Bussiness model compared to EA

[chortles 263]

Hahaha, Harudath actually has a solid point considering what an EA chief creative officer said, that how people spend (this thread) is the real indicator of their sentiment and not what they say (the regular wishlist thread)...

[das attorney 858]

Hahaha, Harudath actually has a solid point considering what an EA chief creative officer said, that how people spend (this thread) is the real indicator of their sentiment and not what they say (the regular wishlist thread)...

Yes that's a good point, people should put their money where their mouth is.

Personally though I don't want to spend any cash on models and maps until they sort out the poor performance. As much as I want to support them, they need to sort the game out so I can actually enjoy it.

Then I'll be quite happy to buy new maps and vehicles etc.

[chortles 263]

Yes that's a good point, people should put their money where their mouth is.

The EA CCO basically that EA does what they do because people don't put their money where their mouth is, in particular that EA lets its most vocal BF4 critics on Battlelog be so vocal because they had also spent the most money on Battlefield...

Retrospective thought: The early access model probably helped out BI in more ways than just immediate pre-launch income -- not only could I not cancel an Arma 3 pre-order because none was offered*, but (like on games where the preorder bonus is a purchase discount) the money that I saved by buying during alpha instead of at or after launch is money that I can spend on the DLC Bundle and/or on the Expansion...

* If you think it's bad now though, wait til AAA game companies get onboard the idea... :rolleyes:

[das attorney 858]

Yeah it's a terrible business model that the consumer has only itself to blame for.

I had a conversation recently about this and one of the points I remember is that Dayz proved that early access can work, but as a consequence, look at the amount of half finished and abandoned survival games on Steam. There's tonnes. All they need to do is make something that looks halfway decent and it sells.

Then the developer never has to finish what they start as its "onto the next one, which addresses the flaws of this one" etc.

I'm keeping my money in my pocket in future until games are 1.0 and released.

[chortles 263]

Yeah it's a terrible business model that the consumer has only itself to blame for.

More to the point, the claim from a notable EA corporate officer is that EA's numerical feedback points to "this works, keep going until it doesn't". Whereas with Arma 3 dev blogs we've seen an glimpse of an internal eye on prioritizing development based on deadlines (read: determining and only greenlighting what can be delivered in a satisfactory state by a deadline), attempts at controlling their own promoting from being overenthusiastic so that it's easier to 'undersell and overdeliver'... heck, Bohemia referring to certain stable branch updates as "free DLC" in a seemingly deliberate attempt to keep their name in the press! :rolleyes: A new age for Bohemia...?

I had a conversation recently about this and one of the points I remember is that Dayz proved that early access can work, but as a consequence, look at the amount of half finished and abandoned survival games on Steam. There's tonnes. All they need to do is make something that looks halfway decent and it sells.

Then the developer never has to finish what they start as its "onto the next one, which addresses the flaws of this one" etc.

I'm keeping my money in my pocket in future until games are 1.0 and released.

I tend to look at it more optimistically because of where my threshold is: "is this game's current state worth the money currently asked?" If yes, then any further improvements are treated as a bonus, hence the importance to me of having bought in alpha. Then again, I also saw it as paying for the chance to yell at Bohemia a lot earlier than later-comers could... :lol: Plus when one considers how bad a lot of "AAA" games have been and have built-in "starting on the next one before the first has come out" schedules and thus a degree of planned obsolescence... the "conventional" model doesn't feel that different enough from the early access model for me to view the early access model so harshly.

Ironically, Arma 3 may have turned out better because it wasn't a "regular" ("true"?) early access game, i.e. the stated alpha/beta/launch milestones being an utter crock...

Edited March 20, 2015 by Chortles

[das attorney 858]

More to the point, the claim from a notable EA corporate officer is that EA's numerical feedback points to "this works, keep going until it doesn't". Whereas with Arma 3 dev blogs we've seen an glimpse of an internal eye on prioritizing development based on deadlines (read: determining and only greenlighting what can be delivered in a satisfactory state by a deadline), attempts at controlling their own promoting from being overenthusiastic so that it's easier to 'undersell and overdeliver'... heck, Bohemia referring to certain stable branch updates as "free DLC" in a seemingly deliberate attempt to keep their name in the press! :rolleyes: A new age for Bohemia...?I tend to look at it more optimistically because of where my threshold is: "is this game's current state worth the money currently asked?" If yes, then any further improvements are treated as a bonus, hence the importance to me of having bought in alpha. Then again, I also saw it as paying for the chance to yell at Bohemia a lot earlier than later-comers could... :lol: Plus when one considers how bad a lot of "AAA" games have been and have built-in "starting on the next one before the first has come out" schedules and thus a degree of planned obsolescence... the "conventional" model doesn't feel that different enough from the early access model for me to view the early access model so harshly.

Ironically, Arma 3 may have turned out better because it wasn't a "regular" ("true"?) early access game, i.e. the stated alpha/beta/launch milestones being an utter crock...

That EA official line doesn't surprise me one bit. I've worked for a couple of companies like that where the MO was to rip-off the customer until they stop buying, then treat them fairly and win them back. Works a treat sadly.

I was watching a video on n00btube the other day and it was from some PC mag and they were espousing the notion they were done with COD and BF as the "next gen" of gamers expected more.

The guy was totally deluded, it's people like him who've been blindly buying the same game for 6-7 years that have created and fostered this culture of software houses getting away with pushing the same old shit out of the door with a lick of paint.

I can't really see a competitor appearing on the horizon to COD or BF, I mean how could anyone muscle in there? It's so well sewn up in "loyalty rewards", "season passes", deals with the console manufacturers etc.

Anyway, I should probably stop talking about that as I could discuss it for hours, so hit me up on PM if you want a wall of text on the subject lol.

Agreed about Arma though £20 was a nice amount of money to pay to get it. On balance, I bought the DLC pack as well with the savings so I probably paid about £40 in total for the game.

However, it wasn't really playable for a while (better than A2 at launch but still). Also I feel that the DLC content should have been included in the game from the start.

I guess they were so far behind schedule with an incomplete game that they had to do something to divvy it up. But yes it does feel like the game is still in beta sometimes (as there are still massive changes under the hood) and I guess it's at the point where you could say its finished (nearly) ;)

[suiside 95]

like das attorney i bought the game cheap,

knowing it was alpha and having had arma and arma 2 that patches would be coming.

so features well i don't know what to buy and what not to buy, it is mere WANT TO HAVE and not of that much importance to me,

the thing i do miss, is that back in the old days you bought a game in a shop on (cassette, really old) floppy or disc and that was it, internet was not there to patch anything up.

so the game had to be GOOD, or else the name of the developer would be bad.

now with internet they do not seem to care for the RELEASE version, because internet will save them with the ability to Patch up.

this i do not like, it is working great, but it does take away the edge i think in development and publishing,

they should just state what is and what is not in the game release and do it prior to release, then all "patches" should be honest FIXES and "DLC" free or payed should not contain FIXES or touch ups

you could say they do it already, but i guess it is not as clear as day probably because of the internet and infostreams gossip and what have you to muddy up the waters.

i payed for the DLC bundle, so i have shown what i am willing to pay for,

i care mostly for the fact that it is clear what we get when we pay for it, and when it is buggy, it should have been ironed out !

you don't buy a car with half inflated tires, or the passenger seat missing, and so it should not be with games.

[vran. 13]

What's the point of this thread? Everyone knows EA are a greedy company that trys to milk their consumer dry with half-finished products and the same old stuff repacked in a shiny new suit. Whereas BI are actually doing new and interesting things and concepts (Day-Z, Take-On series, Carrier Command, futuristic ArmA, etc.) and listen to their audience and actively support community content. Bohemia Interactive, one of the last white knights of computer gaming... ;)

[slatts 1978]

While everyone might not be entirely happy with the style and/or amount of content in Arma 3. The support BIS has shown not just in this, but previous titles shows just how baaad Battlefield and it's counterparts has become.

Look at just the core gameplay difference between Arma 1, 2 and 3. How it has improved through each new release, how the developers update, add new content and improve on the game. Take Arma 3 alone, again, while you might not be happy with the content in Helis and Marksman DLC. But the free engine updates are improving the game well after release and adding new ideas for COMMUNITY made missions. We don't have to wait on the devs to give us new missions and content, our own community does that.

2 years after the release of Battlefield 4 and it's still as buggy as hotel in an Amazonian hotel. 2 years after release the TV missiles still fire from the nose of the SU 25 and not downwards as they should. BF: Hardline is an abomination, the newest title should improve on the previous and neither that or 4 (And it can be argued 3 after Bad Company 2) has done that, none of them have gone forward to the sunshine, only into a tar pit and they probably won't get out.

