ArmA 3 on Steamworks?

[dunedain 48]

So you're glad that Steam is in the hands of those who are determined to make it a monopoly while resting on their laurels? I smell Valve fanboyism in this topic, again

Monopoly of what exactly? Competition has never been that high between all the digital retailers... If they have the monopoly as a DRM provider, it doesn't concern us but publishers. If they have the monopoly as a game related service provider, it won't change anything for us either as games are made for windows, not specifically Steam. They can't have complete control like Microsoft has with their Xbox. Valve has not a lot of options here, but to play nice with publishers and make Steam the best possible shopwindow for their store. It's important to understand that they can't force publishers or indies to use Steam, only encourage them.

So yeah I'm just glad Steam hasn't hundreds of shareholders whose goal is to get as much dividends as possible even if it means hurting their company in the long term.

Origin wouldn't exist otherwise.

Origin only exists because EA wants to maximise its profits. Valve takes 30% of what goes through their store and a few years back they began asking publishers/developers to sell their DLCs on Steam as well. I guess EA thought it would be more profitable for them to make a botched clone of 2007 Steam than releasing full games on Steam. There is no real competion between the two. EA is not even trying...

I only use Origin to play BF3 from time to time, and this thing is still awfully glitchy and barely evolved in two years... They aren't even trying to compete in term of pricing, I bought BF3 on amazon for 6€ and all it's DLCs for 15€. Meanwhile on the Origin store it is still 35€ even with a 40% discount.

So much for healthy competition.

Games are always cheaper from even brick and mortar stores than Steam. Especially cheaper from online retailers like Play or Amazon.

Which shows competition works. If sells drop on Steam, then they'll adjust their own pricing.

Steam will get a share

As far as I know they don't. it's the publishers or indies, who provide the keys. If the game is steam redeemable or steamworks, they aren't going to buy their own game.

Steam turned down a wargame by a couple of indie devs and if they hadn't been able to sell it on their site we wouldn't have the gem that is Unity of Command.

That's why they created Greenlight, so a game without a publisher backing it can get to the store thanks to community vote.

Edited February 22, 2013 by dunedain

[janh 0]

I must say that I am a bit disappoint by the choice to move entirely over to steam. I have been very happy with the disc and DRM being patched a while later. And I am a bit afraid that this decision may ruin the franchise. Other big publishers have ruined their franchise with that, especially if it was a niche or at least not a big selling title anyways.

One major reason I was loyal to BIS and kept buying products of the OFP/ARMA series was that they thus far had followed a more reasonable line with their DRM policy and kept it less intrusive, less hand-binding than other publishers did. In fact I passed on a number of titles from these other publishers within the last couple of years because of online activation or online-to-play requirements. Titles, which under different circumstances I would have bought. So far I bought no title with online-disadvantages since the improvements and innovations of the titles would have to be so markedly big that I would feel compelled to buy. Not just graphics polishing, and a few features, but major changes.

For one, I do not have a reliable internet-connection at home, and since I don't want to spent another $10-20 or Euro 10-20 per month investing in a better tarif with open data-flat etc. I just don't need it otherwise, and as a paying customer, perhaps of an older generation used to be treated by the maxime "the customer is king", I still expect to get a solid product for solid funds. One that I can use without internet, if I am single player anyway. If a company would put a 5 year check for the additional internet fees in the box, I might be convinced, but an economic consideration renders buying a $60 game for am additional $120 internet service fees per years a questionable thing.

I still might buy the game if the innovations are sufficient to justify it, but I won't be happy about steam. It clearly is a big minus when making the decision. Maybe I'll wait and see whether they'll patch it and sell a steam-free budget version later.

I hope they will reconsider. So far I have held BIS high for putting their customers first. Their service, and listening to customer wishes, patching etc. was so far excellent. But this one is a bit of a disappointment, sorry to say.

[maruk 80]

We know there are customers like yourselves. It is not correct assumption we are not putting customers in first place any more. We had to make some tough choices here and despite it may not be easily visible, we simply do not see any other feasible way for our company at the moment than focusing on Steam as the sole platform for Arma 3 and our other upcoming PC games. We are aware of some negative consequences but this the best we can do concerning Arma 3 and games beyond. We tried to be as open as possible about this tough decision and tried to clearly say what our reasons are.

I must say that I am a bit disappoint by the choice to move entirely over to steam. I have been very happy with the disc and DRM being patched a while later. And I am a bit afraid that this decision may ruin the franchise. Other big publishers have ruined their franchise with that, especially if it was a niche or at least not a big selling title anyways.

One major reason I was loyal to BIS and kept buying products of the OFP/ARMA series was that they thus far had followed a more reasonable line with their DRM policy and kept it less intrusive, less hand-binding than other publishers did. In fact I passed on a number of titles from these other publishers within the last couple of years because of online activation or online-to-play requirements. Titles, which under different circumstances I would have bought. So far I bought no title with online-disadvantages since the improvements and innovations of the titles would have to be so markedly big that I would feel compelled to buy. Not just graphics polishing, and a few features, but major changes.

For one, I do not have a reliable internet-connection at home, and since I don't want to spent another $10-20 or Euro 10-20 per month investing in a better tarif with open data-flat etc. I just don't need it otherwise, and as a paying customer, perhaps of an older generation used to be treated by the maxime "the customer is king", I still expect to get a solid product for solid funds. One that I can use without internet, if I am single player anyway. If a company would put a 5 year check for the additional internet fees in the box, I might be convinced, but an economic consideration renders buying a $60 game for am additional $120 internet service fees per years a questionable thing.

I still might buy the game if the innovations are sufficient to justify it, but I won't be happy about steam. It clearly is a big minus when making the decision. Maybe I'll wait and see whether they'll patch it and sell a steam-free budget version later.

I hope they will reconsider. So far I have held BIS high for putting their customers first. Their service, and listening to customer wishes, patching etc. was so far excellent. But this one is a bit of a disappointment, sorry to say.

[sorophx 25]

But what those against steam (including me) need to realize is that, according to the devblog, BIS had no choice and has to use steam.

there's always a choice. they had no other options that would have benefited them more, yes. but saying they went with Steam because they had no choice (and were forced into the deal)... c'mon, you don't actually believe that. do you?

Arma isn't Bohemia's only source of income. it's a publishing house, don't forget that. there's no way in hell I'll ever believe Arma 3 wouldn't see the light of day if it wasn't for Steam. yes, BIS are trying to meet a deadline, for one reason or the other. to them going with Steam as the only platform to provide their flagship game and share profits (AFAIK, Valve's cut can be s big as 40% of all sales) must have been better than delaying the game's launch by another 6 to 12 months.

what worries me is exactly this desire to launch the game in 2013. I'm afraid it'll mean the game will come out unpolished and cause more harm then good to Bohemia.

if they're having financial trouble, a deal with Valve for exclusive distribution rights was probably bundled along with their deal to distribute DayZ, that's my guess anyway.

[enad 11]

We know there are customers like yourselves. It is not correct assumption we are not putting customers in first place any more. We had to make some tough choices here and despite it may not be easily visible, we simply do not see any other feasible way for our company at the moment than focusing on Steam as the sole platform for Arma 3 and our other upcoming PC games. We are aware of some negative consequences but this the best we can do concerning Arma 3 and games beyond. We tried to be as open as possible about this tough decision and tried to clearly say what our reasons are.

Don't get too worked up over the people who refuse to see the benefits.

Like you said, there will always be people who see this as a negative 'consequence' but all in all, it's only going to help ArmA 3 and Bohemia. You made the right decision, you shouldn't regret it.

@Binkowski, who says it will have Steam Workshop? It may not.

Even if it does, I don't see it being a huge problem. The ArmA community isn't like that for the most part. I'm sure there are some people out there like that but you make it seem like it's GOING to happen to you.

[batto 17]

Steam-exclusive you say? Whatever...

