Would you pay for "modern warfare" dlc

[znooptokkie 14]

If they would make a DLC that cover 2009-2016 i would buy it. But i would prefer an DLC with end cold war era units, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact forces... Or country based DLCs like the BAF DLC of ArmA 2. Maybe this time for Chinese forces or something that ArmA did not covered till today.

[pooroldspike 129]

I bought Arma3 a few weeks ago thinking it'd be current modern weapons, so I was disappointed to find it's all futuristic stuff even though it's enjoyable.

I'm wading through the mods and addon pages all over internet-land trying to find items like the Abrams and Bradley etc to put into Arma 3 but as yet I haven't found anything.

I'm sure the lack of them in the game is denting Arma3 sales figures.

If I have to pay for DLC containing them, my cash is ready and waiting..:)

[albr01 10]

Yes, with a new campaign.

[MavericK96 0]

I bought Arma3 a few weeks ago thinking it'd be current modern weapons, so I was disappointed to find it's all futuristic stuff even though it's enjoyable.

No offense but it sounds like you didn't do much research before you purchased the game.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I won't buy it but i agree it should exist so that people stop requesting it.

[Sam75 0]

I don't like the "futuristic" aspect of the game at all.

If I knew we were not going to see an ACE mod for arma 3 I would not have bought the game.

[yevgeni89 163]

I'd rather see this game finished, as in all content that was going to be put in finished, before I looked at DLC's, and I felt that they should've utilized more of it's content from a A2 into A3, especially for the civilian vehicles,aircraft, and a number of the wheeled vehicles for the AAF, I'm not crazy about weapons and vehicles in development or cancelled prototype weapons that arma3 has , but like I said I wouldn't pay for Modern DLC , as that's what most of the community is focusing on anyway right now with ports and their own designs.

[soulis6 24]

No, not unless it added some interesting gameplay or mechanics. I personally don't really get the complaints about future equipment (which don't really seem all that futuristic to me). I think people who want modern/old stuff just want to be able to recreate real-world scenarios, which doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

The reason I play Arma is to be able to coordinate and communicate with friends, devise/improvise plans that emphasize strategy and tactics, trek around an awesome open world, and blow stuff up. The actual weapons and vehicles used don't really impact this at all, unless you're taking away or adding functionality.

It would definitely be nice to see more civilian vehicles/planes, and whatnot, but I don't think it should be a priority.

[RushHour 11]

Arm 3 DLC - Fixing shit that´s broken.

Now that one i´ll look forward to.

[Alpha Whiskey Romeo 17]

Armee de Terre expansion, since we've had the UK, Czech's, Germany (kinda), and obviously the United States. They have the 6th largest military budget in the world, are rapidly becoming the dominate military power in Europe, and will eventually surpass the UK in power projection, technology and force-levels over the next decade. It's time they got some love.

I'd also like to see a DLC/Expansion where the fighting moves to U.S. soil. It's the Armaverse after all, so anything is possible.

[matty1053 10]

Definently do think someone hell even the devs make "CURRENT WARFARE".

Modern Warfare isn't really the term.

Current Weaponry and assets.

I do like ARMA III, but definently am not enjoying the future. (I knew about it when the alpha released)

[Maio 293]

The reason I play Arma is to be able to coordinate and communicate with friends, devise/improvise plans that emphasize strategy and tactics, trek around an awesome open world, and blow stuff up. The actual weapons and vehicles used don't really impact this at all, unless you're taking away or adding functionality.

I agree and my answer yes. Yes, because the community I play with will eventually adopt said DLC and I don't want to play using the "light" version of the DLC.

Also please stay on topic and stop finding ways to bring up bugs, flaws, etc. You can do that in dedicated threads.

[Wiki 1558]

I would but it must be very high quality with proper campaign - or at least good SP missions along with it

[kremator 1065]

Never mind this, but wouldn't a Planetside2 DLC be even better!

[roshnak 41]

I agree and my answer yes. Yes, because the community I play with will eventually adopt said DLC and I don't want to play using the "light" version of the DLC.

Also please stay on topic and stop finding ways to bring up bugs, flaws, etc. You can do that in dedicated threads.

I don't see how people answering that they would not buy the suggested DLC, and then giving a reason -- they don't feel like they have gotten their money's worth out of the game they already purchased yet -- is off topic.

[twisted 128]

yes, id pay for official DLC like this from BIS at the same or higher level to arma3 quality.

[RED SOLDAT 10]

I will pay for every single DLC because it's very important to support the greatest developers in the universe. I dont understand whats the dummy idea about futuristic setting in ARMA 3, more over 95% of weapons and vehicles represented in arma 3 are real.

[HJohnson 16]

Modders have already ported all of Arma 2 into 3, which counts.

Unless you want them to completely remodel everything.

[mistyronin 1181]

Modders have already ported all of Arma 2 into 3, which counts.

Unless you want them to completely remodel everything.

I think that no one is asking for an A2 port, but to have good modern warfare stuff with the A3 standards; well design with more features, etc.

BTW Realistic warfare, doesn't mean a copy of the Merkava but with half its functions ( where is the mortar ), weird turrets, etc. Or projects that were cancelled. But the possibility to play a modern army as a whole ( which BTW it doesn't have to be the US nor Russia ).

[Crimson_Ghost138 11]

mhmmmm... it would really depend on the quality and focus of the DLC. I would enjoy playing highly accurate, complete armys with infantry, vehicles, planes and helicopters, short: new factions properly build, and i would also pay for it. But i won´t need any more US based things...

But as already mentioned, it has to be really professionally made, with a campaign and/or a few SP and Coop/MP Missions, and maybe 1-2 nice little new features, maybe Thermal-Googles for Infantry or something...

[albr01 10]

I will pay for every single DLC because it's very important to support the greatest developers in the universe. I dont understand whats the dummy idea about futuristic setting in ARMA 3, more over 95% of weapons and vehicles represented in arma 3 are real.

+1

And yes, all weapons and/or vehicles are real. Some vehicles might be prototypes.

[eymerich 11]

Modders have already ported all of Arma 2 into 3, which counts.

Unless you want them to completely remodel everything.

Modder did/are doing a truly awesome work.

But, problems in porting a2 addon still remains: for example the vehicle's phisics

[SPC.Spets 21]

depending of the quantity, quality and price. but yeah, I probably will buy it :s

[lukio 18]

Just curious as to how people would welcome a dlc based on todays army , instead of the futuristic setting of the arma 3 one. Say like a prequel to the "futuristic war"....

Which part of A3 is futuristic again? That old LEO tank renamed "Kuma"? That old Comanche attack chopper named "Blackfoot"? That old Fenneck vehicle named "Strider"? etc. etc. All I see is equipment that was produced and deployed within the last 10 years, not even the AH-6 got it's most recent upgrade within the game. What some people seem to be calling for in "Modern Warfare" rather seems to be "Outdated warfare".

[jgbtl292 0]

stupid blabber .... a military vehicle is not a civil car , most are for a lifetime over 30 years build.