-game though, and it would make the distribution channels for the common game build also serve all those who are sharing keys or generating them themselves, which I want to avoid as much as possible. It's inevitable that the game gets pirated, but I'll make sure the pirates won't use my network bandwidth for it.

The idea about sharing the code for creating demo builds seems rather risky.

..as you can see, there's much uncertainty which path to go here.

If I was you, I would leave the demo how it is for now until the first non-beta release. Then have a rethink on what to do with it, as obiviously there isn't a option that seems workable at this point in time,

Just hope that people will buy the game after watching a few gameplay videos, thats what did!

Thanks for the replies. Yes, the main reason I was suggesting this was because I imagine there's people who are on the fence about purchasing the game because they haven't gotten a taste for how the multiplayer actually plays. I trust you'll make the right judgement in any case.

_________________
Ozymandias, King of kings, God of Caves, Wizard.