Really? This is the final build?

[Riamus]

21 minutes ago, Slingblade2040 said:

Considering this is the official release and out of early access this game still feels and by all means is still an early access version with many problems still around along with many promised features still missing. 

 

This isn't a beta, this isn't some other nonsense that certain people want to cope with an make excuses for the team to justify such a bad official release. 

 

This should by all means be alpha 22 and the game should still be in early access but then they wouldn't have been able to release the console versions and have folks pay up again for a game they already paid for. 

It IS alpha 22.  1.0 was originally called that until they had to change it for console release.  It is not gold.  That is why they still state it is pre-release at the menu.  I agree that calling it 1.0 is misleading and complained about that when it was first announced that they were changing the name to 1.0.  But they have said it isn't gold and so of course it isn't a finished product, regardless of name.  Now, after they finish the roadmap and call it gold, then you can say that it isn't finished if you still believe that.

Edited August 28 by Riamus (see edit history)

[InfiniteWarrior]

3 minutes ago, Slingblade2040 said:

they wouldn't have been able to release the console versions

So, are you saying they should have made no attempt to sync the PC and console versions with one another and continued to put up with the absolute vitriol directed at them by some in the console community who, not unreasonably, expected to be playing the same game as PC users?

Honestly, I think the "cash grab" accusations are misguided at best and cynical as hell at worst. Once again: Playstation does not have an alpha program. What were TFP supposed to do in that event? Consciously choose to leave console users behind? Try to work with Sony to get the latest alpha released on the platform even if it required a versioning schema they weren't using when alpha 22 was first announced? What? Exactly, please.

[Riamus]

13 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

So, are you saying they should have made no attempt to sync the PC and console versions with one another and continued to put up with the absolute vitriol directed at them by some in the console community who, not unreasonably, expected to be playing the same game as PC users?

Honestly, I think the "cash grab" accusations are misguided at best and cynical as hell at worst. Once again: Playstation does not have an alpha program. What were TFP supposed to do in that event? Consciously choose to leave console users behind? Try to work with Sony to get the latest alpha released on the platform even if it required a versioning schema they weren't using when alpha 22 was first announced? What? Exactly, please.

Not sure what you are responding to.  I stated the reason was because console doesn't allow them to have it in alpha, which is what you said.

[InfiniteWarrior]

2 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Not sure what you are responding to.  I stated the reason was because console doesn't allow them to have it in alpha, which is what you said.

My response is to Slingblade2040's comment, not yours.

Edited August 28 by InfiniteWarrior (see edit history)

[Riamus]

6 minutes ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

My response is to Slingblade2040's comment, not yours.

Ahh. Oops.  😀 Can't facepalm my own post.  Heh.

Edited August 28 by Riamus (see edit history)

[theFlu]

1 hour ago, InfiniteWarrior said:

What were TFP supposed to do in that event? Consciously choose to leave console users behind?

Like they have for the past what, half a decade? Yes. Name the thing A22 and if Sony doesn't want to sell it, then sell it there later. Once it's actually the full version that Sony actually wants in their store. Not only are TFP confusing their customers; they're doing it just to game a quality control step that Sony has tried to put in place.

[YourMirror]

8 hours ago, theFlu said:

Like they have for the past what, half a decade? Yes. Name the thing A22 and if Sony doesn't want to sell it, then sell it there later. Once it's actually the full version that Sony actually wants in their store. Not only are TFP confusing their customers; they're doing it just to game a quality control step that Sony has tried to put in place.

Cool story. How did that same thing work on the PS4 release then. Or just mumbling someting that pops in your head?

[RipClaw]

9 hours ago, theFlu said:

Like they have for the past what, half a decade? Yes. Name the thing A22 and if Sony doesn't want to sell it, then sell it there later. Once it's actually the full version that Sony actually wants in their store. Not only are TFP confusing their customers; they're doing it just to game a quality control step that Sony has tried to put in place.

After every update, all social media channels were always full of comments asking for an update for the console version. I don't think it would have been a good idea to let the console players wait any longer.