Edited February 22, 2013 by batto

[-Snafu- 77]

Origin only exists because EA wants to maximise its profits. Steam takes 30% of what is sold on its store and a few years back began asking publishers/developers to sell their DLCs on Steam as well. I guess EA thought it would be more profitable to make a botched clone of 2007 Steam than releasing full games on Steam. There is no real competion between the two. EA is not even trying...

Origin is clearly designed to be a direct competitor to Steam by offering a set of similar functions and aims. That you personally don't rate the system doesn't change its purpose.

Steam also exists to maximise profits otherwise it would stop growing.

At the end of the day any digital distribution system is in competition with each other. They don't have to be exact copies of each other to be competitors.

Which shows competition works. If sells drop on Steam, then they'll adjust their own pricing.

Not seeing it.

As far as I know they don't. it's the publishers or indies, who provide the keys. If the game is steam redeemable or steamworks, they aren't going to buy their own game. Try to make some sense here.

As far as I know

So basically you don't know?

Why would they not? If it's a Steamworks game then don't Steam need to provide the keys?

If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

That's why they created Greenlight, so a game without a publisher backing it can get to the store thanks to community vote.

Not a great system IMHO.

[Zyromkiru 10]

There was a choice and they said they had to if they were going to release in 2013.

Lets break this down with benefits:

- Faster development

- Simpler Updates

- Smaller updates

- Can't lose your game

- Steam = more players (steam being the biggest and the best and as soon as this game shows on the front page people will buy)

- The game can be released in 2013

- Making updates or changes to the game will be faster, no middleman or anything to slow anything down

- More sales using steam = more efficient funds for development, bug fixes, patches and future games

- Steam is easy to use and saves you tons of shortcuts on your main screen

- Easy to stay in touch with friends

- Share screenshots of the game

- Steam overlay

- etc. , etc.

The game will be released when it is ready, you guys do realize they won't rush this and it simply takes a lot more work to deal with multiple distributors. That's what's increasing their time with releasing the game and after that even adding content/patches to the game.

The one single very tiny flaw is that you need internet. Oh no what shall I ever do now!?!?

Buying internet might be a start? It's 2013 and you don't have internet? Get some

Modding:

This part still involves B.I. and any permissions or how easy it will be will most likely be completely up to them. Much like skyrim which REQUIRES steam it's just as easy to mod as any other game.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Zyromkiru

[LeeManatee 4]

if you will explain how mod management will be handled with all this steam things i would nhave way less concerns of how terrible/okay this decision is

We know there are customers like yourselves. It is not correct assumption we are not putting customers in first place any more. We had to make some tough choices here and despite it may not be easily visible, we simply do not see any other feasible way for our company at the moment than focusing on Steam as the sole platform for Arma 3 and our other upcoming PC games. We are aware of some negative consequences but this the best we can do concerning Arma 3 and games beyond. We tried to be as open as possible about this tough decision and tried to clearly say what our reasons are.

[Steiner34 12]

We know there are customers like yourselves. It is not correct assumption we are not putting customers in first place any more. We had to make some tough choices here and despite it may not be easily visible, we simply do not see any other feasible way for our company at the moment than focusing on Steam as the sole platform for Arma 3 and our other upcoming PC games. We are aware of some negative consequences but this the best we can do concerning Arma 3 and games beyond. We tried to be as open as possible about this tough decision and tried to clearly say what our reasons are.

I really dont get the point here. Why not promoting and selling your games through your platform Sprocket? I was always satisfied with this service. Quick payment and good downloadrates. Instead youre going to promote ArmA 3 on a third party platform like steam exclusively. I really dont get it. Have you maybe been bullied into this? Well at least you have lost me as a loyal and longtime customer. Im not going to buy anymore games of your company if youre going this way. I as customer want to have the freedom to decide where and when to play a game I payed my hard earned money on. Im very sorry to say that. I always saw you as the last company who cares about your customers. Unfortunately i was wrong.....

[dunedain 48]

Origin is clearly designed to be a direct competitor to Steam by offering a set of similar functions and aims. That you personally don't rate the system doesn't change its purpose.

