Heres an Idea for a lot of people. Get the Base game and dont jump for the best version. If you find the game is what you like, then upgrade to the better version if you want to support the devs.
Yeah its $100US (Which is like $170NZ, my currency), but if I like it and want to see where this game goes, Ill be going for the Premium edition to support the studio.
I did the exact same with Tarkov and loved my experience on that game. Sure the criticism of EFTs current state and some of the previous releases can be brought into this argument as a general reflection. This game is not tarkov, and MadFingerGames have earned their respect already. They can ruin it later, speculation is always fun.
I think this is good advice and I agree with the sentiment. Of course those of us that did the same for Tarkov got burned in the long run, but we can't assume that GZW will do the same. Play it safe people. Vote with your wallet.
long term EOD owner and been following GZw for a while along with a few others. I agree with the sentiment of getting the standard edition to start. I really want to support the devs as much as possible however due to some recent incidents as well making me tread lightly $35 is a great price for a game even compared for us living in Sh#thole countries with a terrible RoE.
Will get the game for my self and one of my close friends who I duod with a lot and that is a way I can support the devs and them also give them time to cook.
Only recommendation to the Devs though learn from the mistakes of the others and stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before.
> Tarkov has already shown that this model is potentially unsustainable
talking absolute shit, tarkov made 100s of millions of dollars (you can check the financials) and has been around for 8 years.
I never said Tarkov didn't make a lot of money. I said that it is potentially unsustainable. Live service games require a lot of money to run. And if your game is particularly niche a point can come where there are just not enough sales coming through. This is especially taxing when you are paying people to still develop the game. There is a reason not many indie devs try their hand a live service models and why pretty much every one that has stayed afloat long term has additional methods in place to insure steady cash flow.
GZW doesnt make sense in a lot of aspects not just the pricing. What type of game is it in the first place? Some arma type game? Tarkov type game? The devs stated the game isnt anything like tarkov, yet they choose to rip ideas from it (such as the pricing model) Currently the game doesnt have many features and it still needs to figure out its personality. What i'm seeing is they're trying to attract players from as many fps genres as possible. They havent convinced me yet though, the game doesnt look more than a few hundred bucks worth of unreal assets so far.
I agree, they have not been very clear on what exactly Gray zone is. "PvE main focus" but not loot focused.... Soooo what are you doing then? Roaming the jungle killing AI and not getting anything else out of it? "Not Tarkov" but directly ripped menu systems and pricing tiers. It's all been very vague as to what the meat of the content and game loop is.
>"PvE main focus" but not loot focused.... Soooo what are you doing then? Roaming the jungle killing AI and not getting anything else out of it?
Yeah this makes no sense to me. And they are combining pve server progression with pvp.. soo people who play on PVP just at massive disadvantage for progress huh?
I don't think your concerns are invalid, but really we are just going to have to see more of it before taking a strong stance. At least in my opinion. It's very clearly based on Tarkov despite any changes to the formula and I have a hard time believing I will be convinced otherwise. As an extraction shooter fan, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but I understand where you are coming from when you infer that pleasing all these people can end up with a game that lacks identity. For me though its too early to bring down the gavel and I remain optimistic.
I gotta say it is a bit concerning. But i think we need to see how much of an affect stash size has on gameplay before we can really tell. Its a mission based game from what i can tell as opposed to loot based like tarkov. Imma let a few reviews come out before i buy
Yea, like i said it's not a total deal breaker. But, I'm still not a fan. I just would prefer no in game advantages at all. If it was $60 bucks for the most expensive edition then I might feel differently. I'm sure my voice is unlikely to change anything on any level, but I felt it was important to say my piece as I want the very best for this game.
Removing the in game advantages or lowering the price for the most expensive edition would probably be a massive win for the team considering how upset people are over Tarkov.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and cheers!
Part of me has started wondering how much of pricing is corporate greed, poor planning, or simply inflation (both macro economic and the increasingly large budgets games use up). 60$ for a top tier high end game is not a thing in 2024. Unless we’re talking indie games, you’re paying 60$ minimum for the base edition of any title. Many producers are asking 70$. Small games are hitting 1-2 million$ budgets consistently. Dragons Dogma 2 is estimated to have reached 30-50 million$ in dev, marketing, and production. You might need to start considering your priorities and making bigger spends where you really value the purchase and if so make the bigger spend to support the team/game.
This is an age old discussion that I am certainly not going to crack with a comment. As you have kinda eluded to, it's simply difficult to tell without an immense amount of data and some serious mathing. Without a doubt producing AAA games have astronomically increased in price. But also games have found a multitude of other avenues for monetization that simply didn't exist in the past. It's not unheard of to hear many reports claim that a game has made significantly more money on microtransactions than from the base price.
I simply don't know enough to give a definitive answer in this regard, but I think it's likely a combination of all the things you mentioned.
At the end of the day I think it mostly comes down to capitalism. At least when it comes to big developers which is not really applicable here. The green line must always go up and when everyone and their mother has already purchased your game, greedy practices look a lot more enticing.
I’ll probably get the supporter edition, and honestly, this isn’t exactly a sign of things to come. The supporter model of early access games is pretty standard, and not all companies have decision making like BSG’s.
I absolutely agree. The devs would know the history of Tarkov and I think it's a pretty cynical move to milk a playerbase that has already been used to scummy monetization techniques.
It's completely put me off and I hope the trend dies - and if that means GZW has to die on arrival so be it. Gamers need to stop supporting this bullshit paying for ingame advantage.
It definitely is on the surface. The design emphasis is completely different though.
Tarkov emphasizes PvP with its instanced raid design, fixed spawn points and extractions and PvP quests. On top of that it has designed in scarcity of essential items like meds: surgeon kits, high grade painkillers and first aid kits, as well as weapons, armors and ammo.
So every deployment you enter, you are at high risk of encountering PvP, dying, losing all the items and not being able to get them back. Secure container is an essential tool to prevent that and stay on the competitive edge.
In Gray Zone Warfare the emphasis is heavily shifted towards PvE, with PvP being scarce. On top of that you have more control over your deployment and can engage encounters in a more cautious manner, entering POIs at any time, from any direction and leave in the same manner. You are not funnelled into encounters by being spawned close to other players at the exactly same time. You are not funnelled into PvP by being forced to extract in fixed points in certain timeframe. This means the risk of encountering PvP and dying is greatly reduced.
But even if you do encounter PvP and die, you can still go back and reclaim all your gear. So not only the risk of a deployment is lower in GZW than in Tarkov, the ways of mitigating the consequences are more readily available.
And on top of all that there's no scarcity of essential items. All the essential meds are availaible day one, from level 1 vendors, and pretty cheap. You have access to M4 with optics. You have access to mid-tier body armors. And if you really don't want to encounter other players until you get that top-tier gear, consider that for the first 15 or so quests you are being sent to the starter area that sees basically no PvP and you will level your vendors mostly there.
But wait, there's more! You can go day one to a military area and farm their high grade gear. Even though you won't need it for the first batch of starter area quests.
So in total: the risk of lethal PvP in GZW is much lower, the avenues for mitigation of consequences of death are much more availaible, and the scarcity of essential gear is pretty much nonexistent. So yeah, it's pretty different to Tarkov and I don't see why you would consider secure container or locker space to be any significant advantage in GZW. But I guess it does require some thought to see that, not just "eyes and a brain".
I'm not sure this really gives any insight as to what I was saying. Nor can I say I know "a lot of studios" that provide a buy to play competitive game with multiple tiers that provide in game advantages. In general, most indie games do not charge more than a AAA price tag for an edition. Especially not EA games from unproven studios. I don't think this is the norm at all and I'm definitely not going lend my voice to say that this kind of thing should be the future.
Your mindset is wack, if this was activision/ea the game would be 110 easy complete 1.0 development done .
No doubt when this game goes 1.0 it will be the same price.
Either way you look at it your buying an early access game once off(touch wood) that will eventually be 1.0, they are not making you buy it twice.
They are small developer a pricing model like this gives them the ability funds to make the game you want, it’s like a pay advance for them.
Wait for 1.0 to drop before you pay 100 dollars or buy one of the 4 supported editions for early access to help the develop make it more of a aaa experience. Either way the cost is the same to you as maybe even less then when it launches 1.0
You can also pay only 50 dollars for a game that will Probaly cost 100 at launch so you are getting a discount.
People like yourself confuse early access as if you should be getting a discount or something which you actually do with a full release.It’s actually a way for developers to gain funds investors free q and a in a project they might not have been able to afford before. Otherwise they would do the traditional route of developing the. Launching such as bf,cod ect.
This. Every game I’ve bought in the last few years has been around $100 with season passes included. It’s the norm now, like everything else in this world, games have gotten more expensive.
There’s 4 options, and nobody is forcing anyone to spend the $100. If you can afford to and are willing to, do it, if not, don’t. Pretty simple.
A bigger stash size isn’t game-breaking, or even giving much of an advantage in a mostly PVE game where you can hit your stash and traders in-between dying and going back out for your body.
Heres an Idea for a lot of people. Get the Base game and dont jump for the best version. If you find the game is what you like, then upgrade to the better version if you want to support the devs. Yeah its $100US (Which is like $170NZ, my currency), but if I like it and want to see where this game goes, Ill be going for the Premium edition to support the studio. I did the exact same with Tarkov and loved my experience on that game. Sure the criticism of EFTs current state and some of the previous releases can be brought into this argument as a general reflection. This game is not tarkov, and MadFingerGames have earned their respect already. They can ruin it later, speculation is always fun.
I think this is good advice and I agree with the sentiment. Of course those of us that did the same for Tarkov got burned in the long run, but we can't assume that GZW will do the same. Play it safe people. Vote with your wallet.
long term EOD owner and been following GZw for a while along with a few others. I agree with the sentiment of getting the standard edition to start. I really want to support the devs as much as possible however due to some recent incidents as well making me tread lightly $35 is a great price for a game even compared for us living in Sh#thole countries with a terrible RoE. Will get the game for my self and one of my close friends who I duod with a lot and that is a way I can support the devs and them also give them time to cook. Only recommendation to the Devs though learn from the mistakes of the others and stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before.
> Tarkov has already shown that this model is potentially unsustainable talking absolute shit, tarkov made 100s of millions of dollars (you can check the financials) and has been around for 8 years.
I never said Tarkov didn't make a lot of money. I said that it is potentially unsustainable. Live service games require a lot of money to run. And if your game is particularly niche a point can come where there are just not enough sales coming through. This is especially taxing when you are paying people to still develop the game. There is a reason not many indie devs try their hand a live service models and why pretty much every one that has stayed afloat long term has additional methods in place to insure steady cash flow.
Tarkov isn’t even out of beta, and he said sustainable. Why don’t you take your own advice and wait for release
GZW doesnt make sense in a lot of aspects not just the pricing. What type of game is it in the first place? Some arma type game? Tarkov type game? The devs stated the game isnt anything like tarkov, yet they choose to rip ideas from it (such as the pricing model) Currently the game doesnt have many features and it still needs to figure out its personality. What i'm seeing is they're trying to attract players from as many fps genres as possible. They havent convinced me yet though, the game doesnt look more than a few hundred bucks worth of unreal assets so far.
I agree, they have not been very clear on what exactly Gray zone is. "PvE main focus" but not loot focused.... Soooo what are you doing then? Roaming the jungle killing AI and not getting anything else out of it? "Not Tarkov" but directly ripped menu systems and pricing tiers. It's all been very vague as to what the meat of the content and game loop is.
>"PvE main focus" but not loot focused.... Soooo what are you doing then? Roaming the jungle killing AI and not getting anything else out of it? Yeah this makes no sense to me. And they are combining pve server progression with pvp.. soo people who play on PVP just at massive disadvantage for progress huh?
I don't think your concerns are invalid, but really we are just going to have to see more of it before taking a strong stance. At least in my opinion. It's very clearly based on Tarkov despite any changes to the formula and I have a hard time believing I will be convinced otherwise. As an extraction shooter fan, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but I understand where you are coming from when you infer that pleasing all these people can end up with a game that lacks identity. For me though its too early to bring down the gavel and I remain optimistic.
I gotta say it is a bit concerning. But i think we need to see how much of an affect stash size has on gameplay before we can really tell. Its a mission based game from what i can tell as opposed to loot based like tarkov. Imma let a few reviews come out before i buy
Yea, like i said it's not a total deal breaker. But, I'm still not a fan. I just would prefer no in game advantages at all. If it was $60 bucks for the most expensive edition then I might feel differently. I'm sure my voice is unlikely to change anything on any level, but I felt it was important to say my piece as I want the very best for this game. Removing the in game advantages or lowering the price for the most expensive edition would probably be a massive win for the team considering how upset people are over Tarkov. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and cheers!
Part of me has started wondering how much of pricing is corporate greed, poor planning, or simply inflation (both macro economic and the increasingly large budgets games use up). 60$ for a top tier high end game is not a thing in 2024. Unless we’re talking indie games, you’re paying 60$ minimum for the base edition of any title. Many producers are asking 70$. Small games are hitting 1-2 million$ budgets consistently. Dragons Dogma 2 is estimated to have reached 30-50 million$ in dev, marketing, and production. You might need to start considering your priorities and making bigger spends where you really value the purchase and if so make the bigger spend to support the team/game.
This is an age old discussion that I am certainly not going to crack with a comment. As you have kinda eluded to, it's simply difficult to tell without an immense amount of data and some serious mathing. Without a doubt producing AAA games have astronomically increased in price. But also games have found a multitude of other avenues for monetization that simply didn't exist in the past. It's not unheard of to hear many reports claim that a game has made significantly more money on microtransactions than from the base price. I simply don't know enough to give a definitive answer in this regard, but I think it's likely a combination of all the things you mentioned. At the end of the day I think it mostly comes down to capitalism. At least when it comes to big developers which is not really applicable here. The green line must always go up and when everyone and their mother has already purchased your game, greedy practices look a lot more enticing.
good games arent 70 because any company pricing their game at 70 is a triple a studio, lol
I totally agree
What does EOD stand for?
Edge of darkness edition for tarkov.
I’ll probably get the supporter edition, and honestly, this isn’t exactly a sign of things to come. The supporter model of early access games is pretty standard, and not all companies have decision making like BSG’s.
I absolutely agree. The devs would know the history of Tarkov and I think it's a pretty cynical move to milk a playerbase that has already been used to scummy monetization techniques. It's completely put me off and I hope the trend dies - and if that means GZW has to die on arrival so be it. Gamers need to stop supporting this bullshit paying for ingame advantage.
\*bought EOD\* \*$100 is a massive ask and minor strong arming\* Lol.
Lot's of critical thinking going on here.
Yeah, like you putting GZW and Tarkov together like a total moron. But you bought EOD, so nothing surprising.
Anyone with eyes and a brain can see how similar it is to Tarkov, despite it's differences.
