H1Z1 is getting blasted with bad reviews on steam.

A lot of issues are Alpha related an will likely get fixed, I've picked up on

- Graphics, the game does look like Arse

- AI of the Zombies, they attack the last place you were not were you have ran too, so If I shoot a zombie and move over to the left, he will run to the spot I was in when I shot in. So the Zombies are not a threat

- Loot is very limited, apart from Blackberries

- It always raining, day or night always rain

As I said though, there Alpha issues and will more than likely be fixed, or already have been fixed since I last seen the game.

Pre-release and Kick Starter will kill gaming and below is the reason why:

• Gamers are paying $20 to play a alpha of a free to play game.

Companies will exploit your stupidity.

"Its been out for 1 day"... Day Z has been out for 1 year and the zombies still walk through doors and walls.

Why one would pay for an alpha access is beyond me (especially if the release version is going to be free...). Why one would not expect problems from an alpha revision is beyond me. Why one would take the negative reactions of people playing alpha access and assume the final game will be trash is beyond me.

It all seems like the culmination of the preorder/day 1 purchase/DLC-loving culture we have now... hasty hasty! It might turn out awful in the end - but IMO just hold off on giving any money to a developer until the finished product is out. As far as being an alpha tester goes... don't pay for the "privilege", but if you get your paws on an alpha make sure to express your concerns to the developer so that they get something out of making the alpha public. Hopefully it will improve before official release

Gamers always use the excuse "but I'm helping shape the game" which is a crock of....ehh....crock dump.

Alphas should NEVER be paid access. They should be random invites to people. Only Betas should be open and only when the beta is at a stage where most things are fixed.

The whole air drop thing isn't Pay to Win, its Pay to Gamble because you're not actually guaranteed to get the items. Which I think is a cool idea because it's like an anti-microtransaction, you payed and didn't get it? Tough, its a an unfair world.

@xantufrog: Not only are they paying for alpha access...their paying for alpha access on a game that will be free to play..go figure.

It's the same thing. You pay to win, or you pay to gamble to win. The only difference is that in the latter scenario, SOE makes a lot more money with little more effort.

I don't understand. I agree that they are paying something into the game (duh), but how do you figure that SOE makes more money in the "contested airdrop" scenario than in the "pay to win" scenario? I'm guessing your logic is that if someone fails to get the airdrop they'll immediately chuck another $___ at SOE to try again, but I doubt that's what happens in practice. Even if a small handful of people behave that way, there's probably another demographic that is less likely to pour real money in again after getting massacred (at least for a while), and those spending habits would cancel out

I'm against micro-transactions most of the time (unless they are purely cosmetic), but I don't mind the idea of this as an anti-microtransaction (like another poster said).

It's like playing poker or the roulette. Exciting...

But who wants to pay for something that they end up not receiving because someone else was there before you? That's pretty dumb. Then again, I'm conservative with my money (excluding charity), so if I put my money toward something, I expect something. This is not "exciting" to me, as Felipe finds it. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of gambling. *Shrug*

Another thing. Why is Sony, a company with tons of money, need to put something out Early Access? Big publishers really have no business taking advantage of a tool designed toward indy devs, in my opinion.

Because it's not a tool for just indy devs. It's a tool for all video game developers. You'd be stupid not to make something using some form of early access.

@airshocker:

But it makes more sense for indies. They don't have the capital that a company like Sony does.

So? Why would a company want to spend its capital if it can get people to pay them to test out their product?

@FelipeInside: "They want everything yesterday, so as soon as a game gets released, even in Alpha form, they will pay anything to play it... with the same old excuse "oh, but I'm helping 'shape' the game"."

Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with that mentality - provided that the gamers are very consciously paying to support the devs.

I mean, if I want to support my favourite indie developers, then I have no problem with buying an Early Access copy of their game, providing feedback, making bug reports, and suggesting improvements.

Then again, I wouldn't do that for H1Z1, since it sounds awful.

Thing is, Alphas were free, or in some cases the developer was the one that paid the gamer to participate...

Then I'll leave folks like you to test out their product. I'll wait until it's considered "released".

That is, indeed, one of your options.

I think you're perceiving it exactly how SOE hopes people would. The ideal scenario for them would be one where people who want any sort of advantage can pay them for it, while maintaining the image that there is no pay-to-win action going on. Fact of the matter is: putting money into the game will put you at an advantage to people who don't. I consider the concept of gambling a great advantage for people who pay money. Someone who spends $30 towards air drops and has experience gathering from them is very likely to get more stuff than someone who spends no money. No matter what way you try to spin it, that's pay to win.

And with absolutely no offense, I just don't think you have the slightest understanding of how power-gamers operate. Power-gamers aren't easily dissuaded by risk. Let's consider WoW for example - power-gamers used to pour insane amounts of money just to have their characters powerleveled to 80, despite the risk that Blizzard would ban their account. In fact, these services became so popular that the power-leveling and gold-selling industry became a big problem in MMO's, as you couldn't even walk around without being advertised to. And usually if they did get banned, these players would just start another character and purchase another power-leveling service. I know this because I've done lots of WoW botting, and was part of a community of power-gamers. A little extra pocket money isn't important to these people, but gaining any sort of advantage over everyone else in their favorite game definitely is.

If we lived in the world you claim where people are too afraid of pitching money in at the risk of it being lost, then power-leveling, botting, and buying gold would've absolutely never have taken off as an industry. But we actually live in a world where people will go through great lengths, risk, and pitch in lots of extra money just so they're "on top".

You can claim that contested air drops are a "gamble", but how is that the case? What's preventing a clan who wants to dominate everyone else, from taking on all the air-drops together as a team, essentially eliminating the part where it's a gamble? Ever since the boom of the aforementioned power-gaming industry; Sony, Blizzard, and every other MMO developer out there have been trying to get the people paying 3rd-party services for the game advantage to pay the developers directly for an advantage instead. The only main difference I'm spotting between the illegal powergaming services and SOE's practices is that now when you're paying for an advantage, you're paying Sony instead of some Asian sweat-shop. Who cares if it's a gamble? Paying for unfair advantages has always been a gamble. If gambling your money for an advantage in a video game seems crazy to you - Surprise! - you're definitely not the SOE's target audience for that service in mind. There a million other gamers out there who will gladly pay for the chance to better than you in a videogame.

no offense taken - I don't play MMOs, I don't like games as a service, I don't like little paid DLCs, and I don't like subscription fees. So I'm not their target "sucker" here and may not perceive the significance of this design choice.

(note I'm not calling people who do the aforementioned [MMOs etc] suckers, I'm saying that I'm so far off from their target spending type of someone who would pay money to get ahead in an MMO survival game that I'm liable to miss just how fruitful this may be for them)

It's a complicated issue when there is a group of people who are eager to throw money around for advantages, because most people think that the aforementioned people are crazy. If these types of people didn't exist, I surely wouldn't have as much of an issue with it. For a lot of people, it's a phase they experience. Sometimes you have a favorite videogame, and sometimes it's fun to be better than everyone else even if you're not actually any more skilled. I don't think people with this mentality are inherently evil or anything, I just think it goes with the age-old adage of power causing corruption. As odd as it is, people like power in all forms. To have power over other people in their favorite videogame is clearly a hobby for some people. Maybe it's because other parts of these people's lives are lacking? I dare not speculate. There are plenty of people who don't have enough spare time to compete with the people who do, so they use money to even the playing field. Hell - there are even people who have all the spare time in the world and for some reason will still spend additional money to put them even that much further than other people (referring to people who powergame Eve Online, WoW, and other MMO's).

There was a point, maybe a decade ago, that I'd pay money and experience risk just for a small boost in a videogame. I'd pay for hacks, power-leveling in WoW, etc. There was undoubtedly a point that if I could pay $15 in WoW for just a chance to get a better item (even in the form of a contested air drop), I'd absolutely do it. I'm going to pin it on a lack of maturity. Now I'm different - as now I hate spending unnecessary money towards games or participating in any sort of game where you can potentially pay money to be "better". I'm just going to give SOE the benefit of the doubt on this one and wait until its execution. If these air drops contain really valuable items, I'd be really questionable about SOE's F2P practices. If these air drops don't contain anything you couldn't obtain on your own from a few hours of gameplay, then I have absolutely zero qualms with it at all and I'll say everyone is totally overreacting. I'm not super optimistic but I'll backtrack everything I said and will reserve judgment. This can be swung towards a very slimy P2W scheme, or a very reasonable way to monetize their F2P game.

I think this is a situation where the devil will be in the details.

Yeah from what I have read it seems extremely risky because it not only draws zombies.. But it is advertised very loudly to all players in the area.. So there is a good chance you can even lose the thing you paid real money for..

Or if you're playing with a bunch of friends (like many people) and the majority of the people in the area are your friends (or in your clan), seems like there's a good chance you'll get the items virtually every time.

Then how can it be P2W if I pay and someone else wins? Stupid.

It works BOTH ways buddy, you get your friends to raid OTHER people's drops.

They also said months ago that they would (possibly) do this. I believe one example was at their own fan-fair. To me, it's more of a mixed-message than lying. Further, this is reason #457572 why you don't buy a game in early access; things can change at any time.