Should a developer keep adding new content to an old game after they release a sequel?

[Zed Clampet]

From my perspective, this is complicated because, for me, there are two answers depending upon whether I'm looking at things from the developer's or player's standpoint.

For the player, having new content added seemingly forever is just fantastic if you are really into the game. On the other hand, if the sequel falls into the "too high expectations" category and only gets middle-of-the road reviews, then players will adopt the game more slowly if the 1st game is still getting regular updates.

A couple of games that are examples of this are House Flipper 2 and Civilization 7. In fact, I'm wondering if a majority of the player base will ever adopt House Flipper 2. I can't really say about Civ 7, but House Flipper 2 is a fine game, and it's lagging way behind because they keep releasing new content for the first game.

 

[Colif]

why was house flipper 2 rejected? Dev must be reacting to sales?
steamcharts don't tell me a lot... HF2 appears to have more active players - 3816 compared to 2767 in last 24 hours.
House Flipper: https://steamdb.info/app/613100/charts/#max
House Flipper 2: https://steamdb.info/app/1190970/charts/#max
HF peaks are when its in a Humble Bundle (both times), HF2 was a free weekend
is the price the same? HF2 needs to be in a bundle to compete. maybe?

Dev of Path of Exile is supporting it and POE2 but the second game isn't a direct sequel.
I think a dev would only support an old product if a vast number of people rejected the new one.

CIv 7: Since this is a hypothetical as they haven't released anything for Civ 6 in 2 years - https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/DLC_(Civ6) - I think its wishful thinking. 2k more likely to release new things (slowly) for Civ 7 and try to recoup some of the people/money they lost making it

 

[Johnway]

I'm absolutely all for new content on old games. But i understand there will be a limit as to how far they go.

For me, It all depends on the game tbh. i would argue ongoing support for a game if:

1. The previous game is in an unstable condition and still needs work. (bug fixing)
2. The sequel is years away from being finished.
3. Security issues that need to be fixed.
4. QOL improvements adding features that were promised but missing upon release.
5. Left over content left on the cutting room floor that they wanted to add and didn't.
6. delivering content that was promised. Like having 5 areas and the game released with 3...

of course, it very much depends on the passion of the devs and the type of sequel. entirely new content and story? you could probably get away with not updating the original, but on the flip side it could pay dividends if the sequel story builds on the original and its good will to address a few features here and there if you're expecting some foot traffic for the original. The other extreme reason is if the game, engine was an absolute dogs dinner and its better to cut and rebuild it from scratch. But if you do that, you better make it VERY good.

Live service games, i bloody well expect additional content as promised. if you make a live service game, cut and run and release a sequel game and not delivering content we've got issues. for simulator games i expect the sequel to be leap and bounds improvement over the original otherwise its pointless sequel. I mean lets look at cities skylines 2, how much of that could be done on the original? What does CS2 do different compared to the first one? on the service it looks bloody identical.

Of course the elephant in the room is money. Can't make the big bucks without another game...

 

[Zed Clampet]

why was house flipper 2 rejected? Dev must be reacting to sales?
steamcharts don't tell me a lot... HF2 appears to have more active players - 3816 compared to 2767 in last 24 hours.
House Flipper: https://steamdb.info/app/613100/charts/#max
House Flipper 2: https://steamdb.info/app/1190970/charts/#max
HF peaks are when its in a Humble Bundle (both times), HF2 was a free weekend
is the price the same? HF2 needs to be in a bundle to compete. maybe?

Dev of Path of Exile is supporting it and POE2 but the second game isn't a direct sequel.
I think a dev would only support an old product if a vast number of people rejected the new one.

CIv 7: Since this is a hypothetical as they haven't released anything for Civ 6 in 2 years - https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/DLC_(Civ6) - I think its wishful thinking. 2k more likely to release new things (slowly) for Civ 7 and try to recoup some of the people/money they lost making it

I actually hadn't checked sales in quite awhile. I'm glad to see that House Flipper 2 has squeaked past HF1, but it still has a divided playerbase, which makes having successful DLC somewhat problematic. Also, it's clear that HF2 isn't going to come close to HF1 in total sales.

