I guess, if it was up to me I would probably split this game into two development groups.
1. Single player open world progression, plenty of resources and world like the back half of Days Gone more story, cinematic and more of a Red Dead Redemption 1 feel as far as missions and cut scenes.
2. Single player survival open world (more akin to the first part of Days Gone), limited resources, requirement to have to use stealth more, remove some features/systems, limited progression stats/equipment or you only have temporary access to weapons for hordes areas, with potentially some co-op potential for a stand alone, multi-player potential as well PvP or even PvPvE.
I guess, if I were have to pick I would pick #2 for a sequel. I see nothing wrong with Days Gone the way they did it but it would seem nobody is going to be completely happy with what they have done. I mean if you go out on Reddit, people are talking about not liking to have to fill their gas up in their bike, and to me those are the things that make the game more interesting. I was scared shit-less running up on hordes or fear of running out of gas, by 15 hours in... that was a distant memory. The thing about "survival" is most "survival" type games really don't sell, I think there has to be some middle ground or a component i.e. mp/co-op horde modes, idk. I love this game because its all over the place, but I also feel like there was a little lost opportunity because of the same reason.
Saber did pitch a MP portion, but not sure that is exactly what I am talking about. More survival plus the mp and co-op. What people are liking the most... the back half, to me is more akin to a normal game... which is cool but at the same time I thought the beginning part of the game is its own thing completely.
A Days Gone multiplayer mode was suggested by Saber Interactive, but ultimately rejected by Sony Interactive Entertainment.
www.playstationlifestyle.net