I don't like games having constant updates

[Ligeia]

I also tend to lose interest when I'm finished with a game and not play DLC content if it gets released after a while. Even with series I'm a fan of, like Fire Emblem, I tend to not play the DLC chapters.

I also hate how nowadays you need to wait 2-3 years for a fighting game to be actually complete. Like I bought Tekken 7 last year, I was so glad I waited because I could get all of the game for a reasonable price as opposed to buying it day one and then spend fortunes on season passes and such nonesense. I also think the practice of withholding day-one-ready game content for future DLC is outrageous. Special mention to the Dead or Alive series and its ridiculous DLC prices, even years after release.

I also agree updates encourage developers to release unfinished games and that's a shame.

 

[BadMrFrostii]

It's definitely a case by case basis for me, personally. If a game launches in a 1.0 state thats actually a full, great experience, hey man I'm all for extra updates down the line. Problem really lies in that a lot of the times the extra content is another $40 on top of the $69.99 they're already charging for an incomplete package. I'm just glad most of the games that have this problem don't really draw me in anymore. Not a single player game but I still feel burnt after buying Mortal Kombat 1 lmao.

 

[DeeboDeebo's icon]

I’d be happy to buy a game and never receive any communication or update from the devs. I’d love it even more if it didn’t need an internet connection.

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 6:41 PM

Basically I want to play GBA games so that’s what I do instead.

 

[Nebulon_Galaxy]

Im sick of Gran Turismo and its 3200 updates!

 

[Johnathan Smikey]

If this is a weird opinion, I need to be sent to an insane asylum with max security in a room with nothing but white tiles.

 

[Advil Lavs]

I kind of agree but it really depends on the type of game. If it's some side content you can access by just loading your last save or even just from the main menu the it's ok.
If it's a really open game with lots of different ways to complete a certain objective then it's bound to happen, and it's also a pretty nice thing.
But if it's inaccessible unless you need to 100% the game or do something really difficult and specific then I'm probably not gonna bother doing it.

 

[E0N]

I agree. Updates that are 10s of GBs are the worst. Like I just want to play the game but now I have to wait through the whole downloading and installing process. Extremely annoying. I also use trainers so frequent updates breaks some of the cheats so it's double annoyance

 

[Donte]

 

[edenfh]

I also tend to lose interest when I'm finished with a game and not play DLC content if it gets released after a while. Even with series I'm a fan of, like Fire Emblem, I tend to not play the DLC chapters.

I also hate how nowadays you need to wait 2-3 years for a fighting game to be actually complete. Like I bought Tekken 7 last year, I was so glad I waited because I could get all of the game for a reasonable price as opposed to buying it day one and then spend fortunes on season passes and such nonesense. I also think the practice of withholding day-one-ready game content for future DLC is outrageous. Special mention to the Dead or Alive series and its ridiculous DLC prices, even years after release.

I also agree updates encourage developers to release unfinished games and that's a shame.

What was the last Fightning game that didn't have some DLC character or had a full roster? if there is any it's smaller games.

 

[GardeniaSky]

It depends. Larian constantly adding more content and fixing up Baldur's Gate III is just a cherry on top. As-is, despite the end game feeling rushed, it's a phenomenal game. Them adding more endings and content based on what feedback they got, is really cool of them. I purchased the game when it was still in testing. That also didn't feel like a 'pre-order cash grab' since they actually listened to the fan base.

Most game devs do, however, rush products out and fix them after release. They do pre orders and release a half-finished pile of trash. Companies complaining that Larian set expectations 'too high' is so telling.

Generally, I think you're correct in that devs are lazy now and just add a bunch of shit in post, hoping to make up for an unfinished mess. There are exceptions, but it's rare.

 

[TotzOnGaming]

Yes, I like games that are actually done on release.

Good Times.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

It depends. Larian constantly adding more content and fixing up Baldur's Gate III is just a cherry on top. As-is, despite the end game feeling rushed, it's a phenomenal game. Them adding more endings and content based on what feedback they got, is really cool of them. I purchased the game when it was still in testing. That also didn't feel like a 'pre-order cash grab' since they actually listened to the fan base.

Nah, fam. Sorry, but that is a load of doo-doo. Let's not revise history. They released a game where the final chapter was lacking in side content and with game ending crashes. Them "adding content based on feedback" is a generous interpretation. That shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. Companies should be getting more pushback for these practices, but gamers are too fanatical to realize when gaming companies are trying to pull a fast one on them.

 

[TentaclesMod]

I think a game being updated is a sign that the developers care about the game. Look at Stardew Valley, it was a good game at release, but years after the developer keeps adding new content and it has not removed stuff or made it worse. You could have fun the day it was released, and can have extra fun now.

If the developer is AAA, then you're probably not getting any updates and instead being sold DLCs for everything. Which is not better by any given margin.

This is why my opinion is weird, Stardew Valley is one of the worst offenders of what I'm complaining. It's great indeed, or so I have been told. You see, I haven't gotten it because I'm waiting for it to be "finished", except it never is!

By the way, the game that prompted me to start this thread is Control. You see, a bit ago the ultimate edition came out... and like less than two weeks ago it received an update that added some outfits (whatever) and the Kojima missions (!). Wasn't it the ultimate edition? The final collection of all dlc and everything? Why was this stuff STILL out???

 

[Yousef]

Usually I don’t mind this unless the update is forced on me or happens without my consent or knowledge

 

[GardeniaSky]

Nah, fam. Sorry, but that is a load of doo-doo. Let's not revise history. They released a game where the final chapter was lacking in side content and with game ending crashes. Them "adding content based on feedback" is a generous interpretation. That shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. Companies should be getting more pushback for these practices, but gamers are too fanatical to realize when gaming companies are trying to pull a fast one on them.

Game ending crashes? My partner and I played throught the entirety of the game on release just fine. Act III had a ton of content. We were max level well before the final boss.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

Game ending crashes? My partner and I played throught the entirety of the game on release just fine. Act III had a ton of content. We were max level well before the final boss.

Well, that's what I heard from certain people online. Maybe they were on lower end computers? I do recall they had to fix some bugs that caused performance issues, but maybe that didn't impact newer computers.

 

[trickybus]

Overly long, triple-A games that get content patches/DLC can miss me. I've already spent enough time on one game, I'm ready to move on to the next.

The only time this is acceptable to me is if the game was short to begin with and the developer (most often indie) is adding content as a thank you to everyone who purchased their game or simply because they didn't think their game would take off in the first place. For example, once Katana Zero gets its new DLC, I'll be hopping on again to play it; it's a short but really engaging game and I'm hungry for more levels. It helps that the DLC will be a free add-on to anyone who already has the base game.

 

[GardeniaSky]

Well, that's what I heard from certain people online. Maybe they were on lower end computers? I do recall they had to fix some bugs that caused performance issues, but maybe that didn't impact newer computers.

My PC isn't really new. I'm running a 1660 super and an i7 10th Gen. My partner is still on a DDR3 machine(I think he has a 1070).

It did have some issues in the third act because of how populated the city is. Frame drops. They patched that pretty quickly though. It impacted new and old builds.

Idk. Larian has always had a good track record with having quality games. I didn't even know much about them before we got the beta for BG3, although we did play through most of Divinity 2 and that was great. Just seeing the obvious care they put into every part of the game really gave me hope for the future of the industry. It had been a really long time since a newer titles kept my attention for that long. I think I have about 600hrs in it between playing the test and the full game.

I definitely wouldn't put that kind of trust in say, Square Enix or EA. I don't regret supporting Larian in the development of the game. I think they delivered.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

My PC isn't really new. I'm running a 1660 super and an i7 10th Gen. My partner is still on a DDR3 machine(I think he has a 1070).

It did have some issues in the third act because of how populated the city is. Frame drops. They patched that pretty quickly though. It impacted new and old builds.

