There's been a word thrown around the gaming industry across the last couple of years; one that ignores the thousands of hours put into bringing you the most complex titles seen so far - 'lazy'. Everything from Destiny to Fallout 4 has had this word thrown its way at one point or another, and it comes down to a major talking point; how iterative do games have to be, to be 'worth' a sequel, as oppose to a DLC pack or nothing at all? Titles like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2 or Just Cause 3 barely did anything with their preceding formulas, but the final result was still fun enough. Is that a problem? We didn't seem to mind when Rockstar were reusing GTA III's engine, re-skinning it with timely assets and re-releasing as Vice City and San Andreas across the early 2000s, and why? Because there appeared to be enough changes overall, to warrant them charging full price again and again. Look to more recent titles though, and you'll see developers charging top dollar for multiplayer-only shooters like Rainbow Six: Siege, Evolve, Star Wars Battlefront, etc. Many developer/publisher combos seem enamoured with charging a sandwich's price for a slice of bread, and in contrast, that makes the best titles that reward your empty wallet with endless good times far more worthy of celebration.