Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alabatross

Will recent high sales affect the future of BI games (ArmA4)?

Recommended Posts

You serious? I have a GTX 780 and I'm only running at 6 frames faster than my 560 ti in single player. Still barely getting over 30 even if I turn settings down.

And don't make me mention that horrid multiplayer server fps cap of 22 which makes it unplayable.

They had their entire alpha to final play cycle to fix the performance when everyone was complaining, and barely anything happened.

Barely? Did you partipate on alpha? I couldn't play beta on ultra, even on high it felt clunky to me. When final version came, i can play it on ultra pretty smooth. I'm fine with 30 fps, as it depens on server. No need to whine, when you don't know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be fine with 30 fps but that doesn't mean that everybody will be happy with 30 fps. Some people put a lot of money upgrading their machines but the result is rather sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fine with 30 fps

You're the minority here. Most gamers with top of the line hardware want 60, dipping no lower than 50. That's why we don't want to settle for 30 and despise the engine. DayZ is getting the exact same hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i can barely get over 20 fps on COOP missions :butbut:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnat;2598624']

Still' date=' some of the DayZ technology would be nice in A3, given Rocket has pulled some money through their doors.[/quote']

^this. I really wish Arma 3 had some of DayZ's features, like weapon modding, network bubble and the like.

although, in my opinion Takistan is the best terrain the Arma series have ever had. simply because it doesn't have grass, and at long distances ground textures scale better, while players don't disappear below the surface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use it to hire some more people for Arma 3. Engine needs work. A lot of work. Hire some people specifically for that task, cleaning up the simulation aspect of Arma 3.

Yeah, a bunch of programmers so ArmA4 will have all the features. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're the minority here. Most gamers with top of the line hardware want 60, dipping no lower than 50. That's why we don't want to settle for 30 and despise the engine. DayZ is getting the exact same hate.

i could set all low and get 120 maybe, i do preffer quality over 60 fps. 30 fps was unplayble in arma 2, cause it was badly optimized compared to arma 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how come the dayz character models and textures are so much better than arma 3?

There's only, like, five models. Really, DayZ doesn't have a lot of content compared to A3 right now. Much of its final content isn't even hinted at in the alpha, and the gameplay is nonexistent at this point.

However, the quality of the models really is frustrating to behold, by comparison to Arma 3.

Edit:

Also, DayZ's item handling is much different from Arma's, code wise. Implementing that in Arma would be a bitch, because DayZ has the advantage that -none- of its features have to be used by the AI. In Arma, pretty much everything in the game has to be used by the AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: What InstaGoat said -- for example, vehicles aren't in yet and even when they're implemented, by all accounts there's no plans for there to ever be non-animal/non-zombie AI, which means that Rocket and his team never have to work on "AI's driving ability" at all, much less "get the AI to be on par with players."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You serious? I have a GTX 780 and I'm only running at 6 frames faster than my 560 ti in single player. Still barely getting over 30 even if I turn settings down.

And don't make me mention that horrid multiplayer server fps cap of 22 which makes it unplayable.

Performance has been improved. The difference from arma 2 and alpha is quite significant. Its just BI optimizations are more targeted so average rigs are able to play rather than so beast rigs can easily maxout. I am playing arma 3 on a laptop with medium-low settings at 30-60fps. Arma 2 I have trouble staying above 20 with low settings. And can you imagine how bad arma 2 would have been only a couple months after release.

Not saying that people who buy monster rigs shouldn't be disappointed, I would be too, but to say BI aren't or haven't been working on performance fixes is wrong.

Multiplayer there is not much to argue - it can really suck. But this is within our control to a degree. Better server specs and missions within its capabilities - When I play with friends we never have problems because play only what our server can handle.

None the less it is an issue that we even have to worry about that effecting our computers. And I am pretty positive BI is working on it.

I doubt that. Right now Bohemia have unoriginal product that is extremely succesfull amongst 14-year-old undemanding customers (even though it's quite bugged and lacks crucial content) and a niche game that is not very popular but requires much more work to satisfy players. I guess it's quite clear which product will receive more funding. And since BI is not a charitable organization, chances are that DayZ might become a flagman product just because it earns more money with less expenses.

Yeah unfortunately that seems like it would be the best plan of action. But you never know. BIS definitely haven't abandoned arma -just look at the MANW competition. And Arma definitely is doing well. The number of people I know in real life who own arma has doubled since arma 3 - yes that is arma 3 not dayz. And I bleieve that this forum is relatively negative/overly critical compared to how the average person perceives arma. So I am sure BIS will still keep focus on arma. It may just not get all the attention.

