For those complaining about the development time of DayZ

[Guy Smiley 534]

Shenmue: 1994-2000 (6 years)

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty: 2003-2010 (7 years)

Galleon: 1997-2004 (7 years)

L.A. Noire: 2004-2011 (7 years)

Spore: 2000-2008 (8 years)

Too Human : 1999-2008 (9 years)

Team Fortress 2: 1998-2007 (9 years)

Prey: 1995-2006 (11 years)

Diablo III: 2001-2012 (11 years)

Duke Nukem Forever: 1996-2011 (15 years)

 

Source: http://overmental.com/content/10-games-that-spent-the-longest-time-in-development-2-672

[Conrad_The_Comrade 577]

I love you

[PongoZ 127]

Did they go 5 months and only change the tone of a gilly suit?

[Mantasisg 172]

It is a mess anyway. But lets hold back all the negativity, if things are going to get smoother, and the game will finally be getting delivered within and after 0.63update with iterations rolling out frequently, with nasty content, and constantly improving gameplay, with good effective game designs being realised, then everyone will shut up naturally. If.

[IMT 3190]

Grand Theft Auto V (triple A game) took 5 years for the first version (PS 3 and Xbox 360) and 7 years for the last version (PC). The preliminary work started right after the release of Grand Theft Auto IV in April 2008. First release was on September 2013 and the PC version was released on 14 April 2015, which is exact 7 years.

Keep in mind, they had a team of approximately 1.000 people developing it. Take all that in consideration when complaining about the development speed or time, next time.

[Wili 156]

I think the problem was releasing the Alpha too soon but well everyone was claiming for Alpha in the forums so...

Edited October 24, 2017 by Wili

[St. Jimmy 1631]

8 hours ago, PongoZ said:

Did they go 5 months and only change the tone of a gilly suit?

Yes likely even less because they didn't give the game for public.

[Seitan 161]

Good topic. Puts these projects into right perspective.

I bet they all ate lots of "kampaviineri" (pic below) and many cups of bad coffee.

[pixel91 30]

The key difference being that none of those project were early access. Also, Duke Nukem was developed from scratch about three times in that whole time..so, bad example.

 

Of course people will complain if there's no progress for months on end...and absolutely rightly so. There's plenty of early access titles of various scopes and styles that worked out well, in shorter times, with even smaller teams and without a big, backing company like Bohemia behind them, so it's really no excuse. The early access release happened too soon and the whole development process was too erratic for a long time, the fact that the engine (or core parts of it) is being changed AFTER public release is the only proof needed for that.

Edited October 24, 2017 by pixel91

[BeefBacon 1185]

47 minutes ago, pixel91 said:

The early access release happened too soon and the whole development process was too erratic for a long time, the fact that the engine (or core parts of it) is being changed AFTER public release is the only proof needed for that.

 

[sneakydude 480]

If i am not mistaken wasn't D3 placed on hold for some time after announcement?

I also agree with the EA game status none of which i knew existed with EA, only closed Alpha testing with NDA.

Which has no bearing on this, because we all reported 500% the same bugs, that mostly never could be fixed due to the change in the engine.

So i guess.

[Jonahhobbes23 0]

Don't think I ever paid $30 up front for an alpha D3. They just released it when it was done.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by Jonahhobbes23

[klesh 2423]

On 10/24/2017 at 8:47 AM, Wili said:

I think the problem was releasing the Alpha too soon but well everyone was claiming for Alpha in the forums so...

 

Indeed.  I was in the pre-alpha NDA gang, and we talked about this on Skype.  Rocket wanted there to be something to do in the game, for there to be an actual value to buying it.  Back then the addition of the compass was a big deal, there were like 3 guns and the zombies were very modlike.  Thats when the idea of giant capital letters disclaimer about "DO NOT BUY THIS GAME IF YOU WANT A COMPLETE EXPERIENCE" came about.  People don't read, or they let their expectations talk them out of good sense.  That being said, the huge sales pretty much funded the decision to scrap the Take on Helicopters engine and move towards the game we'll be getting in the end.

Lets not forget thousands of people posting crap like this all over everywhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/1t0w61/つ_つ_give_sa/

 

Quote

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Save the Dolphins GIVE SA

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by klesh

[Guy Smiley 534]

I see a lot not being able comprehend the difference between an "early access" titles compared to games where most of us never even see the alpha stage.  What we've got from DayZ's early access is seeing the creation of the game at it's basic level and actually getting to see it develop and change as the game gets created.  Most companies you would need to fill out an application at the very least to even gain access to alpha testing and most of those are usually nearing the end of the alpha moving forward into the beta stage.

[comikz 218]

3 hours ago, Guy Smiley said:

I see a lot not being able comprehend the difference between an "early access" titles compared to games where most of us never even see the alpha stage.  What we've got from DayZ's early access is seeing the creation of the game at it's basic level and actually getting to see it develop and change as the game gets created.  Most companies you would need to fill out an application at the very least to even gain access to alpha testing and most of those are usually nearing the end of the alpha moving forward into the beta stage.

Then why as testers are we not aloud to complain about or criticize the development speed and current state/content of the game? Why must everything be one big, "White Knight", episode where we must just over glorify what the game offers and how it stands? Not being able to voice ones opinions however they might be, is censorship, and posts/replies/threads ect. being deleted is just manipulating feedback to only show the snuggle bunnies and rainbows threads such as, "Guys you can't complain about development speed because of these other titles, ect." style threads.

Now I understand a lot of negative feedback is just that "negative", and doesn't help if there is no follow up about how to change/fix something that person was negative about. However I would debate that people championing the developers and brown nosing, are just as guilty of not getting this game's faults addressed, because if developers see a load of, "This game is the most awesomest game ever in early developement evar!!!111!!", they're not going to address problems, they're going to carry on with doing things as they see fit.

So both sides of the coin need to be able to speak they're mind about this game, it's development and staff.

[Guy Smiley 534]

3 minutes ago, comikz said:

Then why as testers are we not aloud to complain about or criticize the development speed and current state/content of the game?

Because games don't get created in a few days.  Can you not comprehend that?  Also, this is not a game, it's a development project which we were advised not to buy if we're not capable of handling the development and bugs that come with it.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

If you release a game in alpha status, expect people to complain. The studios you posted pretty much kept everything hush-hush until it was right around release time.

 

I still think the early access model is flawed as fuck – this forum speaks volumes.

[BeefBacon 1185]

5 minutes ago, Grimey Rick said:

If you release a game in alpha status, expect people to complain. The studios you posted pretty much kept everything hush-hush until it was right around release time.

 

I still think the early access model is flawed as fuck – this forum speaks volumes.

I agree, for the most part. Early access that gives players access to the game pretty much from its inception to its release is not a good model. Early access that releases a pretty much feature-complete game that's just missing a bit of content is fine. PUBG is a good example of an EA game done right. DayZ is not. That's not to say that DayZ is bad - it's just had a very rocky development, especially insofar as public perception is concerned.

Access to closed betas and things like that is pretty commonplace now, though, even among mainstream AAA titles. Sometimes that's a good thing; other times not so much.

[Dancing.Russian.Man 1631]

I think a lot of people (including some devs) don't realize how difficult it can be to manage a playable version of the game alongside all of the internal development side of things, not to mention getting instant feedback on everything and trying to keep up with what you're able. Eugen and Hicks have both said they've learned a lot since DayZ's launch into Early Access and think it was a misstep even if it wasn't up to their decision.

Like we already know, many of the long-standing bugs we currently have haven't been fixed because doing so would either require a hack which could compromise the game's stability/security, or a large rewrite to properly address the real root of the issue. Many things are very interconnected in game development which also shows in how many things are changing in 0.63 all at once instead of us getting little bits over time.

If you have decent knowledge about programming and game/software development, you'll know these aren't just "excuses to avoid criticism" like some like to call it. But trying to hammer the point home isn't going to work if they lack even the fundamental knowledge or the will to care. (And frankly they don't have to care, but if they don't, they shouldn't be buying Early Access games willy-nilly. Their not-caring is going to inevitably cost them money and they'll learn the hard way.)

P.S. And because of how different every game project is, I don't think bringing up examples of other games that took longer proves anything or makes a valid point. They had different goals, different problems, different (in some cases several) teams, and different reasons overall for why things took longer. I'm willing to bet some of them even went on hiatus at some point.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Dancing.Russian.Man
Lots of added rambling

[roguetrooper 201]

Ever heard about Overgrowth?

[green_mtn_grandbob 594]

I don't know jack about making a game, but I can understand how a project has to be done all over from the start.   

[pilgrim* 3514]

I paid my $30 just as payback for all the free fun I had on DayZ the Mod, that was already a fair donation - for me - way back then. I'd do the same for anyone or any team who gave me a thousand hours or so of fun for free, thanks to THEIR sweat and work.

Since then I've played another 1500+ hours of DayZ the SA... And NOTHING, these days, just NOTHING, is that cheap EVER. So if DayZ floats face down, sinks completely or comes up trumps and rises shining with the pure white divine light of the eternal endless game .. makes no difference to ME in value.  Where else on THIS planet would I get 2000 or 3000 HOURS of anything at all for $30 ??  

It's paid for itself a long time ago, anything from now on in is totally free and extra plus. I wish it well whatever happens. Hope it does good, Hey, for that one time payment of  $30 all that time ago, maybe my great-grandson will still be playing it. Whichever way it goes I already got my value in full.

xxp

[comikz 218]

9 hours ago, Guy Smiley said:

Because games don't get created in a few days.  Can you not comprehend that?  Also, this is not a game, it's a development project which we were advised not to buy if we're not capable of handling the development and bugs that come with it.

I can fully comprehend that developers cannot just snap their fingers and *POOF* and game is fully created in an instant. But what I am trying to get at is, since we are testing this game no matter what it's phase of developement is, we can form opinions/feelings on how we as the consumer/tester feel that things are going, and if they're headed in the right direction (To us.) I for one love this game, it's fun for what it is currently, and I see a lot of promise. But I'm certainly not going to get pushed aside and not allow myself to be heard about flaws/problems of it's current state. I do this not out of spite or bigotry, I do this so that the developement staff when they visit this forum, can see what people no matter who it is, have an issue with, and perhaps if its something they can see as a problem as well, they can address it in a future patch. Just as you are free to promote how great you believe this game is, and how you have opinions on how people shouldn't be able to complain, that's your prerogative and I have mine.

Thank you.

[IMT 3190]

8 hours ago, BeefBacon said:

I agree, for the most part. Early access that gives players access to the game pretty much from its inception to its release is not a good model. Early access that releases a pretty much feature-complete game that's just missing a bit of content is fine. PUBG is a good example of an EA game done right. DayZ is not. That's not to say that DayZ is bad - it's just had a very rocky development, especially insofar as public perception is concerned.

Access to closed betas and things like that is pretty commonplace now, though, even among mainstream AAA titles. Sometimes that's a good thing; other times not so much.

The big difference there is how it's phrased. People say DayZ is a shit game because it takes so long to develop. What you say is, DayZ is a good game but unfortunately the development had issues. That's a whole shit ton of difference right there.

The Steam reviews shows this difference. The Steam reviews are meant to be targeted at the game itself, not the development of it. So if they give the game a bad review, they mean that the game is bad.

6 hours ago, Dancing.Russian.Man said:

I think a lot of people (including some devs) don't realize how difficult it can be to manage a playable version of the game alongside all of the internal development side of things, not to mention getting instant feedback on everything and trying to keep up with what you're able. Eugen and Hicks have both said they've learned a lot since DayZ's launch into Early Access and think it was a misstep even if it wasn't up to their decision.

Like we already know, many of the long-standing bugs we currently have haven't been fixed because doing so would either require a hack which could compromise the game's stability/security, or a large rewrite to properly address the real root of the issue. Many things are very interconnected in game development which also shows in how many things are changing in 0.63 all at once instead of us getting little bits over time.

If you have decent knowledge about programming and game/software development, you'll know these aren't just "excuses to avoid criticism" like some like to call it. But trying to hammer the point home isn't going to work if they lack even the fundamental knowledge or the will to care. (And frankly they don't have to care, but if they don't, they shouldn't be buying Early Access games willy-nilly. Their not-caring is going to inevitably cost them money and they'll learn the hard way.)

P.S. And because of how different every game project is, I don't think bringing up examples of other games that took longer proves anything or makes a valid point. They had different goals, different problems, different (in some cases several) teams, and different reasons overall for why things took longer. I'm willing to bet some of them even went on hiatus at some point.

That is unfortunately the problem, most people don't understand these facts. They don't know how software/game development works and they will go by what is presented to them. Even though people and the developers explaining it to them, they will stay stubborn and go with their vision.

It's a shame because a lot of Early Access games gets a lot of shit because of this. A lot of these games don't deserve it, to be honest.

1 hour ago, pilgrim* said:

I paid my $30 just as payback for all the free fun I had on DayZ the Mod, that was already a fair donation - for me - way back then. I'd do the same for anyone or any team who gave me a thousand hours or so of fun for free, thanks to THEIR sweat and work.

Since then I've played another 1500+ hours of DayZ the SA... And NOTHING, these days, just NOTHING, is that cheap EVER. So if DayZ floats face down, sinks completely or comes up trumps and rises shining with the pure white divine light of the eternal endless game .. makes no difference to ME in value.  Where else on THIS planet would I get 2000 or 3000 HOURS of anything at all for $30 ??  

It's paid for itself a long time ago, anything from now on in is totally free and extra plus. I wish it well whatever happens. Hope it does good, Hey, for that one time payment of  $30 all that time ago, maybe my great-grandson will still be playing it. Whichever way it goes I already got my value in full.

xxp

This, very much this. If the developers would say "we're going to stop development and leave the game how it is in the current state", I wouldn't even be mad. I would be disappointed but mad? No, definitely not. I have more than enough hours in the game to get my money's worth.

That doesn't mean of course that they should stop development. I really hope the game works out in the end and I have confidence in the developers to make it even greater for me than it already is.

As you already said, there are not a lot of games or activities which gives you so many hours of fun for that amount of money.

32 minutes ago, comikz said:

I can fully comprehend that developers cannot just snap their fingers and *POOF* and game is fully created in an instant. But what I am trying to get at is, since we are testing this game no matter what it's phase of developement is, we can form opinions/feelings on how we as the consumer/tester feel that things are going, and if they're headed in the right direction (To us.) I for one love this game, it's fun for what it is currently, and I see a lot of promise. But I'm certainly not going to get pushed aside and not allow myself to be heard about flaws/problems of it's current state. I do this not out of spite or bigotry, I do this so that the developement staff when they visit this forum, can see what people no matter who it is, have an issue with, and perhaps if its something they can see as a problem as well, they can address it in a future patch. Just as you are free to promote how great you believe this game is, and how you have opinions on how people shouldn't be able to complain, that's your prerogative and I have mine.

Thank you.

But the problem is, people are allowed to give their opinions or concerns. To prove this, go read the threads about the ambient sounds and the zoom being removed of the game. A lot of concerns and opinions in these threads came from the regulars of the forum, often referred to as white knights, fanboys, etc.

The big difference is, the regulars express their opinion and concerns through constructive feedback. To show you what I mean I'm going to give you an example of non-constructive feedback (bad feedback) and an example of constructive feedback (good feedback).

Non-constructive feedback: The new ambient sounds suck

Constructive feedback: The new ambient sounds are a nice and welcome change. However I believe it needs some tweaking. Some of the sounds are too loud and the transition between locations are not optimal because you definitely can notice the switch between tracks.

See how big of a difference it is? The above example will probably get a lot of negative reactions from the regulars and sometimes even deleted by the mods or the developers. Non-constructive feedback doesn't help anyone, not yourself, the community or the developers. Most regular people on the forum here provide constructive feedback, let it be negative or positive. They will sound off if there is something which they like but also when they don't like something.

People who get banned, blocked or their posts get deleted by moderators or developers on any media don't provide that constructive feedback but are either there to troll or just to be a negative Nancy.

[comikz 218]

1 hour ago, IMT said:

The big difference there is how it's phrased. People say DayZ is a shit game because it takes so long to develop. What you say is, DayZ is a good game but unfortunately the development had issues. That's a whole shit ton of difference right there.

The Steam reviews shows this difference. The Steam reviews are meant to be targeted at the game itself, not the development of it. So if they give the game a bad review, they mean that the game is bad.

That is unfortunately the problem, most people don't understand these facts. They don't know how software/game development works and they will go by what is presented to them. Even though people and the developers explaining it to them, they will stay stubborn and go with their vision.

It's a shame because a lot of Early Access games gets a lot of shit because of this. A lot of these games don't deserve it, to be honest.

This, very much this. If the developers would say "we're going to stop development and leave the game how it is in the current state", I wouldn't even be mad. I would be disappointed but mad? No, definitely not. I have more than enough hours in the game to get my money's worth.

That doesn't mean of course that they should stop development. I really hope the game works out in the end and I have confidence in the developers to make it even greater for me than it already is.

As you already said, there are not a lot of games or activities which gives you so many hours of fun for that amount of money.

But the problem is, people are allowed to give their opinions or concerns. To prove this, go read the threads about the ambient sounds and the zoom being removed of the game. A lot of concerns and opinions in these threads came from the regulars of the forum, often referred to as white knights, fanboys, etc.

The big difference is, the regulars express their opinion and concerns through constructive feedback. To show you what I mean I'm going to give you an example of non-constructive feedback (bad feedback) and an example of constructive feedback (good feedback).

Non-constructive feedback: The new ambient sounds suck

Constructive feedback: The new ambient sounds are a nice and welcome change. However I believe it needs some tweaking. Some of the sounds are too loud and the transition between locations are not optimal because you definitely can notice the switch between tracks.

See how big of a difference it is? The above example will probably get a lot of negative reactions from the regulars and sometimes even deleted by the mods or the developers. Non-constructive feedback doesn't help anyone, not yourself, the community or the developers. Most regular people on the forum here provide constructive feedback, let it be negative or positive. They will sound off if there is something which they like but also when they don't like something.

People who get banned, blocked or their posts get deleted by moderators or developers on any media don't provide that constructive feedback but are either there to troll or just to be a negative Nancy.

I don't get the point of you quoiting me, since I fully understand and support what you just said.

However I want to point out, that most criticism about this game/developers/host company, is met with the usual, "Early release", "Alpha", "Are you a game developer". People aren't given the option to explain themselves, and are usually penalized by the powers that be for it. I understand that non-constructive criticism gets us no where, but sometimes people have a hard time expressing their distaste for something, and go with a blanket statement, such as the one you gave, "Ambient sound sucks", because to them, that is how they express it.

And sometimes people feel that either it be constructive or not, they're going to get penalized for it anyways, I mean just as I am typing this, I feel that since I am not being super up-beat and cherry about everything DayZ SA related, that I will get in trouble for speaking my mind.

So I will be constructive with my following criticisms from now on, but be prepared for more rambling. (Since I suffer from sometimes not being able to form my thoughts in a proper manner.)

1. The loot system/table in this game needs revision, I feel the current level of available resources from your typical spawn area, needs to be elevated so that people can get a proper foot hold to be able to begin the trek to the better loot spots. Because I for one don't enjoy picking three dozen apples to try to get full/hydrated only to freeze to death moments later because the only thing available to wear is damaged/soaked dresses and track suit bottoms. (I know this can be customized based on server, but there needs to be a solid loot baseline that you can't go below.)

2. Zombie fight mechanics are frustrating to say the least. It is horrible to be walking along and see some zombie do some falcon punch manuever from several feet away while sliding at you, and hit you, while you start bleeding. I feel that even with the new player control coming out in the next patch, that, zombies need to be more zombie and less Conor McGregor. (Meaning slow and stupid, a task sure to be handled, but not that hidden mma fighter in the shadows.)\

There's more, but I am short on time this morning, and can't invest more time into my reply, surely, I would go on if given the opportunity to do so.