Will Day Z Stand Alone? If So, When?

By Adam Smith on July 9th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.

I had long discussions with several people about Day Z at Rezzed and most were were surprised, mid-talk, to learn I still haven’t played the ARMA 2 mod. Turns out I’m very good at borrowing Jim’s opinions and absorbing experiences vicariously through Youtube. The infectious growth of the mod was a story in itself but the possibility of a standalone version, perhaps as early as September, could mean significant changes are coming. Here’s what we know.

Dean “Rocket” Hall’s discussions about the possibility of a standalone version of the game weren’t based around existing agreements; the plan is one of “intentions” rather than a specific roadmap with partners in place.

The September date that Digital Spy suggest is based around Hall’s preferred model:

“Free-to-play is a successful model for games, and certainly one day I see survival games like DayZ as free-to-play, and it would probably be the most profitable model for something like DayZ – but I think it would harm the creative and experimental nature of DayZ. Therefore my preference is for a Minecraft type model…”

Following the Minecraft model, judging by Hall’s words, means releasing early, and adapting to community feedback. He doesn’t believe that it should “take too long for that kind of development to take place”. The release would not be the end of development but the beginning of a new phase. To reach that point, however, there would have to be enough content and features in place to justify an as yet undecided price tag.

Speaking of the “harm” that free-to-play could cause to an experimental development model is interesting. What Hall could achieve with Day Z, if he were able to sell it independently while continuing to modify and expand it, would be hindered terribly by having payments occur within the game rather than to purchase the game. If elements could be purchased independently, how much more difficult to change them after a number of players have paid for them, how problematic the decision to remove aspects that may be profitable but create undesired imbalance or damage the overall feel of the experience.

Of course, selling a thing that is in a state of change and development has its own problems, with purchasers potentially left unsatisfied or, worse, seeing the game move in an unwanted direction. However, as long as the model and the intent is clear, it does seem the sensible path and avoiding the potential perils of free-to-play in favour of a complete but adaptable experience seems like a firm step toward making 2013 Year Z.

There are no guarantees though, of dates, partners, prices or features. The only thing that seems certain is that there are bigger things ahead and the community that helped to make the mod such a success will most likely be involved.

“…there are still a number of things that need to happen before this project as outlined could become a reality. It’s my desire, and I believe it’s possible.”

, , , .

82 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Hoaxfish says:

    Following the Minecraft model, judging by Hall’s words, means releasing early, and adapting to community feedback.

    Then eventually getting bored and going on vacation leaving a half-finished mess for one of your employees to complete instead?

    • knux81 says:

      I wouldnt say it was half finished. Notch got the end game into it. Just working on one project must get dull after awhile and there is only so much you can add to a single title before you might aswell just make a completely different game.

    • Premium User Badge

      Rinox says:

      Didn’t take long for the “Notch is lazy” post this time.

    • woodsey says:

      Indeed, it is very strange that a company would utilise its employees, or that positions would shift in order to begin new projects.

      Clearly Mojang is some sort of maverick of the development world.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      It is amusing how little the full release mattered in terms of updates. I think this is a good thing; Minecraft is one of those games that benefits greatly from “more stuff”, but the idea of 1.0 being a finished product is amusing.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      not to jump on the Notch-hatred-train, but I do find it distinctly odd that he made many many millions of pounds from creating this game and that he has now left the almighty expectations and customer base to just one poor employee.

      • FloorBelow says:

        And one huge modding comnunity.

      • knux81 says:

        I thought that it was left to a few more people than just poor old Jeb…

        Besides, Minecraft was pretty much a one man show for most of its boom time. That it’s changed hands is not exactly a bad thing. As I said before, Notch could spend the rest of his life adding stuff to Minecraft but to be honest I’m glad he’s moved on as it was getting a bit stale with him at the helm (no offense at Notch). At least the new team has added some much needed new blood and ideas into it.

        And to all those people that bought Arma 2 just for DayZ…Even if DayZ moves on, you still have a pretty bad ass military sim to fool around with :D

      • benkc says:

        “to just one poor employee.”

        Six, by my count. To be fair, I think only 2 are full time. More than one no matter how you slice it, though.

    • AgamemnonV2 says:

      Careful, you’ll call down the Minecraft hellfire that is its fandom.

      I like Minecraft as much as the next guy, and I think Notch is a pretty decent guy, but I’m not impressed either. There was a time when Minecraft received weekly updates and had plans for huge content updates. Now the weekly updates have turned into the “huge” content updates that release on an MMO schedule update timetable and the original creator has left to work on other projects. Meanwhile its community has eclipsed its developers in regards to adding modded content (Better Than Wolves comes to mind).

      However, because he met with tremendous success, every other would-be indie developer has followed in his footsteps, selling their alpha product for “early access” or going to kickstarter and trying to get their funding there. It’s much more laid back and gives indie developers much more breathing room, rather than to have them actually listen to the word of the community and know that if they don’t get their act together that they will lose their potential to make something great (and make great money). But oops, they’ve already made more money on this alpha project than they ever expected, so…what’s the incentive again?

      When I supported Mojang, I thought my money would be going to making Minecraft better and to get more updates out of it, not to fund a card game and another pipe dream project.

      • jonfitt says:

        When I bought Minecraft, I thought my money would be going to buy Minecraft which as it moved from Alpha to release got better with loads of updates.

        Fixed it for you.

      • Mirico says:

        Actually they still release weekly updates in snapshot form. The difference now is that the game is released and not in alpha and thus a week time frame to come up with new content and debug it is unreasonable – thus the snapshot, it allows people to get a weekly update and help debug it, like they did in alpha. Then several weeks are bundled together, with less bugs, and released as a large patch. Honestly this system is far better than most games so to hear people complain that it isn’t good enough makes me cringe.

        As far as where your money went, it bought you the game. You’ve played it, you’ve enjoyed it, 95% of people have gotten their moneys worth out of it. If you think 100% of the cash from buying a game needs to go into it’s development then you have a very wrong view of how the gaming industry works. It pays for the game (In the case of minecraft you paid for the work up to when you bought it and then all the work up to release) and helps fund future projects. If you think all those hundreds of millions of dollars call of duty titles make cover just the development cost of the one game then you are grossly mistaken!

        Complaining about the Mod Community creating things faster than Mojang seems to me as more a lack of thought on your part. The game has sold over 6.5 million copies. You expect a company – that has added support for mods mind you – to out produce a community that large? That’s ridiculous. It would be nearly impossible. Strangely enough Mojang noticed this and added mod support. Not only that they have hired a mod team that was doing exceptionally well (See: Bukkit). I can’t think of a better way to handle this ‘problem’.
        Edit: I see the modding API hasn’t been added in yet (Although it’s being worked on currently), so I was mistaken in that part. Although Mojang does clearly support modding – they could easily make modding much more difficult if they wanted, not to mention the fact that they are currently working on the API.

        Lastly, blaming Notch for making Alpha Funding popular is pretty low. It’s an extremely good way for indie developers to go – they aren’t huge companies so they don’t already have funding. If you’ve had bad experiences with a developer not following through with promises or being slack at adding to the game with alpha funding then that is that specific developers fault. The majority of indie devs are passionate about their project and thus getting funding only helps fuel them forward.

        I should also note here that the game purchased is the developer’s game, not the community’s, and sometimes the views of how the game should be don’t align. This is generally something people should look into before purchasing (usually Kickstarters have a video telling you how the dev thinks the game should be). That being said many indie devs will listen to the community – this is not always a good thing though as I personally find that the vocal majority aren’t always an actual majority of the player base, and can sometimes lead a game down a bad road.

        Think what you will of Notch/Mojang, but I personally have found that for the most part they’ve handled everything quite well, and this is coming from someone who hasn’t played Minecraft in over a year – I just like to keep up-to-date with gaming news.

        • PopeJamal says:

          “If you think 100% of the cash from buying a game needs to go into it’s development then you have a very wrong view of how the gaming industry works.”

          Actually, I disagree. I know very well how the game industry works, but if I’m giving money for a game BEFORE IT’S EVEN IN BETA, then I expect that money to be used for the game I paid it for.

          Granted, once the game is actually released, the developer is mostly off-the-hook. They gave me what they owed me (a finished game) and anything after that is a new situation.

          This new “buy it before I even make it” paradigm changes quite a few things in the developer-customer relationship.

          • Mirico says:

            I can understand that to an extent, and in most cases I think this actually occurs. In the case of Minecraft it sold more than 2.5 million copies before release. I think it’s unreasonable to ask for all of that to be put into Minecraft development – I’m not even sure how you would go about doing that, and it would likely be a large waste of funds in my opinion.

            Not to mention I’m not sure exactly how you’d monetize development as an indie dev. Do you add 10 features per $1000? Do you do it by giving yourself an hourly rate and thus put as many hours into development as your sales indicate? Do you just complete the game as you see fit? Do you keep working on it till the fans tell you they all think their money was well spent? I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the case of Minecraft I’m not sure what the complaint is – free updates are continually rolling out, with no end in the foreseeable future so your money is still getting you further development.

            This is all glossing over the fact that this Alpha Funding comes with added benefits – helping shape the game, being able to play the game far earlier, and sometimes even saving money. I think these have a monetary value as well, one that is hard to define, and I think most people overlook these.

        • AgamemnonV2 says:

          I dub thee Saint Mirico, Defender of the Minecraft Faith, in honor of His Holiness Pope Markus Persson the Pious! In fact, I cannot consider any greater honor that should be bestowed upon someone that would not only take things I said out of context, but would then go on to defend a business tactic that, if it were EVER replicated by EA or Activision then people would be up in arms over it, has become the bane of indie games.

          When Notch charged money for his alpha product, it was always thought that the money would go on to support him and (by extension) Minecraft as well. The only thing laughable in this discussion is someone believing that a developer who was once a poor nobody would have been able to push out as much as he did with Minecraft if he didn’t make millions off of it from people throwing money at him. Please don’t try and tell me otherwise that this isn’t the common business practice of ALL indie developers nowadays. These are investment opportunities–to give your money to someone who hasn’t finished or delivered a product is very risky, especially considering there are no guarantees given to you on what may or may not happen with the money someone gave you. Case and point: Project Zomboid.

          Secondly, I haven’t “complained” about the modding community at all. Rather I’ve “complained” that they STILL haven’t added API modding support, which would be the end-all to ever having to worry about if they ever touch Minecraft again. However, I do think it is embarrassing that the modding community has pushed out things Notch once talked about doing for Minecraft or fully developed features that they introduced and was just left in the dust to rot (hello Nether realm).

          Lastly, I have no complaints about where Minecraft is going, just that it’s taking its sweet time getting there despite that it has more money than most African governments. Stop calling Mojang indie–they’re far from it these days. Just because they still have a small team and a devil-may-care CEO does not mean we still get to call a multi-million dollar company indie. We bring our legitimate complaints against big-hitters like Bioware and Bethesda because we know they have the money to make changes but when it comes to Mojang there’s this cute animalistic behavior people have, like they see a kitten doing a bad thing but they’re so overcome by the cuteness overload that they just end up laughing and hugging the kitten.

          Mojang isn’t a kitten anymore. It’s an 800lb. gorilla that is tearing through the jungle. Instead of people wagging their fingers they just cheer and ogle.

          • Premium User Badge

            puppybeard says:

            I don’t agree with your “successful = no longer independent” assessment.

            The things they do independently are:
            – the entire creative process
            – marketing / community interaction
            – distribution

            That ticks all the relevant boxes as far as I’m concerned. Minecraft was a one-in-a-million event, which they aren’t likely to repeat. I think the fact that they’re sinking it’s profits into new IP is pretty ballsy, when they could just constantly rehash their number one game forever instead, like Rovio do with Angry Birds.

          • Hyoscine says:

            Since when did Indie mean small or unsuccessful?

