bzbzb

I think I would adapt that and throw in a bit of Battlelog. A central site/database exists. Modders/scripters etc register on that site and publish their work through it/provide links to obtain it. The idea being that you can easily and correctly/uniquely identify the correct files and have some ability to verify the person who uploaded it and scrutinise what they uploaded. The server version of the game either internally or externally publishes its ip/current mods etc. to the central site. The client uses the central website as a server browser, with a plugin of some sort that can scan what mods they currently have installed and then interact with the central site to establish what needs updating generally or downloading in order that they can join a server selected from the list provided. If the client doesnt have a mod it can be downloaded and installed with the full scrutiny of their systems security features as with any http style download. When they are ready to join the plugin launches the game with a custom argument to send it straight to the server. There would be a huge advantage in not having anything complicated inside the game as any auto download type system would inevitably be abused, a system that is external to the game would be a lot easier to maintain and could potentially be managed by modders. Strangely the sort of thing that Java would be quite good at.

Simply put, no. There were never really three development projects for BF3, only one. It is showing off Frostbite and how easy it makes multi platform deployments and developments. The game seems mapped to its platform dynamically at build time. Its quite clever and exactly the sort of thing EA can use over and over in other games and it allows them to easily add other platforms as they come along - BF3 on the Wii U is not going to be a new game, although it will be a new Frostbite mapping. It is the same raw material used over and over, obviously some variation occurs but lower quality textures do not consitute a different game, nor does having flags in different places on the same map and certainly typing 64 in a config file on a server is not a development project. BF3 is simply a demonstration of a development system, it is entirely about showing off how practical Frostbite can be in lowering costs whilst covering all markets. The main point being that BF3 ends up on different platforms at the touch of a button rather than paying people to transplant it. DICE make back the cost of developing a system that allows that simplicity by selling it within EA for other games, like Need For Speed. BIS no doubt has the ability to make a similar system but no one to sell the system to in a way that could recoup the cost of developing it. With ARMA3 I dont see that it would come down to a hardware, software or technical ability, should be possible in theory to put it on any platform. You simply use a lower lod, smaller draw distance etc. and map the engine to its local api. But is there a market for doing it, would it not just split your customers accross two platforms rather than gaining more. You would have to sell at least as many more copies on each additional platform as you would releasing on a single platform and you would have to know you could do that well in advance of actually doing it - not every company has £30-$50 million to buy customers with.

BF3 is a great demonstration of what a game shouldnt be. It really only has looks and fails to deliver everywhere else - even with the looks though there are plenty of people who prefer to use the colour blind setting and I dont think anyone can stand the glare from the sun. Ultimately BF3 is about its persistence system which is entirely designed around a scientific approach to addiction, the use of micro rewards etc. Very clever psychology masking how poor the gameplay actually is, the players getting their fix of fun from outside the game environment whilst being overwhelmed by high quality visuals inside the game. Mainstream games are really now more about their ability to addict you than to entertain you, my opinion would be that their isnt a great deal that you can learn from them, other than spending an epic pot of cash on marketing gains a lot of attention. I do think ARMA is a little extreme to simply pick up and play but then that isnt a bad thing, it would be rather boring if you were the master of everything after playing for five minutes because everything had been dumbed down to the extent that a small rodent could play as well as a human being. But I think games like BF3 have taught the mass market that nothing should be a challenge and you should never need to use your brain to achieve an objective. I like the clunky movements and all those slightly irritating details that mean you cant just press a button and have "WIN" flash up on the screen.