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

[chrisb 196]

So I'm drifting a little here. Your saying that Steam WS allow modders to sell mod/addons ?

Of course this depends on an agreement with the game devs ?

[teilx 4]

someday maybe...^^no not Steam Workshop not modding at all,only 3d artist for item creatingsteam-community-market( the Market could start a cycle of people playing games in order to buy more games) good snowball system

They've got a system running where the community basically develops DLC for them. All Valve has to do is make a snazzy web page announcing each major content update. After that, Valve basically collects free money (and gives a cut to each community developer). Even with item trading: it costs Valve nothing to give random drops to people, and when a person decides to sell that drop to another player, Valve still collects a small fee from the transaction. It's practically printing money.

;)

It is for pure gaming with high chance to get steam games if you sell/trade Game items, cards and so on to increase your Steam Credit. Or make money with creating Items so it seems

Edited February 6, 2015 by TeilX

[.kju 3244]

@ ChrisB

Check post #217 (and links). In short Valve is expanding their system to other developers/non Valve games now.

However as said the process is no plain "modders can sell stuff", but:

1) Modders put stuff in the Steam workshop

2) People can vote stuff

3) The publisher/game developer selects stuff from high voted stuff (and maybe also high quality regardless of votes)

4) They do an extensive review of the mod

5) They determine the price

6) They integrate the mod essentially as official DLC to the game

7) The modder gets payed 25% per each sale

@ TeilX

Of course Steam workshop is about mods - its about the publisher/game developer to what extent they want to integrate mods into the game.

Starting from simple reskins, to new models, sets of models, to missions/maps/game modes and all what is available in arma for example essentially.

I would agree that the 25% is too low for modders, but its still a very good deal compared to the pay you get developing a game for a publisher.

The risk margin to get selected is way more problematic for someone who wants to do this for a living - just as bonus for hobby modding any money is nice to get.

And of course Valve abusing their position with Steam and as front runner into the "selling of mods" market (at least with that immense market penetration

and market power). However you should not discount they development efforts, handling all the technical back-end, servers, bandwidth and risk of the whole attempt falling.

[chrisb 196]

;2875766']@ ChrisB

Check post #217 (and links). In short Valve is expanding their system to other developers/non Valve games now.

However as said the process is no plain "modders can sell stuff"' date=' but:

1) Modders put stuff in the Steam workshop

2) People can vote stuff

3) The publisher/game developer selects stuff from high voted stuff (and maybe also high quality regardless of votes)

4) They do an extensive review of the mod

5) They determine the price

6) They integrate the mod essentially as official DLC to the game

7) The modder gets payed 25% per each sale

[/quote']

Well to me it seems to be a fairly good way to reward mod/addon makers for their work. O.k. Valve are going to cream off what they can get away with, but its still leaving enough for the hobbyist to make something of an earnings (if only small to begin with). That will help and indeed motivate some to produce really good content (maybe).

The process of reviewing the mod, I would imagine after a testing period by the maker, would be reasonably straight forward for the BI. Plus of course it helps with money going BI's way too, whilst at the same time keeping the game fresh in different ways.

I've always been one that has said I'd be happy to pay for mods if the devs allowed it, I have no problem with that. If, as you say, its integrated into the game as an official DLC, then that's even better, will help ensure quality and a good alternative to anything else down this kind of route.

I can imagine many will see this type of thing as a threat to the community, however, we all want the game to be better, more diverse with lots of content (quality content). This would be a good way to do that. Those that do not want to be apart of this type of approach, could carry on doing what they're doing, releasing or not releasing their work.

Steam is oppressive in some ways, but could be an opportunity for people in other ways. Its how business runs. If I were part of this modding community, I would be pushing BI for something like this to happen. Probably not a popular point of view, but there again...;)

Edited February 8, 2015 by ChrisB

[smokedog3para 365]

just hope we are not locked in to only sell our addons on steam when the time comes and it looks like its coming

[Jackal326 1181]

just hope we are not locked in to only sell our addons on steam when the time comes and it looks like its coming

I don't think BI would be that stupid. Modding has always been the life-blood of the OFP/ArmA games, and all of its success has been built upon the freely available and wide variety of addons/mods on offer. Take away that (either by forcing people to pay for mods, or limiting the scope of their availability by only selecting a few submitted mods for official endorsement) and BI effectively kill the franchise. I still maintain monetising of content, outside the scope of officially released DLC/Expansions, is a mistake that will ruin this community, but apparently I am in the minority on that.

[roshnak 41]

just hope we are not locked in to only sell our addons on steam when the time comes and it looks like its coming

What makes you say that?

[Guest]

If something like that happened, yea I see a lot of real serious stuff going around, everyone being protective of their stuff, legal threats, etc.. etc. I've personally spent way too much time on previous mods and missions for other games, and I gave it out for free for other people to enjoy - and hence I get enjoy other peoples great stuff that was hard worked on too.. everyone gets something out of it, and there are no obligations, apart from clearly giving full credit for work in ones mod/mission that came from somewhere else, and asking permission where it is applicable. I, like a lot of people, have spent too much time anyhow on past projects released to really even put a price on them, and for what, so the whole neat system of everyone sharing their stuff, mixing and matching, and whatnot ends up getting messed up, complicated, and even possibly undesirable to deal with potential legality issues.

[nodunit 397]

If that were to happen I have a feeling you'd mostly be seeing people selling simple stuff like reskins, basic weapons, and basic vehicles, things that wouldn't use scripts from other people...for example I couldn't sell my apache despite being 100% custom due to it using Noubernou's concept interaction system and some of General Barrons functions.

In the sense of basics I guess it sounds fine but we all know it wouldn't stay basics for long.

[smokedog3para 365]

since steam has made 570 million for user made content I think bi will not pass that up for a cut of our mods for sale, bet they will take 50% steam 20% we get 30% minus 20% tax

might just make enough to put a tenner on the electric meter , you may not like it but why do you assume all mods will be for sale if you feel you want to give back by giving a way free addons do it but don't tell me i can't charge if i want to, i put 4 years in on my terrains if i want to get a little something back that's my right too, buy it or don't is yours but at least let me have the same right as a server host who uses my free addons and makes large cash of them to let me have the same right to earn of my own shit

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 AM ----------

I say the above from the hints that have been coming of the skype channels from dwarden about the above regarding steam user made content generation and as a business stand point makes damn good sense they can not match us in quantity of addons they will have dlc here and there we deliver day in day out mods addons and if they can make 50% of all our addons or the guys that want to sell addons then that is free money to bis

Edited February 8, 2015 by SmokeDog3PARA

[galzohar 31]

Buying mods will never really work because it will cause even more problems than current DLC system. You want to play with it? Gotta pay. You paid for it but your friends didn't? Too bad, I guess you should have known better or find richer friends.

It is already difficult enough to get people to download free mods. So paid mods? Seriously?

I'm all for rewarding modders, but I just don't see it working. The only thing I can see working is BIS buying the content from the modder and integrating it into the next major expansion pack.

[.kju 3244]

As long as always a LITE version, aka low quality textures or sounds, is available, there is no problem at all.

Even more people can try before they buy.

For gameplay tweaks or missions one has to think of other solutions (see my earlier posts for some ideas).

[galzohar 31]

But why would anyone be willing to play with me when he has to see low quality models? He will just prefer to play with high quality models if he doesn't care about the mod enough to pay for it or even bother download for free. And as you said for gameplay tweaks it would be even more complicated.

When people can download free mods easily enough that they don't get scared by the idea, BIS can start thinking of a paid mod system. Before that, there is really no point. And in my opinion, after that, there will still be little point in bothering with it.

Games that depend on a large active community to get a game mode going cannot try to profit from micro-transactions or small DLCs. Without everyone playing the same thing you won't have a game to join where you don't get bothered by missing or low quality mods you didn't download (not to mention if you had to buy them). That's why public servers run no mod most of the time, and those that do carefully pick which ones they use to minimize trouble.

The only proper way to sell content is package it as a part of a major expansion which will be a "must have" for anyone still playing, which the grand majority of the players will buy (see: operation arrowhead). Sell it bundled with the original game for a major discount (see: combined operations) so that brand new players who didn't buy Arma 3 in the first place won't be scared off by the hefty price of game+expansion.

Edited February 8, 2015 by galzohar

[.kju 3244]

You might have missed it - BI is working on mod sync with mission (SP/MP). So at least if they are able to realize it well enough,

to play with mods will finally be very easy like it has been for some other engines over ten years now.

Of course that's a requirement for that approach - as you can see with the Valve source engine (based on quake engine after all),

it works smoothly without people complaining (about the technical side).

Low quality models have not been a problem in A2OA for most people, nor is it for IFA2/IFA3.

After all what most people care about is to be able to play together with their friends or have an enjoyable experience - which is

largely defined by the gameplay; other factors, like visuals or sounds, can only destroy or diminish the experience (for the most part).

Why should gameplay tweaks be even more complicated?

At the end of the day most probably should be made default for everyone (aka BI buys them and integrates them into the core game),

or you have them payed by usage or adoption (based on the server, or playtime) or just an on-time compensation - financed by a percentage

from the regular payed mods.

[galzohar 31]

I haven't seen it, and even if I have seen it, I wouldn't have believed it until I see it. Steam workshop for mods isn't even working properly yet. There is a long way to go before free mods are accessible to everyone, not to mention paid mods.

While visual mods are just eye candy, having to play a low poly soldier because the server you play on decided to use a mod you don't like or don't like enough to buy will be quite frustrating. And while those are just a frustrating annoyance, for gameplay affecting mods there is really no practical way to charge for them without splitting the community completely. Making them default will not work since most affect gameplay in a way that is a matter of opinion (some think the mod makes the game better, some think it makes the game worse). Making the server pay will make the upkeep cost of a server even higher, plus servers don't exactly run off of Steam other than connecting for game updates.

[.kju 3244]

No disagreement that BI seems to have still a long way to go with Steam workshop integration and community adoption.

Low quality textures does not imply low poly models. Low poly models would be bad for several reasons - BI didn't do that either for A2OA.

So what is your point using it as an example?

Why did you ignore my points how BI could cross finance gameplay mods? None of them includes splitting the community.

For MP obviously the server admin has to decide what gameplay mods should be in use. So they are only active for the given server - there is no

other for gameplay mods anyway as you have to guarantee equal conditions.

Why should the server (owner) pay - how do you get to such pointless conclusion/idea?

[galzohar 31]

Unless it was just my imagination, BAF in OA had low quality models and sounds, not just textures. It was a pretty bad experience playing with them, and I saw no real reason to use them. For me, their existence only hampered my enjoyment of the game.

I ignored the point about cross-financing gameplay mods because I just don't see them pulling it off without causing a huge mess. At least I'll be extremely surprised if they get it right.

;2876950']

or you have them payed by usage or adoption (based on the server

I thought this meant paid by server. I guess I misunderstood.

[nodunit 397]

Lite content only used reduced textures and sound effects, making radio either very mute or garbled. This was okay-ish save for the optics being reduced, making aiming with them very difficult.

http://alabasterslim.com/files/Pictures/Users/AlabasterSlim/ArmA%202/operation%20arrowhead/british%20armed%20forces/news/ArmA2-OA-patch154-BAFpreview.jpg

http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp284/basule/arma2OA2010-08-2612-47-14-77.jpg

http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp284/basule/arma2OA2010-08-2613-12-41-92.jpg

http://www.arma2.com/assets/img/vehicles/wheeled/arma2_vehicles_jackal.jpg

[.kju 3244]

@ galzohar

Well you have three options:

1. Don't use LITE content/dont play on servers with LITE content

2. Arrange yourself with the reduced quality

3. Buy the content if you think its worth it/you want to support BI/the author

Everyone has to make that decision - there is no free lunch if BI decides to go that route.

I think a system of taking 1-5% from every sale of the 45% to the publisher/developer,

and use it to pay the author of gameplay mods - of content BI decides to be worth it - an

one time compensation is easy enough. What kind of mess do you see there?

@ NodUnit

BI did a simplistic approach - for IF LITE for example or AiA LITE I just kept certain textures or sounds

in high quality (ground textures or radio voices come to mind), or with your example optics textures to

retain them usable. So in other words one can do a more intelligent approach too.

