Make Arma series under subscription ?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho BIS said somewhere that ArmA II will be their last milsim game.

Dont they like to release Carrier Command: Gaea Mission as soon as possible?

One said that DLC and all those paid subscriptions are very good if you like to milk your customers. ;)

Another question is: How many people like to have a save + legal copy of the fullversion and dont like to be bothered with online activations/restrictions?

[todayskiller 10]

Sounds horrible...why Don't you go play your little WOW non tactical game that costs 15 bucks a month, we will stick to this.

[phunkmaz 3]

Sounds horrible...why Don't you go play your little WOW non tactical game that costs 15 bucks a month, we will stick to this.

Looks like you've never heard of WWIIOnline ;)

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

Looks like you've never heard of WWIIOnline ;)

Go play WWIIOnline! :party:

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

dumb idea.

Games like this should be paid for once on release date and not on a subscription basis. EvE and WoW (and other mmos) give you characters that get better slowly as the story develops and you meet new people etc. Unless you are planning to implement some cunning XP system and learnable skills, upgradeable weapons or anything like that this game has nothing to keep people in on a subscription. I suspect that even suggesting it seriously in public would be BI's downfall.

nononono

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

I've subscribed to Battleground Europe for a number of years and did so because of the gameplay. When that changed, it got boring and ended up being a wait for supply game. It's still kinda fun if you have a cool squad to run with.

The subscription model doesn't really work for A2 since it's not persistent game play.

[Eggnogg13 0]

I think I might cry if the ever do this.

Seriously, that would be horrid, no matter how fun a game is, the requirement to consistently pay for it just lame.

[LJF 0]

No. That is a definite no from me. I wouldn't subscribe in a million years, not even for ArmA. Subscription is just wrong, what, would you have them charge for weapons next too? Micro transactions? This idea is ... wrong.

[An Fiach 10]

BIS games do not support a subscription business model. They could charge for additional content, but when what you get out of the box isn't even complete, who wants to pay a monthly fee while waiting for the game to work properly?

[Andi 10]

:at647: No.

[cashxx 10]

Sorry stupid idea.......I would never pay for a subscription to a game.

[S7_Mega 10]

No way.

[Master gamawa 0]

How can I stress NO enough?

Ok imagine a supernova of NO sending deadly NO radiation through the universe of No, while the Gods of No scream "NOOOO" in agony!

No I would never subscribe to any game ever. Arma is awesome because you pay 50 euros for the engine and then the community creates everything!

[Rak 0]

No.

5char

[-)rStrangelove 0]

If your company can no longer afford developing modern games without subscriptions then it's your management who has an issue, NOT your customers.

Subscriptions are nothing more but a new trick to spread financial risks of development onto customers who will in turn be bound to a certain product.

No thx. One thing i've learned during the last years: You can't simply buy a game because it's coming from a specific company - you always have to check reviews BEFORE buying anything.

I simply hate to pay 50Eur without getting something of equal value back in return.

[JonasRC 10]

I dont like the idea, I would pay for expansion packs if they are good.

I like that BIS gives us freedom to make addons and missions in our own way, I like to play on private servers where I know I will get a good game. IF ArmA II is their final milsim then I hope they will support it forever. Personally I think BIS should make some rts games with smart AI.

[Inkompetent 0]

)rStrangelove;1375177']If your company can no longer afford developing modern games without subscriptions then it's your management who has an issue' date=' NOT your customers.[/i']

Not entirely true. Depends on the release plan for future titles. Either one can release a new game at fast enough intervals to keep the money flowing, or one releases overpriced expansions to keep the money flowing, or one has subscriptions and much further in between new releases.

For a company like BIS that patches their game LONG after release it could be a working model. Toss in some new stuff aside from the bugfixes and keep improving stuff and it could work.

Depends a lot on the subscription fee imo.

