1. I don't need to give another name because you're not satisfied. Just because not everyone does it doesn't mean it's impossible.
I explicitly said that there's one exception to my argumentation, while you said that "[you] would argue against calling it a miracle or exception". So yeah, it's you that should back your argumentation with proof. After all you said it, therefore do it, argue against it.
You insist on saying that it's "constant and steady", therefore it shouldn't be difficult to prove it is. Names the others games that achieved this and that I missed ; I'm just human, therefore not omniscient, and I would gladly improve my knowledge and update it on this subject.
There are multiple devs who could do it but choose not to.
What a marvelous argumentation: The other devs don't do it by choice, not because Corrupted Kingdoms is an exception...
Sorry, but this is pure delusional denial bullshit.
Corrupted Kingdoms is a game developed by a team, that rely mostly on 2D sprites, while massively recycling its CGs. There's more than one year that each update rely, more or less, at 80% on CGs that were already seen, what obviously drastically reduce the time needed for an update. And even when the CG is drawn specifically for a given scene, they rarely serve more than illustration ; they rarely effectively correspond to the context, being just food for your imagination.
It's also a game that rely on a free roaming mechanism. This imply the possibility to also reuse the code and dialog lines related to the player's movement into the game world ; what obviously artificially increase the length of the content for each update, while again reducing the time needed for the development.
And finally, it's a story split in different tasks, what generate a cognitive bias. By making it looks complex, the number of "quests" make you believe that there's more depth in the story than there's effectively. It also increase the length of the content, since not all players will cheat, there's some who will try to wonder what the next step effectively is, and try some moves/actions that will be useless but will need times.
This while the majority of the games are developed by a single guy on his free time, and rely on 3D CGs that can't be recycled for another scene. When it's a quality game, the said CGs even carry supplementary information, using the gesture and facial expression to complement the dialog lines, providing the unsaid.
A lot of them rely on a linear progression for the story, using instantaneous movement. Therefore they don't have the extra minute that a free roaming, or free roaming-like, game gain each time the player have to go somewhere. And like they rarely rely on quests, they need to effectively provide some depth to their story, while still making you believe that there's less content because you never had to wander outside of the designed path.
And obviously, all this apply only for games built with a game engine like Ren'py. If the game rely on Unreal or Unity, there's the whole codding part that radically differ.
But yeah, it's because they "choose not to" that they don't release weekly, absolutely not because they just can't if they want to keep a certain level of quality, and have a coherent story with some constancy.
2. I have answered the only question in my original post and built upon it in the subsequent two. Perhaps you should read them again if you haven't understood that.
Read your original post again. Your argumentation is: "
If this is the only criteria we go by, why would you ever pick B? If you want more content to play, just wait a month instead of downloading the new version every week."
It's circular argumentation ("it make no sense because it make no sense") and therefore it's simply not an argumentation.
In top of that, you explicitly limit this argumentation to the sole length of the content, while trying to back up a global assertion that include quality, enjoyment factor, and all.
And you're doing this based on a length arbitrarily fixed, expecting that if one can produce a weekly update that will have one hour of content, it imply that a monthly update will have four hours of content. But it's absolutely not how development process works. The progression is more geometric that purely arithmetic ; as I explained in my initial answer, this is due to the back and forth process and the inspiration limit.
But in short, the player loses nothing with more frequent updates if you strictly compare release schedules without taking into account secondary factors such as the developer's ability to deliver quality in that time.
Oh... So it wasn't out of laziness that you decided to not address all my points regarding the development process. It was because they invalidate your argumentation, putting it out of the imaginary world where you place it.
When it started,
Corrupted Kingdoms was updated every two weeks, and had less content by updates. It's only when Arc earned enough money to pay people for their help, that it started to be updated weekly.
This simple fact limit your strict comparison to less than 10% of the games ; the more than other 90% being made by people who are alone. And obviously, all the part regarding this game being really particular, limit it even more.
It makes the game more accessible
It make it more visible, not more accessible.
A game would be as easily accessible when updated yearly, than it would be if updated hourly. The thread do not vanish, the search option do not ignore it, the update lists do not discriminate it, and any web search engine would continue to return you all the places where you can find it.
and provides new content whenever players feel like they want some.
Are we junkies now ? Some perverts so craving for lewd that they can't live without their dose of "this game" ?
Sorry, but personally I'm a gourmet. I can perfectly wait all the needed time in order to have a content that I will take the time to enjoy at its fullest, precisely because this time past waiting was used to make it really enjoyable.
It remains up to the players to decide when they download the latest version, but the option is always there.
A beef Bourguignon will always taste better than the hundredish hamburgers you can make while it slowly cooks.
It's not because you'll play four weekly updates in one go, that you'll have the same experience than playing a monthly update. Here again, I explained why the quality of the result differ, but you preferred to ignore it.
There's a constant back and forth during the development process. You need time to reflect on what you did, before you come back to polish what you initially wrote, that will never be more than a rough draft. No one find the right inflection for a dialog line on the first go. No one found the right pose, the one that will carry the unsaid information, right from the start.
Quality is a long process. You need to let things grow in your mind, and while it do, you works on another scene. One that will then slowly grow while you'll be working on yet something else. Then, when the maturation will be perfect, you'll go back and change your draft into something that effectively worth it, finally putting the quality into your works.
This don't mean that all games that need times to be updated will have a high quality ; it's obviously weighted by the authors limits. But, while there's millions people who could generate good content, if they have the time to reflect on it and polish it enough, there's really few that can provide the same quality on the first go.
Therefore, "less but more frequent" is the objectively better choice when it delivers the same quality and quantity overall but in smaller, more frequent doses.
I really like the association between "objectively better" and the fact that this apply only on a really particular case that don't even concern 5% of the scene.
