Question about the certainty of this game

[TomatoSupra 207]

I've never learned the trick of training money to code. Now money might buy you a developer, but you still need to find them, hire them, train them, get them up to speed on the project, and give them a task. They have added some new members to the team but not enough to make the game go further. One other problem you run into is the old adage "Too many cooks ruin the soup." in that you designate what everyone is working on for a giving scrum, they work their butts off on their own little section, but their code interferes with or causes a bug in what someone else is doing and so when you compile everything you need to track down what is affecting Mike's code... maybe it was something John added to his code, or maybe Sally.

 

I've got a friend who was lead on a development team and he has some great stories especially since he had 3 different types of people working on the code. A brilliant and imaginative coder, who was a bit sloppy; a very strict and must track down every bug and make sure the code is streamlined and exact coder, and one that was somewhere in between. Basically he had to make the strict guy understand that we would have to get the software out the door on time even with some issues and the sloppy brilliant guy understand that documentation is of utmost concern and that the other guy on the opposite end has a point. 

 

Classic fanboy response. "They are trying their best"!

 

Lets put this back in perspective. SIXTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. you could buy your own fucking private country with that much money. There is NO excuse for not getting things done at this point. And don't use the "too many cooks ruin the soup because its not the same at all. There is a vision in place, and there are KNOWN problems with the game. I get that makes sense if you are talking about fine tuning things, but every cook knows how to make broth, just like every coder should know how to make a base for a game.

 

And we are definitely starting to get off topic lol

[pilgrim* 3514]

Of course not, but honestly, if you throw 60 million dollars at EA they can make a dam good game pretty quick.

 

"make a damn good game pretty quick"

 

and all you need is 60 million dollars ?

 

you ought to call the BIG games companies - they got the money - and you got the solution to their problems !

They sure will be pleased to hear from you.

Edited July 8, 2014 by pilgrim

[mercules 1290]

Of course not, but honestly, if you throw 60 million dollars at EA they can make a dam good game pretty quick.

 

History proves otherwise.

[TomatoSupra 207]

"make a damn good game pretty quick"

 

and all you need is 60 million dollars ?

 

you ought to call the BIG games companies - they got the money - and you got the solution to their problems !

 

They dont have any problems. (in comparison to smaller game companies) Thats the point.

[mercules 1290]

Classic fanboy response. "They are trying their best"!

 

Lets put this back in perspective. SIXTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. you could buy your own fucking private country with that much money. There is NO excuse for not getting things done at this point. And don't use the "too many cooks ruin the soup because its not the same at all. There is a vision in place, and there are KNOWN problems with the game. I get that makes sense if you are talking about fine tuning things, but every cook knows how to make broth, just like every coder should know how to make a base for a game.

 

And we are definitely starting to get off topic lol

 

Ehem....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Calling someone a fan-boy because they disagree with you is the above fallacy. If you look at my point... having money doesn't mean it gets invested into the game. If you look at other people's points... Gross earnings is not Net earnings. I've seen non-profit companies that gross millions of dollars but it all gets spent on the company and they NET $0. Just because they collection 60-65 million doesn't mean they have 60 million to put into the game. 

 

[LeChat 131]

Ok, so for those of you who did not read the first paragraph i put up. You might want to slow down and read before you post.

 

Let me recap.

 

 

Moving forward, i did not mention the game is not worth 30 dolars in its current state, or say i did not like it, OR say that i was unhappy with my purchase.

 

Just asking the question of is there any "REAL" accountability that the Developers are being held to? or is it just the fact that they will continue to make money off of it until people get sick of it and stop buying it.

 

You don't expect people to read and comprehend the words that are written on a forum do you? That is an absurd thought.

Edited July 8, 2014 by LeChat

[TomatoSupra 207]

History proves otherwise.

 

Lol battlefield i guess was "BAD" coming from you, but they have had major success with it. Its gotten at least a B rating from every review i have ever seen.

 

So explain this point?

[Karmaterror 982]

If that is this game should be a LOT farther than it is right now. 2.5 million copies @$30 a peice. Jesus fuck they have made a ton of money so far.

 

Of course not, but honestly, if you throw 60 million dollars at EA they can make a dam good game pretty quick.

 

The more I read the more it does just sound like another thread moaning that they going too slow, and money should = progress. Don't forget it was only a month after it was released that they knew how much they would even have to work with. Then give some time to plan and allocate those funds. So 5-6 months on and we are hearing that the navmesh for zombies is coming, theres one big thing that's directly due to them making use of the funds. More would be the renderer work going on.

 

Now 5 months to make a navmesh for a map like chernarus is pretty good pace, not to mention that the studio they took over would have to be trained in the new engine. Companies like EA could churn something out quickly sure....with a fixed initial budget and a solid plan going in, but dayz didn't follow that process :)

[SFRGaming 718]

Lol battlefield i guess was "BAD" coming from you, but they have had major success with it. Its gotten at least a B rating from every review i have ever seen.

 

So explain this point?

You are quite the fan boy aren't you? Keep going and don't mind me. I'm just grabbing screens of your comments. 

 

You guys think a "How to avoid Fanboy-ism" thread could be made with these comments?

[TomatoSupra 207]

Calling someone a fan-boy because they disagree with you is the above fallacy. If you look at my point... having money doesn't mean it gets invested into the game. If you look at other people's points... Gross earnings is not Net earnings. I've seen non-profit companies that gross millions of dollars but it all gets spent on the company and they NET $0. Just because they collection 60-65 million doesn't mean they have 60 million to put into the game. 

 

Maybe because they are NON-PROFIT? hahaha what do you think that means, bud?

 

And bohemia is NOT a non profit. Someone, somewhere is profiting immensely from this game right now. Which brings me back to my main point.

 

What is the point of finishing the game if the person with the idea has already made enough money to want to get out without all the hard work. The promise of a full game is there to keep people buying the alpha, but how do we know this will ever actually happen?

 

The right answer is we dont.

[GrappleX 354]

Classic fanboy response. "They are trying their best"!

 

Lets put this back in perspective. SIXTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. you could buy your own fucking private country with that much money. There is NO excuse for not getting things done at this point.

 

 

 

Yes, because the cost of the game times the number of games sold is exactly their profit. 

 

Steam didn't take a cut, they didn't have to hire and pay new people, that money isn't paying for the electricity at the studio.

 

Nope, all 65 million dollars went right to the programmers, who proceeded to spend it on cooked down afrin, and then found some hookers instead of coding.

[pilgrim* 3514]

They dont have any problems. (in comparison to smaller game companies) Thats the point.

 

you missed my point

give me a list of the 'damned good games' made 'pretty quick' (all ya need is 60 million)

and just note with that how long it took to make each 'damned good game'.. maybe your idea of 'pretty quick' and mine are not the same.

 

For instance:  if you could do it in 6 months with 100 million, could you do it in 1 month with 600 million ?

Or, with twice as much money would it be twice as 'damned good' ?

[TomatoSupra 207]

You are quite the fan boy aren't you? Keep going and don't mind me. I'm just grabbing screens of your comments. 

 

You guys think a "How to avoid Fanboy-ism" thread could be made with these comments?

 

If you want to have a arguing pissing contest with someone, you are in the right place, im just not the right guy.

[TomatoSupra 207]

you missed my point

give me a list of the 'damned good games' made 'pretty quick' (all ya need is 60 million)

and just note with that how long it took to make each 'damned good game'.. maybe your idea of 'pretty quick' and mine are not the same.

 

For instance:  if you could do it in 6 months with 100 million, could you do it in 1 month with 600 million ?

Or, with twice as much money would it be twice as 'damned good' ?

 

 

No, i see what you are saying. And you exactly right. But if your hypothesis is correct, why have we not seen any real game changing updates already? I feel like something with the engine would be changed right now if they were serious about getting this in beta by the end of the year.

[dallas 5195]

Of course not, but honestly, if you throw 60 million dollars at EA they can make a dam good game pretty quick.

 

Na... they'll copy one of their proven game concepts, spend most of the money on marketing and let advertising create profits for their shareholders. 

 

You can't just throw money at a problem and wait for it to magically fix itself. Just like you can't just throw money at your monitor and expect the perfect game. I asked you why you and your 15 friends bought DayZ, since DayZ didn't have an advertising budget and you hadn't see anything about the game on youtube.

 

Why did you buy DayZ?

[SFRGaming 718]

Na... they'll copy one of their proven game concepts, spend most of the money on marketing and let advertising create profits for their shareholders. 

 

You can't just throw money at a problem and wait for it to magically fix itself. Just like you can't just throw money at your monitor and expect the perfect game. I asked you why you and your 15 friends bought DayZ, since DayZ didn't have an advertising budget and you hadn't see anything about the game on youtube.

 

Why did you buy DayZ?

Because he expected it to be a AAA title...

 

[TomatoSupra 207]

Na... they'll copy one of their proven game concepts, spend most of the money on marketing and let advertising create profits for their shareholders. 

 

You can't just throw money at a problem and wait for it to magically fix itself. Just like you can't just throw money at your monitor and expect the perfect game. I asked you why you and your 15 friends bought DayZ, since DayZ didn't have an advertising budget and you hadn't see anything about the game on youtube.

 

Why did you buy DayZ?

 

I've already explained this, but you like everyone else refuses to read back through the comments before posting.

 

I bought the game for 30 bucks because it is worth 30 bucks for me at its current stage. I've already logged ~200 hours and had a dam good time. Plus i try to be active on the forums and try to give suggestions (Which always fucking end in an argument because there is a bunch of 14 year olds playing this game now).

[TomatoSupra 207]

 

 

 

 

Remember my point i made about the immature crowd on this site.

 

Case and point. Impossible to have a civil conversation for more than like 20 posts.

[mercules 1290]

Lol battlefield i guess was "BAD" coming from you, but they have had major success with it. Its gotten at least a B rating from every review i have ever seen.

 

So explain this point?

 

 

 

Technical issues and legal troubles[edit]

Upon release, Battlefield 4 was riddled with major technical bugs, glitches and crashes across all platforms. EA and DICE soon began releasing several patches for the game on all systems[79][80][81][82][83][84] and DICE later revealed that work on all of its future games (including Mirror's Edge, Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield 4 DLC) would be halted until Battlefield 4 was working properly. In December 2013, more than a month after the game's initial release, an EA representative said, "We know we still have a ways to go with fixing the game – it is absolutely our #1 priority. The team at DICE is working non-stop to update the game."[85]

EA President Peter Moore announced in January 2014 that the company did not see any negative impact to sales as a result of the myriad of technical issues. He said any negative impacts to sales were actually due to the transition from current-generation (PS3, Xbox 360) to next-generation consoles (PS4, Xbox One), and that other video game franchises like FIFA and Need for Speed were experiencing similar effects.[86] As a reward for players who bought the game early and continued to play it despite all of the bugs and glitches, DICE rewarded players in February 2014 with all-month-long, free multi-player content such as: bronze and silver Battlepacks, XP boosts and events, camouflage skins, shortcut bundles for weapons and additional content for Premium members.[87]

Because of the widespread bugs and glitches that were present, EA became the target of multiple law firms. The firm Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC launched an investigation into EA's public statements made between July 24 and December 4, 2013 to determine if the company intentionally misled its investors with information pertaining to, "the development and sales of the Company's Battlefield 4 video game and the game's impact on EA's revenue and projects moving forward."[88] Shortly thereafter, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd similarly filed a class action lawsuit against EA for releasing false or misleading statements about the quality of Battlefield 4.[89] A second class action lawsuit was announced only days later from the firm Bower Piven, which alleged that EA violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by not properly informing its investors about the major bugs and glitches during development that may have prevented the investors from making an informed decision about Battlefield 4. Bower Piven sought out investors who lost more than US$200,000 to become the lead plaintiff.[90]

Six months after the initial release of the game, in April 2014, DICE released a program called Community Test Environment (CTE), which let a limited number of PC gamers play a different version of Battlefield 4 that was designed to test new patches and updates before giving them a wide-release.[91] One of the major patches tested was an update to the game's netcode, specifically the "tickrate,"[91] which is how frequently the game and server would update, measured in cycles per second. Because of the size of Battlefield 4 in terms of information, DICE initially chose to have a low tickrate. However, the low tickrate resulted in a number of issues including damage registration and "trade kills." The CTE program will test a higher tickrate, among other common problems.[91][92]

 

From Wikipedia which was easy to search up. If you want more examples look around the internet, they are there. BF4 built off it's existing playerbase from BF3. EA also has a reputation, especially with their sports games. of doing a new version of an old game with hardly any new features added and charging full price once a year for the "new game".

[TomatoSupra 207]

From Wikipedia which was easy to search up. If you want more examples look around the internet, they are there. BF4 built off it's existing playerbase from BF3. EA also has a reputation, especially with their sports games. of doing a new version of an old game with hardly any new features added and charging full price once a year for the "new game".

 

I used BF4 as a quick example and by no means am i going to sit here and defend it.

[SFRGaming 718]

Remember my point i made about the immature crowd on this site.

 

Case and point. Impossible to have a civil conversation for more than like 20 posts.

And yet, you're the one whining that all of that "supposed" money was "supposed" to fix everything. Sorry sonny boy but that's not going to happen. You're trying to compare a 70-man INDIE (Indieindieindieindie) dev team to Electronic Arts....

Edited July 8, 2014 by SFRGaming

[TomatoSupra 207]

And yet, you're the one whining that all of that "supposed" money was "supposed" to fix everything. Sorry sonny boy but that's not going to happen. You're trying to compare a 70-man INDIE (Indieindieindieindie) dev team to Electronic Arts....

 

Well, before we got off topic (which i indicated earlier and was obviously not read) the original topic had nothing to do with EA.

 

Im done arguing about how much money they have and blah blah blah.

 

If anyone has anything else constructive to say, by all means go ahead.

[SFRGaming 718]

Well, before we got off topic (which i indicated earlier and was obviously not read) the original topic had nothing to do with EA.

 

Im done arguing about how much money they have and blah blah blah.

 

If anyone has anything else constructive to say, by all means go ahead.

Something constructive. hmm....let me think. OH!

 

I don't know what your definition of slow is, but DayZ devs are banging out updates rather quickly.

 

Let me put it into perspective:

 

Fallout 3 took how long? Take a guess....       5. years. to. complete. 

 

Kerbal Space Program hasn't been updated for SEVERAL months according to Dean Hall, a frequent player.

 

And how long was Half Life 2 in development? Exactly.

Edited July 8, 2014 by SFRGaming

[Karmaterror 982]

Read my other post....the timeline for dayz is completely different to most games, funds allocation sorta came after launch, so the results will be delayed due to planning, hiring, training, deligation ect ect

[pilgrim* 3514]

No, i see what you are saying. And you exactly right. But if your hypothesis is correct, why have we not seen any real game changing updates already? I feel like something with the engine would be changed right now if they were serious about getting this in beta by the end of the year.

 

to tell you the truth I'm not the person to ask - I don't pay much attention to development schedules and the rest..

I just play the game today because at the moment ..  heh ... I like playing it

 

if it was alpha, beta or gold collectors edition, don't make any difference to me

I only play because I think it's fun... or I'd be doing something else.

 

the good thing about alpha is that the game elements change.. (changes, bugs, design decisions) which adds extra appeal and makes more interest.. I like that as part of the reason I enjoy the game. But it's CERTAIN I'm not here to protect my investment, or to study development team dynamics in a commercial entertainment-media enterprise .. or whatever.... or anything like that...

I just "like" what's going on

This here right now is my LEISURE TIME

-is what I'm doing..

 

If BI vanished overnight and everyone was given their money back, I wouldn't even go on line to claim it

I cant be bothered with that stuff, that's the aliens talking

 

xx

Edited July 8, 2014 by pilgrim