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

[roshnak 41]

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 I had to guess, I would say that the logic is this: Money makes things vastly more complicated. People would rather that things stay uncomplicated.

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

These are indeed important issues. Especially given that the Valve and the Steam Workshop's stance is apparently, "If something is broken, please ask nicely and maybe someone will fix but also maybe not."

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

Have there been more than two or three people who have said anything even close to this, though?

Edited April 24, 2015 by roshnak

[Macser 776]

Has there been more than one or two people who have said anything even close to this, though?

People have said they will never pay for mods.If this applies to material they haven't actually seen or used yet,then it can't relate to pricing,functionality or quality.All this leaves is the fact it was created by a modder.As opposed to a game developer.There are people who believe content should be free because it's user created.

If I had to guess, I would say that the logic is this: Money makes things vastly more complicated. People would rather that things stay uncomplicated.

It might.Although I was asking about the attitudes some people seem to have about modding.

As if it's something altruistic that must never be touched by commerce.

If I'm to be honest I don't give a toss about a potential marketplace.It's the attitudes towards modders I'm most interested in.That reddit link and some posts on steam about the subject have

revealed some people to have a complete lack of respect for other human beings.And from what I can gather they aren't modders.I hope they're a small isolated group,because they'll kill any mod scene just as surely as they claim commercial content will.

[windies 11]

You can open up modding to monetizing but your opening up a shitstorm along with it honestly and very little of that is based on whether or not the author deserves to be paid for his work or not. It complicates things beyond a reasonable degree TBH.

I think you interpret this nefarious attitude towards modders when it's more of an attitude towards the concept of monetizing modding and the drawbacks vs gains to be had from monetizing it.

[davidzi 11]

I'm worried about the already fragmented multiplayer. As brought up a couple pages back your friends or a private community using paid mods. You'll be forced to buy all those mods yourself if you want to play with them.

Play with a different community? New set of mods to buy. Clan vs clan? Buy some more mods.

What about server admins? Do they have to purchase an extra copy for the server? Will they have to install steam and painfully install and manage mods that way? Please.

I don't like how the steam workshop downloads something into a random folder with a random name, it's a nightmare to manage if you use third party launchers.

If BI goes through with the idea of paid user content I don't feel like individual steam workshops is the right path.

Instead, why not release a Arma Community Content DLC license € 1 per month, that's € 12 per year to enjoy mods. At the end of the year the profit is split between the modders based on downloads minus BI's and Steam's cut

50000 buyers * € 12 = € 600 000

steam cut = € 600000 - %30 = € 180000 (none (or less?) if you buy from BI Store) => € 420 000

BI cut if they want it (I'm sure they do) = € 420 000 - %20 = € 84000

Profit to be shared amongst modders after 1 year based on 50000 people willing to pay for community content = € 336000

Next year, repeat.

My excuses for the fantasy economics, but I think a monthly or yearly system would be better to prevent multiplayer fragmentation (where Arma shines) and combat Steam greed. Not sure if the total amount of profit will be enough to satisfy modders though. A one click deal to support modders ranging from € 12 to € 20 per year is what I would be willing to contribute to mods and be sure I will be able to play with everything on any server that allows those mods and not having to fiddle around 20+ workshops every time you join another community.

[PuFu 4600]

cynical brit - content patch

the cut valve takes is ridiculous... totally not surprised at them beeing greedy arseholes :j:

yeah, my view on the matter. spot on

just a question here - if addons would be monetized just the same, with a single difference - instead of the user paying the money, BI would do it (say after getting through some sort of selection process), would it be any better? I really wanna know if it is about the principle or about the fact that the user needs to spend more cash that he was used to...

Edited April 24, 2015 by PuFu

[nodunit 397]

I don't think Arma would be a good platform for this at all to be honest, since it is an ever evolving game that adds new functions and sometimes even changes their names then that means that things will break very frequently if there is a degree of complexity involved (and heck sometimes even not).

Look around at the threads started by mission and addon makers alike, when things are free we just bite our tounge and understand that in order to advance you have to change things, at the most we get a "Hey X is broken can you please fix it?" But when money comes into the equation then what?

How about community goodwill towards eachother, a lot of community members help others either by advice, offering their assets be it scripts or models. Chances are people will still help with tutorials and things of that nature and explanations but the attitude of "Hey can I use your script in this?" 'yeah sure let me know if you have issues' could become "Hey can I use your script in this?" 'Sorry I use that in my pay content.' Heck I'll take an example of my own, I willingly WANT to donate my apache and its textures to any legit mod that asks for it, you can even see it surfacing in a few of them, each person asked and I said "Yep have at it."

However if those mods were to become pay mods then I would have to ask (if not demand) that they remove my content, not because I want to sell it but because the license says NO COMMERCIAL and to be honest, I have no intentions of donating content to anyone that wants to sell their product unless I am directly involved. I'm not saying that modders will see one another as enemies but there will be a more competitive spirit.

And we've had the debate of "what should be allowed" in regards to coding and something more physical like textures and models, with the understanding that coders put in just as much work that we do, and that it would be wrong to say theft applies only to texture and model (even if it is the easiest to distinguish) and in the end nobody has an answer really, and if we go to the furthest extent of what would not be considered "illegal" then that leaves us the literal bare essentials. Complex addons that rely on the works of others even if its improving, up in smoke. People donating their content to large scale mods in an attempt to speed their progress, probably damaged.

Also 75% is WAY too much, I could understand it in TF2 because they developed it, but for other games? Not so much, even if they are the distributor that is far too high of a demand for something that in this case they would have contributed far, far less to.

Edited April 24, 2015 by NodUnit

[super-truite 54]

Even without getting payed, it can be already frustrating to make and promote original modes. On top of the additional difficulty, the general player always wants something he already saw before :"moaaar M16 please" (I really don't blame players since this is the whole idea of marketing).

It is still really rewarding to me to try new things and as modders, we are not supposed to "depend" on our player bases. This allows some freedom to experiment and leads sometimes to awesome concepts like DayZ, which eventually convince the general player bases.

If the content is monetized, how many modders will keep going on the dark path of trying new things while other modders are sitting on a pile of cash ?

[chrisb 196]

Paid for content:

A few things I agree with concerning the Steam WS player made content charging scheme, that is to be ‘possibly’ introduced to this series at some stage.

1/ 24 hours money back if your not satisfied with the content. Plenty of time to know if that content is or isn’t for you. The argument that some may have, that they might pay then not play with the content, isn’t valid. Pay when you want to start to use it i.e. there and then. Then your not buying it and loosing your money back offer. Be prepared to play with the content for some hours, that way you'll get a better idea of whether or not your going to keep it. Look at reviews, YT, forums etc. Also of course you could try it, get your money back, then wait a little and try again later if your not completely sure.

2/ It gives content makers money for their work, only to those that want to charge. This doesn’t mean everyone will, but I have a feeling that once introduced and used for some time, most content makers will see the advantage of extra earnings. Plus players may start seeing more consistent quality in content.

3/ The idea it remains optional and will have other choices i.e. donate, or, pay whatever you think it deserves. Although donations don’t really work and players deciding what it is worth, will only annoy and cause arguments later between users and content makers (possibly). But the general idea is fine for now, I would say.:rolleyes:

_

Things I would look at if I were paying and/or charging for content.

1/ (to look at first) If your going to supply content. The personal tax implications, although not hard to find out, worth checking through first.

2/ (sort of don’t agree, but see why this is, as it is) 75% to Steam/game devs to split. This in itself is not too surprising, considering the pull the Steam platform has i.e. you could put your mod on another site and sell 100 downloads, put on Steam that’s likely to be many hundreds more.

So in that respect I understand Steam have content makers over a barrel. But it could be a lucrative barrel even at 25%. But in general its on the steep side, but I understand why.

3/ A cap on prices for content and a sensible scale to get to that cap. Plus no sales or offers, so for instance content is not put into the usual Steam mad sales etc. That way, players are not tempted to impulse buy, then not be able to get their money back if they're not happy with the content. However players that do impulse buy, only have themselves to blame if things go wrong.

However. This obviously would be down to Steam and/or the game devs to work out. But I don’t think player made content should be treated the same way as professionally made games, in that respect.

4/ Quality control and support after the content is provided, at least for a set time. Game developers breaking content (not intentionally), by updates to the game or whatever. Content makers would have to accept that they will have to support their paid for content. If they don't, the content should be removed if broken and/or a restriction on further content by that maker should be enforced.

However I think players should understand that they are paying for content that may not work for the lifetime of the game and in some cases may have a very limited lifetime. Players should do some research before buying.

'AI' content would be an example of content that will/might break quite easily. If however you trust the content maker to support his/her work, then its your choice. But buy with your eye’s open.

But content and its makers, should be monitored either by Steam or the game developers.

_

Overall I support mod makers charging if they want too. I see why some don’t want to pay for content, or the principle they see i.e. a precedent having been set many years ago that player made content is free for games like Arma here.

But that is not changing ‘yet’. Content makers can decide to still make it for free. Others can choose a donate button. But you still have to allow those that want to charge to charge, there isn’t a genuine argument against this really, because the other options are still available.

_

Players paying for content:

I see this as personal choice, no one is forcing anything on anyone here. The option should be explored and introduced if the game developers agree. This isn’t or shouldn’t be left upto Steam to decide. Steam should simply act as the platform provider. As said, players should buy with their eye's open after checking out the content first. You do have a 24hr timeline to accept the content or not.

_

It will split communities !!

Why would it do that, simply by the makers of content wanting to get some financial reward, whereas others can still operate as before. There is no real reason I can see, why this will break up communities. I don’t think it will, there are games that have this already and are very strong. In-fact it could have the opposite effect. Whereas content makers improve their work to compete with others. This should/will lead to better quality in some content.

I have not read any reasonable argument explaining why it will break up communities.

But whatever I say will not convince those that don’t want convincing. It would be the same as someone trying to convince me, that its wrong for content to be paid for if that maker so wishes. Just won’t happen.

But that’s how I feel on the subject. But it is only my view, non of us will make much difference in the end, if they are going to introduce it, they will. Just get used to the idea. ;)

Edit: A footnote to this should be considered, sites such as AH, they provide a good service that should be supported. How this is done, is for the game developers to decide. Once introduced into Steam, sites like AH may well disappear if this is not done fairly. So that is a thing to consider, but it is for the game developers to decide. AH and sites like that, should have the same options applied, its for them & the devs to work out how that will go forward.

Edited April 24, 2015 by ChrisB

[da12thMonkey 1943]

No return on work carried out until own profits are in excess of $100, while own profits are never going to be >50% of total sales (because no publisher in their right mind will accept a smaller cut than 50%). Plus tax.

Doesn't seem worth the effort, given the likely number of subscribers willing to pay for anything but big MP-focused addons that they'll use regularly.

1/ 24 hours money back if your not satisfied with the content. Plenty of time to know if that content is or isn’t for you. The argument that some may have, that they might pay then not play with the content, isn’t valid. Pay when you want to start to use it i.e. there and then. Then your not buying it and loosing your money back offer. Be prepared to play with the content for some hours, that way you'll get a better idea of whether or not your going to keep it. Look at reviews, YT, forums etc. Also of course you could try it, get your money back, then wait a little and try again later if your not completely sure.

Good luck to SP scenario makers who want to be rewarded for their work then!

Edited April 24, 2015 by da12thMonkey

[x3kj 1247]

About the 75% ... clever game makers may opt for lower cut, which results in more people willing to mod for it (if money is the biggest incentive) and the prices dont have to be high -> more users can and are willing to afford it (provided the mods are any good)

I don't think Arma would be a good platform for this at all to be honest, since it is an ever evolving game that adds new functions and sometimes even changes their names then that means that things will break very frequently if there is a degree of complexity involved (and heck sometimes even not).

Look around at the threads started by mission and addon makers alike, when things are free we just bite our tounge and understand that in order to advance you have to change things, at the most we get a "Hey X is broken can you please fix it?" But when money comes into the equation then what?

That applies to every game. If things are changed by the devs, reliant things can break. I dont see how arma is special in this case. If money is in the equation, the modder responsible has an incentive to actually fix the problem. Because no fix-> broken -> users will be pissed -> no more sells. If its free, and the modder has no reason to go back, if he isnt actively working on the thing anymore.

Content makers would have to accept that they will have to support their paid for content. If they don't, the content should be removed if broken and/or a restriction on further content by that maker should be enforced.

The later won't really work. I mean how long do you think you should receive support for a mod? At some point that just isnt realistic. If it is broken to be point where it's unplayable it should be taken off the list so nobody can purchase it anymore. But a lifelong obligation to fix every mod for every game you ever brought out is simply unrealistic.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Fennek

[djotacon 190]

The paid content is a huge business opportunity.

Beyond misgivings finally modders can keep doing what they like most and win some money.

I do not see the slightest problem.

STEAM is a dream for any developer of games and we will soon see the store of mods running.

[vegeta897 13]

That applies to every game. If things are changed by the devs, reliant things can break. I dont see how arma is special in this case. If money is in the equation, the modder responsible has an incentive to actually fix the problem. Because no fix-> broken -> users will be pissed -> no more sells. If its free, and the modder has no reason to go back, if he isnt actively working on the thing anymore.

This is the thing that seems to be going over everybody's heads. The market balances itself out because the people are the only ones who have power here. Putting a price on your mod isn't power. The guy who makes the choice to pay that price has the power. Don't trust that a modder will keep his mod updated? Don't pay him. The same way you wouldn't pay for a game that you don't think will deliver the experience you're after. I'm sure none of us would have purchased Arma 3 in early access if it was being made by some random developer we never heard of. But we trusted that BI would deliver a great experience as they always have.

http://garry.tv/2015/04/24/paying-for-mods/

[chrisb 196]

But a lifelong obligation to fix every mod for every game you ever brought out is simply unrealistic.

Not what I said.. It would have to be monitored. There will be content that breaks and is not possible to put right. Its then for the people monitoring it to decide if there should be a restriction or not placed on that content maker. It would be unfair to punish a maker for content that breaks and can't be put right. But that is also for the buyer to think about.

Monitoring how this works will be needed, that is obvious. Its something everyone entering into will have to consider.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

Good luck to SP scenario makers who want to be rewarded for their work then!

Content makers who make things such as mission/campaigns, should think.. How can I keep the player engaged/interested and offer a longer lasting experience. If it can be completed within 24hrs, then its money back and move on.

But I can see lots of opportunities for SP content makers to offer some really good content.

[Macser 776]

You can open up modding to monetizing but your opening up a shitstorm along with it honestly and very little of that is based on whether or not the author deserves to be paid for his work or not.

Windies,I disagree on that.I think that's a central point in this whole thing.

I think you interpret this nefarious attitude towards modders when it's more of an attitude towards the concept of monetizing modding and the drawbacks vs gains to be had from monetizing it.

I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Let me quote one knuckle-dragger from the Steam side:

"Dev of the mod,go ♥♥♥♥ yourself.You have ZERO integrity,and you're attempting to ruin something that has been free for decades.You are a ♥♥♥♥ing scumbag.And I seriously hope any and all reputation you have is lost."

That may not be representative of the majority.But it's not an isolated case of open hostility.

How about community goodwill towards each other, a lot of community members help others either by advice, offering their assets be it scripts or models. Chances are people will still help with tutorials and things of that nature and explanations but the attitude of "Hey can I use your script in this?" 'yeah sure let me know if you have issues' could become "Hey can I use your script in this?" 'Sorry I use that in my pay content.' Heck I'll take an example of my own, I willingly WANT to donate my apache and its textures to any legit mod that asks for it, you can even see it surfacing in a few of them, each person asked and I said "Yep have at it."

Yes.But who are you helping?Who are you giving advice to?Who would you share your work with?Primarily other modders.Or people interested in getting into it.They know what you do takes some effort.They understand the limitations you have to work with.They likely don't demand anything from you.The fact that players who never mod can access what you share,is a luxury.You are not required or obligated to do so.You choose it.Not all members appreciate that.Perhaps this situation can highlight that.

If the content is monetized, how many modders will keep going on the dark path of trying new things while other modders are sitting on a pile of cash ?

I don't honestly believe there's going to be any modding millionaires.But a person can still have passion for what they do while making money from it.They are no less deserving of respect than anyone else.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Content makers who make things such as mission/campaigns, should think.. How can I keep the player engaged/interested and offer a longer lasting experience. If it can be completed within 24hrs, then its money back and move on.

But I can see lots of opportunities for SP content makers to offer some really good content.

Really? So, in order to be paid, we SP creators should artificially stretch the content? There are awesome missions out there which are short. And something that is short is not necessarily of bad quality. Take the Resist campaign for example with 1000s of hours of development time involved. You could buy it and beat it in one afternoon, getting your cash back by the evening. You had good entertainment for free. That would suck for the creator.

Also, that brings me to a few random questions: What about playable content that relies on paid content? Any licensing necessary? Dev versions of the mod for creators who want to create playable content for that mod (and by that also promote it)?

Or third party frameworks which add functionalities for mission creators? I haven't seen those on the workshop. Will the authors of these packages be able to monetise their work? Will they be able to sell licenses to creators using these libraries? Will the creators using these frameworks have to encrypt or monetise their content to ensure no one is exploiting the content to get the script suite for free?

I'm honestly afraid to continue work on my projects and at some point face legal troubles or a demand note because I used Jimmy-Jimbob's-colour-effects-from-outer-space-script snippet in a project two years ago. Where do we draw the line between a monetisable mod and something that is too small to be sold on its own and is therefor de facto public domain?

[Tonci87 163]

yeah, my view on the matter. spot on

just a question here - if addons would be monetized just the same, with a single difference - instead of the user paying the money, BI would do it (say after getting through some sort of selection process), would it be any better? I really wanna know if it is about the principle or about the fact that the user needs to spend more cash that he was used to...

It really depends on the circumstances, would the money from BIS go directly to modders without third companies taking a very generous cut? How would BIS decide wich mods to sponsor? All in all this would be a more consumerfriendly approach without the huge pile of trouble and shitstorm attached to it. I still think that a prominently presented pay what you want model is the way to go, BIS sponsoring could be an addition to that since it would only benefit high profile mods.

[x3kj 1247]

i dont really see why they would do that however? And if so, it certainly would be a one time thing? i can't imagine that they would pay continually with basically no measurable return in investment whatsoever

BIS sponsoring could be an addition to that since it would only benefit high profile mods.

I doubt the workshop monetization profits anything else but high profile mods and big mod packs for the most part as well... Single items - thats like oblivion horse armor. I don't see how you could make 100$ in profit from such a download. If you don't you don't get any money from valve. (Though it would be interesting to know if you can convert that non-full fund into steam currency)

Edited April 24, 2015 by Fennek

[rübe 127]

just a question here - if addons would be monetized just the same, with a single difference - instead of the user paying the money, BI would do it (say after getting through some sort of selection process), would it be any better?

Funny you ask this, while Mikero still doesn't get payed by BI.

He probably should get a 25% cut from all to be monetized mods. :cool:

[super-truite 54]

Windies,I disagree on that.I think that's a central point in this whole thing.

I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Let me quote one knuckle-dragger from the Steam side:

"Dev of the mod,go ♥♥♥♥ yourself.You have ZERO integrity,and you're attempting to ruin something that has been free for decades.You are a ♥♥♥♥ing scumbag.And I seriously hope any and all reputation you have is lost."

That may not be representative of the majority.But it's not an isolated case of open hostility.

Yes.But who are you helping?Who are you giving advice to?Who would you share your work with?Primarily other modders.Or people interested in getting into it.They know what you do takes some effort.They understand the limitations you have to work with.They likely don't demand anything from you.The fact that players who never mod can access what you share,is a luxury.You are not required or obligated to do so.You choose it.Not all members appreciate that.Perhaps this situation can highlight that.

I don't honestly believe there's going to be any modding millionaires.But a person can still have passion for what they do while making money from it.They are no less deserving of respect than anyone else.

I am clearly exaggerating, but my point is that the type of content will change. It's naive to think otherwise...Money always lead to standardization.

And it is only a start in that direction, let's try to think 10-20 years ahead: we might see later a sort of "uber-ification" of game production. Big studios would profit from modders to build their crap, most modders would be happy to get paid,

while 'reactionary' people like me will grumble all day long about the poor quality of video games... Maybe I am delusional, but it is often by 'harmless' changes like this that you turn everything to shit, little by little...

PS: I didn't follow the whole story, is it a feature that needs to be activated by studios for their games or is this by default for each game having a workshop?

Edited April 24, 2015 by super-truite

[Chairborne 2594]

http://www.pcgamer.com/paid-for-skyrim-mod-removed-in-a-matter-of-hours/

Check this out, content is already being removed from the workshop.

[enex 11]

Chesko ("takedowned" author)didn't include anyone else's work. Steam didn't 'take down' the mod. Chesko's mod recommended the user to install fore's animations, and if they did, Chesko's mod would use them. He didn't upload anything he didn't make at any point. The reason it was removed is because Chesko wanted to respect fore's wishes regarding the matter. All this article achieves is a click-bait anti-paid shitstorm at Chesko's expense- regardless of his decision to participate in this, Chesko has a history of helping other modders get along and sharing his methods with the community. He's not an asshole, he doesn't deserve this negative attention.

Please people, try to be rational about this. All I'm seeing everywhere are people throwing hissy fits because they don't want to pay for things. This IS a terrible way for steam to handle things, we SHOULD ask for change. Kicking your feet and crying (aka, posting big middle fingers in the comments and insulting people) achieves NOTHING but hurting people on both sides of the argument.

[badluckburt 78]

Chesko ("takedowned" author)didn't include anyone else's work. Steam didn't 'take down' the mod. Chesko's mod recommended the user to install fore's animations, and if they did, Chesko's mod would use them. He didn't upload anything he didn't make at any point. The reason it was removed is because Chesko wanted to respect fore's wishes regarding the matter. All this article achieves is a click-bait anti-paid shitstorm at Chesko's expense- regardless of his decision to participate in this, Chesko has a history of helping other modders get along and sharing his methods with the community. He's not an asshole, he doesn't deserve this negative attention.

Please people, try to be rational about this. All I'm seeing everywhere are people throwing hissy fits because they don't want to pay for things. This IS a terrible way for steam to handle things, we SHOULD ask for change. Kicking your feet and crying (aka, posting big middle fingers in the comments and insulting people) achieves NOTHING but hurting people on both sides of the argument.

I know the URL seems fishy but it's an explanation written by Chesko if anyone's interested:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s53/sh/3c4f3e29-9b4e-41cf-9a72-1b3ed9f70c62/c727dccbb3398aebb5946afac7faaaea

[thewabbit 0]

http://www.pcgamer.com/paid-for-skyrim-mod-removed-in-a-matter-of-hours/ Check this out, content is already being removed from the workshop.

I really hope BI is watching this clusterfuck closely, as Kotaku called it, if they want to be around for ARMA 4. Don't be another EA and Ubisoft (and now Bethesda).

[Sniperwolf572 758]

No return on work carried out until own profits are in excess of $100, while own profits are never going to be >50% of total sales (because no publisher in their right mind will accept a smaller cut than 50%). Plus tax.

Doesn't seem worth the effort, given the likely number of subscribers willing to pay for anything but big MP-focused addons that they'll use regularly.

On top of that, consider that you have to apply for US tax papers and getting that takes months at least. On top of all the "cuts", the IRS will take 30% (depending on where you live) of the earnings before Valve, Publisher or any cut is even involved.

Not being worth it is a mild way to put it, it's almost completely pointless.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I really hope BI is watching this clusterfuck closely, as Kotaku called it, if they want to be around for ARMA 4. Don't be another EA and Ubisoft (and now Bethesda).

At first I didn't think it was that bad. Now I see that it showed up like a Trojan... Suddenly here, and a whole lot of no good...

I don't like this road that Valve is going down. It's especially not good for a series like Arma. I'm afraid the Dark Days... Are upon us.