Version 1.0 (Alpha 22) Dev Diary

[SylenThunder]

22 minutes 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?

If you read back a few pages, this was already answered in the thread.

[q123]

hey, there's a new all-time high today:
 

 

congrats @TFP!

[beerfly]

This is why in Pimps we trust : 

 

Edited April 28 by beerfly (see edit history)

[Laran Mithras]

Nice #s, seeing as how almost every review for any game on Steam rants about how (game) "is no Baldur's Gate 3!"

Apparently, BG3 is the utmost standard all games must attain - no matter the genre.

 

I'll take my zombies any day.

[NekoPawtato]

3 hours ago, BFT2020 said:

 

This

 

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

I really liked how android named their versions early on, using names of sweets and going alphabetical things got tricky when they got to Q though

Edited April 28 by NekoPawtato (see edit history)

[Riamus]

6 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

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.

And yet if they said simply, "We're going to call it 1.0" and didn't include any explanation at all, then everyone (including probably you), would be complaining about that.  They aren't going to tell us the details about private business decisions between them and Sony or Microsoft.  So they either tell us absolutely nothing (pitchforks come out) or tell us a half truth like they did (still pitchforks, but fewer).  There isn't a perfect option for them when they aren't going to tell you the specific details.  And there's no reason they should have to either.  Besides, I thought it was pretty clear that this move was almost guaranteed to be due to Microsoft or Sony, so they let you read between the lines to find out the (likely) truth as it was.  That's enough.

7 hours ago, khzmusik said:

 

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.)

 

2 hours 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?

As SylenThunder mentioned, this was responded to earlier.  In short, they are planning on trying to keep you from needing to start new games with these updates but cannot guarantee it won't be required.  They will try to make the saves at least possible to load.  Mods should work similar to saves and probably are less likely to break.  The biggest thing that may break are POI if they change blocks again in any of the releases.

 

That being said, I would not expect the bandit release to work properly without starting a new game.  It changes too much for that, imo.

Edited April 28 by Riamus (see edit history)

[seven]

I don't know if this has been said, but maybe, just maybe, it's so that the initial release of the new version on console isn't labeled Alpha 22. They want them to be in sync, so gotta give them the same version number to avoid confusion. No devious plans.

 

Edit: this was in response to 'why call it 1.0?', lost the quote.

Edited April 28 by seven
clarity (see edit history)

[faatal]

9 hours ago, khzmusik said:

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.)

Yes, they would have been alpha 23, 24, but now something like 1.5 or 2.0.

 

It would be nice to break nothing, but I don't know if that is practical. Code will change to make it better or add features, so if a mod is changing code it may need updating. xml formats may continue to change as needed. Save data mostly has version numbers for the various types of data and we try to be backwards compatible reading older versions.

[Pichun1]

Hi!

I saw a news story that said that TFP was not going to update the console version due to changes in the hardware, making console players have to pay for the game again, when on PC it is not necessary. I was going to correct them about the real reason but looking at the FAQ I saw the following text:

 

Quote

Q: What about the old Console version?
A: Due to the significant technical differences between old and current console hardware,  we will not be upgrading the legacy version...

 

Wasn't the main reason a rights problem with Telltale? I ask because people were complaining about that, even though they were going to give a discount.
If you said about telltale, people would be more understanding. I don't understand why say something about the hardware.

[YourMirror]

14 minutes ago, Pichun1 said:

Hi!

I saw a news story that said that TFP was not going to update the console version due to changes in the hardware, making console players have to pay for the game again, when on PC it is not necessary. I was going to correct them about the real reason but looking at the FAQ I saw the following text:

 

 

Wasn't the main reason a rights problem with Telltale? I ask because people were complaining about that, even though they were going to give a discount.
If you said about telltale, people would be more understanding. I don't understand why say something about the hardware.

Is this you, pApA^LeGBa?

