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.

 

[8_Hussars]

...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.

Let those who have never managed a project or missed a deadline, cast the stones.

 

[HammerDano]

Let those who have never managed a project or missed a deadline, cast the stones.

thanks for illustrating my point

In those situations...isn't clear communication part of the remedy? asking for "friend".

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

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.

Ah. I imagine it does convince people to buy new hardware just to play one game, depending on the game. You have to wonder who "they" think is going to consume when people have nothing left to consume with?

 

[Roland]

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.

I don’t know when 3.0 will release but I do want to clarify that they are not developing 2.6 first and then moving on to 2.7 and then moving on to 2.8 and then starting 3.0.

They are already working on 3.0 now (current version is v3.0 b135). When they have features that they can pull out and release, they will call that 2.6. There is no guarantee that there will be a 2.7 or 2.8. They may decide to just save anything else for what they will call the 3.0 release.

Last week I noticed in the work log a few entries for bandit features among other things.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Not to be rude, but, TFP make their own rules, their own naming conventions, their own timelines

Not trying to convince anyone of anything, you understand, but do you really think TFP is working in a vacuum? They're working with a number of other companies, including Sony and Microsoft, not only to keep PC and console synced (now that they are synced once again), but perhaps are even subject to some of those companies' deadlines, primarily for quarterly profits and share value if I know those behemoths. How many studios they've bought out have they shut down even when those studios were showing a ROI? Those studios didn't make that decision. Microsoft did. "Restructuring" galore -- laying off hundreds if not thousands of developers; cancelling games that have been in development for years; etc. It's always human beings (and other life forms, as it happens), their lives and their livlihoods that pay the price for institutionalized greed, ill-will and delusion.

Do I think TFP is different from the triple As? There was no doubt in my mind until they did have to start working with those behemoths and began adopting controversial business practices.

I recall Avowed suddenly shifted toward multiplayer design. Isn't it odd that plan was dropped the moment Obsidian was acquired by Microsoft? Obsidian produces single player RPGs. What do they know about live service games? What did Arkane know about live service games? What did BGS know about live service games? Yet, they were all tasked with producing one. By whom? Was Obsidian being pressured to do something it had no experience with? I think so, just as I think BGS was pressured to monetize every IP in its back catalog that could possibly be monetized to make the deal between Zenimax and Microsoft look sweeter to Microsoft. Now look at their formerly well-regarded reputation. It's in tatters. Where does the fault lie? BGS? Bethesda Softworks? Zenimax? Microsoft? I'd say the stock market, which runs on algorithms independent of human awareness, consciousness (and, therefore, conscience) and oversight. Didn't we agree the financial sector has its hooks in everything?

That changed when Glass-Steagall was repealed and eventually replaced after the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis with some watered down, ineffective policy that didn't kick it out of everything certainly, but actually made things worse in many ways.

They're working, you're working, I'm working within a global socioeconomic system that has no regard for life. So, who is to blame for anything? Isn't it a what? And that what is an outdated worldview and paradigm into which we were all born and conditioned, afic. Is it changing? I think so. Has been since, at least, 'The Overview Effect' afforded us a bird's eye view of the Pale Blue Dot. Makes all our petty differences seem pretty...well, petty. Doesn't it?

 

[Jost Amman]

Ah. I imagine it does convince people to buy new hardware just to play one game, depending on the game. You have to wonder who "they" think is going to consume when people have nothing left to consume with?

Great movie that one!

 

[HammerDano]

I don’t know when 3.0 will release but I do want to clarify that they are not developing 2.6 first and then moving on to 2.7 and then moving on to 2.8 and then starting 3.0.

They are already working on 3.0 now (current version is v3.0 b135). When they have features that they can pull out and release, they will call that 2.6. There is no guarantee that there will be a 2.7 or 2.8. They may decide to just save anything else for what they will call the 3.0 release.

Last week I noticed in the work log a few entries for bandit features among other things.

good grief...did I say there's no work being done on 3.0? nope...I keep reposting what @madmole himself had to say about it. and even he is only "hopeful" the first version will be in 2026.

they still have to square those updates with 3.0 and what they already have, do they not?
2.5 seems like it broke a lot of little things besides introducing stuttering and lag...and YES they are actively trying to fix them.

They're just not responding to anyone about it, on their Own Social Media posts, like they were. Which is not a great look.

 

[HammerDano]

Not trying to convince anyone of anything, you understand, but do you really think TFP is working in a vacuum? They're working with a number of other companies, including Sony and Microsoft, not only to keep PC and console synced (now that they are synced once again), but perhaps are even subject to some of those companies' deadlines, primarily for quarterly profits and share value if I know those behemoths. How many studios they've bought out have they shut down even when those studios were showing a ROI? Those studios didn't make that decision. Microsoft did. "Restructuring" galore -- laying off hundreds if not thousands of developers; cancelling games that have been in development for years; etc. It's always human beings (and other life forms, as it happens), their lives and their livlihoods that pay the price for institutionalized greed, ill-will and delusion.

Do I think TFP is different from the triple As? There was no doubt in my mind until they did have to start working with those behemoths and began adopting controversial business practices.

I recall Avowed suddenly shifted toward multiplayer design. Isn't it odd that plan was dropped the moment Obsidian was acquired by Microsoft? Obsidian produces single player RPGs. What do they know about live service games? What did Arkane know about live service games? What did BGS know about live service games? Yet, they were all tasked with producing one. By whom? Was Obsidian being pressured to do something it had no experience with? I think so, just as I think BGS was pressured to monetize every IP in its back catalog that could possibly be monetized to make the deal between Zenimax and Microsoft look sweeter to Microsoft. Now look at their formerly well-regarded reputation. It's in tatters. Where does the fault lie? BGS? Bethesda Softworks? Zenimax? Microsoft? I'd say the stock market, which runs on algorithms independent of human awareness, consciousness (and, therefore, conscience) and oversight. Didn't we agree the financial sector has its hooks in everything?

That changed when Glass-Steagall was repealed and eventually replaced after the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis with some watered down, ineffective policy that didn't kick it out of everything certainly, but actually made things worse in many ways.

They're working, you're working, I'm working within a global socioeconomic system that has no regard for life. So, who is to blame for anything? Isn't it a what? And that what is an outdated worldview and paradigm into which we were all born and conditioned, afic. Is it changing? I think so. Has been since, at least, 'The Overview Effect' afforded us a bird's eye view of the Pale Blue Dot. Makes all our petty differences seem pretty...well, petty. Doesn't it?

you may be completely correct (and I suspect you are getting more correct about this by the year)...maybe TFP do have constrictions placed on them by their corporate "partners". it seems to be happening everywhere...like China making Hollywood change the content of their movies or they are not allowed to show them in China, cutting a massive revenue stream (but making movies worse). We really do not know. but, it seems incredibly doubtful to me that "they" would not want the game to be completed as timely as possible...or for TFP to not damage their earning potential by being terrible at Social Media Management of the community. So...while thoughtful and thought provoking, I don't know if this really extends to every single game made by an Indie that gets on the platforms. but once again you have provided food for thought...and the noose does tighten.

 

[Rotor]

Gone for a couple of days and I have decided.

You peeps need to start drinking elixirs, the world will make more sense then.