Arma 3 Community Alpha - Announcement!

[.kju 3245]

One can cancel preorders too, right?

[mr burns 132]

One can cancel preorders too, right?

I can aswell poke myself in the eye :rolleyes:

Never preordered something, not going to start with it.

Don´t even have a rig to play ArmA3, but would be nice to see if alpha runs on current spec, if it doesn´t or if i don´t get to try, tough! :p

[Guess Who 10]

I strongly disagree. Preorder as a prerequisite would exclude a lot of people who want to help but don't buy online.

Different idea: BIS will need a bug tracker for alpha and beta tests. Just like CIT at dev-heaven. What ever the bug tracker will be, make it the obstacle to get access to the test builds (just like Kju suggested), make the people register/go through the bug tracker. No one who is willing to help will be excluded that way.

[.kju 3245]

I am not for requirements. I will let everyone test who wants to.

[NeuroFunker 11]

pre order to test alpha? No thx, bai.. And to guy, who trying to explain me what alpha is, i know what it is, alpha is quite a early build of a game, with lots unimplemented features yet, engine enhancement, optimization and stuff.

But don't you think, if people would get an ALPHA, which plays smooth on most rigs (not only high end) looks good, and is interesting to play, this could make people pre-order/get full version when it's out, because they have had a really good experience with alpha version?

BIS could achieve a big goal by publishing a good playable alpha, or scare lots of people off, cause of huge amount of bugs and very bad performance.

[iratus 71]

Ironically enough, you're proving Krazikilla's point perfectly.

An alpha is not a demo. It is not what someone new to the series should be checking out to see if they "like the gameplay". If someone wants to try the game, they should wait for the actual demo. Making the alpha only available to pre-ordering customers makes perfect sense, because it keeps the people away who would grab the demo just to see what the game is like, find it is full of bugs and dismiss it out of hand. The people who pre-order a game in summer when it will be released in Q4 are mostly the ones who will be buying it regardless, because they know the Arma series. It makes sense that these are the people who should be testing an alpha version, because they have the most incentive to provide feedback.

Anyone who actually goes and pre-orders a game just to try an alpha build is, frankly, an idiot.

^This!

I'm not a huge fan of the preorder idea. But it would be a effective way to keep out all those who are mistaking a Alphatest for a demo (and I think this is important). There will be bugs, performance issues and all that bad stuff in the alpha because ironing out those problems is the purpose of an alphatest. It won't help someone to see if he/she "likes the gameplay" (at least not more than playing ArmAII Free).

But anyways after E3 we will see wich selection method (if any) BIS decides to use.

EDIT:

pre order to test alpha? No thx, bai.. And to guy, who trying to explain me what alpha is, i know what it is, alpha is quite a early build of a game, with lots unimplemented features yet, engine enhancement, optimization and stuff.

But don't you think, if people would get an ALPHA, which, this could make people pre-order/get full version when it's out, because they have had a really good experience with alpha version?

BIS could achieve a big goal by publishing a good playable alpha, or scare lots of people off, cause of huge amount of bugs and very bad performance.

That's exactly the problem. Chances are high the alpha will not "play smooth on most rigs, look good, and be interesting to play", because it is an early, not finished build still in alpha. (Well, maybe it will allready look good, depending on how much of the lightning and such is finished). It is not suited to give people a first impression of the final product.

If the alphatest is free for everyone many people marginally interested in the game will sign up. A alpha with the usual ammount of stuff not (yet) working will shy away many people and may result in rumors about another buggy Arma (even more given the reputation of ArmA-series being buggy).

Edited February 27, 2012 by Iratus

[metalcraze 290]

Making the alpha only available to pre-ordering customers makes perfect sense, because it keeps the people away who would grab the demo just to see what the game is like, find it is full of bugs and dismiss it out of hand.

So you want them to pay so they won't be able to dismiss the game out of hand when it will come out broken?

Newsflash - when people read "alpha version for test purproses" they understand it as "alpha version for test purposes".

The people who pre-order a game in summer when it will be released in Q4 are mostly the ones who will be buying it regardless, because they know the Arma series. It makes sense that these are the people who should be testing an alpha version, because they have the most incentive to provide feedback.

What about people who know ArmA series - e.g. buggy releases? So to provide a feedback before it's too late they (incl. me) will have to buy the game first and nobody can guarantee that BIS will fix anything since they can't even fix minor stuff like engine turned on in tanks when turret being turned for 3 years now? There is a wall in a barn that doesn't block AI view, there is a red brick building which you can destroy with 3 bullets from M4A1 - BIS never bothered to fix this.

Anyone who actually goes and pre-orders a game just to try an alpha build is, frankly, an idiot.

Isn't that what you are suggesting here? To try alpha one will have to go and preorder the game. So one is an idiot?

So to work as BIS QA I will have to pay BIS? Oh no sorry bro. Fat chance.

Did EA ask you to preorder BF3 when allowing you to take part in its horribly buggy beta? No it didn't. Look how many people dismissed it as a buggy crap. Instead people who liked what they saw in BF3 beta went on and preordered it.

If EA pulled something like what you suggest here you would be all over it crying about how evil it is.

Edited February 27, 2012 by metalcraze

[jonneymendoza 10]

Hi. im not too sure this has been answered but is this pre alpha version free to try or will it be like rfactor 2/pCars where yo gotta pay for it but when the game gets released, you wont have to pay any additional fees?

[NeuroFunker 11]

it will be released like demo as i could unrestand. Maybe they will do it as with Arma 2 Free, get your free key and activate the alpha.

[iratus 71]

So you want them to pay so they won't be able to dismiss the game out of hand when it will come out broken?

I guess he wants them to wait for the actual demo...

Hi. im not too sure this has been answered but is this pre alpha version free to try or will it be like rfactor 2/pCars where yo gotta pay for it but when the game gets released, you wont have to pay any additional fees?

We don't know yet. The Community Alpha will start after E3 (wich is 5. til 7. June). The exact details will be announced close to the start of the alpha.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Iratus

[kylania 568]

Anyone who actually goes and pre-orders a game just to try an alpha build is, frankly, an idiot.

Worked out pretty well for me and Minecraft and DCS A-10C. :) That said, I 110% agree with you and pre-ordering for the alpha.

So, long story short, DON'T make a pre-order requirement. It will actually hurt the success of the Alpha (the goal of which is to collect feedback).

Quoting from the future!

The TKOH betas did a lot to convince my friends that the game was crap because all they did was play the beginning beta, never upgraded it and never bought the game because that first version is all they knew about the game. This says a lot for my having obstinate and stupid friends, but it's also what's going to happen with an open Alpha for any product.

People with no experience will blatantly judge based on a superficial first impression. So... yeah. If Alpha is what a brand new person sees about ArmA3 they won't buy the game. But if Alpha is a 6 month sneak peak into what's coming for someone who's shown faith in BIS and already bought the game, win-win!

Edited February 27, 2012 by kylania

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, just because someone preorders the gamed, it doesn't that that particular person will necessarily provide sufficient feedback. They could have that same mindset of "alpha=demo". Why? they could just see the pre-order as buying the game early. Doesn't mean that they will like ArmA 3. The whole point of this seems to be only the people who absolutely love ArmA should provide feedback. And while that isn't a problem, the question you have to ask is "To what degree should a person love ArmA to preorder?". I mean, a person could preorder, test the game, even provide feedback, and by the time of release be trashing the game and dismissing it as buggy/not worth switching from ArmA2 to ArmA3. I mean, a part of almost every support for a pre-order requirement has been so that it will "stop people from playing the alpha and dismissing it as buggy, without feedback". So is it to make sure there are enough people actually providing feedback (I still say that number will NOT change, might even decrease, regardless of whether people preorder or not) or is it to curb or limit the number of negative comments regarding ArmA 3. Is this actually about getting proper feedback or about making sure that people aren't saying bad things about the game?

