[cmaggard]

Not sure about the team bits, but Worms in the 2000s was basically ultra-DLC before DLC even existed. Every 'new' game for a long time kept the vast majority of the old bits from the previous games, added a few new items, and charged full retail for the privilege.

[abritinthebay]

You just described how sequels work...

[cmaggard]

A sequel implies some sort of continued story or major overhaul, not what would be 1.99 DLC in this day and age.

[abritinthebay]

I refer you to almost the entire output of the 80s & 90s game scene.

Especially platformers.

[1123581321]

cmaggard is being downvoted, but he's quite right. Playing Worms means repeated multiplayer matches on a handful of maps, with a couple dozen weapons that don't change. Sequels repeated most of the maps and weapons and added a few more, and these would indeed be small IAP or perhaps $5-10 DLC on Steam if made today. I think it's fair to say that the sequels were more derivative than the sequels of most other franchises since at least those franchises could add new campaigns (Worms added a campaign-esque experience at some point that was mainly a chain of single-player matches) or do significant graphics updates (which Worms could not meaningfully do since its cartoon graphics and physics were good enough early on in the series.)

[intoverflow2]

> not what would be 1.99 DLC in this day and age. To make your point valid we have to completely ignore the lack of easy payment/DRM platforms like Steam to sell these "1.99 DLCs" we also have to ignore that 2d gaming in particular has been massively devalued since the 90s/00s because of the mobile game race to the bottom and steam sales.