Development Blog & Reveals

[OMAC 254]

In my opinion no one should buy ArmA for SP alone.

^ ^ This is the biggest pile of crap I have read on these forums in years.

[alx 20]

I have played since OFP, and now I think that part of this community has gone compelety insane.

And I'm not the only one who sees that.

Ridiculous definitely.

Now a suggestion for some:

Remove the game. Just let it go. Vote with your feet.

And why?:

It's not your project. This game obviously is not for you. Fanaticism is not healthy.

There is and will be other games and other developers. BI doesn't need you.

You don't appreciate other peoples work.

You put the bars sooo high and say "jump". And they do jump.

But if they drop the bar even once, they are incompetent, lazy arrogant ¤&%¤%s, who only care about Easy Money not willing to even try to Please you.

You could do it, of course, it's so simple. You'd never try it yourself though, why should you. You're the Holy Customer.

But yeah, every game forum is the same, and has the same kind of people.

+1 (and I've been here awhile also)

[metalcraze 290]

BI already admitted that AI wasn't prioritized before the Alpha, and that it was their mistake. And they didn't start only working on AI a month ago, they did work on it pretty good since the Alpha release.

If they did - the improvements would've been there before the last week or two.

And again, DayZ- whole different development team.

Is that some kind of an excuse for DayZ getting all the best gameplay stuff?

I don't understand why people are so upset over this, BIS is just delaying the SP, they're not cancelling it.

Maybe because BIS is releasing an unfinished buggy product that is missing a ton of promised content apart from campaign and it may never be added into the game?

Maybe because if 3 years weren't enough to finish a campaign - another month or two won't help it either and it will end up being a mess?

Edited August 3, 2013 by metalcraze

[chortles 263]

I think that the discussion on delaying campaign release (and all the disappointment/understanding bickering) might warrant a separate thread, given the amount of posts.

It's rather funny considering that just as with the legendary Steamworks thread, everyone was arguing (or making their "delay the game" pleas) over a fait accompli...

Maybe because if 3 years weren't enough to finish a campaign - another month or two won't help it either and it will end up being a mess?

Ironically this is actually why I don't mind the announced campaign delay at all.

Then again, I thought it was pretty clear that BI chose to chuck out whatever they had for a campaign after the Greek incident...

[-=seany=- 5]

Where is the post where BIS said that the SP content and campaign are canceled? Because given the sort of dumb reactions I am seeing in this thread, that is what a lot you are behaving like (never mind the usual Forum moaners who are just hijacking this discussion to post more unhelpful dissenting rubbish about how Arma3 is the worst BIS game ever and is like COD etc etc.. we heard you the first 50++ times...we get it, you don't like it)

We don't even know how long the campaign will be delayed for..hell, we don't even know when the game is going to be released.

Bis could, behind closed doors, now decide that they will hold the game release off until it can be released with the campaign...and none of you would even know. So what does it matter if they release the game earlier and then add it in later. Maybe they thought we would like to get the game a bit earlier instead of waiting. As I said, it's pointless to complain when we don't know when the release date is anyway...

[OstiasMoscas 10]

In my opinion no one should buy ArmA for SP alone.[/Quote]

^ ^ This is the biggest pile of crap I have read on these forums in years.

How so?

[chortles 263]

we heard you the first 50++ times...

This is what I think of the past thirty-odd pages, nothing like it to actually turn me against the protesters...

Although I will say this regarding the release date drama... no wonder Rocket is openly adamant about refusal to be committed to a release date in public.

[Varanon 892]

Because given the sort of dumb reactions I am seeing in this thread, that is what a lot you are behaving like (never mind the usual Forum moaners who are just hijacking this discussion to post more unhelpful dissenting rubbish about how Arma3 is the worst BIS game ever and is like COD etc etc.. we heard you the first 50++ times...we get it, you don't like it.

Oh, so it's not dumb to complain that you won't get what you paid for ? Well, I'm dumb then.

Besides, read again everything that was said, it's not only the missing campaign that might or might not come after release. It's all the other stuff that adds up to it.

It's also the usual "community to the rescue" bollocks and all the usual excuses that people bring up (not the devs, mind you, but "smart" people like you who are totally not dumb complaining about getting less for what they already paid for).

As I said, it's pointless to complain when we don't know when the release date is anyway...

Is it ? No matter what the release date, the campaign won't be in.

Again, all you people bring up are excuses.

[Alwarren 2767]

I don't understand why people are so upset over this, BIS is just delaying the SP, they're not cancelling it.

There isn't even a set release date, so you can consider the release of the game as extended beta, surely it's better than being stuck on Stratis for months.

As I said before, it isn't about having to wait a few days/weeks. I wouldn't even mind if they said the game needs to be delayed for a month. The point is that now, shortly before the game is supposed to be released, and integral part or the game is in such a state that it cannot be released, and still they are calling it a "final release".

[chortles 263]

Seems/sounds like NMDANNY believes that BI had an internal release date that was more specific than the public Q3 2013 release window, what may have been conceded to the reporter may have been that the campaign wasn't going to meet that internal release date, and had this story not come out then BI could have just shifted the date within that window with no one the wiser... remember, to date BI has always and only publicly offered quarterly release windows, never release dates, for Arma 3.

At minimum, it's a PR failure.

[Varanon 892]

This is what I think of the past thirty-odd pages, nothing like it to actually turn me against the protesters...

The point you both overlook is that for every one protesting, there's at least one that just comes up with a stupid excuse. And some come up with offensive excuses, calling everyone "dumb" that has a different opinion than hey have. I can life with anyones opinions, but at the very least have the decency to not insult those that have another opinion. I won't insult anyone because they think it's good or OK, but getting told I'm dumb just because I am angry and disappointed at the situation will get a reaction.

50+ page discussions are held alive by both parties, pro and con, and I think I did present at least some arguments in the past for why I am upset, something I have yet to see from "the other side".

[Alwarren 2767]

Seems/sounds like NMDANNY believes that BI had an internal release date that was more specific than the public Q3 2013 release window, and had this story not come out then BI could have just shifted the date within that window with no one the wiser... remember, to date BI has always and only publicly offered quarterly release windows, never release dates, for Arma 3.

That doesn't sound like it. From what the video said, there was no "if" attached. It said specifically that the campaign will not be in the final release, and it said nothing about the release being shifted backwards. There will be no campaign in the release version, it will come later.

At minimum, it's a PR failure.

A big PR failure, but seriously, with all the apologetic posts here (and ignoring the outright insulting ones), what I really don't get is how anybody can think indifferent or even positive about this issue. Delaying the GAME for a better, more polished start would be fine, releasing the game with an essential part cut for later delivery is positively NOT okay, no matter how you put it. Genuinely handling this would be to delay the game's delivery.

Again, I, and a few others, aren't upset about the fact that the campaign is delayed, or the game would be delayed. What I am upset about is that they call it finished, sell it full price, and only promise to deliver the missing content later. I am upset that in spite of being known for ages, critical issues are being addressed at this late a point, causing content to be cut/delayed from the game. What I am upset about it that we always have to find out these things by accident, including cut features like the 3D editor (which, as much as some people like to deny it, was an announced feature listed in the 2011 E3 presentation). Yes, plans change, yes, circumstances force people to make hard decisions, I know. But there is a fine line before this is overstretched.

The most annoying thing, however, is that genuine complaints (and for obvious reasons, a vague "we will deliver the campaign later" is enough reason to complain) are whined away but apologists and people that cannot argue their point without getting downright insulting.

[-=seany=- 5]

Oh, so it's not dumb to complain that you won't get what you paid for ? Well, I'm dumb then.

It hasn't been canceled...you will get what you paid for.

Besides, read again everything that was said, it's not only the missing campaign that might or might not come after release. It's all the other stuff that adds up to it.

Again, you are making it sound like the campaign may never be released...

Is it ? No matter what the release date, the campaign won't be in.

If they change the release date for A3 now to match the delayed campaign...you would never know...but I guess this would make you happy as the campaign would then be released on the same day as the game? I don't see the problem with delaying a part of the game rather than the whole game.

Even if I did care about the campaign being delayed...you know what I would do? I would wait until next week for an official statement before having a mental breakdown about what currently amounts to a bunch of hearsay and guessing.

Edited August 3, 2013 by -=seany=-

[foffy 58]

I don't understand why people are so upset over this, BIS is just delaying the SP, they're not cancelling it.

There isn't even a set release date, so you can consider the release of the game as extended beta, surely it's better than being stuck on Stratis for months.

We can, sure, but will reviewers? Will there be enough single player content to explain the depth of everything at launch so multiplayer will be easy to get into? I fear in a lot of ways it will be a trial by fire without a campaign to ease people into it all. This will make reviewers and players unfamiliar with the series lambast it right out of the gate.

I suppose my solution is pretty easy; I won't be touching the game until the campaign is out. The Beta is cool, but it seems a lot of the modding community is waiting for a more stable build with less under-the-hood changes before they start ramming out lots of new stuff. At the very least, gold guarantees a more fixed framework for the community. I do hope we see the campaign before we see ACE 3 though, because that would be a little embarrassing that a conversion launches before any official campaign does. :P

[NeuroFunker 11]

That doesn't sound like it. From what the video said, there was no "if" attached. It said specifically that the campaign will not be in the final release, and it said nothing about the release being shifted backwards. There will be no campaign in the release version, it will come later.

A big PR failure, but seriously, with all the apologetic posts here (and ignoring the outright insulting ones), what I really don't get is how anybody can think indifferent or even positive about this issue. Delaying the GAME for a better, more polished start would be fine, releasing the game with an essential part cut for later delivery is positively NOT okay, no matter how you put it. Genuinely handling this would be to delay the game's delivery.

Again, I, and a few others, aren't upset about the fact that the campaign is delayed, or the game would be delayed. What I am upset about is that they call it finished, sell it full price, and only promise to deliver the missing content later. I am upset that in spite of being known for ages, critical issues are being addressed at this late a point, causing content to be cut/delayed from the game. What I am upset about it that we always have to find out these things by accident, including cut features like the 3D editor (which, as much as some people like to deny it, was an announced feature listed in the 2011 E3 presentation). Yes, plans change, yes, circumstances force people to make hard decisions, I know. But there is a fine line before this is overstretched.

The most annoying thing, however, is that genuine complaints (and for obvious reasons, a vague "we will deliver the campaign later" is enough reason to complain) are whined away but apologists and people that cannot argue their point without getting downright insulting.

i don't there is anything worry about, since we are getting the cut content for f*ucking FREE later. Yes, thats not a good sign, if something like SP campaign will gona get cut. But i'm already happy alone, to have Altis and all the new toys to toy with. Missions like Altis Life, or Warfare alone, are for me enough to forget about SP campaign for good.

[noubernou 77]

In this thread: People that have never played a BIS campaign before.

Seriously, its not a big loss, the campaign usually can't be completed for at least 6 months after the release due to bugs anyways. :p

[zooloo75 834]

To those who don't understand why people are angry about this - it's not just because the campaign is delayed, it is because we all paid for this game thinking that we would get all or at least most of the features that were promised years ago only to find out that almost all of those features have been axed after we bought the Alpha; The delay of the campaign is another addition to the stack of disappointments in the development of ArmA3. Ever since the game was announced features just kept being removed with no hope of them being remade or put back in; the excuses just proved that the dev team lacks the capability to do anything. BIS pretty much stated that they are relying on the community to fix their game (what if the community decides to not do so?).

It's like they have no motivation or knowledge to work on this game and actually improve upon it. This is just a reskin that most of the community doesn't care for (this whole 20 years into the future nonsense) with the small engine improvements we want (PhysX, TrueSkys, Picture in Picture) - and even those features are poorly implemented...

The people that make excuses for the poor development of this game must not care about what they pay for or easily accept mediocrity.

[progamer 14]

We can, sure, but will reviewers? Will there be enough single player content to explain the depth of everything at launch so multiplayer will be easy to get into? I fear in a lot of ways it will be a trial by fire without a campaign to ease people into it all. This will make reviewers and players unfamiliar with the series lambast it right out of the gate.

I suppose my solution is pretty easy; I won't be touching the game until the campaign is out. The Beta is cool, but it seems a lot of the modding community is waiting for a more stable build with less under-the-hood changes before they start ramming out lots of new stuff. At the very least, gold guarantees a more fixed framework for the community. I do hope we see the campaign before we see ACE 3 though, because that would be a little embarrassing that a conversion launches before any official campaign does. :P

Is ACE even comming? Xeno left it.

But seriously guys we are not on the correct topic for this thread.