 

[Charagma]

Also prefer new content on older games, but I think it is Genre as well as original development language dependent.

Skyrim had several newer versions (Legendary, ultimate, Anniversary and special edition) and n the last one they added the CC (Content creations) which by itself made the game different if you have completed the game already.

Personally, I feel if you have a number 1 and a number 2, then 2 should just be a follow up on one and not the same as 1 since then it is pretty much just a "re-make" of the original and content could just have been added to the original.

ETS2 is a great example here. the DLC expands the maps, adds content etc, but the game is still the original ETS2. You cannot make an ETS3 since how you have something that follows up on it?, resulting in just a re-make of the original.

House flipper (I have never played it but read about it), you buy a house, fix it, sell it. That you would be doing in HF1 and HF2 and HF 3 and HF 4 (you get the picture) Not knit picking on HF here, 7 days to die is another one. How do you create a sequel on it without reinventing the wheel? Why not just grow the original instead of re-creating it? Some here would say that it is "Engine" problems, yet ETS2 has been doing engine changes in their DLCs from around Balkan Sea update. Originally ETS2 was something dumb like 5Gig and now with all the bells and whistles added it is around 80Gig already which includes engine, visual, graphical and UI changes. So, it can be done and having a good "foundation" to work on is much easier than starting a project from scratch. in addition, as a consumer it is cheaper to buy an update (DLC) than to buy a whole new game. Developer dependant though cause have seen some crazy prices on DLC's.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Seems to me that continuing to release DLC for an older version of a game in a series would only be done because they have a bigger player base in the older game to buy it. I guess its more likely due to the failure of the next game in the series to sell.

I would rather a dev was working on a newer improved version of the game or something else. Then again I hardly ever 100% most games, let alone finish many DLCs so I'm not the target audience there.

Its fun when an older game suddenly gets a big patch or DLC after a few years, like Fallen Enchantress did. I'd be more tempted to buy a DLC for an older game I loved and hadnt played in a long time than for one I'd just finished and was tired of.

 

[dxchase]

I mean the option should certainly be there for a developer to do that.

But, personally, why would they want people going back to an old game of theirs instead of playing the one they are updating now? I understand stability issue patches, adding mod support etc. but as for new DLC or modes or story? No, i wouldnt be too much into that if im fully invested in the new one. So this question falls to it be dependent on the game.

For example, if Bungie release new stuff for Destiny and not Destiny 2, itd make no sense and i wouldnt go get destiny to play destiny content thats new in that game.

 

[mjs warlord]

I cant see the point in adding new content to an old game that has a sequel because the game has an ending and the sequel continues the story line

 

[Pifanjr]

I would rather a dev was working on a newer improved version of the game or something else. Then again I hardly ever 100% most games, let alone finish many DLCs so I'm not the target audience there.

I agree with this. It is rare for me to revisit games I've already played and when I do I usually only play them for a couple of hours.

Terraria has had a ton of updates since I first played it, but when I revisited it last week I probably only saw maybe 10% of the new stuff before I got tired of the game again.

Stardew Valley is one of the few games where I've seen most of the new content, but even there it's maybe 70% of it, there's a bunch of late game stuff I never got around to.

So for me personally, I would be fine if developers just focused on their next project instead of adding new content to older games.

 

[Zloth]

Adding AFTER a sequel has shown up!? That's a weird thing for sure. Egosoft did it with X3: Farnham's Legacy well after X4: Foundations, but that was a free DLC - more of a passion project, I think.

One group of players that won't like this: the 100% club! You got a game, went through everything it had, got 100% of the achievements, and then, years later.... BAM! Now you've only got 80% of the achievements.

 

[Colif]

Its fun when an older game suddenly gets a big patch or DLC after a few years, like Fallen Enchantress did. I'd be more tempted to buy a DLC for an older game I loved and hadnt played in a long time than for one I'd just finished and was tired of.

remembers last epoch expansion due in the next few days... 21st
no wait, i think its just a season.

https://lastepoch.com/beneath-ancient-skies

looking at Steam revealed it was a season. Still, updates to classes. lich and necromancer reworks... should look I guess. Its been a while.

Grim Dawn expansion coming but don't know when