Mods and ARMA 3 on the same level as FSX?

[gammadust 12]

^^

(...) I want to push this effort in two distinct ways, and I consider these as a priority for next year. We are going to announce more specific details in the coming months.

here

So it is fair to think he does have an idea (actually two).

[chortles 263]

Two ideas then, I'll concede, and he "consider(s) these a priority for next year"... but without details, there's nothing concrete to actually argue the merits of other than the idea of paid user-made addons at all... and I'm just going to admit that I'm not averse to the idea nor are a bunch of other users here because we're "the devil is in the details" people. :p

Still, it is interesting and telling that Maruk found the extent of Arma 2 content "simply overwhelming, and in hindsight might not be commercially justifiable for a single game", suggesting that (especially with people holding it as the standard by which they denigrate Arma 3) he views Arma 2 as the exception and not the rule for the Arma franchise...

[noubernou 77]

It is a complex issue, that is for sure, and having no details doesn't help. Yay speculation.

That being said I am still personally on the fence over monetization in any form. Some mods do deserve a reward for their work, and donations might not be the best way to go always.

For example, there is a substantial number of man hours in ACRE from both Jaynus and myself since 2010, easily hundreds of thousands of dollars of labor costs alone, and thats not including any of the intrinsic value that the addon has. At some point the work, especially as the mod has gotten more complex, becomes hard to justify to yourself on the basis of charity and personal satisfaction alone. :(

[[aps]gnat 28]

For example, there is a substantial number of man hours in ACRE from both Jaynus and myself since 2010, easily hundreds of thousands of dollars of labor costs alone, and thats not including any of the intrinsic value that the addon has. At some point the work, especially as the mod has gotten more complex, becomes hard to justify to yourself on the basis of charity and personal satisfaction alone. :(

First off, if anyone expects to be "compensated" on the basis of hours-worked, they are dreaming. "Goodness" will determine how much comes your way, be it for 1 hour or 1000 hours work.

Second, none of the current community, as has been the case for a decade, are doing what they do except for love and some back-slapping. They stop or share/team-up when it becomes too much.

@iceman, I'm the same.

So many complications can arise.

So what does Myke get when someone elses super addon wins the pool, but uses missilebox?

So what happen when that super addon is found to be using Vilas's ArmA2 configs and scripts?

[noubernou 77]

Gnat;2528024']First off' date=' if anyone expects to be "compensated" on the basis of hours-worked, they are dreaming. "Goodness" will determine how much comes your way, be it for 1 hour or 1000 hours work.[/quote']

You can still apply a value to something based on man hours at a certain rate. There is a cost of labor on software...

Also, not to toot my own horn too much, but I think a lot of people would agree ACRE is worth it and it's something BIS dropped the ball on (and has been dropping the ball on) for a long time.

[chortles 263]

Ehh... see my sig instead of what BIS thinks of ACRE.

[noubernou 77]

Ehh... see my sig instead of what BIS thinks of ACRE.

I know ACRE's simulation elements are out of the scope of Arma, but the fact that they haven't been able to introduce reliable or useful VON of any sort for over a decade now is pretty sad.

[james2464 177]

Some of my thoughts:

BIS CEO Marek Spanel Source:

"Last but not least, I’d like to share our commitment to gradually increase the Steam Workshop functionalities, by supporting the sharing of add-ons and full blown modifications in the future. There are still some issues to solve, like content dependencies, but we hope Valve is going to be supportive in this effort."

^I believe this is the first logical step in advancing the reach and scope of the Arma community before any proposed user content monetization system. I believe this is Marek's intent, providing Value is complicit.

BIS CEO Marek Spanel Source:

"We see Arma 3 as a basis for many possible new ‘games’ made by us, as well as our users. In addition, we want to evolve the engine further, but this is something that takes time."

^This is the dream, to mobilize the community in a way that organizes creation and distribution giving the maximum possibility and opportunity for success. eg. DayZ or JSRS, ACE etc.

Personally I am indifferent as I feel money or the possibility of making some offers very little to no incentive to mod Arma and if you do the maths based on the time value of money you're better off with a donation system which relies on user value perception. I see that happening in two ways, either addon makers setup their own donation gateway eg. JSRS, PR etc. Or BIS could officially support an over arching go-to system enabling the allocation of user donations to addon makers.

With the release of new tools and Arma 2/OA/BAF/PMC content I believe we have a very exciting future ahead of us.

[Tonci87 163]

I think it would be the best solution if BIS teams up with Valve and adds an option to donate directly through steam for stuff that you find on the workshop. DOnations could be made via paypal, or through steam money. That way mission and campaign makers would see some money too and the community wouldn´t be broken because of payware addons.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It is a complex issue, that is for sure, and having no details doesn't help. Yay speculation.

That being said I am still personally on the fence over monetization in any form. Some mods do deserve a reward for their work, and donations might not be the best way to go always.

For example, there is a substantial number of man hours in ACRE from both Jaynus and myself since 2010, easily hundreds of thousands of dollars of labor costs alone, and thats not including any of the intrinsic value that the addon has. At some point the work, especially as the mod has gotten more complex, becomes hard to justify to yourself on the basis of charity and personal satisfaction alone. :(

Yep, and who will measure how many hours people spend on their mods, and those which are worth it, and those which aren't ? That's the OPPOSITE of what this community has been built on, and the only viable way would be a release through an official DLC, or paypal donations.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Also, not to toot my own horn too much, but I think a lot of people would agree ACRE is worth it and it's something BIS dropped the ball on (and has been dropping the ball on) for a long time.

Absolutely, but trying to value it "software hour" I think would mean none of us could afford it. :)

[chortles 263]

Pffft, therein lies a problem... what if a mod is "in truth" worth more than anyone can actually reasonably afford? :lol:

[james2464 177]

Pffft, therein lies a problem... what if a mod is "in truth" worth more than anyone can actually reasonably afford? :lol:

That's when you get hired by BIS :P

[chortles 263]

I know ACRE's simulation elements are out of the scope of Arma, but the fact that they haven't been able to introduce reliable or useful VON of any sort for over a decade now is pretty sad.

Errr, that sounds like an almost deliberate misreading of the quote -- the relevant line by pettka presents ACRE's existence as an active disincentive internally towards what you call "improving VON", especially when he characterizes the idea of an official implementation thusly: "why would we bother to spend our resources on something", italicization by me...

That's when you get hired by BIS :P

Which, as I said about the idea of 'paid addons' in the form of officially-incorporated DLC, is then subject to dev/publisher bias and preference (or prejudice)... or differences of opinion about how much the prospective hire's worth pay-wise. ;) At least Rocket already had a pre-existing "in" in the form of already being an Arma 3 dev -- I believe as a contractor and not a hire? -- when DayZ went big...

[noubernou 77]

Errr, that sounds like an almost deliberate misreading of the quote -- the relevant line by pettka presents ACRE's existence as an active disincentive internally towards what you call "improving VON", especially when he characterizes the idea of an official implementation thusly: "why would we bother to spend our resources on something", italicization by me...

No, I understand the quote, but ACRE didn't come out till 2010. They have had VON for much longer than that and it has been a joke of an implementation, so much so that it used to crash servers. That was my point. The only reason ACRE exists is because the solution BIS has is so horrible. If their VON implementation was better the motivation to make something as involved as ACRE would have been much less.

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

That's when you get hired by BIS :P

BIS doesn't pay enough by most western standards. It is not a critique of BIS itself, it is just that wages in CZ are very low compared to that of western Europe and the nice parts of the United States. Yes, the same standard of living costs less, but you are basically committing yourself to living in areas where the standard of living costs that much if you plan on any significant career length. You won't be able to move back to western Europe or the US on savings you retain working on a Czech wage. :(

It is a sad economic reality.

