Another game which has used this strategy is Runescape. At one point in Runescape's history, the game was completely rewritten and a new true-3D client with basic models was released. Since then, they've gone on to improve the engine and the graphics whenever possible while ensuring that the game can run on older computers. Coupled with the constant release of new content, this strategy of constantly updating the game is a key factor in long-term player retention. In that sense, games which employ the strategy well would never need a sequel. Instead, the main game will continually grow and adapt, removing unpopular or largely unused avenues of gameplay and improving popular ones.
Revisiting gameplay:
Iterative development isn't just about keeping the graphics up to date. Part of the strategy is a commitment to redeveloping old content and game mechanics. Rather than releasing expansions or sequels in which a different approach to the same core game elements can be taken, all changes the developers want to make are made to the current game. This often results in avenues of gameplay being changed or removed over time. While this may irritate some who have lost their favourite part of the game, EVE Online with its player's solid "adapt or die" attitude has been very successful using this strategy. It's often said that EVE is "a new game every six months" and while the reality isn't as extreme as that, the sentiment is definitely true. Constant redevelopment of the game world and mechanics is a key factor in EVE's successful development strategy.
This is in stark contrast to the normal state of affairs in which companies opt to play it safe and avoid upsetting their current playerbase with big changes. Everquest developer Chris Hoover exemplified the standard attitude when he said "Sometimes there will be things that are broken the entire history of the game and have affected gameplay so much that they simply can't be fixed because of the resulting change to gameplay.". While companies like CCP Games and Jagex have clearly proven that this isn't an absolute rule, there is merit to Hoover's words. There are several famous cases of major changes to an MMO causing widespread uproar and even decimating subscription levels. The most notable example is perhaps Star Wars Galaxies, which faced this problem when its "New Game Enhancements" update radically altered the game for the worse.Summary:
Given that accomplishments in an MMO represent a long-term achievement, it's understandable that people might feel cheated when their favourite MMO is shadowed over by a sequel. With good software design processes, it's been proven that an MMO can be kept updated without requiring a sequel. This often means making large changes to the game over time, significantly redesigning its gameplay every few years. Strong developers who understand the nuances of their game's design on their playerbase can take care to improve rather than harm the player's game experiences with each major update. With the problems associated with MMO sequels and iterative development strategies proving their effectiveness in the market, I'm forced to seriously doubt whether MMOs should ever have sequels.
