The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[roshnak 41]

Do many large communities use Steam Workshop missions?

More importantly, this is really just the second of the two scenarios that I said was likely to happen. These missions are made purely for DLC and are basically unplayable for anyone who doesn't own it. It's functionally the same as if I don't have any of the DLC assets because I can't (or won't, because of the restrictions) take part in those missions.

The alternative is more likely to occur with the helo DLC, which is that a mission will have two helicopters sitting next to each other: a DLC helicopter, and a vanilla helicopter in case players don't have the DLC.

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...

I just bumped it up to 7.25%. Problem solved.

But honestly, there probably aren't a lot of suggestions because it's a really hard problem to solve. A lot of the traditional kinds of cosmetic items are undermined by Arma's moddability, and the traditional DLC distribution is sort of undermined by the developer's desire to keep the content available for use in scenarios where not all the players own it. I also think Arma's price point is too high to ethically justify a bunch of microtransactions to continue to monetize development.

The only suggestions I really have are to sell one time badges or uniform patches a la the NS2 strategy I detailed earlier, which has it's own problems, since that strategy only raised half of the target goal. Or, alternatively, to limit the annoying advertising as much as possible -- perhaps they could limit notifications to the first time you try to use a limited feature of a vehicle (e.g. getting in the drivers seat), not include gaudy banners with in-game links to purchase DLC, and remove DLC objects from the editor for players that don't own the DLC. My biggest problem right now is that it really feels like they are trying to use Arma 3 as a platform for advertising DLC as loudly as possible, which I'm sure is not their intention.

Edited June 1, 2014 by roshnak

[vegeta897 13]

Do many large communities use Steam Workshop missions?

More importantly, this is really just the second of the two scenarios that I said was likely to happen. These missions are made purely for DLC and are basically unplayable for anyone who doesn't own it. It's functionally the same as if I don't have any of the DLC assets because I can't (or won't, because of the restrictions) take part in those missions.

The alternative is more likely to occur with the helo DLC, which is that a mission will have two helicopter sitting next to each other: a DLC helicopter, and a vanilla helicopter in case players don't have the DLC.

I agree, you're right. There will be missions like that, but there will also be a number of mission makers that either do not care, are not aware, or will specify that the mission requires a DLC. As for large communities, I have no idea. The missions that are played by big communities can be posted on the workshop too, can't they? The points made about not wanting to exclude players within that community who don't own the DLC are definitely valid, though. If I was a mission maker for one of those communities, I'd be concerned. But you have to admit, some of the claims in this thread about lack of missions were a bit over-dramatic. Not yours, though. I got a lot of perspective on this issue, discussing with you.

[-Coulum- 35]

I really don't know what to say... Yes there are valid concerns out there. People who own dlc that play with people who don't might find situations where they suffer. I think less often than one might think, but nonetheless it will be frustrating when half your team can't get back to extraction because there are no able bodied pilots. Or when your out of ammo and go to pick up a fallen comrades weapon only to find you don't have access to this weapon. Some clans might just reject the dlc totally for this reason. Inversely, some might make dlc's mandatory requirement to play. And some will just go with it and try their best to accommodate both those with dlc and those without - I mean a basic infatryman (most often the majority of a team) will not need to have the helicopters dlc to enjoy a mission. As long as you got a couple pilots with the dlc the scenario should play out fine. Infact it will benefit some - I don't fly so I don't have to buy the dlc and I still get nice textures when I see someone else flying it or am transported in it.

But the fact is I don't see any better option. Lite stuff gives people too much. Maybe if it was more visually unappealing it might work - if you use a dlc asset you do not own it will just be a bright pink alpha image (too you only), you will have the decals over the screen, and be prompted to buy it. maybe that would work. But I think it would just come across as unpolished and even more "in your face, forcing you to buy" then what BI plan to do now.

You can see it, you can get transported in it and test it in sp, but if you don't own it you can't use it. sounds fair to me. Arma 2 lite stuff was fine but I think its time to realize we were very lucky to have it.

In the end I think the success of the dlc will be determined by what it brings and for what price. If the DLC are clearly worth the money a clan might enforce everyone switches to it. If the DLC are not the they will not make missions using the DLC. While I know it is just for fun and not a serious dlc, Karts was not a very good example.

Edited June 1, 2014 by -Coulum-

[chortles 263]

But honestly, there probably aren't a lot of suggestions because it's a really hard problem to solve.

For me the issue re: complaining about how badly "state why" lags behind both "yes" or "Lite" is that I (like to) believe that BI as a publisher is receptive to suggestions that aren't Lite. (As with the Steamworks announcement, BI and the dev powers-that-be consciously rejected "the solution beloved in Arma 2", because it didn't do what they wanted for Arma 3, and in the case of Steamworks, the declaration of a September 2013 "launch", and even the split-up post-launch campaign, they actively defied or simply blew past the vocal critics... so we might well have to look at the where/how of the times that BI did actually incorporate community feedback into Arma 3.)

The only suggestions I really have are to sell one time badges or uniform patches a la the NS2 strategy I detailed earlier, which has it's own problems, since that strategy only raised half of the target goal.

That, and like Das Attorney said, "Radiohead went down the pay-what-you-want business model for one of their albums. They haven't repeated it for any subsequent album...."

My biggest problem right now is that it really feels like they are trying to use Arma 3 as a platform for advertising DLC as loudly as possible, which I'm sure is not their intention.

Any particular reason that you don't believe that to be their intention?

But the fact is I don't see any better option.

I'd amend that to "any better option that BI would actually adopt", not least since the polling results suggest either hesitance to voice a concrete proposal or that the overwhelming majority of critics just want Lite...

Lite stuff gives people too much.

And I think that that's where the fundamental disconnect is between you and so many others in getting the sea change that happened right under their noses...

Maybe if it was more visually unappealing it might work - if you use a dlc asset you do not own it will just be a bright pink alpha image (too you only), you will have the decals over the screen, and be prompted to buy it. maybe that would work. But I think it would just come across as unpolished and even more "in your face, forcing you to buy" then what BI plan to do now.

That, and it's directly part of why BI rejected the Lite solution for Arma 3 -- the only way for the 'low-res'/'bright pink alpha' to immediately be recognized as "this is because you didn't buy the DLC" seems to be to have unavoidable signals that it's just because of unbought DLC and not a "bug", which then just runs into the very problem of having vignettes/pop-ups/what-not that get others to complain about their broken immersion...

[roshnak 41]

That, and like Das Attorney said, "Radiohead went down the pay-what-you-want business model for one of their albums. They haven't repeated it for any subsequent album...

The NS2 method wasn't exactly "pay-what-you-want" it was closer to a Kickstarter backer rewards program. They also averaged $45 per purchase for a game that people had already paid $40 for.

[saltatormortis 12]

i have the ultimate solution(take the best from A3 and A2):

-while the player dont use the item he gets the full quality DLC

-if he picks/getin as important role it up he gets downgraded to the light version (only while online)

i disliked the light approach the weapons/vehicles looked ugly

i dont understand the fuss about this if you dont pay for it you cant use if

we are not in a game like BF/H1Z1 where you can make it have a experation date (wearout/death limit)

arma has a active community with a 3d editor and even MODDERS

if you dont want to pay wait for a modder to make a free version

paid DLC isnt free

[stilton 0]

if he picks/getin as important role it up he gets downgraded to the light version

Your version is infact less-intrusive than the arma2 version.. Meaning there is even LESS incentive for people to buy DLC.

Therefore? why would they change it to this at all, unless they wanted to make less money.

---------- Post added at 11:48 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

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".

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?

Wow... This would do it for me. My only real beef with the current system is the worry of adverts breaking immersion.

I'd go further than BIS has already, lock out the vehicles completely ... Maybe allow people to ride as cargo (maybe) but its enough to be able to play in the same server as DLC items.. That's what other games do.. They allow everyone to see and play -against- DLC items... Thereby giving incentive for people who don't have it.

I can't think of any other games where people get a 'lite' version of Paid-DLC items for free with all the features? Because that's madness. (A very kind and charitable madness... But madness none-the-less )

I'd like to give the community the benefit of the doubt and assume that... If you give a big 'stop bugging me' button... 99.9% of community members (who havent bought the DLC) will be well aware the reason why they are restricted from getting in these vehicles... without needing to be constantly reminded...

I wonder if i'm giving the average player too much credit.

...But i feel that's the difference between an effective system and an annoying one. They're cheap, not stupid :)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Stilton

[nodunit 397]

I'd like to give the community the benefit of the doubt and assume that... If you give a big 'stop bugging me' button... 99.9% of community members (who havent bought the DLC) will be well aware the reason why they are restricted from getting in these vehicles... without needing to be constantly reminded...

I wonder if i'm giving the average player too much credit.

They won't and instead multitudes of threads will pop up asking "Why can I drive this vehicle?" 'It's in my game so I should be able to use it right?' or how it is splitting the MP community because some people can use the DLC and others can't even if being able to join up on the same server, and to some degree it has merits such as a cargo helicopter that you cannot get in..well what use are you in the mission then.

Arrowheads approach really offered the best of both worlds save for pixelated optics...You get the content and you can play with friends, use it to the fullest extent and so on..sure it looks awful but thats the point, the idea is to let you play with friends and others but to also encourage you to buy the DLC if its bothering you that badly...think about it, there was at most a splash screen talking about the DLC on the main menu and after that you never saw an advertisement beyond that...no blurring screen, no sale overlay...just fuzzy textures, you still got the content, you still got to play with friends..sure you may have lost out on some immersion but the fact that you weren't split from everyone should more than make up for it.

[TSAndrey 1]

Arrowheads approach really offered the best of both worlds save for pixelated optics...You get the content and you can play with friends, use it to the fullest extent and so on..sure it looks awful but thats the point, the idea is to let you play with friends and others but to also encourage you to buy the DLC if its bothering you that badly...think about it, there was at most a splash screen talking about the DLC on the main menu and after that you never saw an advertisement beyond that...no blurring screen, no sale overlay...just fuzzy textures, you still got the content, you still got to play with friends..sure you may have lost out on some immersion but the fact that you weren't split from everyone should more than make up for it.

Yeah, but then people wouldn't want to buy the DLC's and all you would get is a game with randomly bad textures. That's not only bad for the player, but for the game's reputation!

[-=seany=- 5]

Can anyone actually find a thread here or on Steam forums where user(s) thought that the Arma2, Free, Lo-res, DLC versions where a bug? I can't remember any. I think this reason for changing the DLC method is BS. People keep taking about BIS's monetary gain from the new DLC method, but they never say this is a problem in the new DLC overview blog, they just say they didn't like the old method because people thought it was bug....no they didn't...

So BIS can either keep the old version, as it works fine and is best for the end user/community.....OR they can come clean and admit that they want to change the DLC method because they feel they lost too much money (or didn't make as much as expected) with the previous Arma2 DLC method. Most people would accept this reason.

If they are so worried about people thinking they were bugs, then keep the OLD method but also display a brief, small tool tip/hint when you use the item that tells you could buy it (and give Shift P option) and have it higher resolution. That would be fine by me.

Edited June 1, 2014 by -=seany=-

[sxp2high 22]

they didn't like the old method because people thought it was bug....no they didn't...

DayZ. I know some people, and witnessed on streams several times, that people actually had no idea that a PMC DLC existed when I mentioned it. I even bought PMC for a friend of mine who only played DayZ. Mind you, in DayZ many people lowered their graphics to a point where it almost didn't make a difference anymore, due to bad performance and pvp reasons. I blame BIS' bad marketing for that. (Only reason I can think of)

In regards to people who are truly interested in the base game/series, I agree. They'd know better.