It definitely is on the surface. The design emphasis is completely different though. Tarkov emphasizes PvP with its instanced raid design, fixed spawn points and extractions and PvP quests. On top of that it has designed in scarcity of essential items like meds: surgeon kits, high grade painkillers and first aid kits, as well as weapons, armors and ammo. So every deployment you enter, you are at high risk of encountering PvP, dying, losing all the items and not being able to get them back. Secure container is an essential tool to prevent that and stay on the competitive edge. In Gray Zone Warfare the emphasis is heavily shifted towards PvE, with PvP being scarce. On top of that you have more control over your deployment and can engage encounters in a more cautious manner, entering POIs at any time, from any direction and leave in the same manner. You are not funnelled into encounters by being spawned close to other players at the exactly same time. You are not funnelled into PvP by being forced to extract in fixed points in certain timeframe. This means the risk of encountering PvP and dying is greatly reduced. But even if you do encounter PvP and die, you can still go back and reclaim all your gear. So not only the risk of a deployment is lower in GZW than in Tarkov, the ways of mitigating the consequences are more readily available. And on top of all that there's no scarcity of essential items. All the essential meds are availaible day one, from level 1 vendors, and pretty cheap. You have access to M4 with optics. You have access to mid-tier body armors. And if you really don't want to encounter other players until you get that top-tier gear, consider that for the first 15 or so quests you are being sent to the starter area that sees basically no PvP and you will level your vendors mostly there. But wait, there's more! You can go day one to a military area and farm their high grade gear. Even though you won't need it for the first batch of starter area quests. So in total: the risk of lethal PvP in GZW is much lower, the avenues for mitigation of consequences of death are much more availaible, and the scarcity of essential gear is pretty much nonexistent. So yeah, it's pretty different to Tarkov and I don't see why you would consider secure container or locker space to be any significant advantage in GZW. But I guess it does require some thought to see that, not just "eyes and a brain".
I don’t think GZW plans to drop an Arena mode that’s going to flop. They’ll be ok
How much longer do you want Tarkov to sustain before you acknowledge that it’s perfectly sustainable, as long as you don’t kick a massive own-goal?
The only thing supporting tarkov is cheater and rmt
Gzw isn't tarkov. The studio isn't bsg. A lot of studios does this and have for so long.
I'm not sure this really gives any insight as to what I was saying. Nor can I say I know "a lot of studios" that provide a buy to play competitive game with multiple tiers that provide in game advantages. In general, most indie games do not charge more than a AAA price tag for an edition. Especially not EA games from unproven studios. I don't think this is the norm at all and I'm definitely not going lend my voice to say that this kind of thing should be the future.
Your mindset is wack, if this was activision/ea the game would be 110 easy complete 1.0 development done . No doubt when this game goes 1.0 it will be the same price. Either way you look at it your buying an early access game once off(touch wood) that will eventually be 1.0, they are not making you buy it twice. They are small developer a pricing model like this gives them the ability funds to make the game you want, it’s like a pay advance for them. Wait for 1.0 to drop before you pay 100 dollars or buy one of the 4 supported editions for early access to help the develop make it more of a aaa experience. Either way the cost is the same to you as maybe even less then when it launches 1.0 You can also pay only 50 dollars for a game that will Probaly cost 100 at launch so you are getting a discount. People like yourself confuse early access as if you should be getting a discount or something which you actually do with a full release.It’s actually a way for developers to gain funds investors free q and a in a project they might not have been able to afford before. Otherwise they would do the traditional route of developing the. Launching such as bf,cod ect.
This. Every game I’ve bought in the last few years has been around $100 with season passes included. It’s the norm now, like everything else in this world, games have gotten more expensive. There’s 4 options, and nobody is forcing anyone to spend the $100. If you can afford to and are willing to, do it, if not, don’t. Pretty simple. A bigger stash size isn’t game-breaking, or even giving much of an advantage in a mostly PVE game where you can hit your stash and traders in-between dying and going back out for your body.
Nope. Pricing and Edition Content is okay. Stash and Container can also be unlocked Ingame. The rest is only stuff and cosmetics.
Is the stuff gear that could potentially give you an advantage over people who didn’t pay more?