Anyone else concerned about ARMA 3 launch September?

[Azzur33 1]

First of all, I decided to go with supporter edition, so I paid 75 €, not 25 like most of the rest. Secondly, what is enough ? That's easy to answer: Just as much as has been advertised when I spent money on the game. It said 40 weapons. Where are those ? It said 20 vehicles. They also showed screnshots labeled "in-game" of an F-35 and an Osprey which are apparently not so "in-game" anymore.

There seems to be more than 20 vehicles plus variants. What is missing? Oh yes, F-35 and Osprey! (What happened to them, or do we get them in some point, we don't know yet.)

Weapons include launchers, variants of assault rifles, pistols, smg's, static weapons, sniper rifles and so on. Then, what is missing? A SHOTGUN!

With the supporters edition you will have all the DLC's that will come. And the previous games too. And some other stuff.

After some time, after you got the campaign, additional stuff, improvements, all the DLC's, you can think again: "Is this enough for 75€".

The usual thing to do is then to delay the game release and not declare it finished even though it isn't and release it. I understand that BIS wants to remove the "Beta" label since it also means subsequent sales bring more money.

I do not get it. You would like to have less vehicles and weapons for about ... 6-12 months more? And then get the few weapons and vehicles that you feel are missing with the final content?

You can defend all of this as much as you want to, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of what was announced isn't in anymore, or will be delivered at a later point. We know that the campaign will come later, but what about those 40 weapons ? Will there be more ? No idea.

I defend What exactly? I think I was just realistic.

What really annoys me big time is some people defending this all as "good". No, it is not "good". It is understandable, but NOT GOOD. Nothing good will come out of it The little content it will have at launch is not good. They might add more later, but a lot is still missing .

This is something like "is the glass 3/4 full or 1/4 empty".

You could be bitter for what little you do not get, or be at least a bit happy for what a load of stuff you get, even if it's not everything you hoped.

This is not being overly positive and defending something that should not be defended. It is just a try to shift the "Oh man, this ruins everything, BIS you are just for our money!" -attitude towards "We are getting a pretty decent game, though I would like to see some more planes and a shotgun maybe." -attitude.

And perhaps to change the "You suck, I will never buy your games, you promise, but are uncapable to deliver!" -attitude to more like "BIS, can you maybe add the planes and that shotgun, and if not, why?".

Edited August 10, 2013 by Azzur33

[chortles 263]

Yeah, I guess the release of BF4, CoD:Ghosts and all the next-gen consoles is definitely a factor in the hurried release.

This has parallels to the Operation Flashpoint: Elite release -- that had mixed reviews, but what stands out in Maruk's 2011 blog "From Flashpoint to Arma" is that the main way BI's CEO characterized that release was "overshadowed by Xbox 360 release"; don't be surprised if this is a case of "NOT letting THAT happen again".

[nmdanny 22]

I don't like the launch situation, but if they promise to continue working on missing content(jets, shotguns, xm25 etc..) then I don't really have a problem because I just want to enjoy the content early as possible.

[Varanon 892]

After some time, after you got the campaign, additional stuff, improvements, all the DLC's, you can think again: "Is this enough for 75€".

It never ceases to amaze me what people bring up... Can you give me any source for "additional stuff", "improvements", and "all DLC" that reliably announces those ? I mean except for "We intent to" ? Don't bother there is no such thing. So where did you get that from ?

I do not get it. You would like to have less vehicles and weapons for about ... 6-12 months more? And then get the few weapons and vehicles that you feel are missing with the final content?

No, I would like to have what was announced. Is that so hard to get ?

I defend What exactly? I think I was just realistic.

It wasn't specifically aimed at you, but if you insist: Realistic ? You quote improvements and additional stuff out of thin air. Call that realistic ?

You could be bitter for what little you do not get, or be at least a bit happy for what a load of stuff you get, even if it's not everything you hoped.

