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

[vegeta897 13]

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

Bipods were a highly requested feature from the beginning of the series. Arma 3 still sold very well without them (without even a hint that they would come later, either) and the series would not have died or meet some other unfortunate fate if they hadn't been implemented. Mostly because of mod capabilities, but also because a game like Arma simply doesn't rise and fall from having or not having feature X or Y.

I would buy DLC that made me say that, too. But I also like this DLC model, because it shows that BI understands its fanbase. Official content is nice, but if I had a choice between content-only DLC that was worth its price tag or content-light DLC that included engine upgrades, I'm going to pick the latter every time. Official content was never something I found lacking (this may be where we disagree) but upgrading the platform is beneficial to absolutely everyone no matter how they play the game, and it can breathe new life into old content.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

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.

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.

Lol, yeah, sorry. It was late when I posted those, and I've been all over the place lately sorry. I did indeed mis-read your posts.

Back on topic however, I love the DLC, Bipods and all. Love the Sig-762 DMR. =D

[vegeta897 13]

No problem, glad to have that resolved. Now I can go back to looking forward to reading your posts =D

[chortles 263]

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

Hahaha, someone in the community actually remembers far back enough to get the reference! :D Still, I don't remember EW leaving much room for a sequel though so perhaps a remake is in order instead...

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.

Funny, Toadie had something to say about people comparing his stuff against that of vanilla A3...

well, of all my friends who own Arma 3 (a dozen or so people), nobody plays it without mods.

Whereas most of those that I know end up playing it vanilla with custom missions... funny how that works, huh?

[froggyluv 2136]

Saying "yeah, this shit should have been in since OFP..." is pretty spoilt if you ask me. Realistic plane aviation, realistic AI driving, realistic tank armour, 3d editor, AI infantry that can use buildings with better command, more and better realistic clouds and weather, more real NV effects, real infantry wounding and medical system, fish that swim more than just North, more animals, weapon resting and deployment, multiple tiers of command, Islands big enough for realistic flight combat, wheres the ships that move, better tracers, more real sounds, hauling and pulling with ropes and other tethers, women, smoother and more fluid animations, better programming languages, more content on everything....WHAT DA FUCK BI -where is this shit!?!? You've had 15 years!!!

What I wonder is, wtf Dice,Ubi, EA Crytec, what have you done to your franchise games? Shutting down modding, taking away bots and any real AI and wanting to charge for ammunition...http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.354961-EA-John-Riccitiello-thinking-about-charging-money-for-bullets-in-games

Ill take the model of continued support with free feature upgrade with optional paid content anyday

[sorophx 25]

Funny, Toadie had something to say about people comparing his stuff against that of vanilla A3.

this is the last time I will voice my opinion on this issue, because we seem to be going in circles.

I am not saying A3 has too little content out of the box. it's not about the amount of content. it's about the DLC and what I'd get for the money.

$15 could buy me a whole new game (or 3 other games, or 5 other games, or a crapton of games if we count Humble Bundle). compare that to a bunch of weapons I don't need (I never play the role of marksman/machine gunner), and it should become obvious, that from my perspective this DLC - as a product - is completely worthless. that's been my argument all along.

was making the DLC possible a lot of work (considering all the new features)? yes. does it justify the price tag? no.

games are becoming cheaper and cheaper by the minute. it's where today's market is going. BIS is operating with last decade's prices and business practices. they need to reevaluate their approach. right now they seem to be mimicking Electronic Arts in attempting to sell every small thing they can add to the game. only with Arma 3 BIS is competing against their own community.

BIS should've bundled all of the new platform upgrades, made a new single player campaign around them, added new assets and sold all that as one expansion pack (pretty much how they did with Operation Arrowhead). that would've gotten me excited. I'd pay anything up to $40 for that kind of deal. instead they are feeding it to us piece meal at 15 bucks a pop, by the time the new terrain is ready, a lot of you will have spent another Arma 3 copy's worth on all of it.

Edited April 13, 2015 by sorophx
grammar

[soulis6 24]

If they were really following the EA model, they'd just never update the base game or add any new features, put out 6 $15 map packs of new small terrains and a couple guns, where you can only join if you already own it (splitting the community), and then after the last pack is out announce Arma 4 for $60, with minimal changes to the base game, but a new SP campaign and some prettier effects.

Sure, games are getting cheaper, and there's lots and lots of competition for most games and general player's attention, but there is no one competing with Arma, they are a niche product (relatively). They're updates and DLC take time and lots of love are given to them, so I think it's pretty fair to charge a reasonable price.

I look at it this way; I have dozens if not hundreds of games on steam that were under $20, many of them with just a few hours playtime. I have over 400 hours in Arma, and I think i've put a total of $50 into it. I would be just fine with paying double that if I needed to, there's just not anything else like it out there.

[OMAC 254]

BIS should've bundled all of the new platform upgrades, made a new single player campaign around them, added new assets and sold all that as one expansion pack (pretty much how they did with Operation Arrowhead). that would've gotten me excited. I'd pay anything up to $40 for that kind of deal. instead they are feeding it to us piece meal at 15 bucks a pop, by the time the new terrain is ready, a lot of you will have spent another Arma 3 copy's worth on all of it.

Bingo. Well said! :bigglasses:

If BI had pursued that strategy, wouldn't they have brought in MORE $$$ than with the current DLC paradigm? Such an expansion would have been purchased by EVERY Arma player. Who could possibly refuse to buy something that feature- and content-packed? With resting, deployment, and suppression, they could have marketed it as the biggest thing to hit Arma since A2 came out. And a new campaign would have sealed the deal. BI could have charged quite a sum for that baby - I also think up to $40-45 is completely reasonable. Instead they are giving awesome new tech away to many users (hey, I'm not complaining about that ;), but BI CFO should). Oh man.

[vegeta897 13]

$15 could buy me a whole new game (or 3 other games, or 5 other games, or a crapton of games if we count Humble Bundle). compare that to a bunch of weapons I don't need (I never play the role of marksman/machine gunner), and it should become obvious, that from my perspective this DLC - as a product - is completely worthless. that's been my argument all along.

Your price argument doesn't get you anywhere. Arma 3 sells for $60 full price. According to your logic, you could get 4 whole new games, or 12 other games, or 20 other games, or a huuuuge crapton of games if we count the humble bundle! What exactly does that prove or do to support the point you're making?

It's totally fair that you don't consider the weapons needed or worth the price. I don't consider them worth the price either. I think it's really unfortunate that you're only capable of viewing the DLC as a product instead of what it very much really is in BI's view. I take it you didn't believe what I said about how BI is using this DLC in their business model.

was making the DLC possible a lot of work (considering all the new features)? yes. does it justify the price tag? no.

I'm not sure how you're in a position to say this. Didn't you just get done saying how essential it was that BI add bipods to their game? This price tag is what made their choice to add that a financially justifiable one. The less they sell it for the less they can pay their employees, thus the less they can add to the game. It's pretty easy for you to call the price unjustified on one hand and then enjoy the free features made possible by that price tag on the other.

games are becoming cheaper and cheaper by the minute. it's where today's market is going. BIS is operating with last decade's prices and business practices. they need to reevaluate their approach. right now they seem to be mimicking Electronic Arts in attempting to sell every small thing they can add to the game. only with Arma 3 BIS is competing against their own community.

This is a paragraph full of nonsense.

1. Games are not getting cheaper. Major titles still sell for $60 (they used to go for $50). You're confusing the fact that there are a lot more cheaper games out there, and that's for several reasons: Indie development is much more viable today and small teams can make small games. Gaming is also reaching a much wider audience, and those less serious about gaming create a demand for simpler games that don't require plunking down that much money.

2. BI's business practices are the exact opposite of last decade. Their DLC model has never been attempted by anyone that I've seen or heard of, and they were one of the first early access games on Steam. They are very much on the cutting edge in terms of the games market.

3. How on earth are they attempting to sell every small thing? They aren't selling features. They aren't selling individual weapons or vehicles. They're just selling themed content packs alongside features relevant to that content. Content is a good thing to sell over features because content is modular/optional in a sandbox, while features affect the entire game.

4. BI is doing anything but competing against their own community. Their DLC strategy requires a good relationship with their community, otherwise nobody would feel inclined to give them money on the premise that it will be used to improve the game. A brand new developer would not be able to pull off this DLC strategy because nobody would really know what their money is going towards and there is no trust.. BI has proven themselves worthy developers that will support their games if they have the budget.

BIS should've bundled all of the new platform upgrades, made a new single player campaign around them, added new assets and sold all that as one expansion pack (pretty much how they did with Operation Arrowhead). that would've gotten me excited. I'd pay anything up to $40 for that kind of deal. instead they are feeding it to us piece meal at 15 bucks a pop, by the time the new terrain is ready, a lot of you will have spent another Arma 3 copy's worth on all of it.

If you seriously want to put platform upgrades behind a paywall, I don't know what to say. Operation Arrowhead's standalone expansion model was a terrible idea because it ended up requiring everybody to purchase it, and then BI had to maintain 2 separate games that were almost the same game. Explaining this to friends when trying to get them into the game was a nightmare. And then we couldn't even play all of the missions we wanted because it would have required them spending even more money on Arma 2. It was ridiculous. And by the way, OA was full price ($50) when it went on sale. If you want to talk about people spending another Arma 3 copy's worth, you'd be doing that yourself if they pulled another OA.

Their upcoming expansion will have a lot more content than one of these DLCs, and hopefully a pricetag you consider fair (though there will be free engine updates coming alongside it as always).

[OMAC 254]

Hahaha, someone in the community actually remembers far back enough to get the reference! :D Still, I don't remember EW leaving much room for a sequel though so perhaps a remake is in order instead

True, but there is a

doomsday-like device in East Wind campaign

.....heh heh. Food for thought. ;)

[KeyCat 131]

games are becoming cheaper and cheaper by the minute. it's where today's market is going. BIS is operating with last decade's prices and business practices. they need to reevaluate their approach. right now they seem to be mimicking Electronic Arts in attempting to sell every small thing they can add to the game. only with Arma 3 BIS is competing against their own community.

Are you kidding me? You are comparing BIS with smaller indie developers with zero to a couple of employes. A3 alone had/have 60+ developers (can't remember exactly) that expects a well earned paycheck every month for their 40+ hours/week work then add other taxes etc you need to pay when you employ people!

No offence but I say get real.

...by the time the new terrain is ready, a lot of you will have spent another Arma 3 copy's worth on all of it.

Wow! You need to spend around 85$ (alot less if you buy early) for ruffly three years of enjoyment and continually support by BIS and moans about it. That's close to the price point Origin takes for lets say BF4 and then charge for every DLC on top of that.

Another thing you can do is to count how much money you have to spend yearly playing lets say, golf or if you like hunting and do a comparison.

Regarding games getting cheaper I say it depends, sure smaller indie developers are able to set a lower price point due to much lower overhead costs (see above). But saying that all games getting cheaper is wrong. BoS that was recently released costs $90 and that's not cheaper.

Some of you guys should start your own company with employes and see how easy it is to stay afloat while paying all the bills!

/KC

Edited April 14, 2015 by KeyCat
Clarification and grammar

[the_demongod 31]

http://i.imgur.com/40g6hut.gif

[sorophx 25]

reality check: BIS is an indie developer. as for Arma 3's full price: I bought Arma 3 as a modding platform, not a game. that's personal, of course. anyway, the price I paid for 3 years of continuous development by the game's community was, of course, worth it. their DLCs are not. I can't believe I have to repeat the same thing in every post, and yet people still try to decompose it into something I didn't say

[KeyCat 131]

reality check: BIS is an indie developer.

I think BIS grew out of that label a long time ago. One thing still fits, BIS don't have any external publisher controlling them but that's a very good thing!