[nyran125 10]

sorry im MASSIVELY against this, the game is pretty buggy at the moment and have a subscription aswell. Whats wrong with users just creating servers on the fly for free? Most people complaining have only mid range systems that just cant handle the game yet. Next year's graphic cards and processor option should run this game alot better. People that already have awesome specs dont seem to be getting into to many problems.

Edited July 31, 2009 by nyran125

[nomdeplume 0]

What I think could work would be for BIS to offer a value-add subscription service based around content - most likely user content. Anyone get tricked into buying Spore? While the game itself wasn't worth the money, the seamless access to other people's creations is, IMHO, a really good idea.

As everyone keeps saying, a big part of the longevity of Arma 2 is the user-created content. Having an easy way to access that content within the game would be awesome. Even better - you'd have some level of assurance that it's been checked by someone who understands the game and that the content "fits in".

Imagine being able to just run the game, open the online content browser built into it, and read about new missions and units and mods made by BIS and the community, select any that sound interesting to you and download and start playing them.

An additional benefit could flow on from this: any mission maker or server admin could specify the name of BIS-distributed addons that are required, and the game client can just download them from BIS. No hunting down particular add-ons just to join a server, it's all automated.

While it wouldn't provide anything we can't already do manually, I think if it's done well a lot of people would be willing to pay a small fee for it. Especially if you make it free for a few months for everyone who's bought a copy of the game.

[trickster1982 10]

Why should we continue paying a monthly fee when we have already forked out £35 for the game or whatever? its a stupid suggestion! Besides I imagine a lot of the people playing the game are still in their teens so should they be nagging their parents to pay for these subscriptions seen as most of them wont have a job? Kids these days expect far too much financially from their parents as it is without forking out monthly fee's on their gaming as well! Im very much against subscription fees to any games

[Inkompetent 0]

Why should we continue paying a monthly fee when we have already forked out £35 for the game or whatever? its a stupid suggestion! Besides I imagine a lot of the people playing the game are still in their teens so should they be nagging their parents to pay for these subscriptions seen as most of them wont have a job? Kids these days expect far too much financially from their parents as it is without forking out monthly fee's on their gaming as well! Im very much against subscription fees to any games

Because with a subscription the game's shelf price could be much lower. Say that BIS has done calculations for that [Low-cost sales] + [1.5 years of subscriptions] = [Normal sales] and all after that are benefits to compensate for the fact that there's no new big money-maker title in the works to be released that soon, but we'll maybe have to wait two years more.

Add some additional service; added content like vehicles, maps, weapons or weapons; BIS-funded high-performance servers, or something else, and there'd be something for the money.

Not saying that subscriptions are the future and *the* way to go, but I think that it's worth looking at what it can actually be, reasons for its existance, and that costs don't have to skyrocket like paying €10 a month plus €40 shelf price.

[kremator 1065]

Such a bad idea. I stopped playing WoW because of the amount of money I was pumping into it. I will not pay for a subscription game again !

A resounding NO from me I'm afraid.

[LeadCommando65 10]

Because with a subscription the game's shelf price could be much lower.

Err, yes let me think about it:

Assume a shelf price of 10 €. You want to play this game for a year with a subscription of 5€ per month. This makes 70 € for one year, 130 € for 2 years... that's too expensive. So your point doesn't make any sense, even if you lower the monthly subscription price. If it's half the price per month, it takes you less than two years and you've paid more than now.

Like it's now, I can play the game I bought once, whenever and whereever I want. Forever. I'm not bound to any company.

[Inkompetent 0]

When is a price high or too low? What if BIS doesn't release any expansions, but we get it included in the subscription? 6 months total of €30 could very well be the expansion price, but you get it continously.

I just wonder how people think that a game developer's support can be free. If people want to see ArmA2 and eventual sequels so much better, how come no one is ready to pay the devs? ;)

There's a reason Codemasters and EA and Ubi have among the most terrible support for their games on avarage, with few exceptions, and that is because it costs money to create patches and additional content.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Are you seriously saying that customers have to pay for patches and bugfixes?

Why should people pay more for DLC or subscriptions?