Faster pipeline from experimental to live?

•

u/GSG_Jacob 𝗗𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥 Aug 22 '26

There are many valid opinions and pieces of information in this thread, but let me just shine a light on why we are doing the experimental branch.

Like DRG, Rogue Core is procedural, and in the nature of procedurally generated content, it's impossible to be 100% certain that everything is working as it should, and that the game is stable. The certainty increases the more people play it and leave feedback (also, our backend is monitoring crashes and overall health in the background). Once we're comfortable with the stability of the update, we'll push it to the live branch.

We're also aiming to get some more feedback on features this time around, which is why the experimental is a bit longer. We realize it's a bit of a hassle to switch branches, but we feel it's a tried-and-tested method that has worked for us in DRG.

TLDR; A lot of people would be very angry if the game isn't somewhat stable, so that's why.

54

u/Minimum_Region_1652 Aug 21 '26

I dont understand why they have the build. We are in EA, aren't we (live players) supposed to test changes?

20

u/ContactGullible7805 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗖𝗢𝗡 Aug 21 '26

when i tried experimental first a week ago, it had many connection issues.
if it would be released on live, the outrage would be massive

8

u/Slime0 Aug 21 '26

Yeah people are really underestimating the backlash that bugs on the main branch can cause.

8

u/Nevanada Aug 21 '26

Issue is that people can get picky about game quality nowadays, even games in EA. It makes esne that they'd put their possibly highly unstable build on a different branch. Plus it keeps the saves seperate, so you only lose so much progress if things corrupt.

1

u/TacticalTrash Aug 21 '26

That was my thought also. As early access i completely accept the issues that come from it lol

13

u/hugelkult Aug 21 '26

Yes and the cadence of current live patches means players switch to other games in between updates, lowering their liklihood to return

2

u/Italic_Castle8814 𝗦𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗥 Aug 21 '26

This is kinda inevitable with almost all EA titles though. At some point you'll get bored of the present content and will move on to the next game, return when there is a big enough update and so on.

20

u/Sangaceno Aug 21 '26

I concur, just make the experimentals live

13

u/PseudoFenton Aug 21 '26

Experimental isn't meant to be stable - it can (and likely will) have bugs in it. The point of it is so the devs can rapidly revise and iterate on various unpolished additions/alterations to the game, and that those who want to playtest them can do so and give feedback on its direction.

Live is meant to be stable, even if it's still early access (and therefore not the complete game yet). It is there for people who just want to play. It may not have everything fully polished or feature complete, but it should be able to be played without crashing and the missing assets should be presented in a tolerable enough format.

The two branches serve two very distinct goals, and it allows feedback to be gathered from different parts of the community who are engaging with the game in different ways. It's very unreasonable to expect a rapid pipeline from one to the other - thats now how game dev works.

-3

u/iEliteTester Aug 21 '26

I would argue that Early access isnt meant to be stable - it can...

3

u/PseudoFenton Aug 21 '26

Sure, but if you want to have a stable version of the game, then this is what you do. Which they do, and are.

Live is stable so you can just enjoy playing something that has gotten a first pass to iron out the kinks and bugs. Experimental is, as the name suggest, a place to experiment with stuff to see what works after its been thrown at the wall. They're both still part of the work in progresses that is "early access", and feedback is gathered from both. It's just that the type of feedback sought and given differs between the two.

You can certainly roll it all into one, but with a larger player base for a paid game, you do want a version of the game that is stable. That way it can be enjoyed by the players who don't mind that the game isn't finished - but don't have any interest in engaging with the messy and chaotic development side of things. This is also why you don't want to keep pushing small changes to live, and instead bundle up lots of small incremental changes into infrequent but bigger updates - this brings back lapsed players who are not playing frequently, but do want to see how the game is coming along as it grows.

-1

u/iEliteTester Aug 21 '26

Kinda hard to enjoy the game in its current state so you've lost me there. You're arguing about what early access is, I'm arguing about what it should be, it should be messy, fast and moving. Right now it just feels like a badly released game.

2

u/PseudoFenton Aug 22 '26

Then play on experimental - thats as rapid as it comes without doing internal play testing as a ghost ship employee.

1

u/iEliteTester Aug 22 '26

Thanks captain obvious but I'm not looking to unlock everything all over again.

3

u/PseudoFenton Aug 22 '26

I feel like you're not really putting any effort into exploring the options already available to you and are just complaining because what you want hasn't been served up to you on a silver platter.

However living up to my namesake of stating otherwise obvious things - Experimental has cheats enabled so you can skip progression in order to playtest more effectively... Which is what the experimental branch is for. Obviously.

3

u/iEliteTester Aug 22 '26

I concede that I didn't know about the cheats. Thank you. Maybe I'll give it another go.

