Dr. Goner

I think OP makes a great point and one that is often overlooked. People kill out of fear of losing their stuff. I don't think damaged gear will slow down KoS at all. I do think it will add to the realism.

True and I admit I bought Arma 3 as an alpha and I also paid for the current build of Kerbal Space Program. They both lacked features but nothing as big as missing the entire AI. Like I said, I'd pay .99 for DayZ Alpha without zombies. It would be worth it to get in at that price considering the game would be lacking such an important feature. After all they are the central point of the entire game.

I'll consider what they release on steam the Alpha release since that's what they've been marketing it as. I didn't realize there was something pre-Alpha hence the definition of the word. What I'm saying is, I don't think I would choose to contribute to the Alpha release if it didn't have zombies. But, I could be convinced. I'd have to see what all they were offering. ;)

Hmmm... I see what you're saying but I would only pay $.99 for a DayZ without weapons or zombies. I would rather they take another year and make the zombies right than release SA without them. I agree with mZLY on this one. DayZ isn't DayZ without zombies. They could rename it The Road and get rid of the zombies altogether. I'm sure it's crossed their minds.

Ha! Yeah that probably won't happen anytime in the near future or at least I hope it doesn't. However, when you mentioned this I couldn't help but look into the Duke Nukem Forever debacle. I recommend reading this if nothing else for its entertainment value. There are actually some eerie similarities between the projects. Luckily for DayZ and BIS they have this model as an example of how it's NOT done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Duke_Nukem_Forever EDIT: I highly recommend the Conflict With Take Two 2003-2006 section.

As much as I hate to say it, I think they should take the time they need to complete the zombies. I'm assuming that the player base will increase dramatically when the SA arrives and most of those new players won't know much about the project. Of course, those of us who follow the development would understand that the zombies are eventually coming, but I think the average gamer may be turned off by the idea of buying a zombie game with no zombies. Then again, those who don't follow the project may not be able to understand the concept that the "broken" zombies are going to be replaced with new zombies. Seems like the team is in between a rock and a hard place on this one.

You posted the 18th reference from the article that I posted here so apparently you found it pretty useful. Anyone can check this if they look back to the original wiki article and check reference number 18. It is the same article that Wayze posted after he said my article was useless. Apparently it's not that useless as you are using it for your claims. Also, I posted the article here which is what caused you to start harassing me in the first place. So why would I need to post it again? Anyone that wants can look back to the previous page at the article I posted. EDIT: This is not the first time that Wayze has done this to me. And now, tries to call me out for arguing.

Well, if you read the article I posted you would have seen that they had the game finished around the same time that they planned on releasing Uncharted 3. Which is what I spent most of the posts I made on the subject talking about. I'm honestly starting to question whether or not you can read or if you just cherry pick the first thing you don't agree with and go on a mindless "nah no no nah no no" blathering rant that ads nothing to the conversation and only proves that you have to much time on your hands. The wonderful thing about wikipedia is that it contains citations at the bottom of each article. You're getting close to figuring it out, now just stay patient. I know it's harder than reading a tweet or a forum post but if you dig a little deeper you'll get there. EDIT: Obviously the article I sent you wasn't useless as the article you posted was one of the cited references from the article. You're ludicrous. So which is it, is the article useless or are you using it to try and contradict what it actually states? Also, my point stands. It took a team of 40 people, two years to develop The Last of Us. They built the engine from scratch and didn't scavenge any resources. Pretty great feat considering the fact that the game is also amazing.

It took two years to make the game and the article I gave you is sufficient evidence of that fact. Now kindly move on as you are the only one that seems to not understand this.

There are over a hundred citations at the bottom of that wiki article. As far as I'm concerned, I have proven it. You are simply wrong. I don't care how long you "think" a game "usually takes" to complete. In Naughty Dog's case it took them two years. That information is widely available. What is your beef man? I wasn't even being critical. I was just pointing out a fact and then provided you with a reference, which you deny. You've done this to me before, so I have to believe one of two things. You have an ulterior motive in contradicting anything I prove or you're to lazy to actually read an article yourself? Also, not to be a dick but if you "know" how development works, you may want to learn how to spell the word.

After experiencing the AI in The Last of US, I tend to agree. They are just so freaking good! I'm sure the rework will pay off for DayZ SA. It just stinks that it's taken them so long to realize this key feature is broken. I mean, the AI in a zombie game has to be spot on or else it's just a huge fail. I think we all understood with the mod but this is a different story. I'm sure they'll get it right.

