ARMA 3 on consoles

[Nicholas 5]

Nicholas

Battlefield 3 lead platform was on consoles after all. not the other way around.

they just added some extra shiny graphics for pc version ;)

But, if we go by your knowledge, just because the requirements say that it requires a quad-core PC, it must not be able to run on any other hardware that has less power than that. I know BF3 was developed for consoles first. But just because the requirements say it works on a quad-core, doesn't mean that it won't work on anything less than that. I was using it as an example to show how flawed your logic is.

[jblackrupert 14]

Nicholas

Battlefield 3 lead platform was on consoles after all. not the other way around.

they just added some extra shiny graphics for pc version ;)

but there is more to arma than just graphics. Ai calulation. Script calulation etc etc

DICE admitted they switched to PS3 as the lead midway through because of time, money and coder constraints.

BF1943 on PC got ditched because of it and the final BF2142 patch took 2 years to release because the sole programmer on that kept getting yanked

to work on a unknown project which turned out to be BF3.

[nuxil 2]

flawed. no dont think so. arma inst a pre-scripted coridor game.

you just have to face it. the thecholigy of xbox is like 3-4 generations behind pc's.

you can do all the optimazion you want but still its not good enough.

maybe next gen of consoles will handle it. but doubtfull.

ask your self this. do you want arma3 on console with max 500M viewdistance. max 20 ai's on map. 32 player? 10 vehicles ?..

even my pc have a hard time with arma. running a 6 core amd, with crossfire setup, ssd disks in raid0. so for arma3 on console. is just a big lol.

i think you are confusing xbox with “Kâ€'s Hw specs

Edited January 26, 2012 by nuxil

[Nicholas 5]

ask your self this. do you want arma3 on console with max 500M viewdistance. max 20 ai's on map. 32 player? 10 vehicles ?..

even my pc have a hard time with arma. running a 6 core amd, with crossfire setup, ssd disk in raid0. so for arma3 on console. is just a big lol.

I don't want ArmA on consoles at all. Ever. I don't even want to imagine it.

[Pyronick 21]

It could use the same engine. They could make the engine work, couldn't they? How did they get OFP: Elite to work with the original Xbox? Was it a completely different engine than Real Virtuality?

That's the problem. The older Real Virtuality 3 used in ArmA 2 could work, but Real Virtuality 4 can't as it is built around the Direct3D 10/11 framework and the Xbox360 GPU only has Direct3D 9.0c Level 3 designed architecture. This is not about quad-cores or anything.

Also the original Xbox used an off-the-shelf Intel x86 processor and off-the-shelf nVidia GeForce 3 Ti500 GPU, basically put it was an ordinary Windows PC, which was way more than Operation Flashpoint needed and almost enough to play ArmA - if it had Shader Model 2.0.

That's why I still think BIS should re-release Operation Flashpoint: Elite as ArmA: Elite and sell it on XBLA and PSN. There still is a high demand for oldskool OFP and there is a high demand for such games on the console.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Ya know, I could see ArmA 3 on a console... as long as the console was designed by Bohemia Interactive specifically to suit the game. :D

[Tonci87 163]

@Nicholas Its not possible.

Sure you could take a year and rip the RV Engine apart and release something on consoles but you wouldn´t be able to call it Arma anymore. It would be a totally different game with a totally different Engine. Therefore Arma 3 can´t be ported to consoles Period!

[bzbzb 1]

Battlefield 3 on PC and Console are radically different games because of the massive cuts

thats that had to be made on console, some of which pollute the PC version.

Simply put, no.

There were never really three development projects for BF3, only one. It is showing off Frostbite and how easy it makes multi platform deployments and developments.

The game seems mapped to its platform dynamically at build time. Its quite clever and exactly the sort of thing EA can use over and over in other games and it allows them to easily add other platforms as they come along - BF3 on the Wii U is not going to be a new game, although it will be a new Frostbite mapping.

It is the same raw material used over and over, obviously some variation occurs but lower quality textures do not consitute a different game, nor does having flags in different places on the same map and certainly typing 64 in a config file on a server is not a development project.

BF3 is simply a demonstration of a development system, it is entirely about showing off how practical Frostbite can be in lowering costs whilst covering all markets.

The main point being that BF3 ends up on different platforms at the touch of a button rather than paying people to transplant it.

DICE make back the cost of developing a system that allows that simplicity by selling it within EA for other games, like Need For Speed. BIS no doubt has the ability to make a similar system but no one to sell the system to in a way that could recoup the cost of developing it.

With ARMA3 I dont see that it would come down to a hardware, software or technical ability, should be possible in theory to put it on any platform. You simply use a lower lod, smaller draw distance etc. and map the engine to its local api. But is there a market for doing it, would it not just split your customers accross two platforms rather than gaining more. You would have to sell at least as many more copies on each additional platform as you would releasing on a single platform and you would have to know you could do that well in advance of actually doing it - not every company has £30-$50 million to buy customers with.

[pvt_ryan 10]

Battlefield 3 on PC and Console are radically different games because of the massive cuts

thats that had to be made on console, some of which pollute the PC version.

BF3 on PC is Battlefield 2.5

BF3 on console is Bad Company 3.

I think you're about right on the PC version, but BF3 does not even play as well as the BC series on console. A lot of BF fans hate BC, but it simply plays well on console.

[ylli122 1]

No, this is very bad idea. Xbox or PS3 is nowhere near as good as a PC as in hardware. Plus, how you gonna use shift-ctrl s?

[moizeus 1]

nope.avi

Not even PS4 or 720nes, could handle ARMA 3

My PC is good. But it cant handle ARMA 2 on highest specs with good fps

[BobcatBob 10]

In the vaugest sense possible could no one really see arma 3 at least RUNNING on an xbox 720 assuming the reports saying it uses DX11 and is "six times as powerful as the 360" are really true? (assuming it has the neccesary ram and other littler things) at the very least being capable of running Arma 2 Maxxed out is almost certain no?

[PuFu 4599]

Putting aside the hardware impediments:

what i really wonder is why would anyone have this game on a console. It would mean no mods, no scripting and at best limited mission editor (most likely based on some sort of templates).

I mean let's be serious, i were to be limited to SP and a few MP missions out of the box, no matter how complex the game is, i would get bored of it (just like with other games out there) pretty quickly...i am sure i am not the only one thinking this way

[BobcatBob 10]

Nothing says they have to remove scripting from the Basic 2D/3D ME there are physical keyboards you can buy for consoles that work just fine for typing in scripting commands. Mods COULD (though very very unlikely) be released via some vetting process that maybe BI would sgin off on and then MS but that would probably be like only ACE and PR (approved updates might mean you get a fair amount of versions behind the PC version) Even if there weren't any mods allowed I'd still buy it in a heartbeat, Edit: It wouldn't get old for me at all in case you were wondering

Edited January 28, 2012 by BobcatBob

[maddogx 13]

The only possible way I could even begin to imagine something like Arma3 on consoles is if they were able to use Arma3 content in their Carrier Command engine. However, even if that were possible (which isn't given) it would be a totally different game than the PC version, lacking many of the key features that make Arma what it is.

[BobcatBob 10]

So you mean the BASIC RV4 engine ITSELF cannot exist on a DX11 console hardware architecture? Like you could make a game of pac-man using the engine and even with the small environments, predetermined AI pathways and simple textures and all that it would not run?

[maddogx 13]

So you mean the BASIC RV4 engine ITSELF cannot exist on a DX11 console hardware architecture? Like you could make a game of pac-man using the engine and even with the small environments, predetermined AI pathways and simple textures and all that it would not run?

What DX11 console hardware? No such thing currently exists.

My meaning was that the RV engine is moving further and further away from consoles, and it seems unlikely that BI would go to the trouble to make a console compatible variant when they already have an engine that is multiplatform capable.

[BobcatBob 10]

I was talking about next gen xbox 720, which is said to have DX11, but i mean when you get down to it what would the engine itself have to change for a DX11 console? the Graphics/VD might be lower for the game but a change to the core engine? Im doubtfull such a concession would need to be made at all.

Edit: what I mean to day is.. what ISN"T strictly non-multiplat about the RV(4) engine?

[antoineflemming 14]

What DX11 console hardware? No such thing currently exists.

My meaning was that the RV engine is moving further and further away from consoles, and it seems unlikely that BI would go to the trouble to make a console compatible variant when they already have an engine that is multiplatform capable.

If RV's moving further and further away from consoles, and BIS would have to go through "trouble" to make a console-compatible variant, then how is the engine multiplatform capable? Or are you talking about an engine other than RV, like Unreal (used for Carrier Command, correct?)? Just wondering.

[maddogx 13]

I was talking about next gen xbox 720, which is said to have DX11, but i mean when you get down to it what would the engine itself have to change for a DX11 console? the Graphics/VD might be lower for the game but a change to the core engine? Im doubtfull such a concession would need to be made at all.

It all depends on the capabilities of the console, not much of which are known at this point. The XBox 720 release date is currently rumored to be some time toward the end of next year, so that particular discussion is rather academical.

[BobcatBob 10]

Ya I know;) I just must talk/speculate to pass the time for new conloses and new Arma! Good discussion anyways.

[maddogx 13]

If RV's moving further and further away from consoles, and BIS would have to go through "trouble" to make a console-compatible variant, then how is the engine multiplatform capable? Or are you talking about an engine other than RV, like Unreal (used for Carrier Command, correct?)? Just wondering.

Carrier Command using the Unreal engine? Where the hell did you hear that? :confused:

I'm 99.99% sure I've heard/read that it's an in-house developed engine. And yes, it is the one I was talking about regarding multiplatform compatibility.

[Nicholas 5]

Carrier Command using the Unreal engine? Where the hell did you hear that? :confused:

I'm 99.99% sure I've heard/read that it's an in-house developed engine. And yes, it is the one I was talking about regarding multiplatform compatibility.

I believe it may be using the same engine as Alpha Prime. But I'm not sure.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Putting aside the hardware impediments:

what i really wonder is why would anyone have this game on a console. It would mean no mods, no scripting and at best limited mission editor (most likely based on some sort of templates).

I mean let's be serious, i were to be limited to SP and a few MP missions out of the box, no matter how complex the game is, i would get bored of it (just like with other games out there) pretty quickly...i am sure i am not the only one thinking this way

@pufu Your not the only one thinking that way.

If you want the whole package you're just going to have to get a gaming PC, shit you can buy a prebuilt HP computer for cheap that has quadcore and graphics card good enough to play Arma 3 I was first playing Arma 2 with a damn ATi Radeon 3650 :eek: when i upgraded to a 9800gt i saw a big improvement, computers aren't that expensive only if you want absolute top of the line equipment.

Well the good news is that in the future the price of good gaming PC's will be even lower and more people will have capable PC's or tablets of some sort so the whole market will expand. Don't really think BIS would come out of the console market satisfied seeing their own franchise get watered down so much and seeing the console gamers leave the game after a month of play.

Who knows if Arma 3 gets all the good publicity it can get and shows off pretty shiny graphics maybe it will rake in more console players to buy the needed hardware to play the game on PC. If BIS did put Arma 3 onto consoles doesn't mean the average COD/BF player will go out and buy it.

Its silly how this thread is still even open. FPDR

[rye1 21]

Hai gai'z am jusht gunna pray arma on mah psxbox3-60...

*Inserts disc*

*Red ring*

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!