ARMA 2 (OA) : DLC discussion thread

[W0lle 1050]

Actually W0lle, I do have to say that it is difficult to make quality missions, and certainly if you're just one guy working by yourself. And unfortunately a lot of the missions I see today are really rushed together and not very well polished.

No one knows that better than me, and of course there is a lot of ... unpolished stuff around. However there is still the option to give negative feedback for these missions then and hopefully people will learn from that. :)

Still though, I don't think the solution lies with BIS making missions all day and releasing them as DLC.

DLC yes but maybe not paid DLC. But I'm also sure that there will be quality missions included in paid DLC.

In the end it's all just speculations. We have to wait until the first paid DLC has been released and then we can tell if it's worth or not.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yea, what he said..

1. Maybe 10 missions are really good, nice to play from all Usercontent, cause much is rushed together. Its annoying searching 1 good out of 300 SP missions .Believe me i tried many.

2. Im sure im not that bad at making missions for SP, but like i said, its very time demanding, not everybody got the time. Also its not that much fun if you know every detail of your own mission, storyline, enemys and stuff.

Of course, no productive member in this community has got a RL and a job :rolleyes:

[ebanks129 10]

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?

Depending on the quality of if the new terrain was made. $20 USD all together. But if they would like to sell visitor4 alone.....:rolleyes: maybe those 20's will multiply..i wiiiish..

[mcvittees 0]

Good post Big Dawg KS . Although I for one don't mind the idea of paid for downloadable content in so far as it supports BIS, unfortunately it could actually impact me negatively. If my squad deciced to adopt it and I was strapped for cash that would count me (and possibly others) out for certain missions and would not go down well.

I guess the way round this would be to always make two/three versions of missions: one vanilla/with free addons and one with paid for DLC, but what a Ballache! :j:

[Laqueesha 474]

However there is still the option to give negative feedback for these missions then and hopefully people will learn from that.

Then face the countless accusations from fanboys of flaming and being a hater. :p

[Fred DM 0]

You realize that totally defeats the purpose right? The revenue from sales would probably just cover the cost of printing & distributing them.

yes, the point of DLC is not having to go through regular retail distribution channels, which means profits land mostly in the developer's hands, which is a good thing.

the bad thing is that online distribution usually opens a can of worms in terms of DRM, copy protection and online activation.

case in point: Neverwinter Nights 2 by Obsidian/Atari. the base game and the 2 retail add-ons had minimal copy protection (CD-Key). the DLC, however, not only required its own valid CD-Key and online activation, it also had an install limit (which was later removed, though).

now, ArmA 2 has very user-friendly copy protection. you don't even need the disc to play the game anymore. but how will BIS effectively protect their DLC like that?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If the scenarios were a joke, why then you don't make some of your own and show them how it is done?

Armaholic has currently 246 SP missions waiting for you to download. There are also 376 Coop missions from which you might be able to play the majority as SP too. Few SP content? For sure not.

I think he meant included with the game. User missions will rarely reach (if ever) the quality of inhouse produced masterpieces. With that I mean when you open them, you will be overwhelmed by "considerations". Check out Sweat, Blood & Tears for Arma1 or Counterattack for Arma2 (much of which is "scripted events" I haven' been able to trigger). So either I'm not able to adjust my gaming, or the mission has bugs. There are tons of "audio content" that I have never seen used in missions. Why?

Scripting will sometimes match, maybe even surpass inhouse missions when the mission supergurus get to work. Cutscenes and intros sometimes on par, but usually quite below. And no user mission have come close to the inhouse voice acting in terms of quantity, quality of recording, and variation.

Also it should be quicker for the designers to produce good missions compared to the rest of us, as they know precisely how the animation system works for cutscenes, or can ask the coders about help about a command. For the rest of us, we can spend an hour or a day messing around with a command that was never intended to work the way it looks like. My SP "mission" now crashes constantly on me, and I have absolutely no idea why. You have no idea how the frustration builds - I could eat a horse. Then again, there are evidence of some inhouse frustration going on as well in some of the scripts :D

Bah, rant complete, back on track :p. With the above in mind (lots of apparently unused stuff), it appears that some/a lot of (especially audio) content was put in the game already, awaiting DLCs to make use of them. One of the reviews mentioned that "factories now sound alive". I assume what has happened is that the sounds already present in Arma2 is being put to use by OA.

[W0lle 1050]

Okay he most probably meant SP Missions included in the game. However there are a few (not so many) exceptional well made missions and campaigns out there so no one is forced to stick to BIS missions only. :)

My SP "mission" now crashes constantly on me, and I have absolutely no idea why. You have no idea how the frustration builds - I could eat a horse. Then again, there are evidence of some inhouse frustration going on as well in some of the scripts

Oh I do, believe me I do. You have no idea how many missions I trashed because either I was not happy with them or because they were no more working (or even loadable) all of the sudden.

[nkenny 1057]

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?

1. UK forces -- this sounds like a OA sized expansion. therefore 20-30 EUR I would be expecting some standalone MP and SP scenarios

2. Black Element -- 10+ EUR (assuming high quality stuff)

3. Karzeghistan -- ought to be freely included to the either of the ones above.

4. What should be free? Anything that helps sell or facilitiate the selling of DLCs. Also any engine upgrades/fixes.

-k

[stakex 0]

Personally I'm in the "Nothing against paid DLC" camp for the most part so long as its actually content that was developed post release, and isn't just some DLC bandwagon money grab. Things like holding back content at a games launch and releasing it a few weeks later (Horse Armor anyone?), or digging up old maps, giving them a once over, and packing them together and selling them for $15 just doesn't fly with me. Nor does adding two weapons, a vehicle, and a couple maps the player could have made and charging $15 for them (Far Cry 2 I'm looking in you're direction). Those kind of thing, coupled with charging extremely high prices for DLC such as the map packs from COD:MW2 are the things I think companies need to avoid doing... and players REALLY need to stop paying for. Give a mouse a cookie.....

When it comes to BIS and the ArmA2 series of games.... I see issues for DLC. The first and foremost is the modding community. The modding community is never a bad thing obviously but with the communities ability to churn out pretty much any content it wants, BIS will have a hard time being able to sell new maps, campaigns, and missions with the current ArmA2/OA content since the community could do the same thing with the games tools. Any new content will have to add to the game in some way (and not re-use maps/models/units), and even making a paid DLC of something such as, a British unit pack for example, will be difficult because the community has the ability to do the exact same thing... for free. BIS will also have to be careful porting things from VBS and charging for them. By such I don't really mean game features, but more so units... because packing up some units they have laying around and charging for them isn't a good idea.

So at the end of the day BIS is gonna have little choice but to add paid DLC that actually adds features to the game/engine itself, or adds a crap ton of new content to be worth actually paying for. The other big issue BIS is gonna run up against is the simple fact that PC gamers do not like paying for DLC... especially for PC only games. The PC community is use to reciving free content, and only likes to pay for expansion sized DLC. This is changing a bit, but mostly PC gamers accept it in games that are cross platform and understand its hard for a developer to charge on group of players and not another... very very few PC only games mess with any sort of larger DLC because it just doesn't work well. We'll have to see what BIS has up its sleve and see how well they pull it off.

My biggest fear of all this tho, is that this is the start of the end for the BIS modding community. Why? Well just look what I listed as the biggest hurdle BIS has to jump for its DLC... competition with the community. Several other game developers have realized modding is bad for DLC sales, and have since terminated mod support so they can release simpler, less robust DLC. COD:MW2 is a great example... IW just couldn't figure out how to charge for the MW1 map pack on the PC (mappers thretened to simply copy the maps and relese them for free), so they just canned mapping tools the next time around so there was no competition. Less development, AND more money coming in, it was really win win for them. If DLC really works out well for BIS... I would not be totally shocked to see them lessen, or completely drop mod support for future games. I know many will say "No way, not BIS!"... and while I would love to believe that myself, at the end of the day its all about the all mighty dollar, and a modding community generally means less dollars. I well could be wrong about this, but with the way the gaming industry is going... anything is possible.

[maddogx 13]

4. What should be free? Anything that helps sell or facilitiate the selling of DLCs. Also any engine upgrades/fixes.

I'm assuming that BIS will continue to provide engine upgrades and fixes via patches. So yeah, they will be free, as they always have been. ;)

[W0lle 1050]

Things like holding back content at a games launch and releasing it a few weeks later (Horse Armor anyone?),

Without a deep inside view into the BI HQ I guess it will very hard for everyone to tell if and what has been held back. ;)

or digging up old maps, giving them a once over, and packing them together and selling them for $15 just doesn't fly with me.

That depends. Refurbishing the original OFP maps for example so they match ArmA2 standards, is nothing you do in 2 days and pressing 3 keys.

Nor does adding two weapons, a vehicle, and a couple maps the player could have made and charging $15 for them

Same though if you try it yourself you soon will find out that creating a weapon, or a vehicle or even a decent mission is also nothing you create in 2 days and pressing 3 keys.

The first and foremost is the modding community. The modding community is never a bad thing obviously but with the communities ability to churn out pretty much any content it wants, BIS will have a hard time being able to sell new maps, campaigns, and missions with the current ArmA2/OA content since the community could do the same thing with the games tools. Any new content will have to add to the game in some way (and not re-use maps/models/units), and even making a paid DLC of something such as, a British unit pack for example, will be difficult because the community has the ability to do the exact same thing... for free.

And what exactly is the problem? The modding tools are already available since a very long time no? Nothing holds anyone back to create new content with the tools at all.

The only thing that might be no more possible is taking the models from (paid) DLC and just repaint them (or even reverse engineer the model and modify it).

BIS will also have to be careful porting things from VBS and charging for them. By such I don't really mean game features, but more so units... because packing up some units they have laying around and charging for them isn't a good idea.

OMG not VBS again... I explained it a few days back and I explain it one more time for you:

The model development for VBS2 is founded and paid by the military customers. This content can't just be used by BIS and sold as DLC to the gamers. Is that really so hard to understand that their might be contracts and stuff?

And even if they could, why is that a bad idea? Because some poor chaps at BIS/BIA/BISim made them already and so it must be free for everyone of course?

My biggest fear of all this tho, is that this is the start of the end for the BIS modding community.

Bullcrap, the modding ability of BIS games is what kept them alive for over a decade. I don't even know how you come to the conclusion to compare BIS and OFP/ArmA/ArmA with COD. The target audience is completely different one. That "this is the end of the modding community" we had several times in the past here.

And for the "competition", with some exceptions I don't see too much community created content that comes close to BI creations (no pun intended though).

[Killerwatt 0]

One great thing about the DLC will be that we wont have some modder whose nose got put out of joint withdrawing his permission to use his models in a particular mod cos of some imagined slight against his ego.

[ProfTournesol 956]

And what exactly is the problem? The modding tools are already available since a very long time no? Nothing holds anyone back to create new content with the tools at all.

The only thing that might be no more possible is taking the models from (paid) DLC and just repaint them (or even reverse engineer the model and modify it).

Will the release of OA, prompt BIS to release MLODs and/or other source materials from ArmA 2?

No. Currently, there is no plan to release more MLODs for further use. We would like to define the licensing standards in the community better before we'd release more content for further use and modifications.

I only hope that the lack of release of ArmA2 MLOD models isn't directly connected to a limitation of the competition between free community work and future payable DLC.

[dm 9]

I only hope that the lack of release of ArmA2 MLOD models isn't directly connected to a limitation of the competition between free community work and future payable DLC.

[Tonci87 163]

O god DM stop posting pacepalm pictures to express your feelings

[ProfTournesol 956]

I support BI as much as i can, i will by their DLC BUT I think my interrogation is legitimate, as some of us old community members are puzzled by the lack of release of MLODS, and this DLC discussion raised by BI itself deepens this question.

[dm 9]

But what if they express my feelings perfectly?

The notion that DLC is the only reason BI isnt releasing MLODs is a ridiculous one.

The ONLY reason we got ALL the ArmA1 MLODs when we did was because synide had reverse-engineered the ODOLs into MLODs and BIS decided it would be better damage limitation to have the proper source available.

I dont know why people have this idea that BIS should release its current-generation source models whilst the product is still commercially viable.

Do you see Rockstar releasing their source models for RDR or GTA IV? Do you see Ubisoft releasing source models for Farcry 2? Do you see Rebellion releasing source models for AvP? Do you see 2K releasing source models for Bioshock? etc etc... (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these)

[ProfTournesol 956]

But what if they express my feelings perfectly?

The notion that DLC is the only reason BI isnt releasing MLODs is a ridiculous one.

The ONLY reason we got ALL the ArmA1 MLODs when we did was because synide had reverse-engineered the ODOLs into MLODs and BIS decided it would be better damage limitation to have the proper source available.

I dont know why people have this idea that BIS should release its current-generation source models whilst the product is still commercially viable.

Do you see Rockstar releasing their source models for RDR or GTA IV? Do you see Ubisoft releasing source models for Farcry 2? Do you see Rebellion releasing source models for AvP? Do you see 2K releasing source models for Bioshock? etc etc... (again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these)

Well, first i deeply prefer to read your point of view than a picture, secondly there is nothing ridiculous in releasing MLODS to support its community, IF the community is a real asset for them. Investing in its own assets isn't ridiculous.

[sbsmac 0]

OMG not VBS again... I explained it a few days back and I explain it one more time for you:

The model development for VBS2 is founded and paid by the military customers. This content can't just be used by BIS and sold as DLC to the gamers. Is that really so hard to understand that their might be contracts and stuff?

Actually it's not uncommon in contract work for the contractor to reserve rights to re-use (at least some portions of) work they have developed during the course of the contract. Obviously I have no knowledge of the contractual terms between BIA and their customers - do you ?

[dm 9]

there is nothing ridiculous in releasing MLODS to support its community

There are lots of reasons why releasing your entire current art catalog in source format is ridiculous. But this is not the thread to discuss that.

There is also no reason, beyond laziness, that the community NEEDS all MLODS. All you NEED is a sample of each type - soldier, car, tank, plane, helicopter, building, tree.

To suddenly come up with the notion that its BI's DLC plans which are holding back "the" release of MLODs is also pretty ridiculous.

[ProfTournesol 956]

There are lots of reasons why releasing your entire current art catalog in source format is ridiculous.

Who ever said that BI should release all the models ? I'm not sure we can have a mature discussion on this subject, if your only word is ridiculous. Post pictures instead.

[Zipper5 74]

This thread is full of lulz...

O god DM stop posting pacepalm pictures to express your feelings

Ok then, I'll do it instead:

These pictures still perfectly reflect what's going on here. It's gone from exaggerated to retarded.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Zipper5

[Tonci87 163]

Here you have one

[dm 9]

Who ever said that BI should release all the models

In this case I have to apologise. I just see all the "oh woe is me, BI arent releasing MLODs" posts and immediately assume that they mean all MLODs (the same as was in ArmA1)

Without clarification, one can only go with what one is used to.