13€ DLC, hefty price for 2 choppers

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Using Galzohar's logic people should have just stuck with Arma 2 and not bought OA or any of the subsequent DLC.

The current system is fine in my opinion and I like the fact that I can play on the same servers as people who do not own the DLC while still being able to enjoy my DLC purchase (provided the mission maker has accomodated that by placing the objects in the mission.)

[PlacidPaul 11]

they could have been making something I could actually use.

1. Sling loading 2. Firing from vehicles 3. Advanced FDM

If you think missions are not important to DLC and want something to use, this DLC model is for you!

the guys I usually play with that are a lot less willing to buy useless stuff than I am

Now that is one tough crowd :butbut:

[mobile_medic 43]

if you support us with the buy of DLCs or packs or expansions then You more likely get more in the future

if you don't support us then You ay get less in the 'unclear' future (except the already announced roadmap) ...

So, the 2.7 million+ dayZ standalone (still in early pre-release form) "Survivors" @ 30 dollars each (that's $81,000,000 USD) who have bought into a promise yet to be fulfilled... and the over one million copies (at least, as of 6 months ago) of arma 3 (currently selling for $60 on steam) you guys/gals claim to have sold (even at an average purchase price of $30, that is another 30 million)... all in the last year or so...

On the conservative side, that's over $100 million in revenue in the past year just from those two games (one of which, doesn't even have a release date in sight! Talk about *support*!)...

That isn't enough "support" to afford your customers a "clear" future, or for you guys to finally get around to actually fixing your engine?

No, we need to dangle carrots with long-requested "free" (see: building it into the cost of the DLC anyway, by charging 15 bucks for 2 helis) feature upgrades, while still making no meaningful address (in words, or action) of the performance issues that have plagued the series.

I'd wager that you guys have had about your best year ever, financially. If it wasn't, then you are doing even better than anyone thought. Either way, stop hiding behind the notion that you are just a "small little company" who can't afford to provide your customers with a clear future, or an engine capable of taking advantage of modern hardware, without people overpaying for DLC products with a murky release structure.

If you are going to give the features to everyone for "free", then give them for free, and charge a fair price for a two-helicopter DLC ($4-8). Let's not forget that this is a mod-able game, and it is your customers who will ultimately create most of the content that will help drive further sales of your product. And, it is features, bug fixes, and performance improvements provided by you that will allow them to make the best content possible.

Charge the 15 and bundle the features and the content as the dlc (b/c that is what is actually happening here, only with some marketing gymnastics that result in in-game pop-up advertising). You are charging to add features that have long been requested by the community, while claiming to give them away for free... That's fine and all. It is a business after all. I just find it exceedingly disingenuous to claim you may not be able to afford to continue, as the DayZ "survivor" counter, alone, rapidly approaches $90 million dollars in less than a year. If you want to charge to develop features that your paying customers (who have continually supported you) have been asking for years to have, at least be up front about it.

Trying to guilt trip customers into more money, while still being incredibly *unclear* about if you ever plan to fix the foundation, is... well, something the big publishers (that everyone around here loves to hate) would do... (in my opinion).

If your DLC doesn't sell as well as you would like, it is your fault, not the customer. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

After such a windfall this last year, I'd much prefer you first fix your engine before giving me a guilt trip about how I need to buy your DLC so you can stay in business. If you did that, I'd be happy to over-pay for any DLC. Until then, you get no sympathy, or any more $ from me.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Mobile_Medic

[devilslayersbane 28]

So, the 2.7 million+ dayZ standalone (still in early pre-release form) "Survivors" @ 30 dollars each (that's $81,000,000 USD) who have bought into a promise yet to be fulfilled... and the over one million copies (at least, as of 6 months ago) of arma 3 (currently selling for $60 on steam) you guys/gals claim to have sold (even at an average purchase price of $30, that is another 30 million)... all in the last year or so...

On the conservative side, that's over $100 million in revenue in the past year just from those two games (one of which, doesn't even have a release date in sight! Talk about *support*!)...

After such a windfall this last year, I'd much prefer you first fix your engine before giving me a guilt trip about how I need to buy your DLC so you can stay in business. If you did that, I'd be happy to over-pay for any DLC. Until then, you get no sympathy, or any more $ from me.

You tend to forget, BI is a company. Economic theory states that they HAVE to profit in order to stay afloat. You don't know how much it cost to develop arma 3, you don't know how much it's costing Bohemia to develop DayZ. Not to mention, Bohemia has offices all over the globe, and the people who work at those offices likely have families and other things to attend to than to make YOU happy for YOUR hobby which YOU chose to take up. They stated their intentions long before the Helo's DLC came out. The customer has had plenty of time to decide whether or not they want it.

And guess what, they aren't necessarily a small company, but that doesn't mean that every member of the company is dedicated to ArmA (in fact, that's a guarantee). And sure, there's a lot of people playing arma for the mods; however, the servers that fill up on a daily basis only use vanilla content.

Not only that, but you also aren't working with bohemia trying to overhaul their engine. They have a boss and deadlines and profit margins they have to meet. Seriously, what about that is so hard to understand? These guys want to keep their job and while customer satisfaction plays a role in that, it's not the only factor.

They're not trying to guilt-trip you, they're trying to tell you that they're higher-ups will give them more time to do more if you fork out an extra dollar or two.

Finally, if there was a cake for me, I'd eat it. I would never have a cake and not eat it. That phrase is entirely misleading (though I know what you mean).

[Tankbuster 1746]

Economics, like any science, is easy when you understand nothing of it.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Economic theory states that they HAVE to profit in order to stay afloat.

Economics, like any science, is easy when you understand nothing of it.

Apart that it isn't Economics, but simply common sense.

[mobile_medic 43]

You tend to forget, BI is a company. Economic theory states that they HAVE to profit in order to stay afloat. You don't know how much it cost to develop arma 3, you don't know how much it's costing Bohemia to develop DayZ. Not to mention, Bohemia has offices all over the globe, and the people who work at those offices likely have families and other things to attend to than to make YOU happy for YOUR hobby which YOU chose to take up. They stated their intentions long before the Helo's DLC came out. The customer has had plenty of time to decide whether or not they want it.

I certainly did not suggest anywhere in my post that they shouldn't be trying to make a profit.

Likewise, nor do you know how much they spend. But, surely their overhead (and development budgets) are considerably lower than that of AAA titles/companies. If not, they are doing something terribly wrong. Especially, considering that BIS historically have only developed for a single platform, and have nowhere near the marketing budgets of these larger companies. EA has stated that they typically spend 2-3x more on marketing a AAA title than they do actually developing it. I highly doubt that Bohemia spends anywhere near that ratio on marketing. But, it's possible, I suppose for a "small" company to be pumping AAA budgets of far larger companies into their games.

Forgive me, but I just don't see how stating that employees have families and lives has anything to do with the discussion. Of course they do. I didn't say they need to work 24/7. They are employees at a *for-profit* company, and I am a paying customer with an opinion and I'll voice it. They can listen, or not, and deal with the pos or neg consequences later. It's about what they prioritize their investments in. For me, having an engine that can withstand the test of time and be a good foundation to continue to build on in the years ahead (as a business person) makes economic sense to prioritize investment in. Especially, considering its current state. It seems, instead of investing in a modern foundation upon which to grow, they have decided to invest in selling incremental feature updates that have been requested for a very long time.

Let's not forget that the numbers I did post are nowhere near comprehensive (while also remaining intentionally conservative), and while, I acknowledge that there is no way of knowing what their operating costs are, their total revenue (not profit) over the last year is surely quite a bit higher than that once all their ventures are taken into account.

An executive producer of "Watchdogs" said the game cost around 70 million to make. That is for a top tier release from ubisoft that was developed for 5(?) different platforms. I highly doubt bohemia has spent 70 million developing arma 3 and dayz. It is possible, but it seems highly unlikely to me. Obviously, I can't know one way or another for sure... But, let's say they spent 70 million making dayz and arma 3. In the last year alone, they would have generated some 50 million in profit from just those two releases (one of which isn't even near a final release. I mean, they have generated in excess of 80 million on a single game that is still in heavy development and in an early alpha pre-release form.

I'm not saying they shouldn't charge for dlc and such. It is status quo these days. I'm just saying, they shouldn't act like they can't afford to improve the game (which is in terrible need of improvement in a number of areas) when they are coming off what appears to be their most successful year financially (and, convincingly so). And, if it isn't, then (like I said before) they are doing even better than any of us could have imagined. It is just frustrating (as a customer) to see *major* issues not get addressed, and not talked about for years, while they piece-meal out features that have been requested for years with the attitude that was perceived in the post I originally quoted.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Mobile_Medic

[vegeta897 13]

DayZ's scope as a project has expanded majorly since the alpha released, and make no doubt about it this was in response to the massive influx of revenue. They're planning on releasing on PS4 and possibly other platforms now because of it. You make the bizarre implication that DayZ selling as well as it did means BIS now has the means to not only expand DayZ's scope and finish that game, but also continue working on and releasing content for Arma 3 without caring about how well the content they create sells.

Who said they "couldn't afford" to improve the game? I'm sorry to break it to you but throwing millions of dollars at the game engine isn't going to fix it. The engine, while not perfect, has actually proven itself over the course of 13 years to withstand the test of time and be a good foundation to continue building on. It's called the entire Arma series. If it was so terrible, it would have died long ago. But apparently enough people find it good enough to have constantly grown in popularity all this time.

To say BIS has not taken any action to fix or improve the engine is a notion that is disproved every single weekday in dev branch patches. Bugs are constantly fixed, and every SITREP mentions the ongoing goal of improving performance. New content and features are introduced alongside this progress, and that's just the way most people prefer it, thank you very much.

Who is guilt tripping anyone into buying DLC? Dwarden stated a simple fact that applies to literally any game and business. No income = uncertain future. They cannot just blindly rely on the sales from another game that is still in development to fund everything they want to do in Arma 3. Who said anything about the DLC not selling as well as they'd like? They haven't said anything about sales figures. They're not trying to convince you to buy anything. Stop trying to act like a victim here. It is entirely your choice whether or not to support BIS by spending more than what 2 helicopters are worth in order to help fund the development of features that everyone was given for free, and future developments. If you are not comfortable with this, or insist that BIS has "enough" money, then you simply don't have to give them anything.

Edited November 14, 2014 by vegeta897

[mobile_medic 43]

but also continue working on and releasing content for Arma 3 without caring about how well the content they create sells.

I don't care about the content right now, that is the point. I care about bug fixes and addressing of long-standing performance issues.

If it was so terrible, it would have died long ago. But apparently enough people find it good enough to have constantly grown in popularity all this time.

It's been the only game in town for some time. But, as a business, to think they will be able to continue to rely on that, would be bad strategy (imo). The engine is pretty terrible (and, that is my opinion). What is built on top of it, could and would be absolutely amazing, and would sell millions more copies if the engine was more up to spec with modern hardware (see: anything in the last 6 years). A lot of people don't ever get to appreciate the hard work that has gone into the game, b/c of performance issues, and moderators who claim those with issues must be using a laptop, etc.

I'm sorry to break it to you but throwing millions of dollars at the game engine isn't going to fix it.

Sigh... b/c that's *exactly* what I said... </sarcasm> You can try to minimize, misrepresent, and dumb down my opinion with comments like that if you want. You can insinuate that I suggested as much, if it makes you feel better. Of course, that isn't what I suggested at all (unless of course, you choose to look at it in the most simplistic terms you possibly can). More logical fallacy on this forum? big surprise.

Stop trying to act like a victim here. It is entirely your choice whether or not to support BIS by spending more than what 2 helicopters are worth in order to help fund the development of features that everyone was given for free, and future developments.

What are you on about? A victim? I'm a paying customer, just like you. I *made* the choice *not* to support them further, b/c I am unhappy with the lack of progress (or discussion) on core issues that precede A3. I am unhappy with how they appear to have chosen to prioritize their time and dollars. I made it known to them in my post why I have chosen not to continue supporting them, and what it would take for them to win me back as a loyal customer who would be willing to overpay for content in order to support the franchise. But, b/c I'm not in here patting them on the back in glowing praise, I'm "playing the victim"... yeah...

As a paying customer, I have an opinion, and last I checked, they still claim to give a shit about the feedback their customers have. You don't have to like it or agree with it. I'm careful to state my opinions as opinions. There is no shortage of people who try to pass opinion off as fact on the internet though. This forum is certainly no exception. Please don't attach insinuations into my post that I didn't make.

Who said anything about the DLC not selling as well as they'd like?

I certainly didn't. I said *IF*... meaning... yet to be foretold... *If* it turns out that they don't meet targets/goals with their dlc releases, they don't get to blame the customer for that (oh, well our future is unclear, b/c you didn't "support" us enough. nuh-uh... It's a business. You have to earn that, and then fight to maintain it). They are the ones trying to sell a product. If there are more people out there like you, who will buy whatever they peddle, than there are people like me (who have grown disenfranchised over the last 4 years), then they will be fine. They made their choice on what to prioritize, and the customers will ultimately react one way or the other.

EDIT TO ADD:

For me it boils down to this. Those sales numbers exhibit that they have gone beyond just being a company that offers a "niche" product and relies on an extremely loyal fanbase who will buy whatever they sell. They have crossed into "mainstream" with those figures, and products like "DayZ" driving that charge.

If they want to rely on the sales of a very loyal, but significantly smaller, customer base, that is fine. But, if they wish to continue to see the kind of revenue they appear to have been seeing over the last year+, and see continued growth (as any company would), then a shift in strategy and priorities is necessary (in my opinion). As one customer, the #1 thing is them addressing the foundation upon which they build their products.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Mobile_Medic

[PlacidPaul 11]

It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of indignation felt from fans of a game that you can literally waste your life in. Maybe get out and find what 13 EUR gets you. I look at it like I got more than 2 helis, we have features everyone mooned about and no one gets booted from not owning dlc. BI was able to do this because of their 2 year success story.

As one customer, the #1 thing is them addressing the foundation upon which they build their products.

Engine is fine, the processor speed trend of the last five years has not helped them out much.

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of indignation felt from fans of a game that you can literally waste your life in. Maybe get out and find what 13 EUR gets you. I look at it like I got more than 2 helis, we have features everyone mooned about and no one gets booted from not owning dlc. BI was able to do this because of their 2 year success story.

Engine is fine, the processor speed trend of the last five years has not helped them out much.

Try, if you will to apply just a few more brain cells, and perhaps you will realise that it's not about the price. And the engine clearly is not "fine". The 3,654 post thread on the issue should tell you plenty about it as you clearly have no idea.

Pro tip: If you're going to argue a point, at least know what the point is.

[PlacidPaul 11]

Look above, it says "DLC, hefty price for 2 choppers". That didn't even take a few. Pro tip: read thread title.

[Dwarden 1125]

please always realize that sales from 'product' are final

moment the copy is sold, developer/studio gain nothing more into pool of money

(even if they had crowd-source/investor pool as bonus)

so such pool must cover

past expenses (means anything invested PRIOR release)

after expenses (all money spent since release)

planned expenses (money for planned support and expansion roadmap)

now for most of titles even some millions copies sold can't cover it

at some moment (usually sooner than later) those money will run dry

this is because you pay ongoing salaries, energies (electricity,heatin,fuel), taxes, insurances, officers rentals w/e

and they get nothing more from those who already own it for the 'past release' expenses

so such developer needs some expansion, DLC, datadisk or some MMO subscription model

as there is only 'finite amount of copies' you may sell to gamers

the other option is consider the game EOL (end of life) and move to new project

also it's very wrong to take full copy price as the maxima sales income value,

you ignore discounts (preorder, packs, events), % share to partners, taxes and so on ...

so the 'total clean profit is always way lower' for such developer

the above applies to most of game development industry, sure there might be exceptions but they rare

Edited November 14, 2014 by Dwarden

[SG_Smokintodd 0]

some MMO subscription model

ARMA MMO confirmed by a dev! ;)

[the_demongod 31]

please always realize that sales from 'product' are final

moment the copy is sold, developer/studio gain nothing more into pool of money

(even if they had crowd-source/investor pool as bonus)

so such pool must cover

past expenses (means anything invested PRIOR release)

after expenses (all money spent since release)

planned expenses (money for planned support and expansion roadmap)

now for most of titles even some millions copies sold can't cover it

at some moment (usually sooner than later) those money will run dry

this is because you pay ongoing salaries, energies (electricity,heatin,fuel), taxes, insurances, officers rentals w/e

and they get nothing more from those who already own it for the 'past release' expenses

so such developer needs some expansion, DLC, datadisk or some MMO subscription model

as there is only 'finite amount of copies' you may sell to gamers

the other option is consider the game EOL (end of life) and move to new project

also it's very wrong to take full copy price as the maxima sales income value,

you ignore discounts (preorder, packs, events), % share to partners, taxes and so on ...

so the 'total clean profit is always way lower' for such developer

the above applies to most of game development industry, sure there might be exceptions but they rare

My advice to mods: Lock the thread, this is the answer that everybody posting here needs to see; we can put an end to all this pointless whining.

[vegeta897 13]

I don't care about the content right now, that is the point. I care about bug fixes and addressing of long-standing performance issues.

We all care about those things. But it is entirely unrealistic to expect them to stop all content and feature production just to let the few people that have enough knowledge of this insanely complex engine slowly fix and improve things. You will not see any significant improvement in the rate at which the engine is improved if they stop making content. And, as was stated numerous times, they cannot justify continuing to pay the costs of running a studio dedicated only to fixing the engine without any source of income for the game (DLC and expansion).

It's been the only game in town for some time. But, as a business, to think they will be able to continue to rely on that, would be bad strategy (imo). The engine is pretty terrible (and, that is my opinion). What is built on top of it, could and would be absolutely amazing, and would sell millions more copies if the engine was more up to spec with modern hardware (see: anything in the last 6 years). A lot of people don't ever get to appreciate the hard work that has gone into the game, b/c of performance issues, and moderators who claim those with issues must be using a laptop, etc.

Now you're insinuating that BIS is actively choosing to not improve their engine because they're the only game like it around. They're not "relying" on it, it's just the state of affairs. If an Arma clone comes along with a better engine, BIS's task of improving their own engine remains just as difficult and maintains its status as a long-term process. It's not like then they'll suddenly say "ok guys, we can't fool around anymore, let's really fix the engine!"

Sigh... b/c that's *exactly* what I said... </sarcasm> You can try to minimize, misrepresent, and dumb down my opinion with comments like that if you want. You can insinuate that I suggested as much, if it makes you feel better. Of course, that isn't what I suggested at all (unless of course, you choose to look at it in the most simplistic terms you possibly can). More logical fallacy on this forum? big surprise.

"having an engine that can withstand the test of time and be a good foundation to continue to build on in the years ahead (as a business person) makes economic sense to prioritize investment in."

Invest what in the engine, then, if not money? Invest work? That's what they're doing. Invest more work? That means more money.

"I am unhappy with how they appear to have chosen to prioritize their time and dollars."

Implying more time and dollars (read: money) should go to the engine. Again, a clear indication that you think more money will fix the engine.

You made it a pretty big and often-mentioned point to bring up how much money they must have made from DayZ. As if that means now they should be able to fix their engine. As if money was the blocker. I was trying to demonstrate a point to you, that DayZ's sales are not going to have as big of an influence on the game as you think, no matter how much of it they throw at the game.

What are you on about? A victim?

Acting like BIS is trying to guilt trip you, and making the implication that BIS was going to blame you if the DLC sold poorly. You pulled these things out of thin air and they make you sound like you're playing a victim.

If there are more people out there like you, who will buy whatever they peddle

Nice, label me as a fanboy who eats anything up that BIS gives them just because I find your take on the situation to be ill-informed. I stop buying from BIS when they stop making and improving games that I love.

For me it boils down to this. Those sales numbers exhibit that they have gone beyond just being a company that offers a "niche" product and relies on an extremely loyal fanbase who will buy whatever they sell. They have crossed into "mainstream" with those figures, and products like "DayZ" driving that charge.

If they want to rely on the sales of a very loyal, but significantly smaller, customer base, that is fine. But, if they wish to continue to see the kind of revenue they appear to have been seeing over the last year+, and see continued growth (as any company would), then a shift in strategy and priorities is necessary (in my opinion). As one customer, the #1 thing is them addressing the foundation upon which they build their products.

You're right, the Arma series has made a significant move toward mainstream audiences since DayZ and Arma 3's release. But you're acting like the mainstream audience somehow cares more about the stability of the engine than the niche audience did. This is completely ridiculous logic. If anything, the niche audience is more intimately familiar with every shortcoming the engine has, and is capable of rallying more precisely and intelligently for improvements. The mainstream audiences tend to have far simpler demands such as "fix fps", ignoring key points like the concept that Arma is a platform that lets you push the limits of any system, no matter how optimized the engine is. If you make a mission that has scripts doing a ridiculous amount of work for high player counts and running on a server that isn't up to the task, you are going to get bad performance no matter what. Moving to 64 bit is probably the best thing that will happen in the near future to the series, if at all, but you must understand that this is a colossal task, and investing more money or employees in it does not necessarily make it happen faster.

[Sneakers O'Toole 2]

Look above, it says "DLC, hefty price for 2 choppers". That didn't even take a few. Pro tip: read thread title.

Things evolve, the person who wrote the thread title probably was about 350 posts ago. If you'd actually bothered to read the thread most valid objections are about the fact that the dlc is 80-90% free so your only actually paying for a very small amount of content, and then subsidising people who don't pay.

[thedudeabides 40]

Throughout the course of this series BI has had ups (Arma2) and downs (Arma) with the now mixed reviewed (Arma3). If you are a longtime community member you have watched as BI pushes out the members that have kept them in business through the early and tough years. Without modding this studio would have died after OFP. Arma was a joke and Arma2 was really not all that great until ACE2 was released.

They are in essence releasing things that were modded years ago (exception being the flight model) and passing it off like they reinvented the wheel.

One of the biggest problems with this community is that nothing is ever productive because fanboys call people jerks for bringing up an issue that breaks the game for them which leads to flame wars. Everyone else's opinion isn't as informed or educated as their own which makes them wrong as two boys fucking with two girls watching.

BI has pushed away large parts of the community with a general lack of effort with Arma3. This seems to be a trend though. Most of the OFP modders left after Arma. Many of the good Arma modders left around Arma2 and now many of the great Arma2 modders are leaving now. MODDING the GAME is what has kept your head above water BI. That is what has kept you going because without it you would all be working somewhere else. Make a poll and find out how many people actually play without one mod. Many of which are workarounds by some dude in his basement fixing problems through scripting that you supposedly can't figure out.

I agree with the Mobile Medic on this. People have made mods to improve the AI. BI not so much. In Arma2 your patsy, Dyslexia, had a mod where you could fire from a little bird. We could fastrope from helos, by modding. We had bipods from modding.

Without a mod, DayZ, the sales of Arma2 would have still been niche.

I for one, and I can speak for more than a few of my friends that were also long time community members that yes some of these features were to be expected and not brought to us as a DLC.

But it doesn't matter because it is clearly evident that BI has a different path planned for the franchise than catering to the people that helped them get where they are.