Arma 3 has been out (not including Alpha/Beta) for over a year and it's miles better than what it was on launch.

Is it perfect? Hell no, but at least I can have faith in BIS to improve the game since IMO they have proven to me, they actually care about Arma 3 and we'll continue to see more improvements as we go forward.

[redarmy 422]

While everyone might not be entirely happy with the style and/or amount of content in Arma 3. The support BIS has shown not just in this, but previous titles shows just how baaad Battlefield and it's counterparts has become.

Look at just the core gameplay difference between Arma 1, 2 and 3. How it has improved through each new release, how the developers update, add new content and improve on the game. Take Arma 3 alone, again, while you might not be happy with the content in Helis and Marksman DLC. But the free engine updates are improving the game well after release and adding new ideas for COMMUNITY made missions. We don't have to wait on the devs to give us new missions and content, our own community does that.

2 years after the release of Battlefield 4 and it's still as buggy as hotel in an Amazonian hotel. 2 years after release the TV missiles still fire from the nose of the SU 25 and not downwards as they should. BF: Hardline is an abomination, the newest title should improve on the previous and neither that or 4 (And it can be argued 3 after Bad Company 2) has done that, none of them have gone forward to the sunshine, only into a tar pit and they probably won't get out.

Arma 3 has been out (not including Alpha/Beta) for over a year and it's miles better than what it was on launch.

Is it perfect? Hell no, but at least I can have faith in BIS to improve the game since IMO they have proven to me, they actually care about Arma 3 and we'll continue to see more improvements as we go forward.

Well said slatts i couldnt agree more.

Bad company two was the last hurah for me,BF3 i played only because friends played,but the franchise has devoved and its affect will trickle down to the entire gaming community as other publishers see how EA can get away with outlandishly underhanded marketing behaviour,sleezy f**** is not even the word.Hardline is just,as you said an abomination and a nail in the coffin.

BIS has given me what i always wanted,the ability to create,and a sandbox with so much depth,its taken me over a year to learn just some scripting basics and how to put a mission together.HELL iv only played ONE of my own made missions and no others in all that time.What have i been doing in those roughly 3-4hours per day of arma3 you might ask?....Investing,investing my brain into something that will no doubt serve me well for years to come.

The difference is Bohemia interactive give us something to invest in,and EA try to invest into our stupidity and mainstream nature.BF consumers are sheep,the Arma community are the wolves.

[slatts 1978]

Before BF4's launch one of the most featured "improvements" was Levolution.

In Arma 3 it was tactical pace and diving to name a few. Arma 3's features worked and continue to do so.

Lev-devolution was broke on the day 1 release after it worked in beta. Re: Shanghai skyscraper. And now has been almost done away with completely in Hardline. Says a lot.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Hahaha, Harudath actually has a solid point considering what an EA chief creative officer said, that how people spend (this thread) is the real indicator of their sentiment and not what they say (the regular wishlist thread)...

Milking the common herd doesn't mean respecting its customers. Lot's of people spend their life watching real TV, it doesn't mean it's good for their IQ.

[slatts 1978]

Milking the common herd doesn't mean respecting its customers. Lot's of people spend their life watching real TV, it doesn't mean it's good for their IQ.

But..Bu.. I thought I could now go to Las Vagas and buy storage lots?

J/K I don't watch that rubbish.

[warden_1 1070]

I will say one of the downsides to the DayZ Early Access model (which I think is awesome, because we stop bitching about them releasing it and they get expedited and continuous bug testing and feedback) is that a ton of scrubs basically trash talk the game after playing the Alpha or Beta.... I mean.... they treat it like it's a full release. Either way maybe it will limit the amount of moronic kids that I see on DayZ who just try to kill me immediately even when I have the upper hand and am trying to talk to them.

[chortles 263]

That EA official line doesn't surprise me one bit. I've worked for a couple of companies like that where the MO was to rip-off the customer until they stop buying, then treat them fairly and win them back. Works a treat sadly.

I was watching a video on n00btube the other day and it was from some PC mag and they were espousing the notion they were done with COD and BF as the "next gen" of gamers expected more.

The guy was totally deluded, it's people like him who've been blindly buying the same game for 6-7 years that have created and fostered this culture of software houses getting away with pushing the same old shit out of the door with a lick of paint.

The EA CCO's explanation for the stance in his own case was that he grew up in Las Vegas and so he was used to people lying with their mouths but telling the truth with their wallets... ;)

By that standard, if Arma 3 has made back its development costs and then some, then whoever it was within BI that pushed through the Steamworks/early access/September 2013 launch/no-Lite-only-lockouts-DLC plans in the face of all the LOUD opposition on these forums in 2013 and through mid-2014 is probably considered by BI to have made the right call, no matter how badly the community howled. :lol:

Agreed about Arma though £20 was a nice amount of money to pay to get it. On balance, I bought the DLC pack as well with the savings so I probably paid about £40 in total for the game.

On top of that, the alpha/beta discount seems to have inverted the usual route that "standard" game releases go, where full MSRP is usually retained until the publisher 'feels' that they've sold all that they can at the original MSRP so they drop that, then drop it again when the well dries up again, repeat as necessary until cost of continued publishing exceeds projected revenue from those units. Speaking of that 'standard' pricing model, BI may figure that the "Arma 3 at US$60" hasn't dried up yet, so until then... you get my drift, I imagine.

However, it wasn't really playable for a while (better than A2 at launch but still). Also I feel that the DLC content should have been included in the game from the start.

I guess they were so far behind schedule with an incomplete game that they had to do something to divvy it up. But yes it does feel like the game is still in beta sometimes (as there are still massive changes under the hood) and I guess it's at the point where you could say its finished (nearly) ;)

The thing is, "better than A2 at launch" was a stated dev standard, so they met that goal alright. :p It sticks out in my mind because I remember a particularly vocal claimant here (who made personal attacks against specific devs, btw) who claimed that Arma 2's greater amount of content was more important than how buggy it was, more or less the complete opposite of the devs when it came to prioritizing... and as Slatts noted, contrast BI's prioritizing of what A3 features to promote with EA's prioritizing of BF4 features to market/promote.

I've long suspected that "so far behind schedule with an incomplete game" was the reason why DnA and Maruk decided to do the winter of 2012 reboot, and that the declaration of launch (as much as it pissed off community members here) was about meeting contractual obligations... but I think that there's another angle to it: Arma 3's post-launch development has had press releases, dev blogs, livestreams, etc. that BI can tout to keep Arma 3's name in the spotlight, albeit via the sophistry of marketing certain stable branch updates as "free DLC" beore the paid DLCs, which Arma France's pettka interview revealed will include the Expansion (albeit with a different scope from the first three).

I will say one of the downsides to the DayZ Early Access model (which I think is awesome, because we stop bitching about them releasing it and they get expedited and continuous bug testing and feedback) is that a ton of scrubs basically trash talk the game after playing the Alpha or Beta.... I mean.... they treat it like it's a full release. Either way maybe it will limit the amount of moronic kids that I see on DayZ who just try to kill me immediately even when I have the upper hand and am trying to talk to them.

On the contrary, DayZ is using the same early access model as Arma 3; what you describe seems to come down to DayZ's at-one-point higher profile and the ineffectiveness of "don't buy unless you want to beta test" warnings, though it must be admitted that EA had these problems with BF3/BF4 too (despite Slatts' "Levolution worked in beta, broke in release")...

The bigger problems for DayZ are that it went public alpha after Arma 3's launch yet it's still in public almost a year and a half later, so omitted stuff has haunted DayZ's reputation in a way that Arma 3 has avoided (look at how AFM/FFV/sling-loading were received in contrast to the DayZ V3S, whose improvements over the A2 mod's iteration are not immediately clear) and even if we go by EA's "wallet over words" standard DayZ has fundamental revenue problems: no 'regular' DLCs or an Expansion (basically "big DLCs") means that it can only generate revenue via unit sales, yet those unit sales were front-loaded at the lowest price point, a loss of potential revenue from purchases that could have been made at a higher price point; unless BI can generate new-customer interest in the game whenever it moves to beta, much less to launch, it's already made (revenue-wise) the majority of what it will make. In contrast, Arma 3's "alpha/beta/launch" schedule minimized such a loss, Arma 3 has sold at the highest price point for the majority of its lifespan to date, and its DLCs (including the Expansion) all mean follow-on revenue. As such, I wouldn't be surprised as such if Arma 3+DLCs at some point exceeds that of DayZ if they haven't already...

... heck, I'm starting to suspect that DayZ's situation is what would have happened to Arma 3 had BI actually listened to all the "delay Arma 3 until I get what I want" crowd. :rolleyes:

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Is this about people hating on the BIS Business model again? Alright, well I'll just tell BIS it's a good idea to go with EA's and raise Each DLC to 59.99, and only those who have it can play on servers with it. The only place anyone else can see this content is in the Virtual Arsenal, and that only counts for weapons. If you try to join a server with DLC content, you won be able to, period. But it, or your now liked out of your favorite servers forever. =D

[das attorney 858]

Is this about people hating on the BIS Business model again? Alright, well I'll just tell BIS it's a good idea to go with EA's and raise Each DLC to 59.99, and only those who have it can play on servers with it. The only place anyone else can see this content is in the Virtual Arsenal, and that only counts for weapons. If you try to join a server with DLC content, you won be able to, period. But it, or your now liked out of your favorite servers forever. =D

Hmm, is it possible to just have some reservations without "hating on the BIS Business model"?

I didn't say I hated it, they're your words not mine. I was talking with Chortles about the proliferation of early access and its relative merits and drawbacks.

Anyway, I think the Steam thing was quite bold and deliberate. They knew that it would be unpopular with sections of the community at the time, but I imagine they worked out how many customers would be shed vs new ones drawn in and went with the numbers. Agree that it probably was the right call in that development is much easier (Do you remember getting A2 beta patches off that green and white web page?).

Also, as you mention, they've done a good job of turning the fails of development into some plusses for after release support. Ok, it should have been different to begin with in an ideal world, but at least they didn't push it out of the door and abandon it; which does deserve credit.

You make an interesting point about DayZ.

I hadn't thought of it like that but yes, where else can the game go? I know it's still being developed but it's stagnating and the general view of most people I've talked to is that they can't stay excited for 3+ years about a zombie game. Here's what one of my friends thought. It's pretty harsh but he's got a good point:

I have long since lost faith in this game. It will never be good, because by the time they finish it or even add any interesting content, it will be outdated.

I think the only things they can do is release a new map, open it up to mods or change the server arrangements, but I can't see them doing that for a good long while given it is not even at 1.0. There would be outrage if they moved the goalposts before kick-off so to speak.

I can't really be bothered with it myself - I've only played 8 hours since it came out. I can't explain why - maybe it's the lack of modding, maybe the gameplay and lack of things to do, maybe I just am not as excited as when the mod came out and I would spend hours wandering in Chernarus. There is a couple of discernable points though that turn me away from the game.

1) No-one on the development team has any idea what to do about the 3rd person peek-a-boo gameplay.

2) There's no zombies. No effective AI antagonist means humans are the antagonist and the game becomes a really slow paced PVP game like COD, but with bad respawn.

[silentghoust 132]

1) No-one on the development team has any idea what to do about the 3rd person peek-a-boo gameplay.

2) There's no zombies. No effective AI antagonist means humans are the antagonist and the game becomes a really slow paced PVP game like COD, but with bad respawn.

3rd person peak-a-boo is a community made problem. People prefer it since it is easier to play. As for the zombies, you basically nailed the very core issue that all DayZ games have created. Personally like some one has said earlier, players don't always know what they want. You can easily take out the zombies and you will still get the very same situation, players basically playing Arma 2 in a free for all setting. The only way you can get past these issues is teaching players to roleplay a bit more, or adding a huge incentive for people to work together.

As for the whole BI business model issue. Look at more mainstream shooters. Want that armor piece to wear? Sorry you need to dump 300 hours into the game to get it, want that gun? Sorry you need to get 10 360 no scopes to get it. Or you can spend the amount of a new game and unlock it all instantly! So basically you either are forced to play a certain play style to work your way to content or you pay extra money. Did I mention not able to play with your friends if you don't have certain DLC? BI is a damn angel compared to other companies. I rather give them money for some DLC that they developed later in the game. Then some crappy company telling me I need to pay more to unlock the full content of the game I already bought.

[slatts 1978]

I rather pay full price for Marksman DLC then buy the bargain that is 5 gold Battlepacks for 12 euro and see what I get!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Hmm, is it possible to just have some reservations without "hating on the BIS Business model"?

Yes. Though, i can't really see a better business model for a small Indie Development team such as Bohemia Interactive's. I mean, with some DLC's, like RockStar's, it's free content, and maybe Feature's, such as Heists and what not, that were promised to buyers of the game since before it was even released. That's fine, granted, RockStar, is a large Development Company, with plenty of money, and a large... No, MASSIVE player base since it's violent but fun top down 2D game hit way back in the day. They can afford to add in new content free. EA, has gone backwards. I remember when maps came free over time. They had new awesome maps like Highway Tampa, i still remember the day it was on screen as a new free map. Not only that, but with Battlefield 2, it actually had a Modding Community similar to Arma's. People made many different mods, some good, some better than others, and as Project Reality turned out, Legendary. But, now it's all a money grab. Look at them now. A few days, in fact, before the full game is released, they give players a lowdown on perks that they can get over "regulars" via. a Premium Expansion, that stays with them throughout the entire game, adding far more content than one game it'self. Others that don't want to buy an entire Premium subscription, can get single additions at certain prices, usually have the price of the Premium, and save a little. Also, they don't get any of the Premium content, or get to play on premium maps, or even interact with new vehicles, or features. They however can pick up a Premium gun or two during a match, granted they kill a premium member with it.

Bohemia, seems a large chunk more forgiving. While the DLC's are substantially smaller in terms of content, that makes up for Features, which are added to the game without DLC purchase. New Flight Model, Firing From Vehicles, ACTUAL Ropes (in which i'm surprised no one has made a standalone script for Fast-roping yet...), #Bipods, Weapon Resting, and in the future possibly Wind Ballistics, or single round Cambering. All working features, except for the last two, for now. However, there is still more to come, what is payed for are a few content treats for those willing to throw BIS some cash for the hard work. Those who pay, get a few new toys to play with over regular players, however, regular players can still see these in game with everyone else, and can still do everything with it except for using it, as they did not pay for it. Therefore they are left out of the extra toys that "supporters" get for backing BIS, and helping in development of the game itself, to become essentially a better platform for EVERYONE.

BIS's Business model is also new, and as of now, there are no other Business models quite like it, essentially, if anyone picks up on it, we may see this same kind of Business model in bigger title games.

[bad benson 1733]

Before BF4's launch one of the most featured "improvements" was Levolution.

In Arma 3 it was tactical pace and diving to name a few. Arma 3's features worked and continue to do so.

as much as i could rage for hours about how retardly dumbed down battlefield has become and how the "netcode"/hitdetection stuff is still wonky at times, i gotta say that this comparison is not fair.

are you seriously comparing arma's diving and the addition of an animation speed to battlefield's destruction? how does that make sense? it's like one guy saying "hey i'm gonna try to make a double backflip" and another "hey i'll just gonna make one step forward". and then after the first does one and a half backflip you blame him for not doing it perfectly.you can't just take any feature and compare it like that, imho. diving is not exactly mindblowing (most games that have water have it) and neither is adding an additional running speed. have we really become this easy to impress as arma players? :p

i mean i'm as fed up with EA as the next guy but i could make you a never ending list of what is not working properly in arma. it's really bad to compare these games in my opinion. different budgets. and tbh. it shows. i have a lot of respect for the technical aspect of bf4. to me, next to games like gta it's still setting the bar (purely technical). sounds, animations (not the data but the world interaction too), physics, dynamic destruction, overall responsiveness and polish.

i know that one of the main reasons arma lacks those is budget (or is it still...?) but i feel like having to point them out. i just hate when people's battlefield frustration automatically turns into arma praise. to me both games have severe problems. but in totally different areas (except for hit detection :D).

it's easy to get cocky when you are in your comfortable niche without real direct competition...

[enex 11]

First difference between arma and BF4 I would say it's developer size, then budget.

[miketim 20]

Well budget (sort of) proportionately affects your developer size.. in theory at least.

[enex 11]

Well budget (sort of) proportionately affects your developer size.. in theory at least.

Since positions are open for developers at BI, I don't think founds are problem.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Have bf 4, it's my last bf.

I'm buying the witcher 3 on ps4 and pc. Maybe if the witcher 3 makes a shit ton of cash other gready bitches like ea and Activision will see you can make quality made products, give away dlc make customers happy and still make mountains of gold.

As for arma and bis they can go suck on my fat wad when the expansion rolls around.

---------- Post added at 23:43 ---------- Previous post was at 23:41 ----------

As in take money, got plenty pf value for money from arma.