If it's genuinely about the Alpha getting proper feedback, then as I said, a pre-order requirement, or no pre-order requirement, will not change that, or might decrease the number of people providing feedback. The people who have the maturity to actually provide feedback WILL provide feedback, whether it's free or not. The people who aren't mature enough WON'T provide feedback whether they have to pay for it or not. However, there are people who don't like to buy things until they absolutely know what the final product is like. Many of those people ARE mature enough to know what an Alpha is. And making a pre-order requirement will turn those people off. So, then, you are actually reducing the number of people who are providing feedback, because you have now turned those people away. And, honestly, the more feedback you can get on a product, the better you can access what needs to be tweaked/added/changed, AND the more reflective the feedback is of your target market.

So, long story short, DON'T make a pre-order requirement. It will actually hurt the success of the Alpha (the goal of which is to collect feedback).

[metalcraze 290]

I guess he wants them to wait for the actual demo...

Then let them wait for the actual demo - what's the problem?

If you want to test and provide feedback - you should be able to without all this pay BIS to do QA's work bs.

"Evil" EA doesn't ask you to pay them to enjoy their bugs after all.

The TKOH betas did a lot to convince my friends that the game was crap because all they did was play the beginning beta, never upgraded it and never bought the game because that first version is all they knew about the game.

Dude you weren't able to play TKOH beta unless you bought the game. What are you talking about?

But if Alpha is a 6 month sneak peak into what's coming for someone who's shown faith in BIS and already bought the game, win-win!

Yes trusting blind fanboys who will pay for the alpha version to provide feedback is surely a win-win.

Except there won't be any feedback. People who have very legitimate doubts in BIS QA are the ones who will provide the actual feedback.

A-10C paid-for beta was useless. The game arrived horribly broken and it takes what? 8 gigs of post-release patches to fix it?

TKOH paid-for beta was also a major success. So major that people still complain that choppers don't behave real and BIS now has to redo the whole flight stats. Because only fanboys bought the game for beta initially.

Sad but true.

Now let's look at "anyone can test" policy of the horrible EA? Their games arrive well tested and don't require gigs of patches to make them work. Wonder why.

Edited February 27, 2012 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

Then let them wait for the actual demo - what's the problem?

If you want to test and provide feedback - you should be able to without all this pay BIS to do QA's work bs.

"Evil" EA doesn't ask you to pay them to enjoy their bugs after all.

If you intended to buy it anyway, where's the problem? As I understand it, it will be an entirely optional activity. Unless you have some reason to believe this will not be optional too.

Yes trusting blind fanboys who will pay for the alpha version to provide feedback is surely a win-win.

Terrible, terrible attitude. It used to be that you were negative about all games except ArmA, now it seems you are just negative. This thread represents great news, then Metalcraze comes in and complains about imaginary problems.

[iratus 71]

Well, just because someone preorders the gamed, it doesn't that that particular person will necessarily provide sufficient feedback.

That's right. But the preorder idea isn't about getting better feedback. It also isn't about "only the people who absolutely love ArmA should provide feedback". It's about excluding those people who would only participate at the alpha because they want an early "demo". Because, as said before, treating an alpha as a demo may lead to false assumptions (loads of bugs during alpha does not necessarily mean loads of bugs during the final build). And most of those people (the "demo-testers") would not provide much feedback anyways.

As I said before, I'm not a fan of the preorder idea. But I see what some people think would be an advantage of it.

Then let them wait for the actual demo - what's the problem?

I guess that's exactly what MadDocX suggested when he said:

If someone wants to try the game, they should wait for the actual demo.

:)

"Evil" EA doesn't ask you to pay them to enjoy their bugs after all.

