Rocket Outlines DayZ’s Future, No Plans For ArmA III

DayZ‘s standalone version continues to be shrouded in real life’s most potent zombie fog – aka, mystery – but Rocket’s not the type to intentionally keep people in the dark. So he’s been trickling out details where he has them, and now we know that a closed test is “imminent.” But how exactly will it work? And what lies beyond – for instance, once players start flooding into nebulous “endgame” territory or. further, when ArmA III reawakens the ancient modder kraken currently sleeping in Rocket’s soul? Thanks to Reddit‘s eternally inquisitive hivemind, we now have answers.

First, the most potentially shocking bit: Rocket doesn’t have any current plans to port DayZ over to ArmA III. Instead, he’d like to pass the torch on to fans and use Bohemia’s shiny new engine for another original project. That said, he does want to see “the next DayZ” emerge from ArmA III. But he means in spirit, not in carbon-copied flesh.

“My real hope is that the next ‘DayZ’ comes out and gets its big break in ArmA3. I made a space mod for ArmA2 that I never released, maybe I might make that for ArmA3! I guess someone will mod DayZ for ArmA3 and it will probably be great for it. That’s the awesome thing about this community.”

The status of DayZ’s standalone, meanwhile, is quite variable, which is why a concrete date’s yet to see the light of day. In short, the closed test is even more imminent than it was before – because, you know, that’s how time works – but the underlying tech’s success (or “ugly” failure) will determine how quickly everyone else gets to dive in. “It’s a tech test,” Rocket added. “Any game design that makes it into that will be a bonus.”

There are some plans for further down the line, though. Among other things, Rocket teasedĀ unannounced surprises for the rest of the year and “probably beyond that,” as well as noting that a vehicle construction system will be the first endgame-y thing to liven up DayZ’s stagnant final moments. Player-made bases are also on the list, though they probably won’t surface until the end of the year.

There’s a wealth of tidbits in the AMA, so definitely give it a read if you’re into DayZ, daisies, disease, or words that sound like other words.


  1. mollemannen says:

    i rather see dayz in arma 2 engine. mostly because arna 3 would need a pc upgrade.

    • phelix says:

      Actually, Rocket promised that the standalone version of DayZ will use a customized engine that’s far better optimized than the mod version for weaker PCs and I believe it isn’t even on the ArmA III engine.

      • Domino says:

        This is indeed the truth, the engine will be a custom build removing uneeded systems and code, while add more of its own without the restrictions of Arma 2. <- All info contained and written here by Rocket.

  2. jellydonut says:

    I think the current development of standalone is looking good enough. No need for Arma III’s engine.

    It’s an extremely competitive PVP game in any case, so framerates and stability are more important than shiny effects.

    • Eukatheude says:

      Well, the Arma 3 engine probably runs better.

    • WhiteZero says:

      DayZ SA is using the Take on Helicopters revision of ARMA2, with a couple smaller features from ARMA3 ported over. So really, we’re looking at ARMA 2.5

  3. DK says:

    Wasn’t the whole point of the new DayZ that he’d be able to use the supposedly awesome Arma 3 engine?

    • YM says:


    • AlwaysRight says:

      Nathan’s “whats next for DayZ” article seemed to imply it was going to be developed for the Arma 3 engine.

      “Rocket told me all about his plans to bring Day Z to ARMA III”

      However Rocket did say he was developing DayZ as its own thing.

    • Cooper says:


      Rocket has suggested he would consider the Arma 3 engine. He did. And has announced he decided not to.

      If Rocket can complete the changes to the Arma 2 engine he’s said he can do, then all that Arma 3 would do would be to make development time a lot longer, and remove the performance and capaibility improvements he’s making to Arma 2.

    • Syra says:

      I certainly thought dayz standalone was the arma3 step… I’m somewhat disappointed it’s not.

      • Continuity says:

        I understand your disappointment, ARMA 3 does look awsome, especially the new lighting. But the point of DayZ SA is DayZ SA…. just the mere fact of “Stand alone” will allow them to fix 90% of the major problems with DayZ mod, nevermind any improvements they make that alone makes it super awesome.

    • Surlywombat says:

      When DayZ first caused a fuss there was some talk of the mod continuing through and being re-made for Arma 3 as a mod. My understanding is that they decided to do the standalone instead of remaking the mod.

    • Turin Turambar says:

      No, the point is winning more money.

    • Joshua says:

      The point was basically that DayZ has it’s own “Fork” (as these things are normally known) of the code that he could develop independently, without being interfered by or having to interfere with the development of Arma 3 (As Dayz is focused on zombies and taking Hobbes’ philosophies to the extreme, whilst Arma 3 is focussing on the realistic portrayal of military equipment – although they do not clash with eachother, developing an engine to accomodate both of them simultaniously is exceptionally harder). This is done quite often in software development.

    • GepardenK says:

      Standalone will have a lot of the new features from Arma3 though. Like clothes and helments etc with different effects and smoother character movement. Also, like arma3, the UI and inventory system has been completely rewritten to make it intuitive but powerfull

  4. Turin Turambar says:

    I’m sure that if the standalone release prove successful, they will eventually make Dayz 2 in the Arma 3 engine, but will will be not now, but in 2-3 years.

  5. Kamos says:

    After watching many videos and reading a lot about the game, I’ve decided that I’m not at all interested in DayZ, as much potential as it may have, and here is why.

    You watch the videos and what do you see? Zombies that fail hard at being a menace, players flying helicopters like they were on a vacation and a lot of pointless griefing (and before you call me a carebear, know that I was probably the PK who took your tower deed from your dead body in UO: Second Age).

    If a zombie survival game needs to put so much effort into an endgame, in my humble opinion it is failing at what it set out to be: a zombie survival game. I am of the opinion that there should be no endgame. Though, perhaps, there should be an end, preferably open, depending on what the players do.

    In example:

    1) Everyone dies! The server population gets overcome by an increasing number of zombies. Or all the (limited) resources in the server get depleted, and everyone starves to death. Or griefing becomes unbearable and the server uses up all the “human lives” it had (the survivors, as a team, basically wiped themselves out).

    2) Some people survive! The players establish a self-sustaining, defensible outpost which can serve to outlast the zombies. Or everyone gets rescued after “x” days by an helicopter sent by the military. Or the players build their own helicopter / boat / bus and flee the zone.

    The game could also use wandering zombie hordes. From what I’ve seen / heard, the zombies spawn statically around some places. Or, using my idea of “player lives”, add the possibility for some players to become zombie controllers. They’d kinda tell where the zombies should wander next, without giving such players tools to move zombies individually (at least not sufficiently enough to bully survivors overmuch).

    tl;dr I say DayZ should have things that a developer would probably need a decade to put in a game.

    • herschel says:

      Obviously you didnĀ“t play the game, yet.

      Although, I fancy some of your ideas.

      • Kamos says:

        As I said, I’ve only watched videos and read about the game. :)

        • DarkFenix says:

          You’re basically right. As it stands there is no challenge to surviving the zombies, they’re just a backdrop to what is in essence a deathmatch in a huge arena.

          A recently popularised mod called Dayz+ however has mixed this up somewhat. Ammo for weapons of any calibre is suddenly extremely scarce and the zombies are more effective at hitting you on the run, harder to lose and hit very hard. In short it turns the zombies into precisely what they are in any decent zombie horror; something to avoid if remotely possible, ammo is for emergencies, silent but otherwise impractical weapons become useful and cooperation is significantly more valuable.

    • GepardenK says:

      Well, there is no endgame in DayZ. The hardest thing you can do is repairing a vehicle and that is almost impossible without a team on standard servers. Also, zombies will kill you a LOT, so its defienetly survival. If not the hunger or the cold gets you first that is

      The funny thing about the zombies is that even if you are heavily equipped and feel you can take on infinite numbers of them, suddenly you do a single mistake and it can leave you bleeding in a ditch with broken legs

      I really like your wandering horde idea, It is something I feel will benefit DayZ immensly. I just hope its possible on such a large multiplayer map in standalone. Right now zombies spawn randomly around buildings – more buildings = higher chance of many zombies

      • P.Funk says:

        I never saw DayZ as even needing an end game. This persistent world thing is cool I guess but to me it was always kind of a high intensity survival challenge and on average it didn’t matter if you died once or twice an hour. Trying to pull a traditional MMO term in to affect this game is a bit… well its stupid to me. End game implies an MMO. There is no end game, and its more fun to think of it as an unwinnable game for me at least than to think I can beat it.

        I found its unbeatable narrative to be refreshing at first because usually games are more finite. To try and generate a more fix arc of player experience would essentially kill most of the charm of this for me.

        Not that I care, I play real Arma with lots of mods and enjoy that more than anything else. PvP in a tactical fireteam and squad situation with human opponents in a world as big as Arma’s is more interesting to me. Its basically the opposite of every other shooter out there these days. DayZ is pedestrian by comparison.

        • Kamos says:

          To me end game implies the game is designed in such a way that players can reach that state in which they have done all that can be done and are asking themselves: why the hell am I even playing this?

          I agree, you can think of it as an unwinnable, high intensity survival game, but since even death is only a temporary setback, this becomes very much like a traditional MMO. Apparently it doesn’t matter much if you lose your character, it is only a matter of time until you get everything back. Especially, I suppose, if you are playing with a group of other players. No loss is definitive. That endgame is even being raised as an issue is an evidence of this, I think.

    • Runs With Foxes says:

      It’s a videogame, not a movie. It doesn’t need an ‘end’ to the story.

      • Kamos says:

        I do not understand. Yes, it doesn’t need an ending. But why do you think it is better for this game to not have an ending? In my opinion, an “end state” gives the game (and what you do in it) meaning. An end is a way of tracking how the game ended. As opposed to, say, World of Warcraft, a game that never ends and where (again, in my opinion) nothing you do ultimately serves any purpose or has any consequence beyond altering some stats in your own character.

        In a sense, the game already has an ending. When you lose a character, even through the world itself is persistent, the game ends for you and you need to restart playing. This is how the game keeps track if you, as an individual player, had success or failed at surviving. Now, what I’m proposing is that perhaps the game could take this a step further and track if the survivors (as a team of human players) are failing at surviving or not. This would be an extra layer in the game, giving it meaning (along with a reason for cooperation). You can either “win” by yourself, preying on others, or as a team, ensuring that the human “team” as a whole survives the zombie apocalypse.

  6. Chaz says:

    Does that mean we’re going to see about a dozen DayZ wannabe’s when Arma3 gets released?