DLC and ArmA2 funding -idea

[Raunhofer 13]

If arma-fans were to be asked, what is best about Bohemia Interactive, the answer would probably be the support towards their games.

Fan requests are taken into account and bugs are repaired as fast and as skilled as possible.

Of course nothing ever goes 100 % according to plan, but generally other game studios should look up to Bohemia Interactive.

Numerous patches, new features and even new campaigns have made us happy by being free.

Now the time has come for the first DLC. Price ain't too high, but the extent of content does not make everybody happy.

Many could ask, what is the function of DLC, when the same stuff can be acquired within the newest patch (though with limited quality).

Is this to be expected from the road ahead? We will get free low-quality stuff with free patches when the DLCs contain the actual goods?

The reasons for DLCs are obvious. Game studios don't work without profit. Arma2 is a long-term game.

Arma-game series will not continue with the same pace as e.g. Call of Duty -series, so the money spent on bugfixing is short at best.

DLCs are a convenient way to fund patches and bugfixes.

But what about the contents of DLCs? Could there be a better way to collect the cash other than creating a few new units and vehicles,

which will in any case be released with a free patch with lower quality?

In my honest opinion, Bohemia Interactive could make better use of DLCs by providing more extensive content,

when the possible higher price wouldn't be a problem.

But what would this content be? How about islands?

We already have enough units to create diverse missions, but the scenery starts to repeat itself.

For example, Takistan is a great island, but in reality it doesn't provide much content. The villages are all through similar and e.g. A&D missions

are almost impossible on the island due to long distances and the shortage of cover (excluding A&D missions with vehicles only)

Chernarus and Utes have been used thoroughly before the release of Operation Arrowhead.

So how about you in BIS focused on creating diverse islands across the world instead of units, vehicles and campaigns?

Different themes for every taste.

Modding communities surely take care of creating the extra units, but high-quality islands (both large and smaller ones) take a huge amount of time to finish.

For a few modders that is too much work to be done and since the quality of custom made islands is not as high as Chernarus/Utes/Takistan.

On the other hand a small, skilled modding community could easily produce a BAF-like DLC in a relatively short time without asking money for it.

I've myself worked with ARMA2 islands so I kinda know how much work there's behind it, but still, it would extend it's usable playing time.

I would gladly pay ten/twenty euros or even more for a nice, medium or large sized island.

An island provides much more possibilities and gaming content than adding extra units to the game.

I believe this to be profitable for BIS's upcoming financing, unlike providing free stuff with low quality and asking money for the real, functioning stuff.

Some small minority might even be driven mad by this kind of DLC-policy.

Well of course this is just my view to things but just consider this if you plan to release more DLC's in the future.

[subliminalss 12]

I have to say i agree in many ways but for the cost of 7.99 for a brit the BAF DLC is a bargain, like im sure a german set of units might be for a jerry. Fact is we all love to play with out own countries and BIS are trying to create a little scenario world (green sea, chernarus/takistan and co) and i think it has its benefits and drawbacks. But really a made up region and own little world etc only works in a shortish game that is very story driven where everything is made up.

I think we all want to play:

real units - done

real combat - done

real places we relate to, really not done.

I would, as you say love more islands and terrain but most of all id love somewhere real. And no more dessert, it just doesnt suit armas graphics to sharp with not enough detail. Unlinke chernarus which is great plenty of foliage to provide density to the ground.

However i would pay £100 for an arma with euphoria (i know its not happening, ever) but in the context of the game the animations etc are the truely repetitive feature so personally id start there as a dev. And id pay proudly whatever it costs to get it done, as a customer.

[mr burns 131]

In an environment (i.e. the ArmA niche market) where every single player counts it is not optimal to have a, b & c class players. I´d rather pay double the price for a new game with all the contents where everyone get´s the same out of it rather than paying xx$ once just to find out that in one year there´s much more content released which only people can use who pay again and again. Also the sales method of DLC atm is not my cup of tea, i haven´t even got online banking ffs :crazy_o:

So my personal opinion: No more DLC and no more standalone Expansion.

One, beefy, full price title each 2-3 years, thouroughly tested, with the known good support and some kind of better documentation. Everyones happy.

[Gunter Severloh 3949]

I like the ideas on both sides, what you guys have said so far, on the other note i think

they should do away with expansions for the time being and just concentrate on fixing, and upgrading existing stuff.

If you have seen the troubleshooting section lately there are alot of new folks with issues

of crashes, not understanding how things work, trouble with downloading, ect.,.,

If the focus on bugs, CTD, and organisation, 1 big topic, and instead of 30 stickies

which are confusing to a new guy, let alone the game and its controls, and seriously

simplifiying the whole system so that the issues dont happen, or at least there is a

simple direction which covers the majority of aspects, then i think that would be more productive.

Expansions are great and Im sure more is needed I think more so on islands like Raunhofer said

but seriously by putting out more stuff and possibly encountering bugs ect., BIS is only

extending the amount of work they have to put forth towards vs, just focusing on new

content cuz they dont have to fix bugs.

When i say bugs, were not talking about a change in animation, or an adjustment to something

so we can read something better as in feature adjustments, were talking about stuff that

prevents folks from playing, or makes the play not so playable even though they can play.

Optimization, for performance, and fixing the bugs should be the focus.

The community driven bug tracker is a great help, but more content makes for more

bugs to track if there is any.

The amount of issues too that seem to be coming up with these past two expansions is

rather confusing, we got people posting issues for Arma 2 still, then you throw in OA,

and now you go BAF stuff coming up, its seriously a clusterfuck in these forums

just to read and try to help figure out what the issues are for the new guys or existing players.

Sorry for somewhat getting off topic, but I guess i can say more content problably

would not be the best way to go as it just adds to the clutter of issues we still haven't currently straightened out.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Isnt it possible to develop and release

+ Free DLC's = small core A2 + OA upgrades/changes, few new features - every 2-4 month /online

+ Paid DLC's = only theme based addons, missions, campaigns and not upgrading core A2 + OA - every 2-4 month /online ~10-15 Euro

+ Expansions/Standalone = big core upgrades + new features, addons, islands, missions, campaigns - every 1-2 years /DVD and online ~25-30 Euro

+ New Game = complete new and revamped stuff - every 2-4 years /DVD and online ~40-60 Euro

Of course one big bestseller every 2 years will be the magic win-win dream for all!

[Pain0815 10]

New DLC/Module ideas?

For players:

New Army DLCs

-as baf (but complete armys plz not just pieces like in baf)

-units, missions/campaign, new features, islands

New Maps DLC

-collection of diffrent big maps like chernarus/takistan (3-4)

-including civillian and wildlife units for that areas

For editors and moviemakers:

Fully functional 3d Editor DLC

- 3d editor

- more options for moviemaker

- few good additional tools for making missions

and as usual

Free patches:

-engine improvements (like baf eng, maybe new med sys or physics etc etc)

-ai improvements

-mp netcode tweaking

-bugfixing

-some small gifts from time to time maybe like ew

just a few ideas

Edited August 29, 2010 by Pain0815

[Blake 0]

So my personal opinion: No more DLC and no more standalone Expansion.

One, beefy, full price title each 2-3 years, thouroughly tested, with the known good support and some kind of better documentation. Everyones happy.

I think BIS would love to do it that way, but I doubt it's financially possible. I have nothing against BAF, well worth the money and British really belong to ArmA 2 world.

Releasing just islands would probably just serve mission editor's desires. I think it would be more commercially viable to sell DLC with island AND campaign utilizing existing units since I suspect only minority is interested in terrain to toy around with in the editor.

In campaign + island DLC modellers/texturers could then work fully on the buildings and structures for the island saving them from trouble of creating new units once again.

With current units BIS could create any kind of NATO operation campaign for example.

In the future is larger DLC is planned, Cold War could be affordable direction to BIS' resources since they probably have much stuff on the subject and they can utilize existing models etc. so developement woudn't be that long.

EDIT: In any future DLC I also hope all units are brought to OA/BAF standard, meaning carriable static weapons, FLIR, secondary sights on scoped guns etc.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Blake

[Raunhofer 13]

I like the ideas on both sides, what you guys have said so far, on the other note i think

they should do away with expansions for the time being and just concentrate on fixing, and upgrading existing stuff.

You're absolutely right about fixing the problems that the game already has, but I believe there's a bigger problem background that prevents focusing only in fixing existing stuff. Money.

DLCs are good way in funding the existing game, because even you don't buy the dlc, someone else will and that means more profit and more resources for bugfixing.

Well of course, it is not free to make DLCs neither that's why it is important to create DLCs that as many as possible would want to have.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Raunhofer

[Pain0815 10]

I need no new arma every few years, just upgrade the default game over time and with time and better pcs you can push the limits.

I hope they get some money together with dlcs and carrier command to build a new arma3 engine in the future then.

But im just dreaming

[xxbbcc 6]

I'm going to repeat myself for the Nth time :) :

I'd like to see officially ported (and supported) Everon, Nogova, Kolgujev, Malden, Sahrani, Rahmadi and Porto using the A2:OA engine.

Having all the equipment (weapons, vehicles, troops, civilians, etc.) from these earlier games would be nice, too.

[Mersu 0]

I'm going to repeat myself for the Nth time :) :

I'd like to see officially ported (and supported) Everon, Nogova, Kolgujev, Malden, Sahrani, Rahmadi and Porto using the A2:OA engine.

Having all the equipment (weapons, vehicles, troops, civilians, etc.) from these earlier games would be nice, too.

My thoughts exactly. OFP CWC remake with A2 chararestics, no change to campaign or SP missons. bad idea?

Edited August 30, 2010 by Mersu
Brainstorm

[Raunhofer 13]

My thoughts exactly. OFP CWC remake with A2 chararestics, no change to campaign or SP missons. bad idea?

We already have cold war rearmed -modification (CWR) and I believe we will see one for A2 too someday.