is there any real timeframe when this game gonna hit version 1.0?

[KORUZHU]

me and my boys was day 1 player, and waiting any major update to have an exuse to play this game again, but all this years there is no real major update (from our stand point). and then couple moth ago one of my boys passes away, who is the really one waiting this game hit full release. any idea when this game gonna hit full release? or based on all this update any prediction? i just afraid........

[Suzaku]

1.0? No idea.

Ashlands released onto the beta branch literally 45 minutes ago, though.

[leonieyates]

Sorry to hear about your boy you have my deepest sympathies. So next big update is a few weeks away but is on public testing atm. Hope you do play it as it was something you both enjoyed together + it may bring back happy memories. From my experience the grief from loss never goes but it gets more manageable over time . Best wishes to you for the future though it may look bleak atm

[JP_Russell]

No, but from mistlands release to when ashlands will probably release will have been about 1.5 years. I would guess the deep north will take at least that long, so I'm personally expecting another 1.5-2 years for v1.0.

[Fractured]

I think they said this is the second to last update? Or there are two more? Check the timeline between Mistlands and Ashlands, and do the math.

[Air Bear]

"but all this years there is no real major update (from our stand point)"
Then adjust your viewpoint. They added whole huge new biomes and mechanics and everything in that time. You could have played the game several times over and had a lot of fun playing in that period, but you chose not to. It sounds like your definition of 'major update' is just full release and DLCs. That's a subjective opinion of yours. I disagree with it.

Just wait another year and a half or so for the next biome release to drop. Then they'll decide whether they are updating the ocean or not. If they do, might be another year and a half before 1.0, or they might push for 1.0 and release ocean after that. They havent indicated anything otherwise that I've heard.

You've waited this long, just keep waiting. Or do yourself a favor, stop waiting, play the game, and have some fun. The choice is yours. Keep complaining and being upset, or let it go and just vibe while killing dudes and cutting down trees.

[Razumen]

Originally posted by Air Bear:

"but all this years there is no real major update (from our stand point)"
Then adjust your viewpoint. They added whole huge new biomes and mechanics and everything in that time. You could have played the game several times over and had a lot of fun playing in that period, but you chose not to. It sounds like your definition of 'major update' is just full release and DLCs. That's a subjective opinion of yours. I disagree with it.

Just wait another year and a half or so for the next biome release to drop. Then they'll decide whether they are updating the ocean or not. If they do, might be another year and a half before 1.0, or they might push for 1.0 and release ocean after that. They havent indicated anything otherwise that I've heard.

You've waited this long, just keep waiting. Or do yourself a favor, stop waiting, play the game, and have some fun. The choice is yours. Keep complaining and being upset, or let it go and just vibe while killing dudes and cutting down trees.

EA games are a joke at this point, it shouldn't take 5 years from coming out on Early Access for your game to actually be complete.

[Suzaku]

Originally posted by Razumen:

EA games are a joke at this point, it shouldn't take 5 years from coming out on Early Access for your game to actually be complete.

Says who? Skull and Bones took 11 years to be developed. Starfield took 8 years. Baldur's Gate 3 took 9 years. Red Dead Redemption 2 took 8 years.

Game development takes time. Some longer than others, some of better quality than others, some with bigger teams or smaller.

The only constant is the whining that it's never quick enough. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: If you're not mature enough to wait for it to be finished, then stop buying early access games.

[jonnin]

I would estimate at least 2 years out from now. There is still the deep north to do, and possibly some conclusion final final boss thing to do (I am guessing!), and probably (guessing again) a polish pass over QOL & general tweaks, cleanup, and fun stuff (all those new hairstyles and beards take time too). This is an educated guess, nothing more, though.

[TheGreatPugtato]

Give it 5 years and maybe it will be. Sucks because while enjoyed it it was just so slow in the content development all of my friends dropped the game. Modders did what the studio couldn't in years. Which is just depressing.

[Razumen]

Originally posted by Suzaku:

Originally posted by Razumen:

EA games are a joke at this point, it shouldn't take 5 years from coming out on Early Access for your game to actually be complete.

Says who? Skull and Bones took 11 years to be developed. Starfield took 8 years. Baldur's Gate 3 took 9 years. Red Dead Redemption 2 took 8 years.

Game development takes time. Some longer than others, some of better quality than others, some with bigger teams or smaller.

The only constant is the whining that it's never quick enough. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: If you're not mature enough to wait for it to be finished, then stop buying early access games.

That's development from start to finish, NOT from Early Access. Valheim was in development long before it was released on Steam.

As for your examples, S&B was bad. Starfield was bad. BG3 and RDR2 are the only good ones on that list, and those are AAA games, not at all comparable to a more simple game like Valheim.

But it's funny to see people defend a game staying in EA for half a decade, when that is NOT the point of EA.

[Suzaku]

Right, developed from start to finish. The only difference is we get early access. A game that took 8 years to develop could instead have been split to 4 years internal development, 4 years early access. Baldur's Gate was 6 years internal, 3 years early access. So when you say a game shouldn't take X years to get out of early access, I say "Says who?". Any game can spend any amount of years being developed internally, and then any additional amount of years in early access. At this point, Valheim has been in internal development since 2017, and early access since 2021. With the average estimates I've seen the community giving of around another 2 years until a "1.0" release, that would put total development time at 9 years. Right around the average for other game development times.

And as for the point of early access, it's literally to allow people to play the product early to provide feedback and bug reports to aid in continued development of the game, which is... exactly what is happening. And I might remind that there is no defined end date, meaning the process could take months, years, or even a decade.

So I'll state again:

Originally posted by Suzaku:

The only constant is the whining that it's never quick enough. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: If you're not mature enough to wait for it to be finished, then stop buying early access games.

[Razumen]

Originally posted by Suzaku:

Right around the average for other game development times.

That is not at all around the average for similar games. Valheim is not at all in the same league as RDR2 or BG3, and the fact you're lumping it in with them to defend a ridiculously slow development time just reeks of illogical copium, which is only further cemented by your immature personal attacks.

[Suzaku]

Big games with big teams. Small games with small teams. Similar development times.
Seems logical to me.

And my "personal attacks" weren't personal at all. But you took it personally. Maybe you should stop buying early access games.

[Darkrya]

While I do think developers should go at their own pace, for their own vision, there should definitely be a 2 year limit allowed for Early Access releases. EA should be to support games that wouldn't otherwise make it without the help of an "early access", having those game perpetually in development gives these developers too much power, and may take the attention away from other upcoming games. I'd say after two years if your game isn't released it should be removed from the Early Access section, and listed under its appropriate genre.

[katsuragi]

Originally posted by Razumen:

Originally posted by Air Bear:

"but all this years there is no real major update (from our stand point)"
Then adjust your viewpoint. They added whole huge new biomes and mechanics and everything in that time. You could have played the game several times over and had a lot of fun playing in that period, but you chose not to. It sounds like your definition of 'major update' is just full release and DLCs. That's a subjective opinion of yours. I disagree with it.

Just wait another year and a half or so for the next biome release to drop. Then they'll decide whether they are updating the ocean or not. If they do, might be another year and a half before 1.0, or they might push for 1.0 and release ocean after that. They havent indicated anything otherwise that I've heard.

You've waited this long, just keep waiting. Or do yourself a favor, stop waiting, play the game, and have some fun. The choice is yours. Keep complaining and being upset, or let it go and just vibe while killing dudes and cutting down trees.

EA games are a joke at this point, it shouldn't take 5 years from coming out on Early Access for your game to actually be complete.

says who? how many games have you made?

Originally posted by Razumen:

Originally posted by Suzaku:

Says who? Skull and Bones took 11 years to be developed. Starfield took 8 years. Baldur's Gate 3 took 9 years. Red Dead Redemption 2 took 8 years.

Game development takes time. Some longer than others, some of better quality than others, some with bigger teams or smaller.

The only constant is the whining that it's never quick enough. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: If you're not mature enough to wait for it to be finished, then stop buying early access games.

That's development from start to finish, NOT from Early Access. Valheim was in development long before it was released on Steam.

As for your examples, S&B was bad. Starfield was bad. BG3 and RDR2 are the only good ones on that list, and those are AAA games, not at all comparable to a more simple game like Valheim.

But it's funny to see people defend a game staying in EA for half a decade, when that is NOT the point of EA.

This is a perfect example of how an opinion can be wrong.