Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kzuy

Optimized

Recommended Posts

I for one am just happy for the resurgence of traditional examples for "begging the question". Well done OP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess we wait another couple years

 

10 years is not a long time for a game to be developed

 

Game will be gold in 7 years total to be in line with their title. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just checked up on the reviews and filtered the most upvoted. 7 out of 10 of them are negative, Mocking the game for its poor optimization and lack of clear direction.

 

FTP have no clear direction with this game, that's not a controversial statement from a viewer's perspective. They are facing a consistent war with their own ideas and public opinion and have no clear idea which one is more valuable. Each patch for a long while now has added/replaced/removed chunks of the game and to this day, they are still trying to fix this. To say there is going to be core audience once this game is complete...is heavily optimistic. I am the last person in my group of friends who thinks this game has a chance of succeeding.

 

Right, because knee-jerk input like upvotes and anecdotal data are all you need to get the full picture. And it's not like people are more inclined to advertise negative feelings than positive ones.

 

The fact is, only TFP are likely to have all the necessary data to properly understand the long-term health of the game. Yet everyone who's unhappy with the state of the game seems certain that the data supports their perspective. Could it be that's due to hubris rather than rigorous analysis? :eek2:

 

But anyway, you missed the point of that post. You said you're involved in indie game development and criticized how TFP are doing things. Instead of cherry-picking data about 7DtD, how about providing data about your game (like the aforementioned metrics) to indicate that your development philosophy is sound, and moreover that it has any bearing on the development of 7DtD?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Game will be gold in 7 years total to be in line with their title. ?

 

So it’s going Gold this year? 2020?

 

It came out in 2013 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really complicated thing with early access games..

 

games get more complicated and need more development time, without early access and early buyers, many games would not be possible at all imo.

on the other hand it is extremely annoying if a game is for several years in alpha, absolutely no release date on the horizon, people which complain about ongoing and serious issues get "silenced" with crap comments like "it's alpha, you are dumb".

 

just imagine, if this game is still in "alpha" in 10 years, or development just stops at some point? is it still okay because the dumb people bought early access alpha and have to know that this would happen? sure..

i don't think this happens to 7dtd, i think tfp try to make serious progress so that a release version is at some point really a thing, even if i really can't stand some of their priorities.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
really complicated thing with early access games..

 

games get more complicated and need more development time, without early access and early buyers, many games would not be possible at all imo.

on the other hand it is extremely annoying if a game is for several years in alpha, absolutely no release date on the horizon, people which complain about ongoing and serious issues get "silenced" with crap comments like "it's alpha, you are dumb".

 

just imagine, if this game is still in "alpha" in 10 years, or development just stops at some point? is it still okay because the dumb people bought early access alpha and have to know that this would happen? sure..

i don't think this happens to 7dtd, i think tfp try to make serious progress so that a release version is at some point really a thing, even if i really can't stand some of their priorities.

 

Agree 100%. There really isn't a set rule book for early access which I can understand can be frustrating to some. In the case of 7d2d, we have already come this far and it looks like gold release is finally on the horizon. It will be a bitter sweet moment for me as it has been an exciting Alpha ride (although no the fastest lol)...and hope the devs continue with DLCs or some type of sequel as there isnt anything on the market like 7d2d (adult voxel zombie pve/coop fun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 years in development and no optimization makes no sense...

 

It is also a false statement. There have been optimization made all along. Alpha 14 was a huge optimization release in preparation of the console version. Alpha 18 was another huge optimization release and for A19 faatal has been spending most of his programming time on optimizations.

 

7 Days to Die has been in development for a long time. 7 years is a long time in Early Access. There can be no denial of that fact. What is important is that they are still working on it at an unbroken pace. There is no abandonment. They are fully funded for the pace at which they are developing.

 

If the development process has you fatigued simply put the game aside until the announcement comes that it has gone gold. Then pull it back out and have an enjoyable time playing co-op with your grandkids. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simply put the game aside until the announcement comes that it has gone gold. Then pull it back out and have an enjoyable time playing co-op with your grandkids. ;)

 

But why u do dis, tho? Troublemaker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can poke fun at the long alpha/ early access cycle because it doesn't bother me. There is no reason to feel threatened by the fact that 7 Days to Die is one of only 9 games that have been in early access since 2013. I consider it in good company with Project Zomboid....

 

Besides there are lots of people on this forum who have or will very soon have grandkids they can play this game with. It would be the way I would make myself the favored Grandpa after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yabbut, srs ppl with srs concern will be along shortly. Think of the outrage!

 

I mean, just between you and me, I kinda like the extended alpha because it's like getting 30-50% of a new game every year or so. I get enough time on each alpha to have a bunch of fun, try out some new stuff, try out some old stuff and fail miserably, and when I'm kind of getting bored >boom< here's a revamp of several major components. Go try again!

 

I don't mean to give TFP any ideas, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
really complicated thing with early access games..

 

games get more complicated and need more development time, without early access and early buyers, many games would not be possible at all imo.

on the other hand it is extremely annoying if a game is for several years in alpha, absolutely no release date on the horizon, people which complain about ongoing and serious issues get "silenced" with crap comments like "it's alpha, you are dumb".

 

just imagine, if this game is still in "alpha" in 10 years, or development just stops at some point? is it still okay because the dumb people bought early access alpha and have to know that this would happen? sure..

i don't think this happens to 7dtd, i think tfp try to make serious progress so that a release version is at some point really a thing, even if i really can't stand some of their priorities.

 

This. The whole 'Early Access' craze, combined with crowdfunding and general overuse, has made the terms Alpha, Beta, and Release largely meaningless in the videogame industry since the definition of what is an alpha, what is a beta, and what is released vary from game to game, largely in accordance with whatever that developer happens to think of the terms. As an example, I remember RimWorld going from alpha to beta to release without changing in any significant way (visible to the player at least) beyond gaining more features and becoming more stable. I remember DOTA 2 staying in beta for a few months, changing little, then releasing before it was finished. I've seen Stellaris change more after being released than most alpha games do in their entire development cycle. To a jaded person like me those terms have become basically meaningless, especially when it comes to trying to dismiss complaints. Fact is, the game's been taking money from customers and giving them a product for six years now, which is longer than both RimWorld and Stellaris (DOTA 2 is technically free to play). I'm not gonna say the product is or is not worth it, but I am gonna say that people shouldn't try to use the development process as a shield against criticism when a developer has been selling their game for that long.

Edited by BobTheBard (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 years in development and no optimization makes no sense, whether you want to quote "industry standards" or display posters calling us all idiots or not.

Exactly right. Such a claim makes no sense at all.

There has been plenty of optimisation - especially in A18 - and a lot here seem to ignore that fact. =)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My computer thinks that some efficiency has been made as the fans are not shrieking like its ready to take off or explode.

 

So... Optimized-ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if there have been optimizations all along ,are we in beta now? Seems there is a lot of division over if, when and how it ever happens! Confused would we?

Just waiting for the British Railway excuse now, "Ah yes but it was the WRONG kind of optimization!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People love to toss terms like alpha and beta around and ascribe all kinds of properties to those.

 

The only definition that (almost) everyone agrees with is that beta is feature complete, alpha is not.

 

7DTD is not feature complete, ergo alpha.

 

That some dude on the internet thinks that optimisation is only allowed in "beta" does not mean that TFP are bound by that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I excpect the game to be pushed to a final version once sales start dropping. Otherwise it makes sense to continue developing new “alpha” versions.

 

keeping the game in development profits players (new content) and the developers (sales). So why stop it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's look at the oldest ~10% (433) of that list. Of those, only 50 have more than 1k reviews. Only 13 have more than 10k reviews, 11 of which are net positive:

 

 

Project Zomboid 20k

7 Days to Die 77k

Stranded Deep 23k

Shellshock Live 15k

BeamNG.drive 28k

Empyrion - Galactic Survival 15k

The Isle 18k

Squad 33k

Scrap Mechanic 26k

Golf with Your Friends 18k

Factorio 57k

 

 

Seems to me that 7DtD sticks out in a remarkably positive way. Funny how the same data can lead to very different conclusions...

 

Granted, I'm not a statistician so my "results" could be as misleading or as meaningless as yours. It seems to me that really interesting numbers would require asking questions like:

 

How many EA games released more than a few years ago still receive regular updates? How many former EA games have significant numbers of reviews complaining that the game left EA too early? How does the progress of 7DtD compare to that of other developmentally comparable games that started out in EA?

 

Unfortunately, you'd need to pay someone to compile the data necessary to answer these questions.

The only "conclusion" in my post is the remark, that 7dtd is in EA for an unsually long time. And without doubt is 7dtd in EA for an unusually long time. It's in the top ZERO-point-3 percent. Particularly when we're discussing "industry standards", it's a fun fact that deserves at least an honorable mention, eh.

 

Further conclusions might be that if you sell a game for seven years, some optimisation here and there feels expectable (and has been done, I guess). I'd also say that it's not unheard of for customers to wish that the devs should get it over with already. Instead of the n-th redesign, add the missing features, polish, optimize and finally release the bloody game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a weird way of doing business. More like an "until money runs out" approach, I guess.

 

The plan for 7D is to finish it, release it, move on. Really old school...

