DayZ Alpha won't launch until launched !

[Shadow Man 142]

Think I might start a new creative world on Minecraft. Timewarp straight to Standalone release day!

[suprykadr@gmail.com 1]

Personally, I think a good release date would be in the fourth quarter, preferably October-Decemberish. It would allow a lot of work which is going to be done anyways to be done in advance and have a stronger release. The mod itself is just fine on it's own right now, no reason to release when a far better version could be released later.

[gummy52 57]

Call it what you like, they've been completely open about their intentions.

I think what you fail to understand is that companies are obligated to put a positive spin on their decisions. On one hand they express a desire to be truthful and transparent, but on the other hand they openly manipulate the truth. Even if you look past the disingenuous tilting, there's still the matter of this "kickstarter" model. Rewarding consumers for giving you money isn't donating. That's straight up buy and sell. Micro-transactions, let alone during the "Alpha", unquestionably contradict their public intentions prior to the The War Z debacle that demonstrated how gullible consumers can be.

players would pay certain amounts to opt into the alpha and snag other goodies, in tiers.

The moral development cycle for them would be an open beta followed up by a release once the product is ready, free of anything similar to micro-transactions. Many genuine companies have walked down that path successfully. Why does Bohemia Interactive need additional funds to circumvent traditional development when they're consistently a top seller on Steam thanks to the DayZ Mod?

Edited April 4, 2013 by gummy52

[byrgesen 1340]

I think what you fail to understand is that companies are obligated to put a positive spin on their decisions. On one hand they express a desire to be truthful and transparent, but on the other hand they openly manipulate the truth. Aside from the disingenuous tilting, rewarding consumers for giving you money isn't donating. That's straight up buy and sell. Micro-transactions, let alone during the "Alpha", unquestionably contradict their public intentions prior to the The War Z debacle that demonstrated how gullible the masses are.

The moral development cycle for them would be an open beta followed up by a release once the product is ready, free of anything similar to micro-transactions.

Can only agree.

I didnt like it very much when Rocket started talking about Kickstarter and being able to "pledge" for game content, by paying for it.

I hope WarZ showed them micro transactions doesnt belong in a game like this.

You should simply not be able to pay for progress OR items in DayZ and the dev team should NOT be using things like Kickstarter tbh.

They already have a fan base thats more then happy to pay for an unfinished product, so why even consider it.

[Grippen (DayZ) 0]

My 2 cents.

1. Happy that a standalone is coming out in the first place, and I rather wait then have another War Z money grab.

2. Kind of wished Rocket, or one of the lead developers did post this information themselves.

With that being said, you cant get everything you want. And right now I just really want a good Zombie game to play, and Day Z is our best hope IMO.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

I'd like to see the original quotes from Rocket talking about Kickstarters/pledges ect. Not because I doubt it, I've just been a bit out of touch recently so I'm not sure where this stuff is getting quoted from (I'm guessing PAX as I haven't seen all the Q&A's yet).

Like I say, I'm not doubting your quotes or info, I just like to know we're dealing with first hand info and not quotes by another dodgy game journo paraphrasing Rocket and getting it wrong (which has happened before). I'll try and get some solid info on this at my end tomorrow.

[gummy52 57]

I've been quoting the original post of this thread.

and Hall is looking at a possible Kickstarter-inspired distribution model, where players would pay certain amounts to opt into the alpha and snag other goodies, in tiers.

[DickSharpe 23]

Bohemia Interactive is misrepresenting what an Alpha is. What an Alpha is is common knowledge. Therefore "evidence" is not applicable. Their model completely contradicts what an Alpha is. You can't make up your own definitions on the fly. My "single sentence answers" are all that is required when someone's entire "argument" is based on a statement that is false. For example, an earlier post claimed that an Alpha is defined as an unfinished product. That isn't true.

Perhaps I seem like a troll because my posts are not walls of texts that substitute rational with emotion. Regardless, by definition Bohemia Interactive is misrepresenting the truth and collecting revenue while doing so. Arguing why the circumstances make that moral or immoral is certainly subjective and if you want to seriously defend companies that mime this behavior then you should look to yourself for who is uninformed and impatient.

You have assumed that what you believe to be the correct definition of alpha is common knowledge.

From what I can tell the definition of alpha is also subjective and has transformed via common usage to now be a way of describing a product that is not fully complete, buggy and may crash or glitch.

Also I'm just curious as to how I'm impatient when I want them to take their time releasing and could not care less about when/if I get to play the alpha.

Oh and I'm uninformed because I don't agree with you when you say that Bohemia and Rocket are being immoral and misrepresenting their product?... But didn't you just say that the morality of the situation is also subjective?

I don't feel that they are misrepresenting anything.

In fact, I feel that they are doing the best they can to be open about what to expect from the first release.

Do I feel like I'm being exploited because they are offering me the choice of buying an unfinished game? No I don't.

Subjectivity is based on feelings, personal tastes and opinions, not necessarily fact or fiction. So you can't really justify saying someone is uninformed when they offer a subjective point of view. Its like saying that someones religion or sexual preference is wrong because they are not informed enough to know better.

[DickSharpe 23]

I've been quoting the original post of this thread.

So you have been quoting from a quote which was quoted from an unidentified source?

Edit: My bad just noticed that the link was posted in the next post down... Sorry about that folks :blush:

Edited April 4, 2013 by DickSharpe

[gummy52 57]

From what I can tell the definition of alpha is also subjective

Definitions are not subjective. You're grasping at straws and basically saying "I'll believe what I want to". The rest of your post is nonsensical at best. You're a walking non sequitur.

the definition of alpha has transformed via common usage

[citation very much needed]

Yeah, nah. The last two years of shady video game selling doesn't out weigh the prior half century.

Edited April 4, 2013 by gummy52

[DickSharpe 23]

Definitions are not subjective. You're grasping at straws and basically saying "I'll believe what I want to". The rest of your post is nonsensical at best. You're a walking non sequitur.

[citation very much needed]

Yeah, nah. The last two years of shady video game selling doesn't out weigh the prior half century.

Love the use of Latin there ;) feeling superior yet?

Although once again you have provided no counter argument and no evidence to support your statements nor have you provided a definitive definition of exactly what alpha is. Just Statements with no follow up.

I concede that the word subjective was not the right one to use in describing a definition. I should have said that a definition can change slightly based on the context in which it is being used eg: Alpha means something different when used in chemistry and something different again when used from an economics or investment perspective.

http://oxforddiction...n/english/alpha the first definition of alpha in this link states that the word alpha can be used as a modifier "denoting the first of a series of items or categories" so DAYZ SA Alpha Release looks to me to be a fairly accurate summery of what it will be...the first Release of DAYZ SA.

Here are a few more "definitions" of what alpha means in the context of gaming and software development: both of which differ slightly, the 2nd one seem to describe rather well what the idea is with DAYZ SA.

http://technicalgame...1/04/alpha.html

http://www.techopedi...5935/alpha-test

I must say that you have hit nail on the head there buddy! I will believe what I want to.

Based on rockets actions, Bohemia's reputation, past products, my onions of their past products and your lack of any factual evidence. I don't believe that there is anything wrong in this case aside from the lack of direct communication from Rocket, I like many would like to hear these sorts of thing from him not from second hand sources, but meh its not the end of the world.

The post cant have been that nonsensical as you managed to get that , Much out of it :P

To me it seems you are irritated by the fact that they are asking people to pay for an unfinished product. If you don't like the Idea of doing that, then don't its that simple.

Edited April 4, 2013 by DickSharpe

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

I've been quoting the original post of this thread.

Yeh, that's what worries me. Like I say I'll try and get something more reliable than that.

[byrgesen 1340]

Yeh, that's what worries me. Like I say I'll try and get something more reliable than that.

Heres where the origional post got the information from:

http://www.joystiq.c...l-at-least-jun/

DayZ is basically ready for an alpha run, but Hall and his team are waiting to perfect the client-server architecture. Hall currently has 25 people in a small pre-alpha, and he hopes to get a few hundred playing DayZ before opening the alpha. DayZ alpha keys will go live in batches, possibly 50,000 at a time, and Hall is looking at a possible Kickstarter-inspired distribution model, where players would pay certain amounts to opt into the alpha and snag other goodies, in tiers.

So not confirmed, just "looking into" :) And it looks like its not Kickstarter perse, merely a Kickstarter inspired release model, with possible tiers to opt in to.

Still sucks if you ask me, nobody should be able to buy more content in this game.

I couldnt find anything else on the subject, but will look some more.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Byrgesen

[gummy52 57]

I concede that the word subjective was not the right one to use in describing a definition. I must say that you have hit nail on the head there buddy! I will believe what I want to.

technicalgamedesign.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/alpha.html

Based on rockets actions, Bohemia's reputation, past products, my onions of their past products.....

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.

Yeh, that's what worries me. Like I say I'll try and get something more reliable than that.

I'd be very happy to learn that this "kickstarter model" is fabricated. It sounds excessively unprofessional.

Edited April 4, 2013 by gummy52

[Private Evans 1303]

Heres where the origional post got the information from:

http://www.joystiq.c...l-at-least-jun/

So not confirmed, just "looking into" :) And it looks like its not Kickstarter perse, merely a Kickstarter inspired release model, with possible tiers to opt in to.

Still sucks if you ask me, nobody should be able to buy more content in this game.

I couldnt find anything else on the subject, but will look some more.

Sounds like the way they are doing it for Arma 3. I don't think "goodies" means basic game content :) . Maybe you can give some extra money for later map addons, a complete soundtrack or a printed map, modding tools...stuff like that or choose an alpha lite key just for the basic game....

just my thoughts...

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Okey cokey then, so, just to clarify.

Obviously Dean's not available ATM so I've spoken to Matt about it. It sounds like the "Kickstarter" part of the quote and the "paying for goodies" part are just the game journo throwing his own interpretation (wrongly) onto something Dean has said.

What does this mean? Well it means nothing's changed in the respect that they will follow the model for release that they originally intended. As has always been discussed, there will be no extra content or "goodies" depending on when you purchase. Just the game. If you buy it in development it will be cheaper as is becoming common practice now days.

Cool, now I'm off to punch every gaming journo I see in the eye.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Fraggle

[herbster 34]

I think it comes from this post

http://www.joystiq.c...l-at-least-jun/

If it is from this and this alone, whilst it isn't an actual quote from Rocket, it does imply it's from the horses mouth.

IGNORE THIS POST, IT'D ALREADY BEEN POSTED!!!

Edited April 4, 2013 by herbster

[herbster 34]

I was under the impression that the 'alpha' testing wasn't for the actual game, it was for performance. So the actual game itself wouldn't be alpha at all really, only the MMO part that needs many clients for stress testing.

[byrgesen 1340]

Okey cokey then, so, just to clarify.

Obviously Dean's not available ATM so I've spoken to Matt about it. It sounds like the "Kickstarter" part of the quote and the "paying for goodies" part are just the game journo throwing his own interpretation (wrongly) onto something Dean has said.

What does this mean? Well it means nothing's changed in the respect that they will follow the model for release that they originally intended. As has always been discussed, there will be no extra content or "goodies" depending on when you purchase. Just the game. If you buy it in development it will be cheaper as is becoming common practice now days.

Cool, now I'm off to punch every gaming journo I see in the eye.

Thanks for taking your time mate :)

It really cleared things up

I was under the impression that the 'alpha' testing wasn't for the actual game, it was for performance. So the actual game itself wouldn't be alpha at all really, only the MMO part that needs many clients for stress testing.

Well they are far far from done with the game, so theres gonna be a whole lot of testing for us really.

I will bet they need 1000's of people to do proper testing of loot spawn, zombie effiency and all that aswell, not just the MMO achitecture :)

Edited April 4, 2013 by Byrgesen

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Big thanks to both Fraggle and Mr. Lightfoot.

Since folks will continue to insist on jumping to conclusions, it's nice to know someone cares enough to catch them when they fall.

As a side note, does anyone remember a time when journalists investigated and reported instead of half-listening and making the rest up?

Lesson learned? Do the research.

That goes for writers and readers.

EDIT:

I feel like I might rant about game-journos too often.

But anyone who does their job properly has no reason to be offended by my distaste for those who don't.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Chabowski

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

Cheer for the clarification.

[SmashT 10907]

I was under the impression that the 'alpha' testing wasn't for the actual game, it was for performance. So the actual game itself wouldn't be alpha at all really, only the MMO part that needs many clients for stress testing.

The game is releasing in alpha, following the minecraft model. Right now we doing technical/capacity testing.

Edited April 4, 2013 by smasht_AU

[joe_mcentire 2073]

The game is releasing in alpha, following the minecraft model. Right now we doing technical/capacity testing.

yeeeAAhhh well now anyone could say that! show some proof! now!

hahah this evil plan...it is perfect

Edited April 4, 2013 by joe_mcentire

[DickSharpe 23]

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.

Wow now you are going to pick on the fact I made a mistake and admitted to it? You really do get off on trying to belittle people and talk (or in this case type) down to them.

You keep on stating that my posts don't make sense, they obviously make sense as you are able to read them pick on them and then post some completely unhelpful self-righteous response.

I posted those links to demonstrate how the definition can differ slightly between sources and so others could read them if they wanted to, and form their own ideas on the subject.

Unlike you I don't assume that people want me to educate them on the subject, nor do I try to force my way of thinking on others by using Latin phrases to try and intellectually intimidate other posters into feeling inferior to myself.

What you have failed to point out in your selective analysis of my links is that both state quite clearly that the term Alpha Test has come to mean different things and will differ from developer to developer, publisher to publisher. I'm sure that other posters will read into these in their own way and form their own analysis of it.

At the moment the majority of people seem to be happy with the current plan of releasing an unfinished "Alpha" version of DAYZ SA. (aside from the hearsay about pay to win type micro transactions, which would not be a good move).

The way I see it is that at the end of the day its an individual choice to pay if you want to participate in this process. If you don't want to then wait until its all done and don't moan about being mislead because they called it an Alpha release (1st release) and told you it would not be fully complete. I personally am OK with paying for it the right to play it and become part of the "testing team". We the players are probably the most discerning of testers, We will express what we feel about the game and what could or should be changed or not changed with no beating about the bush, as has been demonstrated on these forums many times in the past.

I'm done now. I have put my thoughts out there and people will make of them what they will :) and decide for themselves weather or not they feel exploited, profited off and lied to. Oh and then there is the fact that you are a Hacker and I don't wish to associate with you any more.

It's not true, and many of the same people have been hacking for months without needing additional keys, myself included.

Edited April 5, 2013 by DickSharpe

[gummy52 57]

the definition can differ slightly between sources...

... At the moment the majority of people seem to be happy

...Oh and you are a Hacker and I don't wish to associate with you any more.

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.

Edited April 5, 2013 by gummy52