Really? This is the final build?

[theFlu]

1 minute ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

"TFP lost the console publishing rights to their own game; went through a veritable nightmare to get them back; and are now syncing the PC and console versions of a work in progress." Why does it have to be any more than that?

Because that has nothing to do with a version number?

[InfiniteWarrior]

12 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Because that has nothing to do with a version number?

Ah, the all important version number...which is of no consequence. Gotcha.

[theFlu]

3 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

Ah, the all important version number...which is of no consequence. Gotcha.

Indeed, that would be the decision that I've expressed my opinions about here. The decision to name this patch 1.0 instead of A22. I still maintain the opinion that it has been for increased sales on the console market; bottom-line first. As a decision/annoyance, it's a stupid little thing; in this thread it functions mostly to derail OPs actual disappointment and deride him for a humane mistake. But hey, at least we've gotten a good derailing of our own going on now.

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

Because that has nothing to do with a version number?

 

Huh? One theory is that the version number was changed to 1.0 exactly to be able to publish it on console under the eyes of Sonysoft without waiting for the finished game.

 

Naturally that is only a theory which, even if true, will not get a confirmation from TFP. This would be, in your nomenclature, either "console first" (i.e. the reason InfiniteWarrior proposed) or "money first" if they simply thought publishing on console now would get more money. Or even"it just happened" if for example they set the train in motion to publish on console and couldn't stop it when they found out they needed more time. If that is part of some NDA they simply have to say "we felt it was the right time"

 

And it could even be all 3 reasons above at the same time.

 

The other theory is what TFP told us. In that case their "they felt it the right time" is only half the explanation and they never really said why they felt it the right time, at least not so we could fully understand it. Here it could be anything from "money first" to "we don't want to increase the record of longest game in EA anymore" to "the end is near, lets change our development a bit to signify it"

 

 

Edited August 31 by meganoth (see edit history)

[theFlu]

13 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Huh? One theory is that the version number was changed to 1.0 exactly to be able to publish it on console under the eyes of Sonysoft without waiting for the finished game.

Indeed. And his description carefully avoided that description, instead obfuscating it into a "syncing the PC and console versions of a work in progress." I don't assume intent here, but it's a rather peculiar way to put it.

 

"Syncing .. work in progress."

Assuming that the reason for "consoles" to demand a "1.0" nomenclature is to control release quality / type in some reasonable fashion. I don't really see another reason for the demand.

 

There's couple routes to take:

1) Carry on with the planned A22 release, and release on console once actually finished.

2) Release the game early to get into console markets ASAP.

 

If the thing is actually a WIP, "consoles" don't want it. The path to respect that would be 1), and it's synchronized in "intent"; it isn't ready yet, so it isn't released yet.

2) is mostly "synchronized" in the ability to make money on it, which why I've called it a "profit first" -decision, and on which I was for some reason called out on - I still don't have the faintest idea what the reason was. If I'm not mistaken, the release isn't free for old owners of the game, so even returning players there will be turning profits?

 

If consoles are trying to keep a standard of release, would we not fairly assume that console players are used to that standard of release? Doesn't circumventing the standard then just cause all kinds of confusion, like this thread in its totality...? Is it a good customer service to "subvert expectations" in this way ...?

 

33 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Or even"it just happened" if for example they set the train in motion to publish on console and couldn't stop it when they found out they needed more time.

I wouldn't be really surprised about this, but you can actually not publish. It's bad press, but that's it.

 

And the third option of "they're under an NDA and can't tell us" is just a mystery box; it doesn't explain anything. So I can't change my mind based on nothing... yes, I can always be wrong about anything, but that's one of those things that goes without saying...

 

[meganoth]

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

Assuming that the reason for "consoles" to demand a "1.0" nomenclature

 

That is already assumed too far. Sony or Microsoft could simply have asked that they go out of EA, or make some sort of a release. It could even have been only the publisher they hired who asked for it because he thought (rightly or wrongly) it would help.

 

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

If the thing is actually a WIP, "consoles" don't want it.

 

What Sony and Microsoft want, and what the players on that console want is a different thing. So TFP fullfilled Sony, Microsoft or the publishers wish, whatever they were wishing. The reason could still be to give the players finally the game again,or it could be "profit first".

 

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

If consoles are trying to keep a standard of release, would we not fairly assume that console players are used to that standard of release? Doesn't circumventing the standard then just cause all kinds of confusion, like this thread in its totality...? Is it a good customer service to "subvert expectations" in this way ...?

 

Sure, it is a question. Under every twitter posting of the last x years there were a dozen or more posts of consoleros asking for an update of the game on console. Should we not as fairly assume that a lot more console players wanted the game as fast as possible and didn't care a bit about some standards of release?

 

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

And the third option of "they're under an NDA and can't tell us" is just a mystery box;

 

Even without an NDA companies will keep details about conversations and agreements with other companies secret. See the example above, if their publisher told them hints and tricks about how to handle Sony and Microsoft and TFP published that information as reason why they did 1.0, they would never find a publisher again. Not that TFP was EVER in the mood to give us any bussiness details.

 

 

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

5 hours ago, theFlu said:

2) is mostly "synchronized" in the ability to make money on it, which why I've called it a "profit first" -decision

 

Not to punch a hole in your speculations, but if that were the case I would think they would have charged current PC players for the 1.0 release the very same as console users and thrown a big party for/made a big deal about the game "going gold" when we all know it hasn't. As it is, they've synced the PC and console versions up with one another and made it very clear in their communications that the game is not finished. The reason current console players had to pay up again is utterly unknown to us, but I'd think it was a console publication consolation else, again, they'd have charged PC players as well. They didn't and I think it's pretty clear why they didn't: Steam has an alpha program whereas Playstation does not. 

Nothing I've said is an "obfuscation" in any way, shape or form. Syncing the PC and console versions is very simply what they did and what we know for sure they did. As I and others have pointed out, positing anything other than that and arbitrarily assigning reasons to their motives is pure speculation -- not "logical thinking," but pure speculation and negative speculation for the most part from all I've heard from the community on the subject.

To supposedly "derail" for a moment, I agree with Maria Popova when she writes, "[W]e have somehow found ourselves in an era where even the brightest, kindest, most idealistic people spring to judgment — which is nothing other than negative wonder — in a heart-flinch. Questions invite instant opinions more often than they invite conversation and contemplation." And all the community discussions about TFP's supposed motives are just proof positive of the fact from my perspective.

I can understand original Kickstarter backers being somewhat impatient with TFP at this point. They have skin in the game, so to speak, and ten years is a long time to wait on a development cycle that normally takes around six these days. The vast majority of us, otoh, don't. So I can't fathom the rampant speculation. Niothing I've said is a defense of TFP, but merely as clear a statement as I can muster of what we know for certain has transpired. Also from my perspective, it needn't be any more than that.

PS: It's "she," btw. No offence taken. Most everyone makes that assumption.

[theFlu]

6 hours ago, meganoth said:

That is already assumed too far.

It's the "kindest" I can come up with, and the most logical, so that's what I'll go with until someone even offers me an alternative. You haven't. So, nothing about my opinion changes.

 

6 hours ago, meganoth said:

The reason could still be to give the players finally the game again,or it could be "profit first".

Their biggest motivation may well be the kindest possible "we want the console players to finally be happy with us". A version of the simple "I want people to like me". But the decision will automatically contain the profit motive, as they'll be making money after making it. And they've gone out of EA "earlier than planned" (and earlier than imo would've been reasonable, bandits/story will require mass testing to sort out... but that's not here nor there), allegedly to satisfy the vendors desires. They could've not.

 

I haven't said their entire company is profit first; I don't think it is. I've said "this move (too early leave of EA / butchering the versioning), in my opinion, is profit-first". The customer happiness isn't well served by having to buy the game again, nor by circumventing quality controls. For the latter they shouldn't have, and maybe they could've solved the first as well during the time it takes to complete the project.

 

And their paid reps wouldn't have to show up to confused threads with a "lol, the numpty didn't read the roadmap". Customer satisfaction guaranteed.

 

3 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

PS: It's "she," btw. No offence taken.

Cool; I probably won't remember, but no offense intended even the next time I just use a universal he, especially on the web, but even my native language isn't even gendered.

 

3 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

Not to punch a hole in your speculations, but if that were the case I would think they would have charged current PC players for the 1.0 release

Your hole puncher lacks power; they literally can't. It's a kickstarter, they have to deliver the full game, that's what they've promised and sold this far. And I don't think steam would make it easy either, through the EA program, they'd have to fork into a new game first at the very least. Or if I were to go conspiratorial, slap a 1.0 early and sell the rest of the content as paid DLC (I don't expect them to, but if I did, their actions would line up..)

 

4 hours ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

Nothing I've said is an "obfuscation" in any way, shape or form.

