What is the future of this franchise?

[Alwarren 2767]

Heck, the fact that ARMA will always have a popularity ceiling because of the emphasis on milsim -- and no, that's not the fault of non-fans -- is not a good excuse to allow annoyances of ARMA to fester and remain, much less to fall in love with them or develop a blind spot to them... unfortunately, that popularity ceiling is almost certainly why there isn't competitive pressure to "push" Arma to be better.

I think that changed somewhat with DayZ, which made ARMA (even if not as a milsim) very popular and likewise revealed a number of flaws that the fans have learned to accept but the general public didn't. The inventory handling is a good example of this, it has been criticized in all DayZ reviews I've seen. It made BIS re-think some of their concepts, and I suppose it is another reason why ARMA 3 is taking its sweet time.

DayZ has exposed the game to a lot of people, and as I said before, this is a change to pull some of them in. But for that, ARMA 3 must lose some of the quirks that ARMA 2 had, especially in the usability and controlability sectors. You will never be able to please the crowd of (and I saw this word with a shudder because I dislike the concept) "instant gratification" players. ARMA will ever be a game that asks you to put some effort in it, but the same goes for Battlefield 3 which can be a lesson in frustration until you pick up some of the core mechanics of the game that DO differ from COD. Problem with BF is that you can buy an unlock pack (blerg, who pathetic).

Summing up, ARMA will never be a mass market game, it won't be possible to both please the COD players and the Milsim fans. Fans of ARMA 2 will stick with it, and if accessibility is improved, a few people from the outside will join us. It will be those people that look for something more sophisticated than CoD who now turn to BF3 for that. The future of the ARMA franchise is promising IMO.

The thing is, this is a perfectly valid reason for them to pick COD, and frankly I even use crowd dynamics when people ask me what console to get -- "if you're interested in playing online, then get whatever the friends that you want to play with have (or will have)".

Not saying that it isn't a valid reason, as a matter of fact, I bought MW3 and BF3 for the same reason, and I have difficulties getting my friends into ARMA because of the opposite. I am just saying that if that is the only reason for someone to go COD, he might still be turned from the Dark Side :)

[KillerP90 10]

OA seems to have died down in player count on normal OA however A2 still runs with a heap of people (For me as an Australian) and is ALOT easier to find servers with people.

[maddogx 13]

Most likely thanks to Arma2 FREE. People are, of course, much more willing to download a game and take it for a spin if it costs them nothing, so the player count is automatically higher. ;)

But it's also a double-edged sword, because it is practically impossible to ban unwelcome people in a free2play game -they just keep coming back with a new account. This the reason why I hope and pray that "Arma 3 FREE" will never happen.

[NoRailgunner 0]

There will be always more people who play casual games/shooters and most of them never want something different or something more demanding to play. Just look at the release cycle of popular games/shooter franchises (incl. DLC / special offers) - do you really think those publishers/devs aren't aware about the "life cycle" of their projects? Do you really think that they don't know when their customers and/or fans need another "fix" or "new popcorn"??

[Alwarren 2767]

There will be always more people who play casual games/shooters and most of them never want something different or something more demanding to play. Just look at the release cycle of popular games/shooter franchises (incl. DLC / special offers) - do you really think those publishers/devs aren't aware about the "life cycle" of their projects? Do you really think that they don't know when their customers and/or fans need another "fix" or "new popcorn"??

That doesn't matter, of course the COD's and BF's will always have more players, and that is fine - especially considering what kind of retards you have to put up with when you play these games. As long as there are sufficient ARMA 3 players, both from a player as well as from BIS' perspective, things are fine. ARMA will never have the same numbers as COD, and neither should it try to appeal to so many people at once because it will water down the game for those that seek something different. The problem with today's game market is emulation - there is usually a benchmark game (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft) and everybody tries to be like that.

However, I am a software developer myself. I know that sales are needed to maintain your business. Therefore, ARMA needs enough players to keep it interesting for players and it needs enough customers to feed the dev team, It doesn't mean, however, that world domination is required, and I never claimed otherwise.

[NoRailgunner 0]

BIS as company is interested in maximizing their profit too. If the consumer interest/demand in milsims are low or declining they have to make some changes to survive. I highly doubt that actually so many players do have the patience and will to play a game without "insta-action&gratification" gameplay and features.

[Smurf 12]

The market is saturated with COD\BF like "insta-action&gratification" maybe something different, if well done, may change that. (Not the whole market of course, but gather a nice bunch of people that can't stand that thing anymore)

But you can't hook people to a game that have some core mechanics broken or isn't enjoyable to play due bugs and whatnot, which seems to be the case with ARMA all along.

[Alwarren 2767]

BIS as company is interested in maximizing their profit too. If the consumer interest/demand in milsims are low or declining they have to make some changes to survive. I highly doubt that actually so many players do have the patience and will to play a game without "insta-action&gratification" gameplay and features.

Maximizing the profit isn't necessary as long as it does turn out a profit, especially if you have other projects that you can rely on. Besides, I do consider ARMA flexible enough to support insta-action/unlocks/etc as one mode without sacrificing the milsim aspect.

[iceman77 18]

I do consider ARMA flexible enough to support insta-action/unlocks/etc as one mode without sacrificing the milsim aspect.

Exactly. Personally, I used to be into the milsim "purest" mindset (though I've always preferred pvp, regardless). Participating in large scale, TvT, realism campaigns throughout OFP and A1, for years. That's all fine and dandy, but sometimes you just want a game you can hop into and play, have fun and hop off, without having to play COD or BF. Idk if you remember a c&h (known as conquest in BF3) game mode known as Berzerk, but that was the perfect example of casual large scale pvp, @ it's finest. Basically like BF conquest mode on steroids, it was awesome. There hasn't been any c&h or any TvT game mode for that matter, quite like it. I guess vahalla comes the closest. But...

It's just too bad such game modes are left up to the community to produce. There's no more Berzerk and hasn't been for awhile :cry: Maybe zaphod will grace us with more berzerk when A3 comes out.

Adding such a game mode could only help Arma3. The hardened milsim aspect/gamemodes/gameplay will be there in A3, regardless if a few servers are running "fun" maps. Just keep DayZ standAlone and all will be good :cool:

Edited December 12, 2012 by Iceman77

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Alwarren - which of those other game project(s) are profitable enough so BIS can "rely on" making profit? It would be awesome if BIS would find a "perfect" solution for different types of gameplay without sacrificing the milsim aspect! But I have my doubts that this milsim aspect is or will be a strongpoint in A3 and for BIS devs anyway. Besides, if BIS want to sell something (and make some profit) BIS have to get the attention and interest from their potential customers.... unfortunately many people do know about release status of BIS games and do know how unstable/vulnerable mp is. Lets see if BIS can turn water into wine! ;)

[Alwarren 2767]

@Alwarren - which of those other game project(s) are profitable enough so BIS can "rely on" making profit? It would be awesome if BIS would find a "perfect" solution for different types of gameplay without sacrificing the milsim aspect! But I have my doubts that this milsim aspect is or will be a strongpoint in A3 and for BIS devs anyway. Besides, if BIS want to sell something (and make some profit) BIS have to get the attention and interest from their potential customers.... unfortunately many people do know about release status of BIS games and do know how unstable/vulnerable mp is. Lets see if BIS can turn water into wine! ;)

I do think that DayZ did sell a lot of ARMA's as a mod, and I don't doubt it will do good as a standalone game either. Whether it is enough or not, and what comes afterwards, remains to be seen.

[chortles 263]

I think that changed somewhat with DayZ, which made ARMA (even if not as a milsim) very popular and likewise revealed a number of flaws that the fans have learned to accept but the general public didn't.

