CSLA, its prognosed low sales and future of Creator DLC's

[TesACC 39]

If you'll take a gander at the comments under CSLA announcement you'll see that people are rather pessimistic than jumping with joy about this thing. Why is that? We need to look at Arma's history to understand it a bit.

 

Back in A2 times we got assets for contemporary gameplay and mods were just an extra thing for other theatres or time periods. In Early to mid A3 era mods became standard and the defacto core of the game, no self respecting community plays without at least RHS or CUP. Bohemia went with a different setting becasue they could when modders would make what community wants anyway. We accepted lapses of quality, noncompatibility between one mod to another, bugs and recycled content because it was free and necessary. Now in late A3 era we're expected to pay for what would earlier be just a mod, with the same, or maybe slightly higher quality.

 

Sure, its nice to reward modmakers, but look at it from a clan/community viewpoint. They can't make DLC a required standard for joining because it ads too little/can be replaced with mods that do simmiliar stuff and costs too much. Therefore they never can play at full capacity when employing a DLC. Therefore they don't play with DLC, because a lot of people are left out. I bought Apex and GM on their releases. I played ONE mision on Apex, and none on GM. Communities simply don't touch them and the dlcs are relegated to single play and plinking away with few friends. Because communities don't touch them people dont buy them. Because people don't buy them communities don't touch them. Bec... The cycle continues.

Sure, there are compatibility files, but from a mission maker perspective they don't do shit. Non-DLC players can be in the same mission, but can't use the same equipment. So really you need to make 2 missions within one, one for DLC people where they have cool toys, and one for non-dlc people where they have substitutes from mods. Or just use the DLC as opfor. This simply won't do because then what's the point of using DLC assets when you still have to use modded assets, and you got DLC exactly because it has stuff mods/vanilla don't have?

The only solution is to have compatibility files with low quality versions (akin to Arma 2 LITE dlc's) with assets you can still use, they just look bad. When EVERYONE has access to the content then there's a higher probablility of it being used on server. When it is going to be used on server then more people are willing to buy the DLC because they will be able to enjoy it with people, not just alone. Making LITE versions of DLC's gives you MORE money, not less. Counterintuitive, i know, but should work.

TL;DR Bohemia, bring back LITE versions of DLC's from A2 days. You'll earn more that way.

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

39 minutes ago, TesACC said:

Making LITE versions of DLC's

Cough IFA3 Lite hence Full version would be coming when the IFA3 team is ready to release.

I know this is opposite of what you just said but IFA3 has already established a Lite version prior to a paid for DLC, and i can say that because they had announced it

on their release thread couple years back, so i agree i think it can work.

    The The higher quality of textures, and whatever else would be like a major upgrade to what players are used to with the Lite version.

 

Very good points overall.

[Alexis_74 0]

+

[mistyronin 1181]

17 hours ago, Gunter Severloh said:

Cough IFA3 Lite hence Full version would be coming when the IFA3 team is ready to release.

I know this is opposite of what you just said but IFA3 has already established a Lite version prior to a paid for DLC, and i can say that because they had announced it

Uhm... It' a bit more complicated.

Iron Front is a full fledged game that uses an updated version of the Arma 2 engine. It's been sold in Steam since its release in 2012 (https://store.steampowered.com/app/91330/Iron_Front_Digital_War_Edition/). 

Initially the IFA3 mod team (totally unrelated to AWAR, the original developers, read EDIT below for more context) reached an agreement with the original Iron Front developers and producers X1 Software to release two versions of the mod, the full high quality version that allowed you to convert the standalone game files to Arma 3 and then a low quality lite version for free. Basically that pumped the Iron Front (standalone game) sells, so it was a beneficial agreement in both sides (EDIT: With the new info, apparently it only benefited DeepSilver and a little bit X1 Software). 

So, the IFA3 mod was initially released with both full and lite version. After some time, and the addition of different content, the mod team decided to discontinue the full version that converted the standalone game files. Here's the statement of Kju explaining the decision.

 

Quote

Statement on discontinued support for the IFA conversion (IFA3 FULL)

We do NOT endorse/recommend/encourage you to buy Iron Fron the game at this point - do not buy it!

And according to you, now apparently the IFA3 mod team is preparing a CDLC. I assume they have an agreement to use / sell the Iron Front standalone content, or they plan to remove it and create new stuff from scratch. They would probably have to also get the rights to use the name.

 

It gets more complicated as the Iron Front IP is apparently owned/managed by the publisher Deep Silver and the producer X1 Software. (apparently its not longer the case, read below)

EDIT  (23rd September 2020).

Since yesterday new information has been brought to me. Apparently after the issues with the first planned release by AWAR -the original developers of IF- some of the members of the IFA3 mod team worked in stabilizing and fixing the game. 

 

Apparently nowadays the control of the IP has been recovered by the original developers, AWAR. So things look bright for a possible IFA3 CDLC 🙂

Edited September 23, 2020 by mistyronin
Updating info

[EO 11275]

Regarding the OP...similar points of view were made when GM was announced, so your right when you say the cycle continues. I still don't get that argument, it's not like these DLC's are overpriced.

What price to you put on success?....GM, according to BI, has sold over 100,000 copies since it was launched, that's over 1.8 million Euros, imho, that's pretty good business for all involved.

 

[TesACC 39]

Price is irrelevant. Even if it was 10$ as long as there are mods that do a simmiliar thing communities are not going to play it on regular basis. Try telling 30-40 people that they need to pay up because you want to make a mission with SKOT's instead of RHS's BMP-1's. Its not a matter of worth but of convenience. As long as everyone is not able to access a thing, even in a diminished form, then it will die off.

 

Try this thought experiment- Imagine a hypothetical Arma 3 community that you're "in command off" There's lets say, 40 active players.

10 bought the DLC and want to play it.
10 are absolutely opposed to paying for it because "RHS does the same"

20 don't care either way.

You can either

a)Force the whole community to buy it. You have 30 people regularly playing the DLC content, but loose 10 that were opposed because "screw you and your camels, i'll go somewhere where they don't want me to pay for it"

b) make the DLC optional- 10 who bought it play it once or twice, maybe another 5 buys and joins them but eventually they stop because missions are too small, the rest of the community is left out, and the mentality "why do this when you can play with regular mods" emerges. They play a mission with DLC content few times per year but thats it. 

In case of a LITE version being available its less of an issue. Those who didn't buy can still play with those that did. They will moan that it looks ugly, sure, but moaning is like, at least 80% of Arma experience.
You get more usage of the DLC=People are more willing to buy it because they'll get more play hours out of it. The main problem with multiplayer is that you don't only need the DLC, you also need the people.

 

I understand that the LITE system of DLC's was abolished because of people bitching about low quality assets, but low quality assets beat no assets. GM was an experiment and a lot of people got caught, myself included but i doubt sales are going to be that good again when they know already that in multiplayer its useless. The current system kills DLC's in the long run.

[EO 11275]

Price is totally relevant, it's fundamental to your original post. How cheap does something have to be to get everybody in your hypothetical community onboard? I still don't follow your point of view,  If the content is of interest then you buy it and enjoy it to it's fullest, if not then don't, people will come people will go, the world keeps on turning.... 

 

 

 

[TesACC 39]

Price is irrelevant for the argument because its subjective, and none of us has a say in what it should be, Bohemia sets it. For me its one amount, for you another, for Bob Boberson from Bobinshire that just got into arma its also different. Sure, every game should be 99 cents then billions would play. What does it bring into the argument though? Nothing.

But fine, disregard that. Price matters or not, Point is still the same though. Communities are made of people, and large percentage of people are assholes that won't want to pay for something when they have a free "alternative". Because of them less of those that would be willing to pay won't, when in an alternative scenario assholes can be shut up with a free worse version, and those willing will be more likely to pay because they can play with said assholes. 

 

[cozza 24]

5 hours ago, TesACC said:

Price is irrelevant. Even if it was 10$ as long as there are mods that do a simmiliar thing communities are not going to play it on regular basis. Try telling 30-40 people that they need to pay up because you want to make a mission with SKOT's instead of RHS's BMP-1's. Its not a matter of worth but of convenience. As long as everyone is not able to access a thing, even in a diminished form, then it will die off.

 

Try this thought experiment- Imagine a hypothetical Arma 3 community that you're "in command off" There's lets say, 40 active players.

10 bought the DLC and want to play it.
10 are absolutely opposed to paying for it because "RHS does the same"

20 don't care either way.

You can either

a)Force the whole community to buy it. You have 30 people regularly playing the DLC content, but loose 10 that were opposed because "screw you and your camels, i'll go somewhere where they don't want me to pay for it"

b) make the DLC optional- 10 who bought it play it once or twice, maybe another 5 buys and joins them but eventually they stop because missions are too small, the rest of the community is left out, and the mentality "why do this when you can play with regular mods" emerges. They play a mission with DLC content few times per year but thats it. 

In case of a LITE version being available its less of an issue. Those who didn't buy can still play with those that did. They will moan that it looks ugly, sure, but moaning is like, at least 80% of Arma experience.
You get more usage of the DLC=People are more willing to buy it because they'll get more play hours out of it. The main problem with multiplayer is that you don't only need the DLC, you also need the people.

 

I understand that the LITE system of DLC's was abolished because of people bitching about low quality assets, but low quality assets beat no assets. GM was an experiment and a lot of people got caught, myself included but i doubt sales are going to be that good again when they know already that in multiplayer its useless. The current system kills DLC's in the long run.

 

That's sounds like a you problem. Not a BIS, CSLA problem to fix.

Make a mission all your group can enjoy with RHS.

Or make 2 mission. A mission for 10-30 people to use the CDLC with. And 1 which everyone can without the CDLC.

[scimitar 221]

Personally, I'm glad that CSLA is the next CDLC. I hear people complain all the time about the problems with the CDLC concept and multiplayer but some of us just don't care about multiplayer. I only play SP and  enjoy official and user made campaigns and dynamic missions such as those created with Hetman War Stories (over 70 ports on the SWS) and Dynamic Civil War. There are actually a fair number of players that do the same and a lot of us will be purchasing CSLA just as we did GM (over 80 mods for it on the SWS). Also, as an older gamer that's a Cold War era military veteran, I'm looking forward to it immensely. I've always felt that A3's jump to 2035 was an immense mistake and I'm glad that there are CDLC and mod makers bringing the game back to it's roots. As for those complaining, I suggest that they don't buy it but shut the hell up about it not being free or an integral part of the game. They're just whining because they don't want to spend the money for it. When you consider the price of getting into PC gaming and the upgrade costs along the way as well as the price for new games and gaming accessories, $20-30 for a new CDLC is negligible. There are also those that only complain about GM or the compatibility files being a 30GB download that they don't want taking up space on their drives and cite that as the reasons that they don't buy it or download the compatibility files. I wish they would shut the hell up too because their complaints are irrelevant and contribute nothing. If they don't want to play on servers that also run GM, then they should find other servers to play on. I would also suggest that everyone lighten up on the CDLC negativity. No one is forcing anyone to buy or install anything that they don't want to and complaining about it is useless and tiresome.

[TesACC 39]

You guys are not seeing the bigger picture. Part of the reason is that this is the BIS forum, and lets be honest, only die hards come here. Out of 7 people that wrote anything here 3 joined in Operation Flashpoint days, and only one when Arma 3 was already out. That's old farts territory. 

Don't believe me then check out what people wrote on steam. Its you who give thousands of hours into Arma and modmaking, but its them that make the bulk of community. Its the masses that have a problem.  Some of them don't know or care that its separate people from GM or Bohemia, they're missing the Creator part of Creator DLC. All they see is another paid DLC doing almost the same thing as another paid DLC that's doing almost the same thing as the free mods they already have. I am but a humble herald. 

Content unchanged, enter at your own risk. Comments pulled from the announcement as of 23.09 13:06 CET. I've got 60 negative ones out of 132 total. That the oppinions are mixed is an understatement.

Spoiler

"there is a mod "RHS" better than this... Now another DLC. When arma 4?"

"Well that Cold War Germany DLC quality sucks ass. So I guess I won't be getting this."

"Waw 29.99 € za content ktory mal byť spojený s Global mobilization takže rreeeee very good (wow. 29.99 for content that was supposed to be a part of Global mobilization)
Som sklamaný čo raz viac" (they lied and its shows)

"Ugh, no thanks but no."

"Still trying to sell free mods as DLC huh?"

"Another garbage DLC with recycled assets for cows willing to pay
To anyone discovering ArmA : download the CUP & RHS mod packs. They're free"

"If they want to sell their content they spend their time on, more power to them. There is plenty of free content out there so no one should feel pressured to get this if they don't want to, no use in complaining unless the content is released buggy and broken. My only complaint is I wish we had a Lite version of terrains and playable content so I could use it in my missions with friends but doesn't look like they are doing that so I likely won't get any multiplayer use out of it, which is a shame."

"Does anyone even play the Cold War DLC? It's hard enough getting populated servers for normal Arma 3"

"Oh boy, another DLC no one in multiplayer can or will use. I can't wait to also hear about more contract-breaking abuse from Bohemia as they, for the what 5th year in a row? Continue to sit on their hands, murder all of their community goodwill, and port everything they can to DayZ and charge you for it *again* there."

"bruh I thought this was a update for GM and finally thought now its worth buying..."

"I stopped buying DLCs and will only pay again when and if Arma 4 is released. I feel that the free content already covers everything I need to play."

"looks like the vehicle assets quite good quality in texture and more assets for buildings. looks nice let's wait and see the price for the Czech Cold War DLC. sad part is the assets are to divided from the main game and makes it harder to make anything it also makes it hard to consider buying it"

"People buying the DLCs are only prolonging the wait for ARMA 4. Support them it's up to you but it may be a good idea too think more in depth."

"Seeing some Arma 2 OA and Arma 2 vehicles in the screenshot already which makes me happy because nostalgia - however - the biggest issue here is simply weather or not these assets actually translate into normal multiplayer. If the answer is no - then this DLC is completely useless and I discourage everyone here from buying it.
Optional DLC's are meme-tier because you buy it, play it for like a maximum of one week, and then never touch it again. Hopefully there is still time and they don't make this an optional DLC and actually integrate it into the game. I'd love to see some of these assets come back to life in hopefully higher quality than what mods bring over. I've been waiting for them to finally port over A2:OA assets in an official manner forever."

"Guess I don't understand the sentiment here. You release an unpopular DLC due to it lacking content and instead of adding essential content to another Cold War DLC you move the US and Czechs to a different DLC to purchase? Jesus Christ there's some sharks in those waters."

"it's better to download RHS mods"

"I don't see anything here that isn't already a quality free mod (CUP, RHS etc.)
Perhaps some people believe that you only get good quality if you pay for it.
Wrong!
People need to browse the workshop and start checking out the stunning content that's already available.
Of course, if you've simply got money to throw away ... knock yourself out!"

"Honestly. IDK. On the one hand im all for an official abrams/LAV-25 and all the cold war USA gear. but, 1. its a very similar concept to GM. and honestly had i known this was gonna be released after GM, i probably wouldnt have bought GM. tie that to it being a completely separate part of the game, and the launch of GM being as buggy and broken as it was, not to mention mods already existing that can do much of whats being done here... idk, im not sure its worth the pricetag. Had this been a GM update then hell yeah, its probably worth it. but it being a separate DLC again? bit much imo"

"Is this an update for global mobilisation or a new DLC ?
If new then thats just gay. Why be GLOBAL mobilisation but then have a new DLC for Czech"

"never"

"All i see is a bunch of retextured ArmA2 Assets. DO NOT BUY this cashgrab"

"Yet another DLC i won't buy. How about fixing all the bugs? Engine? Sound? and the long ongoing list of problems."

"It's called milking the cow"

"You can download free mods that would make up 99% of this mod. Why would we pay for this??"

"The quality of these Creator DLCs has seemed far below the Bohemia made ones and even plenty of the free workshop Mods, why would anybody want to pay for this?"

"was hoping for arma 4 not more shitty dlc"

"No thanks - this will definitely be a no-buy for me and I'm a sucker when it comes to Cold War scenarios. I'm not willing to invest money for another DLC after already purchasing GM, which is still sorely lacking in content. Would have been really nice to get US and Soviet troops in GM eventually... but I guess I'll just continue using the 3CB Faction mod, which provides well-crafted Early and Late Cold War US/Soviet troops."

"Still looks like polishing Arma II. So no thx"

"Another 40€ dlc for a third-finished half baked ugly pack ?"

"I'm almost positive that T-72 model is from Arma 2 and just spruced up. This is awful, what a terrible thing to do to a community that is already fractured and doesn't play with any of the DLC anyway. A blatant, souless, cash grab from Bohemia which is becoming the norm as of late. This DLC offers nothing for 25$ that a free mod would not."

"Release dates :
-Armed Assault 2006
-ARMA 2 2009
-ARMA 3 2013
ARMA 4 ? Nahhh we decided to just sell DLCs"

"Hmmm more dlc, improve fps? otimization, less lag, or bugs corretions? NO,
nice game :)"

"Hard pass."

"lol"

"Its amazing... take it boy... three hundreed bucks"

"More shit coming"

"aanother "good mod/bad DLC" attempt?"

"Oh jeez...now they try to make money with this shit...Guys, there's already an existing Mod: RHS ffs"

(Guy is replying to someone)"Yeah thats right. Also, in the GM-DLC there are german M113 variants included, why realese basically the same vehicle in another creator-DLC? It is a cool idea to make more cold-war themend DLCs, but like some people said, many of the vehicles are also available as free mods. The only thing wich could make people buy the DLC instead of using mods, would be modeld interiors in all vehicles, including the tanks.

"based on GM experience, I'm a fuckin pass"

"stahp milking this old franchise, give us Arma 4 already !"

"isn't this already a mod"

"Isn't there mods that already add stuff like this for free? Like maybe RHS or CUP units?"

"Does this improve the laughable 15-20 FPS in singleplayer alien DLC? No? Well, not to be expected anyways, not in 100 years Bohemia-not-active.
I will stay with CUP, k thx bye"

"(replying to "isn't this already a mod guy")yes there are, but YOU PAY FOR THIS version and also get the unability to use it in vanilla.. ! what a deal, isnt it ?"

"must be running out of ideas most make a newer game this getting old there going backwards"

"def not buying after the dissapointment of the first creator dlc"

"Ahm.. There are mods they do exactly the same.
Ty im good, waiting for ArmA 4 : )"

"Oh fun, more mods we get to pay for instead of getting them off the workshop. Why not actual new content for people who play the game?"

"FFS just make ArmA 4.
After 1 week no one will play this. 
The only thing i see usefull on this "CDLC" will be the Terrain nothing more, we got all of this stuff on MODs and if not we can have it in the furure. "

"arma 2 vehicles on arma 3 for a little price they had so much work on this"

":v Bruh, never believe creator DLCs. The GM is not even match CUP not to mention RHS, the texture is just crap and its not compatible with CBA items.
I'll stay with mods so no thx.
JUST GIVE US ARMA4 ALREADY, or someone get DayZ a zeus mod PLZ!"

"Do you think that it will be better quality than Global Mobilization? "

"So after the Global Mobilization DLC I'm for sure not going to buy yet another hyped "community" DLC. Overall stop milking ARMA3 and please get us a worthy successor with a much better engine and a much much better map editor. Creating terrains for ARMA3 is pain in the a**. Even the very first Far Cry had a lot better editor."

"CUP mod за деньги? Да вы там ваще ухуели?" (CUP mod for money, are you all nuts)

"Спасибо за длц, в которое никто не будет играть. здорова тем кто купил герман длц" (Thanks for the DLC's that no one will play. cheers for those who bought the German DLC)

" А вот тут уже интересно но жаль онлайна с ним не будет как и с глобальной мобилизации (It's interesting, but it's a pity there won't be anyone online to play with, same as with global mobilization"

"Que manera de robar con estos DLCs, eh" (What a way to steal with those DLC's)

"Tvl další DLC do hry, která sotva funguje. Kdyby jste radši dělali na Armě 4 s novým enginem a normálníma Aičkama... Fakt jako... Bohemku mám rád, ale tohle už je vrchol..."

(Another DLC for a game that barely works. If you'd rather work on Arma 4 with a new engine and normal AI ... Really like ... I like Bohemia but this is too much ...)

"30 euro la carotte sa fait cher" (30 euro carrot is made)

"I don't like this at all.
It is not DLC. This is user modification for money. Without insurance from bugs and glitches.And each DLC literally splitting community each time."

 
As for the "sounds like a You problem" true, it also is. I already got confirmation that my guys took the C route- "After what happened with GM We're not going to even try this one, don't bother buying", so i'm left with single player.

[Gunter Severloh 4052]

15 hours ago, mistyronin said:

Uhm... It' a bit more complicated.

Sorry i couldn't reply sooner had to go to bed and then to work after, but you misunderstood what i was saying.

I know about everything you explained, i was involved with Iron Front since the beginning, was even a moderator on the official IF forums back in 2012

then built a website in October that year for the community to host all their missions, scripts, & texture packs which btw the site is still up.

   In 2013 i formed a 20 man team which we had worked with Kju on the IFA2 conversion tool, and the latest patch Awar created which they never released for IF.

 

Our work was complete for the conversion and patch, along side that the team did its own project, after that Kju went onto IFA3, aside what you linked theres more info

on the preview IFA3 Lite thread, so my point being was that IFA3 already has a Lite and in time ...

its a win/win about all i can say about IFA3 as i'm not allowed to provide any information.  Cheers!

 

TesACC right on with your points!

[Valken 622]

I agree with the lite version to generate more sales but if some of the content from DLC could be "shown" and not used like how ARMA 3 demos DLC, then it can work to generate sales.

 

But a lite version of a map (sans high res details) would help to get others to pony up for the full content. Imagine a low definition Tanoa?! I would buy Apex just to see the beautiful detailed trees and forest instead of match sticks!

 

I did, I bought APEX at launch just for the map and gear. Play the hell out of it online, still did not play the campaign yet.

 

As long  as good unique high quality content can be reused in different scenarios, I think more Armaholics would consider it. The lite version definitely gives a good demo to see the potential.

 

Actually, I think BIS should do periodic FREE WEEK of all content unlocked so players can join online servers to try all the new gear and maps. Just lock out the SP campaigns.

 

That would get more players to tryout the gear and learn to find something they have been missing from the general experience.

 

 

[PuFu 4600]

I thinbk i have thrown my pennies in the bucket before, when GM was released.

1. not everyone plays in MP,  there is a big SP part of this game.

2. not every squad/community out there is composed from a huge number of people. The fewer the people the easier to get everyone to grab the same content and actually use it, be it mod or DLC / cDLC

3. the group i play with (very rarely admittedly) is composed of older (30+) people who can very easily afford the full price of cDLCs (which is what, the equivalent of a 6-8pack or 2-3 packs of smokes). 

4. while i do agree that the cDLC program should have started way earlier, that would have meant, most likely, that a lot of the current free to access mods would most have likely been turned into cDLCs (RHS included).

5. yes, this community at large has been spoiled with freely accessible content that, in some cases, are on par with vanilla content. So yes, any sort of cDLC will be faced with this sort of comparison. 

6. the lite content has a very big disadvantage - it doesn't represent in any way or form the content you will receive. As a 3d artist, i would never agree that my content (models + textures) be reduced to a indistinguishable mix of low poly mesh and pixelated turd-tex. 

 

From where i am standing, unless you had a lot of content already done and/or in the works, it's currently not really worth investing (as a modder) into a cDLC. So obviously, both GM and CSLA are the prime contenders.

Not even sure what is the content that hasn't been covered already by existing mods (besides all possible fictional stuff that is, at least from this community pov, outside the target), but there will always be some comparison made. A lot of people forget that making mods still takes quite a bit of money (software licenses, hosting, platforms  etc) without even counting the time or skill it takes. Just because something has been provided for free doesn't mean it has no monetary value.

 

Should things, ideally, been handled differently, yes. Is it too late for that to happen, also yes. That doesn't necessary means, as the title would suggest, that the cDLC sale would necessary be low, not even close. And even so, that would mean more money than none for the authors, even after the 30% Steam's cut and 30% BI's cut.

[scimitar 221]

I'm seeing the bigger picture just fine. I just don't care about it and couldn't care less what the larger community that's invested solely in multiplayer thinks about the CDLC concept. As I mentioned previously, I'm solely an SP player and while I have nothing against mp players, it should be remembered that they don't make up the entirety of the community. According to the numbers, GM did fairly well and I suspect that many of the same people ( us "old farts") that bought that will also buy CSLA. I would suggest that anyone that's not interested just move on and let us Grandpas play the game the way we want.

 

Also, I've read so many of those comments on GM and now the speculation that CSLA will be more of the same that the ignorance level is just mind blowing. A lot of those idiots say that RHS or CUP do the same things only better and that they're free to boot. They might be free but the rest is bullshit. No mod out there gives us the same level of complete and good quality Cold War era armies, equipment and terrains in a single package as well as a SP campaign as GM has and CSLA almost certainly will as well. After GM was released and all the stupid negative comments came out, I'm certain that the CSLA team along with BIS anticipated the same nonsense negative reactions to CSLA becoming a CDLC. Fortunately they didn't give enough of a shit about it to be deterred from carrying on with the project. I wish the CSLA team the best of luck with their project and will certainly buy it when it becomes available.

[TesACC 39]

46 minutes ago, PuFu said:

 

Should things, ideally, been handled differently, yes. Is it too late for that to happen, also yes. That doesn't necessary means, as the title would suggest, that the cDLC sale would necessary be low, not even close. And even so, that would mean more money than none for the authors, even after the 30% Steam's cut and 30% BI's cut.

 

I'm not saying that the sales will be unusually low (although definitelly lower than GM), i'm saying that they can be higher with the old strategy applied. more money than none beats no money, sure, but You know what beats more money? Even more money. Don't get me wrong, i'm all in for the creator DLC concept, modmakers can and should be recompensated.

BUT. The current way creates an unnecessary divide in community that throttles those DLC's popularity and sales, and that can be avoided

[Jackal326 1181]

4 hours ago, TesACC said:

You guys are not seeing the bigger picture. Part of the reason is that this is the BIS forum, and lets be honest, only die hards come here. Out of 7 people that wrote anything here 3 joined in Operation Flashpoint days, and only one when Arma 3 was already out. That's old farts territory. 

As an old fart and someone that out-strips anyone else that has replied here in terms of membership by at least a year -I take offense to that comment.

The pure fact of the matter is, you're complaining about CSLA/GM being paid-for DLC, complaining that it fractures the community because "some will have/use it and others wont". That has been the case since Resistance for OFP (albeit an official DLC/Expansion) and has been the case in just about every other game that has ever have paid-DLC and/or expansions. You say at the end of your first post that the only alternative is (for BIS) to offer LITE versions at a lower quality - yet in the very same post complain that they're lower quality and "look bad". How can anyone win? GM released a free LITE content pack on Steam Workshop to allow communities to play together and prevent the separation of the have/have nots - and it worked great. I bought it as a result, exactly like you said. Don't praise the idea and bemoan it in the same post, it makes you look contradictory and invalidates your point. Developers aren't going to release fully fledged mods with fleshed out models and high-resolution textures for free, and then expect you to pay for the same content - of course they're going to pixelate the textures and drop the model quality. Its the same as when game developers release demos of up-coming releases - if they gave you the full game you have absolutely NO incentive to buy...

 

On a side note regarding the monetization...

The simple fact of the matter is making mods takes time - time many developers don't have to sink into a project when they are not working/schooling/parenting/whatever so why shouldn't some talented content creators be able to monetize their creations in a fair (at least I assume it is) and legal way through BIS to help them subsidise their otherwise busy lives and allow them to earn a (partial) living from their content's sales? Not to mention paying for the behind-the-scenes costs such as software licenses, file-hosting etc.

 

@PuFu said it best:

Quote

"A lot of people forget that making mods still takes quite a bit of money (software licenses, hosting, platforms  etc) without even counting the time or skill it takes. Just because something has been provided for free doesn't mean it has no monetary value."

 

I also agree with what PuFu said regarding the cDLC program starting sooner - I'd have paid a great deal of money for an RHS created cDLC as well as of many other great addons/mods that may well have benefited (CUP, ACE etc).

[TesACC 39]

Ok, lets estabilish a few things. Is this the lite version you're talking about?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1776428269

I don't have patience nor space to download a 2nd version of GM, and the description is a bit muddy, so if you in fact do have (or had it) then explain this-

1. Are you allowed to participate in multiplayer missions that use GM assets

2. Are you allowed to use said assets in that multiplayer mission. Weapons, Uniforms, Operate vehicles (not just sit in the back of them) can you actually participate on the same level as owners.

If the answer for both is YES then that's all i'm asking for. But if the answer is NO then this not a true LITE version. Just a 20 gb worth of files that allow you to join a server that has GM in its modline. And a virtual arsenal preview.

 

Also, i'm not contradicting myself, just adressing the previous (and if this would go through, future) moaning. Players will always be dissatisfied, don't you know that? Its my opinion that they would be less dissatisfied with the old way than with the current one. Nothing is full on good or full on bad, ever. If it was then we wouldn't have this conversation because obviously BIS would go with the full on good idea, if it is so much better. Its not though. Still, its slightly better.

[spooky lynx 73]

Although I support the idea that a time spent on addon-making can be revarded with money, I suppose that paid DLC should become not just another addon-pack but a product, with significantly better quality, unit quantity and functionality. And the updates and bug fixes should take less time to wait (not usual ASAP or 'when we'll have time') just because we were transformed from a fellow community members into customers, and customers need better support. But my experience with GM CDLC shows that the result I payed for does not significantly differ from free user-made mod, both in terms of unit quality and content quantity. So I'll think a lot next time before buying (or not) another CDLC.

[SzepyCZ 24]

personally i’m afraid that the assets wont be on the same level of "quality" as GM’s are, i might be wrong, i made this assumption based on  the screenshots from annoucement/videos CSLA made from their playtests

[stburr91 1002]

I can't believe that BI would choose a cDLC project with the type of content that is already saturated in the game.

 

With Arma 4 still being years away, the game desperately needs something new, this decision boggles the mind. 

 

I guess the cDLC program is all about the money, and not trying to provide new content to the community while we wait for Arma 4.   

[Jackal326 1181]

12 hours ago, stburr91 said:

With Arma 4 still being years away, the game desperately needs something new, this decision boggles the mind. 

I guess the cDLC program is all about the money, and not trying to provide new content to the community while we wait for Arma 4.   

I must have missed the news post that announced Arma4...

[stburr91 1002]

9 minutes ago, Jackal326 said:

I must have missed the news post that announced Arma4...

 

 

No announcement of Arma 4, but BI recently stated that they were still taking cDLC submissions. It's been almost 3 years since BI first announced the cDLC program, and we have only gotten 1 cDLC release so far. One can only assume it takes1-2 years to develop a cDLC project, so if they are still asking for new submissions, Arma 4 is almost certainly still years away.   

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

20 hours ago, SzepyCZ said:

personally i’m afraid that the assets wont be on the same level of "quality" as GM’s are, i might be wrong, i made this assumption based on  the screenshots from annoucement/videos CSLA made from their playtests

 

I hope they are more in line with the quality of vanilla content this time. Also I hope they use vanilla ammo and mags this time (or at least compatible stats) to make it cross compatible. Unlike GM where weapons deal more damage so you have to play it on its own...

[Jackal326 1181]

1 hour ago, stburr91 said:

No announcement of Arma 4, but BI recently stated that they were still taking cDLC submissions. It's been almost 3 years since BI first announced the cDLC program, and we have only gotten 1 cDLC release so far. One can only assume it takes1-2 years to develop a cDLC project, so if they are still asking for new submissions, Arma 4 is almost certainly still years away.   

You're assuming there will be an Arma4. Don't get me wrong, I hope there will be an Arma4 on an improved engine etc. but I'm not holding my breath...