Development Blog & Reveals

[runekn 3]

So, how to buy the bundle?

It's a steam 'DLC'. http://store.steampowered.com/app/304400

[Brisse 78]

So, how to buy the bundle?

Look at configure -> expansions and select boundle. A purchase button pops up.

[Flaky 10]

Hopefully there won't be any problem ensuring that players who purchased the Supporter's Edition before or during the alpha are entitled to access all future DLC free of charge, as this simplicity was no doubt the main selling point of the supporters edition for many after their experience with Arma 2. I feel I need to mention this only because I never did receive my digital copy of the tactical guide and battle map (yes I have checked the relevant folder etc) ;)

http://i.imgur.com/lJ4vITRl.png

Edited May 29, 2014 by Flaky
size

[ProfTournesol 956]

The main point in supporter edition was supporting the studio. But you should already be granted with free kart DLC.

[pettka 694]

Hopefully there won't be any problem ensuring that players who purchased the Supporter's Edition before or during the alpha are entitled to access all future DLC free of charge, as this simplicity was no doubt the main selling point of the supporters edition for many after their experience with Arma 2.

This should explain everything, even the part about Expansion :icon_twisted:

[Tonci87 163]

This

You can use the helicopter with some restrictions (e.g. you can only board the helicopter as a passenger).

Is a terrible idea.

What if someone makes a mission where you have to use that thing?

What if in a MP mission the original pilot dies and there is only a guy without the DLC to take over the transport duties?

You didn´t really think this one through....

[windies 11]

Saw the same line, thought the same thing. Also find the whole "progressive notification" thing a blatant nagging push to buy the DLC. I much preferred the lite DLC over this method even though I admit it incurs more development time.

[byku 13]

Personally I think it's a brilliant idea(already bought the DLC Bundle). How else you could "force" people to buy those DLC's in your opinion?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

This

Is a terrible idea.

What if someone makes a mission where you have to use that thing?

What if in a MP mission the original pilot dies and there is only a guy without the DLC to take over the transport duties?

You didn´t really think this one through....

Collateral damage.

[tomturner 10]

This should explain everything, even the part about Expansion :icon_twisted:

Well, it did not answer the question about DLC being available to Supporters without additional charge. So, is it or not?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, it did not answer the question about DLC being available to Supporters without additional charge. So, is it or not?

It is explicitely written here : http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/465-roadmap-14-15-dlc-strategy-blog

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, it did not answer the question about DLC being available to Supporters without additional charge. So, is it or not?

This in the blog...

Those who supported our development by purchasing the limited Arma 3 Supporter Edition will be getting everything above without surcharge, including the Expansion

Reading. The most important part of community forums, and information gathering.

[Varanon 892]

How else you could "force" people to buy those DLC's in your opinion?

Heh, you know, the best way of selling DLC is to make people actually WANT to buy it, not FORCE them to buy it.

[Wiki 1558]

How come I got the "ArmA 3 DLC Bundle" twice in my "expansion" menu?

1 I can activate/deactivate and another 1 I can't activate/deactivate.

[John Kozak 14]

Heh, you know, the best way of selling DLC is to make people actually WANT to buy it, not FORCE them to buy it.

Not everyone has good enough moral for it, or any moral for that matter - most would just play the DLCs for free given a chance to cheat. Even if they like it.

[byku 13]

Heh, you know, the best way of selling DLC is to make people actually WANT to buy it, not FORCE them to buy it.

It's easy to say something is bad, but more difficult to say how to fix it. So what's your proposition? What's the alternative? I personally don't have any other idea.

[Tonci87 163]

Still locking people out of essential functions is IMHO the wrong way to do it. That way you do fragment the community and you ensure that the DLC assets won´t be used in the MAYORITY of released SP and MP Missions. So anyone who buys the DLCs won´t have that much opportunities to actually use the nice things he paid for. With that method you shaft both sides of the community.

[John Kozak 14]

Still locking people out of essential functions is IMHO the wrong way to do it. That way you do fragment the community and you ensure that the DLC assets won´t be used in the MAYORITY of released SP and MP Missions. So anyone who buys the DLCs won´t have that much opportunities to actually use the nice things he paid for. With that method you shaft both sides of the community.

Do you have a better proposal?

[St. Jimmy 272]

Do you have a better proposal?

Like they did in Arma 2. You can use stuff but it's low res.

[Tonci87 163]

Like they did in Arma 2. You can use stuff but it's low res.

Definately a better solution than this mess....

[John Kozak 14]

Definately a better solution than this mess....

Like they did in Arma 2. You can use stuff but it's low res.

And it is worse than current one, since everyone without DLC would just avoid coming on servers where DLC content is used - 'cause it's low quality and sounds awful. That was the case in A2.

This means - much greater community split.

Situations like "the only guy who could fly it died", OTOH, are something at the "happens once in a year" side of scale.

Public servers have vehicle respawn and will have plenty of regular choppers, I'm sure. OR there would be a warning - pilots must have TS and Heli DLC, just like TS is forced now.

Edited May 29, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[Tonci87 163]

And it is worse than current one, since everyone without DLC would just avoid coming on servers where DLC content is used - 'cause it's low quality and sounds awful. That was the case in A2.

This means - much greater community split.

Situations like "the only guy who could fly it died", OTOH, are something at the "happens once in a year" side of scale.

Public servers have vehicle respawn and will have plenty of regular choppers, I'm sure. OR there would be a warning - pilots must have TS and Heli DLC, just like TS is forced now.

You are not thinking of the long term consequences. Mission makers will avoid the DLC content because they want as many people as possible to play their stuff. And when there are almost no missions using the DLC content then what is it worth?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

And it is worse than current one, since everyone without DLC would just avoid coming on servers where DLC content is used - 'cause it's low quality and sounds awful. That was the case in A2.

This means - much greater community split.

Situations like "the only guy who could fly it died", OTOH, are something at the "happens once in a year" side of scale.

Public servers have vehicle respawn and will have plenty of regular choppers, I'm sure. OR there would be a warning - pilots must have TS and Heli DLC, just like TS is forced now.

I think it's worse to reduce usability rather than visual quality. Visual quality does not impair mission flow, asset capabilities or gameplay. "Can't fly this unless you buy" vs "Yep, the helo looks like shit, but you can still do what you need it to do".

I tried the Kart without purchasing it first, I was ok with the little intrusive neon bright icon on the side, I was ok with the flurry of hints, but then I got into the realm of "FULLSCREEN DIAMOND HELMET PATTERN" after a 3 laps. Yep, let's fully impair the view of the driver. If it was a rifle, it might as well came on at a time where I'm trying to spot a few pixels moving off in the distance, etc. I wonder what the further stages of harassment are. :D

If I didn't own it, I'd avoid it online more than I would if it had shitty textures. Hell, people were piling on to play DayZ even tho many did not have the DLC to make their own character look high-res. I don't see the argument being "People will avoid it because it looks shit", the argument I see is "Damn, these screenshots with shitty textures are making our game look bad to the public".

If the content is good, people will play it no matter how shit it looks. There are so many examples, and the best one comes from BI's own back yard.

But there has to be a better way to do this than crippling functionality and introducing gameplay crippling blocks, but even if they decide to crash the game if you haven't bought it, it does no affect me. :P

[John Kozak 14]

You are not thinking of the long term consequences. Mission makers will avoid the DLC content because they want as many people as possible to play their stuff. And when there are almost no missions using the DLC content then what is it worth?

No, it's you who's not thinking long-term. What you say applied even more to BAF and PMC.

[John Kozak 14]

I think it's worse to reduce usability rather than visual quality. Visual quality does not impair mission flow, asset capabilities or gameplay. "Can't fly this unless you buy" vs "Yep, the helo looks like shit, but you can still do what you need it to do".

I tried the Kart without purchasing it first, I was ok with the little intrusive neon bright icon on the side, I was ok with the flurry of hints, but then I got into the realm of "FULLSCREEN DIAMOND HELMET PATTERN" after a 3 laps. Yep, let's fully impair the view of the driver. If it was a rifle, it might as well came on at a time where I'm trying to spot a few pixels moving off in the distance, etc. I wonder what the further stages of harassment are. :D

If I didn't own it, I'd avoid it online more than I would if it had shitty textures. Hell, people were piling on to play DayZ even tho many did not have the DLC to make their own character look high-res. I don't see the argument being "People will avoid it because it looks shit", the argument I see is "Damn, these screenshots with shitty textures are making our game look bad to the public".

If the content is good, people will play it no matter how shit it looks. There are so many examples, and the best one comes from BI's own back yard.

But there has to be a better way to do this than crippling functionality and introducing gameplay crippling blocks, but even if they decide to crash the game if you haven't bought it, it does no affect me

You're making it up here.

If you had bought PMC, my game is suddenly filled with crap.

If I bought Marksman, your game is the same - except you get to envy the weapon I have. You have no reason to avoid anything.

And BAF and PMC showed exactly how flawed the approach you are defending was - I saw dozens of people who just left servers because "the firefight sounds like child's backyard game". Don't think there was no problems if you didn't see them. And again, you'll always have an old Ghosthawk if you still want to fly. Or... Oh, wait, do you just want all the goodies for free?

Edited May 29, 2014 by DarkWanderer