: Maybe I'm part of the minority, but I actually liked the long periods in
: between sequels for a franchise. It gives me more time to explore and
: really 'know' the current game.

: If sequels are released to fast it sours the experience of the previous
: title.

: Maybe finish your first candy bar before you open another one, ya know?

: I HATE PLANNED DLC.

: I HATE SEASON PASS STYLE DLC.

: Planned and season pass DLC to me means that the life cycle of a game has
: already been determined by the corporation.

: When you tell me that you have 3 packages of DLC and they will be released
: over a period of 3 months it signals to me that on that 4th month you are
: done with adding to the game and you'll leave a team behind to maintain
: that game, its MM, its MP while the rest of the crew moves on to the
: sequel.

: Gears, CoD, and Halo all do it now.

: I don't like this formula and time line.

: 1.) Release AAA title.
: 2.) Release first DLC at 3 months
: 3.) Release subsequent DLC one month after previous DLC
: 4.) Repeat step 3 one or two more times
: 5.) maintain current game enough to keep it running. (ie, keep the lights on,
: etc)
: 6.) announce new game and sequel in less than 2 years.

: 7.) Repeat 1-6 process for next game.

: Maybe this is what the bulk of consumers want. It's not what I want.

: I hate that feeling when you KNOW a game has gone to 'auto-pilot' and nothing
: else will be done to it. It seems like it creeps up sooner and sooner
: these days.

: Excuse my crazy ramblings.

Completely agreed. This approach also hurts your original game by making it feel 'outdated' quicker. You flood the market like this and of course you're going to get low player population in shorter and shorter amounts of time. The pace will just keep accelerating until something implodes.

Hell, Halo 3 still feels like a pretty new game to me, and yet by the gaming industry's methods its already an 'old classic'.

Microsoft and other companies need to work on preserving things, not replacing an item with a planned limited lifetime. If folks kept their servers online and kept up with supporting games with playlist tweaks or little patches, AND we didn't have a hundred sequels trying to vie for the next ten minutes of a teenager's attention, I think we'd see a lot of great games still active, even if its in a smaller scope. The main Halos should be as persistent as Counter Strike.

Look at board games - Hasbro will always be producing some new twist of Battleship or Monopoly to draw folks in, but they are also still producing the classic version, because its a great long term investment, and even if its never a 'hot product' again, it will always be there for the fans of the game.