Development Blog & Reveals

[nodunit 397]

The backlash will be worse if BI has the gall to charge full price for the game without the campaign. It would be akin to Rockstar selling GTA without a campaign, it's been integral in the series for so long and no reason is going to justify it to the masses, no matter what it is.

[Variable 322]

If you're squinting your eyes and aren't looking directly at it the sun isn't really an issue in real life. I don't think I ever used the sun to any major advantage in Arma 2.

Tell that to the Egyptians and the Syrians who argued about the time the 73' war would start. The Egyptians attacked from the west, and the Syrians from the east, and each side wanted to get the advantage of the sun in the eyes of the Israeli defenders (the compromise was noonish, which gave none of them the advantage, but that's a different story)

[bad benson 1733]

seems like rocket's way of handling release dates is normal at BI now. "this game has to be released fall 2013 NO MATTER WHAT (even, if it's not ready)". this whole thing just seems unprofessional. at least do it like dayZ and delay the game and not its campaign *sigh*. this is just the worst way of handling things. delaying the game to get the campaign ready doesn't make this duke nukem forever. it would just be the least professional thing to do.

i mean everyone interested in a sandbox with hardly any content already has the game.

[dontknowhow 33]

Hi all! The information about the campaign in this article is confirmed, but not complete. We had hoped to openly discuss this with you via a blog next week, so you would not have to rely on a secondary source. Please wait for our blog in which we explain our motivation and more details about these plans.

The only thing I will say now: there will be a campaign for Arma 3 soon after initial release, and it will be FREE for everyone who has the game.

I wonder why all these pages, when it has been clearly said that the information is not complete, and a clearer answer is about to come.

They will explain their motivation next week. It would be fair to let them speak

[BigBoss 10]

I wonder why all these pages, when it has been clearly said that the information is not complete, and a clearer answer is about to come.

They will explain their motivation next week. It would be fair to let them speak

Because people are impatient, and these news are quite disappointing.

I think terms like Alpha, Beta, Full are pretty pointless when it comes to ArmA, the game will be basically in a beta stage until BiS decides to stop its support, which is years from now. I'm ok with this.

Unfortunately the press and those new to the series, aren't aware of this, so when the game goes Full, they will expect it to be a full game. But that won't be the case, since it will have no campaign, which will lead to bad PR. People can grudgingly accept if some of their favorite features don't make it into the full release, but a single player campaign should be given, it is essential, even if the community seemingly "doesn't care about SP".

Personally I would delay the full release and extend the Beta period, until the Campaign is ready.

[Ulysses 10]

Because people are impatient, and these news are quite disappointing.

I think terms like Alpha, Beta, Full are pretty pointless when it comes to ArmA, the game will be basically in a beta stage until BiS decides to stop its support, which is years from now. I'm ok with this.

Unfortunately the press and those new to the series, aren't aware of this, so when the game goes Full, they will expect it to be a full game. But that won't be the case, since it will have no campaign, which will lead to bad PR. People can grudgingly accept if some of their favorite features don't make it into the full release, but a single player campaign should be given, it is essential, even if the community seemingly "doesn't care about SP".

Personally I would delay the full release and extend the Beta period, until the Campaign is ready.

Well full game in terms of feature complete (as in they've mentioned you'll get in the run up to release) I'm sure most people expect as they should. Heh, see CM with OPFDR and RR :P

Totally bug free, well that's asking too much to be honest.

[mmaruda 20]

I was actually shocked by the assumed lack of a campaign on release. This brings me to a point where I am seriously concerned about Arma 3 when it hits the shelves. I understand the game has been delayed a looong time now (initial reports mentioned a release back in 2012, but then things happened). The problem here is that a lot of stuff that was promised gets cut out of the final game on release, to the point where it seems all we will get is the larger island and some tanks. A lot of features were promised and got axed - the helo FM, fully animated cockpits for vehicles and other minor things, but the game at this point could also use some small features that would make it feel complete. A more universal vaulting animation is in order, the action menu needs a revamp, you cannot switch weapons while on the move (there is a mod, now why hasn't anyone though about it in the first place?), bipods are not deployable, weapon animations could use some polish and then there is the AI which still need some serious work. I am not going to discuss stuff that was requested by the community ages ago, like a proper medic system or the ability to fire from a car. What am I trying to get at here? Well it's simple. The game is far from being complete.

The whole Alpha and Beta thing gave me an impression that BIS wants to release a polished and well working Arma game for the first time. They got the publicity thanks to DayZ and ShackTac and Arma finally became a recognized franchise in the mainstream PC gamerwerse. A lot of new people got attracted to it and the community seems to have grown significantly. So again, I felt like BIS is trying to do whatever it takes, to get good reviews on release and make it easy for the new crowd to enjoy the game instead of struggling with the interface and bugs. But axing the campaign? I get that not many people from the community actually enjoyed campaigns, as the real deal is online coop, but to a new person to the series, the first steps in a new game is the single-player campaign. From a purely mainstream point of view, this is a shot in the foot. I get that many people don't care since Operation Harvest Red sucked in general, but Arrowhead, PMC and BAF campaigns were awesome. So are they now counting on the Steam Workshop and user made missions to carry the game for all the Arma neophytes? I do not see that happening.

Case in point, Arma 3 can really fail on release, since I can imagine what the common opinion presented by reviewers will be that BIS is selling an incomplete game at full price, with little more content than in the Beta and the worst part will be, that the people who pre-ordered not only had earlier access, but paid less than those who will dish out the full price for another Beta.

To avoid any sort of misunderstandings here - my post is not a rant, I can wait for the campaign, but I would not want to see BIS get the smallest amount of hate for this, and some people will simply not give a damn about arguments that games like this are complicated and difficult to make etc. and they can't be blamed for that - it's a customer market after all.

Also, doing stuff like this, is BIS desperate or something? Cause it certainly feels that way.

[BigBoss 10]

Personally I don't mind the lack of campaign on release. I never finished the ArmA2 campaign, due to bugs, frame rate issues, problematic friendly AI, weak plot and general lack of fun. I'm not a big fan of the Armaverse either. I'm happy to get a bigger island and more units for me and my community to play with, also I want to see more features improved. Sure, I'm curious about the campaign, maybe this time it will be on par with the OFP and Resistance ones, but it isn't a priority for me. I just think this is a bad decision, PR wise. Reviewers and gamers will expect a campaign, because every game has one, except MP only ones, but ArmA3 isn't MP only.

is BIS desperate or something? Cause it certainly feels that way.

They seem more confused than desperate. I still think they are trying their best to release the greatest ArmA title so far, they just kind of drove themselves into a corner with this Alpha, Beta business. I think it took way too long for them to set their priorities straight. Looking at the dev branch, they only now started to work on issues, like the AI, which should have required attention immediately after the Alpha's release.

Edited August 2, 2013 by BigBoss

[mmaruda 20]

Not to mention the MP component is not a streamlined out-of-the box experience in Arma. Maybe they have been trying to do something about that recently and that is why all the balance discussions popped out, but it's a wild goose chase if you ask me.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Delaying the campaign should delay the full release really. It's like shooting in the leg or even head with decision to not include campaign at the release. I was expecting that when it's finally v1.0 day (no matter if Q4 because I was actually expecting for Q4 release) I can start to play the campaign. If the game isn't ready for the public then don't release it because reviews are made in the first days and not after couple of months. Also interesting to see how you're going to market this game because now you have to basically do it twice and after the first time some people probably don't look back. I'm just bit worried how this will turn. People can forgive delayed game but big delayed feature is other thing.

[chortles 263]

Re: the whole "axed features" thing, there was a distinct take from the creative director along the lines of "we should have never made those promises to begin with"...

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the unofficial reason for the dropping of the campaign was because there's underlying problems with Arma 3 that more development time-by-delaying won't solve.

[alx 20]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Give a man a campaign and he'll play for a few hours. Teach the AI how to work properly and you'll have campaigns for a lifetime.

My vote's for delayed campaign but better working AI.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Give a man a campaign and he'll play for a few hours. Teach the AI how to work properly and you'll have campaigns for a lifetime.

My vote's for delayed campaign but better working AI.

Or take your time and do both ;)

[chortles 263]

I've been thinking that "take your time" is no longer an allowed option within BI for Arma 3... and hasn't been for months on end now.

[alx 20]

Or take your time and do both ;)

There's always that, but I suspect the real world of business is a lot more complicated that most here would know. Wages are the main expense to a company, so extending a lot of people's work and/or preventing them from progressing to the next project will cut greatly into profits. At the end of the day, BIS is a company and will survive only if it makes sufficient profit. Hard decisions usually have to be made in any business.

[zooloo75 834]

I hope you guys at least have a message on Steam when this is "released" that says "This game is not finished and is lacking features - the game will be finished later".

This would warn those who are looking for a finished game and save you the troubles of people complaining about the game not being finished when they buy it.

[metalcraze 290]

My vote's for delayed campaign but better working AI.

Have you actually seen how horrible AI is in ArmA3? No?

So it's OK to release a game with AI in this state but not OK when it comes to a campaign?

And what you are saying is mission designers work on AI?

[chortles 263]

I hope you guys at least have a message on Steam when this is "released" that says "This game is not finished and is lacking features - the game will be finished later".

This would warn those who are looking for a finished game and save you the troubles of people complaining about the game not being finished when they buy it.

That's already the case now... the problem is that in practice, that "Steam Early Access" disclaimer would probably last for the life of every such BI game. :rolleyes:

[mobile_medic 43]

I'd just be happy if the engine wasn't crap and could actually take proper advantage of modern hardware. But, I've given up on hoping for that. Helicopter showcase still gets down into the teens, even after upgrading from a 580 to a 780 super-clocked. There is just so much I can't do with this game due to the years old performance issues. The biggest problem with this game in my view is the piss poor utilization/optimization.

I begin to wonder what they've been working on all this time... Game still built on the same years old, obsolete foundation that can't take advantage of more than 2 cores worth of processing power (and, not very efficiently, it would seem). Which causes systems far exceeding the recommended system specs sit idle while, even modest encounters cause fps to plummet. Once confirmed features gradually getting thinned out. AI is only just now beginning to receive what seems like some proper attention. And, now... the campaign won't even make it in time for release.

I hope the delay of the campaign at least means something significant for optimization of their engine (but, I highly doubt it at this point).

[dav 22]

Great news, delighted, editor & mods is where I'm at anyway and when the campaign does get released it will be a nice bonus to look forward to. In the meantime I hope the collision detection is fixed so if you can see it through the lens you can hit it, as opposed to bullets bouncing off invisible walls. I would like to see more variation in the weapon blast radius and overall "kick" off them. If immersion killers were quashed it will be worth the wait.

[zooloo75 834]

I'd just be happy if the engine wasn't crap and could actually take proper advantage of modern hardware. But, I've given up on hoping for that. Helicopter showcase still gets down into the teens, even after upgrading from a 580 to a 780 super-clocked. There is just so much I can't do with this game due to the years old performance issues. The biggest problem with this game in my view is the piss poor utilization/optimization.

I begin to wonder what they've been working on all this time... Game still built on the same years old, obsolete foundation that can't take advantage of more than 2 cores worth of processing power (and, not very efficiently, it would seem). Which causes systems far exceeding the recommended system specs sit idle while, even modest encounters cause fps to plummet. Once confirmed features gradually getting thinned out. AI is only just now beginning to receive what seems like some proper attention. And, now... the campaign won't even make it in time for release.

I hope the delay of the campaign at least means something significant for optimization of their engine (but, I highly doubt it at this point).

I wonder the same too - each major release in Alpha and Beta was just some more units. We don't want more units, we want these damn bugs fixed and the engine improved! Right now this just feels like a mod instead of a new game. I really thought ArmA3 was going to be THAT game that would have everything fixed with plenty of new features and an improved engine that utilized our hardware. It's getting hard to tolerate this from a company we all expect so much from.

Edited August 2, 2013 by zooloo75

[chortles 263]

Right now this just feels like a mod instead of a new game.

Funny thing is, that was what Arma 3's 2011 iteration felt like... clearly "plans changed" which is how we got the 2012 "look", but then plans changed yet again... and I wouldn't be surprised if they've had even more "plans changed" going on during this year too.

[zooloo75 834]

They might as well just release all these units and Altis now - no point in holding off, nothing is getting improved anyways. This game is practically finished content-wise based on all those vids from 2011 and on... The Alpha focused on infantry yet there was no major change or improvement from alpha to beta regarding them. Same with vehicles for Beta; no interiors for APC's and no interiors planned for tanks. Hell, even ArmA2's APC's had interiors. Right now we have a texture overlayed in front of our screens with a very narrow FOV... There are no plans for this to be improved on. So why hold off on releasing the rest of the game to us now? Apparently our words mean nothing in the development of ArmA3 and everything we say just gets replied with an excuse about a lack of resources (where are they going to then?).

So upon release there will be no game. You guys said you aren't aiming for simulation, you are aiming for a sandbox experience. Well you got the sandbox, but no game. Me personally, all I'm interested in is the sandbox portion of the game, but I can foresee the frustration that the newbies to the series will have (and that's what I feel your target audience is now instead of your loyal fans). When discussing axed features you guys had stuff already made but then took them out because you couldn't get it implemented properly. That sounds like you have no decent coders in your dev team and that probably explains why there are no new features being added into the game.

Edited August 2, 2013 by zooloo75

[bad benson 1733]

I begin to wonder what they've been working on all this time... Game still built on the same years old, obsolete foundation that can't take advantage of more than 2 cores worth of processing power (and, not very efficiently, it would seem). Which causes systems far exceeding the recommended system specs sit idle while, even modest encounters cause fps to plummet.

i even could've lived without that, if there was something that justifies the lack of it. and until recently i was kinda sure that the lack of core changes would mean more new stuff. the reality seems to be that we will get neither. it's more like what some people called a reskin with physX, underwater and stances. i know people like to go on about the smooth anims but that's just a reskin too. the transitions and the system behind all of it are still the same old shitty thing.

people love underwater and physX but no one wants to trade stuff for it, that the game needs more.

i also like how they tell the campaign thing to a magazine but then tell us here that we have to wait for the proper statement, which is supposed to clear things up (let's hope so). jesus christ! get your shit together! don't make basic PR harder than it is...

[zooloo75 834]

It seems like there is a lack of leadership in the dev team.