The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[Jona33 51]

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.

Obviously I've got no data but I suspect he would be in the minority, I reckon a lot of people wouldn't mind lo res models in exchange for not paying meaning that BI don't get paid.

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

"However, for players anddevelopersalike, 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.

I wasn't around so can't comment on the confused people aspect. However they did explain why it wasn't ideal for devs because it involved maintaining multiple versions of nearly the same objects, low res and high res. (That was the reason given, whether or not it's the real reason, we don't know.) (Also that colour is very difficult to read, it might be a good idea to change it.)

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.

I actually agree with you here, I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to say that they lost too much money because people simply didn't buy the expansions, preferring lower quality products that are free. On the other hand, a lot of companies are going to be very cagey about their finances, not unreasonably in my opinion.

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.

Again, wasn't around so I won't comment on this.

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.

Although you can't enter the vehicles through the action menu you can simply place down a Kart as a civilian vehicle and set as player, at which point you can drive around all you like, you can get out but not get in. It's acceptable enough for a taster so you can make up your mind I think.

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.

[-=seany=- 5]

Although you can't enter the vehicles through the action menu you can simply place down a Kart as a civilian vehicle and set as player, at which point you can drive around all you like, you can get out but not get in. It's acceptable enough for a taster so you can make up your mind I think.

Ahh that's cool, didn't know that. ty

[strangere 2]

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.

There already is bypass for Karts DLC called MRB - ArmA 3 - Kartinator and BIS dev commented on it.

Yes, it is intended. We decided to restrict only basic entry actions and keep the script functionality so they can be used e.g. in mission scripts.

[VanZant 48]

Just a comment/sugestion about the DLC's, and yes, we are not forced to buy them now, blah blah blah, but it would be very kind of you if we could know the details about the content we've bought in advance. Content which is officialy announced and for sale now. I'm not asking info about the expansion 1 or expansion xxx, just the stuff I paid for.

[Tonci87 163]

OK, here is another thought. Burns already made a small addon that removes the "can´t get in again" restriction for free users. He used Scripting commands to do that.

Now to the scenarios that can happen with the Helicopter DLC:

A: BIS listens to feedback and removes the functionality restrictions

B: BIS doesn´t listen to feedback and leaves them in. Someone makes a small mod to circumvent them.

C: BIS decides to leave the restrictions in and additionally removes or restricts scripting commands that could be used to circumvent the gameplay restrictions.

Obviously C would be the worst case and If someone can´t think of a reason why, then he should better shut up.

[kremator 1065]

So tell me Tonci, HOW does BIS make their money?

So let's look at your suggestions..

A - free content for everyone, yippee. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content

B - free content for everyone, yippee, community now screwing BIS. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content, and they lock down things even more!

C - Seems like this would be the way to go to protect investment, and for those who actually spend money to not feel ripped off.

WHY should I buy the DLC if I can just circumvent and get it anyway? I'll tell you why, cos I support this company and what they have been doing over the past 13 or so years.

[Tonci87 163]

So tell me Tonci, HOW does BIS make their money?

So let's look at your suggestions..

A - free content for everyone, yippee. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content

B - free content for everyone, yippee, community now screwing BIS. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content, and they lock down things even more!

C - Seems like this would be the way to go to protect investment, and for those who actually spend money to not feel ripped off.

WHY should I buy the DLC if I can just circumvent and get it anyway? I'll tell you why, cos I support this company and what they have been doing over the past 13 or so years.

See, you have just proven that the current system doesn´t work. Thank you.

If you are really in favour of option C then you should really talk to some mission makers because you obviously have no clue what problems this would cause. Also this would destroy one of Armas greatest strenghts: Mission Scripting.

[RushHour 11]

WHY should I buy the DLC if I can just circumvent and get it anyway? I'll tell you why, cos I support this company and what they have been doing over the past 13 or so years.

I´d make a bet and assume you probably even know what the developers taste like.

**Image removed**

Edited May 30, 2014 by [FRL]Myke

[chortles 263]

Just a comment/sugestion about the DLC's, and yes, we are not forced to buy them now, blah blah blah, but it would be very kind of you if we could know the details about the content we've bought in advance. Content which is officialy announced and for sale now. I'm not asking info about the expansion 1 or expansion xxx, just the stuff I paid for.

Only Karts is announced and for sale now, Helicopters is in September 2014 and Marksmen is in 2015.

[roshnak 41]

So tell me Tonci, HOW does BIS make their money?

So let's look at your suggestions..

A - free content for everyone, yippee. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content

B - free content for everyone, yippee, community now screwing BIS. Oh no money for BIS - no more free content, and they lock down things even more!

C - Seems like this would be the way to go to protect investment, and for those who actually spend money to not feel ripped off.

WHY should I buy the DLC if I can just circumvent and get it anyway? I'll tell you why, cos I support this company and what they have been doing over the past 13 or so years.

If that's your reason for buying the DLC, maybe it would be better to go with the NS2 strategy I suggested earlier and sell badges and patches.

You're really overreacting to the concerns people are having about the proposed DLC system. Nobody is saying they think the content should be free. Very few people are saying that Arma 2's system was ideal.

People have legitimate concerns about being able to include DLC content in their missions. Someone said that perhaps the system was working as intended if it forced friends of players who own the DLC to buy it, but I would argue (from experience) that people who aren't going to buy the DLC for themselves probably aren't going to buy it because their friends did. As I stated earlier, I own almost all of the DLC for Arma 2 and only ever used BAF once or twice because no one I played with wanted to purchase it and they didn't want to deal with the low res assets. The new system is even more restrictive. That is just anecdotal evidence, sure, but I have no reason to believe that the new system will change anyone's mind, so I probably won't be buying any of the DLC.

One my personal concerns is that I find the way the DLC is implemented to be obnoxious. Now, we don't know how the helicopter DLC will work quite yet, but I find the advertising in the Karts DLC incredibly irritating. I don't appreciate gameplay interrupting advertisements asking me for money in a game I've already paid for. I really don't want Free To Play style microtransaction ads in my $60 video game. If they are going to render DLC content practically unusable, I'd rather not be forced to download it.

Please note: None of what I've stated in any way implies that I want free content. I recognize that monetizing the ongoing development of a game like Arma is difficult, and while I may have certain feelings about DLC as a concept and whether or not Arma should need ongoing development in the first place, they don't reflect the reality of the situation. What I have done is voiced some concerns I have with the proposed system of distributing DLC, and suggest that perhaps BIS should look into alternate solutions.

[chortles 263]

I recognize that monetizing the ongoing development of a game like Arma is difficult, and while I may have certain feelings about DLC as a concept and whether or not Arma should need ongoing development in the first place, they don't reflect the reality of the situation. What I have done is voiced some concerns I have with the proposed system of distributing DLC, and suggest that perhaps BIS should look into alternate solutions.

Unfortunately I'd also suggest that part of "the reality of the situation" is that while new alternate systems may get a fair hearing (I've already proposed the idea of moving the paywall burden from players to mission makers), it seems that what the "no" voters want for a preferred solution is the very one that the devblog actually spent a paragraph specifically shooting down...

(Come to think of it, the "one set of data" bit reminds me of the declared reasons for going Steamworks... I'm seeing parallels here...)

[chrisb 196]

There is no problem with BI making money, it’s a business, I certainly wanted to do the same, so yes, o.k.

Making missions for a group, doesn’t tend to give me any problems, all the players will buy good quality DLC material, if it comes available (not karts).

As to the way BI are doing it, well look, they're on the cash bandwagon, mainstream gaming is like this, what can we say, we should all know that.

Look at it this way, if it was another game, lets say BF (was there a dirt bike thing), anyway, players would just expect it. A3 is mainstream, those that think otherwise are a little delusional.

None of us own BI, we have very little say, in-fact no say, in what they do, business wise.

You Buy, You Don't Buy.. Those are the rules that tend to be followed by consumers.

Its sad that they do this to a great series, but its their series, they can continue to destroy its future credibility, anyway they think fit..

[ayjay 117]

I was just stopped from playing Arma 3 FOR 30 MINUTES while Steam downloaded GOCARTS!!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not interested, never will be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chortles 263]

Making missions for a group, doesn’t tend to give me any problems, all the players will buy good quality DLC material, if it comes available (not karts).

Pretty much why I have no problem with the Karts DLC using this system -- there's nothing thematically inappropriate about using Karts as a placeholder (for Helicopters/Marksmen) if the goal is to have a 'live' test of the system.

[almanzo 144]

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.

My biggest concern, as stated several times are if I get to play it due to my time being spent primarly in my community and secondary in TacBF. We have costom repos for my community, not an issue. But I am pretty sure not all of our members are going to buy the DLC, that means they are not going to be used in our missions, simple as that.

