Why do publishers with poor or even average games still insist upon releasing demos?
Beats us. Perhaps it's an odd take on that 'altruism' business. Consider the Ultima IX demo. With a recent 3dfx card and a high-spec PC, it runs fairly well. Try and play it via Direct 3D with most other cards, though, and it's a horrible mess. It's almost unplayable, in the opinion of numerous Future Gamer correspondents. So, being aware of this, why did EA and Origin release it? As a consumer, you have to be glad that they did. After all, with Ultima IX being a high-profile piece of software, it's nice to make the pre-purchase discovery that it will run badly on your system. But how did bringing this to the attention of likely customers benefit EA or Origin?

Why did Sega release a Sega Rally 2 demo, revealing its dated design and structure? Why did LucasArts bother with an Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine demo, when it's a game that positively, absolutely requires a few hours' worth of play before you begin to appreciate its finer points? Why were Rage so keen to let people see for themselves that Expendable is... well, just that? It's like a fox jumping out of its den to see where all those bloody horns and barking noises are coming from. It's like a rabbit aspiring to be roadkill.

But couldn't it be argued that the release of a demo is an 'acid test' that helps publishers appreciate the worth of a particular title?
Yep. Spot on. Eidos, for example, will have discerned that the Daikatana demo has hardly caused a stir. When the time comes to natter with shareholders, will they wax lyrical about their inspired choice to bankroll Mr Romero? Of course not. It'll be like: 'Ah, yes. Daikatana. But... ooh, look! There's a pretty picture of Lara Croft! And did we mention that Championship Manager 99/00 is still in the top five?' The apathy that surrounded the demo release suggests that retail dominance for Ion Storm's much belated title is, barring a marketing miracle, pretty unlikely.