Does extensive post-release support - particularly for live-service games - lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointing realities in a game's sequels?
Does extensive post-release support - particularly for live-service games - lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointing realities in a game's sequels?
It's a common issue at this point: a game releases, gets years' worth of updates and DLCs, and then eventually the developers move on to developing a sequel. The sequel comes out and... the depth and amount of content is nowhere close to what players have just been experiencing in its predecessor. The sequel may have many of the quality-of-life features that didn't arrive in the predecessor until later updates, but it simply can't launch with a full game's worth of content plus years of DLC's worth of content. It only gets worse for games that support modded content, too, because they'll have years' worth of mods on top of the developer-created content.
We've seen this a lot already: the Civilization series is infamous for the sequels not living up to their predecessors until they've had years of support themselves; Crusader Kings 3 was seen as lacking in long-term replayability for passionate fans of the series; Destiny 2, upon release, was seen as shallow and sparse compared to the first game; and, recently, Cities: Skylines 2 developers spent the lead-up to the game's release trying to reel in expectations because they didn't want fans to expect the game to have comparable amounts of content to everything that's available for the first game after eight years of post-release updates and DLC.
To compound this, many of the games that benefit from extensive post-release support are less story-focused games. They often offer a mechanical foundation and a sandbox wherein players can create their own experiences, stories and lore - Civilization has no plot, nor does Cities: Skylines or Crusader Kings. They're similar, in fact, to tabletop RPGs - like Dungeons & Dragons - in that sense. And they share another issue with tabletop RPGs: sequels sometimes just aren't necessary. When there's a new story to tell in an existing world, or for an existing character, it obviously makes sense to make a sequel and tell that story. But if the game is more of a mechanical foundation that's already sound? Well, major overhauls to that foundation are a reason to make a sequel, but sometimes it can just feel like "reinventing the wheel" for the sake of releasing a sequel, not because it's necessary or because it improves anything.
It feels to me like a problem that will only become more and more pronounced as more games opt for live-service models or extended post-release support, too. Can anyone think of any examples of games that had extensive post-release support through updates and DLCs where a sequel was then released that wasn't seen as disappointing or a step backwards?
I think the only way this is avoided as an issue is if the developer sidesteps it by making the sequel fundementally different from the original. Games like Fallout 4 or Dying Light 2. Their predecessors had a significant amount of base content, DLC content, and in Fallout 3/NV's case a massive modding community.
Whether Fallout 4 or Dying Light 2 are better than their predecessors or not becomes more of an issue of community expectations because the kind of games they turned out to be have a different focus and moment to moment gameplay style than their predecessors, but at least they're not Payday 3 where both the predecessor and sequel scratch the same itch and fight over the same territory.
Instead, Fallout 3 can occupy a more RPG focused space while Fallout 4 has a greater emphasis on scavenging, crafting and modifying, and outpost construction. Dying Light can focus on on-foot parkour and traversal and its expansion with buggy driving, while Dying Light 2 moves traversal into the air with wall running and a paraglider.
I can't think of a live service game that's done that well, those usually rely on a really tight community that only wants to play a very specific game.
I think the only way this is avoided as an issue is if the developer sidesteps it by making the sequel fundementally different from the original.
I can agree with that, for the most part. I think having a new story to tell can definitely justify "recycling" mechanics, and a series having a feel and identity that's shared between different entries can be a positive thing. But yeah, if a sequel needs to launch with fewer features/less content then taking a different approach from the previous entry - like Fallout 4 and Dying Light 2 did - can sometimes be a good way to go.
Of course, it can lead to fans of a previous entry feeling alienated by a new release. That isn't always a bad thing if it can find a new audience instead (particularly if you're looking at it from a "number of copies sold" perspective) but it can certainly lead to resentment from (former) fans, as well as people who would potentially like it being put off from buying it because it's a sequel to a game they've not played. Personally, I think it's best if mainline entries in a series (numbered entries, for instance) tend to keep to a somewhat similar style, and experimenting with radically different mechanics in the same world/with the same characters should perhaps be done in spin-offs. But that's more down to managing expectations and marketing than anything else - just slapping a slightly different title on a game can work there.
at least they're not Payday 3 where both the predecessor and sequel scratch the same itch and fight over the same territory
This is very true. I think the big issue Payday 3 has here is that the series' appeal is almost entirely for its gameplay. The "stories" of the heists don't matter too much - they're just "set dressing" for the gameplay - and Payday 3's gameplay isn't radically different enough that it makes up for the drastically reduced amount of content. If you want to play a heisting game, Payday 2 is still the best option (right now) for most people. Maybe Payday 3 will become the better game in time, but right now it doesn't feel like that's the case.
