Ultimately, software houses lost nothing by deciding to not sell old, obsolete titles to games magazines, because the financial rewards were pitiful. For one-time publishing rights, editors would pay a few hundred pounds. The perceived benefits of releasing a demo, however, have a higher prospective worth, hence their continued existence. It's advertising with a considerable touch of intimacy, because you or I - the consumers - are actually experiencing the merits of a particular game. But the opposite is also true. If you play a demo of a poor game, or even a poor demo of a good game, you're far less likely to make a purchase, right? We'll discuss this point later, though.

Occasionally, certain self-styled industry 'figures' voice the opinion that having discs packed with game demos on the front of magazine covers has an adverse effect on game sales. They surmise that, for example, a punter with a copy of PC Gamer and over a dozen demos to play through will be disinclined to buy software while they do so. Does this argument seem in any sense familiar? Thought so. But these are usually -not, we're keen to establish, always - representatives of a certain type of software company. You know: the type who malign consumers for not buying their games on the - in their opinion - pretty spurious grounds that they're (insert your own expletive here).

Sony have a simple way of categorising future releases. They're called, internally, 'fillers' or 'pillars'. The latter, by virtue of high profile, quality of design and coding, or both, are considered to be assured hits. But how many of these, on any format, exist at any one time? Producing a demo for such a title is a sensible enough decision. After all, if a game's great, it's a good idea to spread the word in any way possible. But what of the 'fillers'?