Would you donate to a bounty to expedite fixing some major in-game issues via a Patch

[stang725 10]

Just curious about the level of support to create a "bounty" for BI to fix some of the major in-game issues (a poll to pick biggest issues?)

(obviously some items aren't going to be fixed with the current engine, but there are some items that are fixable with enough resources behind them)

I was just thinking about this the other day as I was contemplating dropping ~$330 on a new 4790k to get a few more FPS (currently have a 4770k).

I almost feel like I would be open to donating to a bounty for hotfixes to be fast-tracked by BI.... Is there any kind of precedent for this, would a major studio even consider this? It would have to be a legit escrow, where payment is only delivered if that fix is actually implemented....

I'm not sure what I would pay for truly multi-threaded AI... or moving some of the calc to the GPU.. but it would be >$20.

Basically, it doesn't seem like some of the major in-game issues are going to be fixed w/o a dramatic change in course... money talks, anonymous forum posts do not carry the same voice unfortunately.

Thoughts?

Edited September 30, 2014 by stang725

[Bouben 3]

I am able to pay for extra features not promised for the basic game. Not for fixes. Never. It would be a dangerous precedence for the game industry. Imagine dev studios deliberately releasing bugged games with a lot of potential to cash-in for patches. Absolutely not.

EDIT:

I would consider a major, ground-breaking re-working of AI to be a feature, so I would pay for AI update if it was really worth it.

[Jona33 51]

No, I'll gladly pay for content, not patches, and I'd rather not pay for features (one of the reasons I'm so glad BI is providing FFV and slingload for free).

Edited September 30, 2014 by Jona33

[ProfTournesol 956]

Here you are :o:

But seriously, i agree with Bouben. I won't pay for fixes, only for long awaited features (weapon resting, etc.).

[CaptainObvious 95]

Nay, as summarized by Bouben it's not how thing should go.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Never. If they need money to develop new features, they can do a kickstarter or something if they're so desperate for the money instead of adding it as tax on the DLC content.

As for the bugs, small team at Introversion that's making Prison Architect did a "bug bash" where they focused for a month on solely on fixing the community reported issues instead of pushing their own agenda. I quite like the idea and would suggest that BI do the same every now and then.

[Rydygier 1309]

For fixes? No. Its their obligation, not a bonus. More. IMO, they shouldn't distract to add anything new before fixing all known bugs. Every newly reported bug should be fixed ASAP with absolute priority over any new features. Only when all will be fixed, BIS will in 100% deserve money, they charge from sales and then may improve, enhance or do new things for more money without justified remorse. Yes, IMO each bug means a BIS' debt to each, who paid for the game (I would feel like buyers' debtor in such situation anyway). This may sound harsh, after all they did and do absolutelly amazing job. Yet, in the face of dozen years old issues seriously spoiling the gameplay still not fixed, I'm in harsh mood. Because, like for no other game, I care.

[instagoat 133]

Economically doubtful. You can't fix issues by simply dropping cash on them. And 330 bucks is a drop in a bathtub. Consider that BI raised something like 3 million in external investments PLUS sales from Arma 2 related to DayZ, and still did not end up with Arma 3 where they (and we, I supposed) expected everything to end up. Cut content, etc...

I would be interested to have somebody from some high level academic institution working with top notch AI to have a look at BI's system and tell what we've got, really, over somebody just throwing money at BI and hoping that it'll somehow result in improved content.

Another problem is the performance, which is okay when the map is empty, and deteriorates once units are on the map. Etc, etc. But my priority would be an improved damage system for vehicles (internal bullet deflection and fragmentation, complex component and crew damage, fire, ammo vs fuel burning up, dry vs wet ammo stowage, blowout panels, ERA, fire suppression, blast damage handling... basically, ditching the hitpoint system completely.

[stang725 10]

I agree with a lot of the posts about the very real concern for setting a precedent for it being acceptable to ship broken games (I guess I was thinking there was already a precedent in the industry for shipping broken games; BF4, Sim City... to name a few). I still think I would pay for a major AI upgrade (call it DLC, call it an expansion, call it whatever....).

I would also say I could care less about Karts/Helos/shooting from vehicles/sling loading/ect.... when I can't even get >30fps on the game with a $2k+ gaming rig when running a scenario with a lot of AI. I guess I have never come to terms with having these huge maps and not being able to actually populate them with functional AI.

I mean its marketed as a MILSIM and it can't even properly simulate large-scale AI battles without being brought to its knees because everything is being ran on one core/thread.

Why am I being offered kart racing or more Helos as conciliation prize? People make it sound like its too much to ask for the developers to actually fix their game before moving on to adding features? DLC generates revenue, patches do not.... plain and simple. I would rather be paying for DLC that makes the game better, not for features that are being tacked on to a game that has some fairly severe underlying issues with the core game play.

Either way, I will play the game... I just wish everyone at BI on the ARMA team was focused on fixing bugs and not on DLC... but again, they are a for-profit company, not a community of modders working on the game in their spare time.

[Bouben 3]

I just wish everyone at BI on the ARMA team was focused on fixing bugs and not on DLC... but again, they are a for-profit company, not a community of modders working on the game in their spare time.

This basically sums the whole thread and the whole problem.

[ratszo 17]

So a guy with an axe to grind starts a poll.

What's the saying --haters gonna hate?

[the_demongod 31]

There is no way in hell I would pay for anything below the magnitude of firing from vehicles, a more advanced fixed wing FM, massive performance fixes, etc.

That being said, I would donate to a kickstarted or patreon-like campaign if it meant they could hire more developers, spend more time on certain things, etc. But they would have to use your money on what you say, within reason. For instance, I would donate $50 towards more advanced weapon systems, whatever they may be, and I would like that purpose to be tied to my money.

I would never do this for a big AAA company like EA or anything (because they are slimy businessmen) but I would definitely donate to BI because they have produced great content in the past, and I trust them with my money.

[Dwarden 1125]

{dreams about setting up own patreon to receive nothing but blame for being too greedy} ;)

[the_demongod 31]

Haha but if I end up paying for your salary with my Patreon donations, I'll expect to see some pretty top-notch shit in terms of Fixed wing flight model, weapons systems, etc ;)

[DJankovic 401]

I have an idea because BIS is offering money for Make Arma Not War(500.000€) to moders lets make an entry where comunity is requesting AI fix and Low CPU,GPU utilization and if that entry gets a lot of votes and win :) all that money goes to BIS to do exact that thing? I know this is little bit silly idea but it might work if we all just vote on it :) So lets say that would go under TOTAL MODIFICATION price 200.000€ i think that is enough money for few good devs to get on it and do what needs to be done :)

[Tonci87 163]

I had a little bit different idea just a few days ago, a Tip system for Devs and Modders. If you feel that someone does a good job, be it Dev or Modder, you can tip him a small ammount of cash. That would definately increase Dev Interaction with the Forums ;)

[toysoldier 35]

Be careful it's a anonymous developer they will test us! :bigsmile:

Edited October 1, 2014 by Toysoldier

[stang725 10]

{dreams about setting up own patreon to receive nothing but blame for being too greedy} ;)

It would be nice if a BI developer could actually lay out what is and isn't possible with the current engine in terms of fixes for AI performance issues and some of the other hot button issues. I assume there is a senior software engineer at BI that knows what needs to be done in terms of scale of the project and what resources would likely be required to drive it to completion, assuming its even possible.

I would gladly be the first guy in line to put up money on a kickstarter or Patreon for a drastic improvement in AI-related performance and logic (BI should offer to match 1:1 for donations or bounty offers.

I think I would stop short of getting behind the idea of giving the contest prize back to BI for a fix... too many modders have spent countless hours on projects...

But yeah, @BI... why not just get permission from whoever to be able to candidly speak about what we can expect from you guys for core fixes to the game. Helos, Karts, improved ballistics, firing from vehicles, sling-loading all much appreciated, but this game at its core should be more robust than it is when it comes to AI simulation.

Why not let the community offer a bounty to get some movement behind some major fixes that simply appear like they are being ignored while you guys focus on revenue-generating DLC. If you guys can offer up that large of a sum of prize money for MANW, surely a 1:1 match for a bounty to fix 1 or 2 community selected issues that are vetted as able to be patched or reworked by the BI developers is not out of the question.

[Bouben 3]

It would be nice if a BI developer could actually lay out what is and isn't possible with the current engine in terms of fixes for AI performance issues and some of the other hot button issues. I assume there is a senior software engineer at BI that knows what needs to be done in terms of scale of the project and what resources would likely be required to drive it to completion, assuming its even possible.

This is true. That would help but also potentially damage BIS position.

[rakowozz 14]

This would be absurd. I'm a big supporter of this new approach on DLCs and an admirer of all continuous efforts and investments in the engine, the game and the interaction with the community.

But this proposition is something else entirely. It's different than a proper package, containing significant additional content, along with fixes and updates (and continuous support), which I'll gladly pay for.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

We already payed for them to fix the game, by buying the game in the first place. If something needs fixing, it's called feedback tracker and DEV branch reporting, which helps them find issues. Same for DLC's, however, it is near impossible to get through to DEV's with your brilliant ideas, or major fixes when either it isn't on their priority list, or there is some engine limitation preventing some sort of headway to a new feature, or even if it is maybe too much of a drastic improvement. But than again, as someone probably mentioned, like the DLC, I'm certain they factored in tax for features promised in the full game. That, or something else, you never know till we get to try out a real DLC first. As for patches and game fixes, that's the Vanilla game, which you bought. Patches are to make sure the game works the way it should, and improve things so is to make it more playable.

[mistyronin 1181]

No way.

[iceman77 18]

Nooo.

[the_demongod 31]

I had a little bit different idea just a few days ago, a Tip system for Devs and Modders. If you feel that someone does a good job, be it Dev or Modder, you can tip him a small ammount of cash. That would definately increase Dev Interaction with the Forums ;)

This I would actually be okay with. Instead of giving them money to do something (which might not actually get done), you'd tip the dev after they did it.

I know a lot of you are saying "We bought the game, why should we pay more," but some of us (like me) would be perfectly content dropping a few more bucks every so often to continuously support BI in their development. Remember, when you normally pay for a game, it's complete. No more plans are made. BI is going to continue developing Arma 3 until further notice, it could be a long time (it'll already be a long time until the expansion, and we don't even know what'll happen after that), and they're going to need some more revenue if they want to continue at this pace.

[froggyluv 2136]

I'd prefer they just put out a multi choice question as to what DLC we'd like to see ie

A: CQB featuring swat/police units and gear, attack dogs and more importantly, an upgrade to AI behaviour in an urban environment.

B. Tanks, featuring a slew of armor with independent turrets as well as a fully realised damage system

C. Physics, nothing but physics. For content I'm guessing trampolines, bananas, a Big Tent, and lubricant.