Really? This is the final build?

[Roland]

The definition of 1.0 is in flux and is definitely migrating. It’s confusing to a lot of people because we are still in the beginnings of that change. What 1.0 meant in the industry when games were published onto physical discs or cartridges is not going to be the same as we move further and further away from that model. There’s no going back to 1.0 is the finished version because it has to be.  
 

During such times there are always people who are unwilling to accept the changes and obsess about the traditional way things have been done. Eventually, those people fade away and general acceptance of the new normal eliminates confusion. 
 

I’ve got a few games in my library that were designated 1.0 but were not done and are still being worked on and developed. I made the mental adjustment regarding 1.0 way before TFP made their announcement so it was no big deal. People who refuse to make the adjustment and want to cling doggedly to old definitions will just continue to be angry about more and more releases in the industry. 
 

 

[Riamus]

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.  I don't think that is in doubt.  Now, there are two ways to handle such complaints.

 

First, you can basically blame the player for having that expectation by telling them they shouldn't expect that because "times, they are a-changin'", which is just going to upset them and had a good chance of leaving then to leave a bad review.  Maybe bad reviews won't really affect the bottom line, but I'm sure there is at least some impact.  You'd need a study to find that answer.

 

Second, you can be empathic with the layer and tell them that, yes, the expectation is valid and you agree that it created an incorrect expectation along players, but it is probably due to the console release requirements from Sony or Microsoft (go ahead and shift the blame to them unless you can't as a moderator) but that there is a short roadmap to completion.  That has a decent chance of subduing the frustration enough to avoid a negative review.  Again, how much those reviews hurt the bottom line, I don't know. 

 

So, which would make the most sense?  Blame the player for having that expectation or empathize with them?  Regardless of your personal opinion on having such an expectation.

[meganoth]

18 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.

 

At least for me taking it out of EA has significance. much more than the "1.0" name.

 

[Riamus]

48 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

At least for me taking it out of EA has significance. much more than the "1.0" name.

 

Ok. And they did both.  So the expectations are valid, even if the standard of what 1.0 means may be changing.

 

------ (general comment, not a reply) -----

 

Expectations are an interesting thing.  Developers, publishers, producers, marketers... They all try to manage people's expectations.  That is a fine line to walk.  Many will try to boost expectations beyond reality.  The benefit is that you get a better initial sale because people are expecting something really good.  But it doesn't take long for word to get out that it isn't that good.  If you overplay your cards, this can result in a significant number of bad reviews that can kill sales.  There are a few games that were able to turn things around after doing this, but most can't.  Other things like movies usually can't either.  So instead of a great start to sales, followed by almost normal sales, the sales tank.

 

The other method is to set expectations lower than reality.  The result is that you get lower initial sales, but people see that it is better than expected and start paying reviews about how it was better than they expected and sales end up better over the long run. 

 

Do you take the risk of inflating expectations to get better initial sales, do you give accurate expectations with no real gain or loss, or do you give lower expectations to get better long term sales?  A lot of it comes down to how quickly you need the money.

 

People's expectations pretty directly affect their opinion on value.  If the game doesn't meet expectations (including that it is finished), then they feel they were ripped off.  If the game exceeds expectations, they feel like they got a great deal.

Edited August 29 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Roland]

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.  I don't think that is in doubt.  Now, there are two ways to handle such complaints.

 

First, you can basically blame the player for having that expectation by telling them they shouldn't expect that because "times, they are a-changin'", which is just going to upset them and had a good chance of leaving then to leave a bad review.  Maybe bad reviews won't really affect the bottom line, but I'm sure there is at least some impact.  You'd need a study to find that answer.

 

Second, you can be empathic with the layer and tell them that, yes, the expectation is valid and you agree that it created an incorrect expectation along players, but it is probably due to the console release requirements from Sony or Microsoft (go ahead and shift the blame to them unless you can't as a moderator) but that there is a short roadmap to completion.  That has a decent chance of subduing the frustration enough to avoid a negative review.  Again, how much those reviews hurt the bottom line, I don't know. 

 

So, which would make the most sense?  Blame the player for having that expectation or empathize with them?  Regardless of your personal opinion on having such an expectation.

Im just sticking to what I believe to be truth, thank you. Times are changing and TFP is taking advantage of the newer meaning of 1.0. If someone wants to be offended by that then that’s their problem. 
 

I know for sure that TFP is defining 1.0 as a milestone with more updates to come rather than a destination. I don’t know for a fact that they only did it to release on console. That’s a theory pushed by some players but it’s never been confirmed by TFP. Shifting blame to Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t be intellectually honest of me to do. 
 

People who are in denial about what 1.0 means in 2024 and moving onward are going to be offended no matter who delivers the message all so they can avoid shifting their own expectations. They can leave a bad review for all I care. But I’m not going to massage their obsession for a dated and obsolete expectation by promulgating your conspiracy theory about why TFP “really” went 1.0. I haven’t seen any evidence coming from TFP of that theory publicly or behind closed doors whereas I have seen plenty of private and public communication that 1.0 simply signified their departure from early access and a significant milestone in the game’s development. 

[BFT2020]

If I released a software product stating it was version 1.0 but also told you I have on my schedule 3 additional major updates coming out over the next 1 1/2 years, I fail to see how I caused the confusion - as I provided the context to my release number.

 

I went back to their 1.0 announcement and they clearly provided context that showed 1.0 was not the final build of the game.

 

https://7daystodie.com/alpha-exodus-leaving-early-access/

[Roland]

11 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

If I released a software product stating it was version 1.0 but also told you I have on my schedule 3 additional major updates coming out over the next 1 1/2 years, I fail to see how I caused the confusion - as I provided the context to my release number.

 

I went back to their 1.0 announcement and they clearly provided context that showed 1.0 was not the final build of the game.

 

https://7daystodie.com/alpha-exodus-leaving-early-access/

People refuse to understand that because the most important thing to them is to be right about their definition of 1.0. So they ignore all the context and pretend that it’s still 2004 and 1.0 means the finished game is coded upon the cartridge/disc that they just removed from the plastic box that they purchased at the mall….

I mean I joked about it earlier but it is consistent with the mindset of ignoring context in order to push a personal expectation for the OP to be calling 1.0 the “final build” weeks after 1.1  was released to experimental. 

[theFlu]

34 minutes ago, Roland said:

for the OP to be calling 1.0 the “final build”

Flirpity flarbity fon "final". Flopper fer furts "1.0"?

[Roland]

14 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Flirpity flarbity fon "final". Flopper fer furts "1.0"?

The Nuns from Sound of Music want you to join them now. 

[Riamus]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

Im just sticking to what I believe to be truth, thank you. Times are changing and TFP is taking advantage of the newer meaning of 1.0. If someone wants to be offended by that then that’s their problem. 
 

I know for sure that TFP is defining 1.0 as a milestone with more updates to come rather than a destination. I don’t know for a fact that they only did it to release on console. That’s a theory pushed by some players but it’s never been confirmed by TFP. Shifting blame to Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t be intellectually honest of me to do. 
 

People who are in denial about what 1.0 means in 2024 and moving onward are going to be offended no matter who delivers the message all so they can avoid shifting their own expectations. They can leave a bad review for all I care. But I’m not going to massage their obsession for a dated and obsolete expectation by promulgating your conspiracy theory about why TFP “really” went 1.0. I haven’t seen any evidence coming from TFP of that theory publicly or behind closed doors whereas I have seen plenty of private and public communication that 1.0 simply signified their departure from early access and a significant milestone in the game’s development. 

Is there statistical data that shows that the majority, or even more than 25%, of video game developers are not using 1.0 as the finished release version (or something like 1.01 if a patch was needed after the 1.0 build)?  You've mentioned this as fact, but it's there proof, or just what you think?  I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would just like to see statistics rather than assume what someone says online is correct.  I've assumed things I've heard from multiple sources to be true only to find out those sources were all wrong, so I prefer to see the data. 

 

Also, you seem to want people not to argue against a change they don't like.  It is partly due to people not standing against changes they don't like our think are wrong that many of the worst changes in history have occurred.  I'll avoid getting deeper into that because it becomes borderline political, which isn't allowed.  But I'm sure you can think of some.  If people don't think a change is good, they *should* stand against it.  In the same way that people who think change is needed should argue for it rather than sitting back and just accepting whatever happens it doesn't happen.

 

Let me ask you... Why is it a good change to not have 1.0 indicate a finished game?  Ignore what anyone does or why they do it... Why do you personally like that change?  What value of positive impact does it have?  I'm really curious because I see no value in it.  It makes sense to have a standard for a finished version of a game.  To just say you can call it whatever you want doesn't make much sense.  Can you convince me that there is a good reason to not have a standard for what is a finished game?  Keeping in mind that service games, MMOs, etc. are an entirely different situation and that DLC and expansions are also different from having a finished base game.

[theFlu]

33 minutes ago, Riamus said:

To just say you can call it whatever you want doesn't make much sense.

Oi mate, have a loicense for that think?

[Mister Forgash]

After doing so myself, I think it's safe to say that 7 Days to die in its current state is complete enough to play for hundreds of hours and remain entertained. Now every gamer's mileage will vary, but for me, that satisfies the benchmark adequately. 

 

Now I know it's not finished-- I know we're going to get bandits and a story line, weather effects and potentially a really cool and exciting event system and balancing changes.. but for the most part, I don't feel myself missing any of that when I'm playing the game..

It's hard to say, because now is now, and then was then but if you look at Terraria as example, [Maybe Stardew Valley.. How much did Diablo 2 add after launch?] off the top of my head- though I'm sure there's plenty of others, it felt complete way back at least.. but the Devs kept going anyhow, and knowing how much farther it went and what it became- looking back, it's a lot harder to say it was complete then.

 

Consider also, the opposite side.. there's gotta be hundreds of games released every week on Steam, burning stinkers with a 1.0 label and most people wouldn't want to get close enough to poke it with a stick. Are they complete if they fail to entertain?

[Roland]

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

Is there statistical data that shows that the majority, or even more than 25%, of video game developers are not using 1.0 as the finished release version (or something like 1.01 if a patch was needed after the 1.0 build)?  You've mentioned this as fact, but it's there proof, or just what you think?  I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would just like to see statistics rather than assume what someone says online is correct.  I've assumed things I've heard from multiple sources to be true only to find out those sources were all wrong, so I prefer to see the data. 

 

I have no data which is why I said that I state what I believe to be true and did not state that I am stating hard facts. My perspective is that the industry is changing to a model of delivering unfinished games that are finished enough but still require patches. People have been complaining about this shift for years now so I don't believe it is just isolated cases but an actual shift in the industry. I believe it is a natural and logical shift due to the change in delivery system of more and more games and the greater ability to patch games online and fewer people actually owning physical copies of their games and instead simply licensing digital downloads of games.

 

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

Also, you seem to want people not to argue against a change they don't like.  It is partly due to people not standing against changes they don't like our think are wrong that many of the worst changes in history have occurred.  I'll avoid getting deeper into that because it becomes borderline political, which isn't allowed.  But I'm sure you can think of some.  If people don't think a change is good, they *should* stand against it.  In the same way that people who think change is needed should argue for it rather than sitting back and just accepting whatever happens it doesn't happen.

 

No, by all means, fight the good fight. I'm a realist in this regard and consider that all the people who are complaining aren't anyone with any power other than to withhold payment and not buy games but most of the complainers still want their new game sooner rather than later and so not even they withhold their money. They complain but they buy. The people with the power to hold the line against this change have zero incentive to do so. TFP got their money bump for releasing their 1.0 now instead of at the end of 2025. Who wants their money bump two years from now when you can have it now? And look at the reviews. Yes, there was a blip because of negative review bombing by people truly incensed by the unfinished 1.0 and so the recent reviews dropped to 78% approval but now the 30 days have passed and recent reviews are rising back up again. So studios get their income surge now and any anger is momentary and fades away as long as the game that has been delivered is decent enough to entertain people. 7 Days to Die is plenty decent enough to entertain people. Clearly.

 

Don't take what I say as a wet blanket to suspend discussion. You're the one who told me to stop saying times are changing and to start feeding people a line that will misdirect them to Sony and Microsoft. I never told anyone to stop complaining. I just truthfully pointed out that our discussions are pointless and feed anger that acceptance and shifting your mindset can diminish. 

 

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

Let me ask you... Why is it a good change to not have 1.0 indicate a finished game?  Ignore what anyone does or why they do it... Why do you personally like that change?  What value of positive impact does it have?  I'm really curious because I see no value in it.  It makes sense to have a standard for a finished version of a game.  To just say you can call it whatever you want doesn't make much sense.  Can you convince me that there is a good reason to not have a standard for what is a finished game?  Keeping in mind that service games, MMOs, etc. are an entirely different situation and that DLC and expansions are also different from having a finished base game.

 

I don't think it is good or bad. Communication is good. TFP communicated that they were changing the version numbering to 1.0 and also gave clear context of the state of the game and what that 1.0 meant and what it didn't mean. The positive impact of studios pushing out a game that still needs work done on it (for me) is getting to experience those changes. I have always been a fan of early access games. I'm not bothered by the ups and downs. I like experiencing changes. I also prefer downloading my games rather than buying a physical representation of them and I like that developers can so easily push out quick fixes and patches and add content.

