Arma 3 Server monetization

[meshcarver 12]

Thanks for the reply Kju.

I really wouldn't have the time to be policing my own situation like that though when I think about it. It'd be a constant struggle if it was happening on multiple fronts too wouldn't it?

Plus, it sounds like a nightmare just waiting to happen...

It seems exceedingly strange and perverse that the people who do all the work of creating content to appeal to the masses and help keep them interested in ARMA and in doing so bring in new blood too cannot be rewarded for their efforts, whilst people who take this work (legally or not, again if my understanding is correct!) can benefit hugely by charging others to actually play it..?!

If I ever found myself experiencing that kind of situation with NOVA ZONA I would be utterly disheartened and for sure would cease any further work on it.

In fact, as I've now read through this entire thread, I'm convinced it would be completely brainless of me to release anything I've spent time creating into the wild, and so by not doing so would be the first and most effective step I can take in stopping the "process" of others trying to cash in on my work before it starts- I admit I am really scared of seeing my much loved and hard fought for work (time and effort) in the hands of people who use it to benefit themselves financially.

That would finish me off- it's the worst thing I can envisage happening, even worse than losing all my work to a faulty PC or similar.

This is another subject maybe, but shouldn't this be the other way round too? I can't think why, if server owners can monetise their situation, that the actual contents creators and mod makers can't have the option to do the same?

It doesn't make sense to me.

I know I'll take a lot of flak for this maybe, but weighed against the possibilities I've made above I simply don't care- as those possibilities represent the WORST outcomes for me personally.

If I had an "officially structured" option to monetise my efforts too, like the server owners do, then I would personally find that to be a HUGE motivation to carry on and make it the best quality I possibly could- plus it would reward me more time to actually spend on the project anyway and thus BI would in this case find themselves with MORE content produced by me..!

As it stands, I just don't see the point of working on something, releasing it, and then seeing it make money for others whilst I'm left to police those possible situations myself, respond to requests of fixes and updates from the community and try to convince myself I made the right decsion by releasing it in the first place.

What a horrible situation that would be...

[gossamersolid 155]

As it stands, I just don't see the point of working on something, releasing it, and then seeing it make money for others whilst I'm left to police those possible situations myself, respond to requests of fixes and updates from the community and try to convince myself I made the right decsion by releasing it in the first place.

What a horrible situation that would be...

If you have that point of view, then the best solution for you would be to not release anything.

Monetization for addons will kill any possible chance for getting 3rd party content on servers. It's hard enough as it is to get players to go through the process of downloading 3rd party addons (even if you provide tools to do so). Now you're asking for people who paid $60 for a game to pay $x for more content? This isn't how the OFP/ArmA community has ever worked and I'm hoping it stays that way.

[meshcarver 12]

If you have that point of view, then the best solution for you would be to not release anything.

Yes, exactly the point I'm trying to make. I mean come on man, WHERE is the motivation for mod makers in this situation..?

Also, do you think it's unreasonable to hold my point of view? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Here's another way to look at this: monetization for Server Owners has killed my enthusiasm to continue with this mod as a flip side to your point of view.

There has to be a middle ground in this mate- atm it is an exceedingly off putting situation for "some" content creators/mod makers I think.

Also it's probably worth me pointing out I would personally have no issues whatsoever with paying someone for their hard work if I was interested in using their mod/addon, no problem whatsoever as long as it was done all above board and "official".

Like it or not, it seems (I may be wrong) there is a business model involved here and as content creators and mod makers we are being associated with it, and as such should take an active role in its influence.

I appreciate your reply man, it's an interesting thread this one..! :)

PS, has there been an answer to this yet..?

So many holes in this...

After further thinking... let's say I make the coolest game mode/addon and I make it exclusive to my server, and charge a fee for people to access my server. What's the difference between that scenario, and just cutting out the middleman and charging a fee to download my mode/addon?

Actually,this guy is hitting all the points of issue:

Why does it make sense to give someone permission to monetize our mods or content when we're forbidden from doing the same thing ourselves? So we make something that we're not supposed to monetize, but then it's ok to donate it to someone and let them monetize it?

The only way to not be foolish and hypocritical is to mandate that anyone charging for access to their server can only use content that is completely free and available to the entire community. Otherwise, any single scrap of content that is being offered on a pay to play server is monetized content.

..and again, this is worth quoting and I'm in full agreement with his stance:

As someone who maintains a mod, and am continuing development, this change has me questioning if I want to continue. So now I have to keep track of which commercial interests have permission to use my mod? In the past it's been easy; no permission for A3L because of their moneymaking schemes, and all others have permission as long as altered versions don't show up in video or screenshots. Now I have to research which servers I feel might be skirting the line and then make a decision? Can I turn around and revoke my permission?

And I think it's absolute horseshit that mod makers can't ask for a portion of the proceeds that servers generate. A server uses your mods as a way to make their servers more attractive, and therefore more profitable, and you're not allowed to profit from your work increasing their value? Ridiculous! Your work is making them more valuable and you're not allowed to share in that at all.

I don't want to make a profit from my work, but at the same time I don't want to sit by while someone else profits from my time and effort. The fact that you're singling out that content can't be monetized is just a matter of twisting words. If a server uses my mod and people are paying for access, the server owners absolutely are making a profit from my work. Why should I spend time and effort for someone else to get paid?

I'll have to think it over, but I'm leaning towards ceasing public development of any content.

Edited February 17, 2015 by meshcarver

[.kju 3244]

Let's say I make the coolest game mode/addon and I make it exclusive to my server, and charge a fee for people to access my server.

What's the difference between that scenario, and just cutting out the middleman and charging a fee to download my mode/addon?

For mods this won't work as once people have to download the full mod, they have it and can do whatever they want effectively.

In addition if you were draft a license to allow only exclusive use on your server, you might get in conflict with BI (with server monetization).

In regards to MP missions/game modes, if you make a server side only component, you could make it effectively make it exclusive.

However to stop people from recreating your server side component/scrapping it, is quite hard to do.

In addition legally/Arma license-wise mission designers were always allowed/not forbidden to charge money for it, as you don't have to use

BI tools to create them strictly speaking. So far most people didn't see the incentive or successful outcome doing this - next to the general

consensus of this forum/most arma new sites not to tolerate that (mostly from their wrong understanding of BI licenses/EULA).

Why does it make sense to give someone permission to monetize our mods or content when we're forbidden from doing the same thing ourselves?

For example altruistic motives. Most people do modding for fun and not to earn money.

Not everyone has a problem with someone else earning money from partially your (free) work.

Look at the open source software scene for example - many projects explicitly allow commercial use;

To make more comprehensive products from it, or to provide people/firms reliable support services.

If you are strict with your position, you would had to disallow game server providers also to offer servers

with community made content (pre-installed/interface to auto install (PWS)).

As for "ourselves" aka allow modders to monetize their work:

Marek has announced 1.5 years ago that they are looking into it, and Steam/Valve recently started to make their system

usable by 3rd party publishers/developers.

Why is it not available yet? To name the most important ones coming to mind:

1. BI most certainly wont build their own platform for that
   
2. BI has not even finished Steam workshop integration and other components necessary for any such system
   
3. Valve/Steam did not provide support for such system so far
   
4. Legal and technical complexity involved
   
5. Big challenge to find the right model for Arma
   
6. The considerable resistance against the idea - at least in this forum as "everything has been fine in the last ten years"
   and "money corrupts everything/everybody" (for more read this thread and that thread)
   

Now I have to research which servers I feel might be skirting the line and then make a decision?

You don't have to. You can also just not care what others are doing with your work.

It is up to you to make up your mind and define a license to clarify what you allow others and disallow.

Most people probably dont care at all as they make it just for themselves or their friends,

or only care about giving others enjoyment/etc or to get feedback.

What bothers me personally are these extremist or naive views - there is no perfect world, there is no one right approach.

Everything is about weighting arguments to come to the best compromise.

Edited February 17, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

[meshcarver 12]

Good post Kju.

There are valid points but it still doesn't alter present reality for my position personally.

As it is right now, I've decided I just can't release my map (in development) publicly as the thought of other people benefitting from all the hard work and sacrifices involved just sickens me and feels extremely unjust.

I could probably continue development but in its original form- for my own enjoyment and experince.

I think I should take some time out to decide what I'm going to do with what I have so far.

Right now though after finding out about this subject it feels like a stomach punch.

I hope there's a satisfactory conclusion to all this.

Edited February 17, 2015 by meshcarver

[.kju 3244]

I think you are fooling yourself here. You, me, others may or may not like this very policy/license change here.

However what has changed to the situation before in your case? Nothing.

Server admins can benefit from your work only if you give them permission to do so.

If they just ignore your wishes, people can abuse the system as they could before and have done before.

The only real change so far is that A3L brought way more attention to this problem, and BI is trying to find

a reasonable policy to deal with it.

So again what has changed for your situation?

[Variable 322]

Good post Kju.

There are valid points but it still doesn't alter present reality for my position personally.

As it is right now, I've decided I just can't release my map (in development) publicly as the thought of other people benefitting from all the hard work and sacrifices involved just sickens me and feels extremely unjust.

I could probably continue development but in its original form- for my own enjoyment and experince.

I think I should take some time out to decide what I'm going to do with what I have so far.

Right now though after finding out about this subject it feels like a stomach punch.

I hope there's a satisfactory conclusion to all this.

This is terrible news. Are there other mod makers that ceased their development because of this? BIS, what are you going to do in order to answer that?

[das attorney 858]

@ .kju

You are saying conflicting things....

I create "DAS_ATTORNEYS_SUPER_MOD" and then give me exclusive rights to charge money for access to my own server. I don't want anyone else that uses my mod to be allowed to charge money (be it donations or otherwise) for access to their servers or for use of the mod.

Note that at this point (or indeed ever), I'm not charging people to use "DAS_ATTORNEYS_SUPER_MOD". I'm only charging them for access to my server - (hey that's fair, servers cost money don't you know, ask Life community).

As a server owner, I would then fully expect Bohemia Interactive to use whatever powers they have available to takedown any servers that want to charge money for access to their server, if they are using "DAS_ATTORNEYS_SUPER_MOD". Remember, I'm not charging $$$ for the mod, just to cover my server bills.

Yet you say:

For mods this won't work as once people have to download the full mod, they have it and can do whatever they want effectively.

No they can't. They CANNOT charge money for access to their servers. It's in my licence. I don't give a shit what they do with it offline. Online though, I expect that to be enforced by Bohemia as per their EULA. Read this quote from Johny:

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.

So really, they're protecting me. I don't need to lift a damn finger as BI will do all that because it's THEIR rights that have been infringed.

Your next sentence then says:

In addition if you were draft a license to allow only exclusive use on your server, you might get in conflict with BI (with server monetization).

So the message here is to get $$$ server access approved by Bohemia BEFORE releasing the mod. I see what you mean here, so you are saying I should seek permission to charge access to my Server from Bohemia, and then release "DAS_ATTORNEYS_SUPER_MOD". I would be quite silly to release the mod and then seek permission from Bohemia to monetise my server. They could say no (and then I would feel like a right fool)!! Thanks for the tip.

So, the procedure is as follows:

1 - Buy/rent server

2 - Release v0.1 mod (with no real content in it but with exclusive licence only for me to charge money for server access)

3 - Get permission from Bohemia to monetise server

4 - WAIT UNTIL I have written permission from Bohemia in my hands

4 - Release v0.2 mod (with full content, but same licence).

5 - Profit err pay server bills

I would then have the time to police the net myself and report unauthorised $$$ of my mod on other servers to Bohemia, who are then duty bound to enforce their EULA and stop the monetisation of "DAS_ATTORNEYS_SUPER_MOD". Wow that's nice of them to do that for free for me. I'm glad they don't mind paying for international copyright lawyers and translators and the like. That shit sounds expensive to me!

:rolleyes:

Can you see what a big stinking pile of poo this is?

Are we expected to become a community of server-owners only ever charging for "server bills"? lol

Will BI even choose to enforce their rights? (remember it's their rights broken as per Johnys quote above). They could just look at the projected cost to enforce a server-takedown in Russia or China and think "no way". I would imagine in this case I would receive an email from them saying:

"sorry Das Attorney, but we cannot enforce this breach of our licence for *reasons*. You are free to pursue the breach of your licence through the Russian legal system. Я желаю вам удачи!"

Easier to sweep under carpet and move on....

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Thanks for the reply Kju.

whilst people who take this work (legally or not, again if my understanding is correct!) can benefit hugely by charging others to actually play it..?!

This is only partly correct assumption that might have been clouding the rest of your posts. Without your permission, they cannot legally benefit. For me to legally profit off of your work following steps are needed:

1. You have to give your permission to me (either blanket-permitted by your license or by agreement with you)

2. I have to be a part of this new BI server whitelist and comply to all other BI rules in it

3. I have to maintain compliance with them to stay on the whitelist

The servers who profit off of your addons without your permission are in the equal situation as the people who take or modify your work without any permission, resell it on turbosquid, etc.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[meshcarver 12]

;2882172']I think you are fooling yourself here. You' date=' me, others may or may not like this very policy/license change here.

However what has changed to the situation before in your case? Nothing.

Server admins can benefit from your work only if you give them permission to do so.

If they just ignore your wishes, people can abuse the system as they could before and have done before.

The only real change so far is that A3L brought way more attention to this problem, and BI is trying to find

a reasonable policy to deal with it.

So again what has changed for your situation?[/quote']

What's changed everything for me is that I've only found out about all of this recently and have now taken the time to understand it enough to know that I really don't like it.

That's a big change for me.

It's as simple as that- it's a fishy situation, it's not right and I don't want to get the s#%^*}y end of the stick when the time comes to release years of work.

I know that there will be people who seek to benefit from others work and won't give a damn about BIs attempt to monetize servers, re; going through the proper applications steps etc.

Even worse in a twisted way is the new knowledge that IF I granted permission for monetized servers to use my work then that could bring them extra traffic $$$ and they will benefit from it, whereas there's nothing in place for the creator of said work to benefit from it..?! It's so backward it appears forward to me..!

And from what I've read BI seem powerless to fully enforce and follow through on thier proclamations of taking all neccesary action sadly- hopefully that part isn't correct but A3L is a case in point isn't it?

Again, I stand to be corrected as I honestly don't fully grasp all the nuances here, but if it was a great situation then there'd be no smoke without fire- and look at this thread.

I honestly don't think my position is unreasonable all things considered.

Kju, you also mentioned you don't like this policy change very much. Could you please explain why exactly, just so I know your stance mate? What's your main gripe with it?

Edited February 17, 2015 by meshcarver

[Defunkt 431]

The landscape is fundamentally shifting where IP is concerned. You're wasting your time hoping for a 'solution' from BIS, much larger players with vastly more resources and stronger motives have tried to stem the flow of copyrighted content and failed outright. Technology creates opportunities in the blink of an eye and can destroy them just as quickly; the ability to create and then control digital content isn't based on some fundamental law of nature, it's a fleeting phase barely 25 years old and likely to become a historical footnote within another 25. The only alternative would be to artificially perpetuate this technological moment in time by granting governments and corporations the ability to vet everything that we transmit and receive and that's just too draconian for any right-thinking person to advocate.

Services rather than content ownership happen to be where things are at right now and, like it or not, A3L provide a service people are (apparently) willing to pay for; maintaining servers, collating content and coding online experiences. Just ask musicians (the first artists forced to confront this sea change), touring and live performance (i.e. providing a service) are where they make their money now, their recordings are merely a promotional tool in this endeavour.

But there are still good reasons to mod and release content which is, however you license it, effectively bound to become part of the public domain. Primarily there's the pure joy of creation unconstrained by any parameters but the ones you put in place for yourself. Secondly it contributes to your portfolio whether you're trying to break into game development or advance yourself within it. I know meshcarver already works within the industry (though I don't know at what level) but I can't help but think that a game based on NOVA ZONA with a million downloads and 10,000 concurrent players would go a long way toward securing a design role in any major studio. Just ask Dean Hall.

[mondkalb 1087]

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 ?

Speaking as a private addon-maker creating content in my free time:

Heya,

actually two weeks ago I was looking to put in the finishing sprint of my current buildings pack, but then I did some digging into how my content is being used and quickly decided against a release.

I haven't followed the addon-landscape for a year or so, but I found out after a quick search how widespread it was that my content was being monetized. How it was being re-hashed in mod packs that you can only download under certain conditions that one must fulfill first. Let alone how ideas of mine are being re-used and entered into MANW. (I don't mind that: Imitation is the greatest compliment, but at least acknowledge me)

Now my first and foremost motivation for creating freely available content is that I am looking forward to using my content with friends I know and care about. Another big item is just the fun of creating it.

However, I was also always of the opinion that when I am done and happy with it, I should release publicly to allow other people to have fun with it, use it and expand their gaming experience with it. Terox definitely can vouch for this. :)

The agreement however was always to leave it exactly the way it is. Nobody should modify my content, charge directly or indirectly money to use it or use it for military purposes. Collecting donations to run a server that occasionally uses my content is ok IMO, but if you downright make a profit off it, I get annoyed. Especially since some of my content uses textures that aren't licensed for commercial use. I'm sure there is some twisted lawyering out there that can make me responsible for the damages. And that is nothing I want to do with, and the biggest reason I stopped my release.

So now I keep my content in a very tight circle of people that personally know. We play(ed) on a server that is owned by a single entity and didn't require donations. My content was distributed directly by me. Of course the content was then being shared further and further out of my control, but it never reached a frontpage release.

What sucks most is that I want to share the stuff I make, but it is just going to be abused horribly. That is something I "felt" that only stated happening in the past 2-3 years. Of course releasing content back then was just as "dangerous" as now, but now people are breaching the agreement more often and definitely more willingly.

To answer Terox' question in short:

No, I will not continue to release my content and work of my existing projects.

Why:

Because I cannot police it effectively anymore. The respect for content and their creators that existed at least until around 2009 is fading drastically. My releases relied on this respect.

My content is not securely licensed to be commercialized, and I am not sure how I will be liable if someone does end up commercializing it, even against my will. By just making it available I am surely making myself partly responsible for enabling violations of third-party licenses. (CG Textures in my case)

[Jackal326 1181]

What's changed everything for me is that I've only found out about all of this recently and have now taken the time to understand it enough to know that I really don't like it.

That's a big change for me.

It's as simple as that- it's a fishy situation, it's not right and I don't want to get the s#%^*}y end of the stick when the time comes to release years of work.

I know that there will be people who seek to benefit from others work and won't give a damn about BIs attempt to monetize servers, re; going through the proper applications steps etc.

Sadly this isn't really a "new" situation. For as long as the internet has existed (well, longer in fact), there have always been individuals (read: C U Next Tuesdays) who wish to profit off of other peoples' hard work, its human nature. If you choose to keep your work in house, that is your decision - its not for me to try and persuade you or others. If you feel that strongly no words you read on the Internet from me will sway you.

All anyone should do is make one of three decisions:

1) Release the content with a strict license that prevents any monetisations and hope BI will uphold their end by taking action against anyone that violates the creed the license

2) Not release their work publicly and have toiled for hours/days/weeks/months/years (delete as appropriate) for nothing but their own amusement and self fulfilment.

3) Release publicly with a "F##k it!" mentality and let whatever happens happen.

None of these choices are ideal, personally I'd lean towards 1 or 3. Most of my fulfilment as a modder comes from knowing people are enjoying my work, which rules out option 2 (unless I released my stuff to a few select people within my squad and kept it an in house release which some of my stuff already is but that is another topic).

Speaking as a private addon-maker creating content in my free time:

Heya,

actually two weeks ago I was looking to put in the finishing sprint of my current buildings pack, but then I did some digging into how my content is being used and quickly decided against a release.

I haven't followed the addon-landscape for a year or so, but I found out after a quick search how widespread it was that my content was being monetized. How it was being re-hashed in mod packs that you can only download under certain conditions that one must fulfill first. Let alone how ideas of mine are being re-used and entered into MANW. (I don't mind that: Imitation is the greatest compliment, but at least acknowledge me)

Now my first and foremost motivation for creating freely available content is that I am looking forward to using my content with friends I know and care about. Another big item is just the fun of creating it.

However, I was also always of the opinion that when I am done and happy with it, I should release publicly to allow other people to have fun with it, use it and expand their gaming experience with it. Terox definitely can vouch for this. :)

The agreement however was always to leave it exactly the way it is. Nobody should modify my content, charge directly or indirectly money to use it or use it for military purposes. Collecting donations to run a server that occasionally uses my content is ok IMO, but if you downright make a profit off it, I get annoyed. Especially since some of my content uses textures that aren't licensed for commercial use. I'm sure there is some twisted lawyering out there that can make me responsible for the damages. And that is nothing I want to do with, and the biggest reason I stopped my release.

So now I keep my content in a very tight circle of people that personally know. We play(ed) on a server that is owned by a single entity and didn't require donations. My content was distributed directly by me. Of course the content was then being shared further and further out of my control, but it never reached a frontpage release.

What sucks most is that I want to share the stuff I make, but it is just going to be abused horribly. That is something I "felt" that only stated happening in the past 2-3 years. Of course releasing content back then was just as "dangerous" as now, but now people are breaching the agreement more often and definitely more willingly.

To answer Terox' question in short:

No, I will not continue to release my content and work of my existing projects.

Why:

Because I cannot police it effectively anymore. The respect for content and their creators that existed at least until around 2009 is fading drastically. My releases relied on this respect.

My content is not securely licensed to be commercialized, and I am not sure how I will be liable if someone does end up commercializing it, even against my will. By just making it available I am surely making myself partly responsible for enabling violations of third-party licenses. (CG Textures in my case)

EDIT: When you have a BI Dev saying how difficult this is going to be to police, I think everyone has their answer. No more public releases of addons from anyone (until STEAM Marketplace comes along and every f##ker and their uncle can charge what they like for them, then so many cats will be out of the bag and we'll really see who "cares" about the community and who wants to make a quick buck)

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jackal326

[kbbw123 115]

Speaking as a private addon-maker creating content in my free time:

Heya,

actually two weeks ago I was looking to put in the finishing sprint of my current buildings pack, but then I did some digging into how my content is being used and quickly decided against a release.

I haven't followed the addon-landscape for a year or so, but I found out after a quick search how widespread it was that my content was being monetized. How it was being re-hashed in mod packs that you can only download under certain conditions that one must fulfill first. Let alone how ideas of mine are being re-used and entered into MANW. (I don't mind that: Imitation is the greatest compliment, but at least acknowledge me)

Now my first and foremost motivation for creating freely available content is that I am looking forward to using my content with friends I know and care about. Another big item is just the fun of creating it.

However, I was also always of the opinion that when I am done and happy with it, I should release publicly to allow other people to have fun with it, use it and expand their gaming experience with it. Terox definitely can vouch for this. :)

The agreement however was always to leave it exactly the way it is. Nobody should modify my content, charge directly or indirectly money to use it or use it for military purposes. Collecting donations to run a server that occasionally uses my content is ok IMO, but if you downright make a profit off it, I get annoyed. Especially since some of my content uses textures that aren't licensed for commercial use. I'm sure there is some twisted lawyering out there that can make me responsible for the damages. And that is nothing I want to do with, and the biggest reason I stopped my release.

So now I keep my content in a very tight circle of people that personally know. We play(ed) on a server that is owned by a single entity and didn't require donations. My content was distributed directly by me. Of course the content was then being shared further and further out of my control, but it never reached a frontpage release.

What sucks most is that I want to share the stuff I make, but it is just going to be abused horribly. That is something I "felt" that only stated happening in the past 2-3 years. Of course releasing content back then was just as "dangerous" as now, but now people are breaching the agreement more often and definitely more willingly.

To answer Terox' question in short:

No, I will not continue to release my content and work of my existing projects.

Why:

Because I cannot police it effectively anymore. The respect for content and their creators that existed at least until around 2009 is fading drastically. My releases relied on this respect.

My content is not securely licensed to be commercialized, and I am not sure how I will be liable if someone does end up commercializing it, even against my will. By just making it available I am surely making myself partly responsible for enabling violations of third-party licenses. (CG Textures in my case)

This is a very dangerous post you posted here mate, I understand that you typed this as a privat addonmaker and not an bi dev but with these words you just confirmed what many people where afraid for naimly that BIS can't protect Modders when their private license is breached. Taking out of accoun how you posted it we can all see that you are a bis dev. Meaning that you probebly now more abou the topic from interm conversations than most of us comunity members. If even you are not able to make sure people dont make a profit of your work (not sure if you see the people doing the approve list often) then hiw are we the comunity members able to do that? This way there wont be anyone anymore who is not afraid of releasing him content for others and the comunity would brake appart. If you tell us you can, "go to the door next to you and tell the people there 'hey that server is using my content whitout allproval'" then how can we???

