@mild solstice i tried on both my gtx1070 8gb vram and gtx2080super 8gb vram
#creator_dlc_discussion
tepid lance
I did check it in latest dev branch, not release branch.
muted narwhal
surely another 4k downside is the exponential file size increase?
@steady gale it isn't exponential. it is actually a bit less than using 4x2k textures instead if one would want to achieve the same texel density
steady gale
it does seem to depend largely on the texture https://prnt.sc/un0oky
that's almost 10x but yeah I didn't mean it as a definite thing
muted narwhal
i am not even sure how you did that to be honest. i used my raw texture output from substance (8bit/chnl TGA files) and got them batched into ImagetoPAA
nohq2 is not really a proper suffix btw
so i doubt the converter knows what to do with it
steady gale
I know, this was just testing
tepid lance
You'll get different compression, distorting the result.
steady gale
it might be some converter difference, I didn't actually consider that
muted narwhal
short version, from my experience, 4k textures are more or less 4xtimes the 2k textures, as expected
even as .paa
so there's that
the 10x the size is bull
steady gale
actually I just converted that 2k texture with the proper _nohq ending and it's actually twice as big as that first one
muted narwhal
and the alternative, generally speaking, is for creators to use 4x2k textures, which is preciselly the same size
steady gale
so yeah that was actually a bit exagerated
muted narwhal
to conclude, no one should actually give 2f about size, and if you wanna play with 2k textures, you can set your resolution to anything different than ultra
steady gale
well, you can also just cut down on the quality just a little bit and have just 2x2k or even just the one, but I guess if that quality difference is worth the increased file size is very much personal preference
I wish people didn't care about file size
muted narwhal
i can always spend another 100-200eu and get a bigger ssd these days
sinful cape
well, my ssd is almost full :x
muted narwhal
i can't do much about the size of textures if these are provided in 2k, instead of 4k
steady gale
I'm just saying, people are more likely to use a content pack that is 10GB than one that is 20GB
not all people, but some people
sinful cape
meh. really depends on the content
muted narwhal
i feel that is weird, considering i have seen collections worth many times over
sinful cape
if it is 20gb of awesome stuff, I'll use it
muted narwhal
also, to be honest, most of that 20gb worth of content is not asset related, but island related
and afaik, that is not 4k
sinful cape
if it is 20gb for a weapon or vehicle that I like, then... no
tepid lance
Terrain assets all in all just make up about 4GB of the GM total size.
muted narwhal
really?
weird, i might check that then
i am not saying 4k textures should be used across everything and everywhere, i am saying if it makes sense to use 4k, use 4k
tepid lance
4.63GB, just checked. π
sinful cape
3d models, textures, and sfx?
tepid lance
We went with 4K to enable long-term suitability of the assets.
2GB worth of weapons and ammunition, magazines, etc.
1.45 GB worth of Character assets
Things start adding up π
sinful cape
you could keep the 4k for later and release in 2k. then a year or two after, you'll announce the ultimate texture pack 3000 for free :p
muted narwhal
worthless amount of work
muted narwhal
in theory everyone i know uses a 2x the resolution intended for his raw files
tepid lance
With sources in substance it's trivial to upgrade and re-export to 8k, but then SSDs are gonna explode. π
muted narwhal
so if i wanna get 4k done, i usually texture in 8k (well, i try anyways, since 8k in substance painter can be a beach) on 8gb vram
but that might change if get my hands on a 16gb gfx card :))
With sources in substance it's trivial to upgrade and re-export to 8k, but then SSDs are gonna explode. π
@tepid lance true :))))
hoary ridge
if you dont own the creator dlc, and download the dlc through workshop.. do you also download the map objects like buildings and so on or is that only for dlc owners?
vital dome
Terrain is also included afaik just canβt play on it but you can take a look in eden afaik
hoary ridge
thank you for your respond. π
zinc nova
yes all the data is identical iirc
tepid lance
I can confirm that with the GM workshop compatibility data it is a 1:1 copy of the regular CDLC download. As a non-owner however you will experience content access restrictions.
radiant vortex
The same as it would be with Apex? IE using guns and kit but getting that watermark?
zinc nova
not being able to pick guns up etc
devout turtle
this is a useful summary of the philosophy of A3 dlc in case nobody ever thought much about it and was interested
it's pre CDLC but quite useful analysis of bohemias really quite generous approach to the player base
which also explains why there's 5.5m owners of A3, which is such a niche product
void yoke
I love the DLC strategy they use for standard DLCs
not sure why they decided to change things after tanks
muted narwhal
how dis they change it?
sinful cape
the change was explained a million times since the start of it
not sure how one can still not understand it
dusk cargo
What's the change?
void yoke
should rephrase,
I don't like the change
@dusk cargo CDLCs and contact don't work like normal DLCs
CDLCs are completely separate and you need the compatibility patch to use the assets
contact got smurfed so the enoch version doesn't contain any sci fi stuff
dusk cargo
hmm? contact works same as Apex, no?
guns and vehicles are in the game, terrain is locked
scifi is more relevant to SP anyway
void yoke
its a bit better now than it was at the start but I still wouldn't have minded having all the props
prisma mountain
Think what he means is that for a short stint Enoch had basically just the infantry gear, and EBO terrain assets.
bleak glen
When in the editor, how do i create a spawn for singleplayer and then use that to properly play it?
and sorry if I am in the wrong channel, this one looked close enough
lucid depot
This channel is about Creator DLCs, most appropriate channel for help with what you want is probably #arma3_editor (or #arma3_scenario )
bleak glen
thanks and sorry
muted narwhal
@void yoke you have the props, just not all of them
@sinful cape my dude, i have the supporter edition, when i bought dlc, i did so in order to gift them further, so i really donβt know how it is not to have a dlc
sinful cape
ok?
muted narwhal
hence my question about how βofficial dlcsβ have been changed post tanks
red saddle
I don't know what's supposed to have changed either.
Tanks was the last DLC, there were no DLC's after that, only creator DLC's (which are different). So I don't really see how they changed the DLC strategy not even having released any DLC since then.
Contact was a Expansion, not a DLC.
Art of War will be a DLC, and there I also don't see any strategy change
void yoke
apex was an expansion aswell but it works like any other dlc
mild solstice
As said, they've explained it before: Many of the Contact campaign assets' features are reliant on scripting so don't fit the sandbox environment when you can't just plonk them down and have them working
void yoke
thats maybe for the modules or the spectrum device(which people still got to work)
but the alien assets didn't need any extra functionality
mild solstice
Their movement was scripted, no?
steady gale
the actual aliens themselves need all kinds of scripting to function but there's still all the alien props
if you have all that you can then also script the alien "weapons" onto other stuff
sinful cape
i'm pretty sure it was more the fear of these objects feeling out of place in base a3
i guarantee folks would QQ about these assets being there then
you just cant win
void yoke
I really don't get those folks
it would just be in the game files
its not like an alien ship would appear during their milsim operations
back to the CDLC topic
I understand why they can't be made like normal dlcs for a number of reasons like IP rights, size, game context
but I think it would increase its sales if people got forced to try its stuff like with apex
and I can guarantee people are way less willing to try it if they need to install a 30gb+ mod for it
waxen lynx
where is that 30+ gb coming from?
GM is now 24 GB and was 1-2 GB less at least from what Mondkalb is saying
muted narwhal
forced to try its stuff? really?
short versions:
all 3rd party content is DLC by definition. cDLC behave more like mods than official dlcs for reasons you are already aware.
void yoke
by forced I mean its already downloaded
someone said that csla was more than 30 but even if it was 24 like GM still my point stands
and I'm not saying cdlcs are less of a dlc than other
I'm saying that they are distributed less effectively than the standard ones, even if I understand why
lucid depot
by forced I mean its already downloaded
GM and CSLA don't fit in the base game timeline, why would I need to download them if I don't plan on playing any Cold War scenario or using any of their assets?
steady gale
did someone actually say that CSLA was even bigger than GM?
void yoke
I've heard even 60gb but I don't believe it
@lucid depot I'd understand that reasoning but its a mindset that could change seeing how much arma relies on extra content
steady gale
I can't imagine how it could possibly be 60gb
lucid depot
I've heard even 60gb but I don't believe it
Yeah Steam page says 56gb for CSLA, but also says 57gb for GM so it's probably wrong
void yoke
weird
steady gale
maybe that's count arma 3 + the dlc?
finite cave
Steam always gives me weird file estimates
steady gale
if arma 3 on its own is about 35GB
then that would be about right, with GM being about 22
finite cave
When I was installing ArmA 2 a few days back Steam warned me it'll take 20 gigs, but the download was like 7
steady gale
if that's the case, CSLA might be just slightly smaller than GM
red saddle
CSLA filesize right now is 7gb
steady gale
oh really?
red saddle
in pre-release test. Still subject to change a bit
finite cave
Can't wait to get my hands on it
steady gale
that's pretty good then
warped quail
When I was installing ArmA 2 a few days back Steam warned me it'll take 20 gigs, but the download was like 7
first is filesize and what you'll need on your hdd, second is download size as that is compressed and how much will vary depending on content
finite cave
Right, thought it'd be something along those lines. Thanks for clearing it up π
young geyser
There is a discussion going on at the BI Arma 3 forums regarding how successful BI's DLC policies are and if there should be any changes, improvements or be left as is. It is quite interesting so a good read: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/230883-csla-its-prognosed-low-sales-and-future-of-creator-dlcs/?do=findComment&comment=3419091
sinful cape
well i sure as hell dont know what people want
maybe BI should just sell weapon skins and be done with it
seems to work for other games
young geyser
maybe BI should just sell weapon skins and be done with it
@sinful cape They would need to remove the workshop for mere skins dlcs to work, otherwise modders just do a much better job for free.
Rather than competing with moders from the workshop BI should do DCLs that add features and content that moders cannot do, at least not at the same optimization/quality level that BI can.
lucid depot
Rather than competing with moders from the workshop BI should do DCLs that add features and content that moders cannot do, at least not at the same optimization/quality level that BI can.
@young geyser and that exactly what they do? Most of the assets you find on the workshop aren't anywhere close to BI standard. As for CDLCs, I haven't really used GM but from what I know, their map and armored vehicles are really great quality-wise.
young geyser
@lucid depot My comment was just to answer Lexx's idea of weapon skins dlcs focus for BI and not a complain about the quality of current DLCs and CDLCs, only a few mods can match the quality of the CDLCs and that is a fact
dusk cargo
Interesting discussion but it doesn't seem to reach any conclusion after three pages
Except numbers of dlc adoption rate
cunning nacelle
add features and content that moders cannot do
Depending on the level of support for CDLC makers, that may include some engine changes, new commands, etc. That's the exciting thing for me 
fresh oasis
We've already seen a bunch of new scripting commands drop in 2.0.0, which is always fun an exciting.
red saddle
2.00 @fresh oasis
and most of that isn't CDLC related I think, but some of it definitely
sinful cape
as example? :>
red saddle
The playSound/say3D start offset thing
that people use to play sounds but start from the middle of it
And... uh..... hm.. I think that's about it
sinful cape
hm I'm curious where this would be used
maybe someone trying to make a radio that remembers timings :>
fresh oasis
Clearly for a DJ booth that allows players to mix audio tracks on the fly.
....Crap, I want that now.
olive vortex
I feel like there might more changes due to discussions on ace slack than due to cdlcs. π
cunning nacelle
most likely, but maybe there's the option of a cdlc pitch being able to convince BI to devote some manpower or something
like say for passing info to extensions other than strings
sinful cape
[x] doubt
devout turtle
if you have a strong candidate cdlc, and signed contract, lots of visible progress and pre-written, proven solutions, BI will consider additional things but only without any promises, they do try though.
some things are possible
red saddle
like say for passing info to extensions other than strings
That was looked at, not sure if the ticket is still open but that won't happen.
cunning nacelle
understandable, too bad it wasn't put in when it was implemented
ebon sedge
I gotta say I'm excited for the future of arma though
I have a feeling that there's still lots of interesting content to come
hoary ridge
if i activate a creator dlc in launcher, and i cant connect to standard a3 vanilla servers right?
tepid lance
Correct.
solid slate
(meh)
modern solar
maybe someone trying to make a radio that remembers timings :>
π΅
dusk cargo
I have just had a thought. Imagine if the game was better organized in terms of programming development, would it be possible for 3rd parties to develop more interesting complex game modes as community DLCs? Think of something like battlefield-type of game mode for instance, or KOTH-type, since we recently discussed its funding. What do you think?
Also a side thought. I see lots of people involved in modelling, textures - the art side of game overall, compared to programming? I don't really know, is it because game is more suited for this side of game development, or are there just more artists than programmers? I don't really know.
sinful cape
you can script game modes like that
there is more art people, because i guess most players prefer new toys to play with.
dusk cargo
I know that it's possible to make such game modes but current set lack of proper programming development tools turns away lots of programmers
wraith sleet
You can make both of the gamemodes easily in vanilla arma
dusk cargo
Sure, still takes time to develop, playtest, debug, balance. 'Easily' is not a word I would apply to that. Anyway imagine if KOTH-like thing was sold as CDLC for instance for a 1$ or so per copy? π€
Or like wasteland, like dayz, etc, take any 'big' game mode in arma
these are not 'easy' to make
wraith sleet
Koth is already available to the community which goes against community DLC guidelines.
On the other hand I made a copy of Noshahr canals and set up a basic territory capture gamemode that functions perfectly in about six hours total
dusk cargo
I am not stating to make KOTH paid π€¦ I am just giving it as an example of game mode.
wraith sleet
That's the problem with your idea. Your examples are already made. This is a sandbox, nobody is going to pay for a gamemode as you're not going to find anything particularly revolutionary
hallow parrot
Honestly if there's a gamemode CDLC, it's really easy to rip from ebo since the most of the things aren't binarized, so community will make it happened worse
wraith sleet
And the amount of time developers put in would mean not sell anything for $1. These are people putting their time and effort in, working an additional job and are already losing money to Valve and then likely Bohemia
hallow parrot
π€
dusk cargo
nobody is going to pay for a gamemode as you're not going to find anything particularly revolutionary
well I don't know, I think that something like Alive, Antistasi, Liberation would have sold, if they were 'launched' properly
nobody is going to pay for a gamemode as you're not going to find anything particularly revolutionary
I think that your argument applies same way to the problem now with people saying that they won't pay for 'a paid mod if they can get same thing for free from another mod' π
wraith sleet
Alive is a mod, not a gamemode.
Nothing listed hasn't had some sort of similar gamemode made. Gamemodes are a dime a dozen in this community
On top of that it's a sandbox. The point is to create things that others can enjoy. That's why every gamemode Bohemia has put out has the framework readily available in the editor
On the other hand the CDLC we have is expansive, adding basically as much equipment as vanilla Arma
And is continuing to add new things. There's easily as much stuff in there as there was in 2013 excluding civilian items
dusk cargo
On the other hand the CDLC we have is expansive, adding basically as much equipment as vanilla Arma
You are trying to explain it to me just like I am trying to explain to you that new game modes do add a lot of new gameplay.
wraith sleet
Gameplay that is supposed to be created in the editor. That's why we have it
dusk cargo
You can create thousands of things more in code of course
That's why we have code π€·
wraith sleet
Which you can do, in the editor and in your file browser.
There's a whole wiki full of code you can use
If you know how to use it your options are essentially limitless on top of creating mods that can add more things
There's wanting to have CDLCs then there's wanting to pay for things we already have and can make relatively easily
dusk cargo
No, one really can't make those complex game modes relatively easily, you will want to attach this, that, and a lot of other things to it, you can't just put a few things in the editor and get it.
wraith sleet
Yes you can actually. You could create your own version of old man in the editor of you wanted to which is easily one of the most complex vanilla gamemodes. Find one example of something you can't make through scripting in what is already provided
dusk cargo
Although, I now see how harder if would be to assert quality of programming-based CDLC. Models and visuals are one thing, but bugs in gameplay are a totally different thing. π€ I think at most it would be viable to make campaigns or SP scenarios.
wraith sleet
And we saw how well with probably the least popular DLC, Tac-Ops
dusk cargo
Yes you can actually. You could create your own version of old man in the editor of you wanted to which is easily one of the most complex vanilla gamemodes. Find one example of something you can't make through scripting in what is already provided
there are lots of things not made based on BI's modules in the workshop
wraith sleet
They're using BIs scripts
dusk cargo
in what way? in a way that they use SQF as their base?
tbh in my practive I have always stayed away from stock SQF systems as they were flawed in one way or another.
And we saw how well with probably the least popular DLC, Tac-Ops
Well, these are relatively low-scale SP missions, think of something more of the old man scale probably
wraith sleet
One of the biggest "selling points" of old man is the things provided to the community for free
Which is where the flaw in your idea is
hallow parrot
Doesn't mean he can't sell a gamemode
dusk cargo
One of the biggest "selling points" of old man is the things provided to the community for free
It's good game content on its own, imagine some third studio made it and wanted to sell it
I honestly didn't think of Old Man as a campaign plus lots of by-product free content, but rather as a solid campaign
"selling points" of old man
it was whole free thus it can't have a selling point
Which is where the flaw in your idea is
again, there is exactly same argument about the current CDLCs, where lots of people declare that mods provide similar quality for free
prisma mountain
I think it could work, but the content would probably need to be both SP and MP.
I couldn't see MP really working very well even at a small cost. Particuarlly when your dealing with the same game limitions and such so polish is a bit limited vs 3d assets.
Also I think the utilization as modules is fantastic for the end user.
devout turtle
be aware that game modes need frequent updates, which doesn't fit well with Bohemias limited publication timetable. they often also contain parts of other peoples code, so writing from scratch can be done but will be time consuming, especially the testing and balancing, and further expansion and development. If you wanted to create a game mode as some kind of basis for a DLC, I'd recommend creating a small set of new assets (6 weapons, 2 vehicles, 4 characters, some cool useful new props for game modes) and then releasing the game mode alongside the CDLC as a free steam addon.
sinful cape
game mode cant be protected and is easily ripped out of the files
also I'm pretty sure BI said that cdlcs with only sp/mp are not going to happen exactly because they can't be protected
dusk cargo
also I'm pretty sure BI said that cdlcs with only sp/mp are not going to happen exactly because they can't be protected
@sinful cape interesting, I didn't know that
Yes I agree it's also quite easy to steal
Will be annoying to take down servers running stolen code too, unless it's implemented somehow π€
dusk cargo
Yeah I see
So it can check ownership of model but not of code if I understand it correctly
waxen lynx
technically it can be done and missions have basically same protection as the rest of the data
sinful cape
but I could just rip off the idea
dont even have to be a programmer pro to do most game modes
ofc I can also rip off 3d model ideas, but that's a whole lot more work then :p
waxen lynx
to do comprehensive game modes takes many months of full time work, and you need to provide continued support
muted narwhal
you also need a lot of testing
dusk cargo
Okay at least someone agrees with me that it's a lot more work than 'just place free modules'
wraith sleet
I am on the edge of agreeing with CDLCs as a whole, if they are done with really high quality and provide lots of content like GM, then yeah
But charging more money for game modes, hell to the no I would not buy it
dusk cargo
Why, do you think that programmer work is less important?
wraith sleet
Especially since ArmA is supposed to be a platform on which we can freely share, make, play, and contribute to the community to create an amazing experience, and make the game last for as long as it does.
I don't think it's less important
I just think that the only content that should have a paywall, should be that made by Bohemia
dusk cargo
Especially since ArmA is supposed to be a platform on which we can freely share, make, play, and contribute to the community to create an amazing experience, and make the game last for as long as it does.
what applies to art, should apply to code, no?
well and other stuff of game mode creation, testing, balancing, etc
wraith sleet
Utilizing your sense, and wanting this type of rewarding the creators of assets or game modes, we'd end up with Paradox Interactive level of paywall additions
And I personally absolutely and unconditionally am against that
dusk cargo
I just think that the only content that should have a paywall, should be that made by Bohemia
And the content made by CDLC participants you mean? Or only by Bohemia? I don't get it.
wraith sleet
It is in a sense a step next to the idea of paid content on the Workshop, which is a hugely terrible and unwanted idea
Only by Bohemia, I'm not a fan of the CDLC system at all
However I can appreciate what the GM Team has brought forward at the same time
dusk cargo
Oh ok, so you are against CDLC in general
However I can appreciate what the GM Team has brought forward at the same time
Well imagine same amount of man-hours invested in good programmed game mode π€
wraith sleet
How much content will it provide?
is it customizible?
Will it add to the ArmA Modding Community?
dusk cargo
well it's like a game within a game
sure it will add regardless if it's paid or not
you can play it
wraith sleet
The modding community which provides free content as its their hobby is in my opinion the only reason ArmA is still alive and kicking
dusk cargo
Sure I agree with that
wraith sleet
If we had dozens of CDLCs for Game Modes, Vietnam, Cold War (Germany), Cold War (Czechoslovakia), Cold War (insert part of world) or even more
I would lose interest definitely
dusk cargo
Well, core part of CDLC is that the company assures quality of all that... but yes I see that it is harder to sell and assure quality of functionality compared to art
The modding community which provides free content as its their hobby is in my opinion the only reason ArmA is still alive and kicking
Edge is somewhere when the quality of that becomes comparable to base game, and modding groups become quite big and organized, like the RHS or CUP teams and many others I guess, I don't know them all
wraith sleet
Honestly I don't know, there is a huge negative cloud generally around CDLCs already, it is a fairly unpopular addition to the ArmA series, yeah there's people who support it, and I can support it, if they are really game changing additions and huge, but honestly
I am kind of disappointed seeing the new CDLC, being only further down the border than the last one, even having some same assets
And unlike Global Mobilization, the new CSLA CDLC (From the pictures only) seems to be questionable in quality
There's also the rumor of the re-use of assets, none of which really steer my opinion towards supporting the whole CDLC theme
Re-use of assets from the previous ArmA games is what I mean
lucid depot
So the issue you have with CDLC is not it being produced by a 3rd party but the quality (so far) of the (C)DLC itself?
wraith sleet
I just personally could not see myself supporting the game in the same way, if they started releasing more CDLCs, and especially game modes, I understand your argument for code vs content, but something like a game mode should just imo be free, adding more paywalls in the community could divide the public-part of the playerbase behind several paywalls
karmic harness
Okay at least someone agrees with me that it's a lot more work than 'just place free modules'
To make you feel better, I'll say that I also agree with this statement, but IMO it's so obvious that it doesn't even need to be discussed. And anyone that claims otherwise has not written any real game mode for Arma (PLEASE: not ArmA - makes my eyes bleed).
No, a Proof Of Concept doesn't equal to a game mode. If you still don't believe that, just count the number of commits game modes like Wasteland have and reconsider your opinion
cc: @dusk cargo
wraith sleet
Primarily yeah, the quality, how much does it add, the duplication of content (having several same items, just from different DLCs)
dusk cargo
Just so we stay on topic, if you don't mind, here is the initial question I wanted to discuss:
Imagine if the game was better organized in terms of programming development, would it be possible for 3rd parties to develop more interesting complex game modes as community DLCs? Think of something like battlefield-type of game mode for instance, or KOTH-type, since we recently discussed its funding. What do you think?
wraith sleet
Global Mobilization was definitely a, oh this is something brand new, Cold War, untouched part even by mods
void yoke
as much as I'm not interested in the current ones I feel like CDLCs are a plus for the game, their existence wastes no BI developing time and if you like their themes they are the best thing about that theme it so far
they could be better but so could vanilla arma
GM has spectacular buildings and vehicles too
wraith sleet
But CSLA feels like a CDLC on top of a CDLC, same general timeline (80s) just seemingly (what we can judge from imagery) lesser quality and some same items (SKOT/OT-64) - I do hope I'm proven wrong on release, and CSLA matches Global Mobilization in quality and perhaps even quantity, but I would hate to see smaller additions kind of like the ArmA 2 British Armed Forces DLC, or the Czech Forces DLC, where Operation Arrowhead was something brand new, smaller ones feel like just trying to squeeze out a buck here and there
And where ArmA 2 allowed you to use DLC content just in lower quality, in ArmA 3, you can't pick up DLC items (not all), you can't operate DLC vehicles, you can't play the DLC map and etc.
What I'm saying is, I'd hate to see it become a trend, where we'd see many of these DLCs, it is a problem for a lot of Milsim communities too
Since now we either have to require the player to purchase the DLC, or not use that DLC at all
otherwise, the player will have a bad experience, not being able to use the weapons, us not being able to host missions on those maps, if someone in the tank crew doesn't have it, we can't use the tank
lucid depot
So if a DLC was released with the same quality and same content "mass" as what we had with BI-made one, you'd support them?
And to answer our questions, I'm have mixed feelings (I hope that's the correct way to formulate that), putting a game mode behind a paywall like you'd do for maps, eh no, but applying a "the more you play, the more you see ads for it", yeah, I don't have anything against that as it doesn't split the player base
wraith sleet
I suppose what I'm saying is I don't want a huge quantity of DLCs, I understand it's business and what that entails, but at the same time it becomes a problem at a certain point with communities
steady gale
Cold War, untouched part even by mods is this supposed to be a joke?
wraith sleet
What mod touched upon West-Germany vs East-Germany?
ripe trail
gm
wraith sleet
Well it's not a mod π
ripe trail
c+dlc
lucid depot
A huge number of DLC wouldn't be an issue I think if they don't overlap, no need to buy a Cold War DLC if you only play 2020 era missions
steady gale
several mods covered a lot of the same ground that GM did
GM just did it at much a higher and consistent quality
but if you want BTRs, arma's got plenty of those
it wasn't a case of "oh this CDLC came out, now I can do all these scenarios I couldn't do before"
lucid depot
And have a few DLC overlap eras is fine as long as they don't provide de same content (ex, one can cover ABC country, and another one can cover XYZ nations)
wraith sleet
See I agree with that, I just don't like the fact that we have two CDLCs, covering happenings, both in Central Europe, the Iron Curtain between West Germany, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia
And if the price is going to be the same, that is an additional $40 on anyone new to the game, if they want to try out joining the units that do use them
And I'd honestly be pissed if we got a for example Balkans CDLC, and we get an additional $60, on top of the base game, and if you want any of the Bohemia DLCs
In my opinion, way too much
steady gale
I think the overlap is probably the worst part
karmic harness
I'm have mixed feelings (...), putting a game mode behind a paywall like you'd do for maps
As much as I understand your feelings and intentions, as a programmer who spent hundreds if not over a thousand hours over a game mode, [I've literally gone to and done lectures at several programming conferences with what I've either learned or built] it's unfair to me that you're saying that my work has to be for free whereas it's okay to pay for an island or a dozen of new rifles
dusk cargo
As much as I understand your feelings and intentions, as a programmer who spent hundreds if not over a thousand hours over a game mode, [I've literally gone to and done lectures at programming conferences with what I've either learned or built] it's unfair to me that you're saying that my work has to be for free whereas it's okay to pay for an island or a dozen of new rifles
I second that, and I can find lots of game mode developers around here
wraith sleet
I don't think so simkas, not many mods provided good quality content for West German and East German spheres before the CDLC, you can maybe scrape up a West German faction out of 5 mods, but it would have tons of issues on its own
tepid lance
Don't forget that server-side scripting is possible and employed by various Life Game-Mode community, who are approved for monetization, while the content authors of the assets they use in their game modes have no such avenue.
karmic harness
over a thousand
(not counting anything around the game mode, like custom launcher, etc... then, we're at 3000h+)
wraith sleet
While I understand everyone wanting to be rewarded financially for their work, hell I'd want it too for my models... but at the same time
dusk cargo
(not counting anything around the game mode, like custom launcher, etc... then, we're at 3000h+)
I've spend 2k hours probably, and we have 3700 commits (btw it's a good estimate of effort spent, I agree), plus the work of our other team members
steady gale
I was doing east/west german stuff in my group and I didn't really feel like I was missing all that much long before GM
wraith sleet
If we really start doing this, and each person that has devoted time wants financial compensation for their modification of the game, we'll soon end up with a ArmA 3 Mod Store, and all the good content being behind a paywall
And if the game for a full version with all content starts racking up as much as hundreds of dollars, then I'd say we went overboard
dusk cargo
Well noone says that everyone must monetize sell game mode access. But if someone wants to, and can for sure provide good level of support for his creation, then why not?
wraith sleet
Do you really think anyone wants to pass up on an opportunity to make money?
dusk cargo
Do you really think anyone wants to pass up on an opportunity to make money?
Some people do yeah
karmic harness
@wraith sleet please, pretty please: there is no such game as "ArmA 3" ;)
Like really, write "Arma 3" π
wraith sleet
It's a habit since the first ArmA okay leave me be π¦
Still got the image of it stuck in my head I can't stop
tepid lance
As long as the assets on the "paid arma market" are curated and vetted to prevent IP violations as well as kept to a certain quality standard, it's a good thing, as it would enable content to become available that otherwise would not.
wraith sleet
I honestly don't want the CDLC to turn into a landslide in the direction of, what if people could monetize this, and monetize that, going from paying for a modification that adds a whole new setting, to paying for a game mode, I think it would evolve based on people demanding it, to paying for 'nation packs' perhaps
I'm just worried it'll turn into a tale of "Well they're making money off of it, why can't we", and I'd hate to see the game I once played and enjoyed with thousands of hours and hundreds of modifications and people who put their time and effort in for free, turn into a
Well, content store
karmic harness
Do you really think anyone wants to pass up on an opportunity to make money?
Tbh, yes.
In my case, under a certain threshold I wouldn't care. Having money involved would probably be more hassle that it would be worth
Of course, if you decide to give me 100kUSD then it's different, sure π
steady gale
I would just feel bad asking money for something that isn't up to a very high standard
wraith sleet
As long as Bohemia is strict with CDLCs, and makes them stand up to the level of quality and consistency that they themselves can put out, then I guess it's fine, as long as it's not an overwhelming amount of CDLCs
dusk cargo
As long as Bohemia is strict with CDLCs, and makes them stand up to the level of quality and consistency that they themselves can put out, then I guess it's fine, as long as it's not an overwhelming amount of CDLCs
Why not, if it's indeed functioning as platform for other content?
Well I see you argument that it becomes a store
But still π€
wraith sleet
But I'm afraid if there is an overwhelming amount, that it could lead to a smaller playerbase, and less welcoming to new people who just want to buy the base game, join a unit, try milsim (something that is a core part of the community in ArmA)
dusk cargo
Yeah I see
wraith sleet
And it would be harder to find communities you can join, and units, since you might have ABC CDLCs, they have XYZ CDLCs, and unfortunately majority of people live paycheck-to-paycheck
and especially for us living in countries where the average salary is some $500, those would be some hefty prices
tepid lance
Please do not forget that nobody is owed free addons. Mod makers put out releases as a courtecy, there's no right to those. A monetary incentive can make content happen that otherwise would not be worked on. The time it takes for making a decently sized nation pack for arma 3 is not comparable to the time it took to make that for OFP. Being able to justify spending more time going the extra mile in polish/content to your friends and family becomes easier if there's a financial reward possibility.
If a CDLC is however just a strict paywall to sub-par content / straight port from previous releases, then that's an issue that needs addressing.
wraith sleet
I agree with you Mondkabl, and we're not owed, but I'm afraid that too many could lead to a fractured playerbase, and possibly a smaller playerbase
Where Paradox for example, notorious for the amount of content they put out, has a system to deal with that, I don't see a similar system working in ArmA
tepid lance
Certainly there is a possibility for a chilling effect, whereas I see it as the opposite. Modding is becoming so much more resource intensive and a time-sink, that fewer people are sticking with it as the game's complexity progresses. Opening a curated (not free for all) marketplace is IMO a good way to counter the decrease in talent-pool.
steady gale
sure, mod makers are not obligated to make free content, but do you really want A3 to become basically a microtransaction game?
karmic harness
@wraith sleet, I just wanted to note that I understand your point of view and your concerns. I'm just opposed to the idea of treating programmers in a different way than, say, 3D artists or animators
wraith sleet
Yeah you got a point, with the next games becoming even better in quality it'll take more time for individuals to create content that is up to par with the base game, I suppose it's a doubled edged sword and there really isn't a great no consequences solution
Yeah I get you Stack, I understand your points too, and I understand that people often would look at a game mode or a full fledged campaign as less content as it's not something you can browse in the arsenal or spawn in the editor
Perhaps a solution would be that a CDLC provides it all, the scenarios, the campaign, the content, the game mode, and then it could really be worth the money, but that is also making the margin for your content to become a CDLC really high-up
steady gale
hopefully A4 hits a balance where making things up to the standard takes a bit more work, but the amount of work required to actually put it in game is considerably less
wraith sleet
At the end of the day, I have no solutions or answers to such problems, but I do have the concerns π
steady gale
so it'll overall be the same amount of work, but more of that time can be spent on making the content high quality and not figuring out all the arma weirdness
tepid lance
There's no time for bad tools. π
dusk cargo
hopefully A4 hits a balance where making things up to the standard takes a bit more work, but the amount of work required to actually put it in game is considerably less
Why 'make more work'? Do you know how time-wasting arma SQF programming is right now, for instance?
I can't say about models and such as I'm not familiar with their work flow.
Still see no reason why something should take more useless work.
wraith sleet
Perhaps better modding tools could be used to remedy the amount of work, but some parts of course you still need to put in the hours, unless some revolutionary way for scenario-making or 3D modelling gets discovered π
steady gale
that's what I mean
tepid lance
Thats how I understood it, too.
steady gale
making the actual content takes more work, but the arma side is easier and more straightforward
tepid lance
A more logical implementation of PhysX π€
steady gale
dunno how that would apply to scripting
wraith sleet
Could definitely remedy the situation, considering that upon first glance the ArmA 3 modding tools are oh lord.
While we're at it Mondkabl, a easier to configure armor system please, I have so much trouble making a vest behave properly
karmic harness
Perhaps better modding tools could be used to remedy the amount of work
I think we're slowly getting there, seeing the DayZ editor, for example (DayZ modders, please don't eat me, that's just my impression! π )
vivid lynx
@tepid lance be realistic now, what color do you want for your dragon? π
dusk cargo
Coding-wise it is yeah
karmic harness
I haven't done much there because I'm not a fan of Zombies but you get a real code debugger, for starters π
karmic harness
You can sidestep your code line by line, AFAIR
wraith sleet
Holy Jesus
karmic harness
And that's the thing that was available in 2018-ish
wraith sleet
I remember I did get a look at the config for some items too, vests, weapons
karmic harness
@tepid lance
π©
So brown, you're saying? π
wraith sleet
It looks very similar to A3, but it also made some things so much freaking easier π
steady gale
by editor do you mean mission editor?
karmic harness
muted narwhal
@steady gale it already is to some degree
a micro-transaction thing
just that is not allowed for everyone
so it'll overall be the same amount of work, but more of that time can be spent on making the content high quality and not figuring out all the arma weirdness
@steady gale that also means getting importers and shaders up to industry standards
karmic harness
Also the scripting language:
- If you want to be mean: Finally resembles a real programming language
- Otherwise: Is something that would make more professional programmers flock to it as they are more used to something that looks like C++ and won't need to waste their time to learn the quirks of the language itself before becoming productive, hence drastically lowering the entry barrier @steady gale
muted narwhal
@karmic harness - that is also stands true for 3d side of things
karmic harness
Great to know π
muted narwhal
being able to use industry standards tools and workflows to get content in
that means people who are already accustomed to the 3d world, could inject their content without having to unlearn and then re-learn things
karmic harness
Yeah, not having to feel like you're wasting your time to learn something that you're NEVER going to use anywhere else is a big plus π [the reason why I still don't know SQF and am not planning to learn it]
lucid depot
As much as I understand your feelings and intentions, as a programmer who spent hundreds if not over a thousand hours over a game mode, [I've literally gone to and done lectures at several programming conferences with what I've either learned or built] it's unfair to me that you're saying that my work has to be for free whereas it's okay to pay for an island or a dozen of new rifles
@karmic harness that's not what I'm saying, I do think that we should allow selling game modes, but the current way of implementing CDLCs (any player that doesn't own it, cannot play it) wouldn't work with a (multiplayer) game mode. If you can use the game mode without paying but you have midscreen ads (like you have for weapons, vehicles, ...). I just think that locking game mode behind a total paywall can do more harm than good (as MP game modes need players, for SP yeah, why not)
dusk cargo
I'm pretty sure that some wasteland or exile kind of thing could tolerate this π€
Some battlefield-type, I guess not
wraith sleet
Depends on how well the public server community is doing
I don't think a paywall locked game mode would do well, when they have alternatives
dusk cargo
Yeah depends on price also. I think I am fine to pay 1-2$ to play wasteland. If I played wasteland of course.
wraith sleet
I do have to really thank Bohemia for even just trying to remedy the issue with DLC owners and those who don't have it, both with official DLCs and with CDLCs
Hm, I don't know, you would need either a really amazing game mode, or a game mode that has not been made yet for free
Otherwise I don't think it'll keep running, not for long at least
dusk cargo
It's hard to say what would be reachable if we had Unity level of convenience for software side of the game
Maybe said wasteland-type of game mode would be 3x better π€·
steel valley
Better physx implementation would certainly help. I gave up on modding because of it.
zinc nova
several mods covered a lot of the same ground that GM did
@steady gale
Show me a single mod that covered the conflict between east and west germany, with poland and denmark in it too.
steady gale
I said a lot of ground, I didn't say it covered everything exactly the same
prisma mountain
In regards to the game mode, I could easily see a cheaper DLC that adds custom content built around a game mode.
zinc nova
I said a lot of ground, I didn't say it covered everything exactly the same
mods that added 80's factions of any sorts were second to none. It was the rare few soviet or us mods that had 20 dependencies just for a few pieces of gear
steady gale
you can fairly easily make somewhat complete 80s soviets with just RHS
sinful cape
but did someone do this? :>
steady gale
yeah? anyone can do it
prisma mountain
Saying mods cover the 80s is like grabbing the AK47 from apex and saying it's now a East German AK47. Like there is bits and pieces from various mods, but in general it's the smaller details that make GM so great. You don't get the quality of the m113s that are specific for Western German forces, and such with mods.
steady gale
yes but the discussion was about overlap
prisma mountain
For me in terms of overlap will come with CDLC vs CDLC rather then mods. Which I think GM will always have the home field advantage as the first released content. The quality of GM stuff though is better then any mod currently. It's not just about looks, it's about the technical side of things. Are the firegeos and hitpoints really fine tuned, can I pop the fuel tank or mess with avionics on a helicopter, ect.
Not saying mods don't do these things, but in terms of time and quality. Implementing the full mechanics to something like a tank to be on a vanilla quality level is a lot of work for modders that CDLCs will always want to achieve to justify their cost.
wraith sleet
I sure hope they do
zinc nova
yeah? anyone can do it
go ahead and prove me wrong then. Make an accurate 80's faction using RHS.
karmic harness
I guess you also need to define "accurate" :)
Do you want to fool a historian or a statistical KotH player with that faction?
sinful cape
i dont think the point is that "anyone can do it", but that nobody has yet
so the cdlc has +1 valid reasons to exist
zinc nova
a statistical koth player can go bite the dust
ashen belfry
Any well made CDLC has a reason to exist and many thanks go out to the mod creators.
red saddle
not like there wasn't already a debugger for SQF π
muted narwhal
you can fairly easily make somewhat complete 80s soviets with just RHS
@steady gale not just yet, nope
in any case, 80s for RHS is secondary, it's not our primary focus
ashen belfry
Would be nice to see it happen though π
steady gale
yeah you can, tan M88s, those vests in GREF, SSh-68, AK74
that's already pretty close
wraith sleet
Pufu give us a dp27!
devout turtle
that may depend on how well they are done, and how much fun is designed into them
prisma mountain
I would fork money left and right for more DLC addons.
2035 navy, planes, terrains. All things I'm sure would be a big hit added to the base game, and allow the community to contribute to it.
fresh oasis
R.e Paid Gamemodes: Back when I was modding Garrysmod, years ago, there were a few stores online where server owners could buy gamemodes. You'd get a base copy of a gamemode for $10-40, and then could mod it to your heart's content. Yeah, they could always be copied or acquired for free for the most part, but it was a way to give modders a bit of something.
The key bit that made that work though, IMO, was that only server owners would have to buy a copy, and everyone else could play for free. I wouldn't mind seeing something similar in Arma. It wouldn't work as part of the CDLC program, as it wouldn't bring in enough money, but it's an alright way to get a little bit back for modding. Especially when a complex gamemode can literally be thousands of hours of work.
devout turtle
Thats actually a neat idea so long as all the code inside the game mode is credited and compensated
I think over the years my expansion of kiljoys evolution mission has 100 contributors. Hard to write something completely from scratch
dusk cargo
Given that game mode authors (especially of multiplayer and/or pvp game modes) also need to rent the server to keep it up, I doubt that such amount of payment will even cover the minimal amount of money. But better than nothing.
devout turtle
Youd be surprised how much a $40 per server host could raise
dusk cargo
π€
dusk cargo
I doubt there are 2000 server hosts though. Maybe 200? Well 8k is also good π
devout turtle
I think its the individual person who rents the server not the game server hosting company that spoffy meant
dusk cargo
Yeah I understand that
prisma mountain
As long as the game mode is PvP centric it would be fine.
The slotted servers a lot of people host zues on can't handle lots of AI
plucky magnet
I think its the individual person who rents the server not the game server hosting company that spoffy meant
I think Sparker means that there are only so few people that would actually be interested in such a gamemode and how many people would be ready to pay for that gamemode.
Thinking of Arma most servers are Life servers and that already is the biggest PvP mode of all
prisma mountain
I think there is still room for another RP game mode at some point. Just got to find the nitch.
I'm still down to do config/encoding for a farming style CDLC even if it means just a tiny 1-2 asset one. π
devout turtle
well consider Epoch had 1m players at its peak
so financing a game mode like that would make a lot of sense
if it helps sells your cdlc assets
Arma needs high quality MP gamemodes, so i'm in agreement with Sparker on this, you just have to be innovative and flexible when it comes to tying it wit ha CDLC project.
CDLC as-is won't easily contain a developing, evolving game mode that needs monthly updates
but it doesn't mean you can't work around that
prisma mountain
One big advantage with how old Arma is that it's settled. So at least your keeping your time doing balance and meta tweaks rather then broken code.
devout turtle
yeah i remember when i ported evolution to Arma 3 alpha it was the first game mode launched. I used portable toilets for MASH objects.
I worked with a swiss guy to develop the first gear saving code. what a nightmare it was.
dusk cargo
Arma needs high quality MP gamemodes
yes and I expect their amount to get multiplied if Enscript is used in arma, the outdated and unusable software side of the game currently is a lot of missed opportunity IMO
devout turtle
after 6 months of repeatedly fixing the mission each time BI patched the game, I went back to arma 2 for a year and a half.
and came back only when it was more stable
this is one reason I'm happy to make a CDLC, it will give me something to enjoy while any future game is bedded in.
prisma mountain
I'm sure Arma 3 will be relevent up to the point of A4 release just like A2 is.
I mean hell Skyrim is 9 years old, still gets mods.
devout turtle
there's no game like it
same with skyrim, TES Online was a hackfest
skyrim was a classic built on a classic built on a classic
stoked for BG3, but that's OT
it's easy for game creators to mis-step
scary industry
once the stakes are raised
one bad scoping decision can topple a $100m studio
it happened to many a movie studio in hollywood before games were a thing
or almost, often they were saved by a low-budget smash they had paid no time to during development
and in a nutshell that's what CDLC is - a chance to pan for gold.
dayZ, PUBG, what next?
chances are it will be made here, by this community
we've done it twice before
devout turtle
(despite the funky tools and zero budget)
PUBG was the top-selling premium game of 2017, having sold 30 million copies worldwide and grossed about $900 million. By June 2018, it had sold more than 50 million copies worldwide. PUBG was again the top-selling premium game of 2018, increasing its annual sales revenue to $1.028 billion.```annual
so that's $2bn
from an arma 3 gameplay mod
DayZ: The alpha release sold over 172,500 copies in the first 24 hours, totaling over US$5 million in sales. During peak sales, over 200 copies were being purchased per minute and after one week over 400,000 copies had been sold. The game reached a total of more than a million sales while remaining at the top of Steam's sales charts for two weeks in a row. By May 2014, the game had sold over two million copies increasing to over four million by November 2018.```an arma 2 gameplay mod
4m sales at $30 = $120m
so fun game modes are very very very important
what makes both of these so special? they caught peoples attention, they were new and interesting, and they had a creative force behind them and a hugely supportive community of developers, players and community organisers/ hosts
all of the people who hosted these game modes as mods, and contributed to the code, the ideas, the assets, should have been rewarded in some way.
there are many people in this community who helped make those millions, billions of dollars
arma is an incubator
"rival" games like squad, scum, h1z1, hell let loose, post scriptum, etc etc can't touch arma, partly because arma has Bohemias vision and stability behind it, and partly because of all of us.
plucky magnet
Yeah there is a strong veteran community behind arma
devout turtle
we may bicker and fight amongst ourselves, there are loads of petty rivalries in the community that go on like dumb hillbilly feuds, but at the end of the day we are one big family with a shared passion.
and i hope CDLC will allow some of that passion to flower into the next big thing...
whatever it is it will need game modes.
red saddle
Even if we could say "give me money for permission to monetize my mod" that'd be great already. And IMO that makes sense.
devout turtle
a community monetization license, with collection system for fees would be needed
but if we make everything commercial activity, the community could become a bit hard-nosed towards helping each other
hoary ridge
why not sell weapon skins for arma 3? other games make their money also that way.
dusk cargo
but if we make everything commercial activity, the community could become a bit hard-nosed towards helping each other
Agree, it's a taugh situation, creativity must come from will of creation, not will to earn money π€
prisma mountain
why not sell weapon skins for arma 3? other games make their money also that way.
I don't think it would work as well. Re-texturing is a pretty entry level modding thing that almost everybody first learns, and I can't think of one community that I know of that doesn't have at least one member who hasn't done something custom.
Like you even learn it if you make a mission and want a simple custom sign.
vivid lynx
maybe steam resurrects its paid creations system, much of the methods and stuff is still there
it was live for 5 days or something last time? π
wraith sleet
creator DLC is good in my opinion
dusk cargo
Why was it closed btw?
steel valley
Microtransactions and too many paid DLCs will kill the ARMA series. Large DLC's with really great and unique content, sure, but selling individual skins, vehicles and weapons will end what ARMA is all about. This game has been kept alive for all these years largely because of all the great community provided mods, I know that my community and I would absolutely not play if we didn't have things like CUP, RHS, ACE, CBA, and many others. Absolutely people should be able to do CDLCs and get paid for the enormous amount of work that goes into certain things, but without the freely available community content any future ARMA game would live a short life and not enjoy as diverse a player base.
vivid lynx
@dusk cargo people raised concerns about stolen content, destroying communities built around content and how the revenue was split, 25% to the maker(s)
here's probably a good start with links to a lot of other articles, https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-has-removed-paid-mods-functionality-from-steam-workshop/
dusk cargo
Thanks!
vivid lynx
here's steam's initial page for it, https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent
vivid lynx
the revenue split seems a bit odd
then again patreon etc aren't that much better either
sinful cape
well, the steam paid mods thing wasnt the end of the story
bethsoft still pushed through and now they have their own platform where they dont have to pay anything to valve
prisma mountain
I kinda still stay by my opinion the CDLC program would of been better off with a Jet/Tank DLC approuch. You can make what you want but it has to be 2035 themed, ect.
Although I'm not against what it has become now either.
mild solstice
The Steam payment system was crap. You didn't receive a cent until your accumulated something like $1000 IIRC. So you could be sitting there waiting to be paid an instalment of your earning for years waiting for it to tick over the last 5% to reach that threshold if the income was not consistent. The vast majority of contributors would never have gotten paid simply because their assets never met the threshold, in spite of making a small amount of money for valve and the publisher
sinful cape
i guess that's on purpose
prisma mountain
Wounder if the new Enfusion engine could support P2P downloads on joining for mods.
That would help with a lot of content split and justify maybe smaller CDLCs.
IE, you could treat them all as they treat vanilla DLCs, allow players to field them, but not drive, interact, ect. But then not bloat the game filesize.
sinful cape
joins random server, proceeds to download 30gb of mods
karmic harness
If you add a "do you want to download these mods to continue?" you'll have what has been done in the launcher (so it's not that much of an absurd request)
A big improvement would be if we were not forced to restart the whole game to download, enable and disable mods and that all of that would be possible directly in-game
dusk cargo
The Steam payment system was crap. You didn't receive a cent until your accumulated something like $1000 IIRC. So you could be sitting there waiting to be paid an instalment of your earning for years waiting for it to tick over the last 5% to reach that threshold if the income was not consistent. The vast majority of contributors would never have gotten paid simply because their assets never met the threshold, in spite of making a small amount of money for valve and the publisher
Wow that's horrible
From change.org skyrim petition page:
Mods should be a free creation. Creations made by people who wish to add to the game so others can also enjoy said creation with the game.
Doesn't seem to make much sense π€·
sinful cape
it's the internet. don't expect things to make sense.
fresh oasis
Another model I've seen work in interesting ways are variants on a sort of kickstarter + store model.
One is where you release a mod cheaply, say $5, but allow people to pay for feature requests ($10-40), but retain rights to add that feature to the product, and keep selling it.
Another is basically the same, but the mod itself is free, and you crowdfund feature requests.
sinful cape
nobody will pay for such stuff
dusk cargo
Typically most feature requests are extremely generic IMO
sage oxide
That's probably good if you're in it mostly for the money. Else, you might lose "control" what is going to be in the mod.
And if you make the base big enough then the starting price still cannot be much lower than actual dlcs.
hoary ridge
the way bohemia handled most of the dlc's was a good way eg. marksmen, laws of war, jets or tanks generally players were able to choose. better more small dlc's then 1 big.
ebon sedge
I think having smaller dlcs that come with a platform update and then show off the new features aswell as having bigger expansions is a good way to do it, so the way its being done now
muted narwhal
you cannot really have feature requests, because, unlike official dlcs where content was limited in scope and size content wise, but there were quite a few free improvements engine/feature wise, cdlcs cannot do that
and having free product that is paid by a handful via some kickstarter is not gonna work
wraith sleet
imo untill the next arma the situation is screwed, game is near EOL and majority is happy with Altis life scams/koth and the rest cup/rhs based servers
I think its better to bide time and work with what exists then struggling to fund new content (unless you can and want to port to next title) and hope theres better support for the mod creators
this ofc is not meant to discourage anyones work, if your happy with what your doing keep at it
prisma mountain
I will ship my money directly to those Czech offices if we could crowd fund BI for more offical DLC for Arma 3 XD
prisma minnow
Probably better off throwing money to individual devs and hoping they'll accept the bribe offer to make something in their spare time similar to the ADR-97
wraith sleet
I have to agree with what Beachhead stated earlier, if Bohemia is to keep any user-created paid system, it should be like it now at best.
Adding smaller mods, more paywalls, more paid mods, everyone wanting a piece of the pie, will kill ArmA as we know it
I hope to God that in the future we don't see dozens of mods under paywalls, it'll break the community, make milsim units pretty much impossible since you'll have to tell people, oh we have this vehicle pack mod, you gotta pay 5$, and then this weapons and uniforms mod, 10%, make sure to not forget the realism enhancement mod for 5$
Especially for anyone newer to the game, they just paid however much money for the base game, and now on top of that community leaders and unit leaders would have to force people to buy more stuff otherwise they can't participate
I agree with a simple statement that modding should be done out of your own will to contribute to the community, enjoy the unit, and such motivators, not monetary ones, donations and etc. is fine, absolutely if you want to support your favorite modders to help them get along, get more assets, whatever
And personally I'm okay with losing the "Oh if they earn money we'll get more motivated people", I would personally be okay without those people, and I don't think the community would just die because there's no monetary motivator for mod makers, if anything I believe that adding that paywall, if anything, will kill so many communities, cause so many issues for actual organized units, even for standard servers where it's "Sorry fella, you're missing these four mods that cost 5$ each, so pay up if you want to play"
And whilst a DLC per year at a cost of up to 20$ is completely fine, I don't imagine a constant flow of paid content would be reasonable, because you'll never be able to just have them, since there's always more, and over the course of years, spending 100s of dollars mods or anything alike is ridiculous to me
knotty ore
But why do modders have to make stuff for free?
wraith sleet
They're not making it thinking I am making this for free rather than money
They should do it because they enjoy doing it, they want to contribute, they want to add to their favorite game
knotty ore
Who are you to dictate such terms?
wraith sleet
It's literally what hundreds of communities across dozens of games do every day...
And we can see how well such a monetized system worked out with Elder Scrolls
knotty ore
Sure. But it does not mean it gives you right to dictate how any maker wants to do things.
random crane
idk about other games but developing stuff for arma is really complicated and time consuming
wraith sleet
It is for other games too...
wraith sleet
Yes I do
I've been making modifications to games all my life
Whether it's models, textures, mechanics
And I do it, because I want to do it, because I want to see something in the game
Or because it's good practice, like 3D modelling, because I want to make my favorite gun, and etc.
I understand everyone wants to make money, but it should be done via donations, not via charging people, and sticking things behind a paywall
As a community leader as well, and knowing many others, nobody would appreciate telling their players, the actual people who play the game and would be otherwise customers of those mods that people would want to charge
We would have to tell them what to buy, on top of the game.
That they bought.
And the DLCs that they bought.
knotty ore
It would only be fair if the choice was real. Paid mods would then likely not get mu h traction
random crane
dont use the paywalled mods/cdlcs then
knotty ore
But the maker could make the choice to ask a price or not
wraith sleet
Oh no, CDLCs currently are fine, because they go through a vetting process, are selected by Bohemia, and have some form of quality control on top of Bohemia involvement, not the largest fan, but I can understand it.
random crane
also donations are not really worth justifying sinking so much time into doing something for arma if you want it to be profitable
wraith sleet
But if we start adding $5, weapon pack mods, left and right, what happens when there is duplicates, and you bought one weapons pack, and you join a different server tomorrow, they require a different weapons pack that's also $5, and has some of the same content.
Modding ArmA is not a profession
Or a job.
It's modding
knotty ore
Then servers stay empty and mods are not bought
wraith sleet
If you want to get paid, you get a job
random crane
maybe i want making quality content for a game to be my job
random crane
you haven't, many others have
knotty ore
Then likely they would not put their mods up for sale either
random crane
look at the amount of custom content available on older games and compare with arma
and you'llnotice it has sharply declined
because making things now is much more time consuming
and making good models takes more time
etc etc
wraith sleet
It is also a lot easier at the same time
random crane
i dont know what you do in this game but in my experience thats not true
wraith sleet
You can put on different uniforms, vests and helmets at the same time, it doesn't require a new model and entire configuration for each unit, creating factions is a ton and a half easier than in ArmA 2
In ArmA 2 so many of the mods were faction mods, that most communities nowadays, make privately
In ArmA 3 we have practically all the vehicles from ArmA 2 and more
random crane
yea, and people get bashed constantly cause they look like ass to a part of the userbase
wraith sleet
That's nothing new however, if anything there's more annoying people begging for content due to the Steam Workshop being more easily accessible than Armaholic for ArmA 2
random crane
man if only there could be an incentive for people to make those things happen
π
wraith sleet
Man, if you don't have the incentive to mod, by yourself because you like doing it I don't think it's worth it
You can do that right now as well, upload your mod on a platform, and charge for it
Of course you can't do it on Steam, but you can charge for your mod via your own website
random crane
not really, cause you'll get shut down
wraith sleet
And why is that?
random crane
cause the license doesnt allow it, and BI will send their legal dept after you
it has happened many times before
wraith sleet
In my opinion, should stay exactly like that. To my understanding you want to be able to monetize your work on the workshop?
Who would decide if your or anyone's work is worth monetizing?
wraith sleet
The customer?
random crane
by choosing with his wallet
wraith sleet
You mean whether they buy it or not?
random crane
yes
wraith sleet
And how many of these monetized mods would exist?
What would be BIs legal responsibility to these mods?
What if someone wants to stop updating their work?
random crane
all this stuff happens already every day at a bigger scope through steam
wraith sleet
Well right now if a mod-maker decides to quit, it's fine, it's his time, his work, his choice
But if I bought your mod, I want it to be updated, constant bug fixing, troubleshooting, staying updated with any new mechanical features
And if you have a customer base, you can't just say, well I'm done with this project, time to start a new one, you can't just ditch a product and the support for it
Then, if we expand this further to game modes for example, there was a discussion it
random crane
thats a lot of hypotheticals that serve no purpose
what if i released the mod and the next day a meteorite struck me in the head? no more updates
wraith sleet
What is the policy on using scripts, I mean you need to prove you wrote all of them right? Because if you're using someone's scripts, and you're charging people for your game mode, that's unfair to the original creator of the script
It's not hypotheticals π
There's a difference between:
I'm no longer willing to support this product, and bug-fix it, even though you bough it
and
I was killed by a meteor
π
urban flame
I was killed by a meteor is a pretty good argument
wraith sleet
Yeah I think they'll let you off the slide with that one
You being dead and all
Thanks for the laugh at the very least
But I'm afraid I disagree, they're not hypotheticals, because once you monetize, your hobby of making mods, turns into an obligation, and modders would now have responsibilities and musts, it would no longer really be modding, in the literal sense of the word modification, perhaps, but not modding as we know it
random crane
well thats really up to the modder who does this to decide
you dont like it, others might
fresh oasis
Personally, I think it depends on the modder and the mod.
random crane
dont call it modding, call it game development
its not really a distinction that matters
fresh oasis
I think it's entirely reasonable to release an asset, with no promise of future updates.
random crane
plenty of BI employees are ex-modders from this community btw
fresh oasis
But you price it lower, and set expectations accordingly.
wraith sleet
I could agree to the system, with BIs overwatch, rules, musts, obligations, and a very clear separate section for where there are assets you buy, and where there are mods
Oh no, modders setting their own prices is too much, that has ended in failure
fresh oasis
It's also ended in success. Depends on the modder and the community.
wraith sleet
Which success? What modding community has implemented monetization successfully and fully?
fresh oasis
I've seen some interesting business models regarding things like gamemodes too. "Buy now, get a copy of the source, but no future updates".
Do you mind defining "fully", so we're on the same page? π
random crane
theres plenty of successful projects born out of mods
wraith sleet
Alright, so:
- Game being active after the release of such a system
- Such a system showing good results (increased or at least the same level of activity in the modding community)
- Such a system working for the long-term (It would have to in ArmA)
Let's just do those three fairly simple ones
random crane
well, maybe not plenty but a handful of well known successful games
wraith sleet
I know Chairborne, but they're no longer mods then, and those modders are now employees, not modders, and I respect that and support that fully, and if a game is born out of an Arma mod, I'm also full support for that
And that is how I'd want it to stay
random crane
then keep doing things for free
i dont know why their choice should bother you really π€
wraith sleet
I would be bothered, by an unregulated modding marketplace being implemented in ArmA, and I'm extremely skeptical of a regulated one due to the many past examples of even such marketplaces failing
fresh oasis
Garrysmod's modding community has always had paid mod marketplaces, dating back to when I modded there, maybe... 10 years ago?
Some of those have 1000+ purchases
Not going to make a living off of it, but a nice little bonus for modders.
wraith sleet
That looks like it's more for server-sided users, rather than actual users, many of these are server-sided things, comparable to TADST for ArmA, and Mikero's Tools in some of the cases.
There are not 'mods' in your regular regard
wraith sleet
Well it's different, since some of these are systems, and is this marketplace regulated by Valve?
fresh oasis
As far as I'm aware, it's not regulated by Valve.
For a long time, it wasn't even associated with Garrysmod officially I believe.
I don't know if that's still the case.
When it originally cropped up, I believe it was a totally independent marketplace, aimed at server owners wanting to get cool stuff for their server.
wraith sleet
Also GMod servers also have monetization, a lot of them, as a matter of fact, most Gmod servers have monetization and ways to make money though membership and advertisement, premium, microtransactions
Now, we have Arma, where most of the communities, are private, usually milsim communities, either with no income, or only donations
Arma's active modding, and active playerbase is usually based around some form of community or unit, very different compared to Gmod
fresh oasis
I agree, Arma is a different kettle of fish, so to speak. Different community, different restrictions, different support for hotloading mods.
The ability to grab small, serverside mods is one of the reasons it worked so well for Garrysmod.
No need to restart to load them.
But I just wanted to point out that, in the right environment, a paid mod marketplace can thrive.
wraith sleet
Here's also the second point Spoffy, these mods, are paid by the server owners, not by the user when he joins the server, usually
wraith sleet
And that works for game modes, and server utilities and other tools, it doesn't really work for assets, such as uniforms, tanks, weapons and etc
fresh oasis
Getting individual players to pay for multiplayer mods isn't ever going to work particularly well.
wraith sleet
Exactly, that's my point
fresh oasis
It would. But I believe your original point was along the lines of "Paid mods don't work"?
I agree that multiplayer mods bought by individual players is unlikely to work, but that's a subset of paid mods.
True, though CDLCs are exactly that - hybrid DLC and mods.
wraith sleet
Somehow could server owners pay for access to mods on a box instead of players? That would solve the present arguement
fresh oasis
I reckon that would work in Arma for gamemodes Dp-27, but probably not for anything else.
Not unless you had some means of enforcement, anyway.
wraith sleet
The enforcement can be set up through BI
Maybe some terms setup with mod authors and BI,
Mod authors provide the content, BI provides the totalitarian π¨
Well yeah like everything else you gotta logicalize and plan for it, I think instead of going hard left everyone gets free mods. Or hard right everyone buys a mod isnt gonna work. And meeting in the middle will be better
fresh oasis
Absolutely - typically the stuff you see on the third party platform is higher quality - and generally well priced too.
Because the stuff that isn't, doesn't get purchased.
Aye - that would be step 1 for any paid modding in Arma IMO.
That's when the "paid mod" scene in Gmod left forum posts advertising their stuff, and actually became a reliable and good source of mods.
If memory serves, the Gmod marketplace doubled as a place for people to hire scripters to do custom jobs too.
And still does.
I think that helped its long-term viability.
Most likely. Currently I think #creators_recruiting is one of the main channels for that stuff.
I agree with you there. Partly because I don't think the Arma community would accept it any other way.
And I do like the CDLC program - though I do think a lack of players in multiplayer is an ongoing issue, outside of organised communities.
(Also, hypothetically, if you could create .ebos, you could probably add some scripts to make a mod that can only be run clientside....)
Agreed. Maybe if it were easier to join servers running a CDLC?
Yeah, you have to decide to play the CDLC before launching.
Which with few people kicking around in multiplayer, is a bit of a gamble.
Just not a big enough mass of people to sustain it, I think.
olive vortex
Proper launcher support would be nice. CDLCs are not even supported in exportable mod presets. :|
ebon sedge
cause the license doesnt allow it, and BI will send their legal dept after you
#creator_dlc_discussion message
Hahahahahaha good one
dusk cargo
Another important thing besides a 3rd party mod platform is some well-thought "try before buy" system in the game, so people can preview the mod before buying.
plucky magnet
Something like a free 30-60 minutes to have a look at some stuff after that you have to pay to continue
dusk cargo
Yes
plucky magnet
Sounds reasonable
dusk cargo
But it must be native to the game and not scripted, otherwise it can be walked around easily.
Although even if it's walked around then it's not a great problem
Also I think that dedicated-server only payment seems reasonable for any sort of mod, assets or game modes.
It means that those self-hosting can still play.
When people go and rent a dedicated server they are on another level, typically they have a few friends to play with or a small community.
What do you think?
muted narwhal
gmod is plagued heavily by ripped content. i have had to takedown a lot of such βmodsβ from the gameβs workshop that had rhs stuff, bi did the same be caused their content has been used
hallow parrot
NGL a good idea, whether the possibility. The thing I actually love official DLC way is the possibility to test anything (except the terrains) before spend my budget
dusk cargo
gmod is plagued heavily by ripped content. i have had to takedown a lot of such βmodsβ from the gameβs workshop that had rhs stuff, bi did the same be caused their content has been used
Well the arma free mod world is also plagued by ripped content
muted narwhal
sure, but overall at a much smaller scale
people who do that are usually swiftly banned from biβs platforms
also bi removes that content from steam from time to time, although they have no direct control over steam workshop
dusk cargo
It seems to me that most veteran mod makers support the idea to add some form of monetization overall. I hope by the time of next arma, if it exists, people will organize to make the good platform alternative to steam workshop. π€
muted narwhal
βprivate modsβ = heavy ripped content from other games and existing mods are usually on gdrives, but even these can be taken down by authors
It seems to me that most veteran mod makers support the idea to add some form of monetization overall. I hope by the time of next arma, if it exists, people will organize to make the good platform alternative to steam workshop. π€
@dusk cargo if a next arma exists, i doubt a lot of the veteran modders will continue their work if the system remains the same
most people i have talked to most likely wonβt
currently, there is no way to legally monetize addons as per biβs tools end user agreement
dusk cargo
Thanks for backing my point. Then surely something must be invented, otherwise we will just repeat the cycle with next arma and next wave of content creators.
muted narwhal
the number of people that create stuff from scratch for free = mods
have been in a constant decline
having a separate platform, besides the fact that is not directly supported by the gameβs game launcher
would be a lot of headache due to large mod size
even with delta patching
the costs goes up pretty exponentially pretty quickly
dusk cargo
Yeah makes sense... although @karmic harness has made a torrent-based launcher previously, which also handled huge mod downloads
muted narwhal
torrents are not the way to do it
i am speaking from experience, before RHS was uploaded to steam, we had both torrents and a direct delta patching downloader
there are quite a few isp that block ports used by torrents
there are quite a few users that wonβt touch torrents
dusk cargo
So it needs some huge rent server or several across the world to send mod updates to 100s of thousands of people, right?
muted narwhal
itβs not about the server, is about the bandwidth
dusk cargo
Maybe in that case BI and Valve will do something to change policy of workshop, I don't know π€·
muted narwhal
steam wonβt change their entire policy for a single game
dusk cargo
Is monetization forbidden by Valve? Or by BI? As I understand it, only by BI, right?
muted narwhal
bi most likely wonβt change their approach towards 3rd party mod commercialization
valve doesnβt have the infrastructure for that
bi only denies monetization of content made with their tools
dusk cargo
bi only denies monetization of content made with their tools
huh?
muted narwhal
it is 100% allowed to sell you a mesh i did using 3ds max and is ready to be packed into an addon
is not allowed to sell you the .pbo
i could sell you the pbo if it would be made with a 3rd party tool that doesnβt use biβs binarization for instance
for now, there isnβt such a 3rd party tool
dusk cargo
Anyway it seems like any change is easier to negotiate with BI than with valve, if we bring lots of mod developers, outline the problem, make a sort of petition π€·
muted narwhal
they should be aware of the problem btw
dusk cargo
I hope so. If noone speaks then nothing happens for sure.
muted narwhal
neah, i honestly think that won't change anytime soon
surely nothing will change for A3.
considering whatever/whenever a new arma product pops up, i expect modding side to suffer the most drastic change since OFP times, due to engine changes.
Which in turn will mean a lot of the existing content won't be as easily ported over, a lot of the way things are done now will change, so it would involve a new learning curve, even for veterans. I welcome such a new slate to be honest, i am hopping for a more industry standard approach. That being said, i am honestly not sure how many of the existing old farts that have been around for the past 15+ years will be willing to start over once again. from what i can tell from various conversations i had, not all that many, unless there is another incentive.
most people that produce content right now, have been around for quite some time. there is a minority of people who are new around here, not the other way around.
i don't see any reasons for this sort of number of modders decline to change
dusk cargo
Only change to that is the new game with new flux of players
muted narwhal
why would that matter for 3rd party creators?
dusk cargo
Because some portion of creators are players, more players means more people will be interested in developing something
muted narwhal
all creators also play the game, that's why they mod it in the first place - for themselves, it is a hobby
A3 had more players than A2 had
A2 had more players than A1 had
dusk cargo
Yes, so more new players means more new creators, I'm just saying it in reply to this:
i don't see any reasons for this sort of number of modders decline to change
muted narwhal
still from A2 to A3, there was a constant decline in terms of number of people who were doing mods
dusk cargo
Hmm weird... I don't know then, I wasn't around in A2 times
muted narwhal
in OFP times, itwas easier to make content, the bar was lower, overall you could slap together something pretty easily. with each iteration, stuff got more complicated, for A3, in order to produce developer quality content you need to have more or less the same skills and tools as the game developers themselves. it also takes a fair bit more time to do
also, people like myself that started modding back in 2007, had to learn quite a few thing to get quality content out the door, it isn't a straight forward process if you start from scratch
in any case, unless everything is properly documented form the get go, there is a straight forward process of importing from industry standard tools (that way it would open modding for professionals that know the tools, but not really this particular engine and all the workarounds needed)
i don't see how this expect decline could change if overall the same systems stay in place
dusk cargo
Did you check dayz? Is it better for model makers?
muted narwhal
maybe i am pessimistic, but as i said, most of us old farts know other old farts and we do speak to each other, no matter of what mods each is doing
@dusk cargo i did, and it isn't. but days being a testbed for enfusion doesn't mean it is using the entire engine which is suppose to be modular
there are also several things missing from the existing modding toolset if you are to compare to A3.
you can check yourself the amount of mods (and the overall modding numbers) that feature custom made content versus re-using dayz existing assets
vs A3 for instance
but again, we are going way way oftopic here
it has nothing to do with creator dlc anymoe
dusk cargo
Well it does, better tools means more creator DLCs
undone raven
also, people like myself that started modding back in 2007, had to learn quite a few thing to get quality content out the door, it isn't a straight forward process if you start from scratch
Hex editing models to make new ones and the likes, because of lack of modding tools π (that was 2002 times i believe) π thats how it all started at some point
muted narwhal
yeah well aware how things were done back in 2002. i think was 2003 when Bi allowed people to apply to get some tools
none was publicly available
modding for OFP wasn't thought over, it was some sort of unexpected side effect
undone raven
indeed, it was very rough around the edges in the beginning
muted narwhal
Well it does, better tools means more creator DLCs
@dusk cargo more or less cDLCs for A3 has nothing to do with the tools
dusk cargo
But you have just described how negatively poor tools affect productivity π€·
unless everything is properly documented form the get go, there is a straight forward process of importing from industry standard tools (that way it would open modding for professionals that know the tools, but not really this particular engine and all the workarounds needed)
Maybe for arma 3 it doesn't matter that much any more, because those CDLC authors are all veterans at this point
muted narwhal
you can't expect huge sales for a game that is saturated with free content (some of higher quality than others)
even if you had full MP compatibility for cDLCs (not even sure how you would achieve that) for non-owners, it wouldn't change a lot
here's my 2 cents on the cDLCs
again, my own opinion, but an opinion based on facts rather than optimistic wishful thinking
sinful cape
depends on how long they keep selling. it could turn out to be a slow burn
but yes, especially now with a potential a4 at our doorsteps, it can get quite risky
would be interesting to know how well a2 DLCs/addons are still selling today
knotty ore
comparison between A2 DLC sale at current time means nothing as it would be only comparable to A3 DLC sales in say 10 years from now
sinful cape
it shows if anyone is still buying it :p
once a4 is out, whole a3 cdlc economy could crash, because nobody is buying that anymore
knotty ore
yes but A4 is not even announced so you cant compare the 2 statistics
muted narwhal
again, we are talking about a possible game, that is unannounced
knotty ore
π
muted narwhal
and which engine for all known, is not even ready
sinful cape
well, all I'm saying is that making expensive cdlc stuff is risky
dusk cargo
again, we are talking about a possible game, that is unannounced
eh, we have to be ahead-thinking positively, otherwise we can just give up our hopes now π
muted narwhal
thatβs how you get self hyped and then disappointed because your own wishful thinking is not reflected in the product
sinful cape
you mean I'm not going to be a millionaire? :o
random crane
π¦
nimble hatch
well, all I'm saying is that making expensive cdlc stuff is risky
@sinful cape DLC should be a fair cost, not expensive,reflecting cost;
Before:
- A fair cost that reflects the amount of work put in, quality level, amount of potential, additional playable hours, could also be measured by how it impacts the community.
After (This After, if enough of a change, could justify changing CDLC to a higher cost) - Reviewing the CDLC impact by Measuring the scale of the impact, this could be via reviewing increase/decrease in sales, measuring how many more active users are playing arma 3 (both dormant and new), how many dormant units are reestablished or new units founded, how many new missions are being made as a result (steam workshop), does it recieve alot of positive feedback? these are measurable points,
The before is a given and is currently in use, but the after as it benefits both BIS and CDLC creators alike, and, if you was to ask a customer, ill gladly buy any CDLC that is of good quality, breathes new life and more playing hours, and if its positive reviews go up, but the cost goes up a few pounds, then im persuaded to buy,
in business development, we call it the BCR (Benefit to Cost Ratio), the CDLC programme has a massive plus in BCR, in every single aspect,
BUT, BIS should take heed to what Taleworlds Mount and Blade Bannerlord has just done, publicised and released a commercial system of modding tools, released to the public, with articulation and ease of use, streamlining work flows and efficiency, hell Taleworlds may head in the direction of CDLCs in the future (once out of early access)
But, at the end of the day, we shouldnt discard or discredit, or try give CDLC a bad rep, its positives outweigh the negatives
Lastly, to wrap it up, when arma 4 comes out, im 100% sure that will have a CDLC programme introduced alot earlier, there are so many time periods to cover, and so many different artistic directions to one topic
What im getting at is, if BIS is going to use this CDLC feature, then go at it with full execution and follow through own it, id personally buy just a very well done CDLC campaign (most importantly with a strong, compelling storyline), complete with new cutscenes, voice acting, score, soundtracks.
muted narwhal
as it is, i do not think there is a way to measure the scale of impact defined by the things you pointed out.
that being said, yes, bannerlord tools seems really nice from what i have seen about them (without using them) and having a glace over their documentation. Not really sure if i would flag them as commercial system of modding tools
nimble hatch
Also, CDLC is such a great idea just in general, the community gives so much of their own time to a game they love (e.g the content on steam workshop), CDLC is a great incentive for more, high quality content.
gusty hemlock
Yeah!
devout turtle
it gave us the opportunity to hire 35 artists who had never modded arma before.
sick steeple
I've always thought the CDLC program needed to do Nation packs. A lot of nations have an Arma community focused on their nation, and there is mods for those nations that these communities use and work on. It would be great to see BIS bring those communities, players & creators, together and encourage development of nation packs that could be part of the CDLC program. Modding is great, but there is varying degrees of quality & compatibility. The CDLC program offers a reliable level of quality & compatibility that would be ideal for these communities.
devout turtle
makes a lot of sense in terms of appeal. avoiding overlaps in arms / vehicles/ equipment is a bit of a worry
very difficult to avoid in some circumstances
nimble hatch
it gave us the opportunity to hire 35 artists who had never modded arma before.
@devout turtle
This is such an amazing opportunity for all of them, and initiative on your part to see the opportunity itself, especially when the job world used to be a 'submit your CV/resume' type thing, now you are able to learn alot independantly, with abit of initiative, and alot less guidance, from remote resources (e.g youtube, github), readily available along with new easy communication mediums (e.g discord)
(slightly off topic) In this current climate, i tell anyone who wants to be more prepared for any situation, to register as self employed, and get your online presence sorted articulately, your more likely to get more work, be it short term or contract, if you cant find permanent employment, and it forces you to learn more for your craft to get more work, and not be reliant on an employer, as that is very unhealthy and is a recipe for disaster (not 100% true but imo better to be prepared for any situation)
(back on topic) for me i help the team develop an understanding of the creative direction/project management process, and where we got free time, give them tasks in new fields of work (even if at times that task isnt used), so they are not just contributing, but are learning, and are a valued member of a team, high morale means a happy individual, with higher quality and productivity levels. My time and skills learned in leading in real life leadership roles and leading in arma units has helped more than expected.
Late edit: im still learning in this project, especially in PM.
@sick steeple This is an amazing idea, but the only seperating point would be the timeline covered per country, and pick the more relevant/popular countries, or with a long history (you may already know what ive said but hey, better to say than to not)
devout turtle
yeah team development is #1 priority alongside technical quality
we get quite a few trial people from outside arma who treat it as a us and them thing, like seeing us as a threat and not an opportunity
those guys rarely finish a model, as their doubts overwhelm them
thankfully these situations are less now we have a big enough team, so new people can see the quality and work ethic and camaraderie, and it is enough to inspire them to get on with it
team members who have been with us since the start get enough coaching to step up into assistant producer roles, and manage design elements, specifications and checking in on progress with small teams they have assigned to them
managing their time and task lists, and having effective meetings... all good steps upon the path to becoming professional game developers.
more thought on the country specific faction cdlc idea - for this to work we would need to be able to run multiple CDLC's on top of each other. Arma 3 has quite a limited capability for that right now. Something to consider for future though, as who wouldn't want to run GM and CSLA together?
nimble hatch
100% on all of your points, doubt and lack of execution is a big killer in the creative/design process
love all of your points on growth
Maybe BIS could find out whos interested/or already developing what, have some communications at the early stages with these prospective teams, to prevent your earlier point of;
makes a lot of sense in terms of appeal. avoiding overlaps in arms / vehicles/ equipment is a bit of a worry
and then either amalgamate or redirect teams so no one wastes any time, when it could be avoided (late edit)
devout turtle
there is no overlap management, except in general theme terms, the rest is up to us to talk to each other.
as a result there will undoubtedly be overlapping content in planned CDLCs
thankfully it won't be much of a % of the total content afaik.
i host a small group of contracted CDLCs who share info together.
nimble hatch
so a new role of a proficient CDLC programme* lead, who works with BIS business development guy, someone whose sole job is just to keep track of the whole CDLC programme, whos doing what, when (obviously accepted applications recieve priority) prevent potential overlaps where possible, and help make the whole programme more efficient and productive, and boost the BCR, just a suggestion
devout turtle
what we have now is reasonably effective
nimble hatch
food for thought π
devout turtle
it costs nothing and ensures BI isn't dictating each individual item in a proposal
i'd much sooner we had that freedom
so i think they have a good balance
as CDLCs some of us have partnered up on some quite ground-breaking advances.
team members from several teams working collaboratively on solutions to common problems
the end results will be shared with the Arma community
that kind of cooperation is definitely a cool feature of some teams
and follows the bohemia core value of generosity to the player base.
without which, none of us would be here right?
tepid lance
for this to work we would need to be able to run multiple CDLC's on top of each other. Arma 3 has quite a limited capability for that right now.
If the content is kept cleanly and well defined, there should be no issues with that, the same way that you can run big mods like CUP and RHS in parallel.
nimble hatch
@devout turtle I mean, great points youve put forward there, if BIS
it costs nothing and ensures BI isn't dictating each individual item in a proposal
@devout turtle
Im not sure or have any knowledge in this, especially on the use of the word 'dictating' situation, but it doesnt sound so good
I think if a CDLC programme lead is made, its very impotant that CDLCs are macromanaged, with no level of micromanagement, unless in the final CDLC testing stages, or it will cause alot of distress, maybe BIS have an unofficial CDLC project lead, who knows, i dont know anyway lol
devout turtle
yeah i'm saying there is no dictation, and that is preferred by us all
nimble hatch
If the content is kept cleanly and well defined, there should be no issues with that, the same way that you can run big mods like CUP and RHS in parallel.
@tepid lance thats a good technical point, i wouldnt know anything about this area personally, but in my not so knowledgeable opinion an area worth chewing the fat over/exploring
devout turtle
so in this case it's up to us to talk to each other toavoid too much overlap of specific content
currently afaik you can't load 2 CDLCs together in the launcher, only by using a mod line
so it's possible, but not made easy enough for the general player
it makes sense too, to not have it made easy, as right now there's no compatibility testing between CDLCs
as we get more out the door, maybe it will become a thing... who knows
vivid lynx
at least the RC branch launcher (2.00) allows multiple (C)DLCs to be chosen, it just says that compatibility is not guaranteed
nimble hatch
well the BCR definitely has an argument in moving in said direction, maybe a BIS in house* meeting discussing new lines of communication, and new technical lines of communication and actual new working processes (the latter helping in general specific subproject items) in being able to implement a new active cloud file editing tool, for terrain makers or larger objects, IIRC @red saddle and some other guys bought this issue up recently in regards to terrain, not sure if this actually already in play or not, but a CDLC tester who is well knowledged would be required, but then, counter argument being, a CDLC programme lead wouldnt be required with good, effective, transparent, and respect driven communication between teams (built off @devout turtle s earlier points), think this decision depends on what everyone and what the main leads believes is the better route as a whole
Even if not included soon, these are ideas to take into consideration for the future
Again, just trying to throw in new ideas into the air
Worth mentioning, but these decisions should be based on what is prority at the time, what is easy and quick to implement and what will take more time, and does it suit the current demand, also taking into account and what is important for the future, what can be postponed. thats my 2 pence chipped in π
sick steeple
the timeline covered per country
@nimble hatch Time period is really important, and is something that crops up regularly in my play sessions with others. e.g. Mod sets and missions are typically focussed around two periods (ww2 & modern) and modern is further split into decades (70s,80s,90s). I know a lot of players get a big kick out of their personal knowledge of what is authentic for these time periods and seeing how tech progression impacts gameplay and tactics. It is something I would like to see developed further, even something as simple as adding date of manufacture field in the config for stuff would be cool to let us get period appropriate stuff in an easier way than curating it ourselves.
random crane
once upon a time arma had an asset library simlar to virtual arsenal/garage that would show you the items along with descriptions
the config files still have entries for these asset descriptions but im not sure they're used anywhere
lean sail
the code still exists (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Advanced_Hints_(Field_Manual)), but isn't used anymore (I believe it was used in the E3 demo and alpha/beta)
sick steeple
If the content is kept cleanly and well defined
@tepid lance I really appreciate the job you did with that on GM. The structure and naming conventions in GM are so much more pleasant to work with than content from other places where the class names and variants can become a nuisance to use and manage due to poor structure definition and inconsistency.
tepid lance
The naming convention is applied everywhere. It acts as a layer of security to prevent typos and one-off errors, since everything follows a pattern. Makes it easy to use configs and materials as templates and to quickly import content. Spending less time on debugging and more time on creating. π
sinful cape
once upon a time arma had an asset library simlar to virtual arsenal/garage that would show you the items along with descriptions
@random crane you mean the field manual?
seems like only the way the mechanics work has changed (using advanced hints config instead)
random crane
no it was called something else (cant remember right now) but you could open it and browse assets and try them out with some simple random generated missions
random crane
there you go
sinful cape
isnt virtual arsenal just the armory now
ok, it's missing item descriptions
maybe it should should the field manual entry on mouse over
vivid lynx
Armory had generated missions to test stuff
I was really stoked for the 1.07 patch π
sinful cape
i honestly never used it :> same as the current vr training scenario. i found out you can even add your own stuff to it via config, which i did not expect to be a thing
but seems nobody ever did anything with it
prisma mountain
The only thing in regards to CDLC structure I mumble about is not following the orginal set up for groups and factions.
Nothing bugs me more then plugging in something like GM in Dynamic Recon and seeing snow guys in Tanoa.
But that is of course my opinion. I tend to be a strong followering of the vanilla archetecture. Groups, Modules, Faction layout, ect.
dusk cargo
Are you totally sure it's a fault somewhere in Global Mobilization and not in Dynamic Recon mission?
sinful cape
yeah i'm confused now. nothing in the unit config tells the game "this is for snow, this is for jungle" etc
the mission designer has to care about that
random crane
damned if you do, damned if you dont
others dislike having the factions cluttered with tons of clones of mostly the same thing
if you use zeus for example makes browsing the menu a bit more annoying
prisma mountain
The system looks for the faction and groups to spawn. That keeps the need to build gaint arrays of classes for each and every mod down.
It was used by a lot of BI game modes, and still used with older frameworks.
dusk cargo
I guess it's same as with pacific and standard base game factions, just this time it's standard and snow, right?
prisma mountain
Yea
It could just be me a bit more oldschool and having little care of catering to Zeus.
tepid lance
damned if you do, damned if you dont
Indeed.
Factor in that there's also additional eras like 80s and 90s infantry, it'll just create tons of duplication.
spare hearth
We have a dedicated server and i am interested in playing the Map from the cold war germany DLC, i suppose, the server host needs the DLC and all the others need only the compat pack?
spare otter
To play on the GM CDLC map (Weferlingen) all players have to own the CDLC - the compat mod gives access to equipment and passenger seats in the vehicles
nimble hatch
@sick steeple hey sorry for late response, i agree with your points 100% but modern could now also include the 2000s, and the 2010s, as for the date of manufacture, maybe due to lack of knowledge but not sure how this works or its effects,
boreal scroll
I find it repeatedly bizarre that most people's definition of 'modern' ends back in the 80s/early 90s
You're closer to WW2 with a setting in the 80s than you are to the present day. That's not remotely 'modern'
hallow parrot
Nobody notices that vanilla 2035 is pretty modern
boreal scroll
modern is in fact much closer to what we saw in Arma 3 ... which nobody liked because they thought it to be 'futuristic' ...
@hallow parrot exactly
boreal scroll
I think most people's idea of what is 'modern' is defined by the war movies they've watched and has nothing at all to do with what modern, 2020 armies are actually fielding
The fact is that BI didn't make stuff up when they came up with the equipment in Arma 3, 95% of it is based on real world vehicles and equipment that was in development or being trialled back in 2013. A lot of it has since entered service with various armed forces. Yes, some of it didn't make it into production, some of it was creatively altered to avoid legal issues or similar and other stuff has been slower to make it through the trial/procurement process (6.5mm ammunition) but it's still grounded in the real world. Obvious exception is the CSAT VTOL ...
hallow parrot
The coilgun tank back when pre-alpha! 
boreal scroll
Yeah, though they did have the sense to drop that one as being a bit too far fetched π
hallow parrot
Really loved that idea, tho
knotty ore
Maybe they were pressured to drop it as it was too close to secrets we don't know about π½
hallow parrot
Like furnitures? π½
boreal scroll
I wasn't going to say this, and it's not a criticism of the DLC, but I'm a bit disappointed to see yet another Cold War DLC for this reason. So many untapped themes to be explored and yet we're back in Cold War europe :/
random crane
thats where most of the interest for this game lies in
in my community i dont think i've used any of the 2035 factions more than once, with the exception of syndikat
boreal scroll
maybe BI shouldn't provide Arma 4 ... maybe you're right that the community associates the whole franchise with the OFP origins.
Maybe we need a new Franchise that doesn't have the dead weight of that community behind it.
random crane
on the other hand almost no one has made any decent amount of new content for 2035 such as new vehicles and weapons with the exception of aegis perhaps
wild tree
except vehicles (not all), leo, merkava or wildcat
random crane
so cant really tell if people would be interested cause no one is providing it
boreal scroll
Note that I'm not really advocating for 2035 either, but more variety. There are lots of real warzones that aren't Russian equipment vs American equipment somewhere in Europe.
random crane
well to that i agree
but i wouldnt call the older community 'dead weight' π€
there's very little influx of new modders, most big projects are spearheaded by veterans
boreal scroll
It's controversial, I know, definitely provactive and I say it as someone who has been part of the community since OFP. However there is a large percentage of the existing community who are acting as a brake on creativity and innovation in Arma. IMHO of course.
@random crane Do you not think that might be because new modders have little interest in developing for an old game, old engine with the community that is often times just dis-interested in anything that isn't CUP, RHS etc?
random crane
i dont know how you got to the conclusion that the existing community is a brake, there's really nothing stopping new people to get into arma and do their thing
why do you say that?
boreal scroll
It's not that a younger generation of modders don't exist, it's just that they'd rather make their mark on newer games rather than something that has thousands of mods already.
random crane
developing for an old game, old engine
well its nothing the community can fix, what are we supposed to do about this?
boreal scroll
you can't
but the reason I don't really see that changing is that if BI just pander to the majority who want ARma 4 to be Arma 3 + Cold War, then it's not going to be a new game.
random crane
ok but if this change didnt happen with a3 what makes you think another game has chances to succeed?
now you have all the advantages in the world to develop 2035 content
boreal scroll
anyhow, veering off-topic and I really didn't mean to turn this into a rant. I'm just a bit frustrated but I'm not going to change things. It is what is is.
random crane
you have all units and factions and weapons ready made
thats an immense overhead you dont have to think about
boreal scroll
again, not really talking of 2035. However given the extremely adverse reaction from the community to the 2035 setting, I can't imagine many people wanting to invest time in building out that particular setting.
lean sail
Did work for Arma 3... just look at the amount of content which has nothing to do with 2035. Same applied for Arma 2 where Iron Front was made for (before it became a stand-alone game).
Arma 3 is a sandbox anyway, so no need to stick to a specific setting, time or even game type
boreal scroll
anyhow, don't waste any time on addressing my complaints. I have no artistic talent, I'm a back-seat driver. I can program but I have no free time to dedicate to any sort of mod development.
@lean sail Tune, to a point, but certain engine features we saw implemented for Arma 3 wouldn't have been included had the game been set in 1980. Therefore you simply wouldn't have had the option of a semi-realistic modern army because it wouldn't be native, scripting can only so far and do so well to compensate for that stuff.
If anything, targeting the game at current day levels means you're free to go anywhere between 1900 and present because the mechanics are all there. . Setting the core sandbox in any earlier timezone limits you somewhat because they aren't going to bother implementing native support for stuff like Drones if the setting is 1975.
delicate pine
I guess it's also much easier to recreate existing things from real world or movies rather than design something which looks plausible and real
random crane
^
lean sail
I guess it's more a case of copyright/trademarks/licensing/etc. where modern/future could cause issues (which is why Arma 3 doesn't contain any real assets, or renamed).
Which even for mods/CDLC is a problem.
random crane
that applies to older stuff too if you use trademarks
boreal scroll
@delicate pine Absolutely and not because whatever you can imagine is in any way implausible, it's just that people aren't ready to accept it as 'real' until they've seen it in the real world. Take SpaceX's Starship rocket. Show that to anyone 5 years ago and they'd laugh you out of the room, it doesn't look at all like the future of Space Travel, yet SpaceX are months away from turning that into a reality.
I dare say if you took the designs of any military gear, and time travel 15-20 years into the past, no-one would believe what you were showing them was real or plausible either.
steel valley
Just going to chime in here and say that the people I play arma with and myself would not play if it were not for the mods that give us vintage and actual current equipment. No interest in playing 2035 fake military.
ebon sedge
and actual current equipment.
playing 2035 fake military.
Some/ a lot (iirc) of the vanilla equipment is pretty much current equipment though
hallow parrot
https://www.military-today.com/artillery/marksman.jpg
Yes, fake military
cerulean remnant
gusty hemlock
Mi-28
wild tree
^ and Ka-50/52 and Mi24
cerulean remnant
ka-52 mixed with mi-24 mixed with mi-28 yeah not real
ebon sedge
Quite close to reality though
hallow parrot
But it's pointless to say everything is fake
wild tree
sshhhh
hallow parrot
Or, maybe everything is fake since everything is only in your screen!
cerulean remnant
everything isn't you're right. But some is. Only 1 or 2 of the planes are real
steel valley
Didn't say everything was fake, just said it wouldn't be the game for me unless the older stuff was available.
gusty hemlock
T-140 Angara π€£
wild tree
L-139 and Gripen
ebon sedge
Tbh I still kinda want a WW1 Arma 
gusty hemlock
Hmm...
cerulean remnant
Don't get me wrong, 2035 has grown on me but I absolutely hated it when it came out
ebon sedge
you could have so much weird content in a ww1 game, but thats off topic
cerulean remnant
but I would much rather Arma 4 be Cold War
hallow parrot
Nah, I'd say 2025 Arma 4
wild tree
rhs and cup is base stuff to play A3 for me
cerulean remnant
and any additional CDLCs be Cold War
wild tree
cant play on vanilla
gusty hemlock
Arma 4 in 1980s... π
cerulean remnant
I think you see the CDLCs being Cold War so much because that is what addon makers are passionate about.
ebon sedge
and any additional CDLCs be Cold War
@cerulean remnant only cold war CDLCs sounds kinda boring imo if they all have a similar scale to GM
cerulean remnant
GM has a ton of content
ebon sedge
Yeah and if all the CDLCs have that kind of scale you'd propably get a lot of overlap
steel valley
Plus if they added all real equipment and vehicles to Arma 4 instead of imaginary tanks and helicopters, it would save the modding community a ton of work. And we wouldn't have the same BMP re-ported over and over again.
cerulean remnant
Probably. The better thing to do would be to have a base game in the Cold War and then CDLCs that build on it. Now people don't have to remake a BMP-1 they can just retexture it or just make a British faction or whatever
random crane
think of all the things you could have if modders didnt have to spend time making basic stuff like a whole line of uniforms or m16s or humvees π
cerulean remnant
I do understand how US vs Russia can get boring though. I would be all for Britain vs East Germany or even Britain vs some faction that uses French equipment or something
but would rather have the Cold War stuff as the base game and then those things get added on after it
then the first Expansion can add China into the mix
I'm personally hoping for Cold War Norway for Arma 4. Then GM adds Cold War Germany into the first CDLC. Then CSLA adds in Cold War Czechoslovakia. Then someone adds in Britain, France, etc. But I dream
sinful cape
dont think i would play a cold war a4 a lot
i'm just 110% not interested in this setting
cerulean remnant
what are you interested in?
steel valley
ARMA 1 and 2 were multinational and grounded in reality. Arma 1,2 = 4.
ebon sedge
dont think i would play a cold war a4 a lot
I'd personally prefer another setting too, something to do with the world wars
cerulean remnant
the big problem with the world wars is that modders are then stuck in like a 20 year period mostly. Cold War has some assets spanning like 50 years potentially. A Cold War game in the 80s can still have drone features, thermal, night vision, etc. WW2 won't
ebon sedge
Oh I think Arma 4 should offer support for all the fancy tech like drones or thermals no matter what the setting is
cerulean remnant
I agree but it's hard to justify that when you don't need the features in the setting of the game. Those are the first things that will get cut. That being said maybe they're developing the engine with a bit more fluidity to it.
But anyway, hoping for more Cold War CDLCs and games
dusk cargo
https://onlysp.escapistmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/arma3_contact_screenshot_05.jpg
Kajman is cool, really nice design, I think it's my favourite from armaverse
boreal scroll
@steel valley If you think those assets being in the vanilla game would prevent dozens of mods offering the same BMP-1 and BMP-2 variants over and over ... we've had good quality models from CUP, RHS etc from almost day one and yet other modders still want to do their own interpretations.
delicate pine
I would say both CUP & RHS BMP are quite dated (especially that A2 BMP2 model which originates from A1 I think) and none of them have A3 quality interior
cerulean remnant
we've had good quality models from CUP, RHS etc from almost day one and yet other modders still want to do their own interpretations.
Because they don't want their mod to be dependent upon CUP or RHS. If it was all in the base game then that wouldn't be a problem.
I'm sure some people would still make their own because they want to but it would remove the requirement to do so.
random crane
many vehicle models that come from a1/a2 are now 17 years old or more
at some point one should consider just remodeling the thing and call it a day
sharp lance
@delicate pine The salon was lost for a long time. Reborn recently. For this reason, they are not included in the models of the "oblivion of the salon" period))
delicate pine
@sharp lance i know, it's super low quality though. Those interiors are enabled in RDS Tank pack which was later integrated into cup
sinful cape
inb4 someone will port a1 models into a4 later π
wraith sleet
Balkan War type of scenario DLC
I do understand how US vs Russia can get boring though. I would be all for Britain vs East Germany or even Britain vs some faction that uses French equipment or something
I think that the balkans are interesting enough to replace the typical good US soldiers saving the world vs evil Russians standard that has been going on for like 15 years now
Just one thing
If they get the facts wrong then they can forget about it, and the only way to get all the facts right is to talk to people thatve been there
Like, don't pull a COD and put a 2008 Mercedes in 1992 Sarajevo
There aren't 2008 Mercedeses on the Balkans in 2020, let alone 1992
cerulean remnant
I felt like A2 was partially inspired by the Balkans War. The main Russian force were good guys for the most part.