this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
219 points (93.6% liked)

Games

32663 readers
1035 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is the classic problem with all paradox games that I don't really have a solution for. Like as players we want them to support the game for a long time and keep updating it, but unless that's through dlcs then they can't really do that without getting paid somehow. The other alternatives are just not doing any updates and releasing a full new game every couple years which would probably have less features added compared to doing dlcs. Or having a subscription that you pay to get new updates which while I'm personally fine with I know a lot of people aren't. So that just leaves the current strategy of constantly doing dlcs and every once in a while releasing a new game and bringing over as many dlc features as they can to the new one while not making the development time unreasonable.

[–] TheActualDevil@sffa.community 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's one other option:

They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,

  1. Put game out

  2. Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access

  3. Maybe put out 1 DLC if you want

  4. Make a new game now. A different game.

[–] bighi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be honest, I’d prefer for them to keep expanding a game I like. That’s what kept me playing SC1 for the past 65 years (or however long it has been since the game has been released).

[–] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Star Citizen only feels like it's been in alpha for 65 years.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they were referring to StarCraft 1. Hence the 1.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

No, clearly they're talking about Sim City on SNES!

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

But they point the comment above is making is that the years of support add a bunch of features that wouldn't exist otherwise. Sure, they could just not. Why would they do that though if they have a team who knows how to work on a thing and people willing to pay for it.

For example, BG3 exists because the studio continued to make games in the same style in the same engine for a very long time. They became absolute experts in it, and continuously improved their tools and techniques. You don't get that by constantly making new different games.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

That's the FIFA, Madden model... release a game, fix a couple things, improve a thing here and there, pull a new roster in and voilà! This year's new sports game.

[–] SchizoDenji@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They can transfer a person's purchased DLCs to next game.

[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That would require that DLC to work in the new game. Which would limit what you can do in the new game to make it compatible. Not going to happen.

[–] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah people don't seem to be understanding that this is a technical and pragmatic issue, not a business decision.

It's the "new and improved" problem. If it's new, it's not improved. And if it's improved, it's not new.

If you want a new, cutting edge game, you aren't just improving the old game. So the old stuff likely won't be compatible.

If you want an improvement/extension of the old game, you won't be getting a shiny new game.

They made the choice to make a shiny new game but they need to try to prevent the inevitable backlash from people being upset that they're favorite X/Y/Z is missing.

[–] eluvatar@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's very different these days. In the past DLC was just content (like extra levels) and people don't expect that in the new game (maybe more levels than when the first game came out), but now DLC usually adds features as well as levels and people want all the features in the new game too.

[–] SchizoDenji@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying that they literally have to use the same files. But they can transfer the purchases.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're saying remake all the DLCs and not have people pay for it I assume. How the hell are they going to afford that? That's not mentioning they might not want to make identical DLCs, and many of the features from them are included in vanilla now.

[–] SchizoDenji@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They aren't some poor indie devs who are bootstrapping themselves, dude.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago

When did I say that? I just let you know Paradox aren't the developers like you seem to think. They still need to keep the lights on though. Honestly, tiny indie devs can afford to do crazy things because there are a lot fewer people on the line who need to get paid. The larger the studio, the more careful they have to be. An indie game can run on passion alone.