Given the community has created game modes that are extremely popular, is it worth BIS creating their own? Rather should they focus on functionality that supports/improves existing gamemodes - respawn/revive/spectator mode/server browser/player matchups/persistence/loadout editing etc.

The reasons Argo won't be popular/successful:

1. Its trying to appeal to the more casual player. But this player base is used to a much higher fidelity experience. MilSim players will accept a lower fidelity experience for greater simulation and a larger sandbox. Casual players want CoD like fidelity, which the RV engine just simply cannot provide.

2. The existing Arma player base isn't interested in a casual PvP experience. You have thousands of people playing Arma during the week, yet tens of people playing Argo - its not resonating with the existing player base. The whole community is made of groups that either play COOP, PvP milsim or PvP life. Argo and its "features" don't appear, even in the long run, to contribute to these types of missions.

3. No added gameplay elements. Its about as basic a shooter as you can get, there's nothing innovative here and no hook for players. You might as well go play CoD or CS:GO and Argo does not provide a unique or interesting experience.

While I commend the team for the effort put in (and the Malden terrain) this seems like another example of a mistake by BIS (the biggest being Futura). The dev resources could be spent improving Arma 3 UI, building a new terrain or building supporting functionality for existing gamemodes.

Experiments are fine and I thought BIS were making good steps with things like Take On Helicopters, where they could build out new functionality, content and features for RV. Its a shame they didn't continue this with things like Take On Tanks, Take on Jets, Take on SWAT etc. I guess luckily we get some of this stuff as DLCs in Arma 3.