The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[byku 13]

Post here your opinions and suggestions about new DLC system.

If you are against it, try to post an idea how it SHOULD look.

Personally I'm all for it, and I think it's a brilliant idea. The only question is how often does this "notifications" appear(can't personally check it... already bought it all :P)

Edit.: Is it possible to edit the pool? Another option could be added: "No - I prefer Arma 2 system"

Edited May 29, 2014 by Byku

[kremator 1064]

I like what BIS have done. It is slick and informative yet simplistic. Good job BIS.

[down8 30]

I like the system, but I don't like the first DLC (Karts).

[Tonci87 163]

I´ve already written what I think of it in another thread, so I´ll just quote myself here.

The new System really harms both DLC owners and the "Lite" Players when you think about the consequences.

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....

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.

[papanowel 120]

I like the system, but I don't like the first DLC (Karts).

First DLC was Zeus btw ;)

[byku 13]

I´ve already written what I think of it in another thread, so I´ll just quote myself here.

The new System really harms both DLC owners and the "Lite" Players when you think about the consequences.

What do you propose instead? In Arma 2 DLC content also wasn't used a lot(if i'm correct - almost never played with it, it looked ugly[the lite version ofc]). If Arma 2 way is out of the question, how convince people to buy new DLC's?

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

I Preferred the Arma 2 DLC System

Giving them Blurry Textures and bad sounds is better than a nice Chopper i can't enter (Although i will buy them anyway)

Reasons are what Tonci said.

[2fast4u 10]

I Preferred the Arma 2 DLC System

Giving them Blurry Textures and bad sounds is better than a nice Chopper i can't enter (Although i will buy them anyway)

Reasons are what Tonci said.

I agree entirely +1

[CaptainObvious 95]

I voted for yes.

I can see the concerns about "breaking" some mission due to not being able to fly a heli or something, but that's the point of it, right? If you like the new stuff and want to use 'em, buy the stuff as all the others.

[yugoslav 13]

If all the DLC's are like this many people wont use them. At UO for example, every mission slot will need to be marked if it requires DLC to operate any of the vehicles. Its a really poor system, I am happy they released the karts DLC to see it in use and not a Military vehicle pack.

[[frl]myke 14]

Poll edited. Should i reset it?

[Chabs 10]

It is quite slick!

Although I got lost at some point... I so thought I had the supporter edition, I was like "where's mah free dlc?"

I don't know if my memory's all messed up... I think it is.

[byku 13]

Myke;2699640']Poll edited. Should i reset it?

I don't think so, and thanks :).

[nmdanny 22]

It's really hard to decide which system is better.

The old system allowed for full functionality(minus scenarios/campaign) but at a low quality, so there was no multiplayer split, but it broke immersion and uglified the game when present.

The new system doesn't uglify the game, but depending on the restrictions, it causes some split, which depends on which kind of restrictions BIS will put and how the mission makers will deal with it.

E.g, mission makers can give pilots an option between a mohawk and a DLC transport helicopter;between a vanilla attack chopper and a DLC one;for loadouts, a toggle between DLC weapons and vanilla ones;a toggle between vanilla soldiers and DLC soldiers(if they belong to the same side)

This will also depend on which restrictions BIS will place, for example: can players use unowned DLC clothes, DLC weapons, can they be in the gunner positions of a vehicle, can they be in the copilot seat, if so, can they take manual control, can mission/addon makers use scripts to circumvent DLC restrictions, how disruptive will the notifications be, etc..

I think the best option for players would be to toggle between HD restricted content to low quality unrestricted content, but players would hop between the options depending on what they want to do, and then there'd be less incentive for players to buy DLCs.

Ultimately if I'd have to choose, I'd rather have the ArmA 2 option. But I think BIS chose the new method because it's easier to handle, and it's also better from a PR perspective: perspective buyers who see youtube footage from might be unimpressed upon seeing low quality lite content.

[simon1279 51]

I like the system, but I don't like the first DLC (Karts).

same here, i really like the system it is very brilliant and unique, BIS rocks, but kart DLC.... 'cmon guys at BIS, really?

[enex 11]

Yep Arma 2 choice was the best.I do congratulate free features but paid content means

beginning of splitting for playerbase.

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

same here, i really like the system it is very brilliant and unique, BIS rocks, but kart DLC.... 'cmon guys at BIS, really?

it was initially an aprils fools joke that people then wanted in their game.

and therefor it was a good oportunity to test the new DLC system and look for feedback.

Imagine they'd have done it with the helicopters DLC. it could have been a giant shitstorm and would have caused more trouble than necessary.

[Tonci87 163]

Are you kidding me? I just tested the new Carts and after you get out you can´t get back in if you don´t own the DLC. WTF? How in hell are people going to make MP Missions with that stupid restriction? AS soon as a free player gets out he can walk for the rest of the way?

