How many would be against delaying the game even further?

[Tyl3r99 41]

they wont delay the game as they have deadlines given by their CEO

[ajsarge 10]

Next time you're playing Wasteland, I&A, Domination, or whatever else and something is broken, don't complain in chat and whine about it on the forums. Do some impromptu bug testing, try to figure out what this bug is and why it's happening, check the bug tracker for previous write-ups, and provide your research so that the Dev's don't have to waste time tracking the cause and can go straight to fixing it and continue creating more content for us to enjoy.

We are STILL playing in the early BETA versions of a game yet to be released. Just being given access to the ALPHA, allowed to give input and help the development team fix the game or add important features before release (because devs are not omnipotent and don't think of everything), and all for the low price of pre-ordering the game is HUGE. When you have the same size teams doing more in the same time they used to have for less money, it doesn't take much to know that you're getting a good deal already.

As long as BI keeps creating updates for us and making the game constantly better, I'd be happy with a release date of "When it's done."

[dm 9]

Next time you're playing Wasteland, I&A, Domination, or whatever else and something is broken

Bear in mind that the vast majority of those bugs are caused by the missions themselves (which are made by third parties and not BI). ;)

[Cannon_Fodder121 10]

I would rather not see them, or any company, rush a project to meet an arbitrary release date they set for themselves months ago. Since we have the Beta to play with having to wait a few more months isn't that difficult since we are getting our Arma 3 fix the whole time. With the modding community we can get any gear or vehicles we want so don't need to wait for BI. BI has one job, make the game they want to make and at the level of excellence we have become to expect. And if the wait is for something cool like ToH or DCS flight dynamics even better.

[das attorney 857]

Part of me (the fan in me) thinks that they could just delay and include all the things & polish all the content etc so the release build is totally awesome,

but then there's the things to think about like they're a business and may have investors to consider and deadlines to meet. I doubt some hedge fund (for example) who lent them money and expect it to be paid back on release date, will let BI delay so they can add some bipods into the game.

[chortles 263]

but then there's the things to think about like they're a business and may have investors to consider and deadlines to meet. I doubt some hedge fund (for example) who lent them money and expect it to be paid back on release date, will let BI delay so they can add some bipods into the game.

Pretty much all of this -- I for one don't actually feel that a delay would even help all that much anymore, and despite the sentiment that Cannon_Fodder121 expresses... I wouldn't be surprised if such a deadline was set and the project lead prioritization tasked specifically so that "stereotypical BI overambitiousness" (see Game 2) didn't overwhelm the devs again.

[chrisb 196]

OP

I think the way they wanted A3 to be originally, was much like A2 only better looking, more fluid movements etc, which I think they thought would be a good seller, but mostly within the customer base they have now, the fan base, therefore not a huge seller immediately.

However things changed from those early days i.e. BF3 (coming up bf4), dayZ mod, etc and the whole idea of A3 was reworked into more of a mainstream game, aimed towards larger sales, very reasonable thought for a business, I would do the same.

So the idea of delaying any further, would be a none starter really, they have their minds set on what its going to be, once that idea is realised, then it should be released. The only thing they have to be careful of now, is landing where it seems it might at the moment, in the middle ground (grey area), by trying to keep the baying wolves at hand happy, that being lots of us the loyal fan base, which in general their not, by the looks of the forum here and elsewhere.

They need to satisfy the casual player now, with this re-thought concept for the game. BI are not following the series, its changed, a sort of crossover game, not a great idea. It will take players across with it, those that are not too concerned for realism, it will leave those players that are concerned, behind. Some players it will drag across, those that simply can't stand the clunky A2, but they will moan forever that its not following the series enough.

My personal feeling is its mainstream enough to sell really well, the casual new player will moan about the controls and other things, but they will put up with them, the players dragged across will moan as said, but that’s nothing new for BI.

A3 looks good, it allows for a faster more fluid game-play, so it ticks the casual box. The series player that like the mil/sim side, includes myself, will not be so happy, probably stay with A2, but that’s life, nothing wrong with that.

The only annoying thing is, for me, it could have been great, a mil/sim game, that looked good with fluid movement, but why should they keep me and others that wanted the same happy. They don’t and haven’t, so there you go.

Edited July 22, 2013 by ChrisB

[ak1287 1]

OP

I think the way they wanted A3 to be originally, was much like A2 only better looking, more fluid movements etc, which I think they thought would be a good seller, but mostly within the customer base they have now, the fan base, therefore not a huge seller immediately.

However things changed from those early days i.e. BF3 (coming up bf4), dayZ mod, etc and the whole idea of A3 was reworked into more of a mainstream game, aimed towards larger sales, very reasonable thought for a business, I would do the same.

So the idea of delaying any further, would be a none starter really, they have their minds set on what its going to be, once that idea is realised, then it should be released. The only thing they have to be careful of now, is landing where it seems it might at the moment, in the middle ground (grey area), by trying to keep the baying wolves at hand happy, that being lots of us the loyal fan base, which in general their not, by the looks of the forum here and elsewhere.

They need to satisfy the casual player now, with this re-thought concept for the game. BI are not following the series, its changed, a sort of crossover game, not a great idea. It will take players across with it, those that are not too concerned for realism, it will leave those players that are concerned, behind. Some players it will drag across, those that simply can't stand the clunky A2, but they will moan forever that its not following the series enough.

My personal feeling is its mainstream enough to sell really well, the casual new player will moan about the controls and other things, but they will put up with them, the players dragged across will moan as said, but that’s nothing new for BI.

A3 looks good, it allows for a faster more fluid game-play, so it ticks the casual box. The series player that like the mil/sim side, includes myself, will not be so happy, probably stay with A2, but that’s life, nothing wrong with that.

The only annoying thing is, for me, it could have been great, a mil/sim game, that looked good with fluid movement, but why should they keep me and others that wanted the same happy. They don’t and haven’t, so there you go.

The condescension is strong with this one.

Seriously, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you kind of sound like a milsperger jerk (I'm not sure what the forum policy actually is on harsh language).

[Triggerman 10]

I'm having fun playing Beta, I wouldn't mind a delay but I'm kind of eager to see the campaign -- really enjoyed those for some reason in the past two ArmA games.

[dale0404 5]

Going by todays Sitrep, the release date is Q3 this year.

[aoshi 1]

I don't care much, arma 3 is a great game, and whatever they give me I will be pleased,they need more gold in, to make changes you know, every company work this way, if they launch the game get a good sale, maybe they will invest in content and bug correction (arma 2 lookslike still have a "beta")

[Khabbi 10]

I havent played the game yet , my new comp I orderd pretty much for A3 hasnt arrived yet

Ofc we want a really good vanilla A3 to come out , perfectly polished . But most games dont come out like that . Theres usualy updates and fixes that come out now and then .

We have MSO being able to be ported pretty much straight forward and people working on it . The same with ACRE and ACE , DayZ coming along .

What are the main issues ? the single player Campaign ? how many times are we going to play through that solo ? without coop ?

For those who are staying with A2 , is this the vanilla A2 we are talking about ? or A2 with updates , fixes and mods ? . Theres alot of hate for a game thats still in beta if you ask me

[royaltyinexile 175]

OP

I think the way they wanted A3 to be originally, was much like A2 only better looking, more fluid movements etc, which I think they thought would be a good seller, but mostly within the customer base they have now, the fan base, therefore not a huge seller immediately.

However things changed from those early days i.e. BF3 (coming up bf4), dayZ mod, etc and the whole idea of A3 was reworked into more of a mainstream game, aimed towards larger sales, very reasonable thought for a business, I would do the same.

This is not accurate. In fact, I would argue that the game now more closely represents A2's values than some of the original prototypes/design goals/themes in, e.g., 2011.

I hope that A3 is a relatively more stable product than A2, and I'd say that the goal is to convince more players to give Arma the time of day not by becoming a mainstream game, but rather by showing mainstream gamers the unique things that Arma has to offer - without annoying the hell out of them with bugs and manifestly archaic design.

We'd all love to have more time in development, but deadlines can be good for the soul as infinite development is infinitely damaging.

Best,

RiE

[dale0404 5]

This is not accurate. In fact, I would argue that the game now more closely represents A2's values than some of the original prototypes/design goals/themes in, e.g., 2011.

I hope that A3 is a relatively more stable product than A2, and I'd say that the goal is to convince more players to give Arma the time of day not by becoming a mainstream game, but rather by showing mainstream gamers the unique things that Arma has to offer - without annoying the hell out of them with bugs and manifestly archaic design.

We'd all love to have more time in development, but deadlines can be good for the soul as infinite development is infinitely damaging.

Best,

RiE

Look,

I think I can say this for the vast majority of people on these forums that we ALL want the best game possible that you guys can give us. Some people express this in ways that may annoy people etc but, other people may not actually go far enough in what they are trying to say. You will get naysayers / trolls on the these forums, I don't need to explain that to anyone.

As long as the game comes out in a playable state without any game stopping bugs then I for one will be happy. As I have said in another post, the game will never be perfect and we'll need patches once it is released, but that is Arma :)

[chrisb 196]

I hope that A3 is a relatively more stable product than A2, and I'd say that the goal is to convince more players to give Arma the time of day not by becoming a mainstream game, but rather by showing mainstream gamers the unique things that Arma has to offer - without annoying the hell out of them with bugs and manifestly archaic design..

If I was stood in front of your CEO, and it was he who were saying those words, it would not be me trying hard not to bite my tongue, or laugh, it would be him..

Thanks for confirming it though..;)

Edit: Understand though, that I know your all trying your hardest to create a good game, and you will, I appreciate that. It simply, to me anyway, has moved towards mainstream, not fully but that way. To do, as you say, appeal to more players. Nothing wrong with that, never said there was.

Edited July 23, 2013 by ChrisB

[marcai 1]

If I was stood in front of your CEO, and it was he who were saying those words, it would not be me trying hard not to bite my tongue, or laugh, it would be him..

Thanks for confirming it though..;)

Edit: Understand though, that I know your all trying your hardest to create a good game, and you will, I appreciate that. It simply, to me anyway, has moved towards mainstream, not fully but that way. To do, as you say, appeal to more players. Nothing wrong with that, never said there was.

For curiosity's sake.. how, exactly is it more mainstream? The gameplay is essentially A2 but with better animations, graphics and more water stuff. Is it the 'future' setting? I really don't quite get what would keep you on Arma 2 when A3 is released barring waiting for mods to be converted over. Also, why is said 'mainstream' target indicative of lower quality, rather than making the game less clunky?

Edited July 23, 2013 by Marcai

[chrisb 196]

For curiosity's sake.. how, exactly is it more mainstream? The gameplay is essentially A2 but with better animations, graphics and more water stuff. Is it the 'future' setting? I really don't quite get what would keep you on Arma 2 when A3 is released barring waiting for mods to be converted over. Also, why is said 'mainstream' target indicative of lower quality, rather than making the game less clunky?

A game is like any other product, if you want to appeal to a wider market place, or indeed a particular market place or customer type, you have to adapt the product, especially if the product has been around for some time and is perceived as being of a certain type.

There is only one way to do that, as in the answer he gave, they want to appeal to more mainstream players, well what type of games do mainstream players play ?

But they want to do that without making A3 mainstream.

Well there lies the problem, they can’t, without changing it and giving those players something that appeals to them. How do you do that ?

That’s why I said its moved towards mainstream, not fully, but towards. If you have played the series to any degree of realism in any of the last titles in the series, its clear to see its changed, quite a lot.

Also who said it’s a lower quality, if you can find where I said that, I would be very surprised, because I don't think I have ever said that.

Obviously the quality is better all round, but thats not what I’m talking about, at all.:confused:

[katipo66 94]

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.

Well, me being mainstream...

I dont know about poorly optimized, it runs great for me, and it ran a whole lot better than arma 2 on my old sys, this is on A2 maps like Cherno and Takistan.

This is the first game ive ever been involved in any Alpha release, and my first experience with steam... ive actually really enjoyed it, especially with the dev build, ive gotten more out of this Alpha than most games ive ever brought, thanks to the modding community and releases like AIA... and its great to be treated with new units as the build continues, its gonna be epic when theres full armies to use, shame they broke HAC though :mad:

as far as im concerned it can just stay in beta forever until they get sick of working on it

Edited July 24, 2013 by Katipo66

[sgt.sev3n 10]

i played the alpha and it was poorly optimized but the beta plays very nice for me and i wouldn´t mind if they would delay the game... better they delay it and make it better than release an unfinished, bugful game like arma 2

[connorwarman 60]

As far as I can see, ArmA 3 is shaping up quite well. Since the beta was released I have seen little to no bugs, or other problems. If the game continues to shape up as such, then I see no reason in delaying it.

[Sneakson 1]

As far as I can see, ArmA 3 is shaping up quite well. Since the beta was released I have seen little to no bugs, or other problems. If the game continues to shape up as such, then I see no reason in delaying it.

"Little to no bugs" :|

Overall level is very nice assuming they’re going to continue developing it at a steady rate however there are about ten critical bugs that really bring it down to a 7/10 level. Including AI bugs, control awkwardness, some of the worst graphical bugs like detail flickering and tessellation crawling if they haven’t repaired that one already as well as not ideal performance. If you just start the game up and play it normally chances are at least that you will be distracted by the controls acting up more than sometimes and the weak AI.

Hopefully content additions are not the only thing we’re going to see in the last couple of months of beta though.

Edit: Oh and the damage and injuries system. That's something people are going to notice like a thorn in their eyeballs.

[isemii 1]

I wouldn't mind, to be honest. If it took them until early next year to polish the game to the best state it could possibly be, that wouldn't bother me since I'd know that I'd be getting a fully-polished, smooth, playable experience right out of the box.

[Kemeros 1]

I understand there needs to be a date limit. Infinite development is discouraging because you never see the end. Postponing the end might still be a good idea if you think you can make the release better. Stuff like the action menu revamp should be done before release imho. It's a big source of frustration. I'm happy to see that you took notice of Dyslexi's video. :D

In any case, the game is already awesome, can't wait to see what's next. :)

[chortles 263]

I understand there needs to be a date limit. Infinite development is discouraging because you never see the end. Postponing the end might still be a good idea if you think you can make the release better.

Unfortunately I believe his statement implies that there's a (soft) limit on how many times one can miss date limits (soft in case of extreme circumstances) and BI already missed two of them. :(