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

[oksman 37]

Say if RHS or Task Force Radio would do this, how would this not split the community and screw up everything? :j:

[PuFu 4600]

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.

so it is about the user paying for it not a 3rd party...

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:

?? what does that have to do with anything?

I am all for mikero being payed for his great tools and have those replace BIS abysmal tools. And because that won't happen, just like it didn't happen with SIX, he went commercial with his own tool pack...is he allowed to do that? Of course he is. Did he get some harsh comments? Yes he did, so what?

Edited April 24, 2015 by PuFu

[kklownboy 43]

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.

Wat? All of that is wrong. I can DL any "TAX Papers".And no the IRS doesnt take 30% before anybody.

[Chairborne 2594]

And no the IRS doesnt take 30% before anybody.

Depends on where you live.

Europe and the US handle taxes in a rather different way.

[vegeta897 13]

Dean Hall's thoughts on the 75% revenue split:

A 25/75 split for a derivative work is actually very good. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game from Skyrim using their assets, engine, tooling, and the Skyrim IP - I would not get a 25% cut on revenue.

In fact, getting a cut on revenue is very rare. Many developers make games and do not get cuts on revenue, the publishers take that. They might get a cut on profit (after publisher has recouped all costs sometimes up to 130%).

If you want to mix hobbies and business, you need to accept that business is not about fairness, it is about value. You need to negotiate from the value you are providing, not what you think is "fair". It is about your negotiating position.

The vast amount of the "value" in a mod for skyrim comes from the fact is is a mod of skyrim. That means, the vast amount of the split goes to skyrim.

I think he makes a good point. A mod on its own is not worth anything. The majority of what you are playing is still the game, not the mod. So anything less than 50% of the revenue going to the developer would actually not make much sense. The reason this system works is that for bigger mods that constitute a larger portion of the player experience, they can carry a larger price tag. Still the same revenue split, but you're making more money with a higher price tag. And people can accept a higher price tag because it's a more substantial mod.

[rübe 127]

?? what does that have to do with anything?

My point just was that before BI is going to pay any mods, they should rather pay/sponsor/contract/something?!... the man that enables all those mods in the first place (actually they should do that no matter what...). And I guess it's pretty save to assume that any mod worth selling was compiled/assisted by his tools, in one way or the other. Btw., are BI people using their own shitty tools or are they also using (some of) Mikero's? Or are they working with better in-house, but unreleased tools? :confused:

Either way, looking at it from this perspective, it's ridiculous to go ahead monetizing mods, if people like Mikero don't get their cut.

I guess, that was my point. :rolleyes:

[gibonez 18]

One thing is for sure however.

The Backlash is INSANE. I don't see this pay for mods approach taking off the publicity is killing valves reputation as the white knight in gaming .

Really wish Publishers would approach monetizing mods with the tripwire approach.

Approach certain high quality mods with an offer to help bring their mod up to the publishers standards, then release said mod / total conversion as an official expansion/DLC.

Just like tripwire did with rising storm for Red orchestra 2.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Wat? All of that is wrong. I can DL any "TAX Papers".And no the IRS doesnt take 30% before anybody.

You need to be issued a TIN by IRS, and if you're not from US that can take up to a year. You can read many horror stories about this from the Greenlit people because this is also required by Steam to sell your games, etc.

It varies, but it's 30% if you're not on the special list.

[kireta21 13]

The ride never ends.

Valve has given workshop modders lesson of capitalism (Ho!) and is removing donation links from mods pages. You should now only "donate" via Steam buy, incuding low, low 300% valve tax.

One more thing: if paid mods will become norm, there will have to be mechanics preventing "pirating" mods. This means DRM-deep integration with workshop, DRM system blocking "too similar" mods, or steam signature dissallowing non-workshop mods in steamworks games (less likely).

Edited April 24, 2015 by boota

[biggerdave 56]

I think he makes a good point. A mod on its own is not worth anything. The majority of what you are playing is still the game, not the mod. So anything less than 50% of the revenue going to the developer would actually not make much sense. The reason this system works is that for bigger mods that constitute a larger portion of the player experience, they can carry a larger price tag. Still the same revenue split, but you're making more money with a higher price tag. And people can accept a higher price tag because it's a more substantial mod.

Except you wouldn't making a standalone derivative game that includes everything your Skyrim. You're making an addon to Skyrim, that requires a copy of Skyrim (which has steam integration by default, so you can bet Valve are taking their share there too). Zenimax has already made the money from their work before you even started making anything.

If I may be frank, Dean Hall's thoughts are outright hypocrisy from the man who put ArmA.2 at the top of bestsellers lists for a good few months. Those custom hexpat SUVs BIS have driving around probably weren't a gift from fans :rolleyes:

[badluckburt 78]

One thing is for sure however.

The Backlash is INSANE. I don't see this pay for mods approach taking off the publicity is killing valves reputation as the white knight in gaming .

Really wish Publishers would approach monetizing mods with the tripwire approach.

Approach certain high quality mods with an offer to help bring their mod up to the publishers standards, then release said mod / total conversion as an official expansion/DLC.

Just like tripwire did with rising storm for Red orchestra 2.

If they were expecting a different reception, I need to move to that fairytale land or switch to what they're smoking :) This really couldn't have gone any other way seeing how they shove it down the Steam community's throat, expecting them to swallow it, lick their lips and say mmmmhmmmm that's good stuff Gabe. I wonder how the reception would've been if it were just open donations.

I agree with the Tripwire approach, nothing was stopping any large company from approaching high profile modders and working with them to create some kick-ass shit - Valve themselves have done this multiple times :P

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The reason this system works is that for bigger mods that constitute a larger portion of the player experience, they can carry a larger price tag. Still the same revenue split, but you're making more money with a higher price tag. And people can accept a higher price tag because it's a more substantial mod.

But it doesn't work at all for smaller mods (and missions) that make up the majority of community output.

How many small mods do you think are likely to gross $400 on the workshop that entitles the author to actually receiving his 25% cut? Are they any less entitled to receiving the money they earned, than larger mods that make a more substantial profit?

The only way small mods will likely be able to turn a profit for their author is if they inflate their price to maximise their return from their smaller customer base. But if single author can charge $2 for a single rifle because that's all they can produce and they have to sell 200 of them before they actually get any money in return; will a larger mod feel they're getting screwed over selling half a dozen weapons, a vehicle and some units for £10, but to 5,000 people?

Remember this is a community where there's a perception that $16 DLC for "7 rifles" or "2 helicopters" from BIS is extortionate, so a savvy author needs to consider a price point with that in mind if they want to attract customers.

I honestly can't see the economics of it working for most content makers in this community when there's a -$300 red mark on the balance sheet going to Valve and the Publisher that only gets larger once you're into the black.

I don't think the percentages are too unexpected, but to completely deny authors their money unless their work is rather successful, seems wrong to me.

Edited April 24, 2015 by da12thMonkey

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Dean Hall's thoughts on the 75% revenue split:

I think he makes a good point. A mod on its own is not worth anything. The majority of what you are playing is still the game, not the mod. So anything less than 50% of the revenue going to the developer would actually not make much sense. The reason this system works is that for bigger mods that constitute a larger portion of the player experience, they can carry a larger price tag. Still the same revenue split, but you're making more money with a higher price tag. And people can accept a higher price tag because it's a more substantial mod.

That's a magnificently dumb way to rationalize it. But coming from Dean, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Let's draw a comparison, if I make a specific aftermarket parts for a, let's say Corvette, and sell them to Corvette owners, do you think Chevrolet would need to take 75% of every sale because I'm making parts that fit their car? The part can't fit any other car, so without the car my parts are nothing.

Should BI give Microsoft 75% of their sales because Arma runs on Windows?

Someone like Dean should fucking know much better where the value for the developer of the game lies, and that's the increased sales of the base product because your mod is increasing the inherent value of their base product. It's incredibly obvious how many people bought Arma 2 just for DayZ. The modding community has had this effect on games, their sales and their lifetime ever since the dawn of modding. And he somehow seems to forgot it in a span of two years.

And considering the base product is sold on Steam, Valve takes a cut from extra sales and the game dev takes a cut from extra sales. This is basically double dipping.

How much value does any Arma title have without the mods? How much value does Oblivion or Skyrim have without mods? They'd be fucking weekend titles you rented and returned.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[Rydygier 1309]

Skyrim... Well, well. Certainly will be interesting to wait and observe, in what shape situation will stabilize. And in what shape, if any, this will come to Arma.

[vegeta897 13]

Except you wouldn't making a standalone derivative game that includes everything your Skyrim. You're making an addon to Skyrim, that requires a copy of Skyrim (which has steam integration by default, so you can bet Valve are taking their share there too). Zenimax has already made the money from their work before you even started making anything.

If I may be frank, Dean Hall's thoughts are outright hypocrisy from the man who put ArmA.2 at the top of bestsellers lists for a good few months. Those custom hexpat SUVs BIS have driving around probably weren't a gift from fans :rolleyes:

But mods add value to the game. The game's own price is a price for the vanilla value. If a mod increases that value, wouldn't it make sense that what you pay the developers follows?

I probably shouldn't have even mentioned that it was a quote from Dean Hall, because I knew someone would try to make some kind of remark like that. I posted it for the points he made. Who made those points is entirely irrelevant. I don't care if you think he's a hypocrite, we're not arguing about the integrity of Dean Hall here. It's only proper to cite who I'm quoting though.

And considering the base product is sold on Steam, Valve takes a cut from extra sales and the game dev takes a cut from extra sales. This is basically double dipping.

How much value does any Arma title have without the mods? How much value does Oblivion or Skyrim have without mods? They'd be fucking weekend titles you rented and returned.

Again with the self-victimizing. If you bought Arma with the expectation that its price would be justified by free mods, that is a decision you made. Nobody guaranteed you mods. They guaranteed you mod support, and you made the decision to trust that there would be enough mods to make the game worth your money. Luckily there will still be plenty of free mods out there alongside premium ones. People will still have the power to decide whether the price of the game plus the price of the mods they want is worth the value. Just as they decided if the price of the game with any free mods was worth it. Stop making arguments that perpetuate this concept of consumers being incapable of spending responsibly. That is literally the attitude that makes bad things happen. If we can demonstrate to businesses that we won't give our money to things we don't support, we won't have to ask them to stop. They'll have to stop on their own or fail.

Edited April 24, 2015 by vegeta897

[badluckburt 78]

But mods add value to the game. The game's own price is a price for the vanilla value. If a mod increases that value, wouldn't it make sense that what you pay the developers follows?

Indeed they do, that is why Bethesda sells both Morrowind and Oblivion at 19,99 euros for example. Morrowind is old as shit (and a brilliant game), you can buy disc versions of it for a fraction of that price. Every time a copy of either game is sold on Steam, it is all profit as those games have already been paid for by consumers over the years.

All this is for both Steam and game companies who choose to participate is more profit in an even shorter amount of time and when it gets to this level, for me it equals greed. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think either Steam or Bohemia is doing particularly bad financially at the moment so the main question for me is why? And why doesn't Bohemia charge server monetizers a percentage or do they? With this ruleset, I'd hardly call this playing field leveled.

[biggerdave 56]

But mods add value to the game. The game's own price is a price for the vanilla value. If a mod increases that value, wouldn't it make sense that what you pay the developers follows?

So, let's say I buy some dog's... er... "offerings". Let's say I then use my alchemical knowledge to turn it into gold. Should I give the dog 75% of the gold's worth for taking a dump?

[kireta21 13]

so the main question for me is why?

would you say "no" to free money? Community be damned, and in case of Skyrim it's not even Valve's modding community, why would they care?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Indeed they do, that is why Bethesda sells both Morrowind and Oblivion at 19,99 euros for example. Morrowind is old as shit (and a brilliant game), you can buy disc versions of it for a fraction of that price. Every time a copy of either game is sold on Steam, it is all profit as those games have already been paid for by consumers over the years.

So, let's say I buy some dog's... er... "offerings". Let's say I then use my alchemical knowledge to turn it into gold. Should I give the dog 75% of the gold's worth for taking a dump?

Exactly on point.

[badluckburt 78]

would you say "no" to free money? Community be damned, and in case of Skyrim it's not even Valve's modding community, why would they care?

Yep, I would decline but I'm a special snowflake that clings to long forgotten principles. And they would care if they would realise that without that modding community, the game is not going to sell like it used to. I'll be looking for a moddable non-Steam game if this system stays in place.

[Tonci87 163]

That's a magnificently dumb way to rationalize it. But coming from Dean, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Let's draw a comparison, if I make a specific aftermarket parts for a, let's say Corvette, and sell them to Corvette owners, do you think Chevrolet would need to take 75% of every sale because I'm making parts that fit their car? The part can't fit any other car, so without the car my parts are nothing.

Should BI give Microsoft 75% of their sales because Arma runs on Windows?

Someone like Dean should fucking know much better where the value for the developer of the game lies, and that's the increased sales of the base product because your mod is increasing the inherent value of their base product. It's incredibly obvious how many people bought Arma 2 just for DayZ. The modding community has had this effect on games, their sales and their lifetime ever since the dawn of modding. And he somehow seems to forgot it in a span of two years.

And considering the base product is sold on Steam, Valve takes a cut from extra sales and the game dev takes a cut from extra sales. This is basically double dipping.

How much value does any Arma title have without the mods? How much value does Oblivion or Skyrim have without mods? They'd be fucking weekend titles you rented and returned.

Exactly!

so it is about the user paying for it not a 3rd party...

No it´s not. It´s about consumer protection and fairness.

In this current scheme there simply is no consumer protection at all! Fairness? It isn´t fair towards the players who are suddenly faced with the choice to pay for mods if they want to continue using them, it also isn´t fair for the modders to only receive a 25% cut of the profits while big companies earn bucketloads of money for doing nothing.

Quite frankly, if anybody shoud be paying modders it´s Steam and the developer, not the players. Especially Skyrim has only become as popular as it is because of Mods. If this game had paid for mods from the getgo if would be a very shallow, bland and broken experience and wouldn´t have sold as much as it did. Same goes for every Arma game to date. Mods of high popularity and quality should be sponsored by the Dev because they raise the value of the product and help to sell additional copies. I mean just look at DayZ for fucks sake. How many additional Arma CO copies got sold because of that?

[gibonez 18]

This really couldn't have gone any other way seeing how they shove it down the Steam community's throat, expecting them to swallow it, lick their lips and say mmmmhmmmm that's good stuff Gabe.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Macser 776]

But mods add value to the game. The game's own price is a price for the vanilla value. If a mod increases that value, wouldn't it make sense that what you pay the developers follows?

Sure,if they add that value.Do they?

Of course you need the base game.But that's just a base game.Unless it gets some expansions,it's lifespan is at an end once played through.Multiplayer might provide some entertainment for a while.But nowhere near the extension that mods and addons bring.And not just extension.But a potentially larger customer base.

[I give up 152]

DayZ would have been so successful if was a paid mod?

The extra copies of Arma 2 sold because DayZ would have been the same?

How many guys would be selling modifications of the mod itself?

[vegeta897 13]

Sure,if they add that value.Do they?

Of course you need the base game.But that's just a base game.Unless it gets some expansions,it's lifespan is at an end once played through.Multiplayer might provide some entertainment for a while.But nowhere near the extension that mods and addons bring.And not just extension.But a potentially larger customer base.

I get that point, but they are still the ones providing the game that value is being added to. The mods aren't providing the entire value for people playing it. The game is still providing the majority of the value, even if people saw no value in the game before the mod. The mod brings out new value in the game in addition to its own value, but the value it brought out was still provided by the developers originally.

This might just be one of those philosophical debates nobody will ever agree on though, so I won't continue to belabor it.

Since Dean Hall is the only one I've seen talk about this who actually knows the industry (regardless of what anyone thinks of what he's done), I'm going to quote another post of his that is more food for discussion:

People are using insane emotional arguments with no context.

Here are some facts:

Fact: Many developers do not even get net royalties at all for the games they develop.

Fact: Revenue split is very rare, and very desirable

Fact: a 25% revenue split is a much better deal than I get or could ever hope to get with DayZ.

Fact: Three parties are involved and the creators are getting slightly less than a third

Fact: TF2 creators get 25%

The parties to the arrangement are Valve, Bethesda (as the publisher), and the creator. Valve, understandably, probably want to maintain the same arrangements they always get - it's the store split like the apple store. Bethesda have their own costs, and they take the rest of the split - based on the value the IP has and their contributions to tooling, their risks and opportunity cost losses (DLC, etc...). Let us imagine that they are getting something like 30-50% of the transaction.

Elder Scrolls has to be one of the main blockbuster IP's in the industry. It is like GTA, it's incredibly valuable. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game, using their tools, assets, IP, distribution - I would not get a 25% revenue split (I would get less). If we want professional modding, which is what this is, then people cannot apply emotional arguments - they need to apply business arguments. Therefore the split needs to be considered based on value.

Valve provide a huge amount of value in their "service" to developers. This includes dealing with fraud, the payment gateway, marketing, the steam software, the CDN/distribution, etc... Considering the cut PayPal takes for a lot less - they aren't too bad. This needs to be considered independent of the publishers cut.

Stop making emotional arguments. If you want professional modding, you are talking about BUSINESS and you need to make BUSINESS arguments. It is not about fairness it is about VALUE.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/dayz-creator-weighs-in-on-paid-skyrim-mods-your-turn-rockstar/

Edited April 24, 2015 by vegeta897