Bohemia Have No Plans To Bring ARMA 3 on The PS4, Praises Sony

Project lead Joris-Jan van ‘t Land gives his thoughts on the PS4, along with optimizing ARMA.

Posted By | On 15th, Apr. 2013 Under Article, News


In light of the next generation of first person shooters, one particular title has been doing the rounds on PC: ARMA 3. As a more realistic treatment of military shooters, the game is currently in closed beta. And it looks simply phenomenal. Surely such a title would benefit from making the jump to next generation consoles, giving games like Battlefield 4 a run for their money?

Not quite. We recently spoke to Joris-Jan van‘t Land, who’s working on ARMA 3 as its Project Lead, about whether Bohemia Interactive plans to bring the game to next generation consoles like the PS4. He stated that, “ARMA 3 is a PC-exclusive game and we have no other plans. As a developer we are always excited to see new platforms and their capabilities. Sony appears to have taken an interesting turn for us as independent developer.”

Okay, fair enough. So does that mean the game will look the very best it can on PC – something which held back Crysis 3 due to its multiplatform nature – or will it be optimized for a wider section of the audience?

arma3_screenshot_gc_2012_07

“Optimization is never a single, nor a finished task. We are constantly work in this field and will keep doing so with new hardware and updated drivers. It’s hard to ultimately say whether or not ARMA 3 in its Alpha state is already ‘optimized’.

“A large number of users have reported it running better than ARMA 2 on the same systems, while others face issues on their setups. There is also the fact that some optimization has to wait for later stages of development – when the code and data don’t change as frequently. One thing is certain: we do not believe we are ever done optimizing and work on it always.”

ARMA 3 is currently scheduled to release in Q3 of 2013.


Awesome Stuff that you might be interested in

  • dakan45

    PS4 cant run arma 3 in all its glory, it just cant render the map that far ahead.

    • Axe99

      No, it probably can’t, but I have no doubt the PS4 will be above the min specs for ArmA 3 – in which case it _could_ run it. I have no doubt your PC can’t run Crysis 3 like the one in http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-ultimate-gaming-pc can, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give it a go ;).

    • dakan45

      My card is dx10, so no it cant run crysis 3.

      Also arma 3 has too many buttons and the map is too big for consoles. When guirella said “hey guys, i know what, lets make another streaming fps to show off on ps4 instead of something big, you pretty much know where this is going.

    • Axe99

      ArmA 2 had gamepad support on PC as well as 360 (as it’d need!) – you just need intelligent toggles and things like Op Flashpoint’s radial command menu. Tbh, the command set-up on PC is clunky and poorly done – Bohemia are great at many things, but interface design isn’t one of them.

      And min specs for the ArmA 3 Alpha are well below that of the PS4 (and presumably Next Box). Given ArmA 3 runs on lower-end machines that ran ArmA 2, and that ArmA 2 ran on the Xbox 360, I’d be _very_ surprised if ArmA 3 couldn’t get up and running on next gen. Hell, the PS4’s design, with oodles of RAM and flexibility in handling calculations between the CPU and GPU, should suit large worlds like ArmA’s better than some other games.

      Sorry about the Crysis 3 thing, wasn’t trying to be rude. Hope you get a dx11 card soon :).

    • dakan45

      Actually arma 2 was cpu heavy. I bet arma 3 is also cpu heavy and lets face it, ps4 cpu is not exactly top notch, sure it could run arma 3, but not as well as a pc.

      If ps4 costs 400 then its a great system but i highly doubt it.

    • Axe99

      Aye, totally agree – we don’t know the details of the PS3’s CPU yet, but it’s highly unlikely to be particularly strong, but I’d say it would still be able to run it enough to be playable. Think of it like BF3 on console vs PC – no doubt that a high-end PC smokes console performance, but millions of console players (many more millions than PC players) have also been able to enjoy the game on console. And I suspect the difference between ArmA 3 and next-gen consoles would be a fair bit smaller than BF3 on PC and current-gen consoles.

    • dakan45

      Actually there is no such thing a console optimization, most multiplats on consoles are low pc settings. The fact that a high end pc is more powerfull than the “next gen” is saying alot.

    • Axe99

      I hadn’t said anything about console optimisation (here), but there have been multiple devs (first and third party) that have been talking up the benefits of being able to get ‘closer to the metal’ on console than on PC. One of them (can’t remember which, sorry) said it could be as much as a 40% bump in performance. I don’t know if it’d ever be that much consistently, but a lot of actual developers seem to think that there are things you can do on console that you can’t on PC (because you can get as close to the hardware with code on PC). In this context, I’m inclined to listen to the people that actually do the coding and make the games, and believe there is such a thing.

    • dakan45

      ehhh not really. The 40% is bull.

      I cant really hear any
      arguments like that when the ps3 took 7 years to me maximized and most
      games still dont use it properly due to its weird architecture.

      Consoles
      have one hardware, so there are no issues. They make a level, and it
      perfoms well. They dont have to worry for someone experiancing heavy
      memory leaks in that area. If the perfomance is not good enough, they
      remove a light or two form that area or blur the textures. Thus you have
      inconsistent visuals and sometimes they try to avoid that by not
      lowering the graphics enough and this is where you get slowdowns and the
      reviews say that they are slowdowns in those areas.

      Anyway thsoe
      consoles are 7-8 years old, there is no optimization at this point. The
      ps4 looks like a pc, so it will only benefit pc perfomance.

      I dont get how you are closer to the hardware and code when games are actually made on pc.

      The only thing they are better on is streaming.

    • Axe99

      Sounds like you’re not full-bottle with how DirectX and PC APIs work – they tend to only provide high-level access to the hardware, which limits how much of the hardware they can take advantage of. This is because of the huge variety in hardware configurations – it’d be a nightmare to code an API that ‘close to the metal’ for every PC configuration, and no PC API is designed to do this. On console, however, the APIs only have one hardware configuration to meet, and so can be much more focussed and specialised.

      I’ll try and remember to shoot you an example from a third-party dev (obviously first-party devs may be involved in talking up the thing, and generally won’t develop for PC, so third-party devs are better examples for this situation)

    • dakan45

      we basicly say the same thing. Also dx10 was a fucking joke. Keep that in mind.

    • Axe99

      Hey Dakan, came over this by Digital Foundry – some examples of what I was saying about PC’s having to get through a software layer to take full advantage of hardware, and some other PC related stuff, just so you know I wasn’t pulling what I was saying out of my arse ;).

      http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

    • dakan45

      The article also says that you will need as much vram as possible to make your pc futureproof. Whihc is bullocks. The 8gb will never be used and in the coming years games will be ported from pc to consoles. Its the ps4 that is futureproof not pc.

      AMD says they will ditch dx and swtich to opengl.

      I think games will swtich to x64 on pc and thus ahve as much ram as they ever need.

    • Axe99

      That may well be the case – just gave you the link so you didn’t think I was spouting rubbish – it did have some quotes from the Avalanche guys in there, and they’re pretty respectable devs. Either way, I think the step to the next console generation will be great for PC and console gaming, like it was last time :).

    • dakan45

      Avalanche is a bunch of morons. They seriously believe the ps4 will take down high end pcs when they couldnt optimize for shit jsut cause 2, hell the vsync halfed the fps and the autoaim was forced on, let alone remaping the aim button caused grenade switching not to work properly and the game was pretty much done worse than the first game rather better. Everyone toldthem to fix the vehicle mechanics and they made em worse. Also the first just cause game had inferior graphics on pc from the x360 version.

      Crytek on the other hand believes that we want see anything like crysis 3 for a long time on the ps4 and nvidia believes that the ps4 is low end cpu with mid gpu.

      What i believe is that there is no way this is gonna cost 400$ and for the few first years games will be ported from pc and the advantages of alot of ram and fast bus speeds wont be utilized for years.

      Still easier to develop than the mess that the ps3 architecture was.

      I wouldnt worry about VRAM, back at 2006, most cards had 256mb and the high end had 512mb. If titan has 4gb now, then in a few years we will have cards with as much as the ps4 if not more.

      As for the generation being great? I dont know, this gen lasted 8 freaking years and graphics suffred, but what suffered the most is gameplay and level design. I mean look at bioshock infinite, it is basicly a linear shooter with small maps just like most fps these days, it has dlc planned on and it gets gloryfiing reviews.

      Is this what we will see next gen? overpiced simplistic games with tons of dlcs and online drm requirements? Enough with this crap, now developers have both budget and manpower to advance games, they need to stop treaking gamers like retards and make games with some deep gameplay in them

    • purple_@zz

      You’re a moron. You can’t develop shit.

    • Would be nice if Arma 3 was one of those x64 PC games… but no, no it isn’t.

    • purple_@zz

      Troll troll troll.

    • purple_@zz

      Your gaming rig is and always has been a joke.

    • purple_@zz

      Says you.

    • purple_@zz

      Yes it is great, you underestimate it.

    • At this point controller support in the alpha is a mixed bag and the current command system is the same as it was in Arma 2, except with the old “select all units that you’re squad leader for” (previously spacebar) keybind being the tilde key.

    • Axe99

      Thanks for the info, good to know :).

    • purple_@zz

      Your gaming PC sucks. The end. Big talk, small balls lol

    • It probably could if it had a solid state drive (hint hint Sony)… but one of the bigger changes from the PS3 to PS4 is going from half a gig (split up) on PS3 to having eight gigs of RAM on PS4… which is as much as some (quite a few?) Arma 3 players use for Arma 3.

    • dakan45

      kinda, you see, there is vram and ram. Put together along with powrfull cpus, ps4 is not that powerfull.

    • The official claims are that 8 GB is all VRAM, or at least all GDDR5; I emphasize “official claims” here.

    • nick

      If my ancient PC can play arma 3 surely a ps4 can play it on medium at least and I’m sure you can hook up a keyboard and mouse up to the ps4 seeing as though you can with the PS3

    • purple_@zz

      PS4 runs NFS: Rivals better PC does. Troll much?

  • Axe99

    @ Ravi – I’m not sure you’re on the money with your Crysis 3 comments – you should give the Digital Foundry’s article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-ultimate-gaming-pc) a gander ;). Your lack of understanding of the depth of Crysis 3’s graphics highlight that looking good on PC is a moving target, and depends on the hardware in question (which varies wildly by PC). The other thing is that there’s no way that ArmA 3 will be made to require minimum specs above that of a PS4 – that would be commercial suicide – so the main barrier to them getting it on console would be one of interface (which is not necessarily a trivial barrier, although moving a milsim away from the necessarily more casualised shooter input of a mouse would be a step forward from a sim perspective).

    As for ArmA 3, if it comes to PS4, I’ll give it a play. If it stays on PC, I’ll leave it be (as I prefer my shooters with a gamepad, and gamepad support in ArmA 2 was pretty damn wobbly, and I can’t be bothered getting Xpadder set up for it).

  • Nic727

    I want Arma on the next gen… Even at medium graphics and with less control

  • Pingback: PS4, Xbox 720 y Wii U se quedan sin el rey del realismo violento | Where Is My Software()

  • Pingback: ¿Por qué ArmA 3 no llegará a PlayStation 4?()

  • Pingback: Hunters Chile – ¿Por qué ArmA 3 no llegará a PlayStation 4?()

  • Calvin Coolidge

    im surprised Battlefield hasnt taken to open world combat yet….we NEED this type of game on the PS4.

  • Kingification

    PS4 has the same specs as a current high-spec PC. Fairly sure it could run Arma 3. Get off your high horses, PC ladies and gents

    • Ryan

      I have a high spec PC that has a GPU roughly 2.5 times more powerful than the GPU in my PS4 that I will be receiving tomorrow. In all fairness, just the GPU in my PC cost as much as the entire PS4, but I will love both of my systems.


 

Copyright © 2009-2015 GamingBolt.com. All Rights Reserved.