this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
125 points (97.7% liked)
Games
17255 readers
579 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wish it was considered normal for games like this to die out. Trying to maintain your audience with new content every few months is unsustainable. Ideally these games would release with the content the designers intended, no more and no less, and they would slowly lose their less dedicated players.
That way the more dedicated players aren't frustrated by having to keep up with a rapidly changing game, and can just get better in peace. I would guess this wouldn't be profitable for a free to play game with micro-transactions. But, I have a crazy idea. Just charge for the game up front.
it was normal to have a point when your game dies out and you have to reinvest in designing the sequel version of it, or a spinoff. nowadays companies keep the same husk of a game running until the last sucker online stops dropping dollars for cosmetics.
Now they're having issues because sequels are the same game, better engine, but less content, but the old version is still fine.
Doing post release content can be good. It gives the devs a chance to do something after they are more familiar with the tools and what content players prefer.
I feel there is a fundamental difference between games like Dwarf Fortress or survival games or even open world story-driven games getting new content though that allows players to explore different options when replaying the game and games like this where the game play loop is inherently short and people are somewhat forced to do the 'optimal strategy' whatever that happens to be at the time.
Even in a shooter, you can make maps that encourage different play styles or have different interactive elements that can change the map. Not all of those may exist at launch, or more informed ideas can be used.
Well, sure, but there are limits. In e.g. a game like Dwarf Fortress you could probably add hundreds of different production chains and professions without running into too much trouble of individual players keeping track and using all of them. If you added maps each requiring one of dozens of different tactics or strategies to a multiplayer shooter it wouldn't feel like a single game any more and would probably just splinter the community into groups where each just plays one or a few of those maps.
Sure, but you can add like a handful of maps and weapons, to supplement the game with what it feels like it's missing, without having a plan to support the game with new stuff for years.
Agreed. I refuse to let my kids play F2P nonsense, because it's all cancer.