The Evolution of 1.0 in the Industry

With so much interest in what ChatGPT has to say, I thought I’d take a stab at it. My prompt was, “Has there been a shift in the meaning of 1.0 in the software industry?”

The response:

Yes, there has been a noticeable shift in the meaning of “1.0” in the software industry over the years. Traditionally, version “1.0” signified the first stable release of a software product, marking it as feature-complete and ready for general use. However, this meaning has evolved due to several factors:

1. Agile Development and Continuous Deployment: With the adoption of agile methodologies and continuous deployment practices, the development cycle has become more iterative and incremental. Software is often released in smaller, more frequent updates, with new features and improvements rolled out continuously. This means that the initial “1.0” release might no longer be seen as the final, feature-complete product but rather as the first step in a continuous process of development and enhancement.
2. Beta and Pre-Release Versions: Many software products now have extensive beta testing phases, where early versions (often labeled 0.x) are released to gather user feedback and make iterative improvements. By the time a product reaches “1.0”, it may have already been used and tested by a significant number of users, blurring the line between beta and official releases.
3. Marketing and Perception: The “1.0” label can also be influenced by marketing strategies. Companies might delay the “1.0” release until they feel the product has enough features to compete in the market, even if it has been stable and usable for some time. Conversely, some startups might release a “1.0” version early to signal progress to investors and stakeholders.
4. Open Source and Community Development: In open-source projects, version “1.0” can often be reached through community-driven development, where the project evolves organically through contributions from various developers. The “1.0” release might represent a consensus within the community that the software is ready for broader adoption, even if it continues to be actively developed and improved.

Overall, the shift reflects a broader change in software development practices and the expectations of users and developers. The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.

————
In any industry undergoing a change in industry standards and procedures there will always be that phase where some doggedly adhere to the traditional definitions and resist the changes. But everyone else moves on and adjusts.

Originally posted by JoeSloeMoe: This seems to be more of a list of processes that benefit from the change rather that a list of what drove the change.

Fine by me. My only intent is to show that the change is real. If your reasons are the actual reasons and Chatgpt's reasons are garbage, so be it. Either way, the shift has been happening. Those who intractably stand by a traditional definition of 1.0 are just going to continue to be disappointed and surprised again and again and again. This is because the old definition is becoming more and more outdated with every new release that is unfinished at 1.0 and then serviced post 1.0.

TFP is not a pioneer of "not finished at 1.0". Not by a long shot.

Its interesting that in another thread ChatGPT lists all the traditional requirements of 1.0 but then that same AI acknowledges that the requirements are in a state of flux.

Personally, I would love for games to be complete and fully tested at 1.0 like they used to be but I also am very realistic and don't see the industry ever going back to that. So I've adjusted my expectations. I own half a dozen games that left early access with 1.0 labels and that aren't finished yet. I'm used to it now.

I do think this statement is true:

The “1.0” version is now often seen as a milestone in an ongoing journey of continuous improvement rather than the final destination.