Development strategy for ArmA 3 and beyond

[pd3 25]

I don't really know where else to put this, however I was wondering about the overall perspective on development for the upcoming game, as well as future iterations in the series.

While I don't really want to harp on the subject of other standalone derivative works.

Is there any indication that there will be a forthcoming strategy to both diversify and restrict the products that BI makes in the future?

I would like to think BI still fully supports the idea of ArmA as being friendly to end user modification, however I'll admit, the development of the DayZ standalone is prompting me to ask questions as to whether the devs at BI will start to classify gameplay features as being applicable or non-applicable to their games based on pre-defined utility.

I don't really care so much about whether other products are closed format, but whether the devs for the ArmA series will start saying: "Well we don't need these features in ArmA because this is a sim and nobody could possibly want to play ArmA that way".

I'm hoping as a market strategy that kind of pragmatism will be avoided.

I just don't want to see the ArmA series potentially pigeon-holed in order to encourage consumers to buy their other products.

[pettka 694]

This should explain everything :icon_twisted:

[pd3 25]

The post by royaltyinexile sounds encouraging.

As a secondary note, I would also hope BI will reconsider some of their strategies for expansion content for the game.

OA in general really opened up a lot of functional possibilities that has made ArmA2 what it is today.

I think the primary focus for expansion content should be adding features and other functional elements, ESPECIALLY ones that are atypical to the genre.

Unit and faction-based addons are cool, however the one thing the user community cannot do easily is generate completely new added features for the game.

I realize that budgetary, staff and time constraints really do have an impact on what you can really put into a retail release, however that really does open up a lot of opportunities to perhaps add other more unique features later on in the form of expansion content.

And to be quite honest, I think it would sell far better.

[-Coulum- 35]

Unit and faction-based addons are cool, however the one thing the user community cannot do easily is generate completely new added features for the game.

I agree. New features are better than new units. I only bought the DLCs because I like BIS. I would have much preferred to have had another operation arrowhead like standalone expansion. The vast array of mods makes dlc units not all that special.

Although dayz is really limiting modding capabilities, I'm pretty confident arma will continue to help modders be able to do more and more, and play the game however they want. Modding is a huge reason why many people like arma and I think it would be silly to purposely try to limit it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by -Coulum-

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I only bought the DLCs because I like BIS.

But BIS has its own indicators ... if DLCs are sold like cookies,then why not repeating the same stuff again and again ;)

[chortles 263]

I agree. New features are better than new units. I only bought the DLCs because I like BIS. I would have much preferred to have had another operation arrowhead like standalone expansion. The vast array of mods makes dlc units not all that special.

Although dayz is really limiting modding capabilities, I'm pretty confident arma will continue to help modders be able to do more and more, and play the game however they want. Modding is a huge reason why many people like arma and I think it would be silly to purposely try to limit it.

It should be added that Rocket has specifically endorsed modding for Arma 3. :p As for why things are different with DayZ? Besides wanting more control early on, it's outright using a MMO-style architecture model. Edited February 20, 2013 by Chortles