The LBD theyre introducing isnt what I wanted or had in mind.

[InfiniteWarrior]

such a limited version of the new xbox nor was it known that microsoft would only allow games on their platform if they ran identically on the S as well.

If that was a MS Xbox decision, it certainly shot itself -- and TFP -- in the foot yet again because I know a few people who had never played the game before, yet were all set to buy it when it re-released on console, but were not -- period, full stop -- about to buy a new Xbox just to run one game. They're not looking to "upgrade" to the S series at all, actually. So, there's quite a segment Xbox has missed out on.

 

[HammerDano]

If that was a MS Xbox decision, it certainly shot itself -- and TFP -- in the foot yet again because I know a few people who had never played the game before, yet were all set to buy it when it re-released on console, but were not -- period, full stop -- about to buy a new Xbox just to run one game. They're not looking to "upgrade" to the S series at all, actually. So, there's quite a segment Xbox has missed out on.

lol...I was one of the morons who bought the "S" when it was still just a unfounded rumour. I thought "hey I better upgrade" and "when was the last time I bought a physical copy". (womp womp)

 

[meganoth]

If that was a MS Xbox decision, it certainly shot itself -- and TFP -- in the foot yet again because I know a few people who had never played the game before, yet were all set to buy it when it re-released on console, but were not -- period, full stop -- about to buy a new Xbox just to run one game. They're not looking to "upgrade" to the S series at all, actually. So, there's quite a segment Xbox has missed out on.

What has the requirement to support the S to do with users who stayed with the previous gen xbox one?

 

[meganoth]

@meganoth
honestly...this is as bad as modern politics...nobody who actually knows is ever going to present the crucial details...and you and I are not changing any minds without THAT information. Both of us can and are correctly accused of spinning things to our own POV. I'm just going to sit and wait for them to announce this "new road map"...I doubt there will be any dates. My opinion will be that "they already got our money...so of course NOW there are no dates". hey...look at me...predicting the future. I have no idea what your wording will be, but, undoubtedly it will be a variation of "it takes as long as it takes...I am glad there are no dates".

A lot of what I have to post is speculation because it isn't really known, true. But ...

Strange to me is that in this case you yourself said that TFP decided in 2019 to bring out a console game again, qoute "Instead, TFP decided in 2019, that they would make consoles buy a second version of the same game". So we seem to agree about this.
Now combine that with the fact that xbox s was announced in 2020 (at least according to quite a few sources on the internet) it seem strange to me that you then posit this as a spin.

Now I forgot that the rumour mill could have leaked the S before, so I checked again and was surprised that the xbox generally was already presented in summer 2019 and rumours of 2 versions were spreading in 2019 already. But the actual hardware-specs were released only in 2020, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Series_X_and_Series_S#History

If you have different information, please say so. Wikipedia can be wrong as well, though usually is very accurate with dates. But I honestly don't know what is spin when I present relatively hard facts.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

What has the requirement to support the S to do with users who stayed with the previous gen xbox one?

Was that not clear? Xbox users I know personally were set to buy the game until they learned they'd have to buy a new Xbox to play it. Xbox probably doesn't care about much other than lost hardware sales, but still. Lost revenue is lost revenue for TFP. Didn't you say Xbox required games to run on the S before they'd be greenlit?

 

[Uncle Al]

Was that not clear? Xbox users I know personally were set to buy the game until they learned they'd have to buy a new Xbox to play it. Xbox probably doesn't care about much other than lost hardware sales, but still. Lost revenue is lost revenue for TFP. Didn't you say Xbox required games to run on the S before they'd be greenlit?

I believe Microsoft's rule is that games released for the X have to be able to run on the S, albeit in lower resolutions. The S is marketed as a budget option that's comparable to the X, but delivering 1440p resolution gameplay, not 4k.

This was undoubtedly problematic for TFP, and hurt all of us, because 7DTD is rare in being a game much more constrained by RAM and CPU power than graphical capabilities, and the S is much weaker than the X in both RAM and CPU power.

The fact that Xbox One games happen to also be S compatible isn't really relevant.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I believe Microsoft's rule is that games released for the X have to be able to run on the S, albeit in lower resolutions. The S is marketed as a budget option that's comparable to the X, but delivering 1440p resolution gameplay, not 4k.

This was undoubtedly problematic for TFP, and hurt all of us, because 7DTD is rare in being a game much more constrained by RAM and CPU power than graphical capabilities, and the S is much weaker than the X in both RAM and CPU power.

The fact that Xbox One games happen to also be S compatible isn't really relevant.

I see. Someone sent me a screenshot of the message they rec'd when they decided to get the game on an older Xbox version. Don't remember exactly what it said, but it impled their Xbox version was not sufficient to play the game and/or required S when it runs newer, graphic intensive titles just fine. Don't know what version they have or much of anything about console for that matter. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Uncle Al]

I see. Someone sent me a screenshot of the message they rec'd when they decided to get the game on an older Xbox version. Don't remember exactly what it said, but it impled their Xbox version was not sufficient to play the game and/or required S when it runs newer, graphic intensive titles just fine. Don't know what version they have or much of anything about console for that matter. Thanks for the clarification.

A friend of mine who has an XBox One had a similar experience. It's because Microsoft, for marketing reasons, allow the XBox store to show game titles as available when they won't run on your hardware. It's only when you click 'buy now' or 'download trial version' do you get the 'this game won't run on this console' message.

Trying to make 7DTD XBox One compatible would have been crazy. TFP would have had to gut things like max zombies more than they already did to achieve console performance. I suspect if they could have they would have made it XBox X only, but due to the aforementioned Microsoft rule, they had to ensure it was able to run on the S. And that's probably why you can't have more than 30 zombies on horde night...

 

[HammerDano]

A lot of what I have to post is speculation because it isn't really known, true. But ...

Strange to me is that in this case you yourself said that TFP decided in 2019 to bring out a console game again, qoute "Instead, TFP decided in 2019, that they would make consoles buy a second version of the same game". So we seem to agree about this.
Now combine that with the fact that xbox s was announced in 2020 (at least according to quite a few sources on the internet) it seem strange to me that you then posit this as a spin.

Now I forgot that the rumour mill could have leaked the S before, so I checked again and was surprised that the xbox generally was already presented in summer 2019 and rumours of 2 versions were spreading in 2019 already. But the actual hardware-specs were released only in 2020, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Series_X_and_Series_S#History

If you have different information, please say so. Wikipedia can be wrong as well, though usually is very accurate with dates. But I honestly don't know what is spin when I present relatively hard facts.

apologies, I could and should have been more clear...that was meant more as a generality. That a lot of the time, it's all just spinning our collective wheels, and getting no where. especially when it is about speculation that could be made clear.

The game is going to take as long as it takes...and that is going to be a loooooong time.
Seeing what happens when they "crunch" their staff, ie the 2.5 update, made it abundantly clear they do not do their best work under pressure.

I will continue to be annoyed when people ask "don't you like all the free updates?" because "Free Updates" are the things that come AFTER the game is finished. But, I know THAT is not getting thru to anyone on here.

maybe they get Bandits in this year...but the longer it takes to get 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 done...the more in doubt it should be. even @madmole has his doubts.

Someone should tell them that when they make statements the public can see...like that they have an updated roadmap or plan to show Bandits models...they should follow up on them quickly, otherwise, it just comes off as more bull■■■■.

 

[meganoth]

apologies, I could and should have been more clear...that was meant more as a generality. That a lot of the time, it's all just spinning our collective wheels, and getting no where. especially when it is about speculation that could be made clear.

The game is going to take as long as it takes...and that is going to be a loooooong time.
Seeing what happens when they "crunch" their staff, ie the 2.5 update, made it abundantly clear they do not do their best work under pressure.

I will continue to be annoyed when people ask "don't you like all the free updates?" because "Free Updates" are the things that come AFTER the game is finished. But, I know THAT is not getting thru to anyone on here.

maybe they get Bandits in this year...but the longer it takes to get 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 done...the more in doubt it should be. even @madmole has his doubts.

Someone should tell them that when they make statements the public can see...like that they have an updated roadmap or plan to show Bandits models...they should follow up on them quickly, otherwise, it just comes off as more bull■■■■.

The AAA studios followed up your logic by just NOT making any more public statements except for carefully procured statements that are mostly free of information. So what you get from them are almost 100% correct dates, but you get them just a month before. And the rest is marketing stuff like "greater, better, more xxx than before".

Since TFPs time estimates are so unreliable I question the value of those estimates, they only provide lower bounds, i.e. you know a release is almost surely after that date. But in the case of content and changes and general plans we are much better informed since people from TFP talk somewhat freely instead of heavily curated.

 

[HammerDano]

The AAA studios followed up your logic by just NOT making any more public statements except for carefully procured statements that are mostly free of information. So what you get from them are almost 100% correct dates, but you get them just a month before. And the rest is marketing stuff like "greater, better, more xxx than before".

Since TFPs time estimates are so unreliable I question the value of those estimates, they only provide lower bounds, i.e. you know a release is almost surely after that date. But in the case of content and changes and general plans we are much better informed since people from TFP talk somewhat freely instead of heavily curated.

Not to be rude, but, TFP make their own rules, their own naming conventions, their own timelines...trying to imply they are not as "bad" as a AAA studio is not the win people seem to think it is...at least not with me.

You may be right, maybe you do get more contemporaneous information from some of the devs on the things they are working on...you guys don't care that it's a year or years after it was "estimated". cool. That's the stuff we are not going to agree on.