[PlacidPaul 11]

Things evolve, the person who wrote the thread title probably was about 350 posts ago. If you'd actually bothered to read the thread most valid objections are about the fact that the dlc is 80-90% free so your only actually paying for a very small amount of content, and then subsidising people who don't pay.

LOL, so it is about price, thanks for clarifying. Look at your post, you actually typed "most valid objections are about the fact that the dlc is 80-90% free" !!! free? this is a problem?

Not sure about percentages, but your right. It is a very interesting dlc model, time will tell if it works. It's a risk that they have the luxury of making at this point, and they're taking a risk for the community, and moaning is how its re-paided.

They're addressing axed features and splitting community. Maybe people just feel bad about freeloading. You shouldn't.

[galzohar 31]

An expansion (like OA, though the standalone part wasn't the best idea) works much better. While it splits the community, at least it brings in enough to make it worth it. When it isn't happening every few months but rather every ~2 years, it becomes acceptable considering the improvements are sufficient. The standalone part was a bad idea because newcomers who bought only OA were also split from old players who had both games. Without a standalone expansion you force everyone to buy both games, but to compensate those who didn't really get a chance to play the pre-expansion game you offer the bundle at a reduced price (which was possible, but since it wasn't required, people didn't know that they actually need to buy it until it was too late).

The DLC included some nice features, but to get them I didn't have to buy the DLC. While I appreciate BIS implementing those stuff for everyone, I don't believe this is the best business model.

If they made an expansion that included the helicopters, marksmen stuff, a less-futuristic-looking faction and an awesome new island that provides new gameplay opportunities along with a bunch of highly desired features such as FFV, attaching explosives to objects and some major tweaks to the stamina and movement system, I'm sure people would pay 40-60$ for it and ditch playing vanilla without much crying about the "split" (because nobody would cry that he's being split from players who don't really want to play with all the new cool more functional stuff). Being split from players who don't want to play a mission that depends on a feature available only with a helicopter I paid for is much more difficult to accept, and if I think that might happen I'll just avoid buying such a DLC and never bother making missions that use it (the part that requires payment, of course, not the free features).

When they do want to release a new island, if that will be the main "extra" you get for the expansion, then the community split will be much less happily accepted, as some might not care enough for a new island and some might (since just an island or mostly just an island is a much smaller improvement than the above list), and you'll have this same problem all over again.

When you bundle a lot of highly desired features in 1 big "community-splitting" expansion, it is much easier to sell it.

DLC is better suited for single player content, pay-to-win or pay-for-better-looks games. Though in games like COD you could just sell 2 tiny maps because those who buy it can always find others who bought it to play with them due to the large number of total players (you can split the community 5 times and still have one going, the game doesn't depend nearly as much as Arma does on playing with the same friends on a regular basis).

[thedudeabides 40]

An expansion (like OA, though the standalone part wasn't the best idea) works much better. While it splits the community, at least it brings in enough to make it worth it. When it isn't happening every few months but rather every ~2 years, it becomes acceptable considering the improvements are sufficient. The standalone part was a bad idea because newcomers who bought only OA were also split from old players who had both games. Without a standalone expansion you force everyone to buy both games, but to compensate those who didn't really get a chance to play the pre-expansion game you offer the bundle at a reduced price (which was possible, but since it wasn't required, people didn't know that they actually need to buy it until it was too late).

The DLC included some nice features, but to get them I didn't have to buy the DLC. While I appreciate BIS implementing those stuff for everyone, I don't believe this is the best business model.

If they made an expansion that included the helicopters, marksmen stuff, a less-futuristic-looking faction and an awesome new island that provides new gameplay opportunities along with a bunch of highly desired features such as FFV, attaching explosives to objects and some major tweaks to the stamina and movement system, I'm sure people would pay 40-60$ for it and ditch playing vanilla without much crying about the "split" (because nobody would cry that he's being split from players who don't really want to play with all the new cool more functional stuff). Being split from players who don't want to play a mission that depends on a feature available only with a helicopter I paid for is much more difficult to accept, and if I think that might happen I'll just avoid buying such a DLC and never bother making missions that use it (the part that requires payment, of course, not the free features).

