discussion What would you prefer regarding game updates?

[Peter9999]

Sometimes Im happy to see a Update. Then I download it.... and it feels like 5 new Pictures... Update done

 

[Cyrianu]

Large, less frequent updates but with decent dev communication to say that they're still actively working on it.

 

[Spring]

Small but frequent so I know the game isn't abandoned.

 

[Neurasiatic]

Communication from the dev is the most important thing for me. I would rather wait for a quality update and be able to follow the progress and possibly be included in voting or giving feedback somehow. If they're behind schedule, let us know they're behind schedule and tell us honestly when we should expect an update.

Fully agreed. As long as the dev continues to communicate with their audience and gives us visual updates on the progress of the game I don't care if it takes a while. If something unexpected happened and the updated is delayed that's fine as well as long as they don't spring this on people a week before the update is due and don't have a history of "unexpected" delays cough Above the Clouds cough.
As long as the dev has respect for their audience, I'll respect them in kind.

 

[bombasticxxt]

small frequent to stay in touch a bit more is preferred for me. You can then always chose the skip an update

 

[Windchill]

I've usually go a queue of games lines up that I can go longer between updates, but refreshing the story and characters takes some doing. Contemplating writing myself cliff notes to help pick up the game.

 

[doesntlikellamas]

Large and infrequent. Usually leads to a higher quality product and doesn't inundate me with downloads and purging old files. The only issue is when there is an inevitable 1 month delay for a much anticipated game, but there's always something else to do

 

[FooTaco21]

Big updates since ppl usually get mad when the dev make small updates

 

[yuji]

I prefer an update for every 2/3 months

 

[MattShizzle]

In between. 1-3 months would be good and not updates you can finish in 5 minutes, including skipping dumb stuff. 6 months is too long and a year or more is ridiculous. You forget what happened by then and the whole game takes a decade+, by which time the graphics, etc are outdated. And they are long AF.

 

[vinkelsier]

More than every month is a bit excessive, I think once every other month is ideal

 

[Earlybird]

I really don't care when an update is done. I just want the dev to actually be working on the game. Also it has been said but communication goes a long way.

 

[vinkelsier]

I really don't care when an update is done. I just want the dev to actually be working on the game. Also it has been said but communication goes a long way.

The only diference between an abandoned game and a game that takes a while to updade is the dev comunicating

 

[Ryuji]

I think the perfect length would be around 4 months, as more I end up forgetting I am even waiting for an update, and also because I think is the perfect time for the amount you get without having to wait too much

 

[The Daydreamer]

Ideally, I'd prefer frequent updates (since I can always wait for several updates before playing anyway ^^). If the game really caught my attention, it's the best way to keep me invested. For less frequent updates, I'd expect at least regular communication from the dev team if I'm a patron (sadly, that's not always the case and I've taken my fair share of leaps of faith... ).

 

[Djehuty]

2-4 months range. No more than that. I usually forget all the games that take longer, and the very few I don't I still have to skim through from the start or an early save to remember all the plot points. It's gotten to a point that I simply lose any interest I had, I rather wait for a complete version if it will ever be completed, if I'm even interested by then.

 

[WolfXDs]

I think as long as the dev is putting out a satisfying amount of content with each update, it doesn't matter that much how frequent the updates are. If it's not on a regular schedule, the dev should be giving some sort of feedback on progress though. Nobody wants to see their favorite dev go dark for 6 months.

 

[Lepomis]

A large enough update to make it worth while playing, and every 1 to 3 months would be nice.

 

[kikswit]

Small but frequent is the way to go. Means the dev can get faster feedback on their cycles and are more likely to improve any issues their game is having, and makes me trust that they won't abandon it.
And if I want to build up more content to play at once, I can just skip updates for a while. If the dev was giving big slow updates, then I would've had to wait 6 months anyway...?

 

[starlord]

I think one update in a month is a an appropriate frequency. Sufficient content assumed.