discussion What kind of game update do you prefer?

[andrew_12]

Slow updates if the the creator puts in some good loving work and thinks about every little detail

 

[Faturek]

Completed.

Slow update with a good amount of content, but as said above, Completed is always the best!

 

[xatfx]

ormal update, normal content

 

[User_160778]

Normal update, normal content

 

[nikolai777]

Fast Update, at least with that I can know the dev is still working on it and didn't abandoned the game. If he's going to make a BIG update and announces it must be 6-9 months. I don't want to live another "Summertime Saga incident" or "What a Legend incident" where they took a year or almost 2 for another update, and Summertime saga is still going (I don't consider the remaked parts something new)

 

[Deleted member 162149]

normal. you definitely want to see more than 1 new thing per update eve if it takes a bit longer

 

[Catchetail]

It depends on the game, if it is just an art gallery game, I like faster updates. If it is a full blown game with its own engine and everything, I understand a slower update schedule.

 

[mikeyk]

recently have been enjoying more grindy management style games, so long as there is content in between to keep onself engaged

 

[ghvgb]

the ones that are worth downloading, not some 5 min content

 

[rira_75]

Normal update

 

[blonk1]

I'd usually want like a hour/couple hours per update

 

[kremtoa]

Whoever is doing Being a Dik, has the right mindset. Don't mind waiting half a year for substantial updates.

 

[kaguyakaga]

more around the normal range. frequent enough to let me know the dev is alive, but long enough for substantial work to get done

 

[Coran]

I definitely don't like small updates. Certainly prefer the most content-to-update ratio, but if the updates are too slow (especially if production itself slows down compared to its history) that's a big killer. I think I need at least 3 times a year with all substantial amounts of content.

 

[0rizon]

I'd say normal, too long and it's easy to forget the plot

 

[alexusbiru]

Ideally, there’d be no updates at all. Getting the full, finished game right from the get-go would be awesome.

I know, I know. Things are not that easy and shit, well, shit happens.
If updates are unavoidable, let’s at least make them count and add weigh.

At launch, devs are basically testing the waters to see if their game can survive among thousands of others. You work your tail off for years, and the last thing you want is for it to flop immediately (basically marriage in a nutshell). That’s why a flexible initial release with updates that actually cater to the fans makes sense. As long as it’s a steady pace of 'good' content and not just low-effort slop.

On top of that, we have to consider the genre—if it even qualifies as a 'game' in the traditional sense. Each type of project benefits from a different update schedule. For me:

• Arcades - Constant and fast updates that address the gameplay (focus of this type of game) and slower ones with the "rewards"
• Story-focused - Since these kinds of games don't usually need system patches—thanks to established platforms—slower updates, even in an episodic or chapter-based format, are ideal.
• Fap-Fest - Quantity is its own quality here. Since variety is the name of the game, I'm all for huge, frequent content drops to keep things fresh.

Ultimately, it depends on the players relationship with the game. That relationship is shaped by the type of game it is and the community surrounding it. The developer should probe to see, case by case, what works.

 

[fuzzi_weezil]

I picked "slow update", but to clarify, I'm not talking about Radiant levels of slow...

 

[naughtyones]

Does not really matter to me as long as its good, If a title has a tiny update every week I can just wait 6months anyway until there is more substantial content available.

 

[Catchetail]

I prefer normal update.

 

[aafaazoi]

4th option any update and not abandoned game.
(or slow is fine too)