But as we've established, a multiplayer game doesn't die when the servers go down. It just becomes a single player game. So I'm still confused as to why you think it would decrease the game's overall lifespan. Are you taking some sort of amortized average or something?
Not that it really matters. The goal of the extended lifespan is actually not to make a game last into perpetuity. The goal of extending the lifespan is to keep as many players playing for as many calendar days from launch as possible. It's far more valuable to have 100,000 players play for six months after launch than it is to have 10,000 players play for six years. Why? Because 100,000 players possibly buying DLC is a lot better than 10,000. Continued development for the game will only last for another six to sixteen months before the team moves on to other projects. There's a huge dropoff in the revenue stream after that first year.
Sounds like short term profit and flavor of the month fads>long term staying power





Retour en haut





