PC Someone on Reddit said it's "confirmed" that 7 Days 2 will not be a voxel game?

[Roland]

Different "virtual reality" under discussion. Don't know if you've noticed, but the tech sector and the video game industry is pretty much in lockstep on the notion of building a "metaverse" they seem to think we'll want to give up our real lives in the real world in order to inhabit.  :crazy:

Yeah, I'm talking reality and not science fantasy. The future of VR as a platform for gaming is strong. The future of people abandoning real life permanently for some virtual world that has complete sensual immersion is best left to books and movies. Similarly, the future of AI integrating into every profession and industry is strong but that doesn't automatically include the idea of self-aware sentient genocidal AI-controlled devices enslaving humankind. 

 

[meganoth]

The future of people abandoning real life permanently for some virtual world that has complete sensual immersion is best left to books and movies.

Not in the matrix way of living there permanently, but practically people have already done this in MMORPGs, Second Life or even social platforms for example. I don't think there is much difference between being completely there or only entering reality to eat and sleep.

It is a way of escaping reality similar to taking drugs. And with the perfection of those virtual realities the danger grows. "living" in a virtual reality is safer, less complicated, easier than reality. A huge draw.

 

[meganoth]

Enshrouded does use 3D voxels in most areas excepting underground dungeons-   but it only bothers to save them around your land claim "flame" area,  any thing outside that flame area is reset every time the game/server restarts.      This is a sort of comprise between having voxels but not having to save the entire game map.

Valhiem doesn't use 3D voxels at all.  It uses a 2d surface, imagine a sheet  which can only be deformed a certain distance below the average surface height (12 blocks maybe).  You cannot dig caves or tunnels or even overhangs as it won't allow any distortion that could break the surface.  Again a comprise that reduces the save files and allows for decent fps.

7Days  has by far the most flexible voxel system that I've played -  far better than minecraft as its got high res. and uses the octo? shapes.   The only other game which came close was Planet Explorers  (by Pathea  same developers as My Time at Portia)  but that went defunct.     I  hope the Pimps  keep  their voxel method and keep improving  it.

Maybe the enshrouded way would be possible for 7D2D as well. A save of the terrain is important for most players only at a few places, our bases and mines. Everwhere else it is of no consequemce, especially the quest pois that are reset anyway*. We already have land claim blocks, they could just allow x LCBs per player and those would designate areas to save.

* Yes, there are players who want a permanently changing landscape and they also often turn of POI reset. You can't make everyone happy though, any change will step on at least one toe. I think it would be an acceptable compromise if it greatly helps performance

 

[theFlu]

Maybe the enshrouded way would be possible for 7D2D as well.

I wonder how big the effect would be. Sure, shaving anything off of chunk loading times is a win, but would the gain be even 1%? I'd guess it's basically just swapping the changed blocks as block ID's, damage value and rotations etc, in a matrix before actually loading things into the world. Not the fastest of operations, but not exactly heavy lifting either.

For as to what I'd like to see saved in the world.. I like to clean up roads from debris, so that would be a loss, althou might be redeemable by putting less shopping trolleys there in the first place. Seeing deforestation and other marks of living in an area feels nice, it's a living world. The small things do make it way more immersive. Not to mention demolishing something just because I can... I could drop a land claim to save it, but it's more consequential when I don't need to.

 

[Riamus]

I would hate to have vehicles respawn constantly just to avoid saving changes to the world.  I clear roads around where I play so things don't get in the way. Having them constantly reappear would be frustrating. 

As far as terrain changes... Mostly, I wouldn't care.  But it is nice to see something that happened in the past, such as the explosion where you blew up a demolisher.  If the performance gain was significant, maybe.... But otherwise, I prefer it as it is now.

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

There is a potential option, I don't know how viable it
is but, chunks are already monitored anyway, so if it were
given a default on or off byte when creating a map, then it
could be controlled on a player\group basis.

By this I mean, land claim already uses the tech to turn off
an assigned area, and conversely the trader quest is the on
switch, and the only thing affected is the foundation area of
a poi. Last the governor is there to turn on and off en mass.

It could be an option when playing, using the light switch class.
In cities or clusters of pois, turn on or off reset. Per individual,
group, or server admin preference. On the server it could be regulated
by access level. Individual it would be on a desire driven basis.

Each poi can have an indestructible block that when stood on gives the
option. In the wilderness it could be allocated to chunk area, a visual
representation could be either the green box used for the landclaim, or
the treasure hunt border.

Speaking from an individual view, If off on loadup, and a particular POI
or terrain area is one you would like to return to, then set it as on.
And only have the popup option if its selected in the backpack menu.

It would fit into the template model that MadMole expressed.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Maybe the enshrouded way would be possible for 7D2D as well. A save of the terrain is important for most players only at a few places, our bases and mines. Everwhere else it is of no consequemce, especially the quest pois that are reset anyway*. We already have land claim blocks, they could just allow x LCBs per player and those would designate areas to save.

* Yes, there are players who want a permanently changing landscape and they also often turn of POI reset. You can't make everyone happy though, any change will step on at least one toe. I think it would be an acceptable compromise if it greatly helps performance

I can tell you that would be a huge outrage from people who enjoy MP on public servers.  Every server i played on that was well visited had the terrain formed in many areas, like tunnels trough mountains, hills flattened, i have even seen huge underground tunnel networks.That wouldn´t be possible anymore.

Being able to remove a mountain if you want is a big part of the charme the game has. And yes, we have done that. Don´t judge.

 

[ricp]

I think a lot of this is down to the game engine. Voxel worlds come with their own sorts of problems regarding efficiency and speed, it really depends if TFP can achieve what they want from a sequel while also coming under the overhead of the code base, then I can't see any reason why they would not retain the voxel world. Especially as dedicated voxel libraries are available for Unity now (I believe, although I may be wrong, TFP would have had to build their own voxel generation a decade ago).

Of course, that then opens the question, "if there is to be a 7DtD2 (14DtD?), will it be a linear sequel, or a divergence?"

I'm going to be honest with you, I've worked on large legacy code bases, and trust me when I say that after time you just want to get away and do something completely different. If TFP do another game, I sort of wish them to do an entirely different genre. I sort of "don't want" 7DtD2.

My 2 cents about this..

I strongly disagree.  VR is amazing and has brought back the magic I felt as a child when first playing flat screen games.

I have no interest in virtual reality and personally don't see much of a future in it.

IMO - VR is poverty gatekeeping. It's ridiculously expensive, and likely to only get more so (for a political reason I will not expand on for all the obvious reasons). I am not saying VR should not be included, but it should not be the main driver of the game otherwise you exclude people who cannot afford the kit as well as the many people who would have accessibility issues - I am one of those as I do not have stereoscopic vision.

 

[Roland]

IMO - VR is poverty gatekeeping.

Depends on what your standards are. I have been having loads of entertainment with my Meta Quest 3 which I purchased a year ago for $400. That's basically the price of a console. Are consoles poverty gatekeeping?

This year the new version, Meta Quest 3s, can be had for only $300- Same as a Nintendo Switch.

Now if you are insistent on only having the top of the line and being able to play your PC games in VR then you are looking at a high end PC and a VR kit that is around $1000. But if you are that type of a person you are most likely not in the poverty demographic anyway or if you are then you should be going to school to get yourself qualified for the type of job that brings in the type of lifestyle you want.

I disagree that VR will continue to remain at unreachable price points and be beyond the reach of mass market appeal. Sure, there will always be devices like the Apple Vision Pro that are only for the very wealthy but as the technology develops-- just like any technology, there will be options for people who are more money-challenged. 

Someone who is interested in VR could even get a Quest 2 on the secondary market and have some VR fun at a price point they can afford. I just checked my own local Facebook Marketplace and that kit can be had for around $160-- less than a Switch!

 

[ricp]

Depends on what your standards are. I have been having loads of entertainment with my Meta Quest 3 which I purchased a year ago for $400. That's basically the price of a console. Are consoles poverty gatekeeping?

This year the new version, Meta Quest 3s, can be had for only $300- Same as a Nintendo Switch.

Now if you are insistent on only having the top of the line and being able to play your PC games in VR then you are looking at a high end PC and a VR kit that is around $1000. But if you are that type of a person you are most likely not in the poverty demographic anyway or if you are then you should be going to school to get yourself qualified for the type of job that brings in the type of lifestyle you want.

I disagree that VR will continue to remain at unreachable price points and be beyond the reach of mass market appeal. Sure, there will always be devices like the Apple Vision Pro that are only for the very wealthy but as the technology develops-- just like any technology, there will be options for people who are more money-challenged. 

Someone who is interested in VR could even get a Quest 2 on the secondary market and have some VR fun at a price point they can afford. I just checked my own local Facebook Marketplace and that kit can be had for around $160-- less than a Switch!

There is a reason Meta headsets are cheap, and you've not hinted at it so either it's not an issue for you or you are unaware of it. In short, if you use a Meta Quest, you must be online all the time, you must have a meta account, and you must log into that meta account whenever you want to use it. Previously you had to have a Facebook account and link it to that, Meta have relinquished but still require some tracking. It's called a "loss leader", Meta makes losses on the price of the headset in order to drive their data mining.

So, for me, that discounts Meta headsets.

Edit: You make no mention of the accessibility issues, it's not just price.

 

[Roland]

There is a reason Meta headsets are cheap, and you've not hinted at it so either it's not an issue for you or you are unaware of it. In short, if you use a Meta Quest, you must be online all the time, you must have a meta account, and you must log into that meta quest whenever you want to use it. Previously you had to have a Facebook account and link it to that, Meta have relinquished but still require some tracking. It's called a "loss leader", Meta makes losses on the price of the headset in order to drive their data mining.

So, for me, that discounts Meta headsets.

I'm aware and don't really care. It's the world we live in now. But you are simply moving the goal posts. You said that VR is poverty gatekeeping and now you're pivoting to your own personal opinions about privacy. Most digital devices connected to the internet utilize tracking and data mining and very few people seem to care enough to not enjoy the benefits and entertainment that such devices allow. I'll always prefer my Alexa with a Spotify account over a record player despite the fact that both Amazon and Spotify probably data mine for my purchasing preferences as I listen while my wife's analog device only plays whatever vinyl is spinning on its turntable.

It's fine that you have a personal standard for privacy that you're unwilling to break. But that has nothing to do with VR being "poverty gatekeeping". You're unwillingness to use a Quest has little to do with poverty and more to do with your stance on privacy. Actually, it has everything to do with you physically being unable to use VR. It makes sense that if you can't participate at all you would be predisposed to being against it.

 

[ricp]

I'm aware and don't really care.

Fine, but that's an entirely subjective view, anecdotal only to you.

My point is both objective and evidential.

You mention Spotify and Amazon, not only do I use neither of these companies - for a multitude of reasons, not just data mining - but they are poor analogues for this comparison. If you cancelled your Spotify account, would you still be able to listen to music outwith Spotify? Of course, you would. However if you cancelled your Meta account, or worse it was banned for some reason beyond your control, would you be able to use the Quest? No, it's a brick at that point. That's why it's such a poor analogy.

I stick with my initial claim, and you have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise, VR is poverty gatekeeping. If you are hung up on that term, let me expand it, things like RTX only games are also poverty gatekeeping. The prices of RTX cards have fallen considerably though, so that's less of an issue, but I mention it purely to show it's not just me having an axe to grind against VR or Quest in particular.

Ultimately I don't want to sound rude, we've swapped replies on here before and you've always been a fair minded person, so I say this in hope it's not inflammatory, but... it shows a level of naive privilege where you can so easily dispense of your personal information without care or concern. I really hope you see the point I'm making, it's definitely not meant as shade.

 

[theFlu]

You said that VR is poverty gatekeeping and now you're pivoting to your own personal opinions about privacy.

I don't think it's a pivot as such; VR itself is expensive, if a megacorp is willing to bear the costs for your left .. err, privacy, well, caveat emptor. I'm firmly in the camp "no, I will never have a meta account", so my VR options are expensive.

Although, the phrase "poverty gatekeeping", IMO fails a basic sniff test: why would anyone try to actively keep "the poor" from buying a hardware product? The phrase implies an intent of refusing to serve a section of the market based on their perceived low means.. that just makes no sense for any greedy corp. At worst VR might be a luxury item, where manufacturers would be taking extraordinary cuts for "branding" - but the gear is actually pretty high tech and low volume, so it's bound to be expensive without gouging.

 

[ricp]

Although, the phrase "poverty gatekeeping", IMO fails a basic sniff test: why would anyone try to actively keep "the poor" from buying a hardware product? The phrase implies an intent of refusing to serve a section of the market based on their perceived low means.. that just makes no sense for any greedy corp.

The reason it fails the "sniff test" is because that's not what is happening and it is not what I meant with the phrase. Companies will not refuse to sell you stuff, it is the developers who lock the entire game, or key mechanics, into the VR environment, that are gatekeeping. Just to be very clear here, gatekeeping simply means a barrier to what you want to achieve, it doesn't have to be intentional, and I also don't think TFP will make an entirely VR game - of if they do it won't be 7DtD (or 7DtD2).

Not sure about other people, but I don't have a spare $300 to just chuck around. If I did I'd buy a better graphics card, certainly not a VR headset.

 

[Roland]

Fine, but that's an entirely subjective view, anecdotal only to you.

My point is both objective and evidential.

It isn't just anecdotal to me. If it were then these companies would fail. If the viewpoint you hold were the norm then companies that utilize data mining would be summarily boycotted and canceled. Instead we do see a lot of calls for boycotting and a lot of angry posts about the issue of privacy but in actual practice it is clear that the mass appeal of these products overwhelms any reticence of most people to refrain from using these products.

I answered your poverty gatekeeping point with pure evidence (actual pricing). Your response was to pivot to another topic.

If you cancelled your Spotify account, would you still be able to listen to music outwith Spotify? Of course, you would. However if you cancelled your Meta account, or worse it was banned for some reason beyond your control, would you be able to use the Quest? No, it's a brick at that point.

That's a fair point. It's true of most digital media. I wouldn't call that an example of poverty gatekeeping though. That is simply the risk anyone takes when they participate in digital media that they license to use rather than own outright. Again, it seems to be a pivot away from actual poverty gatekeeping. It is definitely a reason to consider before purchasing a Quest. So far, I haven't been banned for some reason beyond my control so knock on wood I will hopefully be able to maintain my account going into the future. Hopefully my Meta Overlords are monitoring my defense of VR right now and have decided they should never ban one of their goodr minions...

I stick with my initial claim, and you have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise, VR is poverty gatekeeping. If you are hung up on that term, let me expand it, things like RTX only games are also poverty gatekeeping. The prices of RTX cards have fallen considerably though, so that's less of an issue, but I mention it purely to show it's not just me having an axe to grind against VR or Quest in particular.

So prices falling is evidence that RTX cards are less of a good example of poverty gatekeeping but the fact that I showed concrete evidence that Quest prices have been steadily falling over the years is not? The 3s is an upgrade to the 3 and is $100 cheaper this year than the 3 was last year in an economy that has seen rampant inflation over the same period of time. Sorry, but you are ignoring evidence at this point precisely because you seem to have an axe to grind.

Ultimately I don't want to sound rude, we've swapped replies on here before and you've always been a fair minded person, so I say this in hope it's not inflammatory, but... it shows a level of naive privilege where you can so easily dispense of your personal information without care or concern. I really hope you see the point I'm making, it's definitely not meant as shade.

Thanks and no offense taken. I accused you of being biased against VR because of your physical disability that precludes you from being able to even use it so it is only fair of you to accuse me of living a life of naive privilege that is driving my bias regarding privacy invasion. The thing is that privacy was a pivot made by you from the original point that VR is beyond the financial reach of too many people. I'll grant you that Quest with its data mining constitutes an invasion of privacy that any user must agree to subjecting themselves to during the Terms of Use agreement process. But I stand by my opinion that the pricing of VR is within the grasp of non-wealthy people if they want to experience it and are willing to agree to the terms of using it.

 

[ricp]

We are not going to agree here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you, though, for taking my comments in good grace. As a mod, I am obviously aware of the power imbalance here, and it is to your credit you didn't spit the dummy and just ban me for countering your points, especially as some of my comments could have been seen as inflammatory. Many mods on other similar boards would have.

I could counter the points you made, especially as you continue to mention the Quest. It's not just the privacy but the fact that without the meta account it's a brick, no company should have that control. If you buy a car, for example, is there ever a situation where the manufacturer comes to your house and disables the car? (edit: Tesla probably would!)

Ultimately though, it's not that we don't understand each other's viewpoints, it's just that what one sees as important is less so to the other - and that's fine, we've both made our points and have been heard.

Just for clarity, I don't have an axe to grind with VR, if I had the money I would buy one (certainly not Quest, though).

 

[Roland]

I don't think it's a pivot as such; VR itself is expensive, if a megacorp is willing to bear the costs for your left .. err, privacy, well, caveat emptor. I'm firmly in the camp "no, I will never have a meta account", so my VR options are expensive.

I agree it wasn't a pivot for ricp personally or apparently for yourself but ricp, himself, said we should beware of simply talking anecdotally. Is the Quest growing in its market share? Is it gaining in mass appeal? I believe that it is and will continue to do so in the future which means that discounting the two of you and myself, it seems that globally and in general people are willing to agree to the terms of use and so their options are not, in fact, limited to the most expensive options.

And will your VR options remain expensive forever? The argument was that VR is for the wealthy only and that was used as the argument against my opinion that going into the future VR will gain mass appeal and is not simply a fad but will continue to grow and gain popularity. I played VR for the first time at a kiosk at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco back in the early 90s. It was $30 for a 5 minute experience of gliding around in a small 3d world environment trying to avoid a Pterodactyl that would swoop down and pick you up and carry you into the sky and drop you. Owning such a machine was impossibly expensive. Playing the game more than once or twice was too expensive.

It's come down in price and increased in graphic quality a lot since those days and, in my opinion, will continue to do so. Many options today are still too expensive-- I agree. Which is why I've sold my soul to use a Quest instead of my car to use a Vive on a PC that can handle it. But that is today. In the future those prices will continue to come down.

The reason it fails the "sniff test" is because that's not what is happening and it is not what I meant with the phrase. Companies will not refuse to sell you stuff, it is the developers who lock the entire game, or key mechanics, into the VR environment, that are gatekeeping. Just to be very clear here, gatekeeping simply means a barrier to what you want to achieve, it doesn't have to be intentional, and I also don't think TFP will make an entirely VR game - of if they do it won't be 7DtD (or 7DtD2).

Not sure about other people, but I don't have a spare $300 to just chuck around. If I did I'd buy a better graphics card, certainly not a VR headset.

The problem we are having here is that I was talking about the VR industry in general and VR someday reaching mass appeal and you have finally clarified that you are just talking about developers who make VR only games. TFP is not a VR studio. They threw VR support on their stretch goals list but they'd need to hire someone with that expertise to make 7 Days to Die compatible with VR (they should probably hire the modder who already did it...) You don't have anything to worry about regarding future TFP games being VR only. All their expertise is in flat screen gaming. In fact all their expertise was in Unity based flat screen gaming and they've had to hire programmers whose expertise is in Unreal based flat screen gaming for their next project.

So while the future of gaming and the video gaming industry is, in my opinion, sure to always include VR gaming and to become ever more affordable for the mass market gamer, the future of TFP is not going to be in VR exclusive gaming.

I even doubt they will be so cavalier about stating they will make 7 Days 2 VR compatible...haha

We are not going to agree here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair.

Thank you, though, for taking my comments in good grace. As a mod, I am obviously aware of the power imbalance here, and it is to your credit you didn't spit the dummy and just ban me for countering your points, especially as some of my comments could have been seen as inflammatory. Many mods on other similar boards would have.

My naive privilege makes it so it would never even occur to me to use an imbalance of power to unfairly ban someone simply for disagreeing. Does that happen in the world...?

Just for clarity, I don't have an axe to grind with VR, if I had the money I would buy one (certainly not Quest, though).

Even if you couldn't use it due to the physical limitations you mentioned? Why?

 

[theFlu]

gatekeeping simply means a barrier to what you want to achieve, it doesn't have to be intentional

All right; I'm not a native so my take on the phrase might well be off. I still think it needs to be intentional to count as "-keeping", but if that's where our difference is, it's rather small ..

 

[ricp]

I even doubt they will be so cavalier about stating they will make 7 Days 2 VR compatible...haha

Getting back to the meat of the question, I think if TFP were to code a sequel from scratch, and it all depends on how sprawling and messy the code base has gotten over the years, then you might as well include the VR functionality from the start. So it's part of the base build, not requiring jenga style balancing to fit it in.

A perfect example of this is DayZ which has had a similar development timeline (lots of alpha releases, long periods of uncertainty about the - metaphorical - end game, then a 1.0 release that coincides with a full console release) where they wished to update the zombie AI but were locked into decisions taken years ago.

In short, if it's from scratch, you are as well including the functionality for all sorts of things, from RTX to VR, to AI (not AGI) characters and large language models interacting with voice commands (ie: telling Hugh to f**k off and seeing him react in real time). It's not that they will be used, but it'd be daft not to at least provide some hooks for it rather than relying on retrofitting it.

All right; I'm not a native so my take on the phrase might well be off. I still think it needs to be intentional to count as "-keeping", but if that's where our difference is, it's rather small ..

To be fair, like all of the English language, and especially with zeitgeist terminology like gatekeeping, it has its nuances. I may not be using it for its intended purpose. My reasoning for it not being intentional is that the gatekeeper may not be aware of what constitutes as gatekeeping issues as they tend to be quite subjective.

If you were to use the dictionary definition, then it's fine here, but it's used (or misused) all over the place. As they say, English is less a language and more three drunk racoons in trench coat rifling the pockets of other languages and putting it all together.

 

[theFlu]

And will your VR options remain expensive forever?

Ye, I get the point; VR will always be "more expensive" than simple flat screens, but not necessarily significantly so. I won't wager if it'll become cheap enough to become any sort of default, ever; at least in the head-mounted-displays configuration.

I also don't see a moral wrong in anyone making a VR-only game, just potentially poor market choices. But VR plays so different than flatscreen mouse and keyboard that having dedicated VR games isn't a bad idea. Bad ports of good VR games could just be wasted effort and bad rep - depends on the game of course. Something in the genre of "beat saber" just doesn't transfer well, it's just not the same thing if you're not physically involved.