Zombie survival game DayZ sales pass 172,000 copies, driving millions in revenue

Bohemia Interactive confirms day-one sales milestone for alpha version of zombie game.

The standalone alpha version of DayZ sold 172,500 copies during its first 24 hours, developer Bohemia Interactive CEO Maruk Spanel has announced on his website.

The game sells for $30 on Steam and €21.81 through the developer's website, meaning it has now generated millions in worldwide revenue--and the game isn't even done yet.

Yesterday, Spanel announced that the zombie survival MMO sold 88,000 copies in 12 hours and was seeing 200 new players every second.

DayZ creator Dean Hall said earlier today that a second patch for the game will launch sometime in the next 12 hours, meaning sometime before midnight PDT. More information about this patch will follow, he said.

The game is far from a finished product. The version of DayZ available today is described as a work-in-progress featuring numerous bugs and various other issues.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about DayZ?

DayZ

DayZ

Follow

Discussion

103 comments
WarGod667
WarGod667

Since they spent a YEAR, on NOT doing what he promised, i can for the life of me not see why ppl are still willing to support this mess of a game. YES i would like to play it, but i cant get myself to pay for something which is this broken. This game is the most broken by design i've ever played(dayz mod) The arma2 engine was never meant to be used for what dayz is doing(all clients have to deal with all others information, which bogs down everyones system. It's like running 40instances of the game at once times everyone 40x40) instead of the server doing what it's supposed to do. ROCKET said he would fix it and make the server do it, like all other games, which is why we waited a year on this. But they didn't fix the issue AT ALL actually(yes they made a hack, but think about all the players clusted in that area will still prove the same scenario as before).. *sigh* I'm not a game engine programmer, but i cant see why this can not be done, when it's done EXACTLY like it should be by other games.

GameGazersDen
GameGazersDen

sounds like its doing good, I did not jump on this yet anyone know if its worth the early buy?

shreddyz
shreddyz

even the creator was quoted as saying he wouldn't buy it in this state. wow some people love the zombie thing!

BeNOwNz
BeNOwNz

why did you cut herseys face in half

nyran125tk
nyran125tk

Im a massive fan of ARMA 2. I play it almost everyday. If you liked Ghost recon(the original). you can make missions just like that in the editor, even with a briefing and map markers and everything, just like Ghost recon, in minutes and since Ubisoft and EA and DICE no longer want to make tactical shooters, its the only one out there.


Theres something about the ARMA 2 engine, that makes it look more realistic than any other game out there i reckon, including Battlefield. Battlefield still feels like you are in a game, ARMA feels like you are truly in a real farm, rural area.

Succumbus
Succumbus

I would honestly hold off from buying the game right now. I played a couple games in alpha and haven't gone back since they had a full release.. Just takes the spark away I guess. Almost nothing changes too dramatically.

mid--boss
mid--boss

You people buying alphas do understand you are ruining gaming, correct? There is no incentive to finish this game now. 

gamefreak215jd
gamefreak215jd

Is it just me or did they actually made some improvements in the visuals?

jer_1
jer_1

These are some damn impressive numbers for an unfinished game. I hope this turns out great! The mod was some of the most tense moments I have ever played in a game. 


The question now is, do I want to pay $30 to start back in alpha and go through all the patching all over again? 

darkrayne
darkrayne

The question is.. will this help the development of the game? Will they just continue as they originally planned, do it even better than planned or will they cut corners now that they have already hit their targets?


I can't decide how paid early access might affect a game.. Now that thousands of people have a right to affect development, will it even end up being the same final product as it would have without the early revenue and will that be a good or bad thing?


I guess we'll never know for certain.

pyro1245
pyro1245

Good for them! I love it that anyone can just make a video game these days and get it out there.

GSGuy321
GSGuy321

It's kind of awesome that the community will shape the game as it develops. Looking forward to the final product. Should be great.

Really loving this Steam thing.. So much innovation.

GSGuy321
GSGuy321

That's incredible for a game in Alpha stage.

rarson
rarson

Millions in revenue on an ALPHA? Wow, welcome to the future of video games. The more you buy this stuff up, the more we're going to see of it.

Yagami-san
Yagami-san

Now where's The War Z? Hahahaha.

Mr_Big_Boss
Mr_Big_Boss

Why does it say release date July 2012?

eddieham13
eddieham13

@nyran125tk Arma 3 is fantastic, and there are many improvements over the Arma 2 engine.

CommanderTy
CommanderTy

@Succumbus I have to say this is the best Alpha launch game I have played. Also Starbound is not bad for a pre-launch game in its state right now. ROCKET also updated the server 2 times already they are patching the game an fixing it and the game hasn't been out for a week yet. It is the smoothest launch yet. Love it!

eddieham13
eddieham13

@mid--boss A bit of a sweeping statement and a wrong one at that.

Most of the time when I read Alpha FAQ's they usually recommend that you do not purchase for a number of reasons and that "it's only for people who love bugs or cannot wait".

nyran125tk
nyran125tk

@mid--boss this is not a normal company. Arma 2 developers non stop correct their game for years after release. Like valve does for Counter Strike and Left 4 dead. Theres certain developers that actually DO work on their games for years after release. Unfortunately the companies that you most likely pay money to, like EA and Activision, dont give a sht about their customers at all after a coupl eof patches , they never really fix anything. I can easily say the Arma 2 im playign now, compared to the ARMA 2 i played on release day, is a million times better now after tons of patches. Some companies also dont have the massive budget like EA to be able to afford to work on something for 5-6 years without releasing 


They are also very clear that its in alpha. 


The people behind DayZ most likely needed some xtra cash to continue working on it. People gotta eat.

Grim_Jackal
Grim_Jackal

@mid--bossCompletely baseless statement. How companies which release Early Access games conduct themselves will directly influence future sales. Any company that took the money and ran would be shooting themselves in the foot - they'd never work in the industry again, or if they did, their reputation would be so damaged that they wouldn't make a cent.

The company was very up-front about the state of the game, going so far as to recommend that people NOT buy the game in its current state. That people did and still complained only proves how many very stupid people have access to disposable income.

electroban
electroban

@jer_1 well you'll get patches updated through steam like any other game...

faceless-mask
faceless-mask

@jer_1 Het, at least with this game, you KNOW it's not finished. Unlike a certain other "zombie survival" game I could mention * cough* WarZ *cough*

stealthyninja81
stealthyninja81

@darkrayne I don't mean to sound like I idolize Dean Hall (the lead developer) but he's stuck with the mod since he created it and I do have faith that he wont cut corners.

Fabian85
Fabian85

Steam is the best. Cant wait for winter sale :)

ChiefReaver
ChiefReaver

@rarson Ethically, it's no different than a pre-order! Thousands of people go out and drop $60 on a game after a 30-second trailer and you're complaining because people are dropping 30 on a tangible product?

stealthyninja81
stealthyninja81

@rarson I don't see why people are so offended by this. while Rocket can be frustrating with his inconsistent dates I have to say I trust him to not run off with the money before the game can be declared done. Minecraft did the same thing, when it started there were lots of bugs and not a lot of features but as it goes along it will get better.

mid--boss
mid--boss

@Grim_Jackal My statement is based on the fact that this has already been happening for years. We have been doing this in the form of preordering. The reason games come out with massive amounts of bugs is because the games have already sold so many copies and the only thing that matters is the almighty $. We as consumers keep buying this unfinished crap. We have given the greenlight to these companies to keep on putting out half finished products knowing full well they will have made there money back before release even rolls around. Games keep getting worse and worse and paying for unfinished products is the main reason. I could hype my game up in magazines now and give you a half built but very fun alpha/beta. You would buy it and pay for it and then I could just release that buggy mess as the game knowing that I have already made millions. All of the big companies are doing this. It's the reason AAA titles like Skyrim and Battlefield 4 can release with game breaking bugs. WE ALLOW IT BY BUYING THIS CRAP BEFORE IT IS DONE!


Betas are a good thing, paid betas are not a good thing.

rarson
rarson

@ChiefReaver

Obviously you're not grasping the point, either. "Ethically?" I'm not talking about ethics, I'm talking about the willingness of consumers.