 

I disagree that "1.0" by itself makes for a good standard. I much prefer a press release by the company explaining in detail the state of their game and their plans for the future. Sometime probably in 2026 or 2027, TFP will send out a press release to announce that they are finished with 7 Days to Die and that it now exists in its forever state. That version might end up being 1.7 or 2.5 or 3.8....whatever. Its just the version number. The standard for being finished will be the actual state of the game itself when TFP announces that they are done with 7 Days and are shifting all their resources to other projects. Then people will judge whether TFP achieved their goals and delivered on their promises. I actually hope that they version the Q4 2024 update as 2.0 and the Q2 2025 update as 3.0 and the Q4 2025 update as 4.0 just to really hit home that their versioning is their own.

 

When games were shipped as physical products, 1.0, was fine because it was self-evident. These days, game updating is more fluid and with early access programs the line is blurred even further and so I would actually hate it if just stamping 1.0 meant done and nothing was stated. I much prefer companies explaining their plans as TFP did. 

[Riamus]

2 hours ago, Mister Forgash said:

After doing so myself, I think it's safe to say that 7 Days to die in its current state is complete enough to play for hundreds of hours and remain entertained. Now every gamer's mileage will vary, but for me, that satisfies the benchmark adequately. 

 

Now I know it's not finished-- I know we're going to get bandits and a story line, weather effects and potentially a really cool and exciting event system and balancing changes.. but for the most part, I don't feel myself missing any of that when I'm playing the game..

It's hard to say, because now is now, and then was then but if you look at Terraria as example, [Maybe Stardew Valley.. How much did Diablo 2 add after launch?] off the top of my head- though I'm sure there's plenty of others, it felt complete way back at least.. but the Devs kept going anyhow, and knowing how much farther it went and what it became- looking back, it's a lot harder to say it was complete then.

 

Consider also, the opposite side.. there's gotta be hundreds of games released every week on Steam, burning stinkers with a 1.0 label and most people wouldn't want to get close enough to poke it with a stick. Are they complete if they fail to entertain?

Heh.  People played for hundreds or thousands of hours MANY alphas ago, too. 

[Mister Forgash]

24 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Heh.  People played for hundreds or thousands of hours MANY alphas ago, too. 

Indeed. They could have easily slapped a gold star on it back at A 16 - or perhaps even earlier and pooped out the most rudimentary form of bandits, and whatever else needed to complete their kickstarter promises- called it 1.0 and sold it as a complete game.
I guess what I'm getting as is, if it's entertaining, runs stable, has a gameplay loop that feels complete, it qualifies as 1.0 in my book. It's probably a subjective thing too, especially considering that games can vary tremendously in scope so it's hard to say a game needs to have 'XYZ 'to be complete.

[pApA^LeGBa]

12 hours ago, Roland said:

I’ve got a few games in my library that were designated 1.0 but were not done and are still being worked on and developed. I made the mental adjustment regarding 1.0 way before TFP made their announcement so it was no big deal. People who refuse to make the adjustment and want to cling doggedly to old definitions will just continue to be angry about more and more releases in the industry. 
 

 

 

Or instead of just accepting to being bull@%$#ted, we could simply give those games negative reviews. Why do i as a customer now have to do research, if 1.0 really means 1.0 before buying? Technically we are being lied to. Why should i accept that?

 

Exactly that kind of  behavior from developers makes people not buy new games anymore and buying all their games on sale once the game is like 2 years or older.

[Suxar]

13 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Exactly that kind of  behavior from developers makes people not buy new games anymore and buying all their games on sale once the game is like 2 years or older.

Not developers, but marketers. With the advent of the Internet, it became fashionable to release a raw product, saying we'll update it later. And unfortunately, this applies not only to games, office programs are already released in the same way, even OS are released in the same way.

 

Only I have no complaints about this game; I bought it several years ago, knowing for sure that this was an experimental version.

Edited August 30 by Suxar (see edit history)

[pApA^LeGBa]

29 minutes ago, Suxar said:

Not developers, but marketers. With the advent of the Internet, it became fashionable to release a raw product, saying we'll update it later. And unfortunately, this applies not only to games, office programs are already released in the same way, even OS are released in the same way.

 

Only I have no complaints about this game; I bought it several years ago, knowing for sure that this was an experimental version.

 

Yeah actually true most of the time unless we are talking indie developers like TFP who are also publishing the game themselves,  so it´s only on them in this case.

 

11 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

At least for me taking it out of EA has significance. much more than the "1.0" name.

 

 

It should have significance. But for 7 days it doesn´t. Literally nothing changed between when this version was still called A22 and V1.0. We are technically still in early access as the game misses crucial game changing content. (Well at least i hope that bandits will be a game changer, they should be tbh) They still can´t make sure no restarts are needed when an update comes. At least that should be a guarantee if you call something V1.0. But nope, we still have to deal with possible restarts as there are still POI´s planned, radiation coming and afaik RWG isn´t in it´s final form aswell.

 

 

Edited August 30 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[theFlu]

2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Technically we are being lied to. Why should i accept that?

You shouldn't. Absolutely not; whether you're right or wrong.

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

t should have significance. But for 7 days it doesn´t. Literally nothing changed between when this version was still called A22 and V1.0. We are technically still in early access as the game misses crucial game changing content. (Well at least i hope that bandits will be a game changer, they should be tbh) They still can´t make sure no restarts are needed when an update comes. At least that should be a guarantee if you call something V1.0. But nope, we still have to deal with possible restarts as there are still POI´s planned, radiation coming and afaik RWG isn´t in it´s final form aswell.

 

I think one of the developers said they would make an effort to make updates not need a restart. We will see how much effort they put into it, it may not work every time but it should work some times (I will still restart and leave the experiments to others 😁). It also signifies an actual change between EA and now.

 

I don't see why new POIs or even radiation necessarily need restarts. New POIs will naturally not magically appear on an old map, but adding them should not influence how your old map works. And radiation, if it simply is in the wasteland, does not need a change to the world data but just a different interpretation.  

 

I said it 3 years ago already: Bandits will NOT be a  game changer. If you are unsatisfied with the game now, you will be unsatisfied with the finished game. Bandits will just be a different sort of enemy with more ranged combat, thats it. There will be a few more special quests and an end goal quest to do. It will probably satisfy my thirst for something new like past alphas have done for me. Not more, not less.

 

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@meganoth Ah so nearly 11 years of basically no ranged combat from enemies and you think that it´s not a game changer that there will be people with functioning brains and guns that  wear armor and are capable of things like taking cover or ambushing you? Really?

 

You never played any overhaul with NPC´s i guess. It is way different.  Now if you can´t see or hear an enemy your are usually not in danger. That changes with armed NPC´s. You drive down a road and suddenly you get shot from a tower. Now if the Bandits they will add can´t do that, why even bother tbh? They should be more dangerous than zombies and not just "look we promised NPC´s here they are, they suck, but we kept our promise"

 

Regarding restarts: Trying to and actually doing it are two very different pair of shoes. Appels and oranges: It´s V1.0 we should have no restarts and not maybe we won´t have to restart. As long as there is changes that need a restart, that change doesn´t matter at all. Participation trophies are for school kids. (and shouldn´t exist at all, but that´s way offtopic)

[RipClaw]

13 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Ah so nearly 11 years of basically no ranged combat from enemies and you think that it´s not a game changer that there will be people with functioning brains and guns that  wear armor and are capable of things like taking cover or ambushing you? Really?

I think you're expecting a bit too much here.

 

I've never seen a game AI that got even close to something like a functioning brain. If you want opponents with a functioning brain, you have to play PVP.

NPCs with weapons are basically nothing more than aimbots with a few lines of text that are played randomly. They will probably have some behavior patterns that differ from zombies, but I wouldn't expect anything more.

Edited August 30 by RipClaw (see edit history)

[pApA^LeGBa]

@RipClaw I don´t know FarCry nailed it pretty good, with enemies trying to sneak t behind you for example. Ofc it is not a functioning brain like a human enemy. But this is 7 days and compared to zombies they do hopefully have a kinda functioning brain. Otherwise they are utterly useless.

 

@Roland What i forgot to add: Physical copies died long before all that releasing unfinished games BS started. Also that still isn´t an excuse. If your game isn´t ready, don´t label it V1.0. And people wonder why a lot of gamers nowadays have trust issues with developers.

Edited August 30 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[Roland]

7 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

 

Or instead of just accepting to being bull@%$#ted, we could simply give those games negative reviews. Why do i as a customer now have to do research, if 1.0 really means 1.0 before buying? Technically we are being lied to. Why should i accept that?

 

Exactly that kind of  behavior from developers makes people not buy new games anymore and buying all their games on sale once the game is like 2 years or older.

I never said you shouldn’t give bad reviews for devs putting out an unfinished game. I just said that it won’t change anything. People will still buy them in droves glad to have them sooner rather than later. 
 

Nothing is going to stop this train—not even the supernatural power of bad reviews. You can spend your days being bitter and angry and boycotting games or you can go with it and either buy the rough early adopter version or the refined version a year later. Either way it’s going to continue. 

[theFlu]

Beatings will continue until morale improves.