Wasn't there a Beta for Battelfield 3 for those who preordered? Or could one get access to it without preordering? (On the other hand even if EA did it in the past, that doesn't make it any better :) )

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, Iratus, the only way you can judge that is to be able to determine just how many people will only treat it as a demo. How do you know how many, if any, will treat it as such? The risk with only fanboys testing the game is that they will overlook some things. Not using fanboy in a negative way, but that's that group who absolutely love ArmA. The fact is, there may be a whole lot MORE people who will give feedback than the number of people who just demo the Alpha. We just don't know. And, you really can't make assumptions on who will actually provide feedback and who won't. I say that BIS keeps the Alpha open, and depending on how much feedback they get vs how many downloads of the Alpha, THEN BIS decide whether to make the beta closed to preorders or not. Either that, or close the Alpha and open the beta.

I definitely see some advantage as well. If it was a pre-order requirement to test the Alpha, then yeah, I'd pre-order, because I really want to test it and see not only the confirmed features, but just how many suggested features are in there. And I want to provide feedback. But, if it isn't a pre-order requirement already in place, then I don't think BIS should go out of their way to make it so. If the plan is to make it available only to preorders (assuming we can pre-order after E3), then fine, I'll pre-order then. But, if the plan is currently to make it available to all, then I say don't change that plan. That's all.

By the way, Iratus, it's kinda refreshing to just have a discussion without it turning into an argument. Cuz I some on here would have probably made it into an argument by now, trying to make the other look stupid or something. So thanks :)

Edited February 27, 2012 by antoineflemming

[antoineflemming 14]

Sorry for the double post, website was taking a long time to load, so I clicked "post reply" twice... please delete.

Edited February 27, 2012 by antoineflemming
double post

[Craig_VG 20]

I think that the shouldn't be a preorder prerequisite for the Alpha and there should be one for the Beta.

Just like they did for Take on Helis

But if BIS decides to do it a different way, I won't really care. I'm going to be buying the game anyway, and when I make the purchase is irrelevant to me.

[maddogx 13]

So you want them to pay so they won't be able to dismiss the game out of hand when it will come out broken?

Newsflash - when people read "alpha version for test purproses" they understand it as "alpha version for test purposes".

Sorry, but you're pulling complete bullshit out of your arse.

Firstly, I'm suggesting that people who want to try the game and judge whether they want to play it should wait for the demo, not judge from an alpha build.

Secondly: No. Many (perhaps most) people have no clue what an alpha build is, or beta for that matter. I dare say the majority will simply coo something to the tune of "ooh, early access!", followed by "fuck this buggy shit, I'm OUT!".

I experienced this first hand a few years back, when a couple of mates and I were getting hyped up for a certain game set in the Quake universe, and I actually managed to get first myself, and then them, into the private beta through some connections (at the time I was one of the admins for the german section of a fan site). The first betas were buggy and performed like crap, but I stuck with it until it got better. They didn't. I ended up being the only one of us to buy the game. Pre-conceptions can be a bitch to get rid of once they have been formed, and BI has enough problems with those already.

What about people who know ArmA series - e.g. buggy releases? So to provide a feedback before it's too late they (incl. me) will have to buy the game first and nobody can guarantee that BIS will fix anything since they can't even fix minor stuff like engine turned on in tanks when turret being turned for 3 years now? There is a wall in a barn that doesn't block AI view, there is a red brick building which you can destroy with 3 bullets from M4A1 - BIS never bothered to fix this.

I don't see what this has to do with anything? You can advocate and push to have the age old bugs fixed right now, and if you so badly want to find out whether they got fixed before you buy the game... wait for the demo?

Isn't that what you are suggesting here? To try alpha one will have to go and preorder the game. So one is an idiot?

Way to twist my words. My actual meaning has already been explained to you, so I won't bother.

So to work as BIS QA I will have to pay BIS? Oh no sorry bro. Fat chance.

This is probably the first and only legitimate argument you have provided against restricting alpha testing to pre-orders. Yes, there will be people who want to provide legitimate QA without committing to a pre-order. Whether or not these people make up a significant percentage of BI's (potential) customer base is another question. I submit to you that this is a very small minority. The majority of the core fanbase will most likely pre-order the game as soon as the option becomes available.

