PC Developers can't be serious about releasing a game can they?

pApA^LeGBa said:
@Roland Now that i read this again, are you seriously trying to sell us that beta already happened with major content like bandits, new armor system, new quests still coming? That new content will definitely need major balance. I am too lazy to search for it,  but i am pretty sure someone from the mod and/or dev team told us more than once during the A20/A21 phase that there will be a beta before release.
Click to expand...
I’m telling you that looking back at the work that was primarily done during A20, A21, and currently for 1.0, it looks like beta phase work. That’s all. I’m not claiming that it was beta or was not alpha.  I’m saying that despite features still missing from the game and a numbering label that says “Alpha”, the type of changes made to the game seem very much to be work done traditionally during beta. 
 

I don’t think the basic labels of alpha or beta really fit any more and I’m glad they aren’t using those terms in the numbering system going forward. I hope they never use them in their future games.
 

You can go ahead and decide that the game is still in alpha and early access all you want. Knowing that, I will plan to continue to use the alpha defense in future conversations with you so you feel comfortable. 😜

 
DaVegaNL said:
Ah, as the great Adam Savage said: 'I refuse your reality, and substitute my own!'

I'm sorry, but the game wasn't in beta from A18-19 onward. Development limbo (or hell) isn't equal to the traditional beta-fase during development.
Click to expand...
Development Hell or Limbo is characterized by a long period of nothing getting done. Work on the project is halted and the ability to finish is in serious doubt by the creators themselves.
 

7 Days to Die has never experienced a period of time during which development halted with the devs meeting to decide whether or not to continue with it. Never. The work done from A20 to present has been continues with updates coming at the same regular (albeit long) intervals as always. People were upset because all the work was improvement to visuals, replacing store bought assets with in house original art, reworking and iterating existing features, and a bunch of optimizing and bug fixing. Someone hoping for brand new features and disappointed that there was very little of that might erroneously surmise that no work was done. Someone angry about it might purposely push a narrative of “development hell” despite the fact that it doesn’t even come close to fitting. 
 

I don’t know how someone can look at the list I posted above and NOT think, “Huh….that sounds like beta phase work”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roland said:
I’m telling you that looking back at the work that was primarily done during A20, A21, and currently for 1.0, it looks like beta phase work. That’s all. I’m not claiming that it was beta or was not alpha.  I’m saying that despite features still missing from the game and a numbering label that says “Alpha”, the type of changes made to the game seem very much to be work done traditionally during beta. 
 

I don’t think the basic labels of alpha or beta really fit any more and I’m glad they aren’t using those terms in the numbering system going forward. I hope they never use them in their future games.
 

You can go ahead and decide that the game is still in alpha and early access all you want. Knowing that, I will plan to continue to use the alpha defense in future conversations with you so you feel comfortable. 😜
Click to expand...


Their argument why this isn´t just a relabeling is that they hired 10 extra developers from Australia (Still not sure why it matters where they come from, but the fact that he needed to point that out could be simply knowing that the argument isn´t really strong). 

The amount of people working on it isn´t what defines if a game is in early access or not, nor does it define if a game is in beta or in a final state or is an actual 1.0 version. Hiring extra stuff doesn´t change the fact that they planned 1.0 as A22 for a long time and just now, shortly before it´s done, changed it to 1.0. Nothing else changed, it´s still the same update we get as the one when it was still called A22.  So yes, it´s relabeled from early access to 1.0.

I am still saying they do this because either Sony or MS forces them or they need money. Both legit and understandable reasons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pApA^LeGBa said:
Their argument why this isn´t just a relabeling is that they hired 10 extra developers from Australia (Still not sure why it matters where they come from, but the fact that he needed to point that out could be simply knowing that the argument isn´t really strong). 
Click to expand...


I didn't remember this being the case and so you made me watch the "Rick Ransom" video again and read through the FAQ and there was zero information about hiring Australians as the reason given for going 1.0 so you'll have to point me to your source on that. But if it is true, I would say that the reasoning is that they hired extra developers to help them with the final sprint so they could get the game to the readiness they wanted for a 1.0 release. In the 1.0 announcement video Rick clearly stated that internally they always planned for A22 to be 1.0 even though they called it A22. I admit that I was external to that internal memo btw...haha

pApA^LeGBa said:
The amount of people working on it isn´t what defines if a game is in early access or not, nor does it define if a game is in beta or in a final state or is an actual 1.0 version. Hiring extra stuff doesn´t change the fact that they planned 1.0 as A22 for a long time and just now, shortly before it´s done, changed it to 1.0. Nothing else changed, it´s still the same update we get as the one when it was still called A22.  So yes, it´s relabeled from early access to 1.0.
Click to expand...


The amount of people working on it can speed up tasks that must be accomplished if their goal was to make A22 be 1.0. The whole reason they called it A22 publicly was obviously that they weren't sure they could get all their 1.0 goals done so they were hedging their bets. If they didn't make it then it would stay A22 but if they did then they would reveal it as 1.0 just as they did. The hiring of extra staff to help them make it in time obvious paid off since we are getting 1.0 instead of A22.

I don't think 1.0 will be the same update that we would have gotten if they hadn't hired extra people and finished all their goals to make it be 1.0. There hasn't exactly been a lot of footage of 1.0. The PAX East gameplay was a limited demo with several things toggled off because they weren't quite ready. Since then nothing has been shown except the trailer.

It isn't simply a relabeling. TFP is literally taking 7 Days to DIe out of the early access program. It will no longer have the banner and no longer enjoy the shelter that Early Access provides against criticism of the game. If you are adamant that 7 Days to Die is still alpha and early access after the 1.0 release then for you I will continue to answer all  your criticisms with "Its alpha"....

pApA^LeGBa said:
I am still saying they do this because either Sony or MS forces them or they need money. Both legit and understandable reasons.
Click to expand...


You have the right to voice your fantasies, conspiracy theories, and speculations. They have provided their reasons. They are going 1.0 and raising the price on PC so that the version numbering and the pricing will match between pc and console. They also believe that the overall quality of the game they will be releasing as 1.0 is significantly better than what it was when they first established their price.  They feel the game is polished enough to leave the protective incubator of Steam's Early Access program. They stressed that they know the game is unfinished and that they plan to continue working on it. 

I think you are working really hard at ignoring key information that gives the 1.0 launch context all so that you can be outraged over this news. For those of us who bought into the game during early access nothing much is going to change other than not being able to use the alpha defense or the early access defense against angry critics--- except to you pApA since you emphatically will believe it is still alpha anyway.

 
beerfly said:
Been in software industry in many ways for the past 20 years at least, naming a version is just like your closest friends names you with the time passing by, it doesn`t change anything, you keep going and growing and getting improved. 
Click to expand...


FYI my latest project requiring programming - Version Bob

 
pApA^LeGBa said:
Their argument why this isn´t just a relabeling is that they hired 10 extra developers from Australia (Still not sure why it matters where they come from, but the fact that he needed to point that out could be simply knowing that the argument isn´t really strong). 
Click to expand...


That's not TFP, that is Titanium Games who is based in Australia that is doing the new port of 7 days to die to the console

 
meganoth said:
If you google you should do more than a peek as the first hit seems to be wrong and about a betting game called TitaniumGames.

The real one seems to be this:

http://www.titaniumstudios.com/about

"Titanium Studios" is actually located in Perth AND specializes on console ports, so it is probably the right one
Click to expand...


That seems to be the one.  When it was initially announced, the publisher was announced as Titanium Games







Interesting, Sir Roland did mentioned version 1 back then with the launch of console assuming everything lined up for A22.  So we were already getting hints at a version name change over a year ago.

 
BFT2020 said:
That's not TFP, that is Titanium Games who is based in Australia that is doing the new port of 7 days to die to the console
Click to expand...


Ah...I didn't put 2 and 2 together when answering pApA. Yeah, Titanium games is working together with TFP to port the game to console. When pApA stated that Rick gave hiring 10 new programmers from Australia as the reason for being able to leave Alpha and go 1.0 I was thinking PC only. 

So the Australian programmers mentioned by pApA (still don't know the source on that statement) weren't the reason for the PC version going 1.0. They are the reason why the console version is to the point that it can be released as a parallel version of the PC game now and going forward.

I do know that TFP hired additional staff this past year to help them with the PC game and get more tasks done.

BFT2020 said:
Interesting, Sir Roland did mentioned version 1 back then with the launch of console assuming everything lined up for A22.  So we were already getting hints at a version name change over a year ago.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but tbh I wasn't thinking version 1 as in 1.0 because I wasn't in on the secret. The top devs kept that very close to the vest. I knew they weren't planning on calling the console version Alpha 22. Rick said in one of the video interviews a year ago that Alpha 22 on the pc would be Version 1 on console. Later they called the console version the Apocalypse Edition in order to differentiate it from the classic console version but there was discussion about that possibly causing confusion between the console and the PC versions.

Wanting to make sure people understood that the console version and the PC version were unified (as far as possible) and would be updated together going forward was definitely part of the decision to leave early access and name both versions simply 1.0 and to raise the PC price to equal what the console price was going to be. This was only possible to do because they were able to achieve their goals in what they wanted accomplished for the 1.0 version. Otherwise it is very possible they would have delayed the console launch and kept the next update as A22 and done their whole 1.0 thing for A23.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. They are continuing with development as though nothing has changed from their end. They know that they are wide open to criticism for lingering bugs without the alpha shelter to protect them. They know they must do their best to not break saves with future updates if at all possible. And instead of "Done when it done" we have a fully fleshed road map.

 
I am not going trough the video again, but he said that this isn´t a relabeling because they hired 10 devs. Idc if you believe me or not. I know what i saw.

 
It's about 30 minutes into the Neebscast video with the developers.

The exact quote is "We had an additional 8 programmers from Australia working on the base game with us, in our actual same database"

That doesn't imply that TFP hired additional programmers in Australia.  What they are talking about is the console team (different company) working together with the computer team (TFP) to get the computer / console games to version 1.0 for the launch.

 
Bro, why at Q4 2025. Im gonna be dead from waiting 💀

This is another case where I think the developers have some random priorities.

Screenshot_4.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It actually sounds like a plan of what needs to be done in stages.

  • After 1.0, we got Storms Brewing which is overhauling the weather and the biomes (and it sounds like interesting changes being made to how soon you can setup bases in the harder biomes)
  • A New Threat - gives us bandits and it looks like events and a new quest
  • The Road Ahead - what you posted above, which ties everything together in the Story, adding additional quests, and overhauling the traders.  

The story mode needs to have the biomes changes done along with Raiders introduced first.  The additional quests, that seems to point at involving bandits at that point.  And overhauling traders, you would want to do that last as you want to make the other changes first and adjust how the traders impact the world after those changes are implemented.

And of course Steam Workshop Support, which they have already told us was low on their priority list and was going to be release near the end of the game development.

Roland said:
Yeah, but tbh I wasn't thinking version 1 as in 1.0 because I wasn't in on the secret. The top devs kept that very close to the vest. I knew they weren't planning on calling the console version Alpha 22. Rick said in one of the video interviews a year ago that Alpha 22 on the pc would be Version 1 on console. Later they called the console version the Apocalypse Edition in order to differentiate it from the classic console version but there was discussion about that possibly causing confusion between the console and the PC versions.
Click to expand...


See, you should have just taken credit for it, hinted that it was an Easter Egg you dropped on us.

Nobody would have been wiser  😏

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top