discussion What would you prefer regarding game updates?

[ErzuzB]

Big updates every now and then.
I don't want to always download a game thats several GB big just for a couple of lines and sexy pictures with some side charas I don't even care about, with a short story extention that I've forgotten when the next update comes out.

 

[sten04]

I do prefer games that have good content in the update. Some games do have frequent updates with like 5 new scenes that are nice, but I do want more time spent playing an update then it takes to download it.

 

[User_57242]

I really don't like small updates so probably anywhere from 3-6 months and then you enjoy a fat content drop.

 

[vapid]

theres an issue with games that have lots of love interests that do updates often. if you're following the game only for one or two of them then it could be quite a few updates before the dev actually gets around to adding content for your specific ones. i see this issue even with games that take a bit longer to update like 3-4 months.

 

[Slumdum]

I prefer the small and frequent option, but can also see how that can be hard to follow, for some devs.
More than 6 months though, and I start to forget the story, so some kind of middle ground I between those two I guess.

 

[zozo88]

I prefer larger but slower updates. As has been mentioned, chasing the the short 15 min updates every month or whatever is unfulfilling to me and i prefer the more meaty but rarer updates. That said, i tend to save several of the short updates and play them after they've been updated a few times.

 

[Skarsnik]

Small but not too small. If the download time is longer than play time I think the dev should wait some more

 

[The Rogue Hero]

most of the time id say small updates but there are rare times when large updates are better but just not 6 months wait

 

[divine]

I mean higher frequency is ideal, but never at the cost of a proper release. I want it to be worth a proper session, some games just leave you asking "thats it?", worst feeling.

 

[dyse]

I think a monthly update just to know what the team has progressed is good but i dont like playing a game on quotas i'll forget everything and i don't want to play the game again until the updated content.

 

[michaelatl]

once a month would be nice but it would put a lor stress on the creator too.

 

[Bebop_fan]

I prefer smaller updates every month or so, but if it's every 4-6 months (or even more) I except a significant sized update to reflect the time taken. Smaller updates also show the devs are still working on the game. Far too many take months to release an update, produce barely anything and then abandon the game.

 

[User_98287]

I think every two months would be ideal, but then again it would depend on who large the content being released is.

 

[DorianGreyEminence]

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.

That's my problem. I forget who everyone is and what is going on. Its nice when they add a small bio page or something. I'm much less lost if the updates take a while and then I don't really mind them taking their time in getting it right.

 

[cosicosi89]

Need a regular hit .. what can I say

 

[That One Guy]

For me this depends on a few things.

First; If I am supporting a game and I pay every month I want content every month. That means enough content to justify what I'm paying or you don't get anything.

Second; It depends on the quantity of the update. The amount of content must justify the wait. There of course are exceptions like when the dev adds a new mechanic or has to do a bunch of code cleaning. On these rare occasions they get a pass for less content because that background work can sometimes take a lot of time to complete. I will still expect some playable content though.

Third; If the quality of the update is trash I may just drop the game altogether. Each update must seem like it was meant to be there not just added to get something out to keep the money coming in. I prefer games from devs who love what they do and invest the effort to make the game the best it can be based on their abilities and tools.

Fourth; It depends on what tools are being used to create the game. If the dev is using HS or HS2 I expect monthly releases most of the time. If they are using DAZ, I would say3 months per release is fair. Hand drawn I'll give up to 4 months per release as long as the art is of good or high quality. In the case of games like Mist where the dev made most of his own assets using blender 5-6 months is acceptable.

Well that's my opinion on the matter. I hope this answered your question sufficiently.

 

[dmcloudthe1st]

Content should come as it is finished, not rushed to meet some deadline, or perceived schedule. But some verbal updates/statements of ongoing work can help appease us unwashed masses.

 

[Danv]

500 renders/2 weeks, 1k renders/month, 6k renders/half year
Moon shouldn't be an exception - Moon should be the norm, one Moon per dev team, for every team!
vote for me on next elections

 

[j8075]

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.

 

[SithLord]

I personally prefer if the game has large content updates, but I can also lose interest in the game if the dev is taking a shit ton of time to only add a few things (summertime saga lmao)