PC v1.x Developer Diary

Status
Not open for further replies.
faatal said:
Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.
Click to expand...


I think it's much of a storm in a teacup here. A22, A23, or 1.0 or 2.0 really matters less. I'm imagining that launching the same version on console pretty much necessitates (or strongly favors) calling it a 1.0 release, which is cool. It's just naming which really does not matter. The biggest thing is console players finally get to play it, and hopefully by Q4 crossplay so PC and console gamers can finally game together, which I think is really rare but a great boon to the community.

However, let's also utilize commonly accepted terms. 1.0 is a gold release. You can not release into 1.0, exit early access, and still not call it a gold release. Doing so simply stretches the terminology of a gold release into nonsensical use. I'd prefer we move away from the gold release term anyhow, as we don't do CD pressing, we can easily do day 1 (or day -1) bug AND content patches ... and easily subsequently update and add features through established protocols.

Me, I'd have preferred TFP saying "We're going to label it 1.0, it's not the completed game, but that's the term we'll be using as we exit early access regardless and we had to due to A B C considerations." and leave it at that. I would of course being the nosy person I am like to know ALL the backroom dealings of why, but wanting and being owed an explanation are two widely different things.

Now ... end May experimental still on? Can we push it to end June when I'm back from holiday? ;)

Vedui42 :)

 
faatal said:
Yes. 1.0. No longer early access. Not gold. Not done. Continued full development exactly as if we had called it A22 and started on A23, then A24...
Many games leave early access and the devs then continue to improve them. There is nothing weird about this.
Click to expand...


The reasoning is weird. There was no indicator whatsoever that you guys feel the game is launch ready. It´s quite the opposite feeling i get over the past year. I mean do whatever you want. But the reasoning. I am sorry i smell BS for the reasoning here. You guys never cared if it´s in EA or called 1.0 for over 10 years now and suddenly you do, even when still missing key features?

And again you can tell us whatever you want. Just don´t be surprised if not everyone buys it. And no one even asked why and yet you felt that a reason needs to be there when announcing this.

There might be NDA´s as already meantioned. But that doesn´t mean you need to serve some made up reason. Simply say, there is legal reasons and we can´t talk about it yet.

bdubyah said:
I'm not sure this conversation is worth the time if you just refuse to accept most of your "missing" features were never meant for 1.0 to begin with.

How do you know 1.0 won't bring this missing balance? Every update has made changes to this, no reason to believe 1.0 won't do the same. Endgame as in, what exactly? A story? Oh yeah, more stuff meant for after 1.0... Same with bandits.......

What isn't done with RWG? They are still iterating on it, but I'd say it is more than good enough for a 1.0 release.

Honestly not even sure what the last part is supposed to mean. Reads like gibberish to me. What did their change their mind from, to? Pretty sure the objective for the last few years is to finish the game. 1.0 is a step towards that.
Click to expand...


I know because we were told balancing will happen in Beta. And we get 1.0 without a Beta all of a sudden. And they can´t get Bandits done, they struggle a bit with RWG. I doubt there was any time for it with all the other stuff coming for 1.0.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys, it is not about the change itself, @pApA^LeGBas concern is about whether TFP is keeping quiet on a major reason for the change. 

My feeling is that IF that is the case (because of NDA or simply because they did this just on suspicion it would look better to Sony/Microsoft), then it would be a rather harmless omission (comparable to not telling your grandmother that you go on a adventure cruise). I don't expect them to tell us everything. At least since I have been on this forum they never told us everything, especially about their bussiness dealings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamie mallinder said:
I have a question now the game is version 1.0 does this mean we won't have to start over when they release the upcoming content patches?
Click to expand...
In every previous big update that adds new content, features and so on in 7 days to die (as in every game actually) , a full wipe is a must.

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

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

I'll take my zombies any day.

 
BFT2020 said:
This

I am going to call my next software release Bob instead of those pesky numbers  😏
Click to expand...
I really liked how android named their versions early on, using names of sweets and going alphabetical :) things got tricky when they got to Q though

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pApA^LeGBa said:
There might be NDA´s as already meantioned. But that doesn´t mean you need to serve some made up reason. Simply say, there is legal reasons and we can´t talk about it yet.
Click to expand...
And yet if they said simply, "We're going to call it 1.0" and didn't include any explanation at all, then everyone (including probably you), would be complaining about that.  They aren't going to tell us the details about private business decisions between them and Sony or Microsoft.  So they either tell us absolutely nothing (pitchforks come out) or tell us a half truth like they did (still pitchforks, but fewer).  There isn't a perfect option for them when they aren't going to tell you the specific details.  And there's no reason they should have to either.  Besides, I thought it was pretty clear that this move was almost guaranteed to be due to Microsoft or Sony, so they let you read between the lines to find out the (likely) truth as it was.  That's enough.

khzmusik said:
Question about how the post-1.0 roadmap will match the current alpha development cycle.

There are currently three post-roadmap releases/goals: "Storm's Brewing," "A New Threat", and "The Road Ahead".

Are these going to be equivalent to new alpha versions? (So "Storm's Brewing" would be A23, etc.)

If so, will there be breaking changes to the code or game mechanics, or will these updates necessarily be compatible with the 1.0 game, with the changes mainly being additional content? (I'm specifically asking for modders like myself, I'd like to know if mods for 1.0 will still work in post-1.0 versions.)
Click to expand...


Jamie mallinder said:
I have a question now the game is version 1.0 does this mean we won't have to start over when they release the upcoming content patches?
Click to expand...
As SylenThunder mentioned, this was responded to earlier.  In short, they are planning on trying to keep you from needing to start new games with these updates but cannot guarantee it won't be required.  They will try to make the saves at least possible to load.  Mods should work similar to saves and probably are less likely to break.  The biggest thing that may break are POI if they change blocks again in any of the releases.

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

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

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
Question about how the post-1.0 roadmap will match the current alpha development cycle.

There are currently three post-roadmap releases/goals: "Storm's Brewing," "A New Threat", and "The Road Ahead".

Are these going to be equivalent to new alpha versions? (So "Storm's Brewing" would be A23, etc.)

If so, will there be breaking changes to the code or game mechanics, or will these updates necessarily be compatible with the 1.0 game, with the changes mainly being additional content? (I'm specifically asking for modders like myself, I'd like to know if mods for 1.0 will still work in post-1.0 versions.)
Click to expand...
Yes, they would have been alpha 23, 24, but now something like 1.5 or 2.0.

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

 
Hi!

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

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


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

 
Pichun1 said:
Hi!

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

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

 
Vedui said:
I think it's much of a storm in a teacup here. A22, A23, or 1.0 or 2.0 really matters less. I'm imagining that launching the same version on console pretty much necessitates (or strongly favors) calling it a 1.0 release, which is cool. It's just naming which really does not matter. The biggest thing is console players finally get to play it, and hopefully by Q4 crossplay so PC and console gamers can finally game together, which I think is really rare but a great boon to the community.

However, let's also utilize commonly accepted terms. 1.0 is a gold release. You can not release into 1.0, exit early access, and still not call it a gold release. Doing so simply stretches the terminology of a gold release into nonsensical use. I'd prefer we move away from the gold release term anyhow, as we don't do CD pressing, we can easily do day 1 (or day -1) bug AND content patches ... and easily subsequently update and add features through established protocols.

Me, I'd have preferred TFP saying "We're going to label it 1.0, it's not the completed game, but that's the term we'll be using as we exit early access regardless and we had to due to A B C considerations." and leave it at that. I would of course being the nosy person I am like to know ALL the backroom dealings of why, but wanting and being owed an explanation are two widely different things.

Now ... end May experimental still on? Can we push it to end June when I'm back from holiday? ;)

Vedui42 :)
Click to expand...
The term gold does not mean much anymore. When is it done? Many games release, get a few bug fixes, then no more updates, so I guess it is done. There are other games that just keep getting bugs fixes, balance changes, new features, at whatever rate the devs feeling like doing, so they don't ever seem done to me. Avorion, Grim Dawn, No Man's Sky, Empyrion, Everspace 2, Space Engineers, Rust. I play or have played all of these and look forward to some of their updates. Some were early access titles and while so, it actually encouraged me to play them less. Leaving early access tells me it is more stable, more complete and I will have a better experience.

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

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top