The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate

[roshnak 41]

MadDogx solution is really the best so far.

At this point all I want is for there to not be permanant overlays (or at least overlays that aren't as obnoxious as they are in Karts) or notifications I have to click through.

and the new system is the best way to handle DLC without simply letting everyone have everything for free, which defeats the purpose.

Uh, no, I don't think we have agreed on that at all.

How come a "Lite" method needs separate data anyway? Couldn't they just lock the LOD/texture setting for the models in the "Lite" versions to a lower setting until you bought them?

That is the way I assumed they did it from the beginning. It doesn't seem like it would be any more difficult than the checks for overlays and restrictions they have now. Although the larger problem is that the Lite model wasn't enough incentive for people to buy the DLC (I bought it, though).

Edited June 6, 2014 by roshnak

[MavericK96 0]

I don't think the Lite model before was using texture quality settings...I am pretty sure the assets themselves were low-res (regardless of settings), and when you bought the DLC it downloaded the high-res assets. I could be wrong but that's how it seemed to work to me. Mainly because I don't know of any way to artificially limit texture quality for only certain textures.

[-Coulum- 35]

At this point all I want is for there to not be permanant overlays (or at least overlays that aren't as obnoxious as they are in Karts) or notifications I have to click through.

Uh, no, I don't think we have agreed on that at all.

So what do you think should happen? Personally notifications and overlays while using something that I haven't bought is the least of my concerns. What other way is there to allow people to enjoy the game without buying the dlc, yet be clearly aware of the fact that they have not bought it (and give them motivation to buy it)?

The plan they got so far is pretty much the best option because there as been very little else thrown out there.

No, it really isn't because you wouldn't have to wait 30 seconds - like I said, the first get-in should be "free".

My suggestion was constructed around the idea that occasional or incidental use of DLC content (like the scenario you mentioned) should be possible, but frequent use of DLC content would become less and less appealing because of the increasing delay. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Interesting. I'm not sold really, but I see what you mean by having the need to be able to take over the wheel at a moments notice - ie. if are in a dlc jeep you do not own and the driver gets shot, it would be nice if you could take the wheel to get out of danger. But even then, what if that vehicle is necessary for the remainder of the game? is everyone gonna take 30 second shifts at the wheel?

Here's an idea building off of yours sorta: what if there could only be as many dlc users as there are dlc owners in the server?

So anyone can use the dlc content in the server IF a dlc owner is not currenlty using the content himself. Now when the humvee driver (and dlc owner) gets killed, the passenger (non dlc owner) can take the wheel for the rest of the game (unless dlc owner respawns and gets back in).

So basically every dlc owner can use the dlc content. If a dlc owner is not using dlc content, than some else who doesn't own the dlc can use it. If the dlc owner ever wants to use the dlc content, then non owner will be kicked out of the vehicle (in as nice a way as possible). This should alleviate "couldn't finish the mission because our dlc owners all died" problems.

Too me it still all sounds overly complex, but there seems to be a lack of suggestions here so I figure I would try to spit something out. Maybe it will give you guys ideas.

[PieFinderGaming 10]

I like the DLC approach, the Karts was a nice change .. as long as its keep relatively to a military theme it should all be gravy.

[chortles 263]

@ Coulum: It's a good suggestion, not least because this thread really, really badly needs them... instead of the poll leader (albeit not by much over "yes") being the very thing that a dev just explicitly shot down two pages ago. FPDR

[maddogx 13]

Interesting. I'm not sold really, but I see what you mean by having the need to be able to take over the wheel at a moments notice - ie. if are in a dlc jeep you do not own and the driver gets shot, it would be nice if you could take the wheel to get out of danger. But even then, what if that vehicle is necessary for the remainder of the game? is everyone gonna take 30 second shifts at the wheel?

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I wasn't saying that non-DLC owners can only use DLC vehicles for a limited time, I was saying that there would be an increasing delay before they could take the drivers/pilot seat. After that, it would be the same as if they had been placed at that position by a script or at the start of the mission, so they can drive around as long as they want.

In other words, my suggestion was simply to "soften up" the current restrictions (delayed get-in instead of permanent lock out).

[-Coulum- 35]

I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I wasn't saying that non-DLC owners can only use DLC vehicles for a limited time, I was saying that there would be an increasing delay before they could take the drivers/pilot seat. After that, it would be the same as if they had been placed at that position by a script or at the start of the mission, so they can drive around as long as they want.

In other words, my suggestion was simply to "soften up" the current restrictions (delayed get-in instead of permanent lock out).

Yes I did misunderstand. That would be good but I think would allow a bit to much freedom to make the dlc actually worth buying no? Lets say only one person in the server has the dlc. The mission has 5 dlc helis all requiring 2 men to pilot/gun them. Even though only one owns the dlc, all ten of them could get into the helis right at the start of the mission with no penalty (first time is free) and play the entire mission. Without any need to buy the dlc. Of course this is awesome for the players but I don't see it being profitable for BI. Or am I still missing something?

[faire 10]

Please correct me if I got something wrong.

In A2 players could access assets but were left to see them in lower quality, irrespective whether they really used them or not. In other words: I would connect to a server, saw some vehicles in poor quality and possibly wouldn't know why.

In the suggested system players would be still able to use non-owned assets through scripts (not a big issue, really), but if the actively used them (ie drove a tank) they would experience lower visual quality (ie overlay) pointing them right to the issue.

Now that seems to be quite a good idea. The only thing I am afraid of is how aggressive pop-ups / overlays, which would really make people angry.

[maddogx 13]

Yes I did misunderstand. That would be good but I think would allow a bit to much freedom to make the dlc actually worth buying no?

Possibly, but I guess that's for BI to decide, assuming they would even consider the idea. It's already possible for mission scripts or mods to circumvent the driving restriction entirely by using the moveInDriver scripting command anyway, as MrBurns' mod already showcases, and a BI employee has even stated that this is intentional. This may end up rendering the get-in-restriction in its current form completely useless, as I expect makers of widely played missions will just add some simple scripts to bypass it.

Perhaps a less restrictive solution would be more widely accepted.

The only thing I am afraid of is how aggressive pop-ups / overlays, which would really make people angry.

If I ever see someone raging about the overlays, my response will be "press CTRL+P to remove it." ;)

(Just like "press Alt+F4 to join" in the good old OFP pre-JIP days. :D)

trollface.jpg

Edited June 7, 2014 by MadDogX

[roshnak 41]

So what do you think should happen? Personally notifications and overlays while using something that I haven't bought is the least of my concerns. What other way is there to allow people to enjoy the game without buying the dlc, yet be clearly aware of the fact that they have not bought it (and give them motivation to buy it)?

The plan they got so far is pretty much the best option because there as been very little else thrown out there.

I've made multiple suggestions in this thread. Would you like me to repost them? I'm serious, by the way, I will actually go back through my posts and compile a list of suggestions if you would like.

instead of the poll leader (albeit not by much over "yes") being the very thing that a dev just explicitly shot down two pages ago.

Most of those votes are from before the idea was explicitly shot down within the thread. Moreover, since the Arma 2 method was never really on the table in the first place, it probably never should have been an option in the poll. Perhaps if it was removed we would get a more accurate sampling, although I doubt the results would shift too much.

If I ever see someone raging about the overlays, my response will be "press CTRL+P to remove it." ;)

(Just like "press Alt+F4 to join" in the good old OFP pre-JIP days. :D)

trollface.jpg

I understand that you are likely joking, but I still feel like I should say that this kind of prank has never really been funny and pulling it on someone who is already upset about the game, essentially rubbing their face in it, is likely to sour them on the Arma community and potentially the game itself.

Edited June 7, 2014 by roshnak

[kremator 1064]

The only thing I am afraid of is how aggressive pop-ups / overlays, which would really make people angry.

Then they buy the DLC or don't use the item/vehicle. Really simple.

People that gripe just don't want to spend cash.

[xkixkix 10]

hi, i'm new, so the question is can i play arma 3 singleplayer/editor without DLC ??? i tried editor but it kick me and said that i need DLC ???

Edited June 17, 2014 by xkixkix

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I think the new DLC system is a mess, cooked up to solve a problem that is never going to get solved. Especially not while we have the intrinsic split in the community between those who can afford to pay and those who cant. The intention of the new DLC system is to not split the player base, but it does exactly that by employing new and creative ways of nagging players to buy DLC, such as limited functionality for partially-free content, or displaying ads, or just flat out obscuring your screen with gaudy graphics.

I don't see anyway around the fact that the player base will have to split along lines of content being used on servers and the content players have access to. The only way to mitigate the problem is by enhancing the steam workshop integration to enable users to have mods downloaded and loaded automatically based on the server they join from the server browser in game. That would remove some of barriers to players joining with other players, for content from mods which are free of course, for paid for content there will be the split.

I think the old style "expansion pack" system was better. When we have the community flooded with DLC this will only add to the complexity involved between players playing together.

[Jona33 51]

hi, i'm new, so the question is can i play arma 3 singleplayer/editor without DLC ??? i tried editor but it kick me and said that i need DLC ???

You should be able to just fine, what were you doing in the editor?

[alky_lee 276]

As a mission maker, I haven't bought the DLC so I won't be using it in my missions. As far as including DLC content in missions goes, it is not much different to including mods. How many multiplayer missions have players running round in their underwear because someone is using a mod that others don't have. The big question for me is whether I want to buy the DLC or not. Although I enjoy flying helicopters, I wouldn't consider myself a pilot and don't feel that I would appreciate the finer points of the DLC other than having some different helicopters to crash. Karts or marksman DLC doesn't seem compelling to make me buy the DLC either. However I can try them out to see if I want to buy them. If I did buy them I would make some missions that used them, but not in every case. It just seems to me that they are expensive for the content you get, although I will possibly buy them eventually. I wonder if the price will drop as time goes on in some future Steam sale weekend, etc. I won't hold my breath though.

It seems that BIS wants people to be able to try them out but otherwise not be able to use them unless they've paid for them. As far as BIS is concerned, the best approach is the one that makes them the most money. This will also be best for the community as more players will have bought the DLC, but a split between haves/have nots is inevitable.

[Wiki 1558]

Hum, I don't really care as I bought the DLC bundle. However, I think it's a good system not to split the players/community.

After all, they don't have to do that, they could have done like other games : "buy DLCs or get screwed".

[bad benson 1733]

from a business persepctive the best part about the DLCs is that the core game feels (still) amazingly incomplete. it will be a big selling point for the DLCs for all the people still expecting more from this slow ass developing series. the deliberate annoyance tactics at least already worked on me. i already bought the bundle just so i don't have to think about all this shit anymore and get it over with eventhough i'm pretty short on cash and don't see me being amazed by the content. it's just this feeling of incompleteness. like always being teased for something good and never getting it. i feel stupid about buying it now...oh well ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

from a business persepctive the best part about the DLCs is that the core game feels (still) amazingly incomplete. it will be a big selling point for the DLCs for all the people still expecting more from this slow ass developing series. the deliberate annoyance tactics at least already worked on me. i already bought the bundle just so i don't have to think about all this shit anymore and get it over with eventhough i'm pretty short on cash and don't see me being amazed by the content. it's just this feeling of incompleteness. like always being teased for something good and never getting it. i feel stupid about buying it now...oh well ;)

Now that i think about it, that is kinda the reason i'd get the DLC's. First being i like new things in game, including features, improvements and content. The second and most determining factor though is spot on, because of the lack of content. Hmmm... It gives you the feeling something's missing, yet, the only way to certainly change that is to directly buy content, via. DLC.

[rfc 10]

TBH, Arma3, or the Arma series in general, does not feel in any way it would lack content to me. I think I've barely touched 30% of all the possibilities yet ...

[R4IDER 10]

I find it extremely annoying that BI continue to waste time on things such as Karts and the football thing, even Zeus. At the time when Zeus came out there were some massive issues with performance and there still is. Now they're working on Markman DLC, we don't need this because we have a community of modders who are constantly releasing content. We shouldn't even have something called Markman DLC as this should be part of game by default. A good DLC pack adds new factions such as the BAF for ARMA 2.

The only DLC pack that I am interested in is the Helicopters DLC, again this shouldn't be DLC. It should be part of the game by default. I am hoping that the Helicopters DLC fixes the flight model because currently it is terrible!

We still don't have any large fixed wing aircraft and there are no shotguns.

For the expansion I wouldn't mind the cold war era being added to ARMA 3 along with a new island that isn't a desert. I expect however the most likely thing we will see in the expansion is space ships or something that we would see in a sci-fi movie. I currently don't have much faith in BI as they continue to work on things that are essentially April fools jokes.

[Greenfist 1863]

I find it extremely annoying that BI continue to waste time on things such as Karts and the football thing, even Zeus.

I know you're just trolling but in case someone takes you seriously: No, there's no football thing and Karts hasn't been touched since release.

[13islucky 10]

I find it extremely annoying that BI continue to waste time on things such as Karts and the football thing, even Zeus. At the time when Zeus came out there were some massive issues with performance and there still is. Now they're working on Markman DLC, we don't need this because we have a community of modders who are constantly releasing content. We shouldn't even have something called Markman DLC as this should be part of game by default. A good DLC pack adds new factions such as the BAF for ARMA 2.

The only DLC pack that I am interested in is the Helicopters DLC, again this shouldn't be DLC. It should be part of the game by default. I am hoping that the Helicopters DLC fixes the flight model because currently it is terrible!

We still don't have any large fixed wing aircraft and there are no shotguns.

For the expansion I wouldn't mind the cold war era being added to ARMA 3 along with a new island that isn't a desert. I expect however the most likely thing we will see in the expansion is space ships or something that we would see in a sci-fi movie. I currently don't have much faith in BI as they continue to work on things that are essentially April fools jokes.

You know, you do have a partially misinformed opinion, if I may say.

The lovely Futeboll picture on their twitter was just that. A picture. Not like they spent hundreds of man-hours setting up a football DLC or anything. Most likely done in Splendid cam.

Karts was, again, not a big effort by the company "to appease the casuals" as some people seem to think it is. Just a model someone did in their free time. I never felt right criticizing someone for something they did in their free time, not sure how other people feel.

At the time when Zeus came out there were some massive issues with performance and there still is.

Not like Zeus and optimisation really go hand in hand or anything, if I may say. Granted, Zeus does need quite some polishing, but your distress to such a feature citing "performance" reasons seems somewhat unreasonable.

As for the DLC, I do find myself quite irritated by your stance on the matter. I'm confused as to why having the features (I understand to some extent when it comes to content) post-release is inherently worse that not having them at all because they came after release.

I do believe that Expansions will not feature space ships, let us not forget the massive firestorm that came with the Railgun tank (I was quite looking forward to that one, honestly).

If I may ask, when you say

a new island that isn't a desert

, are you implying that Altis and Stratis are similar to deserts? I would be quite insulted by that if I were the map designer, due to fact that they are fairly varied in my honest opinion.

Heh, I just realized I wrote that whole thing like an English professor speaks, but it's too late now! No way in hell I'm rewriting all of that!

[vegeta897 13]

I find it extremely annoying that BI continue to waste time on things such as Karts and the football thing, even Zeus. At the time when Zeus came out there were some massive issues with performance and there still is.

What are they continuing to "waste their time" on? What time has been wasted? This first sentence in your post paints a clear picture of what type of person you are. Uninformed and angry. Whether you refuse to read what BIS has said or simply choose to ignore it, people like you need to stop wasting everyone's time with complaints that are based entirely on ignorance. I do not understand how you can think you know everything that BIS is doing and how each of their decisions are reached. It's one thing to be unsatisfied with the state of the game. You are completely entitled to that. But you are making attacks here that are based on ignorance. It's like you just make up your own version of events and then use that as a platform to rant. This is not only insulting, but it's completely unconstructive. It's actually destructive. This thread is for constructive feedback.

Karts DLC was not something they wasted time on. The model was created by someone in their free, non-working hours. The community demanded they be released, and BIS saw a great opportunity to test-drive their new DLC model with them. Whether you like or dislike the new DLC model, it's better that they premier it with inconsequential content like karts than their first serious DLC. Zeus was also created by only a few people, and it has proven to be a very awesome new game mode enjoyed by many. It's creation had zero effect on their on-going progress in optimization. BIS explained all of this. As for the football thing, it's a single screenshot. One person probably spent an hour or less creating it. I'm honestly curious what you think went into creating it, and why it's such an outrageous waste of time. Not only that, but what makes you so confident that this misconception of yours is reality? And you're so confident in it that you're actually ranting about it as if it were truth? Take a step back and consider these things. If you're going to make complaints, you should understand fully what you're complaining about. If you can't get the full story, you should ask first instead of flying off the handle. This is like, basic human decency and respect.

Edit: If this was a troll post, you got me good.

Edited June 18, 2014 by vegeta897

[R4IDER 10]

The point I am making is that the DLC packs we have coming out are like those you would expect from a call of duty game. Marksman DLC for example, I don't claim to know what is in this pack but my guess is that its going to be a few sniper rifles and maybe a scenario to showcase them. To me a few weapons added to the game offers very little when we have mod packs which add real world sniper rifles rather than futuristic made up ones. Looking at the DLC offered in ARMA2 we had Army of the Czech Republic and British Armed Forces. This is two brand new factions with all the real world vehicles and guns.

With ARMA 3 the amount of content available in each DLC pack is small in comparison to that of ARMA 2. Its like the BAF pack with just the helicopter, no units, no weapons and no vehicles.

I enjoy playing ARMA because it offers game play that is completely different to every other game out there, its the only game which isn't just another FPS clone. Please don't view me as a troll or someone who just hates ARMA. I have been playing ARMA for a while now and my frustration is based entirely on how BI have handled A3. Remember its only been two months that the game has had a relatively smooth multiplayer experience. Prior to that client FPS would sometimes be going below 20.

I find it very annoying that we're seeing DLC packs with Karts for example when I see that we still don't have any large fixed wing aircraft and there are still bugs in the game that have been in the game since the alpha such as the SLI PIP flicker bug.

In terms of the maps, I've had plenty of debates with friends about this and I have defended Altis but I see the point my friends were making now that out of all of the maps we play Altis is actually one of the most boring maps we have. Its not as bad as Takistan which is what I was referring to with my "not another desert map" comment. But we were promised that all of the buildings would be enter-able and that isn't true. There are basically no forests in the map and no in-land water which while I can understand they wanted to replicate a real world island in terms of game play, the real world is boring and it doesn't work for interesting mission design. The beaches look completely stupid with the umbrellas setup everywhere. Altis doesn't look like a war torn island but instead it looks like a holiday camp.

So tell me am I wrong to be annoyed at the DLC plans for ARMA 3 or should I just be happy with receiving the small amount of content in comparison to that of ARMA 2's. I am not actually looking forward to any of them and I only view the helicopters DLC as a fix for a flight model which is constantly being criticized by our pilots.

My clan currently is split between ARMA2 and ARMA3, when ARMA3 first came out we switched to it and we all uninstalled ARMA2. One month later we ended up switching back to ARMA2 and no one even looked at ARMA3 for six months. I think it was when Altis came out that we started playing it again but we soon realized that the game was in a far from playable state. A few weeks later I managed to convince a few people that we could do a rotation between both games. This rotation continues to this day and every-time a discussion starts about switching to ARMA3 full time its always the same thing. ARMA3 isn't ready yet, being someone who wants to end this rotation and just stick with ARMA3 I find it incredibly annoying when I receive messages from people who are wanting to stick with ARMA2 and its simply a message saying "its hard to take ARMA 3 seriously when they're making karts DLC". What can I say to that? nothing, because they're right.

BI is the only dev I know of that actually updates a version of their game daily and I admire them for that but in terms of their DLC content plans I don't agree with them at all. I want factions with all the bells and whistles not a couple karts and sniper rifles like something we would find in a call of duty game.

[bad benson 1733]

As for the DLC, I do find myself quite irritated by your stance on the matter. I'm confused as to why having the features (I understand to some extent when it comes to content) post-release is inherently worse that not having them at all because they came after release.

i think what he is trying to say is kinda what i said before. it feels weird to pay for stuff that seems like parts that complete the game instead of adding to a final product it and expanding it. it slowly starts to feel like with any other company that only releases parts of their game so there's stuff left to sell later. standard practice these days.

With ARMA 3 the amount of content available in each DLC pack is small in comparison to that of ARMA 2. Its like the BAF pack with just the helicopter, no units, no weapons and no vehicles.

that's because they are two different things. stuff like BAF will still be released for arma 3 later on as far as i understand and will include terrains (only one confirmed so far though). the misunderstanding here is that what they called DLC in arma 2 they call now expansion and in addition there are DLCs that are smaller paid modules. just semantics..