PC 1.0. No, this is still alpha.

[pApA^LeGBa]

My only disdain is for people who have come to understand that the numbering system is not following conventional industry usage and they know about the roadmap and when TFP will consider the game finished but they still go on and on about how the game is 1.0 but not finished months and months and coming up on close to a year now since it was all explained and they should have it straightened out by now.

If yiou call a alpha version V1 simply to satisfy Sony/MS, then you gotta live with that. And spare me with the "They felt it is a in a V1 state" They should have waited for next gen on console anyways. Now we have restrictions on PC due to console.

 

[Dead Smarty]

They should have waited for next gen on console anyways. Now we have restrictions on PC due to console.

No, that will never solve anything. The moment you'll have a PC game on console it needs a few tweaks from m/k to controler.
Also: When consoles turn "next gen", PC will too or already had.

The only thing that will prevent consoles holding back PC is to skip crossplay.
Or in the Xbox specific case: Don't demand downward compatibility. Launch a base console up to newest tech standards, maybe add a pro version a few years later but please no more half S console.
(Pun intended).

 

[Roland]

Self-inflicted wound by TFP.

Ungkor here isn't confused or shocked about it, he's using alpha vs "1.0" as the quality indicators they "should" be, mildly mocking TFP for that numbering decision while actually calling the game a buggy mess. Which - with the experience he describes there - sounds relatively accurate.

Calling that "confusion": ridiculous.

Actling like I was responding directly to Ungkor instead of specifically the person I quoted and parsing away the qualifier I clearly gave from the phrase you quoted just for an attempt to be pithy? Ridiculous and disingenuous. 

To be super clear in the case of Ungkor, If they are a brand new player and those were the first 48 days they had ever played then as I stated my remarks don't apply to them and that would be a TFP self-inflicted wound (which TFP is living with comfortably btw). If Ungkor has been around and already learned that the TFP 1.0 label didn't mean "finished game" then posting yet another thread exclaiming that the game is still in alpha rather than 1.0 is exactly the kind of boorish behavior that we've been seeing from some veterans over the past year.

I don't know Ungkor but I already protected him from my criticism in the remarks you commented on if it turns out he is a new player. And if he is new and has just come to realize that the game is called 1.0 and it still is an unfinished game in active development then hopefully he can process that and move on with a better understanding of what's going on and won't feel the obsession of posting additional "2.0 game? psht Naw!" threads over the next year.

 

[theFlu]

Actling like I was responding directly to Ungkor instead of specifically the person I quoted and parsing away the qualifier I clearly gave from the phrase you quoted just for an attempt to be pithy? Ridiculous and disingenuous. 

What qualifier did I strip?

My only disdain is for people who have come to understand that the numbering system is not following conventional industry usage and they know about the roadmap and when TFP will consider the game finished but they still go on and on about how the game is 1.0 but not finished months and months and coming up on close to a year now since it was all explained and they should have it straightened out by now.

Your problem is people who understand the situation, but still mention the taboo topic. This is the solemn duty of a man; if your friends do stupid @%$#, you deride them until they fix their behavior, and once they do, you still bring it up whenever they get too high on their own supply. TFP hasn't fixed their behaviour, and the game is still a buggy mess. Derision well deserved.

And if you're NOT talking about this thread by Ungkor, then why are you picking random fights with random other people from other threads, here?

 

[Roland]

Your problem is people who understand the situation, but still mention the taboo topic. This is the solemn duty of a man; if your friends do stupid @%$#, you deride them until they fix their behavior, and once they do, you still bring it up whenever they get too high on their own supply. TFP hasn't fixed their behaviour, and the game is still a buggy mess. Derision well deserved.

In my opinion it is a false parallel you are drawing between a group of friends and our relationship with TFP.  Some people do believe that as customers we should have an equal vote and a seat at the decision making table. And if that were true then I guess your analogy would work better. But it’s not true and won’t ever be true.

Also, the topic isn’t taboo. I’m just a man doing my solemn duty to point out the stupid @%$# people are posting when they are too high on their own supply. It’s about a year after TFP already explained that their 1.0 doesn’t mean the game is finished. It’s pretty stupid @%$# to continue acting like the game is supposed to be finished because of the 1.0 label.

