Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

What statistics?

BI's own numbers:

Number of Arma 3 sales: 5.5 million base game units sold. (And up to 9.7 million including DLCs).

Arma 3 has 12 paid DLC including both CDLC.

Now apply simple math for some useful statistics:

Average number of DLC sold: (9.7 - 5.5) / 12 = 350.000 copies.

DLC sales over the base game sales: 350.000 / 5.500.000 = 0.063 or 6,3 %

That means that each DLC only reached 6,3% of the player base.

Not only that but the first CDLC for which we have a BI statement of 100.000 copies sold it only reached 0,018 or 1,8% of the player base.

So your claim that the current DLC model is a "successful model for BI" is quite against the statistics.

Now imagine you are giving a lecture at your university for your 100 classmates, all of you paid the same to be in that class and are already in there yet as soon as you are done the teacher asks how many of your classmates understood your lecture and only 2 out of 100 (2%) say that they managed to understand a thing. (only 1.8% if we use BI's CDLC numbers so less than 2%).

You wouldn't call a that a successful lecture now would you? In fact your teacher might suggest you to try another career perhaps.

Share this post

Share on other sites

So is that because of the DLC model or is that because of the DLCs in the first place. Also keep in mind that since day 1 people QQd about high DLC prices ("waah, only 2 new helicopter waah") completely ignoring the free platform updates and other stuff in the process.

Also keep in mind that Arma got a huge sales boost after the whole DayZ thing. So it'd be safe to assume that a lot of these sales are just people getting temporarily into it due to DayZ, but quickly leaving again, because they realized they like Call of Duty more.

Also it would be interesting to see numbers of DLC sales on other games to get a benchmark for comparisons.

Share this post

Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, lexx said:

So is that because of the DLC model or is that because of the DLCs in the first place. Also keep in mind that since day 1 people QQd about high DLC prices ("waah, only 2 new helicopter waah") completely ignoring the free platform updates and other stuff in the process.

Also keep in mind that Arma got a huge sales boost after the whole DayZ thing. So it'd be safe to assume that a lot of these sales are just people getting temporarily into it due to DayZ, but quickly leaving again, because they realized they like Call of Duty more.

Also it would be interesting to see numbers of DLC sales on other games to get a benchmark for comparisons.

You are asking what were the causes of the patient getting sick and also how other patients got sick (or not sick) instead of focusing on actually healing the sick patient.

First apply the medicine and save the patient then figure the causes so it won't happen again otherwise the patient will die while you're doing a market research for months.

Share this post

Share on other sites

So what is this "medicine" you are talking about? Honestly I have no idea what people want. Maybe BI should just sell \$2 weapon skins and be done with it. Seems to work for other games.

On 9/27/2020 at 3:19 AM, LSValmont said:

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.

Here is the problem:

Witcher 3 only has 2 DLCs (not counting the minor stuff they were throwing out in the months after release.. that's just cut stuff from the main game) and it is not a multiplayer game. They have a completely different background while working on new content for the game and much less problems to care about. Could BI throw all existing DLCs into the base game and sell them? Sure, but I'm not sure if Arma3 would still sell as a 50 bucks game 7 years after its release. Maybe in sales, but that's actually going to lose them money.

My take on "is the DLC successful" is that if you make more money from it than you put into, yes, it's been successful.

• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lexx said:

So what is this "medicine" you are talking about? Honestly I have no idea what people want. Maybe BI should just sell \$2 weapon skins and be done with it. Seems to work for other games.

I am sorry but I don't get paid to fix corporate DLC adoption rates.

All I can do is have the situation be known to the company (I am sure they have guys that do the statistics for them so they should be aware of this) and specially for the players so they can understand why moders and mission makers are not using CDLCs content on their workshop projects which then translates into no free advertisement on twitch/youtube since no one is playing on those DLCs content, which translates to a fraction of potential sales as statistics prove is currently happening.

98% of all Arma 3 onwers never get to enjoy nor experience all the hard work and passion CDLC devs put on their projects and that is a shame.

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lexx said:

So what is this "medicine" you are talking about? Honestly I have no idea what people want. Maybe BI should just sell \$2 weapon skins and be done with it. Seems to work for other games.

Here is the problem:

Witcher 3 only has 2 DLCs (not counting the minor stuff they were throwing out in the months after release.. that's just cut stuff from the main game) and it is not a multiplayer game. They have a completely different background while working on new content for the game and much less problems to care about.

Arma 2, just like the Witcher 3, had 2 big DLCs yet BI never did what CD PROYECT RED did with it... so it is a company thing not a "it is a different situation" thing.

Also, both Witcher 3 DLCs are MASIVE. They bring just as if not even more hours of content compared to Arma 3 big DLCs so yes, they are still comparable.

If BI was anything close to CD PROYECT RED, by Witcher 3 standards then APEX and CONTACT should be made into the base game.

Also being a multiplayer game doesn't change a thing since at least half of BI's DLCs are single player focused.

It is funny because that "we find excuses rather than solutions" mentality is what is keeping Arma from destroying their competition. I strongly believe Arma 3 could've easily reached COD franchise sales have they done a few things differently/better.

Some fanboys will "justify" anything while others will try to encourage better practices and not better just for the players but for the devs and the company as a whole.

Share this post

Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LSValmont said:

BI's own numbers:

Number of Arma 3 sales: 5.5 million base game units sold. (And up to 9.7 million including DLCs).

Average number of DLC sold: (9.7 - 5.5) / 12 = 350.000 copies.

DLC sales over the base game sales: 350.000 / 5.500.000 = 0.063 or 6,3 %

That means that each DLC only reached 6,3% of the player base.

Not only that but the first CDLC for which we have a BI statement of 100.000 copies sold it only reached 0,018 or 1,8% of the player base.

I'm not sure this maths is entirely fair, not representative of the article linked!

The relevant quote from the article is:

Quote

During 2019, copies of Arma 3 – among with its various DLCs – topped 2.6 million units sold. Showcasing the series’ enduring relevance, and bringing the number of lifetime base game sales to over 5.5 million and DLC sales up to 9.7 million.

That suggests a lifetime total of 9.7 million DLC copies alone, with an additional 5.5million from the base game - something reinforced by the infographic on that page.

At a minimum, this suggests that 9,700,000 / 12 = 800,000 sales per DLC, assuming an equal distribution (which would be very, very surprising, I'd love to see a per-DLC breakdown).

Not only this, we saw 1.9 millions DLCs sold in 2019 alone - suggesting that the DLC market is still continuing to thrive for Arma 3. Now, some of this will inevitably be due to all of the sales, and that the number of DLCs sold has increased over time. However, this means roughly 1/5th of all DLC sales by quantity occurred last year. Not bad, for a 7 year old game!

Now, let's suppose 100,000 copies of GM sold (which doesn't include ANY of 2020, only 2019, so it's only around half a year of sales numbers). At their lowest ever price (\$10 USD), so GM has made at least \$1,000,000 in gross revenue. Steam takes a 30% cut, and BI's cut is 50/50 according to their own page, ,meaning BI made \$350,000 and the GM team made \$350,000 - at a *minimum*.

Now, Vertexmacht, the team behind GM, is reportedly a team of two developers (https://arma3.com/news/report-in-vertexmacht-global-mobilization), although I'd prefer a better source for that, as I don't know who else was involved behind the scenes. However, that suggests a comfortable \$175,000 per team member, at a minimum. Plus, \$350,000 isn't a bad cut for Bohemia, all things considered.

Now, let's consider sales of normal DLCs - of which there were 1.9 million confirmed sales. Now, let's assume each DLC costs just \$3 - that they've all been bought on sale, or as part of a bundle. Which seems like a reasonable to low estimate. Now, let's say there were 1.8 million normal DLC sales, minus GM's cut. That's \$5.4 million, minus steam's cut, \$3.78 million in 2019 alone.

I'd argue that's not a bad year, personally! Though CDLC sales are definitely low compared to copies of the game sold, the overall money made by both developers and Bohemia really isn't bad! Especially considering 100,000 sales was only in 8 months, and it's now been 17 months.

Apologies for the length of this, but I felt the conclusions drawn by the quoted post were somewhat misleading, and wanted to provide an alternative view of the stats.

• 3
• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Spoffy said:

I'm not sure this maths is entirely fair, not representative of the article linked!

The relevant quote from the article is:﻿

That suggests a lifetime total of 9.7 million DLC copies alone, with an additional 5.5million from the base game - something reinforced by the infographic on that page.

At a minimum, this suggests that 9,700,000 / 12 = 800,000 sales per DLC, assuming an equal distribution (which would be very, very surprising, I'd love to see a per-DLC breakdown).

Not only this, we saw 1.9 millions DLCs sold in 2019 alone - suggesting that the DLC market is still continuing to thrive for Arma 3. Now, some of this will inevitably be due to all of the sales, and that the number of DLCs sold has increased over time. However, this means roughly 1/5th of all DLC sales by quantity occurred last year. Not bad, for a 7 year old game!

Now, let's suppose 100,000 copies of GM sold (which doesn't include ANY of 2020, only 2019, so it's only around half a year of sales numbers). At their lowest ever price (\$10 USD), so GM has made at least \$1,000,000 in gross revenue. Steam takes a 30% cut, and BI's cut is 50/50 according to their own page, ,meaning BI made \$350,000 and the GM team made \$350,000 - at a *minimum*.

Now, Vertexmacht, the team behind GM, is reportedly a team of two developers (https://arma3.com/news/report-in-vertexmacht-global-mobilization), although I'd prefer a better source for that, as I don't know who else was involved behind the scenes. However, that suggests a comfortable \$175,000 per team member, at a minimum. Plus, \$350,000 isn't a bad cut for Bohemia, all things considered.

Now, let's consider sales of normal DLCs - of which there were 1.9 million confirmed sales. Now, let's assume each DLC costs just \$3 - that they've all been bought on sale, or as part of a bundle. Which seems like a reasonable to low estimate. Now, let's say there were 1.8 million normal DLC sales, minus GM's cut. That's \$5.4 million, minus steam's cut, \$3.78 million in 2019 alone.
﻿
I'd argue that's not a bad ﻿year, pe﻿rsonally! Though CDLC sales are definitely low compared to ﻿copies of the game sold, the overall money made by both developers and Bohemia really isn't bad! Especially considering 100,000 sales was only in 8 months, and it's now been 17 months.

Apologies for the length of this, but I felt the conclusions drawn by the quoted post were somewhat misleading, and wanted to provide an alternative view of the stats.

Hey, great post and needed length so that everyone can understand.

If that 9.7 million is DLC alone then the numbers are much better indeed but still low, bringing the adoption rate from 6,3 % to 14,6 %. [ (9.7 / 12) / 5.5 ]

Money wise it was always clear that even CDLCs were quite profitable but as even you pointed out the CDLCs adoption situation is so low compared to the copies of the base game that a quite profitable endeavor could've been a LOT more profitable. In Economics that is called the Opportunity Costs and in BI's case they could've made so much more if they understood that concept.

Thanks to you we can narrow down the issue to one affecting CDLCs mostly rather than all Arma 3 DLCs.

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LSValmont said:

Hey, great post and needed length so that everyone can understand.

If that 9.7 million is DLC alone then the numbers are much better indeed but still low, bringing the adoption rate from 6,3 % to 14,6 %. [ (9.7 / 12) / 5.5 ]

Money wise it was always clear that even CDLCs were quite profitable but as even you pointed out the CDLCs adoption situation is so low compared to the copies of the base game that a quite profitable endeavor could've been a LOT more profitable. In Economics that is called the Opportunity Costs and in BI's case they could've made so much more if they understood that concept.

Thanks to you we can narrow down the issue to one affecting CDLCs mostly rather than all Arma 3 DLCs.

Thanks for the courteous response!

You're right, that overall adoption rate does seem quite low, compared to the overall player count. And your point regarding opportunity cost is an excellent one. However, I'd actually suggest that rather than looking at overall player count, it would be better to approximate the current regular player count, rather than total sales. I.e - How many people who bought Arma, actively play Arma?

Unfortunately, that number is really, really hard to figure out - at least, I couldn't find any stats on it. So let's come up with an upper bound instead. What's the most players that could realistically be playing Arma in 2019?

According to steam charts, Arma peaked at around 24,000 players this month in 2019. Based on that, let's produce an upper bound.

Let's assume that every player of Arma plays exactly once a month - in other words, that's 24,000 different people every day. Somewhat ridiculous, but that's the whole point of an upper bound - it shouldn't be reached.
Under that logic, we get around 720,000 unique Arma 3 players a year, from a core of "regulars" that play once a month, for an entire year.
Now, let's consider the 720,000 copies of Arma 3 sold in 2019. (Note: I'm pretty sure those numbers being the same is just a coincidence, try not to read too much into it!).

That gives us a theoretical upper bound of 1,440,000 (1.44 million) players in 2019, by adding these two numbers together (which itself is nuts - it assumes that of all the people that bought Arma, none of them played!)

Based on this bound, we can see 100,000 / 1,440,000 sees GM purchased by at least 7% of active Arma players.

But wait - GM was only released in April! That's only 8 months of sales. Now, let's scale the total Arma copies solid down by 33%, since 8 months is only 66% of the year (again, this maths is very, very rough, I doubt sales are equally distributed over the year. They'll most likely be clustered around sales).

That brings the copies sold in those 8 months down to 475,000 copies, for a total active player count of 1,195,000 (1.19 million). That sees GM sell to around 8% of the active Arma playerbase.

It also sees total DLC sales in 2019 go to 160% of the active playerbase (1.9m DLC sales in 2019). But wait, that's over 100%! At a guess, because most people aren't buying just 1 DLC, particularly if they're purchasing bundles or in sales. Given the Apex edition includes 5 DLCs, and went down to \$9 last year...  it seems very plausible we could see over 100% DLC sales.

Now, I'm not sure how accurate my maths is likely to be overall here. The total active player count could be much, much more volatile than I suggested, making the upper bound higher. Take it all with a pinch of salt.
The key point is: I don't think the target market size is likely to 5.5 million, I *suspect* it's less than 1/3rd of that. But hey, I could well be very wrong! 🙂

Overall though, I do agree with the sentiment that CDLC conversation rate in 2019 does seem relatively low. Though we'd need to see something like Contact's sales numbers to actually get a comparison.

• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spoffy said:

Overall though, I do agree with the sentiment that CDLC conversation rate in 2019 does seem relatively low. Though we'd need to see something like Contact's sales numbers to actually get a comparison.

Yeah, all your numbers and logic look quite solid and no one can argue against facts and mathematics 😉

Would be awesome to get the CONTACT DLC numbers as that would make our study so much easier and also even more meaningful.

I just hope BI comes up with a way to increase CDLC adoption rates and so we can get more content for them in the form of missions and submods which will generate lots of youtube and other media coverage.

Share this post

Share on other sites

stburr91 some flaws in your arguments:

1) Creating lower res textures can be done with a BI tool (pal2pace) via command line in a matter of minutes. One could even offer a smaller download as result / would make the integration into the base game less of a "burden" (download/HDD/SSD wise).

2) The CDLC compatibility pack is in the current form practically useless, besides trying stuff in Arsenal before you buy, or otherwise to make any use of it, you have to use additional mods as player(s) with the CDLC content for the enemies (or friendly AI). Also you need to use a 3rd party terrain or BI terrains. In simple words it create a huge entry barrier.

Adoption rate matters as it means sales both for the CDLC developers and BI.

One cannot compare BI DLCs to CDLCs one-to-one as:

1) Way earlier in the product life cycle

2) Even though BI acts as publisher and provides its promotion channels, the outreach is not the same. In addition CDCLs are seen way more critical as "paid mods".

3) DLCs have the Arma 3 base game as platform - CDLCs do not (really) unless they use the same 2035 future setting.

4) CDLCs are an optional download

5) Steam sales matter a huge deal, but also mean considerable less revenue per copy sold

6) CDLCs are not supported in the Arma 3 launcher and the ingame server browser for MP play (aka you should only see servers for a CDLC when you have it selected)

The Arma 2 LITE approach was flawed as:

1) Not (properly) communicated - Arma 3 did way way better with the new strategy

2) It aligned with the dayz mod hype

3) The quality reduction was far too much (128x128) and also affected audio (bad choice)

The bottom line is the current CDLC approach suffers considerable from three issues:

1) No trial/demo - people might buy it if they would be able to check it out ingame first hand themselves in a meaningful way

2) Discourages group/MP use big time

3) Due to low adoption and very critical community reception there is low incentive to be supported by the modding community as outlined by Sparker

• 5
• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, .kju said:

The Arma 2 LITE approach was flawed as:

1) Not (properly) communicated - Arma 3 did way way better with the new strategy

2) It aligned with the dayz mod hype

3) The quality reduction was far too﻿ much (128x128) and also affected audio (bad choice﻿)﻿

﻿﻿

The bottom line is the current CDLC approach suffers considerable from three issues:

1) No trial/demo - people might buy it if they would be able to check it out ingame first hand themselves in a meaningful way

2) Discourages group/MP use big time

3) Due to low adoption and very critical community reception ﻿there is low incentive to be supported by the modding community as outlined by Sparker﻿

Lite
1) Already solved with better PR and ingame/steam ads.

2) Not a thing anymore, DayZ is its own thing.

3) Can be dealt with by making it 256x256 or whatever BI deems reasonable and not touching anything other than textures which as was stated above, takes only minutes to do. It still has to be noticeably worse, otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to buy it. Just needs to be worse in the looks department, not in functionality.

Current

1) Can be dealt with by reintroducing Lite style versions, partially dealt with by Compatibility pack in GM's case. Depends on what you define as meaningful.

2) Can be dealt with by reintroducing Lite style versions

3) Can be dealt with (partially) by reintroducing Lite style versions

As people mentioned above, what GM Compatibility pack is is NOT considered a Lite version. Inclusion of map can be argued about but vehicle lock is an absolute no-go.

Also, its hidden in workshop, you need to know that it exists and that you need to look for it there. Ideally Lite versions should be placed in the shop just below the real deals and treated like any other DLC.

• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites

I'm just going to say it.

If people are asking for optional lite versions to test drive gear, no the current preview system does NOT allow this or just screen spams the crap out of MP games, and it converts even 1% of the total population of ARMA 3 users, that is still  90,000 x \$xxx.

How many  other ways  can you make that kind of money by throwing out free low res crappy textured models into a game? Not many people can claim that....

Share this post

Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LSValmont said:

Failed math class

Using your less than questionable analogy - if you have a class with 100 students registered, all of them won't come to the lecture. Lets say 10 will, and of those 10, 2 will understand the teacher, and those 2 will be successful at what they learn. Then 2 more will understand under the courses time and also succeed in the class, while 90 students wouldn't have even tried.

Retarded analogies aside - Lets use actual statistics:
https://steamcharts.com/app/107410
https://steamdb.info/app/107410/
You think that Arma's 5.5 million players play arma? At the highest ever Arma had 56k players, and thats the peak. Average would be around 40-45k back then. Today, Arma peaks at 20-25k a day. Even without the fact that this is only the peak, without the fact that average is way lower, it's already not 5.5 million. Lets now double it to try and strengthen your argument - because there are two main places people play Arma - each side of the ocean, America and Europe. We now have an assumed daily average of 45k. The 100k CDLC's GM sold from it's release in May until when ever this magical number of 100k sales "statement by BI" that you provided no source or proof on is - thats double the average amount of players.
In reality there is no real way to calculate how many people own or dont own the GM CDLC from the average players we have, anything we can do is speculate. But! - every owned of the game isn't "the playerbase" - it's absolutely anybody who owns it. Playerbase is the people who actually play the game. So even with the grossly overestimated average number, without any other fail factors, and again assuming your numbers are real - thats a CDLC that isn't reaching "1.8%" of the playersbase, that is reaching ~200%.
And again - sadly, the biggest failure of any calculation for counting Arma players and doing these things is that, by far, the biggest part of Arma players that exist aren't Arma players, but lifers. Personal guess is 50% of the daily players is that plague, guess comes from what is viewed on twitch/youtube when it comes to arma content, and amount of subscriptions life uploads get on the workshop before they are instantly taken down.

4 hours ago, TesACC said:

vehicle ﻿﻿lock

Again, for those who really want to - it can be easily circumvented, and not "illegally".

4 hours ago, TesACC said:

hidden in workshop

BI went out of their way to teach people how to use the workshop when they created the 2035 P90 mod. If you are an Arma player, or any similiar type of game that is built around mods - you are supposed to know how to use the workshop. Everything wont be fed on the plate to you on the steam page, but even then - in the latest CSLA CDLC announcement they specifically stated that the CDLC will have a compatibility patch on the workshop just like GM did. But if somebody didn't bother reading that, I doubt they would bother reading the steam store page.

Share this post

Share on other sites

> Again, for those who really want to - it can be easily circumvented, and not "illegally".
Do more than half people know? Or maybe more than 10%? I guess that most arma players don't know how to do that.  And it's the general case which is more important.

> Also, its hidden in workshop, you need to know that it exists and that you need to look for it there.
It's not really hidden but it's buried under so much text at the Steam description page. I agree that it should have been listed above all that text somewhere, or even better in the DLC list somewhere as TesaCC suggested.

Share this post

Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sparker said:

more

All it takes is one person in a community to know, and everybody will know. Since anybody who has ever used the editor without owning DLC's probably knows that you can put down something otherwise locked, and start the mission as said vehicle. Also by using AI unit switching. And those who aren't in medium-to-large communities, most likely don't make or don't have custom made missions, so that knowledge wouldn't help them much anyhow.

Share this post

Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

Since anybody who has ever used the editor without owning DLC's probably knows that you can put down something otherwise locked, and start the mission as said vehicle.

So basically BI put a restriction in just for the sake of putting a restriction in and making players and mission maker's life harder.

The point wasn't to prevent players from getting into vehicles as you can do it anyway, the point was to put spokes into players' wheels.

BI seems to have a hard time realizing that actively confusing their potential customers and annoying existing ones isn't going do to them any favors.

• 1

Share this post

Share on other sites

i can't understand what the thread turned into...

a. BI DLC system won't change for A3. Neither will the cDLC system. Not even sure why anyone would think differently.

b. the number of active players (per month / per year) are not nearly as high as some of you suggested. Not even close.

c. most of the DLCs are bought during sales and during early release. That 100k supposed GM sale is a lot better than one (as in myself) would have expected. For various reasons, i wouldn't expect any cDLCs to sell above 100-150k units, no matter of the quality and content provided (life gameplay specific content included). Last info i got was for 2019, and that was around 600k unique users per year (yes, with an peak of 25k a day simultaneously)

d. how did this turn into a discussion about the DLCs, when it is about the cDLCs which is handled even differently.

Imagine an A2 Lite version for any cDLCs, even with automated tools in place to save the time - most of what people buy it for, is content, not the campaign, neither for the missions provided.

You gonna end up the same way A2 DLCs ended up - with poor sale numbers because the content was perceived as horseshit. Yes, you can add all the info about the fact that textures/models/sounds are lower quality, but at the end of the day, how does the real thing look like? And no, i don't think you can't really do that these days, no matter how hard you'd want to, without a even worse result.

Not to say if anyone would want to do that for the terrain, you'll end up with an actual advantage (performance and competitiveness) for the lite user, because that's how RV engine works.

