Ugh, good that they want to make the game better. But crap. Can companies stick to dates and give them proper time limits to actually do those dates. I'm kind of annoyed that the Rocket Blast off still won't be complete. Does that mean Oct 23 won't have access to the room and build the rocket in the main game. Because I really want to do that stuff.
Calarand77lurking in general forumsJoin Date: 2016-01-22Member: 211786Members
Kudos to the devs for having the courage to delay once more and focus on quality. I've said it before on this forum, and I'll happily say it again: if the end result is a polished and fun product, I can wait as long as necessary, no problem.
Huh, oh well. I wouldn't think it would take so long to work out all the bugs, but giving themselves extra time doesn't hurt. It may also mean they want to add a bit more content/polish to it all. I'm happy to keep playing the pre-release version, though, and doing my part to help build this game and make it better.
Plus sometimes the bugs are hilarious and entertaining.
I had thought UWE could have stuck to the end of October release date. But obviously they've looked at what's going on behind the scenes, what needs to be fixed, and what they want to change and then test before release. And they decided what could be done in 3 weeks wasn't enough. And pushing back the release by 2.5 months was needed.
We still get to play an awesome game. And Subnautica gets released to the world in better shape that it would have been at the end of October.
They may change theirs minds about holding off the rocket until 1.0 release, since it's going to be so much longer now. I mean, that'll need to be tested, too, right?
They may change theirs minds about holding off the rocket until 1.0 release, since it's going to be so much longer now. I mean, that'll need to be tested, too, right?
That's why they have playtesters to test features before release on experimental version but I'm guessing they won't release the rocket until 1.0 patch
They may change theirs minds about holding off the rocket until 1.0 release, since it's going to be so much longer now. I mean, that'll need to be tested, too, right?
That's why they have playtesters to test features before release on experimental version but I'm guessing they won't release the rocket until 1.0 patch
Well that's not fair. Because I'm not switching to experimental to corrupt my saved game. Nor am I deleting it. I want to build the rocket. I intentionally avoided all of it for months and months. So that I can make it in stable. Now it's delayed again. I'm screwed, just because the blast off sequence is missing. I'm gonna have to stop playing the game, come back at launch.
They may change theirs minds about holding off the rocket until 1.0 release, since it's going to be so much longer now. I mean, that'll need to be tested, too, right?
That's why they have playtesters to test features before release on experimental version but I'm guessing they won't release the rocket until 1.0 patch
Well that's not fair. Because I'm not switching to experimental to corrupt my saved game. Nor am I deleting it. I want to build the rocket. I intentionally avoided all of it for months and months. So that I can make it in stable. Now it's delayed again. I'm screwed, just because the blast off sequence is missing. I'm gonna have to stop playing the game, come back at launch.
Dude, just back up your saved game folder before switching to experimental (or make a new saved game and don't load the old save while you're in experimental). Best of both worlds.
Also, @scifiwriterguy ▲ thought you would like to hear the OP. I'm personally glad. I think they could have squeezed it by Oct 31, but I think it would have been a bumpy launch. Glad they pushed it back.
The Rocket won't be in experimental mode before v1.0 either. It's getting tested by the devs and special playtesters in a private build before it comes out.
I'm really disappointed we won't get to test it before the release date. I sure hope those testers do a good job play testing. I mean... I'd hate to build the rocket, launch it...and BOOM, the rocket explodes on the launch pad. Man! That would be a disappointing end to the game.
Also, @scifiwriterguy ▲ thought you would like to hear the OP. I'm personally glad. I think they could have squeezed it by Oct 31, but I think it would have been a bumpy launch. Glad they pushed it back.
Personally, I'd say they made the right call. With the latest stable release suffering from z-buffer problems again, it's clear that there are some semi-serious bugs that need stomping, and between that, polishing, and getting the endgame sequence working correctly, one month was almost certainly not going to do it.
It's refreshing to see a developer move away from the "we're not going to spend time on QA; launch it and we'll patch it later...maybe." All of the AAA houses are doing it with their games, Microsoft does it with their bloody operating system, so this is definitely a move to applaud.
As for having to wait...
This isn't a transplant lung or medication. A wait isn't going to be lethal. Sure, we're excited to see it and finish off the game properly, but considering that the developers are essentially saying "it isn't ready to be seen yet," releasing the endgame now would probably just result in a landslide of "it's broken!" "it stinks!" "this is ridiculous!" complaints. Delaying is better than 3,000 complaint posts about bugs and broken triggers.
Three months extra isn't that much longer anyway. I'd really like to see the significant bugs stomped before they release anyway. I've always hated having games that got released with awful bugs that got fixed in patches later - or with DLC's. It's much better to do it right on release!
The Rocket won't be in experimental mode before v1.0 either. It's getting tested by the devs and special playtesters in a private build before it comes out.
That's what I'm thinking aswell as otherwise it won't be a surprise
I'm really disappointed we won't get to test it before the release date. I sure hope those testers do a good job play testing. I mean... I'd hate to build the rocket, launch it...and BOOM, the rocket explodes on the launch pad. Man! That would be a disappointing end to the game.
Don't worry most of the changes that you're seeing is because of the playtesters and while they aren't perfect the playtesters do know what is wrong and what's right and they have an extremely big attention to the details so it should be a great ending to see and I'm sure everyone waited for this moment will love it
SkopeWouldn't you like to know ;)Join Date: 2016-06-07Member: 218212Members
I'm on the fence about it. On the one hand, I'm glad that they're going to fix some more bugs and optimize for launch. But on the other, I'm sad that they didn't stick to their guns like I thought they would. In the long run, it's definitely better to delay launch a few months, but I just feel a little, I don't know, disappointed?
I'm on the fence about it. On the one hand, I'm glad that they're going to fix some more bugs and optimize for launch. But on the other, I'm sad that they didn't stick to their guns like I thought they would. In the long run, it's definitely better to delay launch a few months, but I just feel a little, I don't know, disappointed?
- Time is relative
- First impressions are the most important
- Sinking is not an option
- Sea? It's not that bad
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Seems like the right move to me. I played about 20 hours recently after not playing for a long time and noticed some things:
1) Model LOS rendering is a problem. I'd like to see models fade in instead of magically popping up as you get closer to them.
2) Hitching seems bad once you have more established in the game. Granted I'm on the highest detail, but I still have a fairly high end computer (i54670k, gtx 970, 8gb ram) that should be able to handle it.
3) Could use more tutorials, or at least, be able to access them on your PDA.
4) Fabricator issues. Would like to make more batches of items at one time rather than having to constantly re-open the interface.
The other thing to consider when looking at that 2.5 month extension is what's in the middle of it - holidays. For the US, Thanksgiving is at the end of November, and then there's all the $WinterHoliday stuff a month later. Plus, it's also flu season They'll be losing probably a good 2-3 weeks worth of work from vacations, sick days, and holidays alone.
Glad to see that the devs are taking extra time to finish the game. I would love to play a finished version of Subnautica, but this is just entertainment and is in no way essential (plus I've got a large enough backlog of other games as it is). It is much more important to me to play a great game, not merely a good-enough game (there's far, far too many of these on the market already) where the devs gave up at the end and didn't go the extra mile to really finish things right.
There will definitely be a few issues for them to fix after launch and room to expand the game via DLC, but 1.0 needs to be done right. Many issues, especially with game balance, tend to get permanently locked in at 1.0 if they aren't fixed beforehand due to savegame compatibility concerns (and dev burnout where they really don't want to go back and deal with those issues again).
Balance and polish (and obviously bugfixing and finishing up the development backlog) should be the dev's priority IMHO at this point.
Overall, my initial reaction was disappointment towards their decision, and in retrospect it still remains that way. Now before anyone starts lighting up their pitchforks, hear me out:
1. Yes, the game can benefit from the extra development time, there are issues left to resolve in the PC and XB1 versions to fix before the game launches.
2. Yes, the devs pushing the date back means they care about their product and listen to us on the forums. It also means they're willing to work longer on this project and delay their profits, in order to deliver the experience we all want.
3. And No, I'm not complaining about having to wait another 2.5 months to experience the completed game. I've already waited 18 months for this moment to arrive (over 2 years if you count from me watching Markiplier's LP videos), so I can wait another year if it's needed.
So why do I Disagree with OP's post? Well... it comes dowm to this logic. The devs set a timeframe to hit for final release; it would come out with the core set of mechanics and anything else would be pushed back past 1.0 release. But when they delay the launch just to polish more stuff, when does it actually get launched? Maybe after they run bug-fixes and cleanup, they'll want to work on the terrain loading algorithms... so they push back the release. Then, after that maybe they'll want to address mobile object physics or AI logic... so they push back the release. Every time a goal is accomplished, something else looks rough and wants the dev's attention.
Now for the record, I am fine with taking more time to make the game as perfect as reasonably possible for everyone to enjoy. But at some point it should be acknowledged that for good or bad, they will need to launch with some level of polish and charm eventually. Because if they always try to achieve the perfect score, then they'll never actually reach the final level.
Kerrigan: Tell me about your work. Abathur: Look at flesh, see only potential. Strands, sequences, twisting, separating, joining. See how it could be better. Eat flesh, splinter bone. Inside me, can touch it. Weave it. Spin it. Make it great. Kerrigan: But not perfect? Abathur: Never perfect. Perfection goal that changes. Never stops moving. Can chase, cannot catch.
So anyways, that's my opinion. I'm not angry with their decision, and I certainly respect them for the hard work and dedication they give to the game. It's just... it's flustering when they want to delay work on completing items of interest such as the DNA Transfuser (which I've been waiting patiently to be implemented for months now) due to lack of time, but yet they decide to add more time to work on elements of the game that are already working. It's just my viewpoint, please don't take anything what I said to heart - I am not asking that they change their goals or timeline. It's just my personal opinion.
- Time is relative
- First impressions are the most important
- Sinking is not an option
- Sea? It's not that bad
You are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Anyway, it's natural and okay to feel disappointed that we won't get this game when we thought we would. I think most of us feel that way, but ultimately support the devs' decision to take the time they need to get the game working well before releasing it.
I agree 100% with @Kouji_San that first impressions are the most important. Personally, one of my main goals is for the 1.0 release to be as solid as possible because I think all the DEVs deserve raises! But beyond the money they make from the game... Thinks about it this way. If we wait just a bit longer and this increases sales, then doesn't that mean the DEVs are more likely to develop yet more content beyond 1.0?
So, we wait just a couple of months longer in the hopes that sales are higher and the DEVs are that much more likely to continue developing new content for the game.
- Time is relative
- First impressions are the most important
- Sinking is not an option
- Sea? It's not that bad
Anyway, it's natural and okay to feel disappointed that we won't get this game when we thought we would. I think most of us feel that way, but ultimately support the devs' decision to take the time they need to get the game working well before releasing it.
You've gotta ask yourself one question though
What would exactly change when the version number rolls over to v1.0, for us who already own the game. It's not like it magically changes the game to be bugfree, with stellar performance and with all the content your heart desires. In essence, if they push back the v1.0 release, this "v1.0 Gold" would actually be closer to that theoretical state of the game.
one of my main goals is for the 1.0 release to be as solid as possible because I think all the DEVs deserve raises! But beyond the money they make from the game...
@garath
I don't think the devs are postponing the release because they care about money. If they did, it would've been released several months ago and we would have already been presented to a ton of content in the form of expansions and DLC, eventually a SN2 would come up.
I believe they are postponing because they want the game to be as polished as possible, they want to make it as much an AAA game as a small studio can. And to show the community that they care about their product and their clients.
It's not about making money right now. It's about prestige and long term plans.
What would exactly change when the version number rolls over to v1.0, for us who already own the game. It's not like it magically changes the game to be bugfree, with stellar performance and with all the content your heart desires. In essence, if they push back the v1.0 release, this "v1.0 Gold" would actually be closer to that theoretical state of the game.
@Kouji_San
I haven't played in a while and what bugged me the most when I played it was the game performance. When v1.0 rolls out I intend to play again and even if this was the only improvement I would be satisfied.
Don't you people hate when you buy a "finished" game only to find out it looks like it's still on early beta? And months (years) later they roll up several patches to fix the shitstorm brought by the abysmal reviews?
I'm not disappointed by the change in the launch date, actually I'm a little amazed the devs are willing to push it a few more months.
one of my main goals is for the 1.0 release to be as solid as possible because I think all the DEVs deserve raises! But beyond the money they make from the game...
@garath
I don't think the devs are postponing the release because they care about money. If they did, it would've been released several months ago and we would have already been presented to a ton of content in the form of expansions and DLC, eventually a SN2 would come up.
I believe they are postponing because they want the game to be as polished as possible, they want to make it as much an AAA game as a small studio can. And to show the community that they care about their product and their clients.
It's not about making money right now. It's about prestige and long term plans.
Your post makes absolutely no sense. I quoted a post from @Kouji_San where he said first impressions are the most important. So, I'm saying they think they can maximize their profits by polishing the game so the 1.0 delivers a higher quality product in Jan 2018 than they could release in Oct 2017. Then, in my post, I say that if they get more sales because the 1.0 product is that much better then we are more likely to see future content for the game--presumably included unpaid and paid content. So, while we who have already bought the game are anxious for the new content, if we just wait a bit, we are more likely to get a TON more content.
Join Date: 2016-04-21 Member: 216034Members
Comments
16 Jan, 2018
Plus sometimes the bugs are hilarious and entertaining.
We still get to play an awesome game. And Subnautica gets released to the world in better shape that it would have been at the end of October.
That's why they have playtesters to test features before release on experimental version but I'm guessing they won't release the rocket until 1.0 patch
Well that's not fair. Because I'm not switching to experimental to corrupt my saved game. Nor am I deleting it. I want to build the rocket. I intentionally avoided all of it for months and months. So that I can make it in stable. Now it's delayed again. I'm screwed, just because the blast off sequence is missing. I'm gonna have to stop playing the game, come back at launch.
Dude, just back up your saved game folder before switching to experimental (or make a new saved game and don't load the old save while you're in experimental). Best of both worlds.
Also, @scifiwriterguy ▲ thought you would like to hear the OP. I'm personally glad. I think they could have squeezed it by Oct 31, but I think it would have been a bumpy launch. Glad they pushed it back.
Personally, I'd say they made the right call. With the latest stable release suffering from z-buffer problems again, it's clear that there are some semi-serious bugs that need stomping, and between that, polishing, and getting the endgame sequence working correctly, one month was almost certainly not going to do it.
It's refreshing to see a developer move away from the "we're not going to spend time on QA; launch it and we'll patch it later...maybe." All of the AAA houses are doing it with their games, Microsoft does it with their bloody operating system, so this is definitely a move to applaud.
As for having to wait...
This isn't a transplant lung or medication. A wait isn't going to be lethal. Sure, we're excited to see it and finish off the game properly, but considering that the developers are essentially saying "it isn't ready to be seen yet," releasing the endgame now would probably just result in a landslide of "it's broken!" "it stinks!" "this is ridiculous!" complaints. Delaying is better than 3,000 complaint posts about bugs and broken triggers.
That's what I'm thinking aswell as otherwise it won't be a surprise
Don't worry most of the changes that you're seeing is because of the playtesters and while they aren't perfect the playtesters do know what is wrong and what's right and they have an extremely big attention to the details so it should be a great ending to see and I'm sure everyone waited for this moment will love it
- Time is relative
- First impressions are the most important
- Sinking is not an option
- Sea? It's not that bad
1) Model LOS rendering is a problem. I'd like to see models fade in instead of magically popping up as you get closer to them.
2) Hitching seems bad once you have more established in the game. Granted I'm on the highest detail, but I still have a fairly high end computer (i54670k, gtx 970, 8gb ram) that should be able to handle it.
3) Could use more tutorials, or at least, be able to access them on your PDA.
4) Fabricator issues. Would like to make more batches of items at one time rather than having to constantly re-open the interface.
Other than that, the game is pretty fun to play.
but at the same time not to hard
There will definitely be a few issues for them to fix after launch and room to expand the game via DLC, but 1.0 needs to be done right. Many issues, especially with game balance, tend to get permanently locked in at 1.0 if they aren't fixed beforehand due to savegame compatibility concerns (and dev burnout where they really don't want to go back and deal with those issues again).
Balance and polish (and obviously bugfixing and finishing up the development backlog) should be the dev's priority IMHO at this point.
1. Yes, the game can benefit from the extra development time, there are issues left to resolve in the PC and XB1 versions to fix before the game launches.
2. Yes, the devs pushing the date back means they care about their product and listen to us on the forums. It also means they're willing to work longer on this project and delay their profits, in order to deliver the experience we all want.
3. And No, I'm not complaining about having to wait another 2.5 months to experience the completed game. I've already waited 18 months for this moment to arrive (over 2 years if you count from me watching Markiplier's LP videos), so I can wait another year if it's needed.
So why do I Disagree with OP's post? Well... it comes dowm to this logic. The devs set a timeframe to hit for final release; it would come out with the core set of mechanics and anything else would be pushed back past 1.0 release. But when they delay the launch just to polish more stuff, when does it actually get launched? Maybe after they run bug-fixes and cleanup, they'll want to work on the terrain loading algorithms... so they push back the release. Then, after that maybe they'll want to address mobile object physics or AI logic... so they push back the release. Every time a goal is accomplished, something else looks rough and wants the dev's attention.
Now for the record, I am fine with taking more time to make the game as perfect as reasonably possible for everyone to enjoy. But at some point it should be acknowledged that for good or bad, they will need to launch with some level of polish and charm eventually. Because if they always try to achieve the perfect score, then they'll never actually reach the final level.
So anyways, that's my opinion. I'm not angry with their decision, and I certainly respect them for the hard work and dedication they give to the game. It's just... it's flustering when they want to delay work on completing items of interest such as the DNA Transfuser (which I've been waiting patiently to be implemented for months now) due to lack of time, but yet they decide to add more time to work on elements of the game that are already working. It's just my viewpoint, please don't take anything what I said to heart - I am not asking that they change their goals or timeline. It's just my personal opinion.
You are a bad person and you should feel bad.
Anyway, it's natural and okay to feel disappointed that we won't get this game when we thought we would. I think most of us feel that way, but ultimately support the devs' decision to take the time they need to get the game working well before releasing it.
So, we wait just a couple of months longer in the hopes that sales are higher and the DEVs are that much more likely to continue developing new content for the game.
Win-Win!
You've gotta ask yourself one question though
What would exactly change when the version number rolls over to v1.0, for us who already own the game. It's not like it magically changes the game to be bugfree, with stellar performance and with all the content your heart desires. In essence, if they push back the v1.0 release, this "v1.0 Gold" would actually be closer to that theoretical state of the game.
Also
I don't think the devs are postponing the release because they care about money. If they did, it would've been released several months ago and we would have already been presented to a ton of content in the form of expansions and DLC, eventually a SN2 would come up.
I believe they are postponing because they want the game to be as polished as possible, they want to make it as much an AAA game as a small studio can. And to show the community that they care about their product and their clients.
It's not about making money right now. It's about prestige and long term plans.
@Kouji_San
I haven't played in a while and what bugged me the most when I played it was the game performance. When v1.0 rolls out I intend to play again and even if this was the only improvement I would be satisfied.
Don't you people hate when you buy a "finished" game only to find out it looks like it's still on early beta? And months (years) later they roll up several patches to fix the shitstorm brought by the abysmal reviews?
I'm not disappointed by the change in the launch date, actually I'm a little amazed the devs are willing to push it a few more months.
Your post makes absolutely no sense. I quoted a post from @Kouji_San where he said first impressions are the most important. So, I'm saying they think they can maximize their profits by polishing the game so the 1.0 delivers a higher quality product in Jan 2018 than they could release in Oct 2017. Then, in my post, I say that if they get more sales because the 1.0 product is that much better then we are more likely to see future content for the game--presumably included unpaid and paid content. So, while we who have already bought the game are anxious for the new content, if we just wait a bit, we are more likely to get a TON more content.