[chortles 263]

No, I understand the quote, but ACRE didn't come out till 2010. They have had VON for much longer than that and it has been a joke of an implementation, so much so that it used to crash servers. That was my point. The only reason ACRE exists is because the solution BIS has is so horrible. If their VON implementation was better the motivation to make something as involved as ACRE would have been much less.

And what I saw is a dev saying that (leaving aside the veracity of his belief in the Arma 3 implementation being "more than enough for most of players") the existence of such a user-made VON implementation by you is all the more reason for the devs not to "bother to spend resources"...

BIS doesn't pay enough by most western standards. It is not a critique of BIS itself, it is just that wages in CZ are very low compared to that of western Europe and the nice parts of the United States. Yes, the same standard of living costs less, but you are basically committing yourself to living in areas where the standard of living costs that much if you plan on any significant career length. You won't be able to move back to western Europe or the US on savings you retain working on a Czech wage. :(

It is a sad economic reality.

Now that's a downer...

[astein 10]

Some of my thoughts:

BIS CEO Marek Spanel

^I believe this is the first logical step in advancing the reach and scope of the Arma community before any proposed user content monetization system. I believe this is Marek's intent, providing Value is complicit.

BIS CEO Marek Spanel Source[/url]:

^This is the dream, to mobilize the community in a way that organizes creation and distribution giving the maximum possibility and opportunity for success. eg. DayZ or JSRS, ACE etc.

Not if the only "motivation" consists of an incomplete game.

[GDent 10]

I would fucking die if ACRE became a for-pay addon. Not because it's not worth the money—I would purchase it in a heartbeat—but because I can't see it not killing off a lot of interest in Arma if the most essential mod for it became a paid product. It would kill my group and maybe some others, but then again, my group isn't very organized or "serious" about the game. Still, I can't think of any other people I'd want to play Arma with.

[maffa 29]

sorry to butt in, but i have seen this comparing Arma and FSX for too long.

FSX and Arma share no similarities.

FSX is a long dead game, whose producers stopped caring a long long time ago and thus only improvable by the means of addons (paid and free), played by tons of people that dream and in several cases actively pursue a career or an activity in actual fliying, and that in several cases may play in MP in networks such as IVAO or VATSIM, but no matter what addons they may have they do not impact the MP experience of the other players in the network. If i have a some hundred euros worth PMDG Delta airlines Boeing plane it's for my own pleasure and benefit, no one inside the network will see my switch clicking and knob turning and probably wont even see my livery if he didnt bother to download it -and he can not bother to without having his own personal experience suffer the slightest. So if you spend money for a very good, or cant-miss-it addon or product, it's up you and your expectations and goals and personal tastes: you wanna fly a carenado cessna or vanilla cessna it's up to you.

Arma is an alive thriving game, whose best experienced in large multiplayer sessions, in which each and every player MUST share the same addons, be it in a clan dedicated server or in a public server. A very small percentage of players dream of actually killing other people and to be in a real theater of war, all the other enjoy sharing a very good gaming experience with the people they are playing with/against rather than than SP self gratification for a personal piece of whatever addon they may have. We are not talking about the funky hats in Team Fortess or the hula dancer in Mechwarrion online: if you cannot show or share it's pointless, because you cannot have a better M16 than everyone else.

So please stop comparing Arma and FSX because they are different games and have different players.

Moreover it is a widespread truth tha BIS doesnt bother implementing features already covered in succesful addons, ACRE example is really pertinent. And while i dont think it is right, if i had to pay to use ACRE i would stop playing ARMA -not because ACRE isnt worth buying, but because BIS should have done it itself in the first place and i feel entitled to have it in the package when i bought the game. This is how i feel about it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Maffa

[Make Love Not War 10]

Good points, Maffa. These problems you describe from the end user's perspective could indeed become real game killers. Allow me to address some fatal flaws of the pay-for-mods plan from the modding community perspective. Granted, it would certainly be nice to see modders financially compensated at least in part for their hard work, monetizatoin could potentially kill off a large portion of the community. Namely, getting money involved in the mod making equation will create a hyper-competitive environment in which few people will want to share their work or help others for no immediate financial benefit (ie., unless they are being paid for their services).

Even now, we already have certain modders - albeit, a minority - who have expressed extreme displeasure at the idea that ARMA .pbos allow for the easy extraction of source code. Now, magine the situation if guys are allowed to make money off their modifications. There would almost certainly be an immediate push on BIS to allow for the binarization and encryption of .pbos. If this was to pass, then the vast majority of modders would have to switch to closed source releases as it would be impossible for anybody releasing open source code to verify that unscrupulous individuals didn't steal their work and included it within monetized addons. Ultimately, the lack of a significant and up-to-date body of source code available for study, combined with an unwillingness of veteran, paid modders to educate others in their proprietary techniques, would raise the barrier of entry into ARMA modding exponentially. Without educational resources available to up-and-coming modders, the old guard would probably thrive for a while, but, in the end, the community would stagnate and die.

[Ranwer135 308]

Well it just truly depends if the BI DEV's ally with microsoft. If they have, we might even have an FSX importer for arma 3. Problem is, arma 3 and FSX are totaly different engines and the FSX models need to be readjusted and edited so they can work for arma 3. But, yeah, I do have FSX, but it would be awesome if that happened.

Maybe, we can edit the models from FSX and make them addons for arma 3, but well need to ask "Bohemia Interactive" and "Microsoft" permission to do this.

[[aps]gnat 28]

. There would almost certainly be an immediate push on BIS to allow for the binarization and encryption of .pbos. If this was to pass, then the vast majority of modders would have to switch to closed source releases as it would be impossible for anybody releasing open source code to verify that unscrupulous individuals didn't steal their work and included it within monetized addons.

Yep, your right, that would have to happen, and that would be just one of the negative outcomes. :(

Also means no learning materials for those mod makers in training. Unless BI did a HUGE push to improve the BIKI and samples.

[Make Love Not War 10]

Gnat;2530681']Yep' date=' your right, that would have to happen, and that would be just one of the negative outcomes. :(

Also means no learning materials for those mod makers in training. Unless BI did a HUGE push to improve the BIKI and samples.[/quote']

Perhaps, one of the best ways to avoid the problems I outlined earlier is for BIS to specifically leave the .pbo system open, as having all source code explicitly available for inspection will allow the community to police itself. Mods that gain any reasonable amount of sales will almost certainly be downloaded and scrutinized by various community members - any outright thievery will in all probability be quickly outed, I'd warrant.

In regards to improving the BIKI and so on: improved documentation would indeed largely have to be done in-house by BIS themselves, but perhaps they could contract - or even pernamently employ - several modders to create and update a library of comprehensive tutorials along with providing other forms of active modding support.

[maffa 29]

i dont think this pay-for-mod will go much further. If we keep looking at FSX, the professional modding community is there because MS couldnt bother of what small companies did with their long dead title. the vast majority of mods are either a few bucks worth or several hundreds, depending on the complexity. The first can be done by many and/or are cosmetic jobs (albeit beutiful), while the others involve several people building an almost professional plane or environment or weather system etc. In both cases, piracy is rampant. And, in both cases, the only one benefitting from these is the player that have them. There are several other projects that even if huge and beautiful still dont require any money (like photorealistic terrains, hundreds of airports, etc)

If an Arma mod were to be paid for, everyone in the server/clan would be forced to buy it, and piracy is always a (unjust) solution in cases like these. Moreover i still dont know what BIS thinks about people getting paid for messing with their own code.

[dmarkwick 261]

i dont think this pay-for-mod will go much further.

It won't go further because this entire thread is wholly conjecture. Based on nothing more than imaginings & worse-case scenarios :)