Overall I think Dayz is a good thing. Without it, with all the problems arma 3 development has gone through, I doubt there would even be an arma 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top BIS fellas always fancied a DAYZ esque freedom type of game after OFP maybe even before , i am glad they finally had a chance to make such a thing and its proven to be successful , its great reward for all there hard work and commitment they showed over the years , i hope they can relax and enjoy it , we were lucky to get Arma1 at alland the subsequent titles have been a real Bonus.

When they add Horses to Dayz and it opens up a bit more and zombies are gone , i will join that game too till then i bought it and it will sit on my HD or Steam cloud and i will fade out from the Arma series in the hope Dayz wil capture my imagination for the next 12+ years ,Arma never lived upto OFP and never will through nobodys fault but credit to BIS for trying and i am glad they got there Second coming again , that is life .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ -Coulum- : Nothing about Semiconductor's statement implies BI abandoning Arma... unless you think of it as a logical conclusion, but nothing about BI's behavior as a publisher (as opposed to "as an Arma 3 developer") suggests that BI as a publisher is so inclined. I do agree with you about DayZ though, that "Without it, with all the problems arma 3 development has gone through, I doubt there would even be an arma 3."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt that. Right now Bohemia have unoriginal product that is extremely succesfull amongst 14-year-old undemanding customers (even though it's quite bugged and lacks crucial content) and a niche game that is not very popular but requires much more work to satisfy players. I guess it's quite clear which product will receive more funding. And since BI is not a charitable organization, chances are that DayZ might become a flagman product just because it earns more money with less expenses.

my thoughts heading in the same direction. from an economic viewpoint it would be clever to push all resources to dayz and drop arma. i never played dayz and i never had the intention to play it, i'm an arma/ofp player of the first minute but from the view of BI i would do it this way and put all resources in the best selling product. i see a dark future for an realistic arma simulation/game like i want it since the release of the first arma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the stable has been mismanaged since OA.

How many more copies of TKOH would they have sold if it was designed from the get-go as a stand-alone expansion to A2 (a precedent for which was set by OA immediately before)? And how happy would they have made all the ArmA chopper-jocks?

How many more copies of A3 and DayZ might they sell if DayZ was a stand-alone expansion to A3? A3 could really use the 'network bubble', improved inventory and Chernarus+. DayZ could really use the improved animation and lighting systems. Instead nobody is really satisfied because it's so palpable what they didn't get.

If kju as a modder can make AiA so very nearly seamlessly merge A1, A2 and A3 imagine what BIS themselves might achieve with full access to code and content source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO the stable has been mismanaged since OA.

How many more copies of TKOH would they have sold if it was designed from the get-go as a stand-alone expansion to A2 (a precedent for which was set by OA immediately before)? And how happy would they have made all the ArmA chopper-jocks?

How many more copies of A3 and DayZ might they sell if DayZ was a stand-alone expansion to A3? A3 could really use the 'network bubble', improved inventory and Chernarus+. DayZ could really use the improved animation and lighting systems. Instead nobody is really satisfied because it's so palpable what they didn't get.

If kju as a modder can make AiA so very nearly seamlessly merge A1, A2 and A3 imagine what BIS themselves might achieve with full access to code and content source.

^this right here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ -Coulum- : Nothing about Semiconductor's statement implies BI abandoning Arma... unless you think of it as a logical conclusion, but nothing about BI's behavior as a publisher (as opposed to "as an Arma 3 developer") suggests that BI as a publisher is so inclined. I do agree with you about DayZ though, that "Without it, with all the problems arma 3 development has gone through, I doubt there would even be an arma 3."

Yeah I am in agreement with Semiconductor (I just like to babble on and cause more confusion:)). "Abandon" was too strong a word - Basically all I was trying to say is that even if Arma isn't the flagship, it will certainly be more than, say, Carrier Command, or Take on Helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we all know there is much room for improvement in Arma. But I fear most resources go into Dayz because it is by far the bigger cash cow which does not eat a lot. Bis is a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the moddability of ArmA, I see it as a likely outcome that after the campaign comes out they focus much more on DayZ, most likely with a skeleton crew working on issue's with ArmA 3. Lean on the community to produce content for ArmA since it's worked in the past and reap the benefits while pouring all your efforts into DayZ and making that mad bank. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocket may wish that DayZ saved ArmA, but we all know (and BIS too, regarding the Make ArmA not War contest) that it's modding as a whole that saves it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO the stable has been mismanaged since OA.

How many more copies of TKOH would they have sold if it was designed from the get-go as a stand-alone expansion to A2 (a precedent for which was set by OA immediately before)? And how happy would they have made all the ArmA chopper-jocks?

How many more copies of A3 and DayZ might they sell if DayZ was a stand-alone expansion to A3? A3 could really use the 'network bubble', improved inventory and Chernarus+. DayZ could really use the improved animation and lighting systems. Instead nobody is really satisfied because it's so palpable what they didn't get.

If kju as a modder can make AiA so very nearly seamlessly merge A1, A2 and A3 imagine what BIS themselves might achieve with full access to code and content source.

You left out kju's Iron Front 1944 mod as well. Same story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i could set all low and get 120 maybe, i do preffer quality over 60 fps. 30 fps was unplayble in arma 2, cause it was badly optimized compared to arma 3.

No you can't, at least not in an actual gameplay scenario. It's already been established that changing graphics options has a negligible effect on framerate as long as you are running a decently powerful GPU. Also, your statement about framerate in Arma 2 is backwards: Arma 2 ran at 30 FPS because it was poorly optimized, the fact that it was poorly optimized did not make the 30 FPS that it ran at worse than it would have in any other game running at 30 FPS. And you can prefer quality over framerate if you want, but for many players 30 FPS is unacceptable. It causes eye strain and headaches. Furthermore, it slows down the simulation of the game, since so many things are dependent on framerate. 60 FPS is the target framerate for most developers.

"Without it, with all the problems arma 3 development has gone through, I doubt there would even be an arma 3."

What would be the alternative? BIS goes out of business?

You left out kju's Iron Front 1944 mod as well. Same story.

Wasn't that made by a completely different studio and released by a different publisher? Because if so, then that's a completely different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will any of the money be used on Arma 4? Specifically the engine? It'd be too much to ask for you to fix Arma 3 now so I might as well get my hopes up for 4. :yay:

Wouldn't be so quick to give up on 3, apparently ArmA 2 was in a even worse state then 3 on release, and just look at ArmA 2 now. And i'm sure some of the money is going to be going into expansions and such.

---------- Post added at 21:57 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------

I doubt that. Right now Bohemia have unoriginal product that is extremely succesfull amongst 14-year-old undemanding customers (even though it's quite bugged and lacks crucial content) and a niche game that is not very popular but requires much more work to satisfy players. I guess it's quite clear which product will receive more funding. And since BI is not a charitable organization, chances are that DayZ might become a flagman product just because it earns more money with less expenses.

EDIT:I'm such an idiot, didn't realize that Semiconductor was referring to DayZ, not ArmA 3. Just got a bit confused by the wording of his post. Still a good argument for why BI will fund ArmA though, so keeping it up here

I highly doubt that BI would give up on ArmA. Even if it is a niche game, more and more people are falling into that niche that didn't know it existed (mainly the people who bought ArmA for DayZ and now are milsimmers, they do exist people! :D), and also ArmA spawned DayZ, and BI know it can do it again.

And as a retort to your argument, I don't understand how ArmA 3 is unoriginal, if you can name another game like it outside of the ArmA series, please tell me. Also, you contradict yourself. You say its successful (albeit for 14 year olds, which even though they are annoying, its not like they don't pay for the game) and then say its not very popular. And as for your point that ArmA needs more work to satisfy customers, the same is true for DayZ, but in the opposite manner (Yes I know that sounds weird). ArmA 3 will take a lot of effort at its beginning stages to improve and iron out the bugs, but once the mod makers get their engines going, the game will sell itself thanks to new mods, and not need BI's help. With DayZ, they don't have to put in as much work (but still a lot of work), because they aren't creating a sandbox. But once the game has been out for awhile, people will begin to get bored of the same-old same-old, and BI will have to put tons of work constantly thinking up new features and making them a reality. Of course this can be helped by allowing modding, but it won't help to the extent that modding in ArmA 3 will, because DayZ isn't a sandbox.

TL;DR: DayZ will make lots of money in a short amount of time, for a short amount of time. ArmA will make a steady amount of money throughout its life, and can possibly spawn more money makers such as DayZ.

Edited by Westonsammy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the alternative? BIS goes out of business?

I think the alternative is fairly obvious, that being BI could have cut the larger costing, less paying project Arma, in favor of the higher grossing, less resource intensive DayZ. Anybody who doesn't think that Arma 3 wasn't a hair's breath away from being cancelled is kidding themselves but that by no means implies they would have quit on a project as lucrative as DayZ. Jeez, the Alpha is still at Steam #1 for almost a full month strong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how ArmA 3 is unoriginal
You're willfully deluding yourself if you think that Semiconductor was referring to Arma 3. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×