 

I don't see the problem with releasing the game in its current state as 1.0. As far as the so-called quality control at Sony is concerned, there have been reports in the past about games that were released with lots of bugs and were only playable after huge updates. So I don't give much weight to this quality control. Anybody remembers Batman: Arkham Knight ?

[theFlu]

4 hours ago, YourMirror said:

Or just mumbling someting that pops in your head?

Do I have an option? Can I mumble something that didn't pop in my head?

 

3 hours ago, RipClaw said:

I don't think it would have been a good idea to let the console players wait any longer.

What had changed? What was the risk involved?

 

3 hours ago, RipClaw said:

I don't see the problem with releasing the game in its current state as 1.0.

Kickstarter goals do. It's just not a full release, it's still lacking a couple major features.

 

3 hours ago, RipClaw said:

So I don't give much weight to this quality control. Anybody remembers Batman: Arkham Knight ?

Well, if people don't respect the quality requirements, they're not exactly useful.. 7dtd is prolly in a better relative shape than Arkham, but past failures should be learned from, not just accepted as "well, that's how things are". We can circumvent this req since those guys failed miserably as well; I don't know where this would make sense..

[RipClaw]

32 minutes ago, theFlu said:

What had changed? What was the risk involved?

The risk is that the console players will be driven away for good. The disaster with Telltale was bad enough.

 

35 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Kickstarter goals do. It's just not a full release, it's still lacking a couple major features.

That's why they presented a roadmap showing when the missing features will be added. This says “We have not forgotten the Kickstarter goals. They are still coming.”

And it was also mentioned again and again that 1.0 is not gold. Even if some people misinterpret this. Only the versioning has been changed. This is not unheard of in software development.

 

We don't have to pay anything for the updates, so I don't see it as a big deal. If they had sold the upcoming features as DLCs, I would have understood the criticism, but this way you just have to wait.

 

[Roland]

6 minutes ago, RipClaw said:

but this way you just have to wait.

 

Either way you just have to wait. Regardless of whether they kept the Alpha 22, 23, 24 numbering system or changed to the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 numbering system, the next big update isn't happening until Q4 2024, and the next big update after that isn't happening until Q2 2025 and the next big update until Q4 2025. There is no scenario where keeping the Alpha numbering system was going to somehow magically get us bandits any sooner than what the development map states.

[theFlu]

2 minutes ago, RipClaw said:

The risk is that the console players will be driven away for good. The disaster with Telltale was bad enough.

Driven away for good because ... they'd have to wait another year? To buy a new version of the game, essentially a new game. I don't see it, tbh. Then again, I've never understood the console mindset anyway, why buy a restricted PC ... maybe I just don't get it

 

6 minutes ago, RipClaw said:

Only the versioning has been changed. This is not unheard of in software development.

1.0 has traditionally meant feature-complete, and beta-tested. I'd accept an 0.9 as a signifier for the current state; some actual features still missing. And these A22.0 - A22.3/4 releases are essentially what a beta would be. "not unheard of" .. This repurposing of words is all too common in the world right now, sure. It don't make it right, what's the point of repurposing "1.0" this way, only to require tagging on new qualifiers later on.. 1.0 Gold-forrealz-wemeanitnow! Just Stick to sub 1 numbers when you don't have a feature-complete release, that ain't that hard.

 

Yes, it's an argument for keeping language clean; speaking truth. I don't gaf about the number on my screen as such, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

[RipClaw]

3 hours ago, theFlu said:

Driven away for good because ... they'd have to wait another year? To buy a new version of the game, essentially a new game. I don't see it, tbh. Then again, I've never understood the console mindset anyway, why buy a restricted PC ... maybe I just don't get it

I would argue it would be more like 2 years. Q4 2025 for Gold can mean anything from early October to late December. I don't have a console myself but I guess the reasons are either ease of use or cost savings.

 

3 hours ago, Roland said:

Either way you just have to wait.

I meant this in contrast to the scenario in which a manufacturer sells features as DLCs and you have to pay extra money for the new features. We get the features for free, which I think is a big bonus.

 

Edited August 29 by RipClaw (see edit history)

[Suxar]

27 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Then again, I've never understood the console mindset anyway, why buy a restricted PC ... maybe I just don't get it

Purely for games. No problems with the OS, no problems with hardware compatibility. Take it out of the box, turn it on, play. Look at the release of the same Starfield, for example. When it came out, there was so much screaming that it works slowly. Although on my PC, assembled in 2014, it works quite well. On a PC, there are a lot of nuances, on a console, the hardware is known in advance.

[theFlu]

2 minutes ago, Suxar said:

No problems with the OS, no problems with hardware compatibility.

This game supports 2 players on console X, more players on console Y, doesn't work on console Z ... hardware complications aren't gone, you just aren't allowed to solve them yourself without buying a whole new thing. And on that whole new thing, some of your old stuff doesn't even pretend to work, like the earlier version of this game ...

 

OS being fixed means you're getting exactly what the vendor wants, as long as the vendor wants... They're selling cars with OS-disabled hardware nowadays; you have the suspension, you'll just pay a subscription to activate it... the world is kinda rotting.

 

I get the "unified environment"- idea, it sounds great from a dev and vendor/support perspective. It just doesn't work well with progress.

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

1.0 has traditionally meant feature-complete, and beta-tested.

 

Not in the world of software. Depending on design rules or philosophy it means entirely different thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning). Often the first number means major release, and the number after the point means minor release, without any connotation of "feature-complete" or "beta". People sometimes designate the first public release as 1.0, some don't. Inkscapes  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape ) first public release was 0.35 , version 1.0 came 16 years later and was nothing special. Some people designate it as feature-complete like you said, some don't. For some 1.0 means having a stable public API. ...

 

And specifically in game software historically version numbers were not published at all. After the next game in a series came out you usually called the first one xxx 1 and the new one xxx 2, but it wasn't like the publisher put a 1 behind a game like Baldurs Gate. The first one was simply called "Baldur's Gate", the next one "Baldur's Gate II". And you would find out internal versioning numbers only if there were patches after release. Again they might have called the release version 1.0, they might not, it was an internal number anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Riamus]

The idea that people choose console because it "just works" is likely not very accurate.  Sure, that might be a reason, but I doubt it's a major reason for most people.  Note that I am making an educated guess and this isn't based on any stats I've seen. I think most people choose console because they like consoles and because consoles are cheaper overall (if you aren't buying every console).  The idea that they "just work" doesn't make a lot of sense these days.  Most gamers, and most people in general, who are under 40 or even 50, know how to use computers these days.  They can easily handle loading a game on a computer.  And besides bugs, which can also be there on consoles, games "just work".  I haven't had any games give me trouble getting them to work in probably 20+ years besides issues involved with the updated version of the C&C/Red Alert bundle that came out of nowhere and broke the online stuff since the developers who made the online fixes weren't aware an update was even coming out and so their fixes didn't work anymore.  The other reason at least some of them choose consoles is that they like playing games on big screen TVs and either don't know that they can connect a computer to one as well or just don't want to switch back and forth with a monitor for doing other things.

 

In any case, some people prefer consoles, some people prefer PC.  Just like some people prefer Windows, some Mac, and some Linux (with Linux people preferring different distros).  But each has their pros and cons and people using any of them should be aware of those and willing to accept those if they want to use their preferred platform.

[theFlu]

"Since the internet has become widespread, most commercial software vendors no longer follow the maxim that a major version should be "complete" and instead rely on patches with bugfixes to sort out the known issues which a solution has been found for and could be fixed.^{[citation needed]"}

 

Eh, even wiki goes "citation needed" on that one. But all right, I guess florbo banana beer then. Flappity flap!

 

Sure, I might be partial to the OSS community's way of doing things via immersion; other things do exist. But it ain't like it hasn't confused plenty of people this far and won't continue to do so. Pointlessly so.

