• TheActualDevil@sffa.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.