Hero releases initialy were 4 weeks, they then slowed it down a bit so it became 6 weeks. But in the meantime the update frequency was reduced aswel to 2 weeks. So in the worst case this would become 12 weeks.
But my suspicion of the planned update system would be:
- Week 2, new hero
- Week 4, bugfixes + balance fixes on new hero
- Week 6, reworks
- Week 8 (or week 0), bugfixes + balance fixes on reworks
And random balance fixes can appear in every update.
Which if this is the case seems to me as a quite fair rate for updates and hero releases. Im glad those slowed down a bit to allow heroes to be balanced more accurately (more time means more data, which allows more accurate fixes while using less resources). With the short release cycle, many heroes felt heavily OP and in some cases not well refined, which caused the major OP problems. And at the same time is also very likely the cause for the high rate of assassins, as those are simply easier to make.
And at the same time, with 2 week intervals, you are pushing less onto ‘release builds’ which simply just take a lot of time to make. Having less of these can save a lot of time. Since if such build takes 2 days to make (which is very normal, as 1 day is gathering the stuff/finishing those to become compatible. And the 2nd day is testing and fixing that build), it means you only have 3 days remaining for most other stuff. While in the new patterns that became 8 days. Essentialy allowing a reduction of the team by 2/3.
While at the same time, creativity generaly doesnt stop and ideas can still be given (even from other departments).
So from that point i dont see the issue.
Hotfixes can still exist after all, so if something goes realy bad, they can still quickly patch it. But hotfixes are generaly discouraged as they are very risky at introducing new problems.
As long as content however is still getting made at a fair speed its fine.
But the big problem was the way it was told to us. As developer you should NEVER tell to your community that you are putting a game on ‘life support’. Thats almost like committing suicide.
- If players hear a game is on life support, they are less likely to spend money
- And if they spend less, it gives even more of a reason to put a game on life support
- And because of that, they are more likely to leave, and give negative feedback to potential players. Do you think a player would go into a game when they are being told “The dev said this game about to die, i wouldnt bother with it”
- And this is a deadly spiral
While if you kept silent:
- Players notice the reduced update rate, but arent entirely sure, but with a decent update rate are still kept happy. They kinda expect this to happen
- And for that reason, they keep purchasing as they dont expect the game to die soon.
- And players still invite new players to play the game
Yes, some might still notice the 2nd patterns, but thats not an issue after all. TF2 did this, and after 5 years of being on life support its still well alive as if it never realy happened. The only thing that degraded was the skill of players (as good players leave, while newer players still are being attracted).
And thats a game that never realy had a good competetive scene regarding price values.