Rocket, don't charge money for the maps please

[Sir Diealot 46]

I for one totally agree with the OP. This is indeed not the Minecraft-model that has been so advertized. I bought 'Minceraft' at beta 1.7.3. One time payment, that's it. Loved it.

Fuck paying for 'more content', especially in a project like this. I'm not saying that you are stupid or anything else like that, if YOU, dear reader, buy such content in your games. I'm just saying I am not one to do this, atleast not very easily. I think that sucks monkeyballs. And it's not about the money, it's about the principle. (Yes, some people still seem to have them.) Yes it is done in many games and a lot of people buy them, but in my view, most of the time it's just about making more money for the Co. and the users get fucked (whether they realize it or not). And I think the thing of beauty about this 'game' (and rockets ideology) has always been the sort of "fuck the rest of the industry"-kinda attitude. Or that's what it has seemed like to me.

Now more to an actual point; Like the OP, I wouldn't mind paying the 'full 50-60' for the full release or the 25-30 (that he stated would be the full release price-range) for the Alpha, if it's a one-time purchase. That's it. And then get the new maps and whatever content they come up with, in that same package. Period. One Time Purchase ftw.

But god forbid, if he/BIS ever decides to say absolute 'no' to modding and community content with this game.. That would be a disaster for them and for us. User created stuff extends the life (and more or less, the sales) of so many games so much, that it would be just good ol'fashion stupid.

/end rant :D

Peace.

SD.

[paula 3]

Clearly you people don't Understand how businesses stay in business. This extra content takes time and money for them to make. This extra content. They would have a team working on this content. People cost money. a couple years back expansions were where we would get our extra content from. Expansions would cost the consumer money to buy... That money goes back to the company that released the expansion and in turn would pay for the time it took to make. Dlc/expaNsions costs money to produce.

I am not opposed to peoples ideas... Call me a bigot if you must, but atleast I understand that nothing in this world comes without a cost.

[Soviet Tiger 7]

To the OP- Paraphrasing -> Rocket's standalone will restrict community content for this awesome game.

My answer is this: DayZ IS community Created content for that Game that people forget about "Arma 2".

Standalone for DayZ will improve the experience, for "Community Created" content doesn't exactly exist. (besides Lingor Island and Fucking Hacks/Scripts)

Now, onto the idea of buying maps, I'm all for it, since it IS a choice for the players, and Rocket can receive a reward for his hard work AFTER the product is finished. Personally, I disagree with your statement about "clutter" among the community. It simply won't disrupt the community at all. And if you are that sore about people being split up, then I'm sure 5-10 dollars wouldn't exactly be a big bill to pay for some extra content.

When it comes to standalone, they will have to workout a balance between open source/ community accessibility and the original way the game was meant to be played (Lockdowns need to happen in final product to prevent the flood of hackers). If you are so sore on the idea of not being able to mod etc. etc. go play Arma2- that's what it's made for.

[gambla 118]

I don't know much about the technical aspects. But if teen script kiddies (shouldn't earn much money) have to buy DLCs or Maps or whatever, then yes, please charge money for the maps.

They will think twice about buying it, only to exploit and abuse it and ruin it for other players.

[vukster@gmail.com 75]

Rocket will make millions anyway. Think about just 20$ per alpha version and likely 500.000 people buy immediately. Thats 10 Million, obviously there are also costs involved. But he will make money anyway.

What I have a problem is making a game less able to mod and thus decreasing the user experience and quality of the game in order to make money. If he makes a great game and charges money, everyone wins. If he restricts user-created content so he doesn't have competition with his own money-making additional content, he wins but the users lose out. I won't say it is like that, its just something I wonder about. Maybe Rocket indeed has in mind to make people able to mod it in the future and his own maps are just additional.

A statement of him specifically on this would be cool. A sceptic person could otherwise think he sacrifices user experience in order to make more money. Looking at the hate of people on lots of these schemes in the past years one should be really careful with statements like this, as one could think the reason for not making people able to mod it goes beyond the simple hacking issue.

Relax, it's Rocket not a game studio, have a little faith man. So far has he fucked the game up?

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

I'll consider buying maps if the games content is increased. Even without hackers, there is very little reason to head inland as nearly all gear can be found along the coast. If there's more to the maps other than a bunch of unused real estate then I'll definitely consider it. Oh, and they better be some amazing maps that bring a lot to the table that user created maps couldn't. User created maps should still be allowed.

[Sticker704 121]

Jesus H. Christ people.

A. Rocket has not set shit in stone here. He says 'could' not will.

B. In the interview he says he will lock down he mod for a period, then later will allow community maps.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Sticker704

[ShanefawkdLori 8]

This is the only game I play at the moment. Rocket can charge anything and I'm buying.

[strangere 9]

But what concerned me was the mentioning of a console programmer (Operation Flashpoint) being brought across perhaps confirming Hall's intention to bring DayZ to consoles. If this is the case, it is more concerning to me than DLC costs. It severely limits what DayZ could become graphically and gameplay-wise.

It's not console programer . They talk about first operation flashpoint cold war crisis (PC) that came out 2001 now it's called arma cold war crisis.The people they talked about made engine for that.

Btw. Arma 3 will be moddable (as all BI games) i wonder if somebody will make similar mod to Dayz on that.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Starngere

[Zombie Jesus 723]

I am fine with a small cost for new content because a new map will be a huge undertaking that should be rewarded if it is done correctly. I also think this standalone will eventually be open for mods but we all understand (hopefully) the reason it will be locked in the beginning (scum of the earth script kiddies). Companies look to make money and as long as they follow a balanced non gouging course I am fine with that concept. So a few cheap high quality maps from the development team that also allows user generated content sounds awesome.

[Timberwolf (DayZ) 118]

Console ports, paid maps... What the hell is in your mind rocket? You weren't like this in the beginning.

[cfnz 15]

This all seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me. There's an awful lot of conclusion jumping going on based on speculative comments in an interview.

[DieBrotmafia 79]

Are you referring to the possibility of the game being on console and/or locking it down? (wanted to clarify)

Locking it down was my only concern, I hope consoles will kept seperate from the whole pc version as Rocket mentioned.

Clearly you people don't Understand how businesses stay in business. This extra content takes time and money for them to make.

What I wonder is, couple years ago before all of this DLC stuff, companies like Blizzard made patches for games that were a decade old. Games got supported for years without any additional cost. Think about Counterstrike 1.6 or Counterstrike Source wanting money for additional maps. Usually they made huge updates with a new engine or expansion packs after a few years with heaps of new content and single player missions. They still made patches for the games for years, what was the reason for their great reputation so they could sell the next games 5 years from now.

Whats now happening in the industry is small packages getting sold with little content that are still bought because otherwise you aren't "in" and they "only" cost 10$. But over time it adds up. Again, I have no problem with the money thing, I have a problem with restricting great community contributions only so the company can sell their shoddy DLCs better that otherwise no one would buy.

To the OP- Paraphrasing -> Rocket's standalone will restrict community content for this awesome game.

I don't even want to paraphrase it like this. I HOPE that Rocket won't do this and don't know what he will do. I simply don't know, I rather think Rocket is a good guy. But because I don't know him as a person I just wanted to give my opinion in case he has this thought. Likely that he doesn't, he didn't mention it specifically at least.

Relax, it's Rocket not a game studio, have a little faith man. So far has he fucked the game up?

Nah, Rocket is doing awesome. He is with a game studio now. Thats the reason I worry, lots of good people get changed by money. Would you restrict user-made content if you could make millions that way? Not implying he IS, I'm just worried he could get tempted by this hence the whole thread. cfnz is right there is a lot of conclusion jumping going on, but better to give some input right now rather then later. Likely its all not meant the way it looks like in the interview, I'm sure Rocket will clarify. But only if we get him to read it.

Edited August 18, 2012 by DieBrotmafia

[ocelot07 60]

As long as the maps are cheap (under £10) then I don't mind paying. I rather give money to a game/mod like DayZ than say Activision and there Call Of Duty games. I mean they charge what £12 for map packs that are the size of my ass crack.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

I've made some maps for other games, much smaller than we see in Arma/DayZ so I know the massive amount of time and effort it it takes to create something that massive and detailed. I wouldn't mind paying for new maps.

Also, OP the "minecraft model" is releasing a product that's still in development for a reduced price. Minecraft didn't have developer created maps that take thousands of man hours to make, so we can't really compare the two when it comes to things like this.

Edited August 18, 2012 by bad_mojo

[Sir Diealot 46]

Call of Duty was one of the groundbreakers that showed you can have a high retail cost and still charge a premium amount for DLC - naturally this was forced on players because if you didn't have the map, you got kicked out of games.

I just wanted to point out that this is pretty much what I talked about in my post (and I think what OP's talking about, too ;) ). If you care, find it on page 2 (I think.) And I'm not referring to this because of DayZ or CoD, but because of the Industry. This here is what I 'hear' the CEO or whoeverthefuckboss thought when they realized it: "Hey, look at this shit. We can charge whatever we want for our stuff and they PAY FOR IT. Yeah, Fuck yeah! Let's do more shit like this!" (/exaggerated, yes, but you get [?] my point. And by no means am I saying that it doesnt cost money to develop these games, no, no, no. But I think enough is enough.

Expensive shit wrapped in nice covers is still just plain old shit.

/end another rant

[GulpinGulpin 40]

I'm fine with it

[Blindingsun 233]

Call of Duty proved that you can't polish a turd and sell it. I'll never buy another CoD game till they update their engine and give me more than 80* FOV.

Modern Warfare 2 had so many game breaking elements it's not even funny. then crap-ops and modern-poorfare3 just got worse.

but that aside.. I don't think paying for additional content is a good thing as it forces those who can't afford to keep up-to-date, to not play, which does nothing positive for the community and only ends up with said people being pissed off at not being able to play, and thus not wanting to buy your shit any more. the same is currently happening with the battlefield 3 community, it just causes segregation where it's not needed.

Pay up front and get it all I say. fair enough for DLC that is just for 1player and isn't needed to compete online, but to be shunned out of a community just because you had bills to pay and your wife would bitch you out if you wasted money on a game, is just silly business tbh.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

Wouldn't your wife bitch at your for "wasting" money on the game when you pay full price upfront?

I think maps (in dayz) are a perfect thing to charge for. I've gotten an absurd amount of enjoyment out of the current map, and I'm still not bored of it. Not having all the maps hardly excludes you from the community, this isn't a game where the map switches and you get kicked for not having the DLC.

[DieBrotmafia 79]

I think maps (in dayz) are a perfect thing to charge for. I've gotten an absurd amount of enjoyment out of the current map, and I'm still not bored of it. Not having all the maps hardly excludes you from the community, this isn't a game where the map switches and you get kicked for not having the DLC.

Was also my opinion. But according to some interviews, people can drive with a boat or use some other ways to get from one island to the next with their same character. So if a new island is released that is better suited for looting or some stage of the game, you have a disadvantage compared to the players that can go there. Or your clan decides to take a short trip there, you'll then stand there... If everyone would get a new character on the new maps anyway it doesn't matter as much. But this is just a minor thing imo.

[MisterMisterPlzDontShoot 8]

To all the people saying the DLC model without relinquishing the SDK for freedom of creative and innovation does not stifle community created content.

I say, that you didn't game online back in the late 90s early 2000s. Those were the days.

The best games came from then. Quake and it's incarnates. TF, QWTF, then TFC given FREE with HL1. In fact, if TF wasn't created Valve wouldn't have been created. It is the sole reason people paid attention to Gabe, in the first place. Yeah, he and some modders created it for Quake 2.

BGF1942... Best BF ever.. it was all down hill from there. BF2, was horrible and so on and so forth.

CoD bit the idea from DoD, which was a free mod for HL1, once again. DoD is still better than anything CoD teams have ever created.

Should I even talk about Desert Combat or Forgotten Hope mods for BF1942? Did anyone of you play WaW? 124 man battles that ran for 48 hours? Fully organized. It was epic.

The corporations are destroying that, or should I say, have already killed it.

To say, that they wont stay in business is not a bad thing, that is the way it should be. If you make a shit product, you should fail. If you innovate, you should be rewarded.

All of you that support this new, and it is rather new, trend should just go away. I don't want to game with ppl like you anyway.

Horrible, sycophantic, anuses.

The lot of you.

[El Barto 227 25]

You don't even comprehend what the point is. I don't care about money. I wrote it in the thread, I would gladly pay 60$ for the game if I like it. I don't like the principle of paying for further content especially if it restricts moddability or seperates the community. And you certainly can't brag about a Minecraft model, in this case you should be honest and call it Activision model.

OP, the reason community content is restricted has nothing to do with the DLC. it's because it makes the game vulnerable to hacks and script kiddies, like the current state of the mod

hen is the last time you saw an SDK freely given to the community?

2007 - Valve

not 2007. early this year. the Creation Kit for Skyrim is free Edited August 21, 2012 by El Barto 227

[Askar 177]

If the maps are truly worthwhile, I'd be willing to pay maybe five euros. I'm strongly opposed to even than that though, as Rocket claimed the standalone would be very cheap and a one-time purchase. The line kind of blurs here, between DLC and an expansion of sorts. If the maps introduce enough new content or a (very polished) different environment-type then I can see them being analogous to expansions in terms of content while still being cheap at the ~5 euro mark. It really depends on how it's implemented.

The type of thing I hate is the type of bullshit companies like EA pull all of the time, charging ~$60 up front for a game and then selling low-content 'DLC' for $10-$15. It's a terrible system, if you want content comparable to games a decade ago you have to pay the $60 and then often an excess of $50 more for all of the content. If Rocket tries to charge for maps, I hope he at least opens up to mod support very soon. Even if it's only the ability to mod in new maps, it would be going in the right direction in my opinion. Look at Skyrim for a modern example of a good system. The up-front cost was naturally high (unfortunately), but you gain access to thousands of mods that can drastically change the game in meaningful ways. However, Bethesda can still sell 'DLC' at a moderate price simply because what they're making is better (for now) than the mods attempting to replicate such features. If Rocket's maps are good enough to merit more money than he'll already be getting simply from selling the standalone, then people will pay for them. If they're not, then people will stick to modded maps, even if they can't use their "main" characters there. If maps are sold, I'd hope they'd be very well polished and have more than enough content to warrant an additional charge.

In my mind, that's the way it should be. No additional charges after you buy the game. If you want, make the standalone a little more expensive, just don't ask me to throw more money at you after I buy the game. I mean, I'm all for throwing money at you, but don't make me keep doing it, no matter how little it is. Maybe I just come from an older era, but I remember the days back when you could buy a game and you got everything that came after free, aside from the occasional (usually content-rich) expansion pack at a low price.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Askar

[DieBrotmafia 79]

OP, the reason community content is restricted has nothing to do with the DLC. it's because it makes the game vulnerable to hacks and script kiddies, like the current state of the mod

There are tons of games where modding was possible, like Half Life (2), Unreal Tournament etc... with no vulnerability problem whatsoever. And there are games like Battlefield 3 that clearly have no way of creating new maps in order to sell more of their own maps. All of the problems with executing scripts etc.. could be solved in a different way through giving different people different rights so they can't execute scripts. Arma 2 wasn't build with this in mind but it would certainly be possible.

Keep in mind I didn't say Rocket will never open the game up to mod it. It may very well be this is just a temporary fix to stop the hacking and later on if theres time this will be rewritten. Its just that lots of companies nowadays do it like that, even if they had the chance of allowing people to make new maps without any downsides they would not do it because otherwise they can't sell their DLCs.

[El Barto 227 25]

you're probably right. i know that he will open modding sometime, but first he has to ensure that it works properly. i was trying to say that, but probably should have worded it differently