Question Gaming developers release schedules

[Barukanen]

I've found myself listening to WhatCulture Gaming Podcast which they have raised an interesting question, admittedly they are discussing consoles in this particular episode. But what was mentioned was..

Would you prefer to wait for developers to release one huge game every 5 to 8 years or would you prefer to have 10 smaller games released more often by them?

What's you're preference and why?

 

[Brian Boru]

one huge game every 5 to 8 years

That's my preference, because if I like a game a lot I replay it every year or two. A big game helps that because there are always other ways to approach playing it—small games won't have as much scope.

 

[ZedClampet]

I've found myself listening to WhatCulture Gaming Podcast which they have raised an interesting question, admittedly they are discussing consoles in this particular episode. But what was mentioned was..

Would you prefer to wait for developers to release one huge game every 5 to 8 years or would you prefer to have 10 smaller games released more often by them?

What's you're preference and why?

Out of those two options I'm not sure. I don't really like either of them, tbh. I wouldn't finish the huge games, and I'd think the smaller games didn't provide enough depth. But I assume we're just talking about AAA developers, so I'm going to go with one huge game.

 

[Zloth]

Huge game for sure. BUT, if a game is released in parts, is there anything to stop me from waiting for it to finish then buying the whole thing? (I'm still waiting for all the Half Life 2 episodes to show up.)

It's mostly about the overhead. Every game is going to need to do a little recap of what went before, because a player may have taken a year-long break between episodes. Every game is going to have tweaks to the game engine. Every game is going to need some sort of big finish to feel satisfying at the end, too.

 

[Pifanjr]

I like having options, so I'm glad some developers make small games some make big games.

 

[DXCHASE]

With these 2 options, id go with a big game every 5-8 years but it depends on the genre of game because if its set up like a live service game DONE RIGHT, then i would most def. want the studio behind it to be mainly focused on that game. But this is in terms of a live service. If they were just releasing SP games, i could do with the smaller ones.

 

[mjs warlord]

We have alpha , beta , early access , experimental , some openly marketed as unfinished , and i think all these catagories are just wrong , we need to go back to the days when a game was not released until it was fully finished , if this happened i would accept the odd bug.

If the devs wish to use the gaming community as testers to help sort out the problems then i think the game should be released at a reduced price until in their opinion it is fully finished.

I am not going to name names as i dont want to get into trouble but on steam i have seen some games for £50 and £65 for the enhanced version AND they have been advertised as early access ....... not finished

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The length of a game is irrelevant just as long as its fun to play while it lasts.

However if I had to chose out of those options, I'd take the big game, because coming up with original ideas for 10 different games and executing well on those ideas seems pretty unlikely in a time frame of a year or less.

 

[mjs warlord]

i think we have actually reached a point where all genres of gaming have been covered , it is very rare these days you get a game type that has never been done before ..... unless you know different.

More often than not you game a game and think hey thats like xyz