@chicken little - AKA the OP: Look at Warcraft.. not World of... the old RTS games. Blizzard is still updating the games because of the fan base. Getting close to 20 years of support.
OMG...This game is moving out of beta... it's all over... the sky IS falling. nub.
I saw a video of OmniTechVids or whatever is called and they had an interview with Notch in the Q&A someone said will you keep updating Minecraft after its complete? Notch answered yes , there you have your answer.
Notch has already stated this. After 1.10 (or rather post-release, which could be 1.11 or 1.12 for all we know), Minecraft will be "Minecraft 1.0" but without the Beta tag.
Just because the normal decimal system has 1.10= 1.1, does not mean notches versioning system follows the same procedure. Clearly from what notch has said, 1.10= 1.9 + 1, not 1.1.
No... you both had a fail at version numbering. Dude, it doesn't work like that. Let's take what I'm playing: version 1.8.1 (for the moment, I'll update to 1.9 soon). It means GameVersion.MajorPatch/Update.MinorPatch/BugFix. So 1.10 is Minecraft Beta with ten major updates. 2.0 would be a whole new game, AKA Minecraft 2, it'll rollback to 1.0 when it's finished and released.
Anyway, after that I'm guessing will be 1.11. I don't think that Minecraft is going anywhere too soon. Even if Notch stops doing updates, the modders are doing an amazing job from what I've seen, so I'm sure we'll continue to get new stuff. I'm not too worried about it, the game will still be fun if it's not getting updating constantly.
I'm sure it has been said, but decimals don't work like that. 1.10 is just 1.1, and is in no way after 1.9. That aside, updates happen. That's what you get when you get a game that is alive and still being produced. Once this is past beta, I think that the game should have a way of updating without breaking everything. Otherwise, this frequent of updates would be very unacceptable. Right now, while they are annoying to a point, the updates are understandable.
He'll probably release DLCs.
People who bought the game during Alpha will apparently get them for free because back then the terms and conditions said that everyone who bought the game would get all updates for free. This has been changed as of beta, though.
But yeah, I don't think he'll stop developing Minecraft anytime soon, as many people are still buying it every day and most people are still having fun playing it.
Also, versioning != maths.
There is a big difference between "1.1" and "1.10". The dot between those two numbers is not a comma (Edit: Whoop, sorry. Here in Austria we use commas instead of dots at maths.)
It just separates the major and minor version number.
We've also had versions like 1.0.17 already.
That's assuming the agreement about Alpha members hasn't mysteriously vanished. Again.
Version numbers are not required to be decimal based.
What you see is a code Build Number, not a Release Version. They are not quite the same thing. A Release Version is most commonly the familiar Decimal number, and was used because there can be thousands of different compile versions between releases. And most people never care about what isn't released.
Google, (and other companies) have gotten to the point where they are cramming so many updates out on an almost daily basis, that there just isn't much of a point to using a different system for internal vs. external updates anymore. So they just use the build number AS the release version.
As for the Math Problem, Best Practice is: If you use the periods to act as separators, instead of decimal points, then you need to explicitly state ALL your digits each time. So for example you would go from 1.09 to 1.10, OR you could indicate it also as 1.9.0 and then 1.10.0
But going from 1.9 to 1.10 is ambiguous because you don't know if the programmer is using the period as a decimal or just to separate whole numbers. So it's wrong no matter how you're using it.
But since Notch is an Indie Dev, he doesn't have managers cracking the whip over minor little details like that. And as long as HE keeps it straight, it doesn't matter all that much, it just looks sloppy.
edit- I forgot to add: In the example you gave, traditionally they would have called that Build number "Version 14.1" or maybe even "14.01" but these days they just send way too many patches out to keep using that system, and in fact Chrome does not use Release Versions at all any more.
I don't think 1.10 (I hate how everywhere uses 1.1 as the first thing, then 1.2 etc until 1.10. The mathematician inside me always sees that as 1.1 D:) is going to be the full update. I think it'll be even more to the Adventure Update. Here's a link:
The mathematician inside of you needs to remember than version numbers and decimal values are not always interchangeable. Look at the current version number of Google Chrome for example. Blizzard and Apple also released a .10 after a .9.
I plan on developing Minecraft until it's a finished complete game, with a downloadable client (with fullscreen mode), custom key re mappings and possibly modding support.
For as long as people enjoy and purchase the game, I will develop extensions after the game is done.
Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source. I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL, nor do I believe the other licenses have much merit other than to boost the egos of the original authors, so I might just possibly release it all as public domain.
Notch has already stated this. After 1.10 (or rather post-release, which could be 1.11 or 1.12 for all we know), Minecraft will be "Minecraft 1.0" but without the Beta tag.
Epic fail for linking to a Wikipedia page instead of something which backs up your claims. Scroll down to the bottom of the Wiki page, follow the links, and post the actual source next time.
The topic of version numbering is not 100% agreed upon, despite what you might think by reading the Wiki.
Notch uses a more recent, and more ambiguous style of versioning because he's a Java coder. And Java has always just kind of gone off and done its own thing, often ignoring (or outright snubbing) Best Practices which are industry standard.
It's a matter of whether you're using the period as a decimal point or a separator between whole numbers. Java's standard method of using it does not make it clear- it's better to explicitly show that you're using it as a separator by using at least three sets of numbers; so for example use 1.9.0 not just 1.9
As for the Math Problem, Best Practice is: If you use the periods to act as separators, instead of decimal points, then you need to explicitly state ALL your digits each time. So for example you would go from 1.09 to 1.10, OR you could indicate it also as 1.9.0 and then 1.10.0
But going from 1.9 to 1.10 is ambiguous because you don't know if the programmer is using the period as a decimal or just to separate whole numbers. So it's wrong no matter how you're using it.
But since Notch is an Indie Dev, he doesn't have managers cracking the whip over minor little details like that. And as long as HE keeps it straight, it doesn't matter all that much, it just looks sloppy.
This.
It's about being able to quickly identify the format being used. If you see 1.8 then you'll assume (and it's safe to assume) that standard decimals are being used, so it makes sense to have a "wtf?" moment when you suddenly see 1.8.1, or when the number rolls over from 1.9 to 1.10.
Consistent use of 1.8.0, 1.8.1, 1.9.0, etc., makes it clear at any version what the versioning format is.
So people aren't wrong to be confused by this. Grade school teaches them that 2.0 comes after 1.9, after all. We should all be grateful they paid attention in class. This is all just a reaction to lazy version formatting on Mojang's part.
That's part of the reason I prefer build numbers. You could even turn around and use the version number from the coding repository. They only ever increment up and never deal in decimals. Nice and clear.
To be honest, the mod community is releasing much higher quality content than Mojang, so I wouldn't really mind if he after release added mod support and left it to the modders to keep the game fresh.
hey its true lots of games die out but im a diehard fan and probably most of you here are too.... ive been playing minecraft since beta 1.2 and i refuse to just ditch this game after the full version comes out minecraft is gonna be one of those games that probably wont die until the next decade because its fanbase is so freakin huge......
OMG...This game is moving out of beta... it's all over... the sky IS falling. nub.
No, he didn't. You had a versioning epic fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning
On topic:
Notch has already stated this. After 1.10 (or rather post-release, which could be 1.11 or 1.12 for all we know), Minecraft will be "Minecraft 1.0" but without the Beta tag.
May the force be without you.
Then Notch will probably be working on those expansions he mentioned like:
Capture the flag
Zombie siege
@haiyyu the terms now also say that we will get all updates for free
No... you both had a fail at version numbering. Dude, it doesn't work like that. Let's take what I'm playing: version 1.8.1 (for the moment, I'll update to 1.9 soon). It means GameVersion.MajorPatch/Update.MinorPatch/BugFix. So 1.10 is Minecraft Beta with ten major updates. 2.0 would be a whole new game, AKA Minecraft 2, it'll rollback to 1.0 when it's finished and released.
Anyway, after that I'm guessing will be 1.11. I don't think that Minecraft is going anywhere too soon. Even if Notch stops doing updates, the modders are doing an amazing job from what I've seen, so I'm sure we'll continue to get new stuff. I'm not too worried about it, the game will still be fun if it's not getting updating constantly.
That's assuming the agreement about Alpha members hasn't mysteriously vanished. Again.
And if it were a decimal point, that would be relevant.
As it stands, it's like someone saying a URL is a grammar failure because it has periods after incomplete sentences.
What you see is a code Build Number, not a Release Version. They are not quite the same thing. A Release Version is most commonly the familiar Decimal number, and was used because there can be thousands of different compile versions between releases. And most people never care about what isn't released.
Google, (and other companies) have gotten to the point where they are cramming so many updates out on an almost daily basis, that there just isn't much of a point to using a different system for internal vs. external updates anymore. So they just use the build number AS the release version.
As for the Math Problem, Best Practice is: If you use the periods to act as separators, instead of decimal points, then you need to explicitly state ALL your digits each time. So for example you would go from 1.09 to 1.10, OR you could indicate it also as 1.9.0 and then 1.10.0
But going from 1.9 to 1.10 is ambiguous because you don't know if the programmer is using the period as a decimal or just to separate whole numbers. So it's wrong no matter how you're using it.
But since Notch is an Indie Dev, he doesn't have managers cracking the whip over minor little details like that. And as long as HE keeps it straight, it doesn't matter all that much, it just looks sloppy.
edit- I forgot to add: In the example you gave, traditionally they would have called that Build number "Version 14.1" or maybe even "14.01" but these days they just send way too many patches out to keep using that system, and in fact Chrome does not use Release Versions at all any more.
The mathematician inside of you needs to remember than version numbers and decimal values are not always interchangeable. Look at the current version number of Google Chrome for example. Blizzard and Apple also released a .10 after a .9.
Software Versioning
Both methods are fully valid.
Be happy Notch isn't doing version numbers in base 13.
Garry's mod anyone ?
That, and Notch has said numerous times, recently even, that he's going to do more after the game is officially released.
Epic fail for linking to a Wikipedia page instead of something which backs up your claims. Scroll down to the bottom of the Wiki page, follow the links, and post the actual source next time.
The topic of version numbering is not 100% agreed upon, despite what you might think by reading the Wiki.
Notch uses a more recent, and more ambiguous style of versioning because he's a Java coder. And Java has always just kind of gone off and done its own thing, often ignoring (or outright snubbing) Best Practices which are industry standard.
It's a matter of whether you're using the period as a decimal point or a separator between whole numbers. Java's standard method of using it does not make it clear- it's better to explicitly show that you're using it as a separator by using at least three sets of numbers; so for example use 1.9.0 not just 1.9
Then 1.11, then 1.12...
416 stone
296 stone slab (150 blocks)
149 stone stairs (228 blocks)
794 total stone
1082 blackstone
174 blackstone slab (87 blocks)
52 blackstone stairs (78 blocks)
1247 total blackstone
(not counting drawbridges and portcullises)
This.
It's about being able to quickly identify the format being used. If you see 1.8 then you'll assume (and it's safe to assume) that standard decimals are being used, so it makes sense to have a "wtf?" moment when you suddenly see 1.8.1, or when the number rolls over from 1.9 to 1.10.
Consistent use of 1.8.0, 1.8.1, 1.9.0, etc., makes it clear at any version what the versioning format is.
So people aren't wrong to be confused by this. Grade school teaches them that 2.0 comes after 1.9, after all. We should all be grateful they paid attention in class. This is all just a reaction to lazy version formatting on Mojang's part.
That's part of the reason I prefer build numbers. You could even turn around and use the version number from the coding repository. They only ever increment up and never deal in decimals. Nice and clear.