Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

[R0adki11 3945]

Thread Cleaned Up, can we try to stay on topic.

[silentghoust 132]

So after reading through the thread, and thinking about it I decided my opinion on the matter.I think that any paid Arma 3 DLC should be required to be Armaverse friendly, particularly relating to 2035. 
 

My logic is this.
 

Balance

Assuming that BI will continue its model of adding DLC content for all users, any assets created would have to be up to specs in the balance against current vanilla content. Rember this is content everybody will have, and will pay for to use. It's only justifiable it's somewhat balanced so it doesn't get isolated to nitch parts of the community. 
 

Consistency
Part of the awesome of the modding community is the diversity of it. We have everything from sci-fi mods, to archery. However, it's that diversity which makes some mods very specialized. Following the same argument that BI would allow all players to interact to some extent with the assets. It would be ashamed if someone, for example, made a selection of WWI rifles, and either a community embraces them in a 2035 setting, or isolates it so people can't really use them. This would also allow talented modders to ban together with a much easier scope to focus on when it comes to producing high-quality content.
 

Keeping 2035 lore friendly isn't that hard
Think about it, BI has given us dozens of factions, entities, locals, and open stories to work with. You could create a Malden defense force that uses M1A1s. You could create a farming asset pack that ties in with civilians all around the armaverse. Syndikat could use some assets, so could FIA. The AAF could have a new special forces branch. The CDF could be turned into a 2035 faction as well, using a mix of East and West assets. Really I can't see much limits.

 

[stburr91 994]

10 hours ago, silentghoust said:

So after reading through the thread, and thinking about it I decided my opinion on the matter.I think that any paid Arma 3 DLC should be required to be Armaverse friendly, particularly relating to 2035. 
 

My logic is this.
 

Balance

Assuming that BI will continue its model of adding DLC content for all users, any assets created would have to be up to specs in the balance against current vanilla content. Rember this is content everybody will have, and will pay for to use. It's only justifiable it's somewhat balanced so it doesn't get isolated to nitch parts of the community. 
 

Consistency
Part of the awesome of the modding community is the diversity of it. We have everything from sci-fi mods, to archery. However, it's that diversity which makes some mods very specialized. Following the same argument that BI would allow all players to interact to some extent with the assets. It would be ashamed if someone, for example, made a selection of WWI rifles, and either a community embraces them in a 2035 setting, or isolates it so people can't really use them. This would also allow talented modders to ban together with a much easier scope to focus on when it comes to producing high-quality content.
 

Keeping 2035 lore friendly isn't that hard
Think about it, BI has given us dozens of factions, entities, locals, and open stories to work with. You could create a Malden defense force that uses M1A1s. You could create a farming asset pack that ties in with civilians all around the armaverse. Syndikat could use some assets, so could FIA. The AAF could have a new special forces branch. The CDF could be turned into a 2035 faction as well, using a mix of East and West assets. Really I can't see much limits.

 

 

 

You assumed incorrectly. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that BI has stated that only those that purchase the DLC will have the content.

[General Kong 148]

42 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

 

 

You assumed incorrectly. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that BI has stated that only those that purchase the DLC will have the content.

Wait, BI are dropping their DLC model when it comes to Third Party DLC?

So we are going to see divided multiplayer communities now?

[stburr91 994]

9 minutes ago, General Kong said:

Wait, BI are dropping their DLC model when it comes to Third Party DLC?

So we are going to see divided multiplayer communities now?

 

 

Yes, see the post on the first page by "armored_sheep" (4th post in this thread). 

[General Kong 148]

Yeah, missed that last time I read it, aww well, guess you cant really have your cake and eat it too.....

[silentghoust 132]

Yep missed that as well, I can see it being a way not to bloat the game to big. Then again, I don't really like the idea of dividing the community, of course, these policies are probably not finalized. I honestly would have to see something like Operation Arrowhead worth of content to justify me wanting to download a DLC which isolates my ability to play servers.

[slowrider8 41]

I do like the idea of this but think the current plan is innately flawed with the (plenty mentioned) "optional installation" requirement. First off, I'll say that this would be great for singleplayer only players. However, for all of the community that plays multiplayer, it is less so.

 

Very very few public servers would consider running missions with a "third party DLC" if it resulted in the majority of their player base not being able to join at all. Even on our private server with the "official DLC", while most players own Apex, much less own the smaller DLCs. However, this is less of a problem because if we choose to play a mission with those premium assets in them, those with the DLC and use them and those without can do something else. 

 

It was mentioned that the third-party modders could release a free version of their DLC on the workshop. This has its own problems

1. Unless BI implemented some kind of condition to ensure this, it is completely reliant on the modders to release this "free" version to the workshop. And I'd imagine it's hard to find a pull for doing this outside of good will, when you ask someone if they want to release something and get money for it or release something and not get money for it, you can imagine which option is more likely.
2. This is still reliant on the player actually downloading and loading the mod from the workshop, this is fine for most players who play regularly on one server, but for someone new or who goes through many servers this might be a lot to ask. For server admins, the risk is still there that the player won't download the mod and it's likely they'd just choose not to run anything with the DLC.
3. Kinda harking back to the first part, what would a "free" version even be? Low res textures like Arma 2 days? Doesn't that kind of go against the approach that Arma 3's content licensing set out to change?

Finally, with this whole thing comes the question of how it would actually work in some situations. The one I see most possible is if a player who owns a Third party "Weapons" DLC uses the virtual arsenal in a server and equips one of the weapons. What if someone wasn't running with the DLC? We can assume that these DLCs will be signed with the official keys (if they weren't this would be a whole other problem) so it's not like the first player would be kicked for having the DLC, and in this same situation with a mod currently, the player would be seen carrying an invisible weapon. I'd assume this is something BI do not want. A solution to this would be to change how addons were checked against the server, being able to restrict use to a player that has it loaded if the mission does not have them as "required". This is likely more work than it is worth though.

 

So yeah, just some thoughts. I still wanna say I think this is a good idea overall but I just think the policies need a bit of refinement. 

[armored_sheep 56]

We have no idea how to publish 3rd party DLC without fragmenting the MP population. We are aware of the fact that if a server will use such premium DLC only players that have bought that DLC will be able to join and play there.

[lexx 1331]

I've already suggested on Reddit a while back that it probably would be a good idea to allow the download of such 3rd party DLC for free, with advertisement, similar to the current DLC handling. This way, if a server is using the addon, everyone can download it without having to pay. If any content is used by the player, though, you'll get the usual adverts. I don't think there is any other way on how to handle this if you want to prevent a community split.

[armored_sheep 56]

Most of DLC data developed by BI are downloaded by all Arma users. Except for Apex Tanoa, which is big package and was not distributed for some time. We don´t plan to distribute 3rd party DLCs to all users. Only 3rd party DLC owners should download the data like regular game DLCs published for other games on Steam.

[armored_sheep 56]

3rd party can choose to publish free content on Steam Workshop as demo if they like.

[bloodwyn1756 130]

3 minutes ago, armored_sheep said:

Except for Apex Tanoa, which is big package. We don´t plan to distribute 3rd party DLCs to all users. Only 3rd party DLC owners will download the data like regular game DLCs published on other games on Steam.

What about an optional download?

So if somebody wants to play on a Server that uses third party dlcs he can donload the free version (with adds etc.) from Steam.

This way the user could decide, if he wants to use up more disc space or he wants to do without those dlc servers...

[Wiki 1558]

At the moment, the only 3rd party DLC that would fit IMHO is missions pack or campaign.

I have no idea about what to do about mods and / or addons without splitting the community.

[kklownboy 43]

dont worry about the community.  If you want to play on a server with 3rdPrtyDLC then buy it.   I wonder just who this "splitting community" is...  the average pub player?  Server owners with empty servers....so who cares, this is an advanced game that takes effort just to play.... less spoon fed freebee types is good to split off.  Since I like this game, and until an A4 is out, I will purchase DLC, I am a grown man with income for my fav game.... spilt off the looters, and the kids.

 

3rd party or Bis its a non-issue to me.  Actually hurry already with some 3rdparty DLC so i can buy it.

 

 

 

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

34 minutes ago, kklownboy said:

 less spoon fed freebee types (who have also spent $50+ on the product) is good to split off. 

 

how is that good for Bohemia Interactive?

[HaseDesTodes 62]

5 hours ago, armored_sheep said:

We don´t plan to distribute 3rd party DLCs to all users. Only 3rd party DLC owners should download the data like regular game DLCs published for other games on Steam.

 

Why not? It worked for all premium DLCs that added assets in the past.

Depending on what content the new DLCs/Mods are bringing, it can work for some, while it can't for others. Just deciding this from the start can turn out counterproductive in the end.

Just give the options (along with guidelines) to the DLC creators, and let them decide what they want (as long as the stick to the guidelines).

You should have the means to make it work either ways. So what would be the reason not to use them?

6 hours ago, armored_sheep said:

We have no idea how to publish 3rd party DLC without fragmenting the MP population. We are aware of the fact that if a server will use such premium DLC only players that have bought that DLC will be able to join and play there.

 

Actually i don't exactly have that much of an idea when it comes to how exactly mods are handled in Arma 3, but i have a few ideas how it could work, as long as all clients get at least some data for those assets.

1. Every client gets low quality versions of the added content (low res textures and models). The mods then replace those with high quality versions (Pretty much like in Arma 2).

 

2. Just like it's done with the current DLCs: You can't pickup/use premium gear and can't get in crew positions from premuim vehicles, but you have the same quality of the models and textures.

 

I wrote the same thing in the past in this thread and i think some others made some suggestions as well.

[kklownboy 43]

DLC is DLC.... If the server is using it you need it.   AND,  if its DLC you have a better chance on a pure vanilla DLC server to have players, BECAUSE  its official and not a lot of mods to find and load...

 

Then the; "We/ I paid 50$" why can't I play on that server.... well you need to pay X$ more to have the official DLCs that the server requires...DUH.. what a completely lame argument.  Buying the base game doesn't mean all new content is free for life... that is a looter mentality.

 

Arma 3 is over soon for development... yeah some more stuff from BI is coming, but then... So more content through 3rd party DLC is much appreciated.

 

Pay the bold/risk-taking, talented Modder to have "official" content to play with.  yeah we play they work... Pub servers be damned, aren't they all Koth anyways.

 

Ill say it again  TAKE MY MONEY... where be my 3rdParty DLC, Hurry!

 

[Somoo 14]

On 11/13/2017 at 12:01 PM, Valken said:

I think the easiest way to get consideration would be to propose a multi-part package because it be done in stages with escalating content and payout, and if time or resource bound, it can be scaled back or can be split up among multiple groups yet still motivate the design group(s) to achieve something.

 

Example = A FEMALE asset and content DLC pack! 

 

Good DLC - Same price as Tac-Ops or Laws of War DLC

• Female units including correctly sized head, body, uniforms, HANDS, hairstyles, etc...
• All BIS 2035 factions uniforms including NATO, CSAT, AAF, FIA, Syndikat, Orange and CIVILIANS... with correct ethnicity.
• All BIS 2035 Gear pack including vests and helmets adjusted to fit. I think backpacks, eye wear and weapons should work already seeing the community made content. Its just the assets that actualy adhere to the body that needs reworking.
• Full audio work with correct spoken language for each faction and ethnicity
• Reworked configs to add, replace females into all default squads so it can be transparent to current and user made missions where need. EG: Fighter pilots, infantry, paramedic to orange DLC, and etc...
• Short campaign to introduce female assets into each group.
• Templates for users to create and update user made mods with females so the community can make female zombies for example without having to remake the models.

 

 

I would buy this for myself and for the female arma 3 gamers I know.  In my opinion, The Laws of War DLC, which focused on humanitarian aid, should have had women in it representing the work they do in the real world.  It brings another level of immersion to arma 3, if its suppose to reflect many sides of war  (Especially the humanitarian part).   The USA is now starting to allow women in combat roles, so if arma 3 is a reflection of the future it is a disconnect to not have them in the game, as the mission designer can choose not to include them in his or her mission.

[eriktrak 76]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:54 PM, Wiki said:

At the moment, the only 3rd party DLC that would fit IMHO is missions pack or campaign.

I have no idea about what to do about mods and / or addons without splitting the community.

Agree with you. And that would limit the possibilities of any DLC.

 

Solution could be to have free and a paid version of the same DLC. Free version have the same limitations what you have in the current DLC system. But its the customer's decision if deploying or not.

 

No complains about disk space/network usage because of the automatic deployment but  you still can decide to download if joining to a server requires.

 

Beside I am worried about there will be no platform development. All the previous official DLCs includes such. For example the Jet DLC brought the sensor suite. Marksman has the weapon resting etc. So don't know how quality DLC can built without platform update.

 

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I have a decent amount of side change in my wallet for the person bold enough to finally make a decent official Naval Mod that fits with the Armaverse 2035 feel. Not big ships, just medium vessels, like 97-150 footers. Versatile, multi-role attack platforms, even capable of ferrying Ammo crates from island to island. ;)

[gossamersolid 155]

On 12/18/2017 at 12:05 PM, kklownboy said:

DLC is DLC.... If the server is using it you need it.   AND,  if its DLC you have a better chance on a pure vanilla DLC server to have players, BECAUSE  its official and not a lot of mods to find and load...

 

Then the; "We/ I paid 50$" why can't I play on that server.... well you need to pay X$ more to have the official DLCs that the server requires...DUH.. what a completely lame argument.  Buying the base game doesn't mean all new content is free for life... that is a looter mentality.

 

Arma 3 is over soon for development... yeah some more stuff from BI is coming, but then... So more content through 3rd party DLC is much appreciated.

 

Pay the bold/risk-taking, talented Modder to have "official" content to play with.  yeah we play they work... Pub servers be damned, aren't they all Koth anyways.

 

Ill say it again  TAKE MY MONEY... where be my 3rdParty DLC, Hurry!

 

 

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make because you type like you're thinking to yourself in the shower.

 

This new third party DLC should work identical to how ArmA 3's official DLC works. Everybody gets it, everybody can use it (with some restrictions), but if you don't buy it - you'll face advertisements.

I don't see why there should be another any other way of deploying this new content. Stick to what idea already works fine.

[lexx 1331]

"Everybody gets it" is a bad approach here, because I - for example - do not want to download gigabytes of WW2 themed stuff that I will never use, and which would clutter up my 3den editor.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

1 hour ago, lexx said:

"Everybody gets it" is a bad approach here, because I - for example - do not want to download gigabytes of WW2 themed stuff that I will never use, and which would clutter up my 3den editor.

 

i guess that pretty much depends on the mod/addon.

imo, every new asset that fits into the Arma 2035 setting could be distributed to everyone, while total conversion like stuff, be opt-in mods.

 

but i guess i wrote that a couple of times before, so writing it again probably won't change anything.

 

we will just have to see how BIS will handle this, when the time comes.

[armored_sheep 56]

On 14. 2. 2018 at 4:58 PM, gossamersolid said:

This new third party DLC should work identical to how ArmA 3's official DLC works. Everybody gets it, everybody can use it (with some restrictions), but if you don't buy it - you'll face advertisements.

That is not true. The community creation DLCs will be optional. Only those who buy the content will download the data. Same as regular DLCs for other games on Steam.