Arma 3 Server monetization

[freesets 11]

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.

i know that, but sadly this is the only way to ensure that people pay for the server fees(hardware and mods), otherwise, like in the past, donations and subscriptions didnt work very well, so the only option is to degrade a little the experience of those that dont pay, in order to make them pay a fee. its the same with other paid services in other businesses, in case of games the best way(not the fairest) is the pay for win. and the thing is that arma, as i understand it, wont force you to play on those servers, unless you choose them. its not bf2free or other freemium crap where the only option is pay the best gun and frag everybody to collect likes on youtube.

now if this practice will ensure high quality servers and almost 0 cheaters, then i will buy the better item. only time will tell if this move is pure greed or financing for quality server time(one server like you said there dont define the others).

[Johny 25]

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

Could you elaborate? Extreme Pudding Mix are charging for the reserved slots.

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.

we will decide in each individual case when and what we will publish, but I don't want this turned into a witch hunt. (Also I would like to point out that if we publish something and later decide to go to court over the matter, it might damage our chances of success.)

Your point is clear - you don't trust us to enforce the rules. But at the same time you say we did not enforce them in the past so from that point of view I do not see how us adding a public database with approved servers can make the situation any worse.

[rksl-rock 1301]

we will decide in each individual case when and what we will publish, but I don't want this turned into a witch hunt. (Also I would like to point out that if we publish something and later decide to go to court over the matter, it might damage our chances of success.)

I'm not trying to suggest that it should be a witch hunt. And trust me, as I said previously, I am painfully aware of the legal process and the problems of airing issues in public prior to a hearing. What I am saying is that once the results of that hearing is made BIS needs to be communicating that.

In the current climate eg: (Huge Thread about A3L making $200,000 of the back of a hugely commercial scale "Donations" scam) + (BIS Public Response of "We emailed them and told them to stop it") = Public impression of "We dont care about our EULA".

*If* BIS is/has taken action, once that action is complete then you *need* to make a statement. In my circle of friends there has been much discussion about this topic. No one has ever seen or heard of any confirmation or any action.

Your point is clear - you don't trust us to enforce the rules.

Good, I'm glad it’s clear. I was getting concerned it wasn’t.

But it isn't just me saying this. Approach any of the "bigger names in this community", the ones that have been around for a decade. Then ask the new guys that are contributing to the community, ask them their opinions too. Ask them what they really, honestly think. Then listen.

You have a huge number of seriously dedicated, Seriously talented and incredibly intelligent followers in the community. Ask them for their opinions, respond properly and they will help you make your "modding community" a leader in developing a first class talent marketplace that will attract a far larger modding fan base then we've ever seen here. Done properly I can see the same chances that the first Flight Sim markets places had. 15 years later people are still buying the games and the addons. MS hasn't touched the product for years and it’s still selling in comfortable numbers. This community has done well but it’s not what it once was. If it’s going to last much longer it needs to have confidence in BIS.

...But at the same time you say we did not enforce them in the past so from that point of view I do not see how us adding a public database with approved servers can make the situation any worse.

I'm not saying this particular action is making it worse. I'm saying that this is the wrong time to be doing this. Its like putting a band-aid on a severed leg. Its a nice thought but isn't going to stop the bleeding. The likes of A3L will continue to plow on until stopped. And given they use community made content for 80% of their business they won’t want to give up now.

I do agree, licensing "commercial" servers does need to happen given what’s gone on. It addresses the BIS EULA Non-commercialization clause that has been flouted by existing server operators. However it doesn't stop anyone from doing exactly what they are now doing unless they "sign-up" to your database and request a licence. Let’s be honest, the worst offenders will never register let alone get to the point where they would be refused a licence. So it gets back to the issue of EULA enforcement and public confidence.

Now if you monetize addons & servers then people will get interested and you will have a better take up. Addons makers will have a chance to get something back for their efforts. As it stands today almost every mod team is re-evaluating their releases since A3L. Almost every addon maker i know is reluctant to release anything they think "Life server admins" could exploit. So Servers alone isn't a solution for anyone in the modding community. No one wants to pay for vanilla servers. Every group I've talked to, played with, or even just seen uses addons to enhance their gaming experience.

I'm not out to cause trouble. I'm trying to look after my own interests I freely admit that. But I do genuinely want to see positive change. I want to have confidence in BIS. But right now its hard to believe when there is no evidence that real and meaningful change will happen.

