The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[mech 3]

After you guys gave us the present Karts as DLC, the disadvantages clearly show:

It's forced on us and bugs the game and any existing content.

Delivered as addon one could decide to use it or to avoid it but as DLC it suddenly "is" and it's here to stay I guess. No hardcoded deactivation possible.

Such a thing is called "a bug" and not DLC. Please rename it. Thx.

[chortles 263]

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

Shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't... but they do, right down to a Stream Friendly UI option. Probable cause would be that one social media survey during/after the alpha where, in response to the survey question of what source of media/advertising was the main/deciding factor in the survey-taker choosing to buy Arma 3, the top answer was essentially streamers/vloggers.

[heruon 1]

After you guys gave us the present Karts as DLC, the disadvantages clearly show:

It's forced on us and bugs the game and any existing content.

Delivered as addon one could decide to use it or to avoid it but as DLC it suddenly "is" and it's here to stay I guess. No hardcoded deactivation possible.

Such a thing is called "a bug" and not DLC. Please rename it. Thx.

Wait, how exactly does "it bug the game and any existing content"? I just tried the MX and it works just like it did before the karts DLC..

The DLC is intentional, hence not a bug.

Alot of complaints are about the DLC being forced on us. Would it perhaps feel better if we had to actively select and download the DLC's, for free, and if BI were to be to be very clear about the fact that it's only a "try before you buy" version? And that it's clearly stated before you download the DLC. In the server browser users without the DLC, trying to enter a DLC server would be prompted with a message to download the "free version" DLC to enter the server.

But the problem with troubled mission makers persists..

[ayjay 117]

Alot of complaints are about the DLC being forced on us. Would it perhaps feel better if we had to actively select and download the DLC's, for free, and if BI were to be to be very clear about the fact that it's only a "try before you buy" version? And that it's clearly stated before you download the DLC. In the server browser users without the DLC, trying to enter a DLC server would be prompted with a message to download the "free version" DLC to enter the server.

But the problem with troubled mission makers persists..

This is the way they should go then no one would have any cause for complaint.

[roshnak 41]

Shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't... but they do, right down to a Stream Friendly UI option. Probable cause would be that one social media survey during/after the alpha where, in response to the survey question of what source of media/advertising was the main/deciding factor in the survey-taker choosing to buy Arma 3, the top answer was essentially streamers/vloggers.

This attitude could be applied to everything that's wrong with anything, ever, though. "Maybe they shouldn't do it like this, but they do," isn't a great defense against a bad idea. Lots of games have a stream friendly UI option, very few games (probably none) try to market DLC to people watching streams by forcing everyone who plays their game to deal with annoying popups and overlays. Such a small portion of players stream gameplay, and such an even smaller portion of those that do have any meaningful viewership, that it doesn't make sense to design your whole DLC distribution system around streaming. It's inconveniencing the vast majority of the playerbase for the sake of capitalizing on a few popular streamers.

If streams really are one of the reasons that BIS decided to use this strategy, and I'm not convinced that they are, then it's possibly one of the worst reasons for doing so.

Alot of complaints are about the DLC being forced on us. Would it perhaps feel better if we had to actively select and download the DLC's, for free, and if BI were to be to be very clear about the fact that it's only a "try before you buy" version? And that it's clearly stated before you download the DLC. In the server browser users without the DLC, trying to enter a DLC server would be prompted with a message to download the "free version" DLC to enter the server.

But the problem with troubled mission makers persists..

This idea sounds promising as well. There have been a number of decent suggestions in this thread, most of which are just minor tweaks to the current system.

Edited June 1, 2014 by roshnak

[Nicholas 5]

I would suggest to do something similar to the last ArmA games, using "lite" versions. Only, use the notifications from the new DLC system to let players know that they are using "Lite" versions of DLC.

