That last last statement is not what I'm talking about at all. The popularity of DayZ is bringing in good players, bad players, and different players. But I think the intimidation factor is something you have all wrong. All I read is about players who are afraid that BI is going to neglect the milsim elements of ArmA for fixes or development related to DayZ and its zombie survival game. They say that it brings in the wrong players, and inspires the wrong patches, and dominates all servers. I don't know how you can separate these statements from an intimidation- or at least an inconvenience- of DayZ's popularity.From what I've seen, most of the griping is because of some of the kinds of players that DayZ has attracted. The problem isn't jealousy over the fact that DayZ is popular, more popular, MAYBE, than ArmA. The problem is that you have newcoming, DayZ players saying that ArmA is crap without DayZ. That it is DayZ that has made ArmA good, and that it wasn't any good before. Basically, comments like that are an insult to BIS, to the amazing games that BIS has made, games that make DayZ possible, and it's an insult to the existing ArmA community, who enjoy ArmA's "boring, lame, not good" gameplay. That's what annoys me at least. The fact that it has attracted players who don't care at all about ArmA. Because, when you have players like that, and game article writers like that, who only see DayZ, then, when there are articles about ArmA3 that always bring up DayZ, it does take away attention from ArmA3. ArmA3 is slighted, it's "specialness" diminished, when articles mention DayZ without mentioning that ArmA2's realistic sandbox-oriented gameplay and extensive moddability is what makes DayZ possible. And I've seen a whole lot of articles about DayZ that don't highlight that.
The main issue is with DayZ players, not with the mod itself. One, that there are players who have the audacity to think that DayZ makes ArmA, not the other way around. Two, that the mod feeds off of a general obsession with zombies, and that this primarily is what makes DayZ popular; that, considering all of the zombie games that have been announced, just creates a kind of sense that DayZ is an opportunist mod that is trying cashing in on zombies because others are doing so.
That last one is kind of what I've seen people complain about, mostly on Youtube (because that's where the vocal debates are, mostly). Because, the sense is like DayZ is getting all this undue praise. The general animosity towards it is that DayZ is a good mod, but it's not like the best thing in gaming, but that seems to be the level of praise it's getting. And, what a lot of anti-DayZ people have said is that DayZ isnt the best thing for ArmA [I]just because it's popular[./I] For me, I recognize that DayZ is a good mod, a popular mod, but I don't think it deserves praise more than ArmA does. I'd say what DayZ is to other zombie-themed games and mods, ArmA is to the shooter genre as a whole, if not more so. But ArmA doesn't get that kind of praise. Why? Because it doesn't cash in on a popular fetish so to speak. I honestly haven't seen a whole lot of difference in ArmA2 from before DayZ came out to afterwards. I haven't seen anything revolutionary that has migrated from DayZ to ArmA2.
Popularity isn't necessarily a sign of ultimate success. Nor is popularity or fun an indicator of the direction ArmA should go in. Twitch shooters are also extremely successful, popular, and fun for a lot of people. Just given the example of DayZ servers that have turned into shoot-fests, I think it's clear that DayZ itself does not automatically engender a desire to play "more methodical[ly]". The rest of the industry doesn't have much to take notice of. The only thing it has to take notice of is that they need to always be doing something "different" to draw even more players than the many they already have. Yes, it's good that DayZ is designed around survival, and slow-paced, thought out gameplay. So is ArmA. But that doesn't mean you're forced to play it that way. Modern Warfare is designed to be a fast-paced, arcade shooter, but there are "hardcore, tactical" players who setup crouch-only, friendly fire, increased weapon damage, no hud servers.
Ultimately, I don't think you're right that people gripe over DayZ's popularity, or the number of DayZ players, as if non-DayZ players are jealous of or feel intimidated by DayZ players. If ACE2 were as popular as DayZ, and resulted in large numbers of sales for ArmA2, you wouldn't have community members being against the mod or the players it brought in. Why not? Because the ACE mod builds on the kind of game ArmA2 is. And it attracts players who recognize what ArmA is and what makes it unique, and who have a general sense that the mod they are playing is meant to make ArmA better (and you judge what's better by what kind of game ArmA is designed to be and what it's marketed as, a realistic, highly moddable military sandbox game). Where as there are DayZ players who don't share that view. And there's not a direct, apparent, obvious correlation between DayZ and improvement for ArmA. There's speculative hypotheticals of what DayZ could mean for ArmA. There's the renewed interest in releasing MP improvement patches, but that's spurred on by the renewed community focus on MP and that DayZ is an MP game, not by the kind of mod DayZ is. And I'm using the term ArmA to refer to the series as a whole, not ArmA1.