Jump to content
Homesick

Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, lilwillie said:

I can understand some frustrations people are having when they play on certain servers or with friends but considering how many people outright don't even go on MP games, and how many copies of Arma 3 have been sold. There will be a demand for this.

I guess I would tell people to talk with their groups, discuss adding it or not but I can't see how this is going to hurt the Arma franchise.

Personally I'll buy it, and have it on my server, but on just certain off nights.

This strategy wont help vanilla servers which were developed and upgraded their multiplayer scenarios from almost beta period of ArmA3, since so much time was invested in vanilla multiplayer scenarios large portion of people was excited to see fresh content integrated with vanilla servers so the spirit keeps fresh and player base stop declining.

 

Im 100% for idea to make Creator DLCs remain OPTIONAL DOWNLOAD, but make EVERYONE can download Creator DLC data but only who bought it can use its assets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, markocro said:

This strategy wont help vanilla servers which were developed and upgraded their multiplayer scenarios from almost beta period of ArmA3, since so much time was invested in vanilla multiplayer scenarios large portion of people was excited to see fresh content integrated with vanilla servers so the spirit keeps fresh and player base stop declining.

 

Im 100% for idea to make Creator DLCs remain OPTIONAL DOWNLOAD, but make EVERYONE can download Creator DLC data but only who bought it can use its assets. 


I would also but it sounds like BI hasn't set up a way for that to happen or can't find a way like they did with Apex. It's above my pay grade in knowledge so I don't know how they did it with Apex and cannot with this particular DLC.

I get the frustration. I'm just looking at it from the entire community, not just the MP servers that will have to figure out what they will do. Frankly the current state of the MP servers you see and are active are why I bought my own for my group. We couldn't find one that wasn't extremely mod heavy with tons of downloads to do or updates to keep track of, third party tools for downloading, or have mods we don't like at all, or have toxic player base (cough, armalife, cough) so we went our own direction.

Again, I get the frustration that this isn't like Apex for a download you can see, but can't use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lilwillie said:

I guess I would tell people to talk with their groups, discuss adding it or not but I can't see how this is going to hurt the Arma franchise.

Nobody talks about the dangers of the Arma franchise. There is a conversation about the DLC, which everyone probably expected, thinking that it would expand the content base and be competitive content in Arma. In the Creator DLC, the content of the 80s - GLOBAL MOBILIZATION - COLD WAR GERMANY, which implies a certain style of play against the equipment and weapons of the time "COLD WAR".

This divides the game style into "COLD WAR" and "WAR 2035".

Quote

Willkommen in 1980s Deutschland! Set during the Cold War, the Global Mobilization DLC deploys you to the massive 419 km² Weferlingen terrain, available in both summer or snowy winter conditions. You’ll be able to engage in battle using 42 new vehicles and vehicle variants, 21 new weapons including weapon variants, and a ton of additional character assets. The DLC also features a 10-mission singleplayer campaign and 17 co-operative/competitive multiplayer scenarios.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does look like something akin to Iron Front. Now, this probably doesn't apply to every such DLC, but this one could very well be packaged and sold as a separate game altogether. 10 SP missions is a bit short for a standalone, but I think that's fine if the price is set accordingly. The assets are cool, and I suppose they could be used in an asymmetrical mission with 2035 units, but TBH, i think it would be somewhat odd considering the vehicles only come in West/East German liveries. This DLC is meant to be used completely separately from all the other ArmA3 assets.

 

If you think of it as a standalone game tacked onto ArmA3 distribution for logistical reasons, it looks OK. For something that integrates with vanilla assets, I'd be opposed (BI should use the normal DLC system for that), but from what we know the other Creator DLCs are going to be similarly detached from vanilla setting (they're going for diversity, and there's little that vanilla hadn't tried). As a matter of fact, "Iron Front II" would be a really cool DLC idea, IMO (either Iron Front extended and revamped as A3 DLC, or another WWII story). 

 

I'll probably buy it if a bundle comes out, and it's on a good sale (the usual procedure for me, games are ridiculously overpriced in my country). It looks cool, but without the ability to test it out, I can't be sure if I really want it (I bought Iron Front for what amounts to pocket change for the same reason).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

10 SP missions is a bit short for a standalone, but I think that's fine if the price is set accordingly.

 

Apex only had 7 coop missions + 2 showcases.

 

Concerning the way 3rd party DLC are being handled, I also think it will split up the community - which is not a good idea as ArmA lives with and through its community.

 

(On a personnal note, it doesn't bother me much as I am an SP guy mostly, so I'll buy the DLC I'm interested in and I won't have that server pb)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Wiki said:

Apex only had 7 coop missions + 2 showcases.

It was an expansion for ArmA3 (and I think its SP was botched, TBH). By "standalone" I meant a separate title like Iron Front. If you gave the new DLC another 5-10 missions (not necessarily in the campaign, ArmA2 had about 10 campaign missions and a number of single ones) it would be comparable to what full ArmA series titles typically had at release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiki said:

Concerning the way 3rd party DLC are being handled, I also think it will split up the community - which is not a good idea as ArmA lives with and through its community. 

This DLC will definitely be interesting to those who know and remember OFP "COLD WAR".
For many, this was the first acquaintance in the Arma series, 18 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we,the community and moderators cant stop free mods from using unauthorized content, what is going to stop mods from selling the unauthorized content?

 

 

 

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ANZACSAS Steven said:

If we,the community and moderators cant stop free mods from using unauthorized content, what is going to stop mods from selling the unauthorized content?

 

 

 

All Creator DLCs are vetted and checked by BI before being accepted into the program, are developed in close cooperation with BI, have to be up to BI's standards of quality, and are QA'd and approved by BI before release. It'd be pretty hard to get through that, and because there's legal contracts and stuff involved, any creator that somehow did get illegal or copyrighted content into a paid DLC would be in the shit with the law.

 

It's not just "anyone can make a paid mod now". There's a process, and only a select few proposals get accepted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see how BI will be able to get proof of original authorship of all code and files unfortunately.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ANZACSAS Steven said:

I dont see how BI will be able to get proof of original authorship of all code and files unfortunately.

WIP pictures?
BI is in close contact during the development anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohemia has been very strict with us on that regard.

One of the reasons the DLC invitation by BI was so attractive to us is actually very closely related to this topic: We now have BI's backing and legal department's power taking on the fight against content piracy. Our previous projects in Arma 2 already had been regularly targeted by asset rippers and content thieves (Inb4 "But you released it for free, that means I can do with it what I want!" 🤦‍♂️). For a while GalComT had to regularly take down/DMCA illegal ports of his trucks and offroads from the Spintyres workshop on Steam.

Now when it would happen with GM (including other assets, not just models), we have much more clout and a better stand to pursue offenders through regular means, since now there's a very good case to be made for monetary damages and compensation.

 

It's easy to forget the annoying sides that addon makers have to deal with. The Creator DLC initiative resolved one of those headaches for us completely. 🙂 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 10:37 PM, dragon01 said:

10 SP missions is a bit short for a standalone

 

I dunno. If you consider that this thing is made by (afaik) two people... Seems reasonable to me.

Making a mission is easy, making a GOOD mission is damn hard and lots of work. Now I'm not saying I know the quality of the GM content (might as well be shit - sorry), but a lower number of missions usually means better quality.

Apex is getting lots of flack for its campaign for various reasons, but IMO the only really bad thing about it was the multiplayer-only (well, and the end-battle). Other than that, every mission has its own unique feature(s) and theme, which is a pretty good approach to mission design.

 

Quote

If you gave the new DLC another 5-10 missions (not necessarily in the campaign, ArmA2 had about 10 campaign missions and a number of single ones) it would be comparable to what full ArmA series titles typically had at release.

Sure, but then you also can't ask about a 22 bucks price anymore. We're easily at at around 45 now and that feels highly risky to me, at least for a "creators dlc" where the developer is getting only 50% revenue (after Steam)... and this is the first of its kind, so we don't even know what the sales expectations are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll buy GM on BI Store directly anyways, but, I give my :thinking_face: a little about the revenue. 50:50? BI didn't provides support for developing Creator DLC but BI takes 50? Hmm. I'd say, wish the actual developers recieve like 10 or 15 percent more.

 

Also, what if I bought Creator DLC on Steam? BI:Valve:Developers 35:30:35 or 20:30:50?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, POLPOX said:

Also, what if I bought Creator DLC on Steam? BI:Valve:Developers 35:30:35 or 20:30:50?

Valve takes 30% first, then the rest 50/50 so 35% total for BI and Devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lexx said:

Sure, but then you also can't ask about a 22 bucks price anymore. We're easily at at around 45 now and that feels highly risky to me, at least for a "creators dlc" where the developer is getting only 50% revenue (after Steam)... and this is the first of its kind, so we don't even know what the sales expectations are.

I was talking in context of this being released as standalone. So of course it would be priced like a full game in that case. I think it would be fine, what I wanted to say is that if anything, having this require owning ArmA3 to run is a questionable decision. I suppose it makes sense from a purely business standpoint for BIS (they get their cut and get to sell ArmA3 itself), but TBH, I'd rather see such comprehensive modifications go the Iron Front route. I'd probably ruffle less feathers than "Creator DLCs" idea did.

 

I guess 10 long, really good SP missions would be OK for a standalone game, but they'd really have to be exceptional (mid-game ArmA2 missions are a good example). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty bucks is a packets of cigarettes and 2 pints of lager in London, or a 1/4 of a bag of suspicious white powder or 4 Orange Mocha Frappuccinos. Its really not much and think of all the hours to be enjoyed. The price per hour will bring it down to about a £$0.50 once you've completed the SP missions and played the MP stuff, not to mention whatever your communities come up with.

Make a sacrifice, don't go out one weekend, cut down on smoking or take a flask to work for a week. Or sell some junk on ebay. 

Or if you're 12 years old - chap on your neighbours doors and offer to mow their lawns, clean their windows, sweep their stairwells. 

Or wait and see what happens during the summer sale

Or make your own East vs West Germany Cold War mod and make it free for all

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what if it costed a hundred bucks? Because I'm not in London, I'm in a country which gets German prices on Steam, while having a currency with one fourth the purchasing power of the Euro. Earning a hundred by mowing lawns would be pretty darn hard here (not to mention people would rather do it themselves than pay anybody), and you can eat for a week for that (not very well, but you can). If BIS sets up localized pricing so that I can pay a fair amount in my own currency (or I end up moving to Russia, because they get their prices adjusted), I'm all for it. Otherwise, no dice, I'm going to wait until ArmA4 comes out and ArmA3 DLCs end up actually costing twenty bucks in my currency (around 5 euros, you can now get Iron Front for that when it's on sale).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying for mods? Absolutely disgusting.

 

Nothing but respect for the GM team. They're all very talented, but I find it insane that a mod for an Arma game will cost probably half the price of the base game. This is ludicrous to me.

 

This reminds me of Skyrim and other bad games where you had to pay for mods that the studio had no part in developing.

 

It says the following on the Steam page:

 

Quote

We're pleased to announce Arma 3 Creator DLC. A while ago we invited external developers to send us their pitch for new third-party premium DLC content for Arma 3. We've now signed contracts with several external developers and the development is in full progress. While we wait for these Creator DLC's you are free to use this thread for any questions, suggestions, or concerns regarding this project. 

 

The developers deserve money, but shouldn't expect any. I would willingly choose to donate money to fund the project, but I shouldn't be forced to buy a mod. Many mods have been released, and will be released in the future, that I'm sure will be far superior to GM and as much as I have positive feelings towards GM all of these mods were/will be free, contributed by the community.

 

Bohemia Interactive deserves absolutely zero money because they had nothing to do with the development of the mod. It just happens to run on their game engine (like thousands of other free mods). If they added new engine features in order to improve both the mod and the base game then it would be a different story, but I highly doubt that they have done that.

 

Valve only deserves money because they have to pay for the infrastructure to distribute the mod.

 

I find this totally ridiculous. What's next, IFA3 DLC? Unsung DLC? Slippery slope. Frightening to an Arma/OFP veteran of 18 years.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pognivet said:

I shouldn't be forced to buy a mod.

 

You aren't. 

 

12 minutes ago, pognivet said:

The developers deserve money, but shouldn't expect any.

 

If deserve (indeed, a man deserves a payment for his useful work if he wants it), why shouldn't expect?

 

Quote

Bohemia Interactive deserves absolutely zero money because they had nothing to do with the development of the mod. 

 

That's between BI and DLC authors. Apparently they think otherwise, since they came to an agreement. 

 

Quote

It just happens to run on their game engine

 

Therefore uses work done by BI staff and wouldn't exist without it. Also BI acts as a publisher. Is publisher's work worthless?

 

Quote

Namely, we'd like to work with external development teams, including the splendid developers in our community, to publish their Arma 3 projects as third-party premium DLC on Steam.

 

 

Quote

What's next, IFA3 DLC? Unsung DLC? 

 

Free stuff may be not replaced by paid here. BTW note history of Iron Front, quite interesting.

 

Quote

 Frightening to an Arma/OFP veteran of 18 years.

 

Some was angry and affraid because of MANW. "End of community" they prophesied. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to make a long reply addressing your points, but the forum software deleted my post when I hit submit reply. Therefore I'm saving this space for when I retype it tomorrow or whenever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing has a much higher production value and likely quality than your generic mod. Besides, technically all official DLCs are mods as well, but for some reason they are cool, huh. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Homesick, may i suggest updating the OP with a link to the Creator DLC FAQ's page, it might help some forum members posting ill-informed comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this:

 

4 hours ago, pognivet said:

I would willingly choose to donate money to fund the project

 

Maybe you are, but the reality is that most players don't. Who knows, maybe in the end you wouldn't either, because you already played it and suddenly the urge to donate has disappeared for whatever reason. Even if some players start donating now, it is still highly unlikely that the "donation revenue" would be able to fund a project of this size.

 

To give some hard numbers on this topic:

I've spend around €3.5k and around two years of development time on Callsign Minotaur. It has a very high positive rating (holding 98% on the workshop since day 1), and it is on the very first page if you filter for all time most popular campaigns. It is the only project I ever made by myself that returned any money... which was exactly 1 donation of $10. I'm very thankful for that, but you don't need a math degree to realize that this doesn't cut it financially. Now I'm not complaining - never did this to earn the money back. Just giving you an example that no matter how much folks like your stuff, donations are very rare.

 

I've worked on other projects that made a bit more money, but that always involved begging and it was always spend on server upkeep, so... eh, not really the same.

 

tl;dr - can't fund such a project with donations unless you crank up the begging wheel.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pognivet said:

Bohemia Interactive deserves absolutely zero money because they had nothing to do with the development of the mod. It just happens to run on their game engine (like thousands of other free mods).

 

What about the work after development? Publisher's work, advertisement, financial work (Steam, Tax, ...), legal procedures for copyright infingements, and so on. Is that not something that is worth being paid?

  • Like 1

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

×