Aradune said:Great thread. Especially great because this is exactly what we need to hear from you guys. I don't think there is a release schedule that works for every game. EQ did very well doing 9-12 months expansions (at least while I was there). Over 80% of the sub bought the expansions.
Just to let you know, once we launch the team will split into an expansion and a live team. The live team will not only make tweaks and fixes, but they will add smaller amounts of content, revamp areas that are getting stale, etc.
But in recent years we've seen DLC take off and often it's released in smaller chunks but more frqeuently. We're not ruling out this approach either (in fact, not ruling out anything at this point). We need to release content at a rate that works for the majority of our playerbase, making sure the majority of players do not run out of content. That much is clear. The finer details are TBD and like I said, we appreciate threads like this and hearing from you.
My developer side is tingling with this. I'm curious do yall utilize any agile frameworks?
You mention two teams but what if one side wants to work on new content vs other fixes.
Scrum framework basically is a single team unit 3-7 people working on a set of items to be included in the next release but I can see this being utilize per department, so coding, artist etc.
A scrumb board per department would have items to be done and each person can take a task they would like to do either tis new or older content/fixes/tweaks. Of course each item would have to have type of priority as the patch timeline for live vs expansion differ but its nothing that could be thought out.
I guess I am asking have yall looked at scrum type framework for smaller teams or how will the 2 teams as stated above be picked? I'm more of less curious from a professional statepoint as I'm a developer myself.
Also a comment on the timeline for expansions, how cool would it be for the players to be involved in the expansion? Take Velious in eq1. What if the lore on discovering velious was broken into dlc's to experience the lore because it on going at the current time of the players, then when say Velious if released its an actual expansion. Id like as a player to be involved in helping to discovey new lands and hel build the outpost and the boats, then the final voyage to the big expansion. SO much can be expanded on vs throwing players on a boat with a backstory of how the gnomes discovered it all then bam here it is.
So i guess the dcl is optional and the expansion would be required for that area. SO Velious example, dlc can be about the exploring the lore in discovering Velious that launched prior to the expansion and the expansion would have that dlc. Rough idea but could be intresting to actually play out the lore from a expansion release.
To involve the players in the Expansion process you can use game mechanics for uncovering or discovering new areas. Giving the players a sense that their progress in the game mirrors the development progress. And that by unlocking specific parts of the game, they determine where the next round of expansion content will be applied. Sort of like the community is uncovering the game a piece at a time in one of many possible directions. It could be simple like, a certain amount of people need to complete a series of quests unlocking secret information about an area not complete yet, or click on a mirror behind a boss enough times to open a portal to a new dimension.
But the main issue Brad points out is they need to establish and monitor the development of a majority of the playerbase. And that only comes with testing.
I know Im in the vast minority when I say this and please keep that in mind when looking at the question asked as it is a personal choice and most will not agree with my view.
I played EQ for about 2 years and left due to lack of content. Other examples would be WoW which I played til we beat the content of the first expansion and then grew bored of waiting for more. Rift, Tera, and the other MMOs I played I didnt even make it to the first expansion due to lack of new content.
For me its a game to play and that's it. Keep my guild and myself entertained and we stay. No more content and its time for me to move on.
Cold and egocentric... yes.. but its how I play MMOs. Harvesting, trade skills, fishing... none of this interests me unless it is needed for the endgame and if possible, even then, I'll leave those tasks to people in the guild who enjoy them as there are always a few. So for me it is bring on the expansions and/or new content.
That being said I know this will not be the case in Pantheon and I'm good with that. Im really looking forward to playing it and I hope Im around for at least 1 expansion.
Aradune said:Great thread. Especially great because this is exactly what we need to hear from you guys. I don't think there is a release schedule that works for every game. EQ did very well doing 9-12 months expansions (at least while I was there). Over 80% of the sub bought the expansions.
Just to let you know, once we launch the team will split into an expansion and a live team. The live team will not only make tweaks and fixes, but they will add smaller amounts of content, revamp areas that are getting stale, etc.
But in recent years we've seen DLC take off and often it's released in smaller chunks but more frqeuently. We're not ruling out this approach either (in fact, not ruling out anything at this point). We need to release content at a rate that works for the majority of our playerbase, making sure the majority of players do not run out of content. That much is clear. The finer details are TBD and like I said, we appreciate threads like this and hearing from you.
Hi Brad.
Thank you for the reply. This maybe far too early to say and I'm totally expecting you to come back and say you can't answer the question becasue it deals with things years in the future but I was wondering something.
In previous games (and I'm mainly thinking EverQuest here) there was an expansion release cycle. It doesn't actually matter what that cycle was but basically what happened was every X amount of time new content would be released and the entire player population would rush to the new content and all the old content would be left abandoned and no one would ever go there. Is there a plan in place with Pantheon to keep older content more fresh so that newer players don't have to skip entire old expansions because no one goes there anymore?
I'm thinking maybe adding new quest NPCs to old zones or perhaps putting the entrance to a new dungeon or raid in an old zone or perhaps re-tuning the level of mobs in old zones if the level cap is ever increased.
Obviously new content is going to be released as well and as the total amount of content increases some zones are naturally going to be less busy than others but is there a plan to combat this as much as possible?
I really like the idea of DLC btw..have experienced this with other games, and its kind of like a little tease to the up coming expansion itself in some cases. Yes make it optional, but knowing me curiosity will get the better of me and I'll have to have it anyways. :) And dlcs could be something to flesh the game out more, some Dev thinking ..hey we should have added this or that to Pantheon just after release. I don't take the idea that its something that was already in the game but not put out to us, rather an idea that came along after the fact, and the Dev team liked it and made it a DLC. Guess I'm not very cynical when it comes to stuff like that. :)
Cana
I'm not sure this is a question that can be answered without seeing how quickly the content is plowed through, and not just through the top tier of players, but taken as an average play through of major content.
One concern I have, just from reading this thread - and I concede that this concern may be me mis-representing the kind of game Pantheon is setting out to be.
Raids / Top Tier Guilds:
We're already seeing mention of content release being determined by the completion of raids and what amounts to "end game" content. I'm under the impression that Pantheon is going for a more horizontal model of gameplay, and one that isn't focus entirely on the end game as much as the experience getting there. Would that be correct? And if so, wouldn't this mean that using end-game content completion as the metric for expansion release timelines is going against that mindset?
And on that topic, it sounds like a few people are using the completion of these raids and end-game content by top tier guilds as their measuring stick. Should not the release dates be determined by an average number-set of completion that spans the entire pantheon population, and not just measured by the completion of those elite, top-tier, guilds? That also seems to run counter to the horizontal progression mindset, when time tables are determined by the end game population. Sure, it sucks when you're left twiddling your thumbs as a member of an elite guild, but no less than it sucks for the unheard majority that isn't a part of that end game crowd.
Now, I love end game, and I love raids, and I fully intend to join in on all that nonsense - but y'know what? I've also seen enough expansions piss off players to the extent that it scares many off. Changes to classes and zones and drop rates that just cause an uproar. I'd prefer the developers take enough time testing expansions before potentially scaring off a portion of the playerbase with ill-advised changes. It happens in every MMO, and it's a dam shame. If a way to keep this from happening is take some extra time for major expansions, than I am all for it.
I agree with Vandraad in that there is no optimum timeframe. I also agree with Tralyan that the timeframe shouldn't be based on the top tier guild. There will always be the locusts outpacing content, but, I think the pace of expansion development should be based more on the average/above average time-framed player finishing what the developers would consider "completing the content." You definitely don't want a large majority of players becoming bored and begin moving on and testing the water with other games.
And, I like your comment Aradune that there will be a split team working on live versus expansions as well; however, I'd again like to suggest instead of simply creating new areas like even EQ did with Kunark & Velious, perhaps have the "Live" team work on expanding the existing world as well instead of having an expansion with only an entire new continent. One of the reasons EQ's population became so fractured was due to so many older zones being unnecessary/irrelevant, and, simply due to the sheer number of zones - many became ghosttowns. So, a bit off topic, but I would lump it in with this discussion that Expansion's release dates need to be controlled by the average player (develop resources ending) and also a server size needs to dynamic as well and not capped at X number with research being done on zone population counts etc. (again based on available resources).
Raidan said:I agree with Vandraad in that there is no optimum timeframe. I also agree with Tralyan that the timeframe shouldn't be based on the top tier guild. There will always be the locusts outpacing content, but, I think the pace of expansion development should be based more on the average/above average time-framed player finishing what the developers would consider "completing the content." You definitely don't want a large majority of players becoming bored and begin moving on and testing the water with other games.
And, I like your comment Aradune that there will be a split team working on live versus expansions as well; however, I'd again like to suggest instead of simply creating new areas like even EQ did with Kunark & Velious, perhaps have the "Live" team work on expanding the existing world as well instead of having an expansion with only an entire new continent. One of the reasons EQ's population became so fractured was due to so many older zones being unnecessary/irrelevant, and, simply due to the sheer number of zones - many became ghosttowns. So, a bit off topic, but I would lump it in with this discussion that Expansion's release dates need to be controlled by the average player (develop resources ending) and also a server size needs to dynamic as well and not capped at X number with research being done on zone population counts etc. (again based on available resources).
I don't disagree with any of this, but I have two thoughts/questions about the issue in EQ of a server's population becoming too spread out (and some zones becoming ghost towns) when new expansions increased the number of zones.
1. As you said, part of the problem was that server populations stayed the same as the number of zones increased. How would you propose to counteract that? For example, would you suggest planned server mergers to coincide with expansions? As a general matter, I would like to see VR put all players on notice at the outset that servers WILL be merged as necessary to maintain healthy populations. If the players know that server merges are possible, they will not freak out as much about a potential merger. Likewise, I would like to see VR address overpopulation by occasionally opening limited windows for server transfers. Do mergers and transfers have implications for server economies and sometimes give toxic players a clean slate? Yes. But I would still like to see mergers and transfers (controlled by VR) on the table for balancing server populations.
2. One of the main reasons that old zones became irrelevant when new expansion zones were released is that, by and large, the newer zones were simply better places to play, either because of superior loot, lower-HP mobs, or higher experience modifiers. One way to keep old zones relevant is simply to keep the risk/reward roughly equivalent for new zones and not introduce total easy-mode zones into the game thereby making almost all older zones horribly inefficient by comparison (see Shadows of Luclin).
Aradune said:Great thread. Especially great because this is exactly what we need to hear from you guys. I don't think there is a release schedule that works for every game. EQ did very well doing 9-12 months expansions (at least while I was there). Over 80% of the sub bought the expansions.
Just to let you know, once we launch the team will split into an expansion and a live team. The live team will not only make tweaks and fixes, but they will add smaller amounts of content, revamp areas that are getting stale, etc.
But in recent years we've seen DLC take off and often it's released in smaller chunks but more frqeuently. We're not ruling out this approach either (in fact, not ruling out anything at this point). We need to release content at a rate that works for the majority of our playerbase, making sure the majority of players do not run out of content. That much is clear. The finer details are TBD and like I said, we appreciate threads like this and hearing from you.
I know a decision hasn't been made yet, but I hope you avoid the EQ2 style mini-expansions that were short lived. When you buy game and pay a subscription, many of us would get quickly irritated with getting hit for another fee every few months. And the reality is, if the groups of people move to the new content we’re going to have to buy it. Please stick to the EQ 1 or WOW style 9-12 or 18-24 month expansions, even if it means paying more.
More expansions, regardless of price = more player fragmentation.
Another model I think would work to keep players together is the software-as-a-service model where if you buy the game and pay a subscription, then all expansions are included as long as you maintain your subscription. Maybe offer a slightly higher priced sub, like $1 or $2 more per month, that gives you all expansions for free at a discounted rate.
I like more of a big expansion to be in the 6-10 month range. Keeping my attention for longer than that is pretty hard unless there is somethign to work on. I mean just runniogn the same raids and dungeons etc can only be done so much. I like to build, explore, craft, fight new stuff and challenbge new obstacles, no matterhow difficult. Longer than 6 months and its hard to do.
I would say that update in the 1-3 week range is a good sticking cycle. And not just for "bug fixes and performance improvements" that nobody will every even really notice. Things that aren't really changing the game but are building upon established mechanics and the like. Also adding in new armors/weapons, crafting stuffs and quest lines could be in these.
6-8 months for feature updates on a bigger scale and adding newer main features to the game in these. New raids, new zones, new cities, mew bosses, etc.
10+ months for major updates and expansions. Give players new things to do in the smaller set of updates, but use these for major game altering expansions. Completely new continental type of zones with smaller ones in them. New major story plots. New classes and races can be added. The list goes on.
bigdogchris said:Aradune said:Great thread. Especially great because this is exactly what we need to hear from you guys. I don't think there is a release schedule that works for every game. EQ did very well doing 9-12 months expansions (at least while I was there). Over 80% of the sub bought the expansions.
Just to let you know, once we launch the team will split into an expansion and a live team. The live team will not only make tweaks and fixes, but they will add smaller amounts of content, revamp areas that are getting stale, etc.
But in recent years we've seen DLC take off and often it's released in smaller chunks but more frqeuently. We're not ruling out this approach either (in fact, not ruling out anything at this point). We need to release content at a rate that works for the majority of our playerbase, making sure the majority of players do not run out of content. That much is clear. The finer details are TBD and like I said, we appreciate threads like this and hearing from you.
I know a decision hasn't been made yet, but I hope you avoid the EQ2 style mini-expansions that were short lived. When you buy game and pay a subscription, many of us would get quickly irritated with getting hit for another fee every few months. And the reality is, if the groups of people move to the new content we’re going to have to buy it. Please stick to the EQ 1 or WOW style 9-12 or 18-24 month expansions, even if it means paying more.
More expansions, regardless of price = more player fragmentation.
Another model I think would work to keep players together is the software-as-a-service model where if you buy the game and pay a subscription, then all expansions are included as long as you maintain your subscription. Maybe offer a slightly higher priced sub, like $1 or $2 more per month, that gives you all expansions for free at a discounted rate.
I rather enjoyed the "Adventure Packs" or whatever they were called in EQ2. Content is content, and that game seemed to be starved of it at times. It was basically a mini-xpac in between big xpacs to help keep things moving. The standard xpacs never seemed to offer enough content and this was their way of bridging the gap. I reflect on my time in that game and I can't imagine playing through T5 without Acts of War, or T7 without The Fallen Dynasty. Would it have been better if AoW came standard with T5 vanilla, and TFD was a part of the KoS expansion? Probably, but that just wasn't feasible for them. I think opening up the door to ADV packs gives the development team some extra flexibility with how they release their content. "Zones X, Y, and Z" don't need to be rushed by the "xpac deadline" for implementation. You can start working on them, but you have another solid 6 months before they need to be released compared to other xpac content being actively worked on.
I don't remember a single person who didn't buy the ADV packs when they came out. It was automatic. ADV Packs weren't something you would see every few months. You would see one, at most, in between expansions ... and they were definitely something we looked forward to and were excited about. I will admit that my experience was biased because I was in a hardcore raiding guild so of course we would look at "new content" like this ... just like we did with any other new content. I remember when SotL (Spirits of the Lost) was added in a patch update. New, huge raid zone. Same with Lyceum of Abhorrence ... new raid zone. Those patches were really meaningful ... not quite the effect of of an ADV pack, but it felt nice getting some extra content that maybe should have been included on launch or with xpac purchases, for free.
To summarize ... I think it's good to add "free content" via patch updates as necessary. But I'm also happy to see scheduled content releases via ADV packs ... but it shouldn't be more than 1 per expansion cycle. TFD was an amazing ADV pack because it really had it's own feel/theme for content. The EQ2 team did a great job with that one and I think if all ADV packs could be modeled around that level of quality, we'd be in really good shape. People don't want to feel gamed by the system thinking they are paying for something they should have gotten anyways ... but you didn't get that with TFD. You could tell that their team really busted their tails coming up with something unique/refreshing and I think it was pulled off quite well.
I guess in a perfect world 15 bucks a month would pay for content releases without making me fork out another 40 bucks a year for a content drop.
For me I would just like content released as it's completed instead of bunching it all up in a expansion.
$180.00 a year to play any one game in this day and age of so many games is on the upper end of what I mind paying and sticking me for that extra 40 just feels kinda dirty.
It was all fine and dandy in EQ up until they released a broken expansion (GoD) and I felt ripped off so that was when I quit playing.
So I guess to sum it up for me it boils down to if you are gonna charge a premium price for your game then the quality really needs to be there with each and every release.
Thanks in advance,
Kiz~
Gnog said:I don't disagree with any of this, but I have two thoughts/questions about the issue in EQ of a server's population becoming too spread out (and some zones becoming ghost towns) when new expansions increased the number of zones.
1. As you said, part of the problem was that server populations stayed the same as the number of zones increased. How would you propose to counteract that? For example, would you suggest planned server mergers to coincide with expansions? As a general matter, I would like to see VR put all players on notice at the outset that servers WILL be merged as necessary to maintain healthy populations. If the players know that server merges are possible, they will not freak out as much about a potential merger. Likewise, I would like to see VR address overpopulation by occasionally opening limited windows for server transfers. Do mergers and transfers have implications for server economies and sometimes give toxic players a clean slate? Yes. But I would still like to see mergers and transfers (controlled by VR) on the table for balancing server populations.
2. One of the main reasons that old zones became irrelevant when new expansion zones were released is that, by and large, the newer zones were simply better places to play, either because of superior loot, lower-HP mobs, or higher experience modifiers. One way to keep old zones relevant is simply to keep the risk/reward roughly equivalent for new zones and not introduce total easy-mode zones into the game thereby making almost all older zones horribly inefficient by comparison (see Shadows of Luclin).
Gnog,
Good points.
1. I'm not a fan of server mergers due to different economies, server reputations, etc. And, I would view them only as a last resort to help with server populations. I'm not a fan of individual server transfers ever for the same reason. "If" mergers occured and name changes were forced due to similar/same names - I'd like to see some hoverable/right clickable info on the player that gives the info like Formerly Raidan Xegony Server - to keep more of that server rep intact.
However, I was more referring to having VR increase the server population cap (say it was 1500 at launch) to 1750 at the first expansion, based on research of average #s in popular zones. But that leads to point #2...
2. Simply increasing populationwon't eliminate ghost town zones, and I don't disagree at all -- I think some of it is impossible to avoid with vertical progression. But I've shared this idea in the past using Unrest as an example. Instead of having completely new zones always with new expansions (Kunark/Velious) - expand the basement behind the locked door tunneling to an underground area. And, to combat additional trains, have it be a new zone similar to Guktop/Gukbottom OR have a new zone out leading to some sort of sewer drain into Dagnor's Cauldron. Or potentially evening zoning out into Kedge Keep.
I also don't want to see zones revamped each expansion as one of my favorite aspects of MMOs is learning zones and gaining mastery over them, but again, potentially through research on population statistics: zones like The Warrens in EQ (which was largely unused) could be looked at at being revamped to keep players closer versus always expanding outward to new continents.
And, most of the time, I experienced the opposite experience of you in EQ. Equipment from new expansions trivialized the old world content that had considerably fewer hps (mainly talking about twinks here), but it also applies to leveling higher characers in old zones. And, I have shared my thoughts with that several times, but I won't go OT here.
Raidan said:1. I'm not a fan of server mergers due to different economies, server reputations, etc. And, I would view them only as a last resort to help with server populations. I'm not a fan of individual server transfers ever for the same reason. "If" mergers occured and name changes were forced due to similar/same names - I'd like to see some hoverable/right clickable info on the player that gives the info like Formerly Raidan Xegony Server - to keep more of that server rep intact.
However, I was more referring to having VR increase the server population cap (say it was 1500 at launch) to 1750 at the first expansion, based on research of average #s in popular zones.
I think that's a fair position. My concern is that, if you increase the server population cap without also doing a merger (or allowing transfers), you are banking on an influx of new players to the server. Sometimes that does not happen, for various reasons. More generally, I think I just place a very high value on having a properly populated server. To me there is almost nothing worse than having a server slowly die out. And, on the other side of the equation, my experience with server mergers has actually been quite good. The terrible consequences that people predict will come with a merger just haven't come to pass in my experience.
2. Simply increasing populationwon't eliminate ghost town zones, and I don't disagree at all -- I think some of it is impossible to avoid with vertical progression. But I've shared this idea in the past using Unrest as an example. Instead of having completely new zones always with new expansions (Kunark/Velious) - expand the basement behind the locked door tunneling to an underground area. And, to combat additional trains, have it be a new zone similar to Guktop/Gukbottom OR have a new zone out leading to some sort of sewer drain into Dagnor's Cauldron. Or potentially evening zoning out into Kedge Keep.
This is just a great idea. I like it a lot. On the other hand, in prior games it has sometimes been cool to explore an entire new continent. I suppose a balance would be best. Tying this back to the thread, perhaps the existing-zone expansions that you describe would come in the form of DLCs at shorter intervals, while the full-blown addition of multiple new zones (such as a continent) would come at much longer intervals of 12-18 months.
Sarim said:Personally I would prefer long cycles between expansions. I also don't like smaller content updates that happen too often...those feel sort of like quest markers to me: "Hey, come on over here, there's interesting new stuff here!". Especially since these areas are usually promoted when released, so instead of exploring and discovering them, you are lead there by the hand.
I'm very much for frequent updates (patches) that improve existing content or fix problems though!
This sums it up for me.
@Gnog
I agree with server population - and it was one of the main reasons I left VG. However, every MMO that I've played that has lasted 5+ years all experience the same problem of too many zones, or, rather, older zones being irrelevant due to the newer zones. So, how to you combat that? Partly I think it is by having slower expansion releases, but, even then, you're only delaying the inevitable. Ultimately, you need to have reasons why people go back to these zones. And, even if progenies (not sold on the system) are a thing, typically later expansions = better gear even in lower levels so most likely the older zones will still be ghost towns outside of people returning to power level due to the reduced mob difficulty.
