Including DLC content into arma updates - Why?

[Boss-Starstreams 11]

I don't understand this. Why are None Free add-ons being included in the main distribution downloads for arma 3?

This goes against  the concept of using mod folders, which are to allow players and mod testers to only load content necessary (for performance and sometimes stability reasons). Take the Marksman DLC for example. what if someone didn't want that? Or go-carts for example, which I could care less about. Why is it being loaded in my game menus? I don't want it. I do actually like the guns in the Marksman DLC but if you read the comments on it. 90 percent of the comments are of upset people who feel that this kind of thing should have been in the game from the start. That's debatable.  I'm personally not against paying for updates if it helps the developers, but they should not bundle them into the main updates to be installed against the will or knowledge of the customer. This is like going into a car dealer, buying a car and then the store chaining a set of new wheels to the back of your bumper when you already have tires on your car - then you having the drive around town while dragging a set of tires down the street that you never intended on buying.

 

People are not stupid. We know these kinds of marketing tactics while happen with the introduction of steam.It is what it is. But don't think that all house who supported this this game from the start of OFP don't remember. We remember how things were.

[Greenfist 1863]

In my opinion, it's better this way, because now players without the DLC can play with people who own it. Less split playerbase.

And it's like going to a car dealer who lets you test drive a car before you buy it.

[Boss-Starstreams 11]

So if you join a server and you don't have the DLC, you can play it without a watermark?

What if someone doesn't care about joining the particular server you mention, and they also don't want that content loading on there system since it's not free, and only taking up resources  ...can it be removed manually without breaking other dependency's? If not, it's a catch 22

 

And no it's not like testing a car before you buy it, because if you don't like the car, you walk out of the dealership without the car stuck to your side.

 

I notice  your screen name in LOT Of posts around here Greenfirst, and you're always defending BIS. Who are you anyway, you work for them? Look man, I have a TON of respect for BIS and what they've done over the years, they are hands down some of the best game developers if not THE BEST IMO. Their attention to detail is astonishing. But anyone who does something great, can also do things wrong. No one is without sin.

 

This inclusion of DLCs into the main update branch is a marketing strategy. If you don't see that, you're lying to yourself brother. If I wanted to test it, why can't I just download it via steam and then remove it if I didn't like it. That's not the case here.

[haleks 8212]

What if someone doesn't care about joining the particular server you mention, and they also don't want that content loading on there system since it's not free, and only taking up resources  ...

 

Apex assets don't eat any more ressources than other content...

Having those loaded with your game does not affect it whatsoever; just avoid using or equipping Apex assets if the mission you play uses them, and you won't see any watermark. I don't see how to make it less intrusive, seriously...

[kerodan 25]

Apex assets don't eat any more ressources than other content...

Having those loaded with your game does not affect it whatsoever

 

Exactly this. Furthermore, you can try all the assets (except Tanoa of course) for free in virtual arsenal.

I really do not get what you are complaining about? Do you want that the player base is split based on DLC content?

[cosmic10r 2331]

If I'm using a marksman dlc gun or flying a heli from the helicopters dlc, it's kinda nice that other players can see them rather then seeing me wander around seemingly unarmed or flying wonder woman's invisible plane...

[lugiahua 26]

How is it a bad thing?

Do you prefer that some 40% or more servers (even those aren't based on Apex) show "you can not join this service due to lack of XYZ file from Apex"?

 

How about mods? Do you realize that majority of major mods will (if not already are) require DLC dependency?

Would you prefer being not able to use most of mods from not having  DLC?

[ProfTournesol 956]

 

I notice  your screen name in LOT Of posts around here Greenfirst, and you're always defending BIS. Who are you anyway, you work for them? .

Personal attacks aren't really appreciated here mate, if you can't stand someone disagreeing with you, you should avoid forums.

[djotacon 190]

I see this DLC dramas on STEAM over and over again.

 

There's no conspiracy theories in the digital distribution is only a cost/money relationship, is less expensive release the full content and activate only some that you buy.

 

I think some people need leave to see some "youtubers" channels and live in the real world.

[Gunter Severloh 4063]

This thread sounds like a repeat of a discussion we had in 2014 about the Helicopter DLC, oh ya here it is, 34 pages back in this section and 8 pages long too!

 https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/175051-dlc-ads/

[haleks 8212]

I suggest we let it sink in peace unless OP has something constructive to add...

[Boss-Starstreams 11]

Maybe I'm being harsh. I'm sorry.

 

But are you guys saying that adding DLC content doesn't use up resources? Maybe only when you load them? That topic has been worn out, what has changed?

If the above answer is no: then what are Mod folders for? ... (other then to keep mods organized). I was under the impression that any add-on you tack on gets loaded when the game starts - Period.

 

When things like DLC's get added to the main update branch, then everyone has to buy them when mod makers start using them, vers community dependency's which usually use the base game. I have no problem paying $11 or 15 bucks for the Marksman DLC, it's a nice add-on. But where does it end? ArmA was always a community based game, people create amazing content and sometimes get donations, but after the game is released, it's the community that carries the torch with pride and honor. I would gladly pay a reasonable price for regular game-patch update fixes if it helps the team stay active, but now adding new content that should have been in the game to begin with? This game was bare when it came out. The things that made A1, and A2 so great, was completely stripped for no reason, and now we're going to start bring back content via DLC's?

 

One of the main reasons I even play A3 is because of them great people over at CUP who had some memory and gratitude of all the individuals who put slave labor hours into assets over the last 15+ years.