It's pretty common for well established companies to take approximately two years to complete projects. Assuming they aren't scavenging from an already usable engine, in which case, they might develop two or three games at the same time using the already tried engine and just strategically market and release them individually; Infinity Ward has been doing this a lot lately. The release date depends more upon finding that marketing sweet spot than anything else. For instance, Naughty Dog had no reason to rush the release of The Last of Us due to Uncharted 3 and they also didn't want to come out to close to Dead Island. Release date targeting requires a lot of research as companies can lose a lot of money if their game comes out in to close a proximity to other huge titles or even similar titles on the same platform. Luckily within the gaming industry the market share renews itself about every three months. Here's that article that explains Naughty Dog's thought process and the info about the team and project time. There are many many articles out there on the same subject but wikipedia pulls it all together well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_Us

Well. . . to be fair. It's hardly from scratch. Also, I wouldn't call a game like The Last of Us an average 8 hour single player game. I know you didn't mention it, but I just thought I'd use it as an example. It took a team of forty people just over two years to complete. It was built completely from scratch and they didn't need any "alpha" state time. They set their goal and nailed it. I appreciate your loyalty to BIS and the DayZ project, but you are really selling the amazing work of other companies short. If anything the DayZ project has had an average progression, nothing spectacular nothing horrible. The Last of Us is amazing by the way. If you haven't played it I highly recommend picking it up. It will probably be the last game I ever buy for the old PS3. I haven't tried out the multiplier yet, but I love the AI and the story line. Anyway, just trying to get everyone's feet back on the ground. DayZ's progress has been average. We all want to play the game and I trust it will be really fun. EDIT: Most games spend more time waiting for the correct release window and proper marketing than they do in development. The main difference between DayZ and a so called AAA title is that, in most cases, the AAA games are 99.9% complete before we the sheeple even know they exist.

When I was eight, my friend showed me the original Night of the Living Dead. It blew my mind, I was terrified as I lived in the country close to a graveyard. I've been addicted ever since.

Probably worth noting that the March 8th devblog thread was eighty-six pages long when it was closed on April 10th. The September Round-up is only at ten pages. Seems like a dramatic decline to me. I assume most people are waiting patiently or have moved on to greener pastures. EDIT: Obviously I am still here. I can't wait to play the game.

Work expands to fill the time you allow for it.

Do you know what the phrase "you've put your foot in your mouth means"?

This is true. I've been reading a lot of satire on how flooded the market has become with all things zombie anyway. I think the fad itself is dying, The Walking Dead will have a spinoff of a spinoff by this time next year. Also, the group I play with used to be really into DayZ, hell it's how I got associated with them, now we don't even have a DayZ server anymore, nor is it featured on our website and 99% of our group says it was a flash in the pan. The fact is, buzz dies, hype fades and some great ideas never bear fruit. Not to mention the fact that the technology itself evolves so quickly now. It's an incredibly tough industry in which to stay relevant. I hope DayZ kicks ass, but I also pride myself on being a skeptic and trust me as a gamer with nearly thirty years under my belt I know that there is always something bigger and better just around the corner. The dev team needs to set a public release date for the alpha version in order to give themselves a steadfast goal. I cannot fathom why they wouldn't want to at this point.

Have you ever had an actual job where you functioned as a subordinate?

Nevermind.

Let me ask you this, what would you do if someone told you, they would give you ten million dollars, if you finish your game by a certain set date? I know what I would do. Contracting companies work like this all the time. It's the reason private construction jobs take, on average, half the time to complete when a bonus is paid if a certain date is met vs. jobs that are paid on an hourly basis with no clear deadline. Honestly, the latter is almost never the case anymore. When the incentives are correct, this data is backed up time and time again.

We need a release date because it would give the development team a solid goal. It would set up accountability as they wouldn't want to miss that date. They would have set a clear expectation for themselves and the community. I never said anything about when that date should be it could be two years from now or two days for all I care. I know (and have show evidence to back it up so it's not simply my opinion) that this would benefit the development team as far as time management is concerned.

If I had a software engineer in one of my teams telling me "Uh, this task I received, well, I think it is ready when it is ready" I would simply tell him "Ok son, understood - you'll also get your next salary slip when your task is ready " and this usually works: estimating the amount of effort required to do something is a measure of your professionalism as a software engineer. Your peers will judge you on that as well. _Anubis_ Damn Straight. It's called accountability. Sometimes you have to set this up for yourself. Which is why we need a release date. It would benefit the developers more than the player base if they took it very seriously.

And this get's to the point of my actual post, I'm arguing that we do in fact need one because it will give the team a concrete date by which to have the job done. I've cited peer reviewed journals on Parkinson's law, noted the set date for the lunar landing, and made several other relevant points as to why we all do NEED a release date, but even now, some community members aren't picking up what I'm putting down. I'll say it again Why We Need A Release Date. Because work expands to fill the time you allow for it.

Jesus man, I just posted two journal articles that prove Parkinson's law empirically. Please read the thread and do your research before commenting. It is, in fact, science. It is often studied by behavioral psychologists. So yes, it is quite different than say Murphy's Law. Parkinson wrote a peer reviewed article on the subject citing sources and a study that was accepted by the scientific community. EDIT: @fraggle This post of mine proves your point about my dickishness. I'm seriously sorry man, you are one of my favorite mods and always tell it like it is. I can be a pompous ass sometimes.