About the release date

[Lou Montana 101]

A publisher would probably wait until a real true demo came out, and saw fan's reaction before jumping on. They don't care how "realistic" or "fun" the game is they care about what the public reaction is...so far the only reaction is a bunch of fanboys on the BIS forums so they will wait...

So everyone, do not forget to download ten times the demo to make the dl-counter blow !

[Lanfear 0]

@Ukraineboy: Thats wrong! Normaly a publisher finance the complete development of the product and takes care of the positioning of the product.

The reason why BIS hasn't a publisher can only be, that BIS has its own ideas of this product and they doesn't fit to the strategy of publishers. Aditionaly BIS financed the development of ArmA with there own resources... and of course they are now negotiating about a higher quota on the sales price.

A demo or the reaction on a demo has nothing to do with the search for a publisher. A demo is a normal marketing strategy by the publisher not by the developer.

And dont forget that BIS has a bad reputation in publishers business because of their contract exit with codemasters. No publisher wants to finance in a developer which can not be controlled.

@All: I think its much to late to discuss about a release date. BIS must have an publisher for going on gold status and a publisher needs a minimum of 3 to 6 month for marketing and product tests. So you can be sure, that it is nearly impossible to release the program in Q3/2006.

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ] No publisher wants to finance in a developer which can not be controlled.

This has quite a bit of weight. I'm personally hoping that (as is the case) BIS continues to finance itself, and just use the publisher for PUBLISHING (e.g. marketing, duplicating & distribution).

[RUKH 0]

I know this will not be popular....but isn´t an online distribution service possible until it is viable economicly to distribute via stores themselves.

Gives me a reason to buy it twice

[Ukraineboy 0]

@Ukraineboy: Thats wrong! Normaly a publisher finance the complete development of the product and takes care of the positioning of the product.

The reason why BIS hasn't a publisher can only be, that BIS has its own ideas of this product and they doesn't fit to the strategy of publishers. Aditionaly BIS financed the development of ArmA with there own resources... and of course they are now negotiating about a higher quota on the sales price.

A demo or the reaction on a demo has nothing to do with the search for a publisher. A demo is a normal marketing strategy by the publisher not by the developer.

And dont forget that BIS has a bad reputation in publishers business because of their contract exit with codemasters. No publisher wants to finance in a developer which can not be controlled.

@All: I think its much to late to discuss about a release date. BIS must have an publisher for going on gold status and a publisher needs a minimum of 3 to 6 month for marketing and product tests. So you can be sure, that it is nearly impossible to release the program in Q3/2006.

Well if it's wrong or not, it's still the truth and probably what's going to happen. It happened with OFP, so who is to say it wont happen with ArmA?

[kernriver 4]

I don't bother with ArmA release date too much. There are some RL things to attend to aswell.

And there's also OFP, SWAT4, Raven shield...you name it.

[Cifu 0]

[X] I hope once the BIS can say an official ArmA release date.

hmm without even having a publisher how would this be possibly now!?

For example they can distribute by the valve's STEAM system.

My point is BIS dont have official release date. So the poll itself pointless, no "planned release" date exits.

[Cifu 0]

And there's also OFP, SWAT4, Raven shield...you name it.

OFP -> played to hell, even with the best addons, the OFP reach their limits.

SWAT4 -> played over, boring...

Raven Shield -> played over, boring...

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter -> arcade shitty...

etc...

[funnyguy1 0]

Making Armed Assault better and simply filling It with features from Game2/VBS2 would require a lot more time than some extra 2/3 months...

The idea of ArmA imho is to give us something we could play waiting for a Game2 and to tell the ppl not to buy the Armed Assault 2 instead of the Operation Flashpoint 2 (omg...what a name for a pc game..., remember the times when we were waiting for a OFP2 not for a next gen game?, now OFP2 sounds crap to me because of codemasters)....

I want ArmA to be relased as quickly as possible, as a finished product of course, but also as a placeholder for Game2...

[max power 21]

I think they should just release the thing on time, feature complete from the design document, and support any problems that slip through with patchware like everyone else does. Changing the plan halfway through creates names like DNF and STALKER. These names don't inspire much confidence.