PC Almost 1 year since the last "major" update

[TheBus4K]

I have played two games already in this Alpha 19 (+100 days each) and I have been waiting a long time for an update to be able to enjoy the game again. I decided to see when the last major update was (note: for me the major updates are Alpha 18, Alpha 19, etc., not Alpha 18.2, Alpha 19.4, etc.), and to my surprise it has already been 10 months since the last major update (Alpha 19 was released on 06/25/2020).

When are they supposed to add a new major update? Because yes, Alphas 19.3, 19.4, etc., are necessary to correct bugs and adjust certain things, but they don't add more hours of play, at least not always (there are times that they have added new things, or in the case of this Alpha 19, a new toolbelt slot). This means that we have really been without new content for 10 months (and counting). And this, I am very sure, that many people cannot bear it. There will be people who have a lot of free time or simply don't get bored and reach day 7777 and have kingdoms all over the map, but a normal person doesn't do that because they get bored before.

According to Steam Charts (a page that shows the number of current players in a game, and they get the information directly from Steam) there are currently 25,858 players, and to give you an idea, since October 2019 there were always more than 27k players, This means that for more than a year and a half that the number of players hadn't dropped to the current number of players (25,858).

I'm not the typical crying person asking "when is this game going to get out of alpha omgg !!1!1!", I'm asking when are we going to have real new content that grants us new hours. Where is the giant zombie boss that they were going to add in the past? Where are the bandits who said centuries ago they were going to add? Do you know an approximate date of when an experimental phase of Alpha 20 will come out? In a month? 6 months? In another year?

I find it very sad that I can only play this game 1-2 times (maybe three, although I get bored before) each year (or even a year and a half depending on the Alpha) before getting bored just because updates take so long.

 

[Hyperbolt]

Its been kinda lika this since alpha 16, there was about 1,5 years between 16 and 17, and after that it has been around a year per new alpha! You get used to it after some time... xD   If you ask the pimps, they will respond "its done when its done" and that about as accurate answer you will get regarding the time to the next alpha!  But keep a look out for when streamers start getting access to the experimental version, that usually means it will be released to the public soon!   As for myself, i would guess we might see alpha 20 i early summer? But i have to idea, really!

 

[TheBus4K]

Its been kinda lika this since alpha 16, there was about 1,5 years between 16 and 17, and after that it has been around a year per new alpha! You get used to it after some time... xD   If you ask the pimps, they will respond "its done when its done" and that about as accurate answer you will get regarding the time to the next alpha!  But keep a look out for when streamers start getting access to the experimental version, that usually means it will be released to the public soon!   As for myself, i would guess we might see alpha 20 i early summer? But i have to idea, really!

They did a survey long ago about how often we wanted an update, if every two weeks (or something like that) or when they were ready. People obviously voted the second because in 2 weeks there isn't much time, but also obviously nobody knew that "when they were ready" means that we have to wait a year for each major update.

 

[7daysexpert]

I have played two games already in this Alpha 19 (+100 days each) and I have been waiting a long time for an update to be able to enjoy the game again. I decided to see when the last major update was (note: for me the major updates are Alpha 18, Alpha 19, etc., not Alpha 18.2, Alpha 19.4, etc.), and to my surprise it has already been 10 months since the last major update (Alpha 19 was released on 06/25/2020).

When are they supposed to add a new major update? Because yes, Alphas 19.3, 19.4, etc., are necessary to correct bugs and adjust certain things, but they don't add more hours of play, at least not always (there are times that they have added new things, or in the case of this Alpha 19, a new toolbelt slot). This means that we have really been without new content for 10 months (and counting). And this, I am very sure, that many people cannot bear it. There will be people who have a lot of free time or simply don't get bored and reach day 7777 and have kingdoms all over the map, but a normal person doesn't do that because they get bored before.

According to Steam Charts (a page that shows the number of current players in a game, and they get the information directly from Steam) there are currently 25,858 players, and to give you an idea, since October 2019 there were always more than 27k players, This means that for more than a year and a half that the number of players hadn't dropped to the current number of players (25,858).

I'm not the typical crying person asking "when is this game going to get out of alpha omgg !!1!1!", I'm asking when are we going to have real new content that grants us new hours. Where is the giant zombie boss that they were going to add in the past? Where are the bandits who said centuries ago they were going to add? Do you know an approximate date of when an experimental phase of Alpha 20 will come out? In a month? 6 months? In another year?

I find it very sad that I can only play this game 1-2 times (maybe three, although I get bored before) each year (or even a year and a half depending on the Alpha) before getting bored just because updates take so long.

while im not a moderator buss i do understand the frustration but look at it this way would you rather have a year in between major updates and have good quality content or have 2 months in between major updates and have garbage that needs to b fixed god knows how many times. Personally i would prefer the latter

 

[TheBus4K]

while im not a moderator buss i do understand the frustration but look at it this way would you rather have a year in between major updates and have good quality content or have 2 months in between major updates and have garbage that needs to b fixed god knows how many times. Personally i would prefer the latter

I don't ask for a major update every 2 months, but a major update every 4-6 months would seem perfect to me to get good quality content. Even waiting 1 whole year for each update, they always come with tons of bugs. Less important bugs that don't affect the gameplay much and can be fixed later, will be able to be fixed when the game enters the beta phase (which I imagine that in that phase they will stop adding new content and will focus on polishing the current game) .

Waiting a whole year for a major update seems excessive, both to me and to anyone who isn't one of those who play 500 days and still don't get bored.

 

[Hyperbolt]

I dont know how the fun pimps work, but from own experience, when ive worked on public projects, and people demand this and that to be done a specific date, the quality often suffers. 

I think its probably better for them to work in a way that dont cause them stress, and keeping their motivation on top!

Yes, ofc i would enjoy having more frequent updates, but i understand their reasoning behind the "its done when its done". 

After all, apart from a few features i really miss, the game overall has improved over the years ive played, so their strategy kinda works! 

 

[BFT2020]

I find it very sad that I can only play this game 1-2 times (maybe three, although I get bored before) each year (or even a year and a half depending on the Alpha) before getting bored just because updates take so long.

What are you going to do when it is finished?  Play twice and move on?  Sounds like the issue is you, not how long since the last major update of a game in development.

 

[TheBus4K]

I dont know how the fun pimps work, but from own experience, when ive worked on public projects, and people demand this and that to be done a specific date, the quality often suffers. 

I think its probably better for them to work in a way that dont cause them stress, and keeping their motivation on top!

Yes, ofc i would enjoy having more frequent updates, but i understand their reasoning behind the "its done when its done". 

After all, apart from a few features i really miss, the game overall has improved over the years ive played, so their strategy kinda works! 

The game has been in Alpha for about 8 years, if the game hadn't improved over that time, we would have a problem 

I understand what you mean, at EA (I'm talking about the company, not Early Access) when they start creating a game, they have a deadline (or at least they used to do that). That seems wrong to me, but creating a game and creating updates seems totally different to me. The Fun Pimps can say "okay, over 4 months we are going to create this, this and this, and for the next 2 months we will correct bugs and maybe add something new (a total of 6 months working on the update)" instead of "we will add yes or yes 58745684398757 things to the game throughout these 6 months !! ". The thing is to add good content throughout those 6 months, not to add a lot of content, to do it with pressure, with many bugs without being tested, etc.

All the content they have added in Alpha 19 could have been done in "two" updates. If I'm not mistaken, the time between Alpha 18 and Alpha 19 was 8 months. Well, they could have done the first 4 months a certain part of Alpha 19, and the next 4 months another part. Then launch the typical updates to fix bugs, adjust certain things or even add new content.

It's easier to say "hey, we are going to create whatever we want and we are going to take what we want", the problem is that by doing that, many players (myself included) stop playing because we have already seen everything it offers us the Alfa 19 and they haven't released content for almost a year.

What are you going to do when it is finished?  Play twice and move on?  Sounds like the issue is you, not how long since the last major update of a game in development.

When the game is finished, we are talking about a very different game, so I don't know what you are thinking.

They said they were planning to add bandits, a giant zombie boss, change the loot system (which is what makes the game very unreplayable for me right now), etc. When they add all that, will be much more playable the first game, like the second, like the third, etc., because with the bandits, the difficulty that the giant zombie boss will add, the loot finally improved, the vehicle mods, improvements in the random gen, the changed traders and many more things that they will add will make the game something very different from what is Alpha 19.

 

[n2n1]

Here's the thing - when this game comes out of alpha - you will stop receiving "real" updates.

Therefore, it turns out that you need this game to always remain alpha in order to get more hours of gameplay...

 

[TheBus4K]

Here's the thing - when this game comes out of alpha - you will stop receiving "real" updates.

Therefore, it turns out that you need this game to always remain alpha in order to get more hours of gameplay...

I've never said that I want the game to come out of the Alpha. I am saying that the updates should be more constant. In addition, the final game will be much more playable and replayable than in the current Alpha 19.

 

[Liesel Weppen]

I find it very sad that I can only play this game 1-2 times (maybe three, although I get bored before) each year (or even a year and a half depending on the Alpha) before getting bored just because updates take so long.

I think you understood something essentially wrong.

The purpose of the major updates is not to deliver content to make the game replayable again for older, bored players. That are no content updates, but pure game development. You bought an early access product, that is simply developed in this way. There is not even a gurantee in future updates keep coming. In theory TFP could also have stopped the development. And once the game goes gold (early access ends) there will be no more updates in a development sense. Perhaps TFP may continue delivering content updates then, but that's also not for sure.

If you are bored soon with each major alpha, instead of complaining about how long it takes for the next update, i suggest you should try mods. There are many "total conversions" that contain even more changes than most major alpha updates, such like: Darkness Falls, Undead Legacy, War of the Walkers, True Survival, Ravenhearst and probably many more.

 

[n2n1]

I've never said that I want the game to come out of the Alpha. I am saying that the updates should be more constant. In addition, the final game will be much more playable and replayable than in the current Alpha 19.

I didn't say you said that

I said - that it might be beneficial for you to keep her in alpha. 

(For me, by the way, too)

 

[Urban Blackbear]

This isn't an MMO. A 4-6 month update schedule just isn't that reasonable. It requires large teams to crank out that much crap content at that pace.

 

[uncle.heavy]

In addition, the final game will be much more playable and replayable than in the current Alpha 19.

Which is an assumption of yours. Sandbox is bound to pull a great deal of its allure from being Sandbox, and leaving it up to the player to take initiative and define their challenge within that frame as soon as basic skills have been acquired.

That is not to say that purpose and (NPC) interaction as well as challenge by even more and even stronger foes are not to be considered valuable assets but especially the last one gets old rather quickly, and then the demand rises for yet more and more resilient objectives to overcome.

I strongly believe in new content adding to the feeling of purpose and goal but once you've seen it, you've seen it.

@Liesel Weppen beat me to it, so I simply express my consent to his proposed solution to satisfy your appetite.

 

[TheBus4K]

I think you understood something essentially wrong.

The purpose of the major updates is not to deliver content to make the game replayable again for older, bored players. That are no content updates, but pure game development. You bought an early access product, that is simply developed in this way. There is not even a gurantee in future updates keep coming. In theory TFP could also have stopped the development. And once the game goes gold (early access ends) there will be no more updates in a development sense. Perhaps TFP may continue delivering content updates then, but that's also not for sure.

If you are bored soon with each major alpha, instead of complaining about how long it takes for the next update, i suggest you should try mods. There are many "total conversions" that contain even more changes than most major alpha updates, such like: Darkness Falls, Undead Legacy, War of the Walkers, True Survival, Ravenhearst and probably many more.

Obviously the updates aren't for boring gamers. I say that, every time they release an update, "bored" players can have fun with the game again, more and more people are interested in the game, more people play the game, more people broadcast the game, and more people buy the game.
What I want you to understand is that I see better that they get more frequent updates and, for example, give time to correct the bugs before. If they release one update per year with 100 bugs, it would be much easier to handle them if they had released part of the update, fixed several bugs, and then released the other part, fixing the remaining bugs.
Yes, in theory TFP has been able to stop releasing updates, but what is the point of doing that if they get money?
By the way, I have tried mods. And obviously they allow me to play one more game without getting bored.

This isn't an MMO. A 4-6 month update schedule just isn't that reasonable. It requires large teams to crank out that much crap content at that pace.

MMOs usually have updates every 2-3 weeks, and that's exactly what I said I don't want.

Which is an assumption of yours. Sandbox is bound to pull a great deal of its allure from being Sandbox, and leaving it up to the player to take initiative and define their challenge within that frame as soon as basic skills have been acquired.

That is not to say that purpose and (NPC) interaction as well as challenge by even more and even stronger foes are not to be considered valuable assets but especially the last one gets old rather quickly, and then the demand rises for yet more and more resilient objectives to overcome.

I strongly believe in new content adding to the feeling of purpose and goal but once you've seen it, you've seen it.

@Liesel Weppen beat me to it, so I simply express my consent to his proposed solution to satisfy your appetite.

Are you saying it's a assumption of mine that the game when we have the boss zombie, bandits, loot and traders changed, vehicle mods, improved random gen, etc., isn't it going to be much better? More replayable?
If you think otherwise, I don't have much more to say to you...

 

[Liesel Weppen]

If they release one update per year with 100 bugs, it would be much easier to handle them if they had released part of the update, fixed several bugs, and then released the other part, fixing the remaining bugs.

You are assuming they are developing parts that are working completely independent of other stuff. But often various changes rely on each other and can't be deployed independently in different parts.

Also i doubt each update would be more fun if they release 1/3 of the features every 4 month instead of the full featureset after 12 months. What makes the replays after major updates great is that A LOT has changed.

Look at the changelog of A19, devide it in 3 parts. Now imagine you wouldn't have gotten all the changes at once, but only 1/3. Do you think 1/3 of the changes would have made the game worth replaying it? How long would that have lasted with just some changes?

Would it be worth a replay, if they e.g release just the reworked zombie models? I don't think so.
You would become bored even more often but faster. You'd play a little, have seen all changes because there are only few and then soon stop playing again. Next update, same again.

And if you are afraid of the bugs with each new major release, i suggest you to skip the experimental phases, even if it then takes even longer until you can play the next update. What you are asking for is min-maxing. Like: i want everything, but faster and with less bugs...

 

[TheBus4K]

You are assuming they are developing parts that are working completely independent of other stuff. But often various changes rely on each other and can't be deployed independently in different parts.

Also i doubt each update would be more fun if they release 1/3 of the features every 4 month instead of the full featureset after 12 months. What makes the replays after major updates great is that A LOT has changed.

Look at the changelog of A19, devide it in 3 parts. Now imagine you wouldn't have gotten all the changes at once, but only 1/3. Do you think 1/3 of the changes would have made the game worth replaying it? How long would that have lasted with just some changes?

Would it be worth a replay, if they e.g release just the reworked zombie models? I don't think so.
You would become bored even more often but faster. You'd play a little, have seen all changes because there are only few and then soon stop playing again. Next update, same again.

And if you are afraid of the bugs with each new major release, i suggest you to skip the experimental phases, even if it then takes even longer until you can play the next update. What you are asking for is min-maxing. Like: i want everything, but faster and with less bugs...

I understand what you mean, but you are deviating from what I am saying.

Would a piece of Alpha 19 have been less fun? It may be, but in a 4 month update we would have enough fun that I and other people can play again without getting bored, the game would stay active, the streamers would broadcast the game more often (that is very beneficial to the time to attract new people to the game), more people would buy it, etc.

Talking about the time between Alpha 18 and Alpha 19 (8 months), if they had split the update, let me doubt that one of them only contained the remake zombie models.

I feel like you don't read my comments. At no time have I assumed that CURRENTLY whatever they do is independent of another, what I am saying is that what they COULD do is split the updates thinking about what things they will include in each one, whether the things they include are dependent or not on others.

The one who should stop assuming things is you. At no point have I said that I am afraid of bugs. What I'm saying is that, at least what I think, is that they would have better bug management if instead of releasing a very large bug-packed update, they split it in two, releasing one of the two parts of the update and fixing certain bugs, and who knows, maybe thanks to having released half of the update first, they would be able to avoid certain bugs being created in the other half of the update.

I am perfectly aware that a 4-6 month update would have less content, but as I have explained before, with more constant updates, although with half the content (which is still quite a lot), the game would be much more active, both casual players and streamers. I know I repeat a lot about streamers, but currently it is a fact that streaming is making certain games sell much more (Among Us, Fall Guys, Rust, GTA V, etc.). Many had already sold a lot before, but thanks to streaming they have sold even more.

I'm not asking for everything fast and with fewer bugs. I've said millions of times (you don't seem to read) that I want split updates (that is, half the content), both to keep the game much more active and to handle bugs much better.

 

[Liesel Weppen]

And what i am saying is that you are imaging "just split updates up" is not as easy as you think. Same like the time between releases is not constant, because it's hard to finish something to a concrete deadline, instead you release simply when it's done. And when somthing is in a releaseable state does vary.

Iirc the time between A16 and A17 was even longer was that with A17 the sleeper system was introduced, and that was a really HUGE change that required a lot of development ressources.

Another exmaple that hopefully makes more clear what i'm talking about:

Assuming three features and two developers. One takes 12 weeks to develop, second feature takes 2 weeks, third takes 10 weeks. Second developer works on the 2-weeks-feature first, 10-weeks-feature second. And the next release is planned after 12 weeks with all three features.
It's impossible to release something after 6 weeks, because first and third feature are not finished. You could have released with just the second feature after just two weeks. But then it would take another 10 weeks to finish the other two features. So still no release every 6 weeks, just because someone would prefer more regular releases.

I also don't see a problem with the bug management. I'd even say in opposite TFP is really fast with bugfixing, once they released an experimental and there haven't been many (absolutely) gamebreaking bugs. I play many early access games, and from the amount of changes and the quality including time it takes until bugs are fixed, 7d2d is one of the best.

 

[TheBus4K]

And what i am saying is that you are imaging "just split updates up" is not as easy as you think. Same like the time between releases is not constant, because it's hard to finish something to a concrete deadline, instead you release simply when it's done. And when somthing is in a releaseable state does vary.

Iirc the time between A16 and A17 was even longer was that with A17 the sleeper system was introduced, and that was a really HUGE change that required a lot of development ressources.

Another exmaple that hopefully makes more clear what i'm talking about:

Assuming three features and two developers. One takes 12 weeks to develop, second feature takes 2 weeks, third takes 10 weeks. Second developer works on the 2-weeks-feature first, 10-weeks-feature second. And the next release is planned after 12 weeks with all three features.
It's impossible to release something after 6 weeks, because first and third feature are not finished. You could have released with just the second feature after just two weeks. But then it would take another 10 weeks to finish the other two features. So still no release every 6 weeks, just because someone would prefer more regular releases.

I also don't see a problem with the bug management. I'd even say in opposite TFP is really fast with bugfixing, once they released an experimental and there haven't been many (absolutely) gamebreaking bugs. I play many early access games, and from the amount of changes and the quality including time it takes until bugs are fixed, 7d2d is one of the best.

There are updates that I know have to be done immediately yes or yes. If I remember correctly, on Alpha 17 they rewrote the whole code or something like that, that's why I think the time between Alpha 16 and Alpha 17 was the longest.

The example that you have given me sincerely I haven't understood you. This is what I have understood:

There are two developers (why only two in a company that has sold about two million copies?), but you only name the second, who is the one who works on the 2-week and 10-week feature. Also, why do you put that a single thing takes 12 weeks to create? Yes, there is a possibility, but then there would already be a reason to extend the time between one update and another, as happened with the Alpha 17. But the normal thing, or I think it should be normal, is to plan the updates in such a way that you don't need a whole year to launch it. I'm not 100% sure obviously, because I don't work on TFP, but probably the Alpha 18 and even the Alpha 19 could have been split into two updates if they had planned like that.

By the way, with all my comments I am not trying to say that I am 100% right. I understand that all of you have certain reasons why you think that the annual updates make sense, and I try to understand them, but I haven't understood the behavior of @Kuosimodo. I see that you have disliked all my comments because you have voted on them, but I don't see that you have commented on why. Don't worry, I don't bite, I respect each and every one of your opinions.

 

[unholyjoe]

if someone was to look at the game credits it would be clear we have far more then 2 developers.

but i am sure when he said 2 he was just giving an example.

also, if you (meaning anyone so no one in particular), were following our progress/process, you would have seen that we tried the speedy, small builds and it failed (no matter how we develop.. there will always be the 50/50). so we steered away from the smaller builds in favor of getting a larger project done that gave more meaning to the game in the direction we are heading and then releasing it.