discussion What would you prefer regarding game updates?

[gnumez]

Depends on the game. I'll happily wait for even a year if the game is good enough (light of my life and summertime saga). I hate small updates without much (smut) content. So any game with 1-3 month between updates with real content (smuts or not) is a good middle ground.

 

[maestromancer]

I generally find 3 month updates end up being more satisfying than monthly ones. Usually if a game is putting out updates any faster than that, I prefer to wait for a few updates anyways before I go back to them. Some devs manage to pull off monthy updates with a lot of content that worth keeping up with, such as CeLaVie Group, but that's really the exception.

 

[Amattias021]

Yeah, I would say SSP has the best system. Long Story Short was great, but then Ketzal slowed down a bunch.

 

[LongSlongSilver]

something inbetween maybe a decent size every 3-5 months and nomore holiday special updates

 

[thestrokes2]

I think once a month updated are perfect. Any longer than that and it's hard to keep interest personally.

 

[blue_sparrow]

I don't mind re-finding a game after it's been awhile so i'm generally good with longer update cycles. If they're super frequent / changes are barely noticeable I'll probably take a few months off anyway and find something else in the interim.

 

[HeadHunter]

I think even if it's not much regular updates that show progress no mather how little and a good communication show that you are still invested in your own game and not only "in it for the money".
People will still get angry either way but those who don't rage at every little thing will see the work put in it

 

[Uncle Loco]

Personally, I like that 1-2 month update sweet spot. You can get a decent size update and could be close to an hour of content. Getting small updates of 15 minutes or less content is disappointing even if you get something every few weeks. Getting those large updates is nice but that long wait sucks and sometimes you forget about the game or what happened in previous updates. However, having a dev that interacts with fans on sites like this or a discord makes those waits in between updates so much better no matter the length.

 

[SegmentCoalescing]

Every 3rd/4th month or so would be a nice balance if there's a decent amount of content. Especially if the game in question happens to be based on something like Honey Select instead of having to render every single picture.

 

[drizzy]

I honestly think 5-7 months is ideal.

There are games with 150 render updates with a monthly release cycle that then amounts to like 5 mins of gameplay.

We got games like LOML with long ass release cycles but it is a one man show and worth it.

I think the biggest problems these days are too many devs are focused on too many LIs. The vicious cycle of X wants more of Y then leads to underdeveloped characters, endings and scenes. In VNs sometimes less is more.

 

[rayserker]

per month with a minimum of 30 minutes of content, no
like dadiant who releases one every year and it's shit

 

[titan543]

Anything under a year should be fine as long as it has a good amount of content and at least some juicy scenes. But maybe a progress update every week/month would make it look less abandoned if the update is taking a while.

 

[Iamjustleeching]

Personally I love it when a game takes over a year to update and you get about 4 minutes of "content", thank god so many devs use this release schedule!

 

[foshore]

I prefer shorter times between updates, but if the dev posts regular updates about their progress (and isn't a slimey liar, yes looking at you ICSTOR) I'm fine with long times between them.

I'm subbed to a few devs and to compare two of them one has regular updates with ~1 month between updates and another has ~6 months between them. The 1 month dude is somewhat new to the scene so the short update times helps show he's dedicated and build some trust that he won't just milk pateron money and dip. The 6 month dev has a solid track record of years of quality work. Both of them post (at least) weekly updates.

 

[pierce125]

I prefer smaller, frequent updates. If a game goes a long time without even updating at all it leaves me wondering whether or not the developer's actually abandoned the project.

I also prefer shorter games to longer games. I know most developers are just making games as a simple hobby, but a game that takes several years of development time with still no conclusion in sight usually causes me to lose interest after a while, even if it's made really well.

 

[LaVale]

Everything will depend on the context of the game, there are some that have a lot of dialogue and few images, which makes them more frequent in their updates, others with many images and but few scenes. In theory, my opinion would be every 2 months, to form a balance on both sides.

 

[escanor9]

I prefer one month updates but can understand longer ones for people who like doing larger more substantial updates.

 

[stuff24]

I think there needs to be a minimum length of the updates to be worth it - if you can deliver a decently meaty update in a month, great, otherwise take a couple months

1-2 scenes/update is usually not enough unless they're incredible

 

[Kaeng_Nai]

I personally believe a good kinda mid-size update every 3-4 months is the sweet spot, something like what That New Teacher was going for

 

[User_62717]

If I have to wait for updates to complete a game then I want the next one to be big. I hate waiting 3 months for 15 minutes of gameplay. If I'm wrapped up in a story then I want the next update to actually move the story along significantly.