I came across an asset on the Asset store which is at v0.8.
From what I’m used to, any software under v1.0 usually denotes a development-release (non-production).
So I contacted the asset store seller, and the seller assured me it was a fully stable production release.
The point is: I saw “v0.x” and immediately assumed it might be some kind of beta release, so I became wary.
What do you think? Is it reasonable that some people might be scared away from an asset with this kind of version? If so, wouldn’t it be wise to ensure the asset released at v1.0 or greater?
It’s like Early Access, and all the caveats it has.
I would imagine version numbers to be taken with a pinch of salt - I bet most people publishing on asset store are self taught and just make stuff up mostly.
It’s basically why I stopped buying stuff. I realised save for a few smart cookies, most of it was raving nonsense that harmed my projects.
2 Likes
I would have made the same assumption as TTTTTa did. A 0.x version should be assumed to be some type of early release that either is not feature complete or has known issues.
Yep. I’ve bought in-development assets before and knew what I was getting into specifically because of the sub-1.0 version number.
I think this is generally true across the board. Just look at how even common terms like “Alpha” and “Beta” are used.
Yeah for the the longest time I used alpha as something that was still in progress. Alpha really means it’s kind of complete barring any polish or testing.
1 Like
To be fair, I can understand “Alpha” and “Beta” getting warped and muddied since software often isn’t built to a strict spec these days. It’s very difficult to declare that you’ve ticked all of the boxes and are now ready to test them when you know that the testing will almost certainly both add and remove boxes.
1 Like