Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Why do games offer expansions? Are they necessary?

2

Comments

  • nbtscannbtscan Phoenix, AZPosts: 778Member Uncommon

    I think from a business standpoint it's better to release content in large chunks like expansions sometimes.  If you were to take all of the content that you'd release all at once in an expansion and spread it out over bi-monthly updates, I think it'd create some instability in subscriptions since most people can clear new content within a couple weeks and then have nothing to do.  These days, a lot of people cancel their subscriptions and wait until the next patch hits.

    With expansions, you're guaranteed a steady revenue stream for a while because there's a lot of content to hold people over for a while.  It gives developers enough time to have the next smaller volume of content ready for release by the time they complete the expansion content.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon

    Expansions are a must have in order to expand the game in every aspect (new maps, new races, new classes, expanded lore, new lands to explore, etc). Specially in Pay to Play mmos, expansions are a must have because i am paying for content, i keep paying to keep receiving content.

    If the world will never evolve and expand then:

    1) remove the servers because without a world evolution the game its just a temporary single player campaign that doesnt need constant maintenance.

    2) since its a single player game that will never evolve with new content then i dont need to pay monthly.

     

    Having an expansion is not a problem, the problem is what its included in the expansion. Since the P2P mmos we currently have are all the same with different skins (all based on WoW daily grinds and dungeon / battleground grinding for currency to gear up) then they just add more and more of those grinds. A game without that Tier based grind progression would benefit hugely from full content expansion

    MMORPGs need to seriously evolve from the archaic grinding to something where player actions matter in the game. What actions? the ones seen in sandbox games. No grinding / lvl progression, you do your own progression as you play, craft, look for work, fight, etc etc.

    image
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,476Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Its a known fact that sequels usually do better than the original.

    The first and most obvious question is:

    Better in what sense?

     

    My second question is:

    What authority has established this fact?

     

    Not that I agree or disagree....But....

    Were the StarWars sequels better then the originals?  Anyone with a brain would probably say no, but they made more money, so I guess it depends on how you define success...

     

     

     

     Yes, the Empire Strikes Back sequel to A New Hope was a better movie.

    It's money.  People are foolish to think it's not about money.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,668Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
     

    You're comparing a service with a product.

    You're comparing the upgrade of subscription with the purchase of a brand extension.

    You're comparing apples and oranges.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • birdycephonbirdycephon Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 1,314Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
     

    You're comparing a service with a product.

    You're comparing the upgrade of subscription with the purchase of a brand extension.

    You're comparing apples and oranges.

     

    I do preffer apples, but oranges arent too bad either. 

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Its a known fact that sequels usually do better than the original.

    The first and most obvious question is:

    Better in what sense?

     

    My second question is:

    What authority has established this fact?

     

    Not that I agree or disagree....

    Were the StarWars sequels better then the originals?  Anyone with a brain would probably say no, but they made more money, so I guess it depends on how you define success...

     

     

     

    Of course money, its always about money. 

     That's a silly way to look at it....

     

    Here are the top 10 grossing films of all time, ajusted for inflation (I use film as MMORPG stats are hard to come by

       

    1 Gone with the Wind  -$3,301,400,000 1939

    2 Avatar  -$2,782,300,000 2009

    3 Star Wars - $2,710,800,000 1977

    4 Titanic - $2,413,800,000T 1997

    5 The Sound of Music -$2,269,800,000 1965

    6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - $2,216,800,000 1982

    7 The Ten Commandments - $2,098,600,000 1956

    8 Doctor Zhivago - $1,988,600,000 1965

    9 Jaws - $1,945,100,000 1975

    10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $1,746,100,000 1937

     

    While these are some good, some even great film, are these your 10 favorite?  Do you think these represent the best films ever made?

     

    Here is a list of the 10 ten highest rated movies on IMDB-

     

     

    The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

    The Godfather (1972)

    The Godfather: Part II (1974)

    Pulp Fiction (1994)

    The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

    12 Angry Men (1957)

    The Dark Knight (2008)

    Schindler's List (1993)

    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

    Fight Club (1999)

     

    Strange....Not a single duplicate....

     

    Draw your on conclusions....

     

    Well there is the godfather part 2 on that list.

    And what he said and what you presented are not the same thing at all.

