Does anyone kind of feel like buying the Marksman DLC was a donation?

[OMAC 254]

Somewhere out there a BI dev actually posted that (he/they) regretted ever doing this because it had set a precedent...

I remember a BI dev regretting the A2 DLCs also, and quite recently. He thought that they "spoiled everybody." They sure spoiled me.

The reason I haven't bought any of the A3 DLCs is that they contain only one SP combat mission each, and, in the case of Karts, none at all. Instead of combat missions and campaigns (as in A2 DLC), BI playable content team has been concentrating on fluff like VR elements and Challenges for SP content, which I personally do not value. On the other hand, like everyone else, I highly value the platform updates (and FFV + Fixed Wing Showcases) delivered for free, and am grateful to them for that. They did a kick ass job on weapon resting and deployment (especially awesome indicators in HUD :cool:), and on suppression, among other things. Pretty awesome for the $27 alpha price, but resting and suppression should have been in there from the start as they completely change gameplay, and the showcases and campaign should have been designed around them. Who needs 6 more weapons when the existing ones do just fine, and RHS delivers so many it's obscene? As someone just wrote, I would perhaps buy DLC weapons for $1 each.... I may buy the DLC or bundle when they are on sale for 50% off, but even then I would feel a little silly paying for weapons and fluff that I will hardly ever use.

Imagine a mini campaign which presented situations in which the player had to choose from the new suite of weapons to maximize his tactical advantage. I would have laid down some serious clams for that. One mission doesn't cut the mustard.

Since the equally overpriced Hinds DLC, they are skimping on playable SP content, and I heard a dev say recently that the company may move away from SP even more for future games. Bummer for me. As a company, they are moving away from what I value, following the market and the $$$, which is natural. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I do not AT ALL like the A3 DLC "Push" delivery system, but I can understand why BI implemented it. Without Steam, they may have stuck to something more similar to the old (BETTER) DLC system. I do not like the "locked" weapons in crates, as I now have to scroll past them when searching a crate. I also "fully support" BI, but that doesn't mean I never question any moves they make, or buy everything they create without question. But I bought all the A2 DLC sight unseen, and never regretted it. I had a ridiculous amount of fun with them. BI feels it is ok to rely more and more on the community to make immersive SP content, as evidenced by MANW and that the A3 Scenarios menu section is designed only for community missions. That is not ok for me. :(

Edited April 12, 2015 by OMAC

[KeyCat 131]

Does anyone kind of feel like buying the Marksman DLC was a donation?

No.

/KC

[Guest]

IMO, it's the base of their DLC strategy to make the purchase of DLCs looking like a donation.

[Lapua338 12]

Yep I treated it like a donation.

[oksman 37]

They don't get much out of it I imagine, just think about the hours put into adding the Marksman stuff, all those neat features. All those hours are put into something that's free, obviously they have to compensate somewhere else, thus you pay for "less" however less means you're paying for everyone else to get the options free and a split-free community.

It's like paying taxes for someone to get benefits :rolleyes:!

[call_911 10]

Nope.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I don't see what that has to do with my point. Sorophx said BI had to add bipods soon. Like the series would come crashing down because of one or two features that people had already been asking for since the series began. That is simply ridiculous. The success of Arma will never hinge on the lack of a couple features, unless they start taking existing features out of the game.

It does though. What i mean is that DayZ brought the massive player base to what is now, if i had to guess, 50% or more, of Arma 3 players, that carried over from Arma 2, when the DayZ mod was actually still very popular. You have no idea how many people bought Arma 2 Combined Operations and other DLC's, just because of DayZ the Mod. It was that much of a deal. Now, however, we have a ton of Arma 3 players, a lot of them used to how the old business model was, some prefer the old, some like this version, some don't care. But saying Bipods not being in the game would cause Arma's followers to leave, is not true. I bought the game, without the single thought of Bipods ever being in it. Ever. Now that we have Bipods, for me, it's an over pleasant surprise. It's great. But if it weren't in game, i wouldn't care. I would be focused on something more exciting, like the Expansion pack, and i'm certain many others would be more interested in just content, and not features. I like features though. Especially seeing what BIS has done over the years. But to be 100% honest, if Bipods never came, i would still be playing this game. It's that good of a game. Or well, it's a game with so much potential, that i stay in hopes of seeing what Arma 3 could turn out to be.

[vegeta897 13]

It does though. What i mean is that DayZ brought the massive player base to what is now, if i had to guess, 50% or more, of Arma 3 players, that carried over from Arma 2, when the DayZ mod was actually still very popular. You have no idea how many people bought Arma 2 Combined Operations and other DLC's, just because of DayZ the Mod.

I think you're either not reading my posts or misreading them completely.

I said nothing about how many players DayZ brought to the Arma series. It did bring a lot, and I never said it didn't. I don't understand why you assume I have no idea. I didn't bring it up because it has no bearing on the points I was making. The series didn't hinge upon the existence of bipods either before or after DayZ. It's totally irrelevant to my point.

But saying Bipods not being in the game would cause Arma's followers to leave, is not true.

I didn't say it was true. That's exactly what I was saying was incorrect about Sorophx's post! You are literally repeating what I said right back to me. The very first thing I said about that to him was "That is not true and you know it." Are you confusing me with him or what?

You're one of the smartest posters I see around here, so I'm assuming you got confused somehow.

Edited April 13, 2015 by vegeta897

[chortles 263]

I remember a BI dev regretting the A2 DLCs also, and quite recently. He thought that they "spoiled everybody." They sure spoiled me.

Funny thing is, we may be thinking of the same dev... then again, the top of the company has said something to the effect of the content level of Arma 2 being beyond what might be viable for a single game... which I took to mean "we will never attempt it again."

Pretty awesome for the $27 alpha price, but resting and suppression should have been in there from the start

Ehhhh... for me any "should have been in there from the start" comments I see are tempered in my mind by the reveal that even those features were only greenlit as late as December 2014.

Since the equally overpriced Hinds DLC, they are skimping on playable SP content, and I heard a dev say recently that the company may move away from SP even more for future games. Bummer for me. As a company, they are moving away from what I value, following the market and the $$$, which is natural. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

At least you're handling it better than the guy who laughably claimed that BI was at "our" mercy...

[Sub-Human 10]

It was a donation. Why not release a number of campaigns with the DLC and giving a low-poly model for those that didn't make the purchase. Nothing is less immersive than, 'Sorry, you can't mount a scope on this rifle... You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'

Edited April 13, 2015 by Sub-Human

[chortles 263]

It was a donation. Why not release a number of campaigns with the DLC and giving a low-poly model for those that didn't make the purchase.

... because "low-poly" runs directly counter to the point of "everyone gets the assets at the same quality level"?

Nothing is less immersive than, 'Sorry, you can't mount a scope on this rifle... You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'

As someone who didn't buy the DLC, I can tell you that this isn't the case -- I get the ad pop-ups, but in the Editor I placed every optic in the game (DLC or otherwise) in front of my character and was able to attach them all to a long gun without issue.

[John Kozak 14]

It was a donation. Why not release a number of campaigns with the DLC and giving a low-poly model for those that didn't make the purchase. Nothing is less immersive than, 'Sorry, you can't mount a scope on this rifle... You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'

Right, low-poly models next to you are soooo much more immersive :)

[Sub-Human 10]

... because "low-poly" runs directly counter to the point of "everyone gets the assets at the same quality level"?

Well, as of now, some people don't have access to the assets at all.

As someone who didn't buy the DLC, I can tell you that this isn't the case -- I get the ad pop-ups, but in the Editor I placed every optic in the game (DLC or otherwise) in front of my character and was able to attach them all to a long gun without issue.

That's true, but only for the editor. If you try the same in a multiplayer scenario you will not be able to shoulder your weapon with a DLC-only scope. Or put on the new ghillie suit.

[vegeta897 13]

Can we not turn this thread into yet another beating of the same dead horse? The low-poly strategy is not coming back. It did not work. In fact, it failed spectacularly. The majority of people either didn't care about the quality or weren't even aware of the fact that it was DLC content they were using. That is a complete failure for a DLC strategy.

I'll tell you what is less immersive than a notification to buy something you don't own: not being able to play at all. That is the only alternative. If they make using premium content tolerable then the purpose of the DLC is defeated and we are right back to Arma 2's problem. I'm sure you wouldn't mind it, but you would mind if BI couldn't justify continuing to support this game because nobody is buying the DLC. You could say goodbye to bipods and every other free feature we've received, whose development was funded by DLC sales.

But I can tell you're adverse to the concept of paying developers for their hard work anyway, with this line: "You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'"

You didn't purchase anything other than what was in the game on release. Buying content that BI has created as a supplement to the game is not paying extra for the game you already purchased. It's buying more content, and making it possible for BI to continue adding free enhancements alongside.

[HeadPop 11]

weapons is not the only content...2 new scopes, 2 remote designators, full ghillie suits, firing drills and marksmen showcase..

and the new vest, the new sounds, not only 2 scopes, IA supression, and more.

[Sub-Human 10]

But I can tell you're adverse to the concept of paying developers for their hard work anyway, with this line: "You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'"

You didn't purchase anything other than what was in the game on release. Buying content that BI has created as a supplement to the game is not paying extra for the game you already purchased. It's buying more content, and making it possible for BI to continue adding free enhancements alongside.

That's true. If the developer releases a content-free game filled with bugs and immediately moves onto the next title, that is their choice. The question here is the customer base, what will they think?

About extended development - that's where the money from the sales comes from, no? The whole point of selling a game (or any product) is not to break-even but to generate profit.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree. I'm not donating money to a relatively rich and successful company, and I hope they're sensible enough to include all the DLC content in the next expansion pack.

[EDcase 87]

[h=1]"Does anyone kind of feel like buying the Marksman DLC was a donation?"[/h]

- Nope

[OMAC 254]

At least you're handling it better than the guy who laughably claimed that BI was at "our" mercy...

I feel that I am at BI's mercy, not the other way around. BI is laughing all the way to the bank. Cha-ching! :D

If CEO and/or A3 Project Lead told Zipper5 (or others of playable content team) to make 5-10 awesome SP missions, they'd make 'em. And I'd pay for 'em. :)

Here's an idea: crowd-fund Moricky to whip up Eagle Wing 2 campaign. ;) Heck, A3 even has the Comanche!

Edited April 16, 2015 by OMAC

[sorophx 25]

The people who don't view buying the DLC as supporting BIS are the ones that complain about the price.

that's not what my argument is, though. I don't care about the price. I'm saying it makes no sense to buy the DLC for what it gives (7 guns). I don't need those poorly made guns, I have a ton of those for free from people like Toadie, EricJ, Robert Hammer etc.

You say "everyone got these features anyway" but these features wouldn't exist if nobody paid.

true, if NOBODY paid for Arma 3, we wouldn't get them, but people did, I did. so they used those resources to introduce new features. how is not buying the new DLC make those features less likely to exist? people bought Arma 3 for completely different reasons.

or maybe you're saying BIS made the decision to introduce these features based on marketing research of how good the future DLC would've sold? that's going so far into the realm of "what could've been if they would", that I don't see the point of going there.

That is not true and you know it. Are you seriously saying the series would have died if bipods weren't implemented?

well, of all my friends who own Arma 3 (a dozen or so people), nobody plays it without mods. weapon resting is the first thing that gets modded in because it's such a game changer. so, yes, if there was no way to modify Arma, it would die.

BI's alleged problems are their business. "you pay or you don't pay" - that is the question here. If you don't, it has nothing to do with marketing or BI's strategy - it's just your position of not paying.

it has everything to do with marketing. marketing is persuading people to buy your product. I know for a fact nobody in my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances have bought any DLCs by BIS, because the content they provide is laughable. and the features we get anyway, so why bother?

ok, let's assume, that in the long run BIS stops introducing new features because their DLCs are selling worse and worse. do I care about that possibility enough to spend my money on them out of charity? no. even if Arma 4 never sees the light of day (which is highly unlikely, thanks to Wasteland, King of the Hill and Battle Royale - again, community contributions and NOT original BIS content), I couldn't care less. they leave this niche, another company will surely try to fill it

I highly value the platform updates (and FFV + Fixed Wing Showcases) delivered for free, and am grateful to them for that. They did a kick ass job on weapon resting and deployment (especially awesome indicators in HUD :cool:), and on suppression, among other things. Pretty awesome for the $27 alpha price, but resting and suppression should have been in there from the start as they completely change gameplay, and the showcases and campaign should have been designed around them. Who needs 6 more weapons when the existing ones do just fine, and RHS delivers so many it's obscene?

couldn't have said it better. exactly my argument. +1 to you.

those who didn't see it in my posts are excused, since it's my fault for wording it poorly.:o

[st_dux 26]

It was a donation. Why not release a number of campaigns with the DLC and giving a low-poly model for those that didn't make the purchase. Nothing is less immersive than, 'Sorry, you can't mount a scope on this rifle... You didn't pay extra for the full game you already purchased!'

I seriously can't stand this entitled attitude that gamers often have nowadays. The DLC is extra, non-essential content that was released after the full game. In what way does this arrangement make you feel entitled to it just for having purchased the original title?

[Jackal326 1181]

I seriously can't stand this entitled attitude that gamers often have nowadays. The DLC is extra, non-essential content that was released after the full game. In what way does this arrangement make you feel entitled to it just for having purchased the original title?

Agreed.

[vegeta897 13]

that's not what my argument is, though. I don't care about the price. I'm saying it makes no sense to buy the DLC for what it gives (7 guns). I don't need those poorly made guns, I have a ton of those for free from people like Toadie, EricJ, Robert Hammer etc.

I don't think anyone would consider the content of the Marksmen DLC alone to be truly worth the asking price. The people who bought it either 1) understand what BI is going for with their DLC model and want to support it, 2) felt like splurging and liked one or more of the guns, or 3) just wanted to give BIS more money after getting more than their money's worth out of the base game.

true, if NOBODY paid for Arma 3, we wouldn't get them, but people did, I did. so they used those resources to introduce new features. how is not buying the new DLC make those features less likely to exist? people bought Arma 3 for completely different reasons.

or maybe you're saying BIS made the decision to introduce these features based on marketing research of how good the future DLC would've sold? that's going so far into the realm of "what could've been if they would", that I don't see the point of going there.

No speculation necessary, friend. This is what BI have said themselves. Just because they had money from Arma 3's sales to continue updating it does not mean they would have justified the amount of extended post-release support we're seeing now if they had decided not to sell any DLC or the upcoming expansion. The sale of these DLCs are what make their companion-features and other platform upgrades financially viable, this is not a matter of opinion or speculation. BI could certainly expect a reasonable amount of DLC sales to make up for the development costs. Just because the sales are made after the development happens doesn't mean the development could happen without the sales. Sure, it could happen the first time, but upon reviewing their sales figures they would be forced to either change their model or swallow the loss and stop future development. They aren't going to keep pouring money into a money-loser. Apparently the Heli DLC proved successful for them financially because things are continuing as planned.

well, of all my friends who own Arma 3 (a dozen or so people), nobody plays it without mods. weapon resting is the first thing that gets modded in because it's such a game changer. so, yes, if there was no way to modify Arma, it would die.

Way to completely forget/change what you said. You said BI had to implement bipods. You mentioned BF3's bipods as a reason that BI couldn't postpone adding bipods any longer. You didn't say anything about mod support. The game has always had mod support, and of course it would die without it. You never said anything about that and neither did I.

Edited April 13, 2015 by vegeta897

[Rich_R 1087]

I'm never sure if I should laugh or be upset with these types of posts.

Regardless, I'll reply with the usual stuff we all write to these 'woe is me' posts. There are few gaming companies that support their titles like BI. I'm not familiar with payday and the weapons packs but I'm pretty sure that it's not a fair comparison.

There was a lot of bang your buck in this DLC. I won't repeat the additional items that have been listed by other posts above this one, but it was pretty substantial.

If you didn't want these items, don't buy the DLC. You still get the game updates, for free! BI appears to made a heck of an effort when laying out the method to these DLCs and it appears to be working well. We have different levels of DLC ownership in our group but what one person owns doesn't affect the gameplay of those around them. Best of all, everyone gets to enjoys the amazing improvements being made to the game.

[sorophx 25]

Way to completely forget/change what you said. You said BI had to implement bipods. You mentioned BF3's bipods as a reason that BI couldn't postpone adding bipods any longer.

yes, because: bipods were a highly requested feature from day 1 of Arma 3's release. and stuff like BF3 was being brought up as an example ("even BF3 has bipods, and a military simulator doesn't!").

as for mod support, I only brought it up now because I didn't fully understand what you meant by "if it wasn't for DLC the bipod feature wouldn't even exist".

anyway, it's obvious you and I look at these things differently. I want BIS to release DLCs that make me go "wow, I really want to buy it not because I want to support the developers, but because it's a good product". so far, their DLCs have been very strangely marketed and implemented

[OMAC 254]

I want BIS to release DLCs that make me go "wow, I really want to buy it not because I want to support the developers, but because it's a good product". so far, their DLCs have been very strangely marketed and implemented

Agreed. Obviously BI devs are extraordinarily skilled and talented in what they do. Who doesn't want to see the company succeed except for competing companies and their fans? But the way the DLCs are packaged, pushed, and marketed detracts from A3 IMO and leaves some ArmAheads wondering...WTF? :rolleyes: