PC Really? This is the final build?

[meganoth]

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.

 

[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]

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.

 

[NoMan]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

or complain if it isn't this way.

Oh, but we can!

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

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.

 

[BFT2020]

They should have called it Version Bob

 

[Roland]

The definition of 1.0 is in flux and is definitely migrating. It’s confusing to a lot of people because we are still in the beginnings of that change. What 1.0 meant in the industry when games were published onto physical discs or cartridges is not going to be the same as we move further and further away from that model. There’s no going back to 1.0 is the finished version because it has to be.  
 

During such times there are always people who are unwilling to accept the changes and obsess about the traditional way things have been done. Eventually, those people fade away and general acceptance of the new normal eliminates confusion. 
 

I’ve got a few games in my library that were designated 1.0 but were not done and are still being worked on and developed. I made the mental adjustment regarding 1.0 way before TFP made their announcement so it was no big deal. People who refuse to make the adjustment and want to cling doggedly to old definitions will just continue to be angry about more and more releases in the industry. 
 

 

[Riamus]

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.  I don't think that is in doubt.  Now, there are two ways to handle such complaints.

First, you can basically blame the player for having that expectation by telling them they shouldn't expect that because "times, they are a-changin'", which is just going to upset them and had a good chance of leaving then to leave a bad review.  Maybe bad reviews won't really affect the bottom line, but I'm sure there is at least some impact.  You'd need a study to find that answer.

Second, you can be empathic with the layer and tell them that, yes, the expectation is valid and you agree that it created an incorrect expectation along players, but it is probably due to the console release requirements from Sony or Microsoft (go ahead and shift the blame to them unless you can't as a moderator) but that there is a short roadmap to completion.  That has a decent chance of subduing the frustration enough to avoid a negative review.  Again, how much those reviews hurt the bottom line, I don't know. 

So, which would make the most sense?  Blame the player for having that expectation or empathize with them?  Regardless of your personal opinion on having such an expectation.

 

[meganoth]

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.

At least for me taking it out of EA has significance. much more than the "1.0" name.

 

[Riamus]

At least for me taking it out of EA has significance. much more than the "1.0" name.

Ok. And they did both.  So the expectations are valid, even if the standard of what 1.0 means may be changing.

------ (general comment, not a reply) -----

Expectations are an interesting thing.  Developers, publishers, producers, marketers... They all try to manage people's expectations.  That is a fine line to walk.  Many will try to boost expectations beyond reality.  The benefit is that you get a better initial sale because people are expecting something really good.  But it doesn't take long for word to get out that it isn't that good.  If you overplay your cards, this can result in a significant number of bad reviews that can kill sales.  There are a few games that were able to turn things around after doing this, but most can't.  Other things like movies usually can't either.  So instead of a great start to sales, followed by almost normal sales, the sales tank.

The other method is to set expectations lower than reality.  The result is that you get lower initial sales, but people see that it is better than expected and start paying reviews about how it was better than they expected and sales end up better over the long run. 

Do you take the risk of inflating expectations to get better initial sales, do you give accurate expectations with no real gain or loss, or do you give lower expectations to get better long term sales?  A lot of it comes down to how quickly you need the money.

People's expectations pretty directly affect their opinion on value.  If the game doesn't meet expectations (including that it is finished), then they feel they were ripped off.  If the game exceeds expectations, they feel like they got a great deal.

 

[Roland]

Or look at it another way.  Players are understandably expecting it to be finished when it is taken out of early access and set to version 1.0.  I don't think that is in doubt.  Now, there are two ways to handle such complaints.

First, you can basically blame the player for having that expectation by telling them they shouldn't expect that because "times, they are a-changin'", which is just going to upset them and had a good chance of leaving then to leave a bad review.  Maybe bad reviews won't really affect the bottom line, but I'm sure there is at least some impact.  You'd need a study to find that answer.

Second, you can be empathic with the layer and tell them that, yes, the expectation is valid and you agree that it created an incorrect expectation along players, but it is probably due to the console release requirements from Sony or Microsoft (go ahead and shift the blame to them unless you can't as a moderator) but that there is a short roadmap to completion.  That has a decent chance of subduing the frustration enough to avoid a negative review.  Again, how much those reviews hurt the bottom line, I don't know. 

So, which would make the most sense?  Blame the player for having that expectation or empathize with them?  Regardless of your personal opinion on having such an expectation.

Im just sticking to what I believe to be truth, thank you. Times are changing and TFP is taking advantage of the newer meaning of 1.0. If someone wants to be offended by that then that’s their problem. 
 

I know for sure that TFP is defining 1.0 as a milestone with more updates to come rather than a destination. I don’t know for a fact that they only did it to release on console. That’s a theory pushed by some players but it’s never been confirmed by TFP. Shifting blame to Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t be intellectually honest of me to do. 
 

People who are in denial about what 1.0 means in 2024 and moving onward are going to be offended no matter who delivers the message all so they can avoid shifting their own expectations. They can leave a bad review for all I care. But I’m not going to massage their obsession for a dated and obsolete expectation by promulgating your conspiracy theory about why TFP “really” went 1.0. I haven’t seen any evidence coming from TFP of that theory publicly or behind closed doors whereas I have seen plenty of private and public communication that 1.0 simply signified their departure from early access and a significant milestone in the game’s development. 

 

[BFT2020]

If I released a software product stating it was version 1.0 but also told you I have on my schedule 3 additional major updates coming out over the next 1 1/2 years, I fail to see how I caused the confusion - as I provided the context to my release number.

I went back to their 1.0 announcement and they clearly provided context that showed 1.0 was not the final build of the game.

https://7daystodie.com/alpha-exodus-leaving-early-access/

 

[Roland]

If I released a software product stating it was version 1.0 but also told you I have on my schedule 3 additional major updates coming out over the next 1 1/2 years, I fail to see how I caused the confusion - as I provided the context to my release number.

I went back to their 1.0 announcement and they clearly provided context that showed 1.0 was not the final build of the game.

https://7daystodie.com/alpha-exodus-leaving-early-access/

People refuse to understand that because the most important thing to them is to be right about their definition of 1.0. So they ignore all the context and pretend that it’s still 2004 and 1.0 means the finished game is coded upon the cartridge/disc that they just removed from the plastic box that they purchased at the mall….

I mean I joked about it earlier but it is consistent with the mindset of ignoring context in order to push a personal expectation for the OP to be calling 1.0 the “final build” weeks after 1.1  was released to experimental. 

 

[theFlu]

for the OP to be calling 1.0 the “final build”

Flirpity flarbity fon "final". Flopper fer furts "1.0"?

 

[Roland]

Flirpity flarbity fon "final". Flopper fer furts "1.0"?

The Nuns from Sound of Music want you to join them now. 

 

[Riamus]

Im just sticking to what I believe to be truth, thank you. Times are changing and TFP is taking advantage of the newer meaning of 1.0. If someone wants to be offended by that then that’s their problem. 
 

I know for sure that TFP is defining 1.0 as a milestone with more updates to come rather than a destination. I don’t know for a fact that they only did it to release on console. That’s a theory pushed by some players but it’s never been confirmed by TFP. Shifting blame to Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t be intellectually honest of me to do. 
 

People who are in denial about what 1.0 means in 2024 and moving onward are going to be offended no matter who delivers the message all so they can avoid shifting their own expectations. They can leave a bad review for all I care. But I’m not going to massage their obsession for a dated and obsolete expectation by promulgating your conspiracy theory about why TFP “really” went 1.0. I haven’t seen any evidence coming from TFP of that theory publicly or behind closed doors whereas I have seen plenty of private and public communication that 1.0 simply signified their departure from early access and a significant milestone in the game’s development. 

Is there statistical data that shows that the majority, or even more than 25%, of video game developers are not using 1.0 as the finished release version (or something like 1.01 if a patch was needed after the 1.0 build)?  You've mentioned this as fact, but it's there proof, or just what you think?  I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would just like to see statistics rather than assume what someone says online is correct.  I've assumed things I've heard from multiple sources to be true only to find out those sources were all wrong, so I prefer to see the data. 

Also, you seem to want people not to argue against a change they don't like.  It is partly due to people not standing against changes they don't like our think are wrong that many of the worst changes in history have occurred.  I'll avoid getting deeper into that because it becomes borderline political, which isn't allowed.  But I'm sure you can think of some.  If people don't think a change is good, they *should* stand against it.  In the same way that people who think change is needed should argue for it rather than sitting back and just accepting whatever happens it doesn't happen.

Let me ask you... Why is it a good change to not have 1.0 indicate a finished game?  Ignore what anyone does or why they do it... Why do you personally like that change?  What value of positive impact does it have?  I'm really curious because I see no value in it.  It makes sense to have a standard for a finished version of a game.  To just say you can call it whatever you want doesn't make much sense.  Can you convince me that there is a good reason to not have a standard for what is a finished game?  Keeping in mind that service games, MMOs, etc. are an entirely different situation and that DLC and expansions are also different from having a finished base game.