I mean yes my clan is approved bu we also say we dont wan profit we just wanna cover our cost that we have. You will never see that we. charge for other peeple's content yet we cant publish ot own mods now because of this.... Is their any solutio. Modders can take to do activly protect their content or not???

Soz for typo's on phone

[mondkalb 1087]

EDIT: When you have a BI Dev saying how difficult this is going to be to police, I think everyone has their answer.

But why didn't you read into it that a BI Dev is acknowledging the difficulties of the policing and is first-hand knowing how problematic it will be? Wouldn't that be a second, valid interpretation?

(Acutally the BI Dev tags are a relic. I am a BISim-Person. :P)

Edit: The main-reason, the one that has the punching-weigh in me halting my release is that simply my content, that I personally create in my free time, is not 100% legally sound for monetisation. This is entirely a problem of mine and the way I choose to create my content.

If I use 100% self created textures, without the use of CG textures, or by acquiring a commercial license for CG textures' content, then I will be personally a lot more solid in defending my claims about my content, with official help from BI. :)

Perhaps oversimplified: It all boils down to the man in a glass house throwing stones!

Edited February 17, 2015 by Mondkalb

[Jackal326 1181]

But why didn't you read into it that a BI Dev is acknowledging the difficulties of the policing and is first-hand knowing how problematic it will be? Wouldn't that be a second, valid interpretation?

It is a very valid interpretation and I thought it went without saying. Apparently I was wrong :)

[mondkalb 1087]

Hmm, then I fear my original interpretation of your statement was tainted by a subtle prejudgment I have made. Sad, sad times for me. :( Sorry!

[Jackal326 1181]

Hmm, then I fear my original interpretation of your statement was tainted by a subtle prejudgment I have made. Sad, sad times for me. :( Sorry!

No dramas, looking back my original reply was rather blunt and reads as very single minded which was not my intent. I just went off on a tangential rant as I often do.

[torndeco 128]

If it comes down to people concerned over if BIS would take people to court etc..

Have a look @ what Starve Together Did with regards to Dedicated Servers.

1)Dedicated Servers don't require to purchase a game.

2)Dedicated Servers require a player token.

Its generated by launching the game into console + typing a command for a unique token.

3)The token basicly links a player account with the game purchased to the server.

---------------

If BIS did a similar solution, they could start blacklisting Servers from Steam Browser / BattlEye that break the server Monetization Rules.

Just by banning the player token from being allowed to run a server.

Of course it may require changes to game EULA etc... but BIS could start to remove / ban servers etc...

Yes they will be prob pirated servers at some point etc, but it will atleast it will reduce the problem.

Still requires people to actively report Servers that are breaking the rules.

But it is still better than current scenario

Anyway its just an idea.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Torndeco

[meshcarver 12]

I really should have researched more before taking on a modding endevour for ARMA then...

If I knew back then that this area "was always like this" ie: abuse of the system has always been rampant and ineffectively dealt with, then I perhaps would have given it a second thought before starting or at least of going public with my project or even looked for a more suitable platform.

Perhaps I'm now taking this more seriously because it's what I do professionally (now getting on 17 years) and this particular project, NOVA ZONA is very very dear to my heart. It's not something I do lightly and when I decide to do a project like this I won't go about it half arsed which is why I also won't be half arsed about all these possible consequences we're discussing here gents.

Aside from that, each and every angle I look at this new development from it still sticks in my craw that some members of the community have an option open to them to monetise whereas another section of members do not, and what really sticks it in and breaks it off is they can benefit directly from hosting the others work if permitted to do so..! I mean, come on..!?

Edited February 17, 2015 by meshcarver

[das attorney 858]

I should probably clarify (as I woke up a bear with sore head today)

Battleye ban or similar would be fine as punishment for bad servers, let the hackers into them as consequence for their actions.

However - @meshcarver - agreed: it rankles me why one section of community are allowed to make money at expense of others.

Bohemia:

acknowledge that the costs connected with hosting a server can be prohibitive and thus rules out a lot of gamers/squads from being able to afford one

Maybe BI should acknowledge that the cost of buying 3dsmax/maya/logic studio etc can be prohibitive and thus rules out a lot of modders from being able to afford to mod in the first place...

Plus that's bollocks that a squad can't afford a server. What like some grown men not being able to afford $10 a month each or so to host games? Yeah right....

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Aside from that, each and every angle I look at this new development from it still sticks in my craw that some members of the community have an option open to them to monetise whereas another section of members do not, and what really sticks it in and breaks it off is they can benefit directly from hosting the others work if permitted to do so..! I mean, come on..!?

You're upset that someone can charge for a service that contains your addon if you give them permission to do so? (Don't give them permission?) Just the same like you can ask BI to charge for your addons, and if they give you permission, you can do so?

I don't understand the reasoning.

Besides, the option to charge for your addons, as long as you don't use any BI tools to make them has always been there. Script-mods, missions, campaigns all fall under that category. There was even a commercial campaign-disc for OFP, of which the name escapes me right now.

Yes, there are no such tools for certain things, but hell, developing tools to mirror BI tools for addon makers is a less impossible option than making a game to exactly mirror Arma is for illegal server hosts. Especially considering people have already attempted to do so.

If you consider doing something illegally to be an option, then with that logic, everything is an option.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[meshcarver 12]

@ Sniperwolf- You're mincing words there and I just can't be arsed getting into a he said she said thing here. I don't have the time.

I'm pissed off that the OPTION is there for server hosters to legitimately make $$$ now, whereas it's not there for people who spend time making content. That right there has already divided the community into sections if you ask me.

I mean, how hard is that to understand..?

And yes, it would piss me off that even given my permission they can benefit but not myself or all the content creators themselves yes..! Of course it would, it's unbalanced in the extreme and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that.

Why would I create a metric shit tonne of content then give it away for free to a load of people who stand to make $$$ from showcasing it..? Why would I even consider such a ridiculous thing?

Could you or someone please tell me why I should consider spending my time to line someone elses pockets as that would really open my eyes.

I'm getting some zzz's now but look forwards to this tomorrow lol- it's saddening but interesting to read..!

[BadHabitz 235]

Could you or someone please tell me why I should consider spending my time to line someone elses pockets as that would really open my eyes.

Do it because you enjoy the work and you'll enjoy the feedback (and most likely the adulation that goes with it). Don't concern yourself too much about what happens with your work once it's out in the open.

I thought about closing shop for good, but after a while it just felt like pouting, like I was just trying to show my middle finger to BI. I'm already operating under the APL-SA license, which carries restrictions. In the end, I know that unscrupulous parties are going to do whatever they're going to do, with or without my permission. You just have to ask yourself what you're really doing it for in the first place. Think about the 'innocent' guy or group that's browsing sites like Armaholic and they give your mod a twirl, and think it's the bomb. Think of the fun that they'll get out of it.

I'm co-developing a more expansive mod for my own crew, and some of those creations happen to make it into the PG Services mod (if they seem PMC appropriate). I recently added 18 new uniforms that would not have been made if it wasn't for that cross-pollination. Out of my interest of sharing, and thinking the community might enjoy it, I make the new content available. I know that PG stuff has crept into the modpacks of communities that I'd rather not share with, but that's the reality of putting stuff on the internet. "Taking your ball and going home" only punishes the good people you're developing for anyway. The shady individuals are going to make their money with or without you, so you might as well try to do right by the 'good' people.

[terox 316]

I'd just like to say thanks to Mondkalb for being the first person to respond to my question.

It would be very interesting to see how this effects the other content makers out there and how their approach has been affected by this.

Without their feedback, the opinions on how this will effect the community is just speculation.

I have been working on an admin addon tool, this is now on hold and if i do continue to work on it and release it, it will have a EULA that states something on the lines of non commercial, Donation only servers

I'm not a big content maker as far is addons is concerned and most of the stuff I do is based around servers, but hey its still content and that is my stance as of right now

Edited February 17, 2015 by Terox