So you are against updates just in principle lol. You’d rather games not get better because of a misguided idea that updates being a thing mean games aren’t “finished” at release.
You also seem to think that only online-only games get frequent updates. That’s not true. Take a game like vampire survivors for example. It must have had a hundred updates by now, and it’s a single player offline game (though they also recently added online multiplayer in a free update). That game will be playable in 30 years time too. Why wouldn’t it?
You are mistaking games that require a persistent online connection as “games that get updates”.
Basically yes, because many are unnecessary updates. I don’t care about them. Its actually cringe for me when I open a game and see “gahhh NOW what did they fricken change ??”. For many games, its usually not a good thing either, just from games I’ve played. Thats of course not always true. A bug fix here and there isnt the worst. But it rarely stops there.
"Constant updates " and "required online for single player " are often (usually) tied together. They can be separate yes, and those examples exist and are fine.
I still stand by the fact that there were millions of games made before constant internet and updates were a thing, and maaaaany of them are very good. I mean, I also hate when software devs think moving around all our menu buttons and shit (also introducing more bugs) and re releasing a product makes it “better” when it worked just fine for years. Its like they feel the need to change unnessesary shit, probably because the CEO told their boss it needs to be done so line go up. Who knows. Changing stuff for the sake of change does nothing.
So you are against updates just in principle lol. You’d rather games not get better because of a misguided idea that updates being a thing mean games aren’t “finished” at release.
You also seem to think that only online-only games get frequent updates. That’s not true. Take a game like vampire survivors for example. It must have had a hundred updates by now, and it’s a single player offline game (though they also recently added online multiplayer in a free update). That game will be playable in 30 years time too. Why wouldn’t it?
You are mistaking games that require a persistent online connection as “games that get updates”.
Basically yes, because many are unnecessary updates. I don’t care about them. Its actually cringe for me when I open a game and see “gahhh NOW what did they fricken change ??”. For many games, its usually not a good thing either, just from games I’ve played. Thats of course not always true. A bug fix here and there isnt the worst. But it rarely stops there.
"Constant updates " and "required online for single player " are often (usually) tied together. They can be separate yes, and those examples exist and are fine.
I still stand by the fact that there were millions of games made before constant internet and updates were a thing, and maaaaany of them are very good. I mean, I also hate when software devs think moving around all our menu buttons and shit (also introducing more bugs) and re releasing a product makes it “better” when it worked just fine for years. Its like they feel the need to change unnessesary shit, probably because the CEO told their boss it needs to be done so line go up. Who knows. Changing stuff for the sake of change does nothing.