[regawdless]

I'm always willing to purchase games day one for full price to support devs that I like. At least that was the case so far.

There are too many games to play for me, so I'm often a bit behind the times, jumping in late. With more and more games, that's the best option by far. I'm a one and done gamer for the most part, experiencing the games one time.

Playing games half a year or even a year after launch, with devs that support their games well, can give you:

- Many quality of life improvements. Be it inventory and item management, skipping cutscenes, improved controls, better UI or more options in general.
- New, free content. Devs add new weapons, new modes, new skins, photo mode etc. in some cases really significant stuff that improves the game a lot.
- General bug fixes, better balancing, better performance, added features, better visuals.

And the price will likely drop by 50% during sales. On PC there's also mods and other community content, adding another layer.

For a consumer like me, who wants one playthrough in most cases, it might as well be the best playthrough I can experience. So while I'm always tempted to go day one ot play the newest games, I got more hesitant. Sure, when the game doesn't have any note worthy issues at launch, gets crazy positive impressions and the devs are known to just move on - day one makes sense. But knowing the devs will add a lot of content that I'll like and that they'll improve the game big time, even if it's already great at launch - I think I'll wait. Punishing the devs for their good work, which seems wrong.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dreamlord]

The two main reasons for waiting a few months are price drops and bug fixes.

With the amount of games nowadays, there is no need to purchase day one, at least not for me.

But if there is a game I really want and I can pre-order / buy on release with significant (say 35% off) discount from cdkeys, then I will do it. The devs still get their cut.

I almost never buy above £40.

 

[Mickmrly]

If I really trust a game's publishers and I really like the game promised, than I will buy Day 1. Such as with Fire Emblem Three Houses/Hopes and LOZ: TOTK (pretty confident it will be good). Otherwise I will just wait until either my Birthday or Christmas to get the game.

I am looking forward to City Skylines 2, but I don't know if the publishers will release a well done game Day 1 so I will wait until later in the year to buy it (unless reviews say its still in a bad state by then).

 

[regawdless]

If I really trust a game's publishers and I really like the game promised, than I will buy Day 1. Such as with Fire Emblem Three Houses/Hopes and LOZ: TOTK (pretty confident it will be good). Otherwise I will just wait until either my Birthday or Christmas to get the game.

I am looking forward to City Skylines 2, but I don't know if the publishers will release a well done game Day 1 so I will wait until later in the year to buy it (unless reviews say its still in a bad state by then).

What if they release a very good game on launch, but within 6 months, add more features and additional content, making it even better, making it the definitive experience? That's my conflict.

 

[HariSeldon]

What if they release a very good game on launch, but within 6 months, add more features and additional content, making it even better, making it the definitive experience? That's my conflict.

What if they make it worse?

 

[regawdless]

What if they make it worse?

No negative example comes to mind. I think when a dev has a good reputation and supported their last games well, it's very likely their next game won't degrade in quality with updates.

One example is Severed Steel. They added:

- Gyro aim
- New weapons
- New levels
- New roguelite mode
- 5 bonus campaigns with achievements
- A ton of QoL improvements and an incredible amount of options to customize the game
- NG+
- Mutators of all kinds
- Visual and performance upgrades of course
- And much more

I love what they did and am glad that I discovered it so late lol

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

You should buy a game when it seems like it'll be fun to you. If it becomes better, you'll have renewed interest to play later. If it becomes worse, you'll at least have enjoyed the time you had with it.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

I rarely buy games at launch anyway, and for certain indie games I'm waiting a year or more until the physical copy comes out. So, I'm typically playing the patched + DLC version. There are a handful of indie devs I'll buy on Day One just to support em, knowing they'll support their game.

No Man's sky was very different at launch. Personally, I enjoyed it and platinum'd the original version of the game. However, considering the current state of the game and how much has been added, it demonstrates what you're describing. Another example would be Binding of Isaac (or Minecraft or Terraria or any other randomized/roguelike game) which has gradually added so many tweaks and items that the current version of the game is significantly larger and more nuanced than the original.

