And from a customer perspective, it shouldn't take 8-10 years from one game to the next. Honestly, I like to play things that I already know every now and then. But the thrill of trying something new that feels nonetheless familiar beats that, and I enjoy learning and trying out new things anyway – and being surprised (in a positive way). As much as I like civ 7, I'd be happy to 2-3 expansions, a few civ packs, and civ 8 before 2030. Having games sustained on DLCs for that many years seems to benefit the publisher, the seller/platform, and the studio much more than the players who get fed overpriced content in small doses. And it also gives the studios and publishers an excuse to deliver unfinished products, because development hasn't finished anyway. This probably makes me sound like an old timer or someone blinded by nostalgia. But I do agree that getting content for a beloved game after some years is great, and it often gives us games that are extensive and great (see e.g., Anno 1800 after all seasons as a positive example).
Yet, I do wonder how some companies still manage to live without many-year-encompassing DLC plans and deliver finished and balanced games at release (see Mario Odyssey or Breath of the Wild for example, two huge almost bug-free 10/10 titles on launch day), while others publish bug-ridden unfinished good ideas with very rough edges on all sides, and expect to be able to fix most things and put bandaids on the rest for the next 5-10 years, e.g., civ 5-7 or all PDX titles of the past 10+ years. Makes me feel as if the latter is always a bet I have to make that the game will actually be sell well enough to be finished eventually – or given up because it simply became to old to be kept updated.