...are video games created by individuals or small teams...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game

/KC

Edited April 14, 2015 by KeyCat

[soulis6 24]

reality check: BIS is an indie developer. as for Arma 3's full price: I bought Arma 3 as a modding platform, not a game. that's personal, of course. anyway, the price I paid for 3 years of continuous development by the game's community was, of course, worth it. their DLCs are not. I can't believe I have to repeat the same thing in every post, and yet people still try to decompose it into something I didn't say

So do you have another reasonable suggestion as to how they should fund continued updates, patches, new features, etc? Because what you suggested before seemed to be either the same system as the Arma 2 expansions, or locking everything behind a wall of larger infrequent expansions. And keeping in mind that BIS have said that the A2 model of DLC and and the "lite" content didn't work at all. It wouldn't support continued development, and it was a confusing system for players (most people didn't care or didn't realize they using crappy quality weapons and vehicles).

[vegeta897 13]

reality check: BIS is an indie developer. as for Arma 3's full price: I bought Arma 3 as a modding platform, not a game. that's personal, of course. anyway, the price I paid for 3 years of continuous development by the game's community was, of course, worth it. their DLCs are not. I can't believe I have to repeat the same thing in every post, and yet people still try to decompose it into something I didn't say

They're an indie developer creating a massive game that is worthy of its price tag. Just because there are indie developers making smaller games with lower prices doesn't mean all indie developers should charge a smaller amount no matter how big their game is. All "indie" means for BI is that they don't have a publisher influencing or controlling their decisions.

[JamesSaga 1]

My thoughts are that I have nearly a 1000 hours in this game and for the amount entertainment and fun this game has brought me I don't think twice about giving money to BI to keep them in business. Their implementation of bi-pods and all the other fixes are awesome. (this is what I chose to write rather than rating at the OP)

[John Kozak 14]

Irony is, if BI has locked the bipods and other engine features behind the paywall, like other companies do - to "justify the value"â„¢ - I'm sure it will be the very same people to complain about "splitting the community" and "BI going EAware".

Edited April 14, 2015 by DarkWanderer

[slim_pikins 12]

Hang on let me work this out

Arma 3 - £35

DLC bundle - £16

1040 hours played - 0.04 pence per hour (so far)

BI continuing with 2 more years of support

@OP no I do not feel its a donation, I just fail to see the argument "its not value for money" it costs me more for the electricity to run my rig than to play my goto game, which is going down in price with each hour I play.

[KeyCat 131]

If you are one of them thinking BIS DLC strategy is bad or old school I recommend you to read today's OPREP. Of course you are free to think whatever you want but today's OPREP explains why they picked that strategy and maybe gives a better understanding.

http://dev.arma3.com/post/oprep-content-licensing

/KC

Edited April 15, 2015 by KeyCat

[ProfTournesol 956]

Those who now feel like supporting BIS should have bought the supporter edition incuding all Dlc's...just saying :lookaround:

[chortles 263]

If you are one of them thinking BIS DLC strategy is bad or old school I recommend you to read today's OPREP. Of course you are free to think whatever you want but today's OPREP explains why they picked that strategy and maybe gives a better understanding.

http://dev.arma3.com/post/oprep-content-licensing

That's not an explanation, that's a victory lap and self-pat on the back...

Those who now feel like supporting BIS should have bought the supporter edition incuding all Dlc's...just saying :lookaround:

See, I might have done so had BI actually confirmed that there'd be DLCs (though really I could have expected them, I'm talking "hard confirm" here) and a non-standalone expansion... ya know, "proper" Season Pass-style? ;)

[KeyCat 131]

That's not an explanation, that's a victory lap and self-pat on the back...

You are free to interpret it however you want.

/KC

[John Kozak 14]

Those who now feel like supporting BIS should have bought the supporter edition incuding all Dlc's...just missing the point :lookaround:

corrected it for you

[ProfTournesol 956]

corrected it for you

Yeah, another useless topic about Dlc content, each Dlc got its own. If you're unhappy with Dlc content, don't buy it. If you buy it to support Bis, then you could have done it from the beginning. See the point now ?