Development Blog & Reveals

[TSAndrey 1]

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

The problem here isn't how to make people buy it, it's how not to split the community. I don't think there's a good way to do it in a game like Arma...

[Tonci87 163]

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?

You are not getting it. Mission makers, the most important people in this community, will avoid the DLC stuff. And then how are the people who bought it going to have fun with it?

Also what if let´s say you do have one guy in your group who bought the helicopter DLC, of course he will want to use it as much as possible and maybe the mission maker implements it. Now the helicopter Pilot suddenly has to leave midgame because of some RL stuff, or his connection drops, you name it. If noone else owns the DLC, noone can take over. Mission makers (especially in MP) will avoid such risks and simply not include DLC assets in the first place, they´ll use community addons instead.

[John Kozak 14]

You are not getting it. Mission makers, the most important people in this community, will avoid the DLC stuff. And then how are the people who bought it going to have fun with it?

Also what if let´s say you do have one guy in your group who bought the helicopter DLC, of course he will want to use it as much as possible and maybe the mission maker implements it. Now the helicopter Pilot suddenly has to leave midgame because of some RL stuff, or his connection drops, you name it. If noone else owns the DLC, noone can take over. Mission makers (especially in MP) will avoid such risks and simply not include DLC assets in the first place, they´ll use community addons instead.

No, it's you who can't see my point glaring under your nose. Again for you:

What you say applies by the same margin to ArmA 2 DLC approach.

And you won't get it until you realize you don't analyze the differences, but are just stuck with "this is crap" point of view.

[Varanon 892]

The problem here isn't how to make people buy it, it's how not to split the community. I don't think there's a good way to do it in a game like Arma...

Actually, no, I wasn't talking about that. Just about how there is a better way than to force people to buy it. Nothing else.

[Tonci87 163]

No, it's you who can't see my point glaring under your nose. Again for you:

What you say applies by the same margin to ArmA 2 DLC approach.

And you won't get it until you realize you don't analyze the differences, but are just stuck with "this is crap" point of view.

No it doesn´t apply to the Arma 2 DLC approach. Nothing was restricted. If you played against DLC units you could pick up their weapons without problems if you were running low on Ammo. What will happen with this approach when you kill snipers from the DLC? Sorry can´t use that gun. This is stupid. And I´m very dissapointed to see Paywalls beeing imposed by BIS. I really wouldn´t have expected that from this company....

[Sniperwolf572 758]

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?

I'm not defending it, I'm purely saying it's a worse idea. I don't like either. For MP, I'd rather wait in a lobby plastered with ads, watch a fullscreen ad before a mission. For SP, same thing with ads before mission, fuck, have it force pause my missions to have me watch an ad every 30 minutes, rather than randomly cover my screen in a diamond-checkerboard pattern which will get me killed or apply arbitrary restrictions on the functionality. That's more profit from non-paying DLC users than the current inert overlays provide. They never have to buy it and you still get $$$ every time they play with the addon.

Firefights in Arma did and still do sound like popcorn parties without mods, paid or unpaid, and for every person that you saw left because of that, I saw dozens play DayZ with content that looked like blurry mess. I hosted 4 of such people in a impromptu LAN gathering.

Looks are irrelevant to the person playing it if he's enjoying the experience, sure, things looking better makes the quality of experience increase, but gameplay is where it's at. Visuals are important for marketing.

Want examples?

Look at dozens of free to play games that are out there. Hell, I'll even say Minecraft.

Look at all the people who gimped their Arma 2 installs on purpose with Arma 2 Free content so they can squeeze a few frames out so they can have a smoother experience.

Look at all the Watch_Dogs disappointment. Marketing graphics hype, hyped people disappointed and throwing hands up in the air, on the other hand, people who are actually playing the game are praising things like the amazingly interesting invasion-hacking game mode.

If I wanted "all the goodies to be free", I wouldn't have paid for them before they were even out and I wouldn't have bought multiple copies of the game, so you might want to reexamine your logic there.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Sniperwolf572

[tomturner 10]

This in the blog...

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

Sorry, didn't happen with me. I had to purchase even though I am a Supporter and paid for that Edition.

[Smurf 12]

Didn't liked the new approach either, Tonci made simple and good points there.

Why not give Hi-Res content and then take it back after X hours? + the "ad" system You WILL notice the difference and then "Carrot hanging in front..." effect.

+Suggestion: Add more media to SITREP or at least SPOTREPs - it has a greater effect than "Oh that sounds great, wish I remember that once I leave work and actually play the game".

[Rettrix 10]

Be better if it was the good old days were game developers would make a game and sell it complete instead of delaying content and releasing it as DLC after the initial release. If BI simply finished ArmA 3 and then focused on ArmA 4 then we could be sitting pretty with a much less buggy game to work with in 4 years time with half the issues we have these days solved. (glitches, exploits ect)

Edited May 29, 2014 by Galahad56

[kvntvan 13]

Yay we get to pay for mod content, where are the engine improvements?

First ever post in the forum just to say I hate the idea already.

For pretty much the same reasons already listed in this thread.

Especially the part about a constant notification reminder that gets progressively more prominent as you use the unpurchased content. It'd be a constant annoyance being nagged into buying DLC, how is that not the same, if not worse, then constant in game ads?

Makes me glad ARMA 2 still has an active community and won't be effected by these intrusive practices. Shooting out of helos and extra vehicles already exist as mods and aren't paywalled content in A2, and the engines play and feel basically the same (you still die on rocks, you still get bugged on doors).

[shunday 0]

How about focusing on the visual notifications, they should surely be able to get annoying enough. (after increasing with object use)

If you'd for example start seeing the texture on the object your using flashing with a big DLC-text now and then, that could even replace the restrictions of use. I sure wouldnt wanna pilot a heli where the interior and the exterior is lit up like a DLC christmas tree. (only local though)

[Kerc Kasha 102]

This isn't an easy thing to solve and the old method was not profitable at all for Bohemia so stop acting like it was the Promised Land system as ultimately the point of these DLCs is to support the developer.

I'm not saying the new system is optimal either but there does need to be something new so people will actually want to buy the dlcs but those who can't/won't wont be left out

[L3TUC3 32]

Sorry, didn't happen with me. I had to purchase even though I am a Supporter and paid for that Edition.

That's odd. It shows up as owned for me without any other intervention. Try contacting customer support or restarting steam.

[vegeta897 13]

Be better if it was the good old days were game developers would make a game and sell it complete instead of delaying content and releasing it as DLC after the initial release. If BI simply finished ArmA 3 and then focused on ArmA 4 then we could be sitting pretty with a much less buggy game to work with in 4 years time with half the issues we have these days solved. (glitches, exploits ect)

"Delaying content"? What on earth does that mean? Nothing is being "delayed". The new helicopters in the upcoming DLC did not exist when Arma 3 was released. What you're suggesting is that the release of the game be delayed until they reach some magic number of vehicles and weapons that would satisfy you. You're also asking for more content at no additional cost. Games cost money to develop. We're already getting tons of new features and engine improvements for free.

Arma 3 was a complete game as it was sold. Just because it had less vehicles or weapons than Arma 2 doesn't mean it isn't complete. Is that some kind of rule? Every sequel has to have an equal or greater amount of vehicles and weapons for it to be considered "complete"?

By the way, the appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. The old way of doing things isn't automatically better just because you call it "the good old days." And also, paid expansions to games have been around in PC gaming for quite a while. DLC was not previously feasible because of logistical impracticality.

Yay we get to pay for mod content, where are the engine improvements?

The engine improvements are a constant task for BIS, and are given to everybody for free. How is this "mod content"? If this is mod content, then isn't the rest of the game as well? Do you expect a company to develop vehicles and weapons for you that you don't have to pay for?

Especially the part about a constant notification reminder that gets progressively more prominent as you use the unpurchased content. It'd be a constant annoyance being nagged into buying DLC, how is that not the same, if not worse, then constant in game ads?

The whole point of the notifications is to get you to purchase the content, as well as make sure you can't simply get used to dealing with it, like many people did with the Lite content in Arma 2. You do not see these notifications if you aren't using DLC assets you don't own, so it's quite different than in-game ads. The ads are also 100% relevant, because they are asking you to purchase the thing you are using right at that moment. They aren't just vaguely related gamer ads for peripherals or, god forbid, Doritos and Mtn Dew. Would you rather not be able to use the vehicles at all, or not be able to join servers that use them? The notifications do not impede your ability to try out the vehicles and determine whether they're worth buying.

Makes me glad ARMA 2 still has an active community and won't be effected by these intrusive practices.

Intrusive? How? Being able to ride in a vehicle you didn't pay for, with the stipulation that you're reminded that it's paid content is intrusive? You could just not get in the vehicle. You are not forced to purchase any of the DLC, while you can still get usage out of the features that come along with them, as well as enrich the battlefield as you can play with people who are using the DLC content. I really don't understand how someone can complain that the developers want to offer DLC just because there is also an active mod community. An intelligent person would either not buy the DLC and enjoy his mods, or buy the DLC and enjoy both.

[chortles 263]

No it doesn´t apply to the Arma 2 DLC approach. Nothing was restricted. If you played against DLC units you could pick up their weapons without problems if you were running low on Ammo. What will happen with this approach when you kill snipers from the DLC? Sorry can´t use that gun. This is stupid. And I´m very dissapointed to see Paywalls beeing imposed by BIS. I really wouldn´t have expected that from this company....

Oddly enough this post made me think of how Battlefield 3 handled locked (whether behind progression or DLC) weapons -- you can use battlefield pick-ups, but can't spawn in with them and can't customize them -- and I thought of this alternative: "You can play missions created by those who have this DLC, but you must pay $14.99 to be able to create your own missions using these units (i.e. to be able to place these units in the Editor)!"

Maybe the number-crunching was that "the paywall burden is on the mission makers, nor the mission players" wouldn't make enough money to satisfy the-powers-that-be...

Visuals are important for marketing.

Ironic that you'd say this when the BI devblog pretty much allude to "visuals are important for marketing" insofar as why they specifically chose not to do the Lite method again. Considering that they had a paragraph specifically about their claimed negatives of the 'lite' approach, BI's attitude seems like "Lite was nice in theory, but we got burned". =/

As for the claim about "one set of data" -- specifically the fact that "when we update the game, we don't have to maintain countless versions of the game with and without certain DLC" -- it's coming from the same dev team / project lead for which "one set of data" was a reason for Steamworks...

[John Kozak 14]

No it doesn´t apply to the Arma 2 DLC approach. Nothing was restricted. If you played against DLC units you could pick up their weapons without problems if you were running low on Ammo. What will happen with this approach when you kill snipers from the DLC? Sorry can´t use that gun. This is stupid. And I´m very dissapointed to see Paywalls beeing imposed by BIS. I really wouldn´t have expected that from this company....

"Something is restricted" is a tall call from "mission makers will leave it out". And doesn't prove that same wasn't true for Lite approach.

And it's not "can't use that gun", it's " this gun will be annoying to use".

Saying "paywalls are bad" is an understandable position, but a bit distanced from reality. Do you not have spare 20€ to support the development of game you played more than any other out there? Or, if you bought the supporter edition, you have no problems you describe - what's the fuss then?

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[John Kozak 14]

I'm not defending it, I'm purely saying it's a worse idea. I don't like either. For MP, I'd rather wait in a lobby plastered with ads, watch a fullscreen ad before a mission. For SP, same thing with ads before mission, fuck, have it force pause my missions to have me watch an ad every 30 minutes, rather than randomly cover my screen in a diamond-checkerboard pattern which will get me killed or apply arbitrary restrictions on the functionality. That's more profit from non-paying DLC users than the current inert overlays provide. They never have to buy it and you still get $$$ every time they play with the addon.

Firefights in Arma did and still do sound like popcorn parties without mods, paid or unpaid, and for every person that you saw left because of that, I saw dozens play DayZ with content that looked like blurry mess. I hosted 4 of such people in a impromptu LAN gathering.

Looks are irrelevant to the person playing it if he's enjoying the experience, sure, things looking better makes the quality of experience increase, but gameplay is where it's at. Visuals are important for marketing.

Want examples?

Look at dozens of free to play games that are out there. Hell, I'll even say Minecraft.

Look at all the people who gimped their Arma 2 installs on purpose with Arma 2 Free content so they can squeeze a few frames out so they can have a smoother experience.

Look at all the Watch_Dogs disappointment. Marketing graphics hype, hyped people disappointed and throwing hands up in the air, on the other hand, people who are actually playing the game are praising things like the amazingly interesting invasion-hacking game mode.

If I wanted "all the goodies to be free", I wouldn't have paid for them before they were even out and I wouldn't have bought multiple copies of the game, so you might want to reexamine your logic there.

Well, this is the essense of your position - you want to be able to use content you didn't pay for. Maybe not for yourself, but in principle.

Note, in all, that I too think current approach will lead to some inconveniences. However, this is necessary evil - one kind of restriction or another. We live in an imperfect world. From the position of a developer who wants to get paid for his work, I understand BIS perfectly.

But what I want to emphasize is that if one paid for quality game (which ArmA is, despite some shortcomings), he has right to still play this quality game and not being reset to crappy "lite" content. Example? I played on some British server where there were both US and BAF units. If A3 approach would have been used, the game would be just perfect - but as it were, it was an OFP-fest.

It's easy to be opposed to "oppression", but the only alternative really is not to have this content at all. 95% of people would just play the premium content for free, if the prevention measures are not drastic enough - that's the harsh reality. Google OpenSSL donations. Ads are not a stopping factor.

Visuals may be not important for you, but they are important for me; and this one really is a matter of expectations cutoff. I doubt you would play ArmA if DLC content was shown by textured Minecraft cubes with pew-pew sounds.

Let me emphasise again - situations where you have those restrictions applied are rare. Lite content would be spoiling the game always. And ads just don't cut it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[old_painless 183]

Think the new method is the lesser evil of the two options available. The "ad" bit can be tweaked based on our feedback so that it is noticeable but not blocking your view when sniping or something like that. I actually thought about some beep each 30seconds in stead of visuals, just an idea.

I thought that the pricing is a bit steep though. For a game that you can get for 24.99 at times you pay half that for an extra helo or improved sniping?

-OP

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Well, this is the essense of your position - you want to be able to use content you didn't pay for. Maybe not for yourself, but in principle.

Not quite correct. My position comes from the fact that BI wants us to be able to use the content we didn't pay for, me, I wouldn't have a problem even outright doing it like everyone else, no money, no content at all.

My position is that if you want to provide something for free due to the issues you believe are present, you shouldn't fuck with the gameplay experience when such content is in use. I don't see the logic of covering my entire screen with crap for like 10-20 seconds just because I'm wearing the Kart DLC helmet that I can't even see from first person. But as I said, I'd gladly wait a minute long ad before my gameplay is begun.

If you take a look at the monetization aspect, BI gets nothing from the current method, sure they're annoying you and you might buy the DLC if you like it enough, but showing a minute of ads before the mission itself is income even before you bought it, it's something you profit from and the user isn't fucked when playing the game itself.

Note, in all, that I too think current approach will lead to some inconveniences. However, this is necessary evil - one kind of restriction or another. We live in an imperfect world. From the position of a developer who wants to get paid for his work, I understand BIS perfectly.

I have no problem with them being paid for their work, I've been supporting and throwing money at them for half of my life. And if you look above, you'll notice that I'm advocating earning money when the content is used rather than HOPING to earn money when it's used.

But what I want to emphasize is that if one paid for quality game (which ArmA is, despite some shortcomings), he has right to still play this quality game and not being reset to crappy "lite" content. Example? I played on some British server where there were both US and BAF units. If A3 approach would have been used, the game would be just perfect - but as it were, it was an OFP-fest.

Sure and what would you prefer, if you were in the middle of combat trying to spot chedaki, when a fullscreen overlay comes on and makes it impossible to spot a few pixels in the forest that's hard enough to spot anyway. Or if when you joined that server, you waited a minute to see an ad about, I don't know, latest BMW model or a new movie coming out, and then you weren't impaired in the game.

It's easy to be opposed to "oppression", but the only alternative really is not to have this content at all. 95% of people would just play the premium content for free, if the prevention measures are not drastic enough - that's the harsh reality. Google OpenSSL donations. Ads are not a stopping factor.

I'm not saying they're a stopping factor, neither is what is currently in place. I'm saying is that you might as well earn something from the free players that are using your content and if that free player buys the DLC, you've earned money for him buying the DLC and all the time he spent while he was a free user.

Visuals may be not important for you, but they are important for me; and this one really is a matter of expectations cutoff. I doubt you would play ArmA if DLC content was shown by textured Minecraft cubes with pew-pew sounds.

If I didn't pay for that DLC content? I would not have a problem playing with a stick figure, I didn't pay for it and I have the option of not playing it, or playing it, fully featured but it looking like a ROFLCOPTER. But you know who'd suffer? BI, because that stick figure or ROFLCOPTER would be on Reddit frontpage in a heartbeat. That's the problem BI has with the previous approach. It makes them look bad for doing a good thing.

Let me emphasise again - situations where you have those restrictions applied are rare. Lite content would be spoiling the game always. And ads just don't cut it.

They're applied in the same situations lite content was applied to. When you are using the content. The only benefit of the current system is that if you, personally, are not using the content, you are not affected. But the downside is that the moment you are using the content, the "deterrance mechanics" are going to impact the content you also paid for. For example that ~10 second fullscreen overlay will cover Altis which you paid for and that Shift+P prompt will potentially cover UI elements in missions. Off the top of my head, it would cover the DayZ/Wasteland indicators.

[John Kozak 14]

BI wants us to be able to use the content we didn't pay for

That's imagination talking. BI doesn't want that. BI wants to put out quality DLCs and still let the playerbase be on the same page. You want new shiny rifle? You pay for it. You don't want to pay? You don't get it, but the other guy with the rifle and you can still play together.

Not quite correct. My position comes from the fact that BI wants us to be able to use the content we didn't pay for, me, I wouldn't have a problem even outright doing it like everyone else, no money, no content at all.

My position is that if you want to provide something for free due to the issues you believe are present, you shouldn't fuck with the gameplay experience when such content is in use. I don't see the logic of covering my entire screen with crap for like 10-20 seconds But as I said, I'd gladly wait a minute long ad before my gameplay is begun.

You are contradicting yourself. In the next couple of sentences:

...just because I'm wearing the Kart DLC helmet that I can't even see from first person....

...Sure and what would you prefer, if you were in the middle of combat trying to spot chedaki, when a fullscreen overlay comes on and makes it impossible to spot a few pixels in the forest that's hard enough to spot anyway.

Those two mean explicitly that you still want to be able to use this weapon without restriction. In such situation, I sure as hell just won't take a weapon I know I wouldn't be able to use/a helmet. WTF, a kart helmet in combat?

And the next statement:

fully featured but it looking like a ROFLCOPTER. But you know who'd suffer? BI, because that stick figure or ROFLCOPTER would be on Reddit frontpage in a heartbeat. That's the problem BI has with the previous approach. It makes them look bad for doing a good thing.

And this is a bad thing both for BI (public image) and for players (otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about it). No-win situation, isn't it?

They're applied in the same situations lite content was applied to. When you are using the content.

NO.

NO.

NO.

They are applied only in cases where you are forced to take a dropped weapon or to suddenly fly a helicopter. How frequent is the case when the pilot dies and the heli lands by itself safely? 0%. How frequent is the case when you have 0 ammo and the only weapon around is one sniper rifle? <1%.

Bad quality content, on the other hand, will stay with you throughout the whole game.

But the downside is that the moment you are using the content, the "deterrance mechanics" are going to impact the content you also paid for. For example that ~10 second fullscreen overlay will cover Altis which you paid for and that Shift+P prompt will potentially cover UI elements in missions. Off the top of my head, it would cover the DayZ/Wasteland indicators.

You don't want deterrence - don't use the content, or pay of it. But you wanna play and you don't wanna pay. That's your problem.

All of the practical problems caused by restrictions (by practical I mean not "OMG there is a weapon and I cannot use it!!!!!111!1!"), on the other hand, can be circumvented by mission design. I repeat: all of them.

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[vegeta897 13]

BI wants us to be able to use the content we didn't pay for

Correction, BIS wants us to be able to preview content we didn't pay for. There is a huge difference. You are able to experience enough of the DLC content to call judgement whether or not you want to buy it. The nag visuals do not interfere with your ability to make that assessment. All they do is make sure you can't live with them, because if you can, we are left with the same issue the Lite content had.

I don't see the logic of covering my entire screen with crap for like 10-20 seconds just because I'm wearing the Kart DLC helmet that I can't even see from first person.

So take it off?

I don't see validity to your point about the nag visuals impacting the content you paid for. That's a really weak argument. You are making the choice to use whatever DLC item or vehicle that is causing those nag visuals. Nobody ever said the idea of the nag visuals was to reduce your enjoyment of only that item. It's to reduce your enjoyment of using that item. So no matter what you're doing, if you're using an item you don't own, you will be nagged. That is how it should be, and you don't give any good reason why it shouldn't be like that. I once again point out your misunderstanding of the purpose of these items in the game. They are for showcasing and previewing. There is no reason to expect a playable experience while using them. If the experience were playable, that's a loss of purchase incentive.

[vektorboson 8]

I bought the DLC-bundle, but to be honest, I'm not quite satisfied how access to that content is restricted (nag screen). Thinking about it, there's the possibility for a middle-ground: Why not unlock the content after being 30min or 1h within a mission (in real world time).

Let's assume you had a long mission and now want to chill by driving karts around? Since they were not a central part of the mission, unlock them.

Same with the pilot with his advanced helicopter: He gets shot? Well, if enough time has gone, you can use his helicopter. Though in that case you probably would like to have bought the helicopter DLC anyway, so you get a feeling how to control that thing... and then, this pilot was a specialist, are you?

The biggest problem I see is with rifles/guns, this needs to be dealt differently with.

I also see that whole split-community thing a bit differently: Looking at Arma2, if people wanted to play missions with more realistic helicopters then every player would have to buy TOH, even if only one player gets to fly a helicopter. Now in this case, only one player needs to buy the DLC.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

That's imagination talking. BI doesn't want that. BI wants to put out quality DLCs and still let the playerbase be on the same page. You want new shiny rifle? You pay for it. You don't want to pay? You don't get it, but the other guy with the rifle and you can still play together.

Really? Because currently the way it works is that if I don't pay it, I get it anyway. If I turn off the DLC's I can still ride in the Kart, I can still use the Starting Pistol. It's like you haven't even tried the current system. The only thing outright unavailable are the scenarios. I'd fucking love it if it was outright unavailable to me, but not to people on the same server. Like, I don't know, BF3 did weapons. I don't even need to be able to pick it up.

This is what Valve does, this is what EA does, this is what Blizzard does, this is what Overkill does, this is what the guys that made APB do, this is what majority of F2P titles do. I have no problems with this. I don't need to have content I haven't paid for. But if it's given to me for free, I'd rather pay for it passively.

Overkill is in the same situation as BI.

But damn hand grenades are DLC in their game and non paying people can use them if a paying person is on the server.

Certain heists are paid DLC and non paying people can still play them if a paying person has hosted it.

And they've made it work without plastering "YOU HAVEN'T PAID US FOR THIS FELLA", but admittedly, their game is much narrower in scope.

You are contradicting yourself. In the next couple of sentences:

Those two mean explicitly that you still want to be able to use this weapon without restriction. In such situation, I sure as hell just won't take a weapon I know I wouldn't be able to use/a helmet. WTF, a kart helmet in combat?

No, these two mean that BAF style DLC did not impair everything on screen, while this does. There's a difference between restriction and compensation. BI didn't go with the restriction way, because I'd be restricted from using it in the first place. BI went with intrusion way, which is affecting you while you play with no immediate benefit to BI. What I'm advocating is the third option. Don't impair or restrict, but still gain money immediately even tho the user hasn't explicitly paid. It's very well explained in the post.

And the next statement:

And this is a bad thing both for BI (public image) and for players (otherwise they wouldn't be complaining about it). No-win situation, isn't it?

Yes, that's why I mentioned it in my last opst. They came up with this because it hurts their image when there's a low quality asset on screen with no explanation.

NO.

NO.

NO.

They are applied only in cases where you are forced to take a dropped weapon or to suddenly fly a helicopter. How frequent is the case when the pilot dies and the heli lands by itself safely? 0%. How frequent is the case when you have 0 ammo and the only weapon around is one sniper rifle? <1%.

Agreed, but how frequent is the case that the mission is made in such a way where that helicopter is the thing you actually have to fly and you cannot proceed unless you use it? It's not like you can open up a shop CS:GO style and buy something else.

Bad quality content, on the other hand, will stay with you throughout the whole game.

You don't want deterrence - don't use the content, or pay of it. But you wanna play and you don't wanna pay. That's your problem.

You're missing the point here. What does BI want? Income. Does it matter if it comes from me or the ad provider? No. The thing I'm advocating is the trifecta that works for majority of the companies today.

BI gets money. Advertiser gets exposure. Person gets content.

If person wants to eliminate the advertiser, person pays directly to BI.

It's like you have never used free email services, a social network, an free mobile app, watched TV or used any website on the internet.

Let's look at it this way, because this is my point of view.

I am BI.

I own ArmA and have released a DLC for 19€.

My game is in a situation where everyone must always have all the content present, otherwise my platform is not as open as I'd like and I create divides within my players.

To remedy that, I will make sure everyone always has all the content present.

I will earn money from players who buy the DLC.

There will be people who will not pay money for the DLC but will have the content.

Here, I have multiple options to deal with this:

I can make sure that the non-paying players can not use the content within the game, therefore not giving content away and earning money from people who pay for it.

I can make the assets unappealing to give them incentives to pay for the the DLC.

I can make UI overlays to make playing with the unpaid content unappealing so they will pay for the DLC.

I can make display ads during non-critical gaming to earn money anyway, even if the player has not paid.

I go with the last option.

Advertiser gets: exposure, gives: money

Player gets: content, gives: time

I get: money, give: content

I just want to make it clear that I'm not against the current system, I'm merely stating an alternative and showing potential issues. And I will right here tell you why my alternative will never happen. They've already commited to the current system. And they also potentially don't want to bother themselves with partnerships with advertisers or whatnot.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Sniperwolf572

[vegeta897 13]

I think you pose a valid alternative, SniperWolf, but personally I would hate to see any ads in my game that are not directly related, especially when it means adding time between starting the game and actually being able to play. Ads about whatever product or service BIS's advertiser thinks is relevant to me takes me way more out of the game than a reminder that I should buy something, only when I'm actually using it. The advantage to the nagging is that it's bothering the player only when he actually chooses to use the content, not simply by joining a server that is using it. Also, there is much more of a connection between the nag and the content. An ad simply playing when you start a mission or join a server has no direct tie to the content itself. It feels way more like an advertisement because it's so out of context and doesn't make the subconscious connection that paying = content, like the visual nags do.

[John Kozak 14]

Really? Because currently the way it works is that if I don't pay it, I get it anyway. If I turn off the DLC's I can still ride in the Kart, I can still use the Starting Pistol. It's like you haven't even tried the current system. The only thing outright unavailable are the scenarios. I'd fucking love it if it was outright unavailable to me, but not to people on the same server. Like, I don't know, BF3 did weapons. I don't even need to be able to pick it up.

You need to make up your mind.

One post, you're complaining about not being able to use something "because full-screen stuff".

Next post, you're saying it's not restictive enough and BF3 does it better?

WTF?

This is what Valve does, this is what EA does, this is what Blizzard does, this is what Overkill does, this is what the guys that made APB do, this is what majority of F2P titles do. I have no problems with this. I don't need to have content I haven't paid for. But if it's given to me for free, I'd rather pay for it passively.

It's not given to you, it's given to other guys. Having it in game is courtesy of BIS so you don't complain about community split.

No, these two mean that BAF style DLC did not impair everything on screen, while this does. There's a difference between restriction and compensation. BI didn't go with the restriction way, because I'd be restricted from using it in the first place. BI went with intrusion way, which is affecting you while you play with no immediate benefit to BI. What I'm advocating is the third option. Don't impair or restrict, but still gain money immediately even tho the user hasn't explicitly paid. It's very well explained in the post.

No, these two mean exactly what I said.

YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE THOSE ITEMS UNLESS YOU PAID FOR THEM

DON'T LIKE THE NAGGING - DON'T USE THEM

That's the big message on the whole system you've missed somehow.

They just made it that you still can pick up the weapons so

1. You can try before you buy
   
2. You can loot a weapon/take a car and do something in emergency
   

And that's bad now?.. I have no words.

Agreed, but how frequent is the case that the mission is made in such a way where that helicopter is the thing you actually have to fly and you cannot proceed unless you use it? It's not like you can open up a shop CS:GO style and buy something else.

Pretty frequent, but not as frequent as the case where mission makers specifically state which addons/DLC you need to play/complete the mission.

Let me repeat that. mission makers always specifically state which addons/DLC you need to play/complete the mission. Period. Crisis averted and choked in cradle.

You're missing the point here.

I'm not missing anything here. It's you who are making some points totally unrelated to discussion. Make your mind already - which exactly point are you defending? "Current system is bad"? "I know better way"? "Give me everything for free, I don't mind low quality"? Overall it looks like it's the latter.

And again, displaying ads is not an option in a PC game. Period. Dozens of reasons, reason #1 - it's disabled in 10 seconds.

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer