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

[Tonci87 163]

Why would you, just another user, have anything to say on the matter?

What a load of self entitelment.

Why would I have to say anything on the matter?

Well maybe because I bought this game knowing that free Addons will improve it? Am I entiteld to a refund if suddenly addons become payware because that fundamentally changes how this game works?

Maybe because I, the user, am the one who is supposed to buy BIS next game?

Maybe because I, the user, am the one who plays the addons and motivates the authors to get better at making them by giving them feedback?

But I guess I, the user, doesn´t count in this discussion because I didn´t make an addon yet, right?

But maybe I should count, because I was there during the closed beta test of ACE 2 to provide feedback and to hunt for bugs, I was there to test many User made missions in development, I made missions myself, I was there to test JSRS during development and report back anything I found.

So I´m a contributor to this community just as you are, there is only a small difference: I, in contrast to you, never asked for any kind of reward or even recognition. Maybe this makes my opinion more sincere in comparison.

[x3kj 1247]

Well maybe because I bought this game knowing that free Addons will improve it? Am I entiteld to a refund if suddenly addons become payware because that fundamentally changes how this game works?

No you are not, just like you are not 'entiteld' a refund because a developer decides to do micro transactions all of a sudden. Just because you bought arma doesnt mean you are entitled to addon content developed by volunteers.

There is a difference between players and content creators. Players play. Content creators work.

[Tonci87 163]

No you are not, just like you are not 'entiteld' a refund because a developer decides to do micro transactions all of a sudden. Just because you bought arma doesnt mean you are entitled to addon content developed by volunteers.

There is a difference between players and content creators. Players play. Content creators work.

Well you see, if I make a mission then I don´t experience that as work. If you are at a stage where making addons has become work for you, then you should maybe rethink how and why you make addons.

[Jackal326 1158]

Well you see, if I make a mission then I don´t experience that as work. If you are at a stage where making addons has become work for you, then you should maybe rethink how and why you make addons.

Of course its work, the missions/scripts/sounds/textures/configs/models don't make themselves. Just because you enjoy it, doesn't mean it is any less time-consuming. *Redacted*

Edited April 17, 2015 by Jackal326
Removed further comments on "payware" to avoid further arguments. This is an argument now not a discussion.

[PuFu 4591]

The only one who seems mad about something is you m8, i'm perfectly fine where i am. ;)

You're the one who comes up with things like "i don't want to waste time with people like you". Maybe it's you the one who has a bit too much self-entitlement.

There is no self entitlement lad. This post of yours is the first where there are arguments, congrats.

Leaving child level arguing aside, if it's not know how it's content, there's lots of modders willing to share their own content with other modders, be it scripting or 3d models or whatever, if monetization was possible many of them maybe would refuse.

As you can see from this thread some just don't like the idea of selling what they do, others might as well just go on their own way and keep what they do for themselves to sell.

Would RHS, CUP, or any other big project be the same if third party modders were to refuse to share their material with them?

Just as you said, allowing moders to sell their work, one way or another (i would assume it would be only similar to CS:GO / TF2 system), doesn't automatically mean everyone would sell theirs.

Most of the RHS content is developed in house, by RHS members, exclusively for RHS. The other custom 3rd party content was given to RHS voluntarily, it wasn't requested. The others are BIS Samples everyone has access to.

I get that nobody in their right mind would refuse to earn money out of something as demanding and time consuming but i think this would cut the community into pieces and create lame business dynamics that don't belong to something like arma modding.

The very reason why arma is loved by so many is because of the tons of free content available.

It's pretty much what makes it different from any other game that charges you every two steps like free to plays or any battlefield-like game where payable DLCs rain on you every other week.

And that free content isn't going anywhere. There was more free content for A2, there was even more of A1, and much much more for OFP. You see a pattern here?

You cannot compare free to play (or so called pay to win) with ArmA. There is a game (called arma), there is official DLC that allows everyone to have a game. Want more, use free custom content, or pay for it. What is wrong with that.

Neither you or me know the future so your prediction is as good as mine.

yeah, that is true, but unlike you, i am open minded about it, without bringing the "but that will surely be the end of the francise" drama argument.

Then why is it so important to monetize them now?

If it hasn't made a difference in 15 years why would it make a difference now?

15 years ago it wasn't as easy to involve addon makers as much as you can now. It is like asking why wasn't steam invented 15 years ago...

And with free to play you can still get in the game without spending a dime, while Arma costs 40 dollars or so (i'm not up to date sorry).

