jovlon

@Edwin3 @WhyHerro123: I think that Papazombie is entitled to his opinion. If only because it gives insight into how some players feel. I did indeed check the forums, reddit, dayztv, tumblr, etc. Every source I could find. The status reports and developer updates don't always address new or enhanced issues. That's essentially what players are here to do. They also have to remove things sometimes and don't mention it in their notes.At least in the past. I obviously can't speak of the current. I do indeed plan to dig around and play myself but I want to identify potential universal problems rather than those specific to me as I'm debating on whether or not to recommend this to a huge group of friends that finally switched from console to pc. For example, if your comp specs are close to my friend's and you have reasonably decent optimization for this stage of development than I could feel comfortable recommending it to them. But if I didn't come here and I was getting terrible optimization with my specs I might misinform them without having a working knowledge on how others are affected by certain variables. Continuing with this example, obviously normally, based on the specs you know if a a game will run better on one computer as opposed to another but I read a lot of people who had issues regardless of specs. Now again, it has to be asked if that's relative to their specs (they can run Skyrim on Ultra with np but only get 25fps) or is it universal? I don't know if any of that made sense but I'm just trying to help you understand why I would also try to gather opinions of the community. @WhyHerro123: You said something else that I wanted to mention and originally what I was going to make the topic about. There are a lot of former players who love SA but have a fear that by the time of what most people consider a stable release, the community will be dead and people will have permanently moved on. I was looking at the steam rankings and while of course there are always various factors to consider, it does seem that there's a trend of a slowly dying community. I mean 8-9k is still pretty large and definitely enough to enjoy but I wanted to also gather opinions on that. I know some will just say "They don't understand EA and they're stupid" but that's missing the point. Do you think that the community will still be alive once the game is released?

I know that there are perhaps other topics that are similar but being that the community doesn't seem to be as active as it once was, I wanted to maximize the potential for an OBJECTIVE discussion on the current state of DayZ. I haven't played DayZ in quite a while now so I've been trying to refresh myself by reading reviews and catching up with general information. However, I've come across a few worrying trends. Whereas in it's infancy (as in when it was first released) it seemed to get significantly more positive reviews. However, the more that it's aged, the more negative reviews that I tend to see, some from fairly dedicated players. I also attempted to find more information from the development team but it seems that I'm either looking in the wrong places or they're not posting as much. I'd like to see the standard updated list of pipelines, the timeline, and (though not likely) if possible the documents that detail the allocation of financial resources. I know that the forums are generally populated with far more people that support the game still than not so I know that a lot of people will perhaps get defensive about me bringing up negative comments. I don't want to turn this into a yelling match. Yes I know that there's a disclaimer and I do believe that most people that bought the game were prepared for the ups and downs and wanted to support this great idea. A lot of the reviews that I've seen generally state the same set of things: - No optimization (which I think usually comes later in the development cycle) - Glamour updates as opposed that functionality updates... new sound design and skins as opposed to clipping for example - A lot of people seem to have issues with their mouse disappearing and thus not being able to even play - That the price went up without a reasonable explanation - The updates are coming slowly and they tend to be smaller updates as opposed to major updates - There's still active hacking - There's still now way to access (move around) the map quickly so you're still running for a while - That it became extremely boring and predictable - This one is usually from people that loved it, took time off, and came back. Obviously I'm sure if you're on the forums you'll disagree with this one. But I guess for this one I'd like to know how gameplay has changed and if it's objectively less exciting now - That it's harder to kill people... not realistic. I've watched gameplay and saw people get shot several times and not die. The last time I played I remember my friends and I had an hour or so long shootout with another group and it was more or less one/two shots killed - Less loot and zombies with each update I'm sure you guys have read all of the other negative stuff. Again I just haven't played in a while so I wanted to kind of get your take on these things. How has the game progressed? What the the current biggest issues? When do you truly expect it to move into beta? Or do you expect that it will be completed at all? Etc. Thanks. Edit: I was just reading old emails from a few of the people that either were or claimed to be in the industry and it reminded me of the main issues that I've seen. The engine simply being unable to handle the project. And project management. Not necessarily a criticism of ability but rather the perception that things aren't running smoothly and resources are being used effectively. Again, you guys would probably be more knowledgeable about this as I haven't been keeping up with the game.

B. I know that many people ignore pinned topics but the first thing that jumps to mind is making a pinned topic that has topic headers and the links to those discussions. As an example: KOS Followed by a link or two to different threads that address this topic. If the title of the pinned thread were "MUST-READ BEFORE POSTING", more experienced forum members posted the link to the pinned thread when a topic that has been addressed already is started, and the forum team locked (after reading the original post) threads that address similar topics it has a (small) chance of changing the unspoken rules enough for this to have some effect. I also wonder if there could be an agreement screen once somebody clicks the new topic button. One that states something like "Before posting, ensure that your topic hasn't already been addressed here" followed by a list of topics and links to old threads. C. While I would like to see more interaction on these forums I also don't really personally care. However, I do know that a lot of people do and so I thought to add it to the discussion.

This isn't a critique of the forum or Dev team in any way, shape, or form. I'd like to try to have a community discussion that I believe could be a step towards reducing some of the animosity within the forums. There are players that have played since the mod and therefore have seen the same topics hundreds of times. There are also a new population of players that have never seen one of the many threads that may be similar to the ones that they start. Yes, having a functional search feature would go a long way towards solving this but this is more about working with what we have. The discussion is meant to focus on: A. How we feel that we could improve the forum in general Any suggestions? B How to improve the ability for a forum member to find information If we could find a way to do this it would cut down on the animosity between old and new players. C. Where, as a community, we would feel most comfortable with the Dev Team interacting with us This isn't a quest for more interaction but rather seeking to find where we would like for them to interact with us when they feel the need to. Is it Twitter, Reddit, these forums, etc. or does it even make a difference to you?

A lot of people in PM have asked me to just make these points because it helped them understand me better. * While I don't work for Terminal Reality I did work on the better Walking Dead title (I know I'm being biased here). * A lot of people got where I came from after I explained this and a lot said that I should post it in public. Yes the Alpha game has only been released for about two months now. But contrary to this notion the game didn't just start two months ago. There was pre-production and production long before two months ago. Again I apologize for assuming that people would consider that with any media project be it a game or film there are stages way before it's released in any form. From my indie to (almost) big deal game a lot of the guys dumped so much of their own money into it that they were sleeping in the office or on my floors and couches.I say this because we knew that we were going to have to eventually ask for money and because we had so much community interest we decided to do it through donations. Even though we'd already defined roles in pre-production and a general plan, once we knew that we were going to ask for other people to trust us with their money we took steps to line our ducks up in a row. We redefined roles. We used our own money to hire a financial adviser/specialist to help us come up with plans for if we got X amount of dollars what we would focus on. If we got $10 million we would focus on this; $50 million would allow us to focus on this. We wanted to hit the ground running because we too were dealing with an ambitious project that larger teams would more usually take on. The first round of updates wasn't bad by any means but it was still less than what we needed. But we used the plan we had in place and developed and then released the updates to our work. Once they saw how we much we had progressed with what they had given us the donations started flowing in. DayZ is an ambitious project that we all want to see succeed. Ambitious projects take a lot of time and money. So $30 million plus whatever they had reserved to invest in this project seems like a lot of money but we must at least entertain the notion that it may run out at some point. But because of that possibility you must have your ducks in a row especially when $30 million is from people that are investing in your vision. I'm not saying that it's a lot of money for any of us to lose. It's the principle of it. The developers have essentially said that they're still adjusting and that's understandable. There are things that you adjust to once you release a game and it's not just the developers and friends playing it. But there's also things that could have been done way back in pre-production and before EAA wide-release that could have eased the process... that would have allowed them to hit the ground running. And again if they were self-funding this game this wouldn't have even been a discussion. If a large (even if it's not the majority) of their funding came from in-house or angel investors or something else I wouldn't have these concerns because they could likely dip into the resources as needed. If they happen to run out of money (which is what I meant by the game may not get to a Formal Release stage with the initial $30 million) I want to be able to invest again without a second thought. I want to say that they ran out but they had their ducks in a row at the times that they should have been and I know that they are moving in a good direction. Now 9 pages in and I think that we can call this monster of a thread is mostly done. At the end of all this we may not agree and I understand that. But I hope that you can at least see where I'm coming from and why I have that perspective. Where my concerns come from and why they are valid. I certainly see where a lot of you are coming from and you've explained why you have that opinion and perspective and I've appreciated that and learned from it. I want this game to be great like all of you. If I see something that I (usually from experience) believe could enhance it in some way I'm going to voice it because I want this to succeed. Thanks Jovlon

I know that LaughingJack has said it. We definitely still disagree but he made valid points. And I admitted my mistakes and apologized for the wording of it. I also tried to explain why I worded it that way and for anybody that cares to educate themselves on that before posting it's there (I know 9 pages is more than I expected). And it's true that through all of this as I said I learned a lot, people made valid points on both sides, and I think that we found things that we could all agree on. The reason that I quoted this was just to remind people that you're right and I've made this point. I've maintained that I'm coming at it from a perspective... from how I've learned to think and you guys are coming at it from different fresh perspectives and that's when learning takes place. (I didn't want for you to think that the first part was about you). And people are right. And I've said this as well. I started off with a more aggressive perhaps overly pessimistic tone. But that's also because I've discussed this with fellow developers and we see things and think oh man oh no. That was one of the things that I wanted to learn. We see things in this way. As a player with no development background how do you see it and feel about the current state of the game. @EvilThis Again really. Do you really think that I want for them to listen to every single poster's suggestions and implement all of them. Come on now you must know better than that? I've explained it before but I will do it one last time. We all agree that in it's current state that the game is both enjoyable and worth $30. We also agree that whether it's rapid fire updates like the current plan or updates that are released every few months... we just want for the updates to roll out and appear to be tested and be geared more towards core gameplay. So this is what I mean by listening to the community. I'll make one last post after this one and then request that this thread either be locked or left alone as we've tried to let it die a few times (I know it's ironic that I saw this as I bring it back to life). The last post will be to address some things that people in PM have asked me to explain in public and etc.

Let's for a second focus on the things that we all seem to agree on. A) That we feel like for what we've gotten out of it $30 was a fair price B) For the most part we enjoy the game where it is right now enough to understand how great it could be C) There are some long standing issues that we wish would be addressed. D) That it was easier to follow what they are doing (not that they should release more info). I wish like many that they'd chose a site though I understand that it's likely a strategy to attempt to broaden their audience and reach as many of their base as possible. I bring this up again to point out what I meant by listen to the community. We're satisfied at the moment with playing the game as is. So I personally do wish that in some sense there was more of the "traditional" approach as it's been called in this forum with Alpha in that the focus was on pet projects later. As a friend pointed out you must have fun as a developer as well and that's where the Eggs that you find in games and pet projects come from. But that's the trade off that you make when you go from being a pure gamer to being a developer. You focus on the stuff that others will get to enjoy before you focus on the things that you enjoy. That's an assessment from personal experience not a scathing critique as some will take it. Lastly we all agree that we want this to be great and succeed and be everything and more than we ever imagined it could be. In the process of this discussion, despite some fanboys and trolls, I did have people who were completely against what I said and made valid points. And I respected them for it and saw their points of view as well as gained a better perspective on if I should be concerned (based off of how the community feels about the game as a whole). I've learned a lot from those that respectfully disagreed with me, understood where I came from instead of creating talking points or taking every little world as the literal instead of the general (as I've taken blame for this I don't understand those that refused to read and or accept that I've owned up to wording my concerns poorly), and presented great points.

I see and I hope that others see what you guys are trying to yet again do. You're taking a dead talking point... that being that I must want to game to fail and now you're attaching it to this notion that it must because I work for a competitor. We all know that WarZ was garbage. Anybody who read my post about the latest project that I was a part of could easily guess (as others have done in PM) what game I'm talking about. And I agree with a lot of the people that have PM'd me. Why would I release information about my specific job and specific titles so that you could easily look me up? You'd only attack our work in someway and or make it creepy. I completely get where you guys are coming from. Part of the allure of the game is being part of the journey. I've stated that this is why I bought the game. I've never complained about the price or anything of that nature. I understand why you'd think I did because so many people have tried to make that a talking point to take this off topic. So I get it. Allow me to frame what I'm saying in another way that I've had the opportunity to frame it in PM and among my friends and such. We don't accurately know what resources (money, etc) that they had before they released SA but we do know roughly what they netted after the release. To most people it sounds like more than enough right? Only it's not when you're developing a MMO or a sandbox open-world. They're developing both. It's a massive ambitious project. In the media industry (gaming, film, etc.) $30 million isn't that much at all. Again yes I'm sure that they had monetary resources before to add to this pile. So let me offer a scenario. Let's say that they develop the game and we see tremendous progress from what it is currently. Some major bugs have been fixed, they've added some cool features, they're communicating with the community in a clear precise fashion (I add this because a lot of other people have used as an example of internal mismanagement), and we all see that they're on a clear and focused path. (Though it's not likely the would do this... remember this is just a scenario) But they run out of money and ask the player base for donations. Now in this scenario I'd guess that most of us, me included, would be willing to donate another $30 or however much because we know where this project is headed. Now let's take the same situation. The game is being developed as it is currently and they've run out of money. Would you donate another $30? A lot would say yes because it's only $30 but I'm asking more as a matter of principal. There are two important things of note that I (again) assumed that everybody would consider. 1) Learning on the job, especially with the pressure of working on a multi-million dollar project is really fucking hard. I've been there and anybody who has will tell you how important it is to have strong internal organization. 2) Going from developing with a small group of people or by yourself is completely different than being asked to produce or play a larger role. And often times when you make this transition you lose power. It's like going from being the owner of anything (a sports team or restaurant) to being the coach or manager. When I see a producer who does a live stream and is out of touch with the game mixed with pet projects being allowed in so quickly (I'm talking about adding more types of sodas when we already have sodas) this in my humble opinion looks as if either the producer doesn't have as much power as one would think or the producer (transitioning into it) hasn't quite figured out how to direct in a clear and focused way. Think of Dean as a film director (and I use this because I'm very familiar with it). He has gone from directing a short where he had to take on so many jobs to directing a big budget film. He doesn't have to be superman anymore (though he could still be) but rather his main job is to direct the rest of his collaborators towards his vision in a clear fashion using the money that they have. But before I get off topic... I do hope that they find the best way to communicate with their base, that they define roles internally, that the game progresses, that they figure it out soon so that the resources that they've been given can be put to the best use possible to maximize the potential of DayZ. I want for it to be a silly question as to if I'd donate $30 to help them complete development to a point where they feel like it's a realized product. I want to those things because once again I must stress that while $30 million seems like a lot to work with it really isn't in today's world. I want DayZ to succeed and be great (again we don't compete at all in the same market). I want it to realize and exceed what we thought it's potential is. So I want them and the community to fully understand how hard it is to do what they're attempting to do with the limited resources that they have. And how it becomes (not nearly but very close to it) impossible to do what they're trying to do if they don't have strong internal management and organization.

"But I'm missing the inside view to really discuss this" I think that this has been my key flaw. With anything if you discuss it with a certain group of people there becomes an understanding... You move past certain points within the topic. There's been so many discussions surrounding this game for seemingly forever now within my world that there's so many key points that I've moved past. For a while there was the discussion of funding for this game. It's an ambitious project that could be the next great PC game (there's so few left). That it's an MMO with limited funding was a big point of discussion months ago now. So I made the mistake of overlooking explaining those aspects... of explaining the long process that lead me and others to our collective concerns. And that is as I said a huge oversight on my end. My brain thinks in a certain way which is why I originally wanted different perspectives. And that's why I believe that some have understood more clearly what I'm saying than others. They may be looking at all of the factors that I'm looking at but didn't voice and seeing where I came from on that front. As for my opinion, a sandbox game is meant to be a world in which the players can make their own. They should be able to do and play as they please. There is no singular objective. Within that frame of mind I'd say that as a developer you'd hope that you could provide the tools for players to make the world and grow the world as they please. This is why I couldn't criticize KOS (which I think is the best element as it forces you to make a split second decision) or something like 3rd person view (I don't agree with it but I don't mind it at all and there are servers that are 1st only). That to me would be discussing the very foundation of a sandbox. But when developing an open-world MMO I'd argue that the focus should be on issues of greater impact. Even if they continued to add new models (guns etc.) that I could at least say will be something that greatly impacts the game and how a player plays down the road. Yes something such as a spray can or new sodas will also eventually be important (perhaps) but at this time are they really tools that allow the players to alter the world or their play style? And should something like that generate a bug (though not gamebreaking) that could effect how some players play? Because then you're taking away the concept of what an open-world sandbox is. And I agree that have experimental builds are great. I must have forgotten to add this part in the previous post. I also believe that they should use those that play experimental builds almost as their Early Access Test group. I see it as advantageous to have longer experimental builds (seeing as only x amount of players can play) to test them, fix the bugs, and then release them as stable builds. If I were fortunate enough to play with the new features, I'd understand that in doing so for however long I choose I'd be working with raw buggy features that others won't have when the update rolls out in x amount of weeks. And that's a fair trade off that allows the hardcore players to be a big part of the implementation process while allowing those that want more stabilization what they want. I'm sure that somebody will attack that suggestion. But in all of this I've also tried to look at what they're committing to doing and making suggestions based off of that.

I was going to only pm you to resolve this. I "retired" because I needed to step out of the situation to gain a fresh and less aggressive perspective on this thread. I'm sorry if doing so disappointed you somehow. And I talked down only to those that attacked and talked down to me first. Yet you're making it seem like I'm the only guilty party as usual. How would that not frustrate any person. And I can agree with Jack outside of the nazi joke. That is the most offensive thing you could say. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I didn't mean to accuse or state fact. The reason that some people, especially those in RL understood what I was getting at is because I think that perhaps they got that I was making the general point that there appears to be internal mismanagement. I only offered up three scenarios that happen commonly when it comes to any multi-million dollar media project without thinking anything of it. Because I wanted to make a general point of mismanagement. The evidence was meant to show why I'm concerned. That there are lofty goals with an extremely ambitious time frame. That they've committed to attempting to have rather quick updates. Each update will cause expected behaviors and unexpected behaviors when it comes to gameplay. The interaction with an object could completely change as was the case with the spray can being introduced. I meant to make the point that they should slow down not speed up. But that if they decide to go on this pace that they'd almost have to go into crunch time often to ensure a successful rollout. There actions haven't matched what they're aiming to do thus far which is implement huge features in a functional and stable way in a short amount of time. Somehow that morphed into I wanted them to implement everything more quickly when the most critical point that I'd made was just the opposite. And that I wanted them to read every single post and implement every single thing that every single poster asked for in the community. Do you honestly think that I was saying that? Come on now. If this thread shows anything, it's that we all agree that even at the present $30 was worth it because even in it's current version it's fun. But the community has also voiced concerns over this and that. I think that as we're satisfied with the game currently they shouldn't attempt to pump out updates that will produce unpredictable behaviors but that they should slow the updates and release major stable updates. As other's have pointed out it appears that the updates are being rolled out without being tested or reviewed and that at a few moments the devs appear to be out of touch with how these updates are functioning in-game. That's not to say that they aren't aware about some of these things. But that does worry me about internal organization and mismanagement. People have said that I'm bitter from my experience. I brought it up to make the point that I know what it's like to go from a smaller team to having more heads under the hood sort of speak. Yes it's only been released for a month but you must know that they've been working on it much longer. At this point it still from the outside it feels like they're still trying to define roles within the team. Dean has a vision that he's pushing in public but how much power has he been given to drive that vision as an example. This was and still is viewed by many as being the type of game that could further empower the indie movement. And that's why it's become such a topic around the development community. We want it to succeed (again somehow people have gotten the opposite impression and for that I'm sorry). But we also understand that you must have strong internal management and organization especially when you know that you aren't going to a major company backing you with more money. As stated they'll still get some new players here and there but I'd guess that most of the players that were going to purchase the game (even those that haven't bothered to play it yet) have. The resources (money, etc.) that they have right now is what they will likely have moving forward. So it concerns me and others that I've talked to that even after working on the project for some time now, they don't seem to have a clear focus on what they'd like to do, how they want to develop, and the realistic pace at which they should develop this game. Yes they could implement a lot of features quickly, go into beta before they should, and be in bug hell for months or even years (we all know those games that just never seemed to fix their bugs even years after implementing cool things) or they could slow down and get this thing right. I hope that you better understand where I'm coming from now.

If you think that it's absurd that I liken the way that I've been attacked for stating opinions about a game to those that try to have a discussion about religion then you have to allow how absurd to read how quickly people created talking points and forced the conversation to focus on those. Even though I shouldn't have to I'm going to say sorry if it was misinterpreted as me making factual claims. When I've said these things over the phone or in real life nobody ever took it that way and when I read it back I don't take it that way nor does anybody else that I've asked to read it. They took it for what it was but yet there's this bullshit talking point about how I'm trying to bring the game down by starting rumors. And I feel that as some posters immediately were hostile I was more than respectful. And it is frustrating to have to read peoples comments who attack my knowledge when it's so clear to us that they've never worked within a team on even a small project. For them to attack my perspective was laughable and now it's frustrating. I didn't mind the many others who made opposing and valid points based off of their perspective. And I question how they understood where I was coming from, how people in RL understood where I was coming from, but a few jerks didn't. Remember, just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean that mine is wrong. Question my credentials if it makes you feel better but I'd guess that at least some of those same people have played and enjoyed one of the latest projects that I've been a part of. It was a multi-platformer within the survival zombie horror genre that was adapted from an extremely popular TV series. I'll leave you guys to it. As you said let's all save this thread and in six months down the road, a year down the road revisit it and see if I had the right to be concerned. I'm retiring from this thread.

There have been some fans who simply chose to pm me to stay away from the craziness and some who have posted here. But they had legitimate things to make. Points to make. And I appreciated them. The original goal for this was this: To offer a perspective on what I and other developers are seeing and discussing. And what we're seeing and discussing is internal mismanagement of a game that has tremendous potential to be so many different things. While we don't agree what it will become, we have all agreed that from our own experiences and perspectives that something is off about this development process. Yet there has been a refusal to even discuss that there is even a possibility that this is happening and that honestly saddens me. And I personally wanted to hear from other perspectives about this. To us the timeline offered mixed with the behavior simply doesn't add up to what they've said they aspire to do with this game. I'm not downing them for taking time off and being a small team. I'm saying that given the size of their team, the relaxed approach that they're taking, and the rather ambitious timeline that they've laid out we simply don't think that they could meet those goals without losing sight of other important gameplay elements. At this point most developers that I've talked to and I feel as if there isn't a strong focus on implementing what should be implemented within Early Access and then Alpha. We'd be surprised and awestruck if they made it to what a beta should be after a year (just because it's called beta doesn't make it a beta). Posters are acting as if I've set this timeline for them and I want them to follow it when they claim that I've said that the game isn't being developed quickly enough. I want just the opposite. For them to take more time so that they can focus on things that may not make the player base jump for you but that will improve the game's "playability". That's what EAA and Alpha is supposed to be. That's why so many titles release it to such a small player base. To say that I shouldn't be concerned that they decided to not enter crunch time before an update that wasn't 100% ready to be rolled out is not something that I understand. I voiced my concerns based on a lot of discussion with those that have a similar perspective (that being of a game developers) only to be told by the fanboys and trolls that I'm not allowed to have those concerns. There's been excuse after excuse made all aimed at telling me that I'm not allowed to have concerns. Someone said that a year from now they'll revisit this thread to see if my concerns were legitimate. And I suppose that that's all that we can do. So I'm so sorry for questioning your almighty GOD and your bible. But that's all I did. Question it.

You have a big mouth so what are your credentials? What perspective are you coming from? A gamer who has never developed a day in his life? Or maybe you developed a flash based Mario game? If you fail to get that obvious joke (I'm sure you fail) my case is made. PhillyT doesn't at the surface seem to be a developer or be in the industry but he made a two valid points. Two that I agree with. 1) The game at it's current version with it's current devoted fans is still worth $30. As much as I dislike you trolls and fanboys because you've added nothing to the discussion, I think that because you so fiercely argue against any and everybody that attempts to have a legitimate discussion that the game in it's current version will remain fun to play. There's little to no chance that you will ever stop playing. And I can appreciate that. 2) Other developers, such as his friend, have had similar concerns. And that's because we have a completely different perspective than most of you. We see the things that you don't because we work within this industry. Just as I'm sure that it's far easier for you guys to simply enjoy the game for what it is currently. And now the fanboys are attempting to change the focus of a should be discussion to something of how it was only $30. Typical of one who tries to change the talking point rather than simply focus on the topic at hand.

My perspective is not your perspective. I'm coming at it from that of somebody who has worked within the industry. Most of you seem to come from it purely as players. But that is why I wanted to start a legitimate discussion. I've had the pleasure of working within the indie process and the conglomerate process as I like to call it. My favorite experience was working on an indie team and developing from the ground up. We spent nearly everything that we collectively had and a few years of time to develop an in-house engine from the ground up. We then gained a great community before our company, software, and essentially our employees were bought out by the major corporation (I can't call them by name for legal reasons). So to say that I don't know trends or innovative ways to develop a game and generate buzz and revenue is laughable. But I'm coming from that perspective. And therefore I'm allowed to raise concerns because once you go through it and you know the tales of others going through these things you see the signs. I attempted to start a conversation about these concerns and the direction of development. Yet you fanboys and trolls treat Dean and this game as if he is GOD and it the Bible. Whether you believe in GOD and the Bible, shouldn't there be legitimate discussion about these things? The answer apparently is no. You're going to thump the bible as hard as you can to anybody that has a different perspective and therefore fresh concerns that you may not have thought of.