Finally, deriding a decision months after your “friend” has indicated that it is their final decision is boorish and unhealthy behavior. At some point you need to either accept who they are or part ways. In this case not only is it boorish but it is pointless because we don’t have an equal relationship with TFP in regards to company decisions and we don’t sit at the decision making table. No amount of derision will make them call future releases A23, A24, etc in the way that deriding a lifelong buddy might get him to change his mind. 
 

And if you're NOT talking about this thread by Ungkor, then why are you picking random fights with random other people from other threads, here?

The person I responded to was in this thread but it wasn’t Ungkor. Their post and my response was on topic but discussing generalities rather than specifically targeting the OP. You made it sound like my post was attacking the OP and it wasn’t, but at the same time was still about the topic of this thread and not at all random or having to do with other threads or topics. 
 

 

[theFlu]

In my opinion it is a false parallel you are drawing between a group of friends and our relationship with TFP.

It is our friends we have duties to; if you want to distance us from TFP as "customer and a faceless corpo", then any duty to politeness is out the window. I rather treat them as friendlies. But as a greedy corp, I'll mock them twice as hard  

It’s pretty stupid @%$# to continue acting like the game is supposed to be finished because of the 1.0 label.

Then why do they continue pretending like it is? Well, I do get why; they haven't changed their mind. (Reason one to keep laughing.) And even if they did, they've painted themselves into a corner (Reason two to keep laughing)... roll back the naming at this point and risk console customers / deals / refunds / reputation / whatnot. Properly impossible in practice, to the tune of millions, possibly. So, as is, the paint can only dry once their product meets proper 1.0 criteria and their claims then properly meet reality. Until then, they're standing sheepishly in the corner with their little paint bucket, waiting. We could just watch the paint dry with them, but we can also point and laugh to our hearts' content. They're just a greedy corpo anyway, no?

Finally, deriding a decision months after your “friend” has indicated that it is their final decision is boorish and unhealthy behavior.

Nah. You have the moral compass of a kindergarten teacher. I get it, might come with the mod territory; might even be handy in that. The first chance for real redemption of this fiasco is the next GAME TFP publishes - assuming they do that right. Up until that point, jolly mockery.

 

[Roland]

Then why do they continue pretending like it is?

They never have not once. You and those of your persuasion have been pretending that they are acting like the game is finished but that is your own delusion. 
 

TFP stated that they felt it was time to leave early access but that it did not mean the game was finished. They have never removed the disclaimer that the game is still in development and not by oversight or mistake. They have given official statements that they plan to continue developing the game until it is finished. Nowhere in their behavior has there been any attempt to hide that the game is unfinished or pretend it is fully released. 
 

The only sign that it might be is the 1.0 label but they defined the label and what it meant almost a year ago. But the 1.0 label is your only straw to cling to ignoring all the statements they’ve made to make it clear the game isn’t finished. 
 

Nah. You have the moral compass of a kindergarten teacher.

Personal attacks now?  Oh wait, that means we’re friends then….

 

[BFT2020]

From the official 1.0 release notices

"The Fun Pimps have and will continue to support 7 Days to Die development with a majority of their resources."

Rather than keep 7 Days to Die in further Alphas, we think it’s time to leave early access and officially announce our 1.0 launch

Q: So what does this mean for A22 and other Alpha builds?
A: Alpha build updates that were detailed or talked about prior to this news are going to become the major planned updates shown in the road map. The naming convention will reset to “Version 1.0” and so forth.

Q: Will there still be early release/experimental builds?
A: Yes, we still release experimental builds on Steam before going stable. Stable releases will go to console and other PC markets after they are ready.

When I read all of this back then, I put 2+2 together.  V1.0 was not the final release of the game.  With the roadmap of the future updates and this information, it was clear that the game was still going development, it just wasn't early access anymore.

 

[theFlu]

TFP stated that they felt it was time to leave early access but that it did not mean the game was finished

"Leave early access" vs "This is pre-release software" ... pick one. Ha-Ha!

The only sign that it might be is the 1.0 label but they defined the label and what it meant almost a year ago. But the 1.0 label is your only straw to cling to ignoring all the statements they’ve made to make it clear the game isn’t finished. 

The 1.0 label and the abuse of it to paint themselves in the console corner. Ha-Ha!

Personal attacks now?  Oh wait, that means we’re friends then….

