Players dwindling

[Whyherro123 2283]

Really, Day Z has been on a downward spiral for quite a while now. Yes, new games (especially Fallout) have impacted that trend, but this has been happening since long before FO4 was released.

 

I, with the exception of a couple days here and there, haven't played Day Z in months. The game has essentially remained as clunky as it was at release, no new mechanics that interest me have been introduced, and the "survival" aspects of the game have long been ignored in favor of more guns. Yeah, we get infected on .59 experimental, but ..... they are the same old zombies that we had before. Woop de doo.

 

Same thing with my clanmates. I mean, you can only stash a tent full of guns (for no real purpose) so many times, you can only kill other players at the NWAF so many times, you can only roam the coast as a murderhobo so many times before the game becomes trite. There .... just isn't anything to do, other than kill other players. And, thanks to the clunkiness of the engine, among other things, even that gets .... "boring", after a while.

 

For those that are saying: "this isn't a game, this is to test bugs!". Yeah, sure. Then why am I not getting paid? Why did I have to pay for the "game"? Hell, I bet if BI could go back in time, before the EA-release, they would have done the whole Alpha phase in-house. Day Z Standalone has been almost nothing but bad PR for BI. Day Z Standalone has pretty much become the industry face for "bad Early Access games", and is pretty much made fun of in certain circles.

 

Hell, if I want to really reach, FO4 is a better survival game than Day Z. And you don't have to eat or drink in FO4. There is scarcity, there is difficulty, the environment is a hazard, there is actual fear in FO4, at least in the early game. With the changes to Feral Ghouls in FO4, it can be said that FO4 is a better "zombie game", than Day Z. Those things are vicious and terrifying.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Day Z, and I want it to succeed. It is just that Day Z has pretty much become that older cousin that is a shithead, picking fights with everyone and sits on the couch all day, drinking and farting. "Hope and despair". You just want to take him out behind the woodshed and beat him until he shapes up, but you know it won't really help, he has to "fix himself on his own".

[KenoSkir88 181]

And Dayz is nothing more than a FPS death match at the moment that hasn't been living up to the hype for quite awhile now.

 

See what i did? lol

 

I don't think the game is dead and i don't hate the game but it is infact in sore need of those survival mechanics.

 

If by "see what i did" you mean fabricate a competition / comparison i never even touched on to try to sound clever then, yeah i think i see it :rolleyes: But since you brought it up, Fallout is finished.

 

See what i did there?

[Deathlove 2286]

If by "see what i did" you mean fabricate a competition / comparison i never even touched on to try to sound clever then, yeah i think i see it :rolleyes: But since you brought it up, Fallout is finished.

 

See what i did there?

True, but were still waiting for quite a few of the core mechanics from Dayz that should have been bread and butter from the get go.

 

Im really not trying to pretend im wittier than you or anyone else. Its just a matter of to much wear and tear as allot of ppl are showing.

[IrishSniper 1]

In honesty no it isn't all that good. It's well made but shallow in my opinion, great for a few days but with nowhere near the longevity of something like DayZ. It's a standard FPS with aspects of an RPG, but has enough of a cult following from back when games like that were a little more rare to make the general gaming crowd excited for it's release. It's shiny and polished, but kinda samey after hour 20 and the map is kinda small compared to the pre-release hype.

 

We should all try to remember that the DayZ developers aren't supposed to be providing us a fun or finished game at this stage. If you're complaining it's broken or not fun you're probably under the impression you're owed something fun and working, which is not what you payed for. When the game is finished, then and only then can people complain it's broken or lacking in some way without sounding like a tit.

 

"I was back in DayZ and trying harder a couple of weeks later." - Nice work, it is this kind of attitude that will separate you from the "waaah it's broken and full of KOSers" crowd. BeanZ for being a cut above the rest :beans:

Stop trying to take a moral high ground because your opinion of sticking your head into shit and enjoying it differs than the rest. I do agree with what you said about fallout 4 though, true words. Btw they actually are supposed to be providing a fun game, that's what "stable" is about  :P

Edited November 18, 2015 by IrishSniper

[billyangstadt 272]

I think the genre in general is starting to fade. I don't think it's anything DayZ is doing right or wrong, it's just that there are so many cookie cutter games out there just like it.

[sneakydudes 278]

I disagree it has enough going for it right now to keep it interesting for years at a time and with the coming of workshop latter like what Skyrim had the life of the game shale be extended 10 fold. Dayz will hopefully be what its supposed to be one day but until that time there are better games to keep ppl busy at the moment.

 

Iv pretty much uninstalled Dayz until some more significant updating comes in. As of right now its pretty much all the same thing as before. And dynamic AI is what will get ppl to come back but thats yet to be seen.

Why uninstall the game? its a steam game you purchased. You can move it to another hdd if you want to save on space. Its called steam mover.

I agree, go play something else... don't give up on Dayz it will be here for when you return.

Just because it appears the devs aren't putting out tons of updates it doesn't mean they aren't putting in 12 hour days. (i am really happy they aren't)

 

Too other people that don't understand this development and maybe too young to understand gaming development it takes a ton of time coding and revamping what you just coded.

I just saw a fridge for the first time, it had storage and i could carry it.... this is for base building. Stuff like that and the mechanics behind it takes time.

 

 

Game runs rather fine on my system, but it may be different if your not sporting a 900 dollar video card. I still get 20-90 fps and can go as high as 170 i think i saw once.

Networking to improve performance issues takes even longer.

 

So i can totally understand your frustrations and why some may have gone to play something else with numbers as low as they are.

To tell you the truth i looked at the experimental servers and it showed 750 players today playing on exp .59 where as the rest of the 5000 online played .58

 

People want the winter to come around, and they want .59 with zombies. The Dev's know this why they are working to figure out the laggy issues atm on .59

 

Boneboys is sick of answering the rehashed threads on the subject for the past 2 years of development. Just as many in suggestions. I concur his frustrations.... i feel it the same. YW boneboys.

[OrLoK 16186]

Hello there

 

Some of you are posting in a way that's going to get you in trouble.

 

You know who you are.

 

Reign it in a tad if you wish to continue to post.

 

As to player numbers on the decline. Absolutely expected. Nothing to worry about.

 

All the claims of "dead" game etc etc are ill informed but there's no point explaining the reasoning as it wont be taken in.

 

Anyhoo, be critical if you wish but make it constructive and dont be rude about others or their work etc.

 

Rdgs

 

LoK

[jeffroland 26]

There's no zombies on stable right now, so of course the player count is dwindling.

 

It's a zombie apoc simulator with no zombies. IMO they shouldn't have even bothered with early access, that way they could just focus purely on development for 2-3 years instead of trying to make the game "semi-playable" while developing it for 3-4+ years.

 

And I am saying all of this as one of the original backers for this entire project, as I completely adore the concept of the game and hopped on the DayZmod alpha train from the get-go, as well as pre-ordered the DayZ Standalone the second I could.

 

I really want to love the game, but I can't see it being all that enjoyable until around v0.80 or so. Like seriously, there isn't any zombies right now is saying enough.

 

It's currently a deathmatch on a 220 km squared map with 50 player servers. It's insanely dry. Give me Lingor and zombies and it'll be amazing once again.

 

 

 

I agree with bonesnap here. I've taken a big break from DayZ lately. The decision to have a public Alpha was premature. Maybe they should have waited until Beta, but obviously they needed some sort of funding to launch the entire project. I keep tabs on the development every week but I have only put in 2 hours in the last 6 months. I'll come back in Beta or when there's something worth playing, but right now I've got too many other good games to play that are complete. 

[Deathlove 2286]

Hello there

 

Some of you are posting in a way that's going to get you in trouble.

 

You know who you are.

 

Reign it in a tad if you wish to continue to post.

Not sure who were your referring to Orlok. Most posters here have been pretty civil.

 

 

As to player numbers on the decline. Absolutely expected. Nothing to worry about.

 

This topic has been beaten to death like a dead donkey (lol) I agree.

[KenoSkir88 181]

Stop trying to take a moral high ground because your opinion of sticking your head into shit and enjoying it differs than the rest. I do agree with what you said about fallout 4 though, true words. Btw they actually are supposed to be providing a fun game, that's what "stable" is about  :P

 

^ What does that even mean :huh:

 

Anyway i was referencing a necessity at times during DayZ's production for function to take priority over gameplay. Stable doesn't mean most fun by any stretch, it means.. well Stable.

[Sperglord 76]

The decline is steady if it was due to other games you'd see a sudden sharp decline not this. DayZ is slowly dying plain and simple. To little change, to much bugs, not enough intrest. The only way for DayZ to get back on its feet is for the devs to put in some serious game mechanics such as vehicles and bases and to allow player made servers/modding.

Why would they care if the game has even 10 people playing it? They already got the money, even if 5 years after dayz will be still in this exact state no one can take their money away

Edited November 18, 2015 by Sperglord

[Reg Park 160]

I still enjoy the game....can't get enough, even though it's far from perfect.

[Tiger205 48]

So my suspicions were correct. My post was hidden because it doesn't fall in line with the usual praising of this thing. So much for "freedom of speech". I could just paste it over again but why bother.

[OrLoK 16186]

So my suspicions were correct. My post was hidden because it doesn't fall in line with the usual praising of this thing. So much for "freedom of speech". I could just paste it over again but why bother.

Hello there

 

There is no "freedom of speech" here.

 

You are a guest. behave appropriately.

 

Alluding mods being "Nazis" is just one part of why your post was removed.

 

Feel free to give critique but do it constructively and like a grown up.

 

Carry on.

 

Rdgs

 

LoK

[lsaaq 19]

If you want to make Chernarus even slightly realistically entertaining, we need 100+ player servers, a ton more vehicles and zombies back asap. None of which is happening anytime this year, or even Quarter1-2 next year. :/

 

What? Zombies are back in 59. That's going to hit relatively soon, it appears. They've also pushed to 75 pop servers on exp, and, with some further optimization, this could be a very real possibility for stable with 59's release (sure, it's not 100, but honestly, I think the 100 pop server goal is stupid. 50 players absolutely is enough, and it's incredibly ironic that somebody complaining about the game being a death match would want 100 pop servers). They're also adding three new vehicles in 59, and there's a good chance we'll see more (and different types of) vehicles in .6, which they want to get onto exp, at least, before the end of the year.

 

In order for your statement to be correct, you'd have to assume that 59 will not come out at all this year. Which is ridiculous.

 

 

 

The game is still in Alpha. When it hits beta, we'll see a large resurgence in players. When it hits release, we'll see a large growth in the population, assuming they actually market the game.

 

All games drop off. DayZ is still going pretty strong, honestly, after two years of alpha. The development thing is really a different argument, but for the record, it's not slow by any means whatsoever in comparison to other games, similarly sized or not. This topic has been gone over more times than I can count and the argument is always the same.

Edited November 19, 2015 by lsaaq

[twr 43]

Just so you're all tracking, Starcraft 2 took 10 years to develop and release... just saying.

[Jonah_Hobbes 171]

What? Zombies are back in 59. That's going to hit relatively soon, it appears. They've also pushed to 75 pop servers on exp, and, with some further optimization, this could be a very real possibility for stable with 59's release (sure, it's not 100, but honestly, I think the 100 pop server goal is stupid. 50 players absolutely is enough, and it's incredibly ironic that somebody complaining about the game being a death match would want 100 pop servers). They're also adding three new vehicles in 59, and there's a good chance we'll see more (and different types of) vehicles in .6, which they want to get onto exp, at least, before the end of the year.

 

In order for your statement to be correct, you'd have to assume that 59 will not come out at all this year. Which is ridiculous.

 

 

 

The game is still in Alpha. When it hits beta, we'll see a large resurgence in players. When it hits release, we'll see a large growth in the population, assuming they actually market the game.

 

All games drop off. DayZ is still going pretty strong, honestly, after two years of alpha. The development thing is really a different argument, but for the record, it's not slow by any means whatsoever in comparison to other games, similarly sized or not. This topic has been gone over more times than I can count and the argument is always the same.

 

 

No the argument has changed as most of us used to say "Alpha" to the idiots who were moaning about lack of content, bugs not being fixed, etc.

 

However we should have been looking beta squarely in the face by now but there is nothing to suggest that's actually going to happen The game has fallen off the radar, I don't see it making any giant strides that will bring people back. They hired more folk to work on the game but it's not really changed anything.

 

I think Rocket did a great job of keeping everyone's sh*t together and leading. After he left his replacement was poor and alienated the people who want to pretend they are living in Walking Dead Landscape and kill zombies - the majority of folk who bought the game.

 

Also those that go on about the population who don't understand the process of building a game - true ,most of us don't. We lose interest and move on.

 

Someone f*cked up somewhere.

[Jonah_Hobbes 171]

Just so you're all tracking, Starcraft 2 took 10 years to develop and release... just saying.

 

 

Yeah Blizzard is a bit different from Bohemia and kept people amused with other titles no???

[lsaaq 19]

No the argument has changed as most of us used to say "Alpha" to the idiots who were moaning about lack of content, bugs not being fixed, etc.

However we should have been looking beta squarely in the face by now but there is nothing to suggest that's actually going to happen The game has fallen off the radar, I don't see it making any giant strides that will bring people back. They hired more folk to work on the game but it's not really changed anything.

I think Rocket did a great job of keeping everyone's sh*t together and leading. After he left his replacement was poor and alienated the people who want to pretend they are living in Walking Dead Landscape and kill zombies - the majority of folk who bought the game.

Also those that go on about the population who don't understand the process of building a game - true ,most of us don't. We lose interest and move on.

Someone f*cked up somewhere.

Beta looks to be coming q1 2016, both on what the devs say and what it looks like to me, a hobbyist game developer, trained programmer and somebody who has participated in plenty of alphas both closed and open before. Not quite an expert opinion, but I'm pretty damn confident in that.

There's nothing, whatsoever, to suggest otherwise.

The funny thing is, since they realized the scope of the game after the sales success early on, they have ALWAYS maintained the beta date of end of 2015/early 2016. They're going to hit that. What are people complaining about?

The argument hasn't changed. At all. In fact, NOTHING has changed at all. The game is, in fact, progressing at a normal-fast rate. They're hitting their targets. People still don't understand development, don't pay attention to what the devs have been saying the entire time and are still impatient.

The argument is the same as it's always been. Since the first couple of months.

Edited November 19, 2015 by lsaaq

[OrLoK 16186]

Hello there

 

Mod hat off

 

Unfortunately, the issue isn't that "the game shouldn't have been released in Alpha" or "person/s X or Y messed up and Rocket was optimazing" it's that people, yes many of the general public, simply don't realise how long making a full game takes.

 

I'm not talking about dropping stuff onto Unreal or Crytek or Unity, Im talking about really making a game *and* re engineering the "engine"

 

Your average Joe consumer or consumeress isn't interested in real dev, they just want a game that can be "played" and expect patches to fix "stuff" or add new "things"

 

I've often stated that it's unfortunate that the game plays so well now as it leads people to believe that this is "it"

 

It may seem unfair to deflect back on to the customer but it's not all their fault.

 

Other game titles often do a "Alpha" or "Beta" exclusive access for cash which really isn't either of those two things (perhaps very late stage Beta) and this also leads many to think they *know* what taking participation in these things is like whereas they've simply been part of a marketing ploy.

 

Game dev isn't a speedy thing especially when tied into a moderately sized company.

 

It can often seem like 2 guys in their bedroom can bring out superb games and mods in uber quick time, but they don't have the constraints or standards that larger companies have.

 

There's a brilliant mod out for one of my favourite games which is very popular, but because it's a mod it doesn't have to worry about issues such as overly "heavy" meshes killing FPS or game breaking bugs like "proper" companies do.

 

If it were built by BI it would take time to polish to get to the correct standard (both visually and performance wise) and possibly edits of content to ensure it performed well on the majority of systems.

 

But because it's a mod, people are far more tolerant of it (rightly so) but when argumentative folk equate mods like it and others to DAYZ the comparison just isn't there.

 

Same with many Cryteck/Unreal/Unity games. Most of these simply "plonk on" to the existing "engine" (a vast simplification I know, but reasonable for this debate) only a few drill down into the real gubbins and very few make such vast changes as the devs have done to the RV engine.

 

But that is what Cryteck/Unreal/Unity are for, they're sold as a way to get one's stuff out there with a minimum of fuss.

 

Its like buying an off the rack suit and having the shop's tailor service take an inch off the trouser leg. Brilliant, it's a nice new suit and it fits. But its not comparable to a fully tailored suit that's made to measure. 

 

Or a burger from a fast food restaurant, tasty and quick and you can ask for no tomatoes, but it's never going to be as well made as a properly cooked restaurant in house burger.

 

it doesn't mean one is bad or doesn't have merit or that you can't prefer the simpler version,  they're just not truly comparable to each other.

 

I dont think BI are perfect and I've not always initially agreed with some design directions, but I think the team is incredibly talented and hard working and that they are more than capable of making DAYZ into what most of us want it to be (it will never please everyone).

 

What we have to do is *wait*.

 

A modicum of research will give the estimated ETA's for various stages the team plan to hit and we *still* have a long way to go, regardless of whether we are in Alpha, Beta or whatever label one wants to arbitrarily assign.

 

(Im of the personal belief that folk assign way too much to these labels and that whilst a good guide to progress, cannot be seen as the definitive Word of God. Development is fluid.)

 

Now, as a caveat, things *can* go wrong. People can make mistakes or companies wrong choices, but we all *know* that don't we? I hold the devs to a high standard but don't think that they or BI are infallible.

 

But what I do know is that BI have a great track record when it comes to the Arma Series (warts and all), this fact and the press attention focused on DAYZ (dont forget that this game is seen as a major milestone for the genre) implies (infers?) to me that the team has what it takes to pump out a more than decent game. They wouldn't have tackled it if they didn't believe that they were capable.

 

Lastly, there is that one in a million chance that due to unforeseen circumstances that development will stop, but its a tiny, tiny, tiny wee smidgen of a chance and the press would have heard something if the company were in rocky waters and we all know how the press likes a failure story, but there are none are there?

 

Nor are there any mainstream stories about slow or incompetent development. 

 

For me, using logic, this leads me to think that the dev process is chugging away nicely.

 

There will always be backseat devs and detractors (as there are in any game) but one has to wonder why these folk spend so much time "waging war" with what is essentially just a game. And a fairly cheap one at this stage. Games I dislike or find flawed I leave em either entirely or until I can mod them. I dont form alts to troll their forums or make sweary videos for easy subs or create "clubs" dedicated to  destroying a games reputation. Very odd behaviour if you ask me.

 

That's not to say "everyone" who has an issue is a loon, of course not. Im just mentioning some of our more "radical" ...people.

 

I can fully understand though as a normal guy or gal that development can *seem* slow but just as the world can seem flat, it simply isnt.

 

if you cant hack the "slow" pace, go play something else and come back once we are done, I bet most will be more than happy. Ive done this myself with Elite Dangerous and Ive been waiting 25 years for it and even after it's release its taken a year to mature and will only really be right, for me, in another 6 months or so.

 

In the meantime we live in splendid times for both affordable and AAA titles there's lots of stuff to occupy us whilst we wait, I dont play DAYZ much myself. I want to keep it fresh for launch.

 

Mod hat on

 

Rdgs

 

LoK

[KenoSkir88 181]

Very well put. :beans:

[Rauchsauger 94]

[...]

 

Unfortunately, the issue isn't that "the game shouldn't have been released in Alpha" or "person/s X or Y messed up and Rocket was optimazing" it's that people, yes many of the general public, simply don't realise how long making a full game takes.

 

[...]

 

 

That might be true - but it does not help the fact that the game "burns out" without even seeing beta.

The novelty is gone - what will they do to incite players to come back when it is done?

 

From a finacial point of view it does not make sense to put any more effort in a product when the return is questionable.

Basically - money from alpha is spent - not many people still interested in the game - all further money spend is equivalent to burning the money - so they just stop.

 

Not that I not got my money's worth out of DayZ (on the contrary) but it feels like a kickstarter followed by a beta may have been better in hindsight.

Btw. People that use a existing engine do not just "drop" assets and are done with it...

 

 

 

Also everybody should stop to underestimate/belittle the time and skill modders put into their creations.

[jefc_uk 26]

Ok so the alpha playerbase is dwindling. But how many people out there are there that thought to themselves - "Hey that sounds like a cool game but it says it's still going to be incomplete and full of bugs so I'm not going to buy into it because I don't fancy that as it sounds like it could be frustrating for me. I'll wait until it comes out, read reviews etc and then maybe buy it.". That would be pretty rational and intelligent unlike just complaining all the [expletive] time.

 

Threads like this really put me off the game development sector. The guys making this game are real people, with, you know, feelings, and a sense of pride etc etc. To build this for people and then have so many of them throw it back in your face must be pretty rubbish, though I'm sure it's to be expected (sadly).

[Jex 1104]

After getting on for 3000 hours in game over the past 18 months, I'm very sorry to say that things are looking really bad. I have absolutely no desire to play any more - nor do any of the friends I've made in game. The lag, the bugs, and most of all the increasing gap between the positive spin from BI and the actuality of playing it - they've all just worn a lot of people down.

 

I'm also very sorry to say that this is going to confirm some of the fears that people had when the game first moved from mod to standalone (which personally I don't share btw) - that the huge amount of money made from EA sales was not backed through investment in development.

 

You're exactly the type of person I keep talking about. You overplayed the game and now you're burnt out - it happens to us all at some point but are you likely to want to come back to it later? Had you not played so much and waited, you might have gotten to play the game rather than a buggy unfinished product? This is why EA games are NOT worth investing time in until they release the game so you can get the full experience though 3000 hours lol - I think you got you monies worth it's a pity it wasn't the the whole game and it was bug ridden as hell.

 

As for development, there is nothing in the game that has me wanting to come back to it and it's been like that for months but yeah, the year is out and what have we got in return - fuck all by the look of things. Where's the new rendering engine, where's the zombie and animal AI these dedicated teams have been working on? Patient I have been but it's running thin now though saying that, I have tons of games to play so it's not like I can't wait but it does get annoying to see an apparent lack of progress and their woefully shit approximations of when things would be out.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Jexter

[KenoSkir88 181]

That might be true - but it does not help the fact that the game "burns out" without even seeing beta.

The novelty is gone - what will they do to incite players to come back when it is done?

 

From a finacial point of view it does not make sense to put any more effort in a product when the return is questionable.

Basically - money from alpha is spent - not many people still interested in the game - all further money spend is equivalent to burning the money - so they just stop.

 

Not that I not got my money's worth out of DayZ (on the contrary) but it feels like a kickstarter followed by a beta may have been better in hindsight.

Btw. People that use a existing engine do not just "drop" assets and are done with it...

 

 

 

Also everybody should stop to underestimate/belittle the time and skill modders put into their creations.

 

How is it burning out? It's only being played by testers and people who can't read right now..

 

The bit you have to realize about modding is that while everyone is aware it takes a lot of time and skill to do, making a game from the ground up takes exponentially more of both and therefor a fair comparison between making a mod and making a whole game / engine is just a silly one to try to make.

 

Yeah Blizzard is a bit different from Bohemia and kept people amused with other titles no???

 

So.. you reckon it's a game developers job to entertain you with other games while you wait for the games they're working on? It hasn't occurred to you to play games from a different developer in the meantime?