Make Tanoa Publicly Available!

[dragon01 902]

I'm not saying it should be free, that'd be too much. However, maybe it doesn't need to cost as much as it does (not everywhere, at least). Games, in particular, have no fixed manufacturing cost (except for boxed releases), the only costs we're talking about is development, which is sunk cost. Thus, in digital distribution, selling the game at any price goes entirely towards recouping your development costs. 

 

Other, "physical" hobbies generally are reasonably priced for the place they're done in. Computers and gaming are the odd one here. Movie tickets for the latest Hollywood movie, for example, can be priced at an equivalent of 5 Euro, despite the fact that releasing a movie in another country actually costs additional money due to localization. Games, on the other hand, are only cheap to Westerners.

[PuFu 4600]

36 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Games, in particular, have no fixed manufacturing cost (except for boxed releases), the only costs we're talking about is development, which is sunk cost. Thus, in digital distribution, selling the game at any price goes entirely towards recouping your development costs. 

what? games have fixed manufacturing/production costs - as in developing the game itself (ie: time for development x salary for N people + software costs + rental costs + logistics and support staff = baseline). The price is set by taking the brut costs and profit margin and dividing it to the expect sales number - of course this is an oversimplification but you get the drift.

 

do define what you understand from "sunk cost" though....

Quote

Other, "physical" hobbies generally are reasonably priced for the place they're done in. Computers and gaming are the odd one here. Movie tickets for the latest Hollywood movie, for example, can be priced at an equivalent of 5 Euro, despite the fact that releasing a movie in another country actually costs additional money due to localization. Games, on the other hand, are only cheap to Westerners

really? last time i checked and upgraded my snowboard gear, i noticed that the price per product is exactly the same (the variation was minimal across different countries). Same for airsoft, or baketball gear - the other hobbies i have which i sort of know prices for. I am pretty sure 800EU for a snowboard and ligatures is not considered expensive in some parts, while for others might be their 2 month average salaries.

 

For entertainment prices - the license to run that movie only represent a fraction of a movie ticket price, most of it goes towards fixed costs (staff salaries, rental costs, logistics costs etc, which as you said, are NOT the same everywhere). - and i get that info from the horse's mouth, have a friend in the management of a mall movie theater franchise

 

If you wanna compare stuff that costs the same no matter where, then check the netflix subscription, which is the same no matter of the country (and where the vast majority of that fee goes towards infrastructure -which is outsourced using a rental model and licenses).

[b00tsy 28]

On 13-5-2017 at 7:32 PM, Justin Waters said:

The general mass doesn't own Apex.

Then they should purchase it like the players/supporters that already did.

[Rich_R 1087]

I hate to sound like the old fart I actually am, but why does every thread make me feel like we're living in the age of entitlement?

 

Between what's being said in threads relating to player-created mods and official add-ons, to what BI charges or even tries to give away, there seems to be a base of players who feel they're owed 'that much more'!

 

BI can charge what they like for anything they release. Like any business, the price is what the market will bear combined with needed profit margins to keep the lights on. Fortunately for Arma players, they take some of that money and release free stuff while continuing to work on improving the product, largely based on player feedback.

 

Players who feel what BI do isn't good enough could save themselves the time and effort of posting and instead, go off and play a title where the developer puts more effort into continuously updating the product and giving away more stuff than is found with the Arma series. I personally can't think of any, but what do I know, I'm just a person who expects to pay for a product, or not if I think its too much, without thinking I'm owed something in some way.

 

This isn't to say we shouldn't stop giving feedback, that's how the game improves. But we should all know the difference between feedback and the posts with demands or unrealistic complaints.

[gagi2 50]

On 13.5.2017 at 7:32 PM, Justin Waters said:

no one wants to play low population KotH

and thats the exact reason why its low populated...

 

back to topic:

1. the arma community is built by a high percentage of youngsters who arent even old enough to play arma3 legally - hey boys how was school today?

2. everyone had the chance to get the supporter edition when arma3 was in early access for an acceptable price so you would have all dlc for free now

but it looks like a high percentage of these non-apex owners didnt give a fuck about supporting BIS at this time...

 

so all these guys who doesnt have the extra dollar do get this (not very expensive) dlc should have it for free now when others paid for it already the one way or the other?

well... curse me now for my open and honest words but i dont think so

 

[dragon01 902]

8 hours ago, PuFu said:

what? games have fixed manufacturing/production costs - as in developing the game itself (ie: time for development x salary for N people + software costs + rental costs + logistics and support staff = baseline). The price is set by taking the brut costs and profit margin and dividing it to the expect sales number - of course this is an oversimplification but you get the drift.

 

do define what you understand from "sunk cost" though....

I mean sunk cost in the economic sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

 

Digitally distributed games to not have any fixed manufacturing cost, as copying data costs nothing. Only physically distributed games do (that is, the cost of making and burning the disk, producing the casing and printing the inserts and the paper manual). The only costs in that case are in two categories: development and support (in cases like ArmA, lines between these get blurred). Development includes everything that you pay before you have the game, this money has to be paid in full before you can expect any returns. As such, all of it is sunk cost at release. From this point on, in "conventional" games, no more money is spent on production and the full price of every instance sold goes towards recouping the initial cost, regardless of actual price. While you can fail to recoup the development cost and end up with a loss, you can't sell at a loss in digital distribution (unless the marketplace itself imposes a fixed tariff for each copy sold, but Steam doesn't do that and it's a terrible idea anyway). 

 

The remaining costs are support, which, in conventional development, is relatively small stuff like maintaining the help desk, running official servers and replacing damaged disks. In unconventional development (like what BI does), it can be harder to separate, but the basic principle works the same. If you consider each DLC as a separate product, ArmA3 development seems to almost follow the conventional model with extended, public pre-release phases (and a lot of technical term misuse :)).

[wld427 1705]

8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

I'm not saying it should be free, that'd be too much. However, maybe it doesn't need to cost as much as it does (not everywhere, at least). Games, in particular, have no fixed manufacturing cost (except for boxed releases), the only costs we're talking about is development, which is sunk cost. Thus, in digital distribution, selling the game at any price goes entirely towards recouping your development costs. 

 

Other, "physical" hobbies generally are reasonably priced for the place they're done in. Computers and gaming are the odd one here. Movie tickets for the latest Hollywood movie, for example, can be priced at an equivalent of 5 Euro, despite the fact that releasing a movie in another country actually costs additional money due to localization. Games, on the other hand, are only cheap to Westerners.

You do understand that they have to pay the developers salaries, pay off investors, and also the costs of developing the "next great thing" just for you....

 

how else do you expect them to do it without charging? Even help desk employees have salaries and if you want them to be good they will not be cheap. 

 

Quite frankly i think BIS does a really good job at judging the price for each item int he DLC. I am a modder of over 10 years with this series. Although, i have been very discouraged by the content and marketing of these DLCs, the price is always pretty fair. If you don't want to pay full price just wait then they are always in steam sales. 

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, wld427 said:

how else do you expect them to do it without charging?

I'm not. It's literally in the very post you quoted. I mentioned at some point that that lowering the price on a regional basis could actually earn them more, because as it stands, fewer people buy it (and more pirate) in the Eastern European countries. Also, read the post above yours, in which I'm actually addressing the costs of maintaining a game. Comprehensive reading is generally a good thing to do.

 

As for sales, I noticed that it takes a very long time for BI games to get more than 33% discount. I don't think Apex ever went beyond that at this point. They may not be priced like top-shelf AAA games, but they surely are discounted like them...

[Rich_R 1087]

Having spent the last twenty years in banking lending money to businesses, I'm always amazed how people feel they know the financial dealings of a company that they have no connection to, or ownership of. Most of the time, reading a company's financial statements are eye-opening, with the things you would never think of, showing up.

 

The idea companies such as BI are off using 100 dollar bills (or pick your currency) to light their thick, fat cigars while they overcharge gamers for their products is quite amusing. They either know their margins, have a board to answer too or are advised by expensive accounting firms on what their profit margins should look like.This takes all the costs and income into account that's been mentioned in this thread and much more.

 

The game is priced at what it is. We're fortunate that they offer supporter packages (hey, fund us while we work on the next title) and Steam sales. Before online delivery, we never really had either of those.

 

Anyone who feels BI could offer anything at a lesser price are essentially asking them to pay someone less or put in less man hours somewhere along the line. To put this in a real world example. Imagine your job, then imagine someone wanting to buy the product your company sells. That someone goes the head of your company and says, 'Y'know, I've looked at everything to do with your product and I think you should give this part of it to me for free. Or how how about at half price?'

 

The head of the company decides this random person is right but knows the only way to do this is to cut some costs.They pick you, shave 25% off your wages, or maybe let you go all together. For those reading this too young to work, imagine this happened to your parents, and the money they previously enjoyed was cut by a quarter, or gone all together!

 

This is what posters are asking for when they want free or cheaper stuff.

[PuFu 4600]

6 hours ago, dragon01 said:

The only costs in that case are in two categories: development and support (in cases like ArmA, lines between these get blurred). Development includes everything that you pay before you have the game, this money has to be paid in full before you can expect any returns. As such, all of it is sunk cost at release. From this point on, in "conventional" games, no more money is spent on production and the full price of every instance sold goes towards recouping the initial cost, regardless of actual price. While you can fail to recoup the development cost and end up with a loss, you can't sell at a loss in digital distribution (unless the marketplace itself imposes a fixed tariff for each copy sold, but Steam doesn't do that and it's a terrible idea anyway). 

because i made another analogy before, in this case development = manufacturing, and you well know it.

and it isn't 100% sunk costs here (hence my question) mainly because the investment you put into a DLC/expansion is partly (a small fraction) covered by the ongoing product sale (which is usually boosted at a time of a connected product announcement anyways).

Yes, you cannot sell at a loss, but if the margins are poorly calculated, you can end up quickly at a overall development loss. Lower prices doesn't necessarily mean more overall sales, just as harder DRM doesn't mean less piracy, especially when people are that used to it and where there is little to no punitive action around illegal software download, why would a lower price be an incentive when they can get it for free?

 

about the sale - none of the AAA games get 50% discounts in their active (supported) lifetime. Why would A3 be any different? Yes, A3 has a way higher life span than your average shooter, and a lot more support going on behind it (included for the DLCs - see the updated shaders on all apex structures).

 

i fail to understand a few things - steam deals with regional prices for all its game library. A3 and every DLC is sold via steam, so where is the issue? about the fact that Bi store doesn't have such an option?

 

to be honest, what you are saying is that for you, apex is not worth the price it has, because you (not you in particular, but a more generic "you") cannot afford it, so BI should sale it at a lower price, more often, and ideally provide it free...

 

from a business perspective, i would always sell 10 copies worth 50$ each than 100 copies worth 5$ each...my 2 pennys anyways

[lawndartleo 109]

I am all for all of the ArmA III assets being released to the public for free....

 

... as soon as ArmA IV comes out.

 

The level of free content is already staggering when you consider CUP content.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

19 hours ago, PuFu said:

to quote SA from someplace else, you NEED air, water, food and shelter, all the rest are extras.

 

As an aside, that was music to my ears when he said that.

[Justin Waters 0]

The point isn't entitlement. The point is there is a map that you must pay to play on. This means those who don't pay can never join those who do pay. Weapon/Vehicle DLCs are different. You can play with them but you can't use them without annoying messages or locked out completely. That is fine. I get the skins and premium gear/weapons/vehicles that potentially are/could be sold.

 

Why not allow everyone run around on tanoa with their desert Ghillies and gear that isn't designed for the jungle. What is going to make them want what they don't have if they can't see it. There are plenty of games that are Free to play but makes bank off the DLC or In-Game purchases. You hook them with the map and once they are sold on it they buy the DLC.

