Arma 3 - Project Life Charging Monies to Play!?!?

[GODSPEEDSNAKE 12]

Hey guys,

 

Just came across this https://arma3projectlife.com/ and players are forced to "purchase" the mod for $30 in order to download and then play on their servers. I thought this was completely illegal considering they are using ARMA 3 game?!?!? Are communities like this allowed to monetize off ARMA now? Sounds ridiculous... Anyone able to confirm?

[R0adki11 3949]

Hey guys,

 

Just came across this https://arma3projectlife.com/ and players are forced to "purchase" the mod for $30 in order to download and then play on their servers. I thought this was completely illegal considering they are using ARMA 3 game?!?!? Are communities like this allowed to monetize off ARMA now? Sounds ridiculous... Anyone able to confirm?

Is the server registered with the scheme here? https://www.bistudio.com/monetization 

[bigpoppablunts 53]

Fixing R0adki11s link https://www.bistudio.com/monetization

[GODSPEEDSNAKE 12]

Sorry roadkill11 but I only get this message when going to that link 

PAGE NOT FOUND The page you were looking for was not found.

 

Are you hinting at that its listed to be able to charge Arma 3 game owners?!? If BI is cool with it then so be it. Just as far as I knew that shit was illegal...

 

Never mind thank you guys for that :)

 

Sure enough they are on there.

[R0adki11 3949]

Sorry roadkill11 but I only get this message when going to that link 

PAGE NOT FOUND The page you were looking for was not found.

 

Are you hinting at that its listed to be able to charge Arma 3 game owners?!? If BI is cool with it then so be it. Just as far as I knew that shit was illegal...

 

Never mind thank you guys for that :)

 

Sure enough they are on there.

By the way my alias is spelt R0adki11 ;) 

 

Glad i could resolve the issue for you. 

[haleks 8212]

From their rules :

 

Community Membership is gained through acceptance from an authorized A3PL staff member and a one-time $30 fee processed through Paypal.

- Membership provides access to the servers and the (complete) forum. - Membership provides players with Teamspeak perks (tags and channel access) as well as forum badges and user groups.

 

Plus, some of their models seem to be ripped...

 

What the heck are they doing on the list of approved servers?

I really wish BIS would put an end to this monetization non-sense...

[target_practice 163]

Well at least they actually have to acquire approval to monetize in such a manner.

If you look at Garry's mod for example, you'll see that its basically anarchy in that regard.

 

Not to mention the obscene amount of content theft and exploitation that goes on in that game....

[haleks 8212]

Well at least they actually have to acquire approval to monetize in such a manner.

 

That's not even the problem; obviously, there isn't enough manpower to keep an eye on every single server - either BIS doesn't really investigate who's behind an approval request, or these guys change their policy once they have approval.

Either way it's pretty much anarchy. Loads of these servers have been reported, some have been taken down, some others won't because lack of proof...

 

This little experimentation about monetized servers isn't going anywhere good; we didn't need it back in Arma2 and as far as I know, bandwith is going cheaper, not the opposite.

[nodunit 397]

Well at least they actually have to acquire approval to monetize in such a manner.

If you look at Garry's mod for example, you'll see that its basically anarchy in that regard.

 

Not to mention the obscene amount of content theft and exploitation that goes on in that game....

Difference being garry's mod can be used stand alone, has no strict rules tied to it and initially you purchase the sandbox not so much the content.  I've seen a lot of communities ripping content from various games but I've not seen anyone charging for it, to give them credit they appear to be doing it for the sake of more content rather than a money option.

This instance however begs the question, what makes this any different than the point in time when A3life was demanding money up front before you could download their content? 

That said however, don't waste your time too much fellow forum folks cause

https://www.bistudio.com/monetization

"Limiting access to only paying players is allowed."

And remember, the big explosion didn't occur until they started talking about the money they were making, asking for payment to port things from free websites, and of course using mods without permission.

[lexx 1364]

I don't get why anyone is paying for any such server. :D Really, to me it seems the problem is with the people.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

Plus, some of their models seem to be ripped.

Who's models are being used?