Now, it seems the thread goes around the points over and over again
1. why pay for content when mods provide that for free

- that's a general downside of trying to sell content without feature updates (which is where there is a big difference by comparison with official DLCs)

- pretty late (end of life) start for the cDLC program

2. why are the cDLCs not part of the main game, at least partly

- because these 2, and i expect future ones as well, are well outside the existing game loore, similar to contact

3. why make cDLCs when multiplayer communities will not use that

- some multiplayer communities will actually use that, if mandatory

- not everything is multiplayer to begin with

And the newest thing - paid content should be provided/added for free to the main game free of charge after xx months from official release. The comparison in itself with CD Project RED is funny, yet idiotic.

• 6

Share this post

Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PuFu said:

﻿ And the newest thing - paid content should be provided/added for free to the main game free of charge after xx months from official release. The comparison in itself with CD Project RED is funny, yet idiotic.﻿﻿

Yes, that is so idiotic that even BI has implemented the system for their own Art of War DLC, which will feature content made by BI that will be paid for XX time and then will be incorporated for free into the main game.

And that suggestion was for BI's DLCs and not the CDLC because the CDLCs are huge and not integrated into the base game like the DLCs are.

Remember that context is very important, and we where talking at that time about how to make DLC content used more in missions/mods in the workshop and a solution such as that, just like CD PROJECT RED does with their games or like BI is doing with ART OF WAR could incentivize moders and mission makers to include and promote DLCs a lot more into their work and which in turn will make the DLCs far more visible in social media = more sales.

I do agree that the thread is very hard to follow because some have a tendency to derail things or take comments and suggestions out of context or even use words like "BI SHOULD" and I never said that BI should do anything, I gave Ideas on what they COULD DO based on the strategies that have worked for other companies that is all. It is better to give constructive suggestions than just promoting the "DO NOTHING", "EVERYTHING IS PERFECT", "EVEN BETTER THAN EXPECTED", "IT IS TOO LATE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS" mentality that if we all had that mentality we would be living on an AVERAGE world with no progress and no innovations at all.

Share this post

Share on other sites
15 hours ago, .kju said:

1) Creating lower res textures can be done with a BI tool (pal2pace) via command line in a matter of minutes. One could even offer a smaller download as result / would make the integration into the base game less of a "burden" (download/HDD/SSD wise).

2) The CDLC compatibility pack is in the current form practically useless, b﻿esides trying stuff in Arsenal before you buy, or otherwise to make any use of it, you have to use additional mods as player(s) with the CDLC content for the enemies (or friendly AI). Also you need to use a 3rd party terrain or BI terrains. In simple words it create a huge entry barrier.

Adoption rate matters as it means sales both for the CDLC developers and BI.

One cannot compare BI DLCs to CDLCs one-to-one as:

1) Way earlier in the product life cycle

2) Even though BI acts as publisher and provides its promotion channels, the outreach is not the same. In addition CDCLs are seen way more critical as "paid mods".

3) DLCs have the Arma 3 base game as platform - CDLCs do not (really) unless they use the same 2035 future setting.

4) CDLCs are an optional download

5) Steam sales matter a huge deal, but also mean considerable less revenue per copy sold

6) CDLCs are not supported in the Arma 3 launcher and the ingame server browser for MP play (aka you should only see servers for a CDLC when you have it selected)

The Arma 2 LITE approach was flawed as:

1) Not (properly) communicated - Arma 3 did way way better with the new strategy

2) It aligned with the dayz mod hype

3) The quality reduction was far too much (128x128) and also affected audio (bad choice)

The bottom line is the current CDLC approach suffers considerable from three issues:

1) No trial/demo - people might buy it if they would be able to check it out ingame first hand themselves in a meaningful way

2) Discourages group/MP use big time

3) Due to low adoption and very critical community reception there is low incentive to be supported by the modding community as outlined by Sparker

Finally someone with the clarity of mind that was needed.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yet it saddens me that even with your meticulous explanation some will still not get it and continue arguing in favor on just keeping everything a is.

I guess it is a normal human behavior at some point in our lives to resent change in any form even if it will greatly benefit the community.

Share this post

Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PuFu said:

Everything

This 100%!
There is no point in people complaining when no change will be made. It seems people are complaining just for the sake of complaining, especially because it's before the content is even released.

5 hours ago, PuFu said:

active players are not nearly as high

Yes, you are correct - I had boosted the number to ridiculous amounts as proof how the "nobody buying the CDLC" point even then makes no sense at all, much less for the real, way lower, number.

7 minutes ago, LSValmont said:

resent change

So.. what you are saying is that people who don't like BI's new system rather than the old don't like change..?

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

This 100%!
There is no point in people complaining when no change will be made. It seems people are complaining just for the sake of complaining, especially because it's before the content is even released.

Yes, you are correct - I had boosted the number to ridiculous amounts as proof how the "nobody buying the CDLC" point even then makes no sense at all, much less for the real, way lower, number.

So.. what you are saying is that people who don't like BI's new system rather than the old don't like change..?

This post is just a huge WHAT? Barely answerable to be honest.

1) You quoted a single word "everything" from Pufu and came up with the conclusion that people here are "just complaining"?

In reality most of us posting here are pointing out things that we think could be done by BI to improve user adoption of DLCs and CDLCs mainly. Those are called suggestions. 😉

2) Using the active players analogy is incorrect since we are also looking at WHOLE DLC sales and not just active players DLCs purchases. In all analysis you need to compare apples to apples and not oranges to apples. Just a bunch of posters came up with the active players thing (and not us doing the % analysis) and most of those posters are just clearly trying to derail the thread into a nonsense mess so that their point of view is not questioned/refuted easily but it is a cheap strategy that is more common among politicians rather than a gaming community really.

3) I never talked about any OLD/NEW system... so you are basically perhaps trying to put the words of other posters into my mouth which is never a correct way of defending your points.

In any case I suggest you use the quotation system to back up anything you say other people "said" otherwise you end up looking like you just want to damage the image of the person you are referring to without any evidential substance to your arguments.

Share this post

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LSValmont said:

huge WHAT

Yet you answered within an hour. Wasn't so complicated, was it?

1 hour ago, LSValmont said:

1

I said that I 100% agree with what he said. Then I added that it seems people are refusing to understand that BI has stated - a change will not happen, so there is no point in complaining, other than.. that.

1 hour ago, LSValmont said:

2

Thread - "csla-its-prognosed-low-sales-and-future-of-creator-dlcs" and identical/similar stuff people said about GM.
My post - Proof how GM had good sales, was liked by many, and how CSLA will not have "low sales"
Most basic form of arguing when lacking an argument is insulting the opposition and claiming their argument is wrong because "it's not related". Something a few seem to keep doing here.

1 hour ago, LSValmont said:

3

"﻿ I﻿ guess it is a normal human behavior at some point in our lives to resent change in any form even if it will greatly benefit the community." - I can't "damage the image of the person" anymore than what the words they use let me.

I made my arguments above. Post responding to PuFu first established that I agree with him completely, and pointed out some more issues with the opposition - then explained why I used such a ridiculous number in my example even through I knew they are wrong.
Then right before posting I noticed your post, in which you where contradicting yourself completely. So in good internet fashion I had to point it out.
In the previous posts I wrote, I made sure to write them out so 'everybody' would understand it, but last post was just a quick reply that wasn't meant to be very informative.

Share this post

Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Makarov said:

My post - Proof how GM had good sales, was liked by many, and how CSLA will not have "low sales"
Most basic form of arguing when lacking an argument is insulting the opposition and claiming their argument is wrong because "it's not related". Something a few seem to keep doing here.

Well, all I can say is that "good sales" is subjective and that you and some additional posters here consider that GM sales are good enough and if the IRON COURTAIN CDCL reaches those numbers then it could also be considered a success.

Others such as myself consider that the CDLCs adoption rates could've been higher and can still be made higher in the future with a few tweaks from BI's.

You guys made your point and we also made our point by showing some numbers and statistics but in the end no amount of math will change your perspective.

On the other hand I am willing to accept that the current model is the only model that BI should use if I get some hard proof of that other than your perception.

I am pretty sure both parties, BI and the CDLCs devs are quite happy by the results otherwise any future CDLC would've been canceled.

On the other hand content creators from the community do wish that the CDLCs had a bigger audience so doing missions and content in those theaters is worth it.

Whatever the case both sides present valid arguments and we should ultimately leave this to BI's gurus to figure out their best strategy going forward regarding CDLCs

Share this post

Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LSValmont said:

Yes, that is so idiotic that even BI has implemented the system for their own Art of War DLC, which will feature content made by BI that will be paid for XX time and then will be incorporated for free into the main game.

you might wanna re-read what art of war DLC was about. In theory it is suppose to be a collaboration (via some sort of contest) between players and developers. Unfortunately, yet expected, there were very few people submitted 3d models for this contest, and none were up to BI standards, so they choose to do their very own.

it's an exception, not a rule, it is also partly for a good cause. Stop comparing apples with pies

Quote

And that suggestion was for BI's DLCs and not the CDLC because the CDLCs are huge and not integrated into the base game like the DLCs are.

BI is a business, part of the DLCs content is already implemented in the base game,  just not everything

Quote

Remember that context is very important, and we where talking at that time about how to make DLC content used more in missions/mods in the workshop and a solution such as that, just like CD PROJECT RED does with their games or like BI is doing with ART OF WAR could incentivize moders and mission makers to include and promote DLCs a lot more into their work and which in turn will make the DLCs far more visible in social media = more sales.

Unlike other games, most modders here create their own content, rather than just add some new textures to the vanilla content. I don't see how content being in the main game could incentivize more sales, but whatever.

Quote

I do agree that the thread is very hard to follow because some have a tendency to derail things or take comments and suggestions out of context or even use words like "BI SHOULD" and I never said that BI should do anything, I gave Ideas on what they COULD DO based on the strategies that have worked for other companies that is all. It is better to give constructive suggestions than just promoting the "DO NOTHING", "EVERYTHING IS PERFECT", "EVEN BETTER THAN EXPECTED", "IT IS TOO LATE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS" mentality that if we all had that mentality we would be living on an AVERAGE world with no progress and no innovations at all.

Good grief, hyperbole much? If you think things can be changed this late in the development of this game who is on a backburner, without a dedicated development team, then you obviously have no idea about how game development works...

11 hours ago, LSValmont said:

I guess it is a normal human behavior at some point in our lives to resent change in any form even if it will greatly benefit the community.

i also love when people express their own believes in such a way that feels their doing the humanity a favor for even typing these ideas.

9 hours ago, LSValmont said:

1) You quoted a single word "everything" from Pufu and came up with the conclusion that people here are "just complaining"?

In reality most of us posting here are pointing out things that we think could be done by BI to improve user adoption of DLCs and CDLCs mainly. Those are called suggestions. 😉

You can definitely make suggestions, but realistically it might happen for a future title, not this one. If you think it should happen for this one, then it's called bitching indeed.

Quote

2) Using the active players analogy is incorrect since we are also looking at WHOLE DLC sales and not just active players DLCs purchases. In all analysis you need to compare apples to apples and not oranges to apples. Just a bunch of posters came up with the active players thing (and not us doing the % analysis) and most of those posters are just clearly trying to derail the thread into a nonsense mess so that their point of view is not questioned/refuted easily but it is a cheap strategy that is more common among politicians rather than a gaming community really.

Actually, (and i have been there myself), when trying to figure out if making a pitch for a made from scratch cDLC is worth the investment (unlike GM and CSLA that have been  in the works for years, and most/part of the  content existed in some way or form), you will focus on the active player base, not the entire number of game sales, because a lot of these are players who moved on, or bought the game at a high discount and don't actually use that. This is valid for any product out there, not just ArmA3. And as i said, 7 years after it's official release, the number of players that are involved around here is much much smaller than the total number of game sales.

Quote

3) I never talked about any OLD/NEW system... so you are basically perhaps trying to put the words of other posters into my mouth which is never a correct way of defending your points.

In any case I suggest you use the quotation system to back up anything you say other people "said" otherwise you end up looking like you just want to damage the image of the person you are referring to without any evidential substance to your arguments.

you might wanna grow a thicker skin, you seem to get things personal when people are disagreeing with you.

6 hours ago, LSValmont said:

Well, all I can say is that "good sales" is subjective and that you and some additional posters here consider that GM sales are good enough and if the IRON COURTAIN CDCL reaches those numbers then it could also be considered a success.

It is subjective to the amount of time spent on it, especially if done from scratch. Again as i said, it's also related to an actual number of expected sales in relation to a number of possible customers, and these possible customers are NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, everyone that owns A3, no matter how much you wanna use that number.

Quote

Others such as myself consider that the CDLCs adoption rates could've been higher and can still be made higher in the future with a few tweaks from BI's.

The few tweaks you are talking about are not gonna happen for Arma3, which is something you are, for whatever reasons, unable to grasp.

Quote

You guys made your point and we also made our point by showing some numbers and statistics but in the end no amount of math will change your perspective.

i am not gonna argue that you're math is wrong, but will say it is 100% useless.

Quote

On the other hand I am willing to accept that the current model is the only model that BI should use if I get some hard proof of that other than your perception.

you won't, because along this entire thread, you were unable to move an inch from your own view.

Quote

I am pretty sure both parties, BI and the CDLCs devs are quite happy by the results otherwise any future CDLC would've been canceled.

BI has no reason not to be happy, they get 30% cut of whatever sales cDLCs make without doing the main legwork. the 2 cDLCs made so far have been in development for quite a bit of time, best case scenario they would have released the content as mods, worst case they wouldn't have seen the light of day. so the cDLC was an incentive of sorts. They get some income out of it, more than the nil income any other mod release does. It's left to be seen if the cDLCs that are gonna be made up from scratch, with a lot more people in the dev team, and with a higher expectancy of monetary returns, are gonna be happy with the resulted sales versus their prognosed sales.

Quote

On the other hand content creators from the community do wish that the CDLCs had a bigger audience so doing missions and content in those theaters is worth it.

really? are you one of the creators in this community? or are you speaking for others just because?

Quote

Whatever the case both sides present valid arguments and we should ultimately leave this to BI's gurus to figure out their best strategy going forward regarding CDLCs

again, there is nothing to figure out, because the current system, as explained before, is NOT gonna change

• 2
• 1
• 1

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

×

• Clubs