 

To Summarize, tease them with the map and sell them on the extras.

[joostsidy 685]

2 hours ago, Justin Waters said:

The point isn't entitlement. The point is there is a map that you must pay to play on. This means those who don't pay can never join those who do pay.

It still comes across to me as entitlement, I only hear 'I don't  want to pay, I don't want to pay'. Just pay for the damn Island, it's beautiful and definitely worth the money. :-)

 

Free-to-play games often use business models that are incompatible with the spirit of BI/Arma, Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I like the more WYSIWYG approach (paying for large packages) instead of hidden costs (uniforms,  individual weapons etc.) and going in a pay-or-grind or pay-to-win direction.

 

People still have another huge Island, which also is very impressive in scope. So it's not that there is no Island to play on unless you pay. But no, there comes the reasoning: 'I don't like Altis, it's boring, I want more but I don't want to pay for it'

 

Maybe it's just a compliment to Arma that people are playing it too much and getting oversaturated with the experience. My message to people who feel that Arma does not have enough (free) content is: it's in your head! go outside, go play something else for a while and come back later to see how impressive the whole Arma experience is. :-)

[BroBeans. 279]

3 hours ago, Justin Waters said:

The point isn't entitlement. The point is there is a map that you must pay to play on. This means those who don't pay can never join those who do pay. Weapon/Vehicle DLCs are different. You can play with them but you can't use them without annoying messages or locked out completely. That is fine. I get the skins and premium gear/weapons/vehicles that potentially are/could be sold.

 

Why not allow everyone run around on tanoa with their desert Ghillies and gear that isn't designed for the jungle. What is going to make them want what they don't have if they can't see it. There are plenty of games that are Free to play but makes bank off the DLC or In-Game purchases. You hook them with the map and once they are sold on it they buy the DLC.

 

To Summarize, tease them with the map and sell them on the extras.

 

Mate that's the whole point of being able to use the gear with the annoying pop-ups. To sell you on the DLC. 

 

And saying you can't view the map so you won't buy it is total bollocks. There's enough media out there for you to know every square inch of the thing.

 

Tanoa is the bulk of the Apex Package (not including the engine rework), so why would they give you the main part of the DLC for free and make you pay for the little things? 

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

I'm right there with everyone else with regards to entitlement. 

You want something that others have had to pay for, only you don't want to pay for it. You feel that you shouldn't have to pay for it because of "X" reason. I present you with the Oxford English Dictionary's entry on Entitlement: (noun/mass noun) "The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."

Some colloquial English examples for you:
"Cash, grass or A**, nobody rides for free"
"No sucky, No F**ky"
"Sh*t or get off the pot"
"Put out or get out"
"Pay up or shut up"

I hope I've provided enough examples to help you better understand the absurdity of your position. And just to clarify, YOU want something FOR FREE that EVERYONE else has had to pay for. Get in the line/queue like everyone else, this show isn't for charity, its for paying customers. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by FallujahMedic -FM-

[dragon01 902]

9 hours ago, PuFu said:

because i made another analogy before, in this case development = manufacturing, and you well know it.

and it isn't 100% sunk costs here (hence my question) mainly because the investment you put into a DLC/expansion is partly (a small fraction) covered by the ongoing product sale (which is usually boosted at a time of a connected product announcement anyways).

It's a very stupid and pointless analogy, and also a misuse of economic terms. Development is nothing like manufacturing, not to mention products that do have to be manufactured also have development costs (this is, literally, always the case, since setting up a production line counts as development, if nothing else). Manufacturing costs are directly proportional to the amount of copies you make, which limits the amount of copies you can sell. None of this is the case with games. These terms are separate. You do not "manufacture" a game (unless you sell it in a box), you only develop it. Unless, of course, you meant "production" costs as in, producing a movie (in which case, it's a synonym for development and not manufacturing. English is silly).

