Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rekkless

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

Recommended Posts

I'm lucky (old ?) enough to have been able to purchase every game and expansion/DLC in the Arma series since OFP, and at times have had to consider the value of games versus other spending over the years. In the last two years I have probably spent less on BIS products than last weekend when I took my family to a cinema to watch an average film and have a meal, so I have probably got a hundred times more enjoyment in terms of time spent out of Arma3 than from one evening trip out. In fact, my only problem is finding free time to spend on the game and I usually end up just exploring the latest map release, scattering a few insurgent units around the main built up area and then go in and wipe them out.

In answer to the OPs question, like many I don't think the DLC feels like a donation, more like ongoing support with some new stuff added, and still incredible value for the enjoyment I get from the game.

cj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to copy paste a post I just made on reddit in a thread on this same topic.

I view the DLC how BI views it: a sustainable business model.

The game can't continue to grow without new income. No matter how they decide to charge for it, all the work still cost them money to do and has to be paid for. Some people say silly things like "With all the money they made from DayZ, they could afford..." No. That's a great way to completely throw away an opportunity to grow as a studio and be right back at square one. They can only take advantage of their sales (as they have) by continuing to be smart about their business.

So there's a decision a player must make. It's not "Is X weapons worth Y dollars?", because in most cases the answer is no. It's "Do I want to support BI?" I view the premium content itself as simply an incentive. You get some content immediately, but you also help the game long-term by funding its continued development, both free and premium. There are some uncomfortable with the concept that some of the money they are paying is used to fund the development of what everyone is getting for free. What they don't realize is that this is true of almost everything you've ever purchased. Even if BI never added any free features to the game and only sold restrictive DLC in a classic model that had enough pure content to justify the price, you're still paying for the employees that work on maintenance patches (bug fixes and optimizations), and for any other expenses BI carries, like say web hosting costs. You're even paying Valve if you bought on Steam! You do not decide where your money goes when you give it to a business. It's BI's job to demonstrate that it's going to a good place (which they prove with all the free updates). BI has apparently decided that there are enough people who are willing to support them this way that this will be a sustainable business model for them. As far as I know, they haven't said anything about how right they were so far, but I'm willing to bet they were.

This business model might not work for every game developer, but BI is a little special. The game's development has been very transparent, starting with the alpha release and continuing over a year since full release, we get daily dev branch change logs, an entire forum section for feedback on it (with developer participation), a bug tracker, and several posts a month on the official Arma 3 blog. This all serves to involve the community in the game's development in some fashion, which I believe makes it more likely that a player will understand the value of supporting a developer by buying something that is worth what it represents rather than only what content gets unlocked.

I hope to see this trend catch on in gaming. The idea of supporting a studio rather than just purchasing a product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vegeta897: good points.

I don't imagine the DayZ community would be terribly pleased if BIS announced they were cutting back on development and support because they were diverting cash resources from DayZ sales to A3.

In one sense, however, BIS have used the success of DayZ to support their other games, by hiring additional devs and general support staff.

Oh yeah, I also bought the DLC bundle from BI store rather than Steam. Valve has more than enough market share not to need a few £ from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree so far with OP that I'd say 10€ for two helis, respectively seven guns (+additional stuff) is way too much. Never was and probably never will be a fan of DLCs and micro transactions and such evil sorcery. But I still bought the bundle and the game when it was back in Alpha. Both the DLC bundle and the early access combined cost me around 45€ which makes a full price for a pc game in my opinion. Therefor I got a game that basically ruined most other games for me. On every steam sale I buy a bunch of cool games but rarely get to play them because there's always Arma offering a more fun way of entertainment than the so-called "Triple A" titles (I'm looking at you there, Ubischrott). Hell, I even refuse to buy interesting looking games on release because I think "they'll come up on the next steam sale for half the price and there's Arma until then", a few exceptions aside. With around 1714 hours on the clock I'm running the game at effectively 2,6 cents an hour - a rate that would give the average EA manager an instant heart attack. So yeah, I'll gladly send another 10/20/30€ towards BI for the expansion and another few hundred hours of messing around in the editor or enjoying the vast amount of playable content. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing that I feel is important to expose - even if certain features are free (like platform updates*)

they needed time (4months) for example bipods&resting algorithem to code, just like it takes time to model guns.

*Platform update:Audio updates, recoil updates, bipods, resting, AI supression, VA garage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't begrudge paying the money, but it's poor value compared to say the BAF pack.

I only paid £20 for alpha which was a steal, so overall it seems pretty fair. However, one could argue it's just a way of deploying content that should have been in the game to begin with, later.

FOR me, £20 initial purchase plus £20 dlc bundle adds up to the price of a full game so it's fair enough. I would probably have felt a bit differently if I had bought Arma 3 at full price after 1.0 release given how spartan and repetitive the content was to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Ubischrott"? LOL!

+1

Gotta love the German language. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moaning over $20 for a game you have hundreds of hours of gameplay on seems petty. Cheaper than a meal at a restaurant or a movie.

I happily bought the DLC to support Arma and I doubt I will be using the new weapons all that much.

$20. Really?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I regret not having studied German at school. Any language that has concepts like "Schadenfreude" is :icon14: in my book.

Plus, all my favourite long words are German:

http://theweek.com/articles/463500/8-favorite-ridiculously-long-german-words

Ha, good ones!

Though it brings up my inner Grammar Nazi when I see that about half of the words contain spelling errors or are in the wrong case. :D

If I weren't a native I'd probably side with Mark Twain on this matter: Life is too short to learn German. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

donation? hahahhahahahahah

Bis could sell to us a lot of things, historical scenarios , advanced tools etc but instead develops a deadend like dayz, plus the bad move, to discount the core game.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of hours into Arma 3 and I have spent about €70. Unbelievably cheap enjoyment to cost ratio. Love the new addons and weapon firing, great step forward. I think the devs could consider releasing a content pack. A new army with new weapons and vehicles along with new features. Overhauled communication being one thing. But supporting the devs with a few quid here and there keeps the game progressing whitch keeps the game alive and kicking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You aren't buying the content, you are supporting the devs.

from a business perspective that's a ridiculous notion, and BIS is a business.

There is much new features with the new items/weapons. Worth of every penny for me.

but the argument is, everyone got these features anyway, piggybacking off people that felt like giving BIS money. there's a difference between paying for content, that is behind a pay wall, and paying for free content. saying that free features are "worth every penny" just proves the OP's point

At the same time, BI probably couldn't have justified releasing such an enormous amount of groundbreaking content without the prospect of new revenue.

realistically, BIS couldn't have postponed implementing these features for much longer, because even arcade games like Battlefield 3 had already had them. by finally introducing them they're securing future sales. it has nothing to do with the Marksmen DLC.

hell, BIS even stated themselves these features were critical to making the DLC work as players would have expected it to. but they couldn't risk splitting the community. they painted themselves into a corner. bottom line: their marketing department dropped the ball on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from a business perspective that's a ridiculous notion, and BIS is a business.

And how is it ridiculous? The replies in this thread alone are proof that it isn't so ridiculous. If you really think every person who bought one or more of the DLCs thought the price was fair for the premium content alone, you're the one being ridiculous. The people who don't view buying the DLC as supporting BIS are the ones that complain about the price. Everyone else apparently deems it a worthy purchase, either for the hours they've got out of the game, or because they want BIS to continue to improve the game, or both.

but the argument is, everyone got these features anyway, piggybacking off people that felt like giving BIS money. there's a difference between paying for content, that is behind a pay wall, and paying for free content. saying that free features are "worth every penny" just proves the OP's point

You say "everyone got these features anyway" but these features wouldn't exist if nobody paid. That's the flaw in your logic. Just because the features would still exist if you as a single person decide not to pay doesn't mean they'd still exist if everyone decided not to pay. So yes, everyone who has purchased the DLC is what makes the DLC possible, therefore one could say it is worth every penny.

realistically, BIS couldn't have postponed implementing these features for much longer, because even arcade games like Battlefield 3 had already had them.

That is not true and you know it. Are you seriously saying the series would have died if bipods weren't implemented? I've heard people say things like this since the Arma 2 days, but the popularity of the series has only grown since then. The Arma series is never going to die from a lack of implementing a few extra features, especially when modders can implement satisfactory solutions.

I really don't know how you could say BIS dropped the ball on anything without knowing what their sales figures are.

Edited by vegeta897

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*cough* Supposedly the final "greenlight"/"do not attempt" decisions for Marksmen/v1.42 were made as late as December 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from a business perspective that's a ridiculous notion, and BIS is a business.

but the argument is, everyone got these features anyway, piggybacking off people that felt like giving BIS money. there's a difference between paying for content, that is behind a pay wall, and paying for free content. saying that free features are "worth every penny" just proves the OP's point

realistically, BIS couldn't have postponed implementing these features for much longer, because even arcade games like Battlefield 3 had already had them. by finally introducing them they're securing future sales. it has nothing to do with the Marksmen DLC.

hell, BIS even stated themselves these features were critical to making the DLC work as players would have expected it to. but they couldn't risk splitting the community. they painted themselves into a corner. bottom line: their marketing department dropped the ball on this one

So, you're essentially saying "I got the features for free, so I don't want to pay".

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. Saying "it's because BIS did xxx" sounds like using pirated Windows because "Microsoft is evil and anti-open source".

Edited by DarkWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't buy yet, I think the DLCs are too expensive I would have been happy to pay 7-10 euros. But I'll get them when they are in a sale. Another reason I have not bought them is that they don't seem to have any interest in fixing the things I am interested in..vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you're essentially saying "I got the features for free, so I don't want to pay".

That basically sums up every complaint I've ever seen against the DLCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how is it ridiculous? The replies in this thread alone are proof that it isn't so ridiculous. If you really think every person who bought one or more of the DLCs thought the price was fair for the premium content alone, you're the one being ridiculous. The people who don't view buying the DLC as supporting BIS are the ones that complain about the price. Everyone else apparently deems it a worthy purchase, either for the hours they've got out of the game, or because they want BIS to continue to improve the game, or both.

You say "everyone got these features anyway" but these features wouldn't exist if nobody paid. That's the flaw in your logic. Just because the features would still exist if you as a single person decide not to pay doesn't mean they'd still exist if everyone decided not to pay. So yes, everyone who has purchased the DLC is what makes the DLC possible, therefore one could say it is worth every penny.

That is not true and you know it. Are you seriously saying the series would have died if bipods weren't implemented? I've heard people say things like this since the Arma 2 days, but the popularity of the series has only grown since then. The Arma series is never going to die from a lack of implementing a few extra features, especially when modders can implement satisfactory solutions.

I really don't know how you could say BIS dropped the ball on anything without knowing what their sales figures are.

You know the only reason Arma had a flush of players is due to the DayZ Mod right? Millions of people didn't just find Arma and share it with their friends. Without DayZ, we would still have a niche product, and less 12 year olds that role play pedophiles, in a game more that allows you to pick Apples for a living, while trying to avoid corrupt law enforcement.

I do believe the DLC was a Donation to the new features and further development. However, I can honestly say the only disappointment is the missing KelTec KSG and other mystery weapons systems. Given the 2035 setting I would have expected to see the XM-25 as well, and the XM-307 (GMG in game) having actual Burst Fire mode. They focused on ranged Infatry weapons, and handling, but didn't touch static deployable weapons, which would be sad if the Chinese showed up in the Expansion, given they are starting to have interesting modernized technology. And for a game featured In 2035, it's super hard to believe nothing works the way it does in real life. If it did, it would bring far more interesting gameplay for Infantry.

What I would be cool with however, is BIS selling us single me weapons for a dollar each or something like that. Cheap price content adders or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not like of the DLC method in Arma 3.

I think that the system used with Arma 2, giving full expansions as paid DLC, is much better and can achieve better results, in matters of business and player base.

The problem with Arma 2 is that after Dayz Mod 99,9% of the players were playing that thing and obviously these players do not need and they will not buy expansions, unless its a sexy zombie or something close.

But with Arma 3 the same problem remains, most of players are playing Life Mod and also now these players do not need and they are not going to buy these micro DLC with military stuff to play that thing.

Also, when we have Mods like RHS that are giving millions of weapons for free, I doubt there is much interest on a sniper rifle paid DLC.

If anything, these micro DLC only contribute to split even more the player base.

Would have been much better to have a base price higher (with alpha for instance) giving a full game, then providing paid DLC with full expansions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the system used with Arma 2, giving full expansions as paid DLC, is much better and can achieve better results, in matters of business and player base.
Somewhere out there a BI dev actually posted that (he/they) regretted ever doing this because it had set a precedent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know the only reason Arma had a flush of players is due to the DayZ Mod right? Millions of people didn't just find Arma and share it with their friends. Without DayZ, we would still have a niche product, and less 12 year olds that role play pedophiles, in a game more that allows you to pick Apples for a living, while trying to avoid corrupt law enforcement.

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.

What I would be cool with however, is BIS selling us single me weapons for a dollar each or something like that. Cheap price content adders or something.

Eh, seems like things would just get too messy. It's better to reduce your variables here in terms of which packages players can and can't own. It's also a really bad user experience when they thought they purchased weapon X but it was actually weapon Y, and they find out they're restricted. The odds of this happening increases with the more individual packages you sell.

I think that the system used with Arma 2, giving full expansions as paid DLC, is much better and can achieve better results, in matters of business and player base.

Except BI flat out said that the Arma 2 system was not good for business. When most of your players don't even realize that they're using a lite version of a DLC asset, there's a serious problem. Not to mention it was more work maintaining 2 separate data sets than this method of simply unlocking content that everyone has.

The problem with Arma 2 is that after Dayz Mod 99,9% of the players were playing that thing and obviously these players do not need and they will not buy expansions, unless its a sexy zombie or something close.

But with Arma 3 the same problem remains, most of players are playing Life Mod and also now these players do not need and they are not going to buy these micro DLC with military stuff to play that thing.

What point are you trying to make here?

Also, when we have Mods like RHS that are giving millions of weapons for free, I doubt there is much interest on a sniper rifle paid DLC.

I don't get how you go from praising Arma 2's DLC to this. Arma 2's DLC only added content, no features. Content that you could find in mods like RHS, as you said. So why would we want to go back to content-only DLCs? It sounds like you should be supporting BI fully here, since they're actually giving us what modders cannot give us, and for free even. You're also getting off the topic by talking about how much interest there is in a DLC based on its theme. Is there really any content they could deliver that is both in demand and not provided by modders?

If anything, these micro DLC only contribute to split even more the player base.

Would have been much better to have a base price higher (with alpha for instance) giving a full game, then providing paid DLC with full expansions.

I need you to explain this part. Are you saying include the DLC we already have in the game while increasing the price, and then just releasing any future content in larger expansions instead of DLC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×