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

[x3kj 1247]

the cut valve takes is ridiculous... totally not surprised at them beeing greedy arseholes :j: Edited April 23, 2015 by Fennek

[das attorney 858]

Thanks for the share Fennek - interesting watch.

[Chairborne 2594]

What a good way to support content developers, right?

I bet that donations now look a lot better than they looked yesterday. :cool: :cool: :cool:

[soulis6 24]

@bigger dave: Valve has said it's actually up to the developers how much of a split the mod creators get; they take their normal split from the devs, and then the devs decide how much of that remaining they share with the mod creators. So in this case the 25% of the profits going to the mod creators is a number set by Bethesda.

And see my previous comment about cooperation vs competition. I don't believe it will be hindering anything like that.

I definitely get the reservation of stolen crap being thrown on steam though by someone else, I hope they can curtail things like that. As far as i know none of that kind of stuff that got put up on greenlight ever made it to the store proper, it always got taken down before it went anywhere.

@IndeedPete: Without going into patents and copyright infringement, which is a whoooooooole 'nother horrible problem (patent trolls, people sitting on patents, suing random people to try and get them to settle, etc), this doesn't really hold true for games or most software. Everyone has a billion ideas about what would make an awesome game (or in this case mod), but that's like 0.05% of the work required to actually turn it into reality, and it never turns out exactly like the idea, because you find that things don't work exactly as you thought they might, or that it's just not fun the way it is and have to make changes.

[kklownboy 43]

I think there will be more content that is finnshed/complete, when we can buy it.

So much crap is made half assed even the large more polished Mods. With the valid excuses " well its on my freetime/hobby, you got it free...BS. (all do to the lack of Docs from BIS/and BI_Sim)

Word of mouth will really change the "market" if a Mod is not "worth" the dope cash. But I will pay for stuff I want to use on our server. If they run into the hundreds $$$ over a year... well thats really going to put a crimp in my dope cash.

What Valve/Steam may end up is with "Subscription" based payments, with encrypted PW unlocks to help the large combo Mods do Dev and release. Maybe the whole encrypted PBO is only unlocked on a Approved Steam Server .EXE. Kinda free to play on local, but pay to play on Networked Server EXE.

fuck I dont know. I do know I will pay for it if I have to have it.

Its all small potatoes...

But Models...well their a dime a dozen, with very good ones and just bad, FPS killers. The freemarket will choose something of a value...

[x3kj 1247]

I definitely get the reservation of stolen crap being thrown on steam though by someone else, I hope they can curtail things like that. As far as i know none of that kind of stuff that got put up on greenlight ever made it to the store proper, it always got taken down before it went anywhere.

I think it's particulary bad since skyrim has gazillions of smaller mods, many different single items etc. And everything has been free for years. Now that money is possible to be made, arseholes flock to the marketplace and upload stolen mods in the hopes for some pennies. So the marketplace is completely flooded now more then ever. If the mods where created under this system to begin with, it would be different, propably. Is there some kind of data protection for the mods? Or are they simply plain read data, made available through pay wall klick?

patent trolls, people sitting on patents, suing random people to try and get them to settle, etc

patents? You can't patent models or mods. You can protect IP... but most of the stuff i see so far for arma is not original IP

Edited April 23, 2015 by Fennek

[biggerdave 56]

@bigger dave: Valve has said it's actually up to the developers how much of a split the mod creators get; they take their normal split from the devs, and then the devs decide how much of that remaining they share with the mod creators. So in this case the 25% of the profits going to the mod creators is a number set by Bethesda.

Exactly my point, Game Devs get to decide how much the modder gets after valve have taken their cut. 25% translates to "half of half", doesn't take much to figure out who's taking which half.

[soulis6 24]

patents? You can't patent models or mods. You can protect IP... but most of the stuff i see so far for arma is not original IP

No i was just responding to IndeedPete, who was saying that ideas have value, because that's why people patent things and why we have intellectual property, and I was just saying that not only is the patent system totally broken right now in regards to tech (hence the patent trolls and whatnot), but you can't patent an idea for a game or a mod, because it has no value by itself, and is way to nebulous and vague to try and define in that way.

---------- Post added at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

Exactly my point, Game Devs get to decide how much the modder gets after valve have taken their cut. 25% translates to "half of half", doesn't take much to figure out who's taking which half.

AFAIK, it's the standard 70% cut that the developers get, steam takes 30%, which is the same as Apple, Google, and more.

[das attorney 858]

No i was just responding to IndeedPete, who was saying that ideas have value, because that's why people patent things and why we have intellectual property, and I was just saying that not only is the patent system totally broken right now in regards to tech (hence the patent trolls and whatnot), but you can't patent an idea for a game or a mod, because it has no value by itself, and is way to nebulous and vague to try and define in that way.

Okay lets use a different example:

I take an existing Arma game mode, let's say "Battle Royale" by Player Unknown.

Then I remake it feature for feature (all my own code though) but to all intents and purposes, it's exactly the same as his mission.

I then name my mission "Bottle Royal" and sell it on Steam Workshop.

In my mind it is an obvious ripoff as that is what I set out to do, but the question is, does he have any recourse?

The only example that came to mind is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Giana_Sisters

From that article:

the general gameplay and the first level of The Great Giana Sisters is nearly identical in layout to the first stage found in Nintendo's Super Mario Bros

Now it should be pointed out that Nintendo didn't actually open legal proceedings, but threatened to, so obv they thought they could win in a court or at least the threat discouraged TWP from selling the game (irrespective of whether Nintendo could/would/should actually win).

So going back to my example above, Would Player Unknown have recourse to sue me? If not, would Steam force me to remove it?

[IndeedPete 1038]

@Soulis6: To be fair, I'm not talking about ideas like "Hey, a game about mercenary space trolls set in the middle ages would be so cool!". I'm more thinking about concepts and complex ideas. If I conceptualise a certain algorithm to solve a known problem it can have a value, even if it's not implemented yet.

That video from the Cynical Brit is pretty much on spot. Monetising mod content to a certain extend might be feasible and beneficial for both players and modders but in the current state it's a disaster. Valve seems to take a larger share, people are already stealing other people's content or selling free mods as their own. I have already seen Arma workshop creations using some of my content which was never published stand-alone, means they ripped open my PBOs, took something and used it without mentioning me in the credits or asking for permission. As it's non-commercial and they used it to create Arma content to be enjoyed by other players I let them proceed without saying anything. But I should probably get a decent defence insurance once I see people using my stuff to make money.

Edited April 24, 2015 by IndeedPete

[soulis6 24]

Okay lets use a different example:

I take an existing Arma game mode, let's say "Battle Royale" by Player Unknown.

Then I remake it feature for feature (all my own code though) but to all intents and purposes, it's exactly the same as his mission.

I then name my mission "Bottle Royal" and sell it on Steam Workshop.

In my mind it is an obvious ripoff as that is what I set out to do, but the question is, does he have any recourse?

The only example that came to mind is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Giana_Sisters

From that article:

Now it should be pointed out that Nintendo didn't actually open legal proceedings, but threatened to, so obv they thought they could win in a court or at least the threat discouraged TWP from selling the game (irrespective of whether Nintendo could/would/should actually win).

So going back to my example above, Would Player Unknown have recourse to sue me? If not, would Steam force me to remove it?

Not in your example, no, if they follow any other legal example or precedent, not unless you had an agreement with the developer of the original, worked with them, or stole any assets or code from the original. This is commonly known as a clone, and there are hundreds of examples out there, both in PC and mobile market. Some are more blatant (Ninja Fishing, Giana Sisters, Yeti Town), not even trying to do anything original, others just use the original as a base and build new features or ideas off that.

The problem is where do you draw the line? If in your example, what if you add a new terrain or some new features to your version of Battle Royale, that the original doesn't have? What if you spend months adding more new features and content? At what point does it become it's own 'new' idea? It's a very hard thing to quantify or draw hard lines in.

[biggerdave 56]

AFAIK, it's the standard 70% cut that the developers get, steam takes 30%, which is the same as Apple, Google, and more.

Apple and Google are our benchmark for fairness? That doesn't bode well! :butbut:

30% to Valve (and, remember, we still don't know the details of who's getting what of the 75%, though, I guess the other party is Zenimax who are confirmed bastards, so it could well be) is still an undue amount, given all they're really doing is hosting the content, again, something other people are more than willing to do. Then add onto this that they're only going to pay out at the end of the month if you make more than $100... yeah. IMHO, The only way valve could be exploiting their role in this situation more would be if they were getting the "Steam Wallet" involved: company money for the company store, and so on.

