ARMA III & Steam WORKSHOP

[dayglow 2]

Yet living in a world where you believe everything is pink and fluffy and I fart rainbows, is inherently better?

You mad bro?

[whisper 0]

What would Valve gain by using assets created in a mod? That's a logical question.

Let's say BI use Steam Workshop system

DayZ is released. DayZ gives TONS of money to BI. And on top of it, BI would own DayZ without even having to chase the original modmaker.

You can replace DayZ with any mod that gives a reputation to the platform. Steam gets money from the quality of the content they distribute. If they don't want to go further than that, then they simply remove the stupid statement from their EULA. Case closed.

[Messiah 2]

You mad bro?

And there endeth it all

[Binkowski 25]

You mad bro?

Everything you've said in this thread has now been refuted.

[dayglow 2]

Money.

You chose to believe that the world is a nice cosy place where people have good intentions. Thats nice. Im happy for you.

I'm far more pragmatic. I'm forty years old. I spent 9 - actually with Aux service it was closer to 14 - years serving in the RAF Regiment and RAuxAF Regiment. I served all over the world in various conflicts. I then when on to spend the last 15 or so years working in Aerospace. BAE Systems, Eurofighter Gmbh, Airbus, EADS etc mostly dealing with subcontractors. Managing large contracts and projects. In recent years I've been freelancing making content for both engineering and military simulations. All that time I've gained extensive experience working with contracts and EULAs. Not to mention companies ranging from sole traders upto giants like Microsoft, Boeing, BP and National Militaries. Not once have a come across a contract that was not milked for anything and everything they could get from it.

My experience and that of the Solicitors I use tells me that I should not sign that EULA. Nor should anyone that has any interest retaining control of their own creations. That really is the be all and end all.

I get that and I wouldn't ask you to so anything your not comfortable with.

What I don't get, not necessarily from you, is the hostility from people asking them to discuss why they feel Valve wishes to exploit mod makers.

I look at the EULA and I see a catch-all document to cover the whole SWS and all the different games that use it. You work with lawyers, would you pay them to endlessly write documents for all of your products and all the possibilities out there, or request a single document to cover all eventualities, real or imagined.

I look at Valve and I ask myself what they would gain from taking assets from a mod for a product and I can't see it. What I see as a much more likely possibility is that they want to expand their product range. Arma 3 mods are a niche market, but what if they could expand SWS to current or next gen consoles to download content for games. I garantee they have looked if the thy could share mods for Skyrim cross platform. Now if you created a Skyrim mod and uploaded to SWS and they make it available for a console they would need to protect themselves from you claiming they modified it to work on a console. Or demand a cut from Microsoft for making it available on Xbox live, a subscription service.

i think that's the lawyer world they live in and are trying to protect themselves from, not looking at this as an opportunity to take some free assets uploaded to them.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

And there endeth it all

I have no problem discussing my thoughts and ideas and how they are lacking reason or whatever, but if you want to do a drive by trolling expect me to respond at your level.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DayGlow

[kireta21 13]

Modders won't upload to Steam Workshop, because their rights as authors are not guaranteed. Yes, EULA is only to keep Valve from any responsibility for mods uploaded. Yes, chances that Valve will decide to resell addons uploaded by you to workshop are probably lower than chances to be killed by meteorite falling out of sky. Yes, modders are likely just paranoid.

But it's all null and void, because we have other, more friendly distribition methods, like Armaholic or SixProjects. And since we do why even bother using service you don't trust? Again it has nothing to do with hard facts and whatsoever. Modder doesn't like service, he will use alternative one he trusts enough/more, his property, his decision.

...

It's like discussing religion, no amount of proof will convince believer there's no god, and atheist there is one.

Only REAL problem I see ATM are the people uploading into Workshop mods they don't own.

[Messiah 2]

I have no problem discussing my thoughts and ideas and how they are lacking reason or whatever, but if you want to do a drive by trolling expect me to respond at your level.

That, I grant you, although it was generally the intention to display the level your rhetoric (for lack of a better word) is coming across at. Every possible reasoning has been leveled to you, and your stance becomes more stubborn and repetitive in its nature.

I appreciate you're trying to bring to light the positives in that clause, that it can enable cross platform modding is a fine notion, but the amount of freedom that EULA grants Valve is abhorent. They are a company, they do not exist to make your world a better place, they exist to make money. That EULA gives them the possibility to make money of a modder's hard earned work, should they wish to. It also means that should I decide to sell my work outside of Steamworks, I've already released my IP and I would be unable to.

However, as you stated, you don't make addons, you don't invest the time, the effort, or the finance, you have nothing to do with this, no?

[dm 9]

Only REAL problem I see ATM are the people uploading into Workshop mods they don't own.

And this is the crux of it.

While it IS possible to have stuff like this taken down, it IS documented (to provide dayglow with his needed proof) that this is a time consuming and [sometimes] costly process. Which for most people simply isn't worth the hassle.

However, as you stated, you don't make addons, you don't invest the time, the effort, or the finance, you have nothing do with this, no?

QFT :pistols:

[chortles 263]

I cannot help but think that the other problem is that while Valve could theoretically rip off and sell the content and even beat back modders in court anyway, they understandably would rather not take the PR hit from doing so... whereas having that EULA clause would not only be legal CYA (again, the point to emphasize is that said legal CYA is unacceptable to these modders) but from a PR standpoint its existence would actually result in fanboys defending Valve.

Rock, am I correct in believing that you said that the BI Tools EULA specifically bars both the modder and BI from monetizing content created with the BI Tools?

[dayglow 2]

That, I grant you, although it was generally the intention to display the level your rhetoric (for lack of a better word) is coming across at. Every possible reasoning has been leveled to you, and your stance becomes more stubborn and repetitive in its nature.

i would argue its no more repetitive than the other side, but I agree we are arguing around a circle now.

I appreciate you're trying to bring to light the positives in that clause, that it can enable cross platform modding is a fine notion, but the amount of freedom that EULA grants Valve is abhorent. They are a company, they do not exist to make your world a better place, they exist to make money. That EULA gives them the possibility to make money of a modder's hard earned work, should they wish to. It also means that should I decide to sell my work outside of Steamworks, I've already released my IP and I would be unable to.

However, as you stated, you don't make addons, you don't invest the time, the effort, or the finance, you have nothing to do with this, no?

I'm a community member discussing a issue that has come up in the community. I'm not going into a modder's forum and telling them how to act.

[max power 21]

To prove a negative is a falicy in logic.

Actually, the null hypothesis is the only way to prove something scientifically. In order to prove something you must fail to prove the opposite is possible.

It is like *the* tool.

So if we were trying to make a paradigmatic maxim that it is not possible that steam will exploit modder IPs, we would have to fail to prove that it is possible.

[Messiah 2]

i would argue its no more repetitive than the other side, but I agree we are arguing around a circle now.

The problem there is that it's very one sided at present.

I'm a community member discussing a issue that has come up in the community. I'm not going into a modder's forum and telling them how to act.

Again, appreciated, but in retrospect, I certainly feel that you are. We're concerned about our IP and Valve's EULA asking us to agree to relinquish it to them. Regardless of what their intentions with that part of the EULA is (we can argue around for days with various car analogies should we wish to, clearly none of us are going to agree on their alterior motives, if any) giving up ones IP isn't an acceptable solution, the influx of mod makers to this thread should highlight that fact, and therefore Steamworks, in it's current state and legality, isn't a workable idea.

What Valve will do and what they can do with this part of the EULA are not mutually exclusive, and is a real concern. What happens when someone other than the mod maker throws content up that shouldn't be there is also a real concern. The latter is more relevant as the first can be circumvented by not using steaworks, which I believe the majority of modders will do who wish to retain any semblance of their IP. The problem arises when members start uploading other people's content to steamworks just because they feel they can.

[chortles 263]

I hope that you're thinking of "Steam Workshop" and not "Steamworks", because that Rubicon was crossed a long, LONG time ago by now. :p

[Messiah 2]

yes, sorry, fuddled old mind, made worse by whatever Max was trying to say.

[max power 21]

I was saying that proving a negative is how you prove things. But I guess I meant 'the inverse', not necessarily a negative, which I assume is what Dayglow meant.

[dayglow 2]

It sort of boils down to the old 'prove God exists' vs 'prove God doesn't exsit' argument. Most people say you have to prove God's existence vs non-existence.

[rksl-rock 1300]

It sort of boils down to the old 'prove God exists' vs 'prove God doesn't exsit' argument. Most people say you have to prove God's existence vs non-existence.

Yet we do have the proverbial "stone tablet" that says... "believe in me an I will do as I wish with your Soul"

I was going to post more when I got home but what I wanted to say has already been said by DM, Messiah et al.

[dayglow 2]

No worries. I'm acceding in this discussion as I believe we all have valid points from our own POV and continuing wont accomplishing anything.

[max power 21]

It sort of boils down to the old 'prove God exists' vs 'prove God doesn't exsit' argument. Most people say you have to prove God's existence vs non-existence.

I don't think it boils down to that, actually. I especially don't think it boils down to what most people say. What you're saying is a lack of evidence to the contrary proves your assertion, which is actually a formal fallacy. You're saying that addon makers shouldn't be cautious because there is no evidence to support there has been problems in the past. The people here aren't concerned with what has happened in the past, but what is possible in the future. I don't think anyone can say that because something has never happened, there is no possibility of it ever happening.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Rock, am I correct in believing that you said that the BI Tools EULA specifically bars both the modder and BI from monetizing content created with the BI Tools?

Sorry i didnt see this earlier.

Yes. Clause 3 Part IV or the O2PE Licence states:

3. End User's Obligations: A. As a Subject to the Grant of License herein above, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, duplicate, reproduce, translate, reverse-engineer,modify, disassemble, decompile, derive source code, create derivative works based on the Program, remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Program or otherwise modify the Program without the prior written consent of the Licensor. B. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: (i) Sell or transfer reproductions of the Program to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Program to others (ii) Publish and/or distribute the computer Program or any of its parts (iii) Exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose including, but not limited to, use at a cybercafé, computer gaming center, computer aided training center or any other location-based site where multiple users may access the Program; (iv) Commercially exploit or allow a 3rd party commercially exploit game content you created using the Software, including but not limited to use by military organizations for computer aided training or commercially released game content;

BI have also previously made statments that We own everything we make. Both from Placebo (FOrmer Head Forum Moderator and PR for BIS) and Marek španěl the CEO of BIS have made public statements on this very forum.

[gammadust 12]

I was saying that proving a negative is how you prove things. But I guess I meant 'the inverse', not necessarily a negative, which I assume is what Dayglow meant.

Well i would add that science does not deal with absolutes, which is the temptation therein. I would risk that science mostly deals with assertions of the kind: given this, this and this condition the following (...) can be proven valid in a repeatable and "universal" manner, prove such an assertion wrong and science reintegrates the change(s) with the newly found conditions. "Universal" here is obviously limited by the stated conditions and not meant in a philosofical way. Hence science does evolve, does not deal with absolutes, must be falsifiable, and is of afirmative nature as opposed relating with proving negatives. Falsifiability is indeed where the most critique arrives at string theory.

Science opposes itself to religion, not because whatever the antithetical beliefs at hand, but because, falsifiability is an essential property of the former.

Also one does not say: "i believe i will fall if i am dropped at a certain height". One knows one will fall given determined conditions. Apply that in regards to earth's age, for example, from both approaches /philosophy time-out

So scientifically speaking i don't give a damn about proving whatever in regards to SW, if there is evidence or not of ill intentions from valve, or to the contrary that they're acting in good faith. I could simply renounce the usefulness of the service based on precautionary principle, there is an effective service(s) in place which don't bring the perceived and validated risks which SW brings along. But since their activity of provinding such service is not without consequences even in the case that modders opt-out, valve should think twice before putting such non-users "at risk" that way. One can never be made responsible by an action of a 3rd party, which is what that legalese tries to defend valve against. Which in regards to "good faith" is not very favorable.

[max power 21]

So it seems like if there was a possibility of commercial exploitation by the workshop EULA, addon makers would not meet the criteria for being eligible to enter into the agreement, since they are bound to prevent the commercial exploitation of addons.

---------- Post added at 15:49 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Well i would add that science does not deal with absolutes, which is the temptation therein.

Science deals only in absolutes, ie. simple physical laws that make up a paradigm. If a law can be broken it is not a law.

[gammadust 12]

So we are just using different meanings for "absolute", my use of "absolute" was in the sense of time and space independent, your's considers it in the "human scale" or "knowledge scale". Scientific laws are not so uncommonly superceded by more complex ones, or even radically different ones, and when the amount of changes ripples through diverse areas the more of a paradigm changer it becomes such discovery.

Still i am not saying i disagree with the use of that less "time and space independent" meaning. I just found useful to refer to the more strictive one.

[max power 21]

Scientific laws are not so uncommonly superceded by more complex ones, or even radically different ones, and when the amount of changes ripples through diverse areas the more of a paradigm changer it becomes such discovery.

What is meant by simple is classifiable general behaviours... as opposed to a case for every instance of everything. As in, in the case that absolute means time and space dependent vs. human scale.

The rest of it, I don't know what you're talking about. I believe you are over-complicating what I said.

[NeMeSiS 11]

You are all making this way too abstract. What it boils down to is this: Dayglow says Valve first has to take someones content and profit from it before addon makers should be cautious, and everyone else says that evidence is either unavailable, or does not matter since they don't want to take the risk of being the first to suffer from it/don't want to sign something that is unreasonable in any case, wether used or not.