I want to believe!

Please prove us all wrong.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I'm not saying this particular action is making it worse. I'm saying that this is the wrong time to be doing this. Its like putting a band-aid on a severed leg. Its a nice thought but isn't going to stop the bleeding. The likes of A3L will continue to plow on until stopped. And given they use community made content for 80% of their business they won’t want to give up now.

What are you saying then? When IS the right time to put a band-aid on a severed leg? Is the answer the obvious: "Never"? If it's not better or worse, then the only answer here is that they've done nothing and all this talk is pointless. But it's obviously not, and that's why this thread is going on.

It sounds like you're saying "Doing nothing is better than doing something" and "Putting in any kind of publicized effort now is bad because there was no publicized effort in the past".

What's your solution? Do you have that silver bullet that will make everyone happy? Is the solution to send all this effort back in it's room because it isn't welcome and then BI can start earning brownie points until "big names in the community" decide that BI is worthy of putting in effort? Do I qualify? I've been here longer than the stated requirements.

Why can't the progress start from here and now, with what's actually being done? Is it so bad to have a list of "nice" monetization servers that can get some publicity because they're following the rules when it's easier and more tempting not to? After all that's said and done, why not give it a benefit of a doubt for a year and see what happens?

In the end, all profit dramas in this community are developed in the shadow of those who want to be or have proclaimed themselves to be "the big names in the community". The community in where increase of "largeness of your name" is apparently measured by the amount of questions like "Are you adding variant X", "When is the release date", "Any news?" and the amount of times they can say "When it's ready". Not the first, and not the last time it's been like that. And we've seen so many of those "big names in the community" implode over their own expectations when the community calls them on their bluffs, the bluffs they kept repeating "I do this for myself, because it's fun, it's a hobby and I release whenever I please".

The lifeblood? They chug along, doing it for themselves, because it's fun, because it's a hobby and they release whenever they please.

Anyway, back on track. I for one welcome all the monetization efforts, by BI and the community. While I don't support it because it's been historically sad to see the effects it had every time it reared it's new head in the last decade, it's hilarious to stand and watch the "big names in the community" eat themselves apart and the pieces of the community that hosts them, bit by bit. Yet it's still here, going on without them, doing new things because their thing is an old fad now.

And if it implodes into nothing? It's been a great ride.

[rksl-rock 1301]

What are you saying then? When IS the right time to put a band-aid on a severed leg? Is the answer the obvious: "Never"? If it's not better or worse, then the only answer here is that they've done nothing and all this talk is pointless. But it's obviously not, and that's why this thread is going on.

What is it I'm saying? Seriously you dont see a flaw in this Server-only plan?

No one else seems to have a problem recognizing the Elephant in the room.

It sounds like you're saying "Doing nothing is better than doing something" and "Putting in any kind of publicized effort now is bad because there was no publicized effort in the past".

Again, if you think that you havent understood what I and others have said.

What's your solution? Do you have that silver bullet that will make everyone happy? Is the solution to send all this effort back in it's room because it isn't welcome and then BI can start earning brownie points until "big names in the community" decide that BI is worthy of putting in effort? Do I qualify? I've been here longer than the stated requirements.

You know what, you've just proven that you've already made your mind up. Nothing I say or anyone else says will change that.

But what the hell i'll bite. :rolleyes:

The solution, dont push a solution that doesnt fix anything for the majority. Look at what is really needed and work on solving that problem. IE stop the bleeding, cauterize the wound. Clean it up, manage the pain and find a way to get the person walking. Then when they get blisters, use a band-aid.

Actually the point of mentioning the "Names" was to poll the opinions of those that are heavily invested in the community. And if you bother to read past your prejudices you see I also said talk to the new guys that are contributing to the community. Meaning, talk to the both ends of the fan base.

Why can't the progress start from here and now, with what's actually being done? Is it so bad to have a list of "nice" monetization servers that can get some publicity because they're following the rules when it's easier and more tempting not to? After all that's said and done, why not give it a benefit of a doubt for a year and see what happens?

Because this isn't going to instigate progress. Its a fix for one very small aspect of the issue. And since the majority of active game servers - especially those accepting "donations" - all use custom content its not a solution for the majority.

In the end, all profit dramas in this community are developed in the shadow of those who want to be or have proclaimed themselves to be "the big names in the community". The community in where increase of "largeness of your name" is apparently measured by the amount of questions like "Are you adding variant X", "When is the release date", "Any news?" and the amount of times they can say "When it's ready". Not the first, and not the last time it's been like that. And we've seen so many of those "big names in the community" implode over their own expectations when the community calls them on their bluffs, the bluffs they kept repeating "I do this for myself, because it's fun, it's a hobby and I release whenever I please".

Passive aggressive. Nice response. Please feel free to imply that I eat babies and torture kittens next.

And for the record, if you actually take part in the actual modding side of the community you'd know what i've been contributing for the last 4 years.

The lifeblood? They chug along, doing it for themselves, because it's fun, because it's a hobby and they release whenever they please.

Yes we do. :)

Anyway, back on track. I for one welcome all the monetization efforts, by BI and the community. While I don't support it because it's been historically sad to see the effects it had every time it reared it's new head in the last decade, it's hilarious to stand and watch the "big names in the community" eat themselves apart and the pieces of the community that hosts them, bit by bit. Yet it's still here, going on without them, doing new things because their thing is an old fad now.

And if it implodes into nothing? It's been a great ride.

You really have missed the point that we've been making haven't you. You see everything as an attack and not constructive criticism.

Shame. I had a lot of respect for your opinions until you descended into passive aggressive insults. Sad, very sad.

Edited February 14, 2015 by RKSL-Rock

[.kju 3245]

While you make many valid and good points Rock, you should not take the position to speak for "all or most of xxx people".

You speak for yourself and your immediate friends, and maybe some groups. That's it. Of course it doesn't discount that many

others still with share your view or agree with all/most of your points. Still taking that position weakens your position.

Certainly the vast majority of players right now plays without mods at all, or just one specific. Ref: http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics

Also I would agree with Sniperwolf that most modders do it for fun - either they dont release it at all, as they just use it for themselves

or for the friends, or they share it here/armaholic/etc and no longer care at all or much aside from getting feedback.

In fact most of the mission making, scripting and config tweaks since OFP has been about remixing - in general without

any consideration to copyright, license or agreements. Most people just dont care about these things.

That said I think they matter - especially for projects lots of time and effort has been put into.

Yet it is just weakens the arguments and positions taken on any topic related to modding, if this is not taken into consideration.

Until BI takes appropriate action to A3L and similar, aka force them to pay back (or to a charity if the former is not feasible for whatever reason),

and blacklists at least servers abusing as grave as A3L, it is natural to be doubtful about their initiative.

(However to be realistic, it will probably be very hard to stop A3L and the likes on a technical and legal level for several reasons)

At the same time one probably has to recognize that this new rule might be necessary for BI to take (more) effective action.

If you think otherwise, community members or groups who feel very strongly about this, should find appropriate legal experts and programmers,

to either assist BI with advice or establish an organization to enforce the rights themselves.

Personally I think with extremists positions, like "no abuse may happen at all", you will end up in a closed environment like Apple's app store.

In other words think of DayZ SA with just licensed companies allowed to host servers at all, like for BF3, and no modding at all is possible,

or the company decides what mod can be done and what mods is allowed to be used on the servers. This is where this would had to end up.

And even then it will be circumvented, no real positive effects and you only end up with the all the grave negatives of that approach.

As such BI's approach so far seems mostly sensible - so far just their handling of A3L seems extremely poor and only future actions by BI

can show if they will take a more resolute and effective stance.

Edited February 14, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Sniperwolf572 758]

What is it I'm saying? Seriously you dont see a flaw in this Server-only plan?

...

No one else seems to have a problem recognizing the Elephant in the room.

...

Again, if you think that you havent understood what I and others have said.

I see a lot of flaws with trying to monetize the community effort in any way, and I do not support it at all, not just the servers. If you read further down in the post, you'll see why, but you've sectioned that part off to apparently be an insult towards you. But we're here discussing this, which is what I'm focusing on.

When money is involved, there will always be problems, and everyone always expects BI themselves to solve it for them. Even without money when things get stolen and used in other addons, the authors come and sit at BI's door expecting them to sue, slap and whatever the offending party, and BI does what BI can do, they don't allow it on the forums and that's pretty much that. The rest of the fight is on the authors, who mostly seem unwilling to continue the fight.

The solution, dont push a solution that doesnt fix anything for the majority. Look at what is really needed and work on solving that problem. IE stop the bleeding, cauterize the wound. Clean it up, manage the pain and find a way to get the person walking. Then when they get blisters, use a band-aid.

Seriously? I can sum the first part in the same way again and then we descend into the metaphor solutions on how to make a man who lost his leg walk again.

I'm asking for what you'd actually do in this situation, propose a solution, don't make us drag it out of you here. Be open. Propose a plan of action. Maybe something can come out of it. And stop with the methaphor, it doesn't help your argument. State what solutions would make your heart flutter. That IS my point.

... you see I also said talk to the new guys that are contributing to the community. Meaning, talk to the both ends of the fan base.

I'll agree, I did miss that, you did say that. I missed it solely because "the big names in the community" type of descriptions of anyone make me want to bang my head against the desk, especially when used in discussions such as these, as you can obviously tell.

Passive aggressive. Nice response. Please feel free to imply that I eat babies and torture kittens next.

...

You really have missed the point that we've been making haven't you. You see everything as an attack and not constructive criticism.

...

Shame. I had a lot of respect for your opinions until you descended into passive aggressive insults. Sad, very sad.

Paint it away, as you please.

I probably should've split my post in two, since the majority of the post is actual general commentary to the attitude of the certain part of the community. If you find my commentary what I said as passive-agressive insults towards you, that was not my intention, that's solely on you. There have been a great many people over the years in the community who have actually imploded in on themselves over the years, even over more minor issues and I'd rather not name names, but I'm sure if you step back and look at it you'll see it too.

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

;2880426']

Until BI takes appropriate action to A3L and similar' date=' aka force them to pay back (or to a charity if the former is not feasible for whatever reason),

and blacklists at least servers abusing as grave as A3L, it is natural to be doubtful about their initiative.

(However to be realistic, it will probably be very hard to stop A3L and the likes on a technical and legal level for several reasons)

At the same time one probably has to recognize that this new rule might be necessary for BI to take (more) effective action.

If you think otherwise, community members or groups who feel very strongly about this, should find appropriate legal experts and programmers,

to either assist BI with advice or establish an organization to enforce the rights themselves.

Personally I think if extremists positions, like "no abuse may happen at all", you will end up in a closed environment like Apple's app store.

In other words think of DayZ SA with just licensed companies allowed to host servers at all, like for BF3, and not modding at all is possible,

or the company decides what mod can be done and what mods is allowed to be used on the servers. This is where this would had to end up.

And even then it will be circumvented, no real positive effects and you only end up with the all the grave negatives of that approach.

As such BI's approach so far seems mostly sensible - so far just their handling of A3L seems extremely poor and only future actions by BI

can show if they will take a more resolute and effective stance.[/quote']

Well put .kju. The only thing I don't ever think will happen is expecting BI to make anyone "pay it back" is probably an impossible task.

On the other hand, solutions such as outright blacklisting servers from the lists, preventing connections and making it hard in general for those "bad" servers to operate and generate income is something that I believe can actually be done and would be a good way to fight against them.

How many people will pay to play on a server that constantly disappears from the server lists, the game refuses to connect to them or outright disconnects them within a short period? Not many I'd say. People flip their shit over 2 dollar DLC, let alone paying double digit numbers to buy access to a vehicle on a single server.

[terox 316]

;2880426']

Also I would agree with Sniperwolf that most modders do it for fun - either they dont release it at all' date=' as they just use it for themselves

or for the friends, or they share it here/armaholic/etc and no longer care at all or much aside from getting feedback.

In fact most of the mission making, scripting and config tweaks since OFP has been about remixing - in general without

any consideration to copyright, license or agreements. Most people just dont care about these things.

[/quote']

My point of view on this is...

That until now, there has been no expectation that any content made by any 3rd party (Be it an addon or a mission) would be used by a 4th party for economical gain.

My reasoning for this is that

a) The established B.I agreement forbade it

b) Historically, until recently, it has never afaik been used in that way.

I believe this is a fundamental point that needs to be taken into consideration when arguing your points.

In my opinion, 3rd party content is extremely important to this community and the freedom of use of that content has been a major factor in its growth and longjevity.

We are now in a position where B.I have made their decision and it is in place for at least a year

I think its fair to assume, that anyone who does not want to abide by the rules, will simply not sign up to them, detracting somewhat from the Good Server list's usefulness and creating more difficulty to police the issues at hand.

So far we have discussed our concerns over the future effects on our beloved community of B.I's decision

So moving on from this..........

I think it would now be prudent to get feedback from the 3rd party content makers, (addons and missions included) about how this will effect their future releases.

Fortunately we have Rock and Kju following this thread and hopefully a lot more content makers.

So a few questions if you would (To every content maker following this thread)....

( A poll would be better)

Will you continue to release content and work on your existing projects ?

1) If not why Not ?

2) If yes

a) What EULA if any will you release with your content ?

b) Would you want / expect any economical gain other than donations ?

Edited February 14, 2015 by Terox

[rksl-rock 1301]

;2880426']While you make many valid and good points Rock' date=' you should not take the position to speak for "all or most of xxx people".

You speak for yourself and your immediate friends, and maybe some groups. That's it. Of course it doesn't discount that many

others still with share your view or agree with all/most of your points. Still taking that position weakens your position.[/quote']

Thats more than a tad ironic coming from you. Where exactly do I say that I am speaking for everyone? In fact i've made it clear i am speaking for myself and responding based on conversations with my friends. I'd suggest you go back and re-read my posts with a more open mind.

Certainly the vast majority of players right now plays without mods at all' date=' or just one specific. Ref: [url']http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics[/url]

Now that is genuinely interesting. I've yet to come across a vanilla game mode in my circle of friends. For us its all about the milsim.

;2880426']Also I would agree with Sniperwolf that most modders do it for fun - either they dont release it at all' date=' as they just use it for themselves

or for the friends, or they share it here/armaholic/etc and no longer care at all or much aside from getting feedback.

In fact most of the mission making, scripting and config tweaks since OFP has been about remixing - in general without

any consideration to copyright, license or agreements. Most people just dont care about these things.

That said I think they matter - especially for projects lots of time and effort has been put into.

Yet it is just weakens the arguments and positions taken on any topic related to modding, if this is not taken into consideration.[/quote']

Talking about not respecting copyright takes this discussion Off-topic. But I take the point thats its relative to the issue of Enforcing the EULAs.

RE "Fun" I dont disagree. In fact its the reason I'm still active in the community. But again I've never said anywhere anything that contradicts "most modders do it for fun". In the context of this discussion, ie Monetisation of ONLY Servers that not monetising addons to does not make sense. Please point me to where you think i've said that.

;2880426']Until BI takes appropriate action to A3L and similar' date=' aka force them to pay back (or to a charity if the former is not feasible for whatever reason),

and blacklists at least servers abusing as grave as A3L, it is natural to be doubtful about their initiative.

(However to be realistic, it will probably be very hard to stop A3L and the likes on a technical and legal level for several reasons)

At the same time one probably has to recognize that this new rule might be necessary for BI to take (more) effective action.

If you think otherwise, community members or groups who feel very strongly about this, should find appropriate legal experts and programmers,

to either assist BI with advice or establish an organization to enforce the rights themselves.[/quote']

I disagree with this. I've seen other companies enforce their licenses far more often for much smaller scale offences.

For most of the last decade I've worked with various Militaries and organisations, Game studios, TV/film companies all around Europe and the US. My experience is that, while enforcing these licenses is time consuming its not as hard as you describe. It just needs to be actively managed. Which goes back to the issue of building confidence in your customer base.

;2880426']Personally I think with extremists positions' date=' like "no abuse may happen at all", you will end up in a closed environment like Apple's app store.

In other words think of DayZ SA with just licensed companies allowed to host servers at all, like for BF3, and no modding at all is possible,

or the company decides what mod can be done and what mods is allowed to be used on the servers. This is where this would had to end up.

And even then it will be circumvented, no real positive effects and you only end up with the all the grave negatives of that approach.[/quote']

To be honest, the conversations i've been part of recently people are expecting the "Apple store" scenario with BIS and Steamworkshop. Which does rather concern me since I have serious reservations about the SWS licence.

I really do hope there will still be a Freeware scene in the community. It nearly died out in the FlightSim community when people began selling addons. The rampant theft for the first 3-5 years nearly destroyed it. But that was before the sort of purchase controls that Steam allows.

;2880426']As such BI's approach so far seems mostly sensible - so far just their handling of A3L seems extremely poor and only future actions by BI

can show if they will take a more resolute and effective stance.

I dont agree. In isolation the server monetisation makes sense. But in the context of everything else that's going on' date=' especially the "life servers" dramas we've all seen its only half a solution.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

I see a lot of flaws with trying to monetize the community effort in any way, and I do not support it at all, not just the servers. If you read further down in the post, you'll see why, but you've sectioned that part off to apparently be an insult towards you. But we're here discussing this, which is what I'm focusing on.

You seem to think that I want monetisation? I’ve said many, many times that I don’t want Payware in the ArmA community. I said it years ago when Marek first mentioned it on these very forums.

Quite frankly, you previous post does just read as a very directed insult and its not just me that read it that way.

When money is involved, there will always be problems, and everyone always expects BI themselves to solve it for them. Even without money when things get stolen and used in other addons, the authors come and sit at BI's door expecting them to sue, slap and whatever the offending party, and BI does what BI can do, they don't allow it on the forums and that's pretty much that. The rest of the fight is on the authors, who mostly seem unwilling to continue the fight.

You really have missed the point and obviously haven’t spoken with the affected authors properly. Get on TS with some of them one night. Its really interesting.

The issue is that A3L are bragging about how they have permission from BIS and no one else can stop them. Yes individual addon makers can pursue legal action but the fact that BIS are *seen* not to be enforcing their own licence does not inspire any confidence in BIS’ other solutions.

You and others suggest that addon makers expect BIS to enforce their EULAs for addon makers. Its never been that case. Addon makers expect BIS to enforce the BIS EULA and when they don’t it breeds ill feeling. Which is exactly where we are today.

Seriously? I can sum the first part in the same way again and then we descend into the metaphor solutions on how to make a man who lost his leg walk again.

I'm asking for what you'd actually do in this situation, propose a solution, don't make us drag it out of you here. Be open. Propose a plan of action. Maybe something can come out of it. And stop with the methaphor, it doesn't help your argument. State what solutions would make your heart flutter. That IS my point.

LMAO, I’ve already proposed solutions many times here in several threads, AMAR, in email and in public and private skype channels with various BI staff and community members. In essence:

1. Enforce the BIS EULA prove to the community that BIS is serious.
   
2. Provide a solution that addresses the concerns of the community. To do that:
   
   1. 
      
   2. First Talk to the community
      
   3. Be clear about what BIS is actually trying to achieve in terms of the end goal. I’m still not sure exactly what that is even after reading all the newsletters etc. Everyone seems to have a different opinion about that.
      
   4. Look at the recurring issues in terms of EULA breaches for both BIS and community made content.
      
   5. Look at the User experience first – how is will this actually work? How can it be made simpler and clearer to all.
      
   6. If the plan is to embrace a single SWS Marketplace make sure that the mechanics of the market place meet user needs:
      
      1. “Life†Server scenarios (Which the current Monetisation scheme only begins to address)
         
      2. Non-Profit Milsim GU/Clans/Groups
         
      3. Casual Players
         
      4. Open Addon-enabled game modes
         
      5. Closed Addon-enabled game modes
         

      I freely admit it’s not an easy process but it’s also not going to be solved by making small changes to small aspects of the issue. And I believe that BIS is not looking at this problem from the best direction or with reacting to address the larger issues that affect the minority of addon makers.

      My friends and I fall into the Milsim categories; we have our own specific needs and concerns. Everyone else, each group and there are probably a lot more than I listed will also have theirs. Much past my own concerns and some of the issues I can see with the “Life†issues I really dont understand enough to make a sweeping statement which is why i am talking in general terms.

      I'll agree, I did miss that, you did say that. I missed it solely because "the big names in the community" type of descriptions of anyone make me want to bang my head against the desk, especially when used in discussions such as these, as you can obviously tell.

      I’m not a fan of the “Fame†card either, but it is an easy way to identify a group that have strong views about what ‘should’ happen. They know how the community works and they feel strongly about protecting the community.

      The new guys that are actively contributing now have equally strong views too. Somewhere in the middle is a good balance.

      And for the Record, I don’t like the “Famous†tag. Especially when people stick in around my neck. Ask any of the 3cdo guys, any of my team and friends. It makes me very uncomfortable.

      Paint it away, as you please.

      And we got back to passive aggression. Look, as I said I normally have a lot of respect for your opinions. You’ve always been a good indicator of the middle ground for me but the tone of your post was very poor. Several of my mates read it and saw it as a personal attack not a discussion. I did too.

      I probably should've split my post in two, since the majority of the post is actual general commentary to the attitude of the certain part of the community. If you find my commentary what I said as passive-agressive insults towards you, that was not my intention, that's solely on you. There have been a great many people over the years in the community who have actually imploded in on themselves over the years, even over more minor issues and I'd rather not name names, but I'm sure if you step back and look at it you'll see it too.not name names, but I'm sure if you step back and look at it you'll see it too.

      It would have helped definitely.

      If you are suggesting I’m one of them I’m going to say you are wrong. I have a very grounding group of friends that moderate me. I also have a plan of how I want to proceed in ArmA given recent changes etc. And having said that I am going to continue to fight to protect my interests and the interests of my group. You are welcome to disagree and I really am open to changing my views if my concerns prove to be unfounded. But I will never sit passively by while I have my rights stripped away or get insulted.

      I still maintain that this monetisation scheme is badly timed and not far reaching enough. And fundamentally does not meet the real need the community has.

   
   

Edited February 14, 2015 by RKSL-Rock

[.kju 3245]

@ Terox

BI only ever has disallowed commercial activities when their tools or assets were used.

Otherwise it was always possible and has been done since OFP. So maybe you need to rethink your position there.

How does the list "create more difficulty"?

Also keep in mind that at least informed/aware people have defined the possibility or not of commercial use of their work for a long time.

In fact Marek I think even during A1 days made people aware of the importance of licenses for published community made content.

[I give up 152]

Could you elaborate? Extreme Pudding Mix are charging for the reserved slots.

I am unable to see the reason for what the monetization authorization was granted with those servers.

Anyway, I don't see the monetization a solution, I don't see that start issuing legal actions around the world is something feasible.

In fact, wanting to stop the chaos installed there are more effective and simple ways, for instance, a Authentication/Authorization system for server hosting.

A simple system regulated by Terms of Service where every server to become visible in server listing would have to be authorized and authenticated by BIS, if the server does not comply with the rules the authorization would not be granted or failing to abide the rules the authorization could be removed at any time. Obviously the server still could run in as no authorized but in short term these servers will be empty because they are not listed and also because no one wants to play in a no authorized server.

I do think that charging for servers access should be allowed if run by closed communities with private servers and having full rights for the extra content provided.

I do think that donations should be allowed for public server but without any content access restriction.

I do think that creators (modders) rights should be protected and since Arma relies heavily in mods this activity needs to be encouraged.

I do not see monetization as the solution for this.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Bratwurste

[torndeco 128]

Could you elaborate? Extreme Pudding Mix are charging for the reserved slots.

Am just curious, since i can't quiet grasp if this is meant as something that is acceptable or not under the new server monetization rules.

Since the rules declare its either either fully open or closed off and don't directly mentioned reserved slots.

My personally 2 cents its about the only decent + fair way for server administrators to raise funds.

Once its limited to like around 5-10% of total slots to the server.

The only issues really is its not always clear why a player is getting kicked.

Also would be alot better if reserved slots were integrated into the game itself.

[.kju 3245]

Reserved slots can be currently done by scripting or BattlEye (ie BEC).

I would argue both are way better than any hardcoded system as this would limit the flexibility.

What is needed is an option to allow more people to join than the current number of playable units.

Also to have access to the (reduced) VM with scripting capabilities during the briefing would be useful - ie to inform players.

Finally the joining to server should be extracted to a separate thread and a queuing system to avoid impact

on the server when there is too much activity/too many people joining "at the same time".

That said unfortunately it is very unlikely to have any progress in this area any time soon.

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

So reserved slots is charging for guaranteed access to the server without any gameplay effects.

Lets also be clear that most/many clans always have a membership fee to pay for the server, TS and website.

To finance the server via donations is only prevalent in groups or for public servers hosted by individuals.

@ Bratwurste

How is a Authentication/Authorization system simple (to realize) or "more effective"?

Both the Arma/DZ SA client and server have been cracked and allow to run "illegal servers".

It is by no means simple to protect against this - if at all possible.

An opt-in system to run a server/have it visible in the official server browser (would that really had an affect on A3L? no)

or to officially register community made content and/or to get the "official permission by BI" to run this, is by no means

simple to realize, creates a huge hassle for everyone involved and will be circumvented fairly easily and quickly.

What BI could do, is to create a logging system to know what content (missions+mods) servers are running to verify and

have evidence when necessary.

That said it is likely also very hard to make this reliable and again should be very hard to protect this against cracking/tempering.

[dscha 147]

+ a protection of resigning Addons/Models.

P.S.

As long as i can't see any progress against A3L, i won't/can't believe this will end well for the Community (especialy Modder).

[.kju 3245]

If you think resigning of pbos is a problem, you don't understand the concept of it.

It is a design requirement to be able to do that.

[dscha 147]

Design requirement?! oO

The meaning, thats why i mentioned "models", behind is the following:

Sign/mark (or call it how you like it) your p3d Files. So it's quiet easy to find out who's model it is and wich kind of License is given to that Model.

[.kju 3245]

In regards to Arma this is signing: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Addon_Signatures

To put a hard to find identity/authorship mark into your work, is always a good idea.

However if you refer to pbo encryption, best forget the idea immediately. It is not feasible for the end user.

Use search to learn the details in one of the previous threads.

[dscha 147]

I do know what Signing of pbo does, thx alot.

Where did i said something about pbo encryption? Where did you get that oO

I just said: (Maybe Implented?) Signing of P3D/Models files while (for EXAMPLE) binarize, to readout the original Author of it.

Anyway, nvm. Not the right place here to start a discussion...

[nuxil 2]

Reserved slots can be currently done by scripting or BattlEye (ie BEC).

I just want to burst in and say.

If any servers are charging for server access and they are using the tool (Bec) for whitelisting or slotlimiting, Let me know.

Bec is not to be used for any Commercial or Military purpose.

Having a "Pay to enter" is considered as commercial since the server owners are clearly having a profit from it.

Edited February 15, 2015 by nuxil

[.kju 3245]

@ Eggi

The p3d format is almost completely decoded (and it is technically very hard/impossible to protect it against such).

Therefore if you can extract a pbo, you can modify anything in the p3d - especially something as easy as a text field for the author(s).

I hope you understand the context now and the limitations with your idea.

[torndeco 128]

@.kju

Ahh thanks for copying/pasting the text etc...

Must have misread it the first time i looked over it.

I was under the impression it was either fully locked access like A3L pulled with donations or fully public servers.

Anyway hopefully BIS will revisit the Server Admins (+ not Modders) beening allowed to add advertisements + make money off non-gameplay effecting items.

As it seems awfully in the Admins favour, when Modders are the ones who do most of the work.

But to be honest most Modders will have No Comercial License Agreements anyways, so that just leaves standard arma content.

[I give up 152]

@ .Kju

Obviously authorization/authentication is not the miraculous cure, there always will be some one who may think that the rules are made to be broken, however it will be a much more effective than monetization in matters of regulation and author protection rights, even more if the non authorized servers are not allowed to run/stream Battleye, I have no doubts.

[.kju 3245]

@ Bratwurste

Care to explain your concept in more details? So far without more info, I can't see how the effects you state are to be realized.

[meshcarver 12]

Guys,

Sorry if I misunderstand this (not my area at all..!), but say if I released a full new map tomorrow, NOVA ZONA, does that mean if someone sticks it on their servers they can then charge people to play on their servers using said map? And in doing so make cash from using my work?

I know BI seem to be saying only if I give permission for them to do so, but surely it's next to impossible to stop people from hosting a map/mod if they really want to and then charging for it?

Is that a correct assesment of what's happening now or have I got it utterly wrong?

Edited February 16, 2015 by meshcarver

[.kju 3245]

Can they charge people to play on their servers using said map? And in doing so make cash from using my work?

Only if your license allows commercial use or by asking you for your consent/permission.

next to impossible to stop people from hosting a map/mod if they really want to and then charging for it?

Probably best and most realistic you can do, is to contact their server host, web host, domain registrar, payment provider, video platform

and inform them about the copyright/license infringement. If you provide very good, reliable proof in a concise manner, chances should

be decent to get those companies to stop their services with them.