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

[St. Jimmy 272]

Simple, effective and promoted donation button in the workahop site would be the best. You could donate like buying games in Steam so even Steam wallet can be used. When you press the subscribe button Steam should ask if you want to donate money for the author and there should be an easy option to do this later if you want to test the mod first.

[x3kj 1247]

If it's a donation, then steam or BI would not benefit from it, so why would they go out of their way to add it?

So either mods end up getting used less than now, meaning there's less incentive for modders to put the effort in making them if not many people are using and appreciating their work or players leave the group which slowly reduces the number of people playing ArmA, at least online.

I can only talk about myself and the team i was working with prior to arma - the main reason we modded is because we wanted the stuff ourself. Purely selfish. If others liked it as well, cool, if they didnt like it - not our problem. Doesnt mean we didn't consider player input, but for the most part we put our ideas and work into the game to have a nicer experience for ourself. In fact having too many people clinging to you can be a burden (see ACE, RHS, etc..) because people all of the sudden have expectations from you to provide you with free stuff, constantly nag you about release dates or features/models they want you to add constantly, etc. Also the more apples you have the more brown ones you will get... which can be frustrating at times.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Fennek

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Simple, effective and promoted donation button in the workahop site would be the best. You could donate like buying games in Steam so even Steam wallet can be used. When you press the subscribe button Steam should ask if you want to donate money for the author and there should be an easy option to do this later if you want to test the mod first.

Great idea jimmy, this would be a really nice addition and something I would welcome .

I often have 2.50 sitting in my steawallet, would have gladly given it to Jarhead or one of the many other long standing modders out there.

[PuFu 4591]

My other concern is if some people in a clan want to use some weapons or vehicle mods but other members don't care about them or can't afford them, either the mods don't get used or people leave the group. So either mods end up getting used less than now, meaning there's less incentive for modders to put the effort in making them if not many people are using and appreciating their work or players leave the group which slowly reduces the number of people playing ArmA, at least online. I'm quite easily satisfied and pretty much one version of each type of weapon (rifle, MG, SMG) is enough for me as I'm too busy trying not to get shot to worry about what my weapon looks like! So I'd be reluctant to spend anything on weapons packs but other people love having lots of weapons to choose from. If it was just a couple of quid I guess I'd pay that to be able to keep playing but not if it started to add up significantly.

You've also got a potential problem with missions. If mods have to be bought, then a clan either forces everyone to buy certain mods or only vanilla missions are played, which in turn leads to mission makers not using mod content as they want to maximise the number of people who play their missions.

That is a good point. However, if done similar to DLC, it could work (as in content downloaded by everyone, only the ones who bought it can use it). A bit hard to believe but well...

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

What has been interesting and revealing,is seeing the underlying reasons for preventing it.

And getting a little more insight into the relationship between people who create and people who play.

same here. I am more than interested, since it gives me the cringes seeing some replies.

If it's a donation, then steam or BI would not benefit from it, so why would they go out of their way to add it?

Precisely

I can only talk about myself and the team i was working with prior to arma - the main reason we modded is because we wanted the stuff ourself. Purely selfish. If others liked it as well, cool, if they didnt like it - not our problem. Doesnt mean we didn't consider player input, but for the most part we put our ideas and work into the game to have a nicer experience for ourself. In fact having too many people clinging to you can be a burden (see ACE, RHS, etc..) because people all of the sudden have expectations from you to provide you with free stuff, constantly nag you about release dates or features/models they want you to add constantly, etc. Also the more apples you have the more brown ones you will get... which can be frustrating at times.

to add to what fennek said, and with what i agree completely, is that today the expectations are constantly increasing, but only ones allowed to have those high expectations are the users. You don't even wanna know the rude and inconsiderate replies a modder is facing if you explain they need to read the documentation that is also provided before submitting bugs, or that they need to take down the uploaded work work from steam workshop since it breaks both steam and mod eula, and this is just to name a few. If there is "please" it is always after some shit like: "plz fix this bug ASAP. it's so fucking annoying and unrealistic.i cannot play my weekly game" or "plz release update already!".

[Chairborne 2594]

If this situation you don't like happens with free mods think of what will happen if you charge people to play it.

Less people will play it and the expectations will increase tenfold.

So instead of getting messages with "please" you'll get messages with "i paid for it, now you MUST fix it".

And it will still be annoying and unrealistic shit, yet people will be more entitled to say so then.

If support is given to commercialised mods,addons and missions then the wider community will just have to adjust to that.Some people may leave because of it.A lot maybe.I don't know.But I doubt the vast majority of those would've been interested in modding.In any case,I know for a fact there are modders who don't have an interest in selling their work.And would continue to provide it free.

