13€ DLC, hefty price for 2 choppers

[jgaz-uk 132]

Anyone else bored to tears with all this moaning?

How about updating your rig if you have real problems with the game engine. Worked for me.

[yxman 90]

@green a2 is still a blast :)

Anyone else bored to tears with all this moaning?

How about updating your rig if you have real problems with the game engine. Worked for me.

Wrong thread?

Edited November 22, 2014 by yxman

[JsP 11]

I couldn't agree more personally i have not picked the DLC up yet but when i get some money together i will asap or when the sales are on

[Llano 11]

Anyone else bored to tears with all this moaning?

How about updating your rig if you have real problems with the game engine. Worked for me.

Yeah, let's waste some money.

[Wiki 1558]

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.

Agreed, want fastrope so bad!

[jgaz-uk 132]

Fastrope with the DLC would be nice;

But what is getting tedious is people moaning about the price, of what would be the equivalent to a couple of visits to the cinema.

Re; Game engine; that has been mentioned several time in this post, is all.

Yes there is still a lot of basic things that need correcting in A3, like, custom face, none dedicated player to player connecting problems, etc, etc. But imagine gaming with out any of the ArmA series!, we would have to get a life dudes.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

A couple of visits? HA!

In Australia that wouldn't even cover 1 ticket.

[enti 0]

should already be in the game, i do not wish to purchase sorry bis but it should already be in the game..! the only DLC's i want are the free ones made by our addon community.

[carlostex 38]

I think the price for the bundle is pretty OK. We must not Forget that the people behind this have lives too, they need their paycheck they have families as well. I for one would prefer features rather than content, but they cannot sell DLC with only features.

A DLC for me would be "ARMA 3: Close Air Support". Advanced flight model, realistic HUD, CCIP, advanced damage modelling yada, yada, yada...

Let's support our devs people.

[Llano 11]

I think the price for the bundle is pretty OK. We must not Forget that the people behind this have lives too, they need their paycheck they have families as well. I for one would prefer features rather than content, but they cannot sell DLC with only features.

A DLC for me would be "ARMA 3: Close Air Support". Advanced flight model, realistic HUD, CCIP, advanced damage modelling yada, yada, yada...

Let's support our devs people.

Can't really see how they need money when they are having a competition that involves 500 000€ prize pool, and after the success with Dayz.

[vegeta897 13]

Can't really see how they need money when they are having a competition that involves 500 000€ prize pool, and after the success with Dayz.

DayZ's success allowed them to expand their project teams. If they stop caring about continuing to make money they'll be right back where they started, and the extra money they made will have gone to waste. The unexpected boost in game sales is an opportunity for growth, not an excuse to sell their work for less than it is worth. Many consider the new DLC model to be generous enough as it is.

[Llano 11]

DayZ's success allowed them to expand their project teams. If they stop caring about continuing to make money they'll be right back where they started, and the extra money they made will have gone to waste. The unexpected boost in game sales is an opportunity for growth, not an excuse to sell their work for less than it is worth. Many consider the new DLC model to be generous enough as it is.

And what about the competition?

I do not really see how the DLC is gererous. Sure, we get some extra stuff "for free" but shouldn't that already have been in the game from the start?

[enex 11]

No.The only way this a thing is because of over ambitious developer/s promising those features before they were

made sure they could even be implemented in time.Is that their mistake?Yes and they learned lecture.Does that mean

all that should be in game for free?No.

[vegeta897 13]

And what about the competition?

I'm not BIS's accountant so I can't speak with authority here, but it's safe to assume the competition brought in a large amount of sales. People making mods and missions for Arma = success for Arma. Making a big deal out of it with prizes = exposure for Arma.

I do not really see how the DLC is gererous. Sure, we get some extra stuff "for free" but shouldn't that already have been in the game from the start?

But it wasn't in the game from the start, and people bought the game anyway. And employees worked to create these features, and employees need to be paid, regardless of how much the work sells for to the customer (free or not). That's beside the main point of my post though, about using logic like "well they can afford to do that". If they justified bad business decisions with the size of their wallets, they'll be back to where they were before DayZ. Continuing to make good business decisions and put the extra money toward expanding their teams is the smart thing, both for them and us in the long run.

Edited November 25, 2014 by vegeta897

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

And what about the competition?

I do not really see how the DLC is gererous. Sure, we get some extra stuff "for free" but shouldn't that already have been in the game from the start?

The parts (AFM) that "should have been in the game from the start" are now in the game and don't cost you a single dollar. Funny that.

[eymerich 11]

The parts (AFM) that "should have been in the game from the start" are now in the game and don't cost you a single dollar. Funny that.

That's the reason because the Dlc cost too much.

Infact, there are only 2 avaible and logic option:

a) thing were promised and delivered now (read: new different air model): that's mean that i pay 13 for 2 chopper and little more which is a price too much high in my opinion;

b) thing were'nt promised and then it make sense enable them in a dlc but, being coherent with myself, I don't really see any reason because I get something I haven't paid for.

[pattonash 10]

The point in keeping people playing games, from the developers perspective, is so that the people will buy the sequel. I hope that BIS have earned enough new loyal customers because everyone I know who plays the Arma series have just simply stopped playing. The fact that Benny quit in frustration means that you lost one of the greatest mods that the series has seen and that is just one example. I have been playing these games since 2001 so it is a real shame to see what has happened and the route taken.

Now, the question is: will these new customers you have picked up be as loyal as the players you turned your back on, the loyal customers that have spent over 10 years and countless thousands of hours playing? For your sake, I hope so.

[thedudeabides 40]

The point in keeping people playing games, from the developers perspective, is so that the people will buy the sequel. I hope that BIS have earned enough new loyal customers because everyone I know who plays the Arma series have just simply stopped playing. The fact that Benny quit in frustration means that you lost one of the greatest mods that the series has seen and that is just one example. I have been playing these games since 2001 so it is a real shame to see what has happened and the route taken.

Now, the question is: will these new customers you have picked up be as loyal as the players you turned your back on, the loyal customers that have spent over 10 years and countless thousands of hours playing? For your sake, I hope so.

Agree totally. +1

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The point in keeping people playing games, from the developers perspective, is so that the people will buy the sequel. I hope that BIS have earned enough new loyal customers because everyone I know who plays the Arma series have just simply stopped playing. The fact that Benny quit in frustration means that you lost one of the greatest mods that the series has seen and that is just one example. I have been playing these games since 2001 so it is a real shame to see what has happened and the route taken.

Now, the question is: will these new customers you have picked up be as loyal as the players you turned your back on, the loyal customers that have spent over 10 years and countless thousands of hours playing? For your sake, I hope so.

And how exactly did BIS turn their back on these loyal customers?

I'm a loyal customer too since OPF and I personally am loving the direction BIS are taking with the series.

[vegeta897 13]

And how exactly did BIS turn their back on these loyal customers?

I'm a loyal customer too since OPF and I personally am loving the direction BIS are taking with the series.

Same here. Losing long-time fans has happened with every new release. It's inevitable because every long-time fan has their own ideal next game, but some of us are a little more tolerant. Is Arma 3 exactly what I hoped for? A ridiculous question to even ask. The answer would be no for anyone. But is it better than Arma 2? Do I want to continue supporting BIS to keep the Arma experience expanding and evolving? Very much yes.

[funyun 12]

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).

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!"

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Thats what everyone should take away from this, no amount of money will make this game better, buying DLC will not make this game better.

[vegeta897 13]

Thats what everyone should take away from this, no amount of money will make this game better, buying DLC will not make this game better.

Money doesn't automatically make the game better, but no money means the game dies. Money allows BIS to make the game better.

[funyun 12]

Money doesn't automatically make the game better, but no money means the game dies. Money allows BIS to make the game better.

Unfortunately that means I have gotten what I have paid for. Which means at this point, I would rather pay for a 'new' game, not DLC.

Thats the point, I don't want to shell out money for 2 helicopters, I would rather shell out money for actual fixes, which would hopefully be so expansive as to practically be a 'new' game.

The community is already apt to create such content like vehicles, weapons, sounds, effects, etc., but real fixes in game performance/mechanics need to come from BI. Which is what is so frustrating, as they are the only ones who can make these changes.

[miketim 20]

BI isnt going to charge for bugfixes... clearly their method is paid content, free features for DLC...

Also, as per "but real fixes in game performance/mechanics need to come from BI. "

.... Where else would they come from?

Perfomance fixes (at least the few we get): all come from BI

Mechanics: Also coming from BI (sling load, ffv)

[vegeta897 13]

I would rather shell out money for actual fixes, which would hopefully be so expansive as to practically be a 'new' game.

What you receive in exchange for your money is not the entirety of where your money goes. Your money goes into BIS's budget which is used for everything they do, including a new game further down the line. If BIS determines their business model is profitable, the decision to make another game is easy. You're too focused on specifics here and missing the big picture.