Thread: Performance, DLC, and The Future of Arma 3

all i hear is wha wha wha

Good points though.

This is why I love that guy. I saw this video earlier today and I was like yes exactly this. HOWEVER I think it's important that the community hold BI to a certain standard and that this should never change. There is however a difference between complaining and coming out with a rational well thought out argument to an accompanying complaint is perfectly acceptable and needed in my opinion if we are to get devs not necessarily just BI to give us a product we desire and will buy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I agree with the majority of his points. It's a bit long though, I think that's where it gets a little whiny/rantish.

His comparasin to the BF games is ridiculous. Apples and Oranges.

The BF games are like custom one-off mansions. They have to be fully furnished and beautiful, because what you see is what you get. There is no potential to change anything. The game has to be fun to play, have different game modes, and have selling power for a couple/few years on its own.

ArmA is like a stripped out modular home. Full of potential, but requires a lot of work to be livable. ArmA sales rely on outside developers essentially finishing the game. They provide the paint on the walls, furnishings, and decorations. ArmA provides the basic shell of a game, while others finish it in their own taste.

Which home do you think costs more to build?

Only watched the first few minutes, but the rub is that Arma III is a DIY and BF X is a complete product. His point is that it is an apples and oranges comparison, unfairly done so by players/reviewers.

As such, it's possible to build a two floor house with no stairs in Arma III if you don't know what you are doing. Or more to the point, put too much stuff in and peformance can drop like a rock. In BF4 each map is optimized. Do you blame the supplier (Bohemia) or the builder (DIY'er). Believe he's saying the later.

Originally Posted by dex71

His comparasin to the BF games is ridiculous. Apples and Oranges.

The BF games are like custom one-off mansions. They have to be fully furnished and beautiful, because what you see is what you get. There is no potential to change anything. The game has to be fun to play, have different game modes, and have selling power for a couple/few years on its own.

ArmA is like a stripped out modular home. Full of potential, but requires a lot of work to be livable. ArmA sales rely on outside developers essentially finishing the game. They provide the paint on the walls, furnishings, and decorations. ArmA provides the basic shell of a game, while others finish it in their own taste.

Which home do you think costs more to build?

He wasn't comparing the two games in the way you are talking about here. What he was saying was how ridiculous paying for content has gotten across the board not just necessary BF and it has gotten incredibly out of control. This is what he was trying to say. He wasn't trying to compare the game play experience between the two games at all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Dslyecxi is the word of god. Bow before him.

You can buy Arma for $40, their equivalent to premium is $18.

BF4 was $70 + another $50 for premium. Then they try and release Hardline (different game mode- same game) at $60. atleast the gaming community said fuck you to that.

This frustrates me.