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

[vegeta897 13]

I'm pretty sure that if you pick apart the whole legal agreement you'll find clauses that wave their responsiblities and put it all on the modder.

You're ignoring controversial content that damages IP by causing bad publicity. Even if it gets taken down, the media eats that shit up, and the average Joe doesn't understand enough about mods and games to make the distinction.

[biggerdave 56]

Not profit, revenue. Do you think it's free to host modded content? Like there are no costs involved in this venture for Valve?

Evidently it costs them so much that they've been able to do it for free for a good few years now, and seem to have no reservations against continuing to do it for free? It wouldn't surprise me if the largest expense for valve in this "venture" would be the tax they have to pay on all the money they're making from it.

[badluckburt 78]

You're ignoring controversial content that damages IP by causing bad publicity. Even if it gets taken down, the media eats that shit up, and the average Joe doesn't understand enough about mods and games to make the distinction.

There really is no difference to the current situation so I fail to see your point. Controversial mods could already be downloaded from Steam and be donated for, it only would've taken one call to the press, ISIS mod anyone?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

No, because the parts are a physical product, and that costs something, along with the cost for tools, transportation, marketing, etc. If you made the parts using material that was free, using Corvette's factory and their tools, and was displayed next to their showroom (steam in this example), all without having to leave your house, then what? I would probably say that yes you should give them a cut in that case.

Unfortunately that isn't the case and is not comparable. You make it sound like as if no effort is put into a mod, as if no knowledge is put into a mod, as if someone just snaps their fingers and something is created out of no effort, no training, no learning, no investment. And that the game devs are there on platter for everyone to ask. Hell, Arma has been modded for 15 years now and there isn't a single person in the community who could tell with certainty about anything and even documentation isn't to be trusted.

But then again, this attitude does not surprise me. Modding has always had a problem where you release a gun, you get "a request" to make an arsenal. Release a vehicle, you get "a request" to make a fleet. Etc.

While true for extreme cases like DayZ, is it true for the vast majority of the mods out there? It's an extreme outlier as far as I know, I can't think of any other mod for any game that has had that much impact on sales of the base game. Part of the problem with thinking along those lines, is that it's very hard to measure the impact that mods have on sales of the base game.

You ask how much value does Obliivon or Skyrim have without mods, but I think you are skewing how many people use mods and are 'in the know' in regards to the mod community. I know about 8-9 friends or coworkers who played through at least most of Skyrim, and as far as I know only one of them used ever used mods.

I suspect that the amount of people playing with mods in those games are much less than what you might think. For Skyrim for example, I remember seeing that something around 60% of all sales of the game were on consoles, so right away that's only 40% of users who have access to mods, and I would be surprised if more than 10-20% of those players ever use a mod.

A mod can provide a value to a game even if you don't use it. Arma 2/Arma 3 passively benefited from DayZ's popularity, many of the DayZ population rubbed off onto the base game. There are new mod makers now that are invested in Arma 3 because DayZ had them discover Arma. People discovered the games and their capabilities. Skyrim gets publicity all the time when news outlets report on great, cool and insane mods that get released. Same with a ton of other games. It keeps them relevant and visible, mod or no mod, and that's what leads to sales, even if the buyer doesn't end up using those mods.

DayZ wasn't the first, won't be the last, and will never be the only one to affect a developer in such a way. Counter Strike, Insurgency, Team Fortress, Project Reality, Blitzkrieg countless others where there way and gave value to the games they were built on way before DayZ was even a speck in the eyes of it's creators.

The core problem in the system here is the double dipping aspect of the people who "sat and did nothing" as you put it and who then proceed to reap much more than just 75% of the benefits. It's not morally right, no matter how much IP bullshit you excuse it with. And in the end, those 75% are slapped across the skin of the buyer, because the seller who says "ok, this is worth 1 dollar" is actually $4 because of that 75% margin. And then you get "$4 dollars for a weapon, what a robbery!".

