ARMA 2 (OA) : DLC discussion thread

[EricM 0]

I believe the key for BIS is to get their addon sync/management tool ready before they want to launch the paid DLC (maybe using it to release patches and free DLC first) in order to avoid a MP mess.

On the other hand, I see no problem releasing SP campaigns early (with existing assets but custom sounds scripts for instance...), as they won't interfere with MP gameplay.

[maddogx 13]

I would pay for:

Islands

Factions

New cool features

I would not pay for:

Campaigns( i simply have no interest in them :) )

This is quite contrary to the free/paid DLC solution that - in my opinion - would work best for the community:

1. All content relevant for MP (i.e. units, weapons and islands) are released as free DLC.

2. New campaigns and anything else that would not affect MP is released as paid DLC.

This way the people who like having prime quality single player content can pay for it via DLC from BIS, while any new units/factions etc. come for free and thus don't "fracture the MP community" as some people here fear. (No, I'm not one of them. :))

[jw custom 56]

This is quite contrary to the free/paid DLC solution that - in my opinion - would work best for the community:

1. All content relevant for MP (i.e. units, weapons and islands) are released as free DLC.

2. New campaigns and anything else that would not affect MP is released as paid DLC.

This way the people who like having prime quality single player content can pay for it via DLC from BIS, while any new units/factions etc. come for free and thus don't "fracture the MP community" as some people here fear. (No, I'm not one of them. :))

I simply listed what kinda content i would pay for, not a solution to anything. My interest lays in MP & editing so unless there was a some units and goodies coming along with the campaign i would just skip it :)

Your idea works fine for me as that would mean that the DLC is free for me :p

[pathetic_berserker 4]

This way the people who like having prime quality single player content can pay for it via DLC from BIS, while any new units/factions etc. come for free and thus don't "fracture the MP community" as some people here fear. (No, I'm not one of them. :))

Great idea , 2 problems.

1. I don't think there are enough SP fanatics playing ArmA to make it a money spinner

and

2. BIS havn't put together a decent SP campagn since OFP, hence 1.

[Lhowon 10]

The other problem being that expecting BIS to release an entire new faction for free is silly.

Even if you say the SP stuff is where they earn the money, two problems: firstly they still have to develop both which is at least double the amount of work (and it was already a lot of work to begin with), and secondly SP-only stuff obviously has a limited appeal whereas new factions can be used in both SP and MP so has an almost 100% appeal. It's simply not good business given the very large amount of work involved in making campaigns and factions.

[r3volution 0]

This thread has managed very successfully to re-hash the same 5 pages or so of circular argument about 6 times by now.

Points established firmly at least 10 times by various people.

* DLC introduces the possibility of further division within the already fractured multiplayer community of Arma2/OA

* DLC will alienate some members of the community who will refuse to buy it through either philosophical objection to the concept of an additional post-payment for additional game content, or objection to the means of sale (online only and requiring credit card)

* DLC does provide Bohemia the scope to provide additional toys that they would otherwise have been unable to financially justify providing the community for free.

* Paid for DLC is a divisive issue because money is a divisive issue (most relationships collapse due to money related issues, i see no reason why a customer-vendor relationship should be different). Many people see additional factions and particularly additional BIS made maps to be worth money, some do not.

* DLC may place additional pressure on the modding community, threatening to squeeze out some mods with the potential that what they could spend months trying to get running, BIS may release in paid-for format.

* BIS is not a massive developer so paid for DLC does provide them additional revenue streams which may allow them to further improve on the game engine.

In between much of these points seems to have been about 10 pages worth of people sledging the shit out of one another for not posessing their opinion. Pointless bashing of someone because they either think that;

a) DLC is a good thing

OR

b) DLC is a bad thing

Does not achieve anything except fostering the somewhat FOX news(ish) impression that there is a community tearing itself violently in two. If people would cease being so damn inflammatory and actually attempt to defy the standard law of the internet and discuss this in a manner not resembling two monkeys fighting over a banana; consequently that if this thread didn't resemble the results of directing a sewer pipe into the world's largest fan, BIS would actually stand to learn something about the community's general opinion on DLC from it. Who knows, we could then end up with DLC that was priced reasonably and gave the community what they want, thus mitigating a good 3/4's of the arguments which have occupied the last 30 pages.

Anyhow. That was long.

Seriously though gentlemen... this is the war forum, no fighting on the war forum. ;)

Edited June 14, 2010 by r3volution

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Amen.

*P.S. - I am surprised Godwin's Law hasn't been proven true in this thread, yet.

[Steakslim 1]

BIS are Nazi's.

There, now we can have Godwin's Law applied here.

btw I'd buy DLC, I just wanted to finally be the one to invoke Godwin's Law on a debate.

edit: BTW since I was warned that some people were offended. This is was not a serious post.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Steakslim

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I would most likely not buy. It wouldn't matter it the price was $1 or $100. Personally I'm reluctant to buy anything that doesn't come in a box (been burned before). Also with DLC installed I might accidentally make missions that require a certain DLC. I refuse to be the one forcing others in my clan to having to buy a new DLC. I prefer no addon requirements for any mission, both my own and downloaded ones.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

^ You googled that didn't you. Ya Frakkin Commie.

*Not you Carl.*

[Smurf 12]

^ You googled that didn't you. Ya Frakkin Commie.

*Not you Carl.*

I did it too and loled hard. :D

[Steakslim 1]

^ You googled that didn't you. Ya Frakkin Commie.

*Not you Carl.*

No :D

Though it's been a long while since I've seen Godwin's Law brought up in a discussion.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

This is quite contrary to the free/paid DLC solution that - in my opinion - would work best for the community:

1. All content relevant for MP (i.e. units, weapons and islands) are released as free DLC.

2. New campaigns and anything else that would not affect MP is released as paid DLC.

This way the people who like having prime quality single player content can pay for it via DLC from BIS, while any new units/factions etc. come for free and thus don't "fracture the MP community" as some people here fear. (No, I'm not one of them. :))

I exclusively play SP. Why should I subsidize expansions that enhance the MP experience, but MP players under this plan would not pay a dime for what I want, nor indeed for the addons that enhances both SP and MP games? I have nothing to do with the MP aspect of the hobby, and I do not see why the contents of my bank account should be used to the benefit of people whose interests mean so little to me.

As far as this notion of 'splitting the community' goes, I think that it is an overrated problem, more likely a problem that does not even exist. First, as an SP player, I can say to the rest of you, that you can amuse yourself in whatever ways you see fit, in SP, or MP en masse, or MP as a 'split' community. Community splitting means precisely nothing to me; in terms of my actual game play, I am a community of one. Second, is it really such a problem? Has it ever been a real problem? From what I understand, the best MP experiences are on private servers, full of like-minded people that use the same mods, and these interests and tastes are not universal. Some people prefer WW2 mods, some prefer ACE or whatever it's called, some prefer sci-fi mods, some even play vanilla. There are many other topics covered. MP Game types vary, from totally public to totally private, with PvP and Co-op plus whatever novel game type anyone can come up with. Lots of 'splitting' of the community there. Look into any other player's addon folder. If you find any differences, there is a possible 'split' right there, and you will see it in their game play choices.

The fact is, this is not a homogeneous community, and it has not been so since OFP was released way back when. I rather think that this is a good thing. I am absolutely against being a part of the larger gaming community, as I would rather do almost anything other than play MP. Also, divergent tastes mean a large number of diverse mods, which increases the choices that we have to enjoy our hobby, and I cannot see that being a bad thing. DLC from BIS fits that rather well, and will be at least an easily obtained item for people who fear a supposed split in the community, and are actually willing to pay a few bucks for it.

[twisted 127]

on further thought i reckon DLC that would be most worth paying for would core extensions that the community couldn't do - like a fully functional AAR big time, as well as a way more streamlined and easier to use 3d editor with drag and drop capabilities and drop down menus on units that let you set loads of variable more easily.

[Steakslim 1]

I agree with Mr. McKenzie-Smith's above post, even though he's on the opposite spectrum of the community from me (only play MP :D ). There's no reason to exclude MP relevant DLC like content as mentioned by MadDogX, such as Units, Weapons, and Islands from coming with a price. Those take just as much time and effort as any campaign can and there's no profitable reason to give them to us for free. BIS has given us a lot of free content and I think some folks here have become too comfortable with that habit and will look for any excuse to bitch about having to spend maybe...what, $10? I don't make much money with my current job, but I can fork over the cash.

[maddogx 13]

Well, I did say "the solution that would work best for the community" - I never said it was ideal from a business point of view, nor that it would cater to people who see themselves as separate from the community. :)

[Muahaha 10]

Maybe we should do a poll on what is the top DLC contents the community would buy. From there BIS would know what sort of DLC the community is really interested and willing to fork out money for it. Demand and supply..... Alot easier and less bickering...I hope...

[dm 9]

less bickering...

In this community (and the world in general)

Not possible

:p

[chortles 263]

Unrepentant "outside the community" freeloader here, but professionally-made missions I'd definitely be willing to pay for. Speaking of which, I'd like BIS to do something where paid DLC missions/campaigns include the maps (I guess as part of the PBO or however BIS can package them together), but that the paid DLC maps be just the maps themselves, for modding purposes? (i.e. community-made missions set on DLC maps.)

This way, if someone just wants to play the missions or campaigns and doesn't mod, then they don't need to buy the map separately as well... "Single-tier" paid DLC dependency, no "DLC being dependent on having another paid DLC" please.

Opposed to paid DLC factions (unless somehow more than a mere reskin... which the community has done for years now). Generally opposed to paid weapon DLC... but I'd make an exception for "functionality improvements." For example, yes, I'd pay for OA to become a full-fledged, "air/surface/underwater" naval combat sim! :D

I don't mind if there's BIS-made free DLC that has a single tier of paid DLC dependency though.

I hope that BIS finds this some useful input as to some possible DLC solutions.

[Muzza 0]

To be honest, i have already totally given up on the MP side of Arma, having spent a few hours trying to squeeze a few minutes of enjoyable game time out of it. It looks although the rest of the fanbase has done this aswell, given that the servers are basically emply all the time bar a few wither locked or hevily modded ones.

MP content should be free in patches, as I would hate for the so few who can actually enjoy Arma 2 online to be torn apart to the extent that this denies anyone attempting to play online the chance of finding a decent game.

Which means that BI should focus on really, really cool SP content. Nothing half-finnished, not more of the same, but new and engaging experiences.

Would it be possible to allow players to posses new content such that they can interact with it on multiplayer whilst 'locking' access to it in the editor? I can imagine cuh a feature being hacked almost instantaniously.

[andersson 285]

A list of DLC content I would pay for and I think BIS wouldnt be ashamed of:

New islands with new vegetation and objects from different climates (will benefit island creators as they can use the proffesionally created objects and Linda-vegetation).

Bigger factions. Different countries with approriate voices in the right language(!) (modmakers can still work on their own country adding different units as BIS can make the basic spine of the army and the added voices will benefit the modmakers).

More advanced addons. Think of CoC arty, divers and subs, complex weaponssystem. (can and are already made by community but if its made by BIS I guess they can implement it better as they also can work on the engine itself?).

Good campaigns (I mean good, CWC-1985 and resistance quality).

Some addons/addon if good missions/campaign are included.

The price should reflect what its worth for gamplay. The quality and content must give a reason to buy the DLC from BIS, if I want a nice addon with a couple of missions I can DL it for free from the community. Single addons from BIS must reflect bugfree optimised quality to be worth buying.

[SASrecon 0]

UK defence minister proposes British armed forces strategic funding review.

Maybe BIS will be including the Brits as Free/Paid (either way I couldn't care less, BIS deserve the money) DLC all with a proper theme and stuff.

E.g. Pretend we are at the release of OA, the British are training in Karzeghistan and in autumn NATO forces and Chernarussian army assemble for another conflict in Zagoria, thus completing the ARMAversum bit by bit, with every expansion/DLC BIS release.

[maddogx 13]

Let's say, hypothetically, that BIS were planning to release a DLC containing the following:

• British forces including basic infantry types with appropriate weapons, transport helicopter, attack helicopter, MBT, light armored vehicle and a ground transport vehicle.
  
• Black Element PMCs with two or three new weapons, a transport heli and a ground transport vehicle.
  
• Karzeghistan, a new 150km² terrain.
  

No new game engine features, no campaign (except perhaps a couple of SP missions), just units and terrain.

What would you be willing to pay for it? And would you be willing to pay more if it contained a campaign?

[Tonci87 163]

They could keep it. I propably buy it if they include a little Campaign, and if they find a way to distribute it that doesn´t need my credit card

[EricM 0]

I'd say up to 10 euros depending on the quality and size of the map, and in regard to what's included in the game already (that's about 1/3 of what's in OA).

I just fear that Karzegistan wouldn't bring much novelty compared to Takistan in terms of setting...

I could pay more for a campaign in a really different setting.