Alternative APEX Pricing

[twakkie 57]

Good day BIS.

 

As most of the ARMA community, I am very excited about the APEX release and cant wait to go bundu bashing when it releases.

 

Unfortunately not everyone in our community has the cash to buy apex, even with the special offered pre-order prices on your website. And since our community is very small, 15 odd people, it will completely fragment us too such an extend that we might not even play on the new map for most of our regular missions. This has then resulted in most of us not even going to buy the expansion. Not because we dont want to but because it will be a waste of money.

 

That is why I am really pleading with you guys to consider a different approach to the APEX release and pricing. Please understand that I feel that APEX is priced fairly for the content you provide but it remains expensive for most of us. And by no means am I saying you must release the expansion for free since I know ALOT of work have gone into it and you need to recuperate those costs. What I am asking is that you consider a pricing structure and content structure for the APEX expansion (For reference I took 30$ as the APEX release price):

• 10-20% of the cost of APEX, say 3$-6$, you only get the map (Which most people would buy and can afford).
• 30-50%, 9$-15$, you get most of the expansion content.
• 60-90%, 18$-27$, you get ALL content excluding the sp and all the scenarios etc.
• 100%, 30$, all content.

This is only a guideline and obviously you can structure it as you want. I feel this will resolve the issue of fragmenting the community by allowing people to choose the package they can afford/want. This also has the effect that those, who like me, have the cash but wont buy it because they feel it will be a waste (for the reason stated in my first paragraph), would buy the fully priced expansion to get all the content now since the most of community they play in can also join in the games. 

 

Hope I conveyed my idea well and you receive it in the manner it was intended: To help grow ARMA as a game and BIS as one of the "good" gaming companies who prioritises their clients and their needs. 

 

Best Regards

Twak.

[x3kj 1247]

 

• 10-20% of the cost of APEX, say 3$-6$, you only get the map (Which most people would buy and can afford).

you know that the majority of developing cost is all the stuff the new map requires?

[mistyronin 1181]

you know that the majority of developing cost is all the stuff the new map requires?

In fact the Gaming World standard price for a map like Tanoa alone would at least be about €30-40 (just check DCS, FSX, or similar games). 

So for me the €30 price of the expansion is for the map itself (well I actually paid €20 few), and the rest of the content, are freebies.

[twakkie 57]

you know that the majority of developing cost is all the stuff the new map requires?

 

I am not a developer nor do I work in IT so I cant comment on it. But yes I can reason that that would probably be the most expensive part of APEX.

I just threw some numbers together to give an example. They can obviously charge 60% for the map and the rest however they choose.

As I tried emphasising, I dont want to "steal" money from BIS, in actual fact I have supported them with their DLC policies and most of their business practices.

I just want to give a solution to a problem that is plaguing the gaming community abroad. The fragmentation of the community through the selling of DLC that prohibits one playing with your friend. 

Developers for games like Rainbow Six Siege are already giving the maps for free to bring the community closer together (And have the added benefit of promoting their game for being "progressive" and "client friendly"). 

Also I would argue that more people would actually buy into the expansion if it costs less. Its that whole argument about "units shipped" against "price per unit".

 

Anyways, it was just a suggestion to a problem which immediately became apparent not only in our community bit also on these forums.

[ineptaphid 6413]

 

Developers for games like Rainbow Six Siege are already giving the maps for free to bring the community closer together (And have the added benefit of promoting their game for being "progressive" and "client friendly"). 

 

In fairness-there is quite a difference between a rainbow six map-which is often contained in one building-to an island covering many many square kilometers. And BI are more inclusive of the community than most when it comes to dlc practices. I can't think of any other publisher who allows people to use their new weapon and vehicle packs in game for free with very few restrictions before the customer buys it.

 

i understand you don't want to split your community,but I really don't think the APEX expansion is a divisive release-especially when compared to other fps games-which will release 4-5 map packs each for 15euro and the community is expected to buy all of them.

 

Also-30Euro is really not a lot for a huge new Island, a lighting and water overhaul,a coop campaign,new factions,vehicles,weapons... 

 

So personally,I think the pricing is pretty spot on.

[twakkie 57]

In fairness-there is quite a difference between a rainbow six map-which is often contained in one building-to an island covering many many square kilometers. And BI are more inclusive of the community than most when it comes to dlc practices. I can't think of any other publisher who allows people to use their new weapon and vehicle packs in game for free with very few restrictions before the customer buys it.

 

i understand you don't want to split your community,but I really don't think the APEX expansion is a divisive release-especially when compared to other fps games-which will release 4-5 map packs each for 15euro and the community is expected to buy all of them.

 

Also-30Euro is really not a lot for a huge new Island, a lighting and water overhaul,a coop campaign,new factions,vehicles,weapons... 

 

So personally,I think the pricing is pretty spot on.

 

I completely agree, BIS is by far one of my favourite and trusted developers. I never contested this issue and I actually also stated " I have supported them with their DLC policies and most of their business practices" .Regarding RBS:S, the maps might be smaller but the terrain is much much more detailed with allot of micro destruction, thus I see them in the same light (Out of an engineering point of view). But I digress, that was not the point I was trying to make. I was looking at the business practice (and the public opinion rewards thereof) not the actual content. If its not feasible for BIS then there is no argument to be made (Which wasn't my main point of the thread anyways). 

 

In my original post I also stated that personally I feel that "APEX is priced fairly for the content you provide but it remains expensive for most of us". Now maybe 30 dollar is not much in Europe or rest of the world but here in my 3de world country its a small fortune (with the current exchange rate etc etc). In actual fact a large percentage of our populace dont even get that p.m. 

 

That is why I was suggesting a solution or alternative business practice which doesnt disadvantage BIS nor the clients and keeps to BIS policy of "features free, content paid for". Like you stated you pay 30$ for "new Island, a lighting and water overhaul,a coop campaign,new factions,vehicles,weapons". Why not separate those to 3 or more packages with three or more pricing structures:

• Map
• Map & Faction (With weapons, vehicles etc)
• Map, Faction and coop campaign.

They have proven it is feasible with their DLC policies. Why not take it a step further?

[PuFu 4591]

That is why I was suggesting a solution or alternative business practice which doesnt disadvantage BIS nor the clients and keeps to BIS policy of "features free, content paid for". Like you stated you pay 30$ for "new Island, a lighting and water overhaul,a coop campaign,new factions,vehicles,weapons". Why not separate those to 3 or more packages with three or more pricing structures:

• Map
• Map & Faction (With weapons, vehicles etc)
• Map, Faction and coop campaign.

They have proven it is feasible with their DLC policies. Why not take it a step further?

Because that would divide the community even more so?

truth be told, if you have a computer that is being able to run a3 in a decent fashion, one should be able to afford 30EUs.

I don't wanna comment further on individual basis on the matter of affordability, but most people that do work for a living and still have time for hobbies such as video games should be able to afford such a small price for the amount of content provided.

[twakkie 57]

Because that would divide the community even more so?

truth be told, if you have a computer that is being able to run a3 in a decent fashion, one should be able to afford 30EUs.

I don't wanna comment further on individual basis on the matter of affordability, but most people that do work for a living and still have time for hobbies such as video games should be able to afford such a small price for the amount of content provided.

 

I disagree that it will divide the community even more? I think it will give people who otherwise wont buy the expansion due to the cost, the opportunity to do so? What is the difference between doing this and their DLC they released previously?

[R0adki11 3945]

I disagree that it will divide the community even more? I think it will give people who otherwise wont buy the expansion due to the cost, the opportunity to do so? What is the difference between doing this and their DLC they released previously?

I can understand that your point of view regarding the Expansion and how splitting it up like the DLCs could make it more viable to purchase for some members. But adding these options will divide up the community as not everyone will buy each expansion. I see this expansion as the equivalent of OFP:Resistance/ Arma2 OA which means Tanoa is the last expansion for Arma3. Unless we see another one in the future.  :ph34r:

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Really? Your asking for alternative pricing for an Expansion that's already way Lowe than it actually should be? And here I was thinking that's a damned good price for something that's supposed to be essentially a new game on RV4, content and story wise. You may be going a bit overboard.

[twakkie 57]

I can understand that your point of view regarding the Expansion and how splitting it up like the DLCs could make it more viable to purchase for some members. But adding these options will divide up the community as not everyone will buy each expansion. I see this expansion as the equivalent of OFP:Resistance/ Arma2 OA which means Tanoa is the last expansion for Arma3. Unless we see another one in the future.  :ph34r:

 

I think either I am not explaining myself well or I must be daft :)

 

My proposal is not to have different expansions. There is a single expansion with different unlocked features. So say you buy the "premium" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons, map and coop. You will then be able to jol with everything unlocked. Now the next oke doesnt care for the coop campaign. So he buys only the "Normal" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons and map. This oke can play with the first oke in mp etc etc but not join him in the campaign, or maybe if BIS wants to wet his appetite for the coop, only the first mission. Now here comes the last oke, he just want to do some bundu bashing on Tanoa with the Vietnam mod and some play some mp with his friends. He doesnt care too much about anything else since he uses only RHS mod. He can buy the "Lean" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie map only. He can also join the first two okes in mp with the exception that he cant use the new weapons or vehicles, just like the weapons DLC. 

 

But anyway, I have said my peace. I really didnt think the community would be so against the idea.

Ps I would love another expansion other than NEXUS. 

[ineptaphid 6413]

Can anyone remember how much  Op.Arrowhead was on  release?I can't remember- but APEX seems comparable to it in terms of content.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I may remember it was around 40 $...but it was standalone.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I paid OA as much as Arma 2 in my local store. Both costed 50€ back in the day.

[Ranwer135 308]

I would have to agree with the others on this,

 

Having different parts of the DLC priced is a very dangerous move, as it may (and probably will) tear up the whole community and the definition of ArmA fans. Not only that, many will feel that the game will be more of an 'in-app purchases' game, like you would see with the popular ones on Google Play (Not mentioning them, but they get advertised all over the TV). However, purchasing DLC/s as a whole is more satisfying (and rewarding) than buying parts of the DLC. There might even be a situation in the game where the player may need a specific weapon for the campaign, and he may have not purchased it yet. So really, I think the way BIS is going is pretty great so far.  :)

[hoobie7 11]

I think this is all a bit late since pre-release purchasing has already begun.

But, I do have a suggestion that might still be an option.

On Steam I've bought multi-packs of a game for a discount and then given copies to friends.

Having a 5-pack or even 10-pack option for Apex at a discounted price may be a good idea.

[chortles 263]

This is only a guideline and obviously you can structure it as you want. I feel this will resolve the issue of fragmenting the community by allowing people to choose the package they can afford/want. This also has the effect that those, who like me, have the cash but wont buy it because they feel it will be a waste (for the reason stated in my first paragraph), would buy the fully priced expansion to get all the content now since the most of community they play in can also join in the games.

Unfortunately a bunch of their changes (ironically including the DLC strategy you state support for) suggest that they don't mind losing some potential revenue to make things easier for themselves by narrowing down options.

[almanzo 144]

Having a 5-pack or even 10-pack option for Apex at a discounted price may be a good idea.

That's not a bad idea for communities with people on the fence. I've bought all of the DLC up until now, but since not everyone has them I never get to play with them ever. Apex does seem a bit more likely for my community to adopt, but something like this could make it more feasable.

 

[2nd ranger 282]

 most people that do work for a living and still have time for hobbies such as video games should be able to afford such a small price for the amount of content provided.

 

Yes, if someone can't afford this relatively small amount of money to spend on a game, they shouldn't be spending money on things like that at all.

 

A multi-purchase discount for communities makes sense from a business perspective to maximize sales, but the expansion is already discounted. Realistically, I can't see a multi deal being any more than 10% (after the pre-order deal is over), which means people might as well buy Apex at the current discounted price anyway.

[haleks 8206]

Yes, if someone can't afford this relatively small amount of money to spend on a game, they shouldn't be spending money on things like that at all.

That is not necessarily true : I bought Arma3 something like 15-20 euros with the Alpha release, and I had a 10 years old machine...

Luckily for me I could afford a new computer in the meantime, but do not assume that everyone has or should have the money for this or that : I'm sure there are plenty of people struggling in life, who do enjoy to loose themselves in video games every once in a while.

Who are we to judge or even comment on that?

 

That being said, I do agree that Apex is reasonably priced.

[KPABATOK 14]

Funny. most people, I suspect who complain about the price of expansion have 99 games in their inventory on steam and 95 have probably never even been installed or have less than 1 hour of playtime :D people spend money left and right on shitty games and can't afford the expansion of a single ultimate game? Next month they will be buying overpriced crap because "it's mainstream" and their friends bought it so they go with the flow and then forget about it after 20 hours then come back to arma 3 :) Or not. It is just typical cry for discount because they want to use remaining money on shitty fallout 4, gta 5, batman, mad max, xcom or some other bullshit game.

[teabagginpeople 398]

Apex priced more than fair. Is a steal right now. And I plan on stealin more than one coz I'm a greedy sob

[jumpinghubert 48]

There is an option for alternative pricing: wait :D

[dav 22]

I think either I am not explaining myself well or I must be daft :)

My proposal is not to have different expansions. There is a single expansion with different unlocked features. So say you buy the "premium" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons, map and coop. You will then be able to jol with everything unlocked. Now the next oke doesnt care for the coop campaign. So he buys only the "Normal" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons and map. This oke can play with the first oke in mp etc etc but not join him in the campaign, or maybe if BIS wants to wet his appetite for the coop, only the first mission. Now here comes the last oke, he just want to do some bundu bashing on Tanoa with the Vietnam mod and some play some mp with his friends. He doesnt care too much about anything else since he uses only RHS mod. He can buy the "Lean" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie map only. He can also join the first two okes in mp with the exception that he cant use the new weapons or vehicles, just like the weapons DLC.

But anyway, I have said my peace. I really didnt think the community would be so against the idea.

Ps I would love another expansion other than NEXUS.

Could you and your fifteen mates not get up off your fat arses and get a job?

Can anyone remember how much Op.Arrowhead was on release?I can't remember- but APEX seems comparable to it in terms of content.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[chortles 263]

• 10-20% of the cost of APEX, say 3$-6$, you only get the map (Which most people would buy and can afford).

10-20% of the cost for what is the by-far-current-greatest attraction of the product, and as importantly the one asset whose paywall can't be bypassed by scripting command, I wonder why they don't do this...

This is only a guideline and obviously you can structure it as you want.

There is no amount of tweaking the discount percentages/paywall borders that changes the above issue for the developer/publisher -- the definitely slashed per-unit revenue versus the possible additional sales volume -- especially not when some of the people that your proposal is intended to benefit already cannot afford to put US$28 towards a DLC.

 

@Dav and ineptaphid: As a reminder, Operation Arrowhead cost more at release than a full-price Apex does.