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

[I give up 152]

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.

Let's see then the nasty consequences, in my opinion obviously.

For mods/addons makers.

You want to make a legal business you have to fulfill some obligations, you can't just get a free website and a paypal account and start distributing.

You need to turn your business in to a legal activity in matters of regulation, taxes and some other related situations, you need to able to provide support, refunds and some other related obligations also the game studios will not accept/allow complaints or any other situation that your costumer may have, it is your costumer, you need to have a structure to deal with these matters.

Also being these mods/addons distributed under agreement of game studios, every piece of content would need to be verified by the game studios for approval, not only in matters of quality but also in matters of legality, before public release. I dont see gaming studios providing this service free of charge, it has a cost and is not small.

All this have costs and at end the profit may not be what some people think it can be.

For game studios.

In short term these mods/addons will be in direct competition with game studios content, in matters of sales. This means less sales and profit for game producers. Will they agree with this? I have some doubts.

For all.

The beauty of modding and the motivation of most mod makers is exactly the freedom of being able to make something that they like according to their creativity, all the above would kill this freedom of spirit.

Also, becoming a regulated business we would be forced to stop calling it a mod, because this is not a mod, it is a paid DLC.

At medium term it would kill the whole modding activity having a severe impact in game iself, a game that relies basically its whole structure in mods and in the modding community would survive to this? I have serious doubts.

That's why I see this as a perfect nonsense.

[chrisb 196]

Let's see then the nasty consequences, in my opinion obviously.

For mods/addons makers.

You want to make a legal business you have to fulfill some obligations, you can't just get a free website and a paypal account and start distributing.

You need to turn your business in to a legal activity in matters of regulation, taxes and some other related situations, you need to able to provide support, refunds and some other related obligations also the game studios will not accept/allow complaints or any other situation that your costumer may have, it is your costumer, you need to have a structure to deal with these matters.

Also being these mods/addons distributed under agreement of game studios, every piece of content would need to be verified by the game studios for approval, not only in matters of quality but also in matters of legality, before public release. I dont see gaming studios providing this service free of charge, it has a cost and is not small.

All this have costs and at end the profit may not be what some people think it can be.

For game studios.

In short term these mods/addons will be in direct competition with game studios content, in matters of sales. This means less sales and profit for game producers. Will they agree with this? I have some doubts.

For all.

The beauty of modding and the motivation of most mod makers is exactly the freedom of being able to make something that they like according to their creativity, all the above would kill this freedom of spirit.

Also, becoming a regulated business we would be forced to stop calling it a mod, because this is not a mod, it is a paid DLC.

At medium term it would kill the whole modding activity having a severe impact in game iself, a game that relies basically its whole structure in mods and in the modding community would survive to this? I have serious doubts.

That's why I see this as a perfect nonsense.

Well you see I look at this differently, reason why..

I ran my own business from early 1981- late 2010 at which time I sold it, not in the gaming industry, granted, but nevertheless. I went through the various layers of business size, right through, eventually, to LTD company and all that entails.

So I see this as an opportunity for some content makers, not the car crash scenario you seem to view it as. Of course there will be lots to think about for developers and indeed content makers and I wouldn't think for one moment that anyone would go into this with eyes closed. There would of course be legal issues concerning what content can and can't be produced, plus quality checks, transaction issues etc. However, all of that is quite workable and not that hard to make happen. In-fact its quite simple once people agree and decide to go down that route (not saying anyone wants too, just how I see it).

There is an opportunity for talented people to make some money from their hard work, plus for BI too and a 'host' third party if needed such as Steam or whoever else (that of course may not be needed). It would not be, for one minute, as terrifying as many may think it might be. A small self employed income added to your existing income, could be very handy for some people and very easy to start up at the beginning. Tax issues are not complicated, in-fact nowadays its far easier than years past, even if VAT were to be involved. So even if a maker wants to move on to a larger form later, it may/would be possible for them, although I doubt many would do that.

But the possibility is there if the person so wishes to pursue such a route, provided of course the developers go along with it and all involved are in agreement.

You see, to me 'perfect nonsense' gets no one anywhere. A business wouldn't setup if everyone thought that way. I started out on my own, over the years it grew into a modest sized business with many skilled employees, plus many contracted in as and when needed. Perhaps some will view that as a nightmare, many do, but it really isn't. The type of thing we're talking about here, is much smaller and far less complicated and would be very straight forward to do, once all agreements are in place.

But its for others to decide, I for one enjoy seeing people get on. When its doing something you enjoy, then that's even better.

Now from the devs point of view. Well for me, it would make sense, it prolongs the life of my product, it already has a fan base, there are customers there already waiting (I would argue that, anyway) and I'm not directly employing the content maker. Yes I have to do some work, but very little compared to the actual content build.

As for the content makers that do this as a hobby and want to keep it that way. No one is asking for them to be involved, there can be free content, why not. But at the same time there can be paid for content too. All content would have to be original from the content maker, or shared, with agreement of course.

I probably agree this won't happen anytime soon, may never happen. But it is well worth a thought out debate as to whether or not its viable to all concerned. BI haven't really made their view known, they could be completely against it. However, they have taken content makers into their business before. Doing it this way, they could have content made to further forward the game, without the hassle of employing directly, on a flexible format that suits the maker and ultimately it would, I believe, suit BI.

But! Its just a discussion, not a proposal, as yet.

Edited February 12, 2015 by ChrisB

[I give up 152]

Talented people who thinks that their skills deserve to be paid should apply for job with game studios and leave this mod thing alone, for those who enjoy modding.

[chrisb 196]

Talented people who thinks that their skills deserve to be paid should apply for job with game studios and leave this mod thing alone, for those who enjoy modding.

O.k. ;)

[il_padrino 1530]

The whole point of mods used to be that they were FREE modifications to the base game made BY the community in their FREE time, FOR the community. If mods start to get sold for money, they're not mods anymore, but DLCs.

Downloadable content (DLC) is additional content for a video game distributed through the Internet by the game's official publisher or other third party content producers.

Honestly, we are already forced to spend money on dozens of small DLCs, and now our pockets should be drained by paying for mods also ?

Edited February 13, 2015 by il_padrino

[Rydygier 1309]

The whole point of mods

...is, that someone skilled spends his time to create something, that modifies/enhances vanilla content. That's all as for the point of modding.

How paid mods would be named, is not important, they will stay, what they are exactly.

we are already forced

No, we are not forced.

[BL1P 35]

It's still a hypothetical thread. :)

Thank (insert your preferred deity) for that I thought BIS had gone crazy for a bit then.

[Jackal326 1181]

Thank (insert your preferred deity) for that I thought BIS had gone crazy for a bit then.

Not yet anyway.

[Dwarden 1125]

Honestly, we are already forced to spend money on dozens of small DLCs, and now our pockets should be drained by paying for mods also ?

whole Arma serie has less than dozen DLC in total and neither of them was 'forced' so what your argument means ?

[il_padrino 1530]

whole Arma serie has less than dozen DLC in total and neither of them was 'forced' so what your argument means ?

I was actually referring more to the general trend in gaming industry nowdays, not only about Arma. Your new DLC policy in Arma 3 is actually interesting, and a far better solution than those of some of the other companies :)

[kiory 405]

It's quite sad to see so many ill informed people here, people who have NO idea about the process, no idea about the amount of work it takes to do anything for Arma, so many people against the idea of monetisation, thinking it's evil or corrupt, because it's you know... money.

Listen here, what I do IS a hobby, I've spent 9 bloody years doing it. I've spent nigh on 2 years learning the tools for Arma 3 (and still learning), some of you may think it's free, but it's not, it's toil and effort, there aren't many who stick to it, and the ones that do stand out, and rightly bloody so.

I acknowledge peoples concerns and it is a minefield of issues, it is, but tell me, why don't I deserve it? Why is it wrong for me to monetize my work?

It's not wrong, not in the slightest, it's not wrong for anyone to monetize their work, because at the end of the day, it may be a hobby, but it's still work, and the people who know nothing of the process should be ignored, because it's these people who have this sense of entitlement.

I've put in the hours, I've helped the community plenty, I've released a ton of open source content for people to learn from, I continue to do so because I know from first hand experience how difficult it is. I have poured blood sweat and tears into this engine (and not just me, so many others), I love it, and I love this community, but I don't think us making money is undeserved, it's not evil nor corrupt, money keeps me going and financially stable, a lot of you seem to forget that we are just human beings at the end of the day, we don't owe you people a damn thing, and you don't owe us either, keep your money, I don't want your money, I want the money from people who appreciate hard work, the people who think we deserve it, they are the people that count.

Personally I don't give a shit what people think about me, I'll keep plugging away doing this thing because I really do love it, but I do want to make money doing what I love, who wouldn't?

I mainly take issue with people who feel a sense of entitlement, because you're not entitled to free stuff, you've just been spoiled this whole time.

One last thought, how much money do you think our work will cost? Christ I'd be happy putting up a weapons pack for like £2 or something, £2!!!! For you, you get a lovely weapons pack for £2, for me, many people buy it, I get a fair bit of cash, I continue to make cheap little packages for you all, see how this works?

Money is not evil, for me, this is not about greed or hoarding a bunch of money and being extremely successful, this is about making a living, continuing to do what I love.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Kiory

[sabre 244]

^ Well said Kiory.

[meshcarver 12]

Fantastic post Kiory.

I know from experince there's a deep rooted feeling of "money is evil, money is wrong" in and around the artistic community that has historical roots too.

I shall try to find some relevant links and post them here as they also state why it is an incorrect assumption and point to the contrary that money does indeed help individual artists grow in skill and confidence- it helps give them a solid lifestyle platform from which to produce more work and more selfworth with the service they are providing.

This ultimately results in more and higher quality work for everyone to enjoy.

The old notion of "artists just do it for fun, it's just a hobby drawings pretty pictures and there's no reason to make money from it" is pathetic and demeaning.

It's f%^*#}g hard WORK..!!!!

I'll leave this for now with a part of a quote I found searching for the above mentioned links:

"Being a professional artist means, above all, taking your art seriously. Let’s face it, we create our art because we want and need to. We don’t do it for the money, but we also have to realize that without the money, we won’t have the time or energy to create our art."

Found a brief reference to the "starving artist myth" but cannot find the whole post I originally mentioned up to now.

"The Starving Artist Myth

Many artists have bought into a romanticized notion that art is somehow more legitimate if it is created by poor people. This notion was popularized in the mid-19th century by the writer Henri Murger, who wrote Scènes de la vie de bohème a famous French novel about a group of poor artists living in the Bohemian quarter of Paris. The book was wildly popular and it became trendy to be a poor artist.

Over the last 150 years, Murger’s ideas became entrenched in popular culture, and artists hold to the notion that art is a product of the financially unsound and morally superior."

Edited February 18, 2015 by meshcarver

[.kju 3244]

From my perspective this whole idea is how can BI ensure and improve a business model involving modding (aka 3rd party people

create additional content for the base game).

The premise "all is fine, has been for 10 years, so lets continue as is" is fundamentally flawed as far as I can tell from my experience

and insights both into modding arma on the technical side as well as in regards to the state of modders itself.

Arma modding takes a lot of effort, takes a lot of time to learn and is mostly a frustrating process.

Even the most basic one - mission making:

The editor has essentially not been improved since OFP release; other games have far advanced capabilities by now.

BI introduced the concept of modules (following what the community has developed basically a long time ago), yet did this really help

in a significant way?

Finally they decided to start work on the 3d editor .. this at least should save with units/object placement. Still this alone would

leave a lot of other areas still without progress, like testing, debugging, MP testing, story telling/ingame conversations/stagged scenes/etc,

embedding of external files (sounds, music, video, etc) and much more.

What is the trend of campaigns made since OFP?

What about the amount of non military mods or of other eras made?

How many community tools developers are still around?

Essentially no progress with configs, scripting (where is the Java VM for example), terrain making (aside from community work like X-Cam).

Can't really speak about animating, texturing and modeling - as far as I can tell, while this is mostly done by 3rd party software, the situation

in regards data formats/importers&exporters, technology used (still LODs to be made manually), hard to learn how to get assets ingame, etc

is not good either.

However to the contrary modding has become more and more complex and time demanding over time.

Plus people expectations levels have risen alongside; in addition to the overall tone of people/society has become more demanding and non caring.

Finally porting content to A3 is difficult and on-top previous Arma content is mostly unusable in A3 as BI didn't care much about backwards compatibility.

So what is the state of the modding community? As far as I can tell there is fewer and fewer people doing modding (on a non beginner level) - especially

outside mission making. Long time people dropping out for many reasons or giving up. Former popular mods no longer continued and aside a few respectable

exceptions not much new talent joining the (core arma military) modding scene. Even several popular A3 projects have been halted as their authors not

longer can or want to justify the effort necessary (or they just lost motivations by now for many reasons - ie their friends no longer playing A3).

While not directly related the many controversial decisions with A3 (setting, approach, communication strategy, etc) didn't help the overall popularity of A3

either. I could go on and on here, yet I think you (guys) get the point.

So back to the initial argument - IMO BI has to get away from their approach of "making a SP game that can be also somewhat modded by chance"

to a model to profit one way or another (more) directly from popularity of modding (aka more money - and not just from initial sales and limited from DLCs).

At the same time BI has to reinvest considerable amount of resources/manpower to address the above mentioned concerns with modding - most importantly

to reduce the effort and make it more accessible. If they want to preserve arma/their engine as a modding platform. If not, nothing needs to happen.

However with BI investing in the Steam workshop platform and having mod sync to mission/server as a goal as they have announced, there is finally

the dream of easy mod use (built-in) on the horizon. If done properly, it will be a big improvement and finally open up mods really to the average guy.

So seems like a bad idea to just stop there and not embrace the modding capabilities and community still around, as well so to try to reverse the trend

to attract again more people and new talent from outside.

If you can see a different approach to achieve a viable business model for BI to improve the modding capabilities, processes and tools considerable,

please share it!

PS: Also don't forget BI is operating mostly on the same basis as modders (aside from the ability to adjust the engine and having a full-time team to collaborate).

Better ways to create content would also benefit BI itself and the Arma content they develop.

Edited February 18, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

;2882947']

BI introduced the concept of modules (following what the community has developed basically a long time ago)' date=' yet did this really help

in a significant way?[/quote']

It absolutely bloody well helped me. I gave up trying to make missions in Arma 2/OA because of the level of scripting required to make even the most basic mission. With the introduction of modules I have been able to develop missions with far greater ease than previously.

Briefing.html? No longer neccessary

Task management? Just place a module and sync

Mission end? No need to call via scripting - place module and sync to triggers

Creating ambience eg fire/smoke/chemlights - no more scripting!

Adjust AI mode/stance/behaviour - place appropriate modules and voila!

Is this better than learning the sqf and appropriate syntax to completely externally code a mission as we see with more experienced coders/mission developers?

Probably not. At least it has opened the door for some of us new guys to try our hand at mission development without having to have memorised the BI Wiki. :)

[Defunkt 431]

I think 'clans' (<- insert your preferred terminology) could step up a lot more when it comes to supporting modders with donations. As an individual a couple of things often tend to dissuade me from donating;

1. What's an appropriate donation? If a modder makes a (single) weapon I like is that worth contributing US$5 for? That's like 8% of the retail value of the entire game, so generally I think 'no'. And if it's not worth that much is it even worth making a paltry gesture of one or two dollars (less fees)?

2. Will I actually get to use it when I'm playing online? I can appreciate something as being beautiful and well-made and requiring a lot of effort and craft but if I only get to mess around with it in the editor is it worth actual money to me?

Clans, who likely already collect monies for server rental, are uniquely placed to obviate these issues.

1. A clan of 20 players can make a meaningful contribution of $20-$40 (being effectively $1-$2 from each member).

2. A clan can adopt an add-on as part of its standard modset and members know that they're going to be able to use it most gaming sessions.

How about modders start offering donors (above a certain level) the opportunity to have their squad logo displayed in the modder's signature or in the OP of the addon's release thread? Clans get publicity and recognition for supporting content makers and anyone who likes the mod and wants to play online with it can immediately see who they should consider playing with in order to do so.

[das attorney 858]

It absolutely bloody well helped me. I gave up trying to make missions in Arma 2/OA because of the level of scripting required to make even the most basic mission. With the introduction of modules I have been able to develop missions with far greater ease than previously.

Briefing.html? No longer neccessary

Task management? Just place a module and sync

Mission end? No need to call via scripting - place module and sync to triggers

Creating ambience eg fire/smoke/chemlights - no more scripting!

Adjust AI mode/stance/behaviour - place appropriate modules and voila!

Is this better than learning the sqf and appropriate syntax to completely externally code a mission as we see with more experienced coders/mission developers?

Probably not. At least it has opened the door for some of us new guys to try our hand at mission development without having to have memorised the BI Wiki. :)

Agreed, modules are fantastic.

So much easier to make understandable systems for people to use.