Sure, it likely wasn't intentional obfuscation; but it had nothing to do with my claims, and it just skipped over the part where "a profit will be made". The profit will be made, and that's kinda important for me to claim this looks like a profit-first decision. My above reply to Mega somewhat addresses most of the rest..

 

Now.. why are we all so interested about my opinions? I get why I am, they live in my skull, so I have to try to deal with them, but for you guys .. trying to convince a "random on the webs" out of the kindest explanation they can come up with, with very little evidence towards anything else; sounds like a waste of time to me?

 

I don't know how your brains work, but mine will stick to the best explanation it can come up with until something else is offered and judged better. Telling it "that's assumptive" or "that's negatively judgemental" just makes it go "yeah, thinking is, so what?". It won't change a thing.

[Arez]

Is there some kind of governing body that sets standards that software developers have to adhere to for version designation?

No.

So then who gives a fluck what it's called? Just play the damn game. If you don't like the game then don't play it. 

 

I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this nonsense. 

 

TFP should have hid the version name/number from the start. People seem to be too OCD about this @%$#e. 

 

"But where's the story and bandits".

Great. Let them release them in a garbage state so people have more things to hang their complaining hats on. At least TFP are legitimately not finished with these features instead of deliberately holding them back so you can be strung along and possibly pay more later when they're released, like a lot of other game companies do. 

 

Remember...Cyberpunk 2077 was considered Gold upon its release. These labels don't really mean anything anymore. How hard is that to see?

 

In conclusion, I was watching this interview between these two doctors and they were talking about how people (mostly) don't need to worry about being eaten by tigers or have to struggle to find our next meal, but our brains are still wired for that. So now, to fulfill that wiring, we have become "problem seekers".

[theFlu]

15 minutes ago, Arez said:

These labels don't really mean anything anymore. How hard is that to see?

Indeed. The only thing words have, is their meaning. Defending their meaning is a value in itself, for without them, without words, we can't communicate.

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

Their biggest motivation may well be the kindest possible "we want the console players to finally be happy with us". A version of the simple "I want people to like me". But the decision will automatically contain the profit motive, as they'll be making money after making it.

 

Which is largely what I said as well, that there could be several motives. Though I don't see the automatism: For example, just because you know someone will give you money when you help him with say, building a special kite, you just could be altruistic enough or interested in building such a kite that the money doesn't interest you. While it is unlikely in this case, the possibility exists as it isn't even sure if that release about 1 year before the scheduled end of development would really make a difference in sales.

 

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

Now.. why are we all so interested about my opinions?

 

Are we? I have a desire to discuss topics I know something about and tell my opinion to everyone reading it, not only to the one I discuss with. Sure I like it if I can convice someone, I also like it (but less) if I myself change some (false) opinion and find out something new in a discussion. My opinion about the meaning of the version numbers is above, that is what drew me into this discussion. If someone else will post in a month that 1.0 means exactly this and that I will again try to convince him and everyone else reading it that this is a misconception.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

1 hour ago, Arez said:

In conclusion, I was watching this interview between these two doctors and they were talking about how people (mostly) don't need to worry about being eaten by tigers or have to struggle to find our next meal, but our brains are still wired for that. So now, to fulfill that wiring, we have become "problem seekers".

You might like Ian McGilchrist's 'The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.' @theFlu might also, all things he has to say about so-called "logical thinking" and the brain (then wonders why I'd bring up Urizen) considered.

[theFlu]

29 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Though I don't see the automatism

The decision is made in a brain (the plural would make no difference to the argument). The brain is barely capable or verbalising its actions post-hoc, but that's what it seems to be doing 99% of the time.. you act first and rationalize your actions later, for most of your life. A decision such as this may be slightly different in that it has taken discussions and deliberations, but every single brain doing that has been aware that "this'll mean sales". It's essentially a structural part of the decision-making apparatus used here, to include everything it "knows" into the actions of the body it controls - to the best of its ability. "The decision will automatically contain" roughly equals to "the brain making the decision knows of the potential profits and will take those into account, whether it verbalizes it or not."

 

Sure, that could use a few references but no, I ain't bothering for this one.

 

48 minutes ago, meganoth said:

While it is unlikely in this case, the possibility exists

All kinds of things are possible, but my assumptions are just what I deem most likely. I have little choice in the matter, as the fleshy bit that thinks in my skull has no direct access to the outside world, it has to live on assumptions. One of the first assumptions it has to make is that the senses feeding it information are not essentially faulty. It all gets worse from there.

 

23 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

You might like

I might, I'm familiar with plenty of philosophical thought - and I kinda do appreciate the plugging of thinkers, even if a little random. Why I outright rejected your Urizen, is context. In a thread about someone's disappointment, turned into runaway weirdness; bringing in random concepts that you must be familiar with to even understand is counterproductive. No-one is going to read even a short wiki entry to follow this type of discussion; much less full books. So all it serves is confusion.

[InfiniteWarrior]

2 hours ago, theFlu said:

Why I outright rejected your Urizen, is context.

The context was your thoughts about "logical thinking," of course, which is exceptionally monotone and dualistic in the West for a reason. It matters not to me if you care to know the reason despite showing an obvious interest in logic. Also, I've not responded to the original post at all, but you know that. I merely pointed out that you're not engaged in logical thinking but actually imagining when musing about the reasons for the version number change as well as the reason you've concluded ("profit first") is responsible for the decision when it could, as meganoth said, be any number of other reasons and, likely, a combination of them. It's something none of us can possibly know unless TFP specifically goes public with their own reasoning, which (as meganoth also said) is not likely to happen, but then meganoth claimed I was "arguing" for "console first" when nothing of the sort every came out of my fingertips on the keyboard. I merely stated what I think and why I think so and have not "made an argument," logical or otherwise for anything. I'm not out to change anyone's opinion about anything, but there is a distinction to be drawn between imagination and reason and it's not being drawn in your thought process. It must be "quality first" or "profit first" and absolutely nothing else from your perspective and, honestly, that strikes my mind as reductionism, especially today when "either/or" thinking is being surpassed by "both-and" thinking. Maybe you'll care about that important distinction between imagination and reason; the difference between "either/or" and "both-and" thinking. Maybe you won't; but that's of no consequence to me, either.

[theFlu]

23 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

is a distinction to be drawn between imagination and reason and it's not being drawn in your thought process.

You have picked a quip, a part of a question I proposed to another, as my entire worldview. You have placed me in a bucket of single-minded Western fools, and you're letting that color your judgement of me without querying anything from me. There's some irony in that.

 

26 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

It must be "quality first" or "profit first" and absolutely nothing else from your perspective

Please point to where I've said anything about "absolutely nothing else".. in fact, I've said it's merely the best I can come up with which literally allows for <everything else> still, I've just not been convinced of better.

 

28 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

especially today when "either/or" thinking is being surpassed by "both-and" thinking.

Sorry, but what does this even mean in this context? The game is both in a pre-release state and it isn't? Is that supposed a good take, or a bad take?

[Roland]

TFP wants to make lots of money. They also want people to like their game. They also enjoy playing their own game. They also care about their reputation as they have games lined up for development in the future. They also are very excited to view and read player reactions to what they've crafted. They also want to be able to make their own decisions and not have to answer to anyone else.

 

TFP admitted that they had internally considered the game beyond the alpha stage for a long time even though they were sticking to the public alpha versioning system.

When TFP originally announced that the game would be released on console they said that it would be called Version 1 on console but Alpha 22 on Steam.

Later, when they posted their first press releases for the new console edition they referred to it as 7 Days to Die: Apocalypse Edition. This decision was to mainly differentiate the new console version from the old console version. However, there was a lot of feedback that they read after the announcement that pointed to even more confusion about the differences between the Steam version and the console version. There was a lot of team discussion about the best course of action.

 

Then, in the BIG announcement we, of course, all learned that the new version would be uniformly called 7 Days to Die 1.0. The developers stated that the game wasn't finished and released the roadmap of future features that would be added to the game. 

 

I was not privy to whatever internal discussion helped them land on the final decision but I can tell you that their main concerns were a desire to differentiate the new console version from the past console version but to also show that the new version was unified with the Steam version. They also felt that the game had moved beyond the alpha stage. Calling it 1.0 was the perfect way to signify that their game was no longer an alpha product and that console and PC versions were the same and that the new console version was different than the old console version. The downside was player perception that 1.0 means finished and development complete so they published the roadmap and gave clear communication that the game was not finished and development would continue at the same time.

 

I have never once read an internal discussion where the team talked about being forced to call the game 1.0 in order to be able to release to console either for Microsoft or Playstation. It could still be true but TFP has never admitted to it publicly nor have I ever seen them talk about it or lament about it privately.

 

To me, I believe the developers honestly believe their game is worthy, as it is, of being a fully released game no longer needing the Early Access shelter or the Alpha excuse. I think their perspective is markedly different from that of those who are angry about and derisive of the current state of the game. But I don't believe TFP is being false in their claims about the game deserving to be fully released and simply going "profit first" by calling it 1.0. That is just way too one-dimensional. Making a profit is part of it. They definitely didn't bring the game to console just to feel happiness over even more people playing their game. They wanted it to make money. New outfits as paid DLC is definitely about making money. The higher price tag is about making money but not entirely about that. They really believe that the game has grown in value over the last 10 years. It was originally $35 on Steam when it first released. They are charging $10 more than that initial price for their full release. If the original early access release was worth $35 then what the game now offers comparatively is worth $45 to their view.

 

Happily, based on sales, the public largely agrees with them.

[InfiniteWarrior]

42 minutes ago, theFlu said:

You have placed me in a bucket of single-minded Western fools, and you're letting that color your judgement of me without querying anything from me.

I've not judged you. Judgment of others is not within my providence, especially considering how often I've erred in my own life. I've merely pointed out a distinction between imagination and reason applicable to all of humanity, which of course includes myself. I've also pointed out a difference between "either/or" and "both-and" thinking. I've no idea why you would take it personally for me to do that or to say that "quality or profit" strikes me as reductionist. Fact is: we've all (yes, including me) been conditioned to think in terms of either/or and largely lost an appreciation for paradox in the West (ntm, our capacity for creative thought), yet even scientists, e.g. Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser, are beginning to eschew reductionism in their field. Interesting is that to me. It's certainly nothing personal. If you're not interested and/or don't want to reflect on how we think, just say you're not interested and don't want to. There's no reason to take it personally.

[theFlu]

5 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

I've not judged you.

Your choice of not reading my reasoning exemplified by phrasing it as an "absolute either or" suggests otherwise. Might be a great seed for some introspection there, if you're interested in such things.

 

You started by calling me an ass, via a turn of phrase, and then you continued with "you're speculating" which to me means essentially the same as "you're just making @%$# up". Sorry if I've mistaken your approach for a slightly judgemental one.

 

27 minutes ago, Roland said:

Calling it 1.0 was the perfect way to signify that their game was no longer an alpha product and that console and PC versions were the same and that the new console version was different than the old console version. The downside was player perception that 1.0 means finished and development complete so they published the roadmap and gave clear communication that the game was not finished and development would continue at the same time.

I'll buy that, for now..

The only concern I have against that is that I think bandits and stories would actually deserve an alpha branch of their own. The track record with them is a little murky... Thanks for spelling that out 

[meganoth]

51 minutes ago, Roland said:

I was not privy to whatever internal discussion helped them land on the final decision but I can tell you that their main concerns were a desire to differentiate the new console version from the past console version but to also show that the new version was unified with the Steam version. They also felt that the game had moved beyond the alpha stage. Calling it 1.0 was the perfect way to signify that their game was no longer an alpha product and that console and PC versions were the same and that the new console version was different than the old console version. The downside was player perception that 1.0 means finished and development complete so they published the roadmap and gave clear communication that the game was not finished and development would continue at the same time.

 

That is an explanation I can buy.

[InfiniteWarrior]

1 minute ago, theFlu said:

You started by calling me an ass

I see you took that old joke about assuming personally as well. I think I heard if first in an episode of Welcome Back, Kotter. John Tavolta's character spelled it out on a chalkboard: a**-u-me. lol Of course, it's a very old joke about assuming and certainly not you personally. I now have a working theory about why you're taking everything I say so personally. I'd prefer that weren't the case, but the decision is to do so is up to you.

[theFlu]

4 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

I see you took that old joke about assuming personally as well.

That's what you assume; does that make an ass of you or me? I'm not upset about it, but it did come across as quite argumentative

[Mister Forgash]

Perhaps relevant when we are of the mindset that the 1.0 release has been lackluster, another real world example I feel we can look at is No Man's Sky- though I haven't played it myself, I imagine most of us have heard of its disastrous launch and subsequent updates that have continued to impress, bring people back and turn it into a success story. I think it's also important to consider that, unfortunate or not, launch isn't going to be what sticks out in peoples' minds. in 2-3 years from now when TFP are giving us a sample of the next thing they've been cooking, most people are just going to think about where 7Days is/was when they finally decided they were done.

[Roland]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

I’ll buy that, for now..

The only concern I have against that is that I think bandits and stories would actually deserve an alpha branch of their own. The track record with them is a little murky... Thanks for spelling that out 

Im sure they’ll continue to utilize experimental builds and bandits will probably start there.