Reality Check

[dale0404 5]

Yes that's the problem, it's stuck with it unfortunately and it could mean that if they don't develop a new one and just keep updating it a little bit each time they bring a new game out (while still keeping the long standing issues and they can't solve), then Arma will maybe eventually just die out as this engine surely won't be able to go on another decade.

Why not?

[NeuroFunker 11]

Yes that's the problem, it's stuck with it unfortunately and it could mean that if they don't develop a new one and just keep updating it a little bit each time they bring a new game out (while still keeping the long standing issues that they can't solve), then Arma will maybe eventually just die out as this engine surely won't be able to go on another decade.

were you working, as a game engnine coder anywhere at game industry by chance?

[clydefrog 3]

Why not?

Have fun playing Arma 5 getting 20fps on your 32 core 10Ghz CPU in 10 years time while getting stuck on rocks and aimbotted by AI in spaceships from the other side of the planet in 2023 (in game year 4096BC somewhere in the andromeda galaxy).

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

were you working, as a game engnine coder anywhere at game industry by chance?

Yes, I'm an agent from EA like all the other people on here who are unhappy with certain things about the game, remember?

Maybe i'm to much into "conspiracies therories". But this makes me thinke, all or most of the bitching people here, are activision and EA agents? Trying to put the dirt over BIS and arma 3 by all means. Arma 3, seems to bring a lot of attention, and them might lose a lot of their player base?

Edited September 7, 2013 by clydefrog

[ric 1]

Oh god, not this shit again. Protip: the core of the engines that run CoD, BF, and all the other "next gen" shit out there are just as old, if not older, than RV. We've done this to death, so lets not beat this dead horse any more plzkaythx mr armchair expert.

"age" in this instant does not refer to physical but to the architecture and its inability to properly utilize available hardware.

ran the same benchmark with 2 cores but running the 4.2 ghz OC

Frames

24607

Time (ms)

300000

Min

51

Max

153

Avg

82.023

vs with 4 cores everything else the same

Frames

40855

Time (ms)

300000

Min

70

Max

201

Avg

136.183

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

Why not?

Really?? if you are being serious please see next gen consoles for your answer.

were you working, as a game engnine coder anywhere at game industry by chance?

were you? if so give us the benefit of your expertise and explain how an engine who's performance is tied to one core and make it through another decade.

Edited September 7, 2013 by ric

[suprememodder 11]

reality is that thing which hits you in the forehead because you're too busy not paying attention and heaping praise like it's going out of style.

seriously, all i see is "bis, i want your baby" and its equivalents. it's ridiculous. collectively, we've paid them millions and continue to do so and will do so in the foreseeable future, and we deserve a quality product. it's not self entitlement, it's called getting what we paid for. oh and those who pay taxes, well you're paying double since the government contracts bis.

this might piss some hardcore fans off, but i'm going to say it anyway because it's the truth: bis has never gone above and beyond their obligation, it's always reskins this, port that, lazy animation, lazy programming, late 90s engine with modern tech stuck on it. maybe it's good every once in awhile we malcontents come out of the woodwork and say something so bis can get an earful of something other than "blah blah, you're gods, blah blah" to knock some sense into them. for that purpose, this thread is brilliant, end of story.

if bis comes out with female civilians, finishes up things like the wip scrim for the marksman class, i think i'll be satisfied. yes, it's gotten that bad. this is how low my expectations are at this point

[dmarkwick 261]

reality is that thing which hits you in the forehead because you're too busy not paying attention and heaping praise like it's going out of style.

seriously, all i see is "bis, i want your baby" and its equivalents. it's ridiculous. collectively, we've paid them millions and continue to do so and will do so in the foreseeable future, and we deserve a quality product. it's not self entitlement, it's called getting what we paid for. oh and those who pay taxes, well you're paying double since the government contracts bis.

this might piss some hardcore fans off, but i'm going to say it anyway because it's the truth: bis has never gone above and beyond their obligation, it's always reskins this, port that, lazy animation, lazy programming, late 90s engine with modern tech stuck on it. maybe it's good every once in awhile we malcontents come out of the woodwork and say something so bis can get an earful of something other than "blah blah, you're gods, blah blah" to knock some sense into them. for that purpose, this thread is brilliant, end of story.

if bis comes out with female civilians, finishes up things like the wip scrim for the marksman class, i think i'll be satisfied. yes, it's gotten that bad. this is how low my expectations are at this point

There really is so much wrong with this post that it's difficult to know where to begin. In fact, I'll just quote the entire thing and leave it at that. (Government contracting BIS therefore tax payers are paying twice? What sort of nonsense is that?)

[HKFlash 9]

(Government contracting BIS therefore tax payers are paying twice? What sort of nonsense is that?)

[dav 22]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Bis are banking on revenue from Arma 3 to invest ina new engine for Arma 4? Why don't we just support their efforts since there isn't any game out there that does what Arma does and give them the financing they need to build a fully utilised engine for 3 years time instead of making repetitive points that lead to nothing. This is the engine lets get over that hemisphere and move on.

[fujix 11]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Bis are banking on revenue from Arma 3 to invest ina new engine for Arma 4? Why don't we just support their efforts since there isn't any game out there that does what Arma does and give them the financing they need to build a fully utilised engine for 3 years time instead of making repetitive points that lead to nothing. This is the engine lets get over that hemisphere and move on.

Well if that was the case they could do an official statement. Im sure many would support them if they asked for the communities help. Or they could Kickstart.

[mistyronin 1181]

Having in mind all the costs they may have already had with A3 ( technical ones, real Altis attorneys, advertising the game, etc ). I'd say they are not precisely rich. Though obviously that's just my opinion ( I don't have their economic informs ).

[Tacti-Cool 10]

This made me laugh so hard, out of both hilarity and disappointment.

[clydefrog 3]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Bis are banking on revenue from Arma 3 to invest ina new engine for Arma 4? Why don't we just support their efforts since there isn't any game out there that does what Arma does and give them the financing they need to build a fully utilised engine for 3 years time instead of making repetitive points that lead to nothing. This is the engine lets get over that hemisphere and move on.

Have you ever considered the possibility that BIS have loads of revenue from Arma 2 sales and VBS that they could have invested in the development of Arma 3, but seemingly chose not to? Also you don't need to be asking people here to finance them, every person on this forum has already bought the game. Some people get the impression they are some small company struggling for money, I think they are maybe doing much better than those people think they are doing. I don't know that, it's just what I think. I also think that rather than invest that money into Arma 3 by employing more people to work on models, sound or whatever, they've decided not to thereby not losing so much of the money they have made from said sales. Anyways it's not up to me or anybody else here how BIS decides to spend their money, they have made it themselves and they have the right to do whatever they want with it.

Edited September 8, 2013 by clydefrog

[dav 22]

^^^^^ I know people have already financed them that have bought the game (massive face palm:yay:). The point is that perhaps Bis plan on utilising its Arma 3 income for the development of a new engine for Arma 4. Is that so hard to understand, are we clear on that or do I need to phone you up and explain it to you in greater detail.

If they had the Cod budget then there would of been a new engine by now, we're both being speculative however many are impatient.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Dav

[Vigil Vindex 64]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick, "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later", 1978

In honesty, I can say that the situation in regards to AI and MP performance in Arma 3 is the biggest let down for me. These two key areas are the ones that held me back from doing what I wanted in A2 and was hoping would be resolved so we can enjoy large scale MP vs AI war scenarios. From some of the talk about the now scrapped campaign, large scale, long term, AI war scenarios was supposed to be on the table for the campaign. Somehow this work never got prioritised and has been left until just recently before being realistically looked at and tackled. How this has managed to happen is beyond me, as these two issues are probably the most glaring and game breaking issues that have been long standing in the Arma series. Reading the threads about performance issues with AI, multi-core and 64bit support, poor gpu use, etc for Arma 3 is kind of depressing after expecting Arma 3 to be a "new" game. I will be playing with Arma 3 for along time to come, but I honestly think when we get to Arma 4, if these issues haven't been nailed down I will find it hard to buy into that situation again.

