Arma 3 Server monetization

[Johny 25]

Dear community,
Based on feedback from server operators we acknowledge that the costs connected with hosting a server can be prohibitive and thus rules out a lot of gamers/squads from being able to afford one, so we have subsequently agreed to allow limited monetization of Arma 3 servers.
Full set of rules may be found on http://www.bistudio.com/monetization.
Please feel free to share your questions and feedback here in this thread or send us an email to monetization@bistudio.com.
We have compiled a list of the most frequent questions and answers and you can check it out here: FAQ.

[Akseone 10]

Hi Johny!

Thanks for clearing that up!

I suppose a grey point for me would be the community based content. Say if we were to use the British Helicopter pack And we made the Apache a Server contributor only Helicopter.

Also can we make clothing items for contributions only? as they do not really have any effect to make you live longer xD

Would that be ok as it would be balanced out by the Blackfoot + Kaijman ? I just want to know where the limitations are so we create a healthy ecosystem.

Thanks in advance!

[Dwarden 1125]

those server monetizing rules cover our server package,

on server with community content you also need approval for all content from every involved community content authors,

If we feel anyone on the list at http://www.bistudio.com/monetization/approved is exploiting any loopholes or is not acting in the best interests of the Arma 3 community, we will remove them.

has wide range of uses

Edited January 29, 2015 by Dwarden

[armatech 8]

those server monetizing rules cover our content,

on server with community content you also need approval for all content from every involved community content authors,

has wide range of uses

So dose this mean bis will be proactive on blocking servers who do steal content from other communitys.

if so where do i start reporting as i have around 70 servers who has taken from city life rpg

[Johny 25]

Making clothing contributor only system is allowed, as long as it does not affect the gameplay (for example magic cape of invisibility or stronger body armor do affect gameplay) and as long as you are registered and approved on the website.

Selling ingame Apache helicopter would be allowed if the Apache would have same gameplay effect as generally available helicopter. If it would be the same as selling red-paint Apache while leaving black-paint Apache accessible to all, then it is OK.

Keep in mind these permissions concern only Arma 3 servers and our content - we cannot give anyone permission to use 3rd party content for this monetization. If you are using someone else's mod/addon/etc. in this fashion, you also need to get their approval. That is where the report button on the Approved monetizators website comes in.

---------- Post added at 11:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

So dose this mean bis will be proactive on blocking servers who do steal content from other communitys.

We have no right and cannot get involved in IP disputes of other parties.

But with these rules, if we allow monetization of our server software to a community that is using IP from 3rd parties with out permission, then when we find out, we can take away that permission. If they persist in monetizing our software without it, we will take action against them.

This means that only the honest communities get to chance to benefit from this change.

[armatech 8]

thank you

[badluckburt 78]

Do you plan to periodically check in on Approved servers to see if they're still conforming to your rules or is that gonna come down to users reporting servers in breach of the agreement?

[bad benson 1733]

on server with community content you also need approval for all content from every involved community content authors,

can this please added as an extra rule to make it clear from the start and not put modders at the mercy of slow moderation by BI? i mean if this is a clear rule derived from that magic bullet rule, why not separate it so everyone in doubt has it there where it belongs instead of having to look for your post in here or ask someone?

[Johny 25]

Do you plan to periodically check in on Approved servers to see if they're still conforming to your rules or is that gonna come down to users reporting servers in breach of the agreement?

We are going to check the servers, but reports help a lot - they are faster, to the point and from the people that play on the servers.

My hope is that the server operators will see the benefits of conforming to the rules and the fear of losing those will motivate them to refrain from any shady practices, which would require us to step in.

can this please added as an extra rule to make it clear from the start and not put modders at the mercy of slow moderation by BI? i mean if this is a clear rule derived from that magic bullet rule, why not separate it so everyone in doubt has it there where it belongs instead of having to look for your post in here or ask someone?

You have a point. I will not add it to the rules, but people will be required to declare that they have the permission before submitting the application.

[m1lkm8n 410]

Can I add a rule into my license that says anyone who uses content I made has to pay me 1/3 of their server profits?

[badluckburt 78]

We are going to check the servers, but reports help a lot - they are faster, to the point and from the people that play on the servers.

My hope is that the server operators will see the benefits of conforming to the rules and the fear of losing those will motivate them to refrain from any shady practices, which would require us to step in.

Thanks, I understand time is an issue and I'd rather see you guys working on the game / engine but having a lingering fear of sudden inspection may help some of our less law-abiding citizens stay in line :D

And I share your hopes so here's to everything working out :)

[tupolov 520]

If people are monetizing a server, this probably constitutes "Commercial Use". In this regard, it would rule out use of any mods that restrict Commercial Use - including BIS own APL content.

[bad benson 1733]

may i ask why this rule is needed?

Charging players to access your server, if the fees and associated perks do not affect gameplay in any way, is allowed. Cosmetic perks are allowed. Limiting access to only paying players is allowed.

why do paywalls suddenly have to be allowed? i think it's still shit even if people use their "own" addons which in many cases are straight ports from other games like forza.

[ZertyKchan 14]

why do paywalls suddenly have to be allowed? i think it's still shit even if people use their "own" addons which in many cases are straight ports from other games like forza.

I agree that this position of "allowing only to paying users" is dangerous, because if BiS is mosly dependant on reports to enforce that monetization process, those server will not ever be reported, since noone except paying users can see what is used by those. Thus, it is kind of making most of the monetisation process moot.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ZertyKchan
typo

[m1lkm8n 410]

may i ask why this rule is needed?

why do paywalls suddenly have to be allowed? i think it's still shit even if people use their "own" addons which in many cases are straight ports from other games like forza.

Agreed!

[bad benson 1733]

I agree that this position of "allowing only to paying users" is dangerous, because if BiS is mosly dependant on reporting to enforce that monetization process, those server will not ever be reported, since none except paying users can see what is used by those. and thus it is kind of making most of the monetisation process moot.

very good point. and to me it also seems a little like: you can't sell separate objects but you can sell the whole thing. so while you can't sell ingame perks or objects you can sell all ingame perks or objects as a package. it's almost like this is intended to avoid pay2win instead of making sure servers don't become a weird grey area business model :D

i'm wondering if you could pay once, then once you have all the addons, host them for free. should be fine since you're not charging, right? is that your twisted way of preventing paywalls afterall?! :devil:

[slim_pikins 12]

I would be very interested in what process will be used to deal with people who infringe on the rules and use anthers mod without permission or recompense, do they get a warning if so how many and how long to adhere to it? does the mod creator have the chance to negotiate with the infringer?

This brings up many questions around the process that is going to be used and just how transparent it will be.

Personally I disagree with monetization of Arma mods though I can see the attraction.

I do however appreciate BI responding to the community's disgust at A3L morals, well done guys.

[babylonjoke 22]

i'm wondering if you could pay once, then once you have all the addons, host them for free. should be fine since you're not charging, right? is that your twisted way of preventing paywalls afterall?! :devil:

It would be fine but I doubt you will ever get on BIF-Armaholic-Steam (where basically 98% of Arma community flows). Deal the Paywall circle. GG.

____

So now as players we all have to hope that most of the servers operators are not as*holes like A3L/RPG life. GG.

Oh...sorry... Arma MP is basically Life.

[sequisha 13]

I'm glad there's been at least a little bit more clarification in this regard, but much like Milkman, Benson & others...I'm interested whether or not we(as content creators) can contest a community's "Approved" status.

To be clear, I have no intentions of monetizing my work in this regard, but I would like to reserve the right to prevent others to do so.

Example: Random community wants to start selling a new character or prop that I create and release, I should be able to contest their "Approved" status...if they were approved to begin with.

Thanks once again BI & friends, I'm glad this is one step closer to being addressed.

[Tankbuster 1744]

The application page... it wants a link to the applying communitys "Rules page". What should this page show?

[anthariel 165]

Thanks for the clarification Bohemia,

However :

Limiting access to only paying players is allowed

I do not see the difference between a reseller of your work ( vehicles, weapons, uniforms, vests, map... ) and between a person who is blocking all of this content ( Pay me if you wan't to connect on my server... ).

That mean, i need to pay for a content i've already buy with the game? Just imagine an custom mission like Altis Life where you need to pay your access to the gamemode?

However, are you going to do something against servers profiting from donation reward ( locked content like vehicles, weapons... if you do not donate or buy it on the " donator shop " ) ?

I have regrouped more than a dozen of illegal server with informations like links, reasons, owner, contact email... and I sent this list at BIS and I had no answer.

http://arma-france.com/illegal-servers/

Anyway, I congratulate BIS for having saying things as they are and clarifying the monetization system.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Anthariel

[slim_pikins 12]

Example: Random community wants to start selling a new character or prop that I create and release, I should be able to contest their "Approved" status...if they were approved to begin with.

A grey area for me is if they are using your mods on a server and the server is free to access BUT they charge for the "red Apache" your content is used as per the license free to all users but the mod they own is sold, where would you stand then, and as you mentioned what if you only found out about it after you have agreed to let them use it. Or the moder that wants to get back at a community they have fallen out with and taking back the permission to use the mod.

BI could end up with a PR nightmare dammed if they do dammed if they don't

[xyberviri 1]

Example: Random community wants to start selling a new character or prop that I create and release, I should be able to contest their "Approved" status...if they were approved to begin with.

Sequisha that was already stated already that greedy people had to ask for your permission first.

[ZertyKchan 14]

Sequisha that was already stated already that greedy people had to ask for your permission first.

Problem is if they make people pay for server access, they could be able to use content without IP owner consents without anyone actually noticing.

Non-observability induces non-controllability, this principle is an axiom in most control theories.

[sequisha 13]

A grey area for me is if they are using your mods on a server and the server is free to access BUT they charge for the "red Apache" your content is used as per the license free to all users but the mod they own is sold, where would you stand then, and as you mentioned what if you only found out about it after you have agreed to let them use it. Or the moder that wants to get back at a community they have fallen out with and taking back the permission to use the mod.

BI could end up with a PR nightmare dammed if they do dammed if they don't

I'm asking this specifically, because it is indeed our assets(along with BI & DayZ assets) and ethereal currency that have been sold for over the past year in both Arma 2 and Arma 3.

Sequisha that was already stated already that greedy people had to ask for your permission first.

I see that now after re-reading Dwarden's post. Thank you.

those server monetizing rules cover our server package,

on server with community content you also need approval for all content from every involved community content authors,

This is splendid news. Keep in mind I don't want to hinder the player's ability to access the game or our modifications, this whole ordeal has just been exploited in the past essentially strip-mining the value of the game for everyone in the long run. This is definitely a step in the right direction; many thanks to BI for addressing this.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Sequisha