Since when did Arma turn into a god damn MobileGame? Because this Paywall feels as if taken straight out of one.

Also please let me quote this

I realize that jumping to conclusions at this announcement isn't constructive, and I know for a fact that BIS have given their DLC strategy a lot more time and thought than I and my friends have based on our first impressions of their announcement roadmap. However, several things stand out to me that unsettle me about this business decision- I don't see a lot of people talking about these problems (other than superficial complaints about paid DLC in general), so I want to bring up some things that have me and other A3 players I know concerned.

I'll dive straight into the biggest problem that jumped out to me- despite the intent, the owner/non-owner split is still present and a very real danger, in many circumstances with this strategy. The non-owners walkthrough describes this:

"The helicopter is available to try out in the editor, but the SP scenario is locked.

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

The longer you actively use it, the more prominent the premium content notifications become.

Afterwards, you join a multiplayer server that uses the MP scenario (or any custom mission including the helicopter):

You can join as normal.

Again, you experience the progressive DLC notifications and restrictions."

The multiplayer section says that the DLC restrictions are in place for multiplayer, too- this means that non-owners will be restricted to passengers only, and we can only speculate what the restriction for the marksmen DLC will be in this regard. Here's a specific example that comes to mind, with the helicopters DLC:

If these restrictions are in place, this is going to cause problems within missions where the DLC helicopters are present and require players to fly them as part of the mission (either by design or creative choice). If nobody in a group of players owns the DLC, they won't be able to play that part of the scenario at all- alternatively, the mission maker will have to make allowances to have a non-DLC helicopter present to fly, too, or have parameters to enable/disable DLC content when they publish their mission, which means more work and unnecessary design concessions by the mission maker to accommodate this, if they want to avoid this issue in a publicly published scenario.

Unless the mission is built with the intent of having a great deal of choice in helicopters used by a large amount of players (Domination, for example), this is going to encourage mission makers to exclude these helicopters from their missions, or only include them as extra options on top of the base helicopters. This is because if they don't, they'll have to advertise their mission as "requiring" the DLC, and will immediately lose audiences who don't want to pay for the DLC. So, you have two options as a scenario editor to have people actually download and play your missions- make them an option alongside base helicopters, or exclude them altogether from the player's arsenal, and limit them to just AI use. In the former, the quality crafted content is being reduced to an ugly duckling or an elitist exclusive. Nobody wants to use it, and those that do hold it over the heads of those that don't, and that's unfair to the content and the creators of it. In the latter, it's completely discarded because of this split it causes. This strategy goes from the LITE solution where some people (who would throw enough of a fit over LITE assets to not use them based on graphics) would not use the content in a scenario that has it, to a solution where NOBODY will use the content.

Moving on, how will this impact the Marksmen DLC? We don't have any info on this, so I can't make any assumptions, but are non-owners going to be restricted from using the guns? Attachments? Will there just be the pop-ups and notifications? I'd like to make it clear that I'm not against the notifications and pop-ups- they might be annoying to non-owners, but they ensure COMPATIBILITY and consistency of experience whereas the restrictions have significant implications for the design and compatibility of multiplayer scenarios.

I can't pretend to know the details of the financial success of the LITE solution, but the restrictions seem heavy-handed for trying to encourage non-owners to pick up the premium content. If LITE failed to produce the sales anticipated with its reduced quality assets solution (i.e., large percentage of people playing the content and not minding reduced quality enough nor wanting the scenario content), I could understand looking for ways to improve sales. I just don't agree that these restrictions are a good idea. The notifications and pop-ups sound like fine compromises to me- they allow players to maintain a consistent multiplayer experience (though it still discourages non-owners from using that content, which has the implications in mission design expressed above, but not nearly as severe as outright preventing people from flying a helicopter, for example) while encouraging non-owners to purchase the content they are using.

However, I cannot agree with the restrictions we've seen in the DLC strategy. While attempting to prevent a community split in the gameplay portion, it has subtle but massive consequences for the scenario design aspect which may not have been entirely obvious (or given the attention it needs) during the design of this strategy. I believe a split in scenario design like the one I've described above would completely fragment the community and will alienate the DLC owners in the long run- they simply won't have scenarios produced that let them use and enjoy their content.

Look at the LITE solution. PMC and BAF both enjoyed their content implemented into scenarios and could be enjoyed by LITE users because it was a standard part of the game- no addons needed, no separate downloading, compatibility was airtight. If we look at ACR, though, which although it had a LITE version, was not part of an official patch and had to be downloaded separately. The amount of missions using ACR content relative to PMC and BAF content is miniscule for this reason- ACR's content is fantastic and high quality, but it wasn't the LITE graphics that turned off people from implementing it in their missions. It was the lack of CONSISTENCY and compatibility that resulted from ACR LITE being a separate download. Not everyone had it, and it caused problems just like any other mod that some people have and some people don't have. So it was rarely used for this reason. Is this really any different than having scenarios that have helicopters or weapons that only some people can use? That could be made unplayable if no person in that group of players owns the DLC? That's not consistency and it discourages scenario makers from making missions with the content people have PAID for- that's a split in the userbase.

Perhaps combining the LITE strategy with the notifications would be a good solution? This would retain the reminders and notifications that graphics and audio users are viewing are reduced versions of premium content while ensuring consistency no matter who plays in a given mission. With the LITE solution, I cannot stress enough how the consistency of scenarios across players' experiences is far more important than a perceived consistency of graphics.

I realize that a lot of this is conjecture and completely based on assumption- again, I'm sure BI has thought for a lot longer about this issue than I have with just this morning's announcement. Still, it is my opinion that this strategy has significant long-term consequences for the health of Arma 3's multiplayer community. While we'll only really know based on how it plays out in practice, I implore BIS to look into a less intrusive method as they implement their DLC through A3's lifespan.

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

@Tonci: couldn't we take Wolfywulfs Post and make it an open letter or a petition or something? because i agree 100% with him, and i am sure others do too.

[Makarn 10]

I'm with WulfyWulf too, nice idea trying to make a combined strategy at least addresses this:

"For our players, it could quite drastically affect their perception of quality. For example, if a player was unaware of our 'lite' approach, they'd play a game with high-quality content mixed in with low-quality content - thinking this was either a bug or poor production values on our part. There was no real sense of what was and what wasn't DLC."

If people didn't have idea that the content they were using was a Lite DLC version the message will let them know and give the oportunity to buy it from inside the game.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Makarn

[jeza 5415]

I would be more sympathetic toward the new system, if the content it delivered was of quality and what one would expect from a 'milsim' or something which at least tries in some capacity to be that. But paying for Karts....well enough said there (especially when there are significant fixes elsewhere needed before a gimmick dlc). But paying for weapons and then staying on-board in hopes of a far off terrain dlc does not fill me with the slightest bit of hope.

I did enjoy the larger arma 2 expansion packs, and the same with queens gambit in arma 1, but each to their own I guess.

As I said, its the quality to me not the way its output.

[WulfyWulf 10]

I posted my thoughts on this in the Arma 3 Karts DLC thread before I found this thread, but thanks Tonci87 for mirroring them here.

Are you kidding me? I just tested the new Carts and after you get out you can´t get back in if you don´t own the DLC. WTF? How in hell are people going to make MP Missions with that stupid restriction? AS soon as a free player gets out he can walk for the rest of the way?

Since when did Arma turn into a god damn MobileGame? Because this Paywall feels as if taken straight out of one.

Also please let me quote this

. . .

I know that the LITE solution isn't perfect, so I'd like to develop an idea for BIS that compromises the visual fidelity concerns they have while still giving them a fair deal for their content. My solution given in my post still has the problems with the visual quality in LITE that BI was concerned about in their strategy reveal, does anyone have any suggestions for a better strategy?

[Tonci87 163]

Well the "Lite" Method is not perfect, but I think it is still better than such drastic restrictions for free users. I seriously doubt that we will see many missions that use the DLC Content if it is locked behind Paywalls because Mission makers will want to reach as many people as possible.

And then even the guys who paid for it will never get to use it...

Honestly I´m shocked that BIS even considered such a drastic approach. Who had that stupid idea? Didn´t you make enough money with the Arma 2 DLCs? If not, then you should be aware that PMC and ACR sold bad because of their quality, or more the lack of it, not because people enjoyed the lite content that much....

[semiconductor 309]

From what I have read here it's an awful idea, Arma 2's approach to DLC content was way better.

Sad to see that BI continues to make one mistake after another. :(

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

I posted my thoughts on this in the Arma 3 Karts DLC thread before I found this thread, but thanks Tonci87 for mirroring them here.

I know that the LITE solution isn't perfect, so I'd like to develop an idea for BIS that compromises the visual fidelity concerns they have while still giving them a fair deal for their content. My solution given in my post still has the problems with the visual quality in LITE that BI was concerned about in their strategy reveal, does anyone have any suggestions for a better strategy?

The first Step could be an automatically generated hintC (the one that is basically a pop-up window where you have to click "ok") explaining why some assets are poor quality. this could be done in a script wich autodetects if DLC content is present in the Mission and if the player has bought the DLC (so it doesn't pop-up on anybody). It could also have the Screename of the Assets with some samplepictures how they look on high-res. I think that would be a good start and show players what they are missing out by not buying the DLC, without trying to force them to by generating irritating paywalls and "on screen notifications" wich evolve in a full screen PP effect.