 

As for DLCs, they are a separate product, and as such have their own development costs (support can be rolled in with the base product, though). And yes, development is sunk cost once the game is released. This is why games, movies and the like operate on "the current one pays for the next" principle, with a significant investment needed to start.

Quote

Yes, you cannot sell at a loss, but if the margins are poorly calculated, you can end up quickly at a overall development loss. Lower prices doesn't necessarily mean more overall sales, just as harder DRM doesn't mean less piracy, especially when people are that used to it and where there is little to no punitive action around illegal software download, why would a lower price be an incentive when they can get it for free?

What you say about DRM is true, what you say about price is not. This is economics 101. As long as there's demand (and there is), lowering the price will increase sales. Piracy, in general, is harder and in case of games like ArmA, pirated copies are at a significant disadvantage. As such, the people who pirate it usually can't afford it any other way (my parents have been in such a situation for a long time. In the 90s Poland, you actually had to buy pirated games from crackers). Many other people simply never get it because it's so expensive. Thus, lowering the price will both curb piracy and increase sales to those who couldn't afford it beforehand.

 

The only argument against lowering the price is that there still might be enough people around who are willing to pay the larger one. However, this varies greatly by region (depending on the price to average income ratio), hence why I'm talking about introducing regional pricing.

[Valken 622]

Originally I was going to post along many of us that those younger users should just man up, get a job and pay for Tanoa if they want to play it.

 

I myself ONLY bought ARMA 3 when it was Alpha (no supporter edition - cheap bastard) and Apex for Tanoa and all the cool Viper gear. Didn't pay anything else.

 

Then I remember why I bought A3 at the time... only to play AiA - Arma 2 in A3 engine. Till this day  I have yet to play any A3 official missions or campaigns. :P

 

Then I remembered why I wanted to play A2CO in A3 engine - because I started with Arma 2 FREE.

 

I played that for a LONG time, online after quiting CS, Killing Floor and Battlefield 2/3.

 

If I never played ARMA 2 FREE, I may not have purchased A2CO and ARMA 3 + Apex. The only reason I won't buy the other DLCs is because none of it interests me enough to use it.

 

Back then, A2 had all the scaled down assets to enable compatibility. You can join servers with the PMC free addon but can't use it. Then you can see all the cool gear and stuff the users paid for, wish you had it, then pay for it. I know, all users have all the DLC on their HD but can't use it. Except for Tanoa.

 

I think BIS would NOT lose sales if they simply made LOW DEF Tanoa assets that everyone can play. Something like setting the map down to LOW, regardless of what other settings they have. 

 

When these non-Apex owners see trees, shrubs, houses and assets that look like OpFP era eyesores against on their 1080 Ti's, then maybe we can convert some of those to paid users.

 

I know its work, and demos really do convert a lot of users into paid users. Bis can still restrict all gear to those who do not own the DLC.

 

Then BIS simply needs to add and allow a macro command to all DLC owners which they can spam "Buy Apex if you want use this kick ass Gucci Viper kit" when non owners ask why they can't use it after killing a Viper.

 

Don't hate the newbs, convert them. Just my 1 and half cents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Belbo 462]

2 minutes ago, Valken said:

Back then, A2 had all the scaled down assets to enable comatibility. You can join servers with the PMC free addon but can't use it. Then you can see all the cool gear and stuff the users paid for, wish you had it, then pay for it. I know, all users have all the DLC on their HD but can't use it. Except for Tanoa.

I think BIS would NOT lose sales if they simply made LOW DEF Tanoa assets that everyone can play. Something like setting the map down to LOW, regardless of what other settings they have.

The approach they took with the A2-DLCs, making them available in low res versions, has been refused from BI from the start: Customers were mostly just bothered by the low res versions, thought it was a bug (and cluttered the feedback tracker because of that), didn't bother to buy it because of the option for high res textures, or outright profited from the low res textures and models because of their lower performance cost.

According to BI the disadvantages of this approach have heavily overshadowed the advantages some customers may see.

[R0adki11 3949]

Well this thread is starting to get out of hand, its a good time to close it here.