[markot]

Imagine Mario galaxy, with nintendo constantly adding worlds every few weeks/months.

Could it prolong 'sales'? Instead of front loaded first week/month with a long slow weak tail, a constant stream of content could mean a constant stream of sales?

I dont know, it seems to work for ios/android games. These pretty small games and companys that spend years supporting and updating the game, adding content... etc... and instead of a big sales opening, they get a steady stream of sales...

Hm!?

Could it, essentially, be more profitable to stop making sequels and start supporting old games more?... for most games... or at least some >.>?

[sn00zer]

Im fairly certain this is why valve DLC is free....why make $5 off half your user base when you can make $20 with a bunch of new users

[RobotHaus]

If you can get away with selling a completely new title, you will.

Look at Madden, I think they're doing pretty decent financially.

[RedSwirl]

This is what I was hoping DLC would turn in to. Or at the very least a situation like what you used to have on the PC, where a single game would get years of support before a sequel came along that represented a true and fundamental shift in the series. A good example would be the difference between The Sims, all its expansions, and The Sims 2. A good console example that could use this kind of support would be the difference between Street Fighter II, III, Alpha, and IV.

[EatinOlives]

I dunno, I don't think it could be a widespread practice.

A lot of gamers like to rush through a game in <10 hours, call it "finished", and move on to the next one. It takes a lot for a dev to make a game that will make people come back to it after they've "finished it" and play it some more. This really only works with multiplayer games and a few select single player (Bethesda games come to mind).

[entrement]

50/60 bucks versus 5 or 10 as DLC?

Constant support may kill some developers. Valve is an outlier due to Steam.

[JimmyRickard]

There are very games I ever return once I've "finished" the game. Whether it be the campaign or playing enough multiplayer to get bored of it, once I'm done, I'm done. Uncharted 3 could have brand new single player missions released every month, but I'm never playing that fucking game again. Will probably buy Uncharted 4 though

[saunderez]

For most games I don't just want new levels. I want new abilities, new weapons, new gameplay mechanics, new enemies, new puzzles, new everything. If they can provide support that gives me all of that post-release I might be convinced sequels are a bad thing, but I just see them as iterative development and storytelling at the same time.

[JaseC]

Im fairly certain this is why valve DLC is free....why make $5 off half your user base when you can make $20 with a bunch of new users

Yep.

[linko9]

Sales of mario games keep up even without DLC. The real trick is to make a game that will appeal to gamers throughout the years, so that whenever someone buys your console, even 4 years after it was released, they know to get that game.

[WhyMe6]

Well, Team Fortress 2 was released almost five years ago and it's still going strong. If there was an argument for this sort of model, there it is.

[yogloo]

Won't they reach some sort of saturation level regarding to users?
Frankly, I don't understand The economics of valve type support. Do they actually make any money off team fortress these days?
The goodwill that they gained over the years is amazing though.

[Karsticles]

I suggested this before, and GAF largely thought I was in dreamland. I'm on your side, though. It would also heavily curb the industry's current boogieman, used game sales. Nothing curbs used game sales like the promise of more content later on. Even if people are just "meh" about the game, it makes them hesitate.

[Antiwhippy]

I don't think valve is a fair mention when their constant support is used to tie the users to the steam platform thus enabling them to grow and keep an audience that will always use steam to buy their games. Most developers can't afford that.

Also isn't TF2 microtransactions incredibly lucrative for them?

[saunderez]

Do they actually make any money off team fortress these days?

It's all pure profit with morons buying all those hats.

[Pezking]

I'd rather keep getting sequels.

[Dreamwriter]

Could it prolong 'sales'? Instead of front loaded first week/month with a long slow weak tail, a constant stream of content could mean a constant stream of sales?

Most games with updates have the exact same issue of front loaded first-week/month sales withg a long slow weak tail. The updates make the weak tail longer is all, that's why even RPG's with DLC to add quests and stuff get sequels.

[Freezie KO]

I'd rather keep getting sequels.

Me too. Fully-contained sequels are way better than continual nickel-and-diming.

[saunderez]

Me too. Fully-contained sequels are way better than continual nickel-and-diming.