 

Now players (who for the most part have no idea how any of this works =)) make up all kinds of hypotheses on what will happen and why. That doesn't mean it will affect development in any way. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I excpect the game to be pushed to a final version once sales start dropping. Otherwise it makes sense to continue developing new “alpha” versions.

 

keeping the game in development profits players (new content) and the developers (sales). So why stop it...

They sure could get a bunch of monies from me with DLC. Additional biomes, prefab packs, weapons (same stats, just different models and sounds), vehicles, more zombies, animals, other NPCs, plants, blocks in general. Game modes. Not sure how big the market is for that, but I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

 

Of course it'd be a massive stinker tryna sell dlc before even releasing a final version.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now players (who for the most part have no idea how any of this works =)) make up all kinds of hypotheses on what will happen and why. That doesn't mean it will affect development in any way. =P
Ha ha.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Damocles, this actually is the mindset which really harms early access reputation and indies long term.

 

you should aim for a release right from the beginning, regardless of state of current sales figures, and this does not mean, that you are not allowed to touch the game and extend it in the future.

You always can extend and develop it in future by providing updates, expansion packs, DLCs or something.

 

staying in alpha because of sales figures is just abuse of this early access system, and no, i don't say that tfp are doing this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People love to toss terms like alpha and beta around and ascribe all kinds of properties to those.

 

The only definition that (almost) everyone agrees with is that beta is feature complete, alpha is not.

 

7DTD is not feature complete, ergo alpha.

 

That some dude on the internet thinks that optimisation is only allowed in "beta" does not mean that TFP are bound by that.

 

Amen to that!

 

Tired of the bullying and condescending - happens daily on the Steam forum too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

This. The whole 'Early Access' craze, combined with crowdfunding and general overuse, has made the terms Alpha, Beta, and Release largely meaningless in the videogame industry since the definition of what is an alpha, what is a beta, and what is released vary from game to game, largely in accordance with whatever that developer happens to think of the terms. As an example, I remember RimWorld going from alpha to beta to release without changing in any significant way (visible to the player at least) beyond gaining more features and becoming more stable. I remember DOTA 2 staying in beta for a few months, changing little, then releasing before it was finished. I've seen Stellaris change more after being released than most alpha games do in their entire development cycle. To a jaded person like me those terms have become basically meaningless, especially when it comes to trying to dismiss complaints. Fact is, the game's been taking money from customers and giving them a product for six years now, which is longer than both RimWorld and Stellaris (DOTA 2 is technically free to play). I'm not gonna say the product is or is not worth it, but I am gonna say that people shouldn't try to use the development process as a shield against criticism when a developer has been selling their game for that long.

 

While the definitions have eroded, a game in EA is at least honest about it not being finished (while released games that get patched again and again don't sound really honest). Since you mention Stellaris, wasn't there complaints recently about performance and AI ? And Stellaris released a patch just now to fix some of that ? Wouldn't it be honest then to add the years since release to get the total development time? :anonymous:. ( I'm only half serious, Stellaris has a different development model )

 

Now I don't really understand people who really want a finished game but then ignore the EA label. Or expect some limit to development duration just because some other games have released earlier. Sure, people can expect anything and complain about it, but is that reasonable? Finding 50 non-toxic mushrooms does not make that a law of nature, try to complain about the 51th being toxic.

Edited by meganoth (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

While the definitions have eroded, a game in EA is at least honest about it not being finished (while released games that get patched again and again don't sound really honest). Since you mention Stellaris, wasn't there complaints recently about performance and AI ? And Stellaris released a patch just now to fix some of that ? Wouldn't it be honest then to add the years since release to get the total development time? :anonymous:. ( I'm only half serious, Stellaris has a different development model )

 

Now I don't really understand people who really want a finished game but then ignore the EA label. Or expect some limit to development duration just because some other games have released earlier. Sure, people can expect anything and complain about it, but is that reasonable? Finding 50 non-toxic mushrooms does not make that a law of nature, try to complain about the 51th being toxic.

These people of yours. They would like that a game will leave EA within a reasonable time. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

 

Edited by Kubikus
Fixed some grammar. (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These people of yours. They would like that a game will leave EA within a reasonable time. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

 

Why though? Do they think someone is going to wave a magic wand and turn the game into exactly what they want upon release? People’s expectations about what the final polished and optimized version is will likely be disappointed. The reality is it will be like the current version but slightly better. Also, the game releasing means TFP will likely not be adding any major features to the game. The best part about EA games is that they evolve and change substantially during development and provide more replayability than they otherwise would. Keep in mind that a lot of people complaining about performance aren’t comparing 7dtd to other voxel games. Releasing the game won’t change it’s basic nature. It will always perform worse and look worse than most non-voxel games. That’s the trade-off for all of the options you have in a voxel game. Also, people can play their favorite version of 7dtd and not have to worry about the updates if they so choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...