DayZ Developer Blog 15th April Highest one ever

[ponc 100]

any news on the 1.7.7 update yet??

we waitin!!

[DemonGroover 8836]

Gummy.

You are right - there is no reason to trust Bohemia and Rocket about the work they are doing just on their say so. I suppose hope is a better word than trust. I hope the work they are doing is going to improve the SA above the mod.

From what little of it you have seen so far don't you think there have been improvements?

Edited April 16, 2013 by DemonGroover

[OrLoK 16185]

I believe that the Standalone Alpha should not be sold with less features than the DayZMod Alpha.

ooops, when i said PM i meant PM Twitter them.

I'm all up for constructive criticism in a frank, open and honest way.

Im guessing you think that the SA will rip folk off in some way?

L

[gummy52 57]

ooops, when i said PM i meant PM Twitter them.

I'm all up for constructive criticism in a frank, open and honest way.

Im guessing you think that the SA will rip folk off in some way?

L

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.

Edited April 16, 2013 by gummy52

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Again, if the lack of vehicles is your only complaint, awesome. Everything else seems to surpass the mod quite a bit so I'm happy. You can always wait until you're happy with what you see. That's what I do.

[gummy52 57]

Again, if the lack of vehicles is your only complaint, awesome. Everything else seems to surpass the mod quite a bit so I'm happy.

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.

You can always wait until you're happy with what you see. That's what I do.

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.

Edited April 16, 2013 by gummy52

[fluxley 2228]

Where have you seen the new movement animations?

[gummy52 57]

Where have you seen the new movement animations?

Edited April 17, 2013 by gummy52

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Aren't those just the ArmA3 animations?

[EDIT]Just watched the whole video again closely. Didn't see any "new" animations in it.[/EDIT]

Just a couple things though.

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.

1.Bohemia have already turned a HUGE profit with the DayZ name. So any speculation regarding them upping sticks and legging it doesn't ring alarm bells TBH.

2.Rocket never stated his supposed desire to follow a "kickstarter model". We've had this discussion before. Remember?

Edited April 17, 2013 by Chabowski

[dallas 5195]

Well... there's the way it is, then there's the way you wish and they are not the same.

I don't really care what you do with your trust issues, Rocket and BI make decisions you wont always agree with and if they are deal breakers for you, then it's your prerogative to either wait buying the Standalone until vehicles are implemented or take your hard earned business elsewhere.

There's no controversy here.

There's BI's rough and open platform and then there's Rocket's use of this platform. Both have their flaws, shortcomings and bugs, but there's nothing quite like them out there, because most other companies have decided to aim for the casual mainstream, where all the predictable sales are.

Vehicles are not essential for the survival experience, they are a nice luxury, but it's simply been deemed that they can wait. Animations are being redone with good reason, but they are not being copied from ArmA 3, they are going to have a more civilian feel to them. I liked ArmA 2's animations too, but they are like BI's games in general, you really have to embrace their vision to both see the beauty of the games and to accept the uglier sides too. The old animation philosophy scared some people off, when they lost control of their characters, while it was busy on it's own, playing out some long animation they didn't want it to do and which they couldn't abort.

What it comes down to both with BI games and DayZ mod is you're dealing with a product in progress. A major difference is, unlike unnamed others, BI and Rocket is upfront and candid about it. DayZ the mod matured over several months and we also saw some setbacks or upsets, when Rocket released a major update. This is the nature of the product, you're buying into an experiment and evolving world and if you view it with an obsolete and traditional mindset, you'll mistakenly think, you're entitled to more than you're sold.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Dallas

[Maxgor 2314]

The problems Gummy has, really just stems from his inability to understand the release model. Either that or immense trolling which is extremely likely from his continuing of the kickstarter idea, which he has been told wasn't true more than once.

[OrLoK 16185]

I have to say if they used just the A3 movement, I for one would be a happy man. The A2 anims are/were a major turn off to many players.

At the launch of alpha I don't believe vehicles will be in, much like fixed wing aircraft are not in A3. I have no doubt they will be and it will be an improvement on a2. Will it be a massive shift/improvement? I think probably not, but I'm still glad I have the full alpha at this price, I think the SA will be the same.

L

Edited April 17, 2013 by orlok

[colekern 1364]

Show me where :)

I rewatched it and he doesn't mention footsteps.

He said you could put it on the ground and listen for people. That's what I thought he meant.

[colekern 1364]

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.

Gummy, those are the Arma 3 animations, not the the new DayZ animations. That interview is from PAX. They haven't even begun work on the player animations yet, according to this devblog.

"and then onto player animations for the new skeleton, custom designed to feel more like a civilian rather than the trained soldier of ArmA2." -From the latest devblog.

Also, about the kickstarter thing... show me your source on this. I read something about this a while back, but I think he was talking about purchase options (a collectors edition, for example).

Edited April 17, 2013 by colekern

[gummy52 57]

Bohemia have already turned a HUGE profit with the DayZ name. So any speculation regarding them upping sticks and legging it doesn't ring alarm bells TBH.

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.

The problems Gummy has, really just stems from his inability to understand the release model.

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.

Edited April 17, 2013 by gummy52

[colekern 1364]

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. Buying a product that is missing features is risky. 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. What if they never add in vehicles? 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.

The reason they never finished the mod is because the standalone is kind the way they're finishing the mod. As for the pricing model, I don't see a problem with it. It worked great for minecraft. Heck, you can't even pre-order DayZ. That way, when you buy it, you have no excuse to not know what exactly you were buying.

As for Bohemia not deserving the benefit of the doubt, you make a point there. Most of their games are horribly buggy and broken. But they did a great job with Arma 3, and releasing it as an alpha will really help with bugfixing.

[gummy52 57]

But they did a great job with Arma 3, and releasing it as an alpha will really help with bugfixing.

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.

It worked great for minecraft.

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.

Edited April 17, 2013 by gummy52

[colekern 1364]

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.

Honestly, I haven't seen a lot of issues in the alpha. I've been playing it, and they've already fixed many crashing issues and othern bugs.

[dallas 5195]

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 and remember and the final product was a husk of what it could have been.

Actually it seems to work great and has been warmly received by both media and players.

This is the route they've chosen to release ArmA 3 and DayZ, sorry if you don't like it.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Dallas

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

They made a lot of money off of DayZ and are looking to make more by selling another product.

What I'm saying is, if they only wanted to farm some cash, instead of taking the development path we're seeing now they would have gone with the plan to simply release "DayZMod+" in December.

The fact that the devs themselves are telling us there's still a long way to go with regards to development shows they're up to more than just tempting folks to turn out their pockets.

EDIT: Reworded

Edited April 17, 2013 by Chabowski

[DemonGroover 8836]

My impression is that some of the people here would be content simply being able to log in and look around.

Actually Gummy, you got me there because that is precisely how i felt!

[OrLoK 16185]

Hello there

I think anyone who sees BI as money grabbers has a slightly skewed world view IMHO.

Obviously money *is* a factor, how could it not be? But if you look at BI and their history with regard to the RV engine they've been sterling developers. Perhaps not perfect but far better than much larger organisations.

I wasnt overly impressed with their last Arma DLC for example, so I simply didnt invest in it. I dont think it shows them to be a greedy corporate ummm.......corporation.

As to the A3 community alpha, I think its a great way to get the community involved and excited, make a few bucks with the early orders (remember you dont have to buy it if you want a finalised experience) and have a large core of willing testers.

I dont see an issue here. If they charged full price for the alpha or made us purchase the full game at a later date (like other companies I could mention) after buying into the alpha I would be furious.

I agree that the A2 campaign was and is buggy, but its hard to iron out every single issue when one uses such a dynamic simulation. There are just far too many variables. I have hardly touched the campaigns since the epic OFP Resistance.

If we were stuck with the campaign I too would have left Arma long ago, but its the wealth of missions that keeps me going. Once .kju has the AIA mod finalised you'll have to tear me away fom A3alpha.

Anyhoo, I digress. Gummy, whilst (believe it or not) I'm not a rabid Rocket Fanboi or a BI employee just an ordinary player, I just cannot understand your suspicions, your'e entitled to them but I just dont share them. I feel there's something you are not sharing or something we collectively are missing when it comes to your posts.

There are issues with the game/SA I personally dislike but I let those go as I like the other 90pc, I suppose it's the same with BI. But again, I don't see your angle.

Rgds

LoK

[St. Jimmy 1631]

I think it's right to rocket do the standalone because there are two communities that want it, Arma community that wants to get rid of this zombie infection and DayZ community that wants to get rid of the engine limitations and ease of 'hacking'.

Edited April 17, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[badluckburt 974]

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.

Thank you. I'm not in any way looking for a pissing contest and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I left my original post there so people could put my feeling like an *ss-comment in proper context.

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.

In all fairness, I think BIS had other things to worry about when Ivan and Martin were detained and if they were in a rush to release the SA, we would have had it by now with the exact same problems as the mod. This is not an excuse but it is one of the reasons if you ask me. Also, I think the work they're doing is necessary, not groundbreaking.

In my opinion, it's just too soon to discuss the cutting of features and the development time without having experienced the changes first-hand. I would be interested in hearing your opinion once you've actually played it so until that time comes, I probably won't bother you anymore.

[Zeppa 562]

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.

Because it is, you can change the whole gaming experience without changing the looks, to me it seems that to you there is nothing done if its not total facelift...

Same you could do with the car, you can do the paintjob and interior later but make the car handle totally different with chassis and engine modification... That doesnt mean there is less features, infact could be quite opposite...

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.

Also releasing without vehicles, almost only example that you throw around with this. Even if you remove the vehicles there is alot more content than the mod has, as they implement clothing, desieses, crafting, interiors etc etc... Game doesnt revolve around clitchy vehicles..

And again, you show lack of research, rocket have never talked about kickstarted model.. which have bought up to you many times.

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.

There is nothing wrong with making new animations as they have explained, you think people without military training (a avarage joe survivor) would go around rolling thru cities and building with military/police moves?

Vaulting super slow over knee high fences, thats just exceptional arma2 anim...

Animations brings some freshness to the game when released and more fluid gameplay..

Still you are fighting agains the "minecraft model", there is nothing away from you or anyone else with it. If one wants to participate to the alpha testing they can do so, with minimal fee. If you dont, you can wait for the finished game and buy it then, like you can any other..

If you dont know how money hungry company works check out the "warz model"

ps. Also why would you "finish" the mod, when the arma2 is restricting so much. Now with almost new engine they have "unlimited" possibilities to add features that mod never could handle... why waste the time?

Edited April 17, 2013 by Zeppa