[dav 22]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick, "How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later", 1978

In honesty, I can say that the situation in regards to AI and MP performance in Arma 3 is the biggest let down for me. These two key areas are the ones that held me back from doing what I wanted in A2 and was hoping would be resolved so we can enjoy large scale MP vs AI war scenarios. From some of the talk about the now scrapped campaign, large scale, long term, AI war scenarios was supposed to be on the table for the campaign. Somehow this work never got prioritised and has been left until just recently before being realistically looked at and tackled. How this has managed to happen is beyond me, as these two issues are probably the most glaring and game breaking issues that have been long standing in the Arma series. Reading the threads about performance issues with AI, multi-core and 64bit support, poor gpu use, etc for Arma 3 is kind of depressing after expecting Arma 3 to be a "new" game. I will be playing with Arma 3 for along time to come, but I honestly think when we get to Arma 4, if these issues haven't been nailed down I will find it hard to buy into that situation again.

I would agree with you on those points.

[dayglow 2]

reality is that thing which hits you in the forehead because you're too busy not paying attention and heaping praise like it's going out of style.

seriously, all i see is "bis, i want your baby" and its equivalents. it's ridiculous. collectively, we've paid them millions and continue to do so and will do so in the foreseeable future, and we deserve a quality product. it's not self entitlement, it's called getting what we paid for. oh and those who pay taxes, well you're paying double since the government contracts bis.

this might piss some hardcore fans off, but i'm going to say it anyway because it's the truth: bis has never gone above and beyond their obligation, it's always reskins this, port that, lazy animation, lazy programming, late 90s engine with modern tech stuck on it. maybe it's good every once in awhile we malcontents come out of the woodwork and say something so bis can get an earful of something other than "blah blah, you're gods, blah blah" to knock some sense into them. for that purpose, this thread is brilliant, end of story.

if bis comes out with female civilians, finishes up things like the wip scrim for the marksman class, i think i'll be satisfied. yes, it's gotten that bad. this is how low my expectations are at this point

This is quite funny. As a gamer since the 80's I honestly haven't seen a company support and continuously develop their titles as much as BIS. Look back at OFP, Arma and Arma 2 and the continuous stream of development .exe's and patches that keep adding features years after release, many from suggestions from the community.

Im in the camp that we're very lucky that they as dedicated as they are.

[dav 22]

.

Im in the camp that we're very lucky that they as dedicated as they are.

I agree where would we be without Arma, my god probably playing GRFS!

[dogbadger 1]

^^^^^ I know people have already financed them that have bought the game (massive face palm:yay:). The point is that perhaps Bis plan on utilising its Arma 3 income for the development of a new engine for Arma 4. Is that so hard to understand, are we clear on that or do I need to phone you up and explain it to you in greater detail.

If they had the Cod budget then there would of been a new engine by now, we're both being speculative however many are impatient.

Your kidding- BI are minted, the money they pull in.

I don't get these arguments where companies like BI and similarly Tripwire for example are compared to Activsion/Ea and made out to be some skint bedroom enthusiasts on a shoestring scrimping away.

These are completely different company setups with totally different levels of access to sales revenue, control on budget, and overhead costs.

Putting engine arguments aside and getting back to the original discussions of game content - or lack therof - if BI were unable to release more assets it wouldn't be for the lack of modeling/texturing/coding talent in the milsim community, or the inability to pay for thier services.

But that might be where a comparison with activsion could give an answer - as doing so would directly impact on the decision maker's income.

[mistyronin 1181]

So, just to understand the point. Some people think that BI have lots of money. But they are so lazy that don't want to make more content?

1. If they are so rich, why are they still making games? ( they could just spend time racing with their ferraris )

2. If they had so many money, they could hire dozens of staff and make huge content, while they sit and watch. They will get best reviews, sell even more and be even more rich.

If they can't keep their promises, people don't buy that many copies and they get less money ( same applies with DLC, if people don't buy them... ). That's how capitalism works.

So maybe its that they are screwed up for whatever reasons, and are tryring their best to fix the situation. More than anything cuz their are the ones with more interests in stake. And they don't ask for donations or charities, because maybe they feel that they are in debt with the customers.

I have paid twice the price I paid for A3, for games that offered half or less ( If I have to sum only the money I had to expend cuz my wife is a Sims freak... More than 300€ for expansions and dlc ). So yeah, IMO Arma 3 has been cheap.

[dav 22]

^^ very cheap, 100'+ hours so far, at €25 cost price = Mega bargain

When you think about most games you get 30 hours for €50.00

No Dogbager I'm not kidding, the year on year overheads are somewhat astronomical to pay rent, bills wages etc.. There's plenty of gamers still unaware of Arma.

[clydefrog 3]

______

So, just to understand the point. Some people think that BI have lots of money. But they are so lazy that don't want to make more content?

1. If they are so rich, why are they still making games? ( they could just spend time racing with their ferraris )

Yes, because that's what companies do when they make loads of money, they stop doing what makes them loads of money :Oo:

2. If they had so many money, they could hire dozens of staff and make huge content, while they sit and watch. They will get best reviews, sell even more and be even more rich.

There's no guarantee "They will get best reviews, sell even more and be even more rich". Maybe they think it's in their best interests to try to keep a lot of the money they make rather than reinvest it into another game that is not guaranteed to be successful.

If they can't keep their promises, people don't buy that many copies and they get less money ( same applies with DLC, if people don't buy them... ). That's how capitalism works.

I don't think they really made any promises, but I'd imagine at present most people who are interested in arma 3 have probably already bought it in the alpha/beta phases.

So maybe its that they are screwed up for whatever reasons, and are tryring their best to fix the situation. More than anything cuz their are the ones with more interests in stake. And they don't ask for donations or charities, because maybe they feel that they are in debt with the customers.

I have paid twice the price I paid for A3, for games that offered half or less ( If I have to sum only the money I had to expend cuz my wife is a Sims freak... More than 300€ for expansions and dlc ). So yeah, IMO Arma 3 has been cheap.

I personally have no issue with how much I paid for the game, I've already spent about 300 hours in the editor and I don't feel ripped off due to its current state, just disappointed with it.

Edited September 8, 2013 by clydefrog

[Binkowski 26]

There is so much win in the OP I can't handle it. You sir have stated what many people have felt in the community. Thank you.

[mistyronin 1181]

I personally have no issue with how much I paid for the game, I've already spent about 400 hours in the editor and I don't feel ripped off due to its current state, just disappointed with it.

I'm also a bit disappointed, but I don't blame anyone for not investing or for being lazy. IMO they have had a bad project management ( already stated in their sitreps ) and some other external issues ( like the real Altis ).

In fact I think they had released the Alpha and the Beta, to have some money to pay their debts and keep up with the project. If they are just trying to make money wouldn't it had been more wise to wait until the release and sell it for 50-60 bucks?

As I said, IMO they are screwed up. But instead of givin' up they are trying to fix their mistakes ( cuz if not would be themselves the ones that will lose more ).

[dogbadger 1]

1. If they are so rich, why are they still making games? ( they could just spend time racing with their ferraris )

From the looks of things so far it's tempting to say you may well have hit the nail on the head with the Ferraris there.

2. If they had so many money, they could hire dozens of staff and make huge content, while they sit and watch. They will get best reviews, sell even more and be even more rich. .

The genre (base millsim game that is) has a loyal but limited player base. There's a top limit on how many copies of arma you can shift, however polished and content-rich it is.

If you can bank on selling a large amount of copies -and lets face it just about all of the traditional arma community, predictably, has already invested - then why take a smaller slice of the pie by increasing your staff?

Again, BI wont necessarily operate in the same way large, multi-platform/IP shareholder based houses like EA would.

It would have been nice for instance to have brought some of the community in to help flesh out the content of the game; they would have jumped at the chance and would hardly have been expensive - a minute fraction of post dayz revenue for example, but i presume that wasn't an option (after all, hopefully they will do it for free later)

But never mind, that's BI's business, it's their call.

Edited September 8, 2013 by dogbadger

[mistyronin 1181]

It would have been nice for instance to have brought some of the community in to help flesh out the content of the game; they would have jumped at the chance and would hardly have been expensive - a minute fraction of post dayz revenue for example, but i presume that wasn't an option (after all, hopefully they will do it for free later)

But never mind, that's BI's business, it's their call.

Well having in mind that even now some community people are offering themselves to update A2/AO stuff to A3 for free, so we can all have more toys to play.

Yeah, it could had been a reasonable option. But I guess, they had some pride, and wanted to make it for themselves ( a position that I respect ), but they haven't had enough time/money.