Fully contained sequels and fully contained expansions. Either way I'm good. The GTA episodes, Undead Nightmare and Minerva's Den have proven the viability of DLC console expansions though and I'm keen to see them continue.

[Aselith]

50/60 bucks versus 5 or 10 as DLC? Constant support may kill some developers. Valve is an outlier due to Steam.

Name me one example.

[br0ken_shad0w]

This would be a good idea for sports ga.... Haha what am I thinking. It will never happen.

[TucoBenedictoPacifico]

Constant support may kill some developers.

It *NEVER* happens.

Valve is an outlier due to Steam.

Yeah... No, that's not the reason. That's the consequence.

[Boss Doggie]

Me too. Fully-contained sequels are way better than continual nickel-and-diming.

I blame poor DLC. Expansion packs are where it's at.

I commend at the Sims example. The three games are vastly different from each other while the expansion packs greatly increase the longevity of the game.

[Bluth54]

I don't think valve is a fair mention when their constant support is used to tie the users to the steam platform thus enabling them to grow and keep an audience that will always use steam to buy their games. Most developers can't afford that. Also isn't TF2 microtransactions incredibly lucrative for them?

Yeah Valve announced during the first Manniversary updated they paid out $2 million to item creators during the first year of the store. From what I've read item creators get a 30% cut and Valve gets a 70% cut. That is only community made items, Valve gets a 100% cut of items they make, as well as keys (which are typically the best selling item in the store).

My guess is that Valve is making $10-15 million a year on TF2. That's pretty good for a game that's almost 5 years old.


I love Valve's support of TF2. I'm not even slightly interested in Team Fortress 3 at this point, Valve can keep on updating TF2 for years as far as I'm concerned.

[PastorOfMuppets]

Maybe not in the short term but I can see it getting to a point where down the road you're paying $x/yr to guarantee that you'll get all the yearly updates and DLC of certain franchises. There are already gamers here who have accepted the idea that video games are not tangible objects you buy but services that you pay for permission to play (I'm thinking of all the people who defended Capcom's practice of putting DLC characters on disc and then trying to charge people for them). If the industry manages to convince the majority of gamers to think like this, I could see a future where games like COD aren't sold but subscribed to like HBO is now.

[davepoobond]

you are talking about a game as a service rather than a game as a product.

games as a service is where most games will go because that is where most of the sustained profit is going to come from.

its why F2P games work. not necessarily because its "free." That is only what you get people to get into playing it at the beginning. If you did something like this with God of War V, and just kept adding levels every couple of months on whatever cost basis you made and actually updated the game mechanics as you went along where you needed to, then you would be making a "never-ending" game.

similar to an MMO, but probably more single-player, smaller groups of players minded. it'd actually be more like a TV show, keep releasing content until it gets canceled because it can't sustain itself anymore off of the revenue it gets. and then thats when you make your new game.

i suppose you can look at Guitar Hero and Rock Band for the concept I'm describing, but the cost:value ratio would be way better considering.

[markot]

Wouldnt they make more money if they made it sports dlc? Like for half price each year or season you get a slightly updated game, with constant roster updates... etc...

I mean, how much does EA make off each boxed game? how many people skip a year or 2?

Isnt the direct relationship with the customer the ideal? Wouldnt one boxed copy there constantly be better than having to ship a new one every year, sell off the old crap... etc...

Also games are a service, the good ones treat customers well. Blizzard, Valve, they patch years after wards, you know that you are entering for a 'long term' relationship that doesnt last the month of launch.

Thats why people are willing to put up with crap like always online drm and the bad launch of D3, because they know blizz will still be supporting the game 5 years from now, servers will still be there, patches, and expansions.

[firehawk12]

Well, ask if Rock Band is still relevant I suppose.

[Alphahawk]

Well, ask if Rock Band is still relevant I suppose.

Rockband had two sequels and one spinoff in the span of about three years. Granted Harmonix have supported there game better than most but it still proves that companies would rather have a new retail game out every year.

It's really hard to blame them, it's easier to advertise a new $60 product than it is is to get the word out that "Hey we gave you guys new multiplayer options." Add to it the fact that most gamers are just jumping from one game's multiplayer to the next and you get an environment where that kind of bushiness model just doesn't work.

[chickdigger802]

Wouldnt they make more money if they made it sports dlc? Like for half price each year or season you get a slightly updated game, with constant roster updates... etc... I mean, how much does EA make off each boxed game? how many people skip a year or 2? Isnt the direct relationship with the customer the ideal? Wouldnt one boxed copy there constantly be better than having to ship a new one every year, sell off the old crap... etc... Also games are a service, the good ones treat customers well. Blizzard, Valve, they patch years after wards, you know that you are entering for a 'long term' relationship that doesnt last the month of launch. Thats why people are willing to put up with crap like always online drm and the bad launch of D3, because they know blizz will still be supporting the game 5 years from now, servers will still be there, patches, and expansions.

I guess they might, be do remember that a bunch of 'madden crowd' don't have their systems on the net.

And also patching in new animations, balances, bugs (lol), features would probably not be so pleasant on current gen consoles.

Have there been 1+ gb patches on consoles?

[CecilRousso]

I would love an open world RPG being developed in the vein of Team Fortress 2, where they keep adding and changing quests, abilitiies, NPC´s and expanding the map. I would pay a lot of money for something like that.

[chickdigger802]

I would love an open world RPG being developed in the vein of Team Fortress 2, where they keep adding and changing quests, abilitiies, NPC´s and expanding the map. I would pay a lot of money for something like that.

Sounds like this hot new genre known as Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

[Glass Rebel]

Sounds like this hot new genre known as Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

If you take out the "Massive" and "Online" out, yes.

Or call it "The Old Republic"

[CecilRousso]

Sounds like this hot new genre known as Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

Ok, add "singleplayer" to my previous post then. I don´t want RPG´s with mindless "kill 10 X, collect 15 Y" quests.

[SparkTR]

I would love an open world RPG being developed in the vein of Team Fortress 2, where they keep adding and changing quests, abilitiies, NPC´s and expanding the map. I would pay a lot of money for something like that.

I'm hoping Questmania is something like that, only the players create the content.

[GraveRobberX]

I wouldn't be surprised when next gen starts, and we get 1-2 year into it the Middle Line Games show up again but Episodic in nature

Not much money needs to be invested into, still release quality stuff, cheaper price for consumer
Just keeping adding, and building your base

Tell Tale Games does a very good job, others should follow suit

[mclem]

Im fairly certain this is why valve DLC is free....why make $5 off half your user base when you can make $20 with a bunch of new users

The Episodes weren't, and in theory they could have been - but they were also big, with a lot of effort (and therefore money!) put into them.

[Fafalada]

Could it, essentially, be more profitable to stop making sequels and start supporting old games more?... for most games... or at least some >.>?

Most online games do this already (F2P and Subscription based) - trouble is that in order to sustain userbase interest, you still need major content updates on a wider period, which are effectively equivalent to "sequels" - WoW expansions are one example, but some other games go further than that, releasing full blown upgrades of the game(new engine, etc.) that seamlessly transition existing userbase.
So to answer your question - no, it doesn't stop making sequels, if anything it makes them more important to the business model (because these major updates, if done well, are aimed to expand userbase, rather then just retain it).

[firehawk12]

Rockband had two sequels and one spinoff in the span of about three years. Granted Harmonix have supported there game better than most but it still proves that companies would rather have a new retail game out every year. It's really hard to blame them, it's easier to advertise a new $60 product than it is is to get the word out that "Hey we gave you guys new multiplayer options." Add to it the fact that most gamers are just jumping from one game's multiplayer to the next and you get an environment where that kind of bushiness model just doesn't work.

Yep, pretty much.

There's been a constant stream of RB3 DLC, but I don't think the game exists at retail any more.

[creid]

A few DS games kinda faked constant support by unlocking more content over time (see: Layton, DQIX), but I don't think the feature contributed to sales all that much. This kind of thing works on the App Store because good sales are heavily based on chart placement, which is based on user reviews, which are fueled by constant updates. This situation obviously doesn't apply for console & handheld games (except maybe digital ones?)