Welcome to game development! "We just did a thing and we like it." [some time passes] "We've thought more about the thing and turns out it's not what we want after all." This is very common, but not as common as "We're working on a thing but we're running out of time so just scrap it." Don't forget this only one of the many things that have been reworked or reworked more than once. P.S. Loosen your tinfoil hat, jeez.

The video definitely starts clickbaity, he doesn't even give a date. :( Past that he makes some perfectly valid points but he also ends with a straw man argument at 23:35 when he says "the devs only cater to one playstyle and don't understand that different players have different preferences." That's not the issue. Like Benedictus said, the issue is that SA doesn't have modding support yet (but it has been confirmed since the beginning). The base building system and everything involved with it won't be the same as they are in ARMA either. It's also pretty difficult to explain to people that when a game is in development, so many things are constantly changing behind the scenes that creating something as complex or all-encompassing as modding support is very hard to maintain if you do it too early, like before the transition from SQF to EnScript. I wouldn't want to imagine the time spent on making sure modding didn't break and providing support/documentation for it throughout development or the quality of that documentation. (Actually I don't have to imagine it because I've experienced being on the receiving end of that first-hand.) Heck, as a relevant example, even something as seemingly simple as "just adding some roads" to the map had to wait because it was "too early."

Just on a personal note, as someone who tends to play games in 4-10 hour sessions, a 4-hour cycle would probably be perfect for me, because an hour in the dark is totally doable and the "peak darkness" only lasts for a while even if I don't manage to find a light source. I might even see two nights in one go.

That is indeed irrelevant. It does not make any difference which direction the XYZ axes point toward, and it is common for the Y axis to point "up." (And as an equally irrelevant side-note, it's a sin for Y to point up.) Adjusting the positions of all world objects could be done programmatically as well, so that's not an obstacle for expanding the map. The dev team has created much more complex things. Why are we speculating on whether or not it's possible, though? We don't have the necessary technical details for a productive discussion about it. We've already been told the map is not going to be expanded, only populated with more details and I think that's a much better thing. Going back to the "how could you blend the border naturally" would be a much better area for debate.

As far as literally "expanding" the map, it's probably not about it being impossible, but not feasible due to however the terrain/maps are created. As for what the "debug plains/forest" is, is just an infinite/procedurally generated terrain (and water). I'm not entirely sure what the purpose is aside from it being a cheap way to surround the map with something solid, much like how other games have "sky boxes" to create a backdrop/illusion that stuff exists far in the distance, even if you can't ever go there. This is especially important for aerial vehicles like BeefBacon mentioned, which would be able to see far past the map's borders anyway. Of course, you could force players from leaving the map by implementing some kind of "turn back or u die" mechanic, but I think it's unnecessary effort because most people won't try to go there once they realize there's nothing there. Maybe they'll do it for entertainment, but not for gameplay (at least now that stuff doesn't save in the debug plains like in ARMA 2).

@chambersenator @gorvi You guys should make a separate thread for your discussion. c: I'm going to lock this thread since the question was answered and it's completely derailed.

@chambersenator @gorvi You guys should make a separate thread for your discussion. c: I'm going to lock this thread since the question was answered and it's completely derailed.

Nobody (in the dev team) has claimed the "network bubble" would prevent hacking, and it would make no sense considering what it actually is. What it is, and why it's called that, is just the range in which your client receives information about the world from the server. If your draw distance is 10'000 meters and the network bubble (which cannot be changed by players) is 1000 meters, you will see no life outside of 1000 meters. You will be able to see static objects like trees and houses, but not players, loot, or tents. Not even hackers can see outside of the network bubble, but it does not prevent hacking by itself.

It's not the norm (especially when working with a third-party publisher) but it's not unusual. The norm is having deadlines (which can still be delayed), and often having to cut content or features for the sake of time. DayZ has only had one cut feature which was companion animals. "We know what we want, but we don't yet know exactly when we're going to achieve it" can be an acceptable answer when you are making a product on your own terms, but it's not like BI or the devs are completely clueless as they've already shown so much confidence about them being able to reach 1.0 this year. It's not like DayZ is the only game to announce their release as a "uhh sometime in the year X, dunno which half or quarter yet but we'll get back on that." Expect more info as the year progresses. Hicks is the creative director, Eugen is the producer (project manager). This should also be apparent from Eugen having been the more prominent face for DayZ for a while now. They've explained this switch in roles as Hicks having been the producer in name only, but primarily doing the work of his current role. (I'm paraphrasing) I got schooled by Raptor. :(

Here's what Baty said about Xbox: PS4 doesn't have an "early access" program as far as I know, so the PS4 version will probably have to wait.

I miss Kamenka spawns.

Unless something changes, bows won't be in the game initially with beta. https://www.dayz.com/blog/status-report-24-october-2017 (Search for "risky")

Not "might," but "will." 0.64-0.99 won't even exist as far as I can tell because as I said, version numbers are arbitrary. That doesn't mean we won't get any updates after 0.63 comes out. It's not a progress bar, it's just a system used to track builds. Game development isn't linear enough to have something like that, so focusing on the version number isn't supposed to be what's important for anyone. They could just as well say "We're entering Early Access with DayZ Version 1" and then any update we get on Stable increases that number no matter how small of an update it is. They could use the letters and numbers for the version, or just completely silly names like how Starbound did it. (Starbound Alpha started with version Perturbed Koala and ended after Cheerful Giraffe.)

Version numbers are arbitrary. They don't have to go through 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, etc., and a dev already said DayZ will go straight from 0.63 to 1.0. We have a list of features that constitute "1.0." That's all they need to do to get there.

You can think what you want about the track record, but he wanted an estimate and there we have it. That said, I personally wish they didn't say it because they're going against their "no dates or roadmaps" from 2016 -- even going as far as making a video about DayZ's future in 2018. But the devs seem to be so confident that they're going all in, and some of that does rub off on me at least. YMMV.

Correct, but: DayZ only implemented the sound system from Arma 3's Eden update. There is no "Arma 3 Eden engine," just the Arma 3 engine (RV4) which isn't being used for DayZ aside from that system. Also, there hasn't been a "switch" to Enfusion at any point. The engine DayZ was using has been rewritten component by component, and at some point they decided "this is different enough to have its own name, and we're calling it Enfusion." (see: Theseus Paradox)

Free server hosting will come with beta.

AI is affected by server-side performance, rain and other visual effects are affected by client-side performance. So there's no concern about one affecting the other, besides making sure your toaster doesn't fry due to the water.

A lot of your questions have already been answered and a few with a reason why they won't be answered. Many of your questions have been asked and answered over and over, and here we still are. 1 & 13: They're just not doing dates anymore, and delays aren't always something so simple that it can be just "fixed" unless it's the same reason (or specifically a person) every time, which I doubt. 2: I've answered this so many times you can just go in my post history and get the answer with links to devs. 6: The devs are prioritizing the 0.63 build, 0.61/0.62 has only been getting critical fixes (crashes, exploits) or things that they've been able to add from the other build without conflicts. 7: I've answered this too. Check my post history for details but TLDR roughly 80 people minus 50 QA staff. 12: It doesn't sound like you can even be bothered with the energy to hear the answer, so why ask the question? 15: There's no way Dean Hall is coming back because he now has his own company and DayZ isn't his baby or dream project. I've talked about this in detail too, check my post history. 17: Mod support has been confirmed since the beginning and time and time again since then. Modding and free server hosting is coming in 0.63. 20: This is a loaded question implying that the feelings and actions they (DayZ devs and BI) have shown aren't their true feelings. If they give you the same answer as before, you think they're lying. If they were lying, they wouldn't admit it just because you asked. The devs are also obviously not happy about the massive delays (they've said as much), but are proud of what has been done (especially with 0.63). What about my questions for you though? Can you answer those?

"It's slick as hell though." My DayZ Ladder PTSD will never heal, but I'm willing to risk it.

The gifs and videos showcasing what is (being) implemented aren't enough of a concrete and visual representation as to how the game is progressing? The devs saying "0.63 and everything up to 1.0 will happen in 2018" with an attached feature list isn't enough of an estimate about when things are expected to be released?

The 0.63 demo didn't disappear as much as the devs came out saying "we were going to release the demo but we are not happy enough with it" in a status report. Speaking of status reports, I don't remember who said it but I think a new SR should be coming later today or tomorrow. Edit; Yup, here we go: https://forums.dayz.com/topic/237889-status-report-16-january-2018/ What sort of information are you looking for?

Could you be more specific about what you think the devs have been tight lipped about? I can probably find you the info. If it's just the "what's the hold up," read the past few status reports. All of it is the reason why.

I haven't touched Rust since it was a browser game, but the picture in the main post is official concept art shown at RTX 2015. Hesco bags, fences, gates, watch towers (pre-built), etc.

Yes. In this SR they said "barricading is too risky for beta" along other things and expanded more on that right after in the same SR. In this SR they said "we had to choose which to support first, and we chose base building." You can find both parts very quickly if you search for "barricading."