As digital distribution has continued its gradual takeover, we've seen a lot more (mostly bigger indies) games take on a strategy of continous updates. Sometimes via DLC, sometimes as free-to-plays, more then a few making use of microtransactions.
This leads to an interesting question of at what point should the updates to the original stop, and a sequel proper emerge. Or should that not happen at all?
With a certain level of slowdown in technical advancement, even sequels with upgrades (nevermind the ones popped out on the same engines) are a sort of minimal improvement. There are other improvements in UI and so on, but those could be patched.
A case could be made for keeping games to a single entry in a generation, and simply iterating content onto that base game. Its actually a model that a few varying MMOs essentially already use. It could pool a vast amount of content into one package (giving at least the appearance of value, even if the DLC packs are charged as per standard), and keep playerbases unseparated for multiplayer titles. FRom a business side, you're essentially presenting the user with a catalog of possible products in one place (and hypothetically, this could benefit a consumer by compacting skins and so on all into one singular purchase rather then rebuying them every game, in theory).
On the con side, there is a problem of too much content. The "post release early access" game style where sweeping new mechanics and overhauls appear has a tendency to leave a lot of clutter in its wake. Stuff gets neglected as the new wave comes in, and a newcomer diving into GTA or Warframe (for instance) will be utterly befuddled without literally doing homework to figure out what they should be doing. More modular designs (like if you had "Assassins Creed with separated campaigns) doesn't have quite the same issue there, but poses another issue, as a game containing multiple campaigns can quickly become pretty bloated on the file size if not designed in such a way that the content is patched separately.
Of course, there are obvious real world concerns. Physical retail is basically incompatible with the idea. DLC for whatever reason seems to have been accepted as a lesser offering, when it should be more content for your dollar, given that technical engineering work for the game has been almost entirely done at that point. But is all too often (always?) not the case.
Besides MMOs, there have been other instances of this. Since emerging from their original publisher, Harmonix Rock Band series has stuck to a once per gen platform title (although the current iteration has had expansion packs). A handful of remastered (PC version) games have been free updates to original owners (most recently Red Faction Guerilla). Various games like No Mans Sky, Absolver, Titanfall 2, and others have (or have plans for) fairly substantial content updates landing months out of release date (Free in those cases). The recent Prey : Mooncrash DLC, while a bit slimmer on the time offering, is essentially a sequel of its base game, with its own substantial mechanical identity and variations.
This leads to an interesting question of at what point should the updates to the original stop, and a sequel proper emerge. Or should that not happen at all?
With a certain level of slowdown in technical advancement, even sequels with upgrades (nevermind the ones popped out on the same engines) are a sort of minimal improvement. There are other improvements in UI and so on, but those could be patched.
A case could be made for keeping games to a single entry in a generation, and simply iterating content onto that base game. Its actually a model that a few varying MMOs essentially already use. It could pool a vast amount of content into one package (giving at least the appearance of value, even if the DLC packs are charged as per standard), and keep playerbases unseparated for multiplayer titles. FRom a business side, you're essentially presenting the user with a catalog of possible products in one place (and hypothetically, this could benefit a consumer by compacting skins and so on all into one singular purchase rather then rebuying them every game, in theory).
On the con side, there is a problem of too much content. The "post release early access" game style where sweeping new mechanics and overhauls appear has a tendency to leave a lot of clutter in its wake. Stuff gets neglected as the new wave comes in, and a newcomer diving into GTA or Warframe (for instance) will be utterly befuddled without literally doing homework to figure out what they should be doing. More modular designs (like if you had "Assassins Creed with separated campaigns) doesn't have quite the same issue there, but poses another issue, as a game containing multiple campaigns can quickly become pretty bloated on the file size if not designed in such a way that the content is patched separately.
Of course, there are obvious real world concerns. Physical retail is basically incompatible with the idea. DLC for whatever reason seems to have been accepted as a lesser offering, when it should be more content for your dollar, given that technical engineering work for the game has been almost entirely done at that point. But is all too often (always?) not the case.
Besides MMOs, there have been other instances of this. Since emerging from their original publisher, Harmonix Rock Band series has stuck to a once per gen platform title (although the current iteration has had expansion packs). A handful of remastered (PC version) games have been free updates to original owners (most recently Red Faction Guerilla). Various games like No Mans Sky, Absolver, Titanfall 2, and others have (or have plans for) fairly substantial content updates landing months out of release date (Free in those cases). The recent Prey : Mooncrash DLC, while a bit slimmer on the time offering, is essentially a sequel of its base game, with its own substantial mechanical identity and variations.
