tenshu

They have to be careful with mods, the hacker problem seems to be getting worse atm and mods may open up new avenues to exploit the game.

Some of the DayZ apologists are a laughing stock in this thread, do you even listen to yourselves? I think the OP has got a point, and I fear the same things, it's obviously not guaranteed to happen, no one said it was. When someone says they are going to play, or mention competition, everyone attacks that product with no idea of what they are attacking, it's the definition of 'blind fanboy'. If you enjoy DayZ like I do, why do you feel the need to defend it with such intensity? The progress has been painfully slow, the core of the game is still broken (I.e. ZOMBIE survival game), I can only think some people don't want to feel like they have been ripped off by a scam. The truth is you got many hours of fun, so no need to be so angry even if it's not finished to how you imagine it. Considering the progress of other games and the amount of money the company have made of this product, everyone is well within their right to be angry at the slow progress.

If the zombies had really good AI and posed a real threat to players do you think people would cooperate in order to survive? Even the most die hard griefers may need to get help from players in this scenario, and it wouldn't close off their favourite play style as once they have all the equipment they need they can return to being an asshole :) This would also stop server hopping to get geared up on dead servers, thoughts?

Calling out the dev's? As in for a fight outside by the bike sheds?

My biggest (un constructive) fear is the game doesn't get finished Other then that I fear zombies won't have any effect on the outcome of survival and will just be part of the background as it has been from the start.

The next update includes the ability to build a bird feeder to attract hackers, then you lay waste to them in the traditional bird watching style.

I can't help noticing a rather extreme polarisation on the forums, there seems to be rabid fanboy's defending anything and everything, attacking anyone with criticism and churning out the same old 'it's alpha' lines. Then you have the extremely negative stereotype, that seems never to be appeased and who almost seems to feel like they have been cheated out of their money and want revenge. For an alpha to progress meaningfully, it needs criticism, and it needs appropriate praise when something is done right. I'm not sure how the devs are able to determine what they are doing right or wrong from this community, never mind what areas of the game they should be prioritising. My conclusion is that I can't help thinking that a paid open alpha was a mistake and maybe the beta stage would have been more appropriate, it's a hard topic as the DayZ community has made the game as popular as it is but could also be it's worst enemy.

Going back on topic, I guess now I understand that the dev's aren't really listening to the community regarding ideas or gameplay (As the quote from the mod earlier), the polarisation, if it exists, doesn't matter as all dev's have to do is look at bugs and hackers etc and fix those. I can say I'm actually a bit disappointed and hoped that the community could help develop the game as it was so much a part of its success.

This is a good idea for a supernatural survival game, where players can turn into animals to get an edge :)

The progress the game went through between November - January was immense, I think that's when the beta started, it's a good model for dev teams as the feedback forums were amazing, people really got into it and the devs listened. Saying that I still haven't purchased the game lol.

You still do need a resume for most game to be an alpha tester, for ESO I had to go through what seemed like a job interview. Without paying for it? I think I did pay for it :)

Well yeah, I guess so, there is no mention of actually being a part of the dev process, for me then this is just paying the company to test when it used to be the other way around. No one can then complain about the community really as they have actually paid for the game.

This is actually quite interesting, as I think a lot of people would have paid money for the game not just to test it, but to have an input in the development process.

I like that idea! (does that make me sick? :P ) Again you have brought up another good point, how are people who purchased the alpha meant to know the limitations of the engine or gaming in general when they have no experience in development themselves?

This is actually a great example of the dilemma the devs are facing, and how they are going to appease the community after they have already paid for the game. What if a poll was done and the community did want more gore, if the devs just say no, people will think 'well what exactly am I doing as part of this alpha? Have I just paid to test the game?"

I just had someone inbox me about a thread they started regarding ragdoll physics,zombie gore etc and they got flamed for it by the dev's and it wasn't taken seriously. It seems (admittedly subjectively) that this process is already happening

I haven't even commented on the alpha SA really, I was having problems with the mod ages ago but haven't had that much time to play the SA, so couldn't give much input. I never said it's been poor development, just that it seems the core of the game is moving slowly compared to other closed alpha's I've been a part of, and are still a part of.

Well said, I just hope the success of the mod and then the SA will not lead to complacency and things can move forward a bit faster than we have been seeing. There hasn't really been any serious competition for DayZ as of yet, people flocked to the WarZ game and got scammed basically. Now Sony are throwing their hat in the ring, a real serious contender is out there, but why would the team care? They already have their sales, so we are relying on them to listen to the community and make the game everyone has paid for. This for me changes the dynamic of consumer - producer relations, and the effect is yet to be determined.

It's just like those terms and conditions, no one really even pay's attention, I know I didn't at least, but then I knew what an alpha stage was.

And this is the problem, the paid alpha 'early access' model is at odds with reality, if you are truly expecting constructive criticism and help from all the people who buy the game, it's a delusion. I don't think the company is that stupid to think that this is what they would be getting, I think putting a paid open alpha was motivated by money, which I think is fine, but it means the dev's can't really listen too hard to the community that it has created.

The thing is, it's like saying "look at this game all the you tubers and everyone else is playing, don't buy it though because you have nothing to offer" In real life people see things they want to play, look to see if they can buy it, and then they buy it. Having a big warning in capital letters won't deter people as they are driven by what they see and what is popular, most people won't even notice that warning and will just watch the videos and go ahead and buy it.

I agree, having a closed alpha would mean the devs could get a good cross section of people and machines and get very real constructive criticism. Remember that people used to be paid to test and develop at this stage, now you have anyone and everyone paying the company to play and give their own version of events.

I don't even care about cooking/hunting yet, I want a world where the zombies are an actual thing to think about, where when you shoot them it has an physical effect, when you melee them they react, a world where they don't clip through walls to kill you, or totally ignore your presence. That for me should be the #1 priority to make this not just a survival PvP game but something where if players don't work together they will most likely die from the zombie threat, this opens up whole new avenues of gameplay and also cements the reasoning behind the genre of the game, i.e. a survival zombie game.

Having been on alpha's before, I have to say this is the slowest progress I have ever seen, which makes me think the final product doesn't have lofty ambitions. Saying that, they already have a winning formula, if they can fix the actual main bits of the game that keep people playing it will be the best. By main bits I mean the things that made us play a survival zombie game: 1) Zombies: They are still awful, clipping, dodgy running, poor melee combat, to easy to navigate past, and basically a non entity in the game. 2) Survival: I know it's alpha, but I haven't seen any progress in the amount of BS that happens to you in this game, you die from so many things that you aren't meant to 3) Core mechanics: The guns are ultra realistic, the hit detection and the reaction of the zombies to getting hit is laughable, melee is an even bigger joke. I say sort these things out as a priority, rather than concentrating on random things like cooking and hats.

It sounds like you would try hard to have his baby