Looking back, Do you think that EA release was a good idea?

[akafugitive 244]

Like I mentioned my sentiments don't apply specifically to DayZ as DayZ is pretty good in the regard of letting people know what they are in for.

Imagine I start a games development company and I manage to get people interested in my game from various blogs and youtube videos etc. People start to get interested. I release the game into the Early Access program on Steam, people start to pick it up. There is not much to the game, but I promise users that it will get better and that I will listen to their suggestions etc. Once X amount of money is made I decide its no longer profitable to carry on with the game so it gets left unfinished to linger in people's Steam libraries. I then do the same thing after having changed my development company's name etc.

There is not much to stop me doing that.

There is also no requirement to tell people not to buy your game in the Early Access program. Developers can presumably put what they want in that little blue box. I could write "This is going to be the best game ever, buy it now to make sure you don't miss out!"

Just because DayZ did the right thing doesn't mean everyone will. I'm not sure a system whereby the consumer has to ensure 100% that they can trust the product they are buying before commuting to purchase is not a good one. In all other areas there are various quality checks etc. This is what Steam needs; a system that doesn't allow anybody to put anything for sale on there.

So i guess kick starter should be shut down then? If you are paying for an unfinished product you have accepted the associated risk you just stated. And there are much more risky things in life then the loss of the $30 required to gain access to an incomplete game. Wait till you buy a house, invest in a renovation project or run a business lol Edited April 15, 2014 by akafugitive

[Jeansie 37]

Oh look the uneducated are coming out to play.

 

With the money they made, they've bought 2 new development companies I think? So not only have they expanded their company and brought in extra staff, they've upped the entire dayz team. The 2 teams are working on Zed AI and Hunting mechanics but that's not sensational enough for the likes of you.

 

BIS don't make cash grabs you idiot. There one of the only companies that have a thriving modding community but I'll happily eat my words if you can show a larger and better community than BIS and the modders have made.

 

.......Bethesda maybe. Ever been on the Skyrim Nexus?

[Jex 1104]

Like I mentioned my sentiments don't apply specifically to DayZ as DayZ is pretty good in the regard of letting people know what they are in for.

 

Imagine I start a games development company and I manage to get people interested in my game from various blogs and youtube videos etc. People start to get interested. I release the game into the Early Access program on Steam, people start to pick it up. There is not much to the game, but I promise users that it will get better and that I will listen to their suggestions etc. Once X amount of money is made I decide its no longer profitable to carry on with the game so it gets left unfinished to linger in people's Steam libraries. I then do the same thing after having changed my development company's name etc.

 

There is not much to stop me doing that.

 

There is also no requirement to tell people not to buy your game in the Early Access program. Developers can presumably put what they want in that little blue box. I could write "This is going to be the best game ever, buy it now to make sure you don't miss out!" 

 

Just because DayZ did the right thing doesn't mean everyone will. I'm not sure a system whereby the consumer has to ensure 100% that they can trust the product they are buying before commuting to purchase is not a good one. In all other areas there are various quality checks etc. This is what Steam needs; a system that doesn't allow anybody to put anything for sale on there.

 

I haven't been a part of a single game that has ever done the scenario you suggested. I also wasn't directing my post at you, but more going with what you said and giving examples of what these people are doing.

 

Also if I made a game I would never promise putting things in the community wanted. I would make the game I wanted to make and any suggestions that were going to add to my overall game I would add in.

[Jex 1104]

.......Bethesda maybe. Ever been on the Skyrim Nexus?

 

Yes I got skyrim a while back but then stopped playing as I saw all the cool mods that add to the grpahics. So I stopped playing and when I get my new pc, I'll restart and play it in ultra high def! Even saying that, the arma series literally has thousands of mods and tens of thousands of missions for it - I don't think anything comes close to BIS for community made things but who knows? The real point here is that game companies should support their communities and allow modding and hosting our own servers.

 

COD is a good example of ripping us off and Activision can go  fuck themselves. They regurgitate the same shit year after year. After Modern Warfare they removed modding support (they wanted to sell us shitty DLC see) and the ability to host youir own server. I suppose it's still the same but I wouldn't know, I have nothing to do with that company anymore and I'm not going to check. I'd rather give my money to companies that support their communities and I think they could go a lot further with this too and reap huge benefits as a result.

[Jeansie 37]

Yes I got skyrim a while back but then stopped playing as I saw all the cool mods that add to the grpahics. So I stopped playing and when I get my new pc, I'll restart and play it in ultra high def! Even saying that, the arma series literally has thousands of mods and tens of thousands of missions for it - I don't think anything comes close to BIS for community made things but who knows? The real point here is that game companies should support their communities and allow modding and hosting our own servers.

 

COD is a good example of ripping us off and Activision can go  fuck themselves. They regurgitate the same shit year after year. After Modern Warfare they removed modding support (they wanted to sell us shitty DLC see) and the ability to host youir own server. I suppose it's still the same but I wouldn't know, I have nothing to do with that company anymore and I'm not going to check. I'd rather give my money to companies that support their communities and I think they could go a lot further with this too and reap huge benefits as a result.

So your in favour of Epoch and other gamemodes/Mods being modded over to SA??

 

I myself am hoping that Epoch makes its way to the new game I PREFER it over vanilla.

[Jex 1104]

So your in favour of Epoch and other gamemodes/Mods being modded over to SA??

 

I myself am hoping that Epoch makes its way to the new game I PREFER it over vanilla.

 

Not really. I can't remember much of Epoch or Origins, both have building things, one has an island with AI on it but they all still suffer the issues the mod had in shitty zeds that weren't a threat. The mod will have base building in it too.

 

Why am I not into mods for DayZ - they took away from the original concept and diluted the player base. Then the full loot and hundreds of cars further divided the community. Unlike Arma which most things were for the main game type which was fighting as soldiers, the alternate game types splintered things fairly well., I'm all for modding maps and other items though not sure about different complete mods. Once you open the door you can't close it.

 

The same is said for servers. Server operators running private hives are going to tweak the databases to provide more loot, start off fully kitted - most of the servers running dayz and the mods seemed more concerned with PVP and building shit, not taking the game down any sort of survival path or working on the zeds. 

 

What brought me to DayZ (and most other people) was the survival aspect of a zombie apocalypse and how we would cope in it. What came after that was a clusterfuck.

[xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx (DayZ) 343]

Lol seriously?

 

Early access at reduced value points to anything BUT "cash grab" because they will make less money than only releasing when finished at full price. This is basic maths man, revenue maximisation would be if they sold x million copies all at full price of (say) £30 each rather than 0.3x million at £20 and then ONLY 0.6x million at full price. By giving us all early access THEY WILL MAKE LESS MONEY in the end. The only possible motive to bother releasing it earlier for less profit would be to actually get some of this early revenue to accelerate and improve the dev process (buying more dev teams etc) in the hopes that the final product will be better.

 

Can you imagine how long it would take / how buggy it would be on release without this process?

 

Jesus, I can't say how wrong you are in that post. 

 

30$ for an alpha allowed them to make massive revenue before releasing a stable working product. They made millions doing this way. If they would have released it full price for an Alpha the sales would be less then half, guaranteed in addition to be frowned on as the only company to charge full price for an alpha , and if they would have just released the full game in a few years at full price, then sales would be even less because competition and the lose of interest would eat away at their sales. Not to mention people's expectations would be much higher.

 

In doing this amazing kickstarter they were able to assure themselves that profits were made regardless of the development of dayz. They are allowed to develop at their own pace regardless of pressure. 

 

Also, they will refrain from spending to much of the revenue made to speed up developments for one simple reason; most of the people who were going to purchase dayz, already did. Why invest more then they have to in a project that will no longer reel in major profits?

 

Less money in development + slower progress = more profits 

 

Everyone must remember, that BIS is nothing but a company. While they do their very best to make their consumers happy, their primary goal is to make money.

 

tl:dr

1) Releasing alpha at 30$ was the only way to make their maximum revenue (unless dayz suddenly became 10x better and the market grew exponentially)

2) Most of the money made of the early access will not be reinvested into the creation of dayz. 

 

 

Now you may say I do not have any knowledge in videogame creation, and your right about that; however, if there is something i do know, is the way companies work to maximize profits  

Edited April 24, 2014 by xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx

[SGT. Kalme 106]

I haven't done anything to improve them game. Just played it. And for me, it is a yes based on experience so far.

[nimmerzz 17]

Gonna start by pointing out you're an idiot. 

 

While we were all very impatiently waiting I was beginning to lose interest in the idea of a Standalone. I knew if there wasn't at least a release date I was going to lose interest all together and never buy it. This game is NOT playable no matter what you fan boys say about it. I enjoy the game and have fun playing but I really wish they would have just waited. Given a solid, official release date, such as maybe June 2014 would have been nice.

 

 

You contradict yourself in one statement. you say it's not playable, yet you say you have fun playing it? It may not have all it's intended features, but it's CLEARLY playable.  

Edited April 15, 2014 by nimmerzz

[Tomo2000uk 33]

This early access release is already better looking and more polished than some other "released" games.

 

I'm looking at you Titanfall.

do you seriously believe that this game is in a better state than titan fall ?

[Jex 1104]

Jesus, I can't say how wrong you are in that post. 

 

30$ for an alpha allowed them to make massive revenue before releasing a stable working product. They made millions doing this way. If they would have released it full price for an Alpha the sales would be less then half, guaranteed in addition to be frowned on as the only company to charge full price for an alpha , and if they would have just released the full game in a few years at full price, then sales would be even less because competition and the lose of interest would eat away at their sales. Not to mention people's expectations would be much higher.

 

In doing this amazing kickstarter they were able to assure themselves that profits were made regardless of the development of dayz. They are allowed to develop at their own pace regardless of pressure. 

 

Also, they will refrain from spending to much of the revenue made to speed up developments for one simple reason; most of the people who were going to purchase dayz, already did. Why invest more then they have to in a project that will no longer reel in major profits?

 

Less money in development + slower progress = more profits 

 

Everyone must remember, that BIS is nothing but a company. While they do their very best to make their consumers happy, their primary goal is to make money.

 

tl:dr

1) Releasing alpha at 30$ was the only way to make their maximum revenue (unless dayz suddenly became 10x better and the market grew exponentially)

2) Most of the money made of the early access will not be reinvested into the creation of dayz. 

 

 

Now you may say I do not have any knowledge in videogame creation, and your right about that; however, if there is something i do know, is the way companies work to maximize profits (jesus it's all I do all day everyday) 

 

So presumably the two software houses they purchased to (or it was one and then paid a team to do other work) at $x millions has done nothing to speed up production and this was after the major sales of the game.  :rolleyes:

[gorvi 189]

Asking if the Alpha should have been pushed back a little bit when 3 months in we still do not have half decent zeds that can even remotely do what they are supposed to do is a valid question in my books. 

 

Why the fuck should've they done that?  Quit playing the game like its finished.  For all I care, the color blue could be fucked up until release.

 

For someone who likes to comment upon how they are managing the company, you are very narrow sighted.  Ever participate in an alpha before?  and yes.  I mean alpha and not early access beta.

 

The actual flow of gameplay should not be a main concern until beta is released.

[tatchell (DayZ) 73]

Jesus, I can't say how wrong you are in that post. 

 

30$ for an alpha allowed them to make massive revenue before releasing a stable working product. They made millions doing this way. If they would have released it full price for an Alpha the sales would be less then half, guaranteed in addition to be frowned on as the only company to charge full price for an alpha , and if they would have just released the full game in a few years at full price, then sales would be even less because competition and the lose of interest would eat away at their sales. Not to mention people's expectations would be much higher.

 

In doing this amazing kickstarter they were able to assure themselves that profits were made regardless of the development of dayz. They are allowed to develop at their own pace regardless of pressure. 

 

Also, they will refrain from spending to much of the revenue made to speed up developments for one simple reason; most of the people who were going to purchase dayz, already did. Why invest more then they have to in a project that will no longer reel in major profits?

 

Less money in development + slower progress = more profits 

 

Everyone must remember, that BIS is nothing but a company. While they do their very best to make their consumers happy, their primary goal is to make money.

 

tl:dr

1) Releasing alpha at 30$ was the only way to make their maximum revenue (unless dayz suddenly became 10x better and the market grew exponentially)

2) Most of the money made of the early access will not be reinvested into the creation of dayz. 

 

 

Now you may say I do not have any knowledge in videogame creation, and your right about that; however, if there is something i do know, is the way companies work to maximize profits (jesus it's all I do all day everyday) 

There is way too much wrong with your post..

 

Firstly, I was not saying that they could have just released alpha at full price - i was stressing that they actually even bothered. They didn't need to. (I did not say they could have charged full price for alpha). They could have done what the vast majority of games do and hold back and release full version for full price. If they had not been hyping it up years before it would be finally complete then people would not lose interest. This would mean way way more revenue than before. BUT instead they decided to bring it out earlier (judging by Dean's efforts to raise awareness ages back) to improve the quality of the end product, whilst forgoing a lot of potential profit they could have made otherwise. I can assure you that companies can look at the long term instead of grabbing as much cash as possible in the short run. BIS is not a plc driven by shareholders demanding short term gain from dividends. They can afford to make less out of DayZ in order to have a better reputation in the long run for getting the end product right (unlike many large games companies that are plcs eg EA which release shoddy unfinished products like BF4 without caring for the long term consequence of a ruined reputation).

 

And to address your point about competition and market size - just look at how many games are trying to get into the survival genre now. If DayZ had been held back and released when finished they could have stormed a much larger market than it is now with the reputation of being the original apocalypse survival game. This would have clearly made a lot more than what is happening now. Lots of people buying in early, saving money and far less people left to buy at full price when it's finished.

 

Finally, so far the evidence suggests the opposite of what you're saying. Already BIS have expanded the number of teams working on DayZ which to me looks like reinvestment into the production process.

 

I'm sorry but in this case you're wrong, despite your experience.

Edited April 15, 2014 by tatchell

[OrLoK 16182]

 

Now you may say I do not have any knowledge in videogame creation, and your right about that; however, if there is something i do know, is the way companies work to maximize profits (jesus it's all I do all day everyday) 

Hello there

 

You do tend to tar  businesses with the same brush.

 

I've worked for quite a few companies and International Corporations over the years and not all projects are cash centric.

 

Yes, businesses are, projects are not.

 

Never heard of Pro Bono?

 

I have done that when with "Big Business", solo and shades of grey in between.

 

Dayz was never about the cash, it was DUE to it.

 

Because of the increased A2 sales they pushed Dayz. They never believed it was going to rake in this much.

 

Now all that lovely money is a Brucie Bonus, but there's been no conspiracy to eke it out to generate more.

 

As to slowing the progress deliberately, that may be a tactic you or your co workers may employ, but don't make us all out to be asses just because you handle certain business practices.

 

Your posts make you sound like the type of chap Bill Hicks used to go on about. Do you work in advertising?

 

A light hearted jibe there, but please stop with the "they're doing X and Y purely for the cash" it simply isn't true.

 

Yes cash is a mover and a motivator, but in this particular project its not the "Prime Mover"

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[rickyspanish 158]

best thing dean ever done !

any mistakes any missed schedules any bugs no content no progress

WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE WITH SERIOUS ISSUES AND POSSIBLE INTERRUPTIONS OF GAME FUNCTIONING.

we told you guys ! :lol:

worst thing to happen to games in last few years is those very statements ! means any company can now output shit and just type shit in capitals and everything is okay.slate wiped clean!

i miss the days when games were released finished and great content no dlc and fun to play. no excuses were made and no capitals were used :)

Then why did you click buy? They were much simpler times but how much input did you have on those games? Sure maybe you don't want to help the development and you just want a finished game, so why buy into early access? And it doesn't mean companies can output shit at all, not if they want a good reputation. Early access also helps smaller indie devs by providing funds to spend on development and the ability to use the public to test there game instead of hiring a team of testers. The only problem I see is the idiots that don't understand what an early access alpha is.

So many winging babies its hard to fucking hear. Give it time, take a break from everything dayz until beta if its causing you this much stress and if things haven't improved by then ill be right here bitching with you, its way to early for all this complaining. This topic is a waste of time and is pure flame bait. Early access happened already no point arguing if it was the right thing to do unless the op has a time machine.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[crazykilla420 11]

Here is how I see it there are only 2 survival games right now and both in alpha. Dayz SA and Nether, Nether is putting out updates like crazy! They already have more guns stores a currency HANG GLIDERS They even have a leveling system! If i remember right they are only a month apart and Dayz is way behind and they have more glitches then any game i have ever played I mean shit you can dupe hide in walls fly fall off 4 story buildings live you can fall 2 steps and die! You can bleed from getting hit once and you can log on to a server and your stuff can be randomly be gone!

[gibonez 3633]

Early access was super important.

 

Simply because it catches problems early.

 

Imagine if the game was complete and finished with all of the unrealistic gamey characteristics of this early alpha.

 

Imagine how pissed people would be if the game released with the crappy weapon dispersion, the unrealistic ballistics and the countless other things that have been a source of massive outrage.

[Irish. 4886]

So, as title says, do you think that releasing this game in its state as EA alpha back in december was a good idea? Do you think it needed more work even for an alpha release? Or maybe more features implemented?

For gaming and the industry as a whole, in the short run it was bad.

 

For DayZ, it was good, good, good... money and business. 

 

For those of us that have been playing it for months, it was mostly good. The other option would have been a select few would be doing what all of us paid to do.. testing the game. Ive done it in the past, and since by paying Ive already purchased the final game, its a win win for me. If I get bored, or jaded I move on until a new update. I can always wait for beta or final release. But I choose to play it now, as I enjoy it. It reminds me of playing DayZ when it first came out.. bugged and full of things to explore and moan about. ;)

[hefeweizen 254]

Believing they actually released this broken alpha because "we asked for it" is pretty naive. At the end of the day, Rocket is just a designer... releasing this alpha before christmas was BI's exectutives decision

Its not a broken alpha, it is a regular alpha. Learn the difference between Alpha and release.

As for your second sentence, you have no clue what you're talking about and its obvious to anyone with a brain. Shut up and git smart before you think have the right to be cynical about things you have no understanding of.

[hefeweizen 254]

Here is how I see it there are only 2 survival games right now and both in alpha. Dayz SA and Nether, Nether is putting out updates like crazy! They already have more guns stores a currency HANG GLIDERS They even have a leveling system! If i remember right they are only a month apart and Dayz is way behind and they have more glitches then any game i have ever played I mean shit you can dupe hide in walls fly fall off 4 story buildings live you can fall 2 steps and die! You can bleed from getting hit once and you can log on to a server and your stuff can be randomly be gone!

Hahahahahaahah..... Nether.

Or as it was almost titled: "War Z: Survivor Stories, Vol. 2"

[doctorbadsign 645]

I haven't been a part of a single game that has ever done the scenario you suggested. I also wasn't directing my post at you, but more going with what you said and giving examples of what these people are doing.

 

Also if I made a game I would never promise putting things in the community wanted. I would make the game I wanted to make and any suggestions that were going to add to my overall game I would add in.

