gummy52

It's hard to define what "failing" is in this case. They will sell an obscene number of copies on release regardless of anything. However, DayZ's in a unique position because the standalone won't be much different than the mod at release, and they always run the risk of making it worse. Not only is there the possibility that many of the loyal fans will be tired of the game soon after release but that the standalone is not large enough of a step up to hold many new players. DayZ's reputation at the moment is; "It's great but it's too buggy. I'll wait for the retail version". Releasing it in an alpha state may backfire. So I think the concern that some people have is that although the game may sell well it might not maintain a noteworthy number of concurrent players into the following years.

I understand it well enough to program it from scratch. You seem to have misinterpreted my post, and the following is a complete contradiction. I honestly can not make out what you're trying to say.

Hello Matt Lightfoot, thank you for the update. In a previous thread you commented that there will be no vehicles in the game at release because the client/server architecture takes precedence. Has there been any progress on that note? In addition, I have another important question. Several months ago I read that Bohemia Interactive would not be hosting dedicated servers for the standalone and that, instead, BI would be renting servers out to clans or anyone else who wants one like DayZMod originally was. I believe that model contradicts the "MMO client/server" architecture. Would you comment on this? I raise this question because ArmA 3 has demonstrated a lack of security at Bohemia Interactive and allowing the server software to be used by third parties is the worst possible move in the interest of security and integrity of fair game play.

If DayZ Alpha is anything like ArmA 3 Alpha then it won't.

Here comes the Rocket defense force. The original post is a sincere expression of disappointment that will inevitably be trolled under the rug as to make sure no one pays attention.

I don't know how you can possibly say that. I've tried the free light version and felt the complete opposite. I've seen videos of helicopters flying upside down, and mortars ricocheting the user sky high. Their bug tracker is littered with tens of thousands of reports. That's not a very productive way to make progress, unless their intent is to play trial and error until enough things work to consider it not-alpha. Again, I have to disagree. It worked great for Notch; he made a lot of money. I bought into Minecraft when it was popular on 4chan and the money completely stifled development; he ended up backpedaling on too many features for me to even try to remember and the final product was a husk of what it could have been.

Your point doesn't make a lot of sense. They made a lot of money off of DayZ and are looking to make more by selling another product. The point that I raised is that Bohemia Interactive does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The example I provided was that the ArmA 2 campaign is inoperable to this date. They never finished the mod, either. They're extremely vague about what may or may not be missing, so it's hard to know if vehicles will be the only missing core feature. You can't say it's a good sign. What if they never add in vehicles, or any other features they decide to put off? My impression is that some of the people here would be content simply being able to log in and look around. I know how read Rocket's blog, too. If you're going to make snide comments then I have to ask; are you really incapable of thinking outside the box? The "release model", as you know it, is exactly as the person selling it to you has described it.

It's not, though. It was just an example. Another example would be their new movement animations. I particularly think that movement animations in ArmA 2 are exceptional. Bohemia decided to replace them with ones that are less fluent and less realistic. It seems like you're saying, "If you don't like it, don't buy it". If you ask me that has become a very trite comment to make in defense of a game.

What's important to consider is that Bohemia has not earned the benefit of the doubt. As an example, their ArmA 2 campaign is completely inoperable to this date. They simply never finished it, and you can only (hardly) debug your way past the first missions. Delaying the release of vehicles in DayZ is particularly troubling because synchronizing them across many clients is not as easy and intuitive as units (players, zombies) are. Yet that is coincidentally a feature they're excluding until later. They're asking many (millions) of people to buy the game at a discount with the promise that they'll eventually patch and fix missing things after you've bought it. I do not think that we, as consumers, should consider it acceptable for them to sell the game until they've gotten it up to par with the mod. There's simply no reason to believe that Bohemia will deliver the goods after they've turned a profit. In the face of all of this, there's still the matter of Rocket mentioning a desire to adopt a Kickstarter model. That's pouring salt on the wound.

Private messages are just that; private. I believe there are legitimate reasons to criticize Bohemia and Rocket, and that they should be publicly criticized. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only DayZ forums out there. I believe that the Standalone Alpha should not be sold with less features than the DayZMod Alpha. The reponse I always get is that the work they're doing is awesome and truly under rated. I'm questioning how groundbreaking it really is and if it should be so time consuming as to take a year only to fall short of the mod. Many people seem to think that it is "okay" to simply trust in them. In the case of companies with multi million dollar budgets, I do not believe that has worked out positively in any case over the last 10 years.

I assure you, I did not miss the point of the facile analogy. I'm of the impression, based on your post, that you're trying to drag me into a pissing contest. You asked about my experience in programming; although this is completely off topic, I'll comment that I've really loved C for a long time. Earlier in this thread I scrutinized Bohemia cutting features, and the response came across to me as hyperbole; "the work they're doing is really great and is really under rated". I'm questioning how groundbreaking it really is and if it should be so time consuming as to take a year only to fall short of the mod. Again, I am in no rush to see the game released. I am concerned, though, that Bohemia is, and that they are over extending the capabilities of the team assigned to DayZ.

Wortie, why are you discussing how the client renders the world in response to a question about server/client communication? You may have indirectly answered my question.

For what reason, other than Bohemia's say so, do people commonly believe (on these forums) that a client/server architecture should ever be time consuming to implement or server side game play for that matter?

Does anyone else think that Bohemia Interactive is managing their time poorly? Radio implementation sounds interesting, but shouldn't they be dedicating more resources to implementing features that already exist in the Mod? Shouldn't the Standalone Alpha be held to a higher standard than the Mod Alpha? Do we really need to take steps backwards? For anyone unaware, Bohemia has officially decided not to include things such as vehicles in the Alpha. If they release in June (best case scenario), then it means programming server side unit movement (zombies/players) took roughly a year. I think it's safe to assume that it could take them months to implement and debug vehicles, and additional months for any other missing features. Supposedly they do not intend to begin working on them until after the game is available for purchase on Steam. With the way things are shaping up, the standalone may have less features than the Mod until next year. I do not think that the game should be delayed or rushed; I simply think Bohemia should develop the game professionally like other independent companies do.

They won't have vehicles in the game at the time of release, so I very much doubt they'll ever do anything like this.

Epic troll. You sure showed me buddy. Yeah man I think I'm definitely done posting here.

personal incredulity

I believe I have made a point. I called the suppose "kickstarter model" a scam only to have you and a few others defend it. Then once others started to also speak out against it the mods backpedal and decide to post that it was a misquote. Every several posts you chime in repeating the exact same line, that I haven't made a point and that I shouldn't buy it if I don't like it. You're shitposting.

Clearly you completely failed to understand my point.

From what I read Empire Total War wasn't sold as an Alpha. It was developed, tested internally, released, and maintained.

There are a few people out there who buy an Alpha without realizing what that meant. A few. Putting those few insignificant aside, the other several million are willing to buy into it despite what they know. I very much so wish that the rest of us wouldn't be punished for their foolish behavior. Most people are able to understand what it means when a company labels something as "Alpha", but few understand the unlikeliness that such a product would actually be finished. Even fewer understand the insignificance of an unfinished product being patched and updated. Every online game needs to be patched and maintained. The weaker the start, the weaker the finish. A company can only sustain working full time on something before it becomes unprofitable. You, the consumer, expects that if that happens then the company can declare it ready for release and gain momentum. It doesn't work that way in practice; everyone that was going to buy it already has. The company benefits in the end because they are financially in control the entire time. The money starts coming in the moment they need it, and they stop investing time once the sales slow down. The only thing you as a consumer got out of buying into this nonsense was a sloppier starting point and a weaker product. The words I've quoted are a fitting comment.

That's understandable; consumers are hungry for anything at this point. There haven't been many good games in the past several years either. In my opinion developers should be held accountable for what they're selling. Yeah, it's unfinished, and the buyer can figure that out if he does his research; but is it really wrong to expect that you get what you pay for?

I understand that you're frustrated. You've taken the liberty of doing research and writing several essays in this thread, and your desire to make me look like a fool is palpable; I see you've been digging through my post history. Unfortuntley, you've failed to demonstrate what you set out to do. If you're going to repeat yourself, then I will have to do the same. Blogspot is not a source. Citing the Chemistry definition of Alpha doesn't support your point, either. Finally, ad hominems make you look foolish; not me. A publicly purchasable product is not an Alpha/Prototype. Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you've back backpedaled into claiming that because everyone here agrees with you nothing I say matters. Even that much isn't true. While you were busy googling and reading my post history, Fraggle and other posters were questioning the legitimacy of this supposed "kickstarter model". As it turns out (according to Fraggle) Dean Hall did not actually announce any such model.

Seriously? We're going to link internet defintions now? I'm glad you've admitted that your previous post was nonsense (oh, sorry, you confused the meaning of subjective?). You seem to be repeating the mistake in quoting Chemistry and linking to blogspot. I went to your blogspot link and all I found was a post citing Wikipedia. If you want to quote Wikipedia, why not quote it directly? http://www.thefreedi....com/alpha test https://en.wikipedia...ife_cycle#Alpha The point you chose to overlook in both of your links is the specifically mentioned "testing team", aka, the developers. If it's being sold and tested by the consumer, it's a release, not even a beta, let alone alpha. I'd be very happy to learn that this "kickstarter model" is fabricated. It sounds excessively unprofessional.