But before that had a chance to fail from second system syndrome it was doomed to fail by insane demands from Take 2. News of work on KSP2 could harm sales of KSP1, so when hiring people to work on KSP2 they couldn't mention what they were hiring for. So you had a team who didn't know KSP1, and due to budget constraints were mostly juniors. Then to "save time" they were not allowed to only pick the good parts of the old source code or to even switch engine, they were supposed to just expand the janky KSP1 code base. Obviously without being allowed to talk to the developers of that code base, because secrecy. And no talking to fans about what they would want from a KSP2 either, because, you guessed it, secrecy.
So an inexperienced team disconnected from the fan base was supposed to fix a code base they were not familiar with, without speaking to the people who wrote it, add some cool features to it that the original team never tackled due to engine limitations, and release it to massive fanfare. Surprisingly this did not work. As the project was failing went back on many of those decisions, but it's hard to fix a project that starts off so wrong
Compare to Kitten Space Agency: hire KSP1 devs and KSP1 modders so you have people who can judge what worked and what didn't, start with a home-grown engine that fits the unique demands of a KSP-like game, talk with the community during development. Obviously they aren't far enough along yet to call it a success, but I give them much better chances
You could work on a totally new game, but, I think companies are looking to cut costs by reusing content.
DLCs have a hard cap on possible sales in the same way a new game has a hard cap on possible sales. DLC releases can, and do, bring in new players to the base game.
And releasing a sequel gets you hype and press coverage - potentially expanding your customer base - in a way that releasing updates won’t.
There are some exceptions (No Man’s Sky?) but they are very few and far between.
It’s not about shareholders necessarily. It’s also about sustainability and people paying bills - they live in a capitalist society and can’t choose not to participate at the end of the day. You can’t ask a dozen or more developers to keep working on a game for free for a decade or more. They have to eat too.
The only other option is keep playing the exact same game with little to no changes. Which you can! The original is still available. But if you want it to improve and change over time or receive substantial DLC’s, somebody has to get paid at some point.
Free major updates make your existing customers happy but don't pay salaries. This is why so many games have moved to some kind of ongoing revenue model with Battle Passes, cosmetics, item marketplaces, etc.
Or just eliminate copyright entirely and focus on economic models that are based on funding creation. You raise money to build the thing, and once it's built, it's there for all.
I'm not sure this is true, see Factorio as an example. They released Space Age as a "DLC" but for full price and with clear messaging that it's version 2.0 of the game.
So, you never fall in the trap of Paradox Games and the eternal launch of DLCs for Stellaris/Victoria/Hearths Of Iron/etc?
If I told my boss that I wanted to spend 12 months refactoring our entire system in ways that would benefit our existing customers (who have paid once and won't ever pay again) but likely result in no additional revenue being generated, I doubt that project would be green-lit.
This is what I mean by engine updates that aren't just about graphics but the scaling/capabilities around the core gameplay. Updating Unity again or adding raytracing graphics wouldn't have fixed the actual problems with the rest of the engine.
Instead we get this... 0/2
Of course. If history (and "IME") is any guide, this was all marketing and product manager driven. Creators of all stripes now create the thing THEY want, not the thing paying CUSTOMERS want.
That's perhaps overly cynical and sometimes this is not the case if some new set of features can't be easily done in the architecture of the original, of course.
Also the graphics/lighting seems much improved with a more realistic art style.
Both things which you cannot really retrofit into Cities 1.
$$$. I think they need to design a long-term monetization strategy that does not require new major releases, but rather just more DLC, seasons, etc.