ArmA2 development policy

[funnyguy1 0]

As many of you know, BlackFoot Studios, are creating their new project relying on what their community says, and it really doesn't matter if they really have any influence in the developers' work, or whether it's just a marketing thing.

"Do not build your community around a game...build your game around a community"

In spite of being a good marketing slogan, certainly attracting new members and potential customers, it might really be a helpful sollution for developer like BIS. It might be useful, unles a developers doen't want to waste time on things other than creating their product. They can just make the game and then sell it after all. There's no need for such kind of "help".

In OFP/ARMA genre of games, however, the community could point the developer in the right directions, by expressing thoughts and wishes e.g. in polls. Official "what you think about it" poll would be much easier to controll and exchange info than countless and chaotic posts/topics sorrounded by tons of spam and pointless discussions.

I'm talking here about, "you prefer A or B", "compromise between C or D", "we can't do A, but whe can do B or C" kind of polls or topics, where developers could ask the community about certain things, and get their answers. Sure, I know that certain things can't be just voted by the community and are strictly developer or publisher-only. Besides it would be naive to think that any developer will adjust his work, or even some part of it to community's needs just because the community want's it.

I dare to say, that even if it would only concern mission and campaign design, or some really minor things, everyone would beneffit from it, and some things could be sorted out together with the community.

Somebody could say that BIS customers aren't only the people from biforum. Does it matter? Every arma/ofp, or arma/ofp friendly site could make the same poll and then share it's results with bis.

I'm not really sure, what the community itslelf thinks about it. Moreover, would be cool if a dev expressed his opinnion about it, as it would require better communication between devs and community for sure.

[NeMeSiS 11]

"Do not build your community around a game...build your game around a community"

Thats impossible, we dont have any modding 'standards' because we cant agree on even the simplest things. And alot of people have a weird perspective on things and very unrealistic expectations. I think that eventually they would be dragged down by the community it wanted to please.

Hell the majority of humanity is retarded anyway and shouldnt be allowed to make even any decision.

[charliereddog 9]

That sounds a really good idea, but the problem you have is that half of this community can't handle rational discussions, and quite frankly from my perspective, BIS couldn't give a rats ass what we think or want. The failure to replace Placebo kind of shows that in my eyes.

Theory 10, practice maybe 2-3?

[DBO_ 0]

Bis always did follow the policy you mention, unfortunately when BIA was born the community split and people known as "BIA EMPLOYEES" were born and more and more NDA `s were signed at which point a third party was born "friends of BIA EMPLOYEES" it all became very secretive and elitist and many people left the ofp/bis scene because of the "DARWARS AFFAIR" .

I dont think bis can ever regain that kind of community until they create a game that is totaly seperate in origin and theme to there commercial product.

[BloodOmen 0]

"Do not build your community around a game...build your game around a community"

Thats impossible, we dont have any modding 'standards' because we cant agree on even the simplest things. And alot of people have a weird perspective on things and very unrealistic expectations. I think that eventually they would be dragged down by the community it wanted to please.

Hell the majority of humanity is retarded anyway and shouldnt be allowed to make even any decision.

Im in agreement with this.

We argue and bicker over small things.

And Everyone wants something different.

In a small way it could work, by listening to reason. And not things like

" Omg you have to add bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... ( ten lines down ) "

[JdB 151]

Bis always did follow the policy you mention, unfortunately when BIA was born the community split and people known as "BIA EMPLOYEES" were born and more and more NDA `s were signed at which point a third party was born "friends of BIA EMPLOYEES" it all became very secretive and elitist and many people left the ofp/bis scene because of the "DARWARS AFFAIR" .

I dont think bis can ever regain that kind of community until they create a game that is totaly seperate in origin and theme to there commercial product.

X2

Too many insiders (friends of developers from either BIS or BIA that get to hear stuff they're not supposed to hear), and people not working for BIS/BIA (forum moderators and such) still being stuck up to their necks in NDAs. Simplest solution ever is to simple not tell them anything, avoids leaking, whining, bitching and unfounded rumours.

The level of civilisation in this ArmA community is pathetic when compared to that of the early OFP community. Sadly times, people and ideas change

[funnyguy1 0]

"Do not build your community around a game...build your game around a community"

Thats impossible

I don't wear blackfoot/purple glasses either. The most interesting thing about that building game thingy, however, is the fact that it's the developer who came up with that idea, and tries to animate, gather the community around it. I forgot to mention in the first post, that it might influence the ofp community too, in the good sense. No matter if it's gonna be groundbreaking for ArmA2's development or not...That's the second advantage of having such kind of development policy.

[jerryhopper 285]

funnyguy1 you have some points.

i have seen it before, publishers sending out poll questions each month, and having the results returned and analyzed.

The slogan they use is nice, but its all about eventually doing what you said.

Fact is, that arma has no good Public Relations and there is no 'community manager' that could at least do something for the game, and the community.

although i know he's coming soon, lets hope the PR machine does a better job for ArmA2 and see what we can do for arma now.

About interfering with the development process :

you can do that if you have 2-300 developers working on a game. i dont think bis even reaches 50 developers on arma.

[shinRaiden 0]

A few points are due here.

First, and I give it as my personal opinion, is that the community here and now is substantially different than 7 years ago, for variety of reasons not entirely involving the BIS created products.

The initial OFP community was in large measure the gleanings of established and mature groups from other games, which gave in my opinion an abnormally high degree of cooperation and collaboration. As those individuals have moved on due to real life obligations, they have been largely supplanted by a new generation of players that have grown up in the generation of Halo Griefers. I personally detest that, but that is the market economics that has transpired. I would even go so far as to suggest that the points raised about the inconsistencies in ArmA and QG content are further indications that this cultural shift has permeated through even the available professional developer pool, and BIS has to respond to the market realities.

Many of us old timers would love it if BIS were to decide to go to a totally niche market focus, and make a finished product that would make OFP feel like Hello Kitty Combat, but A) I don't think it would be economically viable right now, and B) finding the developers with that sort of vision would be imho increasingly difficult.

I also want to point out a few misunderstandings about the BIA situation. Yes it's true that BIA has cherry-picked a number of people from the community and required NDA's for employees, myself included, but that is no different than BIS who has also cherry-picked the community and likewise required NDA's. I would argue that the greater cause of the so-called secrecy is that when you're dev'ing all day for your day job, you go offline after hours to do something else so you can still pretend you have a real life. Nowhere in the NDA is any BIA employee prevented from participating in community content creation, the only stipulation is that company resources, tools, and content may not be used. That means no BIA employee, if they have the free time to still make community content, has an unfair advantage over the the rest of the community.

One of the other tricky points brought up is the whole DARWARS affair. The secrecy about that is not by choice, it was imposed by lawyers in the whole debacle. I don't think the community has accurately guessed what all transpired, nor who all the parties were, but the key point to remember is that the matter was settled. BIS wasn't going to let them off with a resolution that would allow abuse of the community goodwill, and also they weren't going to heap punitive abuse on them to scare away customers from the real fact that the presence of DARWARS has created a lot of popularity for BIA products. So that whole episode really needs to be buried, and people move on.

Lastly though, in regards to the original poster's suggestion that the development be community driven, I think that actually goes counter to the community's best interests. BIS being completely independent, doesn't have to be accountable to anyone for the design of their platform. As a result, they can sensibly progress on the development, without meddling or interference or distraction. They can focus on what they do well, and what they enjoy. They then can create a platform that the community can play with to implement what they would rather see in terms of content.

[.kju 3240]

well said shinRaiden!

[Törni 0]

I'm sorry to say this, but I would not base any game developement on an abstract idea of game community or arguments on a forum. I could analyze the input ofcourse, but use my own judgement how to go on with the project. And remember the larger the target audience the more compromises and simplifications needs to be made.

[DBO_ 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I also want to point out a few misunderstandings about the BIA situation. Yes it's true that BIA has cherry-picked a number of people from the community and required NDA's for employees, myself included, but that is no different than BIS who has also cherry-picked the community and likewise required NDA's. I would argue that the greater cause of the so-called secrecy is that when you're dev'ing all day for your day job, you go offline after hours to do something else so you can still pretend you have a real life. Nowhere in the NDA is any BIA employee prevented from participating in community content creation, the only stipulation is that company resources, tools, and content may not be used. That means no BIA employee, if they have the free time to still make community content, has an unfair advantage over the the rest of the community.

Very valid points and as you have stated you are a BIA employee also very accurate i would assume,so a no brainer to argue that.

But for clarification of a misunderstanding incase you was replying to my post.

