IF this was an actual game...

[Jachim 22]

A kickstarter will get you buttloads of money, Rocket.

I'd chip in a kickstarter. If not, I would also buy the game minecraft-style with alpha/beta access etc.

Not sure on studio designing the game, personally if you assemble a team yourself it's probably better IMHO.

The biggest issue is avoiding investors who want to have you stick to video game industry norms. Kickstarter allows you to keep away from that, crowd source this shit!

[sargentcole 0]

As said before

Game purchase 1 time only

Studio

Kickstarter!!

[waffen-79 32]

Guys, guys, it's all ok, but don't forget, that what sells it is a thing called, customization.

get the APB reloaded character customization system or something similar i.e: Global Agenda or Saints Row the Third

get Directional Melee combat like Warband or War of the Roses

And put it all together in the ArmA 3 engine or similar, and we're all set

being monthly fee or single playment or F2P with micro transactions..we're all be there..

[kayakinack 57]

Cosmetic Purchases = damn near F2P style of unbalancing. Oh you get a better camo b/c you paid for it...

Purchase it like any other game. I bought ARMA 2 just to play DayZ in the alpha, so guess what, I'd pay for DayZ instead!

I don't care who develops it as long as rocket's vision is what is being made. I've played many games that were awesome and then listening to the carebears became horrible. IF Rocket gets the say so on what happens studio all the way.

I'd actually prefer this to be the WoW server style though, but it would need to be an MMO. I don't know if that is even possible using an the arma engine but it would be awesome, no more d/c if you have no where to d/c to except a new character on a different server cluster.

[entak 5]

Game purchase + micro-transactions.

[nudedude 4]

Do like Minecraft did

[Rudie (DayZ) 10]

1 time game payment.

*(but tbh bein able to get on the servers is an issue for alot of people atm: kicked from the game, so ye the shit is gettin serious.. seriously unstable game to even think about mass release.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Rudie

[Dpacm123 0]

One time payment. Would be stupid not to do a kickstarter. Stay the hell away from montly fees and pay to win.

[qubolo@gmail.com 1]

- Game purchase with Monthly fee (If it develops more realism and immersion. Also more control over random server admins)

- Game purchase only (is an option)

BIG NO! for buying weapons id rather play ASG and buy real replicas rather than in game.

- Studio developed with little feedback

- Studio servers (more control)

- Kickstarter

[infctedmushr00mxbox360@gmail.com 68]

One Time Game Purchase.

Studio Development (With community suggestions?)

Kickstart.

[Bambo (DayZ) 42]

I like the game, but a LOT of work needs to be done before it can sold as a standalone. Thus, that being said:

Studio made. Purchase only. Fuck subscriptions.

OH! And if it is made to where players have to "buy their shit", I will personally hunt down the nearest puppy, and shoot it in the mouth.

Edited July 30, 2012 by scoopolard

[BlksnshN 127]

I time game purchase.

I would not pay a subscription fee to play ANY game.

[vulfy 55]

One time game purchase.

Studio developed with community input (similar to what it is right now).

Kickstarter with alpha and development build access. Play as you develop it.

[RSOblivioN 8]

One time purchase (other subscription based models are phasing out due to the drain it is on players, whereas F2P is just as bad).

Studio Developed with community input through Kickstarter, similar to how WMD is set up by SMS for Project C.A.R.S.

Servers wise there should be the core Studio servers as well as the ability for community servers. This allows for innovation in directions the Dev's may not have even considered.

[Klu 20]

The title of this post should put a lot of stupid arguments to rest.

My one comment on this would be...

Free to play with built-in buying power may be the best way to go just for the future security of the game. Social Media has exploded games like Farmville and others (please don't think I'm comparing DayZ to Farmville). They get you in and it's amazing how many people spend a few dollars here and there on digital purchases.

There's been a huge shift from the traditional way of just straight out buying a game. It used to be, go buy Mega Man 28, pop it in and you've got your game. The last 15 years, with computer gaming becoming as relevant as console gaming, has added subscription-based gaming. This changed the business of game development and the economics behind it. The last 5 years has been an explosion of these free-to-play games that trigger your obsessive side which ultimately leads to little $1 purchases here and there. That has changed it ever-more so.

I think this game has an amazing "grab factor." The best way to let as many people try out a stand-alone DayZ may be to let it be free to play. Or, not necessarily free but let's say $5. $5 is nothing to the average American gamer. What this "game" has to offer is worth WAY more than $5. Automatically, the consumer is getting a ton of VALUE for their dollar. They already feel great about their purchase. Here come the additional little $1 digital purchases along the way.

How would that change the gameplay, though? What could be purchased? It'd have to be worth the money. But would these be items that are game-changers? Then we jump into the realm of whether it's "fair" or not. This isn't meant to be fair but the argument will come up.

I dunno, maybe add an option, for a $1 digital purchase, for one week when you die you can have the option to pick your respawn point. After the week is up your spawning is random. That would affect how many people kill themselves over and over just to find the right spawn. Maybe have some coding keeping people from killing themselves more than once every 10 minutes? I'd pay $1 to by-pass that for a week.

That's just one unique suggestion that tries to add a purchase that won't drastically change the game. Having a ton of different weapons for purchase, for instance, would just flat-out change the game. I doubt you want it going in that kind of direction.

Oh! While developing a stand-alone DayZ, for the love of Jobs put a good amount of resources into developing an app to go with the game. The app could cost an additional $5. This could include an interactive map, item list, good god you name it. And it's all accessible while you play the game. You're basically dual-screening DayZ. Console Gaming is going dual-screen, if you hadn't noticed ;)

Just another digital purchase idea... another week-long or month-long $1 purchase that would allow you to "alchemize" your food stuffs, changing you Coke cans to Mountain Dew, or your Frank and Beans to Spam. With that, make Spam and Mountain Dew unattainable in the world and only available from this purchase. Another stupid aesthetic thing that people would spend money on...

Look at the money Zynga and other companies like it are making. PC Game companies and Console Game companies are looking. DayZ is so unique and different from what is out there. It is cutting-edge. It's an experiment that people make into their game. Keep it on the edge of cutting in every way possible, from the gameplay, to how to pay, distribution, marketing, customer-relations, etc.

Hell, you could turn dayzmod.com into its own Social Media site but specifically focused on everyone being their DayZ characters.

You've created a community. Respect and use that.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/08/good-riddance-the-death-of-online-gamings-monthly-subscription-model/

I win. Haha

[sostronk 334]

I would prefer retail game purchase, but honestly, I think a well structured FTP model would be much more profitable. But if its not well structured it wouldn't be worth it.

[Miked 1]

I'd pay whatever as long as the game stays true to form.

[john142 12]

I would do a one time fee.

[XentriX 15]

As it currently stands I would go..

Game purchase only.

And

Studio developed (Only as long as they listen to community input)

Studio servers

Kickstarter (yes if it's community developed)

[Patlloll 0]

[grindstone50k 208]

Game purchase only. I'd rather pay $60 one-off for a great game than $180 a year.

- Community or studio servers? or both?

Both, choice is never a bad thing.

- Kickstarter? or not?

You'd have your pockets overflowing by now if you did a kickstarter sooner.

[frydspl33n 2]

I would love a one time payment. Like jeesus, you need some money for what you have put into this project. Also, this would be a good studio developed but community modded game, hosted by studio servers, to prevent hacker servers.

[urspider2018@gmail.com 109]

Game purchase only.

I'd think it'd be cool if you stuck with BIS, but help from the community never hurts.

Also, this might be one of the few things that I would actually donate for, so kickstarter, please.

[- Valkyrie - 89]

GAME PURCHASE ONLY = Later DLC content can be charged or not, I don't care. (which is the most used and best working model so far IMO)

Studio Developed but still hearing out the community demands and implementing some of them. Not many, but the best ones.

Community dedicated servers = with a system to blacklist any Admin abusing servers as we have now.

Kickstarter could be cool but I don't care really, as most I think.

PS: If you choose the F2P model, I wouldn't play then. I'd rather pay 100$ one time price for it then having to pay monthly and for loot or DLC. I guess most players think the same.

Edited August 1, 2012 by `CaRnAgE..

[Guest cRy]

Shit is gettin serious.

If this was made as a stand alone game, or as part of some particular existing game, what kind of consumer model would you want to play it on?

How would you rather pay for it?

- Game purchase with Monthly fee? (WoW stylez)

- Game purchase only? (Guild Wars stylez)

- Free to play, buy your shit?

- Something else?

Also:

- Community developed or studio developed?

- Community or studio servers? or both?

- Kickstarter? or not?

Please try and stick to short sentences, its much easier for me to get broad feedback.

Monthly fee? Only if it is larger player base (working, without lag nor FPS drop). Otherwise, no. Only original purchase price. Please don't make a cash shop. GROSS!Why can't we have both community and studio developed aspects? If the studio pack is viable and I want it. I will pay for it (they mostly suck though, so GL with that - Not your company, just in general). Also, release an SDK (mandatory for community success) So, basically, with an SDK studio developed stuff goes out the window because doing something out of passion for yourself and releasing it to the world is the best thing for innovation. Isn't that your concept and how this came to fruition? Both community and studio servers (studios should support their product for a minimum of 5 years - Don't pull an EA)In the end, what works is 80% community development with 20% studio development/support. Where, the studio DOES NOT stifle community progress, but rather, supports it fully. WTF happened to this model? The whole thing is shit... The business model that most companies are taking on. They release a shitty, unfinished product and then incrementally charge us 5+ times throughout the next year to complete the product. Then, the sequel comes out. Never giving time for the community to develop. Rinse, repeat. It might be time to start protesting like France... You know... ripping CEO's off their high horse, with a little tar and feather action. Yeah, I said it. I am on team ethics. Not team corporation. Corporations, are not people. No matter that stupid panel of judges say in the Supreme Court say. /rant