Make Arma series under subscription ?

[JackandBlood]

Well alot of the progress in BIS' series are the from the ideas and work of the modding community. ARMA 2 borrows heavily from user made mods to ARMA. Those guys arent getting paid squat. Plus I play ARMA/2 for single player so constant new material wouldnt benefit me.

If BIS offered like a dynamic multiplayer world where factions fight and gain/lose territory, players gain rank (like gaining levels), choose a niche (aircraft, vehicle, infantry, command). And BIS maintained all this, provided the servers, provided the context for battles. And did it elegantly and bug free, that might be worth a modest ($5/month) membership fee. But as an option.

[Günter Severloh]

i said no.
but this sounds like what our president in past was doing for more security, you would have less freedom. which is your choice.

I played WW2OL for a few months and i can see why that is a subscription because they half a map u play on that is half scale of western Europe.

Persoanlly being a OFP/Arma/Arma2 fan since 2001, all i ever cared about was playing in the editor, makign my own missions, playing other peoples mission some times, download addons, like everyday for free, and creating my own mods like back on the OFP.info site.

free dammit.

I think the game is not setup to be subscription anyways, otherwise you would have to half one massive world. And to tell you the truth for this type of game i really dont care for multiplayer, ive done it, mostly coop with a unit i was in, but change a good thing. Whats keeping this game and community going is not the need for money, not that no one needs it but as soon as you throw money into the picture then your lookign at possible limitations, and or resrictions unless you pay.

I think our modding community is doing the game a favor, i think the way it is, adn how its always been is fine the way it is, why change a good thing.
If it aint broke dont fix it. Bis comes out patches because we are reporting what we find, its not liek they are not doing anything.

leave it alone, let it evolve itself, we dont need money to corrupt a good company as BIS.

[MadRussian]

This may sound a bit provocative, but don't you believe that BIS should somewhat change their business model and make the Arma series somewhat "under subscription" à la World of Warcraft or EVE Online instead...

That would defeat the entire point of the game/community!!!

The OFP/ArmA series provides a multi-faceted platform which gives each of us the ability to create exactly whatever our minds can come up with.

We even have the ability to create our own game modes!!!

Why on earth take this all away and water down the expereince of ArmA to appeal to the least common denominator (like with an MMORPG or what they've done with COD)?!?

-----

Now, if you want to talk about the periodic release of paid mini-expansions, of which I can think of an endless number of examples (jungle terrain and units set anyone?)... Now I think BIS would have paying customers lined up in droves for something like that.

But the cardinal rule, imo, is to always until the end of time, allow us to create our own content, including the best part of all, new and inventive game modes unlike anything seen in any other games.

[manberries]

Bis makes the engine, the modders make the game. I am not going to pay BIS to do something they don't even do. By next year I doubt any part of the online missions I play will have more than 25% BIS original parts. Meaning Avgani with US army modded units, ace mod active (hopefully), and using weapons from ACE mod.

[EricM]

Now, if you want to talk about the periodic release of paid mini-expansions, of which I can think of an endless number of examples (jungle terrain and units set anyone?)... Now I think BIS would have paying customers lined up in droves for something like that.

For instance. It's just a creative exercise on what would be the best business model for such a game. I'm happy with the current one (full retail + expansions), but it may not be the best considering its development cycle.

I'm not talking about persistent servers, or locked down gameplay (subscription doesn't mean MMORPG, even though I gave this example), but about examining the following "equation" :

Annual or monthly subscription <=> continous and periodic release of official quality pro expansions and game improvements (more content and more fixes each month).

See it maybe more like "3DS MAX Subscription" or "Gold Support", rather than WOW "lock down". Every period, you get the new "point release" within your subscription, with a new engine hoverhaul, new campaign, new units... (NB : I speaking of NEW FEATURES, not just BUGFIXES)

I would be the last one wanting to stop the possibility to mod things and limit user addons creativity.

But that's just theoretical speech as of now.

[TechnoTerrorist303]

No game that does not provide its own persistant servers should be on a paid subscription. If we subscribed to arma series the following would have to happen:

BIS would have to spend all their time producing new content to meet the terms of the subscription
BIS would have to monitor MP servers or run their own to ensure that all the features of the game being paid for were available to users.
BIS would have to limit the community's ability to create content and run its own servers so the content they planned to release to meet the terms of the subscription wouldn't conflict with it (or appear to copy it).

And this is just for starters...

Bad idea, let it die

[Jex =TE=]

Without constantly new content to support my subscription, I'm not sure why I'd want to pay each month - what am I getting for my money? Your comment about the modders not being able to keep up with the latest graphics I think does them a massive disservice (check out the Uhao island for instance). Some people here just mod the game - they don't play it because there fun comes from making all these kickass mods (and many many thanks for the hard work guys).

BIS would have to compete with a free market (missions and mod makers) who can probably do an even better job as it is for the love and not the money that they get made.

[xxbbcc]

I would most certainly NOT subscribe to a game, under any conditions. I want to own the game affter buying it and not have any ties to the publisher. I want to be able to use the game as is, even in the event of BIS collapsing. So, no subscription - I'd reject any form of recurring payment model.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to buy extra content from BIS (official, high-quality port of ArmA 1, official port of OFP, extra islands, etc.) that BIS might make would be something I'd consider buying. I don't mind supporting them as I like the entire series and oviously, they have bills to pay. Since so far they showed commitment, I'm willing to go with them, but not in a subscription-like form.

[nomdeplume]

As it stands, you rarely actually "own" anything these days. If the activation server is down you can't use a new install etc. If BIS did collapse I'd like to think they'd release a patch that removes the copy protection, but even if they wanted to they might not be able to. Hopefully we'll never have to find out what would actually happen. I like BIS.

As for subscription: I'm not opposed to the idea as it's a bit of a niche product that requires a massive amount of work due to its scope and ambition. It's not as niche as say DCS, but I think it does have something in common with study sims in that the market is fairly small but the amount of time and skills needed to do the vision justice isn't. Which is a roundabout way of saying that perhaps sandbox games like Arma should cost more than your standard 8-hours-of-gameplay video games. I've already gotten more enjoyment out of Arma 2 -- even in its unfinished, buggy state -- than I get out of most games that cost the same, and I really would be happy to pay more.

However I don't think the subscription model would really work very well. Like most others, I'm totally in favour of buying expansion packs and high quality addons that BIS might make. If they release them regularly, then it'll be effectively equivalent to a subscription model. If they don't release them regularly, then you don't feel like you're being ripped off by subscribing.

Additionally, BIS already have enough quality control issues without the added pressure of feeling obliged to release something every month or quarter or whatever so their subscribers get something. Software development is more of a black art than a science, so it's hard to predict how long things will take. With the expansion pack model they can take as much or as little time as they feel they need, and even vary the price of each expansion.

[LJF]

I'm pretty much violently opposed to subscriptions/microtransactions.

Also, I wasn't aware A2 HAD online activation? My copy doesn't at least (505 European).

Edit: I'd happily pay for a new ArmA every 2 years (or 1 but that would be pushing it) if they continually updated the core features (which is what we have now - I'm happy ), like an armor penetration system maybe ... Mini expansions would hurt the modding community I think. Please let the subscription issue die.