Not trying to be to much of a Downer.

But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.

I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans

1 Like

It certainly does seem a bit ambitious. My son will be 13 years old after the 10 year period is over, so essentially he will grow up playing Halo: Infinite. That being said, however, I’m looking forward to seeing where it goes.

> 2533274809226598;2:
> It certainly does seem a bit ambitious. My son will be 13 years old after the 10 year period is over, so essentially he will grow up playing Halo: Infinite. That being said, however, I’m looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Yeah I’ll be 35-36 in 10 years I don’t really want to at one game that long.

> 2533274809365657;1:
> But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
>
> I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans

I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.

If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.

> 2533274923428997;4:
> > 2533274809365657;1:
> > But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
> >
> > I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans
>
> I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.
>
> If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.

Yeah if they could add new game types like bring back team Duel and you can only duel guns in the mode that would be cool. But I don’t feel like that’s the case and it’s just going to be another halo 5

> 2533274809365657;5:
> > 2533274923428997;4:
> > > 2533274809365657;1:
> > > But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
> > >
> > > I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans
> >
> > I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.
> >
> > If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.
>
> Yeah if they could add new game types like bring back team Duel and you can only duel guns in the mode that would be cool. But I don’t feel like that’s the case and it’s just going to be another halo 5

I’m entirely unsceptical about a 10 year lifecycle. The old model of videogames just didn’t work anymore with spiralling dev costs. Games require a vast amount of work to get to market before you can make any of that money back. If the game flops, you may never make that money back. The original DLC model was fine in that further work beyond release was funded out of main game profits and then further DLC releases afterwards, but if the DLC were e.g. Multiplayer maps (and let’s face it that was the standard model as Multiplayer usually had more longevity) you would split your playerbase more and more the more map packs you released.

Halo 4 is a perfect example of how the old system didn’t work. Spartan Ops should have had more than one Season, but not enough players bought to make further development worth the costs. Meanwhile the DLC map packs split the MP population massively and the game’s longevity was, for a Halo game, significantly shorter than expected.

However we’re in a brave new world and games are now funded in four ways:

  • Direct sales (as always) - Subscription service income (I.e. Game Pass) - Microtransactions - DLC Direct SalesPoints 2 and 3 there will continue funding a game long after release which allows far more longevity in support as you can afford to keep more staff working on a game to actively support it long following release. Point 4 is far less important now and in many cases we may find players don’t ‘buy’ DLC as it may be provided for free as part of Game Pass (e.g. Gears 5 Hivebusters) - DLC these days will probably also be limited to additional story experiences. Remember the MP is now free to play - the only thing which will be funding that is Point 3.

I’m sick to my back teeth of people claiming that various things which won’t be in the game at launch mean the game’s launching as incomplete. The whole point of a Live Service game is that it is releasing the core game with all its core functionality to which things (both features and content) can be added later. Infinite is going to be a content delivery system. Over its lifespan we’ll probably see multiple campaigns-worth of adventures and these will be released via Infinite rather then entirely new games being built from scratch and released separately. new multiplayer modes can be built and crafted.

10 years makes sense as a timespan: the Slipspace Engine has been built to last. Even if development started on a sequel game this year (which i doubt it will), it would take 5 years at least for it to be ready and that’s assuming taking all the supporting features such as the slipspace engine as read.

Plus: it’s incredibly consumer-friendly. Even if you go with the old direct sales model, you’ll be getting an awful lot of bang for your buck compared to some games which will release at the same price point using the old one-and-done model with no later content either free or paid for.

> 2533274874872263;6:
> > 2533274809365657;5:
> > > 2533274923428997;4:
> > > > 2533274809365657;1:
> > > > But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
> > > >
> > > > I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans
> > >
> > > I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.
> > >
> > > If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.
> >
> > Yeah if they could add new game types like bring back team Duel and you can only duel guns in the mode that would be cool. But I don’t feel like that’s the case and it’s just going to be another halo 5
>
> I’m entirely unsceptical about a 10 year lifecycle. The old model of videogames just didn’t work anymore with spiralling dev costs. Games require a vast amount of work to get to market before you can make any of that money back. If the game flops, you may never make that money back. The original DLC model was fine in that further work beyond release was funded out of main game profits and then further DLC releases afterwards, but if the DLC were e.g. Multiplayer maps (and let’s face it that was the standard model as Multiplayer usually had more longevity) you would split your playerbase more and more the more map packs you released.
>
> Halo 4 is a perfect example of how the old system didn’t work. Spartan Ops should have had more than one Season, but not enough players bought to make further development worth the costs. Meanwhile the DLC map packs split the MP population massively and the game’s longevity was, for a Halo game, significantly shorter than expected.
>
> However we’re in a brave new world and games are now funded in four ways:
> - Direct sales (as always) - Subscription service income (I.e. Game Pass) - Microtransactions - DLC Direct SalesPoints 2 and 3 there will continue funding a game long after release which allows far more longevity in support as you can afford to keep more staff working on a game to actively support it long following release. Point 4 is far less important now and in many cases we may find players don’t ‘buy’ DLC as it may be provided for free as part of Game Pass (e.g. Gears 5 Hivebusters) - DLC these days will probably also be limited to additional story experiences. Remember the MP is now free to play - the only thing which will be funding that is Point 3.
>
> I’m sick to my back teeth of people claiming that various things which won’t be in the game at launch mean the game’s launching as incomplete. The whole point of a Live Service game is that it is releasing the core game with all its core functionality to which things (both features and content) can be added later. Infinite is going to be a content delivery system. Over its lifespan we’ll probably see multiple campaigns-worth of adventures and these will be released via Infinite rather then entirely new games being built from scratch and released separately. new multiplayer modes can be built and crafted.
>
> 10 years makes sense as a timespan: the Slipspace Engine has been built to last. Even if development started on a sequel game this year (which i doubt it will), it would take 5 years at least for it to be ready and that’s assuming taking all the supporting features such as the slipspace engine as read.
>
> Plus: it’s incredibly consumer-friendly. Even if you go with the old direct sales model, you’ll be getting an awful lot of bang for your buck compared to some games which will release at the same price point using the old one-and-done model with no later content either free or paid for.

I guess I can’t argue why 343 is doing it but I can not like it too

MCC is almost ten years old at this point, and I’ve been playing it since it’s launch. (Solo campaign has always worked for me since launch). And MCC as it is now beats pretty much every other game I’ve played in terms of content and fun.

So if Infinite ends up being that, but starting out at a baseline of a Series X game, that’s fine with me.

I have complete faith in multiplayer being able to sustain a 10 year cycle between updated playlists, modes, and maps - both 343 and community created via forge.

The only thing I’m kind of worried about is campaign. I’m all for smaller episodic DLC add-ons from time to time, but I’ll be very disappointed if the original campaign is the only full length experience we get for a decade.

I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.

That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.

> 2533274866022405;10:
> I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.
>
> That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.

And see that’s what I don’t really want. While I love Halo 3 and it’s my favorite Halo. It’s not the only one I play as that would get old. At least imo

> 2533274809365657;11:
> > 2533274866022405;10:
> > I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.
> >
> > That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.
>
> And see that’s what I don’t really want. While I love Halo 3 and it’s my favorite Halo. It’s not the only one I play as that would get old. At least imo

But if there are 2-3 major campaign expansions and even smaller episodic things in between over the course of that 10 years… best of both worlds. Regular new content and a vibrant and established multiplayer with a solid sandbox and balancing: yes please!

> 2533274874872263;12:
> > 2533274809365657;11:
> > > 2533274866022405;10:
> > > I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.
> > >
> > > That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.
> >
> > And see that’s what I don’t really want. While I love Halo 3 and it’s my favorite Halo. It’s not the only one I play as that would get old. At least imo
>
> But if there are 2-3 major campaign expansions and even smaller episodic things in between over the course of that 10 years… best of both worlds. Regular new content and a vibrant and established multiplayer with a solid sandbox and balancing: yes please!

Sure that would be cool but 343 is just to vague for me

> 2533274809365657;13:
> > 2533274874872263;12:
> > > 2533274809365657;11:
> > > > 2533274866022405;10:
> > > > I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.
> > > >
> > > > That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.
> > >
> > > And see that’s what I don’t really want. While I love Halo 3 and it’s my favorite Halo. It’s not the only one I play as that would get old. At least imo
> >
> > But if there are 2-3 major campaign expansions and even smaller episodic things in between over the course of that 10 years… best of both worlds. Regular new content and a vibrant and established multiplayer with a solid sandbox and balancing: yes please!
>
> Sure that would be cool but 343 is just to vague for me

Never heard of underpromising and overdelivering? We’ve over 6 months until likely launch - nearly 8 indeed. There’s plenty of time to get further information before launch

343 is not making the CDPR mistakes around Cyberpunk.

> 2533274874872263;14:
> > 2533274809365657;13:
> > > 2533274874872263;12:
> > > > 2533274809365657;11:
> > > > > 2533274866022405;10:
> > > > > I think when they talk of a ten year plan it doesn’t mean the game will just remain the same for 10 years. The multiplayer may remain largely the same in the way it plays but I’m sure they will add new modes and maps constantly as well as having balancing updates and things like that. They will almost assuredly add new campaigns and such as well. Like others have said it will eventually become a launcher for all new Halo campaigns while maintaining the same core multiplayer base.
> > > > >
> > > > > That being said I do understand where you are coming from. The buzz of a Halo 7 probably would be bigger than Halo campaign dlc, but the added development cost of an entirely new Halo game every 3-4 years is probably not worth it. Plus I feel games nowadays are lasting longer and longer. Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and Destiny are just some examples I can think of where they take a base game and expand upon it year after year and manage to maintain their core audience.
> > > >
> > > > And see that’s what I don’t really want. While I love Halo 3 and it’s my favorite Halo. It’s not the only one I play as that would get old. At least imo
> > >
> > > But if there are 2-3 major campaign expansions and even smaller episodic things in between over the course of that 10 years… best of both worlds. Regular new content and a vibrant and established multiplayer with a solid sandbox and balancing: yes please!
> >
> > Sure that would be cool but 343 is just to vague for me
>
> Never heard of underpromising and overdelivering? We’ve over 6 months until likely launch - nearly 8 indeed. There’s plenty of time to get further information before launch
>
> 343 is not making the CDPR mistakes around Cyberpunk.

I think they are being vague on purpose around how they are going to expand on Halo Infinite over the next 10 years because they are focused on launch content currently. I do agree it would be nice to see what is coming but realistically I think we won’t hear about a new campaign dlc until next year at the earliest.

> 2533274874872263;6:
> > 2533274809365657;5:
> > > 2533274923428997;4:
> > > > 2533274809365657;1:
> > > > But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
> > > >
> > > > I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans
> > >
> > > I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.
> > >
> > > If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.
> >
> > Yeah if they could add new game types like bring back team Duel and you can only duel guns in the mode that would be cool. But I don’t feel like that’s the case and it’s just going to be another halo 5
>
> I’m entirely unsceptical about a 10 year lifecycle. The old model of videogames just didn’t work anymore with spiralling dev costs. Games require a vast amount of work to get to market before you can make any of that money back. If the game flops, you may never make that money back. The original DLC model was fine in that further work beyond release was funded out of main game profits and then further DLC releases afterwards, but if the DLC were e.g. Multiplayer maps (and let’s face it that was the standard model as Multiplayer usually had more longevity) you would split your playerbase more and more the more map packs you released.
>
> Halo 4 is a perfect example of how the old system didn’t work. Spartan Ops should have had more than one Season, but not enough players bought to make further development worth the costs. Meanwhile the DLC map packs split the MP population massively and the game’s longevity was, for a Halo game, significantly shorter than expected.

Spartan ops failed because Halo 4 wasn’t well received at all and 343I implemented it very poorly. The missions were just rehash of things. Doing the same thing, over and over and over again. It’s not because it wasn’t a good idea.

If they had that idea during Halo 3, which the majority of people love, and the missions were actually new content, not rehashes of missions, I guarantee you It would have done extremely well.

@OP As far as the 10-year plan goes I can’t say I’m a big fan of it for many reasons but not generally for the reasons people say. For one, technology change is so fast now that even in 5 years it’ll be amazing what they could do then compared to now even with existing hardware, But they’re not going to be able to rewrite the game engine for DLC so they’ll have to use whatever it is they bring out this year, If you know what I’m trying to say. Secondly most people do not have the attention span to play something for that long. Sure the hardcore fans will of say game, But overall most people won’t. Thirdly if someone doesn’t like how Halo infinite plays or the engine or whatever that means they’re not going to play it regardless of how much content they bring out for it. So they will have to wait 10 years for a new halo with a new engine, a new look, everything…

I don’t think the 10-year plan is a good idea at all unless the majority of your fan base absolutely loves it. Even then I’m not sure if it’s a good idea for reasons I said above. Personally I think the 10-year plan is more of a marketing gimmick than it is an actual reality.

If Halo infinite is received so-so, even after a year or two of being out with additional content and it’s still considered to be very average, not that popular and done decent in sales and etc that Microsoft won’t be telling 343 or whoever they put in charge that they need a new Halo game with a different approach… Sure they will! They want to make more money. They are going to do whatever they think will make them the most money. And if making a new Halo game will do that in say 5 years I guarantee you they will. So I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in this whole 10-year plan thing As a lot can happen over the course of a year or two, or three… And so on.