---------- Post added at 01:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

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.

Strange as it is, there is allready a mod out that allows full usage of the kart dlc, and in the very mod thread, a BIS dev stated that they are ok with said mod... Weird thing, you can find the link somewhere in this monster of a thread...

[vegeta897 13]

Strange as it is, there is allready a mod out that allows full usage of the kart dlc, and in the very mod thread, a BIS dev stated that they are ok with said mod... Weird thing, you can find the link somewhere in this monster of a thread...

Not quite "full" usage, since the nag visuals are still there. They are prominent enough that pretty much nobody who wants to continue using the karts in the future is going to want to put up with them. So they either stop using it, or purchase the DLC. That is exactly the intention. You get to preview the assets, but not get used to using them without buying it.

[chortles 263]

Strange as it is, there is allready a mod out that allows full usage of the kart dlc, and in the very mod thread, a BIS dev stated that they are ok with said mod... Weird thing, you can find the link somewhere in this monster of a thread...

Here it is:

Yes, it is intended. We decided to restrict only basic entry actions and keep the script functionality so they can be used e.g. in mission scripts.

It should be noted that the mod OP specifies that what vegeta897 called "the nag visuals" were left intact.

[roshnak 41]

It should be noted that the mod OP specifies that what vegeta897 called "the nag visuals" were left intact.

I mean... seems like a fair description to me.

[chortles 263]

JUST AS PLANNED

I used that phrase because it was a statement by someone in this thread. ;) The mod's OP itself said instead:

None of the "non-buyer-features" other than the get-in mechanic are being changed by this addon.

All UI Alerts/Vignettes, Mission Cooldowns/Restrictions, or other features non-buyers might encounter are left intact.

[John Kozak 14]

If that's your reason for buying the DLC, maybe it would be better to go with the NS2 strategy I suggested earlier and sell badges and patches.

You're really overreacting to the concerns people are having about the proposed DLC system. Nobody is saying they think the content should be free. Very few people are saying that Arma 2's system was ideal.

People have legitimate concerns about being able to include DLC content in their missions. Someone said that perhaps the system was working as intended if it forced friends of players who own the DLC to buy it, but I would argue (from experience) that people who aren't going to buy the DLC for themselves probably aren't going to buy it because their friends did. As I stated earlier, I own almost all of the DLC for Arma 2 and only ever used BAF once or twice because no one I played with wanted to purchase it and they didn't want to deal with the low res assets. The new system is even more restrictive. That is just anecdotal evidence, sure, but I have no reason to believe that the new system will change anyone's mind, so I probably won't be buying any of the DLC.

One my personal concerns is that I find the way the DLC is implemented to be obnoxious. Now, we don't know how the helicopter DLC will work quite yet, but I find the advertising in the Karts DLC incredibly irritating. I don't appreciate gameplay interrupting advertisements asking me for money in a game I've already paid for. I really don't want Free To Play style microtransaction ads in my $60 video game. If they are going to render DLC content practically unusable, I'd rather not be forced to download it.

Please note: None of what I've stated in any way implies that I want free content. I recognize that monetizing the ongoing development of a game like Arma is difficult, and while I may have certain feelings about DLC as a concept and whether or not Arma should need ongoing development in the first place, they don't reflect the reality of the situation. What I have done is voiced some concerns I have with the proposed system of distributing DLC, and suggest that perhaps BIS should look into alternate solutions.

Your story shows exactly that the new system works - because your friend was against low-quality assets, but wasn't against not being able to use it ;)

Edited May 31, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[roshnak 41]

JUST AS PLANNED

I used that phrase because it was a statement by someone in this thread. ;) The mod's OP itself said instead:

Fair enough. I'm just not certain that some people are aware how intrusive it gets. I'm sure that someone will say that it's better than not being able to use the assets at all, but it's really, really not.

Your story shows exactly that the new system works - because your friend was against low-quality assets, but wasn't against not being able to use it ;)

I honestly have no idea how that was the message you took from my post. I specifically stated that the new system is more intrusive than the old one.

[zoog 18]

Being able to use content with certain restrictions creates a bigger gap compared to Lite versions of fully available content IMO.

What I propose?

A Humble-Bundle style pay what you want DLC system.

1. BIS would be the first company to treat it's DLC differently, allowing the community to decide the added value of the DLC based on what they are willing to pay.

2. It forces the developers to create DLC that has added value so that people are willing to spend money on.

3. If the DLC has added value I expect (needs to be studied/researched) there will be enough supporting customers who are willing to pay a normal amount for extra DLC content.

4. People who cannot or don't want to buy the DLC content can get it starting at $0,01 or $1.

You could influence the above system just like Humble Bundle with added perks if you pay more than the average amount or more than a specific amount etc. This way you can influence the price tag you're aiming for.

I know it might be a bit crazy, and needs research on the customer base, but it works for Humble Bundle. Why not for A3 DLC? This would be truly a new approach to implementing DLC content IMO, and a big f*ck you to all these big developers charging massive amounts for DLC's with little content to show for. I think it would be good for BIS's PR/marketing as well ;)

Edited May 31, 2014 by zoog

[das attorney 858]

I remember Radiohead went down the pay-what-you-want business model for one of their albums. They haven't repeated it for any subsequent album....

[chrisb 196]

They really should split the game, make more money, release a larger more powerful editor (3d) with new tools etc ('a new game' but not), on its own with a couple of basic equipped factions and a terrain for £40 or so (no campaigns). Then follow that up with ‘buy to use’ extras i.e. terrains, armies, equipment, vehicle, aircraft etc. Make these high quality that work cohesively with all other parts, no conflicting etc.

All high quality extras.

.

Of course still allow very ‘restricted’ mod and addon making (certain types), but BI themselves should concentrate this particular side of their business on content, building the mil/sim style ‘as a game’ (not VBS, that’s a training tool, not a game. o.k. I know, it’s a different business ;) ).

War gaming is a lucrative market place, they just don’t seem to see it as a business. £40 a pop for added content, a release each month, I’m there no problem, the rest of the group I play with too.

Those that can’t or don’t want to, have the mainstream game, with the 2d editor, its good.

Come on BI, do the right thing, make wargamers happy, we tend to be willing to part with money, for quality, very quickly.

I’d pay that for a dozen terrains alone (12 months), those that worked flawlessly with the game (don't need to be huge terrains, but quality). Cheap entertainment really, in comparison to going down the pub one night and seeing £60 piss down the wc..

A note: I appreciate every mod and addon that I have used over the years. I’ve contributed to many that have had the facility to allow me to do so, even helped when people have needed upgrade pc’s to help them keep making them.

Its ment, in no way, to be derogatory to those makers, we have a better series for it.

But..

I’m talking about a new concept, BI making a 'new' game, with ongoing extra content for players to buy, guaranteed to work, as said, cohesively with the 'new' game itself (no conflicts etc), high quality extras, £40 a pop, a release each month or sub. Turning and making part of the series, into a true mil/sim style game, you have the assets to do it, the know how and ability. The market may be smaller for wargaming, but it would be very lucrative, I'm sure.

Why not, as said, your sat there with the ability to do it.

Probably not a popular view with many, but for me and many others I know, it makes perfect sense. ;)

[Tonci87 163]

Being able to use content with certain restrictions creates a bigger gap compared to Lite versions of fully available content IMO.

What I propose?

A Humble-Bundle style pay what you want DLC system.

1. BIS would be the first company to treat it's DLC differently, allowing the community to decide the added value of the DLC based on what they are willing to pay.

2. It forces the developers to create DLC that has added value so that people are willing to spend money on.

3. If the DLC has added value I expect (needs to be studied/researched) there will be enough supporting customers who are willing to pay a normal amount for extra DLC content.

4. People who cannot or don't want to buy the DLC content can get it starting at $0,01 or $1.

You could influence the above system just like Humble Bundle with added perks if you pay more than the average amount or more than a specific amount etc. This way you can influence the price tag you're aiming for.

I know it might be a bit crazy, and needs research on the customer base, but it works for Humble Bundle. Why not for A3 DLC? This would be truly a new approach to implementing DLC content IMO, and a big f*ck you to all these big developers charging massive amounts for DLC's with little content to show for. I think it would be good for BIS's PR/marketing as well ;)

I like the idea.

Let them put the minimum price at, let´s say 6€. And then you pay how much you think it´s worth.

The benefits are that BIS would indeed be forced to make DLCs attractive to buy (no more half assed stuff like ACR).

The DLC would be much more widespread, almost everyone would own them.

Even the people who think that 12,99 is just too expensive (and there is a lot of them) would rethink if they could pay a smaller price. The huge volume of additional sales would make up for the lower price and BIS would still get the same profit.

Additional marketing for BIS. Again they pionier an unusual idea and the world loves them for that.