Do you prefer long-term, continuous development or games that have been essentially finalized?

[ZedClampet]

Games, not necessarily live service, that get modified and added to by developers for years after 1.0 release
(one example is Factorio, which still has regular content updates and new DLC long after going to 1.0)

vs

Games that only receive technical/bug updates after 1.0 launch and could be considered finalized.
(endless examples)

AND, does it matter to you if the updates are paid DLC? Would you rather a developer finalize a game than add countless, "never-ending", DLC?
(example: Total War, Civ)

Do you appreciate when new content comes to your favorite games or do you prefer to feel like a game is a completely finished product and possibly resent feeling obligated to continue buying more and more expansions?
(many examples, including the two listed above, but also games like The Sims, Planet Zoo, Jurassic World, etc)

Finally, do you feel almost obligated to purchase expansions when you enjoy a game? Do you feel like you are missing out on the complete experience without all the DLC?

 

[DXCHASE]

I personally love older games getting new content or just little updates. I think its generally well recieved in the gaming industry since whenever a game makes it to a TV show (Fallout, Witcher, Halo etc.). Their gaming counterparts shoot up in the player rankings and usually the devs of the games do something to the game at the time of these releases, giving new content, or a big remaster-like update of their game. Im excited to jump back into Fallout 4 when that update hits for example.

I also like firing up games i havent played in a while because of little updates they get. Warhammer 40k: Darktide just had an "update" and i havent picked that up in a while and when i saw that was released, i read the notes, hoped in, got a bunch of cool new gear and stuff for past playing. I appreciated that and played it for a couple missions.

I do not feel obligated to buy expansions if im not vested/interested enough. Heck, Destiny 2 (5400 hours) was a big game to me and i have little interest in buying its next exp. because how its been ran over the last couple of years on top of the disappointment in their other expansions.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I dont resent games for having a lot of updates and DLC, maybe I do feel a little left behind by something like Crusader Kings 3 when I come back to it occasionally if there are lots of DLC's I dont own now, just a small feeling of missing out on something. I get over it though.

Otherwise I dont play any Gaas, so I mostly play games that are a complete experience as is. Thats down to the genres I'm interested in being mainly one and done single player campaigns or stories. Always happy to see DLC for something like that I like though.

 

[BeardyHat]

I think I generally prefer it when a game is complete and done; it doesn't bother me if it stays in that state forever. Most of my favorite games are complete experiences on their own and don't need anything additional added to them.

Continually adding things is neat, but I think tends to create some conflicting feelings of FOMO. Like, why play this now when it's not in its "perfect" state, because there's always something new around the corner that might make a change for the (subjective) better? Further, once a game has so much added to it, it can be daunting and even completely off putting to get your head around. I love Rimworld, for instance, but it now has 3? 4? DLC's, all which add a lot of new stuff to the game, but I can't be bothered to buy and play with them, because now I have to come to grips with even more systems.

I'd rather just play something simple and straightforward, something I can leave for awhile and then come back to and pick up without having to read a wiki on all the new stuff. But this all might just be the point I am at in my life right now; life is somewhat daunting and overwhelming as is, so to constantly have to think about new stuff and make new decisions just kind of makes me shut my brain off. Decision fatigue.

 

[Alm]

I honestly like both. I would say I prefer the idea of a complete single player game but I play more live service games so there must be some benefit to them.

 

[neogunhero]

I like a mix of both but I think it depends on the game. Something like an RTS that has many complex components would benefit with releasing regular updates patches. If it’s a singleplayer story focused game, regular bug fixes and minor improvements work better.

I prefer free updates unless it’s something that is actually worth the money, like a massive addition to the base game, something that adds a substantial amount of changes and new features. Phantom Liberty for Cyberpunk 2077 is a good example of DLC worth actually paying for. Things like skins, new maps/levels, anything that can be considered a minor addition should be free.

 

[Pifanjr]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages and work better for certain types of games. Paradox grand strategy games for example are okay when they get released, but they're nothing compared to what you get if you get all of their DLCs like five years after it's been released. I don't think you could ever get something like that as a single, finished game, it would take too long to make and the developers wouldn't have any player feedback during development.

Then again, I've never actually bought a Paradox game with all of the DLCs, because it's insanely expensive for a game I wouldn't play all that much anyway. In fact, I almost never buy DLC, I only get them if they happen to be included in some Ultimate Collection deal or if all the DLC is available in a single, cheap bundle.

The only exception I can think of is Total War: Warhammer 2, for which I bought a couple of DLCs, though almost all of them when they were 50% off.

 

[Brian Boru]

Good topic. I favor finalized, which fits with my gamer profile: "Architects are solo gamers that enjoy planning, decision-making, and progression. They prefer slow-paced, relaxing gameplay where they can plan and build something grand and enduring."

Frequent updates would rock that boat, and then there's…

once a game has so much added to it, it can be daunting and even completely off putting to get your head around

Civ 6 is a good example. I played the original briefly when Epic gave it away, and thought it was great—looked forward to years down the road when the 2 expansions would be out, and all official and community patches finalized. But it ended up like Beardy says, where over-complication took the place of strategy.

Which is the opposite of…

Something like an RTS that has many complex components would benefit with releasing regular updates patches

…because it requires relearning the game, if mastery is the objective.

I see continuous dev as mainly a requirement for the multi games, where the profit comes from keeping their big spenders coming back for more.

As a solo player with thousands of games in my libraries, I don't want to spend time learning the interim phases of a game, I want to dive into the finished finalized product and make an assessment—Replay Or Move On.

So ROMO trumps FOMO for me

 

[Zloth]

Depends on whether it's the type of game that I'm going to want to re-play. Continuous development works great for, say, the 4X genre. When an update comes out, I can play through another campaign and see the changes. With something like an RPG, though, I'm probably just going to play through once and be done. If I had played through Cyberpunk 2027 two years ago, I would have missed out on all those improvements, and probably wouldn't have been very interested in tacking on a DLC to add some more hours to something I finished.

 

[Zimbaly]

I like both. There's plenty of games that I have played and still play that fit into those categories.

I also don't mind DLCS, but my issues is with skin packs and stupid things being sold for like 15 to 20 bucks.
I miss the good old days of when an add on actually had a good amount of content for the price. Missions, skins, weapons, new classes, etc etc all together for one reasonable price.

All this buy this class, then buy this skin, then buy this weapon, each only 15 dollars. Meanwhile I'd buy an addon pack for 40 like with Cyberpunk, Witcher, Diablo 1 and 2 and other games that actually give you lots of bang for your buck.

I'll leave it at that, cause I'm not in a pub or drunk or in a place I can say how I really feel about the whole DLC thing. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Colif]

You can do both, you can release a game that is complete and only needs technical fixes, and also release an expansion or DLC afterwards if you want to extend the story. That is how it used to be... looks at Wow... though its really an example of evolution, at first you just got expansions but as selling items to users evolved, you can now buy almost anything on there... want max level right now? Sure, just pay...

How many games still get traditional expansions now? most of them sell you single items, people silly enough to pay for that so why give them lots of content at once? industry slowly boiling the frog... expecting the Sims to not be DLC only is a dream. I wonder why there isn't a new one yet... maybe trying to work out how to charge you for breathing in the game, everything else already has a real money cost.

 

[Zimbaly]

@Colif I think there is a new Sims on the way for some reason.

 

[Frindis]

BG3, Divinity: Original Sin 2 and Witcher 3 are a few games I think did it right. BG3 with multiple updates ironing out stuff, but also expanding on what is already there, like with upcoming Patch 7 which introduces mod support and new evil endings. Witcher 3 had tons of free DLCs and some paid expansions and also got graphical improvements in later years. Divinity: Original Sin 2 with free graphical updates and tons of later updates that changed the world content-wise and gave players a vast amount of new ways to customize how they wanted to play the game. Not to mention being able to make your own stories with the engine.

I think these three examples show that paying for the full game or full games with upcoming expansions or paying for a full game that will not have expansions but regular patch updates is equally a good choice for me as a player.

 

[Colif]

Grim Dawn: expansions still being released , game is 8 years old. They released a free loyalist pack in February. I guess if its the only game you make, it makes sense to support it for years.
I think there is an expansion coming this year, or I might have gotten mixed up with the loyalist pack.

 

[DancesWithCows]

Games, not necessarily live service, that get modified and added to by developers for years after 1.0 release
(one example is Factorio, which still has regular content updates and new DLC long after going to 1.0)

vs

Games that only receive technical/bug updates after 1.0 launch and could be considered finalized.
(endless examples)

AND, does it matter to you if the updates are paid DLC? Would you rather a developer finalize a game than add countless, "never-ending", DLC?
(example: Total War, Civ)

Do you appreciate when new content comes to your favorite games or do you prefer to feel like a game is a completely finished product and possibly resent feeling obligated to continue buying more and more expansions?
(many examples, including the two listed above, but also games like The Sims, Planet Zoo, Jurassic World, etc)

Finally, do you feel almost obligated to purchase expansions when you enjoy a game? Do you feel like you are missing out on the complete experience without all the DLC?

I want games that the developers feel are "finalized" at or shortly after launch. Like, I've come to really appreciate a product that has a completeness to it. Not only is is a nice proxy for non-predatory game design, it also creates constraints that I think can improve quality. Like... generally, If you got one shot at something, we tend to focus on "what REALLY matters", it facilitates a clarity. Necessity is the mother of invention... and imo limitation is a core element of creativity and quality.

I'm reluctant to buy DLC from AAA studios, and rarely do. I'm far more likely to buy a paid DLC from an indie dev. In those cases the DLC are much more likely to actually impact development (rather than go straight to shareholders), and limited resources of small or single person teams make an "incomplete" 1.0 release much more palatable.

OLD MAN RANT: BACK IN MY DAY there were basically no DLCs, they released games, the games were loved, and adopted, and then given new homes with families modded them into horrific and brilliant things, some of which would go on to grow into cornerstones of PC gaming today. DLCs are, to me, an echo of what modding used to be...

 

[Zloth]

Straight to shareholders?? Screw the gaming, where do I get these shares!?

 

[Johnway]

tough question. i think it really depends on the game. Those with SP (especially those with a story), i want everything done and complete as being drip fed along is just taking the mick. Like a half built car or half finished story being constantly written. I'll allow for sequels, but i expect each game to be a complete story that holds up on its own. if it doesn't its not good. Too often i see AAA try to make sp games as live service ones and it pisses me off no end.

The only time i would allow for continous development is unsurprisingly multiplayer games. But the one cavate is that it should be a complete package and fairly generous to begin with. After that i'll allow continuous development adding accordingly. But i expect substantial stuff and not just some measly cosmetics from it. Too often season passes are gimmicky and add little to my experience apart from another cash grab and add to the grind introducing new mechanics/currencies that invalidate the old ones.