Jump to content
TesACC

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

 

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...

 

In all fairness, some of GM's weapons have suitable magwells which can load vanilla ammunition. GM's devs also clarified why their ammunition hits harder so it'll come down to whether CSLA Studio are prioritising authenticity or decide to focus on sandbox balance.

 

And if all else fails there's always custom compatibility patches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Unlike GM where weapons deal more damage so you have to play it on its own...

There seems to be some myth developing that GM is incompatible with Arma 3. This is not true.

As explained here (and please move any replies for this question into that forum topic):

Quote

GM has multiple 7.62 rounds implemented not just a single one, all of these rounds are performing the way they are supposed to perform in reality, and able to penetrate the amount of steel/concrete they are supposed to penetrate in Arma. Arma3s 7.62 ammo has been massively nerfed and does not behave the way it is supposed to behave. In arma itself, this doesn't matter all that much as it is not the primary ammunition used by the majority of the weapons. In GM we need to make sure that the 7.62 rounds we have perform as close to reality as possible as it is the primary ammunition for the Western weapons used in the DLC.

(if you get hit in the head by a 7.62 round, helmet or not you do not just walk away from that)

The small/mid arms ammo (5.56mm, 7.62mm and 12.7mm) have been adjusted to work with the engine's simulation in such a way, that they perform with correct penetration power. This is to enable accurately simulated vehicle's armor to (not) stop a given round as expected. Arma 3 Vanilla has these ammo penetration/damage values reduced to make an overall more "bullet-spongy" gameplay, for vehicles in Vanilla Arma 3 this does not matter, as they are either heavily armored, or unarmored.

(Again, any further discussion about this relating to GM's supposed incompatibility should be continued in the respective thread.)

Edit: Didn't catch drebin's post. He summed it up already. Thanks!

Edited by mondkalb
I missed drebin's post addressing the same subject.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been waiting for CSLA since I first heard of the CDLC program and saw GM announced!
People complained the same way about GM as they are now about CSLA, and look where GM is now - sold just fine, people enjoy it, and they are rolling out updates with lots of new things to play with. 
Here's a list of the roughly summed up complaints about the CSLA CDLC from random, usually clueless people, I have heard & seen:

Quote

1. People who wanted other content.
2. People who don't want to pay for content.
3. People who can't afford the content.
4. People who run communities and don't want to force everybody in the community to get the content.
5. People who don't like it having similarities to GM.
6. People who say "mod X is better"
7. People who say "just retextures of Arma 2"
8. People who say "other mods have it".
9. People who don't like it having identical parts from GM.

Out of all these points, the only one that makes sense is the last, and I can somewhat agree on it that rather than both teams spending time making an MP5 each - one team can make it and share it with the other. And in reality, we don't know yet how much is shared between CSLA and GM, as neither it, nor the changelog, has been released yet. Only thing we have to go off are screenshots, and since they where taken with other mods loaded too - parts of the screenshots could've been from GM. 
The rest of the points:

Quote

1 - Don't get it then, plenty other mods out there for you to use, everybody can't be satisfied. If you claim Arma should make a DLC that profits the most - they should then release a Life-server DLC, since that is the probably largest chunk of Arma players, regardless of how much it hurts to say it. It's impossible to make everybody happy, you (and whoever doesn't like this content) simply happened to be the people that this wasn't aimed for. 
2 & 3 - 20$ that often goes on sale for 8$ is very affordable if you are an adult and have a job - which you should have. Living in the 2nd poorest country in Europe I could afford two copies of it, on release day. If you "can't afford it" - you are either don't have a job and probably not old enough to play Arma in the the first place, don't have a job and should set your priorities straight instead of arguing on internet forums, have a tough time with money duo to corona, in which case again - set your priorities straight rather than buying DLC's for games, or live in.. North Korea. In the last case tough luck, world is unfair.
4 - I am in a very large community, we have 100+ active members, 500+ less active members and a weekly gain of 20 members going in and out, with some staying sometimes. We have existed for 4, soon 5, years - and after GM came up, we gave in 2 months for everybody to get the money to buy it, and added it as a required mod - be it bought or compat files from workshop. There was 0 active members leaving due to it, and there was 0-to-none decrease in new members coming in.
5 - GM adds West & East Germans, as well as small parts of Danes among other things from the 1980s. CSLA adds Czechoslovaks & Americans from 1980s. Only similarity is that they are both set in 1980s, which means refer to answer on point 1.
6 & 7 - Firstly - we don't know any of that until the CSLA is released and we actually see it, secondly - assuming some things are better in the mods, use those mods. Nobody forces you to use the ones from the CDLC, thats the beauty of Arma - you can mix and match. Example - a community using 3 mods togethere - all 3 mods have some parts that they all have, lets say a T-72A, a BMP-1, and an M16. They use the T-72A from mod 1, BMP-1 from mod 2, and M16 from mod 3, because it's better in each of those respective mods. Now CSLA comes along - it has a T-72A, a BMP-1, and an M16. The T-72A is waaay better than the previous one, the BMP-1 is same quality as the previous, and the M16 is worse. So now you can start using the new, better quality T-72 and remove mod 1 if that is the only reason you had it, and possibly remove mod 2 for the same quality BMP-1, that way having only a need for 2 mods loaded at once, rather than 3. Realistically, no mod has everything CSLA has, and no combo of mods has everything CSLA has, and even without being released, I can already tell that no mod has same high quality things that CSLA has.
8 - Everything is a retexture of Arma 2, Arma 2 is a retexture of Flashpoint, and Flashpoint is a retexture of Wolfenstein 3D. A gun is gun, it looks the same regardless of the game, so why make a completely new model if Arma 2 has an existing, already good model that is free to use, which only need some small polishing?

This can all be summed up easily - "Don't like it? Don't buy it."
People like to act like it's their birth- and human right to get a '20+ GB of content, with all new freshly made models, perfectly balanced, well textured, smoothly animated, regurarly updated, with a big variety of equipment MOD that is FREE', but that isn't the case.

(Everything I say here is with no inside knowledge on the works of GM and CSLA, and only info of those two I have is owning GM, and reading the steam page of CSLA. Some of the things I said like GM & CSLA working together might already be true for example. All examples provided are just rough examples for the slower people to understand the points, and the  Everything else I pull out of my 8k hours of making missions with various mods for my community. If you have a problem with my grammar at 0130, I will tell you that your mother is a nice lady in 5 languages, fluently.)

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be more than happy if we get 1 or 2 good CDLC a year until A4 is ready. The idea of a lite version sounds like a lot of extra work to make people who can't scrape up ten bucks happy. And the CDLC content, particularly the GM vehicles are really good. If that is replicated in the CSLA CDLC then keep them coming. Nation CDLC packs are something that should have been done earlier. Most nations have Arma communities and mods packs for their nations. BIS should have played on that strength with the CDLC programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I've heard of a CSLA mod to be honest... I'll buy every mod that is a community-developed mod because the community deserves my support.  Not everyone can be paid 150k to make their own mod so I'll be happy to support smaller dev groups.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 2:08 PM, TesACC said:

 I've got 60 negative ones out of 132 total. That the oppinions are mixed is an understatement.

  Reveal hidden contents

"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."

 

It doesn't mean that 45% of people are negative about it. Those who feel disappointed or offended are more likely to write something in the comments than those who are fine with it. Minority always makes more noise.

 

I agree with TesACC, I also think that low-res content for non-owners might make more sales in this situation. Right now we have only more supportive people buy the CDLCs, as I see it. In the proposed variant those supporters will buy it as well, and add to that the amount of people who will buy the DLC because they will be brought into buying that by their community, which will be more likely to use the DLC content.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the success of a DLC shouldn't be measured by its price but by how many players own them compared to the overall player base.

 

If lets say less than 10% of your total players (owners of the base game) got the DLC then no matter how much money it made I wouldn't call it a success because it clearly had a lot more potential market that the DLC failed to appeal to.

 

That being said it is always sad to see so many cool assets and so much content brought by all the DLCs and specially CDLCS that end up never getting used (or perhaps once?) and so it is more or less untouched work because the community will never use that content knowing that by doing so they will be limiting their player base to 10% of the total potential player base.

 

Would be great if BI could come up with a solution for this.

 

I really like the DLCs as early access games model where:

 

- You can buy a DLC at release and enjoy the content right away.

- Or you can wait for a period of time (a year perhaps?) when said DLC becomes part of the Main game at no additional cost but:

- The price of the base game increases a bit because new buyers get more content with it.

 

*That way players are incentive to buy the base game early.

*The community can use the DLC content to create missions and sub mods because sooner or later the DLC will be part of the base game.

*All the community made content for said DLC increase the sales of that DLC during the paid (early access) period and afterwards it increases the sales of the base game when the DLC is added to it.

*Additionally you get lots more media (youtube, twitch, coop streams etc) using DLC assets so you will get FAR more sales during that ONE YEAR period and far more DLC owners in the end... in fact eventually 100% the the player base will own 100% of the DLC content.

 

The best example is how CD PROJECT RED handles DLCs, eventually they release the GOLD/COMPLETE Edition with all the DLC at no additional cost.

 

That level of commitment to their community and to their loyal player base has granted them not only millions but also the reputation of being one of not THE best game making companies on earth.

 

It is probably worth it to follow the example and model of the most loved companies (also Larian Studios is a good example) rather than the most hated ones (EA).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 6:40 PM, Sparker said:

It doesn't mean that 45% of people are negative about it. Those who feel disappointed or offended are more likely to write something in the comments than those who are fine with it. Minority always makes more noise.

 

I agree with TesACC, I also think that low-res content for non-owners might make more sales in this situation. Right now we have only more supportive people buy the CDLCs, as I see it. In the proposed variant those supporters will buy it as well, and add to that the amount of people who will buy the DLC because they will be brought into buying that by their community, which will be more likely to use the DLC content.

 

I Agree with @Sparker!

 

Besides I believe that no CDLC dev would want to see his/her work being underused and not really featured anywhere but a few isolated clan matches once or twice a month during its release month only to fade into eternal obscurity afterwards.

 

Not only that but the real life expectancy of most of these CDLCs are tied to Arma 4 not being released because once that happens... well you all know how many sales these will get at that point...

 

So time is of essence here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the same story on my end. No missions > nobody purchases the thing > no missions > nobody purchases the thing > goto 1.

 

BI made a big slip abandoning the Lite version in favor of annoying watermarks. All of my friends ended up eventually buying all of Arma 2's DLCs because there was a lot of content and they wanted to enjoy it properly.

People are barely even buying Livonia nowadays, I somehow managed to convince one (1) (single) person to buy a GM and with CSLA, despite it seemingly having a great content... forget it.

 

Besides, even if few people buy it many small communities won't play it anyway because they don't want to leave some of their friends outside of the fun.

 

Arma 2 Lite was a brilliant idea on how to break exactly this vicious cycle. Yes, it was implemented a bit confusingly (the game didn't explain why textures are blurry) but the idea worked even with that misstep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 1:05 AM, Sgt.Makarov said:

This can all be summed up easily - "Don't like it? Don't buy it."

Your post can be summed up easily - "Disagree with someone? Don't read them."

 

People enjoy sharing their opinions on things with others, it's a fact of life. No use in trying to shut this fact down with lame arguments.

This especially applies to things that are paid, like CDLC. Want to play capitalist? By all means, be my guest, but remember that customer is always right here.

 

Besides, it's not about getting free stuff. People asking for the Lite version are effectively saying "Help us sell your DLC to all our friends".