1, i was reffering to the fact that pre tools OFP and pre tools ARMA , information was leaked by BIA employees(or the chosenfew pre ofp) to friends be it on ts or by pm, these "FRIENDS of BIA Employees" then so fit to post a pic and or video of there new found ways ,which lead to full inboxes saying "wtf how ?? etc". these friends logically could not say "how hwy etc" which lead to false accusations of elitism and or two tier community, from which people left . this was also made worse with the addition of the "CWR TEAM" in arma because

this then gave another group of "FRIENDS" chance to leak ,suggest there superior knowledge of how things worked you only need to read the old Bas threads and new cwr threads to see evidence of this .

[Törni 0]

Good points. Actually I'm detecting a bit of an attitude as if none new should know or learn anything about this stuff. "It is us and our inside club".

It is supposed to be open (wiki and all), but then on the other hand info is not available, but has to be digged out with many hours of investigation. Well it is the challenge that makes it interesting after all  

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I also want to point out a few misunderstandings about the BIA situation. Yes it's true that BIA has cherry-picked a number of people from the community and required NDA's for employees, myself included, but that is no different than BIS who has also cherry-picked the community and likewise required NDA's. I would argue that the greater cause of the so-called secrecy is that when you're dev'ing all day for your day job, you go offline after hours to do something else so you can still pretend you have a real life. Nowhere in the NDA is any BIA employee prevented from participating in community content creation, the only stipulation is that company resources, tools, and content may not be used. That means no BIA employee, if they have the free time to still make community content, has an unfair advantage over the the rest of the community.

Very valid points and as you have stated you are a BIA employee also very accurate i would assume,so a no brainer to argue that.

But for clarification of a misunderstanding incase you was replying to my post.

1, i was reffering to the fact that pre tools OFP and pre tools ARMA , information was leaked by BIA employees(or the chosenfew pre ofp) to friends be it on ts or by pm, these "FRIENDS of BIA Employees" then so fit to post a pic and or video of there new found ways ,which lead to full inboxes saying "wtf how ?? etc". these friends logically could not say "how hwy etc" which lead to false accusations of elitism and or two tier community, from which people left . this was also made worse with the addition of the "CWR TEAM" in arma because

this then gave another group of "FRIENDS" chance to leak ,suggest there superior knowledge of how things worked you only need to read the old Bas threads and new cwr threads to see evidence of this .

Then that was in violation of the NDA, doesn't matter how much of 'friends' they may be, that isn't sufficient grounds for breach of contract. There have been cases where BIA has been made aware of them, and has dealt with it as appropriate. As you've pointed out, those leaks have multiple problems, including the fact that it inadvertently fuels the whining and flame wars.

For the the CWR project, of which I am only an observer/adviser, public discussion of what they do was curtailed because the community as a whole was unwilling to accept the notion that the internal BIS tools needed to be tested and documented. Given the content of the initial threads indicating the lack of understanding and complications the community is having with the pre-packaged tools where everything is done for you, it is pretty clear that that policy was the best course of action on the part of CWR.

The CWR and beta teams were also cherry-picked for their ability to constructively and collaboratively provide targeted feedback to BIS as to how to make the entire process work in a context outside of BIS's office, and it has taken at least three quarters of a year for a group of a couple dozen or more individuals between the two groups. They were also involved with transcribing the internal documentation so that there would be the large quantity of information in the community wiki for the rest of the community to work with.

Interpretations of this tend to be run totally backwards. The common misguided assumption is that BIS is dividing up and segregating the community. This is the position taken by those too impatient to consider alternative viewpoints other than their own impertinent lusts. On the contrary, BIS needed a tiny group of individuals that could be relied on to give consistent and useful feedback in a manner that BIS could work with. Secondly, the intent was that these individuals would also form the seed nucleus for the next generation of community content developers.

In response to Torni's opinion, the real fact of the matter remains that the available material that exists is pretty much all on the community wiki now. Complaints about the lack of documentation have less to do with alleged conspiracies that in actuality do not exist, and more to do with the simple fact that the sought after documentation does not exist anywhere, not even inside BIS.

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]They were also involved with transcribing the internal documentation so that there would be the large quantity of information in the community wiki for the rest of the community to work with.

Well this might seem unreasonable for a company with limited assets, but in an ideal case the wiki would be up to date at the same time as a new game generation is released. That would show real professionalism. But this is an utopia.

At the bottom of it I do not see conspiracies. Just limited assets and priorisation determined by nescessity.

EDIT: In the begining (last spring) there were huge holes in the wiki.

[bonko the sane 2]

agreed, let BIS do their thing, thats what they are good at, and let the current community bitch and moan, thats also something they(we) are very good at. what we need here is some sort of Iluminated despotism

Now, if the Arma community was similar to the SH IV one, i'd fully agree with the topic starter.

Anyways... BIS has ALWAYS taken care of their customers, listened to their feedback and applied it in long lasting patches and game support. And their products, when not entirely satisfactory to some are, as a rule, modded to acommodate the tastes of everyone.

Call me a fanboy, or whatever tickles your fancy, facts are facts. OFP and Arma are the only games im yet to uninstall (Silent Hunter III and now IV being the other exception)...dozens of others games came and went.

[JdB 151]

Secondly, the intent was that these individuals would also form the seed nucleus for the next generation of community content developers.

Hmm, to me that does sound like a camouflaged "Chosen Few". I understand what you mean, but that last sentence sounded worthy of the "Da Vinci Code"

[funnyguy1 0]

The idea is simple, to simplify the whole suggesting/whishing/moaning and bitching process to a simple poll, maybe without even allowing ppl to post in it, just to get rid of the unnecessary BS in it. There's no way it wouldn't bring some results.

The trick with blackfoot's new projet is that:

1) The devs come up with the idea, which creates illusion of them being open, and ready to community's wishes and suggestions

2) They created a myth around their wip product, so that everybody there thinks it'll be something special and elite. It's hard to make a stupid suggestion there without being laughed. At least, that's how I see it. It's pretty much the same what I saw when I begad to read the game2 suggestions part of this forum.

That, plus the fact that the devs are so close with their community, creates some kind of link between them. People suggest things, or help to chose things, then buy the product. That's simple to me.

I don't think that anyone from the "newbs" here, would vote against a needed feature. Sure compromises will have to be made, but only when BIS doesn't know what will be better. E.g. the reloadable AT4 issue.

Would it be better if they changed the whole AT system for more realistic one, with al the consequences? Just that one issue, could be a theme for couple of polls, created to gather info. Of course BIS should have 100% right to do what they want with it, but that's not the point. Here's the other, more psychological aspect of such development policy. It just attracts people.

edit:

Btw, I'm not satysfied by "it was better, now the community is cr*p" statements. It's not a solution, doesn't change anything.

[Heatseeker 0]

How about a comunity behaviour policy instead?

[dm 9]

How about a comunity behaviour policy instead?

I can get behind that

[jerryhopper 285]

[tomcat_ 0]

Sorry guys but i don't buy into the whole arguement of build a game around a community or community round game...or anything like that...

BIS with OFP and Arma has given us an extremely versatile engine and product that we can do what we want with it. We want it more realistic with no respawns u can do it, you want revives, you want new weapons, you want different behaviour, you want rts gamestyle, anything you want you can make it.

So i guess releasing a kind of open end game is the best someone can do...

[JdB 151]

How about a comunity behaviour policy instead?

I can get behind that

Yeah, but sadly a percentage of the addonmakers and probably over 50% of the players won't

Also how would you implement measures against rude behaviour? You can get banned from this forum, but that's about as far as you can go in a virtual environment...

[Heatseeker 0]

I wasnt being too serious ...

We just have to be realistic here... BIS have thousands of fans, they cant process all the feedback and implement all the sugestions made by the fans, it should be hard enough to create and implement all the things they would want to.

Some people actually think that Arma doesnt have better a.i, damage model and many other features because BIS didnt want to create and implement them, this reveals a complete lack of understanding on their side..

BIS doesnt make their games around a comunity but they definetly take us into consideration, thats why they released the editing tools and this being just a small example of everything they have done for us in the past, BIS comunity is very diverse because we all play around with an editable platform, people play and modify it the way they like it.

BFS's moto might sound nice and all but they are doing the exact oposite, they are trying to make a game and need to generate (some) public interest in it, they are just gathering a comunity around their project.

I dont think the current BIS comunity would be a decent source of ideas or even inspiration, i dont see enough maturaty.

[Guest]

just curious...but lets say some game came up out of the radar...

and it had all the features of arma-vbs2 plus better ai and opensource code along with it. and lets say 200 vehicles, 500 weapons and mods to attach. Lets even say it had a Second life approach were you could purchase more content if you wanted or as an addon maker could sell your work legally, etc etc... and ran very smoothly for low end machines.

would you switch over if you saw it was technically better...?

or is this love for ofp-arma stronger in terms of loyalty than a better game that would leave no room for complaints?

Im neutral to be honest... but can see where there is some draw to something you are familiar with...