Why are we not seeing weekly patching to improve your game?

"

ki784340143#8116 wrote:

"

Xzorn#7046 wrote:

OP is generally correct that in an Alpha/Beta situation consistent updates work much better than large patches. Players like to see things being hammered out daily.

Persistent patching also allows for easy micro changes to those changes. Larger patches bring about multi-layer issues that can be harder to track down or parse as easily.

Nowadays, game companies have a common problem, that is, they have to wait until a large update to fix problems that can be quickly fixed with a small patch. By releasing a large number of fixes at one time, they want to appear to have solved a large number of problems at one time and attract the attention of new players.

However, players who are playing the game have to endure the same problem every day and wait for a large patch update to solve it. During this period, players must endure the pain brought by the problem to respond to the company's means of attracting new players, that is, large update patches.

And the players who are currently playing the game are the victims of the company's means of attracting new players.

I honestly don't know if the tactic really works. I guess it does or they wouldn't do it.

In my experience constant updates keeps the players you have playing and reporting more problems of which you hammer out quickly and they're happy to keep playing more. The whole 'Let them leave and come back' approach is inefficient from a development standpoint.

Currently I feel as the last 3 years of supporter packs I bought (knowing it was mostly for PoE2) feels like it was wasted. I've never been on board with the idea they can keep both games going.

"

Xzorn#7046 wrote:

"

ki784340143#8116 wrote:

"

Xzorn#7046 wrote:

OP is generally correct that in an Alpha/Beta situation consistent updates work much better than large patches. Players like to see things being hammered out daily.

Persistent patching also allows for easy micro changes to those changes. Larger patches bring about multi-layer issues that can be harder to track down or parse as easily.

Nowadays, game companies have a common problem, that is, they have to wait until a large update to fix problems that can be quickly fixed with a small patch. By releasing a large number of fixes at one time, they want to appear to have solved a large number of problems at one time and attract the attention of new players.

However, players who are playing the game have to endure the same problem every day and wait for a large patch update to solve it. During this period, players must endure the pain brought by the problem to respond to the company's means of attracting new players, that is, large update patches.

And the players who are currently playing the game are the victims of the company's means of attracting new players.

I honestly don't know if the tactic really works. I guess it does or they wouldn't do it.

In my experience constant updates keeps the players you have playing and reporting more problems of which you hammer out quickly and they're happy to keep playing more. The whole 'Let them leave and come back' approach is inefficient from a development standpoint.

Currently I feel as the last 3 years of supporter packs I bought (knowing it was mostly for PoE2) feels like it was wasted. I've never been on board with the idea they can keep both games going.

The way I see it GGG has a "Slow and steady wins the race" policy and to be fair it has worked out very well for them up to this point.

Now sure sometimes we're not going to be too happy about it because it's going too slow but I think we have to give ggg a little time here.
Right now is the hinging moment where poe 2 is forging its reputation and if they want to be absolutely sure to make it right I personnally don't feel frustrated that they're taking a whole season of developpement before coming back in with a large stride.
Hopefully 0.2 drops sooner rather than later and doesn't disapoint in terms of content. I think then will be the moment when we truelly know what to expect and how it's going to be set for the entire EA period.

I can only speculate but I imagine they're not going to release a new patch without fixing the crashing issues, which is taking a lot of time

So hopefully it's going to be big and fat with content, balance and MTX ports.

That's my hope anyway

Screw the babies crying for balance, fix the damn bugs first.

Don´t worry, your game will have more support than a similar title not in EA.

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

Nobody cares about skill gem dps and tree stats. There is much more work to be done in hardware stability, adding content and art than on numbers tweaking. Don't be superficial, that can happen after launch.

Dude you're in every single thread defending GGG and telling people that their complaints are not valid.
Are you a GGG employee on a fake account doing damage control?
You do this in EVERY thread.

"

raV#3445 wrote:

because weekly patches dont make them as much money as people quitting and coming back every 3months to buy a supporter pack

That makes absolutely no sense. There is no need to buy another supporter pack after 3 months, you don't get your access to Early Access revoked. If they kept players playing, there's a larger chance they spend on microtransactions, which includes spending on higher tier supporter pack upgrades because they are happy with the game. If they stop playing for 3 months, it has the opposite effect, you're not sure if you are going to be invested so you don't spend money.

"

GnMQDMLmWZ#3336 wrote:

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

Nobody cares about skill gem dps and tree stats. There is much more work to be done in hardware stability, adding content and art than on numbers tweaking. Don't be superficial, that can happen after launch.

Dude you're in every single thread defending GGG and telling people that their complaints are not valid.
Are you a GGG employee on a fake account doing damage control?
You do this in EVERY thread.

Dude, you are in every thread I participate to (which is not as many as you claim it is) and tell me that my reply is not valid.
What's your problem ? Are you some kind of Blizzard employee trying to ruin PoE2 ?

"

Absconditus#0168 wrote:

"

raV#3445 wrote:

because weekly patches dont make them as much money as people quitting and coming back every 3months to buy a supporter pack

That makes absolutely no sense. There is no need to buy another supporter pack after 3 months, you don't get your access to Early Access revoked. If they kept players playing, there's a larger chance they spend on microtransactions, which includes spending on higher tier supporter pack upgrades because they are happy with the game. If they stop playing for 3 months, it has the opposite effect, you're not sure if you are going to be invested so you don't spend money.

They do the cycles for PoE to bring players back with the new supporter packs and vault pass on a finished game. It’s a proven income model for a full release.

For an EA title it would be insane if they devoted any time to new MTX sales. If the 0.2 comes with new MTX sales it clearly shows the priorities. Waiting months for a reset on EA makes no sense to me either, the economy is already ruined so they may as well make changes on the fly. The only thing I can think of is that with consoles needing to approve updates they don’t want to be doing it constantly.

While I'm a minority opinion (??) I do think that GGG is having problems "managing" the games [and priorities] they have in progress.

My personal recommendation is if there are skills / interactions / drop rate etc. that need tweaking those sorts of things should likely be done on a weekly basis when & where possible.

For bug fixes those are trickier but I would try to release bug "hot fixes" on an opt-in basis. This would likely allow the players to test the fixes before rolling them out to the community at large.

For new skills, ascendancies, character classes I would say release them one at a time as soon as they are done -- or possibly allow some opt-in testing to make sure there aren't significant issues with what's released before you go to wide spread release.

For major redesigns those are likely appropriate to quarterly releases -- as much as I hate to admit it -- because if you change something fundamental you don't just change one thing in isolation but you may need to change MANY other things that interact directly or indirectly with what was changed.


For things like "economy resets" [new seasons?] I'd try to shoot for those monthly for as long as the economic problems seem to exist. Obviously you have to analyze what's causing the problems and then implement what you think is a solution for the problem(s) in question.