I don't want them to give me a copy for free, I don't want them to sell one copy to me, I want them to sell at least 18 copies to all my friends and me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't want them to give me a copy for free, I don't want them to sell one copy to me, I want them to sell at least 18 copies to all my friends and me.

 

This sums it all...

 

We all want BI to sell well and hell even sell all the DLCs to all their players but that won't happen unless they change something...

 

As a moder, scripter and mission maker there is nothing more fulfilling for me than my creations reaching and giving enjoyment to as many players as possible and that would still be the case for me even if I was making a CDLC and/or money with it so I am guessing the same happens to all the other devs out there.

 

So I am pretty sure most if not all CDLC creators would like BI to help their creations reach a wider audience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, semiconductor said:

Exactly the same story on my end. No missions > nobody purchases the thing > no missions > nobody purchases the thing > goto 1.

Remember that dissatisfied people are almost always going to leave feedback, especially if they come to a situation when their gameplay depends on using a vehicle or a gun in a random situation, but they can't because it's locked. From mission makers' point of view the story is this: you add DLC assets -> you get to handle negative rage feedback from people -> you have to remove the DLC content (or in our case we made options where one can choose either to have it or not, but anyway it's more work). Of course as a mod developer aiming to have wider audience coverage, less negative feedback, more fun for the developer team, etc, the choice is to not use DLC content.

Share this post


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

I believe that the success of a DLC shouldn't be measured by its price but by how many players own them compared to the overall player base.

 

If lets say less than 10% of your total players (owners of the base game) got the DLC then no matter how much money it made I wouldn't call it a success because it clearly had a lot more potential market that the DLC failed to appeal to.

 

That being said it is always sad to see so many cool assets and so much content brought by all the DLCs and specially CDLCS that end up never getting used (or perhaps once?) and so it is more or less untouched work because the community will never use that content knowing that by doing so they will be limiting their player base to 10% of the total potential player base.

 

Would be great if BI could come up with a solution for this.

 

I really like the DLCs as early access games model where:

 

- You can buy a DLC at release and enjoy the content right away.

- Or you can wait for a period of time (a year perhaps?) when said DLC becomes part of the Main game at no additional cost but:

- The price of the base game increases a bit because new buyers get more content with it.

 

 

 

BI has already come up with a very good solution, you can get the cDLC content on Steam for free to use in multiplayer if you don't own it.

 

BI has wisely decided not to force Arma owners to have 10's of gigabytes of content on their hard drives that they are never going to use.

 

I can speak for myself, I do not want 50-100 gigs of cold war crap burning up my hard drive.

 

 

12 hours ago, semiconductor said:

Exactly the same story on my end. No missions > nobody purchases the thing > no missions > nobody purchases the thing > goto 1.

 

BI made a big slip abandoning the Lite version in favor of annoying watermarks. All of my friends ended up eventually buying all of Arma 2's DLCs because there was a lot of content and they wanted to enjoy it properly.

People are barely even buying Livonia nowadays, I somehow managed to convince one (1) (single) person to buy a GM and with CSLA, despite it seemingly having a great content... forget it.

 

Besides, even if few people buy it many small communities won't play it anyway because they don't want to leave some of their friends outside of the fun.

 

Arma 2 Lite was a brilliant idea on how to break exactly this vicious cycle. Yes, it was implemented a bit confusingly (the game didn't explain why textures are blurry) but the idea worked even with that misstep.

 

 

BI has been very clear, they are not going to go back to the "lite"  concept. Developers don't want to spend the time to create additional textures, especially low quality ones that make their content look bad.  

 

Again, BI has wisely decided not to force Arma owners to have content that they do not want. Even a "lite" version of the DLC would be 10's of gigs of content.

 

BI has already come up with a very good solution, you can download the cDLC content on Steam for free, what more do people want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

BI has been very clear

It also has been very wrong, that's the catch.

 

Many products, especially digital ones, critically need community around them to survive, let alone be successful. From a game to yet another buggy JS framework, everything needs people around it to survive.

Even Microsoft with its bottomless vaults of gold ingots had to drop the arguably good Windows Phone because they couldn't build a community around it.

 

The current policy not only prevents communities from appearing, it also undermines the one around Arma itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, semiconductor said:

It also has been very wrong, that's the catch.

 

Sorry, but no, it's you that's wrong, and you don't understand why, that's the catch. 

 

It's not 2005 anymore, devs are not going to spend the development time/money to create two sets of textures for their content. Also, DLCs aren't 500 mb anymore, they are 20-40 or more gigabytes, people don't want Arma to use up 200+ gigs of their hard drive. 

 

You don't need a "lite" versions anymore, you can download the content from Steam for free if you want it. This is the perfect solution, you don't split up communities, people can preview the content for free, and Arma owners aren't forced to have content on their hard drives that they do not want.  

 

The concept of a "lite" version of a DLC is obsolete, plain, and simple.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 4:40 PM, Sparker said:

It doesn't mean that 45% of people are negative about it. Those who feel disappointed or offended are more likely to write something in the comments than those who are fine with it. Minority always makes more noise.

 

This x1000..

 

If the younglings that make all the noise would understand the mod development process better, they would better appreciate mod makers' decisions and stop being such whiny bitches when mods are released - pay or free - for their enjoyment.  At the end of the day this is new content for a video game and "those people" act like they had their car stolen or something.  It gets tedious. 

 

It is self-defeating because most mod developers would rather work on the mods vs. spending time dealing with "those people".  After spending literally 100's of hours on mods you just get a feeling of being gut-punched when people instantly complain about things that you deemed not important to the mod, or things that would require an incredible investment of time and effort for a very small return.  After a bunch of "F. U. your mod sucks" posts by "those people" you just feel like it is no longer necessary, so the modding community gets ran off from "those people" and go on to do other things.  Then "those people" complain that there is no more content for a game...

 

1 hour ago, stburr91 said:

It's not 2005 anymore, devs are not going to spend the development time/money to create two sets of textures for their content. Also, DLCs aren't 500 mb anymore, they are 20-40 or more gigabytes, people don't want Arma to use up 200+ gigs of their hard drive.

 

I find it adorable that you think mods of > 200 GB in size are a problem here in good old 2020.  As you say, this is indeed no longer 2005... 200GB HD consumption for a game and its mods is trivial.  Time to reset those expectations!  I also find it adorable that you are so in touch and keenly aware of mod makers' plans. 

 

You do realize we are arguing ON THE INTERNETS about something that hasn't even happened yet... I say we should all buy the content, provide POSITIVE feedback to devs (because you never get it right the first time around) and voice our appreciation for their hard work.  I know I will...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stburr91 said:

devs are not going to spend the development time/money

So the players are not going to spend their money either.

They already aren't from my experience.

 

That is an unfortunate situation for BI as a for-profit organization first and foremost, I'm here just mildly unhappy that all this good new content is going to go to waste like GM and Livonia did.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

I find it adorable that you think mods of > 200 GB in size are a problem here in good old 2020.  As you say, this is indeed no longer 2005... 200GB HD consumption for a game and its mods is trivial.  Time to reset those expectations!  I also find it adorable that you are so in touch and keenly aware of mod makers' plans. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not simply giving my opinion, this is what BI developers have said. BI has said they do not want to force Arma owners to download the cDLCs if they do not want the content, because Arma 3 is already quite bloated as is. 

 

BTW, how big do you think people's ssd drives are? Most people only have 250-500 gig ssd drives. Using up half, or more of someone's drive for a single game isn't something many people want. Now throw in mods, and you can easily have  50-100 gigs on top of that. 

 

I have not idea why people can't understand that forcing people to have cDLC content on their drives they do not want is not a good idea, especially when BI has already come up with the perfect solution of allowing people to download the content from Steam if they want it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for supporting the BI Devs, and mod devs for a DLC for a game i spend 99% of my freetime in and for.

   Thing is for me its a matter of interest in the content that is to be or was released, like a new game, or movie i usually wait a week or til a month has passed

before i make a decision on whether to buy or not, its one of those i got to really want and not make an impulse decision based on how i feel about it (this works for money too 😉

so i wait til the excitement, the newness, etc,. of it settles itself and forget about it and wait til all the hoo haa has passed around it being people talking about it, videos of it ect.

 

    When i come back to check it out again if its something that interests me and or something i can see myself getting into not to just try

it but be involved with as in building missions with it, doing some modding for it, possibly compiling something for it, then i will buy it, so i like to read/watch

the reviews, positive and negative, and weigh the options, also like to see screenshots, some videos maybe, ect,. and make an informed decision without

preconceptions and ideas from others whom had a positive or negative opinions on it.

 

     Thing is a positive opinion, feedback, review what have you on something provides a perspective of whats good, what works, what one could possibly expect so it provides

some "information" to a point from one angle.  The negative opinion, and or perspective provides some information as well as a would be, and goes into possibly

actual issues with the dlc if the reviewer has bought it (hopefully they did, then they would at least have an idea of what they were talking about) so the negative

can raise some possible concerns, or things to think about, like bugs or features, ect,. to me both sides are results, feedback, info, and a different view overall.

 

    Obviously and ideally i would only wish the best for any DLC for my beloved game Arma 3 (that sounded corny 😄 ) and would want it to succeed.

I am familiar with CSLA mod from the previous games, i did try it back then, its pretty cool, but in terms of the subject as in who's fighting who it dont

suit my interests, for some things i dont see the point of such a war whatever it may be, that depends.

        My interests in terms of fighting someone in a mission are specific, im interested in mostly terrorists, guerillas, rebels, cartel, mafia these

to me are bad guys i love killing or fighting against ingame, because they are real threats to everyone.

 

         Czechs in a war against Russia, or something of the sort dont do nothing for me, i like my enemies weak like survivalists who acquired some money, weapons

and upgraded their forces, stole some things, have real threatening plots, but their limited, then i go in there either like a well equipped special forces unit, or at times prefer

to be limited forcing me to step up my game so to speak to complete the mission, thats a fun challenge to me. 

     A well equipped country fighting another well equipped country is just boring cannon fodder to me theres no reason to be fighting, no threat, no contest this is one of the

reasons and decisions on why i held off on buying GM dlc, so it depends on the content and what you can do with it for a mission, as i like to play and build.

           Hope i didn't change the subject to much for what you guys have been talking about, but i do support the idea for a free lite version on steam at least.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, semiconductor said:

So the players are not going to spend their money either.

They already aren't from my experience.

 

That is an unfortunate situation for BI as a for-profit organization first and foremost, I'm here just mildly unhappy that all this good new content is going to go to waste like GM and Livonia did.

 

 

I guess I don't know what you mean by "new content is going to go to waste".

 

Both the Contact, and GM DLCs sold well from my understanding. You can get GM for free from Steam, so a lack of a "lite" version has no impact on the use of it.

 

Any lack in people buying/using the content has much more to do with the fact that the game is 7 years old, and a lack of interest in aliens, or cold war content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stburr91 said:

 

BI has already come up with a very good solution, you can get the cDLC content on Steam for free to use in multiplayer if you don't own it.

 

BI has wisely decided not to force Arma owners to have 10's of gigabytes of content on their hard drives that they are never going to use.

 

I can speak for myself, I do not want 50-100 gigs of cold war crap burning up my hard drive.

 

 

 

 

BI has been very clear, they are not going to go back to the "lite"  concept. Developers don't want to spend the time to create additional textures, especially low quality ones that make their content look bad.  

 

Again, BI has wisely decided not to force Arma owners to have content that they do not want. Even a "lite" version of the DLC would be 10's of gigs of content.

 

BI has already come up with a very good solution, you can download the cDLC content on Steam for free, what more do people want?

 

I am sorry but statistics and numbers do not support your statement that "a mod version for non owners" is a good solution for BI.

 

If it was a good solution you would see far more user adoption and endorsement. (Just check the amount of download of mods/missions based on cDLCs, they are insignificant in comparison to total player base and in comparison to other similar games).

 

And I am not saying that any DLC should force players to download the content mandatory if they don't want to but that doesn't mean the players don't own them. I am pretty much happy about the "optional" characteristics of some DLC.

 

The reality of all is that you cannot argue with the mathematics and statistics of it all and in that regard the CDLC and even some DLCs for that matter have been unsuccessful no matter what you, me or anyone can say. It clearly requires a new line of thought and approach so that DLC content can reach a bigger adoption rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, semiconductor said:

post

I do enjoy the fact how you insult me and brush aside every point I made by simply calling them "lame". Seems like you are the one who doesn't want to read what people have to say because you disagree with them?

If your friends want to try something out - there is the free version of the mod on the workshop, so if what you said is really the case, you'd use that. All of the content is fully usable, and only has a small add on the screen pop up sometimes. Maybe your friends prefer the awful lowpoly models to some adds, which I find very questionable, but if they truly wanted to test something out - they would. Most likely they are simply not interested in Cold War Germany or Czechoslovakia.
 

2 hours ago, LSValmont said:

statistics

What statistics?
"The burden of proof does not lie with me, my friend, but with you."
Everybody and their grandmother I know is really happy that there are no more ass-looking models and textures, and rather people can use things with a small watermark & have mod makers use their time on new content, rather than low poly stuff for the sake of filling up the "lite" version.

For both of you lads, again - the community I am in has GM required - and every new member who comes to play a single operation has to either buy it or use the compatibility patch, and they do. Most buy it too, since they don't bother reading "free version of CDLC here". Nonetheless it kinda disproves your point of "nobody getting GM". Either your commnuity simply isn't interested in cold war stuff, or you are bad at convincing them. Every single OP we host requires us running GM, and very many OPs use assets from that CDLC. Most noteably the T-55's, Leopards, Mi-2's, and webbing. Some weapons are also very much better than any other ones out on the workshop too. Same will happen with CSLA for us.

The CDLCs have plenty of people buying them or downloading them from the workshop - if you think a DLC is good by lots of people buying it, clearly best DLC would be one for Arma Life ))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

I do enjoy the fact how you insult me

Just giving you the taste of your own medicine.

Glad that we now seem to agree that  "Don't like it? Don't buy it!" statement is somewhat insulting to participants of the discussion and doesn't really move it anywhere.

 

32 minutes ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

All of the content is fully usable

Except for the terrain, as far as I'm aware. So you can try the content but you can't play with it because a GM mission will utilize GM terrain, generally speaking.
Throw in the terrain, throw out the vehicle lock and then yea - the annoying pop-up way is good solution as well. As long as people can play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, semiconductor said:

Glad

Never agreed "Dont like it dont buy it" insulting in any way. It is clearly not aimed towards the people who do like it - but to the people who complain about "No new content". Again proving that you didn't read the whole thing. Something, something "Your post can be summed up easily - "Disagree with someone? Don't read them."")).
Anyhow - I wen't out of my way to not be "insulting" to anybody, as since I come from a very different place to most Arma players, regular manner of speaking to me will be extremely insulting and harsh to others. Seems even the extra steps I took sadly weren't enough(

Yes, the map is not usable - that is true, I forgot to mention that, but oh well, some things cost money in the end. Vehicle lock is very easy to come around, both in "legal" ways by having playable AI inside vehicles, or "illegal" ways - AKA glitches/bugs in the vanilla game that I won't detail here for obvious reasons. 
Through now I see where you might be coming form - as we have completely different points of views on how we play the game. Since now you said that you and your community plays the already made GM missions, it makes sense why the free workshop content doesn't work for you, while my community makes our own missions, hence we use different maps so there is no issue for us. So in the end, this comes back to the original point to selling any product - different interests draw different buyers. 

  • 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

×