How to keep DLC alive - please see

Dear Three Hundred and Forty-three Industries,

DLC is a big concern for many gamers. Whilst several are delighted by it and purchase new content, the way it appears in Matchmaking could be implemented far better. Here are a few suggestions:

A) Create a global DLC playlist.

Forget Crimson. Forget Majestic. Forget Castle. And forget Bullseye maps appearing here and there as a single playlist on their own. Make a global DLC playlist that contains and incorporates ALL of your DLC maps. Bungie made it work in Halo 3 and I believe you did something similar in Halo: Reach.

B) Make DLC required.

Make certain DLC required for certain playlists. Similarly to what Bungie did with Halo 3.

C) Increase weighting of DLC.

Make the weighting of DLC maps much higher than it currently is, so that if all players in the lobby do indeed have access to DLC content, they will surely get DLC options. Or by the very minimum one option.

Whilst C) would be easiest to implement, it might not be the most successful. And B) would be a riskier option considering the game’s dwindling player count. I personally believe that A) is the best solution. With all of those maps in one playlist, loyal gamers who bought your maps will flood to that destination to play on them. There wouldn’t be any confusion on where to go to find new maps (and trust me, the players are looking). You wouldn’t have the lowly population that the Crimson playlist currently has (just above 100) either, because there would be all kinds of gamers heading over to the global DLC playlist; those interested in Castle maps, those interested in Majestic, Bullseye, etc.

Why option A) hasn’t been implemented already is beyond me!

To all Waypoint forum frequenters, I say this, please take the time to read through this post. If you have an opinion, please share it. If you have an experience relevant to the topic, please share that too.

Please vote in this thread. Comment to keep this message alive so that 343 see it. And spread this thread to others. The more votes will result in better convincing of our argument to improve the DLC experience.

> Forget Crimson. Forget Majestic. Forget Castle. And forget Bullseye maps appearing here and there as a single playlist on their own. Make a global DLC playlist that contains and incorporates ALL of your DLC maps. Bungie made it work in Halo 3 and I believe you did something similar in Halo: Reach.

Too many of the maps in Halo 4 do not support multiple team sizes. For example, Shatter doesn’t play 4v4 well, and Skyline won’t play 6v6 even close to good.

I want a playlist for DLC as well, but I think there should be two. DLC 4v4 and DLC 6v6. DLC 4v4 would feature Majestic maps and Bullseye maps, with slayer and objective gametypes. DLC 6v6 would be the Crimson and Castle maps with slayer and objective gametypes. I would really like that.

I think there should be two DLC Playlists.

8vs8 Crimson & Castle.

4vs4 Majestic & Bullseye.

And you don’t need both of these playlists to enter one of them. You’ll only need at least one of them to enter.

> I think there should be two DLC Playlists.
>
> 8vs8 Crimson & Castle.
>
> 4vs4 Majestic & Bullseye.
>
> And you don’t need both of these playlists to enter one of them. You’ll only need at least one of them to enter.

Just what I was going to say myself. But instead of adding two DLC playlists they should just make one “Infinity DLC”, once selected you can choose Crimson/Castle DLC or Majestic/Bullseye DLC.

Problem solved.

They have already have DLC high weighted that’s not the problem. They already have a DLC playlist but its population is lousy.

I just think they should make a few more playlists DLC required. If it annoys players so be it but there will be more players annoyed if Pitfall and Vertigo aren’t playable once they go live I can assure you.

> They have already have DLC high weighted that’s not the problem. They already have a DLC playlist but its population is lousy.
>
> I just think they should make a few more playlists DLC required. If it annoys players so be it but there will be more players annoyed if Pitfall and Vertigo aren’t playable once they go live I can assure you.

Making playlists exclusive to DLC owners would be a death sentence.
DLC weighting is high. There’s a reason the maps rarely show up.

> Make certain DLC required for certain playlists. Similarly to what Bungie did with Halo 3.

But they did so, if I recall correctly, after ODST made DLC content a LOT more accessible through the multiplayer disc. You don’t have the same package deal now, nor do you even have some of the major selling points that the Heroic or Legendary map packs had (significant additions to forge and “new” vehicles.) In short 343 couldn’t get away with forcing DLC on some parts of the population, not with the current state of things.

If you bought the maps, you should have a better than 1 million to 1 chance to play them AND be able to get cheevos.

Squad DLC- 5v5
Majestic Pack, Champions Pack, Harvest, Daybreak, and Forge Island variants. Mix of Slayer and Objective gametypes.

BTB DLC- 8v8
Crimson Pack, Castle Pack, and Forge Island variants. Mix of Slayer and Objective gametypes.

To make room merge BTIS and BT Skirmish and remove Regicide as a standalone and put the gametype in Rumble Pit. Bam, then DLC play is completely available for those who purchased it.

I would be fine with them shifting their DLC philosophy. Make the majority of matchmaking require DLC with the exception of your most populated play list.

Make your DLC packages much more robust. Each one could include the normal number of maps along with quite a few forge maps. These forge maps, since they are being sold, could receive extra levels of care from the dev team to go along with the tlc that community cartographers have put into them. If each map pack were to include a dozen maps, four of which are originals or professionally made remakes, I would be much less reluctant to drop ten bucks on them.

It would ensure new QUALITY content circulating into the playlists, move more product for 343, and over time allow you to build a library of maps suited for specific game types.

Obviously they would have to create a more compelling base multiplayer experience before they could try this, no matter how robust the DLC product.

First off their name is 343 literally pronounced as those three numbers as in 343 guilty spark second if their going to make DLC they should make them really interesting such as adding an exclusive vehicle to the DLC or an exclusive armor pack that includes exclusive guns and such

> First off their name is 343 literally pronounced as those three numbers as in 343 guilty spark second if their going to make DLC they should make them really interesting such as adding an exclusive vehicle to the DLC or an exclusive armor pack that includes exclusive guns and such

I can’t see them ever taking an fps like Halo in the direction of microtransaction models beyond the current map based model.

Think about the outrage if they reintroduced the grenade launcher, but you had to have the correct dlc to pick it up.

Map pack model for sure isn’t working nowadays. Only franchise that has population big enough to support it is CoD, and even there people are angry about this solution (especially when new game is going out and population of old ones is going down).

I prefer model where each DLC is small game inside the game (something like Battlefield’s DLCs). Where DLC are more expensive, but also have their pernament playlists with huge amount of content that’s new and different. Actually 343i did something similar with Anniversary DLC, and despite small popularity of CE’s multiplayer, it works.

What 343i can do right now is to make these “map packs”, similar to other small DLC. When every player has them downloaded on hard drive, but cannot use them until he buys them (like with weapon’s skins etc.). This way everyone could play these maps in public matchmaking, so they would be as often as on-disc maps, but that’s it. You cannot play customs or local games, or receive any map-oriented achievements, until you pay for it.

> What 343i can do right now is to make these “map packs”, similar to other small DLC. When every player has them downloaded on hard drive, but cannot use them until he buys them (like with weapon’s skins etc.). This way everyone could play these maps in public matchmaking, so they would be as often as on-disc maps, but that’s it. You cannot play customs or local games, or receive any map-oriented achievements, until you pay for it.

If they are able to do this, I would endorse it whole heartedly. Doubt they would choose to do it since at that point I think most players would have even less incentive to purchase it than they do now. I know that the only reason I ever pulled the trigger on DLC was for matchmaking.

> If they are able to do this, I would endorse it whole heartedly. Doubt they would choose to do it since at that point I think most players would have even less incentive to purchase it than they do now. I know that the only reason I ever pulled the trigger on DLC was for matchmaking.

There could be some mechanics which would encourage people for buying new maps, like that when noone in lobby paid for a map, it would never appear for voting. That way people who bought the map would see it as fraquent as on-disc maps, while those who didn’t, would rely on luck of finding someone who bought the map (just like I must rely on luck of hunting down someone with arctic BR or prime AR to get one). I’m sure there are people who would buy some maps if they we’re like 200M$ points per each just to receive some achivements and being able to play them anytime, anywhere.

343i sure must decide if they want to make DLC based on micro transactions or give more effort to bring DLCs with more content. Actually it looks like they’re testing first option with that new DLC. We’re about to see how do they manage to include just 2 new maps into matchmaking…

> That way people who bought the map would see it as fraquent as on-disc maps, while those who didn’t, would rely on luck of finding someone who bought the map

I’m not sure how many copies they would sell as it would only require one out of the eight (or even 16) to have it. I would certainly purchase it though. If they were to simply retain their current DLC consumers, you would probably have it available in 90%+ of games. I doubt the problem is normally that noone has it. Its that its rare that all eight have it.

> > First off their name is 343 literally pronounced as those three numbers as in 343 guilty spark second if their going to make DLC they should make them really interesting such as adding an exclusive vehicle to the DLC or an exclusive armor pack that includes exclusive guns and such
>
> I can’t see them ever taking an fps like Halo in the direction of microtransaction models beyond the current map based model.
>
> Think about the outrage if they reintroduced the grenade launcher, but you had to have the correct dlc to pick it up.

To a certain extent.

However, if the expansion were limited to cosmetic items - armor, skins, commendations - then the outrage would be minimal. Or if the expansion contained a new gameplay item or two that was DLC-exclusive for a limited time only (like the extra specializations at release).

What I would hope 343i would do is limit microtransactions to those items that do not affect play. Maps affect play, so they should not be part of that.

There are two ways to skin the maps cat. One is to simply plan on 3 or 4 map updates following release and work that into the original business model. The second way is to fix Forge as listed here such that professional-looking community maps without framerate issues can largely take the place of the DLC maps. If your only experience with Forge maps is with the ones in matchmaking currently, you’re missing out on some truly incredible play spaces that have been designed by the community. Give those folks the ability to make the aesthetics comparable to the on-disk maps and you have a beautiful solution.