DayZ Beta Not Coming Until End of 2014

DayZ Beta Not Coming Until End of 2014

DayZ Standalone

DayZ's development team are predicting "huge progress" over the course of the coming year.

A few days ago creator Dean Hall and Bohemia Interactive revealed that the early access alpha version of DayZ's standalone edition had sold 800,000 copies in its first month. These numbers were well in excess of Hall's expectations, prompting him to say that the game'ssuccess would have "a very positive effect" on its roadmap going forward.

If fans were hoping this might mean a swifter development however, they might now find themselves a tad disappointed. In a recent blog post, the DayZ team revealed that the game probably won't even "reach Beta status sooner than the end of 2014." That being the case, the posting also affirmed that current players can expect "huge progress in 2014" and that the developer already has a fairly in-depth to-do list improve the game. Some of the features the team is working to implement or improve include hunting, customizable vehicles, player created constructions and a streamlined UI, among others.

Even so, we wouldn't be surprised if this news left some fans a bit disappointed. It took already quite some time and several delays to get the game to its current alpha stage, and while Hall and company are being open about the length of the game's development, it still has to be frustrating for fans eager to get their hands on the final product. That said, you never know, maybe things won't take as long as expected. We'll honestly be happy as long as Hall can keep the beta on schedule.

Source: DayZ Dev

Permalink

Somewhat adds to the general feeling that someone above Halls paygrade ordered a rushjob on it's initial relase.

As is the general trend with online games these days, I doubt anyone will actually notice when this thing is officially released.

Honestly this doesn't surprise me, a very early and glitchy as hell Alpha and 800,000 people buy into it straight away.

If he doesn't deliver a more "fleshed" out and stable Beta then I can only imagine the major disappointment that would follow.

Meanwhile No more room in hell has my zombie attention since it's both free and has decent 8 player co-op, at least I won't be held up at gun point for a sodding can opener or can of beans and then shot to repeat the process all over again.

I really hope a fix for the impossibly buggy zombies is first on his list. I hesitate to even call them buggy, cause they are clearly not even close to being finished! Also, it may be just a bit too hard to work out when you are regenerating blood, or even how to get the process started? Took me a fair bit of googling and I'm STILL not sure if I quite understand how that whole bit works...

Shadow-Phoenix:
at least I won't be held up at gun point for a sodding can opener or can of beans and then shot to repeat the process all over again.

Or just shot for the hell of it, because a lot of people are playing because they enjoy shooting other survivors. The times I've been deliberately held up because the other player needed or wanted something that I had, those have been some of the cooler and more enjoyable experiences in my mind. That feels like a tense survival situation. When a bunch of people just shoot me in the face as I spawn, for no reason (as I have NOTHING on spawn!), thats less enjoyable...

I have only shot a single player so far, and that was after he and his group opened fire on my group. I always try the peaceful and friendly option first, often sharing supplies and giving people medical aid. I think about 30% of the players I meet I am able to help. The other 70% run away or, more commonly, shoot me on sight. It never seems to matter what equipment I carry, even if I am clearly a fresh spawn X3.

Ridiculous, they would have made millions, a year to reach beta is absurd, people forked out money for the alpha with the presumption that since an alpha was available , a beta would be just around the corner.

I completely disagree with what they are doing.

DalekJaas:
Ridiculous, they would have made millions, a year to reach beta is absurd, people forked out money for the alpha with the presumption that since an alpha was available , a beta would be just around the corner.

I completely disagree with what they are doing.

Why rush when so many people are stupid and already gave the money to them?

Alphas (and even Betas) on Steam tell you outright that the game is an unfinished product anyway. The expectation is that purchasers are going to assist in the testing environment, not just try to derive entertainment from it. There's really no point in expecting more from it - unless I'm wrong, it's being periodically updated, so it's not like they're just twiddling their thumbs.

Though I have to ask, what exactly is the difference between an Alpha and a Beta? Asides from the blatantly obvious.

Mahorfeus:
Alphas (and even Betas) on Steam tell you outright that the game is an unfinished product anyway. The expectation is that purchasers are going to assist in the testing environment, not just try to derive entertainment from it. There's really no point in expecting more from it - unless I'm wrong, it's being periodically updated, so it's not like they're just twiddling their thumbs.

Though I have to ask, what exactly is the difference between an Alpha and a Beta? Asides from the blatantly obvious.

Alphas are the VERY basic form of a game without many features, and features are slowly added.
Betas are when the majority of a games content is already there, it just needs further testing to ensure it all works together.

This is why is really irritates me when a game claims to be beta, yet is so cleary an alpha (Like Nether)

This is why people have a problem with Early access/paid Alpha/Beta testing. 800,000 people have a copy of the game and yet it's incomplete and will likely die an ignominious death before ever reaching a "final" version. How many Early Access games have continued success? Two of my favorite games, "Chivalry: Medieval Warfare" and Payday 2 both have certainly suffered because of prolonged Betas and that they were still buggy as hell upon release. The smaller devs/indies need to get back to reality and bring in a smaller more focused group. Which I'm sure there would be plenty of unpaid volunteers for and do the job right, not completely backwards.

