"Opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content" - How?

[gammadust 12]

[@Moderators: i have used my best judgment to place this thread in a suitable category, please move elsewhere if appropriate, also

this thread is intended not as speculation of ideas mentioned in the interview but as a way to iniciate the community's own discussion

on how this goal could be achieved as accommodating to everyone as possible. Imo topic earning it's own thread. Lock it otherwise]

Recently in the first Report-In after Arma 3's release: (selected quotes)

[Community Cohesion]

Furthermore, we want to be even more careful than in the past not to fracture the community with expansion and or DLCs. This means there should not be a dramatic split of the user base, something that we did have to enforce with release of Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead one year after the original Arma 2 came out. We hope that, with Steam, Arma 3 can be a much more hassle-free experience when it comes to the delivery of future updates.

[steam+Workshop]

It has already made it amazingly simple to share and download user-made scenarios. (...)

Nonetheless, I do realize that some mission makers and community sites have some concerns regarding the use of Steam Workshop, and may even consider it as a threat. However, I hope the benefits will outweigh the problems and limitations, and in the long term, I believe this will also help the community to grow and evolve as a whole. This transition, however, may be somehow more difficult for some of our long-term supporters, and I am fully aware of that. However, eventually they may even adapt and win in this situation.

[Paid User-made Content]

I think the next big thing could be opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content. It’s great to see talented mod-makers pulling off amazing missions, add-ons and mods as free content, but if we manage to find some incentive for the best mod-makers to develop more content, I think we can raise the bar even higher. I want to push this effort in two distinct ways, and I consider these as a priority for next year. We are going to announce more specific details in the coming months.

[DLCs]

Yes, there are. We see DLCs (both free and paid) as a great way to keep expanding the game even after its initial release. However, an official announcement will be made when we have everything clear.

[Assets Source Release]

So instead, what we are going to do will be similar to Arma 1: we are going to release the entire Arma 2 library to the community and allow them create any derivative work within Arma 3.

my emphasis

As a player who used Lite versions of DLCs and waited for Steam deals before buying all Arma 2 DLCs, I was pretty content to not have my wallet forced, all but for increased eye candy, and be allowed to join certain popular servers.

As a modder myself i am interested of course in the "opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content", welcoming the idea very much. Incentives would be an additional appreciation, would favour higher levels of commitment.

How then to keep this limited effect in the release of paid DLCs, and allow mission makers and modders alike to access some sort of incentives?

Issues at hand and the current state of affairs:

Actual costs to user*

• players pay for official DLC's, have limited access to unpaid Lite versions
  
• players have access to freely distributed addons
  

Incentives for addon authors*

• authors can provide their addons free of any charge, accept donations and as long as respecting affected licensing even charge for it (aside: if this is not correct anyone in the know please clarify)
  
• not unkown is for some addons to be selected by bohemia as worthy of investment
  
• even prospects of starting a carreer in the industry can become reality
  

*Players and user-made content creators are in many cases one and the same specially in regards to missions

Quality of addons and after release support

• quality comes at all levels depending on level of modder expertise and time constraints
  

Ease of use

• depending on addon type (mission/config addon/model addon/island) more or less know-how is required from the user to install and access
  

Distribution of addons (steam issues/restrictions)

• distribution goes pretty much as above: from "let steam handle it from in-editor publishing" to "prepare yourself a full blown site/blog to provide downloads"
  

Potential fragmentation of user base (multiplayer)

• huge fragmentation of addons usage: small addons which add/improve features generaly unavailable in the servers pool (in-game download and activation of addons could tackle this >> Bohemia ;) )
  

Internal addons dependencies

• reliance on CBA or other frameworks (existing and future) in a restricted yet commercialized scene require clarification
  

Licensing and copyright

• open-source != free
  
• enforcement of licensing and potential disputes
  
• modding as a source for learning (self-reproduction)
  

So, how to kill two or more birds with one shot?

My suggestion:

Regular Edition of Officially Sanctioned Addon Packs (Old School no?)

The concept is to promote a Prize/Competition/Contest for two main categories of Addons "Official Addon Pack" and "Community Favourites Pack", in common they share the sanctioning/curating process but at different involvements by Bohemia. Players would benefit from a quality assurance and an expected increase in availability on the servers pool. General cohesion between servers in regards to addons availability. Modders would have a set of standards to follow, would keep access to source for leaning purposes. Server Admins encouraged to install released addons, activate only those they want.

And starting with the hardest issue:

Addons Packs Distribution and Price*

• Paid DLC Pack for Full** version available through Steam
  
• Free DLC Pack for Lite** version equivalent (if agreeable through Steam also, otherwise relying on Arma Community's websites)
  

*Price is set by Bohemia

**Authors are expected to submit both versions, this might be easy to imagine for models (ie. lower resolution textures), but it is not as clear cut with other types, definite rules dependent on the category of addons would need to be set for each, specially in regards to its possible usage in multiplayer. The issue here is the risk of having too many addons fall into categories which are difficult to create reasonable differentiations feature wise, reducing in the same go the differentiation of the paid and free packs as well.

General Prize Concept

• Every six months, or other timeframe (it can be flexible), Bohemia would promote both an "Official Selection" along with a "Community Favourites" Addons Prize. For the latter general sub-categories such as:
  best island(s)
  best mission(s)
  best game mode(s)
  best asset(s)
  best new feature(s)
  etc.
  These could be voted on by all elements of the community to be part of the pack. Likewise for the former, Bohemia would have it's own take on the best addons for the time period
  
• These two sets of selections (main categories) allow to have associated different author compensation models (ie. a "Community Favourite" addon could earn "Official Selection" by Bohemia and make its author access a bonus or terms of compensation)
  

Authors Compensation Models (=Prizes)

• Ideally authors would receive a percentage of the paid version returns but this would rely on a perhaps too demanding Bohemia/Steam agreement and it might be more difficult to strike a deal (even if Steam already envisions this, it is apparently tied with the Steam Workshop, which would impose limitations on the scope of addons under submission - missions currently, limitation which could only eventually be overcome if somehow Bohemia implements config addons availability through the Steam Workshop, something unlikely to happen so soon at this point in time)
  
• Failing the above a one time compensation could be set, this would represent a certain risk to Bohemia (not selling enough paid DLC copies, but alternatively also potential for good profits)
  
• It is also possible to maintain separate a "Official Selection" pack from the "Community Favourites" pack instead in which case the latter could be taken out of a Steam restrictions allowing a more flexiable deal between Authors and Bohemia, this would most certainly imply own methods of distribution (which comparatively lessens exposure to potential market)
  

• Specific deals could always be preferred against the above compensation models (ie. addons which have a high reuse value - CBA and other frameworks)
  Or simply left out of the Competition altogether but still benefiting modders participating in these broader type of projects of a standard set of rules/guidelines to reach to,
  allowing better uniformization/compatibility (thinking of "AiA"/"A3 Rearmed" which just got itself a significant push with the mentioned future release of the entire Arma 2 library)
  

******

COMMUNITY

Player and end-users

• Player keeps an option to pay for a Full version or not while at the same time keep the ability to access servers using them (despite feature limited in some way). Everyone is happy
  

Authors

• Would submit their addons up to the selection process
  
• Would sign into a specific open-source license allowing a commercial exploitation exception by a 3rd party. Compensation would depend on exclusiveness of the final deal (see Addons Compensation)
  
• This license would only be in-force if the submission would be part of the final addons pack, maintaining the author free to collect donations if he so chose
  
• Would be required to provide both a "Full" and a "Lite" version of his addon. The limitations implemented for differentiation would still pass under Bohemia's sanctioning, an author would need to use good judgement here on how "crippled" the Lite version would be provided in regards to balance against another player using whatever player in a MP environment (ie. modder should always favour balance and diffirentiate by other cosmetic/minor features)
  
