The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[kremator 1065]

Wow Zeus and Karts have split the community? ... oh come on now! There is nothing wrong (I repeated NOTHING WRONG) with this type of business model.

It is quite simple. If you don't want a DLC (and hte goodness that it will bring) then don't buy it. Stop griping at a perfectly valid and acceptable business model. In doubt? Cast your eyes to other software houses and their 'shady' DLCs !

[connorwarman 60]

Wow Zeus and Karts have split the community? ... oh come on now! There is nothing wrong (I repeated NOTHING WRONG) with this type of business model.

It is quite simple. If you don't want a DLC (and hte goodness that it will bring) then don't buy it. Stop griping at a perfectly valid and acceptable business model. In doubt? Cast your eyes to other software houses and their 'shady' DLCs !

Its not the karts or Zues. Its the DLC coming along down the line(Marksman, Helicopter, etc).

[twisted 128]

the new DLC approach is interesting. I like how it reduces the amount of versions BIS has to fuck around with, hopefully leading to more work doneo on core rather than maintinaing multiple versions of content. i really didnt like the low quality textures, but didnt feel it was reason enough to buy the DLC previously. this new approach seems fair and I'll give it a try. just hope it doesnt nag too much (not that I'll notice as i'll probably buy the DLCs anyway - the potential of the new packs is good if BIS delivers)

as for splitting the community well it is so very split right now (other than for small cliques and clans) that the argument doesnt hold water for me. beta/addons/locality/etc all mean that 90% of the time i am unable to join a server i want.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

This idea and the concept of DLC exclusivity does not go together with a sandbox game with open modding development- regardless of how effective or high quality the DLC is, there are free addons that people will make that will fill the same role. I'm sorry to hammer the mission design aspect of this so much (and if I'm misunderstanding what you mean by dominant on the battlefield, please correct me), but no scenario editors are going to make adversarial missions that could give an advantage to one side who has players with DLC vehicles if the other does not. That's more of a mission design concern than a publishing aspect, but it's still important because it will encourage mission creators to omit those vehicles from PvP game types in the interest of balance. Concepts like this can work in free to play games, with premium vehicles, but never in a paid game with a sandbox mission design and free content addons.

Dominant on the battlefield, to some extent you got it but at the same time not really... It goes both ways in terms of Sides.For example. Wasteland, you have 2 main teams and the irregulars. Using the Helicopters example, say a mission comes up to retrieve that nice new Logistical HELO. Now unlike regular helicopter missions, THIS Helicopter is able to lift full sized battle tanks and others cant. As wasteland not being an equal side vs side thing, but more survival of the smartest and quickest, really... We want that Heli. Now, because it's DLC, some have access to it, and some don't. Therefore, the person who bought the DLC will be there to take pilot seat and GTFO when its complete. If others don't have the DLC, well... you cant take it for your team, rendering that team less capable of lifting full size tanks, which could come useful in an assault to cripple the enemy, and even claim more resources. In a T Vs. T situation, i think you have it nailed, as the mission creator would more so avoid using such content to rule out an unbalanced experience, though, the same outcome is possible with an All way battle like Wasteland. So in terms of dominance, it depends on what it is, and what it's used for, that will ultimately unsure dominance, and survival out on the field.

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Only time will tell, this is just BI's approach. We, the community will decide if it works or not ounce the Main DLC's come out, which is what the Kart DLC was meant to test. It's simply an example of how we will be affected. We will see.

[Kemeros 1]

With the ArmA 2 system you were able to check out the content before buying! Hell! You were able to use the units to no end! Now adds pop up everytime I get into a vehicle?

http://i.imgur.com/mzKbDGa.jpg

Damn.... That's one big ass and intrusive notification. So it's not stopping you from playing according to Arma's twitter but stilll... They could have handled this better.

I understand what they are trying to do, but i agree that this will need to be tweaked or handled differently.

I would have gone with the premium skins maybe instead. You pay for look like in many games. Good money to be made there.

Or maybe show the notice as a bar at the top while you're using an unowned asset?

I'd remove the restriction that let you enter the vehicle only once. That's a bit much. The notice should be enough.

I wish i had better ideas but that's all i got for now.

[el0375 10]

It seems to be a decent and new approach. I like it , myself at least i d go for it. Ofcourse its a sort of discussion about being capability limited ( being only crew instead of driving) but on the other hand it makes sense, you havent bought it but yet you still get access to its full sounds, model and multiplayer environment ( at least as a crew). It sounds generous in a way . I just hope it will attract more sales instead of making more players just get along with it.

However that's the point of it. You get a glimpse of it free without being given access to its full capabilities unless a friend or other player/owner used it for you. This can be simply adressing lets say on missions by stating that pilots need said dlc ( like ''Heli DLC needed for a pilot'')

On the opposite end A2 lite content wasnt bad either giving you basically feature complete and operable vehicles but with low models and sounds, i think the first is capability limit( you cant yet drive X ) while A2's was quality and eye candy limit.

For once i dont mind either but i would Vote for a yes and give this a try. Its interesting and at same time sort of reminds of freemium stuff but in the kinda 'correct part' ( but its difficult to find a correct balance with notifications while not being complete annoying to everyone free) while granting you still access to the whole official servers and content

[rakowozz 14]

Pretty cool approach.

[vadric 10]

Pay to win, it's an argument that has been hashed out many times before, despite us all wanting to support BI, players who have payed more for the game should not have an advantage over players who have not (better weapons etc). Popups will become extremely annoying, trying to annoy your customers into buying something is a big flaw. Many games have tried different methods and the only method that works so far is cosmetic upgrades. People don't like paying twice (or more) for the same thing (with patchs). It's a harsh market out there but BI will feel the burn if it tries to force paid DLC. It's like the whole Xbox/PS4 thing all over.

[danny96 80]

It's nice idea but it does have some mistakes like -

I see how you get order to board the new helicopter as pilot but you will just have to say "nope i can't i just don't have dlc...".

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Come to think of things now, I actually like the new DLC system. Of course it has errors, no one is perfect. Not of course that there isn't a better way that might come to light, still. After all, BI did say that this was a test to see how the community would react in the blog post.

Although, since the April Fools trailer, I still don't think I'll ever understand the hate for the Karts DLC.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Kilroy the Nerd

[kremator 1065]

OK let us deal with the 'pilot' issue. Normally people who pilot in MP games are aircraft fanbois. You mean to tell me that someone who ENJOYS piloting a helicopter won't buy the DLC? Come on. If you don't buy it you can still get to ride in it, so where's the beef?

Now the 'marksmen' issue. Normally people who get all hot under the collar for different weapons will buy the marksman DLC. If they don't buy it, they can still get shot with a bullet fired from one .... pretty fair if you ask me ;)

[sxp2high 23]

Yes, it's a valid business model and other publishers do worse.

It's just hard to accept that BIS seems to be turning into yet another greedy company that gives a shit about it's customers. They used to be nice and different. They changed. Around the time when Dayz Mod had its big success. Maybe I'm just imagining this.

[Nashable 10]

OK let us deal with the 'pilot' issue. Normally people who pilot in MP games are aircraft fanbois. You mean to tell me that someone who ENJOYS piloting a helicopter won't buy the DLC? Come on. If you don't buy it you can still get to ride in it, so where's the beef?

Now the 'marksmen' issue. Normally people who get all hot under the collar for different weapons will buy the marksman DLC. If they don't buy it, they can still get shot with a bullet fired from one .... pretty fair if you ask me ;)

Let's put this another way. If you're a player who joins a server running a specific game mode, that game mode contains the new Helicopters as the default transport options. Nobody else on the server has the DLC so those assets are now unusable.

As a reaction to that potential scenario mission makers will just edge their bets and not include those assets, or include them as non-essential side options. In either situation it hurts the actual paying customers for the DLC and lowers it value.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

As a reaction to that potential scenario mission makers will just edge their bets and not include those assets, or include them as non-essential side options. In either situation it hurts the actual paying customers for the DLC and lowers it value.

Confirmed, I would do it that way. However this would make a DLC pointless.

[eXpouk 10]

Of course we as customers are going to be unhappy about this... Why? Because it means we actually have to pay to use something....

I can guarantee that the majority of people used BAF Lite instead of BAF, PMC Lite instead of PMC etc. It doesn't make sense from a business point of view to develop these assets if the majority of people are just going to use a free version. The new method still allows people to play together but you WILL have to pay if you want to use the DLC content (which is fair enough right?)

If you want to use the new stuff, buy the DLC. If you don't or cant afford it then dont use it. But dont complain about not being able to use DLC assets without paying for them. From a business perspective, it makes sense. Compared to most game developers, BI is being very generous...

[BogatyrVoss 1]

I think it's intrusive, it really feels like one of those EA parodies you see on Youtube: "Buy DLC X to access this content". ArmA 2's worked better.

[Tonci87 163]

OK let us deal with the 'pilot' issue. Normally people who pilot in MP games are aircraft fanbois. You mean to tell me that someone who ENJOYS piloting a helicopter won't buy the DLC? Come on. If you don't buy it you can still get to ride in it, so where's the beef?

Now the 'marksmen' issue. Normally people who get all hot under the collar for different weapons will buy the marksman DLC. If they don't buy it, they can still get shot with a bullet fired from one .... pretty fair if you ask me ;)

I don´t know how it is that hard to get. The current implementation discourages Mission Makers (aka the guys who make fun things happen) to include the DLC content in their missions. So I go and buy the DLC to never see it used in a MP Mission?

That is what´s going to happen!

Totally the wrong approach if you ask me.

It would be better if they provided an incentive for people to buy DLC, like good SP Campaigns (BAF comes to mind).

Alternatively they could also give the High Res stuff to everyone for the first two days and then downgrade the visual quality for people that didn´t buy it while leaving that little "Buy me" notification symbol on the right side of the screen.

That would be a sensible approach.

[eXpouk 10]

I don´t know how it is that hard to get. The current implementation discourages Mission Makers (aka the guys who make fun things happen) to include the DLC content in their missions. So I go and buy the DLC to never see it used in a MP Mission?

That is what´s going to happen!

Totally the wrong approach if you ask me.

It would be better if they provided an incentive for people to buy DLC, like good SP Campaigns (BAF comes to mind).

Alternatively they could also give the High Res stuff to everyone for the first two days and then downgrade the visual quality for people that didn´t buy it while leaving that little "Buy me" notification symbol on the right side of the screen.

That would be a sensible approach.

Or you just want something for nothing..... Doesnt make sense from a business point of view...

[vegeta897 13]

I think the slot restrictions should be removed, and instead simply have more prominent notifications for the driver/pilot slot. As others have said, making non-owners unable to properly use these assets does create a split in the community as well as scare mission makers from using these assets.

However, I don't like Arma 2's lite method either, for the reasons BIS has outlined. Having to test their game with all possible DLC ownership combinations is a development hurdle I'd rather BIS not have to deal with. It's a very good thing that this unified content model let's them work more efficiently. BIS working more efficiently = better and more content and fixes for us.

As long as the notifications don't feel too much like blatant ads from a greedy company, but a reminder that the player can help support the company that makes this game they love playing, as well as enjoy this cool new vehicle without any visual interruptions. The ability to purchase it right in game and instantly remove those notifications is also a huge plus. It'd be a turnoff to have to exit the game and let the high quality versions download. Bleh.

[frankforsyth 1]

Yes, it's a valid business model and other publishers do worse.

It's just hard to accept that BIS seems to be turning into yet another greedy company that gives a shit about it's customers. They used to be nice and different. They changed. Around the time when Dayz Mod had its big success. Maybe I'm just imagining this.

BI introduced new system with which you don't agree... and instanly the studio is "another greedy company".

Are you kidding?

1. Each DLC will enhance your game, no matters if you buy it or not.

2. Change from previous DLC policy just moved restriction from quality of assets to some functionality of DLC content. Question if this will cause real problems for non-DLC players is yet to be seen, and if this policy will not work, it doesn't mean it can't be changed.

3. It's up to mission designers to make MP content with consideration that some content is working for everyone and some can be handled by people with proper DLC, so their missions and game modes will not be paralyzed, if people doesn't have it.

This is just whining, and quite insulting one.

[DaViSFiT 21]

This system is bullshit. We have big communitys and some have already problems with getting the right hardware to play this game, dont earn money (on school, workless) or dont have enough time to play enough to buy every content. So they cant really play together with people who can buy this stuff. Get back to the arma2 system, this will make arma3 much longer played and loved for its good dlc system. If you want eyecandy, pay for it. If you want to thank bis for this new content, pay for it.

If THIS system is keeped for the next 2 DLC's, this wont find usage in our community even we would love to use the better helicopter physics. make low polygon, low textures, no skins, low sounds, eyecandy features but let everyone use them without drawbacks in useablity.

[WulfyWulf 10]

Or you just want something for nothing..... Doesnt make sense from a business point of view...

That's not really the problem we're concerned about. For example, I already own the DLC, and I'm far more concerned with inconsistent experience with my friends playing the game who don't own the DLC. They won't be able to fly the same helicopters as me, they might not (depending on how they handle the Marksmen DLC limitations) be able to use the same guns as me, so I'm not going to use those assets in my missions. I'm not going to ask my friends to buy DLC just to be able to do the same things as me, I'd rather have them download a free mod that does preforms a role similar to the premium content. People creating scenarios won't be making missions that take advantage of the content from the paid portions of the DLC for the reasons repeated in this thread, either, so this DLC I own is going to have extremely limited application in anything I, as an owner of the DLC, play in. THIS is what creates a split in the community- it's not a matter of non-owners complaining about limited access to premium content, I'm upset at this AS a DLC owner because this content I own is going to waste.

THAT is what does not make sense from a business point of view- punishing (as unintentional of a side effect it might be) the people who do buy the DLC.

This could be why the LITE solution might not (I'm assuming) be as successful financially- players who want content are fine with using it at reduced quality so long as they CAN use it. Those same people who wouldn't pay to upgrade from the LITE content aren't going to pay to use content when they could be satisfied instead with using free addons. In effect, the new strategy has the potential to not pull in that many more sales but alienate supporters who DO buy the DLC for the reasons above. The former is totally an assumption, but it makes sense given the price tag of the Helicopters and Marksmen DLC, bundled or separate. The amount of content unlocked would have to be massive to justify the cost of buying them for this sales audience BIS is trying to pull in, a significant portion of which would never pay to use addons anyway.

[eXpouk 10]

So many people wanting something for nothing.....

I'd love to see their opinion if they were the ones creating the content...

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ----------

That's not really the problem we're concerned about. For example, I already own the DLC, and I'm far more concerned with inconsistent experience with my friends playing the game who don't own the DLC. They won't be able to fly the same helicopters as me, they might not (depending on how they handle the Marksmen DLC limitations) be able to use the same guns as me, so I'm not going to use those assets in my missions. I'm not going to ask my friends to buy DLC just to be able to do the same things as me, I'd rather have them download a free mod that does preforms a role similar to the premium content. People creating scenarios won't be making missions that take advantage of the content from the paid portions of the DLC for the reasons repeated in this thread, either, so this DLC I own is going to have extremely limited application in anything I, as an owner of the DLC, play in. THIS is what creates a split in the community- it's not a matter of non-owners complaining about limited access to premium content, I'm upset at this AS a DLC owner because this content I own is going to waste.

THAT is what does not make sense from a business point of view- punishing (as unintentional of a side effect it might be) the people who do buy the DLC.

This could be why the LITE solution might not (I'm assuming) be as successful financially- players who want content are fine with using it at reduced quality so long as they CAN use it. Those same people who wouldn't pay to upgrade from the LITE content aren't going to pay to use content when they could be satisfied instead with using free addons. In effect, the new strategy has the potential to not pull in that many more sales but alienate supporters who DO buy the DLC for the reasons above. The former is totally an assumption, but it makes sense given the price tag of the Helicopters and Marksmen DLC, bundled or separate. The amount of content unlocked would have to be massive to justify the cost of buying them for this sales audience BIS is trying to pull in, a significant portion of which would never pay to use addons anyway.

But it isn't really a problem....

What do you think is going to happen when an expansion is released? Were there a lack of missions for OA? Lack of people playing OA because you had to pay for it? No. If people want to use the content then they have to pay for it, which I think, is fair enough. There will be plenty of people that do buy the DLCs and create hundreds of hours of scenarios etc.

There will always be a community split when premium content and expansions are released. Look at every other game developer that releases a DLC or expansion. The fact that BI will still allow people to play together whether they own the DLC or not is being VERY generous compared to 99% of game developers.

[frankforsyth 1]

I think a lot of people are making some assumptions I don't quite understand.

So let's take a loot at Helicopter DLC:

Everyone will get:

Firing from vehicles

New helicopter handling (based on Take on Helicopters flight model)

Every model in high quality

Showcase of new helicopters (so player will be able to try that stuff before buying)

Only DLC owners will get:

DLC specific campaign/scenarios

Unrestricted usage of new helicopters in each mode.

So, what's the big deal? You will not be able to fly this helo with your friends, but you can still be either passenger, or fly different helo. I don't see real split of community here.

[BogatyrVoss 1]

1. Each DLC will enhance your game, no matters if you buy it or not.

3. It's up to mission designers to make MP content with consideration that some content is working for everyone and some can be handled by people with proper DLC, so their missions and game modes will not be paralyzed, if people doesn't have it.

I disagree, having a popup mid-section to buy something just to enter a locked vehicle isn't necessarily enhancing the game.

And what about public matches and playing with random people? If you want to do a kart racing mission, you're not gonna ask every single person wether they have certain content or not. The mission makes already has to take into consideration that not everyone will use the same mods, and now official content also?