Seems completely arbitrary to me honestly. Clearly some adjustments to the criteria are needed because this list reads unmaintained vs maintained as opposed to complete vs incomplete.
Cyberpunk 2077 is labeled as "Not yet. Released, but still in active development", but it's clearly a "Done" game, as in they've added a ton of stuff and development slowed since then. Still patches, yes, but should that mean "it's not done yet"?
I agree it seems more to be about "receives patches still or not", which is different compared to if major feature development essentially stopped.
Cyberpunk is a bit of an odd one. They have pretty long stretches between releasing major content. It certainly feels "done" but it had a LONG tail of development after launch. Phantom liberty is most likely the logical place to say its fully finished but cd projekt red haven't definitely stated there is no more content coming (and there might be with edge runners 2 about to release). So I would argue the assessment is fair, its most likely done, but we can't say for sure so we flag it still. Given enough time has passed, with no communication and no more updates, it will eventually flip over to done.
I'm guessing for similar reasons you have The Witcher 3, a game released more than a decade ago, labeled as "Not done yet"? I'm not sure how this is supposed to be helpful, especially not when the labels will arbitrarily change back/forth as stuff is announced or it was a long time ago you heard about anything.
Most games do not change, is the leading principle. But bear this scenario in mind: A game is released, receives post launch support and then the developer posts a blog post stating "This was the final update, thanks for playing my game, there will be no more updates". The system reads that, makes the anaylsis and we mark it done. Then three years later the developre comes back and goes "PSYCHE! HERE IS AN AWESOME NEW UPDATE". Well we can't account for that, so the system will see the update and change it from done to not yet.
This is an imperfect system because its trying to assess a situation that has no actual contract. But for 90% of titles or more, when a game is flipped to done it won't suddenly be revived at a later date. The Witcher 3 being hte exception not the rule.
I wouldn't say this is making a judgement on neglect or care. Its just making a judgement on "Do we expect any more content coming for this game". A neglected game over time will become an answer, as will a cared for game with a "We now consider our journey complete" developer post.
Counter strike 2, Dota 2, GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption etc. the list goes on. Everyone would consider these games maintained not incomplete. Maybe just merge not yet into complete? The ‘pending’ is more reasonable the ‘not yet’ list is clear nonsense.
But they aren't. They are live service games that are constantly getting updates and new content. They are "Complete" in the sense that you can play them, and live service games fall under a weird area where they are "finished" in the sense that they have active communities and are wildly considered released but they aren't "done" in the sense that they are always evolving, changing, and adding content.
That is why most of those games listed will have the "live service" tag. This isn't really a website for figuring out if live service games are complete. Its more for determining if a singleplayer game you are interested in has released every post launch dlc.
Elden ring is still releasing content to the base game, like the Tarnished Pack which literally released today and adds some starting classes and other things. So the arguemnt which is made is that its basically not "done" and there is still more content to come
I'm not into gaming, but how is something like Red Dead Redemption 2 showing as uncertain of completeness? Does the gaming community think that if something has an online service that it needs constant updates? https://isitdoneyet.gg/game/red-dead-redemption-2
Ah this is another interesting edge case. Red dead shipped with red dead online which was supposed to be its gta online equivalent, but it was abandoned. So in many ways rdr2 had a live service component that was effectively abandoned. So it is kind of right but its also obviously wrong because the base single player experience of rdr2 is by all means totally complete.
I wonder how I can best account for this in the system...
Silksong is like this, there are other games where they release patches for years?
Is done no longer supported? I ask because take any paradox grand strategy game, if I understand your rubric, they're done only if they are no longer the supported mainline game, IE Crusader Kings 2 is done, as 3 is where all the support is going?
To me, done means: Is there any other major content or features coming. Its not necessarily about support but, with sk=ilksong for isntance, yes the game is released but if you play it today, vs some time in the future once all the dlc is out, you are effectively playing two sepereate games. I like to make sure I play a game only once all of the content that will be in it is released.
Obviously this is imperfect because look at the witcher 3, after more than a decade they announced a new DLC (Which is a tie in to the new game but still)
Oooo thank you this seems to be an interesting edge case. Rather than the developer posting their content plans on the main page, they seem to be only posting it on the DLC season pass page, making the main game page feel like a false positive that it isn't being updated... will have to look at ways to account for that!
this is maybe one step short of the underlying need which is "should i play this yet, or is there more to come?" because it seems like there would be games which are not "done" and will have additional DLC but the experience is more or less complete and releases of new maps, rebalances etc are contemplated within the release model?
imo the analogy would be like to eg https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/iphone-17-pro/ what you are presenting is "when was this last released" as opposed to a forward looking "should you buy this now"
but even thats not true because you are considering future stuff, so maybe its jus the framing of "done" vs "should i get into it now" not being the same thing when the definition of done is more stuff is coming
i love the recommendation engine though!!! make it more prominent!
This is the crux of the subjective term of "done" so I take the conservative approach. Any content or update that substantively changes or adds to the game is considered content that needs to be present to be considered done. Maps, dlc's, changes to a story, are all considerations to that. Simple bug fixes and patches do not. Effectively the basis of the site is to answer the question "If I play this game now, will I be getting the complete and total gameplay experience."
Steam only tells you if the game is released, but not if all of a games content has shipped (for instance post launch dlc, seasons etc). Its an imperfect system and it definitely isn't something everyone cares about to be fair.
Is the intention that if there's going to be future DLC, you don't want to play the game at all yet?
To me, it seems like there will probably be more units of DLC coming the more of a success the game is proving so far, and that it could keep coming pretty much indefinitely. So if you viewed such a game as "not done" you'd sit out a lot of widely loved new games "waiting for them to be done" for a long time.
Yeah absolutely. I am not saying this way of gaming is for everyone but it is how I prefer to play. I like to know I am getting the complete and total package. I don't want to play a game and then find out two years later my experience wasn't really the "definitive" one. So this site is for people like me with similarly broken brains lol
This reeks of AIslop in terms of design and in terms of content. There's a Ko-fi link to support running the site but at no point do I feel like someone is running this because they actually care about these ratings. Just waterhose as many games and assign them some arbitrary label. Just a complete waste of time.
I literally built this for myself. I am a software engineer of some decades but this was definitely built with AI, both in the development and in the underlying engine that makes the assessments. I recognize that can be a bit of a polarizing subject so if that is a hard pass feel free. I personally wouldn't describe it as slop, it has a ton of considerations and the pipeline is quite complex, but you are free to disagree. It has a kofi link because it costs me about 60-100 bucks a month to run and personally its worth it for me, because I have already found a number of games I wanted to play through it, and I Will continue to host this as long as is reaosnable for my own sake. (Though with >1k games in my steam library I am not sure its particualrly healthy...)
I have whatever the opposite of fomo is and I hate playing games if I feel like they have more content coming down the line. Since a game being released doesn't mean much anywhere with post launch support I made a website to analyze steam games to figure out if they are actually content complete.
I agree it seems more to be about "receives patches still or not", which is different compared to if major feature development essentially stopped.
This is an imperfect system because its trying to assess a situation that has no actual contract. But for 90% of titles or more, when a game is flipped to done it won't suddenly be revived at a later date. The Witcher 3 being hte exception not the rule.
Counter strike 2, Dota 2, GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption etc. the list goes on. Everyone would consider these games maintained not incomplete. Maybe just merge not yet into complete? The ‘pending’ is more reasonable the ‘not yet’ list is clear nonsense.
That is why most of those games listed will have the "live service" tag. This isn't really a website for figuring out if live service games are complete. Its more for determining if a singleplayer game you are interested in has released every post launch dlc.
I wonder how I can best account for this in the system...
> Released, but content still planned
Silksong is like this, there are other games where they release patches for years?
Is done no longer supported? I ask because take any paradox grand strategy game, if I understand your rubric, they're done only if they are no longer the supported mainline game, IE Crusader Kings 2 is done, as 3 is where all the support is going?
Obviously this is imperfect because look at the witcher 3, after more than a decade they announced a new DLC (Which is a tie in to the new game but still)
For instance, https://isitdoneyet.gg/game/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader is getting a DLC, see https://store.steampowered.com/app/3650060/Warhammer_40000_R.... The source you list on that page is an individual DLC that's part of the Season Pass.
imo the analogy would be like to eg https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/iphone-17-pro/ what you are presenting is "when was this last released" as opposed to a forward looking "should you buy this now"
but even thats not true because you are considering future stuff, so maybe its jus the framing of "done" vs "should i get into it now" not being the same thing when the definition of done is more stuff is coming
i love the recommendation engine though!!! make it more prominent!
To me, it seems like there will probably be more units of DLC coming the more of a success the game is proving so far, and that it could keep coming pretty much indefinitely. So if you viewed such a game as "not done" you'd sit out a lot of widely loved new games "waiting for them to be done" for a long time.