Factorio Forums

bourne327 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:25 am

I know this seems like a silly little thing, but when you guys release version, you should start with version .01 or .001. If you start with 0.17.1 and move to 0.17.9. your next release of 0.17.10 will suddenly jump up and throw all the previous releases out of order. I noticed this because it is how Steam categorizes its releases.

I'd second this. I know it might break some things short term, but it's much more convient to have zero padded numbers.

bourne327 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:25 am

I know this seems like a silly little thing, but when you guys release version, you should start with version .01 or .001. If you start with 0.17.1 and move to 0.17.9. your next release of 0.17.10 will suddenly jump up and throw all the previous releases out of order. I noticed this because it is how Steam categorizes its releases.

If that's the case, you're better off asking Steam to fix it on their end by implementing natural sorting so EVERYONE who uses Steam, Dev and players, benefits. I know my file manager (Total Commander) can handle it and I'm pretty sure modern Windows (and other OSes?) can handle it too. I don't see why Steam can't bother with it.

Its comman that version 0.17.9 its higher number that 0.17.11

0.17.11 seems for most people as little fix (step up) from version 0.17.1

Bourne have good point with numering.

From 0.18 consider using different method because its confusing for most people.

sathill wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:07 am

Its comman that version 0.17.9 its higher number that 0.17.11

No, it's not common. Nobody that I know, from hobbyists to the company I work for, would ever think that.

I understand and would be perfectly happy with padded version numbers. 0.17.01 makes sense and it's obvious to everybody that 0.17.10 is greater than 0.17.09. I also understand the drive behind it... even if it is perhaps of minimal value to only a small number of factorio players who have effectively archived the game. The "0.91 comes after 0.9" convention is foolish IMO. It offers minimal advantage and has a number of drawbacks.

Semantic versioning isn't an objective system, it's still subjective, but it gives you a good baseline methodology to start from. Even if you entirely ignore that specifics of when you change major, minor, and patch versions... the numbering system is basically industry standard with little value in change.

Then again, I'm a dude on the forum for a video game trying to make a case for why different version numbering system are valid or invalid. What am I doing with my life? :p

Wait, when did this become a serious discussion?

I'd wouldn't be against zero-padded releases, although assuming it's only padded to x.y.01, it implies that there will be between 10 and 99 releases (which, while based on empirical evidence will hold true for the foreseeable future, is just a minor nitpick). Personally it looks a bit tidier if it's not zero-padded, though.

Semantic versioning exists for SOME reasons. But not for user experience.
Nothing more needs to be said but: Inform yourself why such standards exists and why this is a bad idea.

What can be talked about and which makes eventually sense is a second versioning system, besides the lead. For example:

0.16.1 <=> 1601
0.16.56 <=> 1656
0.17.1 <=> 1701
0.17.9 <=> 1709

Just the most simplest example I can think about.

Do you really believe that we will not see 0.17.100?))

leadraven wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:35 am

Do you really believe that we will not see 0.17.100?))

Don't you mean 0.17.999999999991?!</sarcasm>

I don't see any problems with current public version string. Frankly, devs could mark new versions by increasing amounts of zeroes in version string and I would be still ok with it.

But, i do hope that developers will start numbering moding API versions separately. While vast majority of mods depends on both content and API the changes in last usually much worse to detect and deal with, so separate version stream for modding API can solve a lot of ambiguity around mod compatibility with future Factorio versions.

I've settled on 017.xx.yy for my mods. (Hopefully the leading 0 won't pose any issue...)

StahnAileron wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:28 am

If that's the case, you're better off asking Steam to fix it on their end by implementing natural sorting so EVERYONE who uses Steam, Dev and players, benefits. I know my file manager (Total Commander) can handle it and I'm pretty sure modern Windows (and other OSes?) can handle it too. I don't see why Steam can't bother with it.

I was aware of any file manager that could handle it, or even why it should, considering that we're getting into semantic meaning territory here (and a way more tricky one than capitalization ordering) - NN.NN.NN, and especially NN.NN in filename has no guarantees of being a version number !

The only problem I have with current version format is a leading 0 . Public version can't be 0.* . I hate this "eternal alpha" thing. Game was done and released once it was published in Steam. It's absolutely ok to develop released game. Future 1.0 must be 2.0 actually. What kind of insanity with this "it's aaaaaaalpha", "early a-a-access". That's just stupid.

No, it's not, it allows for willing guinea pigs like us to help to make a much better game than would otherwise be possible ?
(I guess that part of the issue is that standards for 1.0 games are much higher these days?)

Heck, without the crowdfunders, that took an even bigger risk, Factorio would have never been released in the first place !

EA, crowdfunding, and in general releasing stuff as Alpha comes with goods and bads. Factorio is a great example of the good that can come from it. But I can point to more than one project that I've crowd funded that never made it. I'm also not mad about those projects. Sad maybe, but they appear to have put forth honest effort and I still continue to occasionally fund stuff.

Factorio, even in it's 0.17 version is not a finished product, though once it's debugged 0.17 could probably pass as a finished product. The level of polish we're seeing is getting really impressive. In the end, it's a developer's choice when denote a product as meeting their '1.0' standard. There's no good reason to force a developer to slap a '1.x' label on something just because it's available to the general public. It's actually beneficial to keep the 0.x label, as most people recognize this as meaning 'incomplete product'.

This is how many games do it, including minecraft for example. How should they do the version numbers istead?

I'm also reminded of an ambitious game that crashed and burned badly... I'll always wonder if that would still have happened if Early Access was something available at the time !

Darinth wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:45 pm

Factorio, even in it's 0.17 version is not a finished product

And what is a "finished product"? Do you think 1.0 will be the last version? Look at Stellaris - game was totally reworked multiple times during several years !after! release. Each time it was a new major version. And it's totally normal. Nothing ever is finished. This "not done yet" paranoia is dangerous.

leadraven wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:17 am

Darinth wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:45 pm

Factorio, even in it's 0.17 version is not a finished product

And what is a "finished product"? Do you think 1.0 will be the last version? Look at Stellaris - game was totally reworked multiple times during several years !after! release. Each time it was a new major version. And it's totally normal. Nothing ever is finished. This "not done yet" paranoia is dangerous.

"Not done yet" paranoia *can be* dangerous, but refusing to allow devs to indicate that they don't believe their product is up to their release standards is depriving them of a valuable tool. It's a tool, nothing more nothing less. Like most tools, it can be abused and misused. But developers have the option to make the call on when they believe a game is ready to be made 1.0. A good general bunchmark is 'If we did no further modifications to this game, we believe we'd be happy with the product we put out.' but each company will honestly have their own benchmark and mine isn't a good universal fit.

There are games that have been released that I don't think should have been, even some that I've enjoyed playing. A game that I played recently and really enjoyed, subnautica, I don't think was ready for release when it was pushed into it's 1.0 version. It's obvious playing through the game that the first half has a tremendous amount of polish and there were all sorts of things that they hinted at... that just never came to fruition or were massively underutilized to the point where it feels obvious to me that they intended more of them... but it got pushed out the door and the developers put the 1.0 label on it and left it mostly as-was. Even so, I'll encourage people to buy it... but there's still that mild frustration that there were all these cool things that it's very obvious they wanted to originally do that... just never happened.