[faatal]

8 hours ago, Vedui said:

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

The term gold does not mean much anymore. When is it done? Many games release, get a few bug fixes, then no more updates, so I guess it is done. There are other games that just keep getting bugs fixes, balance changes, new features, at whatever rate the devs feeling like doing, so they don't ever seem done to me. Avorion, Grim Dawn, No Man's Sky, Empyrion, Everspace 2, Space Engineers, Rust. I play or have played all of these and look forward to some of their updates. Some were early access titles and while so, it actually encouraged me to play them less. Leaving early access tells me it is more stable, more complete and I will have a better experience.

 

I bought Necesse many months ago on a recommendation. On sale. Got that early access price as most games go up in price substantially when they leave early access. Played for 7 hours and stopped because I want more features. I want a more in depth experience and don't want to get burned out on the features they do have now, so I wait.

 

I don't feel that way about 7dtd. It has plenty of solid features for a long term experience and does not need to be called early access anymore. Like me, the early access label discourages some people from playing the game. I think it is time to be called 1.0 and follow the model of those previously mentioned games and keep making it better.

[faatal]

41 minutes ago, Pichun1 said:

Hi!

I saw a news story that said that TFP was not going to update the console version due to changes in the hardware, making console players have to pay for the game again, when on PC it is not necessary. I was going to correct them about the real reason but looking at the FAQ I saw the following text:

 

Wasn't the main reason a rights problem with Telltale? I ask because people were complaining about that, even though they were going to give a discount.
If you said about telltale, people would be more understanding. I don't understand why say something about the hardware.

7dtd with the current feature set and assets will not run on PS4 and Xbox One. Not even close. The computer version of the game has moved beyond that hardware and it was a challenge to get it running reliably on current gen console hardware.

[faatal]

10 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

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.

 

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.

Every alpha we get ready for launch. 1.0 is the same getting ready for launch plus a few extra things.

 

We are not the Borg. We are a group of individuals. I care that it is still labeled EA.

 

You can literally say anything and not everyone will "buy" it. Even the greatest game in the world (whatever that is), will have 2% negative reviews. There is no pleasing everyone. If I could give everyone in the world a million dollars, I would have people complaining it was not enough or they don't want it or don't know what to do with it or I was up to no good.

 

We are doing a bunch of balancing and play testing right now, beta or not. We have bandits partially done, but for my part, I have tons of higher priority tasks to do before I get back to their AI. The primary programmer for RWG died, so more on my plate and we have actually made many improvements to it in the last 6 months that I am excited about.

[Laran Mithras]

Art suggestion future update?

 

Road tiles look fairly intact. I saw a mod once that broke up the road tiles with occasional blocks of grass - as if the road had aged/deteriorated enough to allow grass up through cracks here and there. (The mod no longer exists - the mod author was Russian and Nexus freaked on Russians when the whole Ukraine thing splashed - taken down/forced down, dunno)

 

Think old sections of Route 66.

Edited April 28 by Laran Mithras
clarify mod status (see edit history)

[SylenThunder]

1 hour ago, faatal said:

7dtd with the current feature set and assets will not run on PS4 and Xbox One. Not even close. The computer version of the game has moved beyond that hardware and it was a challenge to get it running reliably on current gen console hardware.

 

This is exactly why I was shocked that yall had listed support for the Series S. If you left it to just PS5 and Series X, that would make a lot more sense.

[Vaeliorin]

12 hours ago, Vedui said:

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.

Still have to submit a version to Sony/Microsoft for final approval.  And significant Day 1 patches shouldn't be a thing.  A game should be as bug free as possible at release.  Early adopters of released games becoming beta testers is one of the terrible things that has become common in the industry.

Edited April 28 by Vaeliorin (see edit history)

[faatal]

1 hour ago, SylenThunder said:

This is exactly why I was shocked that yall had listed support for the Series S. If you left it to just PS5 and Series X, that would make a lot more sense.

You can't support Series X, but not run on S. You would not get approved. You can reduce settings to make it work, which we did. I think over 50% of Series market is S, so that is a lot of players.

[Roland]

3 hours ago, Vaeliorin said:

Early adopters of released games becoming beta testers is one of the terrible things that has become common in the industry.

 

Terrible or not it is common and has been common for years now. And despite all the online chatter that decries the behavior and calls it the worst failing of the industry, that sentiment is not reflected when you look at sales and play time numbers. I think it's about time to stop focusing on how "terrible" it is and accept that it is the industry normal now. We don't play games on cartridges, floppy discs or CDs either anymore. We've turned this corner in the industry and there is no reason to hold up this studio or that studio for operating within the same standards as everyone else.

 

It is obvious to the industry that the greatest concern and care of the consumer is to get their hands on new content as soon as possible. The desire to get content faster trumps the desire to get that content in a perfect form. Game studios know this and so they cater to the ASAP demand and let the quality demand slide in its favor-- and the fact that nothing has changed for years but instead settled even further into this model is a testament to how right they were in discerning the number one priority in their customers: sooner over better.

Edited April 29 by Roland (see edit history)

[Adam the Waster]

9 hours ago, beerfly said:

This is why in Pimps we trust : 

 

Nice it beat bear fu- 

 

I mean bolders gate!

[Roland]

 

The funny thing is that any consumer can decide to prioritize better over sooner simply by waiting to play the game until it is better. If someone is disappointed that 7 Days to DIe is not going to finished next month when it releases to 1.0, they can just wait another year to start playing it once it is better.

[Guppycur]

8 hours ago, faatal said:

 

It would be nice to break nothing, but I don't know if that is practical. Code will change to make it better or add features, so if a mod is changing code it may need updating. xml formats may continue to change as needed. 

Y'all aren't considering moving more XMLs to that weird csv format entitygroups is now in that makes it more difficult to xpath, are ya?

 

...please say no, even if it's really a yes... 

[Vaeliorin]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

 

Terrible or not it is common and has been common for years now. And despite all the online chatter that decries the behavior and calls it the worst failing of the industry, that sentiment is not reflected when you look at sales and play time numbers. I think it's about time to stop focusing on how "terrible" it is and accept that it is the industry normal now. We don't play games on cartridges, floppy discs or CDs either anymore. We've turned this corner in the industry and there is no reason to hold up this studio or that studio for operating within the same standards as everyone else.

 

It is obvious to the industry that the greatest concern and care of the consumer is to get their hands on new content as soon as possible. The desire to get content faster trumps the desire to get that content in a perfect form. Game studios know this and so they cater to the ASAP demand and let the quality demand slide in its favor-- and the fact that nothing has changed for years but instead settled even further into this model is a testament to how right they were in discerning the number one priority in their customers: sooner over better.

Just because it's standard at this point does not mean it is excusable.  Irresponsible consumers are welcome to waste money on terrible games that either never get fixed/finished, but they've severely damaged the industry for people that expect quality products.  Yes, we live in a society where consume product and get excited for next product is the norm, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it.  Unless people push back against the problems, they'll just continue to get worse.

 

Note I'm not talking about 7DTD here, just in general about the games industry.  There's a reason I've gone from buying dozens of games every year to buying maybe 2 or 3 (and usually ones that have been out for several years and are under $10 for the complete game), and it's not because of the economy.

[faatal]

1 hour ago, Guppycur said:

Y'all aren't considering moving more XMLs to that weird csv format entitygroups is now in that makes it more difficult to xpath, are ya?

 

...please say no, even if it's really a yes... 

Generally no.

[khzmusik]

3 hours ago, faatal said:

Generally no.

 

Thank goodness. I'm sure there were good internal reasons for that change, but from a modding/XPath perspective, that format is abominable.

[pApA^LeGBa]

13 hours ago, YourMirror said:

Is this you, pApA^LeGBa?

What?

 

@faatal Well, that discussion in kinda pointless. But more importnant, how will updates work? I mean you surely won´t break saves anymore now when leaving early access. That would be an absolute no go. Wich means RWG is completly done, with 1.0 i assume?

Edited April 29 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)