Idk. Larian has always had a good track record with having quality games. I didn't even know much about them before we got the beta for BG3, although we did play through most of Divinity 2 and that was great. Just seeing the obvious care they put into every part of the game really gave me hope for the future of the industry. It had been a really long time since a newer titles kept my attention for that long. I think I have about 600hrs in it between playing the test and the full game.

I definitely wouldn't put that kind of trust in say, Square Enix or EA. I don't regret supporting Larian in the development of the game. I think they delivered.

Well, then maybe I was mislead by the online chatter. Probably someone was having some compatibility issues with the game and was surly. But yeah the performance issues at launch with the final chapter were noticeable to many. While I do think Larian is one of the best PC developers working right now, they are notorious for launching their games in a somewhat unstable state, and constantly tweaking them for a solid year after launch.

 

[GardeniaSky]

Well, then maybe I was mislead by the online chatter. Probably someone was having some compatibility issues with the game and was surly. But yeah the performance issues at launch with the final chapter were noticeable to many. While I do think Larian is one of the best PC developers working right now, they are notorious for launching their games in a somewhat unstable state, and constantly tweaking them for a solid year after launch.

Same with main Bethesda titles. Massive games with a bunch of bugs that get patched either by the community or officially.

The bigger games get, the harder it gets to test for stuff I guess?

Is it an issue with budget? Do they not have enough funds for QA?

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

Same with main Bethesda titles. Massive games with a bunch of bugs that get patched either by the community or officially.

The bigger games get, the harder it gets to test for stuff I guess?

Is it an issue with budget? Do they not have enough funds for QA?

I think for Bethesda and Larian, it comes down to the sheer size of their games. I can't imagine it is easy for any QA team to find every possible bug before launch.

 

[Evaccaneer Doom]

Weird opinion. I don't like single player games having constant updates. I'm not even talking about early access games, those I usually just wait until they are out of early access even if it takes a decade. I'm talking about games that are supposed to be finished but keep getting updates, often substantial ones for years after they are done.

The reason why I don't like it is because I feel like if I play and finish it and then it's updated with something significant, then I played an inferior version of the game, and I can't just be replaying a game every time it updates. I mean, I can, but I don't want to, there's so much stuff that I haven't played yet and I don't want to use the time that I could use in brand new experiences in replaying for the sake of two new dungeons or whatever, unless I really like the game or it's one with very short playthroughs but many possibilities to each one, that's the one exception.

Anyway, do any of you agree with this? Or do you have opposite views and why?

Personally, I prefer free updates to DLC cause I at least don't have to shell out money for something to get finished, especially if the changes were to be as minor as you say they are

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

BG3 was in early access for years.

I've played their games since Divine Divinity but I dont like it. I dont like that it's a WOTC licence, because they're hostile to their users and DnD is just crap since Monte Cook is gone. And I dont like that a good part of the Belgian studio was sold to Tencent, when they benefited from public funds to keep the studio afloat when it was struggling.

That flemish guy can wear a full plate armor in american gaming shows thinking he's the new Garriot. And give moral lessons to other studios about work ethics and best practices... It's only to fool gamers. BG3 was an anomaly and we all know it wont happen again.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

BG3 was in early access for years.

I've played their games since Divine Divinity but I dont like it. I dont like that it's a WOTC licence, because they're hostile to their users and DnD is just crap since Monte Cook is gone. And I dont like that a good part of the Belgian studio was sold to Tencent, when they benefited from public funds to keep the studio afloat when it was struggling.

That flemish guy can wear a full plate armor in american gaming shows thinking he's the new Garriot. And give moral lessons to other studios about work ethics and best practices... It's only to fool gamers. BG3 was an anomaly and we all know it wont happen again.

I don't know the whole history of Larian, but I do agree that Sven gives off an air of smugness. I didn't like how he dismissed the importance of BG1 and BG2, calling them "outdated games" in his BG3 prelaunch party.

 

[longestseason]

That's my issue with Stardew Valley. The dev is unable to fully move on and continues to update the game with more stuff, which is cool but unasked for. I'm afraid he can't let it go.