[pharoah 65]

A bit late to the conversation but my $0.02 worth is that I'm all for it. The KEY point here is you're not alienating a portion of your player base like what happened with OA, etc ie. if you didn't have the DLC you couldn't play. Atleast this way (from my understanding), everyone still plays in the same environment, but you just won't have access to the DLC stuff eg. I will definitely be purchasing the Helicopter DLC as I love flying choppers but won't be buying the sniper DLC.

Would be interesting when they push out a new map.

[DaViSFiT 21]

Pharoah: every player who dont buy the sniper DLC and accidently pick up s.t. from this dlc will get a little fullscreen completly blocking message: "BUY THIS, ONLY TODAY FOR 99cent, WOW!!!

yes this helps for game immersion. great system, couldnt made better..

[galzohar 30]

This is even worse than the ArmA 2 DLC system, for obvious reasons. ArmA 2 forced us to play with ugly stuff if the server administrator decided to use the DLC in a mission. Now we won't even be able to play the mission as designed, though we might only find out about it after spending an hour playing it.

I didn't use any paid DLC content in any of my ArmA 2 missions because of how horrible the DLC system was (and wasn't missing much as the DLC was pretty much purely cosmetic anyway - Just more soldiers and weapons that serve the same purpose), but if some friends wanted to play a mission using them I wouldn't automatically shoot down the idea. Now there's no chance I'd even get on a server using DLCs.

The real solution is to make it so it's enough 1 player on the server (or X% of the players on the server) to own the DLC in order to start the mission. There are quirks here that need to be worked out, but nothing that cannot be solved. That way if you want to be sure to always be able to play missions that use the DLC, you buy it. If you don't care about the DLC you don't buy it, but can still use it when playing with people who do care about it. This might seem like it would end up selling less, but might actually sell more as people woudln't be infuriated against the concept, and will know that if they buy it they can play it regardless of whether other people buy it or not.

Currently, almost as bad as it was in ArmA 2, if you buy a DLC you still can't play it because your friends won't buy it anyway and won't want to play missions using it.

In any case, it should either be a play the mission as designed or not play at all. In-game popups are just stupid and should be left for April's fools jokes, and even then it might be more sad than funny.

A full blown expansion would be much more acceptable, but not before they fix the major issues. People are reluctant to buy an expansion with just more shiny stuff where the main reason they aren't playing is left untouched. Sure, each have their own reasons, but at least they should focus on handling the most significant ones. After that, and after they have played the game for 2-3 years, maybe they will be more willing to pay for a major expansion, preferably one that adds onto the main game rather than a stand-alone, and can be purchased in a cost-effective bundle along with the original game for those who don't already own the original.

[-Coulum- 35]

Am I underestimating how many missions will be unplayable due to dlc requirements? I mean lets take the heliopters dlc for example. A 32 player coop includes three transport dlc helicopters. That means that as long as three people, who are willing to be pilots, play, the other 29 don't need the dlc at all. BI said that non dlc owners could still be transported in dlc content. And odds are people who enjoy piloting are likely to have bought the dlc.

Are you guys telling me that all 32 people need to own that dlc or this mission is unplayable. That sounds overly dramatic to me.

The real solution is to make it so it's enough 1 player on the server (or X% of the players on the server) to own the DLC in order to start the mission.

An interesting idea. But as I kind of mention above, it already works that way to a extent. Basically the number of dlc players needed to properly play a mission depend on how dlc heavy that mission is. If there is lots of dlc content you need lots of dlc players. If the mission only has a bit of dlc content you don't need nearly as many. But yes I agree that it would definitely be good if the game could tell you if you have enough dlc players before you get an hour into the mission and find out your fucked because of lack of dlc. making it so meeting a certain percentage of dlc users lets everyone use dlc stuff... I'm not sure. I pay bis back as well as it should.

every player who dont buy the sniper DLC and accidently pick up s.t. from this dlc will get a little fullscreen completly blocking message: "BUY THIS, ONLY TODAY FOR 99cent, WOW!!!

yes this helps for game immersion. great system, couldnt made better..

