13€ DLC, hefty price for 2 choppers

[Alex72 1]

Lets see, 2 helicopters, advanced flight model + upgraded standard flight model, physical slingload and shooting from vehicles (not just helicopters).

Thats a little more than "2 helicopter seats", and the last feature written above is a long awaited one that many have been waiting for and now got. I know, its easy to complain and mess with facts, but to those reading this thread thinking its "just 2 helicopter" - its not. Further income lets BIS continue improving ARMA3 as well so lets stay positive and ticket/suggest them what to do. ;)

[the_demongod 31]

Lets see, 2 helicopters, advanced flight model + upgraded standard flight model, physical slingload and shooting from vehicles (not just helicopters).

Thats a little more than "2 helicopter seats", and the last feature written above is a long awaited one that many have been waiting for and now got. I know, its easy to complain and mess with facts, but to those reading this thread thinking its "just 2 helicopter" - its not. Further income lets BIS continue improving ARMA3 as well so lets stay positive and ticket/suggest them what to do. ;)

This is what I don't understand. People somehow convince themselves that the DLC includes only the ability to fly the heavy choppers, but they don't understand that you are paying to support the production of all the content, premium or not. You are paying the company to provide you with more content, and they use this money to make more content. It's a cycle, and if everyone legitimately thinks that the DLC content should all be free (seriously, don't even bother looking at the reviews for the Helicopter DLC), BI will never be able to produce the content that everybody is constantly requesting more of.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I'm sorry but that's quite strange. Usually, when i buy a DLC for a game, i don't do it to support the studio, but for what it is. So that's a DLC only aimed at our die hard supporting community ?

[Salakka 1]

DLC on hold until Arma 3 is more "fixed" (i.e. low GPU usage), and no I don't have issue supporting BIS but Arma 3 in current state is not something I'll support.

[kostaatanasov 35]

I love this game and I have gotten a lot of fun, excitement and good times from it. It was well worth the 40 or so Euros. I respect the developers deeply for the continued work they are putting into it - and they are doing an amazing job! This is one of the most complex games, and its scale is enormous. I dont think there are many games out there that give that much AAA content to the player. Actually, there may not be any other such games. Here's where the problem stems from, I think. We are asked to pay for a DLC, not to specifically support the company and pay more for a DLC, than its worth - which I believe a lot of us would do anyway. If its a DLC, it kind of leaves you feeling that something is wrong and its way overpriced, charging you for what's supposed to be the cost for a new campaign. If its a support the company package - then it doesnt say so, and still feels wrong. In any case, I will buy the DLC - but I still think BI should consider adjusting the price permanently, including all future DLC content. Cause with all due respect, this feels wrong.

So Bohemia, whatever you guys decide, you are making one hell of a game!:) Well done!

[St. Jimmy 272]

Well in the end the Marksmen DLC will show how good the 20€ DLC bundle is. If Marksmen alone has a lot of nice content compared to the price that people could pay 13€-15€ alone of that then those who don't like the Heli DLC currently can change their mind with the bundle because then you can imagine to get Heli and Karts for 7€.

[Poddy 1]

.....

Edited November 8, 2014 by Poddy
Moved to more appropriate thread

[Greenfist 1863]

Stop using the content you haven't paid for then.

[A3_Melle 40]

Stop using the content you haven't paid for then.

Thats something they will never do! The main reply will be "should have been in there from start", as if they all have seen the drawing boards at the start of ARMA3 developments..... These new things added are community wishes (from people who pay for the dlc's and those who refuse to).

1 of the biggest wishes is (And also for DNA, he said that in several interviews) the bipod, as this is also a marksman thingy it will be logical to get that on that DLC(i realy hope so), i have paid the the bundle and also know that the bipod will probely be free content again (like slingload and FFV), and i know for sure that people find something else to complaign about (as that DLC will probely also have "paid" content" as a thank you for the payment).

This will always be the endless.discussion, they had the luxery on ARMA2 with "lite" versions wich let you play with everything with less good gfx details for the vehicles(Wich stopt alot of people paying for it as they could use it for free), this has changed now and it is actualy a good improvment, you want luxery (flying as pilot on new heli's) buy the DLC.

Edited November 8, 2014 by -1PARA-Melle

[Poddy 1]

you want luxery (flying as pilot on new heli's) buy the DLC.

I completely agree, but that doesn't equate to, "Don't buy the content, have some full screen overlay, in-gameplay adware."

This is only a problem with shared assets where players have no choice but to use those assets to join in with the server missions.

"Any squad members who don't own the DLC and don't want adware forced upon them get in the Hummingbird, any squad members who don't mind adware or own the DLC, get in the Huron."

See the problem?

[vegeta897 13]

I completely agree, but that doesn't equate to, "Don't buy the content, have some full screen overlay, in-gameplay adware."

This is only a problem with shared assets where players have no choice but to use those assets to join in with the server missions.

"Any squad members who don't own the DLC and don't want adware forced upon them get in the Hummingbird, any squad members who don't mind adware or own the DLC, get in the Huron."

See the problem?

It's not forced if they choose to get in a DLC chopper, or choose to play a mission that requires this action. If a DLC chopper isn't free, then why should a player be able to fully enjoy a mission based around one? If he could fully enjoy the mission, that's removing incentive to purchase. Whereas if the mission has an option to use the DLC chopper or a vanilla chopper, the only part they're missing out on is what they didn't pay for. Either way, I don't see the problem. It's down to the mission designer and server admin to make their own judgments on how enjoyable they want their mission or server to be for non-DLC owners. You cannot say players are forced to see ads if you're talking about choosing to play missions that require the use of DLC content. You wouldn't be using the word "forced" at all if players simply couldn't join servers that had DLC content, which is how most games do it.

You didn't mention it, but I do think that showing ads when joining/leaving a DLC mission even without using the DLC content yourself is a bit overkill. They should at least not have countdown timers.

[TrueCruel 10]

Sadly that fast roping is not in this DLC, normally it "should" be in there if a whole DLC is dedicated to Helicopters...

[PlacidPaul 11]

normally it "should" be in there

sorry, but what? where? lol

[Joseph Archer 10]

+1 very poor value from BIS on chopper DLC. Will not commit to pre purchase in future. Bad move BIS.

[A3_Melle 40]

+1 very poor value from BIS on chopper DLC. Will not commit to pre purchase in future. Bad move BIS.

If everybody does that than after the "marksman DLC" there will be no furter big adjustments for future DLC's.... if they than still think about creating new DLC's as ongoing development cost money, no money no ongoing development, like it or not than everybody is only going to get better gameplay and new stuff with mods and BI can slow down the further developement of ARMA3 as ongoing development cost money wich is no longer coming in and the funds will run dry eventualy and BI has to pull the plugg and halt all activity's related to ARMA3.

Once again... the helicopter DLC brought much more than just the pilot seats on the 2 new helicopters the entire community had a profit and the DLC buyers have those pilot seats as a "bonus/Thank you" for supporting the development by buying the DLC(or bundle).

Did you realy want a big split within the ARMA community? Slingload, fire from vehicles and the new helicopters only for DLC owners? Look at BF3/4 if you dont have a DLC you simply cant play with alot of stuff: EA response: Its dlc content buy the DLC to play with it and there are no problems as everybody buys them to play more and more (better guns, new ranks/medals and other maps vehicles).

[Kumeda 6]

With this patch some "new techs" were included alongside the DLC. Also people that want to have full access are basically paying for everyone that isnt interested in flying the new choppers themself. This is the price for not "forcing" the buy and still trying to include everyone. And of course BI will have to get some money for their continious fixing as well as for working on arma's futur. So personally I can live with the price, even if I have to admit that it seems like alot money if I only count the choppers.

What concerns me so is wether the concept of BI will actually work. As far as I understood the content should be usable but not playable for people not owning it. Well it is ..I tried it on some public server... but honestly using it kind of spoiled it for me. Just sitting in the backseat to get from A to B I got advertisments after a while which started to enoy me big time after a while. Just imagine playing with your friend ...you sit in the backseet on the bench, you weapon is up for defense thanks to the new feature (shooting from vehicles). Finally a firefight starts from the bench...but not only that. At the peak of your concentration during the fight your screen suddenly becomes tily with some rotors on it but as it came it wents ...but its actually only getting worth when the add starts popping up in the middle of your screen blocking the view on the barrel of your gun and your aiming cross. Now start imagine that you not only have 1 DLC but lets say 10 different DLC that are all included in the game and are actually used (not like carts). It will be come very unpleseant for one not owning ..several things.

Honestly ! That's bad really bad! even I learned in a basic marketing class that putting possible buyers into a state of tensness can help to get attention and sell ..but if done over the top it will only have negativ effects because the product you want to sell is conected to an unpleseant experience ..simply put. Well it is possible that the add is so annyoing that people start buying it cus ..its annyoing but this is not what I think you guys from BI want, do you?

I think it would be totally enough to inform the player once he "uses/enters" something in a session for the first time and once the sessions is over...

Edited November 11, 2014 by Kumeda

[A3_Melle 40]

Personaly i think they are still trying to find a balance in the DLC's, helicopter DLC i agree looks "soft" even though the entire package (with new stuf for mission makers also) is actualy normal.

ARMA2 had the luxery with the lite version for DLC's and everybody got the same stuff but only the DLC owners got HQ details, less and less people bought new DLC's as it was not about the HQ gfx of the vehicles but for the gameplay that ARMA2 had.

This is also that luxery what now is the problem..... people could use everything without the DLC now they have to pay for getting behind the wheel of than new vehicle and the gfx for DLC owners and not DLC owners(saving time and money creating 2 models 1 hq and 1 low quality) are the same.

In the end theire are always people who do like it and people who hate it and complaign, that will never change.

Do we realy want that new DLC content only gets availble for DLC owners only? (FFV, slingload new mission tools and so on) that means splitting up large gaming community's as not everybody buy's the DLC's, so a few can never play missions wich have those DLC contents, and this current way (even do it looks verry small for a DLC) is a good 1 as still everybody can play each mission with the new content but just cant get in the pilot seats of the new helicopters.

This is the 1st "DLC" carts was a developer mod created for april fools for fun with alot of people interested, so they put that up as a test for paid DLC use and see how they could implement future DLC's, but at that release people were to busy asking why a cart is added to a militairy game and not thinking about it as how future DLC's could be implemented.

I personaly look at the "bigger" picture, everybody can play with all the luxery without buying the DLC's, but without the role as a driver/pilot on the new (and future) vehicles.

Is the balance between price and luxery for DLC owners in balance? some look at the bigger picture and say yes (even though they would love more vehicles with the DLC) and others just dont, they cant make everybody happy and that where the mods kick in ;)

Edited November 11, 2014 by -1PARA-Melle

[iceman77 18]

To be fair it's more than "just 2 helicopters". Also, the way BI is doing it is okay. Locking content is fine, fragmenting the community is not. eg; new DLC content only gets availble for DLC owners only << would be a mistake, as already seen in the past.

[Maio 293]

Honestly ! That's bad really bad! even I learned in a basic marketing class that putting possible buyers into a state of tensness can help to get attention and sell ..but if done over the top it will only have negativ effects because the product you want to sell is conected to an unpleseant experience ..simply put. Well it is possible that the add is so annyoing that people start buying it cus ..its annyoing but this is not what I think you guys from BI want, do you?

I think it would be totally enough to inform the player once he "uses/enters" something in a session for the first time and once the sessions is over...

I think BI's current customer base is diverse enough so that if one segment lags behind, other segments can cover for them in time. Also we have no idea what their markup rate on the DLC(s) is or their ROI projections. Their current DLC pricing strategy, at least for me, indicates that they are confident enough and planed for a long life cycle. If you add promotional sales and discounts to the mix... ::bounce3:

To conclude on this point, I don't think people being annoyed by the on screen ads is a big enough urgency factor some users can present to BI in order to "sale them" their views (from a business perspective).

Having the ad pop up upon entry and exit is an option. Would a delayed fade, let's say 30-40 secs, be reasonable?

[A3_Melle 40]

Anyone seen and read the sitrep yesterday? they already have a project running for DLC's AFTER marksman, DNA (Joris Jan) gave a small hint about a new map and new buildings :) Thats also financed with the current sales of the game and DLC's ;)

[Kumeda 6]

I think BI's current customer base is diverse enough so that if one segment lags behind, other segments can cover for them in time. Also we have no idea what their markup rate on the DLC(s) is or their ROI projections. Their current DLC pricing strategy, at least for me, indicates that they are confident enough and planed for a long life cycle. If you add promotional sales and discounts to the mix... ::bounce3:

To conclude on this point, I don't think people being annoyed by the on screen ads is a big enough urgency factor some users can present to BI in order to "sale them" their views (from a business perspective).

Having the ad pop up upon entry and exit is an option. Would a delayed fade, let's say 30-40 secs, be reasonable?

The question I'd like to raise to BI here is wether it is expected to sell the DLCs to those riding in the back ..by beeing anoying, inconsistent in presentation while at the time not beeing very informativ? And if thats worse putting people potentitially off ? If you want to sell somtheing for 13$ thats obviously seems to be to much for many people, youd better have a damn good reason to tell why I should buy it. This is not done by showing a tiled windows and doing confusing, sidtracking popups... in my believe. Communication is the key , cus people that are informed and decided not to buy are hard to crack. People that are informed and didn't decide yet ...don't get any new information from these add. For people that heard about it but aren't informed ..well not much information there why you should buy this. For People never heard of it this will look totally offputing.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Kumeda

[dav 22]

I paid €25 for Arma 3 and €15 for Dlc. I have played "700" hours in the sandbox. I genuinely feel I am getting the better deal than most "fast food" games with their "6"hour lastability. If Bis released more content in the style of helicopters dlc I would continue to support. If you can't afford the Dlc you may need to relocate to Mc Donald's.

[A3_Melle 40]

Agree with Dav, the hours i played ARMA3 is over 900, my battlefield 4 stats are less than 1 hour for MP(luckely got it as present because i wouldend even buy it), same for COD ghosts less than 1 hour online gameplay.

ARMA3 is jus wurth every penny! (And i agree that it sure is not 100% finished with optimization and vehicles to play with, but wenn i want large scale PVP, coop or with mods i can go all sides wich makes me play it every time and with that many hours, supporting the ongoing development with buying DLC's is the least i can do knowing it is for a good cause!

[galzohar 31]

or choose to play a mission that requires this action.

That's exactly the problem with the DLC model. They will choose to play a mission that doesn't require this action, leaving DLC owners to play only with other DLC owners (splitting the community) or play with the rest of the community in missions that don't rely on those mods and thus probably don't really make much use of them if those helicopters are even included in the mission in any way.

In the end, the people who buy the DLC with such a system get screwed, which would make many refrain from buying the DLC. Not a very good model for BIS, and not a very good model for me when BIS waste time on this kind of DLC where they could have been making something I could actually use. Though I suppose just 2 helicopter models is not that big of a waste, but then again that's exactly why people are crying 13 euros is too much for it. I'm saying not only is it too much for 2 helicopters, even if it wasn't too much it's still pointless to buy it (practically a donation to BIS) since with the way it's implement you can't really do much with it even if you do buy it.

I've never seen the point in playing missions with OA DLCs and don't really such much of a point playing a mission with the new A3 helicopters DLC. Even if I had the DLC for free I'm not sure how much I would have been actually be using it, if at all.

I would have bought the supporter's edition to get all the DLCs if it wasn't for what I've seen with A2/OA DLCs which were pretty much a waste of money.

When a proper expansion comes up, though, I'll buy it for sure. Well, at least assuming it is good enough that everyone else will buy it too, because otherwise I won't be able to play it just like I wouldn't be able to play with the DLCs even if I did buy them (unless I wanted to play by myself or ditch the guys I usually play with that are a lot less willing to buy useless stuff than I am). OA had relatively good value for money. I hope future expansions can do even more, and not the other way around.

Edited November 13, 2014 by galzohar

[vegeta897 13]

That's exactly the problem with the DLC model. They will choose to play a mission that doesn't require this action, leaving DLC owners to play only with other DLC owners (splitting the community) or play with the rest of the community in missions that don't rely on those mods and thus probably don't really make much use of them if those helicopters are even included in the mission in any way.

There's a difference between choosing to split the community and forcing it. BIS's model doesn't force it. Preventing mission access and thus server access due to a lack of ownership would be the developer forcing a split. Choosing not to play on such a mission is choosing a split, and we have always had that choice (and some people willingly split off from the general community, with passworded servers and/or proprietary mod packs). This is a pretty big difference. How could a DLC featuring helicopters or any other vehicle possibly cause less splitting than it is now, without making it utterly pointless to buy it?

I don't see how you can conclusively say that everyone who buys the DLC gets screwed in the end. It is not impossible to create a mission that contains DLC content that both owners and non owners can enjoy. You either lack imagination, or are deliberately being closed-minded to try to force a point. I've played countless missions in my long time as an Arma player that contain a used helicopter that didn't require me to do anything that I couldn't do if I didn't own it in this new model. Meanwhile the people flying would be able to enjoy their DLC.

If you never saw the point of playing with DLC in the past, I'm not sure what to say. Why weigh in on the DLC system at all if you're not interested in DLC? They were not pointless to many people. It was cool to have new maps, even small ones, and more weapon variety was great too. The exact same reason people enjoy playing with mods. I was happy to buy them because they were of a higher and more consistent quality than typical user-content, and I knew my money went to supporting a series I love. Some very popular mods even directly benefited from buying the DLCs (Project Reality, DayZ).