July Patron Polls

Glad release when ready won. I dont check every update anyways and download a new version only every 5 months or so.

I understand the mentality! The weekly blogposts and sneak peeks are there to provide a visible "thing" that you can see you're funding. 2-3 months is my gross estimate for how long it takes for "advanced" assets like coding to get into the game in a proper state. While I'd ideally also like 2 months maximum per update, it can be difficult to get everything out in the form of a major update due to reasons already stated. However, I am wanting to explore the possibility of a frequent monthly to once-every-two-months update in the form of a single side mission with an attached CG. This would be a "tangible", small update for players to enjoy, that allows me to simultaneously work on the bigger, more major update. Think of it as instead of receiving 5 CGs immediately, you receive 1 CG first, possibly a 2nd, until enough time passes for major content + the remaining 3 CG to drop.

ArchitectOfDystopia

I voted for the "release when ready" option, but I'd like to include a caveat in there: I suggest you don't take longer than 2 months between releases. I know it can take a while to get things done, and I know this will allow for more and better content per release...but at the same time it's difficult sitting here knowing I'm paying each month and not seeing much in the way of returns for my monthly payments. Don't take advantage of the "release when ready" view of the membership, unless you want to risk seeing that membership, and thus your income, fall off.

Sync

I fully understand this mentality. It's just that monthly is required to keep the staff on retainer, as they work on a permanent part-time basis, and receive payments every month for work completed, that builds up towards the finished product. For example, the UI script took 3 months in total. One month to hash out the details, the look of it, and so on. Another month to create the rough, graphic-less version for testing while the art assets were created, reviewed, and revised. And the final month to put it all together, final testing, and ensure it worked after through multiple game stages (as minor code changes can break the entire thing completely from time to time). While possible to simply pay for the entire UI upfront, it would still take 3 months for it to be finished. So instead, this monthly installment style is needed for development to progress properly. Should it switch to the 2-3 month per release, rest assured I will endeavour to show you where the dev fund goes, with weekly blogs that outline costs going to artwork, to programming, sound, and so on.

ArchitectOfDystopia

It's actually pretty likely, seeing as we only have 1-2 major "stages" left for O:G

ArchitectOfDystopia

Should really be monthly since we pay monthly, so we can see progress and know our money is being well spent.

BazookaDre

I've always been fan of the "When it's done" approach to releases. It is better to wait and then get a more polished release with more content. Anyway, just my two coppers :-)

TheNetsrac

Yeah, I even prefer there to be more new stuff to do once I try out a new update Does this mean that Overgrown will be completed in just one more update if the second planning strategy is adopted?

bigtotoro

As a developer myself, I know how better it is to have time to do better before release. It is way less time consuming, too. "More content" also makes it more interesting. So please, take your time.

Alastor