The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[WulfyWulf 10]

I seriously doubt that we will see many missions that use the DLC Content if it is locked behind Paywalls because Mission makers will want to reach as many people as possible.

This was my biggest concern when I first saw this announcement and is the core of my argument against this strategy. Arma isn't a game that can sustain itself on official missions or content only, which is the only conceivable way you could have a system with barriers to in-game content like this- Arma is and always will be a game held up by the content creators, and BI knows this with their Make Arma Not War campaign. This undercuts the mission editor's options by forcing him to choose to use content in such a way that is minute enough to the scenario to not impact it if people don't own it, or not use it at all. In either case, the content might as well not even be in the game, which is unfair to the creators of the content and the owners of the content who don't get to make use of their premium content.

The first Step could be an automatically generated hintC (the one that is basically a pop-up window where you have to click "ok") explaining why some assets are poor quality. this could be done in a script wich autodetects if DLC content is present in the Mission and if the player has bought the DLC (so it doesn't pop-up on anybody). It could also have the Screename of the Assets with some samplepictures how they look on high-res. I think that would be a good start and show players what they are missing out by not buying the DLC, without trying to force them to by generating irritating paywalls and "on screen notifications" wich evolve in a full screen PP effect.

This was my first thought, too, by combining LITE assets with notifications. One at the start of a mission during briefing, maybe, to notify the non-owner the mission they're playing has content they don't own the full version of, and should expect reduced quality, and maybe another notification (might be too obnoxious?) when they enter or use said content.

[connorwarman 60]

As a community leader this is a horrible, horrible thing.

So say one of the guys in my group spends the money for the DLC content, he then goes and makes a mission using that content. For simplicity, lets use a helicopter as an example. One of my members that does not own the DLC content takes the pilot slot. We get in mission, he cant get in the pilot seat. Why? Because he didn't pay the extra $15 to play the damn game?

This is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion. Like Phantom said, "I think it DOES fragment the community. Previously with lite, I didn't have to worry what my mission contained. Some had lower resolution textures, great. They still got to fly, drive and assist in the field of battle." ArmA 2's system worked fine...why change it?

[b0s 18]

Do I understand correctly that theses new items will be in game then but you just cant use/enter them? Like the carts now are locked as items and cannot be entered.

Great... now every mission has to add scripts for "this moveindriver kart". Not sure what helicopters and marksman dlc will bring but those will probably create unequality between the players.

Yes the Arma2 lowres textures and sounds DLC thing was not motivating enough to buy. Motivation to buy should come from the quality of content/gameplay innovations. If everybody wants that DLC, then the community is not split.

Currently no DLC-s for me.

[tom3kb 15]

Lite dlc idea was great we had all units/vehicles so we could play any Sp/mp mission or campaign that was made for game.

And now if we get only "new fly model or new balistic for snipers" but we will not have units etc we cant play missions or join servers becose we will not have needed addons.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

As a community leader this is a horrible, horrible thing.

So say one of the guys in my group spends the money for the DLC content, he then goes and makes a mission using that content. For simplicity, lets use a helicopter as an example. One of my members that does not own the DLC content takes the pilot slot. We get in mission, he cant get in the pilot seat. Why? Because he didn't pay the extra $15 to play the damn game?

This is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion. Like Phantom said, "I think it DOES fragment the community. Previously with lite, I didn't have to worry what my mission contained. Some had lower resolution textures, great. They still got to fly, drive and assist in the field of battle." ArmA 2's system worked fine...why change it?

It may be hard to explain, but think of it this way. Other games make DLC you have to pay for IF you wish to have that content. If you don't, no need getting it. Those who get it can play with it, and you, who subsequently never got it, are forced to watch youtube videos of the content whilst you decide if you wish to get it or not. Now BI, wants to balance a way to allow you to freely join servers without having to pay, but at the same time, since you don't have the DLC owned, you are un able to use the content. Now, you ask why they never kept it like back in Arma 2, well i see it like this. People buy DLC's, because they want the content. BI lowers quality, BUT, it's literally the same thing, does the same job, for free. Now people figure, why pay, when we can just play with content for free? So this new way is... not the best, but makes the best sense, unless someone can come up with another way of looking at it. Also, if you have a group and plan on making missions, plan accordingly. I know for sure my special forces group will get this, so we avoid division. If you want to make missions with the new content, then best plan on getting it. If not, well... why would the pilot of the group not get a helicopter dlc whilst everyone else does. :rolleyes:

[Tonci87 163]

As a community leader this is a horrible, horrible thing.

So say one of the guys in my group spends the money for the DLC content, he then goes and makes a mission using that content. For simplicity, lets use a helicopter as an example. One of my members that does not own the DLC content takes the pilot slot. We get in mission, he cant get in the pilot seat. Why? Because he didn't pay the extra $15 to play the damn game?

This is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion. Like Phantom said, "I think it DOES fragment the community. Previously with lite, I didn't have to worry what my mission contained. Some had lower resolution textures, great. They still got to fly, drive and assist in the field of battle." ArmA 2's system worked fine...why change it?

Because Money.

I´m quite sure that not one of our Mission makers will use DLC content in Missions because of the Paywalls and full screen "Buy me" effects and I´m also quite sure that the same applies to all our German partner communities.

In Arma 2 BAF Stuff got used from time to time but this new system can have many unforseen negative consequences that disrupt the Mission flow in an MP Event. Nobody will risk it.

[WulfyWulf 10]

It may be hard to explain, but think of it this way. Other games make DLC you have to pay for IF[/b} you wish to have that content. If you don't, no need getting it. Those who get it can play with it, and you, who subsaquently never got it, are forced to watch youtube videos of the content whilst you decide if you wish to get it or not. Now BI, wants to balance a way to allow you to freely join servers without having to pay, but at the same time, since you don't have the DLC owned, you are un able to use the content. Now, you ask why they never kept it like back in Arma 2, well i see it like this. People buy DLC's, because they want the content. BI lowers quality, BUT, it's literally the same thing, does the same job, for free. Now people figure, why pay, when we can just play with content for free? So this new way is... not the best, but makes the best sense, unless someone ca come up with another way of looking at it.

This is a really good point, and part of why I think the LITE strategy was replaced. (Most) people want CONTENT above all else, and they can live without paying for the extra graphics if they can at least use the content itself. Again, I'm not sure if the LITE strategy was a financial success or failure, but that is the chief reason I can see why BI would turn to a different solution for their DLC. Problem with this is that is much more of a "hard" barrier to people who don't own the content, and that's a really hard thing to ask when there are quality, community addons that can deliver the same thing for free. I don't think either strategy alone works. Not sure if a compromise is necessary or an entirely different approach should be looked at.

Edited May 29, 2014 by WulfyWulf

[Maio 293]

Lite dlc idea was great we had all units/vehicles so we could play any Sp/mp mission or campaign that was made for game.

And now if we get only "new fly model or new balistic for snipers" but we will not have units etc we cant play missions or join servers becose we will not have needed addons.

You can join servers and will be able to use the content with certain limitations, limitations which as of yet, have not been fully detailed.

[connorwarman 60]

It may be hard to explain, but think of it this way. Other games make DLC you have to pay for IF you wish to have that content. If you don't, no need getting it. Those who get it can play with it, and you, who subsequently never got it, are forced to watch youtube videos of the content whilst you decide if you wish to get it or not. Now BI, wants to balance a way to allow you to freely join servers without having to pay, but at the same time, since you don't have the DLC owned, you are un able to use the content. Now, you ask why they never kept it like back in Arma 2, well i see it like this. People buy DLC's, because they want the content. BI lowers quality, BUT, it's literally the same thing, does the same job, for free. Now people figure, why pay, when we can just play with content for free? So this new way is... not the best, but makes the best sense, unless someone can come up with another way of looking at it. Also, if you have a group and plan on making missions, plan accordingly. I know for sure my special forces group will get this, so we avoid division. If you want to make missions with the new content, then best plan on getting it. If not, well... why would the pilot of the group not get a helicopter dlc whilst everyone else does. :rolleyes:

Thats the problem...not everyone will be able to afford such DLC's. Many people live on a budget, myself included. There are over 45 members in my group, chances are a few of them are not going to be able to shell out the money on all of the new DLC. So what am I suppose to do then? Say- "sorry, cant take that slot because you don't own X DLC?"

No, im going to have to restrict the use of any and all DLC content in my groups missions. And im sure many other ArmA groups will.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Connorwarman

[kremator 1064]

^^ then just tough. There will be other slots they can take.

Sorry, but BIS has taken a very good stance on these DLCs and I fully support it.

Hell, every other company has a play to win button, so why can't BIS start to go down that route ?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Thats the problem...not everyone will be able to afford such DLC's. Many people live on a budget, myself included. There are over 45 members in my group, chances are a few of them are not going to be able to shell out the money on all of the new DLC. So what am I suppose to do then? Say- "sorry, cant take that slot because you don't own X DLC?"

Well, it's simple. For those living on a budget, simply don't spend money until the most important assets that are in DLC's come. That being said is more choose whats worth getting that will determine the success of your group on the virtual battlefield, other than simple little fun things like the Kart DLC. I know for a fact i'm on a budget too, and although i would LOVE to buy the bundle, i dont have the funds right now, but i know i WILL need the Helicopter DLC for my squad to remain dominate on the battlefield. So ill wait for what i need most, and the rest can wait.

[Kemeros 1]

I don't see how the previous model was better. Now you can actually try before you buy. AND you get the features for free. You also don't get locked out of servers because you're missing an expansion.

I applaud this step in the right direction.

I'm not saying everything is perfect, it's probably not. I will see for myself in a couple of hours.

As i understand it, my only problem will be with the fact you can't get back in once you go out of an unowned asset.

I'll say more later.

But i definitely like this more than having my textures in low quality like the lite version or worse, no access at all and the community being split.

[TSAndrey 1]

As much as you dislike the new system, you have to admit the old one is also bad. Bad textures? What?! Why make the game ugly for no reason? There needs to be a better way...

[Makarn 10]

The existence of Premium content will always split the community, the question we need to answer is which one does less damage to the community.

Looking for a perfect way is imposible.

[connorwarman 60]

I don't see how the previous model was better. Now you can actually try before you buy. AND you get the features for free. You also don't get locked out of servers because you're missing an expansion.

I applaud this step in the right direction.

I'm not saying everything is perfect, it's probably not. I will see for myself in a couple of hours.

As i understand it, my only problem will be with the fact you can't get back in once you go out of an unowned asset.

I'll say more later.

But i definitely like this more than having my textures in low quality like the lite version or worse, no access at all and the community being split.

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

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

the existence of premium content will always split the community, the question we need to answer is which one does less damage to the community.

Looking for a perfect way is imposible.

Bingo.

[Maio 293]

The existence of Premium content will always split the community, the question we need to answer is which one does less damage to the community.

Looking for a perfect way is imposible.

The only (objective) way we can measure the impact of this new DLC strategy is to see some adoption and usage metrics some time after both DLC packs are out.

[sxp2high 22]

I think it's a terrible approach.

I'd rather deal with low res textures, than not being able to get in as pilot. The latter affects gameplay big time, low res textures not so much.

I regret having bought the Supporter edition, because BIS' CEO ......... the rest of this sentence would probably get me banned.

Edited May 29, 2014 by sxp2high

[MavericK96 0]

I'm a bit concerned about both the approach as well as the prices of these new DLCs. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, weren't the BAF, PMC and ACR DLCs for ArmA 2 only $10 apiece? And for that you got a mini-campaign, more standalone missions, weapons, vehicles, etc. I am concerned that the new DLC is not going to contain nearly as much content and at a higher price.

Will I still buy it? Most likely, because it's ArmA, but I still have reservations.

[Makarn 10]

The only (objective) way we can measure the impact of this new DLC strategy is to see some adoption and usage metrics some time after both DLC packs are out.

You're right, and that's the way they most likely use to figure out that the old system wasn't good enough, neither for them nor to the community.

We may not always understand it but metrics is the way to make sure if your decision was the best, the thing is if you're aiming to make more money, make your costumers happy or try to find a balance (which I'm sure is the way BIS is trying to do things)

Edited May 29, 2014 by Makarn

[WulfyWulf 10]

^^ then just tough. There will be other slots they can take.

That's the problem at the core of this, though- there won't be other slots because these missions that have DLC specific slots won't exist. Mission editors are shrewd about publishing their work- they understand that they can't lock their missions out to a significant audience by having vehicles (and possibly weapons? No news on this yet) critical to the mission unavailable to non-buyers. This doesn't expand the mission editor's sandbox like the Arma 2 DLC did, rather it makes this DLC content undesirable to have in a mission because it creates a paywall.

Well, it's simple. For those living on a budget, simply don't spend money until the most important assets that are in DLC's come. That being said is more choose whats worth getting that will determine the success of your group on the virtual battlefield, other than simple little fun things like the Kart DLC. I know for a fact i'm on a budget too, and although i would LOVE to buy the bundle, i dont have the funds right now, but i know i WILL need the Helicopter DLC for my squad to remain dominate on the battlefield. So ill wait for what i need most, and the rest can wait.

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

The existence of Premium content will always split the community, the question we need to answer is which one does less damage to the community.

Looking for a perfect way is imposible.

This is my number one concern; it's even more difficult to find an answer for in a sandbox game like this. If I could add one more aspect, there also needs to be a compromise with which solution provides BIS with fair compensation for their work, too. If LITE was unsuccessful in this regard, this might explain this new strategy? Either way, it's the problem of finding the optimal solution- the best given the need for compromise between damage to the community and compensation for BI. Whether this solution does damage to the community is down to:

The only (objective) way we can measure the impact of this new DLC strategy is to see some adoption and usage metrics some time after both DLC packs are out.

Which is true, but I hope this gamble doesn't cause lasting damage to the multiplayer community between owners/non-owners if the problems stemming from mission editing are as bad as some of us are worrying about. I've got enough faith in BIS to act on a bad solution and try something different if this does end up causing a rift- they've adapted from the LITE strategy and are taking risks trying something new here, so I'm hoping they continue to look for an optimal solution even after this. I just hope the solution changes from their current strategy before A3's life cycle ends- I should be getting all the DLC as a Supporter Edition owner, but I'm worried I'll never get much chance to play with it with my friends who don't have the DLC, because I don't want to make missions with content they can't enjoy.

[Nashable 10]

DLC content that locks players out will effectively just mean the DLC assets will be removed/not included in most community shared created/generated content. This hurts everybody involved with ARMA.

Personally with a platform style game like this I think the smarter play would be to bake this into the main game as free DLC (like Zeus) and then kept the price of the game at $60 for longer. The increased content and word of mouth is going to generate more sales than the anti-consumer approach of this business model. Thinking of the new experience for players Q1 2015. Me: "Oh so you buy the base game for $60, then another $25 and now we can play all the same content together!", Them: "$75? No thanks".

With paid DLC all they are doing is competing with modded content and puts a big spot light on the quality and amount of content each DLC pack provides.

To BIS' credit at least they've said this model is still being iterated on and open to feedback so let's hope we see the company acknowledge and respond to our feedback.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

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

I totally agree with this. It just won't be included in any PvP/TvT mission and probably many other MP missions as well. Great that you bought it but good luck finding quality content that uses it.

This is my number one concern; it's even more difficult to find an answer for in a sandbox game like this. If I could add one more aspect, there also needs to be a compromise with which solution provides BIS with fair compensation for their work, too. If LITE was unsuccessful in this regard, this might explain this new strategy? Either way, it's the problem of finding the optimal solution- the best given the need for compromise between damage to the community and compensation for BI. Whether this solution does damage to the community is down to:

To be honest I think BIS have to accept that their business model doesn't support a paywall. They benefit immensely from the amount of gaps that the community fills. We host online infrastructure for them, we create game content for them. This is the result of running ARMA as a platform (sandbox) rather than as a focused game (e.g. Battlefield/COD).

BIS can't have their cake and eat it on this one. They should invest in their platform with DLC and have it pay off for them with more players/users within that ecosystem.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

The only question is how often does this "notifications" appear(can't personally check it... already bought it all :P)"

You can. Right click Arma 3 on Steam, pick "View Downloadable Content" from the dropdown, untick the DLC that you want the game to think you didn't buy.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

I liked the lite versions for non-owners of the A2 DLC. I was satisfied with content, so I bought all DLCs. But I won't buy the A3 DLC until I see how things will play out on the community. I have no desire to insert bohemian trouble into my mod and my missions.

[Smurf 12]

Didn't liked it, a hybrid of A2 and this new system would be lovely.