buff
Well-Known Member
- May 29, 2017
- 1,072
- 1,663
The longer the release cycle, the harder it is to deliver. I speak as a person that has been developing software for a living since 1999.Yeah. After jerking themselves off about consistency of releasing on time, then scrapping that and giving them a week window they didn't get a single update out on time last year. It took two weeks minimum after they started spoilers for each update. Even after phoning in an update saying it was under-the-hood work to make updates easier to implement. They should change their patreon model to be by-the-update payment but then they couldn't scam people anymore.![]()
It makes me sad that in 100.00% of Patreon votes when the dev says "Should I keep releasing every month, or go to a longer cycle because that way I will get more work done [because I hate having to do the release bullshit-- package up the files, write the changelog, playtest, fix the bugs, etc etc and want to do that fewer times per year]" the patrons will vote "sure, longer is fine" because they think that the dev will be happier and they will get more total content per year. This almost never works out.
Shorter cycles add release overhead, yes. Developers are annoyed by that, yes. But they greatly reduce the total amount of time spent debugging, and do a hell of a lot of good in forcing devs to break their work up into manageable chunks.