Arma 3 Server monetization

[mobile_medic 43]

We are not trying to force these rules on anyone. If you do not wish for people to use your content in this way, then you are not required to give that permission.

Pretty clearly stated that in my post...

You can release it in the same way you did before.

And, this was the point of my post... You are taking an awfully big leap of faith that people will just "release it in the same way" they did before. I don't think that's how things are going to go for you. In fact, it's quite impossible. Before, people released work with the expectation that others would not be profiting off it. If this thread isn't enough initial evidence to raise some concern over that fact, then... it doesn't seem like you guys/gals are paying attention closely enough.

Perhaps when you were "consulting" with server owners, you should have considered *also* consulting with the 3rd party content creators who are such a large part of your success (and that others now stand to make a profit off of). Perhaps you should have asked them how they would feel if Bohemia allowed other people to make profit off of their work.

Thank goodness you allow them to give permission. How kind of you :/ </sarcasm>. But, who in their right mind would agree to such a thing? I suspect mod authors will overwhelmingly forbid their work from being used on such servers. I suspect others may go further than that.

Would Bohemia agree to giving your game away for free, and allowing others to sell it and make a commission-free profit? That is what you are asking of the content creators.

Bohemia gets a piece of the pie. Server owners get a piece of the pie. 3rd party content creators add the secret ingredient (without which, the pie would be far less appealing) but they aren't allowed to have a piece of the pie.

It really doesn't seem like Bohemia thought this one through very well... On the one hand, you are saying you can now protect 3rd party content creators from abusive server owners. On the other, you are empowering abusive server owners to become "legitimate" server owners who can profit off of the work of 3rd party content creators...

Further, you are acting like you are doing content creators a favor by giving them a *choice* that they already have (who they authorize to use their work). It is a false choice, as I suspect forcing content creators into such an agreement would not have much of a legal footing.

Here, is a much simpler and more equitable solution that uses the framework you have set up. Instead of going for-profit, allow server owners to *only* receive voluntary donations (that means, no "donation" in exchange for content). If a server owner does receive donations, it must be under those terms and they must apply, and be on your "approved" list. Meaning... they have to have permission from any and all authors of the IP that they use. If they are found to violate those terms by profiteering, or using mods without permission, you will remove them (as you now claim you will do under the new terms).

It accomplishes one of the end-goals you claim you are seeking (being empowered to protect 3rd party content creators from profiteering or abusive server owners who do not respect their IP). It also actually would empower content creators if you don't commercialize it. And, it also helps deal with the grey areas that currently exist with regards to pseudo-donations.

Just clear up what a "donation" actually is, and remove the profiteering aspect, and I think you would find the community to (at least) be more agreeable to these new terms.

[Johny 25]

If that's the case, how can we expect that the interests of modders, who I suspect will almost unanimously refuse to allow monetization of their work, will be enforced under your guidelines? If the makers of KOTH, Life and Wasteland, or AGM and AIATP said they wouldn't allow monetization, could you police the servers infringing on their behalf, especially since there will always be servers popping up who won't be bothered to sign up under your approval?

I will try to illustrate on an example:

Mr. Modder creates the Addon, which he releases under a license which forbids anyone from hosting it on their server.

Mr.Badguy hosts a server with Addon (which is against the Addon license), but he hosts it without any monetization or any infringing on BI's rights. Modder is angry and tries to get BI to help, but BI unfortunately cannot help as it is an IP battle between Modder and Badguy.

Now take the same situation, but this time Badguy is monetizing on his server with Addon. Badguy has a permission from BI to monetize the server, but does not have permission from Modder to monetize or even use Addon(which he lied about when he sent his application). Modder reports him to BI. BI takes away the monetization permission, but Badguy keeps on monetizing. At that point he is infringing on the BI rights and BI can act and stop him. Not because he is infringing on Modders copyrights, but because he infringes on BI copyrights.

You are right that there will always be servers popping up who wont bother to register. This gets the approved ones in one spot for everyone to review and report on and thus helps make more time to focus on the people who monetize without approval.

Dean Hall seems to think you can:

https://twitter.com/rocket2guns/status/340009788576518144

If youtuber is making money off video, then your agreement states:

2. BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AGAINST A (“THE WORK“).

IN THAT CASE (“THE APPLICANT“) AGREES TO REMOVE THE (“THE WORK“) IN QUESTION AS SOON AS

POSSIBLE (NO LONGER THAN 60 DAYS PERIOD).

That's for applicants who want to monetise videos with you.

