Yeah okay poor choice of words perhaps but my point still stands
And spoffle, are you really pedantically calling me out on the exact meaning of the term "plenty"... It just means a large amount of games, which you yourself confirm, and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument over that detail.
I'm not being pedantic, and it's not pedantic to highlight that you don't know what you're talking about.
Your use of plenty is true, however in a different context. Plenty of non-complex games certainly do have shorter development times, however for games like DayZ, it's delusional to expect anything less than the sort of development time it's been in.
A game of this scope, as others, have development times in the multiples of years, this is generally the rule, it's extremely uncommon for games of such scope to have development times of less than years. As I've said, 5+ years is fairly common depending on the complexity of a game, and 3-4 years is probably an average time scale for a fairly large game with a large scope.
Also whilst I have spoken about the specifics of developing stuff earlier in the thread I don't think it's fair to say I'm trying to be authoritative about development here - all I said was in the past developers have been less quick to exploit the paid-for early-access method
If you didn't insist that it's taking too long, I wouldn't have said it, but you are insisting it's taking too long, and I don't think you quite understand what "too long" actually means in this instance as it's clear you don't really get time scales when it comes to games development.
Dean doesn't recommend people buy now because it's a handy statement to fall back on if the game never amounts to anything - you can't claim a refund and say the game isn't fit for purpose if they implied it wasn't in the first place
Why are you so cynical? His statement is in reference to people like you, who don't understand games development, and who think they are buying a complete product and treat it like a game to be played and have moans and rants when it doesn't work how they want. For people like you, you're missing the point.
I'm not saying you shouldn't "play it", however people are seemingly under the impression that they've bought a complete game, despite the many warnings of "THIS IS AN ALHPA RELEASE AND WILL NOT ALWAYS WORK TO YOUR SATISFACTION WHILST IN ALPHA".
You are given a choice, some people (myself included) have taken this choice, and I understand the caveats of playing an incomplete game for fun.
If Bohemia are so large and wealthy then that makes the fact that they weren't prepared to finance the whole development themselves even worse... I don't disagree with letting people play it - just with charging them to do so, when as you claim they are so amazing they could do it themselves... Can you not conceive for a second that £15 million+ or however much it was at last count wouldn't make them feel a bit better about taking the risk?
You're making assumptions on this, based on the assumption that they'd know how many sales they'd make with it. Of course they were preperared to finance it, that's how this works they can't have nothing in the budget for the game and then go "we'll just get the money from the hundreds of thousands of pre-orders we know we'll sell"
They did the same pre-order early access bonuses with ArmA3, people are not being forced in to buying, they make a choice to do so based on a multitude of information available.
.
.
