Jump to content
Johny

Arma 3 Server monetization

Recommended Posts

BI I hope you do realize you're killing your own game. If A3 Life want to do this kind of thing, then like DayZ, make a separate game. Don't let the rest of the entire community suffer because of a few tools who you can't be bothered going after. I'm in such disgust over your policy for monetized servers and monetized addons, I can't even put it into words properly.

Couldn't agree more.

Why not having 2 different games even being based on same platform?

Right now this whole situation is unfair for those who have bought Arma 3 to have a military gameplay experience.

It looks like that the Arma core is being put aside to fulfill the interest of those RPG game modes.

I perfectly understand that the most part of the Arma 3 sales are related with those RPG/Civilian game modes and also perfectly understand that from a commercial perspective it makes sense to move in that direction.

I dont understand why those who want (and expected) Arma 3 for military gameplay have to suffer with this whole situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets all take a deep breath here.

So far I think the only mistake is the fact that BI haven't really released a lot of information. There is very little detail in what is/isn't allowed, especially surrounding...

This leaves a lot to speculation, and everyone knows that speculation is often very wrong.

BI need to release a much more in depth guide to what will be allowed, what wont be allowed and what will happen if someone oversteps the line.

For an example, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/account_monetization

That's a hell of a lot more information there, and that's for making videos.

On the contrary, I think thats pretty clear. Essentially it permits reskins, but for example disallows higher damage weapons to be exclusives, or faster vehicles, higher armour value vests/helmets, higher carrying capacity backpacks etc. As long as the "exclusive content" provided is identical to existing content in terms of config values (outlined above), the only allowance is for a cosmetic makeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You did a pretty good job. If what you said about paying for addons is true, did your "anonymous sources" reveal if that was to become compulsory/mandatory (i.e. addon makers are forced to set a price on Steam workshop when publishing), or if it were an optional thing and we could still release addons free of charge via the usual channels (PlayWithSix, Armaholic mirros etc.)? That would truly be a test of "who is making mods to make money" and who actually does it for the love of making something...

2: "12 O'CLOCK, ENEMY Money-Grabbing Whore, 500M"

3: "HOSTILE DOWN!"

I believe it will be an optional decision. However which self-respecting modder would release content for free when you can make money out of releasing that same addon? Seems daft, unless you are ideologically motivated enough to release a high-quality addon for free, which will then no doubt slip through BI's net which has worked wonders so far and be sold on a server. At least with paid addons, it does provide security, not that I'm endorsing paying for an addon. If it does come into play, best course of action is boycott it as I believe a few of the long-standing addon creators are planning to, and just not release anything at all, as Steam Workshop will take your content for their own games regardless of whether they're free to download!

This whole policy is for one thing only - money. For Bohemia Interactive. They obviously don't need it, as the series has been going swimmingly without paided servers or paid addons since OFP. I can't honestly even see the reasoning behind BI allowing people to monetize a server - whatever way you cut it, it will end up with profit for the admin, not all the costs will be spent on the server if you have enough players, A3L is the prime example as they're pretty much the server doing this right now, making 4 or 5 figures each month or whatever it is.

YouTube is a slightly different kettle of fish as you are required to advertise BI's product as per their other licence for that (as opposed to a server, where you don't) - BUT WAIT! They don't actively enforce that licence either. Gives me complete faith in their system.

BI is supposed to be a company that works for the player, works for the modder, and above all a love for the game. This is gone. It's quite evident that BI are becoming exactly like EA - just do what you can to get more money. It's all good and well saying CoD and BF4 have the same systems, but does that make it right? That's one of the main reasons we as a community don't play those games, we don't want to keep throwing money at something we've already bought in a shop with our wallets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to buy a hat off of Steam Workshop and then wear it on the server I pay to go on. Cunt me in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I think about this more I'm getting more and more worried, not so much about the monetization of servers as such as I don't play MP but it just seems like a slippery slope towards paid for mods and then hurting the community spirit. I haven't been around in ARMA that long (and active on here even less time) but the great thing is that everything has always been free, and for the most part people are happy to share (and usually when they aren't it's taken enough work that I'm cool with that or they're obviously exploitative fucks and it's not their own stuff in the first place). For example a while back I wanted to use a snippet of someone's code from a mod in a mission as part of a ridiculously huge car bomb explosion, I sent a PM to the maker and he instantly came back telling me to go ahead, as long as due credit is given (obviously). Now what if it had been a source of income, would they have been so willing to not only let me peek around their files but also to use the code? To be honest it just doesn't seem like a good idea. But no doubt we'll find out tomorrow if it takes off or it's the first plank of a coffin. Although DCS MP is mostly a clusterfuck (due to performance and limited interest outside of private squads) there are examples of dedicated servers that run 24/7 and receive absolutely nothing even in terms of donations, but they keep running. I'm surprised to find out that servers in ARMA suddenly need so much money to keep themselves running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it will be an optional decision. However which self-respecting modder would release content for free when you can make money out of releasing that same addon?

Me. But thats because I'm

daft

and

ideologically motivated enough to release a high-quality addon for free
best course of action is boycott it as I believe a few of the long-standing addon creators are planning to, and just not release anything at all

As it currently stands, I don't release many of my projects (read: any - last thing I released was over 5 years ago for ArmA2). I would certainly be far less inclined to release anything if the "pay to download" was made mandatory, purely out of principle. EDIT: Just to clarify, this reads like it contradicts my above statement about how I'd release addons for free, this portion of my post relates to if "pay to download" was forced upon us and made mandatory (i.e. if the game was changed in such a way that mods could only be installed via Workshop or something (hopefully) far-fetched.

I'd like to buy a hat off of Steam Workshop and then wear it on the server I pay to go on. Cunt me in.

Firstly, nice TF2 reference, secondly, not sure if deliberate typo or...:cool:

Edited by Jackal326

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jackal, people like you restore my faith in humanity. I'm probably too cynical to be posting in this thread! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Jackal, people like you restore my faith in humanity. I'm probably too cynical to be posting in this thread! lol

Don't worry, my cynicism is the only reason I'm still active in this community (that and my love for MilSim of course :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

first things about donations : the giving or act of donating something. Normally donor not expect something in back.

"do not affect gameplay in any way, is allowed. Cosmetic perks are allowed."

If you sell something is not donation even is only cosmetic things.

I have question about this system and how you will consider the team member who pay for a server ?

If in my public server, I make restriction to acces at weapon and vehicles (ex: only slot pilot can have access to plane or heli ) but I make all my team member access to all things without restriction, it's forbidden ? Worst in my mission i create restriction access to some vehicle or script to my team member only, it's forbidden ? Team Member are donor or not ? and if it's not how you make distinction between a team member and donor ?

What is something will break gameplay in coop mission ? in RPG, PvP ok i see but in PvE mission...

Best regards,

[TheUnit] Bettyblue

Ps: Sorry for my english.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things seem to be going astray here and the topic needs to be put back on track

Here is what B.I have said

Dear community,

Based on feedback from server operators we acknowledge that the costs connected to hosting a server can be prohibitive and thus rules out a lot of gamers/squads from being able to afford one, so we have subsequently agreed to allow limited monetization of Arma 3 Servers.

From February 1st 2015, anyone is allowed to monetize their Arma 3 server as long as they're registered, approved and listed on http://www.bistudio.com/monetization/approved:

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

Product placement, in-game advertising and sponsorship is allowed.

Selling of in-game items, that don’t affect gameplay, is allowed.

Accepting donations is allowed, but to avoid any doubts: not providing donations must not prevent anyone from accessing the content.

If we feel anyone on the list at http://www.bistudio.com/monetization/approved is exploiting any loopholes or is not acting in the best interests of the Arma 3 community, we will remove them. That will mean they will have to cease this kind of monetization immediately or face legal action.

We consider this to be a test run and therefore the permission is given for a limited time. It will expire on January 31st 2016. At that point, we will evaluate its effects on the Arma 3 community.

To read between the lines

1)

Accepting donations is allowed, but to avoid any doubts: not providing donations must not prevent anyone from accessing the content.

This is the defacto standard that we have been running with for 12 years and has served us very well indeed. It has allowed the OFP/ARMA community to be enriched with 3rd party content all free of charge and in the vast majority of circumstances offered in good will and open to everybody

2)

Product placement, in-game advertising and sponsorship is allowed.

Unless a 3rd party addon or a scripted system/mission template that is being used on the server alongside the mission they are hosting that forbids commercial use of their content then this most likely isn't an issue for anybody.

Getting a company to pay for the running costs of the server where the server hoster is required to spam "Coca Cola" messages for example or has ingame advertising boards placed around a town I dont think will be an issue for anyone

If however they are using someone else's content that forbids commercial useage, then they would be breaking the rules of that third part content makers EULA.

This is where some issues lay

See ***1*** below


Grey area that needs further clarification

Limiting access to only paying players is allowed.

If a group of mates decide to buy or rent a server together, one of those members will have signed the contract with the service provider and therefore becomes the server host and is responsible for the legalities of the server. If this group do not want to allow anyone access to their server other than that group, who can really stop them and should they be stopped? If this group then opened up their server to the public to allow their community to grow, then this could be deemed as voluntary donations and therefore would not reqiuire the server to be registered.

This I would imagine is the typical model for a clan server and needs to be protected

If however the guys that payed for the server were allowed better weapons etc then this would not be deemed as voluntary donations and this server would need to be registered


Anything else covered requires registration via their application form

Selling of in-game items, that don’t affect gameplay, is allowed.

You could take this to mean anything cosmetic, B.I themselves used this model for some DLC packs in the past where those who didn't pay for the DLC had reduced texture quality

This however has issues

See ***1*** below

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

This line probably needs to be removed, its pretty ambiguous

This seems to be a mix between

a) Only allowing access to players who pay

b) Charging for cosmetic content

if the server locked its doors to only paying customers and those customers had access to the same content, then this is actually already covered by "Limiting access to only paying players is allowed."

If however the server is open to the public, players can pay for supposedly "cosmetic content" then this is already covered by "Selling of in-game items, that don’t affect gameplay, is allowed"

So the only additional option that this can cover is

A Private server where players pay for access and when they are in they can pay extra for additional supposedly cosmetic content

This however has issues

See ***1*** below

See ***2*** below


The community issue with this

*** 1 ***

Nearly every piece of 3rd party content that exists today is based on previous work done by somebody else, which can most likely be traced right back to OFP

In nearly every case this has been offered in good faith for other developers to learn from or improve, which has occured.

Their work was never offered with the expectation that anyone would use it to profit

The OFP/ARMA community has evolved with this in mind and the friendliness and openess of this approach has made the game for BI last as long as it has.

We now have a scenario where some RPG servers are supposedly offering unique content and charging for it.

These are the guys that are complaining that "their" work is being ripped off by others and that is effecting their economical gain.

However if you really looked into it, they will be using 3rd party content created by others which was never offered for commercial use or have heavily based their own supposed unique content on others efforts all for greed.

Now I don't believe the addon makers or mission scripters out there that this work is based on are particularly bothered about monetary gain for their efforts, as the vast majority have done it to either learn or because they want to continue the work of others and offer this engine enriched content that B.I are failing to provide as is historically the case.

However they have a major problem with others using it for commercial gain.

In addition as soon as you open the doors to even more economical possibilities for these parasites they will just abuse the good will of their predecessors even more and the good willed content makers will be poisoned against creating any more content. THIS WILL KILL THE ARMA SERIES. You can see that by the reaction in this thread.

Tonic himself is disgusted with his missions abuse already

*** 2 ***

The community has no faith in your ability to police this.

The system is already abused and their is no evidence to date that you have ever backed up any of the threats you have made to those who break your EULA.

This seems more like the approach of the horse has bolted so we might as well leave the door open.

You've pretty much screwed up here in a big way.

it's not as if the 3rd party content makers can add a "Not for commercial use" clause and expect it to be adhered too.

Have you also noticed, not one of these Pay as you go servers has argued for their side.

Not one......

Edited by Terox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember.. and agree with you 100%.

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

Pre-Info : Didn't read the whole Thread

I am into this Series since the Demo of Operation Flashpoint in 2001, worked, many years ago, as part of the Advanced Editing Forum Team on the Train Addon for OFP with Lester, Dschulle (some might know them) and later with many others, seen so many nice Addons, Scripts, textures etc. ...

But one thing, never came into my mind:

"Pay money for something the Community made"

Paying money for something, someone else made for free.

The OFP/Arma Community was once the greatest, i have ever seen... but now? Since DayZ those "Donation Stores" were everywhere. It's sad. Just sad.

It was once - lets call it - "a real Community" once... sadly, that this changed.

Now, i read that (sry for my words) bullshit about "how it's legal to monetize stuff". Sry, no. That's just not right.

Example:

How will you react, when somebody is reporting a server, who is using (for example) some of my Scripts (isn't there something like intellectual property?), running a Pay2Play and/or a Donation store, but the rest is from someone else who made it free for monetizing?

What will happen: Change the name of the script, write the own name on it, free to go. You can't track that back...

I don't know what happened to BIS, but they start to become a "MicroTransactionWh**e" like the guys behind CS:GO/CandyCrush/AnyFacebookCrapGame/etc. ...

I am just extremely disappointed by that decision.

Greetz D41 Dscha

Since my english isn't perfect: There might be some grammarerrors :P

I remember and agree with you 100%

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

WOW, it's ok charging for items and block server access because of it, but it's not ok to give privileged access to those who help paying the bills. Just WOW.

no, and no... donations are just for support , if server needs it or mod makers .. basic is if you want or care for a mod you donate same with server... there is no if you donate ill give you admin... (this is how our country is being run). why would you add this to a game?

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

I think this is a horrible mistake. A better model for this is a form of limited public server licenses.

To explain it better I will just mention PR mod for BF2 or Arma2, where server files were not available to general public, and thus content and gameplay was preserved. Now since you want to allow this monetization thing, you can do just this, and put these servers in the separate filter from the others. Just to make sure you get it - I am not saying you to limit server files or hosting, just limit those who want to monetize. You will have better control over them in this way, and scene will not turn upside down. For this you may create separate branch of server app and add an option in game UI to filter it and just disable running any mods on these servers, or yet again add the ones allowed to be monetized.

While I do not support this solution at all I can understand it to some point, but at "red apache" thing and "perks" you lost me. So I'm trying to think trough a solution. If its too complicated then disregard.

server side scripting or addons, as ive said and as some servers already do...

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

@Terox

you hit it on the nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, and no... donations are just for support , if server needs it or mod makers .. basic is if you want or care for a mod you donate same with server... there is no if you donate ill give you admin... (this is how our country is being run). why would you add this to a game?

If I have a server and if I am accepting donations to help with server cost, why I cannot have a special attention for those that in fact care for server and consequently for the game?

Anyway, I am against all these monetization thing, this should have been stopped when it started with Arma 2 / DayZ Mod. Also I am against all these RPG/Life/Survival/Epoch/Zombie things that are being included in Arma.

These game modes belong to another game and those want these modes should ask BIS to make that game, instead of destroying Arma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They became a part of it. The Son is still MilSim, but the cousins are those GameModes (The VR-Engine is perfect for it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The community issue with this

*** 1 ***

Nearly every piece of 3rd party content that exists today is based on previous work done by somebody else, which can most likely be traced right back to OFP

In nearly every case this has been offered in good faith for other developers to learn from or improve, which has occured.

Their work was never offered with the expectation that anyone would use it to profit

The OFP/ARMA community has evolved with this in mind and the friendliness and openess of this approach has made the game for BI last as long as it has.

We now have a scenario where some RPG servers are supposedly offering unique content and charging for it.

These are the guys that are complaining that "their" work is being ripped off by others and that is effecting their economical gain.

However if you really looked into it, they will be using 3rd party content created by others which was never offered for commercial use or have heavily based their own supposed unique content on others efforts all for greed.

Now I don't believe the addon makers or mission scripters out there that this work is based on are particularly bothered about monetary gain for their efforts, as the vast majority have done it to either learn or because they want to continue the work of others and offer this engine enriched content that B.I are failing to provide as is historically the case.

However they have a major problem with others using it for commercial gain.

In addition as soon as you open the doors to even more economical possibilities for these parasites they will just abuse the good will of their predecessors even more and the good willed content makers will be poisoned against creating any more content. THIS WILL KILL THE ARMA SERIES. You can see that by the reaction in this thread.

Tonic himself is disgusted with his missions abuse already

*** 2 ***

The community has no faith in your ability to police this.

The system is already abused and their is no evidence to date that you have ever backed up any of the threats you have made to those who break your EULA.

This seems more like the approach of the horse has bolted so we might as well leave the door open.

You've pretty much screwed up here in a big way.

it's not as if the 3rd party content makers can add a "Not for commercial use" clause and expect it to be adhered too.

Have you also noticed, not one of these Pay as you go servers has argued for their side.

Not one......

So much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how mod makers are going to agree to this in any large numbers. I anticipate that a lot of very popular servers are going to find themselves faced with the daunting task of writing all their own code from scratch. Undoubtedly, there will be some who "borrow" code from existing mods in order to accomplish this task, and that will create a whole other issue where accusations are levied but no one can really prove anything.

I wonder if Bohemia would be willing to give their game away for free and allow other people to sell access to it (commission free)? Of course not. But, that is basically what they are requiring modders to do (of course, you can all say "NO", and I encourage you to. Hopefully, the loss in active player numbers, new purchasers, etc will begin to finally hit them where it hurts... in their pocket book.)

Not only does Bohemia want you to work for free, but they also want you to give it away for free so that *other* people can make money off it (Bohemia included, of course).

(The only, and I mean, only, thing that seems somewhat positive out of this, is that the language is worded in such a way that Bohemia reserves the right to actually lift a finger to shut down a server using a modder's work without their permission).

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

Since this is going a bit in circles, I will try to sum up situation and what we are trying to achieve with this.

People have been stealing other people's work for ages. And I have said this a few times already - BI has no way/right to enforce 3rd party IP rights - we cannot even take down a youtube video on your behalf.

Also there have been people monetizating servers. Contrary to popular belief here, we have been taking action against them.

But it is a never-ending strugle and the results are often limited and we had no way to influence people to get permission before using other peoples work. So this is where these monetization rules came in - We are maiking it clear that the donations are voluntary without ANY counter value - period. Everyone who wishes to monetize, has to register and get approved. Applicants have to give us contact details, server addresses, monetization rules and personal guaranties that they are not stealing other people's work. Now people have an incentive to follow the rules and monetize properly without fearing us coming after them.

How this:

"Limiting access to only paying players is allowed"

Match with this:

"Accepting donations is allowed, but to avoid any doubts: not providing donations must not prevent anyone from accessing the content"

For donations you don't need approval, but donations are just donations - voluntary, no counter value. Limiting access to donators only is monetization and requires approval.

I am sorry, but I do not need BIS approval to limit the access in my server to only paying players. The server is mine.

The point is, if I can limit the access to my server, I can limit also the access for those who do not donate.

Unless I am looking at this in a wrong way, I am not following it.

While the hardware might be yours, the Arma 3 Server application is not. It is provided to you on a license, which limits the commercial usage.

If I am going to ask for donations I have to keep my server open to public?

Is that what is being said?

No, you may ask for the donations and keep server closed, but you cannot limit access only to the donators, because then you would be charging for access and for that you need to apply for approval.

So I cant give administration or moderation positions or some other previlege like prioritisation in access to those who contribute to pay the server bills, through donations?
WOW, it's ok charging for items and block server access because of it, but it's not ok to give privileged access to those who help paying the bills. Just WOW.

Charging for items is NOT OK - you need to ask for approval.

Thanks to these new rules, after you get approved, you are OK to give a privileged access to people who pay. If you were doing so before, you were doing so illegally.

Hello,

I have question about this system and how you will consider the team member who pay for a server ?

If in my public server, I make restriction to acces at weapon and vehicles (ex: only slot pilot can have access to plane or heli ) but I make all my team member access to all things without restriction, it's forbidden ? Worst in my mission i create restriction access to some vehicle or script to my team member only, it's forbidden ? Team Member are donor or not ? and if it's not how you make distinction between a team member and donor ?

What is something will break gameplay in coop mission ? in RPG, PvP ok i see but in PvE mission...

If you would be selling "Team member" package, which would make anyone who purchases a team member with access to special vehicles, then you are selling game affecting items/features and that is NOT allowed.

If you charge everyone for access to the server and out of the paying people there are few, who are your friends and you call them team members and you give them special guns/ pilot seats etc., then it is OK (provided you register and get approved).

Basically there must not be any relation between money paid and game affecting perks. Does this help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BI has no way/right to enforce 3rd party IP rights - we cannot even take down a youtube video on your behalf.

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?

If the answer is anything other than a confident yes, this whole exercise is nothing more than a clarification of company policy regarding monetization and will lead to nothing but more resentment. I appreciate the fact that you guys work your butts off to support the game and that you even bothered to address the issue, but I hope you might in future pay a bit more attention to the other people who have a stake in the continued survival of your community.

In addition, the trial period for this is way too long. If you decide to press on with this, I hope that there'll still be a community left to salvage after this year has passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the economics behind B.I's decision Johnny.

DayZ, Altis life, big bread winners for you.

But....... long term this is a bad move and by the time you realise this,it will be too late to roll the clock back

As for the stealing others work, yes this has gone on from day 1 and up until recently it hasnt really been a problem because other than a popularity contest money was never involved.

It seems to be a big issue with the rpg servers, who are all basing their work on Tonics work, but that isn't for anyone's ego, its all about money

This isnt about that minority.

This is about the majority of content makers who have no inclination until recently that anyone would profit from their work. You now seem to be encouraging it.

if you weren't there should only be 1 Altis life server running these scams and that would be the initial creator. Same goes for the other rpg style servers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BI has no way/right to enforce 3rd party IP rights - we cannot even take down a youtube video on your behalf.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard of a case of BI removing a YouTube video? I know of hundreds of ArmA 2 and 3 monetized videos that don't advertise it as a BI Product (as is required in their licence for it), yet I've never heard of or seen BI take any action against them. Like with the A3L licence infringements, I won't believe a word BI say until I can physically see the evidence for myself. And I haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the economics behind B.I's decision Johnny.

DayZ, Altis life, big bread winners for you.

Man, it hurt some much to read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't agree more.

Why not having 2 different games even being based on same platform?

Right now this whole situation is unfair for those who have bought Arma 3 to have a military gameplay experience.

It looks like that the Arma core is being put aside to fulfill the interest of those RPG game modes.

I perfectly understand that the most part of the Arma 3 sales are related with those RPG/Civilian game modes and also perfectly understand that from a commercial perspective it makes sense to move in that direction.

I dont understand why those who want (and expected) Arma 3 for military gameplay have to suffer with this whole situation.

That would actually be a terrible idea because it says "Hey just make some social platform and if it becomes really big we'll pay you to make it into a game for us, doesn't matter if you had some REALLY shady practices along the way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have their playground saving milsim fans from this whole situation and honestly I could not care less about the way they fight for money.

Edited by Bratwurste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the next one comes around, and its not as though they wouldn't stick around anyway, with an already established audience it would be too lucrative to just go away because 'oh new game'.

And perhaps you should care about how they get/got their money....if more people were like them you'd likely find yourself dealing with vanilla only content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the vanilla content is much better than those RPG modes, but that is my opinion and probably conversation for some other topic.

Anyway, if some one thinks that this monetization rules will be able to protect mod makers is terribly wrong. In the future there will be no mods or mod makers, or better there will be but all made and intended for those pay to play servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion the vanilla content is much better than those RPG modes, but that is my opinion and probably conversation for some other topic.

Anyway, if some one thinks that this monetization rules will be able to protect mod makers is terribly wrong. In the future there will be no mods or mod makers, or better there will be but all made and intended for those pay to play servers.

Considering those rpg modes rely very much on vanilla content I agree. I was moreso leaning towards their behavior towards taking addon content and feeling entitled to it because "it was on public domain".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×