PC 7DTD - Will it ever leave Early Access?

Just stumbled over a quote by Ron Gilbert (The "Monkey Island" Gilbert) about crowdfunding that is the perfect reply to this:
"The big disadvantage is not to be able to change some things in the project. In normal games development you make deep-rooted changes on a design. This is difficult (if not impossible) with a crowdfunded game. It sometimes can be hard to understand for a large group of backers that the proposed changes are good (or even necessary)."

I had to translate back from a german games magazine, but it still should be evident what he was saying (I mean the stuff about deep-rooted changes being necessary, it that isn't clear). If you don't believe the developers of TFP, maybe you believe someone who is in the games industry for decades
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%

I've been a good number of Early Access titles, and some had changed in ways that I didn't like, there's even aspects of 7Days that have gone down directions that wouldn't have been my own personal choice, but the fact that the Pimps are willing to experiment and keep working at a particular game mechanic until it comes up with something they're happy with, is a definite positive.

As for development time, meh, I really don't care how long it takes, so long as it's always (on the whole) getting better along the way.

 
there's even aspects of 7Days that have gone down directions that wouldn't have been my own personal choice,
Click to expand...
I think that there is nobody, inclusive all TFP members that would not like to do some things different.

But thats one of the most positive strenghts i like at TFP.

If they see that something work better a other way they are able to let loose.

Looks like this is a skill not all "Fans" share

 
Usually if game devs makes something that's fun for them to play, then they will have a game many others will like to play.

Game devs go wrong when they try to second guess what others would like. I'm looking at you Mass Effect 4...

So TFP would be foolish to do something that doesn't sound fun to them. It would be bad gaming business.

 
I really cant draw there a single conection beween ethics and Rolands Points.All points are finally (healty) egoistic targets and what they are willed to do to reach them.

Then be carefull how you say it

Because to imply that TFP works ineffective is a assumption. And so maybe a lie.

To say

"I would like a faster Development speed" would offend nobody and say the same.

But in my eyes at least

was ok, i saw much more offending/offensive posts
Click to expand...

I'm very been one to particularly care if what I said was offensive to people or not. As to the question of if I think the slow speed of development is failing of the devs, I'd say it is. Once you've accepted money for a game, that brings upon an obligation for timely game development, rather than stagnation as in Day Z, and it entitles one to complain. Given the success of the crowdfunding and the popularity of the game on Steam, there doesn't seem to be a lack of resources needed to hire enough staff so I don't think the small dev team argument is an good response. Of course I don't know the internal processes of the devs so I can't be sure my criticism is entirely accurate, but based on the limited information I have it's my criticism nonetheless. Usually the truth is somewhere between the diehard dev apologists and the disgruntled critics. Not to imply that the devs are bad in all areas.

The incentives mentioned imply an ethical attitude of doing what you say you will do. We've seen plenty examples of devs taking the money and then abandoning the game.

 
I'm very been one to particularly care if what I said was offensive to people or not. As to the question of if I think the slow speed of development is failing of the devs, I'd say it is. Once you've accepted money for a game, that brings upon an obligation for timely game development, rather than stagnation as in Day Z, and it entitles one to complain.
Click to expand...
You see slow development speed. Are you in the games industry? Do you work for a developer so you can estimate what a normal speed would be like?

If not, do you see other games that are much faster? You talk about "Day Z" as if it isn't faster.

Isn't that an indication that what TFP and the Day-Z developers do might be the normal speed? If you think not, why?

 
I've seen games that are much slower, such as Mount and Blade Bannerlord, or Europa Barborurum 2. The difference is that the devs didn't take money for an unfinished product during the extended development process. And I've already admitted that I'm not an objective or infallible judger of how fast development should be. But being a number of years and still in an alpha state, with many problems that are seemingly easily addressable, I would term this slow development.

 
I've seen games that are much slower, such as Mount and Blade Bannerlord, or Europa Barborurum 2. The difference is that the devs didn't take money for an unfinished product during the extended development process. And I've already admitted that I'm not an objective or infallible judger of how fast development should be. But being a number of years and still in an alpha state, with many problems that are seemingly easily addressable, I would term this slow development.
Click to expand...
If you can think TFP are lazy, you can just walk away and we don't have to read your complaining = happier times for everyone!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can think TFP are lazy, you can just walk away and we don't have to read your complaining = happier times for everyone!
Click to expand...
Let's not get into opinion suppression. ;-)

- - - Updated - - -

I've seen games that are much slower, such as Mount and Blade Bannerlord, or Europa Barborurum 2. The difference is that the devs didn't take money for an unfinished product during the extended development process. And I've already admitted that I'm not an objective or infallible judger of how fast development should be. But being a number of years and still in an alpha state, with many problems that are seemingly easily addressable, I would term this slow development.
Click to expand...
The problem Wyrda78, is that "slow" is a subjective term. Slow compared to what? To whom?

Personally, I think you should judge the game on the progress it's made during these past 16 Alphas. Is it better than it was? If you're answer is yes, then really does it matter how much longer it's got to go?

 
But being a number of years and still in an alpha state, with many problems that are seemingly easily addressable, I would term this slow development.
Click to expand...
EA aka a development where players can watch the proceedings has just started a few years ago. Non of these games (if comparable in size) seems from what I hear much faster than 7d2d and I notice you didn't even give one example of an EA game that IS actually faster. You give opinions like a statistician, but seem to operate on no data. Ok, your opinion is yours to do with what you want, I just want to point out how brittle the base is you are operating from.

I can compare development speed directly with Factorio, which might be a game a size category smaller. It is much more polished, lots more "beta" work included, but also has about the same time in EA (development started in 2012, company and indiegogo campaign was created in 2014).

I also have "Slay the Spire", a MUCH smaller game, where the development seems much faster, but that isn't a surprise really, considering the size and limited complexity of the game. I could not find any information of when development really began, it was already in an advanced state when it entered EA

It seems that for you taking money makes a big difference. But why? Development of a mid-sized game like 7D2D is an expensive endeavour, and like other EA games developers TFP probably started out with practically no money. They have a simple choice: Go to a publisher to get the money, with all the disadvantages that brings (maybe loss of IP, maybe influence of the publisher, maybe the publisher simply shuts down the game after 4 years in development if he doesn't like it). Or use kickstarter/EA/crowdfunding to get the necessary money. There is nothing shady about that. The only problem is whether the backers know that they have bought no influence, and they have risks similar to someone investing in company shares in the stock market

Correction: EA backers have the better deal because they can invest at exactly that moment when the game is worth the money it costs. They can play that version. Any further improvements are just bonus, should the game go into a direction the players don't like they still got their moneys worth out of the game. Unlike a stock market investor who can loose everything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The devs aren't taking money, it's being given to them voluntarily. And since there seem to be a lot of us with hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing, the game is hardly in an unplayable state.

Ars Technica has an article today about the Final Fantasy VII remake for PS4. A trailer was shown three years ago, and it looks like development has barely started.

 
Haven't read the 11 page thread fully, but wasn't the answer to the author question answered by MM in his video? Maybe it was a slip of the tongue but he said that when A17 lands, it will be BETA. Does that not say the end is near?

 
Haven't read the 11 page thread fully, but wasn't the answer to the author question answered by MM in his video? Maybe it was a slip of the tongue but he said that when A17 lands, it will be BETA. Does that not say the end is near?
Click to expand...
We all know that the end of Alpha is nearer than we would like.

I hope for later updates.

 
If you can think TFP are lazy, you can just walk away and we don't have to read your complaining = happier times for everyone!
Click to expand...
Such a constructive and well-reasoned argument you have there. Totally stunned.

 
The game has tremendous scope and complexity so updates have required progressively more time. I think people would have been much less happy if the devs had stuck to their original vision and launched THAT version in May of 2014 as originally promised.
In the time before EVERY SINGLE update there are people like you who lose hope and predict that the game is going to die and yet each update has spiked higher in players than the previous one.