      • Premium User Badge

        puppybeard says:

        I dunno, for a €20 game, there’s a flippin ton of work gone into Minecraft. What indie game has more work gone into it?

    • gladius2metal says:

      did you ever published a video game of your own?
      I guess not… I know many people that work on games for months or even years that never get finished.
      I also made a simple platformer (jump’n’run) in flash, it took me about 2 months, but guess what the basic gameplay: jumping, running on platforms, shooting, enemies, etc. was done after about 10-15 hours… but adding all the “small” features, menus, etc. just takes AGES. And it is not only a “problem” with games, but also with software projects in general. The “polish” (and “lesser features”) is the pain in the ass, because it takes way more time, doesn’t get noticed by the customer if it is there, but makes them furious if it is missing and finally is pretty dull in comparison with the other stuff.

      • Jay says:

        The difference between ‘something you can play’ and ‘something you can release to the public’ is absolutely staggering. I thought I had some idea, but I really, really didn’t.

    • InternetBatman says:

      How much is Notch supposed to add? I don’t understand why everyone’s complaining. The game has received a ton of major changes from when it first started getting popular, like many more Biomes, The Nether, Push Gears, Cart Accelerators, etc. Are the content updates supposed to be endless?

      It’s important to note that features were added all throughout the beta, which is when a game is supposed to be feature complete.

      • Jay says:

        Considering the state it was in when I first bought it, they added more to it than I could’ve reasonably expected.

        I’ve probably gotten more hours of enjoyment out of it than any other game this generation, and at a fraction of the price of most of them, too. I don’t really have much to complain about, personally.

      • derbefrier says:

        you are right of course but the second Notch became famous he became a target and as predictable as the sunrise the hipsters started lining up to hate on this guy solely because he actually made some money and made a popular game

      • Highstorm says:

        I think Minecraft’s procedurally generated nature breeds a certain endless desire for “more stuff”. With infinite* terrain, there is always something new to see, but there is a finite amount of things to do. That ever-new world is only ever changed by direct actions of the player and thus it grows stale after you’ve played with all the current toys in the sandbox. At least that’s where I think a lot of the pressure for more and more stuff comes from.

        If they started adding more automation to the world – giving those NPC villagers actual AI so they built and farmed, and fought off monsters, or add random events of nature such as volcanoes or earthquakes that actually change the landscape, I think the longevity of the current feature set would be better extended. As it stands, the super awesome procedural world is completely stagnant. Even a creeper explosion requires a player be present.

        (*close enough)

    • Sic says:

      A game is not half-finished just because you need to be explicitly told what to do all the time. Not every game has an end-state close to a platformer or something similarly straightforward. It’s a sandbox game. It was never meant to be anything other than that.

  2. knux81 says:

    I’d be quite happy to pay for a stand alone DayZ…It’s pretty much the only mod/game/what ever that has actually captured what the zompocalypse is all about.

    The further this mod gets in development the better it’s getting.

    • jrod says:

      +1 to this… I can say that DayZ is easily the most addictive and exciting game I have ever played. Stalking other players for an hour straight leading up to a brief and intense firefight leaves me exhilarated in a way nothing has ever done before. Physically shaking. Real adrenaline dump. It’s a drug. Of course I will pay money for that… i’d pay quite a bit in fact!

  3. matty_gibbon says:

    Would this not piss off those people who bought Arma II specifically for Day Z? From what I hear there’s an awful lot of them.

    • woodsey says:

      The mod would still exist.

      • Davee says:

        And maby even continue to exist after the standalone release as a platform to try out new and experimental features.

      • jonfitt says:

        But will it work if the central server is no longer maintained by Hall?

    • Donkeyfumbler says:

      My thought too. I’ve been considering buying the Operation Arrowhead expandalone as I already have Arma II but £15 is a little steep for me just to play a mod. This news makes that purchase even less likely now.

      • BryanTrysers says:

        I’m in that same position. Bohemia are now doing 25% off, so OA is a smidge under £10. I was debating whether a tenner was my threshold for a bleak time sink, but this news may mean I need more of a discount.

      • jrod says:

        Until you realize that it will be the best 15 bucks you ever spend on a game ever.

    • Perrin says:

      I paid my £25 for Arma 2 so I could play DayZ. In terms of entertainment value for my money I’m pretty sure I’ve already got my £25 worth. If I have to buy a standalone DayZ so the developer can make a living off that game I’m pretty sure whatever he charged I’d still get enough value for my money.

      For the same reason I never understood all the Minecraft complaining. Whether you felt he lived up to his promises or not in a timely manner I think a lot of us got 100+ hours of fun out of an inexpensive alpha/beta.

    • Premium User Badge

      Richard Beer says:

      As one of those people, it would definitely have an impact. But before I became a huge Fanboi or a massive Angry Internet Man about it (there is no middle ground, as you know), I would really need to see the benefits to me from this move. Why would it be better than Bohemia just continually tweaking Arma II and Rocket updating DayZ as a mod, as they do currently?

      They’re already making a fortune from extra Arma II sales (for which read “Making a fortune from DayZ sales”). Why would making DayZ a stand-alone game and asking people to buy it again be better than rolling it into Arma III as a ‘Zombie mode’ from the start?

      They have a smash success on their hands because of word of mouth and fan support. I’m sure they know how delicate this balance is, so I’m keen to see where they take the project next. DayZ is a fragile thing and I hope they’ll move it in the right direction rather than towards the mainstream FPS market.

      • GepardenK says:

        No worries. This is Bohemia/Rocket, the one thing you can trust them to do is not go mainstream FPS.

    • Turin Turambar says:

      Well, sorry for them, but they should have researched more.

      From the start Dayz as a mod was just an experiment to see if it could be succesful. Once it has shown it, it was pretty clear it would be another product, be a mod or mode for Arma 3, an DLC or expansion for Arma 3, or a proper standalone game.
      In the three cases, it would never go on being free.

      Bohemia has used Arma 2 to test stuff in other ocassions, like some changes in the code that it will be used in Arma 3, or the flight model from their Take on Helicopters game, they open-tested it as a mod in Arma 2.

    • Davee says:

      @matty; Then they should’ve considered the risks and what they were getting into a bit more. Successful mods usually turn into standalone games if they prove to be good enough and once most of their features have been worked out (see games such as Red Orchestra or Air Buccaneers).

      At this point, the mod is essentially a test phase for the (hopefully) eventual full game/ArmA 3 addon. If a player would rather have that instead of a bug-ridden mess, they need to wait for it as well as pay for it when it arrives. They may miss out on some exiting early development and giving feedback, but that’s all optional.

      They may have bought the base game for DayZ, but they still only paid for the base game. If they think otherwise, feel entitled to more or feel cheated – that’s their mistake. There are no guarantees. Mr. Hall simply chose an already existing game as foundation for the experiment and that game happens to have a price tag.

      He could stop development of the mod at any point if he wanted to or even pull the plug on the master server. Sure, it’s unlikely and it’d be an asshole move – but it’s completely up to him and nobody has any rights to prosecute him for it (afaik). He’s simply been giving folks a privilege to test his game mod for no extra cost (not that modders are allowed to charge users anyway).

      It’s simply a case of risk-vs-reward… Or waiting for the (again hopefully) eventual standalone game/official addon if you don’t feel the need to play the unfinished version right this moment.

    • Premium User Badge

      puppybeard says:

      Well, it doesn’t piss me off, and I’m one of those people.
      I bought Arma 2 because I’d been led to believe there was a good chance DayZ is something special. Since then, I’ve become convinced.

      Playing the game, and following it’d development, it becomes abundantly clear that there’s only so far this can go as a mod. Stage 2 will take a lot of work, and I don’t expect anyone to do it for free, so I’ll be happy to pay for it. I’d pay 50 quid for it.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Givem them an 80-90% discount for the rebuy upon showing proof of purchase / via validating and that’s solved.

  4. Premium User Badge

    Gap Gen says:

    Standing alone would make sense, I guess, since last time it teamed up with ArmA II, ArmA II shot it in the head and stole its beans.

  5. Kitsunin says:

    I would dig a stand-alone version. Haven’t actually played the game because I simply can’t justify buying Arma II: CO for $30 just for a mod, no matter how good said mod is. Even if they released DayZ as a standalone for $30, I’d be more willing to buy that, because then I’d be guaranteed (More so at least) a completed game, versus the only thing I’d be guaranteed being Arma II, which I couldn’t honestly give two craps about.

    Those who bought Arma II just for DayZ…well, if they were to get upset about DayZ moving away from being a mod, they’d be saps, I’m afraid.

  6. Shooop says:

    “…adapting to community feedback.”

    Is English not his first language? I believe he meant to use the word “ignoring.”

    • Hoaxfish says:

      adapting doesn’t always mean doing everything or anything

      • Shooop says:

        I’m not going to specially say what’s wrong with this post because I think if you reread it you’ll get it.

    • iGark says:

      Ignoring to community feedback? Is English not your first language?

      • Shooop says:

        Not for me, but I’m guessing it is for you. Or you’re just an idiot.

      • Lilliput King says:

        adapting to community ignoring

        adapting to ignoring feedback

        adapting to ignoring ignoring

        ignoring to ignoring ignoring

    • absolofdoom says:

      I reread it, and all I “get” is that you’re a douche.

  7. rebb says:

    Standalone, F2P, Pay4Bean

  8. Skabooga says:

    I was about to harangue Adam for not yet playing DayZ, but on second thought that is a sensible decision, as it is the type of game which collects all your free time in a big pile and sets it on fire.

  9. jonfitt says:

    I personally can’t see the benefit of a standalone version for the consumer. Unless BIS make the core Arma engine modifiable to allow Hall to make significant changes to it, all you have is two installs of Arma on your harddrive with a bunch of identical assets taking up twice the 20Gb+.

    If he fixes all of the interface jankiness, that has always been part of Arma, it would be great. But I have a feeling that if it were that easy, BIS would have done it years ago.

    • Premium User Badge

      slerbal says:

      @jonfitt: BIS now have a full team working on UI elements (thank god – I love Arma2 but the UI leaves a lot to be desired!). So far from the Arma3 preview vids it looks like at least the gear/inventory management has improved massively.

      I really hope they keep DayZ as a core mod in Arma3. Splitting it off on its own would seem to be a commercial mistake and really, right now people who are buying Arma2 for DayZ are getting a lot of game for their money. I for one would not buy a standalone DayZ (and I am sure there are lots of people that would only buy DayZ) but I love being able to play both.

      The base game and the mod are having a good impact on each other in terms of development – Arma2 created the platform on which DayZ relies – 99% of it is from the base game which took many years to make, but in return DayZ has done wonders for generating additional sales, getting new players into the game and also spurring development of both A2 and A3.

      Also, honestly I think the steam might be fading a little from DayZ – they may have 420,000+ players but everyone I know has kinda stopped playing (at least for now). I played it almost continuously for over a month and a half then one day realised I was done with it.

      That is not a criticism of DayZ: no matter how great the game people eventually move on.

      • jonfitt says:

        I keep meaning to get back into DayZ, but I stopped playing when I died, considered the time investment of finding that first decent weapon and getting out of the starting area again, and just decided to do something else.

        The permadeath is essential to the game, but I got bored of playing the intro over and over. More random start locations might help. Or at least put some loot locations worth a damn near the start locations.

        • jrod says:

          Just get off the beach immediately and go inland and find some tree stands… i can fully equip myself with an assault rifle, pack, tons of food, etc all in less than an hour (and the journey is always a blast… sometimes literally)

    • Premium User Badge

      tobias says:

      I’d think that with the mod they have essentially had to dismantle some of the interface systems and tweak them to their own needs, creating a sort of bastardised version, whereas a standalone version would allow building from scratch such systems to better suit their purpose.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      If they can fix the needlessly complicated keyboard controls and zap the UI, I’d buy a Day Z standalone guaranteed. At the moment, that’s the only thing holding me back from actually playing the mod.

      • jrod says:

        The UI does suck, but the rest of the game makes it so worth it. Once you get used to it its not really a huge deal.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      If the data truly were/is identical, you could just junction the relevant directories and save 95% of the space.

  10. Mr. Mister says:

    What about a little price for removing a limit on the number of characters you can generate per month/week?

  11. Wendelius says:

    I hope it goes standalone. I haven’t played DayZ yet because I don’t want to deal with having to buy a game I don’t want to play for a mod I do want to play. And then having to deal with modding the game, keeping the mod up to date and so on.

    It’s not that I don’t know how to install mods. It’s just that life is too short.

    If DayZ can be released stand-alone, it would hopefully be as an easily installed and patched package. And that’s a good thing for the game. I’d be happy to pay for it then.

    Wendelius

    • Shooop says:

      If you’re really feeling that masochist to play Day Z today, use the Six Updater.

      http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=13213

      • beowolfschaefer says:

        Don’t use a launcher. They are more trouble than they are worth. If you play Arma MP then they are worth it since different servers use different mods and that can be difficult to manage but if you just want to play Day Z then it is a single copy paste operation.

        • JurassicPork says:

          I found the 6 Updater much better than the manual way. I have had no issues since I began using it and am always able to connect to my preferred servers? I’m curious as to why do you recommend against it?

          • beowolfschaefer says:

            It loads really slowly, and seems to need to update every day. It usually took a minute or more to load and when I just load from game it is a matter of a few seconds. I found the UI horrible. The couple times I tried to use it it either would not display the server I wanted to join or it did and then I got a bunch of errors once the game actually loaded. I did in one case try to play with the updater and Day Z had just released an update and 6updater was not updated to reflect it yet (similarly the servers that they host the dayz mod files on are often swamped when a new patch launches so it takes forever when I can torrent them in a few seconds). At that point I just used a manual shortcut and never looked back.

            I know it is probably fine and many of the guys I play Day Z with do prefer it but installing the mod is literally one copy/paste operation. It simply does not offer anything to me that I cannot do myself with a couple keystrokes while potentially adding some hassles.

  12. buzzmong says:

    I really hope DayZ doesn’t go standalone. At least not using the Arma II engine.

    The stuff so far from Arma III, especially all the extra bits revolving around player movement like having half stances between the usual prone, crouched and standing are for me, near essentials and would be a big boon to DayZ considering hiding, sneaking and cover are so vastly important.

    • newprince says:

      True, the systems are all a major YES in terms off adding depth to survival systems and mechanics, but… I just don’t think the setting is very good for DayZ :( They went out of their way it seems to not have trees and green stuff. Just seems a weird place for a zombie apocalypse.

  13. newprince says:

    The mod would still live on. I was in on the beta of Counter-Strike circa 2000, and nothing really happened once the standalone came out.

    What I’m intrigued by is how close ArmA III is to release, considering the turnaround for the DayZ based on that game would seem to be relatively short… I would hate to see the community forked severely, worse than Counter-Strike eventually did…

  14. Premium User Badge

    tikey says:

    Wow. I didn’t know Steven Spielberg was in the game.

  15. RegisteredUser says:

    If by minecraft model he means encouraging just pirating it if you can’t pay for it at the moment and setting the price point at 10 EUR / USD, then by all means, please do exactly that.

  16. R1ckyChav3z says:

    Hi guys!
    My friends and I started playing Day Z and we are recording our adventures as we play the game and so far I have Day 1 up and we are currently recording Day 2, where we started playing together as a team. Also I shot one of my friends accidentally in the face. If you’d like us to add or change anything or want us to make a video explaining how to do something, leave a comment below.

    Hopefully you like the video and subscribe to my channel, as we continue making videos for the Day Z community.

    Day 1 – Introducing the Game and running around in circles in Utter Terror:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ysSbYCvKm8