Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
They desperately need competition.
Honestly, why do you think Bohemia is able to support a 6 year old game for as long as they have? In fact, let me mention you a short list of features (and more) that have been added for FREE:
Zeus, Arsenal, bipods and weapon resting, 3DEN 3D Editor, drawing lines on the map, firing from vehicles, slingloading with proper rope physics, an aircraft carrier with the ability to launch any plane + fully functioning defense system, a destroyer with the ability to load and unload boats + full interior, advanced helicopter flight model, more detailed airplane damage model (It used to just be "HULL"), interiors for all tanks included in the game, virtual garage with vehicle customization options, dynamic loadouts for aircraft, cluster bombs + unexploded ordnance and even something as small as sounds for when you open doors. Oh also the VR training map with all the training stuff and the Prologue campaign too.
Let me remind you that when the game first launched, NONE of that was there. If you just look at the DLC by the actual content that you get, then it is overpriced. For the price of 13€ (Which is what the heli DLC used to cost), there are AAA games that sell DLC's that contain new maps, new vehicles AND new weapons all in one purchase. So it really only makes sense when we take into consideration that BI supported this game for 6 years now. Game sales are usually not good enough to afford supporting something like that for that long and demanding money so you can use features deploying your weapon wouldn't have worked. So I guess there's your explanation for why the price as high as it is.
Double-spaced or single-spaced?
Double spaced page count chad vs Virgin singled spaced word count
Would that make a triple-spaced essay count individual a Lad?
I just made a big list of post game changes that BI released for free. "Low effort" where exactly? You're not making any good counter arguments.
Listing all the game changes that BI has added for free doesn't really mean the DLC isn't low effort. You have to assess the DLCs on their own merits, not by the additional content that was released for free. Sure, you could say that some of the free content that's been released makes buying some of the DLC worth it though (ex: Helicopter DLC + sling loading.)
The fact of the matter is that a lot of what you listed are just updates and would be considered as such in any other game. For example, Squad has had bipods for a long time as well, although I don't think they have the same weapon resting mechanic that Arma 3 has, maybe it's just a seamless one I haven't noticed though. In Squad, that is not a DLC you must pay for. You don't pay for bipods in Arma 3 as well, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been awhile. Yet I've seen Arma 3 players arguing that a DLC is worth it because of some of the free updates that came alongside it....that doesn't make sense. If the bipods were only accessible through buying the DLC, you could argue that it's a good reason to buy the DLC. However, if you get access to the bipods regardless of whether you buy the DLC or not, it's not really a feature of the DLC- it's only a feature that came along in the update that was released alongside the DLC. The Arma 3 website's Marksmen DLC page shows this too. Marksmen DLC [arma3.com]
When people argue that the DLCs in Arma 3 are not worth it, they are basing their arguments strictly on the content that you obtain through buying the DLC. Therefore it makes no sense to counter those arguments with points about all the free content that has been released, as they are free content that is separate from the DLCs. Some of that free content is only "linked" to DLC because they were released alongside a DLC.
Sure, a lot of the free content that we have now wasn't here when the game first released, but you could make that point about ANY game that's ever released. Pretty much every game that has been supported for more than a year has had some form of free update added to it. Bohemia Interactive aren't saints just because they do it too. Don't get me wrong, I love the free content, but releasing free content isn't unique to Bohemia Interactive, so it makes no sense to state that as a reason to buy DLC.
It's not about "being worth it" but about financing Gameplay updates. The Updates made in Marksman and the other updates weren't simple updates. They completely renewed the gameplay. For free. I personally don't know any game that did such things without trying to get back their money in some way. Hell they have to pay for their bills. And I'm glad to help.
Maybe for you it isn't about "being worth it", but I'd argue for most people it is. Yes, everyone has to pay bills, including the potential buyers of Arma 3's DLC. It's not enough to simply say that "Well they need to pay the bills, so you should buy the DLC." or that "Well they've given us other free content, so you should buy this DLC. It's worth it.". The DLC has to be considered worth the money to potential buyers based on what is included in the DLC itself for them to want to buy it, just like any other product. Clearly this isn't the case if lots of people are complaining about the DLC's price in the forums. Then again, since so many people are buying the DLCs and they're getting good reviews, I'm probably wrong. I highly doubt that will continue if Arma gets some competition from other companies though.
Your post would've almost made sense if you took into account that I never said "They are worth it because XYZ". In fact, the entire point of my lengthy post was to explain why I think the price is as high as it is.
I even said this.
I never actually said that XYZ is the reason to buy anything, it's (probably) the reason why the price is as high as it is. I don't know BI's financial situation, but I would imagine costs for DLC content, costs for platform updates and amount of people willing to actually buy any DLC at all because mods exist all factored into the price. Or it doesn't and BI is really good at making it seem like a better offer than it is.
Also we got Malden for free, which came from Project Argo (which is also free, not sure if that's still up though) and creating an entire map of that scale takes time. They could've easy demanded money for it. Technically they could've also demanded money for the 3DEN Editor, access to the ability to rest / deploy your weapon at all, access to the advanced flight model and have tank interiors only available if you actually bought the tanks DLC.
Just saying, it could be so much worse. I mean, they sold MISSIONS as their own DLC for crying out loud which didn't even come with new assets.
And lastly, the lowest recorded price for Marksmen and Heli DLC was 3.05€. Sure, it was on a sale, but I'd say that if it gets discounted that much then the price should really not be an issue. Even something like Apex (which is actually a really good DLC) was on sale for 6.79€. The more recent DLC's like Jets were on sale for 6.02€.
So I do have to wonder how we have a thread talking about "overpriced" DLC's when nowadays they have massive discounts during sales to the point where you just spend a few bucks on each one. And that is excluding the price for DLC bundles. Unless a few bucks here for a few vehicles and a few bucks there for some extra weapons is still overpriced. If so, I'd be curious to know what you think is a fair price.
inb4 no one will actually read this because my post is too long and I'm not saying that I agree with everything OP said.
As such it makes no sense to compare a released game reciving additional content over years(financed primarily by the DLC) to a game currently in development(which you can opt into purchasing in it's non-finished state). If you want to go down that road, at the very least you could put an actual released game as an example, such as Insurgency: Sandstorm. It is reciving updates and new content without charging for it, and it's released. But it's not been out for even a year yet(in it's released state), so more a case of wait and see I'd argue.