---

The new approach from BI to limit usage of their DLCs of course is another alternative - personally I find it rather poor,

and for paid mods would not work at all in my view.

Edited February 8, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Defunkt 431]

Unless it was just my imagination, BAF in OA had low quality models and sounds, not just textures. It was a pretty bad experience playing with them, and I saw no real reason to use them. For me, their existence only hampered my enjoyment of the game.

What solution are you advocating then?

Free DLC? If the cost of creating new content cannot be recouped it's very unlikely a business like BIS would bother in this day and age.

No DLC? I can't see how that's better than giving everybody Hi-Fi and Lo-Fi options.

[galzohar 31]

The mess I see is the procedure of deciding which mod gets money and which one doesn't. Whatever system they choose, it will be extremely difficult to make it objective and abuse-free.

And if too many people choose the "don't play on servers with LITE content", then those who did pay get screwed as their servers are empty. If too many people do buy and have servers to support them, then those who don't are screwed. With a major expansion that BIS is sure everyone will buy that issue is greatly reduced. When you have a large number of paid mods available this issue will become very significant. For every "must-have" mod you will have a group of people who refuse to play/buy it, and the more such mods that are out there, the more such groups you will have, and the most popular servers will be less populated accordingly (or they will have to reduce their mod count, thus reducing the number of "must-have" mods). And if you like a mod that others don't like, then you are wasting your money on it (see: helicopter DLC - How many servers really use it?).

I already said what my idea of successful survival of BIS is. Major high-quality expansions that have enough to justify costing almost like a new game, and that nobody who honestly like this game would be skipping.

DLCs only work well for:

- Single player (and possibly small COOP) games

- Games that have so many players that you can split them between DLC and no-DLC servers without killing the game

- Pay to Win games

[Defunkt 431]

- Single player (and possibly small COOP) games

ArmA is a very popular singleplayer and small COOP game.

[galzohar 31]

ArmA is a very popular singleplayer and small COOP game.

If those players are what DLC targets then IMO it's doing a poor job at that.

They still need mission makers to make use of those. And by small COOP I meant less than 4 players - An amount where you can realistically convince everyone to buy something just so that you can try that awesome mission. And even with 4 players, it can get difficult. For single player there is very little you can do with support helicopters, and not much more you can do with them in a small COOP mission...

[.kju 3244]

@ galzohar

Check post #217 and following to learn how Valve determines it. Short version in post #228.

Of course it wont be objective - no system can be. Also I don't see how particular unfair their approach is.

The capitalist market approach of "everyone can sell mods without restrictions" is far worse in my opinion for many reasons.

What abuse do you see in their approach? To skew the voting should be somewhat difficulty, except for popular YT people or large communities to push things.

However that is why the publisher/developer is to review the content and the process, and is to make a decision not only based on votes.

The helicopter DLC assets are not used as its exclusive content - instead of the LQ approach for DLCs.

If you look at the numbers of Valve's three games using the approach, the number of mods selected to become paid mods/integrated into the game is quite low.

Dota 2 and Valve's approach of F2P with paid cosmetic items allows them to have considerable large numbers for these kind of non game affecting assets - that part

is not comparable to games like Arma and is irrelevant here.

If BI were to adopt such system, I doubt they would and would be able to select more than 5-10 assets per quarter at max. So the number of paid mods would

be fairly low. This is really just about top quality assets made by community people - not a mass market to allow everyone to sell their mods.

BI has bought up community work in the past several times and has integrated it into their games and DLCs. However that approach does not scale,

and it has various complications as well.

The question of paid mods does not seem to me about the survival of BI either. To BI its either to earn more money and/or to diversify their revenue

stream from just their own work to expanding it to also benefit from the popularity of mods directly.

To me this "second pillar" of income would mean BI could and had to re-invest into the modding capabilities and scene, to reduce the effort of modding,

to expand its possibilities and to improve the accessibility of mods.

Note: mods should be read as "user generated content" - means also missions/campaigns/etc.

[smokedog3para 365]

I'm all for rewarding modders, but I just don't see it working. The only thing I can see working is BIS buying the content from the modder and integrating it into the next major expansion pack.

It did not work for iron front from your way of doing it that's why iron front had no life in it vetted mods for upload