[target_practice 163]

That's not even the problem; obviously, there isn't enough manpower to keep an eye on every single server - either BIS doesn't really investigate who's behind an approval request, or these guys change their policy once they have approval.

Either way it's pretty much anarchy. Loads of these servers have been reported, some have been taken down, some others won't because lack of proof...

 

This little experimentation about monetized servers isn't going anywhere good; we didn't need it back in Arma2 and as far as I know, bandwith is going cheaper, not the opposite.

I do oppose server monetisation in Arma as much as anywhere else, but thus far I haven't actually heard any stories of extortion, blackmail and fraud in Arma, all of which are commonplace within Garry's mod.

[Armitxes 36]

The problem here is that we have no way to check the MOD contents without purchasing it. Means I pay to access the MOD content and not just for the server access.

[daphne 52]

Hi there,

 

I'm the co-owner of A3PL and I'll clear some stuff up for everyone:

 

The problem here is that we have no way to check the MOD contents without purchasing it. Means I pay to access the MOD content and not just for the server access.

Actually, feel free to check our mod contents here (the link to the repo is also publicly available on our forum):

http://158.69.123.115/repo/

 

You don't pay for the mods, but for server access.

 

You can even spawn things in the eden editor and have a look, it won't have any functionality though because of server sided scripts etc. Most of the mods are created by us with the exception of a heavily modified version of Catalina objects which are used from permission by Dead (we have source, along with proof of permission if anyone wants to see it)

 

Is the server registered with the scheme here? https://www.bistudio.com/monetization 

Yes, we actually work closely with Bohemia Interactive. Also in terms of scripting feature requests etc. And yes they checked our mod files and are also still monitoring it.

 

From their rules :

 

Plus, some of their models seem to be ripped...

 

What the heck are they doing on the list of approved servers?

I really wish BIS would put an end to this monetization non-sense...

Actually, you can follow development closely here:

https://arma3projectlife.com/forums/index.php?forums/showcase.139/

 

We work together with companies such as www.gameready3d.com (car models), also freelancers such as Jesto Jose (Microsoft) and previously with Kiory Freeman (previous contractor for BI), and many other people and modders from the arma community (e.g. Jonzie, Cype, boolean etc)

 

I don't get why anyone is paying for any such server. :D Really, to me it seems the problem is with the people.

This explains why we charge for server access, and actually we have thousands of people who have paid to play our alpha:

https://arma3projectlife.com/forums/index.php?threads/paid-membership-why.109/

 

No access can be bought at this moment because our beta server is closed. We still have our pre-beta server for those that have bought the alpha already (scheduled play tests). Of course you can still follow development closely while we transition to Beta. 

 

I understand not everybody likes paid servers (or life mods) and we're the first one to do it but keep in mind there is many games that already use a similar scheme (garry's mod, flight sims, rust, just to name a few).

 

-Kane

arma3projectlife.com

[teabagginpeople 398]

I think you misunderstood lexx when he said people are the problem. i.e a fool and his money are easily parted. And these fools are a dime a dozen. the bread and butter of monetized servers.

My stance is. As long as no mods are being used without consent. who cares about the money. have at it . If idiots wanna pay for dumb shit that's their dumb decision.

Personally I wouldn't give you a the steam off my piss let alone trust you with any money. as for forgiveness for ripping off kiddies. That's your bag to carry around. Karma will get you one way or another.

[daphne 52]

I think you misunderstood lexx when he said people are the problem. i.e a fool and his money are easily parted. And these fools are a dime a dozen. the bread and butter of monetized servers.

My stance is. As long as no mods are being used without consent. who cares about the money. have at it . If idiots wanna pay for dumb shit that's their dumb decision.

Personally I wouldn't give you a the steam off my piss let alone trust you with any money. as for forgiveness for ripping off kiddies. That's your bag to carry around. Karma will get you one way or another.

Well I was just trying to point out some misinformation in this thread hence why I replied because rumours are easily created.. I'm not here trying to change anyone's opinion about paid mods. No mods or content created by the community as addons will be/are used by us without permission.

 

-Kane

arma3projectlife.com

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Hey guys,

 

Just came across this https://arma3projectlife.com/ and players are forced to "purchase" the mod for $30 in order to download and then play on their servers. I thought this was completely illegal considering they are using ARMA 3 game?!?!? Are communities like this allowed to monetize off ARMA now? Sounds ridiculous... Anyone able to confirm?

 

I would imagine the $30 cover charge would weed out most of the 12 year olds that people seem to complain about on Life servers. No one is forced to do anything, and most jurisdictions agree that a price tag is not a declaration of war  ;)

[haleks 8212]

No one is forced to do anything, and most jurisdictions agree that a price tag is not a declaration of war  ;)

 

What disturbs me is that modding is not a trade. Modders can't and don't sell their work (as long as it uses any of BIS tools or samples) - they can only receive voluntary donations.

But anyone behind a server can charge access to said server...

 

It is no secret that most successfull servers receive more cash than any modder and this is what gets me : the disparity between modders and server owners. Ever since the Life phenomenon and the Steam Workshop appeared, the only ones who didn't win anything in the process are the modders : no license protection from Valve (or just the bare minimum) and bad patchworks of stolen content keep flourishing... It's becoming more and more easy for people to try and make money from their activity on Arma - except for the modders.

 

Kju initiated a long discussion a few years back regarding possible revenue models for modders, not long before leaving the modding scene... Nothing has changed since then, at least not for the modding community...

 

EDIT : Don't get me wrong : I ain't whinning for money; in fact I think the modding scene would be a much better place if money was totally out of the equation.

[target_practice 163]

I really have no problem with people earning money for their hard work.

Take for instance the unofficial Half Life remake Black Mesa. Although it originally started as a standalone mod and continues to use assets derived from Valve's games, I think it is reasonable that they now charge for the full version as the developers put a huge amount of work and time into its creation.

 

In the case of things such as A3PL and monetised life servers, I cannot condone charging money when not only does it exist behind a pre-established paywall, but it is built so heavily off the work of both the game's developers and other modders.

As Haleks rightly puts it, this kind of thing cannot be justified when it is those who put in the most effort who gain nothing.

[daphne 52]

What disturbs me is that modding is not a trade. Modders can't and don't sell their work (as long as it uses any of BIS tools or samples) - they can only receive voluntary donations.

But anyone behind a server can charge access to said server...

 

It is no secret that most successfull servers receive more cash than any modder and this is what gets me : the disparity between modders and server owners. Ever since the Life phenomenon and the Steam Workshop appeared, the only ones who didn't win anything in the process are the modders : no license protection from Valve (or just the bare minimum) and bad patchworks of stolen content keep flourishing... It's becoming more and more easy for people to try and make money from their activity on Arma - except for the modders.

 

Kju initiated a long discussion a few years back regarding possible revenue models for modders, not long before leaving the modding scene... Nothing has changed since then, at least not for the modding community...

 

EDIT : Don't get me wrong : I ain't whinning for money; in fact I think the modding scene would be a much better place if money was totally out of the equation.

Yeah, I agree. Many life servers began as a small community where some small time developers/modders put forward their time here and there, the owners of these communities often accepted donations for unfair perks. And most often then not very little of that money made it into the pockets of anyone but the owners.

 

And still today modders can't use any of the tools commercially or get paid for any of their work while owners are freely allowed to sell cosmetic items made by these same developers (or other content as long as it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage). Isn't that strange?

 

We pay our developers at A3PL for their work, but we have to work around license limitations e.g. we'll pay a modder for their models and have them import it into object builder for free.

 

But opening up the tools for commercial use, whether you are against it or not, will open up the community to better quality content for the game. Apparently it's totally okay if Bohemia releases a new expansion (essentially a mod) and you never hear anyone complaining but paid mods are somehow very controversial because people want them for free. Players have increasingly expected larger and larger conversion mods, for free. It is not sustainable. This engine has a lot more potential than people think and I hope they make the engine more open to the public in the future. Both for modders who wish to create commercial content or those that would rather make them for free, right now most of the money is reeled in by the server owners rather than those that create the content for their game.

 

-Kane

arma3projectlife.com

[target_practice 163]

I really have no problem with people earning money for their hard work.

Take for instance the unofficial Half Life remake Black Mesa. Although it originally started as a standalone mod and continues to use assets derived from Valve's games, I think it is reasonable that they now charge for the full version as the developers put a huge amount of work and time into its creation.

 

In the case of things such as A3PL and monetised life servers, I cannot condone charging money when not only does it exist behind a pre-established paywall, but it is built so heavily off the work of both the game's developers and other modders.

As Haleks rightly puts it, this kind of thing cannot be justified when it is those who put in the most effort that gain nothing.

[daphne 52]

I really have no problem with people earning money for their hard work.

Take for instance the unofficial Half Life remake Black Mesa. Although it originally started as a standalone mod and continues to use assets derived from Valve's games, I think it is reasonable that they now charge for the full version as the developers put a huge amount of work and time into its creation.

 

In the case of things such as A3PL and monetised life servers, I cannot condone charging money when not only does it exist behind a pre-established paywall, but it is built so heavily off the work of both the game's developers and other modders.

As Haleks rightly puts it, this kind of thing cannot be justified when it is those who put in the most effort that gain nothing.

Yeah, correct. The thing is though over at A3PL we pay modders for their work, but have to work around said limitations because we can't pay for content created with the ArmA 3 Tools since that would fall under 'commercial usage' forbidden inside the arma 3 tools EULA.

 

But if we get permission to use an already existing mod for our server we are legally not even allowed to pay the mod creator or work around said limitations because the EULA doesn't allow it. We do make people aware of this and that they allow us to use the content on a monetized server. We don't use a lot of community addons (with permission) though, we would rather make the content ourselves to prevent any issues.

 

-Kane

arma3projectlife.com

[x3kj 1247]

Actually, feel free to check our mod contents here (the link to the repo is also publicly available on our forum):

http://158.69.123.115/repo/

Bullshit. No you can't check mod content because it is all obfuscated etc. The names of your addons proof nothing. IDidNotStealAnything.pbo can contain anything

[daphne 52]

Bullshit. No you can't check mod content because it is all obfuscated etc. The names of your addons proof nothing. IDidNotStealAnything.pbo can contain anything

Not really, it is quite easy to de-obfuscate if you know what you're doing. It prevents 99% of skids from uploading it to steam workshop or onto their own server without permission and claiming that they created it. That isn't the only protection there though to prevent usage without permission.

 

Like someone else said being successful means there is some other spiteful jealous kids who try and snatch everything they can from your successful mod for their own benefits or profit. Players decide to play on the stolen version instead making it look like stealing is okay hence the dozens of knock off servers. The fact that ALT has recently stolen over 30+ server files (sa-matra,asylum, etc) in the past few days doesn't help this cause either. People who put lots of work into their server or mod just to have it stolen are moving on onto other things. Obfuscation is a good thing, and we need more of it. I'm fine with Bohemia monitoring our files as it is, but leaving non-obfuscated pbo's publically gives us many other problems. On our forums we always post W.I.P work of almost all of our content so you can make sure that we have not taken any content from another modder or content creator.

 

-Kane

arma3projectlife.com

[Armitxes 36]

Seems fine to me then and I support it aslong as content makers are rewarded and none of the work is used without permission.

 

Got also contacted by Microsoft due my ArmA related projects but while I totally love and enjoy programming and scripting, I totally suck at modelling.

I need help from others here at that point, that's how I got in touch with Maxjoiner who got my attention after Bohemia threatened him with an account suspension for his Max Life Mod & Cops and Robbers Mod.

He has really done an incomparable amazing work there which for sure took a lot of work, so he asked for a bit of money to obtain the usage rights which bohemia disliked.

 

Now I think it's unfair that you can hire devs & artists avoiding bohemias policy while other modders must offer their content for free - I'd really love to see a change here. Got a way around all of bohemia monetization rules aswell by simply making game-independent contracts on the cost of users (of course with agreement) but at the end it's just not right.