Multiplayer makes a major difference. I don't care about online mp so it doesn't bother me, but buying a mp game at launch kinda goes with the territory, unfortunately

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I rarely buy games at launch anyway, and for certain indie games I'm waiting a year or more until the physical copy comes out. So, I'm typically playing the patched + DLC version. There are a handful of indie devs I'll buy on Day One just to support em, knowing they'll support their game.

No Man's sky was very different at launch. Personally, I enjoyed it and platinum'd the original version of the game. However, considering the current state of the game and how much has been added, it demonstrates what you're describing. Another example would be Binding of Isaac (or Minecraft or Terraria or any other randomized/roguelike game) which has gradually added so many tweaks and items that the current version of the game is significantly larger and more nuanced than the original.

Multiplayer makes a major difference. I don't care about online mp so it doesn't bother me, but buying a mp game at launch kinda goes with the territory, unfortunately

And then you have games like Dominions, where the devs keep on gradually improving their game, adding content and changing the experience, for free, and every so often they just up and release a new game in the series, with more new features but keeping the essentials the same.

It's kind of an anti-DLC model, like the old and sadly defunct "standalone expansion" concept. You get to play the latest, bestest, and most complete game, just by buying the latest entry, no paying three times the cost in DLC necessary. (/me frowns at Stellaris and the rest of the Paradox titles)

 

[DonDonDonPata]

And then you have games like Dominions, where the devs keep on gradually improving their game, adding content and changing the experience, for free, and every so often they just up and release a new game in the series, with more new features but keeping the essentials the same.

It's kind of an anti-DLC model, like the old and sadly defunct "standalone expansion" concept. You get to play the latest, bestest, and most complete game, just by buying the latest entry, no paying three times the cost in DLC necessary. (/me frowns at Stellaris and the rest of the Paradox titles)

yeah Dominions is another good example. D3 Awakening and D4 Ascension are the ones I played most and both games (especially D4) got a ton of content over their lifespans.

 

[Kadayi]

Given backlog and time commitments I don't buy as many games as I used to, so if I'm really keen on a game I'll get it on day one. I don't bother with discount sites because in terms of time played versus cost games are already pretty good value as far as I'm concerned and I like to give developers their due. I've seen too many go to the wall due to lacklustre sales to feel the need to nickel & dime them. If I'm unsure about a game I'll hold of either until reviews land or it hits an acceptable price point.

 

[Snes nes]

Depending on what your playing good dev support can be from several months into the games lifespan to a five to seven year span for a game with constant changes to make the game "Better" but constant updates in multiplayer games really makes them less fun until the game stops being updated and the whiners leave. I mean using fortnite as a example its changed quite often and each iteration they make the game worse. I personally wait for the games to stop being updated and dlc to all be released before I buy a game. I'd rather not go through the constant shifting.

 

[Joe T.]

Not sure I agree with what's being labeled good dev support here. Are patches/updates good practice if they're disincentivizing players from supporting the studios with a full priced purchase at/near launch?

Players are complaining that games are too expensive, even though they haven't kept up with inflation. Devs complained that they needed to find new ways to monetize them because they cost too much to make. There's something very wrong with motivating people to buy games months later because they're more polished and contain more content at a reduced price.

 

[Grinchy]

This is the train I've been on for years. I still do buy some games day 1 for full price, but for the most part, I just stopped seeing the point long ago. The only thing I ever notice from waiting even a few months to buy a game is getting a better experience for less money.

And I feel like there are a couple arguments people could make. One, that a developer launched the game before it was done, and two, that a developer is just generous with their time and efforts to continue improving it after launch.

And I think the reality falls in both of those categories but it's often enough that they just had a release date and weren't quite done, so I'm kinda done being frustrated by doing a beta test that I paid full price for.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

Not sure I agree with what's being labeled good dev support here. Are patches/updates good practice if they're disincentivizing players from supporting the studios with a full priced purchase at/near launch?

Players are complaining that games are too expensive, even though they haven't kept up with inflation. Devs complained that they needed to find new ways to monetize them because they cost too much to make. There's something very wrong with motivating people to buy games months later because they're more polished and contain more content at a reduced price.

The biggest devs are to blame. They damaged the market's confidence in Day One releases.

If the AAA industry could be trusted to release fully-formed games, then indie devs would not have been able to "sneak into the market" by offering "inferior" games with superior post-launch support models (e.g. Minecraft, Terraria, etc). And yes, even that is now abused by plenty of devs and publishers via Early access or "rolling updates" but it is what it is.

Nowadays I see a lot more hesitation to buy new games except from a small handful of "trusted devs", and isn't that how it should be?

 

[Joe T.]

The biggest devs are to blame. They damaged the market's confidence in Day One releases.

If the AAA industry could be trusted to release fully-formed games, then indie devs would not have been able to "sneak into the market" by offering "inferior" games with superior post-launch support models (e.g. Minecraft, Terraria, etc). And yes, even that is now abused by plenty of devs and publishers via Early access or "rolling updates" but it is what it is.

Nowadays I see a lot more hesitation to buy new games except from a small handful of "trusted devs", and isn't that how it should be?

It would be if that hesitation was helping improve the state of the market somehow. I'm not seeing it yet.

The last game I bought at launch was GTAV almost a full decade ago. It was one of the only games I bought more than once, that $10 I paid for the PC version during a Black Friday sale would lend itself to the point made in the opening post if I skipped the console version. That's definitely my plan for GTA VI.

 

[WesternBlood]

I am more apt to purchase a game if the developer is known for support after a game launch. UndeadLabs has done this both with State of Decay 1 and 2. 2 has had a larger amount of post-launch development than 1; and significantly so in that they righted a number of missteps with the initial release. SOD2 is a different game, and for the better, with all of the patches UndeadLabs dropped.

I will support any developer who makes a game I like, but I will buy day 1 if they have a track record of giving attention to their game years after a release. Now, that is a nuanced approach because the other point of view is that UndeadLabs released SOD2 in a sorry state, not worth the dollars upon release. I can see that opinion has some merit, however, the systems they had even on release is why I enjoyed the game. It is their mechanics that made me show up from the jump.

 

[Optimus]

I've certainly been feeling this a lot more the past couple of years. Buying and playing a game day one of release seems like a loss if you really want the full experience. When Elder Scrolls 6 arrives, what incentive do I have to jump straight in when I know from Oblivion and Skyrim that there will be a huge unofficial patch that fixes many bugs in addition to anything Bethesda fixes, of which there will be numerous fixes. Then, on top of that, there will be DLC that really beefs up the game to such an extent that no one will even want vanilla ES6 ever again. Finally, there will just be gob loads of mods and graphical enhancement packs. You're really doing yourself a bit of a disservice if you jump in day one and play through the game, imo. You should at least wait for the fixes.

And it's like that with any new game nowadays. Cities sequel? Why would I want to jump into vanilla Cities game if it's not going to have all of the mass transit stuff, all of the sports stadium stuff, all of the college and university and amusement park stuff? What benefit do I have jumping into a new Cities game that's inevitably going to be a massive step backwards until they can sell all the DLC to us again??

And Civilization games are now like that as well. Civ 7 will drop, and all I can wonder is will it carry forward the natural disaster events and terrain-changing disasters? And what sorts of new DLC are going to drop after the fact that will make Civ 7 a whole new must-have experience? I see no rationale reason to buy Civ 7 at $60 (or even $70) when half the game will be held back for 3 large DLC packs.

Nah, IMO, "good devs" are going to find out the hard way that holding content back for DLC or shipping your game 2 years too early with big DLC in the forecast is a surefire way to make sure that I don't buy the game until I can buy all of it ($120 worth) for like $30.

And I would even say that I'm becoming more like this with Nintendo as well. I wonder whether I should jump straight into TotK next month or if I ought to wait for it to be playable via emulator with a good resolution and framerate. That has less to do with "good devs" and more to do with the fact that software releases in a bit of an unfinished state as I'm sure that Nintendo is going to be pushing updates every few days to every week. It happened with BotW, and it'll happen with TotK.

 

[HE1NZ]

I play games 2+ years after release. I want to play complete versions and returning to play DLC later will be weird. The fact that most bugs will be also ironed out is a nice bonus too.

 

[DonDonDonPata]

It would be if that hesitation was helping improve the state of the market somehow. I'm not seeing it yet.

I agree, we have a long way to go.

 

[zebraStraw]

I only buy new games if I really want them or they are cheap indies anymore.

The only big game I plan on buying day 1 this year is armored core 6. There really isn't much of a reason to buy games day 1 anymore, especially with the state of games released these days.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

The kind of games I like to play, I almost certainly need to buy them right at release. That way I don't miss out on hilarious bugs and the continuous reinvigoration of interest that rolling updates and a steady stream of content additions bring to the game.

If you buy into these games much later, when every cool little secret has been added and found, and every cool little bug has been found and squashed, and everything you could ever ask for is stuffed into a wiki, then you get to play merely a good game, with none of the experience of the journey and discovery.

 

[HariSeldon]

The kind of games I like to play, I almost certainly need to buy them right at release. That way I don't miss out on hilarious bugs and the continuous reinvigoration of interest that rolling updates and a steady stream of content additions bring to the game.

If you buy into these games much later, when every cool little secret has been added and found, and every cool little bug has been found and squashed, and everything you could ever ask for is stuffed into a wiki, then you get to play merely a good game, with none of the experience of the journey and discovery.

One can still have that when late to the party. I was very late to Zelda BOTW and simply didn't read any wikis or watch any YouTube videos.

 

[Mickmrly]

Depending on what your playing good dev support can be from several months into the games lifespan to a five to seven year span for a game with constant changes to make the game "Better" but constant updates in multiplayer games really makes them less fun until the game stops being updated and the whiners leave. I mean using fortnite as a example its changed quite often and each iteration they make the game worse. I personally wait for the games to stop being updated and dlc to all be released before I buy a game. I'd rather not go through the constant shifting.

I think similarly with Age of Empire II: Definitive Edition. They keep tweaking the multiplayer every month, changing the buffs and nerfs so you have to keep changing your gameplay. For some people that might be fun, but I just want to learn how to play well and just keep improving. Having my strategy changed by force every month or so is just annoying.

 

[Franky Family]

I've only bought like 7-8 games on the day of their release (SMB2 Advance, Luigi's Mansion, The Wind Waker, Animal Crossing, Twilight Princess, SMG2, Halo 4, Metroid Dread) and every time I have gone out of my way to buy them it was well worth it for the experience that it was

 

[Vyse]

I've pretty much not played any new games these past two console generations, apart from some indie games like Shakedown Hawaii and Ion Fury, and they were already three years old by then.

Marvel's Spider-Man 2 and GTA VI will probably be a lot of fun but I am really not in a hurry to play new games anymore, whereas I will watch a new movie with some close friends while it's still playing in theaters and feel satisfied, even if it wasn't the best movie.

I just don't want to waste a lot of time on games as an adult. I try to play any game no longer than an hour a day. I can't do that with new games. I remember when Sleeping Dogs and GTA V were still brand-new a decade ago and how easily I lost 5+ hours every day and it makes me really wary to start again.

In any case, it's better to wait for a complete version of games. Plenty of hardcore gamers ready to pre-order and contribute to early sales.

 

[Snes nes]

I think similarly with Age of Empire II: Definitive Edition. They keep tweaking the multiplayer every month, changing the buffs and nerfs so you have to keep changing your gameplay. For some people that might be fun, but I just want to learn how to play well and just keep improving. Having my strategy changed by force every month or so is just annoying.

To me the sad thing is people actually ask for this and the devs take it seriously. fighting games are very annoying about this with constant changes to it to appeal to some kid who doesn't understand what he's even talking about regarding game balance or whatever else he wants to complain about right then Instead of learning how to counter the opponents actions.

Nowadays games are way to tested compared to before. does aoe2 actually need changes to the gameplay? Probably not if I had to guess. Tekken 7 probably didn't need as many changes as they made (original version was pretty bad though)