Can anyone justify the low price of this game anymore ?

[sloshtt 17]

Would make sense. If i was a game developer, i'd just increase the price before a big content update. (Combined with a Holiday of some type. Christmas, maybe? But i'm just a greedy fucker like that.)

But like it's been stated, i doubt it's much for the cheaters to buy a new copy of the game, since they are already paying a monthly fee for their cheats.

first of all you should work for EA thats their tactic and 2ndly valve thru steam tend to slash prices around holidays. on the topic of hacking i dont think a price hike will stop hackers from playing considering i met a person who had been banned 10 times and forked over $300 AUD to buy the standalone over and over. A normal person would prefer not to get banned and have to buy the game again or lose thier entire steam account but hackers are not normal people, from what iv seen there are 2 types the first doenst care and has alot of surplus income the second rationalizes it like the dude in this forum "I got bored so i cheated for lols" or "im pretty sure that other guy was cheating also" either way just as bad as each other, if you have to cheat in a computer game for what ever reason you are bad at it in general you need to go do some outside stuff and leave the video games alone.

[nexventor 429]

There are far less hackers in BF3/BF4 than in DayZ SA/Mod. I have hundreds (>300) of hours in each and every one of these games. I can count on one hand the number of times I have faced hackers in Battlefield. In the last two weeks I have seen multiple GROUPS of hackers in DayZ. We won't even start talking about mod. It seems like they just aren't scared of getting banned.

 

Welcome to the "you have no idea what you are talking about group". 850 hrs in BF3 with over 300 competitive hours and cheating was prolific. There are thousands of vids online, the forums were spammed with complaining about them. Just google it  :huh:

[Publik 404]

Welcome to the "you have no idea what you are talking about group". 850 hrs in BF3 with over 300 competitive hours and cheating was prolific. There are thousands of vids online, the forums were spammed with complaining about them. Just google it  :huh:

I can't think of a specific occasion where I encountered a cheater on BF3. I don't have an hour count to flaunt though (I'd have to reinstall Origin I think) 274 hours and 35 minutes. In SA I've met one and been killed by another. Overall it's a tamer kind of hacking than the Mod. There's teleporting and flying around and speedhacks/wall removal hacks, but other than that it's all good. They still die if you shoot them. At least entire servers don't die at the same time anymore.

[zeroy 240]

 

Most of the software companies out there have to PAY a QA team to test for them. 

 

So does Bi for Dayz SA. You didnt read the warning before buying then?

Edited April 2, 2014 by zeroy99

[IshFingers 26]

Wait, I don't get it. Do we have a couple of devs in disguise here or just some people that are totally new to PC gaming?

 

"Increase the price + add a subscription - it will fix it." xD

Have you EVER played a game with subscription? Probably not, but let me tell you: there are hackers playing them aswell.

 

.

I have yet to encounter a hacker on DayZ, but I can say with absolute certainty, my experience with subscription-based services (not just video games) are far-and-away a more satisfying package. On the whole there is far more care taken to accommodate the customer (I.E. They want my money, and as long as I get what I want I'm happy to oblige.)

Have you ever had a bad experience with a subscription service? When?

  

Whoa, I didn't know John Riccitiello had a DayZ forum account. Don't you have some beloved game series you're supposed to be ruining or something?

 

John Riccitiello... John Riccitiello... That name means nothing to me.

- one Google search later -

2 responses to this: 1) Surely a man who has overseen the biggest growth in a video game company since... Well... Ever may have been on to something? I don't quite get your point.

2) EA use subscription fees?

- another Google search later -

Ultina Online being the only one. Aren't EA all about the whole micro-transaction thing? Which, I may have not made clear enough in my original post, is a horrible, horrible concept IMO. A subscription-fee-based-MMO provides a lot greater flexibility and security.

 

If I had to pay a subscription I'd fuck right the hell off.

Why? Is it the concept or the price? Or do your parents not let you use their credit card?

[scriptfactory 620]

Welcome to the "you have no idea what you are talking about group". 850 hrs in BF3 with over 300 competitive hours and cheating was prolific. There are thousands of vids online, the forums were spammed with complaining about them. Just google it  :huh:

 

I'm simply comparing my experiences in the Battlefield franchise vs. DayZ. In BF3 I never met whole clans filled with people teleporting around insta-killing people. How does that mean I don't know what I am talking about? It's only a personal observation.

Edited April 2, 2014 by scriptfactory

[thesodesa 99]

The price of the game is fine as it is. There's not really a whole lot to do, since the only features that are in place are pretty much looting and shooting. And of course walking, lots of walking...

[Publik 404]

Why? Is it the concept or the price? Or do your parents not let you use their credit card?

First, don't be a prick.

Second, don't assume everyone has a lot of disposable income set aside for their vidya. I spend my extra money going out with friends and eating good food. You might have more dough to roll around your games, but you don't need to be an ass about it.

Third, it's the same reason I won't be participating in ESO, even though I had a really good time in the closed beta. Monthly payments are an outdated concept left over from WoW. ESO is $60 up front and they graciously let you play the first month for free. After that it's the classic $15 a month until you get tired of it and leave. If I were to play ESO for a year, I'd have to spend $225 sans tax. Even if I only played for a few months, I'd still be paying nearly $100. It's like the series I've played for the last decade is being held at knife point and someone's demanding my wallet.

 

It'd precisely because I don't rely on my parents any more that the idea of wasting money on something like that is so repulsive. That's not even getting into whether or not DayZ has the ability to become worth a subscription. "Walking Sim 2012 2013 2014, only $XX.99 a month!". Or I could take the low road and spout bullshit about how DayZ will never have a subscription because "it's not part of Dean's vision". If you want to pay a monthly subscription, you might as well just buy a copy of DayZ for a friend each month and leave the rest of us cheap bastards in peace.

 

Have you ever had a bad experience with a subscription service? When?

Tabula Rasa was the last time I paid a subscription. No one played in the high level areas and the Devs packed up and left. Before that I think it was Runescape or something, which I've no complaints about.

 

So does Bi for Dayz SA. You didnt read the warning before buying then?

No no no, we're paying BIS. Most large companies have dedicated teams for testing in an early state. The only time the consumer gets their hands on the game is when the publisher decides it's acceptable enough to put the Beta label on it and start charging for "early access".

 

Edit: Or, if the developer is strapped for cash and needs that sweet sweet fanboy money.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Publik

[Zalvager 51]

I've got an idea: What about they implement a proper anti-cheat system instead of overpricing an alpha!? 

[alsmir 255]

I have yet to encounter a hacker on DayZ, but I can say with absolute certainty, my experience with subscription-based services (not just video games) are far-and-away a more satisfying package. On the whole there is far more care taken to accommodate the customer (I.E. They want my money, and as long as I get what I want I'm happy to oblige.)

Have you ever had a bad experience with a subscription service? When?

   

 

Are we talking about subscription based services or video games with required subscription? Services - sure, much better quality and customer support.

Games - nope. Hackers are paying subscription aswell, so let them roam free. I've played multiple subscription based MMOs, thay all had hackers/bots/etc.

[zeroy 240]

No no no, we're paying BIS. Most large companies have dedicated teams for testing in an early state. The only time the consumer gets their hands on the game is when the publisher decides it's acceptable enough to put the Beta label on it and start charging for "early access".

 

You still arent making any sense. The Steam store clearly states that unless you want to participate in helping the dev by playing an unfinished game in alpha stage, DONT BUY IT. Is that so hard to understand?

[anothercynicalbrit 166]

I would not mind if they put the price up on the game. I can not see who it would affect other then repeat buyers. How many more alpha testers do they want for crying out loud and as someone stated earlier it does deter 'some' people so why not.

[Publik 404]

Increase the price of this game?  There is nothing in this game.  Its still basically a running simulator with some guns, clothes, and broken stupid AI. 

 

There is so little content in the game it barely justifies $20 let alone an increase in price.  Remember we are paying to alpha test this game.  Most of the software companies out there have to PAY a QA team to test for them.  SA can get away with taking advantage of their customers like this because of the massive love of the mod and hype but there is a limit, even for DayZ.

 

The fact is the MOD is currently a much better overall game than SA as It actually has content and there is no way that anyone can justify SA in its current state out pricing the cost of buying Arma II and getting the MOD

We pay BIS.

 

So does Bi for Dayz SA. You didnt read the warning before buying then?

BIS pays us? Didn't we read the warnings?

 

You still arent making any sense. The Steam store clearly states that unless you want to participate in helping the dev by playing an unfinished game in alpha stage, DONT BUY IT. Is that so hard to understand?

People and their knee-jerk "hurr durr alpha" responses, I swear.

 

I would not mind if they put the price up on the game. I can not see who it would affect other then repeat buyers. How many more alpha testers do they want for crying out loud and as someone stated earlier it does deter 'some' people so why not.

I've already got trouble convincing people to buy DayZ at $30, what could I possibly say to make someone drop $40 or $60 on an alpha???

Edited April 2, 2014 by Publik

[anothercynicalbrit 166]

 

I've already got trouble convincing people to buy DayZ at $30, what could I possibly say to make someone drop $40 or $60 on an alpha???

Don't buy it. It is not a finished game yet. This is exactly what i mean, the game is not worth 40 dollars at the moment right but it will be when it is released so tell them to wait until it is released to get your moneys worth. There are enough people testing the game now that we do not need any more 'testers' so why should your friends buy it unless they have told you that they like testing games. The only people who are going to be deterred by a price rise is people who are hacking and have to re-buy the game.

Edited April 2, 2014 by anothercynicalbrit

[zeroy 240]

BIS pays us? Didn't we read the warnings?

 

People and their knee-jerk "hurr durr alpha" responses, I swear.

 

 

 

Convo was about other Studios having QA Team, Im saying BI also does too - We, the players, are not QA. We are willing alpha testers. Its totally different.

 

There is no knee-jerk, there is common sense. Since you cannot understand what you read visibly I think its best to leave it there.

Edited April 2, 2014 by zeroy99

[Publik 404]

You talked about other Studios having QA Team, Im telling you BI also does - We, the players, are not QA. We are willing alpha testers. Its totally different.

 

There is no knee-jerk, there is common sense. Since you cannot understand what you read visibly I think its best to leave it there.

Sorry about that, couldn't tell what the "didn't you read the disclaimer" bit was in reference to. Thank you for clarifying.

[IshFingers 26]

First, don't be a prick.

Second, don't assume everyone has a lot of disposable income set aside for their vidya. I spend my extra money going out with friends and eating good food. You might have more dough to roll around your games, but you don't need to be an ass about it.

Third, it's the same reason I won't be participating in ESO, even though I had a really good time in the closed beta. Monthly payments are an outdated concept left over from WoW. ESO is $60 up front and they graciously let you play the first month for free. After that it's the classic $15 a month until you get tired of it and leave. If I were to play ESO for a year, I'd have to spend $225 sans tax. Even if I only played for a few months, I'd still be paying nearly $100. It's like the series I've played for the last decade is being held at knife point and someone's demanding my wallet.

 

It'd precisely because I don't rely on my parents any more that the idea of wasting money on something like that is so repulsive. That's not even getting into whether or not DayZ has the ability to become worth a subscription. "Walking Sim 2012 2013 2014, only $XX.99 a month!". Or I could take the low road and spout bullshit about how DayZ will never have a subscription because "it's not part of Dean's vision". If you want to pay a monthly subscription, you might as well just buy a copy of DayZ for a friend each month and leave the rest of us cheap bastards in peace.

 

Tabula Rasa was the last time I paid a subscription. No one played in the high level areas and the Devs packed up and left. Before that I think it was Runescape or something, which I've no complaints about.

 

 

Edit: Or, if the developer is strapped for cash and needs that sweet sweet fanboy money.

 

Haha sorry, it's (was?) still morning and I hadn't had my coffee. I retract the parent/credit card statement. Right, where was I...

 

It's not about having a lot of disposable income - it's about where you're spending the money you have. And I mean... come on, £3/$5 p/m isn't exactly ground-breaking in any way, is it? Ok, there are some hardships out there where £3 could make a difference, but I'd think that, being in that situation, there would be other things on my mind (hell, if that was the case I probably wouldn't have a PC that could play DayZ - a simple laptop would suffice for day-to-day needs.).

 

Similar to you, I'd rather spend my money on nice things - I would much rather spend £20 on four nice drinks with friends, than £20 and get sh*t-faced on a Friday/Saturday night. Similarly, I would rather buy some nice food than some frozen ready-meals (don't forget to make it yourself! KFC is nice 'n all but it's not quite what we're talking about ;)) And this stems through most of my purchasing decisions: I would rather spend my money on something I can take genuine pride in than just buy it for the sake of it. The point of this being, if you want nice things, be prepared to pay for them.

 

I'd also have to disagree about subscriptions being a dated concept. Hell, if anything they've not matured yet - the strength is still in the developer's hands. But it changing. It's already changing on the high street (et. al) and it shouldn't be thought of as taboo in the video game world (I'm not saying it is, but a lot of people are uneasy at the prospect - perhaps with good reason).

 

The reason I support subscription-based MMO titles is three-fold: 

1) They're cost-effective! If a game is keeping me occupied for a couple dozen hours a month for £10, that beats paying £40+ for the latest video-game-blockbuster-equivalent. Especially if there's constant updates/new content etc.

2) it is the 'other' choice, when the market is being flooded with P2W/micro-transaction-enabled games. These are a slippery slope and a menace to the games industry.

3) they empower the consumer. Having a game subscription-based gives the customer something to threaten with if things aren't progressing. I.E. At the moment, as it stands, if you dislike DayZ at release, you stop playing; your friends stop playing, other people stop playing etc. etc. No new content, no support, you've got yours & the developers got theirs. It's a sort of win-win but with a sour taste in both parties mouths'. In this scenario, nothing changes.

If you're paying a subscription however, and you are unimpressed with the way the game is developing - if at all -  you take away your subscription. Developers lose support (both financially and moral; 'encouragement', if you would prefer) and need to try to stem the flow. Now... in this case, it should never get to the case where you want to leave. It turns into a customer-service-focussed model. Developers should be regularly listening to their customers (which DayZ do already), and addressing any issues and concerns regularly. Feedback is given and both parties feel more fulfilled about the whole process.

 

Granted, that's how it should work. And I want to make something very clear here: I think the DayZ team currently have a fantastic record for their ability to listen to and discuss issues with us, the customer.

 

I think what we're avoid here though is that the video games industry is a business (well, duh). Someone, somewhere, is trying to make as much money as he or she (don't make me laugh, females in the video game industry? What are we, progressive now? /blackhumour) can. Whether or not Dean Hall says he doesn't need to make any more money is a different issue - someone will be cutting the costs to maximise their profit. And as I've hastily reasoned above, providing a subscription service is the fairest choice for us all. 

 

 

 

Are we talking about subscription based services or video games with required subscription? Services - sure, much better quality and customer support.

Games - nope. Hackers are paying subscription aswell, so let them roam free. I've played multiple subscription based MMOs, thay all had hackers/bots/etc.

 

Ok, there are always going to be hackers/cheaters/whatever. There is no stopping that, no matter what you do. However, there are always going to be more people who want to eliminate hackers/cheaters/whatever from the game - so there will always be pressure on developers to take action. if it ever got to the stage where 1) people (customers) don't care enough, or 2) neither do the devs, then the game just isn't for you - so you leave. Taking your money with you.

 

And the reason I lump real-world examples together is, when paying a subscription for -whatever- you are, in essence, paying their wage. Ok, there's an argument for and against this but ultimately, the customer's support is what's funding the game's (or whatever) continued success.

Edited April 2, 2014 by IshFingers

[Grimey Rick 3417]

1. The fact that we even have to pay for this alpha is funny enough without doubling the current price

Subscription-based services? No thanks.

Raising the price of a game will never, ever deter cheaters. Ever.

[Zalvager 51]

 

1. The fact that we even have to pay for this alpha is funny enough without doubling the current price
2. Subscription-based services? No thanks.
3. Raising the price of a game will never, ever deter cheaters. Ever.

 

Why is it funny? Do you think developing a huge game like DayZ is even close to free? 

[Publik 404]

Haha sorry, it's (was?) still morning and I hadn't had my coffee. I retract the parent/credit card statement. Right, where was I...

 

It's not about having a lot of disposable income - it's about where you're spending the money you have. And I mean... come on, £3/$5 p/m isn't exactly ground-breaking in any way, is it? Ok, there are some hardships out there where £3 could make a difference, but I'd think that, being in that situation, there would be other things on my mind (hell, if that was the case I probably wouldn't have a PC that could play DayZ - a simple laptop would suffice for day-to-day needs.).

 

Similar to you, I'd rather spend my money on nice things - I would much rather spend £20 on four nice drinks with friends, than £20 and get sh*t-faced on a Friday/Saturday night. Similarly, I would rather buy some nice food than some frozen ready-meals (don't forget to make it yourself! KFC is nice 'n all but it's not quite what we're talking about ;)) And this stems through most of my purchasing decisions: I would rather spend my money on something I can take genuine pride in than just buy it for the sake of it. The point of this being, if you want nice things, be prepared to pay for them.

 

I'd also have to disagree about subscriptions being a dated concept. Hell, if anything they've not matured yet - the strength is still in the developer's hands. But it changing. It's already changing on the high street (et. al) and it shouldn't be thought of as taboo in the video game world (I'm not saying it is, but a lot of people are uneasy at the prospect - perhaps with good reason).

 

The reason I support subscription-based MMO titles is three-fold: 

1) They're cost-effective! If a game is keeping me occupied for a couple dozen hours a month for £10, that beats paying £40+ for the latest video-game-blockbuster-equivalent. Especially if there's constant updates/new content etc.

2) it is the 'other' choice, when the market is being flooded with P2W/micro-transaction-enabled games. These are a slippery slope and a menace to the games industry.

3) they empower the consumer. Having a game subscription-based gives the customer something to threaten with if things aren't progressing. I.E. At the moment, as it stands, if you dislike DayZ at release, you stop playing; your friends stop playing, other people stop playing etc. etc. No new content, no support, you've got yours & the developers got theirs. It's a sort of win-win but with a sour taste in both parties mouths'. In this scenario, nothing changes.

If you're paying a subscription however, and you are unimpressed with the way the game is developing - if at all -  you take away your subscription. Developers lose support (both financially and moral; 'encouragement', if you would prefer) and need to try to stem the flow. Now... in this case, it should never get to the case where you want to leave. It turns into a customer-service-focussed model. Developers should be regularly listening to their customers (which DayZ do already), and addressing any issues and concerns regularly. Feedback is given and both parties feel more fulfilled about the whole process.

 

Granted, that's how it should work. And I want to make something very clear here: I think the DayZ team currently have a fantastic record for their ability to listen to and discuss issues with us, the customer.

 

I think what we're avoid here though is that the video games industry is a business (well, duh). Someone, somewhere, is trying to make as much money as he or she (don't make me laugh, females in the video game industry? What are we, progressive now? /blackhumour) can. Whether or not Dean Hall says he doesn't need to make any more money is a different issue - someone will be cutting the costs to maximise their profit. And as I've hastily reasoned above, providing a subscription service is the fairest choice for us all. 

 

 

 

 

Ok, there are always going to be hackers/cheaters/whatever. There is no stopping that, no matter what you do. However, there are always going to be more people who want to eliminate hackers/cheaters/whatever from the game - so there will always be pressure on developers to take action. if it ever got to the stage where 1) people (customers) don't care enough, or 2) neither do the devs, then the game just isn't for you - so you leave. Taking your money with you.

 

And the reason I lump real-world examples together is, when paying a subscription for -whatever- you are, in essence, paying their wage. Ok, there's an argument for and against this but ultimately, the customer's support is what's funding the game's (or whatever) continued success.

I think at the end of the day I just don't trust Rocket, nor by extension BIS. The largest tangible problem with a subscription is that there are plans to support the modding community after release and allow private hives. I'm not sure how they could manage that if it were to require a subscription; DayZ is probably too decentralized to support it. Either way, you win. I can agree with what you're saying, and while I won't like it and it would deter some people from buying I would be willing to consider it if the price were right and there was a value associated with it (dedicated servers, etc).

 

You should drink more coffee :)

 

 

 

Why is it funny? Do you think developing a huge game like DayZ is even close to free? 

Developing games isn't free, nor is DayZ "huge" by any standard. Do try and remember that they're at something like 1.7 million purchases at $30 a pop in only 4 months. Tight on cash they are not.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Publik

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Why is it funny? Do you think developing a huge game like DayZ is even close to free? 

 

Hold on, let me call Blizzard and Rockstar real quick. I'll ask them.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

Firstly, dont forget OP is no longer with us.

 

Secondly, the cost of this game is fairly low compared to many.

 

Admittedly not as cheap as some, but then again no where near as expensive as many others.

 

If one finds it difficult to persuade their friends to purchase at this price perhaps the game isnt for them? A fair few other folk were happy to purchase at this price.

 

I dont recommend Joe Average gamer purchase the game until its full release. Nor do the devs.

 

If one wishes to support the game and take part in it and have the opportunity to give feedback to the devs and possibly assist to help shape the game into what it will become then I do recommend it, especially as it will be raised to a full game price at launch.

 

As to any mention of a subscription model?

 

Thats not going to happen IMHO.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[kichilron 8550]

Secondly, the cost of this game is fairly low compared to many.

 

Admittedly not as cheap as some, but then again no where near as expensive as many others.

 

If one finds it difficult to persuade their friends to purchase at this price perhaps the game isnt for them? A fair few other folk were happy to purchase at this price.

 

I dont recommend Joe Average gamer purchase the game until its full release. Nor do the devs.

 

 

May I point out again what I have pointed out a few months ago on releaseday?

 

 

Especially considering it's only going to increase in price.

 

ARMA 2 Combined Operations was 25€ at the time and SA now is 23€ - and many bought ARMA for the sole purpose to be able to play the DayZMod. Whether you like it or not - it's playable and well worth the money.

Edited April 2, 2014 by kichilron
Derp-Quote

[anothercynicalbrit 166]

May I point out again what I have pointed out a few months ago on releaseday?

 

 

Especially considering it's only going to increase in price.

The question is though, do you think the price should rise ??

[OrLoK 16182]

The question is though, do you think the price should rise ??

Hello there

 

Dont think of the price as rising, what you are getting now is a discount.

 

Rgds

 

LoK