I have three solutions for you. Don't try using dlc stuff you don't own. buy the dlc. Or don't go on servers that use dlc you do not own. No immersion breaking messages. Or do you have another solution that doesn't include BIS giving away free stuff?

how about this? make DLCs worth getting

Amen. If you make it so people want to buy it, the community will not be split and nobody will feel they are being forced to buy something just to continue playing a game they already payed for.

[galzohar 30]

See, you would need 3 people who are willing to be pilots and own the DLC to be available in order for this very simple mission to be playable. Good luck with that. So the people who bought the DLC because they want to get support from such helicopters will practically almost never be able to, and have wasted their money.

Sure we all have the simple solution of not cooperating with anyone who wishes to play with the DLC. Which to some extent was working in ArmA 2, but luckily when it wasn't working at least we could play with the low quality stuff instead of skipping that mission/gaming night. Now even that will not be possible, and we'll have to completely boycott any DLC server/mission. I don't think that's a very good way to sell DLC.

Small DLC packages just don't work in a multiplayer game that relies on a tight community. Maybe in games where people play with other random people regularly and there are enough players and servers to join one that suits the DLC you paid for, but not in ArmA.

If people solve the DLC problems by not playing on servers with DLC, why would anyone buy DLC anyway? Being much more forgiving for players who don't have the DLC, or just going with a completely different profit model, is the only way they will ever sell anything to a community, especially one that is already disappointed with a lot of aspects.

[Tonci87 163]

The Problem is that you can´t guarantee the mission maker that there will always be three people present who own the DLC and want to fly. It´s just too big a risk for mission makers who build their missions with replayability in mind.

And the fun really starts when some group downloads a mission pack only to see that the extraction chopper they find is from the DLC and nobody can get into it. That will happen to someone sooner or later.

[Greenfist 1859]

The mission maker could always check if the player/pilot has the DLC and replace DLC object with a free object if necessary.

[rok 0]

I don't mind the new system as long as it's always clear if a mission uses some DLC.

Is DLC requirement visible in MP lobby? How about in SP mission selection screen? Or in steam mission download page?

[Maio 293]

I don't mind the new system as long as it's always clear if a mission uses some DLC.

Is DLC requirement visible in MP lobby? How about in SP mission selection screen? Or in steam mission download page?

The server shows what addons (official ones included) are present on the server. At this point there is no way to see what assets the mission uses. BI would have to modify the MP UI.

The mission author can always specify that the mission is using assets from DLC X, Y or Z. Of course, if he/she is a nice enough person, he/she can make sure that mission critical assets are of a non DLC nature.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Maio

[maddogx 12]

Though it would appear that certain dynamic vehicle spawn scripts are now spawning karts as well, since they are classified as normal civilian vehicles. Awkward. ;)

The same will probably be true with "dynamic weapon crate" type scripts.

With that in mind, I don't think it's easily possible to automatically determine (with 100% certainty) whether a mission contains/uses DLC content, since it may be spawned in dynamically.

[Maio 293]

Though it would appear that certain dynamic vehicle spawn scripts are now spawning karts as well, since they are classified as normal civilian vehicles. Awkward. ;)

The same will probably be true with "dynamic weapon crate" type scripts.

With that in mind, I don't think it's easily possible to automatically determine (with 100% certainty) whether a mission contains/uses DLC content, since it may be spawned in dynamically.

Maybe classify DLC content in a different manner so that the engine recognizes them and the above situation can be avoided.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Maybe classify DLC content in a different manner so that the engine recognizes them and the above situation can be avoided.

Yup, a config entry (such as IsDlc=1) would be enough.

[Greenfist 1859]

Yup, a config entry (such as IsDlc=1) would be enough.

I'm quite sure that's what they'll do. Maybe RequiredDLC = 0 (none), 1 (Karts), 2 (Heli), 3 (Marksmen) etc.

There isn't any way currently to detect required dlc dynamically?

[bad benson 1732]

it might be possible to check all present vehicles and see if it has the right/wrong CfgPatches. not 100% sure how exactly it would work but worth a try. you sure can check if a certain addon is activated. i'm just not sure if you can make the connection between CfgPatches and what's coming after it since i think everything gets compiled into a huge heap on game start. might be wrong though.

about the topic. i really think that making DLCs bigger and almost like little sequels is the best way to make people buy them. so far i only see things that are more like most wanted features delivered after the full game. take on flight model and implication of bipods/resting or at least fixed shooting mechanics. the only thing that is missing now is the announcement of a medical DLC. but i guess that will be taken care of by a MANW entry since there'S a special price for medical related entries ;)

Edited June 2, 2014 by Bad Benson

[rfc 10]

Voted "No".

But don't have a better solution, either.

All I can say is: I like the GTA V model (or, GTA IV, for the matter). All future updates are just that: updates to the game. Everyone receives them. The diversity the game/developers continuously bring out is the incentive for more people to buy it. More buyers, more players, better MP. DLC does not necessarily increase the player base but drains existing customer. It's almost like few existing players buy DLCs vs. many players buy game newly. Of course, if that would simply work so easy we'd have a solution already ...

Edited June 2, 2014 by rfc

[Tonci87 163]

So the latest Sitrep has been released and the current issue is also mentioned

http://dev.arma3.com/sitrep-00059

We have been collecting your feedback on many channels, and are taking it all on-board as we evaluate the approach. We still have a slew of aspects in the works that will e.g. enhance the 'sense of purchase', rather than 'just removing notifications'. We don't believe in making rash decisions right after announcing and releasing this first version with Arma 3 Karts, so we'd like to take some time to iterate.

I interpret this as PR talk for "We will do something so that the 'sense of purchase' is enhanced, but we won´t change anything about how the whole thing works". This is further enhanced by this

We keep making a point of "features are free, content is paid".

And all that while clrealy the majority of community members is against the new system.

So what can enhanced 'sense of purchase' mean? Steam achievements? Forum badges? A flashy screen that congratulates you for spending cash?

Please BIS, don´t try to think with your wallet, nothing good happens when Developers start to do that too much....

[Greenfist 1859]

And all that while clrealy the majority of community members is against the new system.

So what can enhanced 'sense of purchase' mean? Steam achievements? Forum badges? A flashy screen that congratulates you for spending cash?

Please BIS, don´t try to think with your wallet, nothing good happens when Developers start to do that too much....

The "clear majority"? You mean the poll in this thread? That's quite a conclusion. I believe most of the people who come to read this thread and vote already have a problem with the new system, mostly because they realize they'll finally have to pay for new stuff. And some people probably still think the new system will constantly shove ads in their faces even if they don't use the dlc things. While content people don't even bother to come. I honestly think they're the silent majority. It's the same thing everywhere in life; the opposition is always the loudest.

Maybe this poll should be conducted again after a few weeks when everyone has calmed down and actually educated themselves about it.

I voted yes, because the new system is actually quite genius, in my opinion.

[katipo66 94]

I don't see no land slide majority anywhere? Maybe you could inform the Devs on how they can compete in this very competitive market without thinking with there wallets? Maybe there's like an organic holistic approach with lots of weed and free love :D

I finally got a chance to see what all the drama was about on my friends system who had not yet brought the dlc yet, and tbh!?... Anyway him not being an Arma nut like me was impressed Arma could even cater for a Kart dlc and praised the system for its amazing versatility.

[onlyrazor 11]

I love a good controversy. Cynical doomsayers everywhere and fallacies by the pound. I'm not denying the existence of a problem here, but some people need to

. I doubt BIS is suddenly going to rebrand themselves as the next EA just because they're trying out a new DLC system.