[Riamus]

6 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

Not in the world of software. Depending on design rules or philosophy it means entirely different thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning). Often the first number means major release, and the number after the point means minor release, without any connotation of "feature-complete" or "beta". People sometimes designate the first public release as 1.0, some don't. Inkscapes  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape ) first public release was 0.35 , version 1.0 came 16 years later and was nothing special. Some people designate it as feature-complete like you said, some don't. For some 1.0 means having a stable public API. ...

 

And specifically in game software historically version numbers were not published at all. After the next game in a series came out you usually called the first one xxx 1 and the new one xxx 2, but it wasn't like the publisher put a 1 behind a game like Baldurs Gate. The first one was simply called "Baldur's Gate", the next one "Baldur's Gate II". And you would find out internal versioning numbers only if there were patches after release. Again they might have called the release version 1.0, they might not, it was an internal number anyway.

This is not exactly accurate.  It's true in some cases, but isn't in others.  It's been used on this forum to justify what TFP did, but it doesn't make it right.  In the minds of a LOT of people, 1.0 means a finished game.  It doesn't matter if not everyone follows it.  It's been that way all along and people expect it.  You can say that it isn't set in stone, but you can easily see the number of people who are posting about it here that it's expected to be finished at 1.0.  Other than you and one or two people (I think only moderators, though this discussion has been going on for too long for me to remember who exactly has said this), everyone posting has disagreed with this assertion.  Even though most people don't post, you can extrapolate that in most people disagree here, then there's at least a decent chance that most people disagree overall.  Yes, maybe that won't be true, but I doubt that. I don't look at Steam posts, but I'm sure you'll see many people posting expectations that 1.0 was the finished game as well.  You can push that assertion, but it doesn't make it real.

 

And your statement that games haven't historically used version numbers isn't accurate either.  No, they don't put "Baldur's Gate 1", but that's because the 1 or 2 in the title refers to sequels and not versions.  Version numbers often aren't shown, but are still used.  In the past, they were often included in a readme.txt file that listed changes or in other documentation.  Sometimes they weren't publicly displayed, but were still used by the developers.  And the majority of games released that show versions are released as a finished game with a version number of 1.0 or something close to that (1.01 or similar, when an update needed to be made after they made the 1.0 release but before they released to the public).  Most things released as a version under 1.0 are released with the intention of needing more updates before being considered finished (at least be the developers).  I highly doubt Inkscapes at 0.35 was intended to be the finished product.  They wouldn't have chosen 0.35 for a version just for the fun of it.  It would have been because there were still many updates planned before they considered it a finished product, even if users might have felt it was finished at some point before the 1.0 version.  And the 1.0 version, even if "nothing special" likely included the last of the items they wanted included for the finished product.  Just like 7D2D is moving on to "minor" updates in the eyes of many players (graphics, animations, optimizations, etc. instead of major content) as it nears the end of the development cycle, other things also will have "nothing special" in the final versions before 1.0 just because that's when the last things are being done.

 

I'll also add that I've seen version numbers on games going back into the 90s.  Enough of them that it has made the idea of 1.0 being "gold" a normal thing in my mind.  And it's why people expect 1.0 to be the finished product... they have seen it that was for decades.  Yes, not everything makes those versions visible, but enough do.

[Catdaddy]

 

12 minutes ago, Riamus said:

1.0 means a finished game.

 

Then what is the zero for? Does it mean "Nothing more to add"?  Or does it mean "We will put another number here later"? 

 

1.0 is the first version post Early Access. To be continued.

[Riamus]

9 minutes ago, Catdaddy said:

 

 

Then what is the zero for? Does it mean "Nothing more to add"?  Or does it mean "We will put another number here later"? 

 

1.0 is the first version post Early Access. To be continued.

There is always an expectation that there will be patches and bugfixes, which use that 0 position.  Some games did just call themselves version 1 instead of 1.0, but unless they never fixed anything, they'd end up with 1.something eventually.  The idea of 1.0 is not that you have a lot more features and content to add, but that you're done adding content to the base game and any additional updates are patches and bugfixes.  That doesn't mean they don't decide to add some new feature or content if they feel like it's needed afterwards.  It just means that they've completed their goals for the game.  In the past, you have to remember that once a game was released, updates were not a simple thing because you'd have to make them available on a disk for people and mail them out, so they got everything done before release.  These days, with the ease of pushing updates over the internet, the quality control has dropped significantly because they don't have to worry about getting a fix out to people after release.

 

Now, yes, there are companies out there who just want money coming in asap and so will release unfinished games and just finish the game later.  That doesn't make it right and, other than games in early access or directly marked as alpha or beta, such methods lead to really bad reviews and usually the games don't sell well once people notice.  A few games have managed to turn that around and recover from such a backlash, but most do not.

[meganoth]

51 minutes ago, Riamus said:

This is not exactly accurate.  It's true in some cases, but isn't in others.  It's been used on this forum to justify what TFP did, but it doesn't make it right.  In the minds of a LOT of people, 1.0 means a finished game.  It doesn't matter if not everyone follows it.  It's been that way all along and people expect it.  You can say that it isn't set in stone, but you can easily see the number of people who are posting about it here that it's expected to be finished at 1.0.

 

Also people here have expected for the game to be out of alpha after x years development, "because everyone else does it that way". They have expected the game not to change all the time because they were used to games going into EA when already in a beta state.  What does it say if the majority thinks something is the case? It means they are used to it and expect it even if there is no fixed rule. Expectations don't make laws, they can be wrong.

 

" It's true in some cases, but isn't in others." That sentence I wholeheartedly agree with 😉

 

59 minutes ago, Riamus said:

Version numbers often aren't shown, but are still used.  In the past, they were often included in a readme.txt file that listed changes or in other documentation.  Sometimes they weren't publicly displayed, but were still used by the developers.

 

Very true. I mentioned "internal version numbers", any software developer using a versioning control system had them automatically. And any developer could follow whatever convention he thought usefull when putting any meaning onto that number.

 

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

And the majority of games released that show versions are released as a finished game with a version number of 1.0 or something close to that (1.01 or similar, when an update needed to be made after they made the 1.0 release but before they released to the public).

 

Exactly. "the majority". ONLY the majority! It isn't some fixed rule or definition everyone agrees to, it is (probably) just the most often used meaning among many. And because the majority does it, you can often guess what it might mean, but you can NOT depend on it, or complain if it isn't this way.

 

1 hour ago, Riamus said:

I highly doubt Inkscapes at 0.35 was intended to be the finished product.  They wouldn't have chosen 0.35 for a version just for the fun of it.  It would have been because there were still many updates planned before they considered it a finished product, even if users might have felt it was finished at some point before the 1.0 version.  And the 1.0 version, even if "nothing special" likely included the last of the items they wanted included for the finished product.

 

I can't say it for sure, we would have to ask the developers, but I don't thinks so. There often is a reason to increase the number to 1.0 but it could be any reason among dozens. There is NO fixed meaning. Definitely inkscape 1.0 was not thought to be a finished product. And 0.35 was simply the internal version where they thought they would go public.

 

In the open-source scene 1.0 often means very different things depending on the project.  I can say for sure that linux 1.0 for example was not thought feature-complete. To this day Linus Torvalds increases the major version numbers merely because he thinks "its time" for a new number, ans specifically he mentions that it has nothing to do with anything added or done to the kernel.

 

 

 

 

 

[theFlu]

10 minutes ago, meganoth said:

or complain if it isn't this way.

Oh, but we can!

[pApA^LeGBa]

On 8/24/2024 at 7:25 AM, Roland said:

Lol...comes here griping that 1.0 is the final build while 1.1 is currently in experimental...

 

The joke here is calling a game in this state 1.0. That´s not normal, the majority of people will think it´s the final build because usually devs have the decency to not call something V1.0 when it´s still not feature complete. Some do even quite the opposite and delay the release to V1.0 because of that.

 

And before someone says but there are games constantly updating like conan exiles. Yes, live service games. And nobody want´s to turn 7 days into a live service game. 

 

@rateds2k They do work on a game other than 7 days and i am not talking about Bloodmoons. They didn´t tell us details yet though.

 

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

[BFT2020]

They should have called it Version Bob