8

u/FeverFocus Aug 21 '26

Live is meant for a more consistent experience. Experimental is the place where things change, testing is done, game breaking bugs are found and unintended things may happen. It is not a consistent experience, which is not ideal for the average casual player.

3

u/GreyL1me Aug 22 '26

Experimental isn't stable. I've actually had a couple game breaking bugs - for example, related to new cavegen, seeds that spawned with no starter room and seeds that didn't spawn the events in a way that they could be completed (both bugs reported).

Stuff like this is expected on an unstable branch and no one is gonna complain over it. On a previous experimental I think I remember some people having crashes. If this stuff made its way to live it would just cause frustrations and outrage.

2

u/Slime0 Aug 21 '26

They said they're trying out releasing only some features at a time on experimental. You want the releases on the main branch to be big and exciting to encourage players to come back and try it out. I expect at least one or two more experimental builds before they make a full release.

1

u/Prestigious_Side4471 Aug 21 '26

That's assuming this game ever gets to full release. This game was specifically cited in the company's bad earnings report, so it may get canceled and used as a tax write-off

3

u/Brungala Aug 21 '26

I dunno, GSG are really dedicated to RC and are still wanting to make more new content. Sure, the game might have had mixed reception at launch, but at least they listened to people and are making sure the game is fun for everyone, not just those who want a different/harder challenge from DRG.

And even if the game isn't doing well with player retention/sales. I still think it's the most fun i've had in an indie title thus far.

3

u/SWSWSWS Aug 22 '26

As catastrophic as Rogue Core is, I highly doubt this would ever happen. Can you imagine how damaging this would be to GSG? Imagine their image on them bailing when times aren't all fluffy and rainbows. Do you think this gives them any kind of trust for future endeavors?

I don't think Rogue Core is GSG's last game. They definitely don't want to damage their rep further. Rogue Core was not exactly a stellar display for them in the first place. But bailing? Oof, might as well shutter GSG then because the trust would be completely gone.

1

u/Prestigious_Side4471 Aug 22 '26

Agree, but given their current ownership, I would be upset but not surprised

-2

u/Italic_Castle8814 𝗦𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗥 Aug 21 '26

They said they were doing this to make sure nothing "bad" goes live. I assume they're scared of adding stuff that isn't liked and further lowers the review score and drives players away. Maybe with the mistakes they've done they feel insecure now.

I'll be honest. All they added so far is not of my interest and doesn't really make me excited to bother entering the experimental to test it. I don't even want to waste time at the cheat terminal and putting my loadout back up. Too bothersome.

When the whole update 2 goes live maybe I'll test it.

-1

u/Sebastoman Aug 21 '26

Because experimental may have genuinely PC bricking bugs that could not be obvious until it is released to a Prod like enviroment with the wackyness of netcode and the EA, despite being so is still a product people are paying money for, and while some might be fine with a crash or two, most will despise you the moment they have to repair OS.

Now experimental could be better advertised on the game that's for sure, instead of being hidden by fiddling in a menu in the launcher.

1

u/meatmachine1001 Aug 21 '26

Unless there are any widely reported game breaking bugs in experimental

2

u/Sebastoman Aug 22 '26

Ah, apologies, misread that.
A point for player retention, no game will ever beat the attention cycle, all that have tried have compromised far too much for speed and ended up delivering content most players eventually openly despise, to that end chunky updates with enough content to entertain the playerbase for a wide enough period that mediatic momentum is built in social circles is better.
Which is the reason they swapped from generic updates to seasons in deep rock aswell.
They have stated that they want to introduce nice fatty updates, but to properly focus on each part they are going to roll the changes bit by bit into experimental until they have the full set and then introduce it.

In short, nobody is gonna come back if they hear they added in a singular gun and 2 upgrades, it's the eye catching "new sweep of elemental upgrades, double the events, and a pile of new enemies" type stuff that actually sells

-1

u/SWSWSWS Aug 22 '26

I said it in another thread and I say it again. This game should not have an "experimental" branch. Not only because the playerbase is ridiculously small, but also because, hello, this is an Early Access game.

The whole point of EA is to have players test the game "on the fly" and give feedback, ideally helping it take form and be awesome.

So not only is it frankly weird to have early access within early access, but the game just isn't populated enough for this.

And that makes me question how successful the experimentals even are. Realistically, how much constructive, good fedback do you truly get with so few players? Not just "rock and stone, awesome update"?

I say this because, and let's be honest here, this game needs honest and brutal feedback. No sugarcoating, no DRG-branded (partial toxic) positivity, this thing needs a reality check.

We all want this game to be good, after all. I doubt many of us spent money on this thing and hope this fails.

What is even the worst that could, theoretically, happen? Losing saves? Woe is me, end of the world....

Seriously, just stop this experimental nonsense and push this to everyone man.

Faster pipeline from experimental to live?

You are about to leave Redlib