This is not being overly positive and defending something that should not be defended. It is just a try to shift the "Oh man, this ruins everything, BIS you are just for our money!" -attitude towards "We are getting a pretty decent game, though I would like to see some more planes and a shotgun maybe." -attitude.

Tell me where I displayed such an attitude ? I said specifically that I do understand all the decisions are made from a business standpoint.

And perhaps to change the "You suck, I will never buy your games, you promise, but are uncapable to deliver!" -attitude to more like "BIS, can you maybe add the planes and that shotgun, and if not, why?".

I have every game BIS ever made in terms of Arma. I own several copies of OFP, several copies of Arma 1 and 2 and all DLC. I will continue to buy Arma DLC. I did not once say that BIS sucks or any such nonsense. That's just you wanting to find something to hate about my post.

And please, we're not talking about just one shotgun, we're talking about a whole string of things, but it seems you don't understand it even after the 100 or so pages of posts about the subject,

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

This has parallels to the Operation Flashpoint: Elite release -- that had mixed reviews, but what stands out in Maruk's 2011 blog "From Flashpoint to Arma" is that the main way BI's CEO characterized that release was "overshadowed by Xbox 360 release"; don't be surprised if this is a case of "NOT letting THAT happen again".

I'm not surprised, and as I said, I can perfectly understand that. In fact, I would bet that it's the main reason for the fixed release date, and righfully so. A lot of good games were overshadowed by other games that "stole" the spotlight.

[Masharra 10]

This is not being overly positive and defending something that should not be defended. It is just a try to shift the "Oh man, this ruins everything, BIS you are just for our money!" -attitude towards "We are getting a pretty decent game, though I would like to see some more planes and a shotgun maybe." -attitude.

I havent been stalking you but I dont think Ive seen you post anything close to that. Ive only seen "We are getting a pretty decent game" from you.

Now as I said I havent been stalking you so I may be mistaken.

[Azzur33 1]

Now as I said I havent been stalking you so I may be mistaken.

So why do you comment at all.

Here:

I guess we need a BIS dev to tell us what is going on with the jets. Is there going to be more than the one in the list?

One jet on release? More later? No more even later?

Sure there must be other planes ...or? DLC?

One of the most fun things to do in Arma(s) is flying. Choppers are cool of course. Fixed-wings, although less used in scenarios, are still essential for Arma to feel Arma. Cargo planes, small civilian planes, jets, ...they give so much possibilities to create missions.

I don't see any reason to be bitter or angry, although I was waiting for the variety of lovely planes to fly aroung Altis.

[EvEnLeaSe44 0]

I payed what, 30-35 bucks for this? So then... not concerned at all.

[Masharra 10]

So why do you comment at all.

Here:

Commenting. Forums. Its the cool thing to do. #swag Insert joke about livestream dlc eta 1hr

Though to add... I note your choice of the word "guess" Im pretty sure even Chortles used the word disappointed.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Masharra

[Azzur33 1]

It never ceases to amaze me what people bring up... Can you give me any source for "additional stuff", "improvements", and "all DLC" that reliably announces those ? I mean except for "We intent to" ? Don't bother there is no such thing. So where did you get that from ?

What?

"Additional Stuff" - Not Officially Confirmed, but hinted. Also quite possible.

"Improvements" - Officially Confirmed. Developement will continue after release.

"All DLC" - The Content of future DLC's Not Officially Confirmed (of course). Do you honestly think that there will not be any DLC's?

No need to bring up anything from nothing. And AGAIN... maybe in 2014 august perhaps, you can tell me if you think you didn't get enough for your 75€.

No, I would like to have what was announced. Is that so hard to get ?

As I said, plans may change for unexpected reasons.

It is hard to understand the Huge Disappointment you obviously feel right now.

It wasn't specifically aimed at you, but if you insist: Realistic ? You quote improvements and additional stuff out of thin air. Call that realistic ?

Additional stuff=realistic. DLC's=realistic. Improvements=realistic.

Why do you argue?

You can rage how much you ever want if those things somehow do not happen. I'll be raging too.

Tell me where I displayed such an attitude ? I said specifically that I do understand all the decisions are made from a business standpoint.

I wasn't specifically aimed at you.

I have every game BIS ever made in terms of Arma. I own several copies of OFP, several copies of Arma 1 and 2 and all DLC. I will continue to buy Arma DLC. I did not once say that BIS sucks or any such nonsense. That's just you wanting to find something to hate about my post.

It wasn't specifically aimed at you. "Wanting to find something to hate" ... what? I think You have that fixed "Oh yes, just another FANBOY again!" -attitude, which prevents you from seeing what I really have to say.

And please, we're not talking about just one shotgun, we're talking about a whole string of things, but it seems you don't understand it even after the 100 or so pages of posts about the subject

Yeah I've seen those "strings of things". Most of the stuff was closer to "hopes" than promises. Some just didn't work, or didn't work well.

And as I said, sometimes plans have to be changed.

[comp_uter15776 1]

As someone who's been following the extent of maritime simulation in Arma 3 since alpha, I can tell you that PhysX implementation is improved over Arma 2... just really, really in a "bits and pieces, over time" way.

Piecemeal is the word I think you're looking for? ;o

Yeah, I've seen some improvements and ArmA will only get better.

[Varanon 892]

... lots of stuff ...

As I said, it's all been said a hundred times. No need to reiterate. As I said several times before, I perfectly understand BIS's decision, I just can't understand how people want to sell it to me as good news. That's it. Make of it what you want, but don't try to sell every bit of thing that has been cut as "good news".

[Azzur33 1]

Commenting. Forums. Its the cool thing to do. #swag Insert joke about livestream dlc eta 1hr

Though to add... I note your choice of the word "guess" Im pretty sure even Chortles used the word disappointed.

Very funny.

Maybe you could have just asked have I posted "anything close to that".

But I Guess you didn't actually need that information.

You have never seen me using the word "disappointed".

Now I use it:

I was disappointed for the near-future setting. (Got used to it, now)

I was disappointed for the location, didn't find that very interesting. (Now I like it already)

I was disappointed for how the iranians looked like aliens (Now better, without the glasses)

I was disappointed when I tried Alpha the first time, putting 1 guy and 1 car on the map, and getting 20 fps. (Fixed, now 60+)

I was disappointed for the AI doing something silly (does that still, but less)

I Will be disappointed, really disappointed If Arma 3 will not have more fixed wing aircrafts. (Well, at least until All the planes ported from Arma 2 work well, and until the mods).

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:55 ----------

As I said, it's all been said a hundred times. No need to reiterate. As I said several times before, I perfectly understand BIS's decision, I just can't understand how people want to sell it to me as good news. That's it. Make of it what you want, but don't try to sell every bit of thing that has been cut as "good news".

"There will still be lots of stuff" = GOOD NEWS!

"There will be things missing that were promised" = BAD NEWS!

I have not said that:

"There will be thing missing that were promised" = GOOD NEWS!

Have I?

Edited August 10, 2013 by Azzur33

[dmarkwick 261]

Personally I'm not disappointed (as I don't really play campaign or any vanilla missions really): but abstractly I'm a little confused...

I always go by the assumption that the game design & paradigm is to strongly support whatever SP/campaign content there is. And have a strong modding ability to cater to all the other MP/personal related stuff. So to release a game without SP campaign seems a little odd to me. But, I'm sure there are aspects to all this I'm not privy to :)

[froggyluv 2136]

Not disappointed at all. For $33 I already have hundreds of hours of fun - 1 night of taking my family to movies is $50 so in that light -dollars for hours of entertainment is awesome. I'm also just not as concerned with needing tons of content, my VBS2 has 100 times the content yet I enjoy playing Arma 3 more. To me it doesn't matter how many cars, jets, helos me and my buds have to go conquer X city after an hour of planning if we get there and the AI are standing around dumbfounded *cough Arma1* -so I'm extremely happy the way the Devs are working on that daily this close to launch and after I expect. Rainbow 6 or Swat 4 didn't have gobs of content but it was the way the game played out that mattered to me.

[big_t 1]

It's ready to launch, good enough. Altis please.

[Masharra 10]

snip

I could have but I doubted that possibility enough so I took the chance. Though I did make sure to leave myself some wiggleroom with the sneaky usage of bolded words.

I havent been stalking you but I dont think Ive seen you post anything close to that. Ive only seen "We are getting a pretty decent game" from you.

Now as I said I havent been stalking you so I may be mistaken.

[Azzur33 1]

I could have but I doubted that possibility enough so I took the chance. Though I did make sure to leave myself some wiggleroom with the sneaky usage of bolded words.

Just 4 words would have been enough. But as you were wrong, still meaningless.

But ok, forums are for commenting. Now, enough of this meaninglessness.

My personal feeling about Arma 3, shortly: No, I'm not concerned.

[L3TUC3 32]

I'm not all that concerned with with arma 3 being improved after release as this has been the case in the past with all ofp and arma titles (the exception being acr -ugh-). I am concerned with the reviews however as a large chunk of content is absent and cannot be judged.

It's a pretty modern problem.

But honestly I don't think they will attract many new players through reviews. The old crowd already knows what to expect from a BIS release and probably are in the beta/prepurchased, the newish crowd is mostly interested in dayz or a derivative that's fun and the unknown crowd will probably be hauled in over time through word of mouth and sale prices as development continues. Scathing reviews will only hurt sales directly upon on release, but I'm sure A3 will haul in more money over time.

But the reliance of the devs upon the community as a magic bullet is a bit odd. They're assuming a whole lot there.

[kavoriken 1]

Them not waiting until at least the first part of the campaign is done still feels a little weird to me. Why don't they just continue to gradually release content for the beta, like jets, tanks or altis until then? I'm not concerned at all about the value of the game for me, because i know it will be worth the money i spent on it. But reviews are probably gonna be full of "Not sure if we can recommend the game in its current state" and that may turn off new players which would usually populate servers and make the game more enjoyable for us by just having more servers to play on. Let's face it, even with Steam Workshop there will be players who are either too lazy to look for user generated content or are just not willing to do so.

Gameplay wise the game is definately in a state where it can be released, no doubt about that. I just hope they know what they're doing regarding sales numbers.

[ric 1]

I couldn't disagree more with you. If they would have done their best . . . the game will be ready at release, par on content with ArmA 2 and including a fully working campaign from beginning. That's what I call doing your best. But that ain't gonna happen.

But well . . . happy you guys.

Please don't take it personal Katipo I'm just amazed that so many people are accepting this kind of business model which is becoming more and more common nowadays. Less content in full games and DLC's a go go . . .

Last DLC was ACR which is still broken BTW.

cheers

^^this....Iracing has to be the worst in this "business model" :( its sad really to see customer gouging becoming the norm :(

[spamurai 3]

Relatively speaking... No one buys an ArmA game for the Single-player campaign. Past campaigns have never really been very strong. More of a "nice to have" but, if it's a single player game you want to play, there have always been better and more polished examples from other developers that deserve more attention (and thus your money). From what I've seen so far, that will not change in ArmA 3 despite this version of ArmA 3 shaping up to have the best offering in terms of production and polish of any previous title.

Single player games are good at attracting attention and literally getting people "in the door" and playing your game. But once they are seated in front of your game, Single player modes have only a limited amount of power to keep a player in your game and playing. Look at some of the most highly rated single player games... all of them have excellent single player content. Half Life, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Skyrim and more. When these games were released they generated massive appeal and attracted a lot of attention. However, after the dust settles, after everyone has had their initial fill of what they offer and played out all of the single player content.. then the fanfare fades and the game slowly leaves the stage of the public eye.

Half Life 1 was king of it's day. It had an excellent single player story campaign; A well thought out script, good characters and great gameplay. However, do you really think that HL1 would have lasted nearly as long as it did and build up vALVE's Steam Empire based solely on what it offered out of the box? Just on the merits of it's excellent single player story campaign? Do you think the players who were continuing to play HL1 a year after it's release were still playing it for the single player content? If all HL1 had to offer was that excellent story mode, it would have been done and over with in 3 months. People would speak of how great it was and heap praise on vALVE, all while retiring it to the hall of fame of great games we played once upon a time.

and that would be that.

What about Skyrim? When it arrived it was like an atomic bolt of lightning touching down, the resulting thunderclap resonated through out the gamer world. Who didn't know what Skyrim was at that time? It's an offline only game and people still play it today, but why? Are they playing it for the content offering originally presented with it's release? Or are they still playing for another reason?

Single player has it's place, but if a game wants to keep a following for longer then a few months, it will need more then just a really good single player mode to achieve that. In the case of Half Life, it's long-winded run had everything to do with it's Multiplayer modes, but more importantly because vALVE released Team Fortress Classic as a content patch for the original game. TFC has nothing to do with the atmospheric theme of Black Mesa. It was just a Multiplayer total conversion mod to play using Half Life. On top of this, legendary mods like Counterstrike became available as immediate follow-ups. Without these boons to Half Life, I doubt it's appeal would have reached what it still is today. Soon after release, more players were playing HL1 for TFC and Counterstike then for "Half Life" itself.

Now look at Skyrim. It's has an epic offline content offering. In terms of Sandboxes I'd say it might surpass ArmA for the amount of immersible depth in all of it's details. Again though, as awesome and high quality as it is, that would have only taken Skyrim so far and yet people still play in its' sandbox as if the game was only a month old. Unlike Half Life, there is no online multiplayer mode in Skyrim. What it does have it's a very well established wellspring of End User generated content to draw on. Long after players have exhausted the original content offering, they've been continuing to add things to keep them interested in the game beyond what Bethesda could hope to accomplish. With out that, where would Skyrim be? It would be on the Hall of Fame shelf next to Half Life 1 collecting dust by now.

When ArmA 3 releases, we have to ask ourselves, what is ArmA going to bring to the table to both attract attention; get people to take a seat at our table and then what is going to keep them here playing the game. We all know that ArmA doesn't win races in the short term and it is rather slow to get it's momentum up to speed. Many of the reasons that made us want to really play ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 came later in the games life cycle. So, for an ArmA game, it's even more important to not only get them to give ArmA a chance, but also allow ArmA enough to time to really demonstrate what makes ArmA special as an alternative to it's peers. If there is one thing ArmA has struggled with over the years, it is this basic concept of the importance of making a good first impression and communicating the values that will keep players interested over the vital long term.

So on Sept 11th what is ArmA 3 bringing to the table? It won't have it's single player content that is the staple industry hook to draw in the initial wave of attention. It'll only have some "showcase" scenario's that have limited potential to fulfill that critical need for a good first impression. So that leaves Multiplayer and End User content. Quality Custom Content will take time to appear as it and Bohemia have never adequately shown proper initiative or leadership in establishing a benchmark for out of the box Multiplayer content. Any thing that is everything multiplayer has been because of End User Content. Which is very much a chicken and the egg paradox. You need content to attract players, you need players to make producing content worthwhile. Hence the importance of out of the box first impressions.

I joke that an ArmA game is like buying something from IKEA. You can get some neat stuff, but any and everything worthwhile comes with a "Some Assembly Required" footnote. The Media and Gamer public will react the same as they always have to a new ArmA game. They'll say nice things about it and how they can respect it for offering something different, and then most of them won't buy it or play it. In the end, come September, despite everything BIS will accomplish in evolving and making this edition the very best version of ArmA to date, they won't accomplish the goal of changing the impression people have of an ArmA game.

And I do mean, the very best edition yet, because Bohemia has done good things. I honestly believe the that evolution from Arma2:OA to ArmA 3 exceeds the step from ArmA 1 to ArmA 2 in quality of everything so far. However, despite all the positive changes, it looks like some things will remain very "ArmA" typical.

At the end of the day I think we have a good game in ArmA 3, but I feel as though we will not have maximized it's potential for the long term of ArmA 3. We will not be putting our best potential foot forward to get things off on the best possible start and with the most momentum.

So we won't have a Single Player Campaign. Not the end of the world, but then what will we have? What marquee will we display to attract people into playing ArmA? I am still surprised and rather disappointed that it appears that the lessons of Day-Z was never assimilated into the plans for ArmA 3. Day-Z being the greatest thing to ever happen to ArmA.... ever. I'm not talking about the Zombie Survival game mode, I'm talking about the phenomenon that put ArmA 2 on the front page, center stage of Gaming Media and had thousands of people talking about ArmA as if it is some new game no one has heard about before. More then 2 years after the release of Operation Arrowhead, ArmA is on the front page of Steam.

A game that is 3 years old, top the Steams best seller list for weeks. What other custom content can claim that? Not Domination Co-Op, not Warfare or ACE MOD... not withSIX, not Chammy's Sound Mod or Opticalsnares WarFX mod, not even ShackTac's videos.

Nope. A Zombie Survival Mod did that.

The Operation Arrowhead Wikipedia page specifically lists DayZ Mod as article 5 under it's table of contents... as if people consider it synonymous with ArmA 2: Operation Arrowhead. Day-Z is to ArmA as Team Fortress Classic was to Half Life 1. As a player who was pulling his hair out trying to get his friends and fellow community members to just look at ArmA 2... The Day-Z phenomenon was like mana from heaven. No longer was it me trying to peddle the game to them, now they were all asking me about how and where to get ArmA to play this Day-Z!

How many copies of ArmA 2:Combined Operations did BIS sell at $19.99 on steam when compared to it's original release at $49.99? I bet it was pretty ridiculous. It would have to be to sit at #1 on Steam with everyone talking about it. I would be surprised if the numbers were insignificant. Even if monetary profit wasn't impressive, the exposure and attention in the public spot light was priceless.

We're talking about a 3 year old game that everyone wants to play because it's on everyone's radar. What better conditions could you possibly ask for as a developer wanting to pitch an ArmA 3 showcase? "Oh by the way, we're glad you are enjoying Day-Z which is built with +80% of the assets used in ArmA 2: Operation Arrowhead and it's DLC. We thought you might want to know that we'll be releasing the next generation of ArmA next year."

How many people would buy ArmA 3 just to play Day-Z? Just as they did with ArmA 2:Combined Operations. You'd think that, as a developer, you would want to capture the excitement swirling around Day-Z and weave it into ArmA 3. What I wouldn't have expected was to spin it off as a stand alone using ArmA 2.5 technology and make no effort to include anything of it in ArmA 3. It doesn't even have to be a Zombie Survival mode, it just has to be something to serve as the epicenter of attention to drive interest in playing ArmA 3. It just happens that zombies appear to be a proven catalyst and Day-Z has instant brand recognition.

It just like a massive squandering of potential for marketing ArmA 3. No one would care about delaying the single-player campaign. I bet he majority of the people who played ArmA 2 (including Day-Z) has ever loaded it's single player campaign.

BIS has put a lot of effort into ArmA 3 and I think it shows, but as we approach September, I get the increasing feeling that they've gone and dropped the proverbial gold brick on their foot. Will it kill ArmA 3? Not likely. It'll still be a better release then ArmA has ever had and ArmA 3 will march onward like it typically does under the fanatical zeal of it's niche community until ArmA 4 arrives. I just sense a bit of disappointment at the thought of how things might have been. Maybe could still be... there is still time to start something.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Spamurai

[ShotgunSheamuS 1]

Sure, we are reading.

Thats Awesome =) Glad to know! And thank you for mentioning my question, though I think you got the wrong context, see next comment =)

Unsure what you mean, but surely Arma 3 is/will still be an evolving project.

What I meant was, that the features that dont make it into the final release, does that mean we wont be seeing it in the future? For example the mid range textures suggestion, or shooting from vehicles request is a better example. If launch release comes, and we dont see these features, does that mean we wont get it, or is there still a probability? The way I figure it, if it isn't planned to be used in SP, then it will most likely not see the light of day at all, because it could probably change how the SP game is played and might break a few things that werent intendid, and that is what concerns us I guess, hence why I am asking this. There are really great features and suggestions mentioned which I am sure you can work into the SP even if it's not quite planned. Like shooting from vehicles as the example, do a car chase with player in the back of a pick up being chased by a convoy on the way to a hot extraction, and you get to shoot the drivers or take out their tyres and watch how vehicles crash and burn =) there, you have a reason for that feature now lol.

Okay on a more serious note now, here's what someone said, and I guess this is an answer I am basically looking for, or at least will be happy with, because if these can be addressed OFFICIALLY by BI, then it could settle a lot of concerns like mine above:

Regarding the post-release features, I think BIS should divide them into 3 groups:

1. Features they know they will be able to deliver to Arma 3 post-release (without ETA..)

2. Features that may make it into the patches but without any promises

3. Features that definitely wont be in Arma 3

Because currently, almost everything belongs to 2nd category and it is causing a lot of, lets say heat in the community. I know that there are some things that even BIS is still not decided about, but come on, they know what they wont be able to deliver in Arma 3 and it should be defined.

This time around the campaign will be Single-Player only.

That is bummer, I can live with it though having an answer, im dissapointed, but I will get over it, I sure hope someone makes a good co-op campaign though =P

---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:32 ----------

A huge wall of text was here

That was an interesting speech. But I'm not sure I follow the second half of what you saying... Are you suggesting that Day-Z stand alone should be "merged" into ARMA3? Sort of, keep it as a mod, or release it as a form of DLC?? please elaborate more on what you suggesting here.

But for the rest, you are quite right, modding does keep ARMA alive! As it does with all other games that allow modding. The more closed other games become, the more the modding community starts to target the popular open games, and with ARMA 2 success (Thanks to DayZ) I am sure it attracted not only more players, but perhaps modders too.

I do think however, it would be really awesome if BI could release source code for ARMA, like Carmack does for Id tech and Epic and Crytek do. We could possibly see a lot of ARMA's problems probably get solved by other guys who are already trying their best to fix what they can within the limitations they have. Not only that, but even new features and mods could be properly implimented, instead of a hack job. And of course, total conversions could be made and licensed to be sold, while BI get the royalty fees. And then my personal desire, as with a handful of others, with source code out, we may even see a Linux port =P Seriously if ARMA goes over to Linux, I would literally ditch windows, in fact, it is the only reason I have a fancy gaming rig running windows, other games I play on console. And not only that, but I bet that could boost alot of sales too, since Linux gamers hardly get many new high end games, (with Valve ports now the exception) we would pay whatever if we could have something =)

Anyways... Time will tell, but I sure hope BI play their cards well... I personally dont think launch in the next month is worth it, I would say wait till next year, but send extra content through, SP campaigns, Altis, new weapons and vehicles etc when its done and ready for dev branch, and when BI feel they met their target releasing everything they originally planned, then they should label it as complete and launch. People will still write articles and talk about ARMA 3 with release of all new content. They dont need to officially launch an incomplete product for reviews and publicity, if that is why they are doing it. The game can still be purchased, and the release of Altis, a Jet, tanks and drones alone will feed the sales once it gets out.

[nettrucker 142]

Relatively speaking... No one buys an ArmA game for the Single-player campaign.

Please do not speak for others. When I first bought CWC back then . . . the first I did was playing some SP scenarios to get familiar with the game play next step was the campaign. what are the new players suppose to do apart from MP if there is no campaign? Not everyone is into MP BTW. The "no one buys an Arma game for the SP campaign" is your personal opinion. Please try to understand that there are more than one opinion on this subject.

[spamurai 3]

That was an interesting speech. But I'm not sure I follow the second half of what you saying... Are you suggesting that Day-Z stand alone should be "merged" into ARMA3? Sort of, keep it as a mod, or release it as a form of DLC?? please elaborate more on what you suggesting here.

I guess what I'm saying here is that a huge influx of players paid for ArmA 2:Combined Operations just to play Day-Z. They had otherwise ignored ArmA 2 for over three years, never having given any thought to the game. Many had no idea what to expect of ArmA, some may have had the wrong impression of why an ArmA game is different. So, Day-Z gave exposure ArmA would not have had otherwise.

Seeking to maximize attention for ArmA 3, imagine the attention that ArmA 3 would get if Day-Z was available in ArmA 3 at release. If we know how many people bought A2:OA for it, how many additional sales of A3 would we generate purely because of it.

Maybe we don't need Day-Z specifically. But ArmA could really use the essence of whatever sparked so much attention because of it. I think ArmA has always lacked that special something that simply showcases ArmA really well to potential players, right out of the box, rather then relying on end user content to maybe succeed at it. I muse over how difficult it is/was to get players interested in playing ArmA. I joke that there is no way to show someone that addictive "thing" that makes ArmA fun. If you were objective and honest, you have to admit that watching a lot of the published YouTube videos of others playing ArmA, makes ArmA appear understandingly boring to many potential players. They can't see what makes it fun. Even I can't see it in the videos, and I know exactly why the events of the video were posted. Not even watching good YouTube such as video of ShackTac games really does it well most of the time. I have to tell people that you won't see it in video, you have to play ArmA to get ArmA.

Day-Z is an anomaly, there are lots of viral video on YouTube of the crazy stuff that can happen playing Day-Z... things that players can obviously see are fun and it makes them want to play ArmA. They get it.

Once players has a foot in the door, once they are convinced to buy and install ArmA 3. Then you can expose them all of the rest of the game. Things they would've overlooked and passed by without knowing it. Even the Single Player Campaign when it's done.

Please do not speak for others. When I first bought CWC back then . . . the first I did was playing some SP scenarios to get familiar with the game play next step was the campaign. what are the new players suppose to do apart from MP if there is no campaign? Not everyone is into MP BTW. The "no one buys an Arma game for the SP campaign" is your personal opinion. Please try to understand that there are more than one opinion on this subject.

That was an overall generalized comment. I did not intend to imply zero people played the Single Player Campaign, just that very few people buy ArmA specifically for the single player campaign. Of course there are people who will never play multiplayer ArmA, and they choose to play in the sandbox and create their own missions or play ones made by others.

I apologize if the statement was too generalized for you.

It is my observation that many players buy ArmA for something other then the single player campaign, such as for the offline sandbox editor and content, but might play the campaign at some point as an aside. However, I also know many players that have been playing ArmA for years and have never played any of the single player campaigns at all.

I'm sure there are people who bought ArmA to play neither SP or MP... they just want to have an outlet to creatively express themselves through user generated content like weapon/vehicle models, skins, custom sounds and writing code for scripts and mods.

My personal opinion, which others have also expressed, is that the Story Campaign hasn't been the best showcase of reasons for why we think ArmA is a great game to play. Those reasons are elsewhere in the game.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Spamurai

[chortles 263]

I think the problem re: Arma videos vs. DayZ videos isn't necessary "the game concept" considering that both of them run on Arma-derived engines (see Rocket's comments defending RV3 as "ONLY on the Arma engine(s) could I make the DayZ concept work") so I believe that the difference comes down to:

1. Mission concepts/playthroughs that don't lend themselves well to "what gets people so into Arma" yet at the uploader's choice of what to show

2. Producers of said video who aren't editing the things well or at the very least aren't good at otherwise producing a video (or performing a playthrough) that showcases "what gets people into Arma".

Without ragging on ShackTac or any of its high-profile uploaders, I believe that the paucity of comparable-quality presentations by other uploaders for "the milsim stuff" does help the ShackTac videos stand out even more (on top of their existing positive merits) as driving newcomer interest, although they set a high bar.