Still.I don't recall seeing any advertisements/commercials stating that the Arma series is a source of free content.There's certainly no suggestion of an all you can eat buffet of goodies,provided by enthusiasts working on their spare time.

Somewhere along the line,people formed this concept themselves,and now see it as part of the purchase price of the game.I don't see any evidence that this was ever an official marketing strategy.

Except we wouldn't even be discussing this right now if this were true.

Mods were always free because Arma license prohibited that, on the contrary of donations.

https://www.bistudio.com/community/game-content-usage-rules

Am I allowed to seek crowd-funding or other forms of donation towards my modding work?

Yes this is allowed, with the same rules = the access to data/content cannot be limited by any financial contribution.

In no way does this mean that Bohemia guarantees any compatibility or functionality now, or in the future for your modding work or that Bohemia endorses your project.

[Tonci87 163]

If this situation you don't like happens with free mods think of what will happen if you charge people to play it.

Less people will play it and the expectations will increase tenfold.

So instead of getting messages with "please" you'll get messages with "i paid for it, now you MUST fix it".

And it will still be annoying and unrealistic shit, yet people will be more entitled to say so then.

That is also something that worries me. Right now you can go into any addon thread and you will find a person that DEMANDS updates to mods, or the implementation of features, etc. However, right now that person gets reminded by other users to be patient, that the mod author is working on the mod and that it will evolve come time. Now imagine what kind of shitstorm the Addons&Mods section would be if people had the right to demand fixes and the implementation of promosed features. There would be many more addon authors demanding that their threads are closed until the next update :rolleyes:

[Kerc Kasha 102]

If you're charging people for something it's no longer 'i'm doing this in my free time' and more 'i'm doing this for profit' so there's some expectation of quality

[rübe 127]

@Chairborne and Tonci87: you guys are not completely wrong, but the generalisation you two seem to imply does simply not hold: Just because *some* mods would have to be payed for, doesn't mean that expectations skyrocket *in general*. That just applies to those mods, that you actually have to buy. There's no reason to assume that mods which remain free would all of a sudden have to deal with such higher expectations.

Maybe just give it a rest (hey, do whatever you want! ;)), and see how things will evolve.

There is no need to grasp at straws. :cool:

[Chairborne 2594]

@Chairborne and Tonci87: you guys are not completely wrong, but the generalisation you two seem to imply does simply not hold: Just because *some* mods would have to be payed for, doesn't mean that expectations skyrocket *in general*. That just applies to those mods, that you actually have to buy. There's no reason to assume that mods which remain free would all of a sudden have to deal with such higher expectations.

Maybe i didn't explain myself well, however i was of course talking about those mods that would choose monetization. :)

edit: i did in fact say "if you charge people to play it"

[Tonci87 163]

@Chairborne and Tonci87: you guys are not completely wrong, but the generalisation you two seem to imply does simply not hold: Just because *some* mods would have to be payed for, doesn't mean that expectations skyrocket *in general*. That just applies to those mods, that you actually have to buy. There's no reason to assume that mods which remain free would all of a sudden have to deal with such higher expectations.

Maybe just give it a rest (hey, do whatever you want! ;)), and see how things will evolve.

There is no need to grasp at straws. :cool:

I too was talking about the mods that will be paid for. However, it is fair to assume that many mods will be monetized if people get the chance to do so.

[PuFu 4591]

If this situation you don't like happens with free mods think of what will happen if you charge people to play it.

Less people will play it and the expectations will increase tenfold.

So instead of getting messages with "please" you'll get messages with "i paid for it, now you MUST fix it".

And it will still be annoying and unrealistic shit, yet people will be more entitled to say so then.

But then at least it is ok to have some demands, or if they have some way of "demoing" it, even better

I too was talking about the mods that will be paid for. However, it is fair to assume that many mods will be monetized if people get the chance to do so.

Yes or not, at least some of the ones that feature high quality, from the ground up (read no ports and skins, nothing based on BIS content) content, i'd expect they would.

Anyways, i'll personally give this a rest until BI takes some sort of real decision and comes up with a lot more information and details

[Tonci87 163]

But then at least it is ok to have some demands, or if they have some way of "demoing" it, even better

Yes or not, at least some of the ones that feature high quality, from the ground up (read no ports and skins, nothing based on BIS content) content, i'd expect they would.

Anyways, i'll personally give this a rest until BI takes some sort of real decision and comes up with a lot more information and details

That is possibly for te better.

However, another concern I have is that some Mod authors might cut up their work into smaller chunks, to make more money. Let´s use a wide spanning Mod like RHS as an example. to make more money such a mod could be split up into more individual parts, a soldier pack, a weapon pack, a vehicle pack etc.

Basically, once money starts to play a role we might start to see the same things we see all the time with released games and their DLC.

And then there is the issue of intelectual theft (wich is happening already in the Arma scene) and how you combat it. Encrypted PBOs? Well good luck to newcomers then....

[rübe 127]

Encrypted PBOs?

Yeah, encrypted PBOs are a disgrace to human mankind.

:jail:

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah, encrypted PBOs are a disgrace to human mankind.

:jail:

I wouldn´t go that far, but they make it really hard for newcomers to learn anything. I bet that almost any modder out there has once started by unpacking other peoples work to see how they tackled problems and how things worked. And obviously you have to encrypt if you want to make money and not risk your stuff beeing stolen.

[alamonelf 5]

I must be honest, this concerns me.

There is such a great pipeline of content coming into Arma from the community, that if money is brought into it, I can see a lot more infighting, disputes over people copying each others content, and no one really wanting to help each other, as what they know will then become trade secrets.

Well said I would like to add that ALiVE got 20$ off me and did NOT have to charge.

[x3kj 1247]

If this situation you don't like happens with free mods think of what will happen if you charge people to play it.

Less people will play it and the expectations will increase tenfold.

So instead of getting messages with "please" you'll get messages with "i paid for it, now you MUST fix it".

Yes with cost also comes some responsibility, there is no denying in that... however, as with all products/games - you provide it as is (unless you promise something else, in which case it is a promise and it's in buyers judgement wether one can trust this or not). Support for years to come is usually not promised, yet is still often taken for granted even with free mods.

Encrypted PBOs? Well good luck to newcomers then....

You can learn perfectly well from A2 addons alone, because nothing has changed to model creation. New additions like physx are well documented and have samples. And also, how about asking the person personally if you want to know something? :j: Additionally there are open source addons for A3 as well and not everything will be encrypted as not everything will cost money.

Additionally... Arma 3 vanilla files are not encrypted.

However, another concern I have is that some Mod authors might cut up their work into smaller chunks, to make more money. Let´s use a wide spanning Mod like RHS as an example. to make more money such a mod could be split up into more individual parts, a soldier pack, a weapon pack, a vehicle pack etc.

So? if it's too expensive then don't buy it - if nobody /too few buy it the price will be lowered. Why do you think splitting a big mod into multiple parts would allow you sell it for more? Doesnt make any sense. And also, why do you assume that everyone needs/wants the entire pack? If i just want to make a mission with an infantry engagement why do you need the vehicles?

And if there are several weapon packs with the same wepaons you would even get to choose which one you prefer.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Fennek

[roshnak 41]

Why do you think splitting a big mod into multiple parts would allow you sell it for more? Doesnt make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. Companies do it all the time. For example, instead of selling a big mod pack for $10, you sell Side A Pack for $6 and Side B Pack for $6, increasing its total price from $10 to $12. Or you sell a uniform pack, a weapon pack, a light vehicle pack, an armor pack, a fixed wing pack, and a helicopter pack each for $2.50, increasing its total price from $10 to $15.

Edited April 20, 2015 by roshnak

[x3kj 1247]

Companies do it all the time

Except this is a flea market, and not the wallstreet stock market

and a helicopter pack each for $2.50, increasing its total price from $10 to $15.

Or they could charge directly 15 quid for the whole pack, because nothing stops them from doing just that. If the pack AND the single packs where available, and the total pack is cheaper, normally people would talk about a bundle discount... instead you do some serious mind gymnastic, go the reverse way and try to make it look greedy. Are you that desperate now?

Have you considered that such big packs don#t fall from the sky? They are created over months and years with thousands of man hours until they become that big. And you have no idea how much work it is to create that, otherwise you would be talking differently.

How dare you BIS, to offer DLC seperately for a total higher price then the complete pack, boo, hisss, they are literally worse then hitler... jeez. :j:

Edited April 20, 2015 by Fennek

[rübe 127]

Of course it makes sense.

Yep, makes perfect sense, and it's called Operations research if you do that kind of thing on a professional level.

Plus, if you wanna look at it this way, there might be way more advantages to selling smaller products, than merely increasing (the total sum of the) price. Smaller packages might sell way better (e.g. spontaneous purchase decisions), you could market them better, e.g. in more specific ways, or better targeted at some particular audience, diversification, less risk (or the other way around: you might be able to take more) and so on...

