The original version of the game was misleading, could be more communicative? [WITH POLL]

[Kahpya]

So, this is something I've been thinking about for some time and has a personal interest in. There seems to be a varying degree of frustrations in the forum about communication from the developers. Would it have helped to not have released the game in Early Access(EA) with the version of 1.0?

Elaboration
This game was released in EA, and the version of the different modules all had the same version, 1.0. at the beginning. But many software products we buy begins at version 1.0, where we get the full useability of that product.

I think of a number that is separated with a period as a decimal number with the extended use as a percentage description. When the number comes up and has a decimal in it, like 1.0 I think 100%. so in my mind when I saw these versions of the game modules I, of course, understood that the EA didn't mean a complete product but I thought it a bit misleading, while also giving rise to mine expectations of the completeness of the game. If the game was released with the version on say - 0.6 or 0.8, would that have been more acceptable? Also, this would give us some but very limited insights into how long in the process we are, before having a fully developed game.

No need for a roadmap or direct communication from developers, the versioning of the game could simply have told us a lot more than I currently think it does. This wouldn't, of course, completely quell the speculations but could have been a step in that direction?

1. What are your opinions about this?
2. Versioning of a product, in your mind as a consumer, what does that mean?
3. What does, in your opinion, those numbers mean?
4. Do these opinions extend onto other products than software?

Please read
While I do understand that there are various opinions on the current state of the game, please refer them to other places in the forum. The intension of the post isn't to discuss the current state, but hopefully, give a better understanding of how versioning is perceived and be helpful in the development of new products.

Also, please, those who pick the "Other, please specify in a post" option on the poll, include the post with:

OTHER - answer

some great and elaborate answer for the pick

Simply to make it easier for others to see if that is what your answering on.

 

[Horrorwood]

Versions are entirely arbitrary and decided by the person packaging them based on the internal practices of the team/organization.
Version 1 is effectively their initial release candidate and looking at the current patched versions it seems clear that they are following the pattern
major.minor.patch.hotfix (possibly build) but also note that they are prepended by e (at least in the beta branch)

Essentially trying to work out some grand issue based on versioning is pointless as the only people who actually need to care about the number are people working on the code ( or reporting bugs) to keep track of fixes and releases e.t.c. It doesn't matter that their early access release mumber was 1.0.0 it could of been 2 or 400 ( though i wold probably question that lol )

I would guess that version 2 of the modules would be when we get the first of any major content expansions.

 

[pyerr]

OP is very contradictive, but I will try to answer it anyway.
With very little informations devs provided on steam page, 90% is absolutely true.On steam there is part ABOUT THIS GAME:
-Strategy / Action RPG ; Explore, raid and conquer - true except explore, there is nothing to explore
-Singleplayer Sandbox Campaign - true
-Extensive Character Creation and Progression Systems - true
-Realistic Economy - partially true
-Multiplayer Game Modes - true
-Skill-Based Directional Combat System - true
-Breathtaking Battles - true, battles are great
-Extensive Modding Capabilities - true

people expected much more, many things are broken and barebones, but almost everything they said is true.

 

[kweassa]

I chose "Other" -- because every time these sort of threads come out, I wanted to ask,

"What's your point?"

What is the end-goal for making these posts?

There are info posts, discussions, questions, all dedicated for the betterment of the game. Other threads focus on new ideas or wish lists., and these contribute to the game as well.

But these f***ing annoying threads like these here, what do you possibly hope to achieve by this?

What do you actually contribute, as a fan, with non-constructive criticism whining like a spoiled brat about .. what...you were "tricked" or something? The devs were somehow "dishonest"? Were you "robbed" of your money? Did somebody twist your arm to buy this game? Gather enough of same, whiney annoying tards and throw a boycott or something?

What's the friggin' goal of these threads? I wanna know, please. Because this is neither constructive, nor any kind of real criticism.

 

[Revverie]

Yeah I mean the OP has good manners and I respect that but I dont see the point of this thread.

 

[Kahpya]

Versions are entirely arbitrary and decided by the person packaging them based on the internal practices of the team/organization.
Version 1 is effectively their initial release candidate and looking at the current patched versions it seems clear that they are following the pattern
major.minor.patch.hotfix (possibly build) but also note that they are prepended by e (at least in the beta branch)

Yes, that is the standard software developer reply. No offense meant. But I was asking from a general consumer perspective, what the number means, not from a developer's perspective. And the prepended é doesn't mean anything currently, other than it's there, as it's also present on the main branch, except that it could mean "early".

Essentially trying to work out some grand issue based on versioning is pointless

Not sure what you mean by this, can you specify some more?

Essentially trying to work out some grand issue based on versioning is pointless as the only people who actually need to care about the number are people working on the code ( or reporting bugs) to keep track of fixes and releases e.t.c.

But as a consumer would you find it more helpful if there was a general system all used, when creating EA's, with beta and alpha branches, to make it more clear for the users? Because if the versions have little to no meaning why have them displayed at all? Yeah, I understand that bug fixes and issues need them, but then you could as well tag all version that is shown to the user with some kind of name, like John, Oscar, Lilly, or something entirely different. Why the need to include the general public in, as you've state, an arbitrary number? Because most of the time when I look at a number I don't consider it something arbitrary. I consider it a logical system that all people can be easily included in and understand.

It doesn't matter that their early access release mumber was 1.0.0 it could of been 2 or 400 ( though i wold probably question that lol )

Again, why would you question something that you consider arbitrary? But I guess that you don't think it could have quelled the speculation even a little or in other ways help in the future to incorporate such standards?

EDIT: to answer @kweassa.

I chose "Other" -- because every time these sort of threads come out, I wanted to ask,

"What's your point?"

What is the end-goal for making these posts?

The end goal was to get an understanding of what you as a consumer think of the version number on a software product if you think nothing of it, then fine. But if there is a general consensus that they should, could, or need, to mean more, than just a number, for the general public, wouldn't it be nice to actually be a voice of change to a mostly unneeded system (mostly, since it's only useful to developers, less useful to testers, no use to all others basically) that you unintentionally is included in, without having a chance to understand it?

There are info posts, discussions, questions, all dedicated for the betterment of the game. Other threads focus on new ideas or wish lists., and these contribute to the game as well.

But these f***ing annoying threads like these here, what do you possibly hope to achieve by this?

While I understand your point, but if a moderator feels the need to move it, they are probably going to.

What do you actually contribute, as a fan, with non-constructive criticism whining like a spoiled brat about .. what...you were "tricked" or something? The devs were somehow "dishonest"? Were you "robbed" of your money? Did somebody twist your arm to buy this game? Gather enough of same, whiney annoying tards and throw a boycott or something?

Not, sure I would classify my post as "whining like a spoiled brat". I don't regret having bought to the game, neither did I state I was, tricked, robbed, or all the other above you mention. I was surprised by the state of the game but did understand it. As I beforehand have commented on another post, they made a game engine, which also means they haven't used the last 10 years exclusively to develop this game. Which gave rise to a question about what software versions mean to the general public.

What's the friggin' goal of these threads? I wanna know, please. Because this is neither constructive, nor any kind of real criticism.

My contribution? Information gathering, not sure which category your answer is in yet.
If this could somehow ease minds and keep people from getting as frustrated; or lessen the load of post and discussion on this forum, with an easily understood system, don't you think that could count toward constructive and less time-consuming for developers?

EDIT: to answer @pyerr

OP is very contradictive, but I will try to answer it anyway.

English isn't my primary language, so if there is something that is contradictive in your mind, please specify, so I have the chance to change it.

With very little informations devs provided on steam page, 90% is absolutely true.On steam there is part ABOUT THIS GAME:
-Strategy / Action RPG ; Explore, raid and conquer - true except explore, there is nothing to explore
-Singleplayer Sandbox Campaign - true
-Extensive Character Creation and Progression Systems - true
-Realistic Economy - partially true
-Multiplayer Game Modes - true
-Skill-Based Directional Combat System - true
-Breathtaking Battles - true, battles are great
-Extensive Modding Capabilities - true

people expected much more, many things are broken and barebones, but almost everything they said is true.

Not sure I understand this reply, this might have something to do with my contradictive statements?

 

[pyerr]

contradictive part is: "The intension of the post isn't to discuss the current state, but hopefully, give a better understanding of how versioning is perceived and be helpful in the development of new products"
How can we discuss this game if we can't discuss about it's current state?! Also what new products?!?
about people expected more: well, I expected almost perfect game, like EU4 diplomacy and events + CK2 characters and family trees... some people expected faces in this game to look like Holywood actors and actresses but they are ugly, some people expected super intuitive UI, some people expected super combat AI like Brad Pitt from Troy, some people expected bigger map, but at the end of the day it was just us trippin' in our heads how this game should look like...

 

[Kahpya]

contradictive part is: "The intension of the post isn't to discuss the current state, but hopefully, give a better understanding of how versioning is perceived and be helpful in the development of new products"
How can we discuss this game if we can't discuss about it's current state?! Also what new products?!?

Ok, I would read that as, don't talk about the current state but about the state the game was in when it was released. How would you communicate that more clearly? At some point down the line, TW will need to move on to the next product to develop, so to help that? or others in software development.

about people expected more: well, I expected almost perfect game, like EU4 diplomacy and events + CK2 characters and family trees... some people expected faces in this game to look like Holywood actors and actresses but they are ugly, some people expected super intuitive UI, some people expected super combat AI like Brad Pitt from Troy, some people expected bigger map, but at the end of the day it war just us trippin' in our heads how this game should look like...

Okay, thank you. So was that partially because of the version on the game or the development time of the game?

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Look at the poll. OP and those who don't understand M&B EA process are in the very small minority.

 

[avenger1024]

Sounds like you know enough about versioning to only further misunderstand it. TW is doing nothing that goes against semantic versioning. https://semver.org/

 

[Meraun]

Well i guess the Poll states clearly we are all fine with it and we know waht a EA is. (Well except the Guy how made this senseless thread... SOOO many sensless threads)

 

[Kniggit]

You're entire premise omits the fact that versions are all prefixed with "e" denoting early access (e1.2.1 or e.1.3.0)

 

[eddiemccandless]

The end goal was to get an understanding of what you as a consumer think of the version number on a software product if you think nothing of it, then fine. But if there is a general consensus that they should, could, or need, to mean more, than just a number, for the general public, wouldn't it be nice to actually be a voice of change to a mostly unneeded system (mostly, since it's only useful to developers, less useful to testers, no use to all others basically) that you unintentionally is included in, without having a chance to understand it?

I do appreciate the tone of your posts, at least. It is refreshing to see someone who is able to express their opinion without going on a raging rant. But I don't see how this makes any sense. If you don't want to be part of an Early Access game it's not like anyone is forcing you into buying it. Unintentionally how? Everyone of us bought the game out of their own will, it's not like we were tricked.

@kweassa is coming from a place of frustration, but I think he has a point. It was released in the state it is in, it's done, there's nothing we can do to change that. All we can do is try and make the best of what comes next. I also don't see how the versioning is relevant. It's a label which follows a convention, it doesn't change the substance that is behind it, and it's not like we knew the version number before buying the game (and if we did, would it influence the decision of the average customer? come on now, let's be real).

 

[fr1nk]

give a better understanding of how versioning is perceived

This is something I never consider, it's not relevant to my decision-making process. There are other more important factors to look at. Versioning means different things to different people, sometimes even the same person depending on when you ask them.

 

[Nickname]

Didn't vote, I don't understand the question. How a game version can be misleading? Label it 0.1 instead of 1.0 - for me it won't change anything. Actually, this thread is misleading. I think you should have done it the other way:
"A month passed: are you satisfied with the game and early access?"
- I'm satisfied with everything, nothing need to be changed.
- I have fun with the game, but I need more communication/roadmap/devblog.
- It has potential, but lacks important features and I think devs are focused on minor things.
- I'm disappointed with the game at current state, I will wait.
etc

 

[HumanCancer]

"very much stable and playable and players can expect to run into obscure bugs"

 

[Senko]

Well, a patch turning characters into fatties all of a sudden was pretty obscure.

 

[Highest of all Landers]

So, 72 "No" versus 24 "Yes" so far. Congratulations on proving the recent riot attempts do not represent the majority of us.

 

[Nickname]

So, 72 "No" versus 24 "Yes" so far. Congratulations on proving the recent riot attempts do not represent the majority of us.

Did you know that revolutions are always carried out by an active minority, rather than a passive majority?

 

[Highest of all Landers]

Did you know that revolutions are always carried out by an active minority, rather than a passive majority?

Do you mean authoritarian seize of power? Sure, my country became a "republic" when a minority of disgruntled pro-slavery, pro-church, military aristocrats decided they wanted to replace the current government. They had no popular support and several conflicts bordering civil war happened over the next decade.

Also, considering the amount of people posting that they do not support the claims of being mislead or that TW is scamming people, calling us passive is far from reality