There are some great improvements to A3, The talented devs at BIS always amaze me with their skill and the technology they share with us. No one can deny that they're some of the most talented game developers ever. But without the A2 content, it was too off the path of what made it great all these years. Why are we adding this stuff back? It doesn't make sense to me. Again, Sorry. I like ArmA 3 a LOT, but only because I'm able to play with the A2 content while still getting the benefits of A3.

[pettka 694]

You could possibly check the Dev Blog explaining the whole DLC strategy, it may possibly clear some questions :icon_twisted:

Long story short, we feel that allowing players from a unit to play together regardless if they all own a DLC or not is a good thing.

[almanzo 144]

Maybe I'm being harsh. I'm sorry.

 

*Snip*

I can't believe that I'm supporting BIS new DLC policy, but here goes...

This here is Sam. Sam is a happy ARMA player, but he is also a student with a limited gaming budget. Sam has a favorite server, and with the release of marksman DLC the server host wanted to introduce a sniper slot to incorporate the new weapons and models for players owning the DLC.

Since Sam automaticly has the files needed, this doesn't effect Sam at all. He can still play on his favorite server, since he has the DLC files required to see the models allready loaded into his game by default.

Now, if the DLC files wasn't distributed, what would happen if Sam joined the server and someone was playing as said sniper role? It wouldn't work. Sam would get an error message saying "this mission requires custom content to be played" or along those lines, and Sam would be automaticly kicked from the server.

 

[Mirek 166]

I don't understand this. Why are None Free add-ons being included in the main distribution downloads for arma 3?

This goes against  the concept of using mod folders, which are to allow players and mod testers to only load content necessary (for performance and sometimes stability reasons). Take the Marksman DLC for example. what if someone didn't want that? Or go-carts for example, which I could care less about. Why is it being loaded in my game menus? I don't want it. I do actually like the guns in the Marksman DLC but if you read the comments on it. 90 percent of the comments are of upset people who feel that this kind of thing should have been in the game from the start. That's debatable.  I'm personally not against paying for updates if it helps the developers, but they should not bundle them into the main updates to be installed against the will or knowledge of the customer. This is like going into a car dealer, buying a car and then the store chaining a set of new wheels to the back of your bumper when you already have tires on your car - then you having the drive around town while dragging a set of tires down the street that you never intended on buying.

 

People are not stupid. We know these kinds of marketing tactics while happen with the introduction of steam.It is what it is. But don't think that all house who supported this this game from the start of OFP don't remember. We remember how things were.

Can you share what do you smoke? it has to be some mighty stuff.

 

So according to your oppinion here alowing players who didnt play for the content to play with players who did is a bad thing?  

[PuFu 4600]

long stupid post

Please remove any mention of RHS from your signature (as you are not part of RHS to begin with) just so people do not associate your ignorance with us. Oh, and if you think the part about removing that logo came out as a request, it didn't: it is a demand. Thank you

[kremator 1065]

The OP hasn't been around too long in the Armaverse so we can cut him a 'little' slack, but that's all.  The DLC strategy that BIS has is MUCH MUCH better than any other game developer you'll find.  Just have a look at the big names and see how they shut you out of playing without a certain DLC.

 

So I'd read the link that pettka gave you for information.

[nodunit 397]

I could see where you're coming from especially in terms of hard drive space, content today can push into the gigs easily and if you are short on space it can be concerning.

That said, having the content be added automatically not only prevents graphic glitches or booting from servers because X does not have it as many has mentioned here, but it also removes an extra step necessary for the user to test content.
Think of it like this, new people had difficulty understanding how to install mods some years back, the integration with steam and workshop has admittedly softened this but even then there are still people asking "How does this work?", it also adds an extra step for the user to go out and seek said content, and if the workshop is full of content then navigating that is going to become a bit difficult.


The simple truth is that the less steps there are for customers to try new content, the better it is for everyone, it may not effect you but you can simply ignore said content, not everything is for everyone but it is important to really consider why these systems are in place and approach it from another perspective, say someone who gets frustrated easily, someone who doesn't have the time to look around, people who don't look at update blogs and thus would easily miss the new content.

[Centrifugal 9]

It's funny you mention this because BIS is actually not distributing all mod assets. In fact it appears they are only distributing content that can be monetized in game like the vehicles/weapons. But prop assets that are new with Tanoa do not get sync'd and it causes players to get kicked from Stratis servers if there is even a single Tanoa asset placed on the map. Sometimes the players can connect but the DLC assets are invisible. I had a player walk right through walls of a Pillbox on a Stratis Wasteland server because he didn't have APEX. BIS really needs to get their act together and at least be consistent. There is absolutely no warning to server owners either, you don't find out until you see people walk through walls or you notice the pattern of people without APEX getting kicked intermittently.

 

I have the opposite opinion though. I think ALL assets from all dlc content should be sync'd whether you own it or not.

 

I actually have a ticket open on this...

http://feedback.bistudio.com/T120747

[x3kj 1247]

You could possibly check the Dev Blog explaining the whole DLC strategy, it may possibly clear some questions :icon_twisted:

Long story short, we feel that allowing players from a unit to play together regardless if they all own a DLC or not is a good thing.

Apparently an extra 1 GB of files on their HDD (Marksman + Heli + Karts) is worth more than a fair DLC model and an undivided community (DLC owners vs non DLC owners)... for some people. In times where the latest on-rail-shooters have installation sizes of 60+ GB  :confused: