How many would be against delaying the game even further?

[acoustic 82]

I will first off start by saying that I have not played the Alpha since it first came out (don't care to ruin the experience). So this is basically based off what little I have seen in videos, and whats going around on the forums.

The game apparently is poorly optimized, and still has a good amount of bugs (both a little much in terms of a beta product). Arma III has had quite the dev experience, with everything that has went on. So, would it be out of the question to take the feedback from the Beta and push the release to 1st or 2nd quarter next year? This would give time for a decent amount of ACTUAL changes to the game to better give the Arma experience that everyone wants.

[SSgt Schirf 10]

I can see the game being delayed for a while to make room for new software and major testing. ArmA II still have bugs that they never fixed from its release. These bugs aren't anything major, but are still annoying as hell. Delaying the release wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to this game...

[Smurf 12]

In this regard, the community have no input at all, this is a business decision.. BI probably have a window alredy defined for release taking in consideration the infamous "sales", next-gen consoles releases, other tittles and more.

A3 is rather fine compared to previous releases including OA one. What worries me is the tons of content that we never saw and probably won't be in the Beta, Altis included, that may include minor problems (like the Ghosthawk light always on) or tanks and jets handling.

[froggyluv 2130]

... to better give the Arma experience that everyone wants.

Yeah but this guy wants more tank content, that guy wants more aerial features, this girl wants more wildlife, that girl wants better cqb, while her uncle wants better infantry AI, .... wants more fish and proper currents, ......optimized..........

They are a business with a set budget, timeframe, programmers etc... sorry but it is ridiculous to ask them to delay until xyz.

[pharoah 65]

I think the game is pretty good as is...obviously we need more content ie. Altis (for starters), new a/c, vehicles, etc etc. why delay it? I'm glad they're correcting the errors and stuff we find. I'd rather play ARMA3 as it is now than hold off for another year whilst they fix all the bugs, etc.

[Maslofski 10]

ive they take time until its good for release we could wait quite a while, but IMO, give them the time they want to make it as good as posible and im happy. but on the other hand i cant wait for new stuff that matters to me like fixed wing control settings.

[big_t 1]

It plays pretty good now, there will always be small bugs and you can't please everyone. It will never be fully ready.

It def needs more content (altis) because stratis seems to get boring very fast.

I say: "Release the hounds!" let the dogs out!

[Tyl3r99 41]

they will release when they are ready :)

---------- Post added at 06:53 ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 ----------

stratis seems to get boring very fast.

I say: "Release the hounds!" let the dogs out!

very true!!

[EliteSniper 10]

Hmm, I would think they would delay it till later November/early December due to the developers being arrested and didn't have enough time to work on the game and fix the bugs. All I hope is they add in planes before the delay so we can test those out.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I will first off start by saying that I have not played the Alpha since it first came out (don't care to ruin the experience). So this is basically based off what little I have seen in videos, and whats going around on the forums.

The game apparently is poorly optimized, and still has a good amount of bugs (both a little much in terms of a beta product). Arma III has had quite the dev experience, with everything that has went on. So, would it be out of the question to take the feedback from the Beta and push the release to 1st or 2nd quarter next year? This would give time for a decent amount of ACTUAL changes to the game to better give the Arma experience that everyone wants.

arma 3 is still in beta, and it has already less bugs and performance issues, then arma 2 did after release. What makes you claim, that arma 3 is poorly optimized? Did you play alpha version before? Also i fail to remember what bugs are in arma 3. Except some few here and there.

[chortles 263]

So, would it be out of the question to take the feedback from the Beta and push the release to 1st or 2nd quarter next year?

It's been out of the question ever since Maruk (as CEO of BI) decided this past winter that releasing in 2013 was important enough to warrant Steamworks.

Yeah but this guy wants more tank content, that guy wants more aerial features, this girl wants more wildlife, that girl wants better cqb, while her uncle wants better infantry AI, .... wants more fish and proper currents, ......optimized..........

I'm reminded of a dev (Vespa?) who basically said "we can't 'make all the things' or we'd be in development hell right along with Duke Nukem Forever".

In this regard, the community have no input at all, this is a business decision.. BI probably have a window alredy defined for release taking in consideration the infamous "sales", next-gen consoles releases, other tittles and more.

I'm reminded of something that Maruk mentioned in that "From Flashpoint to Arma" devblog... I'm guessing that no way does he feel like letting the next Xbox and next PlayStation steal Bohemia Interactive's thunder again (three words: Operation Flashpoint: Elite. Two more words: Xbox 360).

A3 is rather fine compared to previous releases including OA one. What worries me is the tons of content that we never saw and probably won't be in the Beta, Altis included, that may include minor problems (like the Ghosthawk light always on) or tanks and jets handling.

I recognize this concern, but admittedly this is why I'm hoping (beats expecting) that said "full release" content will, as suggested, possibly get a dev branch preview before the official launch.

[Polygon 11]

Less balancing (= mirroring different faction content by only changing the names and appearance of stuff),

more gameplay polishing (= carry weight limits, weapon handling, punishment for getting shot, less recoil, improved AI, psychical weapon interaction with other objects, etc.).

[chortles 263]

Who the hell knows whether they could get any of the latter done without breaking even more stuff in the process... that's why I said (in the "axed" features thread I believe) that the Arma 3 engine feels like a tripwire mine involving a bunch of tripwires tied together, where every feature is one of those tripwires...

[kamaradski 10]

Don't forget with steam distribution it will be a lot easier for them to fix stuff even after release....

[Polygon 11]

Who the hell knows whether they could get any of the latter done without breaking even more stuff in the process... that's why I said (in the "axed" features thread I believe) that the Arma 3 engine feels like a tripwire mine involving a bunch of tripwires tied together, where every feature is one of those tripwires...

You're referring to "What if ...?" scenarios, correct? I can tell you that the same applies to all features A3 dev-team already implemented in the game. Were they experimenting? Perhaps, but isn't it the time to un-fuck things up or at least have a back-up plan before drastically tweaking gameplay core aspects? The full release will occur in 2-3 months. Things doesn't seem very bright and lots of people that are currently silent about the issues will remain with A2CO.

You always make a proper back-up plan before attempting anything, unless you want to become famous of bad management. Does BIS want to? We'll see.

Let's hope our concerns won't be lost like tears, in rain (which still doesn't exist in A3!).

[Sneakson 1]

With only two months to go and no big changes over the last three months other than in content I guess ARMA3 will be released with some issues.

I just hope they can get the really big ones out: lower graphics settings being dull, outstanding aliasing of enemies, LOD craziness, unsmooth movement, unsmooth ai, low stamina and illogical damage system.

They seem to have a difficult game engine and not have thoroughly thought through the core game design elements like not being able to lean while prone and a lot of things that just seem wrong when you actually play it.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Sneakson

[qbert 10]

I honestly don't think delaying it would make any difference. Biggest difference might be that we don't see full game content come out, meaning that they would have to find the bugs internally for some things until release. Keep in mind that even after release, we could still see major things added/fixed. For instance, I saw a sitrep mention that opening doors on vehicles is something they intend to do, but want to prioritize it for a patch after release so they can work on bigger problems now. (Had something to do with ballistics and vehicle mesh)

Moral of the story being: They can fix/add (engine) features even after the game releases, the patch support will last a long long time.

[HorbeySpector 164]

The sooner the game comes out, the less features it will have, features where from they can make dlc, so the sooner I would have to pay again. I'd say delay it some more and give me some more features for the money I payed them allready. :)

[EliteSniper 10]

Anyways, I vote for a delay. Delay=more content and less broken stuff. I'm sure Arma 2 and mods for Arma 3 can satisfy us till December, or whenever they delay it to.

[chortles 263]

Considering how the release has been handled, I honestly doubt that pushing back "full release" would actually help anymore... the window for that seems like it's already closed.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

If the guys and girls at Bohemia all suddenly lost their minds and decided to come to me for advice and asked me if they should delay the game to improve it, I would say emphatically yes.

But within reason and with a defined set of achievable goals.

The only real type of reason to delay any release is, for example, if the game will be flawed/broken. In a case like this then I see no issue in pushing back a release date whatsoever.

But as an end user I'm not aware of any other constraints or issues with financials / timescales / contracts / logistics etc etc.

So, in a simplistic way I would say "delay if we need to"

In reality, well who knows?

Would I put up with a broken game on release? Yes. I wouldnt like it, but I'd put up with it if I knew a patch was enroute. I did with OFP and A2 and I would do again.

Rgds

LoK

[dale0404 5]

The Arma series will always need patching, that's the nature of the beast. I only hope that this release in no way resembles the release of Arma 2 in Germany...

[ProfTournesol 956]

I only hope that this release in no way resembles the release of Arma 2 in Germany...

I'm sure that's exactly what they want to avoid, at all (and some demanded features) costs.

[EwokVillage 1]

arma 3 is still in beta, and it has already less bugs and performance issues, then arma 2 did after release. What makes you claim, that arma 3 is poorly optimized? Did you play alpha version before? Also i fail to remember what bugs are in arma 3. Except some few here and there.

Agreed.

The major performance issues are the FPS lag when the server decides to re-load vehicles/objects on the map.

The game is still fine IMO (minus the constant rubberbanding of enemies, vehicles, etc). Pretty playable for a BETA

[Gera_CCT 12]

No way! Give me Altis already :)