Following on from the recent patch issues.

[chrisb 196]

I did ponder on putting this post there in the beta/update thread. But I thought it isn't to do with the thread really. Its the issues raised surrounding those recent patch implementations for A2,OA (beta).

 

Here's my post anyway: (for what its worth)

__

 

I don’t think any gamer could reasonably ask for more than the amount, that is already available (publically or privately) via player made content, for A2,OA & the dlc’s. I certainly couldn’t, there is more than enough available and also more too, if you join certain groups/communities.

Lets be honest, there is a huge amount out there for players to DL, should they want too.

 

Regards BI wandering away from their core player-base.

I believe they already did that with A3 anyway, the game is not aimed in the direction A2 or the earlier titles were. Perhaps financially it’s a good job it isn’t. A2 was, and still is, to a certain degree, a niche game, when used for its original purpose, as were the titles before.

The series was, up until A3, following that path. However, BI simply opened it up to more players and to do that they compromised the original direction of the earlier titles. Probably not from their (BI’s) own perspective, but that of, some of us the players, that play in a little more mil/sim 'ish' way..

 

We can’t say they abandoned us, because it’s a developer and business, they have to turnover or else they die off. So if they had to change direction or open it up, then who are we to say they shouldn’t have done that. We just have to decide where and what we do, how we want to play the game and with what type of content.

 

Dayz was not a good thing from a mil/sim players point of view. I use ‘mil/sim’ but really it’s simply a mil/sim type game, rather than a full on mil/sim, which would be VBS, which as many of us know, is pretty boring to play as a game. So mil/sim is used loosely.

But DayZ was not good from our point of view, but probably great, from BI’s. Income… lots of it.

Who in business wouldn’t take notice of that. Its just a shame it was a game we relied on to stay the same, that happened to be the platform used to achieve it.

 

But there is always light at the end of the tunnel.

 

They have DayZ now, standalone, but o.k. that’s not terribly good according to many players that play the game. So, from us Arma players point of view, they unfortunately come back and continue to play the mod version. But they are players of video games the same, as we are, so we have to respect that they want to play their game. On the other hand, they also have to respect that they are playing a mod within that game, as I said in my first post concerning the patch issues of late, i.e. the game shouldn't conform to the mod, it’s the other way around.

 

But with that said.

 

There is light at the end of most tunnels, this is no exception. There is a Dayz on the way for A3 and to be honest, that will probably appeal much better to those DayZ players. Because A3 is far more accessible, play wise. So hopefully, from us mil/sim game type players view, they’ll move on, leaving A2/OA etc to drop back into the place we love it to be. The original concept of a military simulation ’game’.

That way it will get forgotten by those that want to move on, and left to those of us that will play it to its limits in that style. Which is how and where the game excels, if we’re honest. Indeed its the style it was ‘best’ meant to be played. That doesn’t mean modern, can be historic war/conflict, but it’s the style of game it suits best, military, certainly from my point of view.

 

So no, I don't think they (BI) abandoned us, they moved on and followed what any good business would do, the money. They should do that, they left behind some great titles, my personal favourite is A2,OA & its dlc’s. I love this game. So we have to be very grateful for that.

 

At the same time we would appreciate that they (BI), stick to the original path of the game, being a military based, game. That is what players laid out money for, not for a mod, if you buy a mod, you take the risk (lets be honest, you shouldn't be buying mods). That risk, should never be faced by those players that bought the actual game. Please BI, remember that, you do have a commitment to those original players that bought Arma, for what it was meant to be, the way you yourselves described it in many instances and indeed on the 'box'. I even put the quote in my sig a while ago I liked it that much. ;)

 

Our A2 game is setup exactly how we want it, in the group I play. With the help of some amazing player made content, it’s a very immersive mil/sim.. For the ‘player’ though, not the military as a training tool.. Although the military would enjoy it and recognise where its coming from.

 

I’m so thankful for this series, other than A3… ;)

 

But the developers should never forget what the initial game was for. If they can’t stick to that format, they shouldn’t bother supporting it anymore, just leave it to the players and content makers that will keep that side of it alive for many years to come.

 

Now... Should A4 come back to that original concept of mil/sim. Then there will be lots of players happy, me included. But even then, it would have to be very special to beat what A2 can deliver, for our style of play. But if it did, then many would come back.

But I don't somehow think that will be the case and I don't blame any business for following the cash-flow. I always did in my business, if only to stay, 'in business'.

__

 

ChrisB

 

[PiZZADOX 47]

The problem with returning to the niche milsim genre is that it will simply generate less revenue than a large budget casual game, and because of the DayZ/Life Craze that brought in so many people, BI has expanded their business, hiring many new employees and changing their long term development plans. Unless you dump half of your staff before the end of the next development and planning cycle, I don't see how they could return to a more realistic milsim style shooter.

 

I think our only hope is 1) continue playing A2 and hope theres always a playerbase for that 2) Move on to a more casual but perhaps still rewarding game like Squad or the Outerra series 3) Develop, or wait for someone else to develop, another military style shooter again. The market is wide open for it, and while it is a small market, the potential profit for a startup company doing this would be great, they just need a small team to work on it, like OFP or ArmA 1's development.

 

The "problem," that I have with BI's development choices is it is not as simple as following the cash flow to stay in business. A small dev team that BI had could easily stay in business making niche milsim games that they completely cornered the market for. They had a pretty safe business model that was not scalable, but reliable. Then comes DayZ and the massive amount of sales. As discussed before, BI had a bunch of rather silly projects on the backburner for lack of funds and time, as every dev does, but with the DayZ cash flow they were able to act upon these. Some of these merged into what we now know as ArmA 3, aliens and all.

 

What bothers me most is that it was not so black and white as "we have to do this to survive." It was a completely conscious and thought out decision to transform the company into something different, to become a big boy like DICE or any one of the myriad of bland and piece and parcel developers. Avoid whatever term you want, but BI completely chose large scale casual market over us. We were deemed too low a priority. The time of ArmA being an E-sport, or at least trying to be, is now. The time of ArmA making good platforms for realism and milsim has simply passed.

[chrisb 196]

The problem with returning to the niche milsim genre is that it will simply generate less revenue than a large budget casual game, and because of the DayZ/Life Craze that brought in so many people, BI has expanded their business, hiring many new employees and changing their long term development plans. Unless you dump half of your staff before the end of the next development and planning cycle, I don't see how they could return to a more realistic milsim style shooter.

 

I think our only hope is 1) continue playing A2 and hope theres always a playerbase for that 2) Move on to a more casual but perhaps still rewarding game like Squad or the Outerra series 3) Develop, or wait for someone else to develop, another military style shooter again. The market is wide open for it, and while it is a small market, the potential profit for a startup company doing this would be great, they just need a small team to work on it, like OFP or ArmA 1's development.

 

All very pertinent to the topic.

 

Though, the players decide if they stay with A2/OA as a mil/sim, we will (our group I mean). Squad doesn't hold anything for us, we need excellent ai to play against when we want too, which is most of the time. A great variety of player made content, which there is with A2/OA. That content fleshes out the game-play of A2/OA onto another level, not reached even by the games devs themselves. Although they did supply the foundation, must never forget that.

Squad doesn't do ai, if they did, it would likely be a very basic form. Content wise, I believe they're going to allow modding, so there is some hope on that side. But to catch up to A2/OA would take a few years. So that is a great drawback, mainly because A2/OA is still supported by some very 'active' wargaming groups, so content (if only private to specific groups) will always be ongoing, whilst those groups use the title.

 

Regards Outerra, I really enjoy messing around in there. But its a long shot, but indeed a great hope, that someone comes along to develop a 'game' out of that for the mil/sim player. Not simply a military simulation, for the military, which is more possible and indeed already being done, well, sort of.

 

The Dayz/Life players will prefer A3, I'm fairly sure that will be the case, if the mods are available in there. Which they will be over the next year or two, no doubt. So hopefully that will alleviate some of these issues.

 

But yes, I agree with many of your points.

 

BI should not change the titles initial purpose, if they develop it further, it should always remain along those lines. If they can't see themselves doing that, then really they should concentrate on A3, leaving A2/OA to the players.

 

Dayz players are video game players too, as we are. Its just that the mod they want to play comes from A2, therefore they have to be willing to adjust to that dev line, not a dayz one. BI have done DayZ for those players, with the standalone game.

DayZ mod players have to respect that the game devs are following a path from the original concept and not upset that path. The devs themselves should also remember that, I'm sure they do, hopefully.

 

Edit: I changed the word 'serious' to 'active'. 'Serious', gives the overtones of elitist game-play of some type. Which it certainly is not what the groups play for. They all play the game the way they want, a particular way. So active is a far better word than serious.

[chortles 263]

The "problem," that I have with BI's development choices is it is not as simple as following the cash flow to stay in business. A small dev team that BI had could easily stay in business making niche milsim games that they completely cornered the market for. They had a pretty safe business model that was not scalable, but reliable. Then comes DayZ and the massive amount of sales. As discussed before, BI had a bunch of rather silly projects on the backburner for lack of funds and time, as every dev does, but with the DayZ cash flow they were able to act upon these. Some of these merged into what we now know as ArmA 3, aliens and all.

*ahem* I know you were in that thread where I corrected this misconception... Arma 3 itself originated from one of those, not the other way around, and they'd chosen to do that one (allocating of funds/time) years before DayZ was a thing.

 

As for the topic... bi_raptor said that "we're not even remotely thinking of something that could be described as Arma 4. Arma 3 is here to stay for quite some time, with continuous support." That could mean Bohemia publicly presenting Arma 3 as the current product to avoid the stigma associated with frequent AAA franchise releases*, Bohemia waiting on Enfusion to mature before developing Arma 4 on it... or it could be literally what bi_raptor said, to be taken at face value.

* Something that EA had tried to do by alternating Battlefield and MOH until Warfighter flopped.

[PiZZADOX 47]

*ahem* I know you were in that thread where I corrected this misconception... Arma 3 itself originated from one of those, not the other way around, and they'd chosen to do that one (allocating of funds/time) years before DayZ was a thing.

 

 

I would agree that that 1) ArmA 3 has many of the same elements and style as the previously mentioned products 2) My perception on it is in part because of your comment and information. Don't be one of those people.

 

My opinion is that it is far more likely that they had sights on an ArmA 3, they would be insane to just never expect making another ArmA... and then eventually they looked at the style and assets they already had from scouting the island/terrain for the other project and decided to use it for ArmA 3. So instead of making them separate games, they merged the assets and made both more like the other. Game devs do this all the time... They are almost always failures, but its pretty common to try and use scrapped content.

 

AS for the Enfusion engine, I highly doubt BI's ability to perfect an engine in the near future. I would be pleasantly surprised if they were to pull of a usable iteration of that engine in the next 2 years, regardless of their development plans. I would agree with your first inference on the issue.