So are you saying you can remove $$$ YT videos if they go through your system, but if someone makes money off videos they upload without your consent, then you have no power?

Why would anyone sign the agreement in the first place?

We can take away permission to monetize the YT video if we wish to, then youtube should takee down the video or stop the monetization of it.

Youtube does not allow monetization of copyrighted content without permission. If he does not have it and still was able to get the monetization up we have every right and power to take it down.

If you compose a music and some steals it and puts it into his homemade video and starts to monetize, then we have no right to take it down.

Btw the info you are referring to is a bit outdated - this is up to date: http://www.bistudio.com/community/game-content-usage-rules/monetization-youtube

It really doesn't seem like Bohemia thought this one through very well... On the one hand, you are saying you can now protect 3rd party content creators from abusive server owners. On the other, you are empowering abusive server owners to become "legitimate" server owners who can profit off of the work of 3rd party content creators...

There are always going to be abusive server owners, but the legitimate server owner is no longer someone hidden in the depths of the internet - getting approved and listed on the website should invite certain amount of spotlight.

It should also show that people make money of their own or properly licensed content legally.

Further, you are acting like you are doing content creators a favor by giving them a *choice* that they already have (who they authorize to use their work). It is a false choice, as I suspect forcing content creators into such an agreement would not have much of a legal footing.

No, we are not giving them a choice - they just have it. Just like every author has the right to decide whom to and how he licenses the work. The only news is that they may extend their licenses to this monetization.

I apologize, but I don't understand the part the "false choice" part, can you elaborate a bit?

Here, is a much simpler and more equitable solution that uses the framework you have set up. Instead of going for-profit, allow server owners to *only* receive voluntary donations (that means, no "donation" in exchange for content). If a server owner does receive donations, it must be under those terms and they must apply, and be on your "approved" list. Meaning... they have to have permission from any and all authors of the IP that they use. If they are found to violate those terms by profiteering, or using mods without permission, you will remove them (as you now claim you will do under the new terms).

It accomplishes one of the end-goals you claim you are seeking (being empowered to protect 3rd party content creators from profiteering or abusive server owners who do not respect their IP). It also actually would empower content creators if you don't commercialize it. And, it also helps deal with the grey areas that currently exist with regards to pseudo-donations.

Just clear up what a "donation" actually is, and remove the profiteering aspect, and I think you would find the community to (at least) be more agreeable to these new terms.

There are people who share your opinion, on the other hand there are people who wanted to give stuff like a special in-game status or clothing to their donor but were not permitted to do so.

Do I think that this will get every content thief to repent? No, but I believe it will give a chance to make a few bucks to the few honest ones and maybe reform a few of the less-than-honest ones.

On top of that we will get contact and server details of a few less-bright "bad guys", which might help us get rid of them.

But as stated in the rules, it is still a test.

[yokai134 10]

@Johny or any other Developer

So odd question as I've been reading this.

If a server owner allows donations/purchases to get weapons/vehicles/exp/in-game(server) money faster or such but does not limit those items to just donators/purchasers then is that allowed because they're (those who don't donate/purchase) not blocked from using it but those who do get something in return.

If that doesn't make sense just think of P2W MMOs and such where you can unlock item A in 10 hours of grinding or buy a booster and unlock item A in say 30 minutes or buy item A and get it instantly.

I dont run a server or anything but these discussions just have me wondering since I really didn't clearly see this brought up

Edited February 4, 2015 by yokai134

[Kumeda 6]

It's an interesting topic. At the moment I ask myself how this registering works? Is it just about giving your server address? If so why not implement something like an ingame charging tool into the game itself? If already connected to steam any donation made would be done via steam and could be redirected to the registered accound. This implemented tool could be also used to control if the permission is still valid or what type of things are charged for. Lets say it works like that: A) you get a permission to make some money that is some sort of key stort at the host server and the registration server. B) if a transaction via steam is asked for the tool contacts the registration server and asks for validation of the right to charge.

Once you do that ... a) make any charging that isn't done without registration illegal. So you can go against anyone that doesnt hold a license.

b) And if someone has a license and doesnt apply by it just get its licences revoked and can't charge any money via steam without doing it some other illegal way like a)

Good thing would be that any infringement could be done very quickly without the need of legal actions. There would be a control about money made with the game with service or content provided by servers holder.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Kumeda

[Tankbuster 1746]

'Spect to Johny for posting here and trying to put the company's thinking and reasoning across. Brave man. :)

Anyone here who thinks that BI are going to kill what has turned into a very respectable revenue stream for them is in cloud cuckoo land.