When they do want to release a new island, if that will be the main "extra" you get for the expansion, then the community split will be much less happily accepted, as some might not care enough for a new island and some might (since just an island or mostly just an island is a much smaller improvement than the above list), and you'll have this same problem all over again.

When you bundle a lot of highly desired features in 1 big "community-splitting" expansion, it is much easier to sell it.

DLC is better suited for single player content, pay-to-win or pay-for-better-looks games. Though in games like COD you could just sell 2 tiny maps because those who buy it can always find others who bought it to play with them due to the large number of total players (you can split the community 5 times and still have one going, the game doesn't depend nearly as much as Arma does on playing with the same friends on a regular basis).

Well said good sir. +1

[yxman 90]

@galzohar +1

full agree, expansion is the only thing i would support, this dlc stuff is too much EA.

[malcom86 33]

An expansion (like OA, though the standalone part wasn't the best idea) works much better. While it splits the community, at least it brings in enough to make it worth it. When it isn't happening every few months but rather every ~2 years, it becomes acceptable considering the improvements are sufficient. The standalone part was a bad idea because newcomers who bought only OA were also split from old players who had both games. Without a standalone expansion you force everyone to buy both games, but to compensate those who didn't really get a chance to play the pre-expansion game you offer the bundle at a reduced price (which was possible, but since it wasn't required, people didn't know that they actually need to buy it until it was too late).

The DLC included some nice features, but to get them I didn't have to buy the DLC. While I appreciate BIS implementing those stuff for everyone, I don't believe this is the best business model.

If they made an expansion that included the helicopters, marksmen stuff, a less-futuristic-looking faction and an awesome new island that provides new gameplay opportunities along with a bunch of highly desired features such as FFV, attaching explosives to objects and some major tweaks to the stamina and movement system, I'm sure people would pay 40-60$ for it and ditch playing vanilla without much crying about the "split" (because nobody would cry that he's being split from players who don't really want to play with all the new cool more functional stuff). Being split from players who don't want to play a mission that depends on a feature available only with a helicopter I paid for is much more difficult to accept, and if I think that might happen I'll just avoid buying such a DLC and never bother making missions that use it (the part that requires payment, of course, not the free features).

When they do want to release a new island, if that will be the main "extra" you get for the expansion, then the community split will be much less happily accepted, as some might not care enough for a new island and some might (since just an island or mostly just an island is a much smaller improvement than the above list), and you'll have this same problem all over again.

When you bundle a lot of highly desired features in 1 big "community-splitting" expansion, it is much easier to sell it.

DLC is better suited for single player content, pay-to-win or pay-for-better-looks games. Though in games like COD you could just sell 2 tiny maps because those who buy it can always find others who bought it to play with them due to the large number of total players (you can split the community 5 times and still have one going, the game doesn't depend nearly as much as Arma does on playing with the same friends on a regular basis).

+1

I agree with free new functions, as they have to be free to permit everyone can join any server and play on them (I would not pay for just functions anyway...modders can do that for free and with good results). But as contents, the price of the DLC is too high. And I am talking expecially about the bundle with all 3 DLC, as if it costs less I would also buy it to help the developers of a great game.

A massive expansion is the only thing which is really worth:

when you bundle a lot of highly desired features in 1 big "community-splitting" expansion, it is much easier to sell it.

What about some Naval Warfare, for example ?

Edited November 19, 2014 by Malcom86

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Not unhappy with dlc and happy to support Devs wherever possible but to release helicopter dlc without fast rope just feels like I got half of what should have been provided. Give us fast rope ffs.

[Green- 10]

Fuck it Im playing ArmA2 and waiting for ArmA4. Probably out somewhere around 2018-2020 I hope. Then we should have a decent game thats not futuristic Bs too.