Would you pay for feature based development? (this poll is not directly linked to BI)

[Yoma 0]

I'm just wondering:

A lot of people moan and bitch for all sorts of features.

Could this be the base for some new kind business model?

Everyone sane realises that development time costs money.

I'm wondering if a model where people donate cash to prioritise/make features could work.

How much would you or your team pay for certain features?

The model could use something like posted features with a $ threshold.

When the threshold is reached feature gets developed, when it doesn't get reached applicants get their money back.

For example Feature A: Detailed arti with conventional protocols => threshold 100000$

Users apply and send cash via a list of possible options.

If the threshold get's reached dev's are assigned and the feature get's made. If it doesn't people get back their cash.

I don't know if it's a viable option, but this kind of stuff could turn the whole games business model around and in the case of Arma2 it might be a big (and fair) success or maybe quite the opposite.

Still i think it's an interesting thought. Or maybe i'm just crazy.

[krazyray50 10]

they already have games like this, WOW, EQ, LOTRO....

[Daniel 0]

I think an expansion pack per theatre (like Arrowhead) is the way to go. That way everyone gets a lot for their money, BIS has a cash cow for the foreseeable future and the community is as "unsplit" as possible.

[Fishercat 10]

No it would lead to even more buggy and untested games since we would have to pay for better features and hopefully better gameplay. They are doing DLC on Xbox now and some of it is released the same day of the game. WTF. Just my opinion and I am no expert unlike many who post on internet forums.:bounce3:

[mr burns 132]

This thread reminds me of the old "How much would you be willing to pay for an addon" thread that was started by a BAS member back in the old OFP days.

I cannot remember the definite result, but the overall outcome was something like "i´m not willing to spend anything, show me boobs first".

Anyone who knows better, pls feel invited to hit me with a club.

For example Feature A: Detailed arti with conventional protocols => threshold 100000$

Not the best example..

Because that´s already been done by CoC for OFP and it was so damn good that (i think) they got contracted doing it for VBS aswell.

The point is - they did it for free initially - only for fun and their own pleasure - heck they even updated the freebie after they were done with the VBS module!

Developers should think the same way - make something extraordinary good and be enthusiastic about it - then wait for the outcome!

I´m aware that developing a game costs a big ammount of cash, but somehow i´m getting the feeling that it´s not being done like in the good old days anymore. Everyone´s only after the money these days, the slightest ammount of fear of missing income can put a whole game down (or being dumbed down), and that´s a pity!

That´s also the main reason why real simulation titles are having such a hard time these days.

As for the threads main question - no thanks - DLC´s are bad enough, no reason to make it even worse.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Mr Burns

[p75 10]

I like the idea, but Arrowhead will bring alot of what we wanted....

[Monkwarrior 0]

This game shows that a different businessmodel is allready very successfull: a business model based on sharing.

BIS provided the tools for us so we can share our creations amongst ourselves.

Micro-payments is something I'm against, there are too many examples where the total costs are huge in comparison what people really get (WOW for instance).

Sharing is the present and future, as long as BIS focusses on providing good tools I'm willing to pay them for these tools. We will do the rest. That's a win-win in my book.

Monk.

[p75 10]

I think the basic concept of this is really good, but Operation Arrowhead will bring most. Although 100$ per feauture is way too much, mate. In my opinion it should be a max of 10$.

[NoRailgunner 0]

So people should pay for hope and crossing fingers?

Call A-R-M-A-2 - B-I-S and send $$$!! :deal:

Prepayments to risk - nothing! Sounds like a windy business and sales company.

@p75 do you really know whats up with Operation Arrowhead and could you please list all (new) features?

[p75 10]

So people should pay for hope and crossing fingers?

Call A-R-M-A-2 - B-I-S and send $$$!! :deal:

Prepayments to risk - nothing! Sounds like a windy business and sales company.

@p75 do you really know whats up with Operation Arrowhead and could you please list all (new) features?

Alot of it is mentioned in the Q and A thread, its a collection of the most asked questions, head over there and read it :bounce3:

[NoRailgunner 0]

Found it, still wont pay for things that arent assigned and done.

[bravo 6 0]

I don't agree others then BIS earn money from this game.

The community always made addons for free, and the game is copyrighted.

If BIS officially intend to make a patch like OFPR i would be glad to buy it. Thats how things always worked and should work in the future.

I really don't see a reason for this thread at all.

Edit: For example: Was Queen Gambit an BIS Official patch?! Is Operation Arrowhead an BIS Official patch?

See the difference?

Edited August 21, 2009 by bravo 6

[Yoma 0]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the idea.

I'm not talking about paying addonmakers, i'm talking about paying BIS for features that would otherwise never make it into the core game engine.

Some features are nice to have but implement such a big cost that it wouldn't be feasable to make them the "normal" way.

Anyway i guess the answer to my question would be "no" :p

[bravo 6 0]

IF those nice and costly features were implemented in some kind of Officially BIS Patch, similar to the Operation Arrowhead, i would be glad to pay and buy such features!

But i believe you are not talking about possible Patches, are you?

[Yoma 0]

I'm talking about maybe it would be possible to implement say full featured heli simulation in the game, but it's not possible to implement because it would be too costly to do.

But if that would be the case and some hardcore heli sim fans would actually pay for just that maybe the financial aspect would change.

Anyway it's just a thought, nothing realistic/feasable about it.

Then again Apple's Ipod music strategy was once just a thought and lots of people predicted it would fail, which it didn't.

[p75 10]

I'm talking about maybe it would be possible to implement say full featured heli simulation in the game, but it's not possible to implement because it would be too costly to do.

But if that would be the case and some hardcore heli sim fans would actually pay for just that maybe the financial aspect would change.

Anyway it's just a thought, nothing realistic/feasable about it.

Then again Apple's Ipod music strategy was once just a thought and lots of people predicted it would fail, which it didn't.

Yoma, it is a good thought and I think if it was set up propperly it could work.

[W0lle 1051]

I voted no because I'm no fan of paid DLC. I prefer to pay once and got everything I need.

However, yes I think that for example a full blown flight or tank simulation "addon" I would be happy to pay for - if its 100% compatible with those who don't have it.

[p75 10]

I voted no because I'm no fan of paid DLC. I prefer to pay once and got everything I need.

However, yes I think that for example a full blown flight or tank simulation "addon" I would be happy to pay for - if its 100% compatible with those who don't have it.

That is my line of thought also. The most important factor is, that Arma 2/OA can be heaven for advanced sims, it is that good...., this would allow a dedicated team to focus on one task, say a heli/tank/aircraft simulation. I think the idea is great, but you'll need to execute it good......and managing such projects is no walk in the park and requires a full time employee.

[VF-33 10]

I'll pay for that...

Oh and yeah, I'll pay for features.

I woud be very inclined to do this by way of donations to know mod'ers that are responsive.

[Yoma 0]

That is my line of thought also. The most important factor is, that Arma 2/OA can be heaven for advanced sims, it is that good...., this would allow a dedicated team to focus on one task, say a heli/tank/aircraft simulation. I think the idea is great, but you'll need to execute it good......and managing such projects is no walk in the park and requires a full time employee.

Just making sure you understand: this is not a real proposal to implement, it's just a "thought-train" where i want to know other peoples opinion on the subject.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

I voted no because I'm no fan of paid DLC. I prefer to pay once and got everything I need.

However, yes I think that for example a full blown flight or tank simulation "addon" I would be happy to pay for - if its 100% compatible with those who don't have it.

It's not really the same as payed DLC. It's more like a group of people that really want something pay to let the engine advance. Also i'm not talking about "make this really really nice addon", i'm talking about real engine changes that allow others to implement stuff.

But again this is only a blurb of my mind, nothing to seriously consider. The commercial effects of a system like this may very well be detrimental to the company as many people wouldn't like the sim to go TOO deep.

[bravo 6 0]

To be honest i think the available poll options are not very clear, nor the thread title.

As you can see there are a lot of people who would be very glad to pay for such features, such as "full featured heli simulation in the game" like you referred and voted no. I for one am one of those and i would truly love to have a better heli/plane/tank simulation in the game and would be very glad to pay for it.

Maybe, if this subject is relevant for BIS, prepare a more organized poll thread with BIS support and you will see people will vote yes, "i would pay for better and specific simulators for ArmA2"

[NeMeSiS 11]

Cant say, really depends on the feature. But i like the idea in the first post.

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

There was a major thread like this before, please do a search next time.

Look here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80454&highlight=pay

Thanks!

My answer is still no.

[Hedo 10]

I can't imagine how this could work. Like, I pay 100USD and wait until the threshold is reached. Let's say that the threshold will be reached in 2 months, so BIS starts working on the feature. It will be done in, let's say 3 months. So I will get the feature 5 months after I paid? (in this case) No, this wouldn't work. No one is going to pay for a product he will see in 5 months. And the fact that you wouldn't have to pay for it in advance makes this system even worse and less possible.

[nomdeplume 0]

No one is going to pay for a product he will see in 5 months.

Taleworlds took an approach like this with Mount & Blade - basically they made the game available for purchase before it was finished, and you could play the beta version and get free upgrades until it was released. The price gradually increased until it reached the final version, so the earlier you jumped in the less you paid. You also get feedback from your customers while the game is developing rather than after you've finished it, which can be valuable.

I don't think it'd be a useful approach for BIS though.

One thing that I think would be useful (or at least, would feel like it was useful to us plebs) would be if BIS had an official listing of everything they're wanting to work on (bugs, new features, documentation, etc.) and everyone who's bought the game has a certain number of 'points' they can allocate as they see fit. This would provide a good view of what people really care about, as they couldn't just vote "yes" to every suggestion and bugfix, but would have to prioritise based on how much it affects them.

For example, most of us can probably think of a dozen bugs we'd like fixed without straining the brain; but picking just the top 3 makes you really consider how much impact they have on your game experience.

Wading through the forums trying to work out what things matter most to people must be an absolute nightmare; having a system whereby everybody gets the same amount of "votes" as everyone else could make it far easier to see where the userbase's priorities lie.