Mods and ARMA 3 on the same level as FSX?

[max power 21]

The community has already changed a lot i'm afraid.

That is true. But at least people are still exchanging information.

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

While I'm not saying that poorly made addons are acceptable

Of course they are acceptable. These are people doing stuff in their spare time for free, and sharing it with others. Who are you (or me) to say what is acceptable?

[iceman77 18]

That is true. But at least people are still exchanging information.

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Of course they are acceptable. These are people doing stuff in their spare time for free, and sharing it with others. Who are you (or me) to say what is acceptable?

Yes this is true. I guess what I should have said is that for me personally, they're unacceptable. If it's causing bad performance or doesn't function as intended, or looks exceptionally bad then I won't use it again.

[frag 0]

Most of the nay sayer here never played a simulator with payware DLC content like FSX.

Again, in FSX, there are still TONS of free component. The community is 10 times larger than Arma. Most of the planes, skins, missions, objects and controls are still free.

But some small companies decided to hire few professional developpers and work on amazingly large, complex and well designed addons …that would never see the life otherwise.

People are not idiot, they will not buy crappy components developed in two hours by some dude in his basement.

Payware DLC do not kill free component. Free component would still live massively.

For those who not agree with me, go pay a visit on http://www.avsim.com and count how many thousand components you would have for free. And guess what, FSX has payware components.

[gammadust 12]

For those who not agree with me, go pay a visit on http://www.avsim.com and count how many thousand components you would have for free. And guess what, FSX has payware components.

That at best means it is not impossible for an alive and free modding scene to exist side to side with a paying one. You're assuming that is granted... I would agree if certain, still unkown, conditions are met.

[max power 21]

Blessed are the philanthropists :p

[iceman77 18]

Free component would still live massively

The free content would degrade. People would become reluctant to share their work for free. There would also be in-fighting. Not to mention synchronizing everyone... that's already a small problem of it's own.

People are not idiot, they will not buy crappy components developed in two hours by some dude in his basement.

But how can a consumer confirm if said addon is crappy without purchasing & testing it? I mean sure, word gets around... but it's okay that some or even alot of people still got shafted initially, to be able to provide such information to everyone else? I don't understand the logic there.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Iceman77

[icewindo 29]

Most of the nay sayer here never played a simulator with payware DLC content like FSX.

Again, in FSX, there are still TONS of free component. The community is 10 times larger than Arma. Most of the planes, skins, missions, objects and controls are still free.

(...)

It's easy to overlook some of the details. I imagine the FSX community allready has similar problems as described in my post here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?165321-Mods-and-ARMA-3-on-the-same-level-as-FSX&p=2518791#post2518791

[[aps]gnat 28]

Most of the nay sayer here never played a simulator with payware DLC content like FSX.

Again, in FSX, there are still TONS of free component. The community is 10 times larger than Arma.

Not me, played both games for a DECADE, FS series longer.

FS community has always be large, because its more mainstream.

..... Still a nay sayer

[Jastreb 69]

Paying for models, textures and that sort of things is alright, but buying complete mods without even knowing what you're paying is total BS. It wont work. People preordered this game hoping they'll get get a scuba doo uber cool and content rich game, and all they got is one two big vacation islands.

What like 50-60 euros pay for the game, then give more money for sound mod, cause game sounds suck, then pay for cool FSX mod, after that communication mod, then something else...wtf is this WOW? Release then AIII to be F2P and add content that can be bought to increase quality and add content. Go ahead ruin it all.

[iceman77 18]

... more money for sound mod, cause game sounds suck, then pay for cool FSX mod, after that communication mod, then something else...wtf is this WOW? Release then AIII to be F2P and add content that can be bought to increase quality and add content. Go ahead ruin it all.

Yup. Like my roomy said, you may aswell be playing vbs at that point. Or any other costly simulation. Which he's probably right, to an extent.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Iceman77

[ReconSigO 10]

I think what is most exciting about the prospect of BI going the paid mod route is that they would have an obligation to release, support and maintain proper modding tools and resources for the new generation.

Otherwise, I'd have to agree with TPW. Volunteer modders are a huge part of what has made Arma so successful. Why fix it? What they should fix is their lack of support for the modders via modding tools and resources.

Milsim communities would also suffer due to the required mod sets. It's already daunting enough to try out playing with a mil sim group. New players would be much less apt to join a group, even if it cost them, say, $3.

[iceman77 18]

I'd like to mention that just the thought of payed content and because this thread even exists about payed content, has made me very reluctant to to release any work. I've made a few very handy dialogs (UIs) for example, but I certainly wont share them now and I wont even go as far as to share their functionality / what they do (As I don't want an opportunist to make money off of my ideas). So you see, this payed addon concept is already affecting the community... And I'm sure I'm not the only one bogarting content atm because of this. I was even thinking about taking down my freely submitted A2 content. IE; The dialog tutorial For Noobs. While it isn't mind blowing, it does get new users on their way to make dialogs / UIs. Mikie Boy was even thinking about taking his Arma3 scripting tutorials down! He just may!

We need some more clarification soon from higher ups if this is under consideration for the near future. Else, myself along with many others will just hold everything we've made. That we would have otherwise already contributed.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Iceman77

[clydefrog 3]

I'd like to mention that just the thought of payed content and because this thread even exists about payed content, has made me very reluctant to to release any work. I've made a few very handy dialogs (UIs) for example, but I certainly wont share them now and I wont even go as far as to share their functionality / what they do (As I don't want an opportunist to make money off of my ideas). So you see, this concept is already affecting the community... And I'm sure I'm not the only one bogarting content atm because of this. I was even thinking about taking down my freely submitted A2 content. IE; The dialog tutorial For Noobs. While it isn't mind blowing, it does get new users on their way to make dialogs / UIs. Mikie Boy was even thinking about taking his Arma3 scripting tutorials down! With a little nudging, he just may!

We need some more clarification soon from higher ups if this is under consideration for the near future. Else, myself along with many others will just hold everything we've made. That we would have otherwise already contributed.

I mentioned about just that to somebody on here the other day (maybe in this thread):

Also now they've announced this with nothing set up, you may now get people holding back mods they're working on for a long time until this idea is a reality and in place so they can sell them then rather than releasing them for free earlier. Yeah this is just a bad idea.

And then as you said there's also going to be people not releasing stuff that could be used in mods because they don't want people making money from their own hard work. I think they've made a big mistake talking about this when it's only an idea (and I don't agree with the idea itself either).

Edited October 3, 2013 by clydefrog

[gammadust 12]

And then as you said there's also going to be people not releasing stuff that could be used in mods because they don't want people making money from their own hard work. I think they've made a big mistake talking about this when it's only an idea (and I don't agree with the idea itself either).

It's called "testing the waters". Result: water is cold and salty. Bohemia will have to bring a good effort in warming and sweeten the waters if this idea is to become welcomed.

But i'll repeat: we stand a better chance if we help Bohemia know what heat and sugar is made of.

[iceman77 18]

Hey gamma. That function you helped me with the otherday, here on the editing forums... that's going into a payed content project. :rolleyes:. JKJK...Gotcha!!! But you see what I mean. The problem could go as far as the editing center even.

[smokedog3para 365]

One reason to conclude that? How about we'd have to pay for any good addon or mod released? Is that a good enough reason for me to think it would destroy what we have had here for ~13 years? There will be alot of great addons and mods. By the time a person has Arma3 modded how they like, the average joe without deep pockets, that plays Arma 3, will have spent too much money. They may aswell be playing a VBS title if they don't mind shelling out money for so many DLCs. Also, Official DLCs are different, as there wont be 9000 of them. There will be an official DLC once in a blue moon. Which is to be expected in any game in any case. Have you looked at the payed user made content for other games on steam? There's boatloads for each (select) game... just as many as there are free mods in this community, except you have to pay.

Only under certain conditions would this personally be acceptable for me:

BIS officially screens any payed content for quality control. The user made DLC would have to be large & give us updates for free. No small DLCs. Those should always be free. Unless it's something like a top tier weapons pack (looks @ robert hammer). As said, It would have to be of a substantial quality... no bugs, no errors, no glitches, no wonky shit. Also, NO MISSIONS as DLC.

@Pac man it did not work out for iron front taking that route having to ask and then have the work inspected or disallowed and put in a dlc also due to country restrictions like not allowing ss badges on uniforms, it broke the game hell i wouldn't even buy it when i found out the addon policy.

Also not all bi models are topnotch as we see in a3 http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198059331756/screenshots/ take a look at some of my screens many things have slipped under the radar and these guys are professional model makers texture artists, who is checking there work for them as it is not up to the quality over quantity like has been stated, but we have paid our money already maybe 90% will get fixed but there is still plenty from a2 that has not been fixed in 4 years your idea that bis are infallible doe's not count from release day it was really unexceptionable bad to release models that had been shown for months in screen shots to come out like they did in my opinion i don't get paid for addons so i can chuck them out in any state as your lucky to get them, when i charge for them you have a right to complain about it.

Edited October 3, 2013 by SmokeDog3PARA

[gammadust 12]

@Iceman77

i totaly get what you mean. But the same thing is already an issue before any monetization comes into play (i value moral authorship very much).

Having said that, users of knowledge and creators of knowledge (never quite a different species in Arma) should hone their modesty skills and exersize common sense when evaluating originality. Usually the deeper and complex the issue the more originality (not a given though).

I can't exacly remember what was the function i helped you with, but i shared it in public no strings attached (not necessarily the case of a mod). Also the function was either a pure math concept which i cannot claim any authorship over or an script/engine access which is most probably already public knowledge, and the same applies. But i had the ultimate option to help or not, of course, and your argument stays valid.

So authorship in such a modding environment depends mostly on originality of concepts certain mods bring up not exacly the line for line code implementation. Example: Mod uses new math method, new scripting implementation, new engine access method (config), new game content/feature, associative capability to conceive it all together, results in a very high value authorship mod. This is true independently of some section of code being reused and sourced from somewhere else (ie. Wiki), even disregarding different variable naming which never count to originality.

The underlying fear here reminds me of freemagenta.nl. Public knowledge is not patentable.

Edited October 3, 2013 by gammadust

[[aps]gnat 28]

Noting: the absence of a few good (read: almost commercial quality) mod teams / members from these various discussion threads ..... no doubt quietly hoping their Christmas has come .....

[gammadust 12]

@[APS]Gnat that is not too fair. Specially since those teams have contributed with no compensation prospect in mind. Let them have their Christmas, as players we have Christmas all year round.

---

"Free software" refers to freedom not price. It is unfortunate that the word free in english is ambiguous. It has a number of different meanings: one of them is "zero price", but another meaning is that you "have freedom". So... think of free speech not free beer.

for the excentric treehuggers (full 4 mins):

The current "anything goes" does not make the scene too different from this quote:

Freedom 0 – the freedom to use the work,

Freedom 1 – the freedom to study the work,

Freedom 2 – the freedom to copy and share the work with others,

Freedom 3 – the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works.

These are pillars of copyleft licensing. (Please ignore any tangential anarchic considerations, it is not the reason i am bringing this)

One of the primary concerns (with which i agree with) is how can we maintain the above freedoms if we are to "monetize" the scene? In principle there is nothing incompatible between commercialization and those freedoms. The problem may come only down to the practice and in one extreme example:

Copyleft is, as its name implies, a reversal of copyright. It restores and protects the rights that copyright removes and makes alienable. The rights, not some rights.

(...)

All this said, ShareAlike has most of the practical effects of copyleft. So it is probably a reasonable substitute for copyleft at the moment. It is only when confusing copyleft with some of its effects leads people to ignore what copyleft actually does that it becomes a problem.

For example when people confuse reciprocal non-commerciality with copyleft.

NC-SA is not copyleft because the presence of NonCommercial restrictions breaks copyleft. It removes rights, and even in the terminlogy of ShareAlike it does not Share Alike with the originally licencing author.

I am mentioning this not because we should all adopt copyleft licenses, but because this is a type of license that actually helps preserving the cooperative scene. And specially because there is no principled/ethical incompatibility with commercialization. (ie. GNU > Linux > RedHat - which is commercial)

This type of licensing is a "mitigating solution" and could be the/a reasonable trade off in order for a modder to commercialize his project.

It is opportune to mention the subsequent problem: the likely mushroom explosion of paid for addons if nothing is done to address it. Anyone would try out and milk the cow of course. Without furthering the point too much (i've done it elsewhere), Curation would be increasingly necessary. This would stress our coordination capabilities in finding an effective consensus.

Now we still could face problems regarding enforcement of licenses (making sure they are respected). The stepping up of the game on all sides that undoubtfully monetization would again stress this community's coordination capabilities. A dismissive SW report button approach doesn't cut it, in my view, this is likely the biggest weakness.

[iceman77 18]

Gnat has a valid point though. Where are all of the "names" at, atm? This idea alone has caused several release postponements, and that's only what I know of from closed sources. That in itself should be a valid sign that payed addons wouldn't be a good idea. Several people will be very reluctant to submit any content before or after the fact.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Lets not make it like DICE please. Have the community contribute amazing things as it is now, and has been since Arma. No changes needed really.

[clydefrog 3]

Do you guys remember that South Park episode where they find out how Family Guy come up with their ideas, and it's some Manatees and idea balls? I think BIS might be using some similar method these days for all of the strange decisions they are making with Arma 3.

[nodunit 397]

Gnat has a valid point though. Where are all of the "names" at, atm? This idea alone has caused several release postponements, and that's only what I know of from closed sources. That in itself should be a valid sign that payed addons wouldn't be a good idea. Several people will be very reluctant to submit any content before or after the fact.

Thats true...as I recall a few individuals were complaining about tool useage and pbo tools that allowed people to look at their addons, and went on a strike to say that they would not release anything until the tools changed, so where are they now.. waiting I bet, waiting to cash in on all of those addons that they said they had no intention of releasing yet constantly post new images of...kind of makes me sick really.

Do you guys remember that South Park episode where they find out how Family Guy come up with their ideas, and it's some Manatees and idea balls? I think BIS might be using some similar method these days for all of the strange decisions they are making with Arma 3.

Who knows, this could simply be a "good intentions" kind of thing. The concept is lovely and nice and all but promotes the greatest flaws in human nature, greed, deceit, and so on.

We won't have to worry about others coming in, we'll have to worry about going shark womb on eachother instead. (for those of you that don't know, baby sharks eat each other before they are even born)

And I'm already seeing signs of what I'm fearing will happen.

If this community starves itself on talent because nobody wanted to assist new bloods then the fault is more ours than BI's.

Edited October 3, 2013 by NodUnit

[nettrucker 142]

Lets not make it like DICE please. Have the community contribute amazing things as it is now, and has been since Arma. No changes needed really.

That's not our decision. BI is the decision maker, we as a community have no influence about that kind of decision. Since as it has been brought on the table by BI I have no doubt about their intentions to change the current system into something more profitable to them. They will get their cut . . . Valve will get their cut and some bread crumbs will be left to the mod makers.

This will destroy the long standing spirit of the whole ArmA modding community . . . you gonna mark my words.

But hey things change in life. BI changed . . . the community has changed for sure and yeah . . . the rest is all conspiracy theory. Where's my tinfoil hat? :D

[gammadust 12]

we as a community have no influence about that kind of decision. (...) They [bI] will get their cut . . . Valve will get their cut and some bread crumbs will be left to the mod makers.

This will destroy the long standing spirit of the whole ArmA modding community . . . you gonna mark my words.

I disagree in regards to the community having no influence. Crudely speaking BI is indeed a business and i have no doubts there is monetary motivation on their side. Valve likewise but they have much less at stake. This is obvious. At the same time Bohemia is risking considerably if opting to simply ignore the modders stance on the issue. So there is some leverage on the side of modders. If we can't impose an outcome (as you said the decision is BI's), influencing the decision is not outlandish.

The more they cater to community's concerns the best chance they have to keep it. Likewise inflexibitlity on our part will only lead to loosing what we have now (the best modding franchise in the industry for the genre). Call this thread a negotiating table (more of a public tuning of community's stance).