Version 1.0 (Alpha 22) Dev Diary

[bdubyah]

10 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

And the fact that it was stated multiple times by TFPthat those things are planned during alpha don´t count? I just wish all customers were as forgiving as gamers. It would make my job waaaay easier.

Just because they hoped they could get them in doesn't count as anything. Obviously they would love for them to be in and perfect already, but things don't always work out that way. Just because they had expressed hope that they could get them in earlier isn't a promise. And as you can see from that KS list, they have actually already added several features into the game that weren't promised for a 1.0 release. But you won't mention that because you just wanna spew salt.

 

I'm forgiving because I paid like $8 for this game, and have more than got my money's worth already. Any new cool stuff they add is just icing to me. Plus, I also have reading comprehension to know that the features you are complaining are "missing" from 1.0 were never promised to be in 1.0 from the beginning. Would it have been cool if they were in? Absolutely. Am I gonna go rage on the forums because they aren't? Absolutely not.

[pApA^LeGBa]

And now it will be a 30$ game and people who buy it will get a incomplete game missing key features.

 

And it´s more than just icing. The balance, be it for traders or finally having an actual endgame (they go to version 1.0 and basically have no endgame that alone is a big no, no) is missing, bandits aren´t in, the RWG isn´t done yet. 

 

What bothers me is that they obviously suddendly either changed their minds completly from one day to the other, about getting to version 1.0 or flat out simply don´t tell the truth. And they even came up with the reason when releasing that info, they could have just announced it and see how people react, instead of starting of with that story that everyone who knows the game and TFP a little bit will instantly not believe, when no one even asked yet.  If any person near me acts like that, you surely will say they aren´t trustworthy and i don´t see why i should act any different because it´s a company.

 

Edited April 27 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

40 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

And now it will be a 30$ game and people who buy it will get a incomplete game missing key features.

 

No, if they buy the game today, they get the game as is and everything on the roadmap.  They are not missing out anything that was discussed 5 years ago about adding to the game.

41 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

And it´s more than just icing. The balance, be it for traders or finally having an actual endgame (they go to version 1.0 and basically have no endgame that alone is a big no, no) is missing, bandits aren´t in, the RWG isn´t done yet. 

 

Which is, according the roadmap, still being worked on and planned for release.  Version 1.0 does not mean that this is the final version for the game.  That is just what they are calling Alpha 22.  If they didn't call it version 1.0, we would have A22, A23, A24, A25.  More items are coming down the road in future releases.  They can call it version 100.100.100 for all they can, it doesn't mean that it is final.

[beerfly]

Just numbers guys, no panic and always bring a towel. 

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

And now it will be a 30$ game and people who buy it will get a incomplete game missing key features.

 

And it´s more than just icing. The balance, be it for traders or finally having an actual endgame (they go to version 1.0 and basically have no endgame that alone is a big no, no) is missing, bandits aren´t in, the RWG isn´t done yet. 

 

When is a game incomplete to a prospective buyer? I remember a lot of players arguing in this forum that A16 was complete und could have been published after some weeks or months of polish. Were they confused? Or was 7days already factually a complete game at that time?

 

The only people able to argument that **their** game isn't here yet are the kickstarter backers. And for them there is no change at all, they already payed for the game and the features are still missing and on the roadmap, whether this is called 1.0 or alpha22.

 

[bdubyah]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

And now it will be a 30$ game and people who buy it will get a incomplete game missing key features.

 

And it´s more than just icing. The balance, be it for traders or finally having an actual endgame (they go to version 1.0 and basically have no endgame that alone is a big no, no) is missing, bandits aren´t in, the RWG isn´t done yet. 

 

What bothers me is that they obviously suddendly either changed their minds completly from one day to the other, about getting to version 1.0 or flat out simply don´t tell the truth. And they even came up with the reason when releasing that info, they could have just announced it and see how people react, instead of starting of with that story that everyone who knows the game and TFP a little bit will instantly not believe, when no one even asked yet.  If any person near me acts like that, you surely will say they aren´t trustworthy and i don´t see why i should act any different because it´s a company.