I hope that a sort of DayZ progression can take place here. BI took a successful game type and morphed it into a product. Perhaps they can achieve the same with life as they did with DayZ and Zeus (formerly known as MCC etc)?

I guess this all boils down to one question. Are BI willing and able to chase and close down server operators who breach their license?

[Aeriyn 10]

I will try to illustrate on an example:

Mr. Modder creates the Addon, which he releases under a license which forbids anyone from hosting it on their server.

Mr.Badguy hosts a server with Addon (which is against the Addon license), but he hosts it without any monetization or any infringing on BI's rights. Modder is angry and tries to get BI to help, but BI unfortunately cannot help as it is an IP battle between Modder and Badguy.

Now take the same situation, but this time Badguy is monetizing on his server with Addon. Badguy has a permission from BI to monetize the server, but does not have permission from Modder to monetize or even use Addon(which he lied about when he sent his application). Modder reports him to BI. BI takes away the monetization permission, but Badguy keeps on monetizing. At that point he is infringing on the BI rights and BI can act and stop him. Not because he is infringing on Modders copyrights, but because he infringes on BI copyrights.

You are right that there will always be servers popping up who wont bother to register. This gets the approved ones in one spot for everyone to review and report on and thus helps make more time to focus on the people who monetize without approval.

I'm still somewhat doubtful this will work, but I will admit you've won me over somewhat in that you are at least trying to solve an issue.

However, I think part of the reason your community doesn't seem on board with this is really with the encouragement of microtransactions and the plague of servers which exist to make a profit rather than foster communities, and the fact that most of us are doubtful about the system. This whole thing is a minefield better avoided by just stopping monetization and allowing donations instead. Yes, people do appreciate donors and want to reward them. What about a donator wall on the briefing screen, or a sign with their names in-base? It just sounds like guys who want to encourage people spending have been petitioning you for this.

More importantly, is a mod whose author is silent on the issue of monetization up for grabs or does permission need to be expressly given for it to happen? (basically, what is the base value for permissions) How far can the modder control the level of monetization? Can they for example specify that the work is available to be used on for servers with paywalls, but not as rewards for donators?

What about mods that have been stolen from their authors, had minor changes (if at all) made to them and then released under a separate name? Based on your example, all I would technically need to do is to simply rip the assets out of a few mods whose owners are no longer active in arma, change the names or authors or configs, repackage it as "Badguy's Altis Life Pack" and charge players who wish to use the items. No one could prove I didn't come up with those assets, players on the server could care less, I make money, legit servers lose.

What about weapons? Since weapons do affect gameplay, they should not be allowed to be monetized. However, do the new rules allow for weapon mods to be run in a server that offers hats for donators?

tl;dr - This should be a milsim, not DayZ or Altis Life. Dedicated people and communities have made this what it is today alongside your original game, don't let it devolve into CS:GO.

[Redphoenix 1540]

Fatal, please get in in your head that this game is a MILITARY-SANDBOX SIMULATION, nota single Milsim.

[mobile_medic 43]

Anyone here who thinks that BI are going to kill what has turned into a very respectable revenue stream for them is in cloud cuckoo land.

A drunk driver doesn't intend on killing anyone when they get behind the wheel either. I don't think anyone suggested that Bohemia is *intentionally* trying to kill anything, but that the fallout from how they've chosen to prioritize, and a recent string of choices by them might not have the *positive* effect they are (presumably) hoping for.

[Aeriyn 10]

Fatal, please get in in your head that this game is a MILITARY-SANDBOX SIMULATION, nota single Milsim.

Sorry if my wording is bad, but I'm basically just trying to point out that the game shouldn't lend itself towards microtransactions and item selling. If you want to play those game modes, go ahead, but please don't push the game strongly in one direction while ignoring the other. I appreciate the money, publicity and players that DayZ and Altis Life have brought in, but I'm questioning if this new set of rules will make it harder for players who came in to play those game modes to also try playing with communities. I originally bought arma with the intent of playing some DayZ, instead I got picked up by an arma community and was able to experience new mods, this forum and playing in an organised group.

I'll retract my earlier tl;dr statement and say that what I want is for BI to not encourage people to run Arma servers just to earn money, but I'd be lying through my teeth if I said that I didn't believe game modes like the ones mentioned above are frequently and easily abused to exploit players. Legitimizing monetization shouldn't be something taken lightly.

Let me ask you this, RedPhoenix. You work on some well-known mods. Would you let them all be monetized with no proceeds towards the authors? If yes, why would you do it? I'd love to hear what an actual modder like you thinks about this.

[Johny 25]

If a server owner allows donations/purchases to get weapons/vehicles/exp/in-game(server) money faster or such but does not limit those items to just donators/purchasers then is that allowed because they're (those who don't donate/purchase) not blocked from using it but those who do get something in return.

If that doesn't make sense just think of P2W MMOs and such where you can unlock item A in 10 hours of grinding or buy a booster and unlock item A in say 30 minutes or buy item A and get it instantly.

This would be a gameplay affecting perk and as such it is not allowed under the new rules. So no P2W.

It's an interesting topic. At the moment I ask myself how this registering works? Is it just about giving your server address? If so why not implement something like an ingame charging tool into the game itself? If already connected to steam any donation made would be done via steam and could be redirected to the registered accound. This implemented tool could be also used to control if the permission is still valid or what type of things are charged for. Lets say it works like that: A) you get a permission to make some money that is some sort of key stort at the host server and the registration server. B) if a transaction via steam is asked for the tool contacts the registration server and asks for validation of the right to charge.

Once you do that ... a) make any charging that isn't done without registration illegal. So you can go against anyone that doesnt hold a license.

b) And if someone has a license and doesnt apply by it just get its licences revoked and can't charge any money via steam without doing it some other illegal way like a)

Good thing would be that any infringement could be done very quickly without the need of legal actions. There would be a control about money made with the game with service or content provided by servers holder.

If we and Valve wanted to make some money out of it, then this would be the right way to go about it. It is similar to the workshop monetization you can see with CSGO or recently Chivalry.

Also it would not stop any one from monetizing outside of the system, so from that respect we would have similarly secure system (granted the control over the approved monetizators would be better), with more legal stuff (just read the part on WS monetization in the Steam Subscriber agreement) and maybe even more work to be done - and I am not mentioning the implementation costs. Also it would depend not only on our willingness to implement, but also on Valve's.

I guess this all boils down to one question. Are BI willing and able to chase and close down server operators who breach their license?

When we started to be more active in that regard we realized, that we have the most success with communities, which if given the option would jump to a chance to monetize legally within the rules. Then there were people who we felt could be reformed if given the choice of battling us or following the rules. The third group were people who didn't care, the worst kind. That was one of the reasons we decided to set up these new rules - get the "reformable" out of the way and so clear our hands to focus on the "worst kind".

But to answer you - yes, we are willing and we are also able, it just not as simple and instant or quick as some make it to be. Especially since there are hundreds of such servers out there.

But as I hinted before we are looking into some new ways of making life less pleasant for the servers that we are not happy with, which could make things easier.

I'm still somewhat doubtful this will work, but I will admit you've won me over somewhat in that you are at least trying to solve an issue.

Well, we ourselves are openly admitting it is a test. A test we fully intend to evaluate. If you check the rules you will see we may infact stop the whole thing when ever we wish should this take an unexpected turn. At the same time we have set the 1 year test period, to give some idea of consistency to the people who would be taking the time and applied.

However, I think part of the reason your community doesn't seem on board with this is really with the encouragement of microtransactions and the plague of servers which exist to make a profit rather than foster communities, and the fact that most of us are doubtful about the system. This whole thing is a minefield better avoided by just stopping monetization and allowing donations instead. Yes, people do appreciate donors and want to reward them. What about a donator wall on the briefing screen, or a sign with their names in-base? It just sounds like guys who want to encourage people spending have been petitioning you for this.

I do see your point and understand the worries. To be honest I think that the microtransactions we are allowing actually promote fostering the community. People cannot sell anything that affects gameplay, so server operators need to think of way to engage community and get them to want cosmetic perks in order to get the money.

More importantly, is a mod whose author is silent on the issue of monetization up for grabs or does permission need to be expressly given for it to happen? (basically, what is the base value for permissions) How far can the modder control the level of monetization? Can they for example specify that the work is available to be used on for servers with paywalls, but not as rewards for donators?

For approval we require express permission of the author and we will ask for it if there is a dispute. But if author is not disputing the permission, then how can we know he did not give it.

On your other questions - BI is not a law firm and cannot give legal advice so once more following is my personal opinion:

Author may set up any restrictions he sees fit (as long as he respects the licenses of the tools and works he is basing his work on). Also IMO in IP law what is not expressly allowed is forbidden. If you find a random software on the internet without any accompanying license or permission from the author then you cannot just say it is a public domain because it has no license. It is the other way around - you cannot even use it, let alone for commercial purpose.

What about mods that have been stolen from their authors, had minor changes (if at all) made to them and then released under a separate name? Based on your example, all I would technically need to do is to simply rip the assets out of a few mods whose owners are no longer active in arma, change the names or authors or configs, repackage it as "Badguy's Altis Life Pack" and charge players who wish to use the items. No one could prove I didn't come up with those assets, players on the server could care less, I make money, legit servers lose.

Well you can see how it might be problematic to prove someone is using stolen work. But since we are taking away the monetization approval, we do not have to prove anything, it is enough we deem the server operator not to be acting in the best interests of the community. And at that point the burden of proof is on the server operator, who should prove it is his work if he wants to continue monetizing.

What about weapons? Since weapons do affect gameplay, they should not be allowed to be monetized.

If you sell weapons to people, then it affects the gameplay and is not allowed. But if you sell a "golden weapons upgrade" and it means that everytime user picks up the weapon he gets its golden variant of the same weapon, which has same specs but looks "cooler", then that would fit within the bounds of cosmetic items.

However, do the new rules allow for weapon mods to be run in a server that offers hats for donators?

If you are approved and have a permission from the weapons-mod author and hats-mod author then it is OK.

Of course if there is a tank hidden in the hat, then that would be a problem :D

To your last post I will say, that we are giving the option to monetize. We are not saying everyone must do it. We are not taking the monetization lightly - that is why we decided to limit the monetization to cosmetics and server access, which should set reasonable bounds for the exploitation you are speaking about.

[Aeriyn 10]

Thanks for repeatedly taking the time to respond to us Johny!

I have to say you've convinced me about this. I guess if something like this is going to have to happen, it's better that BI take a more active role in this than pretending it isn't happening. :)

[Tankbuster 1746]

Agreed. Johny is doing a good job and I wish him and this project the best of luck.

So, some sort of software killswitch with the Spanels taking turns to hover over the red button?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Tankbuster

[rksl-rock 1301]

...When we started to be more active in that regard we realized, that we have the most success with communities, which if given the option would jump to a chance to monetize legally within the rules. Then there were people who we felt could be reformed if given the choice of battling us or following the rules. The third group were people who didn't care, the worst kind. That was one of the reasons we decided to set up these new rules - get the "reformable" out of the way and so clear our hands to focus on the "worst kind".

But to answer you - yes, we are willing and we are also able, it just not as simple and instant or quick as some make it to be. Especially since there are hundreds of such servers out there.

But as I hinted before we are looking into some new ways of making life less pleasant for the servers that we are not happy with, which could make things easier...

From an addon maker's point of view this isn't very convincing. I've been talking with a number of people in this community and the overwhelming response when you ask the question: "Do you think BIS will enforce this licence?" is, and this is a direct quote:

"F@ck no! They've done nothing about A3L, that broke their EULA and months later they are STILL operating and breaking the $200,000 revenue mark."

The issue here is public perception and a complete lack of confidence in BI's willingness to take action and enforce this licence. You've said earlier that despite appearances, you have been taking action. However no one in the public domain seems to be aware of it. Not one person i've spoken to has even heard of anything of "action" more that an email or two.

I had a rather charged discussion with Dwarden the other night in the AMAR Skype chat. While you both say things have happened your user base is not aware of it and that is damaging your efforts and ruining any chance of people believing in BI or this initiative. Potential Offenders also see the the same lack of action and take that as tacit permission to do whatever they want.

While I understand the legal need/obligation to keep quiet during the first phases of the investigation once you get a successful prosecution or result you NEED to be communicating this.

You NEED to be seen to take action.

You NEED to be show the community both "good" and "bad" that the EULA is something they need to respect.

You NEED to build confidence in the community because there is virtually none.

Again from my discussions with other addon makers I know that a lot of us are waiting to see what happens. I've already paused my next three releases due to this. Others are doing the same.

My own view is:

1. that without monetisation of addons the monetisation of Servers is just a bad PR stunt.
   
2. As other have already said Monetisation of anything spells the end of the "Open modding community" as we have known it. I've seen that before in the Flight Sim community. It was a VERY painful transition for addon makers there. The rise in commercial scale theft was scary. It will probably happen here too even though the product and Multiplayer aspect of the game presents different challenges.
   
3. Even if you do monetise addons too I have very little confidence in BI to enforce any license. I would like to be proven wrong.
   

:(

[Shep_FR 10]

Just found this thread. I want to cry.

Product placement, in-game advertising and sponsorship is allowed

We have already a lot of ads on the internet and now we will have ads in A3...

Hey, guys, I just want to play a game... I don't want to be brainwashed everytime I launch my game and connect to a f**king server.

[Kumeda 6]

This would be a gameplay affecting perk and as such it is not allowed under the new rules. So no P2W.

If we and Valve wanted to make some money out of it, then this would be the right way to go about it. It is similar to the workshop monetization you can see with CSGO or recently Chivalry.

Also it would not stop any one from monetizing outside of the system, so from that respect we would have similarly secure system (granted the control over the approved monetizators would be better), with more legal stuff (just read the part on WS monetization in the Steam Subscriber agreement) and maybe even more work to be done - and I am not mentioning the implementation costs. Also it would depend not only on our willingness to implement, but also on Valve's.

I see the catch in that. Personally next to the power to remove the right I also would see it to be somewhat more usable for community memebers. On the one hand implemantation of such pay system would be easier ..on the other hand it would be easier for the person willing to pay what maybe would increase the ammount of money you could actually make versus other types of payment methodes. And if something is easier and better than something else ..the chances are less likely the more difficult road would be gone.

Additionally it would communicate only one legal way for transaction to the community ,what would make any other possibility visibly illegal. What I'm thinking is that for the bad boy to actually fullfill his wrong doings there must always be someone falling into his trap and unless he does know about it ..if he is an upstanding community member - he might not do it and therefore reducing the money made from servers that are obviously run by a badboy

But either way you could do something similar also your way ..and I think thats important.

1: To mark any server in the server browser of arma that is registered. And than communicate that these servers are officially allowed to do what they do and no one else is.

2: Make it legal for you ..if there are people not following the rules take the servers out of the server search with a black list and block any direct connections to it ingame. If no one can reach the server who would pay for it? This would be a fast and direct way of infringement. (Also it doesnt take away the possibility to open a new server)

Also I think it would be good if any mods/addons made by community members that allow making money with it also have to register on your site. From there also allow to download the specific version (link or direct) and give the maker the possibility to specify in what way this mod can be used for money making on offical servers. At least this could help to keep track on it and would also allowe linking server to contents used. It would be extra work for the maker...but it would at least make clear the whishes of the maker and transparently show what a server hoster is allowed to use as content or is using (and put a little donation button in ..i believe that would make the modders happy too :D)

I mean if there is no transperancy for the community on these kind of servers who is gonne report a bad one as I don't imagine any community memeber to find out what mod is used on a server and than check the term of use of this specific mod if there is even is one. Secondly it's a secure line for the modders too ..as you could take out an addon/mod in that offical listing that doesn't seem to be fit ..or is reported to be not holding all the rights by its supposed maker.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Kumeda

[das attorney 858]

We can take away permission to monetize the YT video if we wish to, then youtube should takee down the video or stop the monetization of it.

Youtube does not allow monetization of copyrighted content without permission. If he does not have it and still was able to get the monetization up we have every right and power to take it down.

Thanks for replying and clarifying BIS's range of options there.

Then with respect to what happened with A3L, it's apparent that it was within BIS' rights to stop monetisation of videos from their server.

You could have done that to put pressure on them for their actions (breaking your EULA,taking modder and other games ip)

Yet BIS chose not to. I get that it would maybe cost you some $$$ in lost exposure and sales, and maybe mean certain youtubers wouldn't want to feature your products anymore; but it was within your power to do something about it at the time and yet BIS said they couldn't do anything and their hands were tied.

Were you indifferent that people were $$$ youtubing your product with stolen content? Were you too afraid to lose exposure through influential youtubers by upsetting them? How did you not decide that was wrong and to do something about it?

If it was something I built being misappropriated on Youtube for money, I would do my best to get that removed. I wouldn't want viewers thinking I condone that and allow my products to be used in that way.

All the time that was happening, you have misinformed idiots giving abuse to modders on these forums and elsewhere for trying to get back control of their ip.

So then what does that look like?

Is it a case of one group getting preferential treatment over another because they bring more money in through the door? (regardless of how they got it).

Maybe so or maybe not, but by sitting on the sidelines and doing zero, it's sending out a message that you either don't want to get your hands dirty or just aren't that bothered.

Even now with the new server signup system, I note that you have no way of enforcing it currently.

On top of that we will get contact and server details of a few less-bright "bad guys", which might help us get rid of them.

But as I hinted before we are looking into some new ways of making life less pleasant for the servers that we are not happy with, which could make things easier.

So the money side of things is set but with respect to enforcement, words like "might" and "looking into" don't convey that you can actually do anything about it, or even have the inclination to do so.

When you have people violating your EULA openly and for some time, *and you do nothing about it* - it makes me think nothing will change and you will continue to turn a blind eye. Case in point:

http://www.digitalgoodsstore.com/mydgs/VqN72B

$39.99 for some scripts and it has been going on for how long...

As other users have pointed out, even if you do have the will to do something, it is practically impossible to prove things like script theft for obv reasons.

Do you really have the manpower to keep up with all the claims and counter-claims that will happen?

Really, you guys need to do something to reassure your end-users that their interests are protected, because at the moment it looks like you're paying them lip service while legitimising the underhand actions of certain server-owners.

If it seems I have dwelled on the recent a3l business, it is only to get a measure of your MO. We are all judged by our action/inaction.

My words are not directed at you in person Johny, but at BIS' actions as a whole so please read them as such. I only write in this manner as I am so utterly disheartened and disappointed by the direction your company seems to be taking.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Das Attorney

[Kumeda 6]

Im not sure Attorny. I mean I see that some stuff is not nice that happens. But to go after everyone that does something that goes against the EULA will not work out anyway as at the end of the Day BIS is a bussiness after all. And there are good and bad examples of people making money with content. Like YT videos which will be in most cases more beneficial than harmful in comparison to someone selling scripts. Personally I also find it questionable if someone using a scripts in a video is actually monetizing on it because even if he technical speaking does it... people don't watch the videos because of the mods used but because of the people doing the video ..which opens up the question to what degree the use of some addon plays a role in monetizing it...but this is just my view.

But still I also agree that there should be some possibilities for BIS to actually enforce the rules when people selling a service while potentially using work of others not asked.. at least if its done in a legal frame.

[das attorney 858]

This isn't about the videos. I was illustrating that they had options open to them when they said they didn't.

Therefore I have trouble believing what they say re: server monetisation enforcement.

[Kumeda 6]

Ah ok ;) But well it is one thing taking down not harmeful videos another is taking out servers that you know the address of and the person in charge of it. It is still better than not knowing if it's done in this way... however as I said before I'd strongly suggest that if monetizing servers are registered ..any mod/addon that is allowed to be used for monetizing on servers should be registered by the mod maker as well and linked to these servers and be made public so that everyone can see what is supposed to be run on them and what isn't.

Also as I said ..I could imagine it would be possible to check if a server is or is not on a blacklist before the game actually connects... shouldnt be that difficult.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Kumeda

[.kju 3245]

The handling of the A3L abuse does indeed give not much confidence. However at the same time who can really tell

what BI has done or is still doing. As such open communication at an early stage and on a frequent basis is crucial.

Johny's responsiveness and words go now in the right direction at least, yet time will tell if meaningful actions will follow.

The "pay to enter a server" clause should be dropped IMO or clarified if something else is meant there.

Twelve months seem also way too long as evaluation phase - every three months would sound way more reasonable.

The helicopter example was also confusing and should be removed or clarified. After all there is a gameplay difference

between helicopters even if they seem "the same" to someone not playing the game much or does not understand

the game mechanics in-depth.

That said the funny accusations and wrong statements made by many community people, as well as the arrogance of

a few - this game, community, modders and players do not exist only of BI forum users or milsim fans - is also way off.

It seems to me the change of policy is meant to be able to combat abusing behavior more effectively; I remain doubtful,

if that will work out in general and if the specifics of the current approach is good enough - only time will tell and hopefully

BI is reactive to adjustments.

Finally I would assume paid mods, limited by public vote and BI selection with an extensive review process will be coming eventually.

As such this should be factored into the analysis and debate.

[ajax420 0]

Taking into consideration that

I refer to 3rd party content as

• Scripts
  
• Missions
  
• Mission templates
  
• Addons
  
• Mods
  
• Tutorials
  

a) 3rd party content is one of the main stays off this community and has been the backbone of it for over 12 years

b) Community run servers have been provided free of charge with no expectations of monetary gain from its members for that same length of time

c) 3rd party content has (In the vast majority of cases) always been released in good faith for open use by all

d) 3rd party content has been de pbo'd, and recreated by others often improving on the initial creation or at the very least has allowed others to learn new skills or improve their existing skills

e) Because of the above, 3rd party content has improved over the years and such mods as DayZ, A3 life, AGM, Alive, ACRE & Task Force Radio (And way too many more to mention) have come to life

f) Money has never changed hands for any of it other than totally voluntary donations (Until now)

These are what makes the community a great and long lived community.

