rdude71 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I don't really know how version numbering or the development process works, but it seems a bit odd to me that KSP went from being in beta to a full release in only one version. I'm sure others have the same question, so if someone knowledgeable on the topics of version numbering and game development could explain this, I would be most grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klgraham1013 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The version numbering isn't that odd. It is odd to only be in beta for one version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuqq Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Well there are no universal rules saying how versions need to be numbered, or how long for releases.... But if I understand correctly, they are naming the next version 1.0 because they have met the initial criteria set out at original development (Beta was definitely short, but they obviously hammered out what they needed to. Perhaps since they were in Alpha for a fair while, Beta was in planning for awhile and therefor they don't need to spend months working on bugs and what not with beta).... Since all boxes have been ticked off, they can justify a "1.0" release. Why does it matter what they call the version? As long as the game works, and you have fun... Let them worry about official titles and version numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdude71 Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 My thoughts exactly. I see what you mean by saying the version numbering isn't odd. For example, Minecraft went from .10 Alpha to a version 1.0 Beta release, so the .25 to .90 jump is normal. But yes, I agree with you about the whole only being in beta for one release deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquemadus Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 KSP will remain in development until the 42.0 "You're not going to like it!" edition. Fortunately, there's a good restaurant there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegrade Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Version numbers have often been politically motivated, and are even more so today than ever before.The upcoming version is really 0.27. They can assign whatever tags they want to it, but the truth is it's not going to magically be a completely different program with all bugs swept away and feature completeness.Just ignore the stupid version number hype (from ANY company) and focus on the feature list. Which looks pretty yummy this time 'round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 .28 technically, .23.5 was a full release in all but name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegrade Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 .28 technically, .23.5 was a full release in all but name. Oh yeah, good point 0.23.5 was definitely every bit as worthy as most of the other full-numbered releases (and significantly more than some). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpast Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 No, 1.0. The difference between 0.26/0.27 and 0.90 is a marketing thing. But 1.0 vs 0.xxx is an actual distinction - 1.0 is the first full release, at which point it's no longer in initial development and is intended to be suitable for general use. It means it's no longer basically an in-development thing, it's a complete and finished product. One that might see updates, but they're building on a complete product, instead of taking it closer to a complete product. That's not something Squad invented or something marketers invented; it's been around since structured version numbers became a thing (the pre-1.0 releases didn't necessarily go public, so 1.0 was the first public version, but now we do have public development releases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parallax Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 you can charge more money for a "full" game than an "early access beta" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basic.syntax Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Some games in early access price themselves in reverse, and state up front that buyers are helping them develop their game. Then the price in release, is actually lower.I'm thinking of Planetary Annihilation, they were asking ~$100 at an early stage. And then there's Star Citizen... you don't have to buy $200 spaceships, because they will be available to earn through in-game effort once it's released, but they certainly make it possible to spend lots of money to help fund development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 KSP will remain in development until the 42.0 "You're not going to like it!" edition. Fortunately, there's a good restaurant there! You make it sound like it's the end of the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRender Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 You make it sound like it's the end of the world! No, that's next Thursday. Bloody hyperspace bypasses, always getting delayed... On-topic: version number is arbitrary at best anyway. The only reason the latest build went to 0.90 was because traditionally beta builds are numbered 0.9x (where x is also an arbitrary number). It's easier to believe that version 0.90 is the beta than 0.26 to the casual observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarfster Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 0.90 beta, 1.00 feature complete.Basically, the original ideas have been implemented.Anyway, software versioning can be as complex and as simple as the developer would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 There were quite a few versions numbered 1 to 25, with the traditional decimal stuck in front to indicate that they came before the symbollic 1.0. (There was also the ARM parts version, which didn't have a number, and has been nicknamed 0.23.5 to indicate its place in the series.) When they thought they were ready to indicate that most features were implemented, they skipped to 0.90 as gesture, again symbollic, that the game was nearing completion. Now they feel that the game has reached a state at which it can be designated 1.0, and so that's how they've numbered it. It's all arbitrary, it's all symbollic, and that's all there is to the story. And now, since the question has been answered and this threatens to turn into a repeat of discussions in other threads, let's move along, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts