I think its time for Bohemia to start thinking about creating a new game engine.

[Jackal326 1181]

They can make it so anything could be possible where as the current engine is just barely able to add the simplest features. In otherwords , the ghetto rigging of this engine is not going to cut it anymore. We need bohemia to invest in the potentially insane future.

With what capital? The 'military simulator' is a very niche market. Its not as widely desirable as your generic FPS games (lets face it, we saw BF3/4 and CoD players posting "this game is too complicated/hard, I'm going back to BF3/4/COD" when it launched). Its not as hype-driven and publicised as "big money" games like Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed etc and frankly doesn't have the huge teams that those games have. I'm not disagreeing with your point about the engine reaching its limits, but BI are still listening to what we (the community) want, and are doing their best to fulfil those wishes (read: demands) - firing from vehicles, whilst not perfect, is something the series has cried out for since OFP. I do agree that the engine could still use a lot of work, no-one can dispute that, but I think all this talk of investment needs to be weighed against what money BI actually has (they'd have more if they'd not thrown it into the ridiculous MANW contest, but that is an entirely different story for another time).

[343guiltyspark 10]

With what capital? The 'military simulator' is a very niche market. Its not as widely desirable as your generic FPS games (lets face it, we saw BF3/4 and CoD players posting "this game is too complicated/hard, I'm going back to BF3/4/COD" when it launched). Its not as hype-driven and publicised as "big money" games like Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed etc and frankly doesn't have the huge teams that those games have. I'm not disagreeing with your point about the engine reaching its limits, but BI are still listening to what we (the community) want, and are doing their best to fulfil those wishes (read: demands) - firing from vehicles, whilst not perfect, is something the series has cried out for since OFP. I do agree that the engine could still use a lot of work, no-one can dispute that, but I think all this talk of investment needs to be weighed against what money BI actually has (they'd have more if they'd not thrown it into the ridiculous MANW contest, but that is an entirely different story for another time).

1. Investor capital

2. Kickstarter/early access capital

its not rocket science. There would be no new games if money was the issue in creating new games and engines

[Jackal326 1181]

Again I go back to the point that this series is a very niche market. BI would be hard-pressed to find investors (not saying they wouldn't find any, they might just have to jump through hoops), especially considering the issues they faced finding a publisher for ArmA2. If I recall correctly the UK version of ArmA2 didn't have a named publisher until a month or so before release.

Whilst kickstarters/early access is a good way to drum up the necessary resources, its not the be-all end all and would still probably only cover part of the necessary expenditure.

[343guiltyspark 10]

Again I go back to the point that this series is a very niche market. BI would be hard-pressed to find investors (not saying they wouldn't find any, they might just have to jump through hoops), especially considering the issues they faced finding a publisher for ArmA2. If I recall correctly the UK version of ArmA2 didn't have a named publisher until a month or so before release.

Whilst kickstarters/early access is a good way to drum up the necessary resources, its not the be-all end all and would still probably only cover part of the necessary expenditure.

none of what you said actually changes the fact that the game needs a new engine.

It also doesnt change the fact that publishers are not needed to make games anymore.

also BIS has money

[froggyluv 2136]

Don't think they fall into the 'poor' category anymore - alotta Arma2's sold after dayz mod and Arma3 also did pretty well. Be surprised if they didn't get some royalties from military Simulations branch series as it does use their engine. (I know, different company ;). )

Also they seem to have programmers working years for daily updates. Doubt that's the norm for even AAA titles.

[Jackal326 1181]

I never said the game DOESN'T need a new engine, I simply said its not as simple as wishing BI to pluck a new engine from thin air.

True, publishers aren't a necessary requirement for making games, though they do help with revenue by publicising the game and increasing brand awareness etc. (coming full circle to the financial aspect).

I don't doubt BI has money (if they didn't they'd be bankrupt and have gone under), my point was simply, "Do BI have enough money/time/overall resources to dedicate to a new engine?" to which I suspect the answer is "No".

[vegeta897 13]

none of what you said actually changes the fact that the game needs a new engine.

It also doesnt change the fact that publishers are not needed to make games anymore.

also BIS has money

Ignoring how incredibly black and white you are painting the picture, what if they fail?

What if they spend years dedicating all their time to a new engine, and it fails to achieve what they wanted? What if it's worse than the current engine? They could easily end up with just as broken an engine as what we have now. Your posts keep treating the concept of a new engine as a magic fix that will solve all problems, as if code is automatically better if it's newer. I'm not just talking about it being difficult and time-consuming, I mean it could drive itself into the ground and they'll have nothing to show for their years of investment.

Taking this kind of risk is not easy when they already have an engine that is good enough to keep them in business and keep most people happy enough to keep playing.

How can they ensure this doesn't happen? Recreating the existing engine 1:1 would of course result in a clone, so they have to know what parts work and what parts do not. This is why it makes more sense to fix these parts in the existing engine than try to reinvent everything all at once. That's what they're doing with DayZ. They didn't start from scratch, they redeveloped as they went, with the end result being totally new.

[343guiltyspark 10]

Ignoring how incredibly black and white you are painting the picture, what if they fail?

What if they spend years dedicating all their time to a new engine, and it fails to achieve what they wanted?

what if we stick with a limited POS engine that was written in 2000?

[vegeta897 13]

If you're going to just ignore the bulk of my post and keep stubbornly repeating yourself, people aren't going to take you seriously.

Game engines cannot be inherently "limited" when the developer has full control over it. Anything they could do better in a new engine could be done in the existing engine. I thought my post conveyed that point pretty well, but I'm not even sure if you read it all based on that reply.

I'll answer your sarcastic question (which does not further the discussion at all, something you oddly don't appear to be interested in doing in your own thread), what will happen is they'll keep successfully improving the Arma series like they have been. Some people will continue to complain that things should be better, but the risks will remain the same until something major changes in this balance.

[343guiltyspark 10]

If you're going to just ignore the bulk of my post and keep stubbornly repeating yourself, people aren't going to take you seriously.

Game engines cannot be inherently "limited" when the developer has full control over it. Anything they could do better in a new engine could be done in the existing engine. I thought my post conveyed that point pretty well, but I'm not even sure if you read it all based on that reply.

I'll answer your sarcastic question (which does not further the discussion at all, something you oddly don't appear to be interested in doing in your own thread), what will happen is they'll keep successfully improving the Arma series like they have been. Some people will continue to complain that things should be better, but the risks will remain the same until something major changes in this balance.

No

A game engine is a book. A novel to be exact

The modifications developers make to the engine not only have to replace existing parts of the book , they have to be contextually accurate to the narrative. Or else it doesnt work.

After a certain point , the book has been cut up so much and replaced its original writing , it stops making sense. These manifest themselves in memory leaks , bottlenecks and poor performance.

This is whats happening now. The engine is not making sense anymore because so much has been changed from its smoothly running original state (operation flashpoint).

it will only get worse with time and more modifications.

A new engine is needed immediately for this franchise to survive the next decade.

If you think arma 3 was a "successful move" you must not have played arma 2 or OA that much. Because its a step back in most respects. And half of its content was concepts from mods of arma 2.

[pettka 694]

Thank You for the insight on how the new engines are made, we'll take that into consideration. Given the thread was no discussion in the end, it doesn't make any sense to keep it open :icon_twisted: