There's all kinds of problems with having two different released versions with the same version number.
For Betas, sure. Beta testers are generally familiar with having subnumbers to identify Beta versions, as Betas update more frequently than final release versions. But for final release versions, it's just odd.
Why could this be a problem? - Local version checking. "My game says I'm on 2.5. The website/forum says 2.5 is the most recent version. Hence I must be using the most recent version." - Multiplayer connections. "Are you on 2.5?" "Yes." and then not realizing there are different numbers. - Mods. A Mod may very well list "2.5 compatible", but then the 2nd 2.5 update changes something slightly that makes it no longer compatible to the 2nd 2.5. But a user thinks "2.5 compatible, I got 2.5, so this must work."
So I'd also like to advocate for pushing the numbers up to 2.6 across the board when the 2.5 patch cycle wraps up.
First of all, versioning isn't something you should spend time debating. It's a complex problem, and there is an industry standard handling it, which Beamdog is thankfully following (https://semver.org/).
Secondly, pushing all versions to 2.6 doesn't solve the problem. What happens when a critical bug is found (the situation right now with IWD:EE)? You release a hotfix, and after that you have 2.6.0 and 2.6.1 versions and you're back in square one.
The way to solve this problem is to keep your game updated and ensure patches are released to all platforms at the same time. Sadly, Beamdog releases their games on multiple release platforms, multiple platforms from mobile to desktop *and* the old Infinity Engine code doesn't make it easy to publish updates frequently. This makes it a really complex environment to handle.
A good example of solving the above is Paradox, whose games we had a lot of difficulties playing for over 10 years. Then they made the best decision to be Steam-only. Now they only need to worry about one release platform (Steam) and three platforms (Win, Mac, Linux), and Steam ensures everyone gets updated to the latest version.
For multiplayer version checks and mod requirements, you should always use the full (major, minor, and patch) version number, e.g. 2.5.16. People (myself included) often forget about the patch number, but it's actually quite important.
There's quite the difference between a hotfix and a proper upgrade that comes out months later that adds new functionality.
Sure, but you can't just assume a small change keeps the multiplayer compatible. It might work out if the bug is in the GUI, but if it affects gameplay, nobody knows what will break.
A good example of solving the above is Paradox, whose games we had a lot of difficulties playing for over 10 years. Then they made the best decision to be Steam-only. Now they only need to worry about one release platform (Steam) and three platforms (Win, Mac, Linux), and Steam ensures everyone gets updated to the latest version.
Which is actually bad for Infinity Engine games if you are running mods. Steam won't let you turn off auto-updates (or any of the other "features" of the Steam client that only serve to annoy players who just want to play the game).
Much better to have a client like Beamdog's that just does what it needs to, i.e., download the game when you buy it, update it when you want to update.
Sure, but you can't just assume a small change keeps the multiplayer compatible. It might work out if the bug is in the GUI, but if it affects gameplay, nobody knows what will break.
If the fix breaks multiplayer compatibility, you update the minor version otherwise, you only update the patch version. I expect games with the same major and minor version to be compatible.
Most of the time, users won't look at patch version. Even here, all topics are about 2.5 not 2.5.XXX.
Which is actually bad for Infinity Engine games if you are running mods. Steam won't let you turn off auto-updates (or any of the other "features" of the Steam client that only serve to annoy players who just want to play the game).
Much better to have a client like Beamdog's that just does what it needs to, i.e., download the game when you buy it, update it when you want to update.
All Steam users should make a copy of their Enhanced Edition install and mod / play with the copy so an update won't break everything.
Is there any way to disable the version checks on multiplayer? Earlier this year when the beta first dropped, the stars aligned and Android/Mac/PC versions sync'd up. Steam has since updated the copy on my Mac to 2.5.15.1 and now I have no way of playing my multiplayer game with someone who is on Android and stuck on 2.5.10.0. It appears that 2.5.10.0 is an Android only version, and so doesn't seem like downgrading is a possibility.
Can someone explain me "Shoal the Nereid should not kill Player1 (34275)"?
What does it mean? That the quest was changed?
Well, if you're playing solo, that part of the map is locked off to you, as Nereid will promplty kill you in dialogue with no way to prevent it. This change was likely to give solo players a way to clear the quest.
Seriously Beamdog, when will you guys solve this ridiculous BGEE x SoD incompatibility situation?
When 2.5 is released, apparently. If you use a beta version, you expect bugs.
A misplaced SpawnPoint is a bug. A misbehave of a spell is a bug. A wrong string or resource reference is a bug. Pontual things are bugs.
The lack of compatibility between a game and its expansion, being both from the same company, is way beyond a bug. It's bad strategy, to be polite.
And if you don't join the beta you should expect bugs as well. The idea of a patch is basically bug fixing AFAIK. What you don't expected is having to chose between fully enjoying a game you paid for and dealing with bugs you know are already fixed.
Seriously Beamdog, when will you guys solve this ridiculous BGEE x SoD incompatibility situation?
When 2.5 is released, apparently. If you use a beta version, you expect bugs.
A misplaced SpawnPoint is a bug. A misbehave of a spell is a bug. A wrong string or resource reference is a bug. Pontual things are bugs.
The lack of compatibility between a game and its expansion, being both from the same company, is way beyond a bug. It's bad strategy, to be polite.
And if you don't join the beta you should expect bugs as well. The idea of a patch is basically bug fixing AFAIK. What you don't expected is having to chose between fully enjoying a game you paid for and dealing with bugs you know are already fixed.
The official BGEE +SoD patch release ARE compatible with each other. Its the BETA patch that has the issue. Which is to be expected when using beta patches.
Do you guys really believe that a beta may have the prerogative of breaking compatibility between a game and its expansion?
That would be a low standard even for Bethesda.
Do you realize that the whole point of a beta is to trial the new patch to find possible broken things and bugs? The whole point is to resolve the broken things that show up in beta, so that the official release doesn't have the same problems.
The developers can run their beta programs however they think serves them best. Users may not like it, but there is no "right" to beta software that Beamdog is violating. If they want to run a closed beta for SoD - that is their prerogative. Heck, if they wanted to make the beta Windows-only, again, that would be their prerogative. Currently, the beta is only for BGEE (and only users who purchased through the Beamdog client or Steam). If you want to play SoD, you'll have to play v2.3 for now.
I actually think it's far worse that Beamdog hasn't updated the Mac App Store versions to the latest stable versions in over 2 years.
EDIT: And, I can't really play the betas at all (or IWD 2.5 release version), due to the trackpad issues I reported 7 months ago; https://support.baldursgate.com/issues/36932. I launch the beta and deal with the trackpad for testing BG1UB and BG1NPC, but that's about it.
Do you guys really believe that a beta may have the prerogative of breaking compatibility between a game and its expansion?
That would be a low standard even for Bethesda.
Do you realize that the whole point of a beta is to trial the new patch to find possible broken things and bugs? The whole point is to resolve the broken things that show up in beta, so that the official release doesn't have the same problems.
Yes. But when you identify something like "Oops, it can be used with one of our products" it is expected that you release a small patch ASAP to fix it. Pretty much like Beamdog does with NWNEE.
The developers can run their beta programs however they think serves them best. Users may not like it, but there is no "right" to beta software that Beamdog is violating. If they want to run a closed beta for SoD - that is their prerogative. Heck, if they wanted to make the beta Windows-only, again, that would be their prerogative (As a Mac user, I'm glad they didn't). Currently, the beta is only for BGEE (and only users who purchased through the Beamdog client or Steam). If you want to play SoD, you'll have to play v2.3 for now.
I actually think it's far worse that Beamdog hasn't updated the Mac App Store versions to the latest stable versions in over 2 years.
Yes, they can do whatever pleases them. They can come over here and say that it won't be patched anymore. The problem is not what they can, but what they should do.
The problem doesn't lie with the unstable nature of beta releases, but with the complete mess SoD's release has ended up as.
First conceived as a standalone game, then forced into being an expansion, SoD is either one or the other, depending on the platform. On Steam and GoG, it's DLC, while on the Beamdog client it's a complete separate install from the base game that still includes the base campaign.
So when it comes to the beta patch, Beamdog went the way of their own platform, testing it on the base game sans SoD to patch the expansion later, requiring players from different platforms to disable the expansion if they want to test 2.5.
This could either mean that when 2.5 rolls out the game will be temporarily incompatible with the expansion, or that SoD will be patched along with the base game. Communication from the devs seems to indicate it's going to be the latter.
Either way, it's not just SoD's release: I find the whole process leading to the 2.5 patch to be an absolute mess.
Yes. But when you identify something like "Oops, it can be used with one of our products" it is expected that you release a small patch ASAP to fix it. Pretty much like Beamdog does with NWNEE.
Sadly, with how SoD is packaged (standalone or expansion depending on the platform), I don't think patching the beta to make it work with SoD is a small fix.
Either way, it's not just SoD's release: I find the whole process leading to the 2.5 patch to be an absolute mess.
Yes the 2.5 patch was a complete disaster. First it was 2.4, then it get delayed when 2.4 switch to iOS only, then it get delayed again (the beta was supposed to end in January). And now we are still waiting for the BGEE/SoD update. I think the original plan was to release all updates nearly at the same time. I guess we can say that it's a failure.
And the worst is that the update is far from perfect. There are still some broken UI things and even UI regressions (which is pretty bad because it was not the focus of the patch but they still managed to break things related to it...).
I really hope that they do another round of updates to fix the UI for good (UI modding is good but there are a lot of things that we can't fix). And this time, I hope that they learn from their mistakes and make small updates so that we don't have to wait years before seeing anything new and then wait for months after the end of the beta.
I've always been of the opinion that SoD should be standalone on every platform, for simplicity's sake. The benefits of having it integrated into BG:EE do not outweigh the complications, IMO.
Plus if it were standalone, you could retain the unique UI styles for both BG:EE and SoD, which is something I've always wanted to see.
I've always been of the opinion that SoD should be standalone on every platform, for simplicity's sake. The benefits of having it integrated into BG:EE do not outweigh the complications, IMO.
Yes, the way the expansion is structured, there was very little reason to integrate it with the original game since SoD is a "one-way trip" -- you can't go back to the original area maps, and it doesn't introduce any new features which integrate back into the main game. But since it's now "joined at the hip" with the original game, any patch for BG1:EE will also have to include regression testing for all the SoD content, and vice versa.
I think Beamdog would have been better served in designing a very short and concise bridge between Baldur's Gate and Shadows of Amn, and then building Siege of Dragonspear as a separate standalone game (with a different protagonist and taking place in parallel to the final chapters of Baldur's Gate... but that's a topic for a different discussion ).
Comments
For Betas, sure. Beta testers are generally familiar with having subnumbers to identify Beta versions, as Betas update more frequently than final release versions. But for final release versions, it's just odd.
Why could this be a problem?
- Local version checking. "My game says I'm on 2.5. The website/forum says 2.5 is the most recent version. Hence I must be using the most recent version."
- Multiplayer connections. "Are you on 2.5?" "Yes." and then not realizing there are different numbers.
- Mods. A Mod may very well list "2.5 compatible", but then the 2nd 2.5 update changes something slightly that makes it no longer compatible to the 2nd 2.5. But a user thinks "2.5 compatible, I got 2.5, so this must work."
So I'd also like to advocate for pushing the numbers up to 2.6 across the board when the 2.5 patch cycle wraps up.
First of all, versioning isn't something you should spend time debating. It's a complex problem, and there is an industry standard handling it, which Beamdog is thankfully following (https://semver.org/).
Secondly, pushing all versions to 2.6 doesn't solve the problem. What happens when a critical bug is found (the situation right now with IWD:EE)? You release a hotfix, and after that you have 2.6.0 and 2.6.1 versions and you're back in square one.
The way to solve this problem is to keep your game updated and ensure patches are released to all platforms at the same time. Sadly, Beamdog releases their games on multiple release platforms, multiple platforms from mobile to desktop *and* the old Infinity Engine code doesn't make it easy to publish updates frequently. This makes it a really complex environment to handle.
A good example of solving the above is Paradox, whose games we had a lot of difficulties playing for over 10 years. Then they made the best decision to be Steam-only. Now they only need to worry about one release platform (Steam) and three platforms (Win, Mac, Linux), and Steam ensures everyone gets updated to the latest version.
Much better to have a client like Beamdog's that just does what it needs to, i.e., download the game when you buy it, update it when you want to update.
Most of the time, users won't look at patch version. Even here, all topics are about 2.5 not 2.5.XXX. All Steam users should make a copy of their Enhanced Edition install and mod / play with the copy so an update won't break everything.
@JuliusBorisov hi this needs to be updated thnxxxxx
What does it mean? That the quest was changed?
The lack of compatibility between a game and its expansion, being both from the same company, is way beyond a bug. It's bad strategy, to be polite.
And if you don't join the beta you should expect bugs as well. The idea of a patch is basically bug fixing AFAIK. What you don't expected is having to chose between fully enjoying a game you paid for and dealing with bugs you know are already fixed.
That would be a low standard even for Bethesda.
I actually think it's far worse that Beamdog hasn't updated the Mac App Store versions to the latest stable versions in over 2 years.
EDIT: And, I can't really play the betas at all (or IWD 2.5 release version), due to the trackpad issues I reported 7 months ago; https://support.baldursgate.com/issues/36932. I launch the beta and deal with the trackpad for testing BG1UB and BG1NPC, but that's about it.
First conceived as a standalone game, then forced into being an expansion, SoD is either one or the other, depending on the platform. On Steam and GoG, it's DLC, while on the Beamdog client it's a complete separate install from the base game that still includes the base campaign.
So when it comes to the beta patch, Beamdog went the way of their own platform, testing it on the base game sans SoD to patch the expansion later, requiring players from different platforms to disable the expansion if they want to test 2.5.
This could either mean that when 2.5 rolls out the game will be temporarily incompatible with the expansion, or that SoD will be patched along with the base game. Communication from the devs seems to indicate it's going to be the latter.
Either way, it's not just SoD's release: I find the whole process leading to the 2.5 patch to be an absolute mess.
And the worst is that the update is far from perfect. There are still some broken UI things and even UI regressions (which is pretty bad because it was not the focus of the patch but they still managed to break things related to it...).
I really hope that they do another round of updates to fix the UI for good (UI modding is good but there are a lot of things that we can't fix). And this time, I hope that they learn from their mistakes and make small updates so that we don't have to wait years before seeing anything new and then wait for months after the end of the beta.
Plus if it were standalone, you could retain the unique UI styles for both BG:EE and SoD, which is something I've always wanted to see.
I think Beamdog would have been better served in designing a very short and concise bridge between Baldur's Gate and Shadows of Amn, and then building Siege of Dragonspear as a separate standalone game (with a different protagonist and taking place in parallel to the final chapters of Baldur's Gate... but that's a topic for a different discussion