Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The maps that have come out for Arma 3 since the release of the game have been really cool additions and a lot of people are excited to use them, especially the new Livonia map as it is a throwback to the old Arma 2 style of buildings that everybody loves. The problem is, Tanoa and Livonia are both paid DLC maps, and a huge part of the Arma 3 Community is made up of its multiplayer servers. Most of it, if not all of it in fact. Servers are supported by the players that play on it, but when you put the server behind a paywall, some people aren't willing to buy the DLC in order to play on that server, which limits most servers to one of three maps. Altis, Stratis, or Malden. All of which are great, but they are the only free options that can ensure everyone involved would be able to play without buying any additional DLC. Initially, this sounds good for the revenue side of the game, but it also hurts the community as the new maps cant effectively be used on servers and honestly Altis, Stratis and Malden can all get old pretty quickly when used on almost every server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a no. DLC contents for DLC owners. Maps probably take the longest to make and are the central part of the expansions. You are welcome to buy the DLCs.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I dunno. If they made the maps free then what would be left worth buying? A campaign?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terrains are also the biggest incentive to buy the DLC.
And you want BI to get money so that they can continue developing your favourite game series don't you?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we start a petition to make players pay for the content they want to use? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've seen people ask for there to be free variants of other ARs with underbarrels shotguns (ie, Promet SG clones), now they ask for the map to be free.

The expansion was basically some weapons, a drone, a scripted campaign, and a map+reskins to use the map.

People have asked for the weapons and map for free. That means what you'd get by paying is the scripted campaign, and a small drone.

 

If you don't think that's worth the money for the expansion now, then it certainly wouldn't be if you got less by actually paying. The *more* stuff you get by paying, the less you feel overcharged.

In your desire to get free stuff, those who paid will feel ripped off, and no one will pay more.

 

Sorry, it just doesn't work this way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ex3B said:

So I've seen people ask for there to be free variants of other ARs with underbarrels shotguns (ie, Promet SG clones), now they ask for the map to be free.

The expansion was basically some weapons, a drone, a scripted campaign, and a map+reskins to use the map.

People have asked for the weapons and map for free. That means what you'd get by paying is the scripted campaign, and a small drone.

 

If you don't think that's worth the money for the expansion now, then it certainly wouldn't be if you got less by actually paying. The *more* stuff you get by paying, the less you feel overcharged.

In your desire to get free stuff, those who paid will feel ripped off, and no one will pay more.

 

Sorry, it just doesn't work this way.

 

 

The main reason for me to buy that DLC war the tin foil hat and the tractor...they got me hooked with that features.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 12:30 AM, BancingDare said:

... Altis, Stratis, or Malden. All of which are great, but they are the only free options that can ensure everyone involved would be able to play without buying any additional DLC.

 

Except they aren't free. In order to play them you have to purchase the game "Arma 3". You unfortunately neglect the fact that producing video games is a business. New things that take hundreds of hours to produce, need to be sold in order to justify the time spent developing them. Plus i'm sure it's a nice bonus that the employees that spent those hundreds of hours on those maps get to continue to feed, shelter and clothe themselves and their families. 

 

As much as we might not like it, it's important to remember that whilst games might be a hobby for the consumers, it is business and livelihood of the people on the other end. It's not really justifiable to ask for stuff for free tbh, especially given BI's already quite inclusive DLC policy in comparison to other players in the industry. 

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is OK that maps are locked behind paid DLC so BI can make some extra revenue but the map's assets such as buildings and objects should be available to everyone who owns Arma so map makers can use those assets in their maps. Otherwise they will have to do custom buildings delaying the release of their mods and also upping their size.

 

And we all know that Arma 3 lives off its mods right now... so any practice that delays or makes mods unnecessarily heavier in size (on the already HUGE Arma 3 hard drive requirements) is a detriment to their own platform and future sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LSValmont said:

It is OK that maps are locked behind paid DLC so BI can make some extra revenue but the map's assets such as buildings and objects should be available to everyone who owns Arma so map makers can use those assets in their maps. 

Thats the case already afaik.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nomisum said:

Thats the case already afaik.

 

Not really, you see as of today many of the Livonia map assets such as some furniture and objects still do not appear on EDEN for mission makers to use (If you don't own the DLC).

 

And even if BI plans on making most assets available for everyone with the future release of patch 1.96 that is still not the case today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LSValmont said:

Not really, you see as of today many of the Livonia map assets such as some furniture and objects still do not appear on EDEN for mission makers to use (If you don't own the DLC).

They also don't appear if you had bought the DLC.
You still have the assets, even if you didn't buy it.

 

Owning the DLC makes no difference whatsoever.

 

As reyhard said today, they are not in 3den because they have no strings (translations) and were not tested enough.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the new tent lamps ( Land_TentLamp_01_suspended_F) require Contact? I don't want to use them in my mission if they are require Contact ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually nothing of the game should be free, unless modders want it to.

Make money get a job.

free crowded  pub servers are the worst ....

 

 

Devs, programmers and Artists need to eat too

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARMA is not made for free, there are 100s of free maps out there and MODs are easy to install and use. DLC content keeps the game alive. BI  is very generous with a lot of the DLC content as-is, your request is really RUDE and ill-informed.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The base post is pointing out a real problem, which is that the current DLC system contributes to a fracturing of the player community.

Everyone wants those who build content to be compensated, but there are other fee structures possible.

Server operators could pay for the right to host a Livonia map, transferring the cost of map development to multiplayer operators.  If you want to play solo, you pay only for the cost of the base game, which includes all future content.  If you want to run a game with your buddy, you pay for 2 Livonia slots at perhaps $5 per slot.  You can play with that buddy, or with a different buddy, but never more than 2 players on that map.  If you want to play with 4 other friends on Tanoa, you pay for 5 Tanoa slots at perhaps $4 per slot - whatever is appropriate to the map.  Stratis slots are cheap, at $1 per slot.  Big operators drop a few hundred dollars to configure the server so that a hundred players can connect.  None of those players has to pay for the map because they already have all standard maps available to them for fee on the client side.

This would mean that if there are 10,000 total multiplayer slots for Livonia maps, then Bohemia would see $50,000 as payment for Livonia.   I'm just making up numbers.  In contrast, if there are 50,000 players and they all buy the Livonia DLC, then Bohemia sees $250,000.  But all 50,000 players won't pay for the DLC.  Perhaps only 10,000 pay, meaning that Bohemia would see the same revenue either way - but the player community wouldn't be as fractured as it is with the current DLC payment system.

Instead of fracturing, there would be an additional headwind to server sizes (server operators would have to pay more for larger servers).  But server operators already have to pay more for a larger computer to handle a larger number of slots, so having server operators pay for slots would be a natural tie-in.  And the slot payments would be one-time instead of monthly or annual - though that's another possible fee structure.

I'm sure there are many other possible ways to fund development of maps, including the equivalent of a Kickstarter system where Bohemia puts up suggested environments, and players pledge money to get those environments built.  Done that way, modders might be able to run some Kickstarters of their own.  Then there's the blackmail approach, which is to remind the player about payment, as Bohemia does with various DLC content.

Perhaps paid server slots aren't the solution either, but the current DLC system does have consequences for the player experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or...... you could just buy the DLC instead of trying to get someone else to pay for it for you, as someone who pays for a server for others to play on at no cost to them, I think that is a ridiculous idea. for real each game we have has at least 15 players, thats $75 on top of the $17 im paying already PER Month. notr to mention the complexity of having to set all that up. BI is not in the server rental business so that would involve getting 3rd partys to keep track of all that at even more cost. so it would pretty much kill the game for everyone just so you don't have to pay a one time price $20 for a DLC. no thank you

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lysergic Aldent said:

...it would pretty much kill the game for everyone just so you don't have to pay a one time price $20 for a DLC. no thank you

:yeahthat:

 

...also, you know what they say: no pain, no gain. Wanna play cool new content? Showed that 20 bucks out and play. Can't afford it right now? Sit and watch until you can...a coupled trip less to McD and you have it. After all, the pricing are MORE THAN AFFORDABLE.

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

×