Indeed, I do consider you good people. It's not an attack, I'm just pointing out that your "no timmy, you can't be rude" is basically a matter of a california snowflake perspective. Suitable for settling squabbles between children that you need to survive til their parents come get them; but not really useful for anything else. Trying to herd cats with that isn't going to to work..

V1.0 was not the final release of the game.

Indeed, you have correctly identified the laughing stock ..

 

[Suxar]

You mistake me. I absolutely think versioning numbers are important and the numbers they have chosen are confusing since they buck industry conventions. I don't begrudge anyone being confused at first when reading 1.0 or 2.0 and then seeing the "This is pre-release software" message on the loading screen. 

After Counter Strike, it's hard to surprise me with anything. I remember I started playing version 4, then there was 5, then 5.5, then 6, 6.1, 6.5, and then... 1.0.

 

[Rotor]

 and then... 1.0.

That is because version 10.0 sounds too Alpha 22ish.

 

[Scyris]

Yeah the 1.0 2.0 etc is a lie, its really alpha 23, 24 etc. They just had to name it that to get around some red tape for the stupid console version. v2 is prob alpha 23, while 1.0 is alpha 22? Really wish they'd name the pc version the proper name, as this game is not a full release the game is still alpha, its not even beta yet, Beta is when the game is basically feature complete and needs testing, Current state of the game is still clearly alpha as many promised features still are lacking or only half implemented. The way the game is going i'll be shocked if it ever actually hits beta state with how they keep redoing the same systems over and over each alpha, instead of locking something down. I still wish they'd toss the stat system in the trash, Its to restricting in a survival game like this.

 

[Dead Smarty]

... Really wish they'd name the pc version the proper name ...

Wich could only have happened if crossplay was abandoned, that bridge is already burned.
So it is what it is, all we can do now is "what if..." or just make joke about it.

 

[BFT2020]

Yeah the 1.0 2.0 etc is a lie, its really alpha 23, 24 etc. They just had to name it that to get around some red tape for the stupid console version. v2 is prob alpha 23, while 1.0 is alpha 22? Really wish they'd name the pc version the proper name

They can name it version Bob.  It is just a name.   People seem to want to die on the hill of V1.0.  They said before v1.0 even dropped it was just a name change to the development drops.  They literally said all future alpha builds would now be called version 1.0 and beyond.

Q: So what does this mean for A22 and other Alpha builds?
A: Alpha build updates that were detailed or talked about prior to this news are going to become the major planned updates shown in the road map. The naming convention will reset to “Version 1.0” and so forth.

 

[Sapient6]

Really wish they'd name the pc version the proper name

Yes, that would be a great enhancement to communication for folks who want to make use of crossplay.

This fixation on what a version of a piece of software "means" is really weird. The primary purpose of version numbers\names is to have a point of reference when identifying a specific build\release is important. The rest of it is optional chaff, at least when it comes to standalone pieces of software. When you move into the Enterprise Software arena is when naming conventions start to actually matter, and that's because across a large corporation you can easily have 50+ individual software products, each with their own development\qa\pm teams, that are expected to integrate with each other... then you need hard and fast version naming conventions so its easy to identify which releases of each product are meant to work together.

And the funny part about that world? It would absolutely fall apart if something trivial like a beta version were locked to "must be lower than v1.0". Like the one place where version naming conventions are actually important, and this rule that people are on about here does not apply.

Sometimes I think the folks that complain about it being v.1x and still an alpha release should be thankful of it. TFP have given you something meaningless to grouse about that is 100% resilient to all pushback from folks who disagree because very single part of it is subjective while masquerading as objective. It is evergreen and TFP is powerless to back off from it. You can literally complain about this forever because it will never go away and your opinion never has to change.

 

[theFlu]

This fixation on what a version of a piece of software "means" is really weird.

Hmm.. I don't find it particularly weird that console game stores don't want to be selling early access titles. They want to sell stable, quality products; not something that gets save breaking updates every three months. I do find it weird that their contract negotiations don't apparently catch such tactics, thou.

It would absolutely fall apart if something trivial like a beta version were locked to "must be lower than v1.0".

string newVersion = "0." + oldVersion;

Obviously wouldn't change a thing, and thus obviously wouldn't break a thing. Once there, maintaining both "betas are below 1" and whatever rules for "compatibility detection" you had before would be the same as maintaining the current ones.

 

[Sapient6]

Hmm.. I don't find it particularly weird that console game stores don't want to be selling early access titles.

I was referring to the fixation here. It's not at all surprising to me that the console stores would both have a rule about version numbers to keep unfinished products away and at the same time negotiate to taking on an unfinished product that has a long track record of making money. From the corporate standpoint the "we must have standards and quality control" people and the "line must go up" people are entirely separate and continuously at odds with each other. This is the funniest and normalest thing ever.

string newVersion = "0." + oldVersion;

Obviously wouldn't change a thing, and thus obviously wouldn't break a thing. Once there, maintaining both "betas are below 1" and whatever rules for "compatibility detection" you had before would be the same as maintaining the current ones.

For a small company selling to small fry companies? Absolutely this works. You don't even need something as complex as what you propose. Hell, you can give them all a version stamp of "v0". Been there, seen that.

For a large international corporation with numerous interrelated products and hundreds of development teams selling to many large corporations? No. You've got too many interrelated pieces in play. The introduction of anything even marginally unexpected or confusing can royally @%$# things up. And that would all be for something that nobody expects, because nobody does it. Most common practice I've seen in small enterprise software teams, is to just use the next version number and slap the text BETA on it. Like "v12.1.23.11256 BETA". That's got it all right there. You know where it belongs in the release history, and it doesn't muck up spreadsheets sorted by the version column. Large enterprise software teams, like the one I'm on now, don't ever even call betas betas. That makes it sound lesser, and our customers are paying through the nose. We call ours "collaborative releases".

 

[theFlu]

For a large international corporation with numerous interrelated products and hundreds of development teams selling to many large corporations? No.

The problem isn't it wouldn't work; the problem is in herding the cats to actually do it. Sure, it ain't gonna happen, but it isn't a problem in the idea.

Large enterprise software teams, like the one I'm on now, don't ever even call betas betas. That makes it sound lesser, and our customers are paying through the nose. We call ours "collaborative releases".

Yeah... I've been leisurely browsing some job listing for the industry; the ratio of LOOK AT OUR BEST TEAMS EVER AND OUR MASSIVELY AUTHENTIC GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES, TRUST US BRO! to actual info about the "basic tester job in a small fry firm" is rather ridic. The "large enterprise" side of things is a lost cause at this point, especially in the area of "describing anything accurately".

I don't think we Want to let them dictate language, tbh

 

[Riamus]

They can name it version Bob.  

I would actually prefer that.  Some developers use names for versioning.  They will likely have numbers internally, and sometimes those are also made public as part of the build (1.7.2 Bob), but the use of names gets away from potential confusion of what is a finished product versus an unfinished product when a company calls an unfinished product 1.0.  You might not know of it is finished with a name either, but all assumptions based on the version number will be gone and you then know that you need to check if it is finished. 

But this whole thing is now almost a year old and they aren't going to change things, so it is all moot.

 

[Sapient6]

The problem isn't it wouldn't work; the problem is in herding the cats to actually do it. Sure, it ain't gonna happen, but it isn't a problem in the idea.

I think I agree with what you're saying, but I don't know if it matters whether the system that breaks is a software system or a human system. Both are incredibly complex at this scale, and adding a 0. to the start of the version is, after all, only meant to be for the benefit of human systems. That it breaks the type of system that it's meant to benefit seems like a pretty fundamental problem with the idea.

But if I boil it all down, the only significant problem with adding the 0 to the start of the version number in enterprise software is that it's a solution in need of a problem. It's not an industry standard. Nobody is asking for it. And I only brought it up in this context in the first place because enterprise software is the only space I've seen where version numbers are functionally important.

Yeah... I've been leisurely browsing some job listing for the industry; the ratio of LOOK AT OUR BEST TEAMS EVER AND OUR MASSIVELY AUTHENTIC GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES, TRUST US BRO! to actual info about the "basic tester job in a small fry firm" is rather ridic. The "large enterprise" side of things is a lost cause at this point, especially in the area of "describing anything accurately".

Yeah. Folks who are drawn to working in human resources for large companies are some of the worst people I've had the displeasure of ever interacting with in my life. HR and the C-Suite is the space where LLMs replacing jobs could really shine.