Till how long after release should a game receive support?

There are some (in)famous examples with games that keep receiving new content, like Gems of War, Minecraft, etc. What do you guys think is the maximum number of years/months that a game should receive new content (if there is any)?

To be Honest

They should focus on making complete games at launch.

You see so many half baked games release with bugs all over, not even only achievement wise

You need another option on the poll:

Until it is no longer cost feasible to support further enhancements, additions, or fixes.


Games like Gems and such have lots of different ways to monetize, and since they continue to be profitable, devs continue to support them. But, 4 editions ago of your average yearly release cycle game, the player pool is almost dried out and server usage is next to nothing, it makes no sense to continue support, and EOL is a more intelligent move than further waste of capital.

It kind of depends on the game and what is type of content is planned for releases. I find general DLC annoying, include it in the game, stop trying to milk me. Free games like Neverwinter needs new content as an MMO but that content is free.

I prefer Devs make the best game and release it all as one. Map packs I am on the fence on, like in Halo. They would put it up new map packs for $5 for 3 maps, then when the next pack came out the prior one was free.

This could be a more in depth discussion based on many different scenarios.

Really depends on the game. If there was a 1-2 years option I would have voted for that, but I picked 2-4 instead.

GTA Online has been going for almost 10 years now and I still enjoy it so…

Make all the DLC and TU's you want. Just no achievements in them.

Make all the DLC and TU's you want. Just no achievements in them.

Originally Posted by General Tynstar

That would be a good solution as well. You won't be forced to buy DLC if you are a completionist. If you really like a game, then you would pick up the DLC, otherwise move on to the the next game.

That would be a good solution as well. You won't be forced to buy DLC if you are a completionist. If you really like a game, then you would pick up the DLC, otherwise move on to the the next game.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

People keep saying game devs force them to do things, and I don't understand it. I've never once had any game dev, publisher, advertiser, promoter, or even some random guy who's heard of a game ever come over to my house or find me on the street and force me to do anything. Maybe I don't hang out in the same places those people that get forced to buy DLC do? I like to complete games, but even that is subjective state.

People seem to put way too much weight into numbers that only have some artificial value tied to them. They also seem to only believe however they play and value their games is the only way everyone should play.

futiles has it right: Until it is no longer cost feasible to support further enhancements, additions, or fixes.

In the end, making games is a business, and the goal of most businesses is to make money. They will follow whatever model maximizes their potential to make money or they will not continue in business. It could be free-to-play with regular content releases and a monetization scheme, a sandbox game that adds new maps or story chapters, or a sports game that pushes a new release annually that is rarely more than a reskin and roster update. Even free title updates with additional achievements as content serve to drive additional sales.

DLC is a means through which developers can keep their audience engaged with their product, which leads to a longer life for their product and more revenue. If every game was released "complete" as some might want, those devs then get only one single shot to capture the consumer's money. How often do you see one of those complete games at the top of any sales or activity charts, especially a month or more beyond release?





Also, title doesn't match the poll, and that bugs me.

futiles has it right: Until it is no longer cost feasible to support further enhancements, additions, or fixes.

Originally Posted by Hotdogmcgee

I thought for sure you were going to use my specifications on what was complete here.

I don't see it as "forcing" me to play a game. I also know total completions, completion %, and gamerscore have no real value. I have plenty of games that will never be finished.

I have never liked DLC. Even back in the 360 days. I like the 100/200 model of achievement. Even 1250/250 is better than what we have now.

I agree it depends on the game and a basic "standard" of till the next game works for me.

Multiplayer games benefit from added content like maps designed based on the game's mechanics and not just a "cool idea". These provide opportunity for old and new players to come up with ideas how to use the gameplay in an "original way".

I love when (proper) content is added to an RPG. Not just a basic DLC, but a good campaign expansion that let's you learn more about the world and/or lore of a game I like.

But I think the biggest variable to affect this is, do we like or are interested in the particular game. Those interested in the game might be more receptive to added content than those more focused on just playing it, collecting it, getting the achievements, etc.

As long as there is a is respectable amount of people playing it regularly. DLC drops after a couple years? Probably not. A team constantly keeping it updated/bug free? Yes.

ten years for all games at least.

If we're going with the thread title - "support" - then technically limitless, although realistically the game should be complete and tested before going gold. Still, bugs slip through the net more often than not, so in the modern age of digital distribution, patching should go on until the game is fixed and feature complete.

If we're going with the poll title - "new content" - then a year max in an ideal world. Expansion packs can be great, but again they should be feature complete and tested pre release.

There will of course always be outliers. No Man's Sky wouldn't be the fantastic, rich experience it is today without the years of support and free updates it's had from Hello Games. The same with Sea of Thieves. There will always be exceptions such as these, but as a general rule my opinion is to stick to the above.

No new content baby, like the good old days.

No new content baby, like the good old days.

Originally Posted by Arkkant

Yes I miss those days. I was amazed how much content halo combat evolved realased with. It had no microtransactions for armors!