Here's the difference: a trailer is showing gameplay or features of a game that is near completion. This is allowing you to play an alpha to experience a product that isn't anywhere NEAR completion. And you get no guarantee of getting a completed product. So they could abandon the project and you'd be out your money, whereas a preorder only holds if the product actually ships. Not even remotely close.

rarson
rarson

@stealthyninja81

You're missing the point. When it becomes a proven point that people will buy games before they're finished, then publishers will make a habit of releasing unfinished games. Eventually what we'll see is perpetual update cycles that eventually wane before a product is ever really "finished." After all, what motivation do the developers have to finish a title they've already gotten paid for?

Yes, there will always be the standouts that continue pushing the bar of excellence for the sake of their creation. And there will be hundreds of others who take advantage of their good will to make a quick buck. And the industry will suffer for it.

mappyislove
mappyislove

@SHEETBIKE conspiracy theory right here johnnehh


mid--boss
mid--boss

@CommanderTyYou have contributed nothing to this conversation at all. You actually may leave now, moron.

mid--boss
mid--boss

@Grim_Jackal@mid--boss  I don't think it should be an option. It just rewards developers for being lazy. How many kickstarters/paid alphas that have made millions of dollars have ended up just putting out enough product to satisfy the obligations? Lots, and we continue to fund these people. We have allowed the EA's and Activisions of this world to get away with this crap. Even the little guys do it. It's a blight on the whole video game industry.

We as consumers can't stand to wait long enough to play a game so we plunk down money to play an unfinished product. So many companies know if they can get to alpha with an interesting idea they can make millions. A more than 0% of the time these games end up releasing with game breaking bugs that are never fixed. 

I see the positive side of it, it allows smaller companies to fund ideas that wouldn't have been made other wise.  It is unfortunately an idea that places a ton of trust in the hands of the developers and more often than not results in them not being able to match the things they claimed were going to be in the game. 


Thank you for staying on topic BTW. This dude commanderTY above me is a moron and has contributed nothing to this conversation.

CommanderTy
CommanderTy

@Grim_Jackal @mid--boss I totally agree, go play bf4 an cod or AC the list goes on don't call people out on saying they ruin gaming for supporting something they love gaming. If Respawn did a kickstarter or Ubisoft for The Division I would gladly put down money for awesome companies putting out amazing ideas an games. 


You may leave now.

Grim_Jackal
Grim_Jackal

@mid--bossWell I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to support the developer by buying into early access, don't you?

mid--boss
mid--boss

You said it yourself, it is a work in progress! No money should be paid for a work in progress. Finish the game! Have an open free Beta if you want testers. It's like if I convinced my work to pay me for a whole year but then only did half a years work. They aren't just going to be ok with that, but why should I care I've already got my money.


100% this is the reason games come out with bugs that are never fixed. 


This isn't a bash on the game Day Z or the developers. I think this game looks cool personally. This is an attack on the stupid gamers who allow companies to do this crap. Gamestop should be public enemy number 1 of gamers everywhere. There isn't a limited amount of copies of games in the digital age. There are 0 reasons to preorder/buy in early.



nyran125tk
nyran125tk

@mid--boss @Grim_Jackal Paid betas are fine, if its cheap. Like kickstarter. Skyrim also is a hugely complex game and has a massive budget. Not all companies can afford to do that. 



besides DayZ is like a Work in progress, like a paid mod. People obviously like the game so much, they are willing to put up with it.

rarson
rarson

@ChiefReaver

So you agree with what I said.

Just so we confirm that we're in agreement.

rarson
rarson

@stealthyninja81

Again, you fail to grasp my point. I'm not fundamentally opposed to allowing people to contribute to a game before it's released, I'm saying that it's completely foolish for people to invest so heavily in a game that is not near completion, and will set a precedence for future games that will result in developers and publishers taking advantage of the willingness of people to make such contributions to release substandard products that essentially "take the money and run." 

Furthermore, as this is currently not a good game, I don't see how you can make the claim that this is somehow an example of how the model can work. Until it becomes a good game, that will not be true.

stealthyninja81
stealthyninja81

@rarson @stealthyninja81 I understand that, its just that this is one of those cases where I don't think that the process is being abused. Its a legit concern, but I just feel like this is an example of how that model can work, so Im glad they're making lots of money.

rarson
rarson

@gameroutlawzz

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I don't favor a platform or a publisher, I favor good games. Whoever makes good games gets my money.

This is the opposite: give me your money first and then I'll make a good game. That's great if you trust the developer, but plenty of others will jump on that bandwagon just to make a quick buck.