vegeta897

I'd say it's quite likely that DayZ could be entirely funded by the excessive Arma 2: CO sales as well as the 2 million copies of the alpha sold within half a year after release. The decision to release on PS4 and possibly more platforms also justified a much bigger budget, because the return is going to be massive. Arma 3 simply doesn't have this same wide audience and massive appeal. Despite that, it's still doing significantly better than Arma 2 did. Why are you so hung up on the idea that something unfair is going on here? This all sounds pretty logical and expected to me. But the main point my post was trying to reinforce was that your comment doesn't improve the situation. It's the equivalent of throwing up your hands in frustration, and that's not a welcome attitude when there's still room for the game to improve. Your last paragraph starts out with some real actual feedback, but then just devolves into rage over BI's internal operation, as if you have the inside knowledge to be able to make such criticisms. BI is one company, the money their games make benefit the entire studio, not just the game that made the money.

How is that evident? DayZ has its own development team, and Arma 3 has its own. DLC is necessary for Arma 3's sustainability, so they can keep fixing the game, as they have been since release. Just because there are still things to fix, or what you want hasn't been fixed, doesn't mean nothing is being fixed and BIS doesn't care. Shortsighted comments like that are a serious downer and don't help anything. Say something useful or keep it to yourself. This is what I was talking about before. Criticism is not welcome if it isn't constructive. And especially if it's just not true.

That is moving backwards, not forwards. Of course those maps of a much smaller scale and less objects are going to perform better. That doesn't mean they should waste countless hours removing stuff from a finely crafted map just to increase performance. Moving forwards is improving the engine and optimization so this island performs better.

Nobody is saying criticism should be discouraged or ignored. In fact, they're actually encouraging criticism to be made in a proper way so that it can be better received. The thing you're missing is that adding anger and frustration to a post does not actually add value to the post. Bez could have made his points in a less dramatic way, and posted more specifically about the problems he's having. Adding anger and rants to that will only cause people to dismiss what he has to say. Criticism should be welcomed, as you say, and there is no better way to encourage that than to encourage criticism that doesn't cause people to only see the anger and not the complaints behind it. What does anger and ranting help? BIS pays more attention to real feedback that actually looks like it has good intentions. Titling the thread with what is essentially a statement of boycott is not how you encourage a developer to improve their games. Good games are fueled by positive energy and rational thinking, not fear of losing customers or negative pressure. So, again, it's about mannerisms. Discouraging ranting is not discouraging criticism, it's ensuring that the criticism gets the attention it deserves.

True, that is fixed by decoupling the renderer from the simulation, but that's a major undertaking that likely won't be happening in Arma 3's lifespan. Just like x64 integration. So the best we can hope for are the cumulative small fixes that make the game more playable one small step at a time.

If there is ever going to be a major improvement to performance, it's going to come in these "specific/mundane" fixes, not some magic one time patch.

Because rockets and missles aren't supersonic? Or am I missing something :P

LJ, I'm glad you decided to allow people to mirror your amazing mod on their preferred download sites. I understand the concern you must have about people downloading the wrong versions and such, so I'm glad you're willing to work with these people to put the proper links in your post. I only had 10 minutes to try out the new version, but it was excellent, and based on the videos you've posted in the past months I know I'm in for a lot more amazing experiences. Hey, that's my image that you stole from reddit and posted without my consent ;)

Any game that has that (above/below sound effects) would have to have it as part of the sound engine (not actual new output channels), so your new audio card wouldn't make a difference. I don't think there is currently any spec that actually has dedicated channels for that.

Are we really saying we want it to be even easier to shoot in Arma than it already is? Holding a mouse steady requires no effort. Holding a weapon steady does. This effort is simulated in the game by requiring you to counter the sway of the weapon by moving your mouse properly. Timing, precision, holding breath, and fatigue management all factor in to your ability to shoot in the game. I think these are pretty decent analogs to real life shooting, considering it's a video game. I don't understand why anyone would suggest removing or reducing the sway, making hitting 500m targets with iron-sights a breeze. Is it that easy in real life? All the OP in this thread does is point out something everyone already knows, and then doesn't propose an alternate solution. If you can come up with a way to keep the shooting difficulty the same without the sway, (and please god without RNG firing cones) please propose it.

That's exactly what I said to you. This comment: ... is, for no reason, trying to make this issue about communities. It doesn't matter what community you're a part of. Actions are the only thing that matter. What are you trying to gain from applying labels? What does it matter that the majority of this forum prefers military style missions? If I preferred life missions, would my opinion be any less valid? Violators of the EULA should be punished, no matter what community they are from. That is why it's stupid to start making these kinds of associations. It doesn't matter that you don't see any domi or ins servers doing this. What statement are you trying to make by pointing that out? That the military community are inherently better people, just because of some bad apples in another community? Edit: Won't clutter this thread more with another reply, but thank you for acknowledging my point.

You're not listening. This thread is about the EULA violations. Altis Life as a game mode is not a problem. It's how these people are exploiting various aspects of it to make money. The game mode isn't what people are upset about, it's the profiteering. Do you think the people upset about this would be okay with a domination or insurgency server that made money like this too? No, because it's not about the game mode itself. You're inappropriately trying to make this about the game mode vs. military game modes. It's not about game modes, it's about profiting from stolen content and violating BIS's EULA.

Please keep your playstyle correlations out of this thread. This would be just as outrageous if they were profiting off of a military-style mission/addon. It has nothing to do with the game mode itself.

If you were to make a tightrope simulator, would you make it so all the player had to do was press W to walk straight forward? Real tightropers walk straight forward, so why would you introduce wobble and the need to compensate for an artificial sway? Answer: Realistic results, not controls. The controls could never be realistic with a mouse.

Those stats don't convey the implication you're making unless you can show us what the server stats would look like if those game modes didn't exist. Would more military oriented servers exist if the others didn't? Would BIS have the funding they have to make Arma 3 great if it didn't attract the players on those servers? Show me proof that the existence of these mods and game modes is actually the cause of a decrease in the amount of servers you want to see. These stats do not prove that.

Sorry, what? If you're jogging in arma then you're jogging. If you don't want to jog then walk. The whole point is that you have control over that, so where exactly is the issue that you're not creating for yourself?

5.1 surround works for me, unless it was broken in a very recent patch. If 5.1 only worked in the alpha for MAXZY, I don't know what his issue is.

Sorry, what I meant was that it wasn't automatic, and many didn't bother.

There was no ACR Lite.

Every server is forcing you to pick up the starter pistol or get in a DLC chopper?

What you receive in exchange for your money is not the entirety of where your money goes. Your money goes into BIS's budget which is used for everything they do, including a new game further down the line. If BIS determines their business model is profitable, the decision to make another game is easy. You're too focused on specifics here and missing the big picture.

Money doesn't automatically make the game better, but no money means the game dies. Money allows BIS to make the game better.

Same here. Losing long-time fans has happened with every new release. It's inevitable because every long-time fan has their own ideal next game, but some of us are a little more tolerant. Is Arma 3 exactly what I hoped for? A ridiculous question to even ask. The answer would be no for anyone. But is it better than Arma 2? Do I want to continue supporting BIS to keep the Arma experience expanding and evolving? Very much yes.

I'm not BIS's accountant so I can't speak with authority here, but it's safe to assume the competition brought in a large amount of sales. People making mods and missions for Arma = success for Arma. Making a big deal out of it with prizes = exposure for Arma. But it wasn't in the game from the start, and people bought the game anyway. And employees worked to create these features, and employees need to be paid, regardless of how much the work sells for to the customer (free or not). That's beside the main point of my post though, about using logic like "well they can afford to do that". If they justified bad business decisions with the size of their wallets, they'll be back to where they were before DayZ. Continuing to make good business decisions and put the extra money toward expanding their teams is the smart thing, both for them and us in the long run.

DayZ's success allowed them to expand their project teams. If they stop caring about continuing to make money they'll be right back where they started, and the extra money they made will have gone to waste. The unexpected boost in game sales is an opportunity for growth, not an excuse to sell their work for less than it is worth. Many consider the new DLC model to be generous enough as it is.