Sales are still strong. That means that among people with zero hours the game stil looks appealing fun and compelling enough to purchase. TFP can’t help it that someone with 2000+ hours might be feeling a bit burnt out. In fact, they would most likely put you in their win column for having captured your attention for so long before you decided to move on to another game.

My feeling is that many more people than ever before will return to check out the A17 update and if it is good or even if it has been several months since they’ve played they will get recaptured by the magic of this game.

Finally, the ones who complain the least about the length of time are those who are trying different mods because they make the game feel fresh and different. It’s like getting an update. That will be even more true once this game does leave early access and workshop support is added.
Click to expand...
1700 hours since I started playing a year and a half ago.

The only thing that kind of burnt me out was once our server hit day 1500. Since then I've had to do a string of new games stopping after the first horde every time. At max level with infinite resources, I get bored.

- - - Updated - - -

With the huge influx of early access games all set to leave it and release massive content updates, it's finally time to recognize what this game really is. I started playing this game in Alpha 7 or 8; in 2014. It seemed very creative and was on the right track to becoming "THE" survival-pvp game.
Nearly four years later, the content and improvements don't outweigh the waiting. It's simply just not enough. This game has so many flaws, errors, bugs, hacks, abuses, and exploits, along with lag and no existing game servers, so we're forced to play on servers controlled by random people that are often heavily abused.

I don't believe this is the product people hoped for when they pledged on Kickstarter for this game in August 2013, or purchased it thereafter hoping one day for a finished product.

Please don't get me wrong; I have 2115 hours of 7 Days on Steam. I have gotten my money's worth. I just feel this game should have been so much more and at a much quicker pace. I feel that The Fun Pimps' vision was not matched with effort.

I'd like to hear how other long-time players of this game feel about the status of this game relative to other large early access games that have come and launched while this game stagnates.
Click to expand...
Hey, Gup and I are paying good money to ensure it never leaves early access!

 
Really?? Did you completely miss Fallen Enchantress from Stardock? O_o
Click to expand...
I've played Elemental/War of Magic/Fallen Enchantress/Legendary Heroes from its release. Though "OK", it IS NOT a successor, true or otherwise, to MoM. Worlds of Magic/Planar Conquest is the closest anyone's come, and it's just not close. 1994 programming is apparently insurmountable.

-Morloc

 
I've played Elemental/War of Magic/Fallen Enchantress/Legendary Heroes from its release. Though "OK", it IS NOT a successor, true or otherwise, to MoM. Worlds of Magic/Planar Conquest is the closest anyone's come, and it's just not close. 1994 programming is apparently insurmountable.
-Morloc
Click to expand...
/agree

Interesting though, over the years I have found a "better" or at least an enhanced version of all the games I played back then, *except* MoM. I wonder why? What was so special about MoM that made it so difficult to replicate?

 
/agree
Interesting though, over the years I have found a "better" or at least an enhanced version of all the games I played back then, *except* MoM. I wonder why? What was so special about MoM that made it so difficult to replicate?
Click to expand...
I don't think MOO2 was really adequately replaced either, though your point stands ;)

The developers had passion for their game. There was no engine to limit their vision. Gameplay > visuals, but where there were visuals, they were unique and fun. Combat spells, buffs, area spells, city-wide spells to enhance or spoil, spells to target armies on the map, and mighty global spells that immediately sent an "oh crap!" shiver up your spine. Summoning, counter-magic, heroes, artifact forging...none of these elements felt like they were added in as an afterthought. Playing a game where you found some amazing combination of magic and units that you never imagined was so powerful....and then facing a combat AI that knew exactly how to screw over your Invisible Flying Warships...

I think the best testimonial to the game was Prima's strategy guide for MoM. It had over 450 pages, and there were very, very few pictures. Just nothing else like it.

King's Bounty is probably the only other game with a magic system I enjoyed (almost) as much as MoM.

(Apologies for topic-drift)

-Morloc

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top