    He stated sequels do better than the originals.  That doesn't mean that the original cannot do very very well.  You presented a bunch of films that did not have a sequel.  He is asserting based on the information he has, that if they had a sequal they would make even more money. 

    I'll save you the time, but I'd be willing to guess that I could have Googled "the top 10 grossing sequals of all time"...Then went to IMDB and looked up the top 10 sequals as rated by users, the results would have been similar....

    Interestingly, when it comes to movies, the first sequel on average makes about the same profit, but costs slightly more to make.

     

    How about the most profitable and most expensive series of all time:

    Harry Potter

    This only icludes the first 7 movies,but lets see if they rate in line with profits...

    Original - 7.3

    Sequel  - 7.2

    2nd Sequel - 7.7

    3rd Sequel - 7.5

    4th Sequel - 7.3

    5th Sequel - 7.3

    6th Sequal - 7.6

     

    The highest rated movie (2nd sequel) did the worst, overall at the box office....

     

    Again, draw your own conclusions.....

     

    Lord of the Rings....

     

    Source:

    http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/blog/2011/08/are-movie-sequels-profitable-1279

     See now this is directly related to his point, however I was just explaining his reasoning.  I didn't assert that it was true.

    edit - I really have to question their numbers as well.  I know they are not your numbers, and you aren't making the claim however they do seem a bit off.  I am also aware that these are just U.S. number, however a quick search of Harry Potter 7th movie showed worldwide it made over a billion dollars with over 380 million in Canada and U.S.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%E2%80%93_Part_2#Reaction

    While the first movie earned the film earned $974.7 million at the worldwide box office, $317.6 million of that in the U.S. and $657.1 million.  So while not that different from the first to the end, significantly different than those numbers showed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%E2%80%93_Part_2#Reaction

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,476Member Uncommon

    How about adding a little bit of common sense here.  You make a product/service with X investment and get some return rate.  Now think about the expansion (or move sequel) for just a second and ask if the expansion (or sequel) provides less return rate than a new product/service, why would you take the worse ROI?  Common sense would tell you they take the better ROI choice.   Therefore, if so many expansions are being made, why would they be doing that instead on making a new product/service?

    They believe the ROI is better for the expansion.

     

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAPosts: 676Member Common

     

    While the first movie earned the film earned $974.7 million at the worldwide box office, $317.6 million of that in the U.S. and $657.1 million.  So while not that different from the first to the end, significantly different than those numbers showed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%E2%80%93_Part_2#Reaction

    The numbers are right on for the first movie, but are for the US only....

      $318m Total revenue

    -$125m Budget

    ____________

    $193m Profit

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAPosts: 676Member Common

    Well, I've particiapted (perhaps caused) the hijacking of my own thread.  I'm more intersted in dicussing in game economics then I am the profitability of MMORPG's and their sequels.

     

    My point, is that add on expansions, while they may be percived as positive by players, also serve the purpose of covering up a flaw created by the economic model utilized in most MMORPG's.

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by Talinguard

    I think I see your point, but while rating a movie may be free, its hard to rate it without having seen it, where in most cases the people that rated it, paid to see it.  Yes?

    But I digrees...Perhaps this is just minutia....

    See that's just the way you think. This site is proof positive that people rate things they've never played all the time. People hate on things for all kinds of crazy reasons. How many revies have you read here where the guy didn't even make it out of the noob zone but is talking like an expert about game play ecconomy ect ect of the game.

    That would be like someone watching the first 5 minutes of the movie and then writing a review that they didn't like the plot or how it ended.

     

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,946Member Uncommon
    Re op, the real issue is gear centric mmorgs. Markets ultimately = new gear, expansions introduce lots of gear. Everything is is pushed into the background to the cost of the game integrity.

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    A treadmill game (character and gear levels) needs to reset the objectives because eventually people are going to run out of carrots to chase and get bored with the scenery. 

    Even if your game is not a treadmill, a "expansion" gives a checkpoint that generates buzz.  If you have a continuious trickle of patches, news sites aren't going to talk about your game as much as they would if you save them up for massive updates.

     

  • VannorVannor YorkshirePosts: 2,970Member Uncommon

    Players want more of the games they love. Games want to make more money by giving their players what they want.

    It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If people are paying for it, people want it.

  • kinidokinido WisconsinPosts: 368Member Uncommon
    Uh, most of the reason I enjoy expansions is because it normally continues the story in a gigantic / extreme way. Half of the reason I continued through all of EQ and FFXI was due to the story / and the story that was brought with each expansion.

    PS - All mammals have nipples.

    Get over it already.


    image

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,946Member Uncommon
    Agreed ^^ best expansions do this

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,924Member Uncommon

    Expansions are nessisary in terms of a developer getting profits off their content. That being said, a lot of expansions are far from being real 'expansions' as much as larger content patches. Adding 1 zone that gives a few more things to do is NOT an expansion. A good example of a good expansion would be looking at Rift which added a massive new area and a lot of extra content to the game to expand greatly on it. This really shows what a good expansion is. WoW (despite having terrible design choices in their latest expansions) has good sized expansions that do push out the value in terms of providing content that is meaningful and warrenting a price tag on the amount of content added.

     

    Expansions to me add a lot of content and in ways can be used as a means to push a 'modified' system of play into the game given its mechanics might be changing in a large way, providing a good way to bridge in those changes while not forcing players to suddenly change the way they might 'gear up' so to speak in a scale that all their gear becomes 'wrong'.

     

    So basically I view it combining the elements of a big amount of extra content while also changing up the way the game plays that would otherwise be disruptive to current game elements, thus often raising the level cap and 'trivializing' old content. Mind you, I'm not tooo huge on the latter part of that but in many cases it tends to be the easiest way to change how things work without massive revamps and possibly angering old players.

  • NifaNifa Oklahoma City, OKPosts: 324Member
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by birdycephon
    Its a known fact that sequels usually do better than the original.

    The first and most obvious question is:

    Better in what sense?

     

    My second question is:

    What authority has established this fact?

     

    Not that I agree or disagree....

    Were the StarWars sequels better then the originals?  Anyone with a brain would probably say no, but they made more money, so I guess it depends on how you define success...

     

     

     

    Of course money, its always about money. 

     That seems a silly way to look at it....

     

    Here are the top 10 grossing films of all time, ajusted for inflation (I use film as MMORPG stats are hard to come by

       

    1 Gone with the Wind  -$3,301,400,000 1939

    2 Avatar  -$2,782,300,000 2009

    3 Star Wars - $2,710,800,000 1977

    4 Titanic - $2,413,800,000T 1997

    5 The Sound of Music -$2,269,800,000 1965

    6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - $2,216,800,000 1982

    7 The Ten Commandments - $2,098,600,000 1956

    8 Doctor Zhivago - $1,988,600,000 1965

    9 Jaws - $1,945,100,000 1975

    10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $1,746,100,000 1937

     

    While these are some good, some even great film, are these your 10 favorite?  Do you think these represent the best films ever made?

     

    Here is a list of the 10 ten highest rated movies on IMDB-

     

     

    The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

    The Godfather (1972)

    The Godfather: Part II (1974)

    Pulp Fiction (1994)

    The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

    12 Angry Men (1957)

    The Dark Knight (2008)

    Schindler's List (1993)

    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

    Fight Club (1999)

     

    Strange....Not a single duplicate....

     

    I'm not saying that finatial succes isn't important, after all, finatial failure means no game, but the best games are those that can balence great content with a great profit model.

     

    Draw your on conclusions....

     

    To be perfectly fair, of the films on the first list, Gone with the Wind was released in 1940 (and it is one of my favorite films, on my top ten list--which does not at all match the internet's top ten with the exception of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy--which I coulnt as a single film), The Ten Commandments was released in 1956, Doctor Zhivago was released in 1965, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was first shown in 1937/released in 1938 (Disney's first full-length feature release and the first full length cel animated film). All but two films on the second list were released in the past 40 years, most (exceptions being, of course, The Godfather films, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and 12 Angry Men) after the introduction of the internet.

    Keep in mind, as well, that the 2003 version of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was not filmed as a sequel. All three films were filmed as one continuous, single film over something like 18 months' time, then cut into 3 films in the editing room (thank God--who could sit through 14 hours in a theater?!), so it is not a true sequel.

    And Talinguard, yes, Empire Strikes Back is widely regarded as the best of the Star Wars films and it is, in fact, a sequel. ;)

    Firebrand Art

    "You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman

    Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,744Member Uncommon

    "You should give me a high quality product endlesly, completely free of charge." -Customer

    "Sure, why not?"  -Bankrupt/Indie Companies

    "Um, that's not how this works..."  -Companies still in business

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • AdamaiAdamai derbyPosts: 469Member
    ok dont take offence

    noobs.. its a word used in game and now in real life to try identify the not so knowlegable on subject of the basic concepts. as for games and expabsions its really quut sinple.. they are rushed and not veey well thought out so a shoddy product ensues.. i know because all conpanies ive worked for in my life opperate in this exact same way.. its why there is such thngs as product recalls. its why wow was remade.. and its why games need patches and expansiibs... and its all because of greed.. developers have one thing in mind wheb they make a game!!! how much money they can get from their customers. thats how simple it is. games suck because developers are only interested in the money side of things.. its why all games look like wow, wow was a success a multi billion dollar investment that was sold well.. ofcourse developers want to copy that.. and thats the problem. GREED. if i ever had enough cash i would make a game for the players. not for money. it would be free too with no cash shop and players would love it so much. volunteers would run the game. non proffit organisation.


    we will never see this.
  • daltaniousdaltanious waPosts: 2,144Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Talinguard

    Keep in mind as you read this, I’m speaking of traditional pay-to-play MMORPG’s.  Also, keep in mind I’m not going 

    .... more blah blah blah ....

    • deal with design issues....

    Until more games develop innovative economies and endgames, virtually all games will follow this cycle, most ending in failure. 

    Huh? You can not be serious. Your entire post is joke, right? For me it is impossible to understand in any other way. Maybe we should go even further your suggestions .... to have one single game in the world for all players with no expansions.

  • StrommStromm BrisbanePosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by Talinguard

    Keep in mind as you read this, I’m speaking of traditional pay-to-play MMORPG’s.  Also, keep in mind I’m not going to address the real world financial consequence, not to say these aspects aren’t  important, but for the sake of this post, I’d like to focus on how it affects the game from a player point-of-view.  This post is just my thoughts on the topic and curious if anyone wants to add anything or thinks my assesment is incorrect.

     

    Adding items and content is done for several reasons.

    • Give players new places to grind
    • Distract players from poorly thought out end-games
    • Reinvigorate currency

     

    Of all of those the last one is most important.  Think about it.  At the beginning of a game there are thousands of items that would offer your character improvement and you have very little currency to obtain these items.  Anything that can be done in game, is done more efficiently (read: easier) with more powerful items.  So items become a means to an end.

    Six months or a year later give-or-take (in most games), if you're a "regular player", you have most of what you need/ want and you've managed to save a lot of items and money.....

    Think about that....Let it sink in.  The more you play the more you money and items you have and the less you need what remains in the world, said another way, the overall demand for items falls, and supply of currency rises (the very definition of inflation).  Developers in turn are left with creating drains, which again, give value to in game currency.  This creates a very developer centric economy, insted of a player centric one.

     The point is not that every player acquires everything they want and don't need money anymore, the point is, that when you start out, on day one, if the sword is your weapon of choice, then there may be hundreds of swords that would offer you some improvement, but a year later, there may be just 2 or 3. 

    Think about how that affects the game.....If you’re a PvE'er then there is less for you to accomplish.  Finding people to do the quests or grind the gear that you want becomes a lot more difficult.  PvP players, once they feel they have acquired the gear they need/ want look to combat with other players, but few have the stamina to kill players endlessly, day after day with little feeling of actually accomplishing anything other than acquiring "points" (which are little more than another form of currency used to buy stuff).  Games like Warhammer Online offered a fresh perspective, but trading the same keep back and forth 10 times a day, also gets lame. 

    At the end of the day, creating new content is about:

    • -Adding new items and scenery, which ironically just dilutes the player population over a wider area....
    • Adding new more powerful items.  Which just puts people back to the grind, distracting them from a lack of end game.
    • Reinvigorates the games currency as each player will have a whole new menu of items to pick from and sell in player markets making items not only a means-to-an-end, but ends unto themselves.

    In the end, expansions, in most games (Eve being an exception because of how its economy works) are just ways to deal with design issues....

    Until more games develop innovative economies and endgames, virtually all games will follow this cycle, most ending in failure. 

    Your assessment is incorrect, I could not disagree more.

    Game currency is the least significant reason to produce an expansion. In the case of earlier games like Everquest it was actually a complete non-issue and even current games like WoW it is of no conseqence.

    Your first and second points, new content and new items, are the primary motivations behind expansions.

    Populations do not get diluted, they migrate to the new areas/content. In some cases this is a problem, leaving barren empty areas of obsolete content/itemisation, requiring band-aid solutions like accelerated XP, Cross Realm Zones, level downscaling, or out and out replacement with new more integrated content.

    The item chase/grind is fundamental to these games, whether it be crafted gear, mob dropped, quest rewards or token based.

    "... innovative economies and endgames ..."? Hehe classic. Please enlighten me, how does your economic theory address the issues relating to content consumption? You're not allowed to say new content, by definition that would be an expansion.

     

  • Zeus.CMZeus.CM ZagrebPosts: 1,788Member

    The question is why they don't add content little by little instead of making one large update and charge for it? Because, they need to make profit and charge players for their work. The problem is, players don't want to pay for small updates (that's actually P2P) but they would rather pay one huge update - expansion (that's B2P). Top quality MMO such as Gw2 for example will offer both free small updates and huge expansion every year or two for a box price. People, would argue that P2P is better because those small updates would have greater expectations than in B2P game because you pay for them each month through monthly fees.

    The other point presented by the original poster is that if the end game is good enough why make expansions? Because, no mather how fun and awesome game is, it can become stale and boring after a long period of time. Players will demand new things, thats what mmos are all about. Evolving world. Otherwise, most mmos would die after a year or two without any updates.

    Edit: I'll also add that there is a reason why any mmo population spikes up after an update.

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAPosts: 676Member Common
    And Talinguard, yes, Empire Strikes Back is widely regarded as the best of the Star Wars films and it is, in fact, a sequel. ;)

    I think the movie thing has been beaten to death, but I would agree, sometimes sequels are best and there are few examples better then SW:ESB.

    Good call.

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zeus.CM

    The question is why they don't add content little by little instead of making one large update and charge for it? Because, they need to make profit and charge players for their work. The problem is, players don't want to pay for small updates (that's actually P2P) but they would rather pay one huge update - expansion (that's B2P). Top quality MMO such as Gw2 for example will offer both free small updates and huge expansion every year or two for a box price. People, would argue that P2P is better because those small updates would have greater expectations than in B2P game because you pay for them each month through monthly fees.

    The other point presented by the original poster is that if the end game is good enough why make expansions? Because, no mather how fun and awesome game is, it can become stale and boring after a long period of time. Players will demand new things, thats what mmos are all about. Evolving world. Otherwise, most mmos would die after a year or two without any updates.

    Edit: I'll also add that there is a reason why any mmo population spikes up after an update.

    Thing is, they do. Having to restrain myself from pointing out something very common and simple that a child can see and understand it but i'll try.

     

    Let's go with WoW just cause its the easiest example. This is the general cycle of WoW patches. Expansion comes out, new dungeons, new zones, new levels, new quests, etc. And 1-2 new raids, generally with some kind of raid lockout progression format to them. Little while down the line while you're still busy trying to gear up to tackle the raids(unless you're the best of the best) they release a content patch, NOT a new expansion, but a smaller content patch releasing more raids and dungeons and stuff for you to do, not a full on gigantic content patch but just new stuff to hold you over and maybe release another raid. Then comes the end of the expansion cycle where the end game tier raids for the expansion are released, and maybe even more content outside of raiding is released and then the wait for next expansion sets in.

     

    So as you can see, games do add content little by little, while ALSO releasing those big major content expansions. It's the only logical thing for any mmo developer to do if they want to retain any semblance of an audience. The fact that this thread has reached 5 pages is stupid. The question proposed in the thread title is stupid. Tired of all the stupid people on this forum.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • laokokolaokoko TaipeiPosts: 2,003Member

    Quite simply the asnwer is money.

    Company want to keep player interested by offereing newer conent so they don't quit.  Not only that, company get money from selling expansion too.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.