IF this was an actual game...

[velinos 0]

I like to see it become a MMO where you pick a server so people pick their server and everyone gets to know everyone for better or worse. They build all the basic anti cheating/exploit/game bug tools.

Not sure what would be required to make this game so not sure what kind of development team is needed.

Payment model depends on who's paying for the servers. If its the developers then sales plus sub I would do.

Micro transactions not to sure how that would work. Cant see in game game use items or advantages because the games about starting with nothing and not wanting to lose what you do find. Maybe cosmetic stuff but half the game time you cant even see what you are wearing much less anyone else. And almost all the time I try to avoid everyone else.

[ErwinRumble 33]

This game needs to have an orgy with Frostbite 2.

[robin-hood 0]

This game needs to have an orgy with Frostbite 2.

So much no! Awful, awful engine.

[WilkyWilks 44]

-Game purchase (aesthetic items, etc. could be micro transaction).

-Studio Developed (communities give great feedback, but make terrible games).

-AVOID kickstarter (60-80% of the money is then used for prizes for the donations, unless rewards are appropriate, i.e. 40 dollars = a poster, not a copy of the game, poster, mouse pad together.)

[zeroblame 0]

Why are people even contemplating Arma 3 DLC... Quote "IF this was an actual game..." DLC isn't a game! It's 'Downloadable Content' which is basically the same as a MOD! :P

Game purchase with Monthly fee?

An MMO style would pay for servers, cover costs, and keep the game fresh, and contain quality content. But a PvP and non-PvP option would be needed, unless the PvP was more balanced and thought through properly. Take a lot from EVE Online!

Game purchase only?

A one time purchase will never lose, and comes with the option of releasing DLC. Plus people prefer to spend less and only have to pay once. PvP and non-PvP multiplayer options too. Along with Single player and LAN maybe. Also a lot to take from Minecraft.

Free to play, buy your shit?

F2P = NO, NO, and NO! (Free to play - Pay to win = NO WAY!!!!) sorry :/

Result:

My choice would be... One-off game purchase with a non-PvP option and DLC possibilities.

Community developed or studio developed?

If the Day-Z community still only consisted of the real Arma community... I'd say community developed, but sadly it's been riddled with BF3/COD Arcade FPS fanboys (it's not me hating, it's a fact!). This creates a huge divide between the folk that strive the realism do it yourself way, and the players that need their hand held whilst being guided through everything. So I'm on the fence. I'll admit, their not all stupid fanboys and jerks. ;-)

Community or studio servers?

I'm not fussed so long as studio servers are maintained properly, however... Games tend to stay alive long when in community hands. So I'm on the fence again on this one.

Kickstarter? or not?

Depends if it's PC only or cross-platform. I'm not certain whether or not those that have just purchased Arma 2 will be willing to spend even more money to back a Day-Z Kickstarter. Though i could be terribly wrong!

I wonder what game engine?

I have Cryengine 3, and Source Engine in mind but I'm not too educated on this stuff so i don't know if there capable of such a huge task. Other game engines are available obviously, but i can't list them all. ;-)

(Licence issues too i guess)

These are MY thoughts and opinions (which i myself still question). You are entitled to your own, so let's discuss and not debate!

Sorry folks... i tried my best to keep it short... Honest :angel:

[hatesauce 99]

Game purchase stand alone

BUT

With vanity items for purchase IE (Skins, accessories that don't add to stats or give any real advantage).

I work for a game studio this model is win/win. Charge $15-30 for the game and a few bux for each vanity item. With that money and the amount of people playing it would more than help fix the bugs, UI and make the gameplay more tailored and streamlined to what the DayZ creators are really trying to capture in essence.

-Hate

[VossRG 0]

Regarding payment styles - what Oilman said.

I will not pay for subscriptions. Purchasing items will lead to imbalance, and remove the fun of finding good stuff.

Game purchase a la Guild Wars only, please.

Regarding development - whatever will work the best and fastest.

[8bitplaya 0]

Planetside 2 is going to be F2P, just saying.

[bryantjudoman 3]

Just sell the game NO monthly fee crap.

[mbricochet 1]

One time purchase.

Or F2P but you can by skins/misc items.

[Rakkasan 23]

Game purchase only with maybe a store to buy appearance changing items only, everyone wants to look unique, but items that actually boost stats or give some kind of in game benefit are a not good, pay to win is the lame.

[Themovement112 0]

F2P with a only vanity shop no weapons on it or any thing that could give you a advantage at all.

[Shizukage (DayZ) 17]

Game purchase only (Unless the servers were owned by the creators I would not pay monthly.)

Studio Developed

Kickstarter is always worth a try.

[waphlez 2]

Well, if the game was similar to DayZ as it stands now, I would want a single stand alone purchase for the game/expansion/whatever. However... depending on the depth of the features and how well the game is supported in terms of content and servers, I would be willing to follow a subscription model.

As someone who plays a lot of F2P games (World of Tanks, League of Legends, etc.), I would like you to avoid this model unless you seriously balance out premium options. Cosmetics are perfectly fine, gameplay advantages must be non existent, or so small it's negligible. It's not okay to say something is balanced because it costs so much money to obtain (don't balance items based on their price-tag!). LoL is one of the few F2P games that nailed down a solid and fair model on what content people can pay for.

I love World of Tanks, but I will admit that

1) The premium ammo is bullshit (i.e. you can buy special ammo that has better stats than normal ammo; this ammo cannot be attained outside of using premium currency).

2) As you start accessing some of the endgame content, it is almost impossible to progress without having the premium account bonuses unless you're willing to spend a VERY large amount of time grinding in game currency. A premium account should help you progress, sure, but it shouldn't feel required at the higher levels of the game.

3) Some of the premium options are way too cost-prohibitive (converting premium currency to standard currency, converting different types of experience points).

------

For DayZ, if it would go to a F2P model, I would much rather there be a single paid upgrade to the full version (i.e. the cost of a game $20-$60 bucks). This upgraded version will have a good amount of new content and features(depending on the price of the upgrade) available to the people who upgrade.

For example, the free version may just have one map that 99% of your player base will love, and as a result a good amount of players will just stick with this map instead of buying the full version with extra maps. This is a good thing, since it will hook a lot of players into your free game, and will make both free players and premium players content with playing on this map. Even if the free map is very very good, the regular player base of your game would still want to play with new content and will pay money to access it. I say this because of personal experience with BF3.

The 'Back to Karkand' maps (which is a separate map pack that was given to preorders at no extra cost) are just so much better than the stock maps that came with BF3. As a result, nobody I know (including myself) wanted to go back to playing vanilla maps. As a result, the friends I had that didn't' have this map pack felt left out since they couldn't join our games. This schism is very toxic to the long-term success of a multiplayer game.

On top of this premium version, it would be perfectly fine to sell cosmetic stuff like outfits at individual prices, as well as features or boosts (if it involves currency/XP points). Just follow this golden rule, a player's performance should be a reflection of his skill, not on how much RL money he spends (i.e the game should be free 2 player, and not pay 2 win). In terms more relative to DayZ, I am also highly hostile to the idea of giving ingame weapons or items to a player who buys them, even if the items are possible to obtain via free methods. Scavenging is possibly the biggest gameplay element of this mod. To simply give away items because they bought them would significantly jeopardize the legitimacy of player accomplishment in this game.

[Renegade0260 3]

I would keep it as a community developed mod, with donations.

[Phenotype (DayZ) 1]

Don't mind on the payment model except *no pay to win*

I'd prefer no micro transactions at all - it breaks immersion, especially in a game like this. But if they have to be in, then they should have zero gameplay effect.

[Xrated 2]

game purchase only , i dont know how other people fill about paying monthly for a game u bought but i thinks thats crap and would stop playing.

[beginner 4]

Game purchase only or F2P with micro-transactions (very hard work to balance but take a look on WoT - it's F2P and there is no problems with balance). Studio from mod-makers. Kickstarter. Steam and Steamworks... but this is just a dreams...

[Ashurah 0]

Just for you rocket, I put my opinions in a one sentence format. Paragraphs are to explain my thoughts but they can be skipped.

1. IMO once you pay for a game you shouldn't have to continue to pay for it. Definitely game purchase only.

With that said, I understand that you need to pay for servers. I could maybe see a standard monthly or yearly subscription to cover that cost, but I don't think it should be a large amount per person.

2. I could also see paying for cosmetic content, if you needed to make the extra money.

But if you're not desperate for it, I wouldn't do it. I know I personally would just tough it out with the skins and hats I already had. And in my mind, it would be hard to create cosmetic content that didn't create an unfair advantage. If you created cammo clothes, people would whine because now some are harder to see. Or they would whine because the clown suit they just bought made them stand out too much.

3. Both community and studio developement.

Studio could make a "better" product, but usually at the expense of the community. Community may lack resources but could have awesome ideas.

4. Both community and studio servers.

Studio servers could bring an element of stability to players who want to play the game as it was intended. Community servers could have options to change minor parts of gameplay. You could use your own servers as a control group, or make changes as you go to see how us lab rats react.

Anyways, my thoughts. I thank you for your hard work, and wish you the best on this amazing project.

[Spedunkle 5]

How would you rather pay for it?::

I would rather buy the game for a standard fee. Free to play, buy your shit, just promotes the guys with the most money to spare gets the gear.

Dev::

I would want to see this Community and Studio developed, for diversity.

Kickstarter::

Not sure what kickstarter is, let me google it... Okay if kickstarter if like funding from the studio and the players, then sure why not. I'd donate to see this game develop more. If it's not that then please explain.

Servers::

Both community and dev servers.

[ddrkangl123@comcast.net 0]

Game purchase but I'd love to donate to a kickstarter seeing as DayZis one of the most fun experiences I've ever had.

I also wouldn't mind a vanity microtransaction cash shop like different survivor/bandit skins a la Killing Floor.

[Nomad333 0]

Game purchase only. This isn't a MMO.

[guerrero 1]

Purchase only

Kickstarter is fine (bonus points for awesome DayZ merch for kickstarting!)

Developed by the current team (err, does that class as "studio"?) with community input!

As far as servers are concerned, I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards studio hosting, simply because of the way DayZ works. I feel like if persistence was shared between studio and community servers, some community hosts would complain about having to be connected to the persistence server, not being able to spawn in weapons and have fun, etc. Some might even ask for a cut of the profits, due to the fact they're hosting your mod (although that's unlikely).

I also think you'd need to consider (if you've not already) that you're using a lot of company branding (Coke and Pepsi cans, Heinz Beans, etc.), and if you were making money, those should probably be changed to avoid the companies wanting X amount of your profits.

...this post would have been so much shorter if I didn't stop to think about it.

[wynarator 0]

Purchase

Community developed

Studio servers

Kickstarter

[spacingtonflioniv 2]

If it was basically a cleaned up version of the mod with a little more content, price of game only. Absolutely worth full game price.

If it were expanded to something with an MMO scale, I'd be more than happy to pay a subscription. Lots of "endgame" content (exploring, rebuilding, discovering narrative), bigger maps with more players, deeper customization.

Community and studio developed. Listen closely to the community and work within your vision.

Studio and community servers.

I would contribute the price of a game to a kickstarter project. Sounds about the same as a preorder to me.