I will however impress this point upon anyone developing a game and wishing to provide early access to increase funding. DON'T. If you need more funding, create a separate module that isn't tied to the full version product. Use that as proof for your funding round. Don't spoil the game and make people pay to test your buggy alpha/beta code.

Shadow-Phoenix:
Honestly this doesn't surprise me, a very early and glitchy as hell Alpha and 800,000 people buy into it straight away.

If he doesn't deliver a more "fleshed" out and stable Beta then I can only imagine the major disappointment that would follow.

Meanwhile No more room in hell has my zombie attention since it's both free and has decent 8 player co-op, at least I won't be held up at gun point for a sodding can opener or can of beans and then shot to repeat the process all over again.

Of course it's glitchy as hell, it's nowhere near a finished product. It doesn't even have a summary description of the game itself on Steam, all it has is a big warning in all caps that it's an early release alpha, don't buy it unless you will actively help develop it and deal with serious game issues.

Playful Pony:
I really hope a fix for the impossibly buggy zombies is first on his list. I hesitate to even call them buggy, cause they are clearly not even close to being finished! Also, it may be just a bit too hard to work out when you are regenerating blood, or even how to get the process started? Took me a fair bit of googling and I'm STILL not sure if I quite understand how that whole bit works...

Shadow-Phoenix:
at least I won't be held up at gun point for a sodding can opener or can of beans and then shot to repeat the process all over again.

Or just shot for the hell of it, because a lot of people are playing because they enjoy shooting other survivors. The times I've been deliberately held up because the other player needed or wanted something that I had, those have been some of the cooler and more enjoyable experiences in my mind. That feels like a tense survival situation. When a bunch of people just shoot me in the face as I spawn, for no reason (as I have NOTHING on spawn!), thats less enjoyable...

I have only shot a single player so far, and that was after he and his group opened fire on my group. I always try the peaceful and friendly option first, often sharing supplies and giving people medical aid. I think about 30% of the players I meet I am able to help. The other 70% run away or, more commonly, shoot me on sight. It never seems to matter what equipment I carry, even if I am clearly a fresh spawn X3.

From everything I have heard about that game, if you want to try the peaceful and friendly option, don't even bother. You're either an immediate threat, or you're a potential threat, so you need to be eliminated to ensure my own safety.

DalekJaas:
Ridiculous, they would have made millions, a year to reach beta is absurd, people forked out money for the alpha with the presumption that since an alpha was available , a beta would be just around the corner.

I completely disagree with what they are doing.

There is more than enough warning that anyone buying this game should know what they're in for. If anyone bought it expecting a beta in quick time, they're a complete and utter moron.

Mahorfeus:
Alphas (and even Betas) on Steam tell you outright that the game is an unfinished product anyway. The expectation is that purchasers are going to assist in the testing environment, not just try to derive entertainment from it. There's really no point in expecting more from it - unless I'm wrong, it's being periodically updated, so it's not like they're just twiddling their thumbs.

Though I have to ask, what exactly is the difference between an Alpha and a Beta? Asides from the blatantly obvious.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is a beta is when the core gameplay is more or less settled, and it's mostly just balance and bugtesting. There shouldn't be any major changes in a beta, while an alpha is pretty much anything goes.

Look at it from the bright side.

If they'll actually be working hard on developing the game, you'll be getting new and free content a lot.

Not surprising. This looks like a huge undertaking. I am just glad they are allowing people to experience and even have a voice to shape the game as it is being created. That is a stellar privilege in my mind.

DalekJaas:
Ridiculous, they would have made millions, a year to reach beta is absurd, people forked out money for the alpha with the presumption that since an alpha was available , a beta would be just around the corner.

I completely disagree with what they are doing.

"Forked over money with the presumption of X" is the problem, and that's the consumer's problem alone. The devs didn't lie to anyone, and they didn't mislead.

Besides, you can still join the alpha right now. They could arbitrarily call it a "beta" sooner, but why call it a beta when you're still adding major features? Minecraft did that, and it resulted in endless bitching and DDoS attacks when they took a bit long to update.

SoulChaserJ:

[...]

Don't spoil the game and make people pay to test your buggy alpha/beta code.

It never ceases to amaze me how much hatred an extra option for spending your money can get. Nobody is being forced to buy it and it's certainly not a requirement to get the full game to buy into the early access version. They even spell out quite clearly in large warnings that it is an early alpha, and they even tell people directly not to buy the game if they're not into the mixed experience associated with early access games.

Jeez, at the rate the developers are going, I can't help but feel they'll miss the bandwagon that they started! Not sure if Day Z's fan base is solid enough to sustain itself for another year or two 'til full release.

About the ethics of releasing a buggy alpha for full public consumption... I find it a slightly muddy issue. Whilst the developer's and Steam have gone out of their way to label it a work-in-progress, one has to bare in mind there will be a certain percentage of people who 'accidentally' ignore it - expecting a full game. The argument that they should have seen it seems a bit silly, to my eyes.

Dayz? Is that the good ARMA2 mod, or that shitty thing that let you win if you inserted $20 into it?

There are so many fucking things ending with "z".Zombies are a huge cliche now, no matter what dumbass twist you put on them. They are corpses being reanimated by a hive mind/neural infection/voodou (and yet, if they were being reanimated by catholicism, there'd be outrage. There's a double standard for you) or whatever. The uncanny valley isn't working for zombies anymore.

Soviet Steve:

SoulChaserJ:

[...]

Don't spoil the game and make people pay to test your buggy alpha/beta code.

It never ceases to amaze me how much hatred an extra option for spending your money can get. Nobody is being forced to buy it and it's certainly not a requirement to get the full game to buy into the early access version. They even spell out quite clearly in large warnings that it is an early alpha, and they even tell people directly not to buy the game if they're not into the mixed experience associated with early access games.

I personally don't give a crap how people spend their money. But if you think about it Dead Rising 2 had a prequel and and epilogue DLC. Were funding changed to something more like Case Zero and/or Case West then everyone could benefit rather than having the full game put out there in an incomplete state. Again, spend your money how you want, my problem is that usually these games are community/multiplayer based and the general part will have their fill before the game is even complete and where does it go from there? When 790,000 of the 800,000 DayZ early accessers no longer want to play and the game becomes a more-or-less desolate wasteland, who did early access benefit?

SoulChaserJ:

I personally don't give a crap how people spend their money. But if you think about it Dead Rising 2 had a prequel and and epilogue DLC. Were funding changed to something more like Case Zero and/or Case West then everyone could benefit rather than having the full game put out there in an incomplete state. Again, spend your money how you want, my problem is that usually these games are community/multiplayer based and the general part will have their fill before the game is even complete and where does it go from there? When 790,000 of the 800,000 DayZ early accessers no longer want to play and the game becomes a more-or-less desolate wasteland, who did early access benefit?

So they should avoid a successful model that people buy into because you feel anxious that some players might not be around when you feel like buying the game? That seems like an unreasonable position.

Soviet Steve:

SoulChaserJ:

I personally don't give a crap how people spend their money. But if you think about it Dead Rising 2 had a prequel and and epilogue DLC. Were funding changed to something more like Case Zero and/or Case West then everyone could benefit rather than having the full game put out there in an incomplete state. Again, spend your money how you want, my problem is that usually these games are community/multiplayer based and the general part will have their fill before the game is even complete and where does it go from there? When 790,000 of the 800,000 DayZ early accessers no longer want to play and the game becomes a more-or-less desolate wasteland, who did early access benefit?

So they should avoid a successful model that people buy into because you feel anxious that some players might not be around when you feel like buying the game? That seems like an unreasonable position.

How about when the game is actually finished. Not when I feel like buying. I support developers by buying into early access on games I like but I understand the pitfalls. Sorry, I prefer to be objective rather than calling everyone else wrong and my one way right.

SoulChaserJ:

How about when the game is actually finished. Not when I feel like buying. I support developers by buying into early access on games I like but I understand the pitfalls. Sorry, I prefer to be objective rather than calling everyone else wrong and my one way right.

So within the same sentence you're suggesting that your way is the only right one and then denounce me for doing that, even though I don't advocate buying now (I wait until the reduced price) - I merely point our that it's not the developers fault that some people feel that nobody will be playing this game come final release.

If you want to be completely objective about this you'd have to demonstrate how they'd turn a higher profit not selling it while the concept is still highly popular, as the sole responsibility of a company is to maximize profits.

SimpleThunda':
Look at it from the bright side.

If they'll actually be working hard on developing the game, you'll be getting new and free content a lot.

Yeah. But it's Rocket. So the content will probably be realistic bowel movements.

Soviet Steve:

SoulChaserJ:

How about when the game is actually finished. Not when I feel like buying. I support developers by buying into early access on games I like but I understand the pitfalls. Sorry, I prefer to be objective rather than calling everyone else wrong and my one way right.

So within the same sentence you're suggesting that your way is the only right one and then denounce me for doing that, even though I don't advocate buying now (I wait until the reduced price) - I merely point our that it's not the developers fault that some people feel that nobody will be playing this game come final release.

If you want to be completely objective about this you'd have to demonstrate how they'd turn a higher profit not selling it while the concept is still highly popular, as the sole responsibility of a company is to maximize profits.

If you truly believe that building a stronger community and sustaining excitement for a game wouldn't maximize profit then I don't have much else to say. Again, selling the ability to Alpha/Beta test a game is enticing for some and others it gives a very false opinion. Also if you look at the amount of people that buy in vs the amount that play or continue to play the numbers are usually pretty different. Again, I'm not against early access in its entirety, just the growing trend that games spend far to long in alpha/beta and still release a buggy final. If you want to see a good example of how this truly works, look at a game like Awesomenauts. They started with 6 characters and funded their way to 15 and now a DLC. They've directly used the funds and evolved the game over time but each phase involved releasing a working product and then adding more. Not constantly updating a buggy mess of a game. No it's not the most popular game but it's been sustained and bolstered over the last 3 years. So I'm sure Ronimo is still turning a profit on the game. Ask anyone that plays it and if they launched with all 15 characters, the game would have been crap.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here