This is what i'm saying, much of Arma's recognizement is because the extra content is free, on top of the game itself.

If you start charging people for that extra content then you lose something that puts Arma one step above other games.

But with arma, you get a complete game, with content included, that also allows anyone to create even more content. The tools are available for everyone, not only for a selected few.

So, the argument is here only because of the love for the game, the francise?

And how does monetizing your content solve this exactly?

Besides running a server has direct costs you can keep into account (and i genuinely wonder how many actually manage to cover their expenses with monetization, by how you describe it server managers are like some sort of Scrooge Mcduck swimming in gold coins :D ),

As fennek put it, addon making costs even more so. I have already spent over 500EUs last year alone on custom scripts, plug-ins and software (quixel) that i would otherwise not need in my field of work.

on the other hand based on what criterias do you decide the price of your mod?

It all depends on the mod, doesn't it?

Following your line of reasoning, there's probably people who helped you develop it too with source content or knowledge, are they going to get a sum of that too?

Are you paying royalties your entire life for every bit of knowledge you gathered from every coworker, teacher, online source etc that helped you earn your paycheck today?

What a load of self entitelment.

Lol, and you call me entitled? You consider that free addons are something that you are suppose to get, because it is an arma game? Really?

Why would I have to say anything on the matter?

Well maybe because I bought this game knowing that free Addons will improve it? Am I entiteld to a refund if suddenly addons become payware because that fundamentally changes how this game works?

no where this game is advertised as a game that entitles you to get 3rd party content for free. It is advertised as an open sandbox yes, so go ahead and use the same tools i use to create your own new toys to play with and "fundamentally change how this game works" on your own then

You are entitled for a refund? Best fucking logic of the year right here!

Maybe because I, the user, am the one who is supposed to buy BIS next game?

Yeah so? We aren't talking about a future BIS game, we are talking about this particular game that i suppose you already bought?

Do you use that logic when you go to a movie, do you expect to get the fizzie and the pop-corn for free as well, because you already paid for the ticket?

Maybe because I, the user, am the one who plays the addons and motivates the authors to get better at making them by giving them feedback?

Another quote for the day in my book. Just so you know, NO one doing addons, in his spare time has the user as priority one, and neither is he doing it because some user motives the lad. Simple as that. Every addon maker i know does it for his own, and maybe for some friends he plays with. Sorry to burst you bubble, but you, as a user, don't count that much

Feedback? Do you mean technical feedback (as in knowladgeble) or just random and personal opinions? why don't you ask BI for a paycheck as well while you're at it, because you use their bug tracker, so in fact, you help with the development on your own

But I guess I, the user, doesn´t count in this discussion because I didn´t make an addon yet, right?

have you?

But maybe I should count, because I was there during the closed beta test of ACE 2 to provide feedback and to hunt for bugs, I was there to test many User made missions in development, I made missions myself, I was there to test JSRS during development and report back anything I found.

yeah, that worth a lot in my book. I have a inbox full of "can we beta test for you" messages, most of the so called beta testers i know simply want to have "privileged" access to one mod or another. The default answer is no btw.

are you really trying to prove to me that you are "worth" something, that you are more than just another consumer?

Since you seem to have time to test all these content created by someone else, why haven't you created content yourself? It seems time is not something you're missing?

So I´m a contributor to this community just as you are, there is only a small difference

yeah, keep telling yourself that

I, in contrast to you, never asked for any kind of reward or even recognition. Maybe this makes my opinion more sincere in comparison.

neither have i asked for any sort of rewards. I never said i would be selling anything even if monetization is going to be allowed.

But each fucking time i see you post the definitive "no" answer, with little to no argument to back it up, it makes me cringe. What is wrong with having it as on OPTION? We're you the "more options" adept?

So, in you opinion, addon makers do not deserve monetary gain from any work they put in, right? Even if it is a game changer from a gameplay perspective? Just to make it clear what is your stand

No you are not, just like you are not 'entiteld' a refund because a developer decides to do micro transactions all of a sudden. Just because you bought arma doesnt mean you are entitled to addon content developed by volunteers.

There is a difference between players and content creators. Players play. Content creators work.

+1

Well you see, if I make a mission then I don´t experience that as work. If you are at a stage where making addons has become work for you, then you should maybe rethink how and why you make addons.

I have never played any mission of yours, as in ever. care to link to me one of these mission that you worked...sorry not worked, pleasantly experienced by yourself?

edit: just seen your sig

"Master of testing for a better Arma and well, for science." - FPDR

______________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION - I still don't understand what the average user would have to loose?

Edited April 17, 2015 by PuFu

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well then... So, how do you guys think BI would go about this. They've looked at the ways other games do it. But what would a Paid Community content system for Arma 3 look like, and what would make it into the game, if that's what's intended? Vote system, Random Pick, maybe another contest style win? Is this something you guys are interested in?

[soulis6 24]

I think a good revenue sharing system would only create a bigger incentive for more people to create new and better content, improving the whole community and overall game.

One thing I think that would be really great, is if you could try out any content (vehicles, weapons, gameplay addons, etc) in the virtual arsenal, similar to how you can currently do that for the premium DLC content. This would be a good way to include a soft 'demo' system for all paid content. The only thing this wouldn't work with is terrain/maps, but maybe a different system could be put in to try them out (maybe just being able to run/fly around the map in SP without any other entities or content?).

[x3kj 1247]

15 years ago it wasn't as easy to involve addon makers as much as you can now. It is like asking why wasn't steam invented 15 years ago...

Also, making good quality models for example wasnt as difficult and time consuming back then.

Well you see, if I make a mission then I don´t experience that as work. If you are at a stage where making addons has become work for you, then you should maybe rethink how and why you make addons.

If its not work and all fun and play then why do you not work on high quality models, maps, scripts or full campaigns? Clicking a few simple missions together in the ingame ME isnt particulary hard. Putting a box model in Arma isnt hard either. Come back when you made something high quality

[roshnak 41]

CONCLUSION - I still don't understand what the average user would have to loose?

Money, for one. Or missing out on content that might otherwise be free.

There's really no reason to think that any user who doesn't want to regularly spend money on Arma has anything to gain from this. Even in the best case scenario, where paid user created content draws in a ton of new modding talent, the majority of those people will be looking to monetize their content, otherwise they would already be a part of the modding community. Thus, such a scenario doesn't benefit players who don't want to spend more money.

Let's be honest here, this is not exactly a win-win. In the end, the average user is probably going to lose something. Modders can't make money without other people spending it, after all. Whether or not you think it's worth it in order to support modders is another question, and probably the one that people should actually be discussing.

[Macser 776]

How would you lose money?Surely you would've made the choice to purchase something you wanted.

"lose" makes it sound like an automatic process out of the user's control.

Thus, such a scenario doesn't benefit players who don't want to spend more money.

That's true.It doesn't.Why is there an expectation that it must?Why do you feel a modder must facilitate the player's need to save money?It's a modding community.Where people generally share their work with other modders.So they can learn from and enjoy the work,then pass that knowledge and experience on.

That players get to use that content free of charge should be considered a bonus.A much appreciated bonus.Not something we have a right to,simply because we purchased a game.That was a transaction between BI and the purchaser.

BI do not create the mods and addons in question.Modding enthusiasts do.

They are not contracted to provide anything.We did not pay them.They owe us nothing.

If they choose to change that arrangement and sell their work then that's different.There

will be some expectation.But it would be justified in that case.Yet choice would remain for the

end user.

I don't think the vast majority of modders really mind this one-sided arrangement between them and others.It benefits BI that more people purchase the game to access this wealth of material.It may be argued that it benefits the modder too,having a willing audience to enjoy it.But that's where that ends.

If this situation was to push most of the current mod community towards a commercial model,it

might make the members here a little more appreciative of the few willing to forego it.

Not that I think there would be any mass exodus. :)

Edited April 18, 2015 by Maczer

[roshnak 41]

How would you lose money?Surely you would've made the choice to purchase something you wanted.

"lose" makes it sound like an automatic process out of the user's control.

The expression "What do you have to lose?" doesn't mean "What are you definitely going to lose?"

Anyway, it was a semi-snarky comment that I clarified with the rest of my post. I guess I should have been more clear and said that what the average player has to lose is the open and free modding community and content that they have been accustomed to for nearly 14 years (or longer if they were involved in modding communities for other games).

That's true.It doesn't.Why is there an expectation that it must?Why do you feel a modder must facilitate the player's need to save money?

I don't see anywhere in my post where I gave an opinion on whether or not mods should be free or suggested that modders had any responsibility to players at all.

All I'm saying is that if users suddenly have to pay for stuff that they didn't have to pay for before, that is definitely a loss to the user. It can argued that modders deserve a little more and that it's okay if the average user has to spend some more money to make that happen (this seems like the argument you're making), but let's not pretend like the average user has nothing to lose from the monetization of user generated content.

Edited April 18, 2015 by roshnak

[Rydygier 1302]

the open and free modding community and content that they have been accustomed to for nearly 14 years

Part of their problem may be, they was indeed spoiled by this 14 years long "Christmas", and now, when modding, as we heard, is more complex and time consuming, than ever before, and some authors say finally "enough, its too much", some players feel, like someone is trying to take from them something, they simply deserve just because "it "always" was free, so WTF"? While the harsh truth may be, for the past many years they was fed with free goodies far beyond fair expectation which expectation, IMO, is no free stuff at all. Each free piece is not deserved gift, that should be properly appreciated, not expected. Maybe "Christmas" gifts some day have to end.

But I feel somehow, most of the stuff will be still available for free regardless. Only some of the most work and time consuming, ambitious projects may be worthy of selling, which is obviously perfectly fair considering amount of effort put into, sometimes bigger, than put into someone's regular job. Who did and still would like to do this for fun, will rather continue this way, because switching to the model involving money will at least move the fun into the background.

I see also some another problem:

1. If sold for money, content has to be really of high quality, not some half-working alpha/beta wip, as lately is trendy to release;

2. Early release however has good reasons, as really important if not crucial part of development/polishing is improving in response on users' feedback. My stuff would probably stay much less developed and would keep much more bugs, if not users reporting me, what should be fixed or sharing with good ideas/requests. Kind of assymetric symbiosis.

3. How this supposed to work with selling model? If people buy something, they expect the quality, not to be used as beta tester, unless we introduce some kind of "early access" tricks. So anyway how this will affect content development, if enthusiastic feedback providers will be replaced by demanding customers, bitching the modder same way, they moan at BI now? Wip for free, final for money? But why pay money for final, if nearly-final (one version back) is for free? It's not so sweet perspective for the content creator, as one may think. Money do complicate things seriously.

IMO each modder/mission maker need very seriously rething the above before he decide to follow this hypothetical "path of $". And IMHO far not every would decide to do this. Well, many may try at first, but I think, most of them will flee in panic soon from selling their work.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Rydygier

[Brawler 15]

I am very positive to paid user made content. i know that 3dmax and other 3d drawing software cost A LOT of money. And then we have server cost for the devs and pw6, armaholic etc. as it is now, every player can use these mods free.

But if devs wil charge money for their work, it must be strict rules from BIS. and the only way i can se this work is listed below:

- It must be a quality control, ive seen content beeing sold in other games for 13€, and quality is just garbage...

- It must be a category f.eks big mods like RHS, Bw mod etc is maybe worth 45€ pr copy, and weapons packs 13€ and other smaller mods lets say 10€ pr copy. (prices is just assumed, im not trying to offend anybody)

- Devs must agreed to continue to update their products, and not just quit.

- and finaly,all content can only be sold from one website.

this is how think it should be with paid usermade content. what do you guys think?

(sorry for bad english, im norwegian...:p)

[eymerich 11]

When moneys enter in the live of the peolpe that's what happen...

This is how I see the future of Arma: Bis will work on the core; add-on Official and mostly unofficial will be created by community and sold.

To me this is a No go and I don't think this is the way to solve the lack of addon of arma3 (there are out probably 1\10 of the addon released in Arma2).

The problem in my opinion lies in a too complex way to create an addon: make it easier and most free addon will come out

[Jackal326 1158]

...make it easier and most free addon will come out

How exactly can they make addon creation easier? The only way they could as far as I can see is if they release all of the ArmA3 models unbinarized, which I can't see happening until after the planned expansion at the earliest. The tools themselves aren't going to get any easier to use (not entirely sure how they could). Sure, a few features could be improved here or there, but overall I think they're about as easy to use as they could be (though I'm sure some many will 'correct' me on this).

On topic, I am starting to come around to the option of paid content, but only provided BI/Valve police it properly. The last thing this community needs is another 'Life/RH' scandal with people making money off of other people's hard work. That is my main concern as an addon maker myself, and someone with a conscience.

[luki 53]

It is harde to judge what paid content can or will change. If there is a propper system that makes it possible i see no problem with it.

The problem in my opinion lies in a too complex way to create an addon: make it easier and most free addon will come out

I dont think thats the problem, a game asset is a complex thing by nature (lods, configs ect). Most of the work is happening outside the range of arma tools.

The tools themselves aren't going to get any easier to use (not entirely sure how they could). Sure, a few features could be improved here or there, but overall I think they're about as easy to use as they could be.

It is exactly like this.

[x3kj 1247]

But if devs wil charge money for their work, it must be strict rules from BIS. and the only way i can se this work is listed below:

- It must be a quality control, ive seen content beeing sold in other games for 13€, and quality is just garbage...

- It must be a category f.eks big mods like RHS, Bw mod etc is maybe worth 45€ pr copy, and weapons packs 13€ and other smaller mods lets say 10€ pr copy. (prices is just assumed, im not trying to offend anybody)

- Devs must agreed to continue to update their products, and not just quit.

- and finaly,all content can only be sold from one website.

this is how think it should be with paid usermade content. what do you guys think?

Those prices sound a bit much to be fair, in comparison to full price games and for example Iron Front. But if it happens it will likely be the choice of the author what the price will be (maybe with upper and lower limits set by BI/Valve). If the price is low many people will buy it.

Quality control - not going to happen from BI/Valve side. Just look at the steam store and look at all the tons of crap games that flooded it. It used to be different but now Valve opened the flood gates.

1. If sold for money, content has to be really of high quality, not some half-working alpha/beta wip, as lately is trendy to release;

2. Early release however has good reasons, as really important if not crucial part of development/polishing is improving in response on users' feedback. My stuff would probably stay much less developed and would keep much more bugs, if not users reporting me, what should be fixed or sharing with good ideas/requests. Kind of assymetric symbiosis.

Make it very cheap in the beginning, and if it is improved increase price would be an option. Minecraft style. Or make it free when you are alpha testing, charge when it's developed. People who have contributed alot could receive free codes from you (if that's possible). This would encourage active testing, compared to the often seen "just want to play early and free".

About the feedback - really depends on Especially Missions can require a lot of feedback, models not so much (unless something is broken).

How exactly can they make addon creation easier?

mostly Documentation and propably more Tutorials. This will make the entry barrier into modding lower, but the work on high quality content won't change in any way. Maybe map making could use more efficient tools, but i'm not qualified to make comments about that

[PuFu 4591]

Also, making good quality models for example wasnt as difficult and time consuming back then.

yeah i am well aware of that. even if some of the tools have evolved somewhat (and by that i mean external tools, not BIS), the process is still pretty long winded. The tools that could are timesavers (in general the texturing software) does cost a pretty penny to get hold of

Money, for one. Or missing out on content that might otherwise be free.

as fennek already noted, this is poorly phrased. user doesn't loose anything. Missing out on some of the content that would otherwise be free? following on the same logic i could say that the user is already missing on a lot of content, simply because it is not being worked on, because there is no incentive...

Let's be honest here, this is not exactly a win-win. In the end, the average user is probably going to lose something. Modders can't make money without other people spending it, after all. Whether or not you think it's worth it in order to support modders is another question, and probably the one that people should actually be discussing.

yeah, i am well aware that there needs to be a market in order for this to work. As i see it, the demand i a lot higher that the offer as it is, so i am pretty confident that the monetization would actually work.

[long post]

+1

I see also some another problem:

1. If sold for money, content has to be really of high quality, not some half-working alpha/beta wip, as lately is trendy to release;

2. Early release however has good reasons, as really important if not crucial part of development/polishing is improving in response on users' feedback. My stuff would probably stay much less developed and would keep much more bugs, if not users reporting me, what should be fixed or sharing with good ideas/requests. Kind of assymetric symbiosis.

3. How this supposed to work with selling model? If people buy something, they expect the quality, not to be used as beta tester, unless we introduce some kind of "early access" tricks. So anyway how this will affect content development, if enthusiastic feedback providers will be replaced by demanding customers, bitching the modder same way, they moan at BI now? Wip for free, final for money? But why pay money for final, if nearly-final (one version back) is for free? It's not so sweet perspective for the content creator, as one may think. Money do complicate things seriously.

IMO each modder/mission maker need very seriously rething the above before he decide to follow this hypothetical "path of $". And IMHO far not every would decide to do this. Well, many may try at first, but I think, most of them will flee in panic soon from selling their work.

Of course, like with any business plan, things needs to be though over before making it happen. Not everyone could simply say - hey i did this 6 re-textures for BI content, i want 3$ each...This sort of addon will surely not worth the money, or they will simply sell less.

I also think that the process is a subject in its own, that is really worth discussing

When moneys enter in the live of the peolpe that's what happen...

This is how I see the future of Arma: Bis will work on the core; add-on Official and mostly unofficial will be created by community and sold.

Doubtfully. Arma is an open sandbox, not a SDK. I am sure BI will continue to release games, not game engines.

The problem in my opinion lies in a too complex way to create an addon: make it easier and most free addon will come out

Create it easier how? Maybe you meant easier accesible and more documented, but the overall process will most likely remain the same

[twisted 127]

i don't like this idea.

But if BIS does monetise user created addons then because money is involved I'd imagine that BIS must then start listening to what modders want. a better animation system, opening up parts of arma engine that have been locked away, and improvement on any of the myriad of peculiarities that make up the arma engine. BIS would need to give modders an ear as far as engine upgrades, better tools and other things becasue all of a sudden they are all in business together to a degree and these improvements will allow them to better create and capitalise on the content creation side of things.

summary. If mod makers addons will generate extra money for BIS then the same add on makers have a right to expect BIS to make things better when it comes to making those said add ons becasue money.

[PuFu 4591]

summary. If mod makers addons will generate extra money for BIS then the same add on makers have a right to expect BIS to make things better when it comes to making those said add ons becasue money.

agreed, but understand that addons already generate extra money for BI (simple example is DayZ mod A2 generated sales)

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

The arma series has gotten along fine without monetizing the mods. Don't see a need for it. Some modders have donation options and that is fair enough.

Just my own opinion and experience with arma. when money gets involved, assholes crawl out of the woodwork.

[Macser 776]

I don't see anywhere in my post where I gave an opinion on whether or not mods should be free or suggested that modders had any responsibility to players at all.

I apologise for directing that at you in particular. :)

My point was something that this thread has served to highlight.I didn't think much of it until recently.I was aware that some members have always had a sense of right and entitlement.But it seems to have become slightly more aggressive over the years.

Some members seem to think modders should remain within the open community,but only on their terms.This is the part that irritates me the most.Not the possibility of a digital marketplace.But that modders would be denied the option to present their work in a commercial way,if,the opportunity presented itself.

It is a hobbyist environment as far as I'm concerned.This community did not start out as a way to acquire free content.This has simply been a circumstance.Circumstances can and do change.

The arma series has gotten along fine without monetizing the mods. Don't see a need for it. Some modders have donation options and that is fair enough.

Just my own opinion and experience with arma. when money gets involved, assholes crawl out of the woodwork.

That's absolutely true.It has gotten along just fine.But that's only because it didn't affect peoples access to free content.No-one who wants free stuff sees a need for money to be involved.

If that was applied to any other situation outside these boards would it sound fair? :)

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

bis "give" the ability to mod "their game".

If a select few modders are annoyed at people feeling they shouldn't "have" to pay for something created by modders , the modders might in their own self entitlement forget, maybe they have forgotten thry were only able to create and express themselves purley on the "free" access and "audience "bis has Granted the modders themselves .

[Tonci87 163]

snip

Again you completely miss the point.

You are not special, I´m not special.

We are all part of the same community, a community that has existed for a very long time and that would change fundamentally if addons became payware.

I believe the only people profiting from such a thing would be BIS, (because they would be able to take a cut without doing fuck all for it) STEAM (yes they would get a cut too if this is going through their workshop), and a few high profile modders (How much will be left for the author after BIS and Steam take a cut? Only the addons with a ton of downloads would see any real money), no one else. Therefore it is in my opinion not worth the risk.

Of course I think modders should be able to get paid for their art, but we should explore the voluntary methods first (something that is not done properly).

Edited April 18, 2015 by Tonci87

[Macser 776]

bis "give" the ability to mod "their game".

If a select few modders are annoyed at people feeling they shouldn't "have" to pay for something created by modders , the modders might in their own self entitlement forget, maybe they have forgotten thry were only able to create and express themselves purley on the "free" access and "audience "bis has Granted the modders themselves .

Yes.Bis has provided great games for us to buy and provided some tools to create content.Although modders have provided many tools themselves.Some of which are superior.You still have to purchase a game.Whether you're playing or modding.

I don't see how that means we must have free access to anything we want.That the modder should

provide content free of charge,in perpetuity.

The modder does what they do on their time.It is their effort.

It's not up to you or I,modder or player,to determine how an individual presents their work.And it's only up to BIS when it relates to copyright/IP and use of works covered by it.Or in how it relates to forums and sites under their control.

Modders are also part of that "audience " you mention.And always have been. :)