USHost247 - Reliable Hosting Solutions for Virtual Pet Sites

How often should a virtual pet site release new updates?

Depending on the type of updates, weekly updates or updates every couple of days would be nice to see on a pet site.

Too many updates can sometimes overwhelm users, as there’s too much going on at once. However, updates like new items being released in the main shops could benefit from a schedule of every other day or so.

I also think one mega news post is better than multiple smaller news posts spread throughout the week, as it condenses all the news and helps users from feeling overwhelmed.

However, if new features or games are being introduced, then it’s a good idea to split the news into separate posts.
 
It's proper for pet sites to introduce new items or events on a weekly basis to enhance user experience. This way, players will be kept excited and updated.
 
I think a virtual pet game should release updates every month. This is enough timeframe to generate buzz for new updates and an ample time for the development team to work on having an update that would be significant to every aspect of the virtual pet game.
 
Kross said:
I think a virtual pet game should release updates every month. This is enough timeframe to generate buzz for new updates and an ample time for the development team to work on having an update that would be significant to every aspect of the virtual pet game.
Click to expand...
I can see this working with one mega update every month that includes new features. It can be overwhelming for some users when new items, or features along with pets are introduced on a weekly or bi-weekly phase.

This aids with the development process as well and gives the dev team enough time to work on things without rushing anything.
 
My development cycle generally results in new updates approximately once every two or three months; this year, I updated in january, march, june, and august, and plan to have another fairly large update in october.

I don't think there's a single optimal release frequency, but there are two things to keep in mind: how sustainable the pace of work is, and the balance between size and frequency. A site could release one massive update every year or a tiny one every week and still end up with the same rate of new content in the long run.

If a site is well-established, adding new content to existing systems (a new outfit for pets, a new type of food that has only minor differences from existing ones, a new trait for an existing species, etc) can happen frequently, although I wouldn't do it more than twice a month to avoid overwhelming users and to avoid artist burnout, but while a site is still in its infancy, these kinds of cosmetic updates may need to take a back seat to systems development, especially if the same people are working on art and programming. For example, I want my site to add a handful of new "standard" (i.e. not event-specific) pets about once a year in the long run, but until there are enough distinct species in circulation, it would be nice to have even more frequency than that, maybe adding them as often as quarterly. However, because I'm still working on many of the core features, new species have been taking a back seat, and as we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of the closed alpha test, only about half the total art needed to introduce the second batch of species is done because I've been busy drawing achievement badges instead.

One related question that I have been asking myself is: is it better to bundle many unrelated features into one update, or to have multiple smaller updates? I've found that working on multiple things in parallel is easier, since if I get blocked on one thing I can pivot to another, or alternate between programming-heavy, art-heavy, and design-heavy tasks. But I also wonder if it would be better for the community to receive more frequent updates even if each one has less new content and systems.
 
EpiglottalAxolotl said:
My development cycle generally results in new updates approximately once every two or three months; this year, I updated in january, march, june, and august, and plan to have another fairly large update in october.

I don't think there's a single optimal release frequency, but there are two things to keep in mind: how sustainable the pace of work is, and the balance between size and frequency. A site could release one massive update every year or a tiny one every week and still end up with the same rate of new content in the long run.

If a site is well-established, adding new content to existing systems (a new outfit for pets, a new type of food that has only minor differences from existing ones, a new trait for an existing species, etc) can happen frequently, although I wouldn't do it more than twice a month to avoid overwhelming users and to avoid artist burnout, but while a site is still in its infancy, these kinds of cosmetic updates may need to take a back seat to systems development, especially if the same people are working on art and programming. For example, I want my site to add a handful of new "standard" (i.e. not event-specific) pets about once a year in the long run, but until there are enough distinct species in circulation, it would be nice to have even more frequency than that, maybe adding them as often as quarterly. However, because I'm still working on many of the core features, new species have been taking a back seat, and as we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of the closed alpha test, only about half the total art needed to introduce the second batch of species is done because I've been busy drawing achievement badges instead.

One related question that I have been asking myself is: is it better to bundle many unrelated features into one update, or to have multiple smaller updates? I've found that working on multiple things in parallel is easier, since if I get blocked on one thing I can pivot to another, or alternate between programming-heavy, art-heavy, and design-heavy tasks. But I also wonder if it would be better for the community to receive more frequent updates even if each one has less new content and systems.
Click to expand...
That’s a nice schedule actually. Every few months keeps the site stable without rushing it. Weekly updates can burn devs out. The small previews or polls to keep players talking till the next big update drops is a nice idea as it keeps things exciting.
 
I believe that regular updates are good, but it should be done in moderation. Perhaps once in a few months. It makes the game very interesting and not confusing to the players. People lose interest when the updates drag for too long. And when they are done too often, then it feels rushed. So, balance is the key.
 
uptrendfinancialsignal said:
I believe that regular updates are good, but it should be done in moderation. Perhaps once in a few months. It makes the game very interesting and not confusing to the players. People lose interest when the updates drag for too long. And when they are done too often, then it feels rushed. So, balance is the key.
Click to expand...
If a game generally sees updates every few months, I'd actually agree with this.

Especially if it's a feature updates with new items, new in-game rewards and events.

That way, users don't overwhelmed with new things too fast.

However, sometimes weekly updates keep users coming back. Some players may get bored with the lack of updates when new things aren't coming up.

But, that all depends on how you set the tone of your game from the beginning stages.
 
I can answer this as a player. I like the games that frequently updates, thus ensure repeat play
 
I think this should be related to your stats like returning players ad new players. If you see drop in your existing players and also drop in new sign ups, you will have to release new updates to retain players as well acquire new players
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom