Let's be honest here, the best part of the game and its content has already been done a few updates ago and I don't think the latest updates added anything of substance to the game, mind less moved a notch or two in neither the gaming department, or storyline or sexual content. A lot of game developers here start with an initial idea but most of them do not have any ending in mind. It's perpetual 'once upon a time...' without 'and they lived happily ever after'. And neither time nor tide waits for no man. An average person has around a decade of creative peak at their disposal. Use it while it lasts.
You write that "the best part of the game . . . has already been done," but you haven't seen the future updates.
No matter what the developer does in the future, it can't be better than what has already been done?
It's a perplexing assertion!
The story arcs in this game are of long reach. There are multiple, interesting creative opportunities remaining. This is shown by the fact that many commentators on this site speculate vigorously about what is yet to happen along multiple paths. That wouldn't be possible if what you say is correct.
To me, the story feels as if we're still at the beginning, with many, many -- yes, years -- of content still to be enjoyed.
Then you assert that the latest updates haven't added anything of substance to the story or to the sex.
How to make sense of your assertion?
The latest updates advanced Rachel, Priti, Cassandra, and Maxine. All of these characters now have developed personalities, and have advanced in their sexual experiences, doing things we've never seen them do.
For example, Maxine, whom I somewhat disliked before this update, has now become one of my favorite characters. We have insight into her now, that we lacked before. She is a self sacrificing person, with a strong moral character -- and the comedy element is that her moral purposes aren't always on the best basis, nor even always really moral, or not certainly so. To show this, near the beginning of this update, the Headmaster is reading an article -- "Pandamenace" or something like that -- questioning whether it was a good idea to save the Pandas, shown with bared fangs in a picture with the article. That's comedy. It's subtle and great.
Then you say that an "average person has ten years of creative peak."
I would say that the average person has no creativity at all, let alone ten years of it.
What is the basis for this "ten years" claim?
If you look at the history of art, you will see that most of the great artists, and even the tertiary ones, were creative all of their lives, consistently. Even performing artists don't only have ten years, but are lifelong creative individuals. I can think of not a single example of an artist who suddenly one day, at the end of his ten year grant, suddenly becomes uncreative. If this ten year rule were true, I would be able to think of many examples.
There are three categories of advice:
1. constructive and correct
2. constructive and incorrect
3. not constructive complaints that are best ignored
#1 is rarely found. And #3 is everywhere.
All my best to you, and to this marvelous game.