I remember Mondkalb having some pretty damning words about the "old hardcores" in the player base about how the general public held Arma 2's UI to a higher standard than the existing player base did.

The inventory handling is a good example of this, it has been criticized in all DayZ reviews I've seen. It made BIS re-think some of their concepts, and I suppose it is another reason why ARMA 3 is taking its sweet time.

Not surprising to me; while of course Arma and the DayZ concept both mandate that there must be an inventory interface unlike other shooters, but that doesn't mean that it has to be worse than Jagged Alliance from back in 1994... or be less readily describable in text than the Jagged Alliance v1.13 New Inventory system; here's one Something Awful member's attempt at describing the Arma 2 inventory interface.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason for such harsh reactions from many new players and reviewers was because they had already experienced superior inventory interfaces (to that of Arma 2) in many other games already, whereas OA was stuck with the Arma 2 interface and Arma 2 was presumably stuck with the same style of inventory interface as in Arma because of BI's development path for Arma 2... a case of "I'm used to it" for the veteran players of Arma 2, an unwelcome throwback to those newcomers-through-DayZ who were used to better?

DayZ has exposed the game to a lot of people, and as I said before, this is a change to pull some of them in. But for that, ARMA 3 must lose some of the quirks that ARMA 2 had, especially in the usability and controlability sectors.

In fairness I think Arma 3 has already replaced those and "modernized" their replacements, even if that means the games' controls and UI coming closer to other games in that respect... and I'm okay with that, so I don't call it "selling out".

You will never be able to please the crowd of (and I saw this word with a shudder because I dislike the concept) "instant gratification" players.

I don't dislike the concept, especially recognizing that that's often a motivating factor in "what deserves my money" and I'm not ashamed of that.

ARMA will ever be a game that asks you to put some effort in it, but the same goes for Battlefield 3 which can be a lesson in frustration until you pick up some of the core mechanics of the game that DO differ from COD.

I'm actually not surprised, but then again one thing that gives COD the "less effort required" edge is that thanks to COD4 popularizing a bunch of what became gaming cliches, COD is the standard for many non-milsim shooters when it comes to game mechanics, even "aiming down the sights" (ADS)... and BF3's infantry controls are really similar to COD's. I consider this to be likely intentional, and I wouldn't be surprised at broad commonalities (emphasis on broad) between those and Arma 3's individual infantry controls (not having to do with inventory, maps, gadgets or unit command, just moving, aiming and shooting). In the case of Black Ops II, it seems that the changes to Combat Training were a conscious move to make it more "newb friendly", albeit in the case of CT that's by "weaning newbs in" with player/AI vs. player/AI matches (full XP until level 10, then half XP objective matches only) and player vs. AI co-op (no XP) as opposed to the implementation in Black Ops (TDM/FFA in a "walled off" separate MP profile against AI)... and I'm frankly okay with that style for "non-Arma" shooters with level progression.

As far as Arma though, I think the popularity of "that mod" has actually helped with "lowering the effort required to get into it". :p The Arma 3 controls and UI improvements seem like they'll also help with this.

Problem with BF is that you can buy an unlock pack (blerg, who pathetic).

I disagree, but then again there's two reasons for that:

#1: Considering that the free unlocks are by grinding, especially for those weapons added in the DLC packs, it's not so much "pay to win" as "pay to avoid the grind without the risk of getting banned for boosting for unlocks". I'll add that as far as infantry small arms goes you can still battlefield-pickup, wield and even reload them without the corresponding DLC or unlock -- you just can't choose to spawn in with them or customize them; I didn't buy any packs but I know what the target market is.

#2: I actually bought the Top Dog Gold and Silver Packs for a friend who was playing Sleeping Dogs! :p Albeit I insist that that was because of an unfortunate mechanic that can prevent someone from maxing out Triad level before the end of the game: you gain Triad XP through story missions or one particular repeatable DLC mission, but story mission replays are very miniscule in Triad XP payouts, hence I bought the packs so that he wouldn't be at risk of missing out if he didn't do well in particular missions when I wasn't around, plus the XP gains (granted as soon as you progress to the first apartment safe house in North Point) got the character close to level 8 out of 10 in all three categories, so the friend could play around with several added abilities earlier.

Summing up, ARMA will never be a mass market game, it won't be possible to both please the COD players and the Milsim fans. Fans of ARMA 2 will stick with it, and if accessibility is improved, a few people from the outside will join us. It will be those people that look for something more sophisticated than CoD who now turn to BF3 for that. The future of the ARMA franchise is promising IMO.

At which point its fanbase falls into infighting over the meaning of "milsim" :lol: Seriously though, if "a few new people from the outside will join us" due to improving accessibility, I say go for it, and to those complaining about the player base becoming impure, I say you're too late -- forget about a zombie mod, the cat's been out of the bag ever since Arma 2: Free.

COD exists for those who want arcadey infantry CQB action with a touch of "call-ins" (streaks) while BF3 and Planetside 2 exist for those who want combined arms without being milsim (because milsim sure doesn't have a monopoly on the combined arms concept) and ARMA exists for those who want milsim and to be able to mod.

But it's also a double-edged sword, because it is practically impossible to ban unwelcome people in a free2play game -they just keep coming back with a new account. This the reason why I hope and pray that "Arma 3 FREE" will never happen.

I look forward to Arma 3 FREE happening specifically to keep the people coming back -- after all, when it's time for a pay wall, there's always the eventual "Arma 3: Welcome to Shootland" expansion :D

Although I'll admit that A2F came after OA...

[Alwarren 2767]

@Chortles:

At the moment it is difficult to say what has and what hasn't been replaced in ARMA 3, since there hasn't been any news on it (hint hint nudge nudge). I do expect things to improve, although I wasn't exactly thrilled by what they showed so far in terms of user interface. Only time will tell, I suppose, as it has been repeatedly pointed out that things are prototypes only, and I do expect the community alpha to deliver some more feedback.

Instant Gratification: What I meant with this was that I dislike the fact that a game has to have the "instant gratification" factor in order to be deemed playable/good/enjoyable. I've seen reviews of certain games state that gratification is too slow. Granted, everybody likes to see his efforts rewarded in a game, but the average attention span has gone down considerably. Today, people expect achievements for merely starting a new game, and it seems that reviewers "support" this attitude. Gratification is good, and necessary, but criticizing that the game's rewards require too effort because you have to train a bit on the shooting range is misplaced IMO.

Infantry controls: As long as they don't take away my "lean" and "look around" keys, things are fine. What I mean with BF3's core mechanics was more that in BF3 you will have to be more adaptive to the map than in COD, both with your play stay and your weapons. It's difficult to describe, and probably off topic, so I'll leave it at that :)

"milsim and impurity": I agree, and to be honest, there is nothing wrong with other players coming in. There is no bunny hopping in ARMA :) People that don't like the style of playing will leave rather sooner than later anyway.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

This game has no future because of a spoiled fan base (BIS has literally given their lives for this game, surrendering most forms of popularity in the main market even). Most of the fans here spend more time bashing other players and opinions instead of working on valuable mods and other ways to improve this games popularity. Thats why this franchise is doomed in the long run in terms of popularity.

[chortles 263]

At the moment it is difficult to say what has and what hasn't been replaced in ARMA 3, since there hasn't been any news on it (hint hint nudge nudge). I do expect things to improve, although I wasn't exactly thrilled by what they showed so far in terms of user interface. Only time will tell, I suppose, as it has been repeatedly pointed out that things are prototypes only, and I do expect the community alpha to deliver some more feedback.

Well we just got news... the delay into 2013 was formally confirmed and we have a new project lead after the previous one (didn't he say "we couldn't make the 3D editor work or the AI stop seeing through grass"?) left BI. On the one hand, the new lead is a ten-year vet... on the other hand, he's a ten-year vet of Arma development, so now I have to hope that he doesn't roll back the improvements we've seen at Gamescom... considering how much I like Jay Crowe's publicly stated development priorities I'm genuinely concerned about the creative director and the project lead possibly not seeing eye-to-eye, whereas at least the previous guy didn't (to my knowledge) get in Jay's way. :(

The "pointing out" about the prototypes was as far back as Gamescom, and not surprising to me considering that the intended "showcase" path revealed before E3 didn't have one just for UI, so the priorities of "what we need to have implemented enough to show off" clearly left the user interface out; I wasn't bothered that certain UI aspects remained unchanged (so that at least they weren't worse than Arma 2, just not fixed like other aspects)... did you think that some of the changes were for the worse?

Instant Gratification: What I meant with this was that I dislike the fact that a game has to have the "instant gratification" factor in order to be deemed playable/good/enjoyable. I've seen reviews of certain games state that gratification is too slow. Granted, everybody likes to see his efforts rewarded in a game, but the average attention span has gone down considerably.

Well, what if the player showed up for instant gratification? I'm in that subset of players who picked up Arma not for DayZ but also not for milsim... :p As people coming to expecting it, why wouldn't they when Microsoft and Sony seem to require achievements/trophies for games so that the path of least additional work is for devs to pad their checklist with progression checkpoints?

Gratification is good, and necessary, but criticizing that the game's rewards require too effort because you have to train a bit on the shooting range is misplaced IMO.

For me what matters is whether "having to train" for online play is a "hard" requirement (i.e. see how America's Army handled snipers and Special Forces) or simply a "soft" incentive that gives you additional in-game rewards besides increased proficiency; Black Ops II instead seems to have chosen a "training wheels" approach.

As an example of the "soft incentive" method, MAG (on PS3) has a training mission where you get a one-time EXP grant of just enough XP to get to level 2, which before the inventory/skills revamp would the player go straight to getting a Medkit (and being able to heal teammates and gain XP from doing so). If Arma 3 turns out to have Camp Maxwell be anything like the Gamescom build, then I imagine that the Shooting Range and Firing Drills will be available for anyone to hop into, while the "modular" nature of Arma means that any training "hard requirement" would have to be built into an individual mission by its mission maker.

Infantry controls: As long as they don't take away my "lean" and "look around" keys, things are fine.

Funny thing is, Black Ops on PC did have Q/E "lean" keys, just not a free-look key. I think I get the gist of what you mean about BF3 "core mechanics" though, no need to elaborate.

"milsim and impurity": I agree, and to be honest, there is nothing wrong with other players coming in. There is no bunny hopping in ARMA :) People that don't like the style of playing will leave rather sooner than later anyway.

Pretty much the attitude I'd take... after all, if I wanted jumping I'd just use ShackTac's vaulting mod :lol: or SMK mod for mantling.

Besides, in addition to "came for DayZ, stayed for Arma" players, there'll remain people who (mistakenly or not) believe that DayZ will one day come out for "the Arma 3 engine", which of course was much more plausible back before the standalone announcement and when BI's guys like Maruk were publicly "still just trying to take this all in mentally"... I still remember the "Preorder Arma 3 for DayZ on Day One" GameStop jingle in my head from back then. ;)

[Cyper 18]

I can understand that people get upset with DayZ servers all over the place. But as soon as DayZ become standalone I strongly believe many Arma II DayZ servers will dissapear. DayZ have brought a lot of money for BIS. People have bought the game and its expansion just for DayZ.

As long as BIS refuse to fall to the pressure of the mainstream, then its not very likely that the core of the game will change.

[chortles 263]

I can understand that people get upset with DayZ servers all over the place. But as soon as DayZ become standalone I strongly believe many Arma II DayZ servers will dissapear.

While plausible, the restrictions that Rocket is intending besides no-modding and only Chernarus -- for a "unified experience" that he has more control over -- will limit that decline in Arma 2 DayZ mod servers, especially when you have situations like PC Gamer outright dedicating an article to DayZ Namalsk.

DayZ have brought a lot of money for BIS. People have bought the game and its expansion just for DayZ.

This is exactly what some of the complainers fear -- that DayZ is BI's new golden child and that DayZ has the revenue numbers to back itself up in a few months more than three years of milsim... mind you, I remember the OP complaining that the DayZ population had *ahem* infected the Arma 2 population and one YouTube comment complained about how Arma 2 didn't need anti-cheat before DayZ... to which I say "tough, the horse has left the barn."

[antoineflemming 14]

I can understand that people get upset with DayZ servers all over the place. But as soon as DayZ become standalone I strongly believe many Arma II DayZ servers will dissapear. DayZ have brought a lot of money for BIS. People have bought the game and its expansion just for DayZ.

As long as BIS refuse to fall to the pressure of the mainstream, then its not very likely that the core of the game will change.

Zombies are mainstream...

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

For me what matters is whether "having to train" for online play is a "hard" requirement (i.e. see how America's Army handled snipers and Special Forces) or simply a "soft" incentive that gives you additional in-game rewards besides increased proficiency; Black Ops II instead seems to have chosen a "training wheels" approach.

I'd actually like an America's Army qualification-type training in ArmA3. Cuz it's not THAT hard, and requires you to actually do training to get familiar with the weapon. Sure, some would say it's a waste of time, but I say not really. Sure, it's not too important for the rifles and automatic rifles/machine guns. But for the other weapons and equipment, that could help. I'd honestly like AA's health system too (or rather, their medical system). So actually having to apply a certain treatment to heal, really bandage, the wounded player. It's not a magic health pack restores 100% health. If you're shot in the leg, a bandage stops you from bleeding out. That's the sort of things that are important to me really. BIS put out a survey asking about the possibility of social features in ArmA3. Among those could be an account-based MP system. The game could require you to complete the training before you go into ArmA3 MP. Or rather, that could be left up to the individual servers. So, just like there's the option to allow or disable Battleye, there could be the option to enable/disable the training requirement. I'm definitely in favor of a hard requirement though. Not for instant gratification or in-game rewards. ArmA 3 doesn't need in-game rewards beyond passing a qualification and unlocking a certain type of weapon, if the mandatory training were implemented.

[chortles 263]

Or rather, that could be left up to the individual servers. So, just like there's the option to allow or disable Battleye, there could be the option to enable/disable the training requirement. I'm definitely in favor of a hard requirement though.

Ironically, I believe that the continued use of dedicated servers means that a hard requirement isn't going to happen -- the way that the community would seem to want Arma 3 MP connectivity to work (to say nothing of the idea of mission-maker freedom) seems to prevent the idea of any hard requirements on a mission, and of course, you saw those revolted at the idea of social features or the idea of BI working on anything except under-the-hood stuff that they wanted implemented. Although, an option would be to simply run a server where every mission has a "hard requirement" built-in (that is, the mission structure being that those who complete the training function can then proceed to a subsequent mission) that can be waived for non-newcomers...

Too bad you couldn't force anyone else to use this. :p

I'm not actually against a community rule where the admin requires newcomers to play a training mission though.

Not for instant gratification or in-game rewards. ArmA 3 doesn't need in-game rewards beyond passing a qualification and unlocking a certain type of weapon, if the mandatory training were implemented.

Dude, the weapon unlock is the in-game reward :lol:

Incidentally this is why I was fine with the BF3 unlock packs -- because they don't grant proficiency from training, and frankly the default unlock method isn't very skill based (say hello Metro64)... though of course that's more speaking poorly of BF3's core mechanics than the unlock packs.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Chortles

[antoineflemming 14]

Ironically, I believe that the continued use of dedicated servers means that a hard requirement isn't going to happen -- the way that the community would seem to want Arma 3 MP connectivity to work (to say nothing of the idea of mission-maker freedom) seems to prevent the idea of any hard requirements on a mission, and of course, you saw those revolted at the idea of social features or the idea of BI working on anything except under-the-hood stuff that they wanted implemented. Although, an option would be to simply run a server where every mission has a "hard requirement" built-in (that is, the mission structure being that those who complete the training function can then proceed to a subsequent mission) that can be waived for non-newcomers...

Too bad you couldn't force anyone else to use this. :p

I'm not actually against a community rule where the admin requires newcomers to play a training mission though.Dude, the weapon unlock is the in-game reward :lol:

Incidentally this is why I was fine with the BF3 unlock packs -- because they don't grant proficiency from training, and frankly the default unlock method isn't very skill based (say hello Metro64)... though of course that's more speaking poorly of BF3's core mechanics than the unlock packs.

By unlock a certain type of weapon, I mean like do a sniper qualification and then be able to use sniper rifles in-game. Do rifle qualification and use all rifles in-game. Do grenade qualification and get access to grenades in-game. Not like a COD system of unlock weapons after gaining so much XP. Like America's Army.

[naizarak 4]

dayz and arma are fairly exclusive from each other, and will only drift apart even further when dayz goes standalone.

the problem with arma is in its basics - the game is a hardcore milsim that draws a small user base. add to that the fact that most multiplayer games require extensive organization, communication, and time-dedication, and you see why public servers just don't work. (domination and insurgency are a joke). unfortunately the only way to play arma is through a private community, but that only discourages many people from playing.

arma 3 needs to step up and fix its multiplayer. it's not enough to add "HD graphics" and a bigger island. the devs should know by now that the community is more than capable of adding content, they have to focus on the engine and other deep-rooted aspects that aren't open to community modders. so for starters, we need a proper server browser and enhanced mod integration - don't force us to use clunky 3rd party tools.

[Kamov 1]

naizarak that won't happen because the devs think that the community should bear all responsibility for making the game worthwhile at a $60 pricepoint.

[Maio 293]

naizarak that won't happen because the devs think that the community should bear all responsibility for making the game worthwhile at a $60 pricepoint.

A game worthwhile-ness is directly tied into ones expectation of said game. Just because you don't get your kicks out of the vanilla product does not mean the whole community is in the same pot as you.

[chortles 263]

By unlock a certain type of weapon, I mean like do a sniper qualification and then be able to use sniper rifles in-game. Do rifle qualification and use all rifles in-game. Do grenade qualification and get access to grenades in-game. Not like a COD system of unlock weapons after gaining so much XP. Like America's Army.

Cue the arguments over which weapons get locked behind which wall, much less whether or not attachments get locked behind such a "training" wall...

A game worthwhile-ness is directly tied into ones expectation of said game. Just because you don't get your kicks out of the vanilla product does not mean the whole community is in the same pot as you.

So lower one's expectations and hold BI to a low standard? :p Kamov's pretty much got down pat what I think of the idea of liking the series so unconditionally... some people want a toolbox, some people want a working game where the devs did the work instead of the community.

Re: "the community" -- there's a reason that DayZ kicked off when so many other zombie mods didn't even make a blip on the radar...

naizarak has a pretty sound point about the reason for the franchise's popularity ceiling -- it being milsim alone is enough to limit how much the franchise will sell (without DayZ that is) so BI shouldn't be actively limiting its potential even further through unforced errors... you know, even though the fact that they're making a game with an inherent popularity ceiling basically limits their competition and thus alternatives for people who want even harder sim. :p

[SnR 1]

Dayz, Life RPG's and Wasteland have added more community choice to public servers. And these servers fill up which is great for the franchise.