DayFlawZ

S3V3n and Phill got my point. I don't mind paying for a functional game, but I have my problems to play an alpha of an alpha... I mean you can call it "prototype" then... transitioning from one alpha into another alpha and charging for it seems like Phill said "a bit of a leap of faith"

Well I really don't care about dogs... most annoying thin are the military graphic glitches. When a patch gets delayed to implement dogs, I will surely be upset as the OP. WOOF WOOF ps. Noone tests stupid dogs if you can't see them because of glitches.

So you call me childish because I don't like your buggy military simulation?Oh my gawd I never said Arma2 is boring or what ever, I just say that it wasn't a huge success and bug ridden. I don't know much about military but I hope ppl. in the real army don't have that many casualties to toliet-doors. It already feels horrible to die to a door in DayZ... can't imagine how depressing it would be in RL.

Don't get me wrong, I love DayZ, I'm just not happy with the transition into a standalone. Personally I hoped Rocket would jump on another SDK/Engine what ever... And building some interface/handling things from scratch. What I fear is a converted mutation of the Arma2 code.

Well I get more entertainment from reading the insults thrown towards me than playing a single-player mission in any game (maybe except Sc2). Well the review thingy is hard, because when you criticize an alpha you get "IT'S A FKING ALPHA U RETARD". On a constructive point... maybe a "alpha/beta access for Arma2 owners would have been a solution. And I don't like paralell development... I guess keeping the arma2 part and the standalone part up to date could slow down the development of the standalone version.

oh, thanks for proving my point. What I doubt is that BI has the experience to do it. So they create a game from a mod which is in the earliest stage of development on a engine which isn't made for it. So a development-studio which is known for niche Military-Simulation want's me to charge $$ for a stand-alone MMO style game (which they have never ever nearly done before) which is based on a early alpha concept of a mod which was thought out by one single person. Not to mention missing long time experience if the DayZ concept can keep players entertained for a long period of time. That's pretty ballsy. I don't play shooters on a regular basis. But I play Eve... which is a well established sandbox...

My point about Valve was not CSS or what ever... They recognized the potential of the mod and handled it well without charging for the mod again after it's alpha. I don't like to pay for an alpha twice. CSS wasn't out before CS was a well established game with a good and smooth gameing experience. And valve had already proven that they can make a Coutnerstrike and support it. Valve didn't convert the first source of CS into CSS. CSS came out with CS 1.6 as one of the most established games EVER. BI didn't prove anything until now. They proved to release a buggy game which annoyed huge fans. When I see all the bugs in DayZ well I can't see where BI really proved to be able to fix all the stuff. I mean rocket even states that some things will not be possible with Arma2. I'm still worried about the statement that he can't prevent duping in Arma 2. If BI is not able to do that, how can I have the slightest faith that they will be able to do it in DayZ standalone?

Of course, I bought Halflife, entered the key in steam, and a CS 1.6 Icon appeared in my steam library. No I didn't had to install HL.

No, you buy Halflife u get counterstirke.

And now guess why I don't like the idea of a DayZ game based on the Arma engine? I totally get your argument, but BI should be honest with them self and get WHY Arma 2 is top in steam store. It's not because of their brilliant coding, or their flawless network-architecture. Look how Valve handled Counterstrike. They recognized WHY ppl. bought Halflife, and they found a good solution. @ShiZaNkY yap, and that's why I have doubts in BI that they will be able to handle MMO-Proof protection.

So you seriously compare the build quality of BF3 with Arma2? I don't play BF3 anymore but hell I was never ever relocated by a hacker :D

I think you didn't read my posts... The brilliance about DayZ is not the engine or how it's programmed. It's game concept and the idea behind it. Of course I know that rocket works for BI, I don't know if rocket is a "brilliant programmer" , but he had a genius idea. With all the bugs, exploits and hacks you can't say DayZ is a "smooth" gaming experience...

I would buy i immediately if it wasn't programmed by BI.

How is it so hard to say mannered? From a objective point Arma 2 wasn't really a success, check out metacritics or what ever. So BI created a totally buggy game and even dared to sell it, then they got lucky and rocket created the mod. And now the same company which created the most buggy game I ever played wants me to pay again for a an alpha which will be as buggy as hell with the promise that it will be finished some day? Ok let me get it straight; I dont mind to play DayZ, but I mind to pay the same studio twice in hope they create a less buggy game than the original one... which I only bought because some genius named "Rocket" made the buy worth something. I would pay rocket 60$, no problem.

Well you basically pay the same company for the same game twice.