PC Really? This is the final build?
- Thread starter Ardon
- Start date
Mister Forgash
New member
After doing so myself, I think it's safe to say that 7 Days to die in its current state is complete enough to play for hundreds of hours and remain entertained. Now every gamer's mileage will vary, but for me, that satisfies the benchmark adequately.
Now I know it's not finished-- I know we're going to get bandits and a story line, weather effects and potentially a really cool and exciting event system and balancing changes.. but for the most part, I don't feel myself missing any of that when I'm playing the game..
It's hard to say, because now is now, and then was then but if you look at Terraria as example, [Maybe Stardew Valley.. How much did Diablo 2 add after launch?] off the top of my head- though I'm sure there's plenty of others, it felt complete way back at least.. but the Devs kept going anyhow, and knowing how much farther it went and what it became- looking back, it's a lot harder to say it was complete then.
Consider also, the opposite side.. there's gotta be hundreds of games released every week on Steam, burning stinkers with a 1.0 label and most people wouldn't want to get close enough to poke it with a stick. Are they complete if they fail to entertain?
Now I know it's not finished-- I know we're going to get bandits and a story line, weather effects and potentially a really cool and exciting event system and balancing changes.. but for the most part, I don't feel myself missing any of that when I'm playing the game..
It's hard to say, because now is now, and then was then but if you look at Terraria as example, [Maybe Stardew Valley.. How much did Diablo 2 add after launch?] off the top of my head- though I'm sure there's plenty of others, it felt complete way back at least.. but the Devs kept going anyhow, and knowing how much farther it went and what it became- looking back, it's a lot harder to say it was complete then.
Consider also, the opposite side.. there's gotta be hundreds of games released every week on Steam, burning stinkers with a 1.0 label and most people wouldn't want to get close enough to poke it with a stick. Are they complete if they fail to entertain?
Roland
Moderator
I have no data which is why I said that I state what I believe to be true and did not state that I am stating hard facts. My perspective is that the industry is changing to a model of delivering unfinished games that are finished enough but still require patches. People have been complaining about this shift for years now so I don't believe it is just isolated cases but an actual shift in the industry. I believe it is a natural and logical shift due to the change in delivery system of more and more games and the greater ability to patch games online and fewer people actually owning physical copies of their games and instead simply licensing digital downloads of games.
No, by all means, fight the good fight. I'm a realist in this regard and consider that all the people who are complaining aren't anyone with any power other than to withhold payment and not buy games but most of the complainers still want their new game sooner rather than later and so not even they withhold their money. They complain but they buy. The people with the power to hold the line against this change have zero incentive to do so. TFP got their money bump for releasing their 1.0 now instead of at the end of 2025. Who wants their money bump two years from now when you can have it now? And look at the reviews. Yes, there was a blip because of negative review bombing by people truly incensed by the unfinished 1.0 and so the recent reviews dropped to 78% approval but now the 30 days have passed and recent reviews are rising back up again. So studios get their income surge now and any anger is momentary and fades away as long as the game that has been delivered is decent enough to entertain people. 7 Days to Die is plenty decent enough to entertain people. Clearly.
Don't take what I say as a wet blanket to suspend discussion. You're the one who told me to stop saying times are changing and to start feeding people a line that will misdirect them to Sony and Microsoft. I never told anyone to stop complaining. I just truthfully pointed out that our discussions are pointless and feed anger that acceptance and shifting your mindset can diminish.
I don't think it is good or bad. Communication is good. TFP communicated that they were changing the version numbering to 1.0 and also gave clear context of the state of the game and what that 1.0 meant and what it didn't mean. The positive impact of studios pushing out a game that still needs work done on it (for me) is getting to experience those changes. I have always been a fan of early access games. I'm not bothered by the ups and downs. I like experiencing changes. I also prefer downloading my games rather than buying a physical representation of them and I like that developers can so easily push out quick fixes and patches and add content.
I disagree that "1.0" by itself makes for a good standard. I much prefer a press release by the company explaining in detail the state of their game and their plans for the future. Sometime probably in 2026 or 2027, TFP will send out a press release to announce that they are finished with 7 Days to Die and that it now exists in its forever state. That version might end up being 1.7 or 2.5 or 3.8....whatever. Its just the version number. The standard for being finished will be the actual state of the game itself when TFP announces that they are done with 7 Days and are shifting all their resources to other projects. Then people will judge whether TFP achieved their goals and delivered on their promises. I actually hope that they version the Q4 2024 update as 2.0 and the Q2 2025 update as 3.0 and the Q4 2025 update as 4.0 just to really hit home that their versioning is their own.
When games were shipped as physical products, 1.0, was fine because it was self-evident. These days, game updating is more fluid and with early access programs the line is blurred even further and so I would actually hate it if just stamping 1.0 meant done and nothing was stated. I much prefer companies explaining their plans as TFP did.
Riamus
Well-known member
Mister Forgash
New member
Indeed. They could have easily slapped a gold star on it back at A 16 - or perhaps even earlier and pooped out the most rudimentary form of bandits, and whatever else needed to complete their kickstarter promises- called it 1.0 and sold it as a complete game.Heh. People played for hundreds or thousands of hours MANY alphas ago, too.
I guess what I'm getting as is, if it's entertaining, runs stable, has a gameplay loop that feels complete, it qualifies as 1.0 in my book. It's probably a subjective thing too, especially considering that games can vary tremendously in scope so it's hard to say a game needs to have 'XYZ 'to be complete.
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
Or instead of just accepting to being bull@%$#ted, we could simply give those games negative reviews. Why do i as a customer now have to do research, if 1.0 really means 1.0 before buying? Technically we are being lied to. Why should i accept that?
Exactly that kind of behavior from developers makes people not buy new games anymore and buying all their games on sale once the game is like 2 years or older.
Not developers, but marketers. With the advent of the Internet, it became fashionable to release a raw product, saying we'll update it later. And unfortunately, this applies not only to games, office programs are already released in the same way, even OS are released in the same way.
Only I have no complaints about this game; I bought it several years ago, knowing for sure that this was an experimental version.
Last edited by a moderator:
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
Yeah actually true most of the time unless we are talking indie developers like TFP who are also publishing the game themselves, so it´s only on them in this case.
It should have significance. But for 7 days it doesn´t. Literally nothing changed between when this version was still called A22 and V1.0. We are technically still in early access as the game misses crucial game changing content. (Well at least i hope that bandits will be a game changer, they should be tbh) They still can´t make sure no restarts are needed when an update comes. At least that should be a guarantee if you call something V1.0. But nope, we still have to deal with possible restarts as there are still POI´s planned, radiation coming and afaik RWG isn´t in it´s final form aswell.
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu
Well-known member
I think one of the developers said they would make an effort to make updates not need a restart. We will see how much effort they put into it, it may not work every time but it should work some times (I will still restart and leave the experiments to others
). It also signifies an actual change between EA and now.I don't see why new POIs or even radiation necessarily need restarts. New POIs will naturally not magically appear on an old map, but adding them should not influence how your old map works. And radiation, if it simply is in the wasteland, does not need a change to the world data but just a different interpretation.
I said it 3 years ago already: Bandits will NOT be a game changer. If you are unsatisfied with the game now, you will be unsatisfied with the finished game. Bandits will just be a different sort of enemy with more ranged combat, thats it. There will be a few more special quests and an end goal quest to do. It will probably satisfy my thirst for something new like past alphas have done for me. Not more, not less.
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
@meganoth Ah so nearly 11 years of basically no ranged combat from enemies and you think that it´s not a game changer that there will be people with functioning brains and guns that wear armor and are capable of things like taking cover or ambushing you? Really?
You never played any overhaul with NPC´s i guess. It is way different. Now if you can´t see or hear an enemy your are usually not in danger. That changes with armed NPC´s. You drive down a road and suddenly you get shot from a tower. Now if the Bandits they will add can´t do that, why even bother tbh? They should be more dangerous than zombies and not just "look we promised NPC´s here they are, they suck, but we kept our promise"
Regarding restarts: Trying to and actually doing it are two very different pair of shoes. Appels and oranges: It´s V1.0 we should have no restarts and not maybe we won´t have to restart. As long as there is changes that need a restart, that change doesn´t matter at all. Participation trophies are for school kids. (and shouldn´t exist at all, but that´s way offtopic)
You never played any overhaul with NPC´s i guess. It is way different. Now if you can´t see or hear an enemy your are usually not in danger. That changes with armed NPC´s. You drive down a road and suddenly you get shot from a tower. Now if the Bandits they will add can´t do that, why even bother tbh? They should be more dangerous than zombies and not just "look we promised NPC´s here they are, they suck, but we kept our promise"
Regarding restarts: Trying to and actually doing it are two very different pair of shoes. Appels and oranges: It´s V1.0 we should have no restarts and not maybe we won´t have to restart. As long as there is changes that need a restart, that change doesn´t matter at all. Participation trophies are for school kids. (and shouldn´t exist at all, but that´s way offtopic)
RipClaw
Well-known member
I think you're expecting a bit too much here.
I've never seen a game AI that got even close to something like a functioning brain. If you want opponents with a functioning brain, you have to play PVP.
NPCs with weapons are basically nothing more than aimbots with a few lines of text that are played randomly. They will probably have some behavior patterns that differ from zombies, but I wouldn't expect anything more.
Last edited by a moderator:
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
@RipClaw I don´t know FarCry nailed it pretty good, with enemies trying to sneak t behind you for example. Ofc it is not a functioning brain like a human enemy. But this is 7 days and compared to zombies they do hopefully have a kinda functioning brain. Otherwise they are utterly useless.
@Roland What i forgot to add: Physical copies died long before all that releasing unfinished games BS started. Also that still isn´t an excuse. If your game isn´t ready, don´t label it V1.0. And people wonder why a lot of gamers nowadays have trust issues with developers.
@Roland What i forgot to add: Physical copies died long before all that releasing unfinished games BS started. Also that still isn´t an excuse. If your game isn´t ready, don´t label it V1.0. And people wonder why a lot of gamers nowadays have trust issues with developers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roland
Moderator
I never said you shouldn’t give bad reviews for devs putting out an unfinished game. I just said that it won’t change anything. People will still buy them in droves glad to have them sooner rather than later.
Nothing is going to stop this train—not even the supernatural power of bad reviews. You can spend your days being bitter and angry and boycotting games or you can go with it and either buy the rough early adopter version or the refined version a year later. Either way it’s going to continue.
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
What is it with this black and white thinking? I can just not like something without being bitter and angry. Maybe try that sometimes?
The number of people not buying this kind of games anymore and rather waiting for a sale, best as a bundle with DLC`s, get´s more and more daily. Devs who act like that will be left with a crowd of early buyers that have the attention span of a gold fish and no patience at all after a while. That is surely your favorite type of poster as a mod. Am i right?
Roland
Moderator
It’s the tenor of your posts for the last couple of years. When you post negativity for years it comes off as pretty bitter. Leaving a bad review and moving on and just not liking something, I agree— not bitter. Hanging out in a forum for years to go on and on repeating the same complaints way past the point where changes are going to happen— bitter.
Bitter.
No worries Dude. We just disagree on how detrimental this shift is to the industry and how impactful consumers can be to prevent the shift from continuing. Maybe there will be a correction but if so it will be because the players in the industry determine that they need to change in order to be successful. It won’t be because some players of the games leave bad reviews.
Last edited by a moderator:
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
@Roland Surely you can read me like an open book via posts in a forum that i don´t write in my native language.
Anyways, it has started as a few players leaving bad reviews. But they still bought games at release. But that changed. Like i said, there is more and more people who won´t buy any game at release anymore, no matter the history of the developers. (CP2077 was kind of a turning point for that) And that number is growing faster every year. Reviews might not be the solution. But decreasing sales do work.
Anyways, it has started as a few players leaving bad reviews. But they still bought games at release. But that changed. Like i said, there is more and more people who won´t buy any game at release anymore, no matter the history of the developers. (CP2077 was kind of a turning point for that) And that number is growing faster every year. Reviews might not be the solution. But decreasing sales do work.
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu
Well-known member
How do you think the industry players make decisions?
Some make them bottom-line first, which leads to, yay lootboxes. Cool, not having part of that.
Some do their decisions advised by SBI and such, just to obtain funding. Cool, not having any part of that either.
Some, especially indies, can actually afford to make their decisions quality first; "we'll make the game we want". TFP can be in this camp, and largely has been; but this move is pretty purely bottom-line first. Wouldn't want any part of that, and they deserve the flak.
The two first groups are a lost cause. The third group will always exist, and advocating for their continued existence is imo a good thing - even when you have to @%$# at a studio you like to do so. But this is literally "gamers leaving bad reviews", or in other words, voicing our concerns.
Isn't this black or white thinking? "Either they have a good AI, then it will be a gamechanger. Otherwise they will be utterly useless."
We already have the police zombie, so we have ranged combat, even in groups if a few policemen are spawned together. Bandits will probably be tougher and may need end-game characters and some adaption of tactics. So what? Ranged is ranged and if they use cover they will be a bit harder to hit, but that's it. 7D2D will never compete with a dedicated shooter in a static world where they can give the AI optimized routes to follow and give them a dedicated decision tree for each specific map so they really feel intelligent. I don't know if FarCry does that, but if you are impressed by that AI I would bet they did.
I don't doubt that I will like bandits. They are surely something new in end-game once all POIs are easy mode. They will extend the game in a natural fashion, because they are tougher and ranged. They might make the sniper rifle fashionable again.
Last edited by a moderator: