Tonci87 163 Posted February 24, 2014 On Saturday evening I took a look at some statistics and I was quite shocked to see the following: People playing Arma 2 -> Over 22000 People playig Arma 3 -> a little over 12500 (almost everything on Altis Life Servers) On a Saturday Evening... Situation right now: People playing Arma 2: 8570 People playing Arma 3: 4970 Why? http://arma2.swec.se/server/list Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Charles 22 Posted February 24, 2014 People like the setting more, better optimization, less bugs, more features (with mods), less rubberbanding in MP and finally rose tinted glasses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raspu86 92 Posted February 24, 2014 Because there's no DayZ and its derivations for Arma 3? If I take a look at the Arma 2 server list almost all servers are DayzEpoch/Wasteland or this "life thingy". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kerc Kasha 102 Posted February 24, 2014 Because there's no DayZ and its derivations for Arma 3? If I take a look at the Arma 2 server list almost all servers are DayzEpoch/Wasteland or this "life thingy". Yeah that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nettrucker 142 Posted February 24, 2014 Lot's of Steam haters around so they are sticking to ArmA 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3245 Posted February 24, 2014 remove the DZ mods, LIFE and wasteland from both games to get more comparable stats Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgtsev3n 12 Posted February 24, 2014 maybe in a year more people will switch to arma 3 because arma 3 for now is very buggy and unstable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
novemberist 2 Posted February 24, 2014 maybe in a year more people will switch to arma 3 because arma 3 for now is very buggy and unstable I always hear people repeating this over and over again, but is it actually true? Arma 2 crashes very very often for me or freezes my whole pc. In comparison, I haven't had any serious crash in Arma 3 for months... I also don't think it's that buggy. Most bugs and glitches (and even MP instabilities) I experienced are related to mods / missions more than to Arma 3 itself. I guess we will see a lot of people (even the DayZ and Wasteland people) eventually migrating to Arma3 once most of the assets have finally been ported over... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HorbeySpector 164 Posted February 24, 2014 aside from all the DayZ & wasteland stuff.. because of (primarily) ACE and other big mods. Arma 2 is still buggy as hell (Ai, animations...) but, even though A3 has much better graphics and animations, A2 is used more often because it has lots of mods wich for example realism units want to use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyBaron 10 Posted February 24, 2014 little over 12k? this is why peak today was 22k? http://savepic.net/4711091.jpg (112 kB) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krycek 349 Posted February 24, 2014 Lack of content and some age old AI issues in my case oh and performance issues(can't say if it's the engine or my old setup).At least with ACO I have the same AI issues minus the lack of content and performance problems. I still fire up A3 from time to time mainly when a new patch is released and if they announce a beefy expansion content-wise I believe a lot more will return. So far don't see the point moving totally to A3,besides ACO aged quite well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OrLoK 20 Posted February 24, 2014 Hello there I generally play A2 more as I achieve a higher framerate and the amount of content is high. A3 keeps dragging me back with its extra engine/game features though. Just one users reasoning and as .Kju says one has to discount the DAYZ mod and spin offs to estimate the number of Arma players. I think wasteland is a valid arma mission type and should be counted. Rgds LoK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgbtl292 0 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) warfare in arma 3 is unplayable all big maps in amra 3 mp unplayable after 30min - 1 hour ( i mean battle maps not the new A- live pain mods .... ) the performance ist the the last sh...t and arma 2 has the better setting ;) and the feeling as a soldier is better i cant identify with this csat freaks and the weapons mix ... and i miss my ah64 ^^ and the weaponsstations and launchers ... all the same this frustrate me a little no feeling come up in arma 3 ... the immersion is in arma 2 bigger Edited February 24, 2014 by JgBtl292 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ezcoo 47 Posted February 24, 2014 A2 has more players because of DayZ mod, source: http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics http://arma2.swec.se/game/statistics Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hurtz72 10 Posted February 24, 2014 Who says there are no Dayz like mods for Arma 3. Check out breaking point, It's better than Dayz Standalone. http://www.thezombieinfection.com/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
major_shepard 82 Posted February 24, 2014 ArmA 3 lake of content as just compared to ArmA 2 vanilla ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted February 24, 2014 This is my input. For now, Arma 2 is "The" Finished game. And yes, while it is older than Arma 3, its the reason most people know Bohemia Interactive due to things like modding, and sandbox ability, more content, and features. I do however believe that soon, in months time, or maybe as stated earlier; a year from now, there will be alot more people joining Arma 3, or switching over, because of features, and implementations that are currently not in, but planned through out the future timeline for Arma 3. The Engine is capable of alot of things, and i have hope that we can expect to see some of those cool things in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted February 24, 2014 Because its better. GFX is good enough, and the clunky movement works fine for playing with AI. A2>A3. I like both. Oh yeah that, have to use Steam BS.... But I guess it works great for delta patching while we are still in A3Beta stage. Hope when they do finish the game it will be on a Optical format for purchases in North America. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MavericK96 0 Posted February 24, 2014 WAY more content for ArmA 2 than ArmA 3. Not just in terms of mods, but also missions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
semiconductor 309 Posted February 24, 2014 IMHO it's because in most cases Arma 2 is significantly better than Arma 3. Even though I enjoyed playing A3 for some time, I eventually come to the conclusion that Arma 3 simply can't offer anything except new stances system and couple of maps, everything else is a step back compared to Arma 2 (well, okay, Arma 2 + A.C.E. + A.C.R.E.), not to mention controversial futuristic setting. Between diversity, content, realism, immersion, complex gameplay and so-called super-tech with flexible stances system, I personally prefer Arma 2, but I hope that BIS will return to contemporary setting and eventually Arma 3 would be as diverse and enjoyable as Arma 2 now. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10 Posted February 24, 2014 1) Lack of vanilla content 2) Lack of immersion 3) Lack of user missions 4) Lack of mods 5) Lack of new islands 6) Lack of Ace 7) futuristic setting To be honest the futuristic content is just plain horrible. There is no immersion at all unlike the middle east and eastern Europe environment. The only reason I still play arma 3 is because of 3 commando brigade insurgency server. Its modded to death and it feels like a2/ace just with arma 3. If they shut down that server I'm done with arma 3 for a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smurf 12 Posted February 24, 2014 Because people like to suffer. And ACE+ACRE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dale 11 Posted February 24, 2014 Generally because most people enjoy playing as "now" rather than future content, if Arma 3 had been marketed better and had chosen a different approach then it likely would be seeing a lot more convergence from the players who enjoy contemporary settings, unfortunately we are in that situation where to capture new faces the futuristic setting hasn't been marketed enough due to old ties which in turn has led to a bad marketing campaign. In essence you either go all out or stick to your guns, the BIS devs hung in the middle, which basically buggered their ability to get a coherent message across. Another reason why people play Arma 2 over Arma 3 is the same with most good games which take this long to develop and that is the people who bought their PC's for Arma 2 can't play Arma 3, also people who play games like BF3 can't play Arma 3, rather than buy a new PC they just take the next best thing. Moreover you've got the whiplash from DayZ players who might be interested in something different, but you must remember they bought Arma 2: DayZ not Arma 3: DayZ so you have a few million players with a copy of Arma 2 lying around. Overall it's a multitude of things, DayZ standalone will take the Arma 2 players who bought it for DayZ the mod and we won't see them again, anyone who bought Arma 3 will likely have enjoyed Arma 2. The greatest issue with Arma 3 now is that the present and past aren't accounted for yet, once this happens there will be a resurgence of players, the one greatest thing we need to do is keep working at it and going forward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bouben 3 Posted February 24, 2014 People like the setting more, better optimization, less bugs, more features (with mods), less rubberbanding in MP and finally rose tinted glasses. Better optimization? Is it a joke? Arma 2 is still not running fluidly for me even on lowest details, while Arma 3 on medium details and with native resoultion runs just fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites