H1Z1 Splits Into Separate Survival & Competitive Games

Multiplayer open-world zombie sandbox crafting building survival etc. H1Z1 [official site] is splitting in half, like a zombie who got stuck in a door and its torso is crawling onwards ever hopeful while its legs wonder what they’re going to do with all these t-shirts. Look, it’s first thing on Monday morning, okay, so you’re not getting That Sparkling Alice O’Connor Wit yet. But from next week, H1Z1 will be two games. H1Z1: Just Survive will keep doing that sandbox survival stuff while H1Z1: King of the Kill will focus on man vs. man arena murdertimes, like its Battle Royale mode. While H1Z1 was planned to become free-to-play, neither of these will.

This’ll be handy for folks who fancy one but not the other, going by what developers Daybreak Game Company said in the announcement:

“Last year, we started to notice new player trends emerging – both the initial Survival game and Battle Royale game mode now have strong populations who almost exclusively play one or the other.

“The more we developed this game with you, our community, the more we realized that in order to fully support both aspects of H1Z1, and their respective players, we needed to make them their own stand-alone games supported by their own dedicated development teams.”

Which, sure, sounds reasonable. Arena bangbangs and crafty survival are pretty different. At least it’ll be cheaper for folks who are only interested in one. Yes, these will both be paid games.

H1Z1 was originally due to become free to play, with Daybreak simply selling early access on Steam Early Access, but it turns out both of these will be two full-on paid games (still with microtransactions). Folks who’ve paid for H1Z1 in Early Access before the split on February 16th will receive both, but they’ll cost $19.99 each afterwards (still in Early Access). King of the Hill is due to properly launch this summer, while Just Survive is due later this year.


  1. brucethemoose says:

    That sounds reasonable.

    But as this is the internet, plenty of people will find a reason to complain, so I mind as well start… This sounds like it’s taking away even more development resources from Planetside 2. I wish Daybreak the best of luck with H1Z1, but Planetside 2 also needs some love if it hopes to stay alive, and I REALLY want it to live on.

  2. Sakkura says:

    I have no problem with that decision, as long as the games are any good. The protracted development, microtransaction hell and negative feedback thus far are not great signs though.

  3. Unsheep says:

    Great idea, more developer should do this, even better they should ideally split games into single-player and multiplayer components.

    I don’t want to pay for content I’m never going to use, I only want single-player games. To me multiplayer games are an utterly pointless experience, and a lazy excuse for not making real content.

    • lagiacrux says:

      people are not ready for that. as seen in the rainbow six siege desaster of “NO CAMPAIGN!!!!! NO BUY!!!!”.

      i too would prefer to be able to just mix and match single/multiplayer components but i doubt thats going to be an easy step.

      • Mortivore says:

        Rainbow Six Seige as in; a multiplayer game that launched with a 60 bucks pricetag despite countless of server issues? Heck, I can’t play 2 rounds without being booted out of a lobby or reconnecting to my party.

        Yeah, I think the consumer was fully in their right to complain about that one.

        I don’t think people would have an issue if said component was half the price of a product that would normally offer both components; you know, a 30 buck pricetag on a multiplayer only product with decent servers (not hamster powered – looking at you Ubi).

        • lagiacrux says:

          complaining about the launch bugs/netcode errors for siege is fine. fixating on the fact that it doesnt have singleplayer is a mystery to me? do people really WANT a single player campaign like in CODs? i thought we want to get away from tagged on multiplayer/singleplayer components, when they are clearly just an afterthought.
          and from what i’ve heard, siege’s multiplayer is getting praises everywhere, so i dont see a problem with the pricetag.
          full disclosure: i primarily measure a games “worth” in the amount of “hours i enjoyed playing the game”. might be different for other people.

          • Distec says:

            I agree that splitting SP and MP can make sense in a lot of cases, even if it drives my OCD nuts that I don’t have a “complete experience”.

            But arguably a lot of people DO want SP campaigns for ostensibly MP shooters. COD is not the cash-grabbing success it is just because of its multiplayer; far more people buy it for the campaign and hardly touch the other component, if ever. And this is probably why EA/DICE even bother wasting their time on campaigns at all for the BF series.

    • Phinor says:

      For a publisher splitting SP/MP content goes like this:

      SP campaign $60, MP content $40 extra, or $60 separately. Same with H1Z1 really, the game is currently $20 (well $15 now that it is discounted), but $20 + $20 after the split.

      You are never going to save anything if they split content, it’s only better for the publisher/developer.

    • vahnn says:

      But isn’t the survival portion still a multiplayer game. They’re just taking the two things people already have, or would get in one package, and turning it into two paid packages with no carryover between the two. And they’re still going to have microtransactions. Probably the same ones. So probably will pay to win. I guess it could make sense, but it seems silly to me.

      Have fun.

  4. Gemberkoekje says:

    Wasn’t this that game made by that Russian guy who made the worst game ever?


    Or am I confusing titles now?

    • Javier says:

      I don’t play MMOs at all, so I’m not an expert, but this is by Sony. They also made Planetside 2. I guess you might be talking about WarZ? Not even sure what happened with that one besides the fact that it elicited a very strong negative reaction.

      • Premium User Badge

        Qazinsky says:

        Last I heard about WarZ, they switched the name of the game, probably to avoid the negative reputaion / steam rating.

  5. Cooper says:

    Two games: Fine. Not free-to-play: Fine (good, even). Paid games with microstransactions: Nope.

    • Cooper says:

      On second thoughts, even two games isn’t that great, given the microtransactions. Like that cosmetic you bought? Gonna have to pay again to use it in the other game…

      DBG have basically doubled the profit of their art team. Nice one!

    • Asurmen says:

      What’s wrong with the microtransactions? As long as they’re not pay to win you can ignore them at your leisure.

      • Cooper says:

        I’m old enough to remember that buying a game meant you got everything in that game. Multiplayer games used to offer you dozen of skins (‘cosmetics’) as part of the box price. I can not buy microtransactions, but I can’t easily ignore them. They’re a constant reminder that i didn’t get everything I paid for…

        • Asurmen says:

          I remember those days as well, but it isn’t those days anymore. It’s these days.

        • Manco says:

          remember Quake and Unreal where custom models and maps were everywhere? And all you needed for them was allow a tiny download at the start of a map (ok back then 10MB wasn’t necessarily tiny depending on connection but still).

      • Press X to Gary Busey says:

        There was a pay-to-win debacle around H1Z1 last year and they offered refunds for a while.

        It’s okay when a F2P model depends on it but I’d never trust monetization schemes in a game added on top of a price tag.
        There’s no benefit or value added for the customer.

  6. Sin Vega says:

    First time this one’s ever got my attention to be honest. Between the shite name and the obvious “day z again” vibe, I never thought I’d give it a second thought.

    Removing the people turning these things into another tedious glorified deathmatch would be brilliant. Giving them a whole other game so they don’t lose out either is really impressive.

  7. Distec says:

    The third product to be spun off of this will be the game SWG players can finally come home to, as promised all those years ago.

    • Grim Rainbow says:

      Glad someone else remembered.

    • Premium User Badge

      Aerothorn says:

      Man, was that ever a PR misstep. And that was before the company got sold and Smedley left. So now that is *really* not happening.

  8. Artist says:

    So Ex-SOE/Daybreaks new shareholding Masters are even more greedy? What a surprise… Anybody a clue who Columbus Nova is?

    • brucethemoose says:

      Not a gaming company.

      They fired a bunch of people right after they bought SOE, but after that they’ve been treating Planetside 2 pretty well (relatively speaking). Though the bar was insanely low, they seem to be more responsive than the old SOE now.