My Problems with Global Mobilization

[Weißbrot]

Global Mobilization was a project i followed with hope and passion, my first ArmA was set in Cold War and a Arma part without Cold War (content) cant be a good Arma title for me, this opinion share obviusly alot in the Arma community, look how popular CUP or RHS and its mods are.

Vertexmacht made a CDLC wich is focusing on SP player but ignored that Arma is a MP focused game, they failed to make a good and solid start for their CDLC and they made promises wich they til today didnt hold.
Criticism like too less content, fractions, or problems with historical accuracy on 3D models or compilations of character gear and criticism on their Official Servers where ignored.
The community wanted fractions like the US and Soviet Army, tanks like the famous Leopard 2, T-72, T-80 and M-60, helicopters like the AH-1 Cobra, UH-1, Mil Mi-24 and Mil Mi-8/17, planes like the Mig-21, Mig-23, F-4 Phantom 2 and Panavia 200 Tornado and artillery like BM-21, Lars 2, M109, 2S3 but to this day nothing got included after 2 years of release.

I know that there will come more but i know that GM is today in the Arma community pretty dead, no Servers and the most Steam reviews pointing on the SP campaign wich is absolutely broken (since release), i have not much hope left for GM today and i am pretty sad how Vertexmacht drove GM into nowhere.
This is not a rant, i just want to share my toughts and problems with GM in total.

What for problems do you have with GM, do you share or doesnt share something?

[CW2 P. Larkins]

I got excited about it for about 2 nanoseconds after which I learned about it being an optional DLC. That alone was a mark of death and I think everyone well-versed when it came to how the community "worked" knew it would be dead on arrival. As expected, even upon release I remember seeing the servers being surprisingly empty or small. I was lucky to never buy it since, again, I knew that an optional dlc had almost zero long-term value with a game like A3, but I did monitor it's playerbase closely. Died out very quickly, most have forgotten it unless you specifically bring it up.

The biggest problem is honestly just the fact that it is optional - why bother paying for basically modded content and yet not being able to use it in any normal multiplayer servers? Exactly, there is no good reason to do this unless you hate having money. I would've GLADLY bought it had the content been directly and easily accessible through all multiplayer servers - essentially, if it was released like any normal DLC. But no, BI had yet another braindead take and decided to be a stickler to "le futuristic" theme of their "game", so it woudn't "fit" to allow old technology like that to be in the main game.

I expect the same exact repeat with the newer Cold War one. In fact, I guarantee it.

Optional DLC and it's consequences have been a disaster to the Arma 3 playerbase.

[Savelli]

The official position on this is that it's not possible to add more content to the base game (especially this non-futuristic one) since it would make the game take much more of your HDD space. GM is several 10s of gigabytes as I recall.

Overall I agree that this CDLC is doomed in the perpetual state of lacking community initiative to buy it, leading to less servers running it, leading to lack of desire to buy it, leading to... well, it's an endless loop. Perhaps if it was indeed added to the base game, it could have generated more purchases, I agree with this.

> Exactly, there is no good reason to do this unless you hate having money.
CDLCs are made by community groups, so in a way your purchase can be considered as an act of giving back to the people who have been supplying the game with free content for all these years.

[CW2 P. Larkins]

Originally posted by Sparker:

> Exactly, there is no good reason to do this unless you hate having money.
CDLCs are made by community groups, so in a way your purchase can be considered as an act of giving back to the people who have been supplying the game with free content for all these years.

You'd think so right? But at least in GM's case BI got most of that money, not the actual developer. This whole optional DLC program they got is kind of a massive scam where you always give BI the much bigger percentage of the generated income. Maybe the Cold War one has a better deal with them but I highly doubt it.

[Savelli]

As I know, their cut is around 50%. I don't know how fair it is, after all BI have developed the platform itself. I wouldn't call it a complete scam.

[El Berl]

Originally posted by Sparker:

As I know, their cut is around 50%. I don't know how fair it is, after all BI have developed the platform itself. I wouldn't call it a complete scam.

Valve also takes a large cut for providing the platform. Don't forget that.

[Savelli]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by Sparker:

As I know, their cut is around 50%. I don't know how fair it is, after all BI have developed the platform itself. I wouldn't call it a complete scam.

Valve also takes a large cut for providing the platform. Don't forget that.

That's right, but that fee can't be negotiated or changed even at Bohemia's will. It is around 20% to 30%.

[PuFu]

it's always the same, non negotiable
* 30% valve
* 35% BIS
* 35% cDLC developer