 

The problem is that it can happen given the structure of the system.

 

We've all seen how literally any old shit can get on Steam. 

 

It would not take a lot for the scenario I pointed out to happen. I mean it pretty much did with the War Z.

[doctorbadsign 645]

So i guess kick starter should be shut down then? If you are paying for an unfinished product you have accepted the associated risk you just stated. And there are much more risky things in life then the loss of the $30 required to gain access to an incomplete game. Wait till you buy a house, invest in a renovation project or run a business lol

 

Yes, but most products also have certain standards to meet.

 

You cannot for example sell someone half a washing machine as a whole one and so on. 

 

All I am saying is that Steam implements some checks and measures to ensure that the scenario I outlined cannot happen. Are you not for consumer protection?

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

There does appear to be a direct correlation between the amount of whinging coming from the people who knew what they were buying and those that didn't.  I was aware of the SA release last year, but it didn't immediately tick any boxes for me having had a brief and unsatisfying experience with an early version of the mod.

 

I actually wanted a multiplayer Stalker game with crafting, loot/artefact trading and survival elements thrown in, but began to hear more about SA from various sources.  So I looked into what was being offered and saw it was essentially a framework of a game with kickstarting and the opportunity to test and possibly influence the future development.

 

Well worth my £20 worth of beans, I thought.

 

Now all I keep seeing is "Waah - zombies are OP!  Waah - more AWESOME guns! (remember that guy?)  Waah - more PvP!  Waah - everything is broken!  Waah - Dean stoled my munnys!".

 

So yes, EA was a good idea.  But there should have been a test before you could buy into it.

[lipemr 160]

Lol seriously?

 

Early access at reduced value points to anything BUT "cash grab" because they will make less money than only releasing when finished at full price. This is basic maths man, revenue maximisation would be if they sold x million copies all at full price of (say) £30 each rather than 0.3x million at £20 and then ONLY 0.6x million at full price. By giving us all early access THEY WILL MAKE LESS MONEY in the end. The only possible motive to bother releasing it earlier for less profit would be to actually get some of this early revenue to accelerate and improve the dev process (buying more dev teams etc) in the hopes that the final product will be better.

 

Can you imagine how long it would take / how buggy it would be on release without this process?

 

not sure if too naive or just plain dumb.

 

you contradict yourself in your own argument without noticing.

 

The game sold this much based on the hype of the mod, now tell me, how would they make MORE money waiting more 2 years, letting their hype fade away and then releasing the game?

 

Yeah, if they would finish the game, they wouldnt sell much at all, seems that the one that's bad with math here it's you, my friend.

 

They made the right decision to make the more money possible from the game, now my point is that they already have the money.

 

Now it's all down to hoping bohemia will actually make up to their promises and finish this game on the scheduled time, and by a brief look on this development timeline, i dont think it will be the case. Dean have some bad issues with scheduling as we can see by the time it took to the standalone even get to this broken alpha that we have now.

 

Plus it's taking forever to implement the most basic mechanics like a decent zombie AI and pathing, decent ballistics, loot system and hunting.

 

If you really "want to believe" this game future will be all rainbows and ponies, dont blame realist people for trying to make their money worth something.

[grimsonfart 49]

Yes and no.

 

IYes:

-Capitalized on the hype from the mod (or what was left of it)

- beat any major competition (H1Z1)

 

No:

Extremely unfinished 

 

As a producer the early release was the best choice, as a consumer it would have been a good wait. 

How would releasing DayZ as EA beat H1Z1? It was announced just a few days ago i believe, and there is almost no information about it. Not only that, but if H1Z1 gets finished before DayZ it might be a problem. You see how much time it actually takes too fix simple things in DayZ right, and now think about how much they are "supposed" to add and have to fix. I honestly dont have too high hopes for DayZ in the near future, maybe in a year or two (or even more).

Edited April 15, 2014 by grimsonfart