So again - what can be done? Revamps? I loved the old world zones in EQ and I hated Cazic Thule once it was revamped, but I still did use it occasionally. I think part of my attachment/nostalgia for old zones in EQ was that they were never revamped typically - and I developed a huge mastery over them which provided a large sense of achivement. But, if the world from Launch was dynamic, I don't think I would have known any different, or would have been as frustrated with revamps (as it would have seemed to be the norm) and the world wouldn't have had to have been expanded as large, and, maybe the playerbase would have stayed more intact.
So, like you said, perhaps it is a combination of DLC - Expanding or Revamping old zones + new zones (expansion) on a semi-regular timetable release schedule.
As I had mentioned in the experience thread, I think you could keep an influx of new players happy "if" and it's a big if that I've never seen overcome there was some incentive through mentoring, progenies, or my preference - alts, which gave a benefit for players to truly group with new players.
I think a year for new content is good. However I do remember starting later in an MMO and feeling like I had ot catch up. Thankfully I was able to experience some old zones as well as "catch up" to the new zones where everyone was. However when the expansion time became forced at every 5-6 ,months, it was just frantic. I had no time to really go back and do other things or experience other quests or get decent bane weapons or clicky weapons or weapons with unique procs. it seemed too rushed and I would say I was somewhat a casual player- mostly on for a few hours during the weeknights and a chunk of time on the weekends.
As far as forcing old zones to be more relevant, maybe keep banks only in starting cities? and no where else- except in wierd or funny places, like the bankers at the bottom of runnyeye, or Frostone at bottom of crystal caverns. Faction would be neat too, for instance as evil oriented players could go to Kael and bank among the giants. It creates a base or stopping point and worthy spending time for the convenience I think
I'm not sure on the right cadence for "expansions" (and I"m using the term loosely) but one of the things I hate in any game is when expansions start to feel too small.
So, in my mind:
- An expansion should add a significant amount of content to the game world.
- An expansion should include at least one new race/class/system/feature
- An expansion should be something that extends gameplay for the people that are running out of things to do, but shouldn't always focus exclusively on players at the "top"
In most games I've played, between 12 and 24 months seemed to be the right fit, based on the above. Longer than that and people gave up, shorter than that, and the expansions just felt too thin to be worth it.
I will say that I really like Square-Enix's strategy with FFXIV, where have a 6-12 month "tail" of story/dungeon content releases after each expansion, and then the next one is ready about 6 months after that last part of the tail arrives. The content releases are free for players and they keep people interested long enough to wait for the big expansion - mostly anyway. Players always chew up new content faster than developers can make it. Always.
Aradune said:Great thread. Especially great because this is exactly what we need to hear from you guys. I don't think there is a release schedule that works for every game. EQ did very well doing 9-12 months expansions (at least while I was there). Over 80% of the sub bought the expansions.
Just to let you know, once we launch the team will split into an expansion and a live team. The live team will not only make tweaks and fixes, but they will add smaller amounts of content, revamp areas that are getting stale, etc.
But in recent years we've seen DLC take off and often it's released in smaller chunks but more frqeuently. We're not ruling out this approach either (in fact, not ruling out anything at this point). We need to release content at a rate that works for the majority of our playerbase, making sure the majority of players do not run out of content. That much is clear. The finer details are TBD and like I said, we appreciate threads like this and hearing from you.
If it's worth it, people will buy it. DLC has earned a bad rep due to how publishers love to abuse the hell out of it, more so outside the MMO space. As much as I loved the original Mass Effect trilogy (disappointed greatly by Andromeda), all of the DLC for parts 2 and 3 just about were things cut from the base games. And I'm sure that approach is in part what Dreconic is touching on. So try to stay away from that kind of pitfall as goodwill tends to burn fast in that well.
As for updates and expansions, the expansions should take a good long time and their affect on the long term of the game should be evaluated to the point of mundane as this often times is a big kink in what can damage a game long-term or outright kill it. I'd suggest (as meager as my suggestions are) that you make a long plan of what you want to do, and link new mechanics and content to each expansion in a way that has a synergic flow from one to the next. The Lord of the Rings Online kind of did this as well with their non-expansion content updates by telling their story with additional chapters that marched into the expansion. For all that game's faults, that was a nice way of doing things.