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

[.kju 3245]

@ SmokeDog3PARA

Tried to give you some hints above why BI does not/no longer follow that route of integrating modders work.

Also it would diminish their returns probably (compare to pure BI expansion or another system for paid mods),

as they can't rise the price above 30-50€ for an expansion and would have to leave several modders a compensation.

Also getting a percentage of the sales is generally far more favorable to a modders compared to getting paid

for just the working hours to produce the asset. Plus most modders would had to become far more efficient

in their work to become competitive enough to be even worth to be considered by BI.

To make an example - the average community terrain designer probably needs 3-6 full months of 40 hours week

to complete a reasonable sized terrain. That's like 6,000 to 18,000€. For BI you probably would need to be able

to achieve the same in just 1-2 months. Only very few have that level of skill.

In other words the good part of paid mods is that the modder actually gets a lot of money per customer.

Of course the other part of the equation is the amount of people you can convince to actually buy it.

The unfair part and risk element to not get selected is of course very grave on the flip side.

I don't get your reference to Iron Front here. The standalone approach X1/AWAR/DS took is a completely different story.

I was not part of that (decision making process) either.

As for IFA - without inbuilt mod sync essentially no mod is able to establish itself in MP - ACE was the only exception here so far.

Plus the requirement for the conversion process and patches, with its complexity and issue made this whole endeavor far more

challenging anyway and nothing we could have improve on either side.

That aside IFA has fairly good subscriber numbers in shared collections:

http://play.withsix.com/Arma-3/collections

That said I don't see how IF(A) relates to this discussion anyway (aside from the failed standalone game attempt and BI no longer

going that route in the foreseeable future).

Edited February 8, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

[war_lord 934]

How would monetizing mods work in terms of MP? Its an well known fact that mods are primary used by the Unit/Clan Multiplayer scene. If someone makes a map and sticks a €10 price tag per user on it, are units going to bother forking out for that?

[Jackal326 1181]

How would monetizing mods work in terms of MP? Its an well known fact that mods are primary used by the Unit/Clan Multiplayer scene. If someone makes a map and sticks a €10 price tag per user on it, are units going to bother forking out for that?

I think a lot depends on the how diverse the map is. If its a high quality (would presumably need to be to get the 'green light' to be listed), but a small map with little scope for different sorts of operations, then the answer would be "No".

I think you've pretty much highlighted the issue that I have always thought of when this thread first popped up though - its going to divide the community more than mods already do.

For example, right now a lot of people use RHS weapons to kit out their infantry addons, some use other mods such as Massi's pack, and others use HLC or RobertHammer's packs. Now, say for example an author makes the World's Greatest unit pack with highly detailed scratch-made, 100% authentic uniforms, vests and helmets - but they're not a weapons guy and so they decide to use one of those packs as a dependency. Presumably if they planned to charge for their work, they would have to release the unit pack using vanilla weapons only and then offer optional configs (or rely on others to make such optional configs). To directly depend upon such addons (assuming they were released as 'pay-for-use' addons, would perhaps double the charge for the mod (~$10 for the units and $10 for the weapons - prices are an example).

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jackal326

[.kju 3245]

@ War_lord

Terrains would have low quality ground textures; same for objects/vegetation if custom ones are made part of the package.

In general terms of course you have to ensure that everyone can play together in MP regardless of having bought the mod or not.

@ Jackal326

Don't jump to conclusions when there are valid options out there to handle it differently.

As for your example - in the future units and groups should be a separate layer on-top of the infantry assets.

The traditional way of pre-configured units should be just a convenience template, yet the mission designer should be able

to easily customize his own set of unit configurations.

That aside - a paid mod of infantry would of course had to offer a default configuration without external dependencies.

Maybe an exception could be made for assets already in the pool of paid mods, because as such the LITE version would always

be available at least and no one would be forced to buy the dependent mod.

So no the world does not have to be like you paint it.

[laloelfather 10]

Im a iron front fan, that if someone do a domination or something like that in chernarus for iron front as germans, ill pay 100 dls

U.u (i was wrong picking my career hahaha)

[.kju 3245]

@ laloelfather

Please use the Iron Front thread for that - this is offtopic.

(note you only have to replace the class names - domination made this fairly easy AFAIK)

[Jackal326 1181]

Considering how active you are in this thread kju, can we assume that if/when BI introduce this policy that we will see your triumphant return to modding? After all, you'll be able to earn a living from modding then...

[.kju 3245]

No. My skill set nor my past projects, or the game mode, is likely to be able to get monetized. Nor is this a promising prospect to make a living from it (risk+returns).

As Ive explained before, for me this is about the future of the modding scene.

I disagree with the statement that "everything is fine and lets just continue as in the 'good old times'" - i think that conclusion is wrong, narrow-minded and a fallacy.

You can read back to find the arguments given. In short modding takes way too much time and the engine is way too obscure to remain attractive.

Without certain individuals and groups, the scene would have broken down to simple and shallow mods a long time ago; A3 is just re-enforcing this trend even more.

Just do some research how many long time, high skill modders have dropped out or given up and popular mods have gone under with A2.

BI either has to transition to a standard engine/make their engine more standardized to make it easier to get into it, or find a model to directly profit from modding

to justify to re-invest directly and massively into the modding capabilities, tools and documentation.

The planned merge of VR (arma) and enforce (ToM) engine seems one attempt in that direction; the DZ SA move to use 3ds instead of proprietary p3d model format,

as well as to switch to a standard graphics render to become multi platform seems to follow the same goal.

So in summary to me this is an interesting intellectual and strategic topic worth thinking about giving my background and insights. Others find it more interesting to

post in "wishlist" threads or whatever.

[.kju 3245]

> Steam Inventory Service Now Available to Steamworks Developers

http://store.steampowered.com/news/15728/

With today's Steamworks SDK update, we've released The Steam Inventory Service beta, a new feature available to developers with games or software on Steam.

The Steam Inventory Service is a set of new Steamworks APIs and tools that allow a game to enable persistent items that have been purchase or unlocked by individual users

without having to run special servers to keep track of these user's inventory.

With this service, a game can easily drop items to customers based on playtime or can grant items based on specific situations or actions within the game.

These items can be marked as tradable through Steam or sellable via the Steam Marketplace. Developers can also configure recipes for crafting different combinations

of items that result in more rare, unique, or valuable items.

This new service adds to the list of APIs available for free to Steamworks developers, including achievements, cloud saves, authentication services, error reporting,

leaderboards, matchmaking, Steam Workshop, peer-to-peer networking, in-game overlay, downloadable content, and much more.

Interesting, yet consequently for Valve to expand to that/offer that too. Especially for DayZ SA or game modes like LIFE this could be used.

Will be interesting if this becomes available to arma as well at some point.

[nuxil 2]

At first i was thinking that Opening up Arma III to paid user made content could be nice thing.

Why not let the modders who love to mod and do it for fun earn some money on it at the same time.

But after thinking a bit about it in not so sure this is a good thing to do or the right path to take.

Maybe these questions have been asked & answered before but i am too sleepy and lazy to dig though 250 posts :p

My main concerns are.

* What quality control will be involved here?

* Who will do the quality control?

* Who will ensure/control that no copyrighted content is "Ab"used.

* What kind of protection will be involved here, (ie. will the addons/mods be ebo'ed?)

* How will user paid content work regarding MP.

* If the content is derivative from some GPL licensed work how will this modified source/code be available?

I'm also a bit worried that this would split the community "elitist & novice|noobs" more than it already is.

I'm also afraid addon/mod makers will hesitate to share their knowledge due to this.

After Bis got steamifyed they got a bit greedy in my opinion. What i mean by this:

They now make all sorts of "mini" mods which they call dlc's to try and suck out every penny they can from users..

* Dlc This

* Dlc That

* Dlc Whatever

+ they want a cut out of content you made.

Its starting to remind me of how EA does business, but its not that bad yet.

Now with the server monetization i feel it has only made things worse when its starting to be like:

* Pay to get in faster or be white-listed.

* Pay to get a special player slot.

* Pay to get vehicle skin X,Y,Z.

* Pay to be a black dude, Pay to be a white dude.

* Pay for this pay for that.

I feel its too much and Bis really needs to rethink what they are doing.

The community has thrived well for about 14-15 years now without any money involved.

Why does everybody suddenly need to make money on hosting the game or creating content for the game?

Did any of you pay money to get the knowledge you posses on scripting, configuring, model making by depbo other peoples content or looking at tutorials?

HELL NO. It was all free. And now you want|expect us to pay for content you made which you would not have been able to create without this free knowledge.

I also like to point out that.

Now since they allow server monetization they must open up for addon/mod monetization as well.

Why should only the (Hosters | Mission makers) be able to make money when the guys who are doing the real hard work gets 0.

It takes hundreds upon hundreds of hours to make quality content. It's very unfair to them.

But i just hope Bis wakes up and see the madness in this and stop all allowing of monetization.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for donations which will cover server costs and maintenance.

I dont want to see N^y altislife servers trying to earn money of hosting.

If they really want to allow server monetization i believe more strict rules needs to be in place.

Such as. Only the community who created the mission|addons|mod can host it, and this need to be approved by Bis.

And this will be limited to 1 or 2 servers only.

So BIS.. Stop digging your own grave. Without the community you are nothing. No one want to play your game without mods (except a few souls). vanilla its just bad.

So get a grip and stop this madness. Don't fuck up the community by the path you're taking now.

All my friends have trash-binned their copy of arma3, and many other have as well.

I'm not ready to do that quiet yet, but i to will do this if Bis continues on the monetizing path.

Some of you might say. Well your loss.

But i don't see it a loss when there are other great games out there i can spend my time on.

Edited February 12, 2015 by nuxil

[Rydygier 1309]

Some good technical questions here. But technical matters are usually solveable. About some of the rest:

What quality control will be involved here?

Bad mods will be not purchased?

Why does everybody suddenly need to make money on hosting the game or creating content for the game?

Not everybody. And this one was answered two posts above yours.

Did any of you pay money to get the knowledge you posses on scripting, configuring, model making by depbo other peoples content or looking at tutorials?

HELL NO. It was all free. And now you want|expect us to pay for content you made which you would not have been able to create without this free knowledge

That's fundamentally invalid thinking.

1. Applies to the most/all of regular jobs - everything involves knowledge, we possesed "for free" at school.

2. It's not "for free" at all. Time and effort put into this is worth a lot, while result isn't guaranteed. Many, who tried - failed and gave up. And I do know, how this effort often is not recognized, not understood and ignored. Beneficiares do think so often, mod, they use, was made in few hours with ease or something due to their ingorance in this topic.

3. It doesn't matter anyway. Payment for the own work is fair thing, isn't? Like you just forgot about the work hours factor here. And skill. And talent.

4. Between the lines in this quotation hides again that spoiling, demanding mindset of some community members - "your work, dear modder, we deserve for free (why? Because.). Yes, you're our servant, so shut up and do your work. Fast. Or get lost. But don't dare ask for anything in return, greedy fool, it's forbidden.".

Meanwhile it's like this:

- modder may do with his work, whatever he wants in the boundaries of law. It's fair.

- it's a great gift from his side each time he decide to share for free with the others his hard work. It's not any obvious standard, like narrow-minded part of the community used to think due to more than 10 years of such enormous generosity of the modders.

- or at least may be, as some in fact are taking their payment in currency of fame and appreciation. And the feedback.

- thus, modder deserve from the community side a respect, same for his decision, on what terms distribute his work.

- if he decide to ask for money in return, when it's legal and fair, community isn't, like some suggested, coerced to pay. It's completely free and fair to not do it. And is fair to allow the modder ask for money.

5. What's abnormal in whole situation isn't "sudden" money factor in modding. Is a fact, so many was working for free so long, willing to treat all that effort in terms of hobby, while normal and fair thing is payment for work made.

6. I think, who would like to keep work for fun alone, like many stated already, they'll continue that way regardless of another possibility - why not? So there will be still a lot of free goodies around, I think. Maybe so much, not many will stay interested in paid content in fact, unless really remarkable, so this the more will stay marginal. Some of them may allow to donate freely at most. Who will come because for greed of easy money, will go away fast, because such money aren't easy for sure.

7. Servers monetizing may be (or not) another matter, I do not comment this one above, because I do not know this stuff.

8. Which, if any way of introducing paid mods is optimal/good enough - no idea.

And this:

Without the community you are nothing.

Awful attitude, truth or not. BTW IMO they do know very well, how important community is for Arma (as they stated, is mainly a platform for community). What they do (and whatever they plan), is intended to preserve community, we can IMO trust on that. And how about this:

The community without the modders is nothing. So why some community members are so demanding toward modders and disrespectful toward their fair decisions? We can continue in this tone, but that will not serve well anyone here.

The whole truth is - we all are riding on the same horse here. Arma needs community. Community need modders. We all need Arma.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Rydygier

[.kju 3245]

@ nuxil

Time is the payment of modders. The effort to learn, to realize mods and to overcome the obstacles along the way.

Did you ever think about this yet in detail?

While its just a minor aspects, but why are you suggesting mission designers are not doing "the real hard work"?

I would claim the contrary - for most players without missions (and scripts) community made addons/mods are of not much use.

Who is playing vanilla missions after all - especially with mods. Hardly anyone.

That said personally I think tool designers are the most underrated group in modding in this scene (next to documentation providers).

They enable modding, they expand modding and most important they reduce the effort involved.

[nuxil 2]

Bad mods will be not purchased?

So its ok to let steam be spammed down by crappy shit made by 10 year old kids?

Not everybody. And this one was answered two posts above yours.

Ok. will read that post. was very tired when i wrote my post.

Modding should not be monetized, modding should be done because people like it and do for it fun.

It has worked fine for 15 years now.

It seems like some community members in here thinks that. Hey i spent 10+years on modding for this game engine.

Its about time i get paid for the stuff i create. (a little blunt way to put it tho.)

Let the community mods stay free. let everyone benefit for mods, not just them with money in their wallet.

If you appreciate a content makers work, you can donate to them if you like their work.

money makes greed, money makes one corrupt. and that's a fact.

Awful attitude, truth or not.

And you basically say the same as me, so we got a an awful attitude both of us ;p

Arma needs community. Community need modders. We all need Arma.

Except you got one thing wrong here. We all don't need ArmA, there are other great games out there. :)

;2879269']

While its just a minor aspects' date=' but why are you suggesting mission designers are not doing "the real hard work"?

[/quote']

Yes sorry kju.. i know it takes a lot of effort to create good quality missions. especially multi player missions.

Lot of testing , bug fixes etc involved. without mission there would not be a point of new addons|mods. what the point of roaming around on a empty map with no meaning.

But lets say there is 1 person making 1 mission Vs and 1 person making one map.

The workload on the guy making the map is much higher. model making "houses, sheds etc etc", texturing, uvmapping, creating lods of all sorts,

creating config files, creating scripts of misc sorts, creating the topology of the map. its really a ton of work.

Thats why is said the guys who do the real hard work gets 0.

;2879269']

That said personally I think tool designers are the most underrated group in modding in this scene (next to documentation providers).

They enable modding' date=' they expand modding and most important they reduce the effort involved.

[/quote']

Indeed. they are forgotten souls in this.

If they dedice to monetized the game. all parts must benefit form it. mission makers, (content) makers, map makers. so on.

Not only the Server hosters.

Anyway i'll repost my conserns about this since i think my questions are very valid to this topic.

* What quality control will be involved here?

* Who will do the quality control?

* Who will ensure/control that no copyrighted content is "Ab"used.

* What kind of protection will be involved here, (ie. will the addons/mods be ebo'ed?)

* How will user paid content work regarding MP.

* If the content is derivative from some GPL licensed work how will this modified source/code be available?

[Rydygier 1309]

So its ok to let steam be spammed down by crappy shit made by 10 year old kids?

Result isn't OK. But I wonder, how you would like to prevent that in OK way. I really do, I'm concerned about low visibility of quality stuff. Currently Workshop is just a junkyard.

And you basically say the same as me, so we got a an awful attitude both of us ;p

Exemplary only.

Modding should not be monetized, modding should be done because people like it and do for it fun.

Some keep repeat that mantra, but this misses the point. Point is - modder have the right to choose freely, for what reasons/purpose he is modding. No one here should try to dictate, why he should mod (futile anyway). His choice may be wise or not, depending on his individual situation, but will stay his choice, and is perfectly fair to allow him to choose to try mod for the money. Meanwhile some are trying to enforce modders' motivations, so much they affraid the money. Absurd. People are working and people are being paid for it. Normal thing worldwide, so why exactly modding etc. should be an exception here? Is that work not hard enough to make any payment fair? I see no explanation.

Except you got one thing wrong here. We all don't need ArmA, there are other great games out there.

Of course - I said this with assumption, we're talking about keeping whole thing alive. We do need Arma, if we want play Arma or mod Arma, to make it more precise. Oh, BTW there are many other games out there, but I do not know any even close to what Arma is.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Rydygier

[nuxil 2]

Result isn't OK. But I wonder, how you would like to prevent that in OK way. I really do, I'm concerned about low visibility of quality stuff. Currently Workshop is just a junkyard.

Exactly. no quality control. tons on junk.

Perhaps something like ED does it.

A certain standard must be kept before 3rd part addon makers are allowed to sell their content and it needs to be approved by Bis

Some keep repeat that mantra,

And you keep repeating yours. this conversation is just looping.

Instead try to answer my question about my conserns regarding this. i think its more important that what you feel about monetization or what i feel about it.

Edited February 12, 2015 by nuxil

[Rydygier 1309]

And you keep repeating yours. this conversation is just looping.

? I'm not just repeating same thesis again and again, but presenting certain reasons, why I don not agree with that mantra, expecting counterarguments that would refute my arguments or the consensus. But instead they just saying same again, ignoring my argumentation, like I never said a word. It's looped, true, but one side only.

Instead try to answer my question about my conserns regarding this.

What your other questions have to do with absurdal concept of (futile) enforcing motivations for modders (modding should be done because people like it and do it for fun.)? Nothing, as I can see, those are pretty decent for a change, but regarding quite another aspect of the topic - some technical issues. I do not know answers to your another questions, thus I'm not answering them, but answering only, when I have something to say.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Rydygier

[nuxil 2]

I have expressed my opinon.

You have expressed yours. Now we leave it at that. i dont want to get into a debait about your opinion or try to convince you otherwize. nor will you be able to change my opinion on this matter.

Lets get back to the thread title. and leave personal opinions behind.

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

I posted my questions with the thead title in mind as i see huge issues with allowing paid use-made content.

Edited February 12, 2015 by nuxil

[I give up 152]

Perfect nonsense, if game studios start to allow this they will be digging their own grave. I dont see this as a reality, however if it happens will not be a surprise.

[chrisb 196]

Perfect nonsense, if game studios start to allow this they will be digging their own grave. I dont see this as a reality, however if it happens will not be a surprise.

If by that you mean paying for mods is nonsense, then I don't agree. Why is it nonsense.

Would it not be better to keep player made content of all types, in pc gaming and encourage new players to make content.

Fewer and fewer games allow or bother with player made content compared to years ago, which is a shame really. If there was a chance that content makers could make something from this, plus of course the game devs, then perhaps it would push the possibility of player made content back in front of other developers eyes, as viable.

That way they could maybe understand that a game could be kept alive for some period of time, whilst still making money from it.

We may get even more games that allow it and benefit from it. We get a lot for free here in this series, which is great, but there should be no problem for a maker to ask a price for his/her work, if the devs would allow it. So why dismiss it.

Just my view and I understand that your more than entitled to your view. ;)

[I give up 152]

Let's say that I play a rpg life mode, if I have some money to spend, what I am going to buy? A nice helicopter DLC from BIS or a nice sports car from a fishy website?

You understand what I am saying?

Btw, for what do I need a military helicopter when I am playing a Life mod?

[chrisb 196]

Let's say that I play a rpg life mode, if I have some money to spend, what I am going to buy? A nice helicopter DLC from BIS or a nice sports car from a fishy website?

You understand what I am saying?

Btw, for what do I need a military helicopter when I am playing a Life mod?

Too simplistic, why a fishy website, why not Steam or an official website AH perhaps (not saying they would want to be involved, just an example) ?

Would there not be lots of things you could buy for rpg, obviously it would depend on what you play as. Also how much the said content cost, lets say £1-2 (just an example) for smaller player made content, clothing/vehicle skins, etc. More in-depth content would obviously cost more, a mission cost £2 a campaign cost £..well you get the idea. A whole faction costs ££'s... well its a new game, when coupled with a campaign..

But also a simple script (simple for the maker, maybe not for us). One that changes the game in some small way, £0.50p (these are all just simple examples so don't quote me on costs mentioned, because I don't know what would be a fair cost, well I have an idea).

I think it would be a good way to get a standard going, also to allow what I said previously. Expecting for free, is fine, but expecting to pay doesn't mean that isn't also fine. Some will say its good for those with deep pockets, but the argument to that would be, 'you only bought the game', nothing else. To come into the game thinking 'well I also get all the other stuff for free', is well, a little arrogant.. no..

[I give up 152]

Where do you read in my words this "To come into the game thinking 'well I also get all the other stuff for free'"?

I am saying that this idea is highly unrealistic and will bring nasty consequences for mod makers and game studios and consequently it is a perfect nonsense.

[chrisb 196]

Where do you read in my words this "To come into the game thinking 'well I also get all the other stuff for free'"?

I am saying that this idea is highly unrealistic and will bring nasty consequences for mod makers and game studios and consequently it is a perfect nonsense.

I'm speaking generally, that's why I said some will think, not necessarily you. ;)

Nasty consequences ! Not sure why..

But we're obviously looking at this from different viewpoints, which is fine, we all have an opinion on it.

[BL1P 35]

Is this a hypothetical thread about paying for mods ?

Or did BIS loose there minds and agree to this ?

[chortles 263]

Is this a hypothetical thread about paying for mods ?

Or did BIS loose there minds and agree to this ?

It's still a hypothetical thread. :)