Sniperwolf572

Sounds interesting! :) Soooooo...October? :D

I'm at work right now, but the last time I checked, CS:GO, CS:S, TF2, HL2: DM, DoD:S all had quite good ingame server browsers and dedicated servers.

Rockstar has a lot of experience with this sort of thing. It's been their staple genre for quite a long time. AC and FC3 can't really compare to GTA, while W_D feels like it has attempted to and fell short. Ubisoft has made an average effort with some interesting ideas and twists to the genre, and I believe if they don't just bury the Watch_Dogs IP and put more heart into the sequel, they can produce something really good. The title really feels like they needed more time with it, but someone above said "Ok, we have to get this out". You can really see it in the campaign. The story really starts slow, begins to open up, there's so many things going on, feels really great and then all of a sudden, all loose ends are tied up in a few missions. Even the "Doge_Cave" feels like an unused set-piece. Believe it or not, there's a lot of detail in the game in regards to world, the NPC's and their behavior. It's the first title where I feel like I can hit the walk key, and stroll the world forever. Amazing world with nothing to do in it except for the run of the mill collectibles. It's like having bought the entire Steam catalogue, there's so many things there and still not knowing what to do with it all. Sort of a paralysis thing. The "big details" is what they missed.

Pretty good review of Watch_Dogs.

This is not "vertical gameplay", it's too restrictive to fall under that moniker. It's a mobile ladder that's been in BF circa 2005 and making a return, otherwise you might define any other game with ladders and tall buildings as "vertical gameplay". Hell, you've had mobile ladders modded in Arma. What "vertical gameplay" describes is speedy vertical movement which leaves you able to fight back. UT/Quake/TF2 rocket jumping/bounce pads, Titanfall wallrunning/climbing/jetpacks, whatever the new CoD mechsuit tricks are. A perfect execution of it would be , which came out like 5 years ago.

Is the EBO content not available in the config viewer ingame?

Yep, got discovered and killed in an online tailing and returned to the world stripped of all the gear and the game thinking I did not complete any missions. Basically this.

Just lost my 40 hour save game after failing an initiated tailing mission. Beware. >_<

I think the main difference is that in FC3 you're always forced into the first person view while driving. Try that in Watch_Dogs, it feels very similar to FC3. I wouldn't be surprised if they borrowed the driving mechanics from FarCry as they have with many other elements from their other games. When you can see the steering wheel, it gets a bit easier to drive (I get the same effect in Arma 3). And hey, whoop, one positive thing that's in the game. Car interiors and the inside view, even tho you can't turn your head around much and the mouse acceleration makes it difficult.

You can selectively turn off any DLC you own from Steam and make the game think you haven't bought it. Open the Arma 3 properties on Steam and on the "DLC" tab you can pick which ones you want the game to think you've bought. Data is still there either way.

Yes, they're selling those things. But no, the hardest difficulty which is the only challenge in the game, removes the need for any of those guns. Grenades can't kill anything on DW, the most effective rifle for DW is Car-4 and the only rifle in the sniper rifle pack is the .50 cal which makes the Bulldozers easier. And that's only for the missions that require you to go loud. Considering almost all heists can be completed by not firing a single bullet. I still don't see why that makes their DLC tactic suck. It's not like they're selling shortcut packs like EA. You get a few guns for a few euros. You'll also get a few guns for a few euros in the Maksman pack.

Did you seriously not read the last sentence of that paragraph where I explicitly say that their game is much narrower in scope and might not be applicable? Why? They release DLC with shit guns nobody needs to buy to play the game effectively and they release heists as free updates constantly. With every single larger update, comes a massive discount where you can get the DLC for almost nothing. (You can get the game and all 7 paid DLCs right now for 20 Euros, the planned cost of the DLC Bundle) You can play Armored Transport heists even if you do not own it. All other heists are free. All the weapon packs are fluff, except for the .50 cal rifle which can make Death Wish slightly easier. The best primary and secondaries come from the base game. Hand grenades are mostly useless. And the attachment pack gives only minor advantages.

Awesome! Will the functions currently present in the game for some these things be adapted to be aliases of these commands or will they stay as they are?

Yes I'm so mad and without any valid arguments, you have me so outclassed. I concede to your epic putting-words-in-my-mouth skills. I need to reevaluate my life now and possibly visit a burn center.

Yes I agree, they are the reasons I believe it will never happen. I don't think we'll see penis enlargement pills being advertised in the game ever. :D I differ there as I wouldn't mind being heavily inconvenienced during all of the non-critical time for non-interruptions during the critical time. Example being that one of our local TV stations plays ads that cover up the entire bottom half the screen during football matches at the most critical moments, and it's incredibly annoying. Not to mention I pay to watch it as well. Don't cover up the damn match, if you must play the ad during the match, reduce the screen to a 1/4 and use other 3/4 to show the ad but don't cover it up. ---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ---------- I'm not so sure what's so strange about following multiple trains of thought, considering alternatives and throwing them out on the table, looking for problems in all solutions even my own? We both want the same thing, the only problem here is that you're glued to this idea and throwing fits over a discussion, and I'm bouncing other ideas off the wall which will either way not be happening.

Really? Because currently the way it works is that if I don't pay it, I get it anyway. If I turn off the DLC's I can still ride in the Kart, I can still use the Starting Pistol. It's like you haven't even tried the current system. The only thing outright unavailable are the scenarios. I'd fucking love it if it was outright unavailable to me, but not to people on the same server. Like, I don't know, BF3 did weapons. I don't even need to be able to pick it up. This is what Valve does, this is what EA does, this is what Blizzard does, this is what Overkill does, this is what the guys that made APB do, this is what majority of F2P titles do. I have no problems with this. I don't need to have content I haven't paid for. But if it's given to me for free, I'd rather pay for it passively. Overkill is in the same situation as BI. But damn hand grenades are DLC in their game and non paying people can use them if a paying person is on the server. Certain heists are paid DLC and non paying people can still play them if a paying person has hosted it. And they've made it work without plastering "YOU HAVEN'T PAID US FOR THIS FELLA", but admittedly, their game is much narrower in scope. No, these two mean that BAF style DLC did not impair everything on screen, while this does. There's a difference between restriction and compensation. BI didn't go with the restriction way, because I'd be restricted from using it in the first place. BI went with intrusion way, which is affecting you while you play with no immediate benefit to BI. What I'm advocating is the third option. Don't impair or restrict, but still gain money immediately even tho the user hasn't explicitly paid. It's very well explained in the post. Yes, that's why I mentioned it in my last opst. They came up with this because it hurts their image when there's a low quality asset on screen with no explanation. Agreed, but how frequent is the case that the mission is made in such a way where that helicopter is the thing you actually have to fly and you cannot proceed unless you use it? It's not like you can open up a shop CS:GO style and buy something else. You're missing the point here. What does BI want? Income. Does it matter if it comes from me or the ad provider? No. The thing I'm advocating is the trifecta that works for majority of the companies today. BI gets money. Advertiser gets exposure. Person gets content. If person wants to eliminate the advertiser, person pays directly to BI. It's like you have never used free email services, a social network, an free mobile app, watched TV or used any website on the internet. Let's look at it this way, because this is my point of view. I am BI. I own ArmA and have released a DLC for 19€. My game is in a situation where everyone must always have all the content present, otherwise my platform is not as open as I'd like and I create divides within my players. To remedy that, I will make sure everyone always has all the content present. I will earn money from players who buy the DLC. There will be people who will not pay money for the DLC but will have the content. Here, I have multiple options to deal with this: I can make sure that the non-paying players can not use the content within the game, therefore not giving content away and earning money from people who pay for it. I can make the assets unappealing to give them incentives to pay for the the DLC. I can make UI overlays to make playing with the unpaid content unappealing so they will pay for the DLC. I can make display ads during non-critical gaming to earn money anyway, even if the player has not paid. I go with the last option. Advertiser gets: exposure, gives: money Player gets: content, gives: time I get: money, give: content I just want to make it clear that I'm not against the current system, I'm merely stating an alternative and showing potential issues. And I will right here tell you why my alternative will never happen. They've already commited to the current system. And they also potentially don't want to bother themselves with partnerships with advertisers or whatnot.

Not quite correct. My position comes from the fact that BI wants us to be able to use the content we didn't pay for, me, I wouldn't have a problem even outright doing it like everyone else, no money, no content at all. My position is that if you want to provide something for free due to the issues you believe are present, you shouldn't fuck with the gameplay experience when such content is in use. I don't see the logic of covering my entire screen with crap for like 10-20 seconds just because I'm wearing the Kart DLC helmet that I can't even see from first person. But as I said, I'd gladly wait a minute long ad before my gameplay is begun. If you take a look at the monetization aspect, BI gets nothing from the current method, sure they're annoying you and you might buy the DLC if you like it enough, but showing a minute of ads before the mission itself is income even before you bought it, it's something you profit from and the user isn't fucked when playing the game itself. I have no problem with them being paid for their work, I've been supporting and throwing money at them for half of my life. And if you look above, you'll notice that I'm advocating earning money when the content is used rather than HOPING to earn money when it's used. Sure and what would you prefer, if you were in the middle of combat trying to spot chedaki, when a fullscreen overlay comes on and makes it impossible to spot a few pixels in the forest that's hard enough to spot anyway. Or if when you joined that server, you waited a minute to see an ad about, I don't know, latest BMW model or a new movie coming out, and then you weren't impaired in the game. I'm not saying they're a stopping factor, neither is what is currently in place. I'm saying is that you might as well earn something from the free players that are using your content and if that free player buys the DLC, you've earned money for him buying the DLC and all the time he spent while he was a free user. If I didn't pay for that DLC content? I would not have a problem playing with a stick figure, I didn't pay for it and I have the option of not playing it, or playing it, fully featured but it looking like a ROFLCOPTER. But you know who'd suffer? BI, because that stick figure or ROFLCOPTER would be on Reddit frontpage in a heartbeat. That's the problem BI has with the previous approach. It makes them look bad for doing a good thing. They're applied in the same situations lite content was applied to. When you are using the content. The only benefit of the current system is that if you, personally, are not using the content, you are not affected. But the downside is that the moment you are using the content, the "deterrance mechanics" are going to impact the content you also paid for. For example that ~10 second fullscreen overlay will cover Altis which you paid for and that Shift+P prompt will potentially cover UI elements in missions. Off the top of my head, it would cover the DayZ/Wasteland indicators.

You can. Right click Arma 3 on Steam, pick "View Downloadable Content" from the dropdown, untick the DLC that you want the game to think you didn't buy.

I'm not defending it, I'm purely saying it's a worse idea. I don't like either. For MP, I'd rather wait in a lobby plastered with ads, watch a fullscreen ad before a mission. For SP, same thing with ads before mission, fuck, have it force pause my missions to have me watch an ad every 30 minutes, rather than randomly cover my screen in a diamond-checkerboard pattern which will get me killed or apply arbitrary restrictions on the functionality. That's more profit from non-paying DLC users than the current inert overlays provide. They never have to buy it and you still get $$$ every time they play with the addon. Firefights in Arma did and still do sound like popcorn parties without mods, paid or unpaid, and for every person that you saw left because of that, I saw dozens play DayZ with content that looked like blurry mess. I hosted 4 of such people in a impromptu LAN gathering. Looks are irrelevant to the person playing it if he's enjoying the experience, sure, things looking better makes the quality of experience increase, but gameplay is where it's at. Visuals are important for marketing. Want examples? Look at dozens of free to play games that are out there. Hell, I'll even say Minecraft. Look at all the people who gimped their Arma 2 installs on purpose with Arma 2 Free content so they can squeeze a few frames out so they can have a smoother experience. Look at all the Watch_Dogs disappointment. Marketing graphics hype, hyped people disappointed and throwing hands up in the air, on the other hand, people who are actually playing the game are praising things like the amazingly interesting invasion-hacking game mode. If I wanted "all the goodies to be free", I wouldn't have paid for them before they were even out and I wouldn't have bought multiple copies of the game, so you might want to reexamine your logic there.

I think it's worse to reduce usability rather than visual quality. Visual quality does not impair mission flow, asset capabilities or gameplay. "Can't fly this unless you buy" vs "Yep, the helo looks like shit, but you can still do what you need it to do". I tried the Kart without purchasing it first, I was ok with the little intrusive neon bright icon on the side, I was ok with the flurry of hints, but then I got into the realm of "FULLSCREEN DIAMOND HELMET PATTERN" after a 3 laps. Yep, let's fully impair the view of the driver. If it was a rifle, it might as well came on at a time where I'm trying to spot a few pixels moving off in the distance, etc. I wonder what the further stages of harassment are. :D If I didn't own it, I'd avoid it online more than I would if it had shitty textures. Hell, people were piling on to play DayZ even tho many did not have the DLC to make their own character look high-res. I don't see the argument being "People will avoid it because it looks shit", the argument I see is "Damn, these screenshots with shitty textures are making our game look bad to the public". If the content is good, people will play it no matter how shit it looks. There are so many examples, and the best one comes from BI's own back yard. But there has to be a better way to do this than crippling functionality and introducing gameplay crippling blocks, but even if they decide to crash the game if you haven't bought it, it does no affect me. :P

Found this on reddit, further proof that the universes are in fact connected. :D

It seems like this is the EA takes on CS:GO kinda thing. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being the F2P title with paid lottery unlocks. I wouldn't give that much credit to Payday 2 in regards to adventure or sneakyness. They had a great opportunity to make some really neat mechanics, but in the end, it's either a great horde mode game or a broken stealth game with silly stealth mechanics.

Here is another thing that's affected by FPS / Time acceleration

3rd Echelon going rogue could be a Templar manipulation, but I wouldn't go as far as the entire government being Templar. :D They're just you know, people with magical artifacts that can influence the government and people. You know, like money does in real life. :D