What I am saying is its sole purpose is for EA to avoid using Steam and loosing 30% of their profits for a part of their sales. Their actions only shows they don't want to invest and try to be a serious competitor to Steam. How is that helping in any way? It sure isn't any good for us...

Why would they not? If it's a Steamworks game then don't Steam need to provide the keys?

If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

I don't have a source to illustrate but it appears to be the logical thing to me. As there wouldn't be any interest for publishers to use Steamworks if it meant loosing part of their profits to Steam regardless if the game was bought on retail, any digital store or even their own store. It make sense to me it's Steam which provides their clients with keys which they sell to the different digital retailers. But I could be wrong.

Not a great system IMHO.

it's not perfect, but at least allows games without much coverage or hype to appear on the Steam store and make decent sales.

Edited February 22, 2013 by dunedain

[Binkowski 25]

@Binkowski, who says it will have Steam Workshop? It may not.

Even if it does, I don't see it being a huge problem. The ArmA community isn't like that for the most part. I'm sure there are some people out there like that but you make it seem like it's GOING to happen to you.

Sorry that you got that impression. But it's the feeling not only me, but a few other guys have expressed as well. I'm done trying to make my point, obviously it's not going to work.

Just because you're a steam fanboy doesn't mean we all are.

Don't get too worked up over the people who refuse to see the benefits.

Like you said, there will always be people who see this as a negative 'consequence' but all in all, it's only going to help ArmA 3 and Bohemia. You made the right decision, you shouldn't regret it.

I'm glad to know that you represent our entire community.

[pauliesss 2]

I am sorry to say this, but this discussion is pointless. BIS will not change their mind.

I think the more important question is when will be the alpha released. As this is what most of us are waiting for.

[LeeManatee 4]

untill i will know how mods are going to be handled i would not even consider paying for a3

[Binkowski 25]

I am sorry to say this, but this discussion is pointless. BIS will not change their mind.

Yep. We're fighting a losing battle here.

[raptor90 1]

Am i the only one that is concerned about thjis line; "The bottom-line: we feel that without going Steam-exclusive, we would not be able to release Arma 3 in 2013."

We would not be able to release Arma 3 in 2013... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8BRbM52gpc though

[-Snafu- 77]

We know there are customers like yourselves. It is not correct assumption we are not putting customers in first place any more. We had to make some tough choices here and despite it may not be easily visible, we simply do not see any other feasible way for our company at the moment than focusing on Steam as the sole platform for Arma 3 and our other upcoming PC games. We are aware of some negative consequences but this the best we can do concerning Arma 3 and games beyond. We tried to be as open as possible about this tough decision and tried to clearly say what our reasons are.

Thank you for posting in this thread. I'm sure the community appreciates it. I certainly do.

What I am saying is its sole purpose is for EA to avoid using Steam and loosing 30% of their profits for a part of their sales. Their actions only shows they don't want to invest and try to be a serious competitor to Steam. How is that helping in any way? It sure isn't any good for us...

I don't have a source to illustrate but it appears to be the logical thing to me. As there wouldn't be any interest for publishers to use Steamworks if it meant loosing part of their profits to Steam regardless if the game was bought on retail, any digital store or even their own store.

it's not perfect, but at least allows games without much coverage or hype to be sold on Steam.

I use Steam too but I don't like this trend where it seems to be coming to the point where it's the only option.

I have to get up early for work tomorrow :( and we could be arguing here all night but I don't think we're going to see eye to eye. I respect that you have a different opinion though I may not agree with it entirely.

I'm bowing out for now. It has been a good debate. :)

[Steiner34 12]

Yep. We're fighting a losing battle here.

Unfortunately I guess youre right. Well at least that gives the community the opportunity to develop Arma2 further to make it the best and last game of the real ArmA series. ;) At least I cannot wait for more content for CWR 2, ACE, I44 and all those other great mods out there.

[kualus 1]

I am sorry to say this, but this discussion is pointless. BIS will not change their mind.

Agreed, boycott ArmA 3. I myself will buy ArmA 2, if that.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yep. We're fighting a losing battle here.

You're fighting a battle that has already been lost a long time ago. Instead of complaining about all the bad things steam brings we should be thinking about how we can use it to its full potential. And I am not talking about you specifically but the community as a whole. I am not to fond of steam either, but since we are going to have to use, might as well make the best of it right?

[Hicks_09 10]

Agreed, boycott ArmA 3. I myself will buy ArmA 2, if that.

Would you be interested in a drm and by that I mean steamworks free version of Arma 3 at a later date though? If there was a plan for this to be sold then I'd be interested.

If as they seem to be going round in circles hinting at the issue is updating then surely after a certain amount of time has passed and the game is in a solid patched state then selling that "complete" version drm free would be a winner. A bit concerning that the industry is in a place where saying "drm free" is a selling point - I guess that's where customer apathy gets you though. That way it's not going to need the nursing that it did in the immediacy post release. It doesn't make for a good precedent though. "Wait til the game is stable to then be able to buy it without jumping through drm hoops." If patching is the primary concern that led to steamworks dependence - is it the case that your are expecting that there are going to be a lot of issues that need rectifying?

To those that seem to feel that the game has to be steamworks to be able to sell through steam. Look at Arma 2. It's not tied to the drm. It is however sold through steam as a store.

It is good that the developer is engaging with us and our concerns. Just please speak plainly. Is there going to be a steamworks drm free release at some point? If there isn't then we have a clear answer and can move to other titles. You've got people that have bought your previous releases and will want to buy subsequent ones. Just not if they have to jump through hoops that they don't need or want.

[old_painless 182]

Most of this thread would not have happened, if we could only be guided as to how

• mod management,
  
• LAN MP,
  
• MP with mods on dedicated servers
  
• custom launchers
  

would work in a Steam setting. (It will work, right? Please? :))

Get some Steam usage myths debunked and Steam newcomers and sceptics will feel very relieved. I still trust BI but I need to see what BI has seen as possibilities on the new platform.

-OP

[kualus 1]

Would you be interested in a drm and by that I mean steamworks free version of Arma 3 at a later date though? If there was a plan for this to be sold then I'd be interested.

If ArmA 3 would have a Steam-free version at a later date, I would definitely go for it.

[-Coulum- 35]

Most of this thread would not have happened, if we could only be guided as to how

mod management,

LAN MP,

MP with mods on dedicated servers

custom launchers

would work in a Steam setting. (It will work, right? Please? )

Get some Steam usage myths debunked and Steam newcomers and sceptics will feel very relieved. I still trust BI but I need to see what BI has seen as possibilities on the new platform.

-OP

You're right and there will be...

for these who aren't happy with my previous answers, We assess the feedback and will address the concerns in detailed way later !

The question is when. I think BIS needs to get this out asap. already I think we've lost many very smart and intelligent community memebers (and of course probably some not so smart ones...).

I hate steam, but we need to be more open minded than we are now. Dropping arma 3, after reading a page from a devblog, because it said arma 3 would require steam, is quite childish, although I understand that it may be a kneejerk type of reaction for some.

Give it a chance!

[nes4day 2]

Most of this thread would not have happened, if we could only be guided as to how

• mod management,
  
• LAN MP,
  
• MP with mods on dedicated servers
  
• custom launchers
  

would work in a Steam setting. (It will work, right? Please? :))

Get some Steam usage myths debunked and Steam newcomers and sceptics will feel very relieved. I still trust BI but I need to see what BI has seen as possibilities on the new platform.

-OP

Mod Management: mods work as normal Steam version or non-Steam version, (as I know from Company of Heroes, Grand Theft Auto, The Elder Scrolls series and many more).

LAN MP: Works in offline mode as far as I know, as with Call of Duty and Counter Strike/Source etc.

MP with mods on dedicated servers: Not enough knowledge to answer, sorry

But it should be fine as I have played Company of Heroes and World in Conflict as well as other games running mod online without any issues.

Custom launchers: Works as normal, GTA mod manager, Skyrim Nexus Manager etc.

Hope this helps.