I bought this game in development because I wanted to support GOG for coming up with their own response to Steam's Early Access and, at the time, I really thought GOG was going to do things differently, not allowing studios to scam users into buying games that will permanently be in development. I guess I was wrong, and Project Zomboid is, so far, the most blatant example of this I have in my library of games.

I bought a few InDev games back when they were released on GOG (Kôna, Solus Project, Starbound, The Long Dark, Zomboid) and all of these, but two, were released in a rather satisfactory manner. I'm only waiting for The Long Dark and Project Zomboid, and at least The Long Dark seems to be aiming at a specific release date and release bigger updates to their game more often. Plus, I've talked to a lot of people (including streamers on the official GOGcom twitch channel) who are way too quick to admit Project Zomboid is "just one of those games that'll be in Early Access forever", and shrug it off because "it's already entertaining and playable enough as it is". Well, it might just be the case, but I still feel robbed and scammed, and I have been progressively losing all hope of seeing this game getting released.

I wish GOG's refund policy worked in a different way for In Development games; if, after a decent amount of time, the game still has no release date in sight, people who bought it should be entitled to a refund. 15 days of "no questions asked" after purchase refunds simply doesn't cut it; if GOG wants to do this differently than Steam does, they should always have a long hard talk with the developers and only publish games that they are certain will be released.


[EDIT] as soon as I published this post, it came to my attention that The Long Dark has left Early Access on Steam and should be properly released on GOG in the next few days. So, yeah, of all the in-dev games I've bought here, Project Zomboid is now the only one still in Early Access limbo, with no planned release in sight.

What do you mean by "fully released"? You mean Kerbal Space Program and Dont Starve is also do it wrong? I am perfectly fine with the PZ never release - constant inflow of features status. If you don't like it, you can ask GOG for refund and be done with that. :)

Are they still working in the cars thing? I heard it was coming along but still had some pretty nasty bugs.

But I *can't* ask GOG for a refund, see? They only give refunds for in-dev games if you ask for it during the first 15 days of having purchased it, there's no guarantee that a game will get a proper release and customers won't be scammed by lazy over-ambitious devs like the people doing Project Zomboid. If you're fine playing an unfinished version of a game forever, it's your prerogative, I won't argue with that, but I'm not; when I support a dev by buying their in-development game, I expect to see a full release somewhere down the line, even if they keep adding content after the release in the form of expansion DLCs or tweaks to the mechanics, I don't feel fine paying whatever amount of money I paid for Project Zomboid just to have it perpetually be left in Early Access limbo.

It was my fault for thinking GOG was trying to do Early Access better than Steam; it seems GOG's curation still allows for devs to scam customers into giving them money for a product they never intend to finish at all. I'm not saying Kerbal Space Program, Don't Starve or the recently released Slime Rancher do it wrong: it's fine to keep updating your game after release. But at least release it, tell your customers that this is your 1.0 "gold" version of the game, this is the most standard version of what you intend to make, even if it doesn't have all the features you intend to add and you'll have to add them post-release.

I don't mind pre-ordering as long as I trust the studio, I've never been burned by pre-orders, so far, especially because I *know* I'll just get the games I pre-ordered. But in-dev? I'm not sure I'll buy any more in development titles on GOG, it's just way too easy to scam customers into supporting lazy devs that have no plan at all of ever releasing their game, like the Project Zomboid dudes.


[EDIT] I even cheered these dudes back when they came to GOG more than a year ago. Back when they said they wanted "to have all this in the can this year" (2016), when discussing what was required for 1.0. Then again, the signs were always there if you were smart enough to see them (I clearly wasn't), because the next sentence is basically them telling GOG they "tend to avoid ETAs".

Who knows what they have been working on? There hasn't been a dev post in this subforum in a while, I haven't gotten an update for the game in forever... they might as well could have taken our money and ran away.

Also, pretty much no one is playing this game unless it's the Steam version. GOG owners are screwed either way; the GOG online community is pretty much nonexistent, at this point, and a game like Project Zomboid highly relies on online interactivity. Which you basically can't have on GOG, despite all of the plans of making Galaxy a "cross-play" client -- which would solve things, since you could just play with the thriving online Steam community.

This game is not "unfinished", its finished long ago. Its "rolling" with improvements on every release, thats what "in-dev" here means.

Typical "unfinished" game is when game does 95% of planned features and at least has no major bugs.
This is much worse than "rolling". Rolling goes far beyond "finished" state. For example, KSP is currently 1.3. - the 1.0 was "finished", but then they decided to add realistic heating effects, later did engine upgrade, then added satellite networking, and then even localization.

So, "finished and walkaway" concept is actually far worse than "rolling". There are no "reboots", no abandoned bugs, no new reboots (and new bugs with new reboot).

If you are not happy with this game, you have two options as I see:
- you can politely push the GOG until they make an exception for you and give you a positive balance.
- or you can freeze the version mentally "as-as", do not upgrade ever and see it as finished. In current state it only lacks NPCs, but those were always an option - you were supposed to survive alone anyway (or in multiplayer). So you gonna start the 24/7 or 12/7 server? You can get some folks join here. I don't see the reason of popularity decline with "released" state. I know many games which multiplayer died after release, and many which continued far after release on shoulders of volunteers.

I think this has to do with how people plan their time...

I'm not going to waste much time arguing semantics with you regarding the first part of your post; I'm not talking about "finished" games, I'm talking about finished, no quotation marks, no freaking ambiguity. Indie Stone has a set of goals, a "road map" like every developer has, and there are things they want to have in their game to reach version 1.0 -- a proper "gold" version for them to release. All I want them to do is to expedite this and release the game as soon as possible; it's been in Early Access long enough as it is. Period. Maybe that's just me, but from what I've seen all over the internet, it seems a lot more people share my opinion. GOG shouldn't even have accepted this game in their in-dev program, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, as for the multiplayer/online aspect of it, I think you're missing my point. I don't think releasing Project Zomboid would increase the people playing it multiplayer on GOG. That ship has sailed long ago. What I'm saying is that maybe at the time of the game's release on GOG there were still people in here somewhat interested in the possibilities of online via Galaxy and whatnot; some folks were still doing stress tests for GOG by playing Aliens vs Predator or even Double Dragon Trilogy. But release a game highly focused on multiplayer on GOG today?! Good luck with that. There is no GOG online community to speak of, period. I own *a lot* of (properly released, mind you) GOG games that support online play and, you know what? No one's playing them. Not Grim Dawn, not Titan Quest, not Torchlight II, not any of the NEO GEO games that support online play. I'm the only one showing up on Kingsway's GOG daily scoreboards, no one else seems to be playing that game and submitting their daily scores. It's not about having servers working 24/7 or whatever; that would account for absolutely nothing, if there's no one playing. I have my eyes on Absolver, for instance, but I'll probably just buy it on Steam because of the absolute lack of any GOG online community, and the game is mostly based on online interaction with other players -- players who won't probably even be there in the version GOG will sell. Who am I going to play Project Zomboid with if I only have the GOG version and I can't play with Steam players, who are the only ones still playing it online? Why open my own server if no one would come, since almost everyone on GOG, right now, seems to be completely opposed to all and any online component in their games? No, releasing Project Zomboid on GOG now -- or in the foreseeable future -- wouldn't help it get more online players, but maybe, just maybe, if they had released it some time ago, when people here were still somewhat excited about the possibilities of online, the game might have had taken off and even help push and maintain the online multiplayer aspect of GOG games. Now, though? Yeah... forget about it.

As for what you said about the options I have, right now, I guess you're right, at least about the first one you suggested; I guess I'll get in touch with GOG's Support and see if I can get the game removed from my account and replaced by some GOG Wallet funds or another game of equal value. Still, if I'm being completely honest with you, what I wanted GOG to do was to get my money from Indie Stone, because it's them I feel scammed by, not GOG, and it's from the extremely lazy devs that I feel I deserve a compensation from, not GOG. If GOG gives me some sort of refund, it's probably out of their own pockets, and freaking Indie Stone gets to keep my money, and I'm most definitely not OK with that.

Well I understand that what you are trying to say is that developers have a very "relaxed" update pace and I do agree on that, but please, PZ has been one of the better games (4 out of 5) I have purchased and played.

About multiplayer, you know that the reason drm-free and Steam versions are split is because of Steam support? Steam clients can play on drm-free server, but not otherwise.

I have once joined a pretty new drm-free server about 5 months ago, and know what - it was crowded with players just after two days, with over 20 playing - server outages included. So, yeah - open or rent the server, it will be fixed. You'd probably want to open a closed invitation-only server though, so only who posts in dedicated topic will have accounts opened with password sent over PM, a good club-based server, just to fix the issue of cheaters and jerks. Don't look at my answer as a challenge or provocation, look it as a solution. :)

Yeah, so I support you if you want money back due to expectation disappointment, but I myself have seen far worse wrecks here - and I had great time online (gog version) with PZ, so no regrets from my side...

That was written a few months ago, and I learned about Project Zomboid for the first time today. Are the results showing now, in a faster development pace?

The game is in GOG's Winter Sale right now, so I'm reading reviews to decide if I should buy or not, but the critical reviews are all complaints about the game not being finished. I did some looking around to see if The Indie Stone has a track record of successfully finishing games, and it appears Project Zomboid is your first game, so based on that alone, it appears the odds of success are very low from a fundamental business perspective (correct me if I'm wrong).

You have said you are "dedicated to delivering", but can you clarify if you mean to say you "will deliver"? With your business model, it's likely you will run out of money or be underfunded enough that development is stalled at such a slow rate of progress, eventually a competitor steals your best ideas and produces a competing product. Then, development of your product, if not outright ended, is reduced to "hobby time" because you can't earn sufficient income from it to work on it full time.

Can you tell me if your desire to deliver is backed by sufficient funding to give you confidence that you will actually deliver in, let's say, 1 to 2 years?

I wouldn't invest in this game. I've had it for a little more than three years and it has gone next to nowhere. When I purchased it, several features were 'almost done' and since then I've read multiple updates that say 'essentially done' or 'in the final stages' - my favorite is this article ( https://www.pcgamesn.com/project-zomboid/the-indie-stone-talk-the-final-march-towards-project-zomboid-10-vehicles-stealth-and-npcs ) from December 2014 that highlights the devs addressing a bunch of features that still aren't in the game now in 2018. Those same features are addressed as the devs are quoted wanting the game done in the first quarter of 2015. So here we are, three years after their quote with essentially none of those features.

These devs are a circle jerk, and they can apologize all they want but they might as well rename their company the milk truck cause that's all they're doing to the public at this point.

as I have said in other threads, the game as it stands now is enjoyable and fully playable, i have almost 400 hrs into it, the new stuff on the horizon will be just filler , more flavor and new stuff to do. Both me and partner have played this and its a great game as it stands. It is odd that its considered beta after so long when we have played it to death for yrs but I crack on and enjoy what they have. Yes, there are some bugs (with crafting for ex.) that can be frustrating.

I dont really see what the big 'release' will bring other than a few more stuff to do, some graphics etc. I think there is a frustration involved with it still being labeled beta when its already a finished game imo. I appreciate their open notes about dev but all those do really is set up an expectation level that only leads to disappointment from players. Just release the thing and have the cool stuff in the pipeline as free updates and be done with it. tho at this point it may be too late cuz of all the press buildup.

theres a heavy modding community but I havent done those with the exception of respawn and easy bags (cant remember their full names) but ive been tempted to see some of the more fun ones.

Thanks for the infomation. I decided to get Factorio instead. It's a funny coincidence they both are titled with mangled versions of real words, "factory" and "zombie". I decided Factorio would fill that niche for now. It has solid 100% positive reviews, and that's very impressive for a game that isn't finished. I read somewhere that over 1 million copies have sold, which is also impressive for a game that isn't finished. I will watch Project Zomboid for future developments, and I'll consider getting it when it seems the developers are closer to succeeding in implementing the features they have planned for Project Zomboid.

Another funny coincidence is that Factorio development is like a huge industrial complex, turning ideas into concrete results that are fed back into the system to build the game further. All the while PZ shambles along, not quite living and not quite dead, always searching people for sustenance and to join the horde. As the dev said: "Doing what we did ensured the survival of the game."

I was actually comparing these games with a friend today, and there is a tragic difference. There's a ton of content in PZ, but the pace is oddly relaxed. It's like a survival Harvest Moon in Zombieland. Comparable in that respect to Dwarf Fortress and UnReal World. After what needs taken care of gets taken care of, there's no real reason to ever leave your base in PZ, if you don't want to. In Factorio too, that's strictly speaking the case, but as the devs have admitted, the rocket launch in Factorio is totally slapped on to give a playthrough some structure. The tendency is to build, build, build and expand. Totally opposite in PZ, where you build in order to survive. After that, you can continue, but not at an exponential rate. It's about scavenging, trapping, hunting, disassembling and only then you can expand. A little bit at a time.

So the content is there, all kinds of things to do and build, but ultimately there's no use for it. The tragedy is built into the the game. It's a game about surviving, and ultimately failing at that. It says so every time you load the game.

To answer the original question, it's doubtful we'll live long enough to see it. There are a few cosmetic things + NPCs that need to be done before the game would be considered 1.0 as described in the FAQ at pzwiki.net. The NPCs are the only big missing piece. "A far reaching and in-depth NPC system with character relationships, personalities, and an emergent story engine that allows for diverse and emergent character based zombie survival story unique to every playthrough." This level of AI would be tough for a major studio to implement convincingly. It's a huge game design problem, on par with "meaningful moral choices".
I would rather give up hope and enjoy the game for what it is already. There's enough emergent narrative, rugged and survivalist, in this game already without any NPCs. I think the studio got excited and simply promised too much. They fucked up, but they've done the sensible thing and focused on other things instead.
If the NPCs show up some day at my base, I'll welcome them, but meanwhile I've got some things I want to do before I die.

P.S. I hope they get the beta with cars on GOG soonish.

I enjoyed reading that insightful comparison. It's very interesting how the nature of each game's genre is reflected in the developer's business style!