Why did Bohemia Interactive go so "low"?

[dagosyno 10]

So... You know how there was ArmA 3, which was pretty expensive. Yeah. It had some content, but not really alot of it. There was a dlc bundle, that added a fair amount of stuff to the game in total. Not anything huge, but decent. Then there came Apex, which for an Expansion added about nothing, besides FEW guns, vehicles and clothings, and a map, that looks good, i heard from my friend that performance... well it could be better. There is also dlc bundle 2 coming up, with 4 dlcs. But looking at A2 wih A2:OA THATS SO LOW. When ArmA 2 standalone had a small loan of hundreds guns, GOOD amount of vehicles, OA added many new land vehicles, annother GOOD amount of weapons, that were quite unique in some cases, like lee enfield or so, and also a brand new feature to arma 2: Backpacks. A3 and its dlc's/expansion dont really add much. And for what price. OA didnt even use to cost all that much back in time. 

My question is: Why. Why it changed so much since then. Why the content, which should be in the game, is released few years after, in such small steps. 

 

[wld427 1705]

just like every other game out there now. They give you the least amount that you will accept for the price. This way you have to purchase DLCs and other "stuff".

 

 

Just like the millions of dollars being made form simple cell phone games that require micro purchases. 

 

It is just their version of getting in on the cash flow..... and exploiting their loyal fan base to the fullest possible extent.

 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Arma 2's content was mostly low quality models ported from Arma 1, and lacked polish. Arma 3's content on the other hand is much higher quality and more polished. Bohemia has also focused more on adding features than content. Arma 3 also had a very troubled development, meaning some content was axed due to time constraints.

[Janez 508]

13 minutes ago, Nightmare515 said:

Arma 2's content was mostly low quality models ported from Arma 1, and lacked polish. Arma 3's content on the other hand is much higher quality and more polished. Bohemia has also focused more on adding features than content. Arma 3 also had a very troubled development, meaning some content was axed due to time constraints.

 

This and besides, CUP is coming along nicely, big thanks to those guys as well as RHS and so much more to fulfill your wildest desires regarding equipment or terrains.

[heavygunner 179]

Content is not worth it compared to to features that can't be modded to this degree of quality.

[tpM 478]

Also keep in mind that Arma 2 didn't handle weapon attachments seperately, so a lot of guns were simply just an upgraded variant of a base weapon: AK, AK Suppressed, AK with GL, AK with GL Suppressed, AK Optics, AK Optics Suppressed etc...

[Belbo 461]

Plus, if you take a look at all the vehicles of Arma 2, there aren't even that much more than in Arma 3:

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/basic_rifleman.html and http://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/2_basic_infantry.php (scroll down to Personnel Identification on each side).

[Matthijs 40]

2 hours ago, dagosyno said:

So... You know how there was ArmA 3, which was pretty expensive. Yeah. It had some content, but not really alot of it. There was a dlc bundle, that added a fair amount of stuff to the game in total. Not anything huge, but decent. Then there came Apex, which for an Expansion added about nothing, besides FEW guns, vehicles and clothings, and a map, that looks good, i heard from my friend that performance... well it could be better. There is also dlc bundle 2 coming up, with 4 dlcs. But looking at A2 wih A2:OA THATS SO LOW. When ArmA 2 standalone had a small loan of hundreds guns, GOOD amount of vehicles, OA added many new land vehicles, annother GOOD amount of weapons, that were quite unique in some cases, like lee enfield or so, and also a brand new feature to arma 2: Backpacks. A3 and its dlc's/expansion dont really add much. And for what price. OA didnt even use to cost all that much back in time. 

My question is: Why. Why it changed so much since then. Why the content, which should be in the game, is released few years after, in such small steps. 

 

 

It seems that you are judging ArmA 3 by the number of weapons and vehicles in it. I couldn't care less about weapons and vehicles. I don't even like the science-fiction style stuff of ArmA 3. Then again, there are hundreds of free add-ons out there that provide me what I need. The only thing I really like about ArmA 3 is its features.

 

I love BI Studios because they give new features away for free:

- a system to support gamemaster led scenario's: Free

- Advanced helicopter RotorLib flight models: Free

- weapon resting, advanced optics features, bipods: Free

- Graphics engine & audio upgrade: Free

- Advanced fixed-wing flight models, sensors, carrier ops, and an aircraft carrier: Free

 

You can look at the Bohemia's DLC in two ways:

 1) Either a big corporation screwing over customers with only a few SF models;

 2) Or a group of nerds following their hearts and giving the world the best military sim ever, rewarding donations with some additional content.

 

My bet is on nr. 2. I have been buying all BI's OFP and ArmA products since the first release of OFP and will continue to do so for as long as I can. Just to keep those BI guys following their hearts. If you cannot afford the DLC, don't worry. Do without the SciFi vehicles and enjoy the best milsim ever, including its stunning free upgrades and community content.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

Video games are dramatically evolving.  The days of selling a clean cut game and moving on and making a whole new game are over and they'll never come back.  Even with single release titles they sucker you into buy a whole new game that's basically the old game just rehashed *cough* modern warefare *cough*  Even then those games have extra content like skins and weapons you can purchase.

 

There's a video game development curve along side a financially viable product curve.  Simply making a clean cut game anymore is not financially viable to a game company or a publisher, especially for indie developers.  Instead they need to sustain an already proven platform and add on to it, convincing people to purchase additional content.  BIS at least gives us the platform and the option of purchasing the relatively inexpensive DLCs where as games like Modern Warefare simply repackages the same bullshit time after time after time.

 

The reality of it the development curve is only becoming steeper and steeper, requiring more effort, time and larger teams, which can not be sustained on clean cut games.

[kiory 404]

The irony I see here is that Arma III provides more content than most AAA games, quit your bitching and be happy with what you have, and if not, download a few mods.

Arma III's DLC's have also been some of the best I've ever seen, well, aside from the Karts, we've seen a plethora of new content per DLC, not just a couple of useless hats or skins, it's also very obvious that you have no idea the amount of work that goes into them.

 

Like it or not, DLC's are here to stay for the forseeable future, and Arma's are far from the worst I've seen. On top of this, there's been a lot of new features which have been implemented for FREE, thanks to the afformentioned DLC.

[Macser 776]

As long as people keep buying into dlc, preorder and all that sort of crap, that's the way it's playing out. Companies have obviously made an effort to steer it that way. But consumers are playing their own part in it. So you either join em, or just don't buy into it. Most people do. And so here we are.

 

One thing at least, is that in BI's case , the modding aspect is a huge plus point for the folks buying into the Arma series. I understand some companies aren't exactly bending over backwards to accommodate modding. So what ever you get from them, is going to be it. With a decent mod scene you have some chance of seeing things that wouldn't be otherwise available to you.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

5 minutes ago, Macser said:

One thing at least, is that in BI's case , the modding aspect is a huge plus point for the folks buying into the Arma series.

 

Something interesting to think about is that development curve applies to the modding community as well.  Back in the OFP days everyone made mods.  Now days those it's only a select few who are willing to put the time, effort and money into making high quality assets.  But, again, that curve is getting steeper and steeper, so it'll be interesting to see where the modding community, which I think we all can agree is what has sustained ArmA for so long, is at in three or five years and what BIS will do.

[Macser 776]

No doubt about it. When OFP was riding high, it was possible to create something on par with, if not above, the default content. And it didn't require a massive investment in terms of skill to get something decent out of it.

 

Since A2 that's changed considerably. But even so, anyone can get into it at some level. But doing something of high quality, that's not based on default content, is a big undertaking. Even for a small addon.  I may not be involved in the A3 mod scene, directly, but I am familiar with the processes and skills required. 

 

I do know modding is a big consideration when people buy into the series. Maybe more so for people wanting to get access to the stuff being created. As opposed to actually becoming modders themselves. I imagine the ratio of modders to players has dropped sharply since A2. That's another reason it's important for the community not to screw around with the people making contributions. Even with it's flaws and limitations, there's not much else out there like the Arma series.

[Antilochos 106]

If you think the start of Arma 3 contains not enough gear etc, don't forget the nice part; the company keeps working on the game and the dlc's are for a part free of charge to use in game, just not fully (wich is much more friendly than with other games). Also, there is this huge free community content, wich to me is really making this game great.

 

I actualy don't think it's a real businessplan from BI to earn money with dlc (but it still must be a bit) like with EA, but more a lack of money/production to invest at once when working on the game.

[beno_83au 1362]

I dunno..... These "1 post" kinda profiles (hint hint) seem to exist just to point out perceived flaws that "everyone" apparently agrees with. But in the end, they all seem to garner a fairly strong backlash and demonstrate the support the series still has. Waste of time on the poster's side? Or have they actually set out to prove how much support there is for ArmA, and have succeeded in the process?

[warlord554 2065]

For me personally I never play vanilla, so I'll always jump into BI's bed as it gives me a base for my own content. 

 

My real complaint would be the time period. I think 2035 (and corresponding "timeline" gear and vehicles) was a bit too much of a jump. 

[Rich_R 1087]

Didn't they just close a similar thread in the General section after the posts started going back and forth over those who thought BI were screwing the average player for every dollar they could (ie Where's my free content!) and others who were (relatively) happy with all the effort BI are putting into Arma 3?

 

Understanding you can't judge a gamer's experience by forums posts, that thread was started by someone with equally low posts to their name.

 

If content is seriously that much of a concern to post something, either play Arma 2 (which was apparently a utopia) to your hearts content or find another milsim sandbox game that offers the content you want.

 

Very simple.

 

[gagi2 50]

if you dont like it... dont buy it..

but stop crying... it wont change anything