discussion What would you prefer regarding game updates?

[CaptainDerpy]

I'd say larger, less frequent updates end up better for content, but smaller regular updates seem to help devs build up a following initially

Higher frequency also helps keeping devs more honest instead of the classic "Oh no a week before I was supposed to release I lost everything and have to start over"

 

[Evil Surgeon]

Ideally, I'd be okay with updates every 4 months.

If you're a dev with a team, then I think it's possible to put out a decent update in that time. If you're doing everything yourself.. well, maybe not so much. But what do I know? I'm just a shmuck who loves to play the games when they come out.

 

[Demiurge299]

Personally I feel it depends on the game itself, but I'd say games that reach a happy medium keep me the happiest, as in like, 3-4 months, with a decent amount of content, but not an overload. some games, especially ones where you gather repeatable scenes (like trainer games), it seems like the updates take far longer than "feels" reasonable, given the end result is usually a handful of short repetitive scenes with little to no story between them (obviously not a coder or artist, so that's why I have feels in quotes, as I can't speak to what actually is a reasonable time frame, and I don't know the full extent of the work going in). but mostly story focused (especially 3d rendered games) its either a longer time frame between updates which I'm perfectly fine with until it gets to be nearing a year +, or really quick updates with what seems like 5 minutes of content, maybe 10-15 if you read really slow, and that I'm not really a fan of.

 

[VorpalGhost]

I think large but less frequent updates are better, but with the caveat that the developer puts out regular community updates in between patches. That way the community doesn't feel like the game's abandoned and is actively being worked on.

 

[jojodololi]

My favorite was Nicole. its funny because she is a prostitute and has a baby, and if was in another game, people would call NTR or just ignore her, but she actually has a lot of fans. Kudos to the dev I suppose.

 

[johnman300]

Most people "want" shorter update cycles. That goes with smaller updates though. And the possibility of no content if your particular girl/girls aren't included this time around. There's really nothing more annoying than downloading something and getting like 5 minutes of playtime in your chosen path. I prefer getting updates with plenty of content for all possible paths, even if it means waiting.

 

[Laehl]

I always feel with shorter update cycles it is nice to play the game again with the shiny new content, however I always feel left wanting more as I feel it is not always enough. Though if it takes a while to update, you lose what was going on and might have to start again or have forgotten about the game entirely. I would go with some part in the middle and like some are saying. A few months, around three or four, would give me time to still remember and want to play the game as well as give enough time to get a good amount of content be put into the game.

 

[thedman241]

I like shorter update cycles if the game is newer, as it helps build a consistent foundation for the dev. The more content the game gets, the more feedback the dev can receive from their base. Depending on the game's focus, bigger updates with more content for more characters can be preferable while small updates if the scope is more narrow can be better. Really depends on the game and the dev's consistency/attitude toward the game for me.

 

[Deleted member 34138]

I can go with longer periods between updates between updates as long as dev is dropping a progress report every few weeks so we know he/shes no suffering from kidney stones again

 

[Mid1969]

Once a month but decently sized like what Lust Academy does. Depends on how many people are working on the game I guess and the quality of their GPU

 

[johnny453]

Id say smaller but more frequent updates, ive seen some really top tier games get put into a vortex of delays becuz the dev just wants to add 1 more thing or keeps getting new ideas in between something they are already doing. Like its great to do so much but not when the game takes so long i start to forget it even existed.

 

[samthespacemaninspac]

Id say smaller but more frequent updates, ive seen some really top tier games get put into a vortex of delays becuz the dev just wants to add 1 more thing or keeps getting new ideas in between something they are already doing. Like its great to do so much but not when the game takes so long i start to forget it even existed.

It's so easy to fall into that trap as a developer. Actually shipping something is a skill in itself.
I don't mind waiting long between updates, but I'm not sure what's best from a developers point of view. Having frequent updates could keep people engaged, but if they're insubstantial it might do the opposite.

 

[JadedSkywalker]

Medium size updates every 2 months, 1 month not enough content from most developers. 6 months to a year, give me break. By that time i will have forgotten what happened in the last release.

 

[Sawwas]

Small and frequent. For example focus on one or two girls for an update. Then when things get serious once a month to focus on one girl or moving the story forward though there has to be no long breaks in between scenes too.

 

[DoubleS]

I think that biggest problem is, that devs tries to do update on all girls at once. Update a branch a game at 1-2 moths pace and everyone will be happy.

 

[ultimav]

Well I prefer big updates but if the creator takes about 6 months for an update, and it's still small then we have a problem (if I were a subscriber on Patreon)

 

[skyeblossom]

I'd prefer however long it takes to make a substantial update, but exceeding 6 months would be pushing it.

 

[Nayrof]

On an activity standpoint i prefer updates per month since it gives us all a clear and constant indication that the games are being worked on,
on the other hand i hate when im playing a new update for game i enjoy and its over in 5mins..

Its a tough question but i think I lean more towards larger updates

 

[Tizuki]

Yea i prefer medium sized updates. 1 month or less feels like too much because each update would end up being only like 10-15 minutes of content which means i would tend to skip several updates in a row to download something actually worth downloading. However 6 months or more is too long cause unless the game is really good, im going to forget about that game before the next update. 3 months to me is usually the ideal part, its short enough that i know the developer is still working on the game, yet long enough to give me a good size of content to play with each update.

 

[ImYourPassenger]

I would say somewhere in the middle. A good chunk of content every month or 2 would be nice. I hate when devs release small updates that lasts like 5 minutes. Waiting 6 months or longer for an update is too long in my opinion.