there are other options, but all these setups put the subs in somewhat inconvenient places.
The only rivaling concept I tried which gives astonishingly similar results compared to a DBA, is a multi-array with cardioid subwoofers (4 or more). It is also less dependent on the exact positions, so inconvenient places can be avoided in most of constellations (sometimes they are necessary, though). We should note that for similar max SPL and subjective decay, it is much more expensive than a DBA.
DBA is extremely easy to turn into a weapon in the hands of marketers, any audio equipment seller dreams of a x4 increase in sales, and for an x8 increase in profits some will even sell their souls to the devil
And could you name the ones having turned it ´into a weapon´ already in the last 20 years, since it is discussed publicly? Me thinks, the list of manufacturers actively marketing it, is pretty brief. Maybe some installers do.
It is not done, though, with an 8x increase in turnover (not profit, please!). Implementing it properly in a customer´s room, is pretty labor- and service-intensive. And you can bet, that any potential consumer being convinced, will probably stick with the most affordable subwoofer solution.
This point should not be taken as an axiom until a full comparative blind test of 2 different systems, with a DBA and with one subwoofer, is conducted.
I have done such a listening test a long time ago. The differences in subjective bass precision are even easier to detect than the measurements are suggesting, particularly if listeners are positioned within a range of seats like in a typical home cinema. It is completely unnecessary to conduct a controlled test.
BTW adjusting the correct level for such a comparison, is not as easy. At which seat or with which signals are you planning to do the calibration?