The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[Nashable 10]

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

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

You do realize who you are addressing with these comments? These are people that have given hundreds, if not more, of man hours to working on community missions and scripts FOR FREE. These aren't "freeloaders" when it comes to contributing to the armaverse. BI benefits an immense amount from the work of people like this.

Imagine playing ARMA if none of the community content existed. How does this DLC compare to that?

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.

You're right expansions do create a segmented/fragment within the community. I think it's fair to say though that the amount of content provided in an expansion creates enough of an incentive for people to buy it and also makes it easier to target players.

Nobody is arguing against paying for content, what a lot of us are throwing down a red flag on is the locking out of usability and functionality behind a paywall. Again if BI want to monetize content they would be better off selling campaigns/missions and including new vehicles/weapons as part of the ongoing product improvement cycle to increase their user base.

[jsmuk 13]

I quite like the way this sounds like its going to work, I think the problem is that it seems many people haven't read the dev blog post properly. I had someone complain to me earlier that non DLC owners wouldn't be able to use the helicopters at all because they are unable to use the go-karts.

Maybe if BI had put in a two seater to show the fact that non owners can act as passengers. Which is a non issue in my eyes, as someone said previously people who enjoy flying will buy the DLC.

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.

So a game developer giving free access to (restricted) premium content is what a greedy company does? If BI truly didn't give a shit about their customers they wouldn't spend all this effort to avoid splitting the community. They wouldn't include things like rotorlib for free etc.

Some people need to take a step back and see what they are moaning about and accusing of BI of doing. Especially when you remember that this is an industry where a €15 map pack of 4 maps the size of a small bedroom is acceptable...

Edited May 30, 2014 by Jsmuk

[JamesSaga 1]

Thumbs up BIS, you are welcome to my money. (specially as I bought Arma for $15 :))

Plus I like your idea of using the Karts DLC as a test to see how your new model works.

[Nashable 10]

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.

I'll use a personal example of why this is an issue. In my game mode, which is TvT based, I have to balance the assets available to both teams when deciding what units a particular team can spawn. I'm faced with two options:

1. Allow DLC assets to be used and accept the possibility that players of one faction may not be able to utilize them because they did not buy the DLC
   
2. Remove the DLC assets to retain control over balance due to external issues (i.e. did the player buy the DLC or not)
   

This is also not counting that any included DLC content in a game mode effectively turns that content into an advert for BI.

[frankforsyth 1]

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?

OK, I got it. I think it's about striking a balance of what's restricted and what is not. Restricting driving Karts in MP looks like very annoying thing to do, because then the Kart would be completely useless. Same applies in agressivenes of notifications. From what I saw - notifications in debriefing screen are completely acceptable for me. Popoup messages would be problematic.

So, since I bought Karts, I only have info from the BI blog article, but how does restrictions really look if you don't have DLC, then?

[HotShot 0]

Not sure I like this multiple, mini, specific DLC packs idea that seems all over Steam, and now BIS. I much prefer a more expensive but more extensive expansion pack style addon, as in Resistance for Flashpoint. It solved the whole problem of some people owning it and others not because it was so friggin' good, and wide ranging in content, that everyone bought it!

[jsmuk 13]

OK, I got it. I think it's about striking a balance of what's restricted and what is not. Restricting driving Karts in MP looks like very annoying thing to do, because then the Kart would be completely useless. Same applies in agressivenes of notifications. From what I saw - notifications in debriefing screen are completely acceptable for me. Popoup messages would be problematic.

So, since I bought Karts, I only have info from the BI blog article, but how does restrictions really look if you don't have DLC, then?

You can disable it via the steam properties if you want to see what it looks like without it.

[frankforsyth 1]

I'll use a personal example of why this is an issue. In my game mode, which is TvT based, I have to balance the assets available to both teams when deciding what units a particular team can spawn. I'm faced with two options:

1. Allow DLC assets to be used and accept the possibility that players of one faction may not be able to utilize them because they did not buy the DLC
   
2. Remove the DLC assets to retain control over balance due to external issues (i.e. did the player buy the DLC or not)
   

This is also not counting that any included DLC content in a game mode effectively turns that content into an advert for BI.

I think this is pretty much the same dilema as in Arma 2. Out of milion variants of Domination 2, in mission or server name used to be the information what assets the game use. This "advertisment" will be more-less neccesary now as well. But yea, this time it can be game-breaking, I see your point. (On the other hand, I wouldn't call it advertisment.)

[WulfyWulf 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 ----------

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.

The comparison to OA is a good one, as it did polarize the community and had a shaky transition period where people were in two camps- those that immediately jumped on board and those that didn't want to abandon A2 so quickly. What I can say is that OA had much more to offer for its price than the DLCs have been announced to contain- OA had as much content as A2 did on release, could use assets from A2, and was a huge upgrade in stability and engine capability. The Helicopters DLC has been announced to contain two helicopters and some other assorted content (scenarios?). The Marksmen DLC is even more vague as to what it contains. Even when these DLCs are released and their contents are more certain, a significant amount of players are NOT going pay for the privilege to use what content it provides at this price tag- especially when the core, functional aspects of the DLC are free to all.

You could argue that OA was worse in this regard than the A3 DLC, because players who wanted the expanded functionality and core improvements HAD to buy it- and it's true, this was a problem in OA's release, and many people were upset about being left behind by BI after supporting A2. You can argue whether OA was a mistake in this regard, but it offered enough over A2 as a standalone expansion to pull enough of the A2 generation of players and content creators to it for it to succeed. OA was a gamble, and it worked because it had so much to offer for its price. OA DLC itself was fairly priced for the large amount of units and scenarios it offered. What's being offered in the A3 DLC so far? "Two helicopters", "new weapons", and "playable content", for 20$ together and a lot more separately (which, given how far apart their release dates are, is an understandable choice for a player to make). You won't be able to play karts with your friends if they don't have them, only you can fly the helicopters you buy, nobody knows yet what restrictions will be on the weapons for non-buyers, and few mission makers will publish missions where any of this limited DLC has any role beyond an optional gimmick. I don't see this standing on its own to warrant a majority of players buying them- people who preorder the bundle will preorder it because they have enough love for BIS to support them. Not because of the promised content to be delivered very far in the future. THIS is the problem with this DLC model- the BUYERS lose in the end, not the non-buyers. With the A3 DLC I just can't see the value in alienating myself from people who won't be buying it.

OK, I got it. I think it's about striking a balance of what's restricted and what is not. Restricting driving Karts in MP looks like very annoying thing to do, because then the Kart would be completely useless. Same applies in agressivenes of notifications. From what I saw - notifications in debriefing screen are completely acceptable for me. Popoup messages would be problematic.

So, since I bought Karts, I only have info from the BI blog article, but how does restrictions really look if you don't have DLC, then?

The restriction in multiplayer for the karts is the most obvious problem- I've got the karts, but none of my friends do, and because you have to own the karts to drive them I can't have any fun, silly games with my friends. I can ONLY play with people who own the DLC. It's a cheap price, but my friends aren't going to spend money to play a gimmick mission for fun- that's what someone would download a free addon for. It's not as extreme of a barrier for the helicopter and marksmen DLC, but through this thread we've talked about how this can cause huge problems for mission editors who want to ensure maximum compatibility. For your question about how the restrictions look, does this post answer what you're asking?

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

[bhaz 0]

This system works until someone decides to release their own take on a vehicle or weapon (using the new features) as a standalone mod, then the restrictions go out the window since the mod is (assumably) available to all. The solution there is to also restrict modding, but that pretty much goes against everything BIS has done since OFP, and the very reason this series became huge to begin with.

[sxp2high 22]

So a game developer giving free access to (restricted) premium content is what a greedy company does? If BI truly didn't give a shit about their customers they wouldn't spend all this effort to avoid splitting the community. They wouldn't include things like rotorlib for free etc.

Some people need to take a step back and see what they are moaning about and accusing of BI of doing. Especially when you remember that this is an industry where a €15 map pack of 4 maps the size of a small bedroom is acceptable...

You're right and I apologize, it was a bit harsh and overreacted, sorry. Like I said, maybe I'm just imagining it.

I'm just getting fed up with BIS' weird decisions and priorities, not just this DLC policy, which I really do dislike compared to the low res approach...

We're getting Karts, while at this point I'd buy Vehicle-Interior DLC and Replace-action-menu-with-context-sensitive-button-like-all-other-games-from-the-past-10-years DLC for this price.

But this is way off topic.

[wakelagger 1]

You're right and I apologize, it was a bit harsh and overreacted, sorry. Like I said, maybe I'm just imagining it.

I'm just getting fed up with BIS' weird decisions and priorities, not just this DLC policy, which I really do dislike compared to the low res approach...

We're getting Karts, while at this point I'd buy Vehicle-Interior DLC and Replace-action-menu-with-context-sensitive-button-like-all-other-games-from-the-past-10-years DLC for this price.

But this is way off topic.

The Kart DLC was based off of work from a single developers hobby project. It is being sold at a small price, and is also having some of its revenue donated to charity. This DLC was also a test for future DLC restriction methods. I don't feel like you should take this DLC to be a serious effort into generating new content. It was leveraged to test the waters for distributing their upcoming DLC and to produce some positive results to a charity. All of this being done at a minimal cost to the company.

[almanzo 144]

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 ----------

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.

First of all, alot of people who are complaining about this, are in fact content makers and people who have bought or are considering buying the DLC. I am probably not going to buy it myself, and the reason is simple. I mainly play ARMA in my community, we are about 30-40 players. In order for us to take advantage of the DLC's in our missions, we basicly need everybody to own them. If I buy them now, and some in my group don't I am basicly never going to get to play with them as I allmost only play with my community.

In addition to playing with my community, I play Tactical battlefield on public servers. Now, tactical battlefield, being a mod, struggles to populate servers consistently. Some of the DLC's down the line has alot of potential for that mod, but with a lock on new content for a huge portion of the players it's a very huge gamble to take for the mod developers. Include the assets and risk completely unbalancing the entire mod or leave em out so that the entire community can play. I am pretty sure they'll opt for the last option, meaning that the people who buy the DLC won't get to use it on Tactical battlefield servers (especially considering that there are about 1 - 2 populated servers only during evenings).

And now too your last point. Arrowhead took some time to pick up speed. I also bought the other DLC's for ARMA 2. I haven't used half of the content in them, as there are allmost no missions or servers using the content. Especially considering Army of the Chech Republic, not even single player missions, a complete waste of my money. I have hardly used any of the maps.

Now. The content in the announched DLC's are really, really interesting. I would gladly pay for them if I knew that they would be USED in the community at large in multiplayer. As it is now, it's highly unlikely that they will be incorporated in the majority of gamemodes I play, so most likely if I buy them, it will be so that I can play around with them in the editor. Why should I bother paying for something I am not going to get to use? I simply don't see any point in buying them as it is now, despite the fact that they show a lot of promise.

I honestly think that BIS didn't think this one through, and they are also quite open about not knowing if this approach is going to be a good one. These are my thoughts, and I am begging for any word that can ease my concern. I'll buy the DLC if I am able to use it regularly, but as it is now that sounds unlikely.

I also must say I think using the Kart DLC as a test was a good idea, it has minor implications for the community. They offer nothing in terms of balance, only a cool, nifty little thing to goof around with. Please realize that it's a bad idea. BIS aren't greedy, and the philosophy behind it is quite obviously to do as little harm as possible while making sure that they'll get a steady stream of revenue. I have nothing against that, I wish that revenue from ARMA 3 will keep on flowing for ages in order to help further develop my favorite game. I have no problem paying more money for ARMA III, I have allways gotten my moneys worth from BIS, and I have bought every single title from bis several times. (7 copies of OFP GOTY (no kidding), one copy of ARMA goty, 2 copies of ARMA 2, 2 copies of Arrowhead, 1 copy of ARMA X anniversary edition and 2 copies of ARMA 3, including all DLC's and expantions for all games at least once for each title.)

The big deal, as FrankForsyth requests to know, isn't that people who don't pay get screwed over. The big deal is that people who do indeed buy the DLC's most likely will have a very limited window to actually use said DLC's due to all the people who don't have them.

I am just starting as a mission maker, it's quite obvious that I am not going to include any DLC assets in my missions unless they are made up of ONLY DLC content.

[roshnak 41]

This system works until someone decides to release their own take on a vehicle or weapon (using the new features) as a standalone mod, then the restrictions go out the window since the mod is (assumably) available to all. The solution there is to also restrict modding, but that pretty much goes against everything BIS has done since OFP, and the very reason this series became huge to begin with.

This is the core of the problem with DLC in this franchise as I see it.

I'm just not sure that there is a good way to monetize premium content in a game as open to third party content as Arma is. Most of the best premium content systems offer cosmetic additions -- cool hats or new uniform colors or whatever -- but that kind of thing is undermined in Arma because the community can make many of the same cosmetic changes that BIS can for free. The only people who would buy that stuff are people who just want to donate money to BIS. You can release special vehicles and weapons like they are doing now, but, as long as you aren't restricting features, what is to stop community members from making their own versions of those things? And you can't restrict features to DLC (I'm not talking about Arrowhead style expansions) because that will breed enormous amounts of ill will, as you are basically holding customers hostage for more money.

Personally, I haven't been a huge fan of either Arma 2's or the current DLC systems. I bought all the DLC for Arma 2, with the exception of the ACR DLC, because I wanted to support the company, but I only ever wound up using any of it a couple of times becuase no one I played with bought it and they didn't want to deal with the low res assets and the low res optics were unusable. There's a really solid chance I won't even be buying the new DLC because it's pretty expensive and I know I'll never use it either since they appear to have found a way to make it even more obnoxious for people who don't own it.

It might be worth considering doing what Unknown Worlds did with Natural Selection 2 and saying, "Hey, we want to keep giving you guys new stuff for free, but if you give us money you can have a cool badge next to your name or unique patches on your uniforms." Then again, UWE only raised about half of the $550,000 they were looking for.

Honestly, it's a hard problem to solve, but I do know that I like the new system even less than I liked the old one.

Edited May 30, 2014 by roshnak

[WulfyWulf 10]

The big deal, as FrankForsyth requests to know, isn't that people who don't pay get screwed over. The big deal is that people who do indeed buy the DLC's most likely will have a very limited window to actually use said DLC's due to all the people who don't have them.

The only people who would buy that stuff are people who just want to donate money to BIS. You can release special vehicles and weapons like they are doing now, but, as long as you aren't restricting features, what is to stop community members from makign their own versions of those things?

These are both excellent summaries of what I feel is wrong with this DLC strategy and the implications it has for A3's future, thank you. I wish I had a better alternative to suggest for BIS to turn to other than the suggested return to the OA DLC, with notifications that a given mission contains free versions of premium content. I think this (premium content in general) is just a very delicate thing to pull off in a sandbox game with so much reliance on user-generated content- I'm not sure there IS a perfect solution. I just hope BIS finds and decides on an optimal one that makes us, as players, and them, as a developer, happy.

Edited May 30, 2014 by WulfyWulf

[faire 10]

I am frankly surprised at how civil the discussion here is. Thank you community!

The biggest problem I see is that the easiest way around is using community models. I can't imagine the modders using DLC stuff in the missions for any reason other than a) willingness to support BI (fair) or b) outstanding quality of the content (like clickable cockpit in the helis or something in that line). And then it would just backfire - the result would be even worse than with A2 DLC, because those were used in user-made content. And what is the incentive to buy then? Only official made missions.

[wakelagger 1]

I am frankly surprised at how civil the discussion here is. Thank you community!

The biggest problem I see is that the easiest way around is using community models. I can't imagine the modders using DLC stuff in the missions for any reason other than a) willingness to support BI (fair) or b) outstanding quality of the content (like clickable cockpit in the helis or something in that line). And then it would just backfire - the result would be even worse than with A2 DLC, because those were used in user-made content. And what is the incentive to buy then? Only official made missions.

I came to the forums expecting people preaching fire and brimstone, based off what I was seeing in some of the Reddit threads on this subject. Was pleasantly surprised as well.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

I came to the forums expecting people preaching fire and brimstone, based off what I was seeing in some of the Reddit threads on this subject. Was pleasantly surprised as well.

Thats what happens everywhere whenever any DLC is released.

Personally I hate DLC with a passion and would rather see expansion packs as it's easier to justify the cost/convince others to use it.

[Chrissd21 10]

I've got the karts, but none of my friends do, and because you have to own the karts to drive them I can't have any fun, silly games with my friends. I can ONLY play with people who own the DLC. It's a cheap price, but my friends aren't going to spend money to play a gimmick mission for fun- that's what someone would download a free addon for. It's not as extreme of a barrier for the helicopter and marksmen DLC, but through this thread we've talked about how this can cause huge problems for mission editors who want to ensure maximum compatibility. For your question about how the restrictions look, does this post answer what you're asking?

Would you disagree that vanity/fun DLC like Karts should be kept as DLC? There's a split, but it's not a game ending split. It's just anyone up for Mario Kart needs to buy Karts sort of split which isn't terrible. It lets BIS release a small pack to increase their income without affecting the main game, which is just about perfect as far as DLC goes. For weapons and helicopters though, no way. That's expansion pack or lite model stuff.

EDIT:

And vanity stuff is a reasonable "buy 'cause I love BIS" purchase which may or may not be used later. Less tax problems than a donate button. :p

Edited May 30, 2014 by Chrissd21
<3 BIS

[roshnak 41]

Go-karts aren't vanity items, though. They're gameplay items. Vanity items are things like hats or skins that you can utilize in normal situations. The go-karts are vehicles require their own gameplay situations and missions designed for them.

[chortles 263]

We're getting Karts, while at this point I'd buy Vehicle-Interior DLC and Replace-action-menu-with-context-sensitive-button-like-all-other-games-from-the-past-10-years DLC for this price.

We're getting Karts first and as a trial run for the sling-loading-and-firing-from-helos DLC; considering BI's claims about how the assets were generated (that wakelagger describes), apparently this was essentially so 'out of the way' Arma 3 development-wise (in terms of allegedly not actually impeding development in any other areas) that BI looked at all the "make this April Fools Joke real!" posts and decided "ehhh, any purchases = found money." Heck, re: the trial run bit -- aLmAnZo more or less validated the idea with "I also must say I think using the Kart DLC as a test was a good idea, it has minor implications for the community."

@ WulfyWulf: While you and roshnak both admit to having issues with the idea of "monetiz[ing] premium content in a game as open to third party content as Arma is", at some point (read: when the BAF DLC got announced) the Rubicon got crossed, the ship sailed, etc., and the solution you guys liked so much... unfortunately didn't look so good from BI's own point of view, as they more or less said in that "strategy" devblog. :(

For me, the real concern is the Helicopters DLC, as the Marksmen DLC is so vague that I'm holding off on any opinion for it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Chortles

[DancZer 65]

I voted Yes,

I like the new method because it isn't break the beauty of the Arma 3.

I think the restrictions are acceptable. If you don't own the DLC you should play with available vehicles. You drive your car, not someone else's. You can try it before you buy it, it's fair.

Good job BIS! You always make me surprise! :)

[maddogx 13]

I have mixed feelings about this new system. Stopping people from driving/piloting a vehicle seems like a very annoying thing that could cause problems during certain missions, so my gut reaction is: this is a terrible idea.

But then people are bringing up examples like "I can't play karts with my friends because they don't own the DLC!"

So they need to purchase the DLC in order to play with it? Mission accomplished! This is exactly how it should work.

The old "DLC lite" system has apparently created this flawed expectation that everyone should have full unrestricted access to DLC assets, regardless of whether or not they have purchased it. As long as you could look past the low quality art assests, all ARMA2 DLC was pretty much free for everyone. Great for the players, but from BI's perspective as a business this was obviously a very bad thing. It seems they are trying to walk the line between "too restrictive" and "too free", where there is unfortunately very little middle ground and probably no "perfect solution". (And I mean perfect for everyone including BI, not just perfect for the players because they get free stuff.)

The main problem I see with this system is that people who purchased the DLC may be "inconvenienced" by people who did not, though it remains to be seen how big a problem this will really be.

Edited May 30, 2014 by MadDogX

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

@MadDogX they could at least have left out the ingame "notifications" and the Purchase button right IN the game, that's what bothers me most. it bothers me in every game that's not free to play...

[saltatormortis 12]

But then people are bringing up examples like "I can't play karts with my friends because they don't own the DLC!"

hmm, can we add the community to the formula?

maybe we can add a share DLC function to the game

i have a two tier system in mind:

-share the dlc with 2nd player for a mission(not revocable)

-share the dlc with 3rd player, but you loose the dlc features while he use it(revocable)

Edited May 30, 2014 by SaltatorMortis