PC Really? This is the final build?
- Thread starter Ardon
- Start date
Jugginator
Moderator
No, it's out of Early Access Alpha and into a more-or-less Beta version. It's not a full release, as you can see on the roadmap there are a ton of thing still planned and being worked on.
Slingblade2040
Active member
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.
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.
Riamus
Well-known member
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
InfiniteWarrior
New member
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
Well-known member
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
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
Riamus
Well-known member
Can't facepalm my own post. Heh.
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Cool story. How did that same thing work on the PS4 release then. Or just mumbling someting that pops in your head?
RipClaw
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Do I have an option? Can I mumble something that didn't pop in my head?
What had changed? What was the risk involved?
Kickstarter goals do. It's just not a full release, it's still lacking a couple major features.
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
Well-known member
The risk is that the console players will be driven away for good. The disaster with Telltale was bad enough.
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
Moderator
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
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
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.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 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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.Then again, I've never understood the console mindset anyway, why buy a restricted PC ... maybe I just don't get it
theFlu
Well-known member
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.