Thread: Performance, DLC, and The Future of Arma 3

Hey hey. 2142 was fully capable of being modded. Remember that gunship mod? It was fantastic in proving your point.

Sent from my SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by dex71

You didn't pick up what I was laying down.

ArmA doesn't have to create any content, and they really don't. It's less of a game and more like a game kit. BF games cost multitudes more to develope, because they actually have to rely on the game they created and developed to sell. To compare the way ArmA collects money to the way EA collects money is ridiculous. They are two wildly different business models.

If it weren't for the third pary developers actually creating the games that sell ArmA ,Arma would be the biggest ripoff in the gaming World. $40- 60 gets you squat.

So what you are saying then is just because they are "wildly different" business models you can't say one is better than the other for the consumer? You are right in some regards that the modding community around Arma is a leading contributer to it's success but this is not unheard of. Take for example Skyrim. I would like to think a majority of the people who bought Skyrim also bought it in full knowledge that they maybe able to mod it into a new game of their choosing one day. Not to long ago you could have said the same about BF. This is what Dslyecxi was trying to say. The business models of the big publishers are killing the creativity of our hobby and thus if someone is unhappy with the DLC that BI has released they need not look any further than this highly popular competing product to see why their unhappiness is short sided. I don't know maybe you are right and I am just saying nonsense but that's just what I concluded from the video. What do you think?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

BF series was much better when they allowed modding. 9 years after Arma 2 hit the market Dayz was released. What that did for Arma2 sales was amazing 9 years later. If BF wants to increase their sales the no brainer is to allow modding. It makes no business since.

Moddable games are a double edged sword. On one side you have the potential for unlimited content. On the other, every mod splits the community. Look how many different flavors of ArmA there are.

The EA model keeps the splitting under the company's control. They control the content quality. It's also a double edged sword. One one side, the quality and ease of install/maint is easy-peasy. On the other, there is no potential for any user-created content. EA has to not only create the content, but find a way to sell it consistantly over a couple/few year period.

Both models are great for the consumer in different ways. "Best" is mostly up to individual taste. The consumer wins either way.

Originally Posted by SlytherN

BF series was much better when they allowed modding. 9 years after Arma 2 hit the market Dayz was released. What that did for Arma2 sales was amazing 9 years later. If BF wants to increase their sales the no brainer is to allow modding. It makes no business since.

The BF series went the console route rather than the mod route. I'm willing to bet that they have made 10x the money with BF3 and 4 than they ever did with BF2. You can't have a moddable game AND enter the console market. Makes great business sense. They tripled their market with pc, xbox, and playstation.

As for BF2 mods being "better", I disagree. AiX was ridiculous and short-lived. PR was cool, but so far removed from the base BF2 player, it never really caught on. It was popular for a while, but became a ghost town loooooooong before BF2 died.

Originally Posted by dex71

As for BF2 mods being "better", I disagree. PR was cool, but so far removed from the base BF2 player, it never really caught on. It was popular for a while, but became a ghost town loooooooong before BF2 died.

Ermmmm...i am still playing it and i do not have troubles finding 120+ player servers ten years after BF2 was released!

What really killed the BF franchise are consoles among other factors,but the main reason was the slice of the BIG Call of Duty cake EA and DICE were hoping to get.
Ribbons,medals,ranks up,battlepacks etz etz flashing every 3 seconds on the screen,that is what the youth wants to see nowadays. It gives them a satisfaction feeling that they are doing it well,while sniping from the roof tops.

I am glad that our BF4 server is doing well i really am,but the game is nothing for me due to the poor netcode(amongst few other game breaking things) as i am used to play games where i can rely on my skills a bit.
BF4 is not one of those,and sometimes i just wonder how do you guy's put up with it. I played for the last time 13 months ago and i wanted to punch a hole in my flatscreen....literaly.

Who still remembers this video




That is what BF is nowadays...sadly

For me the takeaway here is not arma/bf4 being better than the other.

More that our expectations of what these game should provide should be different.

basically, if you're buying arma for the massive maps and customizable sandbox experience you can't expect the bf4 experience.

There are benefits to each, but the benefits of each also result in costs.

ex. massive map = shittier enterable building experiences/shittier graphics
awesome graphics = small confined playing field

customizability = BS time wasted dl'ing files, organizing folders, dealing with running the right mods
ready out of the box no further dl's needed = game modes limited to what the developer provides

*simply - expect each comes with tradeoffs. It's not fair to expect customizablity, extreme graphics, and ready to go out of the box/complete ease of use all from the same package at this point.

what you choose to play/prefers up to you but shitting on a game that does something different bc it doesn't do the same thing another does just isn't fair.

Originally Posted by dex71

Yep....You are as wrong here as you are everywhere else. Nice and consistant.

I play ArmA
I am an electrician, so I also do manual labor

Who plays vanilla ArmA?

Take your "satire", and shove it up your smart ass.

electrician eh? So you make the electricity right? Lol, I keed I keed.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

electrician eh? So you make the electricity right? Lol, I keed I keed.

More like a horrible guidance counselor for electrons. I just show them the easy way out.

I also agree with Ace. It's an apples and oranges comparasin at best. I happen to really like them both for completely different reasons. I have spent enough time in both that the original cost for each is a pittance when compared to a Saturday night out on the town.

@ Killbox......Your personal reviews of the two games have clouded you to the point that you are not able to have an honest conversation. To think that you are more "skilled" than the folks lighting you up using the same netcode you say is unplayable, is laughable at best. You made it very clear, early on, that you do not like BF4. To the point that you were asked to leave the BF4 Forums if all you were going to do was bitch about a game that has seen a full server for years now. We get it. In your eyes BF4 is bad. That isn't at all what we have been talking about. We've been talking about the business models for each game which have shit-all to do with which game you like best, or think you should be awesome at.

and lol "killed the BF franchise". Delusion or narcisism? Do you think consoles killed the franchise? Or did they just kill it for you? Seems that second one is more likely since BF4 still sells and fills servers, and has most likely paved the way for BF5. Consoles may have killed it for you, but you would be a minority.