 

I'm not sure this conversation is worth the time if you just refuse to accept most of your "missing" features were never meant for 1.0 to begin with.

 

How do you know 1.0 won't bring this missing balance? Every update has made changes to this, no reason to believe 1.0 won't do the same. Endgame as in, what exactly? A story? Oh yeah, more stuff meant for after 1.0... Same with bandits.......

 

What isn't done with RWG? They are still iterating on it, but I'd say it is more than good enough for a 1.0 release.

 

Honestly not even sure what the last part is supposed to mean. Reads like gibberish to me. What did their change their mind from, to? Pretty sure the objective for the last few years is to finish the game. 1.0 is a step towards that.

[Jost Amman]

Just now, bdubyah said:

How do you know 1.0 won't bring this missing balance?

By the way... what about @Gazz? 

 

I remember he was the guy taking care of balancing numbers in the XML files.

Is he still working for The Fun Pimps? I haven't heard a peep from him in ages.

[bdubyah]

20 minutes ago, Jost Amman said:

By the way... what about @Gazz? 

 

I remember he was the guy taking care of balancing numbers in the XML files.

Is he still working for The Fun Pimps? I haven't heard a peep from him in ages.

Don't believe he is still with TFP.

[DocRussel]

As I said before, the TFP announcement only said that the game was leaving early access and was becoming 1.0.  That's it.  They never stated or implied that 1.0 was gold (a finished product).  They are just changing the state to an official release so that the PC version is official before the console version is released.

 

Gold is at least 2 years away on the current timeline.

[beerfly]

Pimps could have named A22 Bob. Would that make some difference in the future development and plans from what they planned from the beginning ? Nope.

 

Lets move on. 

 

Whats next gate ?

[Adam the Waster]

1 hour ago, beerfly said:

Pimps could have named A22 Bob. Would that make some difference in the future development and plans from what they planned from the beginning ? Nope.

 

Lets move on. 

 

Whats next gate ?

Exactly it'd basically the same thing really just a different name 

[beerfly]

So, when is Bob`s release date ? 

[faatal]

18 hours ago, Chaton Noir said:

Are there any plans to add XeSS?

None.

[faatal]

18 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

So Version 1.0?

 

This means there will be an early access game that tells customers it´s a finished game while it´s technically still in early access as we miss 2 big key features for a truly finished game. Bandits and story. And other stuff like Workshop support and PvP balancing.

 

Did the cry babies finally win? Do they get a meaningless tag on the game? Well they will switch from crying about early access to crying about how key features are not in a released version and that it takes too long to implement them as it´s now a released game and not EA anymore.

 

And what about all the stuff that was promised to come as soon as version 1.0 arrives? It´s not in.

 

Nothing changes with that besides the fact that new players wil think that the game isn´t finished yet despite beeing tagged as finished...

Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.

[林小天]

Have you considered the Chinese market? I have some good suggestions, please contact me and wish the game a hit!

[khzmusik]

4 hours ago, faatal said:

Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.

 

Question about how the post-1.0 roadmap will match the current alpha development cycle.

 

There are currently three post-roadmap releases/goals: "Storm's Brewing," "A New Threat", and "The Road Ahead".

 

Are these going to be equivalent to new alpha versions? (So "Storm's Brewing" would be A23, etc.)

If so, will there be breaking changes to the code or game mechanics, or will these updates necessarily be compatible with the 1.0 game, with the changes mainly being additional content? (I'm specifically asking for modders like myself, I'd like to know if mods for 1.0 will still work in post-1.0 versions.)

Edited April 28 by khzmusik (see edit history)

[Vedui]

5 hours ago, faatal said:

Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.

 

I think it's much of a storm in a teacup here. A22, A23, or 1.0 or 2.0 really matters less. I'm imagining that launching the same version on console pretty much necessitates (or strongly favors) calling it a 1.0 release, which is cool. It's just naming which really does not matter. The biggest thing is console players finally get to play it, and hopefully by Q4 crossplay so PC and console gamers can finally game together, which I think is really rare but a great boon to the community.

 

However, let's also utilize commonly accepted terms. 1.0 is a gold release. You can not release into 1.0, exit early access, and still not call it a gold release. Doing so simply stretches the terminology of a gold release into nonsensical use. I'd prefer we move away from the gold release term anyhow, as we don't do CD pressing, we can easily do day 1 (or day -1) bug AND content patches ... and easily subsequently update and add features through established protocols.

 

Me, I'd have preferred TFP saying "We're going to label it 1.0, it's not the completed game, but that's the term we'll be using as we exit early access regardless and we had to due to A B C considerations." and leave it at that. I would of course being the nosy person I am like to know ALL the backroom dealings of why, but wanting and being owed an explanation are two widely different things.

 

Now ... end May experimental still on? Can we push it to end June when I'm back from holiday?

 

Vedui42

[pApA^LeGBa]

5 hours ago, faatal said:

Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.

 

The reasoning is weird. There was no indicator whatsoever that you guys feel the game is launch ready. It´s quite the opposite feeling i get over the past year. I mean do whatever you want. But the reasoning. I am sorry i smell BS for the reasoning here. You guys never cared if it´s in EA or called 1.0 for over 10 years now and suddenly you do, even when still missing key features?

 

And again you can tell us whatever you want. Just don´t be surprised if not everyone buys it. And no one even asked why and yet you felt that a reason needs to be there when announcing this.

 

There might be NDA´s as already meantioned. But that doesn´t mean you need to serve some made up reason. Simply say, there is legal reasons and we can´t talk about it yet.

9 hours ago, bdubyah said:

I'm not sure this conversation is worth the time if you just refuse to accept most of your "missing" features were never meant for 1.0 to begin with.

 

How do you know 1.0 won't bring this missing balance? Every update has made changes to this, no reason to believe 1.0 won't do the same. Endgame as in, what exactly? A story? Oh yeah, more stuff meant for after 1.0... Same with bandits.......

 

What isn't done with RWG? They are still iterating on it, but I'd say it is more than good enough for a 1.0 release.

 

Honestly not even sure what the last part is supposed to mean. Reads like gibberish to me. What did their change their mind from, to? Pretty sure the objective for the last few years is to finish the game. 1.0 is a step towards that.

 

I know because we were told balancing will happen in Beta. And we get 1.0 without a Beta all of a sudden. And they can´t get Bandits done, they struggle a bit with RWG. I doubt there was any time for it with all the other stuff coming for 1.0.

Edited April 28 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[ParadiseLostUK]

Some people just love to create a conspiracy theory out of nothing.  Get a life people!

[BFT2020]

10 hours ago, beerfly said:

Pimps could have named A22 Bob.

 

This

 

I am going to call my next software release Bob instead of those pesky numbers  😏

[zztong]

34 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

I am going to call my next software release Bob instead of those pesky numbers

 

You can use surnames for the minor releases: Bob.Adams, Bob.Barker, etc.

 

Bob.Barker.Sr, Bob.Barker.Jr, Bob.Barker.III, etc.

Edited April 28 by zztong (see edit history)

[meganoth]

Guys, it is not about the change itself, @pApA^LeGBas concern is about whether TFP is keeping quiet on a major reason for the change. 

 

My feeling is that IF that is the case (because of NDA or simply because they did this just on suspicion it would look better to Sony/Microsoft), then it would be a rather harmless omission (comparable to not telling your grandmother that you go on a adventure cruise). I don't expect them to tell us everything. At least since I have been on this forum they never told us everything, especially about their bussiness dealings.

 

Edited April 28 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Jamie mallinder]

I have a question now the game is version 1.0 does this mean we won't have to start over when they release the upcoming content patches?

[beerfly]

1 minute ago, Jamie mallinder said:

I have a question now the game is version 1.0 does this mean we won't have to start over when they release the upcoming content patches?

In every previous big update that adds new content, features and so on in 7 days to die (as in every game actually) , a full wipe is a must.

 

 

 

[batboyboy]

Best of all, there is a dedicated server and MODs, it's very interesting to me