I say IP bullshit, because those same people who take 75% from the people providing them service, come nowhere close to giving 75% to those who they themselves based their base product around on. Nvidia will not ask you for 75% of your games sales because you use their library. Microsoft does not take 75% of your games revenue because you use the DirectX. Fuck, the console manufacturers don't take 75% of your sales so you can make games for their systems. Epic doesn't take 75% of your games sales if you use their engine to make a game.

Maybe we should pay 75% of anything we earn using the computers to the people who invented various parts of it. Maybe we should give 75% to the ones who discovered electricity.

This is not for the greater good of the people who make mods or the ones who would buy such mods, this is just another attack vector on monetary gain.

If the IP holders and and content distributors really see themselves as worthy of 75% of the effort of a mod, then fuck modding free or paid. They can mod their own games.

[roshnak 41]

It's a unique industry.

It's really not.

Creating and selling a mod distributed on Steam is not the same thing at all as creating some aftermarket part for a car. You are ignoring a whole hell of a lot of differences if you think that's a valid comparison.

Do you think that payware content for flight simulators is a valid comparison? Because I can't find anything that suggests that Microsoft, Xicat Interactive (X-Plane's publisher), or Laminar Research (X-Plane's developer) take a cut of addon sales. And I personally consider flightsim payware to be the worst case scenario for paid third party content.

Edit: I should say that this has nothing to do with distribution. Just the "value added" argument. Obviously it makes sense for a distributor to take a percentage of sales, but, even then, 75% is absurd.

Edited April 24, 2015 by roshnak

[soulis6 24]

Unfortunately that isn't the case and is not comparable. You make it sound like as if no effort is put into a mod, as if no knowledge is put into a mod, as if someone just snaps their fingers and something is created out of no effort, no training, no learning, no investment. And that the game devs are there on platter for everyone to ask. Hell, Arma has been modded for 15 years now and there isn't a single person in the community who could tell with certainty about anything and even documentation isn't to be trusted.

But then again, this attitude does not surprise me. Modding has always had a problem where you release a gun, you get "a request" to make an arsenal. Release a vehicle, you get "a request" to make a fleet. Etc.

That's not at all the case i'm making. I'm saying it isn't comparable to parts for a car, because there's numerous physical production, material, and transportation costs included in this. The only thing that's comparable is the Design of the part. So using this example, yes it is exactly like I said, the design of the part takes knowledge, effort, training, and time, which is what it often takes for Mods as well. But that's not the same thing as charging for the cut of a part, because there's a lot more that goes into the part than just the design, not to mention they are totally different mediums.

A mod can provide a value to a game even if you don't use it. Arma 2/Arma 3 passively benefited from DayZ's popularity, many of the DayZ population rubbed off onto the base game. There are new mod makers now that are invested in Arma 3 because DayZ had them discover Arma. People discovered the games and their capabilities. Skyrim gets publicity all the time when news outlets report on great, cool and insane mods that get released. Same with a ton of other games. It keeps them relevant and visible, mod or no mod, and that's what leads to sales, even if the buyer doesn't end up using those mods.

DayZ wasn't the first, won't be the last, and will never be the only one to affect a developer in such a way. Counter Strike, Insurgency, Team Fortress, Project Reality, Blitzkrieg countless others where there way and gave value to the games they were built on way before DayZ was even a speck in the eyes of it's creators.

The core problem in the system here is the double dipping aspect of the people who "sat and did nothing" as you put it and who then proceed to reap much more than just 75% of the benefits. It's not morally right, no matter how much IP bullshit you excuse it with. And in the end, those 75% are slapped across the skin of the buyer, because the seller who says "ok, this is worth 1 dollar" is actually $4 because of that 75% margin. And then you get "$4 dollars for a weapon, what a robbery!".

I say IP bullshit, because those same people who take 75% from the people providing them service, come nowhere close to giving 75% to those who they themselves based their base product around on. Nvidia will not ask you for 75% of your games sales because you use their library. Microsoft does not take 75% of your games revenue because you use the DirectX. Fuck, the console manufacturers don't take 75% of your sales so you can make games for their systems. Epic doesn't take 75% of your games sales if you use their engine to make a game.

Maybe we should pay 75% of anything we earn using the computers to the people who invented various parts of it. Maybe we should give 75% to the ones who discovered electricity.

This is not for the greater good of the people who make mods or the ones who would buy such mods, this is just another attack vector on monetary gain.

If the IP holders and and content distributors really see themselves as worthy of 75% of the effort of a mod, then fuck modding free or paid. They can mod their own games.

You are very hung up on the 75%. They have stated that all Valve does is take their 30% cut, it's totally up to the developers how the remaining portion is divided up. If BIS joined in on this program, and gave mod creators a 50 or a 60% cut, what would you say about that?

Also this isn't quite the same as just "IP bullshit" as you put it, because people are buying a game that the developers spent a large amounts of time and money creating, and the only reason they would ever use or purchase the mod in the first place, is because it's connected to that game in an integral way.

The difference between NVIDIA taking a cut of your game you make with their tools, and mods, is you could still create your game even without their tools, their tools are not what are drawing you any customers in the first place. The only reason any mod would sell, is because it is adding content to or enhancing an existing product. That's a big difference.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Soulis6

[biggerdave 56]

You are very hung up on the 75%. They have stated that all Valve does is take their 30% cut, it's totally up to the developers how the remaining portion is divided up. If BIS joined in on this program, and gave mod creators a 50 or a 60% cut, what would you say about that?

AFAIK 30% to valve hasn't been confirmed, yet. That's based off what indie devs/"anonymous sources within large publishers" have said is their usual rate. Exactly what Valve are taking isn't clear, given the numbers we're talking about I'd tend towards either 25% or 50%.

This is exactly what everyone's hung up about (aside from the "MODS SHOULD BE FREE FOR ME WORK FOR NOTHING" crowd, but fuck those guys), and with pretty damn good reason. Maybe you can argue that "this is the system, this is how the system works", but I fail to see how anyone can believe that doing sweet FA (hell, they're even trying their damnedest to distance themselves from the actual content) and reaping the lions share is anything other than Valve and Zenimax abusing their position in this relationship to make a quick buck.

Call me a dirty socialist (I will concede on this, I've walked the dog in the rain today and didn't take a shower afterwards), but I've always believed the people doing the work should be rewarded, not the "intellectual property holders".

Edited April 24, 2015 by BiggerDave

[soulis6 24]

I'm not sure if it's exactly that 30%, but valve has confirmed that it is a normal split between them and the developers, with the developers deciding how much of a split to give to mod creators. 30% is their normal split, which is the same as pretty much any other platform out there (apple, google, xbox).

The only problem with your argument is in your equating Valve or the developers to be just "IP holders", whcih is not at all the case. You seem to be assuming that the steam workshop integration, hosting, and support is free, which it most definitely is not. I have no idea what the actual costs of it were, but I can guarantee you that changing any small on thing on steam is not small feat, there's a huge ton of stuff going on in terms of network traffic hosting, database creation, storage space, user interface design, legal support, customer service support, etc.

It's the same with the game developers, they're not just sitting on some IP rights, they spent years creating Skyrim, and easily over 80 million dollars, in creating that game, in addition to the mod tools and techincal behind the scenes support needed to enable this content in the first place. This is the main problem with equating Mod content to other products or content; not only wouldn't it exist if the base game didn't exist and offer at least some support for mods, but no one would be around to play or purchase any of the mods if there wasn't a decently sized community who bought and enjoyed the game.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Currently the non-modder cut of Skyrim Workshop is 75%, how it's split up, I do not know, the end result is that the mod creator gets 25%.

[biggerdave 56]

The only problem with your argument is in your equating Valve or the developers to be just "IP holders", whcih is not at all the case. You seem to be assuming that the steam workshop integration, hosting, and support is free, which it most definitely is not. I have no idea what the actual costs of it were, but I can guarantee you that changing any small on thing on steam is not small feat, there's a huge ton of stuff going on in terms of network traffic hosting, database creation, storage space, user interface design, legal support, customer service support, etc.

Like I've already said:

Bethesda Game Studio (developers) probably aren't getting a cut. If they are, you can guarantee the actual people who made Skyrim aren't seeing a single penny.

Zenimax (publishers) are taking no risks, and beyond giving an OK, have pretty much no input. From what we've heard, they're taking the lions share. (And, let's not forget, they have a history of legal trolling and other such scummy behaviour)

Valve have been providing workshop services free of charge for a good few years now, maybe they'll have spent a few pretty pennies concepting and marketing this whole scheme, but at the end of the day the biggest expense for them is probably going to be the tax they're paying on all the money they've made. (and if you read their FAQ, and reasoning behind witholding cash before it hits the magical $100 limit, it doesn't look like they're even trying to deny this)

I will admit, that if BIS have any interest in this sort of arrangement, there's no doubt in my mind they'll handle it far better than Zenimax, but if the 30% valve cut is true, that's still far too much being taken away from the actual content creators for me to be comfortable with.

[roshnak 41]

This is the main problem with equating Mod content to other products or content; not only wouldn't it exist if the base game didn't exist and offer at least some support for mods, but no one would be around to play or purchase any of the mods if there wasn't a decently sized community who bought and enjoyed the game.

I truly hope this line of thinking never spreads outside the tech world, because it is insane.

[soulis6 24]

I truly hope this line of thinking never spreads outside the tech world, because it is insane.

It doesn't really exist outside of software, because otherwise you'd have a cost of parts & materials, along with whatever else that costs money in the real world, transportation, marketing, etc.

It's not insane, it's just the truth. If there is no base game + community + mod support already in place before mod creators do anything, there is no mod to be played/sold, it's not really much more complicated than that.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Soulis6

[roshnak 41]

It doesn't really exist outside of software, because otherwise you'd have a cost of parts & materials, along with whatever else that costs money in the real world, transportation, marketing, etc.

Again, what difference does the cost of parts and materials make? Or transportation? Who cares? There is a cost to produce mod content as well. You have to (in theory) purchase programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop, tools and extensions for those programs, potentially training materials, etc.

I don't understand how the costs associated with creating a product have any bearing on whether or not the creator of that product should owe money to another company whose product his or hers interfaces with.

In fact, the cost of materials thing brings up another example: Programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop have tons of extensions and scripts created by third parties and available for purchase. These are about as directly analogous to mods as you can get. The programs in question created the market for said extensions and the extensions directly add to the functionality or content for those programs. Quixel doesn't have to give a portion of all its sales to Adobe because nDo requires Photoshop to function. People writing scripts and tools for Max don't have to give Autodesk a portion of their sales.

It's not insane, it's just the truth. If there is no base game + community + mod support already in place before mod creators do anything, there is no mod to be played/sold, it's not really much more complicated than that.

What's insane is thinking that entitles developers or publishers to a cut of modders profits. It doesn't.

Creating a market or a need or desire for a product or type of product doesn't give you the right to a share of the profit of everyone who caters to the market you created.

[Defunkt 431]

[pd3 25]

In all honesty, this will work better with the Arma community than with many other games *coughcoughBethesdagamescoughcough*

We have a number of long-time, dedicated contributors that have tirelessly made high quality content for the community over the years and definitely merit some level of reasonable recompense for their efforts.

[cosmic10r 2324]

the moment money comes into this is the moment this whole structure changes and in my opinion, ... for the worse

[soulis6 24]

Again, what difference does the cost of parts and materials make? Or transportation? Who cares? There is a cost to produce mod content as well. You have to (in theory) purchase programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop, tools and extensions for those programs, potentially training materials, etc.

There's not though, just time. If you're using programs like max or photoshop, those are things to just make it easier, but there are free alternatives to both. Parts and materials matter because you would have to purchase those things and that is built into the cost, other companies couldn't rightfully ask for a share of the materials cost of a product, but if it's all digital, there is no material cost, just lots of time and effort. Which I think mod creators should be able to be paid for. Not to mention that by having it on the steam workshop, it is the digital equivalent of storing, transporting, and showcasing your product for you.

In fact, the cost of materials thing brings up another example: Programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop have tons of extensions and scripts created by third parties and available for purchase. These are about as directly analogous to mods as you can get. The programs in question created the market for said extensions and the extensions directly add to the functionality or content for those programs. Quixel doesn't have to give a portion of all its sales to Adobe because nDo requires Photoshop to function. People writing scripts and tools for Max don't have to give Autodesk a portion of their sales

.

Those script and extension creators are the same thing as most old/normal mods, they are doing it for free, but it would be nice if there was a system in place that allowed people to buy them. Quixel doesn't require photoshop to function at all, you can still use it without photoshop, that's the key difference I think you're missing. If it required it to do anything at all, they'd be making money off of photoshop indirectly, and then yes, Adobe should take a cut. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a deal worked out with Adobe for their nDo tool.

What's insane is thinking that entitles developers or publishers to a cut of modders profits. It doesn't.

Creating a market or a need or desire for a product or type of product doesn't give you the right to a share of the profit of everyone who caters to the market you created.

That's not what's happening here though, they're not just creating a market or a desire for a product, mod's directly piggyback on that product, using it's tools and resources, and the mod has no value at all if the product doesn't exist or support it. Quixel will still work without photoshop. A mod of Arma will do nothing without Arma.

A non-software example might be licensed books based off of series, like star wars or halo. The writers of these get paid, but I can guarantee you they make far far less than 25% of the revenue of those books sold, even if you just include digital books, which have no overhead in physical costs.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Soulis6

[pd3 25]

the moment money comes into this is the moment this whole structure changes and in my opinion, ... for the worse

I think that entirely depends on the content creators, and I honestly think that the decent content creators will continue to retain their standards as well as make a decent assessment of what their work is worth to others.

[AhabtheArab 10]

@Defunkt - LMAO!!!! DEAD ON! DEAD ON! DEAD ON!

Edited April 25, 2015 by AhabtheArab
weirdness

[soulis6 24]

I think that entirely depends on the content creators, and I honestly think that the decent content creators will continue to retain their standards as well as make a decent assessment of what their work is worth to others.

I agree, and i think it will allow them to work on a project longer than they might otherwise be able to. Just look at JSRS :(

[Hymmnos 10]

That video, 10/10.

Another good read is this news post on the Nexus (the main hub of mods for multiple games):

nexusmods(dot)com/skyrim/news/12454/ (I can't post links because my account is under 1 day old)

Mainly applicable is the part titled "Permission changes regarding paid mods"

Basically: If something is stolen, how can you tell? You buy the mod to check it out, right? But you don't want to buy the mod. So you buy it and refund it... for steam wallet credit... valve takes your money anyway.

It's stated much better in the article but that's the gist.

[roshnak 41]

There's not though, just time. If you're using programs like max or photoshop, those are things to just make it easier, but there are free alternatives to both. Parts and materials matter because you would have to purchase those things and that is built into the cost, other companies couldn't rightfully ask for a share of the materials cost of a product, but if it's all digital, there is no material cost, just lots of time and effort. Which I think mod creators should be able to be paid for. Not to mention that by having it on the steam workshop, it is the digital equivalent of storing, transporting, and showcasing your product for you.

This does not answer my question. Let me rephrase my question:

We are talking about whether or not a game publisher or developer deserves to take a percentage of the sales for a product made for their game.

Every time someone says, "That's not how it works for [cars/phones/some physical good]," you respond with something about how they aren't comparable because of materials costs and transportation.

Your assertion, then, is that because modders don't have to pay for materials, they should have to give a cut of their sales to the game dev/publisher, but since a company has to buy the plastic to make an iPhone case, they shouldn't have to pay Apple.

WHY? What is it about needing to pay for materials that makes a company not have the right to demand a portion of the sales for products designed solely to enhance or modify their products? Or, rather, what is it about lacking the requirement to purchase materials that obligates you to pay a percentage of your profit to the company who made the product that you're creating aftermarket parts/content for. This double standard doesn't make any sense.

Those script and extension creators are the same thing as most old/normal mods, they are doing it for free, but it would be nice if there was a system in place that allowed people to buy them. Quixel doesn't require photoshop to function at all, you can still use it without photoshop, that's the key difference I think you're missing. If it required it to do anything at all, they'd be making money off of photoshop indirectly, and then yes, Adobe should take a cut. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a deal worked out with Adobe for their nDo tool.

No. The scripts and extensions for Max and Photoshop are not all free. There are tons of scripts and extensions for 3DS Max and Photoshop that cost money.

I also don't think you know what Quixel is. Quixel is not a product. The Quixel Suite is a collection of products, one of which is NDO, which does require Photoshop to work.

I don't know where you got the idea that any of these people are paying a percentage of their sales to the companies who sell the product that they created plugins for, but I have never seen any evidence that this is the case. It's simply not how things work. There's no conceivable reason that things should work that way.

"Gee, thanks for making this addon for my product that makes it better and potentially brings me more customers and money. Now pay me a percentage of your sales."

[biggerdave 56]

There's not though, just time. If you're using programs like max or photoshop, those are things to just make it easier, but there are free alternatives to both. Parts and materials matter because you would have to purchase those things and that is built into the cost, other companies couldn't rightfully ask for a share of the materials cost of a product, but if it's all digital, there is no material cost, just lots of time and effort. Which I think mod creators should be able to be paid for. Not to mention that by having it on the steam workshop, it is the digital equivalent of storing, transporting, and showcasing your product for you.

How about the physical upkeep of the mod maker (food, rent, clothing, healthcare if you're stuck in a backwards country like the US), you know, the thing that actual software dev's wages are for. How about electricity, internet and a computer? Neither of those are cheap at all. Sure, maybe right now we're all working from our mum's basement, but the mythical "professional mod developer" these sorts of initiatives are supposedly to bring about, the folk who makes mods for a living, they need to eat too!

You're right, in theory, about it being the equivalent of transporting and proving "shelf space" for mods. That still doesn't account for a 75% cut, though. If I buy a TV from a supermarket (in this theoretical example, imagine I have sufficient money and sufficiently low intelligence to buy a TV from a supermarket), the majority of that money is going to company that made the TV, not to the supermarket. And I'm almost certain that royal mail charge by weight, not as a percentage of the value of the item you're sending.

[IndeedPete 1038]

That video. I love that guy. It is fucking hillarious, every time. :D :D :D

Back on topic: It has a point though. Armaholic should better get their defences up because they'll probably get robbed empty when this hits Arma. [sarcasm]I'm really looking forward to the days where creators will spend half their time to get stolen content taken down from the workshop.[/sarcasm]

Rewarding modders? Good idea.

Concept and execution? Clusterfuck.

[soulis6 24]

Way off topic now, because you're talking about costs for a professional mod maker, which currently doesn't exist. That's not a thing, at least not common, because there has been no standard of selling mods, which this hopefully in time will be the first steps towards.

So again, the 75% cut is a split between the publishers/developers and steam. If you accept that the 30% that valve takes is reasonable for the 'shelf space' and marketing (which is basically the standard percentage of any platform), it's up to the developer/publisher to decide how much of the remaining 70% the mod creators get. In the case of Skyrim, they have said 25%, for good or ill. I think it could be higher, but it seems up to the developer, and I think that over time it will increase, as developers realize that by setting that percentage higher, they can attract more quality modders to their games.

@roshnak, Adobe does have a store where they sell extensions though, and you can bet your ass they have a revenue cut. They don't disclose how much it is to outsiders, but it's written there in the general terms of the service. I'm not sure how it is for Autodesk, but either way it's a much much smaller customer base, so maybe they just don't care.

I'm only talking about physical goods because i'm trying to say they're not comparable with digital addon content, there are just too many differences. The licensed e-books I mentioned are a much better example IMO.

It's not just 'hey thanks for making my product better' becuase they would now be earning money from it too (the mod creators). It's '"Gee, thanks for making this addon for my product that makes it better and potentially brings me more customers and money. But if you're going to make money from the addon you have to pay me a percentage of your sales."

@indeed pete, I dont' really disagree that the execution has not been great so far, but so far has been a total of a day and a half, I think over time it will improve. Tons of (most) good things were crap when they first released, but time will tell.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Soulis6