Its openness and its contributors and supporters who have done so out of love for the game and the appreciation they get when their content or their servers are used.

I think the following are the main principles that need to be catered for

1) 3rd party content providers should be encouraged to continue creating content (But not through money as this corrupts). This means

..... a) Good tool support and documentation from B.I

..... b) Expectations of credit where credit is due from those who have reworked this content

..... c) Enforcements of their EULA's if they define one

..... d) Appreciation and respect for their efforts by everyone

2) 3rd party contend makers should only expect reward in the form of gratitude and donations and should do what they do because of the satisfaction and gratitude they get from others using it. Their should be no other motivation than that, period.

3) Server owners should be encouraged to continue running servers (But not through money as this corrupts). This means

..... a) Good support and documentation from B.I

..... b) Better tools and support for Mission creation

..... c) Appreciation and respect for their efforts by everyone

4) Server owners should only expect reward in the form of gratitude and donations and should do what they do because of the satisfaction and gratitude they get from others using their servers. Their should be no other motivation than that, period.

By following these principles we should get back to being a very friendly community where all those who work towards creating a great gaming environment do it because they want too, not because of greed, which will inevitably kill us and i for one do not want that.

So PLEASE B.I do not continue down this path, it is the wrong route and will in the long run have a very negative effect on what we have built over the last decade.

I would add one exception to the above..

Exceptional, outstanding quality 3rd party content should wherever it is feasible and the creator sio wishes be added to an official DLC pack turning what would have only been hosted on an addon server into vanilla content.

I doubt there would be any issues here with the 3rd parties concerned to allow B.I to do this and its about time this actually happened.

I would love to see a

Vietnam DLC

WW2 DLC

RHS DLC

etc etc

+1. Love you mate. I have been a huge fan since 2001 when a buddy of mine gave a me a disc with ofp beta was on it. HOOKED! EVER SINCE! I see this whole thing as a possible downfall to the best title and development studio ever. Im am very nervous as to how this will turn out. Please BIS, think twice before this goes live.

[freesets 11]

+1. Love you mate. I have been a huge fan since 2001 when a buddy of mine gave a me a disc with ofp beta was on it. HOOKED! EVER SINCE! I see this whole thing as a possible downfall to the best title and development studio ever. Im am very nervous as to how this will turn out. Please BIS, think twice before this goes live.

how could this be a downfall for the studio...they are not EA, nor EA bought them and turned them into some freemium crap...the only downfall i see is if they allow paid 3rd party addons to exist other than their dlc. if i understand the move here, its to cripple serves that mostly run for pirated versions of the game and/or with stolen content to make money on something they dont own.

in fact if they allow this, cheaters will go away, since most cheaters are 12 yo with no money and they usually get banned after a few weeks, so even if they have money they wont pay just for a few weeks.

[dscha 147]

*buzzersound*

You are wrong, they do! Since they have the money, they don't care if they get banned or not.

[freesets 11]

*buzzersound*

You are wrong, they do! Since they have the money, they don't care if they get banned or not.

less than those free servers. in bf2 dedicated servers runned by some clans back in 2006-2007 there were almost no cheaters, in the other servers(free) you could have cheaters stealing your tank from 50m away after an insta spawn. if the monetization is put into high quality hardware and paid mods, then it is a win.

[I give up 152]

less than those free servers. in bf2 dedicated servers runned by some clans back in 2006-2007 there were almost no cheaters, in the other servers(free) you could have cheaters stealing your tank from 50m away after an insta spawn. if the monetization is put into high quality hardware and paid mods, then it is a win.

This is not about paid mods, is about paid items.

This means that in these servers if you want to have a fair gameplay you need to spend money with those items otherwise you will be limited against those who want or can buy those items access.

This is against the most basic fairness rule for a balanced gameplay. Online gaming used to be a equal for everyone no matter the social or financial conditions. Arma was one of last bastions preserving the justice and equality for those who play no matter the size of their pockets. Now its gone.

It starts to look like CS GO where those who have pockets to afford a shiny knife spend the whole match with knife in their hands just too show how amazing they are, the difference is that in CS GO besides ego boost does not have any other impact while with Arma it will have a direct impact in gameplay.

And looking at first server monetization approval we can see that this kind of procedure will be applied widely.