YES

by mnemesis, Friday, March 01, 2013, 13:07 (4064 days ago) @ Cody Miller

You're saying that extra weapons make the game deeper, but some people don't want to explore that depth, therefore it shouldn't be included in the game?

I'm saying they can be added by those that want to add them. I don't like having a huge number of weapon choices. It doesn't make the game 'deeper' for me, it makes it feel needlessly complex.

Why would you want anybody to play the version of your game that is less deep (since nobody has the weapons at launch) ? Why would you want your game to be less deep?

Because I want to make a game, but I'm aware enough to know that lots of different people are going to play it, and many of them will want to play it in ways that are different than how I would play it. I also know that I've got only so much development time, so I'll schedule a series of add-ons after launch, and then work on them then. I also know that that extra development time is worth actual money and by charging for it my people aren't working for free.

Some games are best created as a single, stand-alone unit, completely fleshed out at launch. One price, lots of replay value for the customer, minimum maintenance cost to the developer. Others benefit from expansion, add-ons, and extended development.

What if the person playing craves depth but is poor?

I crave outrageously expensive cheese. I guess I better figure out how to pay for it, because it's a fact that nobody owes it to me.

Why are you endorsing a practice which makes games worse?

As far as just you and I are concerned, it only makes games worse for you. I'm happy with it.