Part One: The Model, Mission Statement, and Consequences (Patreon)

Part One: The Model, Mission Statement, and Consequences

There has been considerable introspection within our team, and personally, by myself (SmokeShank), regarding influences that have shaped our game. Over the course of nearly 9 years, we have been actively working on our project, SU, under the Patreon funding model. It's become clear how Patreon's content delivery system has impacted the type of game we've developed. Comments labeling us as "milkers" or "scammers" are common, as many perceive the platform's impact from their perspective alone. I aim to explain how it affects our team from the inside, offering a glimpse into our world rather than casting judgment on others.

At the outset of our journey, I was tasked with devising a business model. It was straightforward: Patreon bills monthly, so content should be delivered monthly. Our mission statement was to showcase our work consistently, regardless of circumstances. However, this approach was not the standard at the time. Two major models dominated our space: the sporadic release of content while billing monthly and billing upon content release, with pauses in between. Desiring to differentiate ourselves, we opted for scheduled content releases, believing this would marry the best aspects of both models and help us stand out. This strategy proved successful early on, as our updates became the most anticipated releases, attracting significant attention.

As time went on, we noticed a shift in the industry, with more developers adopting our approach for monthly content releases, moving away from the pay-on-release model. This reaffirmed our belief that we had made the right decision. Now, in 2024, the landscape features two primary models: the sporadic release schedule and a newer approach by smaller developers, who produce content monthly or even more frequently. The effects of these models are well-documented. For instance, the case of Breeding Season illustrates the potential pitfalls of sporadic releases. Despite this, such a model remains popular due to its ability to generate substantial income spikes, as seen with Summertime Saga.

Conversely, a regular release schedule tends to maintain steady support but can lead to quicker audience frustration due to perceived inadequacies in content delivery. Regular updates lack the impact of less frequent releases, leading to a sense of predictability and diminished excitement.



So, how does our model affect our content and game? A fixed delivery schedule necessitates efficiency, leaving no room for correcting mistakes or reevaluating poorly conceived content. The drive to continuously produce and release content leads to compromises in game depth and quality. Our focus on quantifiable outputs, such as the number of images per update, has inadvertently shaped SU into a unique genre within visual novels, one heavily reliant on SR7's art.

A major error was mine: publicly setting a timeline and deadline, with firm promises. Bound by our mission statement, we had no choice but to follow through, for better or worse. This approach heightened the risk of negatively received updates, a consequence we've faced more frequently than if we had opted for less frequent releases. Our determination to avoid being labeled as scammers or milkers ironically led to such accusations regardless.

We are still evolving and learning. I'm now developing an internal schedule that shields our audience from the pressures of our content creation cycle, aiming for each release to be well-received and allowing for significant updates. While challenging, our team is dedicated and prepared to meet this challenge head-on.

Part Two will be in May Patreon, Flowcharts, and Rewards!

TL;DR: Over nearly 9 years, our team, has developed our game, SU, under a Patreon model, aiming for monthly content releases to stand out from sporadic release models. This approach, while initially successful, led to challenges like content quantity over quality and audience frustration with perceived inadequacy in updates. The major mistake was publicly setting strict deadlines, which, despite intentions to avoid being labeled as "scammers" or "milkers," attracted criticism anyway. Now, we're shifting to an internal schedule to improve content quality and reception, learning from past experiences and committed to evolving.