So how soon before the first DLC? And what effect will they have?

[kichilron 8550]

 

 

 

There really is no reason for that, especially not in that way. Feel free to critisize all you want, but in a nice manner.

[Bruce of Wayne 81]

Its almost like they're a company or something...

There is a fine line between making money and milking your customers like worthless cows. They have made a lot of money off of this project, but now they need to give us what we payed for, if they are a good company.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

Any DLC will be most likely handled in a similar way to Arma,

 

When content is released EVERYONE gets it and EVERYONE can use it.

 

The difference is lower res textures and sounds etc for those who dont wish to pay.

 

In actual gameplay terms it doesnt really alter much.

 

I think DLCs are a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way off and are not worth worrying about at the moment.

 

Modding is what fractures the community to a degree not DLCs.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[dazmitchel89l@hotmail.co.uk 0]

The cash cow for BI after full release will be the servers. If they were to run the servers themselves, with the amount of money pay to have a private one, they could have a very nice stream of income.

 

If there was to be any DLC, it will be in the form of maps. Though given the amount of work thats going into the current one, i doubt we will get any extra maps

[pycco 38]

i'm ok with DLC as long as its after release by awhile not day 1

 

better dlc than pay to win

Edited June 1, 2014 by pycco

[UltimateGentleman 355]

What you have described there would be specific server setup not DLC. When I mention DLC, and certainly in the context of this thread, it's content you pay for that is only available for your use. The ability to own a specific weapon that only you and others who have bought that DLC can use for example.

 

Not really they're not adding player zombies so it would be something specific to a DLC and I was giving basic ideas there'd be more to it than that like different buildings and things.

 

I don't see what would be so bad about adding some fun arcade kind of DLC modes the game is pretty dry, it's good for tactical shootouts and stuff but once you've done that so many times it just gets really dull especially when you've walked round the whole map a million times so there's nothing new to experience.

 

DLC isn't just things like weapons it's anything you can buy that adds content to a game, a game mode or different map is content so it's still DLC.

 

 

It would be great if they added some fun modes I don't see how that would make the game terrible if you don't want to play any modes like that...don't, it's quite simple the base game would always be there.

 

I don't see why they should limit DLC to being vanity items that doesn't really add anything to the experience like wow I've played the game 4000 hours but now I can buy a top hat that makes the game interesting again...not really.

Plus if they go for DLC items then it could just become some crappy Pay To Win game.

[rickyriot 1009]

Any DLC will be most likely handled in a similar way to Arma,

 

When content is released EVERYONE gets it and EVERYONE can use it.

So what is your opinion of the Arma3 DLC Bundle? http://store.steampowered.com/app/304400/

If DLC is handled in the same way then it doesn't look like it will be released to everyone or that everyone necessarily gets to use it.

 

I have no problem with DLC, as I said previously, but I do worry about it creating a tiered environment of the haves and don't haves based on money. Even the idea of high resolution textures would subtly alter the balance with those with the textures being able to make out enemies and loot better.

 

I have worked in the IT industry longer than I care to mention (long before the Internet as we know it even existed) and if there is one thing I can guarantee it's that companies no matter who they are look to get the best value out of their products. Offering DLC is a prime example of that in the modern gaming era, that and mico transactions. When you have decisions at board room level trumping any made by developers I just can't believe that it won't be the option taken. Especially as the precedent has been provided with Arma 3.

I don't want to come across as a hater, or a doom and gloom merchant, far from it. I am a flag waver for DayZ and the Alpha development. I don't think I have complained ever about the progress of the game other than perhaps the recent Session Lost issues with the current experimental and even then it was more a lament than a complaint. So please don't think I am trying to make BI out to be the bad guys, they are not. but I do worry about just how finely balanced the game will become if the decision to include purchasable DLC is made. Unfortunately I believe that decision will be made and I do think it will create a "class" system with the community.

[rickyriot 1009]

--

 

I won't copy and paste your whole comment, but I do want to point out that I am not debating over what is and isn't DLC (and if we wish to be specific we could simply say any content that is downloaded is DLC) but the thread is about DLCs that are purchasable; as in you pay for them, and upon purchasing provides you with an advantage over a "vanilla" player. 

I have absolutely no problems what so ever with different game modes, but the difference with those is that everyone on the server would be at the same level. You wouldn't for instance have a server mixed with (for example) standard survival mode and battle royale.

The same applies for maps. If a purchasable DLC for a map was available that would be fine as all players on the server running that map would need to pay in order to get that map and thus play on that server. OK, it does separate it from those who have the money to pay for the map and those who don't but every would be on the same level.

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

I think they should release the "survivalist's DLC" that gives you a different starting loadout which is more what you would expect from someone more prepared, compass, survival knife, energy bars, a poncho, ...

 

And yes it would provide an advantage, but to be honest, the goal of a non cosmetic DLC is really to be a paid update that everyone will have to get, so i have no problems with this type.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Lady Kyrah

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

All the DLC content will be fully available to everyone in the Arma3 Bundle unless there has been a major shift in policy that im unaware of.

 

As to DLC's, Im not fussed. I was buying them for OFP and ill continue to for Arma and DAYZ if they happen.

 

I didnt originally buy the Czech Army DLC for Arma2 and not owning it had zero impact on my gameplay and I would not have bought the Karts DLC (fortunately a lovely forum member gifted it to me).

 

However I dislike DLC's which split the community or enable pay to win.

 

Bohemia, AFAIK dont ever plan to do that way, and id be surprised if they did.

 

IMHO "These arnt the droids you are looking for, Move along"

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[rickyriot 1009]

I think they should release the "survivalist's DLC" that gives you a different starting loadout which is more what you would expect from someone more prepared, compass, survival knife, energy bars, a poncho, ...

 

The question I would have is would you pay for that?

 

If you would then you are immediately separating vanilla players to those who have the extra cash in order to get a better start. When you spawn as a vanilla you are defaulted to a character than needs to eat and is not at full water/food/health, that would not be the case for everyone using your DLC suggestion.

 

I would like to point out I don't mind the idea of different spawn types but they need to be consistent across the server rather than at an individual basis. OK, a little randomisation is not a bad thing. Some people might start with a can of cola, some might start with a bandage but on those sorts of cases it should be a random thing. If you were, for example, to start with a pistol and 8 rounds then everyone should start with that and not just those who have enough money to buy that privilege. 

[rickyriot 1009]

All the DLC content will be fully available to everyone in the Arma3 Bundle unless there has been a major shift in policy that im unaware of.

 

That is simply not the case. Did you look at the link I provided? You pay for that DLC, it is not offered to all for nothing.

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

Hello there

 

All the DLC content will be fully available to everyone in the Arma3 Bundle unless there has been a major shift in policy that im unaware of.

 

As to DLC's, Im not fussed. I was buying them for OFP and ill continue to for Arma and DAYZ if they happen.

 

I didnt originally buy the Czech Army DLC for Arma2 and not owning it had zero impact on my gameplay and I would not have bought the Karts DLC (fortunately a lovely forum member gifted it to me).

 

However I dislike DLC's which split the community or enable pay to win.

 

Bohemia, AFAIK dont ever plan to do that way, and id be surprised if they did.

 

IMHO "These arnt the droids you are looking for, Move along"

 

Rgds

 

LoK

Fair enough Orlok, i'm just citing an example similar to another game i played where paying users basically had this kind of reward over free users, i mean it's not like you're getting a gun that let you better shoot others, it just increase your own survival chances, so i'm not sure where the harm would be.

[OrLoK 16182]

That is simply not the case. Did you look at the link I provided? You pay for that DLC, it is not offered to all for nothing.

Hello there

 

Did you not read my earlier post?

 

All playesr will get the same content albeit at a lower resolution. Unless I have missed something? And I do make mistakes.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[rickyriot 1009]

Did you not read my earlier post?

 

All playesr will get the same content albeit at a lower resolution. Unless I have missed something? And I do make mistakes.

 

We seem to be at cross purposes here. I already answered the issue regarding lower textures and the advantages that would give a user with those enabled. However you quoted my reply regarding the Arma3 DLC which you said..

 

All the DLC content will be fully available to everyone in the Arma3 Bundle unless there has been a major shift in policy that im unaware of.

 

And that is not the case. You need to pay to get the Arma 3 DLC Bundle, my link shows you this, it is not free for all users. You did however go on to say...

 

However I dislike DLC's which split the community or enable pay to win.

 

Which is the crux of matter here and what I had hoped the thread would reflect.

