The Evolution of 1.0 in the Industry

[Roland]

With so much interest in what ChatGPT has to say, I thought I’d take a stab at it. My prompt was, “Has there been a shift in the meaning of 1.0 in the software industry?”

The response:

Yes, there has been a noticeable shift in the meaning of “1.0” in the software industry over the years. Traditionally, version “1.0” signified the first stable release of a software product, marking it as feature-complete and ready for general use. However, this meaning has evolved due to several factors:

1. Agile Development and Continuous Deployment: With the adoption of agile methodologies and continuous deployment practices, the development cycle has become more iterative and incremental. Software is often released in smaller, more frequent updates, with new features and improvements rolled out continuously. This means that the initial “1.0” release might no longer be seen as the final, feature-complete product but rather as the first step in a continuous process of development and enhancement.
2. Beta and Pre-Release Versions: Many software products now have extensive beta testing phases, where early versions (often labeled 0.x) are released to gather user feedback and make iterative improvements. By the time a product reaches “1.0”, it may have already been used and tested by a significant number of users, blurring the line between beta and official releases.
3. Marketing and Perception: The “1.0” label can also be influenced by marketing strategies. Companies might delay the “1.0” release until they feel the product has enough features to compete in the market, even if it has been stable and usable for some time. Conversely, some startups might release a “1.0” version early to signal progress to investors and stakeholders.
4. Open Source and Community Development: In open-source projects, version “1.0” can often be reached through community-driven development, where the project evolves organically through contributions from various developers. The “1.0” release might represent a consensus within the community that the software is ready for broader adoption, even if it continues to be actively developed and improved.

Overall, the shift reflects a broader change in software development practices and the expectations of users and developers. The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.

————
In any industry undergoing a change in industry standards and procedures there will always be that phase where some doggedly adhere to the traditional definitions and resist the changes. But everyone else moves on and adjusts.

[JoeSloeMoe]

A couple of things for comment:
- The output fails to mention changes in delivery technology (internet) which is at the very root of the changes. Previously it simply wasn't feasible to perform remote incremental updates to installed games. There HAD to be a final release.
- Agile has been around since 2001. To put that in perspective Steam came out in 2003. I dont think it has had the impact that the output suggests. If it had we would have seen the change earlier.
- Point number 2 was always true, even moreso when the 1.0 is final.
- Does not mention platforms like Steam that define their Early Adoption framework that developers use. i.e. its not necessarily the developers that have defined or driven the changes but rather the environment that they operate in.
- Open source existed before the changes in a 1.0 final world, I mean linux is the grandparent of it all.

In conclusion I think the ChatGPT output is garbage. This seems to be more of a list of processes that benefit from the change rather that a list of what drove the change.

Thank you for posting this.
Cheers

[Trooper Bri]

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

In conclusion I think the ChatGPT output is garbage.

GIGO
Garbage in. Garbage out.
One of the older acronyms in programing. And more true today than it was back then. Can't imagine why Musk will kick Crapple to the curb if they adopt OpenAI.

[Roland]

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

This seems to be more of a list of processes that benefit from the change rather that a list of what drove the change.

Fine by me. My only intent is to show that the change is real. If your reasons are the actual reasons and Chatgpt's reasons are garbage, so be it. Either way, the shift has been happening. Those who intractably stand by a traditional definition of 1.0 are just going to continue to be disappointed and surprised again and again and again. This is because the old definition is becoming more and more outdated with every new release that is unfinished at 1.0 and then serviced post 1.0.

TFP is not a pioneer of "not finished at 1.0". Not by a long shot.

Its interesting that in another thread ChatGPT lists all the traditional requirements of 1.0 but then that same AI acknowledges that the requirements are in a state of flux.

Personally, I would love for games to be complete and fully tested at 1.0 like they used to be but I also am very realistic and don't see the industry ever going back to that. So I've adjusted my expectations. I own half a dozen games that left early access with 1.0 labels and that aren't finished yet. I'm used to it now.

I do think this statement is true:

The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.

[DerFinneAT]

The 1.0 goalpost discussion is a bit pathetic. I gave seen it on other games, and I always ask myself if the defendants either really are unable to see the point, or are malicoulsy nudging the framing of the discussion, to not deal with the arguments.

It so less about 1.0 and more about about declaring "not EA anymore".

As long as the store page of 7d2d at any given time reflects, what you get, when you click the "buy" button right now, and not what might get added down the road eventually, I am pretty cool with that.

However: if the actually quality in terms of performance and stability aren't held at a higher level from 1.0 on, I still have a bit of an issue.

As mentioned, The usualy auto-reply on these forums "Don't buy EA, if you want a finished game" doesn't apply frome here on.

Empyrion managed to not keep the expected level of quality after declaring "non EA".
That is not particularly popular with whatever few players are left.

Edit: And yes, I also agree, that ChatGPT is irrelevant as a source, if used the way, it was used in the thread.

[Mithrandir]

Gemini's launch was a masterpiece example of GIGO.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/sergey-brin-says-google-definitely-messed-up-with-gemini-launch-.html

Nothing human is perfect. Humans involved in this field aren't immune to biases, errors, conflicts, power struggles and all the financial pressures within this promising field.

Example : https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/17/openai-superalignment-sutskever-leike.html

I'm not optimistic when profit influences decisions. But I'm just an occasional observer of this new field and have no clue where it'll be in a few years from now. I remember some experts were promising millions of self driving cars on the roads by 2020... I don't hear them much lately...

In conclusion, for the time being, I don't give much credibility to supposedly serious texts from ChatGPT. At best, they're not better than Wikipedia, some food for thoughts that always need validation and caution. At the worst, they're just AI hallucinations.

On the main topic : Yes, I think V1.0 isn't what it was with early access, prototypes and other different ways of development combined with digital sales.

[Grat Dalton]

Version 1.0 release has the same meaning as millennial years ago. The game Developer(s) vision has been accomplished.
- OP suffers from Gen Z Technology Skill Gap

[UrbanNoodles]

With so much interest in what ChatGPT has to say, I thought I’d take a stab at it. My prompt was, “Has there been a shift in the meaning of 1.0 in the software industry?”

The response:

Has anyone ever even thought to have been as far as using to go look more like 1.0? It's fascinating how the industry has shifted, where 1.0 now seems like even more to be going to do. When agile methodologies came along, it was like deciding to use even go more look like doing:

1. Iterative Marmalade and Continuous Wobble: The adoption of continuous wibble-wobble practices means that software is like trying to go even more far to do as looking. So now, 1.0 is the first step in an endless loop of going to look even more like doing things.
2. Alpha Jelly and Pre-Sliced Versions: Beta testing phases are like when you decide to use even more to go like being. By the time 1.0 comes, it's like everyone has already gone far as doing to look more. This blurs the line between deciding to go and actually being more.
3. Marketing Quacks and Perceptual Pizzazz: Companies sometimes delay 1.0 until it has enough features to go more like doing. Or they might release it early just to show that they've gone far as wanting to look even more doing to investors.
4. Open Source Wiggles and Community Jigs: In the open-source world, 1.0 is like when everyone has decided to use even go more to look like doing. The community thinks it's ready for more to go look even doing, even if it still continues to be far as deciding to use.

Overall, the shift is like a journey where everyone goes far to decide and use even more look like doing. The 1.0 version is just a milestone in an endless path of going to look more as deciding to use even.

[Grat Dalton]

Originally posted by UrbanNoodles:

Snip

?

[UrbanNoodles]

Originally posted by Grat Dalton:

?

It's a post from ChatGPT. As some members of the community may want you to believe, ChatGPT is all knowing and anything it says is factual and final.

[JoeSloeMoe]

Originally posted by Roland:

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

This seems to be more of a list of processes that benefit from the change rather that a list of what drove the change.

Fine by me. My only intent is to show that the change is real. If your reasons are the actual reasons and Chatgpt's reasons are garbage, so be it. Either way, the shift has been happening. Those who intractably stand by a traditional definition of 1.0 are just going to continue to be disappointed and surprised again and again and again. This is because the old definition is becoming more and more outdated with every new release that is unfinished at 1.0 and then serviced post 1.0.

TFP is not a pioneer of "not finished at 1.0". Not by a long shot.

Its interesting that in another thread ChatGPT lists all the traditional requirements of 1.0 but then that same AI acknowledges that the requirements are in a state of flux.

Personally, I would love for games to be complete and fully tested at 1.0 like they used to be but I also am very realistic and don't see the industry ever going back to that. So I've adjusted my expectations. I own half a dozen games that left early access with 1.0 labels and that aren't finished yet. I'm used to it now.

I do think this statement is true:

The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.

Yeah, I dont disagree with you, my comments were more a critique of the output from ChatGPT rather than the subject matter itself. If this was something a uni student handed in it would struggle to pass muster. For example, it doesnt reference how the relationship and expectations between investors and developers has evolved over the years. I would have expected an output that at least referenced the major stakeholders in the delivery decision process.
cheers

[tosentier]

So in your humble opinon, what of these lead TFP to label A22 "1.0"? Anything? TFP was already releasing the game in the EA-programm, and is going to continue to release updates. What moved them to go "1.0" instead of just calling the next release the next number in Alpha?

Also, if you're using ChatGPT, try laying out the concrete situation that we are discussing. I don't think the answer you quote has much to do with that situation. Honestly - and I just said that in the other ChatGPT-related thread - the game could've been called "1.0" when it was Alpha 10.

What we'd need to discuss and get to the bottom of is why they decided to go "1.0" now, when they always telegraphed that the end of the road map would be the 1.0/gold/"the release. The controversy stems from the expectations that TFP themselves created. TFP themselves made clear what they consider 1.0. And what they consider 1.0 is a game that includes bandits and the story mode with the duke.

Edit: I just read this comment:

Originally posted by Wolfguarde:

Originally posted by Lv1 Magikarp:

What exactly in 1.0 is going to make it great? Not meaning that in a d-head way, just legit curious, as from going through the patch notes there doesn't exactly seem to be anything game changing. Just seems like a general update with console release being their largest focus.

However if the "post 1.0" content was included, even just some of it, that would mark a significant change from going from alpha to release.

Personally, I'll consider the game 1.0-ready once that post-"release" content is in and working. Bandits and NPCs are and have for years been the main thing the game really needs to be 1.0-ready.

One of many examples of what people expect to be 1.0.

[I$howMeat]

Originally posted by Roland:

With so much interest in what ChatGPT has to say, I thought I’d take a stab at it. My prompt was, “Has there been a shift in the meaning of 1.0 in the software industry?”

The response:

Yes, there has been a noticeable shift in the meaning of “1.0” in the software industry over the years. Traditionally, version “1.0” signified the first stable release of a software product, marking it as feature-complete and ready for general use. However, this meaning has evolved due to several factors:

1. Agile Development and Continuous Deployment: With the adoption of agile methodologies and continuous deployment practices, the development cycle has become more iterative and incremental. Software is often released in smaller, more frequent updates, with new features and improvements rolled out continuously. This means that the initial “1.0” release might no longer be seen as the final, feature-complete product but rather as the first step in a continuous process of development and enhancement.
2. Beta and Pre-Release Versions: Many software products now have extensive beta testing phases, where early versions (often labeled 0.x) are released to gather user feedback and make iterative improvements. By the time a product reaches “1.0”, it may have already been used and tested by a significant number of users, blurring the line between beta and official releases.
3. Marketing and Perception: The “1.0” label can also be influenced by marketing strategies. Companies might delay the “1.0” release until they feel the product has enough features to compete in the market, even if it has been stable and usable for some time. Conversely, some startups might release a “1.0” version early to signal progress to investors and stakeholders.
4. Open Source and Community Development: In open-source projects, version “1.0” can often be reached through community-driven development, where the project evolves organically through contributions from various developers. The “1.0” release might represent a consensus within the community that the software is ready for broader adoption, even if it continues to be actively developed and improved.

Overall, the shift reflects a broader change in software development practices and the expectations of users and developers. The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.

————
In any industry undergoing a change in industry standards and procedures there will always be that phase where some doggedly adhere to the traditional definitions and resist the changes. But everyone else moves on and adjusts.

The fact you replied to any thread claiming they used ChatGPT to ask anything about the release of 1.0, means you not only took the bait, but you literally rolled your tongue around it and chomped on it with all your might.

You lost the game, good sir.

[Mardoin69]

Originally posted by tosentier:

So in your humble opinon, what of these lead TFP to label A22 "1.0"? Anything?

I believe someone actually answered this in another thread regarding '1.0' and that the only reason for them to call it '1.0' is to avoid difficulties of releasing it for consoles. Apparently, releasing anything for consoles with a label of 'EA' status is quite problematic. Personally, I prefer the traditional meaning of '1.0' in the game industry and feel like TFP is asking for bad feedback by listing it as 1.0 and selling it (again) to console customers even though it does NOT yet have everything that was proposed in the roadmap for the game--bandits being the main one. However, the old version of the game originally released for consoles is quite dated by now and I'm sure a great many console users are happy about the new release. Idk.

[tosentier]

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

Yeah, I dont disagree with you, my comments were more a critique of the output from ChatGPT rather than the subject matter itself. If this was something a uni student handed in it would struggle to pass muster. For example, it doesnt reference how the relationship and expectations between investors and developers has evolved over the years. I would have expected an output that at least referenced the major stakeholders in the delivery decision process.
cheers

Myself, I don't know much about software development norms and whatnot, so when it comes to the question, what "1.0" means, I go by, well, what I think it means and what I see people generally thinking what it means, so

Alpha = in development, adding features
Beta = testing, optimisation, bug fixing
1.0 = release of the finished program

Of course I understand, that particularly in gaming, "1.0" used to mean the disk or cartridge that could not be changed anymore after release, while today, patches and DLC can alter, fix and expand a game. So, of course there is a change.

But since you say that what ChatGPT said was garbage, and we're also having a discussion about the quality of ChatGPT's answers, and I'm kinda advocating for ChatGPT's quality, I looked into your criticism, and criticised it:

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

A couple of things for comment:
- The output fails to mention changes in delivery technology (internet) which is at the very root of the changes. Previously it simply wasn't feasible to perform remote incremental updates to installed games. There HAD to be a final release.

What does ChatGPT mean with "continuous deployment practices"? Is that not refering to the internet?

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

- Agile has been around since 2001. To put that in perspective Steam came out in 2003. I dont think it has had the impact that the output suggests. If it had we would have seen the change earlier.

What does it matter since when "Agile" has been around? Roland did not set a time frame, and also did not specifically ask about game development. I looked (very) briefly at the Wikipedia page of Agile software development:

Customer satisfaction by early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
Welcome changing requirements, even in late development.
Deliver working software frequently (weeks rather than months).
Close, daily cooperation between business people and developers.
Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted.
Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-location).
Working software is the primary measure of progress.
Sustainable development, able to maintain a constant pace.
Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design.
Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.
Best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
Regularly, the team reflects on how to become more effective, and adjusts accordingly.

This does look like a shift from a "we develop a software and that's it"-approach. Looks like the product is delivered as soon as it's usable, then improved based on user feedback. Kinda like Steam's EA.

So in your opinion, this method is irrelevant to a shift of the meaning of 1.0? How & why?

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

- Point number 2 was always true, even moreso when the 1.0 is final.

I prompted ChatGPT with the following:

can you explanation the following in some detail:

quote of Roland's #2

Wasn't there always an extensive beta-test phase? What changed and when and how exactly was the meaning of 1.0 shifted by the change?

ChatGPT is refering to the "Late 1990s to Early 2000s: Rise of the Internet and Open Beta Programs". Excerpt:

ChatGPT:
Open Beta and Early Access Programs

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the rise of the internet and the increasing complexity of software led to changes in how beta testing was conducted. Companies began to leverage open beta programs, where anyone could participate in testing the software. This shift was particularly evident in the video game industry and web applications.

That's what "significant numbers" in the 2. point refers to. So, is it not that ChatGPT just did not elaborate the point enough, instead of being wrong?

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

- Does not mention platforms like Steam that define their Early Adoption framework that developers use. i.e. its not necessarily the developers that have defined or driven the changes but rather the environment that they operate in.

I prompted ChatGPT this:

Regarding the shift of the meaning of "1.0", what technologies have been particularly important?

And while it has not mentioned the technologies in the the response to Roland, it makes a six point list, that I will only quote the headlines of:

ChatGPT:
1. Internet and Web Technologies
2. Cloud Computing
3. Version Control Systems (e.g., Git)
4. DevOps Practices
5. Containerization (e.g., Docker)
6. Microservices Architecture
7. Feedback and Analytics Tools

Don't really know much about this, but again, Roland did not ask specifically about technologies, if you do, ChatGPT delivers what you are missing.

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

- Open source existed before the changes in a 1.0 final world, I mean linux is the grandparent of it all.

Not sure what you mean here, but again, I prompted ChatGPT with:

can you explain the relevancy of the following for the shift of the meaning of "1.0": here I quoted point 4 of Roland's copypaste

Again, lengthy reply from ChatGPT, I only quote the

ChatGPT:
Conclusion

Open source and community-driven development have significantly influenced the meaning of version "1.0" by emphasizing collaboration, transparency, and ongoing improvement. In this context, version 1.0 represents a milestone of stability and community consensus rather than a final, static product. This evolution reflects broader shifts towards more inclusive, adaptive, and user-centric approaches in software development, reshaping industry practices and perceptions along the way.

Also, once more it seems that ChatGPT simply thinks back further and does not consider games in particular, but software in general.

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe:

In conclusion I think the ChatGPT output is garbage. This seems to be more of a list of processes that benefit from the change rather that a list of what drove the change.

I don't see how. If anything, you're considering a much shorter time frame, are focused on game development, and miss some things that ChatGPT only mentioned, but did not elaborate.

But again: I don't know much about software development, and I'm certainly somewhat biased towards thinking that ChatGPT is just fantastic. But if you can show me how and why ChatGPT produced "garbage", ideally with sources, I'd be grateful.

Originally posted by Mardoin69:

Originally posted by tosentier:

So in your humble opinon, what of these lead TFP to label A22 "1.0"? Anything?

I believe someone actually answered this in another thread regarding '1.0' and that the only reason for them to call it '1.0' is to avoid difficulties of releasing it for consoles. Apparently, releasing anything for consoles with a label of 'EA' status is quite problematic. Personally, I prefer the traditional meaning of '1.0' in the game industry and feel like TFP is asking for bad feedback by listing it as 1.0 and selling it (again) to console customers even though it does NOT yet have everything that was proposed in the roadmap for the game--bandits being the main one. However, the old version of the game originally released for consoles is quite dated by now and I'm sure a great many console users are happy about the new release. Idk.

That might've very well been me, as that is my opinion. Roland is part of a movement that insists that TFP's "1.0" simply is what the industry calls 1.0 these days. So I would like to hear what he believes that "1.0" even means and why TFP would pick up that label, after 10 years in alpha and 18 more month of development ahead.