[soulis6 24]

Haha well at the risk of sounding like i'm defending Steam (I think they're generally a positive thing for the industry overall, but they definitely fuck up at times, i.e greenlight), 30% seem to be the agreed upon cut for platform holders. I don't know how much it must cost to keep steam running, but I can tell you it's definitely not cheap.

I think it's pretty fair to say that if they didn't put their game on steam, they would see a lot less than 30% fewer sales (my guess would be somewhere around 80% less). If you're a developer, you're not paying them a cut just to host it, you're paying them a cut because they own a platform that is hugely used by almost everyone who plays PC games, and will get them many many times more visibility than anywhere else.

[das attorney 858]

Not in your example, no, if they follow any other legal example or precedent, not unless you had an agreement with the developer of the original, worked with them, or stole any assets or code from the original. This is commonly known as a clone, and there are hundreds of examples out there, both in PC and mobile market. Some are more blatant (Ninja Fishing, Giana Sisters, Yeti Town), not even trying to do anything original, others just use the original as a base and build new features or ideas off that.

The problem is where do you draw the line? If in your example, what if you add a new terrain or some new features to your version of Battle Royale, that the original doesn't have? What if you spend months adding more new features and content? At what point does it become it's own 'new' idea? It's a very hard thing to quantify or draw hard lines in.

Hmm yes that's what I was thinking.

To me, that doesn't really encourage innovation. From a purely mercenary pov, it is better to let someone else do proof of concept and iron out the problems, then come in and remake it, or add a few new features in and remarket on SW. :\

[soulis6 24]

Possibly, except that is a not-insignificant amount of work in the first place to just copy someone else's work with your own code, and even if you spend all that time and energy, potentially weeks or months of work, there's a good chance no one will even play your game/mod, because they already have the original. Unless you do it and then improve on it or add something on your own, there's zero incentive for anyone to switch to your mod.

As far as I know, the only clones that have really made any amounts of money are ones that done some shady things (stealing someone else's assets or source code), or hopped on a quick cash grab during 'gold rushes' (the millions of Flappy Bird clones for example). And both of those examples are not really sustainable or easily repeatable, just something people try for a quick buck.

[das attorney 858]

Possibly, except that is a not-insignificant amount of work in the first place to just copy someone else's work with your own code, and even if you spend all that time and energy, potentially weeks or months of work, there's a good chance no one will even play your game/mod, because they already have the original. Unless you do it and then improve on it or add something on your own, there's zero incentive for anyone to switch to your mod.

As far as I know, the only clones that have really made any amounts of money are ones that done some shady things (stealing someone else's assets or source code), or hopped on a quick cash grab during 'gold rushes' (the millions of Flappy Bird clones for example). And both of those examples are not really sustainable or easily repeatable, just something people try for a quick buck.

Well, I would say that all the hard work is done by the person that made it first. It's easy to replicate, but not to innovate.

As for incentive to play it, if it is cheaper than the thing it's copying, then there is every reason for people to play it instead of forking out for the original. That's why knock-off stuff sells so well imo.

[Macser 776]

It looks like now's the time for people to stop being just players and actually get into modding.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing,would it?

Besides saving cash,it will give people some appreciation of what goes into a mod or addon.

Even a seemingly simple one.

[twisted 128]

There are two divisions of people here. Those like soulis6 who are very much for this possibly seeing potential profits that they can make. And that's cool, moneys nice.

And there's people who love the sharing aspect of arma 3 mods. That's cool to because this gives the community a lot more depth and variety.

Thing is that this will not be clean or painless. It is changing one way of doing things in favor of big corporations being able to monetize another aspect of the game that previously was done purely for the enjoyment of the game. But after this EVERYTHING changes. No one like to feel fucked over or that they've missed out on some cash. And the community becomes a market place.

Edited April 24, 2015 by twisted

[rübe 127]

Well, I would say that all the hard work is done by the person that made it first. It's easy to replicate, but not to innovate.

And where exactly does replication stop and innovation start? At the end of the day, it's all derivative work anyways, and we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. Everything is a remix.

And in general you simply can't protect/copyright ideas, only something you put in "a concrete form and shape" (at least over here in Europe; no idea how badly perverted the US law is in this respect...). E.g. Nintendo would (or let's say "should") have never won their case vs. the awesome giana sisters - which clearly is/was not about plumbers rescuing silly princesses. :cool:

[nodunit 397]

It looks like now's the time for people to stop being just players and actually get into modding.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing,would it?

Besides saving cash,it will give people some appreciation of what goes into a mod or addon.

Even a seemingly simple one.

Sure, if they actually make something themselves rather than say taking someones code, taking something from a free website, maybe tweaking it a bit and then slapping a price tag because "I did that."

I'd personally rather stick to the donation jar idea, yeah I get it donations don't work as well as pay up front but donation also means it is less likely for people to steal other peoples work and for a lot of the same thing to come out.

I would love to be positive about this and think that it would mean people start making their own stuff, but having seen what pops up in the workshop, and the recent explosion of life mods, I'm not feeling very positive...speaking of, what about mods that use original game content?

[das attorney 858]

And where exactly does replication stop and innovation start? At the end of the day, it's all derivative work anyways, and we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. Everything is a remix.

And in general you simply can't protect/copyright ideas, only something you put in "a concrete form and shape" (at least over here in Europe; no idea how badly perverted the US law is in this respect...). E.g. Nintendo would (or let's say "should") have never won their case vs. the awesome giana sisters - which clearly is/was not about plumbers rescuing silly princesses. :cool:

I get that everything is derivative, but the point was really about whether SW will get full up with copied rubbish being sold for $.

[Macser 776]

Sure, if they actually make something themselves rather than say taking someones code, taking something from a free website, maybe tweaking it a bit and then slapping a price tag because "I did that."

I'd personally rather stick to the donation jar idea, yeah I get it donations don't work as well as pay up front but donation also means it is less likely for people to steal other peoples work and for a lot of the same thing to come out.

I would love to be positive about this and think that it would mean people start making their own stuff, but having seen what pops up in the workshop, and the recent explosion of life mods, I'm not feeling very positive...speaking of, what about mods that use original game content?

I was talking more about people who restrict themselves to playing,and want access to free stuff.The best way to get that,is to create it yourself.If they are sincere about the sharing ideal,then they'll have the opportunity to do that. :)

I'd personally rather stick to the donation jar idea, yeah I get it donations don't work as well as pay up front but donation also means it is less likely for people to steal other peoples work and for a lot of the same thing to come out.

There's nothing wrong with that idea either.But isn't that a personal choice?The question is,would you like that choice to be taken from you?Especially when it relates to something you created.Something you invested time in.

Shouldn't you be the one to decide how your work is presented?Shouldn't it be up to you whether or not it is sold,or shared?Wouldn't you feel the tiniest bit of irritation seeing someone actively lobby to prevent you from availing of a choice.Even if you never intended to take advantage of it in the first place?

@no-one in particular

I just don't understand the logic some people are putting forward.As if modding is some kind of humanitarian effort. Or that it's somehow sacred and should be unsullied by the evils of money.Can anyone tell me where that comes from?Or why it applies to modding?

Is it because it has entertainment value?That it's not something practical?Like a saucepan?People pay for films and music.Some of which they may only see or listen to on occasion.Far less than their favourite collection of addons and mods.

If there's a problem with functionality or quality I could understand.That's reasonable.That's sensible.

But saying you would never pay for something just because it was made by a modder,makes no sense to me.

[twisted 128]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/33m4fk/steam_is_now_selling_mods/

It's fun and games out there. Arma 3 community discuss it with reason, but I think it's a mistake erring on the side of greed for valve. Now I see why so many were against arma 3 on steam. Pity, it's quite convenient.

[das attorney 858]

I just read through that link, early access mods indeed! xD

[windies 11]

The only reason I feel for monetizing mods is to enable the abandonment of the platform while still maintaining some sort of revenue stream while quite honestly capitalizing on the only real strong point of ArmA which is mods. That context is why I mostly don't support monetizing mods. I have no problem with addon makers getting money for their time and have no problem with paying for quality content. Many mods and addons out there easily add content that is way better and much more highly needed than BI's vanilla content. Again though I emphasize quality content and also value for content. I don't want to pay $10 each for 20 mods just to be able to access a server for instance.

---------- Post added at 06:22 ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 ----------

I get that everything is derivative, but the point was really about whether SW will get full up with copied rubbish being sold for $.

Short answer: it will.