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

You need to pay to get the bundle yes.

 

But if you do not pay you still get the content at a lower resolution.

 

As to releasing DLCs with extra content I have no issues with that as Ive stated previously. Bohemia have done it since OFP and probably wont change in the future.

 

What BI is concentrating on is making the release of DLC's as painless as possible.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[rickyriot 1009]

You need to pay to get the bundle yes.

 

But if you do not pay you still get the content at a lower resolution.

 

Which, and forgive me if I am going over the same ground here, is the very essence of creating a two tier system - if that was applied to DayZ as it is with Arma. 

Greater textures provides better detection of the terrain and players, thus you end up having an advantage if you pay for the DLC.

 

Now I suppose, to abstract this argument further, you could postulate that those with lower quality PCs have to run the game at lower resolutions thus already providing a "multi tiered" hierarchy based on financial ability - if you can afford a better gfx card you can play at higher resolution - so in that sense a high/low texture DLC isn't quite the same as a DLC providing unique content. Not that I would wish to be seen to be arguing against my own point.. ;)

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello There

 

I did not notice any real advantage to having the higher res textures in most situations so think the argument there is a little lacking tbh, I played without the PMC DLC for a bit and without the Czech Army until really recently and believe it had Zero impact on my gameplay.

 

I would rather we all had the DLCs no matter what disparity than having those weith and those without as happened in the past.

 

Also, those people with better rigs and kit will always have an inherent advantage over those with low end systems, so again, while we could argue in the macro and the one in a hundred occasions where having a low res dlc will cause one to be at a slight disadvantage I really dont see there being an issue in the greater scheme of things.

 

Im not at all against DLCs in the way that Bi does them but other games which seem to hold content back or enable P2W, well those i am against.

 

As to A DAYZ DLC, I dont really see what they can add to the game but perhaps it will be features that are not budgeted for or have exceeded the creation timeline. Who knows.

 

Again, Ill not be a blind fanboi and will judge any DLC on what I think of them (although I was wrong about the Czech DLC and now in retrospect wish I had bought it when it first came out).

 

If we have gone round in skwircles I apologise, Im a little busy.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[Etherious 907]

DLC is fine with me as long as it's not P2W type of stuff. Otherwise bring the DLC on! I got more money to throw at BI. :)

 

Edit: Do I think there will be DLC anytime soon? Hell no there won't be DLC anytime soon. We won't since DLC til probably late 2015.

Edited June 1, 2014 by DJ SGTHornet

[Bororm 1156]

Fuck paid DLC.

 

Besides, the game is going to be moddable, what's the point of paid DLC.

[liquidsnake 275]

There won't be DLC. 

[Ghostflux 100]

Considering DayZ Standalone was born from a mod, I do think that somewhere along the line we'll see some kind of mod support, post release that is. If you can mod the game, then I don't think DLC is that useful, because modders could simply use the existing concept of the DLC and make their own improved version free of charge.

[fuke (DayZ) 22]

Paying to play new maps would be EA-worthy BS.

 

The least lame thing they could do DLC-wise would be custom player appearances like the hats in TF2. Beards, moustaches, hairstyles, hair colors etc.. but even that would be lame to charge money for.

[OrLoK 16182]

Paying to play new maps would be EA-worthy BS.

 

The least lame thing they could do DLC-wise would be custom player appearances like the hats in TF2. Beards, moustaches, hairstyles, hair colors etc.. but even that would be lame to charge money for.

Hello there

 

But lets got get ahead of ourselves. There's nothing in the offing about a DLC.

 

We may as well be going on about BI's Kitten slaughter program.

 

If that happened, I too would be upset.

 

But in all likelyhood it wont happen, neither will P2W etc etc.

 

Anyone who knows BI and their background will KNOW that's not how they have done ting in the past. Why would they change?

 

Before we start storming BI with pitchforks and flaming torches lets wait to see what is happening.

 

Yup, they have made some good cash but have they all turned into Baron Vladimir Harkonnen? I think not.

 

This isnt EA we are dealing with or for that matter any other publisher.

 

These guys are quite grounded.

 

We may not agree on everything but on the whole they are ok.

 

Better than most IMHO.

 

Lets judge them on their actions not on our paranoia.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[DMentMan 707]

i don´t want any DLC´s, its balance breaking, unless its a map, witch should be free in my opinion.