The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[John Kozak 14]

Addons and mods are not behind a paywall, DLC content are. Very huge difference.

And addons are behind "download barrier", what's with that?

It's not so bad if one doesn't think about it in emotionally-painted words.

P.S. Ultimately it's not BIS who splits the community, it's those vocal few who generate FUD on what otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[Nashable 10]

You're making your argument all about you and your situation which isn't really a true reflection of what will happen.

This is because I could argue that I'm part of a community that I make missions for, it just so happens everyone in my community bought the DLC so everyone can play the missions I make. That means there's a 100% chance of my mission getting played even though it contains DLC assets and everyone gets to use what they paid for.

Two sides to every coin and that...

That's awesome your group has already 100% coverage on the DLC, for a lot of us who create TvT and/or public game modes that is a much bigger dependency to deal with. While there may be more private group mission makers out there, more people play Life, Wasteland, Invade and Annex, CTI, Battle Royale, Breaking Point etc. (that's the draw of being in a private group in the first place, the tailored and unique content)

It's the author of those public/community game modes who are going to be faced with the issue of dealing with a split community and perhaps even some of the larger clans/units as well.

We should be spending more time and energy discussing other viable ways that could avoid the risk of fragmentation entirely. The argument of "Well this won't even happen" just doesn't get us anything, if it does not that happen that's great but there is a huge risk that this just hurts the DLC owners.

[Makarn 10]

And addons are behind "download barrier", what's with that?

It's not so bad if one doesn't think about it in emotionally-painted words.

I'm with you in that one! there are many missions that I don't play because the requirements are not of my taste.

That may be ranging from quality to simple taste.

The only difference is Mods are free and DLCs are paid, but the fracture of the players may be the same

[Nashable 10]

And addons are behind "download barrier", what's with that?

It's not so bad if one doesn't think about it in emotionally-painted words.

P.S. Ultimately it's not BIS who splits the community, it's those vocal few who generate FUD on what otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

For now there is no marketplace for mods. You can download large platform style mods like AGW and TFR (as well as ACE/ACRE in the past) and all it will cost you is your time which we all have as a resource, maybe in different quantities but we all have it. Not everyone can justify the costs of the DLC (leaving aside arguments such as "well they don't deserve XYZ if they don't buy it" or "they're not a true player if they dont want to spend $25 on Arma" as they are purely emotional) therefore it splits those players away from the rest.

Though there are plenty of missions/game modes that exclude mod/addon content as well for lots of reasons (or are just built on the premise of their own self contained mod). BI are in a privileged position that any content they bring to the party has a guaranteed 100% coverage of all Arma players, I feel like with this content model and DLC we're all being sold short on what should be platform investment. Also unlike the modders they are compensated for that work everytime someone buys a copy of Arma.

Also before the "BI should get paid for their work!" I totally agree but this isn't the way to do it. I would be the first in line if they took a different approach such as a crowd-funding (kickstarter) style model in which the DLC they offered would be based on funding targets/goals that they would set. They could bake in profit margins and used tiered structures of funding to keep their costs down (i.e. the level of funding would always = a profit for them) and they'd get the money upfront. Then afterwards that content is released as a core part of the package for everyone.

If additional incentive was required they could throw in some low cost assets (skins/cosmetic items) that would be exclusive to contributors of the DLC funding.

[faire 10]

I am quite sure that they considered crowd-funding and for some reason didn't go that way. It does not always work that well, and we don't know the numbers (costs x expected income from the hard-core community).

That said still when I try to see it from the point of a mission maker I am not sure what is the incentive for me to use paid DLC model of a weapon or vehicle if I can use a community made one. Why would I intentionally lower the number of potential players of my mod? What would be the reason for me to do that?

And for the discussion sake: obtrusive marketing is the one thing that alienates the player base, bbbaaaaadddd thing to do, especially when there are restrictions in place, which point player to the problem without no doubt.

[John Kozak 14]

For now there is no marketplace for mods. You can download large platform style mods like AGW and TFR (as well as ACE/ACRE in the past) and all it will cost you is your time which we all have as a resource, maybe in different quantities but we all have it. Not everyone can justify the costs of the DLC (leaving aside arguments such as "well they don't deserve XYZ if they don't buy it" or "they're not a true player if they dont want to spend $25 on Arma" as they are purely emotional) therefore it splits those players away from the rest.

Though there are plenty of missions/game modes that exclude mod/addon content as well for lots of reasons (or are just built on the premise of their own self contained mod). BI are in a privileged position that any content they bring to the party has a guaranteed 100% coverage of all Arma players, I feel like with this content model and DLC we're all being sold short on what should be platform investment. Also unlike the modders they are compensated for that work everytime someone buys a copy of Arma.

Also before the "BI should get paid for their work!" I totally agree but this isn't the way to do it. I would be the first in line if they took a different approach such as a crowd-funding (kickstarter) style model in which the DLC they offered would be based on funding targets/goals that they would set. They could bake in profit margins and used tiered structures of funding to keep their costs down (i.e. the level of funding would always = a profit for them) and they'd get the money upfront. Then afterwards that content is released as a core part of the package for everyone.

If additional incentive was required they could throw in some low cost assets (skins/cosmetic items) that would be exclusive to contributors of the DLC funding.

But you'll not be sold short - you'll get platform improvements anyway, even if you don't buy anything. Programmers would still continue to work on the core features - so, if DLC price is not justifiable for you, you're not being robbed of anything. Especially given that there is, as you say, some community of mission-makers that just will keep making vanilla missions - they, as well as players who didn't buy the DLCs, will just live like DLCs never happened. I think that's fair enough.

P.S. And as for the split - it's going to be much smaller than in A2. Actually, as I said before - it was the A2 way that prevented DLC asset use.

Edited May 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[eXpouk 10]

That's awesome your group has already 100% coverage on the DLC, for a lot of us who create TvT and/or public game modes that is a much bigger dependency to deal with. While there may be more private group mission makers out there, more people play Life, Wasteland, Invade and Annex, CTI, Battle Royale, Breaking Point etc. (that's the draw of being in a private group in the first place, the tailored and unique content)

It's the author of those public/community game modes who are going to be faced with the issue of dealing with a split community and perhaps even some of the larger clans/units as well.

We should be spending more time and energy discussing other viable ways that could avoid the risk of fragmentation entirely. The argument of "Well this won't even happen" just doesn't get us anything, if it does not that happen that's great but there is a huge risk that this just hurts the DLC owners.

Thats an issue you're always going to have being a public game mode developer. What is going to happen when an expansion gets released? Now arguably more people are going to buy an expansion than the DLC, but what about those that don't?

At the end of the day the community is always going to split when there's premium content/expansions etc. being created. At the minute I think we have the fairest solution for both the players and the developers. BI is at least trying to help the community split, compared to the majority of other game developers who couldn't care less..

The price of the DLC's isn't that unreasonable... People pay more for CSGO skins..

[jgaz-uk 132]

Well i have mixed feelings about that. I never played missions that implied Lite version of DLC's, those low res textures are preventing me from playing those missions.

are preventing you playing? don't you mean you prefer not to play those missions using the lite low res textures?

Missions didn't imply one way or the other, its clientside. You have either the full bought DLC & get full graphics, or if you chose (due to cost) to just use the free lite addon version, you can still play the missions. It's all a matter of choice.

============================

DarkWanderer Quote "P.S. Ultimately it's not BIS who splits the community, it's those vocal few who generate FUD on what otherwise would have gone unnoticed."

Full & DEV created by BIS, a rather large split is it not? And "GONE UNNOTICED" you have got to be joking, as IF!

Edited May 30, 2014 by jgaz-uk

[Makarn 10]

I think they are considering if give the features for free and the content paid, gives them more sells than giving the features free and content in low resolution and expect that people pay for the high resolution content.

The Split as I said before is imposible to evade.

[chortles 263]

The price of the DLC's isn't that unreasonable... People pay more for CSGO skins..

And at last check it's like $1.99 to reskin the COD: Ghosts Guard Dog perk as a wolf...

@ jgaz-uk: ProfTournesol's point seems to be that instead of paying up for "full graphics", he just didn't play those missions and didn't buy the DLCs (thereby feeding into BI's decision cycle that led to this DLC method).

[John Kozak 14]

are preventing you playing? don't you mean you prefer not to play those missions using addons with lite low res textures?

Missions didn't imply one way or the other, its clientside. You have either the full bought DLC & get full graphics, or if you chose (due to cost) to just use the free lite addon version, you can still play the missions. It's all a matter of choice.

Nothing would prevent you from playing here as well. It's not like MX and Katiba will cease to be available; same with Ghosthawk. Matter of choice as well.

[ProfTournesol 956]

are preventing you playing? don't you mean you prefer not to play those missions using addons with lite low res textures?

Yes, my English sucks :) Lite versions of DLC aren't a good solution, for me at least. I can play the missions, but i won't.

Edited May 30, 2014 by ProfTournesol

[Nashable 10]

I am quite sure that they considered crowd-funding and for some reason didn't go that way. It does not always work that well, and we don't know the numbers (costs x expected income from the hard-core community).

That said still when I try to see it from the point of a mission maker I am not sure what is the incentive for me to use paid DLC model of a weapon or vehicle if I can use a community made one. Why would I intentionally lower the number of potential players of my mod? What would be the reason for me to do that?

And for the discussion sake: obtrusive marketing is the one thing that alienates the player base, bbbaaaaadddd thing to do, especially when there are restrictions in place, which point player to the problem without no doubt.

I agree with the rest of your post but how do you know if crowd-funding was considered? To me it feels viable because its actually very low risk if you know your production costs (which hopefully they do to set their DLC prices in the first place). They get the money up front and scale their production based on funding levels/goals. BI get paid UPFRONT and we all get shared content. It's a win-win.

But you'll not be sold short - you'll get platform improvements anyway, even if you don't buy anything. Programmers would still continue to work on the core features - so, if DLC price is not justifiable for you, you're not being robbed of anything. Especially given that there is, as you say, some community of mission-makers that just will keep making vanilla missions - they, as well as players who didn't buy the DLCs, will just live like DLCs never happened. I think that's fair enough.

P.S. And as for the split - it's going to be much smaller than in A2. Actually, as I said before - it was the A2 way that prevented DLC asset use.

Just so we're on the same page with regards to terminology, Arma 3 is positioned by BI as a platform (Sandbox). So I'm talking about the full feature/content set of the Arma 3 game not just the engine. If functionality (the ability to drive/shoot from certain vehicles) is locked behind a paywall then its fair to say that content can not be trusted to be available. As a designer I can't make it a core part of my mission or balance for it because I have unknown external dependencies placed on that content.

Ultimately I'll keep doing what I do, its the people that buy the DLC are going to find their purchase devalued by this model. Especially as BI are not driving the multiplayer playing habits of the game that's the content creating community.

Also I'm not sure why we're debating if this is or will not be an issue? Helicopter DLC hasn't dropped yet, and what I (and others in this thread) are pointing out is just a massive risk created by the model. Our energy would be better spent discussing alternatives that don't create the risk of fragmentation than debating if a risk will manifest or not (because we will never know that for sure, until it's too late to make changes if required)

Thats an issue you're always going to have being a public game mode developer. What is going to happen when an expansion gets released? Now arguably more people are going to buy an expansion than the DLC, but what about those that don't?

At the end of the day the community is always going to split when there's premium content/expansions etc. being created. At the minute I think we have the fairest solution for both the players and the developers. BI is at least trying to help the community split, compared to the majority of other game developers who couldn't care less..

The price of the DLC's isn't that unreasonable... People pay more for CSGO skins..

So A2/OA is a great example of a similar issue. OA for a long time had issues of people moving over from A2 and it created a pretty big speed bump in the creation of content as mods had to adapt to the new engine. Missions were less of an issue as they are generally tied to a specific island/map anyway and even for framework missions like mine its easy to port them to a new map. Players within the mission still have full use of the design.

Also it's worth saying with an expansion you only have one major point of fragmentation "Does the user own the expansion or not?", which is way easier to handle than "Do they own XYZ DLC" of which we know about three and maybe more in the future post Expansion.

[chortles 263]

... ProfTournesol just validated BI's claimed reasons for not using the Lite method anymore? :o

Also I'm not sure why we're debating if this is or will not be an issue? Helicopter DLC hasn't dropped yet, and what I (and others in this thread) are pointing out is just a massive risk created by the model. Our energy would be better spent discussing alternatives that don't create the risk of fragmentation than debating if a risk will manifest or not (because we will never know that for sure, until it's too late to make changes if required)

Ironically, "never know for sure until it's too late to make changes if required" is a good reason to throw this Karts DLC as a paid DLC with this method, because that way it's a 'live' test of the method/system that can be subsequently not used for Helicopters and Marksmen.

So A2/OA is a great example of a similar issue. OA for a long time had issues of people moving over from A2 and it created a pretty big speed bump in the creation of content as mods had to adapt to the new engine. Missions were less of an issue as they are generally tied to a specific island/map anyway and even for framework missions like mine its easy to port them to a new map. Players within the mission still have full use of the design.

The funny thing is, I treat OA as a separate game because of its standalone capability -- that is to say, basically BI started working on a second game soon after Arma 2's release, and then they gradually dropped A2 support the way A1 support eventually got dropped, but anyone who'd bought Arma 2 could essentially use it as an OA content pack. Pity that the latter method couldn't be reused for A3, even allowing how much more glaring the differences between A3-native and A2-native content would have been. (Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the same reasoning behind the lack of the Lite method was also a reason why BI chose not to allow such a "reuse your game install as an A3 content pack" solution.)

[jgaz-uk 132]

... ProfTournesol just validated BI's claimed reasons for not using the Lite method anymore?

At least he had a choice. With the new system of DLC its; Pay up or get Kicked. (or be handicapped in game?):(

[John Kozak 14]

.

Also I'm not sure why we're debating if this is or will not be an issue? Helicopter DLC hasn't dropped yet, and what I (and others in this thread) are pointing out is just a massive risk created by the model. Our energy would be better spent discussing alternatives that don't create the risk of fragmentation than debating if a risk will manifest or not (because we will never know that for sure, until it's too late to make changes if required)

Well, let's say that this risk is the main and only argument contra new system. I agree that it's not possible to predict what will happen; however, what was the main message on my post (at least, what I intended to convey): there is no basis to definitely say that the new system will definitely lead to consequences worse than we have seen in A2OA (which were not that severe, although present). Hope we can agree here.

[John Kozak 14]

At least he had a choice. With the new system of DLC its; Pay up or get Kicked. (or be handicapped in game?):(

Handicapped? Since when BI announced nanosuits DLC?

[zimms 22]

If your mission maker has heard of scripting, you won't be handicapped. Can we please put this deprecated argument that gets repeated every five posts put to rest?

[bad benson 1733]

i prefered the old system. i really don't get, if the concern is that people don't see what is locked content and which isn't, why they don't just put their new fancy UI on the stuff instead of locking it. or even better if you want to annoy people into buying shit, just remove all the higher res lods from the models like in the sample models or use pink textures or something as visually annoying as that.

all i see here is an attempt to get you into buying shit you don't really want/need while making MP more problematic than it already is in arma. it's like on the one hand we get the prospect of auto mod download or similar to make MP more accessible and on the other hand a new restriction is added. one step forward one step back...

it seems to me like someone in charge at BI has a real ingame integration fetish. if there will ever be arma 4 it will probably be free to play with a huge market of single vehicles and shit. great...

what happened to trying to make stuff worth getting? not trying to be rude but the only reason i didn't get any a2 DLCs, after i got one of them, was that they simply sucked. now my game will be full of on screen ads unless i buy all the shit that didn't make it into the main game.

If your mission maker has heard of scripting, you won't be handicapped. Can we please put this deprecated argument that gets repeated every five posts put to rest?

yea let's trust the free content creators with this problem too. it worked so great in the past. i remember this kind of argument being used about the medical system and weapon resting and pretty much any missing feature before. yours is the deprecated one because it simply doesn't work like that.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Bad Benson

[Jona33 51]

But you only get the ads if you're using material, that to use your words, "Sucks". If you don't want ads, don't use the DLC content.

[kremator 1065]

^^ this, for all whiners.

[bad benson 1733]

But you only get the ads if you're using material, that to use your words, "Sucks". If you don't want ads, don't use the DLC content.

have you played arma 2 MP? don't reduce it to the editor to make a cheap point. it's already hard enough to just hop onto a random server that just works. i can't imagine this helping that at all.

about the "sucks" part. i guess you haven't played ACR and PMC in arma 2? well if you did and thought it was worth the money, good for you. each to their own i guess.

it's funny though how the usual yes-men act like this is some kind of feature that making the game better. this marketing campaign is just putting some lube on before "sharing these excisting news with us", if you know what i mean ;). it's simply to see what they can get away with. have you even read the roadmap thingy? what they describe in there is exactly how it was before but with added annoyance and restriction. why do you think they make the destinction to other games?

if you would say "yes they have to make money and that's why they adapt the shit everyone else does these days", fine. but don't act like they just improved arma.

edit: i'm pretty sure a lot of the people being vocal about the method being super awesome are supporter edition owners, which i find borderline trolling. if it doesn't affect you at all, good for you, no need to be a dick about it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Bad Benson

[-=seany=- 5]

I think the original Arma2 method was better, where units were lo-res. I have 1st hand experience of the Arma2 method working. I have a friend who wouldn't play as the PMC or BAF units because he didn't want to look "lo res". And after a time he decided he would buy because they looked so much nicer.

BIS's reason for not wanting to continue the Arma2 method is pretty weak in my opinion. To quote them:

"However, for players and developers alike, this approach wasn't always ideal. 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."

I don't think this is true at all. I can't remember a single forum thread were some one was confused about the lo-res Arma2 DLC textures, or thought it was a bug. Also, they never expand on why the old method "wasn't ideal" for developers.

If BIS want to change the DLC method because they thought the Original Arma2 method gave away too much and that lost them a fair chunk of revenue that they feel they should have gotten....then please BIS, actually state this. I (and I'm sure many others) would think this is a perfectly valid reason for them wanting change the DLC method. But, if lost potential revenue is not one of the major reasons for this change, they should totaly stick with the Arma 2 Method.

Since we are talking about DLC I'd like to add that I bought every DLC straight away upon release with Arma2 (OA, BAF, PMC). That was, however, until the abomination that was "Army Of The Czech Republic" DLC was released, which I still feel very burned over. I will not buy any more BIS DLC until it has been available for a couple of weeks and I see what the overall feedback is like. The old Arma2 method would have helped (my trust) in this regard. For example, this new Kart DLC, I can't get into the Kart and try it out before I buy it. Given the questionable (in my opinion) vehicle PhysX in Arma3, I am unwilling to risk buying it in case it handles like crap. If this DLC was using the old Lo-res method I might have already bought it.

So, TLDR;

If BIS feel they didn't make enough money with the old DLC method - Then I can live with and support the change.

If Money is not the problem, and they just want a new method. Then no, the old method worked far better for the end user.

Edited May 30, 2014 by -=seany=-

[Nashable 10]

... ProfTournesol just validated BI's claimed reasons for not using the Lite method anymore? :oIronically, "never know for sure until it's too late to make changes if required" is a good reason to throw this Karts DLC as a paid DLC with this method, because that way it's a 'live' test of the method/system that can be subsequently not used for Helicopters and Marksmen. [...]

Agreed that it's good they are opening this up with Karts for us to look at. The only problem is Karts are really outside the typical sphere of ARMA content so the impact of people not having the DLC and the amount of support by content creators they'll get is negligible. The price of the Karts and the fact they are donating some of the revenue from Karts also shows that BI don't really value the content as much as the delivery and market research from selling them.

TL;DR I don't expect Karts to show up and be critical part of any popular game mode but the same cannot be said about Helicopter DLC.

Well, let's say that this risk is the main and only argument contra new system. I agree that it's not possible to predict what will happen; however, what was the main message on my post (at least, what I intended to convey): there is no basis to definitely say that the new system will definitely lead to consequences worse than we have seen in A2OA (which were not that severe, although present). Hope we can agree here.

Agreed we're talking about what if's, my job involves the daily evaluation of risks in my business and how I avoid or mitigate them. I prefer to recommend paths of action that meet the objectives of the projects I work on while reducing as much exposure to negative risks as possible. At this point BI put out a model and asked for feedback. As a member of, and as a contributor to, this community I want to provide feedback on what I consider a serious risk and brainstorm alternative solutions that are less risky.

Just humor me on this as a thought exercise. Let's say Plan A is "It won't happen", what would Plan B or Plan C look like to you if there wasn't a paywall?

If your mission maker has heard of scripting, you won't be handicapped. Can we please put this deprecated argument that gets repeated every five posts put to rest?

I'd assume BI would be well within their rights (and ToS) to take action against anyone circumnavigating their business model. Depending how the DLC is licensed they may be forced to take action to retain effective copyright of their own content. I'd expect any mission or mod that allowed an easy bypass of their DLC restrictions would at least not be supported or promoted within official channels and at most be removed from places like steam workshop or receive a cease and desist.

[Makarn 10]

Saw this in a thread of Army Of The Czech Republic

And of course we intend to release free ACR Lite content. We believe it worked great for PMC and BAF and this release should be no different (except for the new terrain, which contains a lot of data, it may not be be best idea to include it in the patch due to size and relatively limited art quality).

But great for whom? Developers or Customers.