AnarchyBrownies

Thanks for the response! :). Where was this information? (In case I just missed it). Are these considered minor, quickly fixable problems?

Wasn't there supposed to be a large scale test yesterday? I would have liked to hear how that went, rather than have to endure people talking about some useless argument that makes no difference in the development of the game in any aspect of the word difference. Who is Rhinocrunch? Why is his opinion being valued so much? I don't know who he is, I don't care who he is, I don't want to know who he is. Let's never get this sidetracked by useless people with useless opinions ever again. How did the large scale test go?

People undervalue starting from scratch. Starting from scratch at each server is exciting and it changes up the game a lot. People always complained about the endgame with the mod but never took any risks for getting there and refused to risk their gear once they did get there... then they called the game boring... I absolutely think your character should be tied to the server. This doesn't help for trades, but maybe trades shouldn't be so convenient. Maybe your trades should be limited to whatever gear is in the world you're playing on. (I'm not saying you, Fraggle, would disagree with this). Nothing wrong with that! Like you said, cons outweight the pros for server hopping. Plus in this way you could have one profile and still have multiple characters, just spread out on different servers. Not sure how they were planning on dealing with this in the standalone.

Zey do NAWthing!

So it sounds like the game is pretty much ready to be released. That being said, I do think they should delay the release and ensure everyone who intends to buy it is psychologically ready to play. What if 50% of the players have heart attacks the first time it loads because they're so excited to finally be playing? It just seems irresponsible to release it any time in the near future.

How long is it delayed for?

Let me just stop reading right there. Who says progress has been slack? You? Could you please inform everyone as to where DayZ development stands? And the updates have been fairly regular, even if not weekly. I don't recall them being weekly when Rocket was around. More like every two weeks... which is similar to now. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know something about development until you clarify what you mean by that post.

Still get a kick out of this comment whenever I think about it. Well played. I should sig it, really.

Watch the last 10 seconds of the video (Watch the whole thing if you haven't seen it yet!) :)

I don't hear "later this week." Can't tell what he says.

Dammit, dammit!

@YZ250 Ugh the blue hath hurt mine eyes! Have my beans anyways.

I like that idea! But I think ultimately (just reading what you guys have written), it would make more sense if there was no GPS. The infrastructure required to run it just seems like it wouldn't exist.

I don't see any reason that all/most/any number of maps should be in pieces. It's not as though people go around destroying maps because there's a zombie apocalypse. That sort of thing should be sitting in every household, having been left behind. Most people have maps. And even basic road maps have a lot of information. I say concentrate on making more intense obstacles to getting places (zombies outside of cities for example), not on preventing people from knowing where they want to go.

The title of this article worried me but luckily it didn't involve Rocket's team. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/world/asia/nepal-mount-everest-fight/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

It looks like he tweeted that about 7 hours ago so not necessarily tomorrow. Seems like it could be at any time.

Haha you were just too eager to click the link and see some footage.

And that would absolutely be a case where I would make the argument that the mod is free. I'm just saying I see lots of of comments about people discussing how much people paid for DayZ and it is absolutely relevant to the discussion. My point is context, and in that context reminding the bitching user that the mod is free makes complete sense. Rocket and the rest of the DayZ developers don't owe anyone anything because they released it for free. However, it would be completely foolish to compare the explosion of DayZ, and the resulting purchases of Arma, to other mods. Most mods don't take off like DayZ did and DRAMATICALLY boost the sales of the game that was modded. So please stop simplifying my argument like I'm on one side or the other because I agree with the point you just made. And just so you're aware, because your post seemed to indicate you didn't, the majority of DayZ players came from the "outside." In fact, there were so many players from the "outside" that it became possible to conceive of it becoming a standalone game. That's what sets this case apart and is the point being made by people claiming they paid to play the game. It was not an indirect line of payment to play DayZ, it was quite direct for a lot of people in that they never intended to play Arma II. Let me restate however since this is the second time someone hasn't actually been able to read, I COMPLETELY AGREE that the developers of the mod do not owe anyone anything as they released it for free. You only saw my post as irrelevant because you picked and chose what parts you actually wanted to read. I'm completely confused as to why people don't see the importance of so many people buying Arma just to play DayZ. That is the whole basis of it taking off and why we're in here waiting for a standalone. Sure it's stupid for people to come in and act entitled to some sort of special treatment for their free mod, but most people here already know that mentality is stupid. Seeing that as stupid shouldn't come at the cost of acknowledging that the majority of the game's players came from "the outside" and didn't see DayZ as a mod, but as a game to play on its own. Hence, most people paying for it. Can you not see how there are two sides to it? (Thinking about this questions with the specific point in mind that Rocket and the developing team don't owe anyone anything). Which kind of brings me back to the topic at hand. At what point can you start holding a developing team accountable for delays or "broken promises"?? Personally, I have not been disappointed in the slightest at the December delay because they decided to take the game in a more serious direction. Hell, I could wait until next year and not think twice about it. But people come in here whining and moaning about the wait (of both the game and the updates) like it suggests incompetence on the part of the developers. Should anyone be worried about the developers being in over their heads or no? I've always had full confidence in everyone making the game but to be fair they are new to having their own project so I hope it's not naive to just assume success like I do. I guess the connected question is, at what point should people say, "Listen, you never gave us any indication that it would take this long to make a game." (2014? 2015? 2022?). Or is there never any right to say that because no one ever paid for anything??

I don't think anyone has ever said the mod isn't free. What they have said is that for the majority of players, they had to pay for the sole purpose of playing DayZ. I paid money just to play DayZ, but the mod was free. I hope this is understandable. This means something when you talk about how much money Bohemia made off the free mod, because people weren't buying for Arma, they were buying for DayZ. It also means something when you start to try to determine how many people "bought DayZ" and how much they were willing to pay. So the people being defensive about their "free mod" argument should just simmer down and understand what people mean by "They paid for DayZ." I don't think anybody here believes the mod isn't free. That just isn't factual.

You wouldn't think it was that simple reading some of these black/white discussions.

It's weird that this argument is still happening. YES THE MOD IS FREE. But I think the point of people saying it's not free is: Most players on the DayZ mod had to pay for Arma II and Combined Operations. The mod itself was free, but the VAST majority of DayZ players put out money to play it. They see that as paying for it. And that isn't equivalent to having to buy a computer to play DayZ, or pay for electricity to run the computer. These are both things most people already have. Most people also don't upgrade their computers to play DayZ, and even when they do those upgrades apply to all things computer (other games they play/may want to play). People buy Arma II for the DayZ experience ALONE. In some contexts it's proper to say that the mod is free. The people who put the work into it did so with the intention of providing a new playing experience to Arma players for free. Which they did. On the other side, when trying to gauge interest in the standalone and how many people would be willing to pay for it right away, it is proper to look back and say "Well look how many people paid for the mod." Which, again, most people did because they bought Arma II for the sole reason of playing DayZ. So both sides are right and should be happy to apply each argument to the context. I believe they call that dialectics. Consider it this way also... It is probably more accurate to say (although this isn't always the case): "(insert name of new game) gave me an excuse to upgrade my graphics card," instead of "I upgraded my graphics card to play (blank)." Similarly, most Dayz players aren't saying: "Yeah DayZ was a good excuse to buy Arma II." Upgrading hardware applies to the running of all software. Buying software in order to gain access to one mod means you're shelling out money for the mod. Even if that mod is free.

School is over. Now nothing to do but wait for DayZ to come out. EEEEEEExcellent. *evil grin* *finger tip taps*

From twitter: rocket2guns: all setup at base camp with my sat phone connection! just waiting on @mattbloomer to send me latest status report, then highest devblog ever

Rocket on Twitter: "Re-rendering cause I had framerate totally mixed up... ugh... didn't like going from 25, to 30, to 24. Got it sorted now... waiting again..."

What's sad about this statement is that it's sarcastic yet true, yet still sarcastic. Well written. And as for the rest of you, shut up. Thanks!