You set up some nice parameters and they pop the numbers they need in the right boxes.

No more of this:

"I added this to my initline but it won't work:

[[[[[[["bananas",["apples",[0],1123.23,["arr",[],0,meaninglessVariable_7,"sometag_function",]]]] call unnecessarilyLongAndTediousFunctionName;

What is wrong?"

....

[.kju 3244]

In order to better facilitate player-created content, Arma 3 features Steam Workshop integration, which enables people to easily share and install custom scenarios and addons. Bohemia Interactive plans to expand Arma 3’s Steam Workshop implementation to support full mods, total conversions and much larger file sizes in the near future. In addition, the studio is pursuing other opportunities that might help player-created content flourish, such as a potential Steam Workshop marketplace where Arma 3 content creators could sell their work. More specific details will be shared in a future devblog.

http://arma3.com/news/make-arma-not-war-winners

[Jackal326 1181]

Something similar was posted a while back on a SITREP/SPOTREP around the end of last year I believe, so wouldn't consider it "new" info. The source is more recent, but the information is the same vague generalities.

[eymerich 11]

;2907772']http://arma3.com/news/make-arma-not-war-winners

Just a few considerations about the topic.

It gives me trouble to think that user content should be payed by customers like me. Why?

Surely, there is an huge time sink behind an addon or a mission: This is a valid point in my opinion to allow the creator(s) to ask money for their work.

Time, work, high expetaction and quality add on are all valid points to justify this thread: and, I repeat, to justify the request of a price behind "that" work.

But I wonder, and here lies my doubts: what would happened in the future if I would have to pay for addon created by community?

In my opinion, it's very probably that Devs would improve their engine leaving out every unneeded features.

Which is good, under a certain point of view (image you can play altis at 80 fps) but then, what do i have purchased? A game or an engine?

And this bring me to another question: where is the edge beetwen a feature needed from a feature left to the community?

Sorry for bad english.

[Tonci87 163]

http://dev.arma3.com/post/oprep-content-licensing

The most delicate one: we will be eventually looking at how to extend the existing DLC strategy to monetized user content using the Steam Workshop

Oh fuck me, just as I was thinking that Arma 3 is progressing in a really nice direction (you are starting to make my sig green) you come with that stuff. Just for your information, this has been discussed to death in the Forum (mainly due to Kju always bringing it up) and many people, including many moders were against it and had some good reasons for that. I know BIS would lover to get a cut of every mod downloaded sold but I don´t think this would be good for Arma the platform. (Free) Mods are the Main reason why many people buy arma. Don´t fuck with that.

On the other hand I´m all for you implementing a popular voluntary donation button on every steam workshop page where you can use Steam, or paypal to directly donate to the mod/mission author.

Don´t get greedy BIS!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Tonci87

[Chairborne 2594]

Can't wait to see how this goes. :cool: :cool: :cool:

[vegeta897 13]

many moders were against it

(Free) Mods are the Main reason why many people buy arma

All the modders against it can continue making their mods for free. The more "many" the better.

Free mods will still exist, and people will still buy arma because of it.

This sounds like doomsday talk to me.

[Jackal326 1181]

All the modders against it can continue making their mods for free. The more "many" the better.

Free mods will still exist, and people will still buy arma because of it.

This sounds like doomsday talk to me.

Agreed. Its not like BI are forcing modders to require payment for their work (unless Steam Workshop submissions will require a price tag, though that is merely supposition).

If anything it will help indicate who mods for a hobby/the "true" addon-makers, and who does it (financial) rewards.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Jackal326

[vegeta897 13]

Agreed. Its not like BI are forcing modders to require payment for their work (unless Steam Workshop submissions will require a price tag, though that is merely supposition).

If anything it will help indicate who mods for a hobby/the "true" addon-makers, and who does it for the attention and (financial) rewards.

I just came back here to say something along those lines.

If there are any existing modders who suddenly decide the work they've been doing for free should be paid for, just because they now can do that, what does that tell you about them? Are they the kind of modder we should be concerned about here? I'd wish them luck in their venture and might even buy their mod if I think it's worth it, but losing these people from the ranks of free modders is no great loss in my eyes.

If there are any free modders that will quit on some kind of principle against the existence of paid mods, I think that's quite childish. If you believe firmly in free modding, standing by that principle means continuing to do it, not running away from it by just giving up.