> 2533274815533909;16:
> > 2533274874872263;6:
> > > 2533274809365657;5:
> > > > 2533274923428997;4:
> > > > > 2533274809365657;1:
> > > > > But does anyone really want a 10 year game? That’s a long time. That’s over a console normal lifespan, you could get married have a kid or two.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would rather have a Halo 7 than a game what seems to have no given information on their plans
> > > >
> > > > I think part of the whole ten year thing was just advertising BS.
> > > >
> > > > If Infinite is something like a launcher where 343 can save time by not implementing new menus and have all of the future halo releases come out, sort of like an MCC but for future games, yeah I’m cool with that. I guess? It’s kind of weird, like are we really going to be playing the same multiplayer for 10 years? I’ve played Halo 3 for 13 I suppose, but it’s never been iterated on over time, but this will be. I’m not sure there’s really a precedent for what’s going to happen so we just gotta see how it goes.
> > >
> > > Yeah if they could add new game types like bring back team Duel and you can only duel guns in the mode that would be cool. But I don’t feel like that’s the case and it’s just going to be another halo 5
> >
> > I’m entirely unsceptical about a 10 year lifecycle. The old model of videogames just didn’t work anymore with spiralling dev costs. Games require a vast amount of work to get to market before you can make any of that money back. If the game flops, you may never make that money back. The original DLC model was fine in that further work beyond release was funded out of main game profits and then further DLC releases afterwards, but if the DLC were e.g. Multiplayer maps (and let’s face it that was the standard model as Multiplayer usually had more longevity) you would split your playerbase more and more the more map packs you released.
> >
> > Halo 4 is a perfect example of how the old system didn’t work. Spartan Ops should have had more than one Season, but not enough players bought to make further development worth the costs. Meanwhile the DLC map packs split the MP population massively and the game’s longevity was, for a Halo game, significantly shorter than expected.
>
> Spartan ops failed because Halo 4 wasn’t well received at all and 343I implemented it very poorly. The missions were just rehash of things. Doing the same thing, over and over and over again. It’s not because it wasn’t a good idea.
>
> If they had that idea during Halo 3, which the majority of people love, and the missions were actually new content, not rehashes of missions, I guarantee you It would have done extremely well.
>
> @OP As far as the 10-year plan goes I can’t say I’m a big fan of it for many reasons but not generally for the reasons people say. For one, technology change is so fast now that even in 5 years it’ll be amazing what they could do then compared to now even with existing hardware, But they’re not going to be able to rewrite the game engine for DLC so they’ll have to use whatever it is they bring out this year, If you know what I’m trying to say. Secondly most people do not have the attention span to play something for that long. Sure the hardcore fans will of say game, But overall most people won’t. Thirdly if someone doesn’t like how Halo infinite plays or the engine or whatever that means they’re not going to play it regardless of how much content they bring out for it. So they will have to wait 10 years for a new halo with a new engine, a new look, everything…
>
> I don’t think the 10-year plan is a good idea at all unless the majority of your fan base absolutely loves it. Even then I’m not sure if it’s a good idea for reasons I said above. Personally I think the 10-year plan is more of a marketing gimmick than it is an actual reality.
>
> If Halo infinite is received so-so, even after a year or two of being out with additional content and it’s still considered to be very average, not that popular and done decent in sales and etc that Microsoft won’t be telling 343 or whoever they put in charge that they need a new Halo game with a different approach… Sure they will! They want to make more money. They are going to do whatever they think will make them the most money. And if making a new Halo game will do that in say 5 years I guarantee you they will. So I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in this whole 10-year plan thing As a lot can happen over the course of a year or two, or three… And so on.

They wouldn’t have said it if they didn’t have a plan for it.

I thought they were looking for people to make another halo game. Unless that game is anything like the time it takes to make an avatar movie or infinite…

It’s called halo “infinite” for a reason. If they stay up to date with infinite then maybe it’ll feel like they’re releasing games within the game like Update Combat evolved, Update 2, Update 3, Update 3 ODST, Update Reach, Update 4, Update 5 Guardians, oh and maybe even Update Wars 1 and 2. All puns intended thank you.

I also find it sad for playable Elite fans unless theirs an update, no playable Elites for 10 years? Then the next game better be Elites dual wielding the next 10 years! Dual wield doesn’t bother me because reach was great to me.

the 10 year plan is just marketing talk and a lie. if the game doesn’t perform well enough it will be dropped. there are already enough examples like anthem. i can’t believe people are still buying into that. anthem for example couldn’t even keep up with their plan for one year, bc the game was bad, bc it was tailored to sell MTs and not be fun (btw, thats the vibe i’m getting from infinite).
also: the supposedly 10 year plan is a tool to get people to defend an eventual bad launch with missing content, bc “it will be added later”. this is also just an excuse and a marketing tactic: cut stuff before launch or leave stuff out, which was standard in previous games and announce it as a big thing when it is brought back into the game (alternatively lock it behind DLC, collectors editions or pre-order bonuses) all this stuff happened already in other games not to long ago (and a lot of stuff wasn’t even added later, bc the game was dropped), yet people still seem to buy into the weak made up excuses (and other lies as excuses for implementing consumer unfriendly MTs.
there is no 10 year plan. maybe a plan for one or two addition shortly after launch with (likely) already finished stuff, but beyond that they will make it up as they go along and will drop the plan, or “change” it into the “new, reworked roadmap” or whatever when it doesn’t perform as intended. (which eventually will also be dropped when it doesn’t meet the monetization expectations)