[logicalmonster]

> Everyone wants buy once, updated forever software.

People pretend they hate Paradox Interactive's DLC-based business model, but I like knowing that the games I buy will very likely be well-developed with many years of extra work put into them. More commercial software should take a little inspiration from them in terms of figuring out a way to fund and work on projects long term.

For those that don't know, Paradox is a game publisher that often release a basic shell of a grand strategy game that serves as a platform for DLC. The bad news is you have to shell out more money every so often for the biggest new features: but the good news is that they're continuously making big improvements and adding big features and have an incentive to make them as good as possible.

I confess that I don't know exactly if this model would work for a text editor, but nothing is as off-putting to me as software subscriptions when something can work locally.

[badsectoracula]

On the completely opposite side of this spectrum, i avoid any game that i see having DLC getting pumped out constantly - Paradox being one developer i avoid.

I want to buy the final full game whenever the developers are done with it, not buy pieces of it. If the developers want to add new stuff they can always make a sequel.

Because of this i tend to wait until some "game of the year edition" is out and the developer has started working on a new game (only a very tiny fraction of developers are going to bother making DLCs for their previous games instead of focusing their development efforts towards the new games).

The only exception to that is MMOs and the like that by their nature need updates and IMO the best approach there is having a subscription to fund the game's development. Of course the greedy powers that be figured out that giving the game for free and monetizing microtransactions on the easily preyed upon "whales" makes more money regardless of the detriment that may have on the games' design.

[logicalmonster]

I get where you're coming from. I suspect that a lot of peoples' aversion to all DLC stems from really greedy phone games, where the trend has been to try and monetize either extremely basic functionality or the ability to play more often through gems/coins/diamonds/stars/etc. Good DLC like XCOM 2's War of the Chosen basically transformed and improved the experience of the entire game and can be very much worth it.

For many kinds of games with a level of complexity beyond a shoot-em-up, I feel like these kinds of games would be very difficult to make without a lengthier iterative process that probably requires an additional revenue stream.

As the example given, Paradox makes grand strategy games with intricate war/politics/economics and other game systems that are all interrelated. Ideally, a company has a lot of data and community feedback on the tiniest minute details to figure out what elements work and what elements don't and eventually refine the systems into the best possible version.

That said, I'm not saying it's impossible to avoid adding DLC and still fund quality long-term development. A different good game Project Zomboid has been in Steam early access for a decade and is in a very good state and still getting big new features: but those occasional indie gems are the exception, not the rule. With most of Paradox's games, you basically know that it'll be supported and improved for years specifically because of their business model.