Software development usually constructive - development moves in small steps with many intermediate milestones. No one writes the thing you write for half a year at once and then starts to test - it's almost guaranteed that you end up with bulky mess of unmaintainable spaghetti code and most of the thing would require a complete rewrite before even beginning to be salvageable.featherwinglove wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:22 pmI've tracked three games (Minecraft, KSP, Factorio) through early access dev cycles and it's always this pattern: early versions cycle through quickly with relatively small changes (that seem huge because the game is small) and then slow down as the game grows up, and each x.X.x change cycle gets bigger. I'm pretty sure it's organic, and I understand why, but I'm not in the mood to produce that wall of text at the moment.
I don't even doubt that devs could release an unstable working version at least every week, they've just chosen to not do so. I suppose they didn't want to be bothered with endless stream of bug reports for experimental rewrite, or maybe wanted to update product with substantial changes at once without torturing the users with half-finished features, or maybe both and something else entirely.
It's not organic. It's a choice. It's up to developer if he wants to publish unfinished work for users to browser or not. Commercial projects usually avoid to do that because complaining about something that doesn't work way more loud than complaining about something that missing and can't be solved by telling "we would release it SOON™"