Just have a look at what the airline industry is doing: they are selling - in essence - the same product for a lot of different prices. You can spend 1000 on a ticket? Great, have a seat! Oh, you can only spend 300 on a ticket? That's great! Have a seat! All the economy/business/super mega duper class bullshit is just artificial fluff to somewhat justify the price differences. Or why do you think there are special editions for movies and games and what not?

It's all about the willingness to pay (or accept) - and how a business can leverage this best.

P.S. I'm not judging, or implying that this is a bad or good thing. It's just how humans operate in a modern economy; and people - especially in the game industry - seem to have caught up quite a bit with respect to this. The DLC-wave and micropayments and all that stuff is nothing else.

Have you considered that such big packs don#t fall from the sky? They are created over months and years with thousands of man hours until they become that big.

Yep. A fantastic reason to split up huge mods into more digestible modules, with way less risk and much faster return on investment (and probably overall higher revenue). From this perspective, huge mods are a terrible idea (as in: business plan) to make some bucks. ;)

Edited April 20, 2015 by ruebe

[roshnak 41]

Except this is a flea market, and not the wallstreet stock market

This has nothing to do with stock markets. This is a basic selling technique that is used all over the place. See ruebe's post for more info.

Have you considered that such big packs don#t fall from the sky? They are created over months and years with thousands of man hours until they become that big. And you have no idea how much work it is to create that, otherwise you would be talking differently.

What does the amount of work that goes into creating a mod pack have to do with this discussion, and why would my knowledge of that work have any impact on my discussion of relatively well-known pricing strategies?

How dare you BIS, to offer DLC seperately for a total higher price then the complete pack, boo, hisss, they are literally worse then hitler... jeez. :j:

I didn't state that this selling tactic was a good or bad thing, and I certainly didn't imply that anyone doing it was in any way evil or comparable to Hitler. It's just the way the modern marketplace works. You're being overly defensive.

Edit: Just be be clear: I am not saying that all or even any modders would do this stuff. I am merely saying that not only does it make sense, it is not uncommon.

Edited April 21, 2015 by roshnak

[x3kj 1247]

What does the amount of work that goes into creating a mod pack have to do with this discussion, and why would my knowledge of that work have any impact on my discussion of relatively well-known pricing strategies?

Excuse me? We are talking about monetisation of user content by modders in this topic here if you haven't noticed. If you have no knowledge of user content creation maybe go complain somewhere else about company pricing strategies

I am not saying that all or even any modders would do this stuff. I am merely saying that not only does it make sense, it is not uncommon.

Then why do you mention it at all? We are talking about modders. Nobody else.

A fantastic reason to split up huge mods into more digestible modules, with way less risk and much faster return on investment (and probably overall higher revenue).

I'd like to see how you make a "quick buck" with something that takes several hundred hours and years of knowledge/training to create in the first place. It's a hobby and not a job, with a time requirement of a job, and people expecting job-like quality and quantity in addition to beeing free. There's a problem there. The last time someone tried to make a living of Arma modding failed pretty hard (unfortunately for him).

[roshnak 41]

Excuse me? We are talking about monetisation of user content by modders in this topic here if you haven't noticed. If you have no knowledge of user content creation maybe go complain somewhere else about company pricing strategies

I never said that I have no knowledge of content creation. I have enough knowledge and experience to know how much work is involved. However, the amount of work involved has no bearing on the effectivenes of splitting up a package and selling it in smaller parts as a sales strategy.

Then why do you mention it at all? We are talking about modders. Nobody else.

I didn't mention it. Tonci87 expressed concern that it might happen and you said that it didn't make any sense. I merely pointed out that it not only makes sense, it actually happens.

Again, you're being way too defensive. Maybe stop assuming that everyone is attacking you or the idea of monetizing user generated content.

Edited April 21, 2015 by roshnak

[gossamersolid 155]

Monetizing mods is a terrible idea, in this community especially.

If you feel like you deserve to get paid, go get a job in the industry.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Monetizing mods is a terrible idea, in this community especially.

If you feel like you deserve to get paid, go get a job in the industry.

This, basically. UE4's pricing model is an indie-dev's wet dream and I'd assume a good start for making money from modding / game development. I'm not really fond of the idea of a monetised Arma community. I don't think it will break the community but it will have some impact. And I doubt it's a positive one.

Edited April 23, 2015 by IndeedPete

[I give up 152]

Monetizing mods is a terrible idea, in this community especially.

If you feel like you deserve to get paid, go get a job in the industry.

I have been saying the same.

Anyway, modders (even those who defend the idea) will figure it after implementation.