I release updates to my beta branch as they're ready for testing. Game updates get put together once a month (except for May because the April update is on the 20th (the game's anniversary) instead of the 1st) to force us to release changes that are already ready for production *at some point*. Usually there's an informal code freeze about a week before a public release, but the beta branch has no such restrictions. If AS:RD was in Early Access or released as a Steam Playtest, I'd probably do away with the monthly releases and just release stuff as soon as I've written the code and tested that it runs. I wouldn't put any game on Early Access or Steam Playtest until it's far enough in development that there's actually a point in soliciting feedback. But once it's that far, go for it!
I've always wondered if a modular approach to early access, almost ala Star Citizen, could work well for other games. For instance, using Steam's beta branches, split the game up into smaller chunks that players can test out. For instance, you could have a combat sandbox, platforming sandbox, etc. very early on, and slowly merge them together into a single cohesive product over time. You can then even use this format once the gameplay is finalized to test out full levels or game modes. This way you can publish, test, and throw away individual modules as needed. Of course this has its caveats. You would need an extra level of communication to explain how this all works. You'd also need something published into the default branch that is either the latest "full" version of the game or a clone of the beta branch you want the most feedback on. Also, most Early Access adopters don't want to be your QA team, they just want to play a game. So there would be quite a bit of confusion, but it might also afford you the flexibility of ignoring release cadence in favor of experimenting with different mechanics, style, story, etc. without also feeling locked in to any development decisions.
Whatever it is, it's better to be consistent. I've been playing GW2 for 9years, which has had very different development cycles throughout it's run, and sporadic random updates just lead to frustration from people. As you know all people really care about is that you have a plan and you tell us what's the best way to obtain the plan. As long as you're honest with people and what they get is badass there's no problem. Just do what you believe will create the best flow for your devs. People just want to play awesome games.
Steam playtest when you have a big feature or milestone you'd like people to try sounds good. I'd playtest a new prototype of a mechanic OR a chunk of the game as it was meant to be... so long as it's clear what each update is intended to get eyes. Irregular as needed is a-ok.
Update cadence doesn't necessarily matter, but some people prefer when you have something meaningful to show for it. I'd only request for game settings to be fairly adequate, for example being able to adjust mouse sentivity (preferrably with decimal places), it may sound silly but that sort of thing goes a long way. I've seen some people get turned off even by full releases because of being unable to change important of them keybinds.
when I played Minecraft back in the day, I felt like Mojang ruined the mystery and fun of the game by telling you everything that was going into the updates in detail. Sometimes in Early Access games, I feel like I get tired of the core mechanic etc well before the game is fully featured. And going back to play it later doesn't feel any different to me, because everything that's been added in the months after have been "extra". The core game is still the thing I had enough of.
Minecraft is funny as i loaded it up last week and the whole - here is how you make everything just had me closing it back down... dunno why it just felt intrusive.
@@chetfaliszek Right! It's overly open-ended for a game. It has a million complicated things, but you don't get to discover it in a naturally paced way. It's just all there in the open, and you have to wiki the hell out of things to understand what there is to do and what to do with it etc.
I release updates to my beta branch as they're ready for testing. Game updates get put together once a month (except for May because the April update is on the 20th (the game's anniversary) instead of the 1st) to force us to release changes that are already ready for production *at some point*. Usually there's an informal code freeze about a week before a public release, but the beta branch has no such restrictions.
If AS:RD was in Early Access or released as a Steam Playtest, I'd probably do away with the monthly releases and just release stuff as soon as I've written the code and tested that it runs.
I wouldn't put any game on Early Access or Steam Playtest until it's far enough in development that there's actually a point in soliciting feedback. But once it's that far, go for it!
I've always wondered if a modular approach to early access, almost ala Star Citizen, could work well for other games. For instance, using Steam's beta branches, split the game up into smaller chunks that players can test out. For instance, you could have a combat sandbox, platforming sandbox, etc. very early on, and slowly merge them together into a single cohesive product over time. You can then even use this format once the gameplay is finalized to test out full levels or game modes. This way you can publish, test, and throw away individual modules as needed.
Of course this has its caveats. You would need an extra level of communication to explain how this all works. You'd also need something published into the default branch that is either the latest "full" version of the game or a clone of the beta branch you want the most feedback on. Also, most Early Access adopters don't want to be your QA team, they just want to play a game. So there would be quite a bit of confusion, but it might also afford you the flexibility of ignoring release cadence in favor of experimenting with different mechanics, style, story, etc. without also feeling locked in to any development decisions.
Whatever it is, it's better to be consistent. I've been playing GW2 for 9years, which has had very different development cycles throughout it's run, and sporadic random updates just lead to frustration from people. As you know all people really care about is that you have a plan and you tell us what's the best way to obtain the plan. As long as you're honest with people and what they get is badass there's no problem.
Just do what you believe will create the best flow for your devs. People just want to play awesome games.
Steam playtest when you have a big feature or milestone you'd like people to try sounds good. I'd playtest a new prototype of a mechanic OR a chunk of the game as it was meant to be... so long as it's clear what each update is intended to get eyes. Irregular as needed is a-ok.
I prefer vertical slices so... consistent? Having a good amount of stuff upfront either way is what I'd prefer even more.
Update cadence doesn't necessarily matter, but some people prefer when you have something meaningful to show for it. I'd only request for game settings to be fairly adequate, for example being able to adjust mouse sentivity (preferrably with decimal places), it may sound silly but that sort of thing goes a long way. I've seen some people get turned off even by full releases because of being unable to change important of them keybinds.
when I played Minecraft back in the day, I felt like Mojang ruined the mystery and fun of the game by telling you everything that was going into the updates in detail.
Sometimes in Early Access games, I feel like I get tired of the core mechanic etc well before the game is fully featured. And going back to play it later doesn't feel any different to me, because everything that's been added in the months after have been "extra". The core game is still the thing I had enough of.
Minecraft is funny as i loaded it up last week and the whole - here is how you make everything just had me closing it back down... dunno why it just felt intrusive.
@@chetfaliszek Right! It's overly open-ended for a game. It has a million complicated things, but you don't get to discover it in a naturally paced way. It's just all there in the open, and you have to wiki the hell out of things to understand what there is to do and what to do with it etc.