"New" Game mentality vs "Old" Game mentality

[C.Maximus]

I've been thinking a lot about how games are being released lately and the increasing amount of freemium games has supported this little thought but I beleive we are in a new 'age' if you can call it an age, of gaming production.

I'll start with the "old" way of producing games. I feel that in the past the idea was to have a game finished by the release date and when the game came out it was a done deal and you got what you paid for: the game. This idea made us feel like we received complete games, games that were not "unfinished" and perhaps some satisfaction came from this becaue you felt like the game company took the time to sort of seal the deal before selling you the game. If there was new material added to the game it usually came in the form of an expansion which added some new campaigns or quests to the main one, this expansion too was finished when released and you got everything it had to offer on purchase.

This all changed with the continual online support 99% of consumers have. Now I feel a new philosophy goes into game production. As we all know the new way of producing games is by releasing a stock "vanilla" game, then having all the bells and whistles available later on for download. I feel this movement is not entirely greed based. (sure it makes sense to release a game with some features, then make the consumer pay more for other features, but they were sort of doing that anyways by having expansion packs.) So then why do it this way?

I think games rarely reach the "Finished" stage or are seen as finished untill years after their release anymore. This gives the idea that you are in a community and in that community you are being taken care of by gaining new content as you play the game. This is the biggest selling point of an MMO... it is essentially the only game you need to have because you get it and the game continues to take care of you while you play it. You dont just buy a finished product you by a support group that will help you by keeping you entertained even years after the release date. That is kind of how I felt with Shogun 2, (Empire i came into late so i bought most of the DCL's as a packaged deal) but while playing Shogun 2 I would get little pop ups of new ideas and clans that will be implimented in the game. Even now not only a few months ago the Otomo clan gave us some new content. This shows they are STILL providing care and support for shogun 2 players even while Rome 2 is being made.


Now, This whole DCL community support thing might be all and it might be all about getting out $$$. However, I ask you Total war fans, what did you like more? The finished package deal with added full on expansion packs? Rome 1 was the Rome you got and it contained everything Rome needed to contain? OR do you like the other approach, where buying the game not only gives you a game but gives you teh hope that you are now in a community that will be providing new content as the game goes on.

I for one see benefits in the newer way of game making. For instance you can create a game and keep it going for much longer than intended, upgrading graphics and content alike. Think about a new DCL that adds a late peroid of the game where new clans get introduced and you can divide your empire into civil war. Who knows the possibilities.

[TotalWarker]

Continued interest from the developers in a released game is always good. If that comes with new content that I have to pay less than my lunch cost that day then thats fine with me

[xjlxking]

Continued interest from the developers in a released game is always good. If that comes with new content that I have to pay less than my lunch cost that day then thats fine with me

Insult removed.
~Chloe



As for the thread. I DO not support extra content, especially not in small pieces. Create a game, and release it when ready. Start project on next game. Making consumers pay for a game that's barely fleshed out only to pay extra for actual content that should have been released with the game is extortion. Yes, it's not a lot of money, not to me. Yet, I do have friends who can't afford to spend $35 for that extra content that could have been in the game but was most likely taken on to milk later. It isn't a practice done only by game developers but many many different companies and agencies. It's to common that it was bound to spread to to the gaming industry. Though, if it's common, I still will not support it.

I prefer developers release a game, then in 3+ months release more content in huge bulk, much like an expansion. Not this crap that's being in trends the last year or so with developers charging $1.99 for a skin, or like in the game Infinite Crisis charge 99.99 for a skin :/

[Dan113112]

As for the thread. I DO not support extra content, especially not in small pieces. Create a game, and release it when ready. Start project on next game. Making consumers pay for a game that's barely fleshed out only to pay extra for actual content that should have been released with the game is extortion. Yes, it's not a lot of money, not to me. Yet, I do have friends who can't afford to spend $35 for that extra content that could have been in the game but was most likely taken on to milk later. It isn't a practice done only by game developers but many many different companies and agencies. It's to common that it was bound to spread to to the gaming industry. Though, if it's common, I still will not support it.

I prefer developers release a game, then in 3+ months release more content in huge bulk, much like an expansion. Not this crap that's being in trends the last year or so with developers charging $1.99 for a skin, or like in the game Infinite Crisis charge 99.99 for a skin :/

Please excuse me. This is all hypothetical of course. What if CA were to charge you $90.00 for the game because they spent longer on it than they originally budgeted for?

Just the fact that you're questioning whether they love you or not is a win for their marketing department.
All this DLC isn't new stuff, nothing new is being added.
No new features, no new scripts, no new animations.
Its the same game, from a different place on the map and slightly different units that were already in the game.

If CA released a DLC that made an operations map that allowed you to coordinate where your army camp would be located, or create scouting forays, or manage supply lines I might ask myself if CA loves me.

But this stuff is a joke.

You do realize that the unplayable factions in the game cannot be simply unlocked like in RTW, right? There is missing code that has to be added. Possibly new units. If this is done just before or after the game's release then of course they are going to charge money for it.

I don't consider DLC any different from the old method of using expansion packs. Different way of distributing content, slightly different pricing, but mostly the same idea.

I can accept the DLC style of things, provided they don't hamstring modding capabilities (which CA appear to have been doing, at least when compared to earlier releases).

They've never hamstringed modding capabilities. The newer engine is more difficult to mod but it is moddable. TWS2 with the Assembly Kit, although buggy, allows users to do things they've never been able to do before. Is anyone forgetting the unit limit cap, map size cap, and faction faction cap from the pre-Warscape games like RTW and M2TW?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

I don't want to admit it, but I support extra content, even if we have to pay.

However, this is the reason why I left the Battlefield series. They just charged, charged and charged. I cannot see CA doing this. It's not a wise business move anyway. The Total War series is successful because it is just keeping at a steady pace and is steadily rising. These other series like CoD and BF will burn out. They used up their energy and one day, people will get sick of expecting to pay more rather than wanting to.

CA is doing good. We get a base game with tons of stuff in there, a few expansion packs and then a modding kit to let us do our own jazz. CA is playing it good and safe. Mark my words, these other companies will burn out and CA will be one of those companies that will shoot to the top because they never got carried away.

[König]

I think both have their pros and cons. Ideally, in my opinion, a game should have both. A major expansion pack or two (like with Rome I and BI), and then some smaller things such as a new campaign (like with Napoleon and the Peninsular Campaign) or additional factions (like with Shogun 2 and the clans). However there is a fine line between adding optional content for users to purchase, and leaving a game half-finished.

[hochmeister devin]

Depends as long as the base game is playable and all of the DLCs and such are not over priced I find it always a good thing. For example paradox released eu3 in 2007 and the last expansion was in 2011 if Im correct so by continued support it was a good and interesting game up until eu4 came out. Shogun 2 I found was a similar way while some of the DLCs were lame and some over priced some were actually very good like the Ikko Ikki pack and the otomo pack. Both of those extended game life and were pretty cheap (5$), as well as adding nifty new models and such making it more variety when modding.

[the_mango55]

The new way of course. Games are never "finished", they are just released. My favorite game of all time is Fallout 2, but that game was made in under a year and was ridiculously rushed and buggy, despite being made in 1998 (which I assume falls under your "the old way" timeframe). If the game was released today, it's possible that some of the mountains of incomplete cut content for that game would have been properly finished and sold as DLC, instead it took modders about 5 years to come out with the Fallout 2 Restoration project, which I love and appreciate, but it's still a cobbled together shell of what it could have been.

Some people feel like their game is "unfinished" just because they know there is more to come, when in fact the game in the state you bought it has far more content than games produced the "old way". For example, Rome 2.

[xjlxking]

The new way of course. Games are never "finished", they are just released. My favorite game of all time is Fallout 2, but that game was made in under a year and was ridiculously rushed and buggy, despite being made in 1998 (which I assume falls under your "the old way" timeframe). If the game was released today, it's possible that some of the mountains of incomplete cut content for that game would have been properly finished and sold as DLC, instead it took modders about 5 years to come out with the Fallout 2 Restoration project, which I love and appreciate, but it's still a cobbled together shell of what it could have been.

Some people feel like their game is "unfinished" just because they know there is more to come, when in fact the game in the state you bought it has far more content than games produced the "old way". For example, Rome 2.

I don't want to turn this into a DLC hate topic...BUT...

It's not about unfinished or not. Seriously, if you have seen some developers LOCK content to only unlock it to those who paid for it as a DLC is laughable. Are you telling me that's not milking? Is there not a possibility for companies/developers to do the same, except instead of locking it and deal with a backlash, they just take it out?

[omzdog]

Just the fact that you're questioning whether they love you or not is a win for their marketing department.
All this DLC isn't new stuff, nothing new is being added.
No new features, no new scripts, no new animations.
Its the same game, from a different place on the map and slightly different units that were already in the game.

If CA released a DLC that made an operations map that allowed you to coordinate where your army camp would be located, or create scouting forays, or manage supply lines I might ask myself if CA loves me.

But this stuff is a joke.

[Gelston]

I liked the older age of gaming where everything had freeware.

[Jester]

i just think free2play games are the worst

they have less content and are less polished than a "normal" game and if you want all that additional content you either have to play the game like for 10 years nonstop or you have to spend even more money than for a normal game

[crzyrndm]

they have less content and are less polished than a "normal" game and if you want all that additional content you either have to play the game like for 10 years nonstop or you have to spend even more money than for a normal game

They do seem to manage to showcase the worst money grabbing out of anything (especially if you look at mobile games). There are certainly exceptions, but they are definitely not the rule.

On topic:
2 questions for discussion
The older model (1 game, 1 expansion, a few patches) was limited to only 2 points where new content could be added and bug fixes were attended to in the largest blocks possible. Looking at Shogun 2, we have the base game, 1 mid-sized expansion and 1 large expansion, and a multitude of patches. Additionally, a number of small/medium sized content additions were also released. Would we have ever seen those smaller additions with the older model and what effect would that have had on development?

The kingdoms expansion for Medieval 2 had 4 mini-campaigns each comprising of 5-8 factions and a new map. There were a small number of additions to the gameplay, and a handful of brand new units (eg. greek firethrowers). RotS vastly altered the gameplay although was lacking new unit types (correct me if I'm wrong here, but I dont recall anything that wasn't just stat tweaks) and campaign map. FotS again offered vastly different gameplay and a major change in the focus on units (still stat tweaks/reskins from the original matchlocks, but they were the focus rather than a little extra flavour), and did alter the campaign map although not significantly in terms of gameplay. So which was more valued, the shift in battle focus or the new campaign maps?

Now, my opinion is that while Hattori may have been included for everyone in the older model (not entirely sure either way as you do reach a point where you have to content lock the game to accelerate testing and hattori could have been made after that point). However, the Otomo and Ikko-Ikki clans would never have been what we have today, blood DLC and the content of the 2 unit packs would also not exist at all. Of the 8 DLC's for Shogun 2 (RotS, FotS, 3 clans, 2 unit packs, blood), I think we would only have seen the content of two (maybe three) of them. Granted, of the remainder, only the three clan packs are significant additions to gameplay but it is content we never would have seen in the old model.

Personally, I like both, and would prefer both. But when it comes down to it, the strategic map is what makes the game live and so I'd have to say that I'd take a new campaign map with similar battles over the same map with wildly different battles (although that opinion could be coloured by my dislike of gunpowder warfare and the linear Japan map which completely spoiled FotS for me).

The only real change between the old and new models for me is that CA have time to go back and remodel a few clans. Would really love to see some completely different campaign maps in future expansions though

[craziii]

only one company that supports their game 10+ years, guess which one a hint: the one who owns the biggest pc game right now I've been a very loyal customer because of that support.

[Rittsy]

Most companies operate with two budgets for development now; one for the base game, one for DLC. Rarely do companies remove content and add it as DLC later due to the backlash involved, remember what happened with Capcom selling on disc DLC in the early days?

Don't look at games as finished products; look at them and decide, in it's current state is it worth my time and money?

[Bento]

Don't look at games as finished products; look at them and decide, in it's current state is it worth my time and money?

This. The world has moved on and we must accept that moaning about it will not change things.

[TuuSaR]

Games are more complicated and larger nowadays, finding all bugs and harware issues is much faster and easier when mass of players test the game compared to in-house, then the company can fix them by updates.

[Lionheart11]

One word to explain all this and focus your blame on... "Console's"

[daniu]

I feel that in the past the idea was to have a game finished by the release date and when the game came out it was a done deal and you got what you paid for: the game. This idea made us feel like we received complete games
[...]
I think games rarely reach the "Finished" stage or are seen as finished untill years after their release anymore.

You express the situation, very accurately, with all the "I feel" and "I see as"s in your statements.
The reality is that now as well as "in the past", games are finished by the release date and when the game comes out it's a done deal.
You may not see it this way anymore because now there are bugfixes and more stuff coming out after release, but it really is a matter of viewpoint whether you buy into the "it should have been in the game in the first place".
This discussion has been coming up for ages now, and it really is moot.

[jsully16]

The more content the better.

And releasing 'unfinished' products to cash in on DLC is a myth created by socially awkward people with neckbeards. Sure there are some games that are rushed to completion, but that's almost never the developers fault but the publisher's. In a case like Bioware's Mass Effect 3, that was just horrible, horrible development that created the need for DLC to repair a terrible ending that ruined what was an otherwise great series.

But I'd wager my life that no company that released DLC is ever sitting around doing nothing before the release of a game. They're creating content up to a point, then they're fixing bugs until release. After release, they work on more content, and normal people who don't about everything will buy it if it interests them, and others will cry bloody murder simply because DLC is worse than the Holocaust.

I'm pro-DLC and I guarantee that CA has been hard at work on the original game while the DLC has been prepared separately. And what the hell is the complaint, anyway? Greek City-states DLC is free so long as you pre-ordered, Pontus and Seleucids will be free, so the only additional content that I'm guessing we'll have to pay for will be the Scythian pack.