Did EA ask you to preorder BF3 when allowing you to take part in its horribly buggy beta? No it didn't. Look how many people dismissed it as a buggy crap. Instead people who liked what they saw in BF3 beta went on and preordered it.

Irrelevant.

If EA pulled something like what you suggest here you would be all over it crying about how evil it is.

I have participated in more than enough alphas/betas where pre-ordering was a requisite.

But keep building your straw-men. It's fun to watch.

Edited February 27, 2012 by MadDogX

[Przemek_kondor 14]

The majority of the core fanbase will most likely pre-order the game as soon as the option becomes available.

Why so sure? Most of my friends (and me) bought Arma(s) w/o preordering it.

And how BIS would know if I preordered the game not via sprocket?

[edit]

Other thing (I don't know how many there are similar to me in this case, probably not too many): I would like to attend in Community Alpha because this is the best way to make its shape how I want (I was quite active CIT user). Beta and 1.0 realease it will be just bugfixing.

But on the other hand I'm not 100% sure if I'll be Arma3 player - if it won't be 2 times better than Arma2 (in my own rating) then I'm just out - don't see a point in upgrading (~500 Euro) very well working PC just to play 1 very good game.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Przemek_kondor

[metalcraze 290]

If you intended to buy it anyway, where's the problem? As I understand it, it will be an entirely optional activity. Unless you have some reason to believe this will not be optional too.

For all I know the game has a dumbed down interface, floating camera and whatever else is there to "appeal to the wider audience" of BF players. So alpha will give me a chance to check that out and whine before it's too late. Besides I buy BIS games after I'm sure they are playable and I don't want to pay for a chance to push a few boxes around and make tickets on dev-heaven if I don't like how they roll. I'd be doing QA for BIS for free as it is. And also AI. There are glaring issues BIS still didn't fix, AI still can't fight inside buildings but Ivan Buchta said they are able to in ArmA3. How will I know if to believe him without checking that out for myself seeing how in ArmA2 situation is still the same with houses?

I don't want to pay for ArmA2 with only PhysX added/redone mocap.

People blindly preordering games won't see bugs/broken gameplay either way. If someone rushes to preorder ArmA on day 1 it already means he thinks it's 100% perfect no matter what. You want alpha test to be full of people thinking the same?

Terrible, terrible attitude. It used to be that you were negative about all games except ArmA, now it seems you are just negative. This thread represents great news, then Metalcraze comes in and complains about imaginary problems.

I'm not negative about games. I'm negative about pay-to-alpha-test which people here suggest. And I'm negative about being treated as a cow to milk by other devs.

I'm also not one of those imaginary people who can't tell alpha from full game MadDog and Co are talking about and I want to test ArmA3 and provide feedback. But I won't pay for QA's job.

Wasn't there a Beta for Battelfield 3 for those who preordered? Or could one get access to it without preordering? (On the other hand even if EA did it in the past, that doesn't make it any better :) )

Beta for BF3 was freely accessible by anyone (provided he got an invite which EA gave away a lot - I had no trouble getting invites for many EA betas - and if you provide good feedback they send you invites without you even asking). I took part in it myself - and I didn't buy the game in the end because I didn't like how it was even worse than BF2.

Guys who preordered the game got access a few days earlier or so iirc.

Except that was beta, where it's too late to shape anything, only bugfixing. I bet all those 3.5 guys who preorder ArmA3 will totally help shape it up before it's too late.

In fact I understand what's going on in this thread. People couldn't care less who will test alpha (since "people not being able to tell alpha from full game" is total bs).

It's about "I want to feel special cuz I play the game and you don't".

Edited February 28, 2012 by metalcraze

[antoineflemming 14]

I'm kinda with metalcraze here. I understand what you are saying, MadDogX, but you can't make judgments or assumptions about most players based on "a couple of mates". And just because it's your preference to pre-order, doesn't mean that most of the core fanbase will pre-order. You also can't assume the number of people who don't know what an alpha is, and you can't prejudge or assume anyone's motives for trying the Alpha. Because you don't know everyone. How many people can you actually name, that you actually know personally, that have come in contact with ArmA? Whatever it is, compare that to the number of sales ArmA 2 made, or whatever games those people have at least tried. I guarantee you, the number of people you know falls way short of the number of sales. I'm not disregarding the validity of your claims, but just that a lot of it is based on assumption, and that's not the way to handle everything.

Now, yeah, metalcraze can't use BF3 as an example for ArmA 3's alpha and beta tests. But the thing is this, IF BIS wants to limit the number of people testing the game, then the thing for them to do is to send out keys. Make it based around keys, so then BIS controls who gets in. Make it limited to the community for all I care. Yeah, that way it's not open to more people, so it limits the feedback responses BIS will get (probably not that much, since it'll probably be mostly the community testing it anyway), but that option is a WHOLE lot better than making a pre-order requirement. That way, BIS, not the community, objectively decides who is allowed to test the Alpha and Beta, and who isn't allowed to test them. And then we avoid community biases for who should be allowed to test them.

[TheBIGLebowski 1]

Cant wait, so excited for this!

[maddogx 13]

IF BIS wants to limit the number of people testing the game, then the thing for them to do is to send out keys. Make it based around keys, so then BIS controls who gets in. Make it limited to the community for all I care. Yeah, that way it's not open to more people, so it limits the feedback responses BIS will get (probably not that much, since it'll probably be mostly the community testing it anyway), but that option is a WHOLE lot better than making a pre-order requirement. That way, BIS, not the community, objectively decides who is allowed to test the Alpha and Beta, and who isn't allowed to test them. And then we avoid community biases for who should be allowed to test them.

I believe that's the idea anyway, since they are calling it a "community alpha". If there is a better way to determine who is part of "the community" (which isn't really clearly defined in the first place) and give those people keys, then I'm all for it.

I am merely arguing in favour of the pre-order method, because I believe it's the only real way to allow anyone who is serious about helping BI shape up the game to contribute, the only pre-requisite being that you have enough faith that BI will get the game into a state that won't make you regret your decision come release. I stand by my opinion that A: most people who are willing to make a meaningful contribution in an alpha test (and not just mis-use it as an early access demo) are planning to buy the game anyway, and B: making an alpha publically accessable would be a horrendously bad idea. I realize that the experience I related above is purely anecdotal, but you don't have to take my word for it. Just check out the posts on any game forum where people have had access to an alpha or beta, public or not. I can only re-iterate: most people (who aren't in some way involved with IT) don't know what alpha/beta even means - for them it's just a label that is given to the software some dumbass developer decided to hand out to them early. In these cases, such early access to the game amounts to nothing more than an opportunity for lots of people to make a completely flawed first impression. Actually, the most recent example of this are the people posting in this very thread that they will use the alpha to test for bugs and performance, so they can decide if the game is worth buying 4-6 months down the road.

Where betas are concerned, this usually isn't quite so bad, because the game will ideally be in a state much closer to release-worthy, but I personally wouldn't let Joe Public touch alpha state software with a ten foot pole.

And how BIS would know if I preordered the game not via sprocket?

By working closely with the distributors. Last year I pre-ordered SWTOR on Amazon, for example, and still got my pre-order beta key on time. It's certainly not impossible.

But I say again, if there's a better way to determine who gets access to the alpha (without requiring a pre-order) I'm all for it anyway. The question I'm asking myself is: how do you objectively determine who is "part of the community"?

Edited February 28, 2012 by MadDogX

[l mandrake 9]

The human inclination for pointless and irrelevant argument never ceases to amaze me. :(

@BIS: brilliant decision to involve your awesome, devoted community in A3's development - this is the very definition of a 'win-win'.