Should devs make changes post release in single player games? (Poll)

[LegitHyperbole]

Jumpin said:

HoloDust said:

I loath this modern day game dev paradigm (more of publishers though) that games are basically in Early Access for few years even when they went Gold and were released as "finished".

Patches should be technical patches that fix bugs and improve performance, not messing with core gameplay.

Seconded.

Rebalances are really annoying. Stellaris is a great example of a game rebalanced so often that when you're studying how to play or what certain things mean, what you'll find on the internet is very unlikely what you'll find matches precisely to the game you're playing - or even the UI of the game you're playing.

Fixing bugs (not design bugs) and performance enhancements should be the limit.

If design changes/fixes need to be made, then perhaps one tactic is to use a proper expansion that changes the game into its own sequel - like the way Microprose and Blizzard used to do. Civilization 2 became Civilization 2: Fantastic Worlds or The Test of Time (which was actually a completely independent release which included Civ 2 as the foundation). Starcraft became Starcraft: Broodwar, and both games kind of existed as two separate entities, rather than a continuum that depends on when you're playing the game.

Of course, Star Craft had its own issues with balance/gameplay changes - so Blizzard did a lot right before doing wrong. IMO.

Platforms are an issue too. I recently found myself "well fucked" with Nintendo's change to how they managed digital game access, and basically lost my ability to play my current game, and any multiplayer game ever again. Unless I want to shell out full price for new licenses. Part of the reason I went digital is so I wouldn't have to deal with the bullshit of physical games, and now Nintendo brought a large part of that bullshit to digital.
I fucking hate corporations...

You put my OT in much clearer words than I ever could and expressed my frustrations in this post.