The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[nodunit 397]

Wrong topic, I did a bad.

[funkotron 4]

i bought arma2 and all the dlc content after playing the lowres versions and if BI is interested in our opinion about the new DLC system here is mine:

do not like ingame advertised DLC´s while playing the game- arma 3 is not a mobile game.

do not like to pay for a single chopper or gun and so on...

i like the Kart DLC and 2$ is not to much for me.

i am more in SP and the editor so a lot of new content with new missions or campaigns would be great

everything over 15€ and i am out.

don´t make this game look like a mobile clown game. ingame quote "uhhh f*** that hurts...."

[chortles 263]

@ Tonci87: Is the fullscreen effect demonstrated to actually be blocking one's view substantively as to risk a crash or something? I did see the screenshots thereof and didn't see such a risk in them.

Admittedly I am amused by the idea of making the non-DLC "overlay" textures hilariously gaudy, but then if a "buying the DLC actually makes enemy helos less visible" mentality pops up, then that's a mark against buying the DLC which pretty much makes it verboten... :rolleyes:

[vegeta897 13]

do not like ingame advertised DLC´s while playing the game- arma 3 is not a mobile game.

do not like to pay for a single chopper or gun and so on...

1. An advertisement is not the same thing as a notification that you do not own the content you are using. That's like saying downloading a game demo is advertising when it reminds you that you're playing a demo.

2. The notifications are entirely up to you to avoid. You are not forced to use any DLC content that you don't own.

3. No future DLC is ever going to be a single chopper or gun. If you are accusing BIS of unfairly pricing their DLC, (which is too early to say, since we don't even know the full content list of the future DLCs) that's another discussion. I'll reiterate what I said on this same page: The Karts DLC is a one-off, it's not a sign of more one-vehicle DLC to come for a couple bucks each. It's cheap because it's more or less a test of the new DLC model, and it obviously should not cost very much considering it's not much content.

It is different in the sense that it is not as drastic as low res textures, wich some people really seem to dislike, while serving as an advertisement for the DLC.

The fact that it isn't as drastic is exactly what's wrong with the idea. Those texture overlays would be even easier to ignore than the lite models were. Perhaps BIS didn't make it clear enough in the roadmap, but the old Lite model did not work for them. It worked for us, because thousands of players weren't even aware that they were being limited by non-ownership. But that is not a viable business model for BIS. We have to make compromises here. BIS needs to make money, and we need a fair way to try out things we don't own, while not be able to get used to using them despite the drawbacks. If people can get used to lite models, they definitely can get used to some fake branding.

It also does not make it clear that it's DLC content. How does seeing some generic company branding on a weapon tell me that I don't own the weapon, and should buy some DLC to get rid of it? There's already fake branding in the game itself as part of the setting. That's totally confusing.

[roshnak 41]

1. An advertisement is not the same thing as a notification that you do not own the content you are using. That's like saying downloading a game demo is advertising when it reminds you that you're playing a demo.

Yes, it is. A game demo is an advertisement.

[vegeta897 13]

Yes, it is. A game demo is an advertisement.

A game demo serves to advertise in the sense that its intention is to get you to purchase, but it's not in itself an advertisement. A game demo is something you choose to download and play. It gives you a taste of the experience. An actual advertisement would be telling me about the DLC out of context, when I'm just playing the game and not trying to use content I do not own. It does not give me the experience of trying it. It just tells me there's a go-kart I can buy, and maybe what it looks like.

Even if you want to call a game demo an advertisement, there is still a distinction to be made. There is a very clear difference between something being displayed to you in the form of "hey, look, buy this" vs. you actively choosing to use the content, and being notified that there will be limitations unless you purchase it. To ignore this distinction is purposely being ignorant about the issue. Let's not be reductive.

Edited May 31, 2014 by vegeta897

[roshnak 41]

A game demo serves to advertise in the sense that its intention is to get you to purchase, but it's not in itself an advertisement. A game demo is something you choose to download and play. It gives you a taste of the experience. An actual advertisement would be telling me about the DLC out of context, when I'm just playing the game and not trying to use content I do not own. It does not give me the experience of trying it. It just tells me there's a go-kart I can buy, and maybe what it looks like.

Even if you want to call a game demo an advertisement, there is still a distinction to be made. There is a very clear difference between something being displayed to you in the form of "hey, look, buy this" vs. you actively choosing to use the content, and being notified that there will be limitations unless you purchase it. To ignore this distinction is purposely being ignorant about the issue. Let's not be reductive.

First of all, you're being needlessly pedantic. A demo is an advertisement in the same sense that an excerpt from a book or a trailer for a movie is an advertisement.

Second of all, there is much less distinction to be drawn when the content being demoed is seemlessly merged with a full game that I have purchased. I didn't choose to install a demo and try it out. I'm placing down a bunch of civilian vehicles in the game I just bought and woops one of them apparently I can't actually get into or has a dumb icon or overlay on my screen while I'm using it.

This system is obnoxious. Pergor said it feels like blackmail and I agree. It's just kind of a gross marketing strategy and I think there has to be a better solution.

[funkotron 4]

1. An advertisement is not the same thing as a notification that you do not own the content you are using. That's like saying downloading a game demo is advertising when it reminds you that you're playing a demo.

2. The notifications are entirely up to you to avoid. You are not forced to use any DLC content that you don't own.

3. No future DLC is ever going to be a single chopper or gun. If you are accusing BIS of unfairly pricing their DLC, (which is too early to say, since we don't even know the full content list of the future DLCs) that's another discussion. I'll reiterate what I said on this same page: The Karts DLC is a one-off, it's not a sign of more one-vehicle DLC to come for a couple bucks each. It's cheap because it's more or less a test of the new DLC model, and it obviously should not cost very much considering it's not much content.

no nativ englishspeaker:) here, but i understand what you mean.

if BI is open-minded they should simply ask the community what is the best for all. make some poll´s for price in relationship to content....

it´s sounds easy but i guess it will end up in chaos.

i feel like an animal used for experiments

Edited May 31, 2014 by funkotron

[MulleDK19 21]

This new system is absolutely atrocious!

If I can't use it DON'T PUT IT IN MY GAME!

Don't advertise it in the menu, don't put scenarios belonging to the DLC in the menus if I didn't buy it, and don't show the content in the editor if I can't use it!

God, once we hit a few DLCs the menus are gonna be ridden with scenarios I can't play and annoying ads about buying said content. And the editor is gonna be one big labyrinth of guessing which content can be used to make missions and which can't.

Might as well plaster "DEMO" across the main menu...

And I can see this breaking gameplay in multiplayer. Simple example: Say someone make a mission. After playing 3 hours and almost completing the mission, everyone has been killed off, except one guy, who now has to get to an extraction point. Once reaching the extraction point a helicopter arrives and the player walks up only to be presented with "This vehicle is locked because it belongs to DLC.", and everyone has to abort the mission because it can't be completed...

God, Bohemia, you have pulled some weird shit before, but this beats everything...

[Degman 73]

Arma 2 system was much better. Please return it. Voting menu is showing you everything.

[vegeta897 13]

First of all, you're being needlessly pedantic. A demo is an advertisement in the same sense that an excerpt from a book or a trailer for a movie is an advertisement.

Second of all, there is much less distinction to be drawn when the content being demoed is seemlessly merged with a full game that I have purchased. I didn't choose to install a demo and try it out. I'm placing down a bunch of civilian vehicles in the game I just bought and woops one of them apparently I can't actually get into or has a dumb icon or overlay on my screen while I'm using it.

This system is obnoxious. Pergor said it feels like blackmail and I agree. It's just kind of a gross marketing strategy and I think there has to be a better solution.

You call me pedantic for wanting to distinguish between 2 very different types of marketing, and yet your argument against my point that you don't have to use it if you don't want to is "what if I accidentally use it?"

So basically your problem with it is: you don't want to accidentally stumble upon using a DLC asset you don't own? That seems like a very arbitrary complaint. BIS could easily avoid the scenario you described by indicating that the asset you're placing in the editor is part of a DLC. Better yet, they could put DLC in a separate group in the unit selector.

If you want to talk about what can be called marketing, having servers that I try to join only to be told "you need to buy this DLC in order to join this server" can just as easily be called intrusive marketing. At least with this method, I can play with my friends and enjoy the assets I do own, while others enjoy what they own. You cannot tell me that is a downside.

Arma 2 system was much better. Please return it. Voting menu is showing you everything.

This thread is for feedback, not telling BIS what to do. Saying "switch it back" is not a compelling argument. If BIS is to gain any insight from this thread, it's going to come from responses that actually give reasoning. The poll is not overwhelmingly against the new system anyway. Edited May 31, 2014 by vegeta897

[-Coulum- 35]

I believe the system is fair. The community is not split because you can play with people that use the dlc content, even if you don't have it. But you are also encouraged to buy the dlc because you can't really use the content yourself. This is how it should be. Now there will be certain situations where scenarios are ruined because only one player is left to use a certain vehicle but can't - but honestly that is not really BI fault as much as the player's. If you didn't pay for the content why do still expect to be able to use it? If you don't want a mission ruined like this either don't play the mission or buy the dlc. Its as simple as that.

As much as the "dlc lite" system worked in arma 2 for the player, I very much doubt it worked for BI. All the players I know in real life, did not buy the dlc, me included, because we felt so very little need to. blurry textures aren't much of a problem when most of the time you are looking at your surroundings trying to spot the enemy. I can only assume this was the case for much of the community. Why waste time and money on a dlc when I don't need it?

Now I am not saying the new system is perfect. I can think of some ways it can be improved. But for the most part I think those that are against have been somewhat spoilt by BI's generosity in arma 2, and are not appreciating the fact that BI is a company that needs to make a profit. They are providing you with new content. It costs money for them to make that content. You can't expect them to just let you use if for free. Compared to other companies, BI is still being quite considerate.

Voting menu is showing you everything.

For the most part people are voting for what will benefit them the most (not unreasonable). If you added a fourth option that said "fuck it, let everyone have the dlc content for free!"... well I can imagine what the most voted option would be. That doesn't mean that BIS should do it though. I can only assume there is a profits analysis that is telling a very different story than this poll, which is why BI is trying to change things up.

Edited May 31, 2014 by -Coulum-

[roshnak 41]

You call me pedantic for wanting to distinguish between 2 very different types of marketing, and yet your argument against my point that you don't have to use it if you don't want to is "what if I accidentally use it?"

So basically your problem with it is: you don't want to accidentally stumble upon using a DLC asset you don't own? That seems like a very arbitrary complaint. BIS could easily avoid the scenario you described by indicating that the asset you're placing in the editor is part of a DLC. Better yet, they could put DLC in a separate group in the unit selector.

If you want to talk about what can be called marketing, having servers that I try to join only to be told "you need to buy this DLC in order to join this server" can just as easily be called intrusive marketing. At least with this method, I can play with my friends and enjoy the assets I do own, while others enjoy what they own. You cannot tell me that is a downside.

This thread is for feedback, not telling BIS what to do. Saying "switch it back" is not a compelling argument. If BIS is to gain any insight from this thread, it's going to come from responses that actually give reasoning. The poll is not overwhelmingly against the new system anyway.

I believe that I have been very clear and drawn adequate parallels between demos and trailers and excerpts. There's really no reason to delve into that any further.

While BIS certainly could label DLC content in the editor, they haven't done so. I'm really not sure why you are so vehemently defending this strategy. You're acting like people want BIS to just give them things for free, and that's not what anyone is saying. They're just suggesting that the current system is maybe not the right solution. Really, if the current system rubs people the wrong way, maybe it's not the best marketing strategy in the first place.

I would also appreciate it if you fixed your second quote, since I did not post that.

Now I am not saying the new system is perfect. I can think of some ways it can be improved. But for the most part I think those that are against have been somewhat spoilt by BI's generosity in arma 2, and are not appreciating the fact that BI is a company that needs to make a profit. They are providing you with product. It costs money for them to make that product. You can't expect them to just let you use if for free. compared to other games BI is still being quite considerate.

For the most part people are voting for what will benefit them the most (which is reasonable). If you added a fourth option that said "fuck it, let everyone have the dlc content for free!"... well I can imagine what the most voted option would be. That doesn't mean that BIS should do it though. I can only assume there is a profits analysis that is telling a very different story than this poll, which is why BI is trying to change things up.

Would you consider posting suggestions for improving the current system? Maybe they're really great ideas and someone will see it and make a change.

As for your claims that people are voting out of self-interest, while I'm certain that plays some part, there are many people in this thread whose posts don't bear out that claim. Many of us have bought DLC from BIS in the past, are planning or already have bought the current batch of DLC, but still have misgivings about the current system. People have stated that they are going to buy the DLC, but are still unhappy about the in-game pop-ups and overlays. Others have stated that they have already bought the DLC, but are concerned they will be unable to use it since it will likely be difficult to balance the restrictions on players who do not own it in missions. I, personally, have stated that I'm not sure that DLC is necessarily the best method of gaining more revenue from the game.

I understand that there will likely never be a solution that makes everyone happy, but the current situation offends my sensibilities and makes me not want to play the game at all. We can at least try to minimize those kinds of feelings.

Edit:

So if the lite solution is out, and you don't like the "we nag you if you use it" solution, and you don't want any unwelcome intrusions into your gameplay, the only logical place you lead me to is a seperation of the player base, where you can't join a server if you don't have DLC that is in the mission. If you honestly think that is a good idea, then we can agree to disagree right here.

The problem is that the proposed system kind of splits the community, anyway. It really renders the DLC content largely unusable for players who don't own it, which is fine. But the problem, as a few others in this thread have stated, is that if I don't own the DLC and a mission uses a DLC helicopter as necessary method of transportation, and no one else playing knows how to fly, the mission is unplayable. That forces mission designers to either never use DLC content in a mission critical way, or to just accept that people wh don't own the DLC can't play their missions. In which case, what is even the difference between the proposed system and not having the content at all?

Edited May 31, 2014 by roshnak

[vegeta897 13]

While BIS certainly could label DLC content in the editor, they haven't done so. I'm really not sure why you are so vehemently defending this strategy. You're acting like people want BIS to just give them things for free, and that's not what anyone is saying.

No, I'm acting like people would rather see DLC entirely removed from their games if they don't own them, thus eliminating any possibility of playing on a server that is running a mission that happens to have a single DLC item in it, that may not be necessary to enjoy the mission.

They're just suggesting that the current system is maybe not the right solution. Really, if the current system rubs people the wrong way, maybe it's not the best marketing strategy in the first place.

I won't disagree that the proposed solution isn't perfect. I don't think any solution could be, though. The problem I have is that so many people want a return to the Arma 2 system, as if that is acceptable. BIS has already explained why it isn't, so I don't see why anyone would argue for it. It is essentially getting to use the DLC for free, since there were so many cases of people not even realizing it was DLC content. Not everyone cared that they were low quality models. Look at the millions of people who played the DayZ mod, despite most of them seeing the player models as very low quality. That is a problem for a company trying to make money with DLC.

So if the lite solution is out, and you don't like the "we nag you if you use it" solution, and you don't want any unwelcome intrusions into your gameplay, the only logical place you lead me to is a seperation of the player base, where you can't join a server if you don't have DLC that is in the mission. If you honestly think that is a good idea, then we can agree to disagree right here.

Edit: Just saw your edit. If you don't like the concept of DLC at all, then we've nothing left to discuss (at least not in this thread). I can say I do understand your plight about not wanting BIS to essentially dangle content in front of you by including it in your game, but I would rather have that than lock me out entirely.

I would also appreciate it if you fixed your second quote, since I did not post that.

Sorry about that, fixed.

Edited May 31, 2014 by vegeta897

[-Coulum- 35]

You're acting like people want BIS to just give them things for free, and that's not what anyone is saying.

The Lite DLC in arma 2, was BI giving things to people for free. Clearly (see poll) lots of people want that back. So yes lots of "people want BIS to just give them things for free".

I believe that I have been very clear and drawn adequate parallels between demos and trailers and excerpts. There's really no reason to delve into that any further.

While BIS certainly could label DLC content in the editor, they haven't done so. I'm really not sure why you are so vehemently defending this strategy.

What if when a pop up for a dlc came up there was an option to "never remind me again", that totally removed the content and ads from your game. Would that make you okay with the new system?

[Tonci87 163]

@ Tonci87: Is the fullscreen effect demonstrated to actually be blocking one's view substantively as to risk a crash or something? I did see the screenshots thereof and didn't see such a risk in them.

Admittedly I am amused by the idea of making the non-DLC "overlay" textures hilariously gaudy, but then if a "buying the DLC actually makes enemy helos less visible" mentality pops up, then that's a mark against buying the DLC which pretty much makes it verboten... :rolleyes:

You saw the screenshots but the screenshots aren´t showing that the whole thing is animated. It makes it hard to follow the road, spotting some distant enemy is impossible.

[almanzo 144]

I believe the system is fair. The community is not split because you can play with people that use the dlc content, even if you don't have it. But you are also encouraged to buy the dlc because you can't really use the content yourself. This is how it should be. Now there will be certain situations where scenarios are ruined because only one player is left to use a certain vehicle but can't - but honestly that is not really BI fault as much as the player's. If you didn't pay for the content why do still expect to be able to use it? If you don't want a mission ruined like this either don't play the mission or buy the dlc. Its as simple as that.

But you are still completely missing the point. I bought all previous DLC's from BIS, due to the fact that I knew that every single person would be able to use said DLC's in the exact same manner as me. I knew that my community would use content from said DLC's in our missions, because our mission makers new that everybody in our community could use said assets if present in the mission.

I play in a community with 40+ people, most likely a bunch of our members are not going to buy the DLC, thus making it impossible for our mission makers to include them in missions. We can't have slot limitations based on DLC ownership. No matter how you look at it, my community will most likely never used DLC assets in our game sessions.

Now tell me, is there any reason for me to buy the DLCs, considering the fact that I'll never get to use them, since 90% of my time spent in ARMA is with my community? No, there isn't. That's the problem.

Instead of giving me an incentive to buy, it's giving me a strong incentive to not buy it. There is no valid reason for me to get them, due to the fact that I am hardly going to have a use for them. That's the main issue here, and it's true for a large portion of the community, especially organized coop players. In addition, you have mods like TacBF that 100% relies on balanced gameplay and having assets at the mission makers control. I am willing to bet that TacBF won't use DLC content in their mod. Not a chance they will.

Compared to other companies, BI is still being quite considerate.

And yet, I agree. BIS aren't doing this out of greed, and it's pretty obvious they are looking for a solution that doesn't tamper with the community. It's not a good idea for them either, despite becomming less influenctial, the organized coop crowd is still an essential part of the ARMA community. They care about what we say, and I have faith that they'll find a better solution to all this.

[suddenlymoose 15]

I think there are two central points regarding gating of DLC content that bear repeating and that I feel essentially limit how gating can be done without being harmful:

-Blocking or limiting single-player content, including in the editor, should not be problematic or controversial.

-Limitations on non-cosmetic multi-player content lowers the value of the content, making it less attractive to purchase and use.

The second point has been made several times already in this thread, but both actual limitations on usage, such as piloting being limited to users that own the content, pop-ups for users without the content, or reduced asset quality, make it less interesting to use DLC assets in a mission. Why spend lots of time making a mission if it won't look good and be fully enjoyable for all players? Whatever the limitations,

unless it is known that all players will have a DLC, using DLC content becomes less attractive. Why purchase multi-player content that is only rarely used in multi-player missions? I am not saying that DLC content will not be used, but that it will likely be used less than the core Arma 3 content, which is the opposite of what one wants for something that it is necessary to pay extra for.

Limiting access to single-user content should however not cause any problems or controversy and still provides ample opportunity for adding content that it would be attractive to purchase. An approach based on limiting single-player content makes it necessary for any DLC to contain a significant portion that is single-player only, but adding single-player content that includes assets that are usable also in multi-player to the base game should not be difficult, or negative. Better to embrace the limitations that exist with a sand-box game such as Arma and build on the strenghts.

An approach that I think would work well for Arma 3 DLCs has also already essentially been used by Bohemia. The campaign was released in parts and contained both single-player content and new vehicles and other assets that were usable also in multi-player. This can be done also for new DLC content: single-player content is added that requires purchase of the DLC to access fully, while all new assets are available in multi-player for all users without any limitations. If additional limitations are wanted, limiting the use of DLC assets in the editor unless the DLC has been purchased is one possibility (for example by having the DLC assets only usable in the editor for a certain number of hours/days).

An argument against gating of only single-player content might be that groups of players that only play the multi-player portion of the game would purchase no copies, or at most one copy of the DLC (if there were limitations on use in the editor/server), but better to make the single-player portion sufficiently attractive that also users that would normally not be interested in single-player content are tempted to purchase the DLC. Single player content has and will always have value, regardless of how many others have purchased it, while multi-player DLC content only has value as long as other user have bought and are using the DLC.

Both of the two new announced DLCs should also be well suited for having training drills and similar that should be of interest also to players that primarily want to use the DLC vehicles and weapons in the multi-player. Good practice missions and weapon drills can be used just as well by players that primarly play coop or multi-player. Structuring the single-player content added in a DLC in a way that implementing it requires engine extensions that also improve the multi-player functionality should not be difficult either.

By primarily placing the paid DLC limitations on single-player content, there should be no negative effects from having content that is locked, and assets added to the base game as part of the DLC development would make the multi-player more attractive, potentially increasing sales of the base game, and with it, the number of possible DLC customers.

Edited June 1, 2014 by SuddenlyMoose
indent

[bad benson 1733]

...blurry textures aren't much of a problem when most of the time you are looking at your surroundings trying to spot the enemy. I can only assume this was the case for much of the community. Why waste time and money on a dlc when I don't need it?

...

this says it all. this can be applied to future DLCs too unless we will see ground breaking differences to past ones which i highly doubt. you are basically involuntarily unmasking what this really is. annoying people into buying shit they don't really want. if the NEED for getting the content is created by being annoyed by the meassures BI put in place to make you buy it, something went horribly wrong.

if i buy something that is aimed at entertaining me then not because i NEED it so i won't be annoyed on most servers but because i feel i "need" the improvements and quality said content will provide me with. i would go as far as saying that simply making it impossible to join a DLC servers in arma 2 would have had only two possible outcomes. everyone gettign the stuff or no one using it. and the latter is much much more likely.

i never felt like i ripped BI off because i just used the DLC stuff with blurry textures which didn't bother me. i didn't give a shit about the content in the first place. i was forced to use it because servers used it, which was only possible due to the old method. to me any visual crippling of the content is fine. anything else is making MP problematic for no reason.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Bad Benson

[chortles 263]

But for the most part I think those that are against have been somewhat spoilt by BI's generosity in arma 2

Somewhere out there a BI dev is regretting making Arma 2 in the first place. :lol:

This thread is for feedback, not telling BIS what to do. Saying "switch it back" is not a compelling argument. If BIS is to gain any insight from this thread, it's going to come from responses that actually give reasoning. The poll is not overwhelmingly against the new system anyway.

What really is discouraging about the feedback polling is how painfully "No (try to post why and how it should look)" lags behind "No - I prefer Arma 2 system"...

[vegeta897 13]

Just want to let everybody know that the Arma 3 workshop on steam has now reached over 50 kart missions (and that's just a keyword search, there may be more. There are also more kart missions not posted on the workshop)

Over 50 DLC-centric missions within 2 days of the release. Now I ask, how can anyone really believe that this new DLC model is going to result in no missions with DLC? No matter how many mission makers you talk to, you can't talk to all of them, and there are always going to be mission makers using whatever assets they own to make missions. Lack of DLC-centric missions creates a demand for them in return. That's the beauty of community content.

Edit: Oh, and before anyone brings it up, yes there are populated servers running these missions. One of them even has 36 players right now.

The proof is in the pudding, folks. The doomsday claims need to stop.

Edited June 1, 2014 by vegeta897

[chrisb 196]

Some meanings, in this thread, have been twisted soo much, they’re in danger of breaking..:rolleyes:

[vegeta897 13]

In case your reply is directed at me (purposely ambiguous posts aren't too helpful), let me qualify my intentions:

Some quotes from this thread:

"How in hell are people going to make MP Missions with that stupid restriction?"

"I seriously doubt that we will see many missions that use the DLC Content"

"Nobody will risk it."

"these missions that have DLC specific slots won't exist."

"potential scenario mission makers will just edge their bets and not include those assets"

"So I go and buy the DLC to never see it used in a MP Mission?"

"What will happen with this method is that you will never see the DLC content used in MP Missions."

I could go on, this thread is full of these claims. The one thing these claims always assume is that every mission maker out there wants maximum compatibility. That simply is not true, and this is proof of that. It's the same reason that missions using obscure mods that few people will ever download exist. Official DLC isn't even obscure. It's going to have more than enough popularity to have a healthy amount of missions available.

[chrisb 196]

Directed at many.. you included ;).

I'm not in a battle over the dlc, its rubbish throw away stuff. How they implement it, is their concern, for me, it just mainstreams the series, which is a shame.

But they have to earn, so be it.. None of us will change that, however much we argue between ourselves, they will do what they are going to do, like it or not.

[chortles 263]

None of us will change that, however much we argue between ourselves, they will do what they are going to do, like it or not.

The worst part is that this is all the more likely so long as "No (try to post why and how it should look)" continues to sit at less than 7% of the vote...