In this day and age, the release of a video game is very rarely the end of it. For several months (or several years, if you're Square Enix) many developers will provide additional content for video games - this can be as simple as patches, or as complex as a season pass or DLC schedule. How do you feel about the post-launch environment of the games industry? On balance, are we better off for receiving additional content and updates for games, or worse off for receiving "incomplete" products at launch day? What in your opinion is a good example of post-launch support in a video game, and what is a bad one? Do you miss the simple "plug in and play" days?
There are some games that I feel benefit from the post-launch updates: i.e. Overwatch, Smash Bros, etc. Some games will eventually need proper balancing due to how much testing can actually be done before release. Millions of people will play it afterwards, and may find imbalances that the creators didn't. That being said, I'm tired of constant updates for games. *insert old man voice* Back in my day, they used to release games that were already finished. *end old man voice* But for realsies, I don't know when it became acceptable to release an "incomplete" game. I'm not talking about games that need further balancing, I'm talking about games that for some reason or another AREN'T FINISHED.
I think just like everything in the video game industry if its done right, it works well. As stated above, cleaning out the bugs and making balancing decisions is one of the great ways that a company can support its product after launch. The company doesn't even have to do it for free either, it can release content DLC along with updates to pay for future updates. MMO style games also need this support or they will crumble under stagnate game play. I do hate the current models thought and releasing a game in an incomplete state before selling it off in chunks is definitely the wrong way of doing this model. If you just look at Splatoon 2 for example, that's a game that gives continuous support and content for free while only selling the octo expansion which is really just an asset flip designed to give tons of new levels. I believe this is the way to do post launch content and still make money.
I've never played Splatoon 2, but that really seems like the healthiest way to sell most games. A full game that is complete and fun on its own, while still owning your actions as a game developer and making sure it's healthy and your customers are happy. Secondarily, selling expansions that are extra content on top of a complete game to fund the entire business model is a good way to go also. Every customer gets a complete experience, while the more enthusiastic ones can get a delicious last course if they want. I actually don't have much of a problem with selling unfinished games under two circumstances: the game itself should be complete and not-broken from its first public version, and if you do sell a game that is not perfect, you have no excuse to leave bugs un-squashed. You can use your players as free product testers (within reason), some of them are probably happy to do it. But if you start down that path, you are honor-bound to follow it to the end: fix every bug until you have a flawless product, and don't leave your enthusiastic play-testing players hanging with a final-version game that is at all less than perfect.
For long single player games that aren’t very replayable (like Final Fantasy 15 or Breath of the Wild), I’m not a big fan of post launch DLC. It seems like an easy way to milk the consumer of $20 after paying for a $60 game. If it’s a multiplayer game that wants to keep a dedicated online following (like Smash Bros. or Splatoon), then I’m fine with the addition.