[zoog 18]

DayZ. I know some people, and witnessed on streams several times, that people actually had no idea that a PMC DLC existed when I mentioned it. I even bought PMC for a friend of mine who only played DayZ. Mind you, in DayZ many people lowered their graphics to a point where it almost didn't make a difference anymore, due to bad performance and pvp reasons. I blame BIS' bad marketing for that. (Only reason I can think of)

Yeah, if they would have added a text on the main menu screen for example when you start the game with a message something like "DLC content not purchased will have low res models and textures in the game. Currently owned DLC content: BAF (1 out of 3). See all DLC content <HERE>" for example this "issue" could have been fixed without any intrusive measures. Maybe even like the previous official messages they used "THIS IS AN ALPHA PRODUCT" / BETA during the A3 alpha in the top right corner. Combine LITE with pre-game message about LITE models/units.

[chortles 263]

Yeah, if they would have added a text on the main menu screen for example when you start the game with a message something like "DLC content not purchased will have low res models and textures in the game. Currently owned DLC content: BAF (1 out of 3). See all DLC content <HERE>" for example this "issue" could have been fixed without any intrusive measures. Maybe even like the previous official messages they used "THIS IS AN ALPHA PRODUCT" / BETA during the A3 alpha in the top right corner. Combine LITE with pre-game message about LITE models/units.

Considering that "one set of data" was a stated rationale for the change from Lite, I suspect that the internal decision was that "main menu only" messaging would not be enough... because streamers who can't be counted on to record the main menu screen showing that. :p

[vegeta897 13]

In regards to people who are truly interested in the base game/series, I agree. They'd know better.

Several of my (newer) Arma friends did not know. They assumed it was just an LOD not loading in, as happens sometimes as a glitch or when video memory is low.

I tend to put more stock into BIS's own research than anecdotal evidence from veteran arma players. But I know from first hand experience this was not limited to DayZ players. It's not like all Arma players are inherently or automatically more knowledgeable on BIS's DLC strategy than DayZ players.

Further, my friends also did not care enough about the low quality models to bother purchasing the DLC. I barely did either, but wanted to support BIS.

Let's accept the fact that this strategy did not work for BIS, and focus on the alternatives.

[kremator 1064]

Hated the old Arma2 system. The low LOD was just offputting.

[roshnak 41]

Considering that "one set of data" was a stated rationale for the change from Lite, I suspect that the internal decision was that "main menu only" messaging would not be enough... because streamers who can't be counted on to record the main menu screen showing that. :p

I would argue that BIS shouldn't base their game design around streamers.

Hated the old Arma2 system. The low LOD was just offputting.

As so many have said about the current system: That's the point.

Edit:

Now, since BI is locking people outside of whatever the DLC will be, wouldn't this argument also be put to use here? People unaware of the 'lockout' approach might think it's a bug seeing that other people, who has the DLC, can enter the pilot seat, for example. In either case, both systems got their downsides.

There's no real way anyone could think it's a bug, since there are annoying messages with links to purchase the DLC that pop up and have to be clicked through.

Edited June 1, 2014 by roshnak

[Colossus 2]

I'm divided, although I'm leaning towards the ArmA 2 system as I think the function trumps quality if it's free. However, I don't get their argument here:

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.

Now, since BI is locking people outside of whatever the DLC will be, wouldn't this argument also be put to use here? People unaware of the 'lockout' approach might think it's a bug seeing that other people, who has the DLC, can enter the pilot seat, for example. In either case, both systems got their downsides.

[Greenfist 1863]

Now, since BI is locking people outside of whatever the DLC will be, wouldn't this argument also be put to use here? People unaware of the 'lockout' approach might think it's a bug seeing that other people, who has the DLC, can enter the pilot seat, for example. In either case, both systems got their downsides.

I guess that's why they put the DLC messages in. Arma 2 didn't have them so people thought it was a bug.

[nodunit 397]

"THIS IS AN ALPHA PRODUCT" / BETA during the A3 alpha in the top right corner. Combine LITE with pre-game message about LITE models/units.

You mean like that warning that people ignored and complained about things not working or how things would break over the course of the alpha? Problem is most people won't even bother to read a bunch of text, this is why BI went with an icon hovering to the side of your screen until you buy the DLC...now one could say that it ruins your immersion and whatnot but on the other hand you should be glad that you even get to use the DLC without having fully bought it.

From a business standpoint BI are shooting themselves in the foot with this courtesy and should be using a "Buy it or don't get to use it" system...it's also the least faulty in that you cannot mistake it for a bug, glitch or something else...either you have it or you don't...and yet....

[nmdanny 22]

In my opinion, a possible solution is a mix between the ArmA 2 method and the current method so that players will have more of an incentive to buy DLCs.

First of all, DLC content downloaded will include both high quality and low quality LODs.

There would be several showcase/demo scenarios made by BIS that would include fully functional and high quality DLC content in addition to advertising/notices.

Players who don't own a DLC:

-Can't place it in the editor(DLC content is hidden), if they're editing a mission that contains the classnames of DLC content(scripts,sqf/sqm etc..) it would be symbolized as a DLC mission and they won't be able to preview/play the mission until all DLC classname references are deleted.

-Can't preview missions, host servers, play campaigns/scenarios that include DLC content.

-When playing on another server that has DLC that they don't own, only the low LOD of the unowned content is displayed. There will be overlay notifications/adverts but there won't be notifications that open a new menu or interrupt gameplay(full screen overlay is ok though).

In addition when playing on a server that contains unowned DLC content, there would be a watermark in the screen saying so(so that if they are publishing pics/videos, watchers won't be misinformed about the quality of assets in the game.)

[bad benson 1733]

how about this? make DLCs worth getting and add stuff like terrains that you actually want to play on. no lite stuff. if you don't have the terrain, you can't join the game. then stuff will be judged by quality. people will either consciously use it and it will get common because it's good or they won't and it won't be used at all (MP). i got the PMC DLC only for the terrain. well it sucked and i never played one single MP session on it. make better stuff and it will be used. no bullshit. just deal or no deal ;)

this would only work with bigger packs and actual things that add to the game like terrains. people don't get small boring model packs because that's what they are. small and boring and they add nothing except some vehicle. you can get that for free on armaholic in, sometimes, equal or even better quality. a terrain (that is not like proving ground) on the other hand would be worth getting. the can be small. but for christ's sake make them good and worth playing on.

[vegeta897 13]

From a business standpoint BI are shooting themselves in the foot with this courtesy and should be using a "Buy it or don't get to use it" system...it's also the least faulty in that you cannot mistake it for a bug, glitch or something else...either you have it or you don't...and yet....

By "buy it or don't use it" do you mean let people play a mission or server that has a DLC vehicle, but not let them enter it, period? I can't see how that's less immersion breaking than letting them in with the visual nags. Either way, it's going to inform them of the DLC restriction. And you could essentially act as if the vehicle is off limits by simply not entering it.

If you mean don't even give people the opportunity to join the server or play the mission, I'd like to hear more about this, because to me it seems like a massive amount of disadvantages for saving a bit of immersion. I would guarantee you that most people would rather be able to at least play on all servers and missions at the risk of some loss in immersion. At most you're only going to accidentally try to get into DLC vehicles a few times before you remember which ones to consider "off-limits".

-When playing on another server that has DLC that they don't own, only the low LOD of the unowned content is displayed.

The only problem I see with this is that people will only realize it's DLC if they try to enter it. Such is not always the case on multiplayer servers. And displaying notifications just for looking at it would be truly intrusive, but that's the only way I can think of to make the message clear if they don't use the vehicle. That's one reason I like BIS's idea. I can fight along side people, or against people and see beautiful machines of war without any quality reduction, even if I don't own it.

Edited June 1, 2014 by vegeta897

[roshnak 41]

In my opinion, a possible solution is a mix between the ArmA 2 method and the current method so that players will have more of an incentive to buy DLCs.

First of all, DLC content downloaded will include both high quality and low quality LODs.

There would be several showcase/demo scenarios made by BIS that would include fully functional and high quality DLC content in addition to advertising/notices.

Players who don't own a DLC:

-Can't place it in the editor(DLC content is hidden), if they're editing a mission that contains the classnames of DLC content(scripts,sqf/sqm etc..) it would be symbolized as a DLC mission and they won't be able to preview/play the mission until all DLC classname references are deleted.

-Can't preview missions, host servers, play campaigns/scenarios that include DLC content.

-When playing on another server that has DLC that they don't own, only the low LOD of the unowned content is displayed. There will be overlay notifications/adverts but there won't be notifications that open a new menu or interrupt gameplay(full screen overlay is ok though).

In addition when playing on a server that contains unowned DLC content, there would be a watermark in the screen saying so(so that if they are publishing pics/videos, watchers won't be misinformed about the quality of assets in the game.)

With the exception of the full screen overlays this sounds fine to me. I don't even mind the restrictions from entering the pilot seat that much, as long as there aren't popup messages that I have to click through. Some text that is briefly displayed along the bottom of the screen stating that "This is DLC content. Some features are restricted" seems fine to me.

how about this? make DLCs worth getting and add stuff like terrains that you actually want to play on. no lite stuff. if you don't have the terrain, you can't join the game. then stuff will be judged by quality. people will either consciously use it and it will get common because it's good or they won't and it won't be used at all (MP). i got the PMC DLC only for the terrain. well it sucked and i never played one single MP session on it. make better stuff and it will be used. no bullshit. just deal or no deal ;)

New terrains also sound like they might be a better idea than vehicles and weapons.

this would only work with bigger packs and actual things that add to the game like terrains. people don't get small boring model packs because that's what they are. small and boring and they add nothing except some vehicle. you can get that for free on armaholic in, sometimes, equal or even better quality. a terrain (that is not like proving ground) on the other hand would be worth getting. the can be small. but for christ's sake make them good and worth playing on.

Let's not get crazy here, though. Most of the vehicles on Armaholic are ports of Arma 2 content, almost all of the units are retextures of the default Arma 3 units, and almost all of the weapons are ports of models that were made for CS:S.

[vegeta897 13]

Let's not get crazy here, though. Most of the vehicles on Armaholic are ports of Arma 2 content, almost all of the units are retextures of the default Arma 3 units, and almost all of the weapons are ports of models that were made for CS:S.

I agree with you on this. I haven't been too impressed with the custom models I've seen on Armaholic so far, save for a few. The main problem I have is that I can't find a practical use for the good ones anyway. I play small coops with some friends, so I'd have to convince them all to download each model/pack. Then I have to find or create missions that use them. DLC is a much better solution for me in this regard, because it's official and requires no extra work. And there are guaranteed going to be missions that use the DLC, for the same reasons. I'm of course only speaking for myself and my situation, but I have to imagine other people are in this conflict as well. Hopefully BIS's mod integration into the steam workshop can help out here.

[bad benson 1733]

i said sometimes. what i was obviously talking about are RSKL's aircrafts and stuff like NodUnit's and Franze's Apache. both of these outperform BI stuff in terms of functionality any day of the week. models aren't everything, eventhough both these examples are at least on BI's level model-wise. for me at least visuals are the least important part. arma is a game i play for functionality.

also. arma 3 is still just a baby compared to arma 2 when it comes to mods. not a fair comparison at all.

the fact that there is a lot of rubbish doesn't negate the amazing stuff. and these amazing addons are not really outnumbered by stuff BI deliver later. i'm not trying to talk down on BI's stuff. it's up to standard. i'm just being honest about why past DLCs haven't been sold a lot. i know no one who would've got them, unless maybe some brits who got BAF. because most of the stuff was uninspired reskins.

i'd much prefer several OA's over smaller stuff. what happened to making good stuff and trusting in its quality? all this tactical marketing is kinda gross.