• The addon would need to be 100% functional along with the Arma 3 build by the time of a submission deadline
  
• Would be responsible to provide compatibility: a default installation would have the addon disabled allowing for Server Admins to only enable those they really want active
  
• After release support is provided at the authors' discretion (fire and forget - the addon is valued by what it is at the time of a submission deadline, not what it can eventually become - it is impractical otherwise, it would also complicate logistics of the updates in the DLC packs)
  
• The above addon could limited of subsequent participation for a certain period (ie. a full year - to offset abuse of the above condition) and only allowed back in if new features are implemented
  
• Would retain the possibility to host themselves own addons
  

Clans and groups

• Could participate as authors, promoting their scenarios/missions and their tighter community
  

Server Admins

• Would be encouraged to have all released Packs installed (at least Lite but preferably Full)
  
• Would enable the addons they want active exclusively on an OPT-IN basis (depends on Authors compliance)
  

Community Websites

• Promote the participation
  
• Promote rules and guidelines
  
• Contribute in the distribution (where applicable)
  
• Perhaps even host the voting process (raises issues in regards to centralization, but tighter involvement is a plus - ie. Community Website Prize category)
  

Bohemia

• Would supervise the process and be responsible for the main decisions involved (ie. Steam logistics if applicable, Compensation model, etc.)
  
• Would select according to own criteria the worthy addons of their Official stamp
  
• Would establish minimums for quality and other criteria (see Authors), decide ultimately to enforce them at its discretion, meaning: addons elected by the community could still be excluded from voting or even at a later phase if compliance was not achieved
  
• Maybe delegate some of this management with the community
  

Steam

• Would keep the distribution channel
  
• Support a model which relates with their vision of user-made content
  

I've selected some axes for discussion: see topics under "Issues at hand and the current state of affairs" above not so much interested in their current states but in their potential future states. These are just starters, bring to the table your additional points. Please participate, players povs, modders povs, everyone's povs. Also, please stick to constructive arguements.

...

Synthesis: (27/09/2013)

Questions

• Who actually is paying for paid mods? Bohemia itself or players?
  
• Does this goal relate in any way with already publicised DLCs? (paid and supporter edition bundles)
  
• What is the scope of addons being envisioned by this idea?
  
• What would be the standards that need to be met before the mod/addon could be sold?
  

Suggested Implementations/Alternatives

• donations (=no change)
  
• Arma 3 addon store
  
• add a donnate button in Steam (missions AND mods)
  
• improve access to documentation and engine to the general community
  
• Bohemia curated contest (mods are evaluated to be part of a paid DLC - authors provide Full AND Lite versions)
  
• Community self-managed crowdfunding (donation goal funds split to mod author and host of donation payments)
  

Cons

• concerns of excessive emerging of paid for mods (majority or all mods becoming paid)
  
• concerns/fears that in allowing money into loop would lead to
  more serious/increased disputes between members
  friendship loss
  end of multiplayer games
  
• concerns of Bohemia relying itself on the modders exploitation to add content, profiting significantly in the process
  
• concerns/fears that modders would shut themselves in closing their sources and methods afraid to lose potential gains otherwise, eventually leading to their disappearance
  
• fear of Arma losing identity (paid content and Arma don't go together)
  
• even higher pressure on modders in regards to users expectations
  
• concerns of removal of the fun in modding as an hobby
  
• concerns/fear of being forced to pay for addons
  
• concerns of mods being paid for individually (microtransactions?)
  
• concerns of community fragmentation due to price of mods
  
• concerns of no additional protection, still much room for abuse (given existing cases of Bohemia content having been ripped)
  
• engine limitations severely constraining quality of paid-for mods
  
• increased risk of Bohemia being exposed to copyright violations
  
• addon updating issues
  
• concerns regarding piracy of addons (sharing them via p2p networks)
  
• limitations in the creation of Mod Compilations (modders would prefer to maximize income by providing mods into pieces)
  
• elitism between modders with privileged access to developers know-how and those without
  
• after-release support issues
  

Pros

• additional protection for dedicated modders
  
• increased quality in addons
  
• still there would be great availability of free mods
  
• quantity of mods would only increase
  
• game lasting longer in time
  
• prospect of settling the Steam concerns favourably
  
• potential to broaden the scope of arma (mutants, aliens, zombies, ww2, ww1, new worlds, etc)
  
• allowing for a paid portfolio making platform, increasing motivation
  
• more effective recruiting by Bohemia
  

Current Situation

• no one sends donations even to very popular and requested islands
  
• not much motivation to share because of much too high expectations/demands from players
  
• no understanding of players for the amount of work hours a mod requires
  
• perception that players don't want to support modders in furthering their efforts
  
• low quality addons
  
• ungratefulness of Steam Workshop current state (should be paid for)
  
• difficulty in making donations (ability to donate through Steam welcome)
  
• don´t try to fix what ain´t broken
  

Conditions

• high quality standards/professionalism as a requirement for charging
  
• ability for players to opt-out of buying (assuming but no block from access to servers with paid versions)
  
• Bis choosing mods that qualify / NOT being Bis choosing
  
• only if for multiplayer
  
• only after Steam Workshop technically allows for mods (config type) and legal issues are clear
  
• only after Arma 3 is "completed"
  
• full scrutiny of applicants to prevent IP conflicts
  
• only with warranty of after release support
  
• price points of base game vs paid dlcs
  
• only for mods which attract additional player base (ie. DayZ)
  
• it could only work if the pbos become locked
  
• arrangements between BIS and the community
  
• only if addons have a LITE counterpart
  
• not if released as small/frequent packs
  
• consistency in quality between mods
  

Edited September 27, 2013 by gammadust
synthesis update 27/09/13

[3instein 10]

No doubt there will be pitfalls along the way, but opening the game up for 3rd party DLC's/mods seems to work for other games so why not A3?

The community will be quick to decide if it is worth paying for or not, either way it is, at least (IMO) a step in the right direction.

Mick. :)

[suprememodder 11]

no, it's not.

[eymerich 11]

Well maybe it's just me but i disagree the Bohemia politics about this special topic.

The support of community should play a marginal role in the full process of the game and not viceversa.

[shinkicker 5]

I must be honest, this concerns me.

There is such a great pipeline of content coming into Arma from the community, that if money is brought into it, I can see a lot more infighting, disputes over people copying each others content, and no one really wanting to help each other, as what they know will then become trade secrets.

[mercenar1e 10]

Why would anyone release a lot of free content when they can just charge for it? I can see a lot of people holding back mods because of it

[Sealife 22]

This is more driven by the type of popular gameplay , wasteland , life mods and zombie mods are now staple for A3 and I have seen numerous communities already charging for usermade Addons , some slightly altered to make server exclusive

BIS is a savvy business and I believe this move is to protect those who. Work hard for a hobby and an excellent move , I'm sure the lesser played games like co op which mainly rely on simple scripts and retextures won't suffer from it

[mihikle 2]

If we have to start paying for Arma 3 user-made content, I will stop playing Arma 3 full stop, forever. Free mods are what makes the Arma series good - the fact that for free, you can turn this game into anything you want, be that a Vietnam era game or a WW2 era game or a Cold War era game. The FREE possibilities are endless. The basic game on it's own is exceptionally boring after a while because the quality of the default content is pretty bad compared to what the community can develop, the sounds are shocking compared to what the community can develop and the missions are poor compared to what the community can develop.

This just sounds like they are covering up for their lack of effort in content, and to make even more money in the process. BI are seriously taking the mic by even suggesting this.

There is such a great pipeline of content coming into Arma from the community, that if money is brought into it, I can see a lot more infighting, disputes over people copying each others content, and no one really wanting to help each other, as what they know will then become trade secrets.

^ This could not be more true. No-one will get into modding anymore because no-one will want to produce a guide or anything telling people how they create good quality content. Because it will lose them money for things THEY could be making. The mod community will die out, then the Arma series will be back to being boring, and many people will move onto something else.

The support of community should play a marginal role in the full process of the game and not viceversa.

^ This is also true, and just supports the argument that BI have given up and just let the community make the game. Doing their work for free, and now they are suggesting that they pay them. NO BI why didn't you use that same money to actually finish the game before release.

This is just my strong opinion on this subject, feel free to pick at it your wish but I'm not changing my opinion (or rather morals) on this one.

[manfred89 4]

The content would need to be of a very high standard, probably passed by BIS. A lot of mods, though great, aren't quite professional grade ( at least art wise, I can't comment on coding ) I'd imagine only certain mods of high quality would qualify to be charged for.

[SaOk 112]

I think paid user-made content is an excelent idea if working well. That could bring more proper Iron Front level quality mods and this time directly into ArmA3 without problematic 3rd partly publishers. Would also pay anyday of quality campaign (Resistance with today's quality). Players can of course decide what to buy or not. No-one looses, only can win. :)

Edited September 14, 2013 by SaOk

[nikiforos 450]

I believe the best way is to donate money instead of charging people for downloading mods.

The future is dark and clouds are gathering right now as we speak. This is not a good development and if this goes through I'm afraid that it will be a stab to the heart of Arma.

Most important for modders is that an option to donate money will put pressure off their work and also lower the demands and expectations from community players.

At the end of the day I'm not the person to decide, but I wanted to express my personal opinion.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Nikiforos

[smokedog3para 365]

On the fence on this 1 as Sangin took over 7 months 2800 and over hours of work and I still consider it unfinished rough around the edges I got into modding not for profit but for the fun of it and to make what I would like to use in game, donations are not really an option for me and here's why.

As an example

I have 3 years worth of models and 4 more terrains unreleased sat on a hard drive that melted on the power lead I have 63128 downloads of Sangin just on armaholic so to me that says its popular, when I asked for donations to fix the said hard drive on the forums with over 60000 downloads I did not get a penny from the community to help get back all the source files, the said hard drive is still sat on my desk in front of me as a reminder to back up files but my point is its easy to say yes ill donate but the reality is most wont if any even when you are giving it away for free.

It also slowed down my enthusiasm to mod to a massive degree I still do but I only have shared certain assets with friends lately not to say I won't release them to the community when I get over all the demands for modders to make a3 better and release assets, it seems a lot of people expect to much and don't understand how many hours go in to projects.

Yes Sangin for a3 will be coming soon now the stable is released I have found the source files on my sky drive.

Edited September 14, 2013 by SmokeDog3PARA

[huxfluxd-luxe 10]

Well, I agree to what Nikiforos said. The community is the heart of ARMA, who keeps it alive for many years.

Paid user content and ARMA go together like oil and water in my opinion. On the other hand, I use some user made mods quite often,

BUT I donated to every author, if the mod quality deserved it. This is is some kind of self-evidence for me.

[manfred89 4]

I think paid user-made content is an excelent idea if working well. That could bring more proper Iron Front level quality mods and this time directly into ArmA3 without problematic 3rd partly publishers. Would also pay anyday of quality campaign (Resistance with today's quality). Players can of course decide what to buy or not. No-one looses, only can win. :)

Yeah, I'd second this.

[mihikle 2]

Hey Smoke, Yeah Donations are important for mod developers as (in your case I know) things can go wrong like in your situation where your hard drive screwed up and need a part for it but don't have the cash to get it! But forcing people to pay for a mod just seems a bit... it's just lazy of the developers if anything else, too lazy in my opinion. As a side note I'll donate to the Hard-Drive cause after we've renewed the server mate, I can only give a tenner or so as I'm saving up for my new CPU/Motherboard but every little helps I guess! I've played on Sangin many a time and thoroughly enjoyed myself so I'll chip in what I can.

[manfred89 4]

And of course the option should still be there for people to release mods for free.

The fact is, even one full character model, to the standard of a AAA game, can take more than a month of full time ( 40 hr week ) work, what with high res sculpts, low res models, UVs, textures, and then getting it in game. I wouldn't mind somebody charging a ( modest ) amount for all that work. And like other games, a Bis committee could decide which mods qualify. I imagine there would still be plenty of mods released for free.

[smokedog3para 365]

Cheers mihikle I was just putting it out there Hukfluxd I guess Sangin was not so good then as 0 donations came in but it is one of the top islands for being DL off armaholic and who knows how many DL's off sixupdater and play with six most terrains get 10k-20k hits , it seems very popular on you tube though. This is some kind of self-evidence for me that people will use free content and like and play it but don't want to support you in making another project for free in the future.

I think I am coming off the fence lol

[funkotron 4]

where the cashflow starts, the friendship ends.....and multiplayer games. it seems to be risky cause it´s nowadays mentality of many people to get money for a simple question and if i have to pay for a little sniff...sorry i don´t make so much money at work.

what´s about multiplayer games? the game it´s self looks good but the low quality addons which i don´t want to buy make the game looking bad.

but the idea itself seems to be logic and for high quality and given support for a mod or addon i would pay.

How?

build up an ARMA3ADDONSTORE

Edited September 14, 2013 by funkotron

[BL1P 35]

If i had to pay for a mod made by a user I wouldn't use the mod.

Simple as that.

[dale0404 5]

I don't actually use mods when playing COOP, but if I use mods when playing SP then I certainly would not pay for them. There is enough quality content (even now) out there that don't use mods and that will only increase.

[NeuroFunker 11]

what is this? Do you want to go, the way, absolute greedy like companies like E@ and @ctivision? Why would I or ANYONE want to PAY for user made content in order to download and play it? Do you seriosly wanna begin the end of arma and BIS? Noway thats gonna happen, and if it will, this will make everyone who left - leave!

My facit: opening for example "BIS Studio Mod Donation", which doesn't require you to pay a penny for user made content, but donate any money you want for your favorite mission or mod - all fine for me.

Making everyone to PAY for downloading user content - no fucking way!

Edited September 14, 2013 by NeuroFunker

[b00tsy 28]

I must be honest, this concerns me.

There is such a great pipeline of content coming into Arma from the community, that if money is brought into it, I can see a lot more infighting, disputes over people copying each others content, and no one really wanting to help each other, as what they know will then become trade secrets.

I agree. It will no doubt limit the incentive to share knowledge and skills in the community. On the other hand, I do not mind making an extra buck or 2 for many hours of labour.

The thing with the workshop is, that people now download (in 1 click) stuff that may took weeks to create as a pack of chewing gum and also throw it away again a piece of gum if you are done chweing on it. Asking a small price for it, players will appriciate the work behind the mission/addon/mod more. At the moment the workshop is a pretty ungrateful way to get free content, paying/donating money shows the appreciation of the work of the creator more.

And edit to add, that if they will implement the money idea then they will also need to add an option to lock the pbo file, otherwise it's not going to work.

[PuFu 4600]

why does everyone assume that individual addons would cost money? BIS knows addons are making their game last longer, so THEY are willing to pay for some addons, either in order to give the particular modder the incentive needed to create more content (or features or whatever), or to get some of those addons together in a DLC, that would

I really don't understand the whole craze over Maruk's statement tbh.

Edited September 14, 2013 by PuFu

[b00tsy 28]

I understood it different. That there will be a 'pay' download button on steam workshop. Otherwise I would be against it if it is up to BIS who gets some dinero's (leads to favoritism), let the players decide what is worth money and give the whole community the change to make some cash from their efforts.

[Zorg_DK 10]

How about adding a donate button on Steam when you download missions, and mods when we get to that.