> Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to

> Video game developers and publishers will look at this as an example of leaving money on the table, since people continue to enjoy the game without having to pay them any more money. Yes, the tail is long, but it doesn't end up with more money for the game company so they will see it as waste. I understand where you are coming from - but it's not entirely true, that there's no additional money in it. Blizzard had built a very strong reputation of making games all of which have this long life and thus are are always guaranteed to be worth buying straight at launch. Who knows how many of Diablo IIs lifetime sales can be attributed to that, but it sure had some influence. And D2 again delivering on that Blizzard promise only strengthened that reputation - which again translated into a positive effect on sales on subsequent Blizzard releases. Resurrected is another title that most obviously and directly benefited from the longevity of D2. The way D2 was designed surely did translate into sales of Ressurected. But D2's longevity also contributed a LOT to the popularity of the franchise overall - which in turn surely had some influence on the sales of D3 and D4. Then there's also the battle chest, which didn't sell badly to my knowledge - and don't even get me started on all the various Diablo Merchandise you can get. I'm pretty sure that made them a little bit of money as well. It's not just the long tail of sales on the game itself - there's also a lot of additional, compounding long-term benefits. Publishers often disregard those benefits, because they aren't able to reliable measure those effects and put a number on it. And they generally often value short-time profit gains over nurturing a long-time fanbase. And all off that of course leads down the path of yearly sequels that barely improve anything over last years game, but are still soooo expensive to make, that publishers need to sell loot boxes and battle passes and microtransactions and dlcs, just to make even - and then cutting short the long tail with next years' release. Rince and repeat until people get fatigued and the cash-cow is milked dry... Maybe, just maybe, churning out a few less titles that each have a longer tail of sales and steadly grow a loyal fanbase and increase the sales-appeal of the franchise as a whole, is not that bad of a long-term strategy after all. Maybe this could serve as an example after all...