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

[PuFu 4600]

That's where a part of the MANW contest money could have been efficiently invested, together with building (and paying) a community "mod- helping" team, leaded by a modding community manager such as kju. My 2 cents though.

The so called mod-helping team is never gonna work, because over 70% of the questions are generic (i wanna model a gun, how do i do that). No one expect (or in fact they shouldn't, because some do) to have their hands hold through the entire process. Things should be documented better, there should be tuts for stuff that is more complicated and long-winded. Have you seen rocket's animation explanation? It's really not ok to say in an explanation that shit can get weird if another software but version xx (6 years old) should be used, and that there is a chance to have a fuckup either way (the solution is to try exporting until you don't - so it is a trial and error) that there is no explanation for...

Other than that, i agree. There should be more people actually answering questions on these forums. Of course it takes time (and the ones that have are doing it in their own spare time, even if they are BI devs - thank you for that - you know who you are), and a dedi team in charge with that would help a lot. But then again, it's not only about the docus, but also about the tools...

[ProfTournesol 956]

The so called mod-helping team is never gonna work, because over 70% of the questions are generic (i wanna model a gun, how do i do that). No one expect (or in fact they shouldn't, because some do) to have their hands hold through the entire process. Things should be documented better, there should be tuts for stuff that is more complicated and long-winded. Have you seen rocket's animation explanation? It's really not ok to say in an explanation that shit can get weird if another software but version xx (6 years old) should be used, and that there is a chance to have a fuckup either way (the solution is to try exporting until you don't - so it is a trial and error) that there is no explanation for..

Well, i was more thinking of reedoing tutorials (brsseb tutorial is still used...that's hardly believable !), documenting the Tools, creating a real modding wiki, etc.

[PuFu 4600]

fair enough, i thought you meant more o the lines of answering specific questions (as in modding support) rather than doing tuts.

[x3kj 1247]

100%

[chrisb 196]

100%

+1

That is a conversation that many would learn from and is well worth listening too, the whole conversation.

[Rydygier 1309]

Not sure, if with my poor audible/spoken English I'll be able to follow long this dispute, but from

: apparently income from donation button is tiny (not even close to be any kind of substitute for obligatory paid mods). Did I understood this part correctly?

[IndeedPete 1038]

Not sure, if with my poor audible/spoken English I'll be able to follow long this dispute, but from

: apparently income from donation button is tiny (not even close to be any kind of substitute for obligatory paid mods). Did I understood this part correctly?

Yes, I think so. But keep in mind that Nexus is hosting mods and not creating them, just like Armaholic. Plus Nexus has the chance to make money from ads on their site which is not possible for modders.

[Rydygier 1309]

Yes, but from what I understood, it's about optional donation at download for the modder, not for Nexus, so exactly, what some here are proposing as supposed better solution than actually selling the mods. Thesis is: donations didn't worked so far only because wasn't exposed enough. Are donation exposed enough in the Nexus? Because apparently aren't working well also there (seems, people en masse simply don't want to donate, they just want download stuff for free, if only there's such option). Donations work quite well as form of "thank you" for those, who want to thank in such a way, but could it be something more? IMO doubtful.

EDIT: From the later part: according to well known modder, it likely wasn't even actual Skyrim community, that generated all/most of this shit storm (including death threats? :O ) at Valve (not necessarily even a players, rather some "very vocal minority" of... someone else), because according to him real community wouldn't behave like that, the more, people would be glad seeing best modders having some profit from their work. Interesting, if so.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Rydygier

[IndeedPete 1038]

Oh, yes, might be that not the Nexus site itself was meant to get money but that provides the donation buttons for modders. I've actually listened to the whole conversation but only in the background while I was working on Arma stuff. I must admit I have never donated to mods; I've donated blood a few times, and regularly donate to wikipedia but never spent money on mods. A shame actually, being in this community for about five years now. Though I mostly create stuff myself and don't really get to play the game a lot, let alone use all the great mods. I should finally get my ass up and donate to the few mods I use by myself or build on, and to Armaholic who are hosting my content. But it's probably true, donations are not really a business model and I doubt it's just the exposition of some buttons.

Well, this is primarily an Arma forum and we're discussing Skyrim's paid mods here. I doubt that everyone in this thread has actually played Skyrim (I do, occasionally). I think that real shitstorm was largely caused by massive amounts of miscommunication and misunderstandings. Valve and Bethesda should have communicated that properly in the first place and let the users discuss. Without telling anything to anybody they came off as a greedy bunch of arsehats who whish to squeeze every little penny out of the modding scene, using user made content as (for them) free DLCs. But as the guys in the vid also stated it probably wasn't Valve's or Bethesda's intention to get the biggest cut out of this. Sure, they are business companies following the maxmimum principle and obviously want to make money with their platforms. Which is their very right. Still, their strategy to do so was pure horseshit.

[x3kj 1247]

Thesis is: donations didn't worked so far only because wasn't exposed enough. Are donation exposed enough in the Nexus? Because apparently aren't working well also there (seems, people en masse simply don't want to donate, they just want download stuff for free, if only there's such option).

There are 4 buttons right next to each other on nexus: Download, Track (basically like a "suscribe to news from this mod"), Endorse and Donate. Endorse is a way to say you enjoyed the mod, and it's only available after some time after you downloaded it. Donate is directly linked to Paypal, it doesnt go through nexus at all (thus the owner of nexus can't tell how much is donated, but according to asking around it is a tiny amount).

What's even more telling, is that downloaders don't even come back to endorse a mod - (clicking the like button essentially). The most popular mod, SkyUI, has 4.5million unique downloads and 9 million total downloads. Yet only 275k endorsements. Out of 4.5 million users, who on average downloaded it 2 times, only 6% could be arsed to came back and click a button for "thank you/ i like it".

Edited May 1, 2015 by Fennek

[brightcandle 114]

The data basically says that players don't consider mods worth buying, they certainly don't donate very often. The situation where you could buy a mod and then a day later not have it working and have no recourse (this is the situation right now for my group, we have key mods that don't work on 1.42 and we are stuck on 1.40 until a replacement comes out) means that you wont find me buying into that proposition. The basic problem of versioinng in this can't be solved, the companies are never going to take responsibility for every mod and its future compatibility and the modders are never going to be able to reimplement it on every patch instantly. The end result of which means real money exchanging hands combined with consumer protection laws makes it untenable. They thus have to remain unpaid for because no one can comply with consumer protection laws, and this situation otherwise does involve the customer getting ripped off.

I have already explained the situation we find ourselves in with Dwarden, they intend to release 1.44 imminently and remove the 1.40 branch in full knowledge that will harm our community. If I was paying for that situation I would be really angry, but because the mods are free and they don't work and we have to fix our own bugs and such its not so bad. I will still be angry with BI, they ultimately know the harm they are causing and don't care but at least its not also a mod maker in that mix. I get the community wants to get paid for the effort, I just don't see how it can work given the current attitude of developers towards mods and the limited resources they and the modding teams have. Its a core fundamental problem of service and its more or less impossible to fix.

Linux distros release every 6 months or so instead of continuously despite all the projects they depend on releasing continuously. The reason is that the interdependencies between projects and updates have be given time to filter through all the software, bugs to be fixed etc. This is why distros are regularly out of date on one particular piece of software by half a year or maybe more, because either a new version of a library it depends on isn't ready in time or stable enough for other purposes. Mods are in the exact same situation of being dependent on a black box project getting updates when the developers feel like it with no advance knowledge or access to early code and completely unable to see what will break and how until its released. So regardless of what happens the mod is going to be broken at launch of the new game patch. This is the same in Arma despite the development branch because the developers don't show us the final release version, they go away and add more stuff before we get it. Its a bad development practice to do it but BI has always worked this way since the development branch was introduced. You develop against what is in development at your own risk and its quite often a big risk as things change sometimes quite a lot between initial introduction and final patch.

This is just not easy to fix. The reason its free is because actually making this a process that produces mods that always work for the customer is impossible today and it looks unlikely the development process from BI (or any other developer) is likely to change to avoid that situation. I am no even sure its possible without constant access to the full source code and the mods becoming something that forms part of the codebase. These aren't possible so it can't be fixed hence modders can't reasonably charge for a product that tomorrow might never work again.

Edited May 1, 2015 by BrightCandle

[gammadust 12]

The notion of paid user-made content took a very hard hit with this experiment. I'm amazed at how was it possible for Valve/Bethesda which lead the attempt to be so oblivious and risk so much of their own reputation in this move turned failed experiment.

I invite anyone to look at the synthesis made in the bottom of the first post in this thread. Those were raw input after 6 weeks discussion, it attempted to compile what this community said at the time from both sides of the fence. I remind you that a good deal of the scepticism at the time was borrowed via the Steam Workshop experience that Skyrim community was going through.

Around that time I also put up a chart to help me see most interests/issues and put them in perspective:

The outcome of a let's-do-this-no-matter-how approach has been known since long. Valve failed to listen to Skyrim community, Bethesda failed to represent the latter, they simply ignored the concerns, at best Valve did reformulate very slightly the licensing to heed some concerns, leaving major ones untouched. The end result is this mess.

The taste in my mouth right now is that of a missed oportunity to advance such incentives. This was so badly executed that I even wonder if it was meant to fail all along in some conspiracy type way.

If I had to pick a feature most lacking in all of this experiment is that of Curation, which Bethesda was upfront against (those which had less to loose - their game is sold, their ROI has been fulfilled -, but also those which, if by any chance this would succeed, would otoh gain the most - 45%). Curation was the only garantee to the paying player (ie. the only carrot at the end of the stick) if one excludes this we're alienating their interests, precisely those that must be most enticed and nurtured for.

I think we're more or less safe in regards to Arma, as far as i can tell, BI is taking a cautious approach, even more so as external observers to all of this.

[doveman 7]

I think it's important to bear in mind that in addition to any problems there might be with paid mods for single-player games like Skyrim, with MP games like ArmA they have the potential to cause issues within groups (some people wanting to use certain mods, others not feeling they're worth paying for or just not being able to afford them) and generally divide the online community by preventing players accessing certain servers unless they're willing/able to buy the mods it's running, or inversely mods being used less as server operators try to avoid this problem. This is surely not something BIS would want to risk, considering their commitment to promote the use of user-created content with ArmA3.

[das attorney 858]

Honestly, I think BIS will somehow crowbar paid-mods into Arma 3, although the universally adverse reaction from PC users over Skyrim will give them some cause for thought.

I don't think it will be curated (as that would cost money). There would most likely be a thread on this forum where people report rip-offs etc.

It's basically free money so why not try it if you're a business? Plus you don't have to give the modders a contract, sick pay or a pension.

In summary, I would say it's a done deal and definitely happening, but I just don't know when or what the % split is (more generous for the modder I would imagine based on what we have seen so far).

[cosmic10r 2331]

I feel like if the publisher is not willing to curate paid mods that are linked to their main game... then they likely shouldn't be charging money. It reeks of trying to make a quick buck and them being able to deflect blame when it does not go well...

If you want to make money off it valve and bis... take some responsibility for it...

Shocking that Bethesda ' s only caveat was absolutely no curation and that should tell quite a story

[ProfTournesol 956]

This is a way for modders who want money to get paid :lookaround:

[Jackal326 1181]

This is a way for modders who want money to get paid :lookaround:

If you can model static objects and texture them sure. But there are other aspects to modding not just modelling of map assets.

[ProfTournesol 956]

If you can model static objects and texture them sure. But there are other aspects to modding not just modelling of map assets.

It happens that i know that :) I just find this way of paying modders as the most consensual one.

[Jackal326 1181]

It happens that i know that :)

I wasn't implying you didn't know that. Just passing comment that its not exactly a direct parallel to "paid modding".

[ProfTournesol 956]

I wasn't implying you didn't know that. Just passing comment that its not exactly a direct parallel to "paid modding".

Parallel, indeed, but that way of paying modders is great, if i forget the ACSR DLC debacle. After all, are modders that are looking for being paid want to be paid for their own mod, or simply getting money from modding as a part time job ?

[Defunkt 431]

After all, are modders that are looking for being paid want to be paid for their own mod, or simply getting money from modding as a part time job ?

Could be either, or something else entirely but it's for the individual modders, within the framework allowed by the IP stakeholders, to decide that. The success or failure of their endeavors will hinge on the reputation they build for making and then supporting quality content and the arbiters of that will be gamers by virtue of what they do or don't choose to purchase. What gamers don't have (or shouldn't have) is any right to pre-determine what is a legitimate avenue for monetizing a modder's own work. The most vacuous and juvenile objections I've seen in this whole debate are the; 'if you want to make money from producing game content then you should get a job at a studio'.

[tortuosit 486]

This is a way for modders who want money to get paid :lookaround:

For germans: https://jobboerse.arbeitsagentur.de/ (But you get a half way decent paid job only with a computer science diploma, no matter what your knowledge is and no matter what media say. Otherwise feel free to start at 2500 EUR before tax. And start over and over again every couple of years. It's the way salary decay works in Germany).

Edited May 2, 2015 by tortuosit

[koffeinflummi 96]

For germans: https://jobboerse.arbeitsagentur.de/ (But you get a half way decent paid job only with a computer science diploma, no matter what your knowledge is and no matter what media say. Otherwise feel free to start at 2500 EUR before tax. And start over and over again every couple of years. It's the way salary decay works in Germany).

Wow. "Get a job!". Wooooow.

After catching up on this thread, I am extremely disappointed by the amount of entitlement and blatant selfishness on display here. While there were no doubt gigantic issues with the way this was implemented, the reaction of the "community" (as Brumbek pointed out, most of that backlash came from mod users, not authors...) was just a kneejerk clusterfuck that bulldozed the whole thing and ruined it for everyone.

Apparently Bethesda did not want any curation, which is horribly stupid. You could probably also argue that a 45% cut is a bit much for the developer. It was also a stupid idea to blindside the majority of mod authors (apparently only a dozen people or so got told before hand) and not clearly communicate rules like "no donation links in workshop posts" beforehand.

However, this could have been a great opportunity for gaming in general. The simple fact that a developer can make money with modding support itself would have very interesting implications; If EA/DICE realized this, and released modding tools for the next Battlefield, I might be convinced to pick that up again. As Brumbek pointed out in TB's video, this got people back into modding (this is not just speculation, it did.) and while most modders will probably not be able to make a living from modding alone, even some slight income can help pay the bills and motivate you to keep going. Sure, there's abuse, but we've had people ripping models and uploading them to TurboSquid for ages. That's why we need good curation (again, this was handled badly by Bethesda).

Additionally, people seemed to freak out about stuff like MP compatibility without even waiting for how BI - if at all - would implement this. I would be surprised if they were not at least considering to apply their DLC model to paid mods as well. But instead of remaining level-headed, people immediately went ape-shit and predicted the "destruction of the community". The same way using Steam for Arma 3 "destroyed the community". And the way A3's DLC worked. And the MANW contest. So now we have a botched experiment, no data to make meaningfull conclusions from, and - probably most disappointing - we have seen the attitude people seem to have towards the people making their games more enjoyable.

People have left modding before because they could not afford it. Telling people that they do not deserve to make money to support doing what they love is just terribly cuntish, and stupid phrases like "If you want to get money, you should get a job in the gaming industry" or "It's a hobby, you shouldn't get paid for it" show a blatant misunderstanding of the way the world works.

Maybe if all the people that "are fine with donations, but would never pay for mods" would actually donate something to the people making their games worth playing, we'd have a few more modders around ...

Edited May 3, 2015 by KoffeinFlummi

[.kju 3244]

"no donation links in workshop posts"

Was just a legend people put out in their pure rage. Steam only disallows tinyurl type of links.

[Rydygier 1309]

As it was pointed already, job in the industry isn't in any way a substitute for modding. It's something different, excluding modding from the equasion instantly and completely. It's not doing, what you love to see done, as you like, when you like. It's doing, what they require from you in the way they want and ASAP^2. That highly affect the outcome shape. Meanwhile and apart from that should be damn obvious, so the one, who put work into something should have a possibility to be fairly paid for it (should have possibility to require payment in return for the fruits of his labour), modder or dev or indie or whatever. It's universal thing. While no one should, mod users are here the last, who should try to dictate him how he should try to monetize his skills, and which ways are "forbidden" for him - do it for free or get lost, looser, others awaits to replace you (not really that simple). Not their business, to say it plainly. It's modder's only business, and IMO he should really well rethink this matter before he decide to follow the path of paid work, like tortuosit said, and more reasons. Not so shiny, as it may appear. Still - it should be only up to him and shouldn't be ostracised for this choice. It's nothing shameful, it's perfectly OK.

Out of 4.5 million users, who on average downloaded it 2 times, only 6% could be arsed to came back and click a button for "thank you/ i like it".

most disappointing - we have seen the attitude people seem to have towards the people making their games more enjoyable.

Isn't? IMHO that what's the most and truly sad and disappointing in all this. Not technical difficulties to overcome, not even Skyrim experiment failure (at least provided data, what to avoid). But some of the mod users attitude. It seems, not that "introducing money into equasion" would "destroy the community". Instead seem, that barely mentioning about such option revealed, the community in the shape, some would like to imagine, is a fiction. Community worked very well so far, said some mod users. For them - no wonder. But if you point out, it was at cost of some fair freedoms, modders should have, "unity" ends rapidly. What money in the equasion would destroy perhaps is only that warm, cozy "forced free stuff" paradise of that part of mod users.

You see the pattern in my thoughts? Are we truly a community here, or rather two communities of mutually conflicting points of view, the modders community and the users community? Or maybe even there is only one, modding community, then there is the majority of mod users, that aren't community at all, yet are talking like they would part of it. I'm judging by myself. When I installed Skyrim I went on Nexus to take some mods. Did I left any "thank you" behind? No. I was there just for the free mods for my game, not to become a part of some community or to thank some strangers or whatever - I was completely oblivious and indifferent about any community over there. IMO that would be expected, common mechanism, explaining tiny percentage of endorsements there. The community? What community? Gimme the mods and I'm out of here, back to my game. But if the mods suddenly are no longer to get, but to buy... Whoaaa. Outrage! Destroying the community!

So, the question is, aren't we define what community is far too widely perhaps? I had no right nor desire to become a Skyrim community member when came for Skyrim mods. Beeing a part of the community IMHO implies some input, not only reaping from. Most valuable mod users input IMO is the constructive feedback. And many of them provide it in kind of assymetrical symbiosis with modders. This symbiosis truly allows to emerge result far better, than without it. Tested myself. But they are still only the small minority of mod users. Sometimes just few dedicated people out of let's say some thousands of downloads. And even they... Especially they should understand, it's not their role to dictate, what the modder should do with his own work. BTW Isn't meaningful, so the most common structure of the feedback seems to be: "Great work thanks. Now fix my issues ASAP, please."? I mean, it seems, for them the only reason to say anything back to the modder is when they have a problem. At least it also results sometimes with "accidentally valuable" feedback...

I'm not trying to say, beeing a simple mod user is something wrong. Not at all. Just IMO part of the misunderstandings on this topic is generated by wrongly defined community.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Rydygier