[metalcraze 290]

i don't there is anything worry about, since we are getting the cut content for f*ucking FREE later. Yes, thats not a good sign, if something like SP campaign will gona get cut. But i'm already happy alone, to have Altis and all the new toys to toy with. Missions like Altis Life, or Warfare alone, are for me enough to forget about SP campaign for good.

I'm glad for you that you can accept the butchered game that only remotely resembles ArmA as it is. However I don't think anybody from my "camp" asked you or other people who complain about us to support us. Move along, keep enjoying the game, let the people who have issue with what BIS is doing have issue with what BIS is doing.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I'm glad for you that you can accept the butchered game that only remotely resembles ArmA as it is. However I don't think anybody from my "camp" asked you or other people who complain about us to support us. Move along, keep enjoying the game, let the people who have issue with what BIS is doing have issue with what BIS is doing.

in short: leave us moan and beg and complain. Umm yeah, you know it all anyway better then BIS do. They should have hired you, and make you safe the game! Damn, what a shame! :)

[danny96 79]

Am I only one who doesn't really care when campaign will be? Better later than never so please stop complaining.

The only ones who will care about this will be people new to ArmA and reviewers - these will have problems with campaign delay. But actually isn't bad idea to cut the campaign in two parts - First one released with game release and second part after that delay.

[Dwarden 1125]

How much proof do you need? This has been reported countless times, there is a video a few pages back in this thread (which implies you do not follow the discussion here). Currently the AI is near blind at close range and cannot see you or properly react to you presence unless you are directly in front of them (like they have a fov of 10 or something). There have been significant improvements to the AI since Arma 2, but some new stuff got broken and is seriously affecting gameplay.

he claimed flat out non-sense about the AI fixes from OA not being in Arma 3, while i can tell you the code branches were merged ...

if there are regressions then i hope they reported in the Arma 3 Feedback tracker instead of complaining in this thread

in fact if you want make sure they fixed, post the url to these tickets in the AI discussion thread

there are 4 developers watching the discussion http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-Development-Branch-AI-Discussion

[Varanon 892]

In this thread: People that have never played a BIS campaign before.

I played almost all of them (never finished ACR and harvest Red). I actually LIKED Harvest Red (maybe I'm the only one) until they started the Warfare nonsense (it went down hill from there).

Seriously, its not a big loss, the campaign usually can't be completed for at least 6 months after the release due to bugs anyways.

Agreed about the bugs, HR was really horribly bugged and took several patches to be even playable (I remember dying in the first mission, on the carrier, and the mission end screen said "You died. How did you do that ?")

[metalcraze 290]

Am I only one who doesn't really care when campaign will be? Better later than never so please stop complaining.

The only ones who will care about this will be people new to ArmA and reviewers - these will have problems with campaign delay. But actually isn't bad idea to cut the campaign in two parts - First one released with game release and second part after that delay.

Except the cutting out of the campaign to release it who knows when is just another big event in the miscommunication trainwreck that has been going on for many months now.

The fact that we've learned about campaign being gone from release not from an official dev statement in official sources but from 3 seconds in 17 minutes long video in a german mag one month pre-release added to all other things we've learned like that is revolting. This isn't even the first time BIS does that.

This can be forgiven for a modder doing something in his free time for free. But when a professional company that gets paid for their products does it again and again - how can you let this slide? Honestly?

he claimed flat out non-sense about the AI fixes from OA not being in Arma 3, while i can tell you the code branches were merged ..,

if there are regressions then i hope they reported in the Arma 3 Feedback tracker instead of complaining in this thread

Which I did a week ago: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12029

It's exactly the same issue as ArmA2 1.62 had and that was fixed in 1.63 beta. I've also asked several times if the fix was merged but there has not been any dev's response. And I do not attempt to discuss it here. But this is what silence does and I'm more than happy to discuss it in AI thread.

Edited August 3, 2013 by metalcraze

[Varanon 892]

Am I only one who doesn't really care when campaign will be? Better later than never so please stop complaining.

The only ones who will care about this will be people new to ArmA and reviewers - these will have problems with campaign delay. But actually isn't bad idea to cut the campaign in two parts - First one released with game release and second part after that delay.

Geez, you still don't get it.

And reviewers, yeah, they will care about it. And give Arma 3 a bad review.