A narrative-driven game doesn't have the same issue - it doesn't feel like those games are fighting for your attention - because, while the mechanics might be the same from game to game, having different stories is enough to set them apart. If the stories in later entries start to feel like they're just retreading the same story beats over and over then it becomes a different matter, of course.
I always think that a 2.0 upgrade would make more sense, e.g. what Factorio is currently chipping away at. I guess, Factorio has the advantage that they're far away from market saturation. Dropping a big update will likely pay for itself, because it's just solid marketing.
But yeah, it feels like if you're a live service game, you should be having incremental updates to keep the game modern. I believe, Fortnite is doing quite well in that regard.
Releasing a sequel often feels like misguided investors wanting to cash in twice and then, of course, that's bound to not work very well.I guess, the question is whether this is really a problem. I imagine, Paradox can pay for finishing up C:S2 with the live service money from C:S1. It doesn't need to have a grandiose launch. And I guess, folks who aren't deeply invested into C:S1 can just buy C:S2 without that being a disappointment (once the performance troubles etc. are fixed).
Factorio's 2.0 update does have a paid DLC to go with it, so it'll definitely pay for itself! The free update is going to have the more mechanical balance changes and the quality of life stuff, while the DLC will have the new content (like space platforms, other planets, etc). I agree that it's definitely a good approach for them to take - somewhere between an expansion and a significant enough update/overhaul that they can market it as similar to a sequel. Factorio, especially, is in a state where it certainly doesn't need too significant an overhaul - what's there works very well, and there's no need for them to reinvent the wheel.
Path Of Exile was planning on taking a similar approach with their 4.0 update - a major overhaul/update to the current game, and marketing it as Path Of Exile 2. The plan was to have a new campaign with new playable classes, but to share an endgame with the current game. They've since decided to scrap that approach and make it a full-blown sequel, though, which I think is probably a good approach for them to take. The current game (which I've played an awful lot of and do very much enjoy) has quite a few fundamental design limitations and balance issues and I think giving themselves a tabula rasa without all that mechanical and technical baggage is a good idea.
So I suppose Path Of Exile 2 might well end up being the first example (that comes to my mind) of a sequel that doesn't feel too disappointing in that regard. Of course, that's speculation on my part, but I do think what they've shown of it (there were demos that a lot of people played at their convention earlier this year) and the mechanical deep dives they've done seem promising. I think a lot of the content from the current game - or at least the mechanics for the content - will be brought over to the sequel, too, so I don't think it'll have the issue where it feels like a brand new game that's lacking in content compared to its predecessor that's had 10+ years of live-service content.
But yeah, it feels like if you’re a live service game, you should be having incremental updates to keep the game modern.
Absolutely. The biggest issue I see with this approach is it makes it more and more difficult for new players to find a jumping-on point the longer a game goes and the more content is added to a game, but it's certainly a better approach for the more invested fans. It means the developers need to ensure they avoid the game getting too bloated, too, and to avoid power creep in whatever form that may take for their game. I suppose those are the tradeoffs for not needing to remake everything from scratch for a sequel, though!
I guess, the question is whether this is really a problem
I think this deceptively difficult to answer, and there are quite a few perspectives to consider. Of course, it's easy to argue that if I think, for instance, C:S1 is a great game and I think C:S2 is disappointing, I can just continue to play C:S1 and that's fine, but I think in reality it's a little more complex.
- For audiences, I think anything that reduces the quality of games is a bad thing. If a sequel releases that's worse than its predecessor then, a) it could result in consumers spending money that they later feel is wasted (patient gamers obviously don't suffer here), b) the genre/type of game ends up being seen as a risk by publishers and they stop being willing to invest in more in the future, which could hurt people who would like to see the genre expanded/innovated on further, and c) it means the money's been poured into making the sequel when it could have gone into the predecessor instead which, again, feels bad for fans of the predecessor
- From a publishing point of view, sequels are a great way to get new players on board and to have a big product release with lots of incoming money. If audiences end up looking at sequels with more cynicism because them being disappointing becomes more of a trend, it could certainly become a problem for publishers. If hardcore fans of C:S1 are loudly talking about how disappointing C:S2 is to them, it can certainly turn people against C:S2. The internet loves a hate bandwagon, after all. (Ultimately, I don't care too much for Paradox's bottom line but, broadly speaking, as a consumer, I do want to see companies that make games I like do well so they can continue to create more games I like.)
So generally I'd say: yes, it's bad for games as an art form and as a form of entertainment, both on a micro level (specific games can suffer for it) and on a macro level (the industry can be negatively affected by it).