Future expansions

[tophe 68]

Has anyone heard any discussions from BIS about the way they released Arrowhead?

I'm hoping SO much that they will never release another expansion that is also stand-alone.

The fragmentation of game setups is a b*tch, and even though the community later on leaned towards releasing CO compatible content it's been really messy fool-proofing your releases.

I guess they made some extra money from it which of course is good. But the threshold got a bit higher for a lot of new gamers trying to set up their game to be able to join in.

I know this is far off in the future, but it would be interesting to hear you thoughts.

[Nicholas 5]

Yeah. I also hope that they NEVER release a "Stand-Alone" expansion again. As you said, it fragmented the community and made installing Combined Operations a pain in the ass.

What i don't understand is why did they release it like that? Resistance was not stand-alone from Cold War Crisis.

[Maio 293]

Yeah. I also hope that they NEVER release a "Stand-Alone" expansion again. As you said, it fragmented the community and made installing Combined Operations a pain in the ass.

What i don't understand is why did they release it like that? Resistance was not stand-alone from Cold War Crisis.

The reasson is $$$. As a new cautious buyer, would you buy the whole bundle or just the stand alone expansion , get a taste of the game and then buy the original when you see people also play that.

BIS did a smart thing with the stand alone model.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I didn't have any trouble installing CO...

[ShenArcanyx 10]

To be honest, If they do intend to release a standalone expansion for ArmA3, then I'd hope it'd have a "lite" form of the ArmA3 base content, since that would make modding/mission editing a tad bit easier, in terms of not accidentally making an "unplayable" mission for half of your clan or for public server players (due to missing dependancies). By "lite", I mean something like A2Free style of content. (i.e; no A3 SP Campaign, low quality textures/sounds/etc)

[tophe 68]

@maio: Yeah, of course it would have been a business perspective on it - since there is no other good thing about it. Of course I want BIS to make the big bucks, but I just hope the next releases won't fragment the community and make it harder for designers and to design

[Guest]

@CyclonicTuna

Do not crosspost, you posted your idea in the wishlist topic already and it suits there the best anyway. Post removed.

[Nicholas 5]

The reasson is $$$. As a new cautious buyer, would you buy the whole bundle or just the stand alone expansion , get a taste of the game and then buy the original when you see people also play that.

You wouldn't have to buy the whole bundle for OFP. You could buy CWC, Red Hammer, and Resistance all separate if you wanted. And why would someone buy the expansion to get a taste for the game, then buy the original. Most people I've met who bought Operation Arrowhead wondered why they needed ArmA 2.

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

I didn't have any trouble installing CO...

Well, many people obviously did, which is why we have this thread.

[Maio 293]

You wouldn't have to buy the whole bundle for OFP. You could buy CWC, Red Hammer, and Resistance all separate if you wanted. And why would someone buy the expansion to get a taste for the game, then buy the original. Most people I've met who bought Operation Arrowhead wondered why they needed ArmA 2.

If you look at it from the OA point of view, it was an improvement over ArmA 2 vanila, but if you wanted to play on Chernarus or Utes with the assets from OA, you needed A2 vanila.

As you said if a player only wants to play OA, he can, beacuse it's not tied into A2. BIS makes money, the player saves money. Sunshine and green grass.

It's a thing of choice :)

[Nicholas 5]

If you look at it from the OA point of view, it was an improvement over ArmA 2 vanila, but if you wanted to play on Chernarus or Utes with the assest from OA, you needed A2 vanila. It's a thing of choice

But it caused much more trouble than good....it confused many potential buyers, fragmented the community for a while, and made combining A2 and OA a pain in the ass (Although, finally fixed in 1.60).

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Maionaze, take a look at this. I just found this while browsing the Take On Helicopters forum.

I understand alot of this community also has ARMA, which I don't have either (looks interesting, but it's quite intimidating when you go to their main site and see "A2", "A2FR", "A2CO", "A2OA", "A2RFT", "A2BAF", "A2PMC", etc.,..)

I looked at two of the Arma versions above and still can't figure out if they've got 7 different games listed, or if it's a general upgrading through paid addons which has brought them to a final version.

Then I have to wonder if this game ("TKOH") is about to take the same path? TKOH, TKOH:H, TKOH:?, TKOH:??, etc,.,

I'd just like to get a foot-hold on how this company works before I go any further.

Really, a user should not feel that way. There are far too many different versions that confuse potential buyers. It's created a very large mess.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Nicholas

[frostwyrm333 1]

Operation Freezepoint: Winter on Limnos

[Derbysieger 11]

Weren't the problems with combining A2 + OA 'only' steam related? I never had problems with that. In 2010 I pre-ordered OA (retail). It recognized my A2 installation and installed it in the right place. No problems at all. I guess if they decide to release a standalone addon for A3 they should keep the installation as simple as it's always been with retail/sprocket A2+OA versions across all release platforms.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Derbysieger

[onlyrazor 11]

Operation Freezepoint: Winter on Limnos

Arma: Cold War in the Cold

[Beagle 684]

ArmA III: Operation "Nuclear Winter"

[Craig_VG 20]

Arma: Cold War in the Cold: Refrozen?

Personally I was okay with the standalone expansion, as I had no issues with it. But plenty of people did. My opinion is keep it how they did it for OA.

But any expansion for A3 is quite a ways off. Cross the bridge when/if we come to it?

-Craig

[ProfTournesol 956]

ArmAIII : "Return of Ondrej's Mussaka"

[Maio 293]

I understand alot of this community also has ARMA, which I don't have either (looks interesting, but it's quite intimidating when you go to their main site and see "A2", "A2FR", "A2CO", "A2OA", "A2RFT", "A2BAF", "A2PMC", etc.,..)

I looked at two of the Arma versions above and still can't figure out if they've got 7 different games listed, or if it's a general upgrading through paid addons which has brought them to a final version.

Then I have to wonder if this game ("TKOH") is about to take the same path? TKOH, TKOH:H, TKOH:?, TKOH:??, etc,.,

I'd just like to get a foot-hold on how this company works before I go any further.

Really, a user should not feel that way. There are far too many different versions that confuse potential buyers. It's created a very large mess.

I know man, I'm all for user satisfaction. The problem that user had was website design :) ArmA 2 and OA should have been under stand alone games , BAf and PMC under DLC and RFT and CO under game bundles.

They have to work on their information delivery methods. When that is done, do you think the now enlightened consumer will have a easier time deciding if he wants to buy 2 games instead of one?

But it caused much more trouble than good....it confused many potential buyers, fragmented the community for a while, and made combining A2 and OA a pain in the ass (Although, finally fixed in 1.60).

It fragmented the community how? In those who had the expansion and in those who did not? The same thing would have applied with an expansion that required ArmA2.

I for one never had a problem with CO. As I understand Steam users had a rough time. That's more of Steam's fault then BIS's.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Maio
Oven sweet potatos with gorgonzola sauce and oregano.

[Nicholas 5]

I for one never had a problem with CO. As I understand Steam users had a rough time. That's more of Steam's fault then BIS's.

It's not just the website that confuses people. It's just all the different versions. I did not have a problem with CO either, but many, many people did. I don't see how it could be Steam's fault that the two games would not merge when BIS recently released patch 1.60 that finally fixed the issue.

[antoineflemming 14]

It's not just the website that confuses people. It's just all the different versions. I did not have a problem with CO either, but many, many people did. I don't see how it could be Steam's fault that the two games would not merge when BIS recently released patch 1.60 that finally fixed the issue.

It's easy for people who don't have Steam to try to blame problems on Steam. But you're right, it's not Steam's fault.

[iratus 71]

It fragmented the community how? In those who had the expansion and in those who did not? The same thing would have applied with an expansion that required ArmA2.

If OA addon would have required ArmA2 the community would have been split into the following two groups:

• People who do not have the Addon
  
• People who have the addon
  

For mission makers and serverhosts this means they have the option to play it safe and only use Vanilla content to ensure the mission is playable for everyone.

With OA being a stand alone expansion the community is split into the following three groups:

• People who only have ArmA2
  
• People who have ArmA2 and OA
  
• People who only have OA
  

So we have one fraction more. For mission makers and serverhosts this means there is no "safe way", they allways have to "cut off" part of the community.

On the other hand, one could imagine some people would not have bought OA if it hadn't be standalone (because they didn't allready have ArmA2). one could allso imagine some of them might even have bought ArmA2 Vanilla later on because they got interested in OA and ArmA in general.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

ArmAIII - Love child of Victor Troska slaps down whinging bitch thread.

(Sry, slid in here mistaking thread title for constructive discussion about what sort of expansions/DLC/standalone people would like to see, I was wrong)

[wipman 1]

Hi, i didn't like the OA release way because it killed the ArmA2 as pretty soon it became neccessary to play in MP and it didn't add anything in therms of gameplay, good new official SP/MP missions or campaigns and a while after that... it became OA instead ArmA2 OA; and then... came all the other DLCs that were only for the OA and that was what stabbed the last nail on the ArmA2's coffin.

In my opinion was a bad decission by BIS that i hope that don't happen again. Let's C ya

[metalcraze 290]

I still see a lot of people playing on Chernarus with a lot of ArmA2 units. So I don't get the complaint?

Nothing stops you from playing ArmA2 1.11 - BIS didn't drop the support. People didn't move to OA because it was new. They move onto it because it is superior in terms of actual gameplay.

As for the topic at hand. I really hope BIS will do a proper expansion instead of DLC milking like it looks they are going to do with Take On Helicopters now (a chopper plus some reskins and a few scenarios for ~$20? Is this a bad joke?).

Preferably set in some northern european area to have a contrast with desert-ish Limnos.

[Maio 293]

On the other hand, one could imagine some people would not have bought OA if it hadn't be standalone (because they didn't allready have ArmA2). one could allso imagine some of them might even have bought ArmA2 Vanilla later on because they got interested in OA and ArmA in general.

That's my point :). A standalone is the better option from the financial point of view. BIS might have good post release product support, but they still need the $$$ to survive as a company a.k.a sold game units. If I recall corectly they expanded their QA department, less chances they will have a bumpy ride in future vanila-stand alone exp. fusions.

[Tonci87 163]

That's my point :). A standalone is the better option from the financial point of view. BIS might have good post release product support, but they still need the $$$ to survive as a company a.k.a sold game units. If I recall corectly they expanded their QA department, less chances they will have a bumpy ride in future vanila-stand alone exp. fusions.

I thought we are the QA Department :p