Server monetization program

[kerodan 25]

I would actually argue, that it is okay to allow monetization for server owners as it guarantees the owners to cover their costs (although I am also skeptical if these costs actually need that big of a compensation).

But monetizing the server should also entail paying the addon authors a share of the generated income. So, if you chose to monetize a modded server, every content creator benefits from the money generated by the monetization scheme.

 

The problem with this concept is - of course - that it would need a more active involvement by BI to bring the different content creators to the same table...

[deltagamer 612]

3 minutes ago, x3kj said:

Because thats what is to be expected from a product sold through official channels. If the mod has shit performance, BIS can find out fairly easily by checking the files. Users can not find out that stuff and other modders generally dont have access to it, or have their own problems or simply have no interest or time in trying to do that for other modders. And not many modders are knowledgeable about how to make stuff performance friendly. In addition, it reduces scamming potential (modder has to put in work to meet QC beforehand) - instead of taking the money and then running off. 

 

The unregulated attempt from skyrim failed (not the sole reason, but a big part of it).

 

If it was another bigger company in this situation I would probably agree with you however BI don't exactly have the resources to dedicate mod QA testers. Its always been their goal to focus on vanilla first and then worry about what external contributors such as modders may require. Due to this I feel its not in the scope of what BI wish to do for their game and would cause unnecessary strain that could be easily avoided.

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

But monetizing the server should also entail paying the addon authors a share of the generated income. So, if you chose to monetize a modded server, every content creator benefits from the money generated by the monetization scheme.

not only that, the payment for servers would have to go through official channels (either BI or Valve) rather than via direct payment to the server owners... otherwise they just claim they go nothing. And you can sure as hell count on Valve trying to take a gigantic cut from all of that.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

My opinion is that in the current environment it's a resounding 3 no's. I understand that servers cost money, but as others have said, if you can't afford one, don't run one. As it is, server operators are making money hand over fist on the backs of the mod creating community. How can it possibly be fair for a server operator to charge for their services (using a modders content), yet the mod creator cannot ask for any money whatsoever? It's all or nothing in my book. Equality across the board. 

[x3kj 1247]

1 minute ago, deltagamer said:

If it was another bigger company in this situation I would probably agree with you however BI don't exactly have the resources to dedicate mod QA testers.

Thats why it is payed with BIS receiving a cut. Quality controll of say a pack of 2 vehicles and a handfull of weapons does not take weeks. It takes maybe half an hour per asset at most to look over the files and spot most issues with it, for a modeller. Implementation quality (bugs ingame) are also not that hard to find either. They dont have to find everything after all. They only have to give a green light or not.

[skruis 180]

10 minutes ago, x3kj said:

not only that, the payment for servers would have to go through official channels (either BI or Valve) rather than via direct payment to the server owners... otherwise they just claim they go nothing. And you can sure as hell count on Valve trying to take a gigantic cut from all of that.

 

Well, that's really a non issue tbh. If I were to make an addon and then to allow a monetized server to use that addon, I would request a base flat fee payment and then potentially a fee per monetized slot on a monthly basis. I wouldn't need to know their percentages or how much they made. It wouldn't be my concern because the amount that they take in may not be entirely based off the addon I provide...if I provide a terrain and they sell a hat, should I get a portion of the hat profit? No. And if I don't receive payment, I would rescind my authorization forcing them to drop the addon from their server. If they argued that they did pay, they would have to produce proof that it was paid. In the case of monetized servers, Steam would handle the workshop content, BIS would handle the workshop content authorization on the monetized server and resolve payment disputes with the resolution being based solely on the claimant providing indisputable proof of payment or non-payment.

[x3kj 1247]

1 minute ago, skruis said:

and resolve payment disputes with the resolution

well count on BIS never ever doing that...

[skruis 180]

6 minutes ago, x3kj said:

well count on BIS never ever doing that...

They wouldn't handle money or issue refunds, they'd simply remove a workshop content authorization link from a monetized server's approved workshop content list. That, of course, would only work if the plan I suggested was implemented. This would only slightly expand BIS's role and responsibility in server monetization area and I wouldn't feel too sorry for them: The monetized life servers and their Twitch players/YouTuber's are helping to sell copies of ARMA so BIS is already being compensated indirectly...on a per player basis.

[Horus 83]

BIS first big mistake made when they went with Steam only road. Lots of mod veterans from OFP time just left the community.
Now they put money in the whole story.
Please BIS "Don't Cut Off The Branch You're Sitting On".
Without mod community no one would remembered OFP and BIS wouldn't released Arma ever.

[gossamersolid 155]

On the subject of monetization, I'm against all forms of it.

 

I don't think servers should be allowed to do it as they've currently been allowed. Taking donations as a community to pay for server bills or people that really just appreciate the work your admins do or what missions you run (this also applies to mods and missions too btw - people should feel free to setup donations for their work).

 

When money becomes a barrier to use certain mods/missions/servers/features of servers, it becomes a slippery slope where the entire experience is cheapened as a whole. Also once somebody starts doing it, everybody else jumps on the monetization train (same issue we saw once people accepted paying $5 to get a gun in AAA game #1).

[squirrel0311 16]

1 hour ago, Varanon said:

 

I wonder, why are you saying "small price" ?

Are you aware of the prices some servers ask from their users ? We've seen sites that charge you in excess of 50 Dollar per month for in-game items (like, sniper rifles) which is of course completely illegal since they aren't allowed to sell anything that's not cosmetic. But why are you saying "small price" while people sell clothing items in their server shops for 10 Dollar ? 

 

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at...

 

No server or Clan should be allowed to sell other people's add-on work (Clothing, Rifles, vehicles, HUDs, etc..) for their own (Clan Profit) personal or server related. If you didn't make the content you can't charge money for it. 

 

If you run a private server with add-ons you SHOULD be able to charge people to play on your server... HOWEVER, any add-ons that the clan servers or their players use need to be purchased from the maker of that add-on. 

 

For example. If the Iron Front mod is $10 and I want to start my own server for my clan of  85 people... I have to buy that mod and everyone who wants to play on my server has to buy that mod as well.  I could not charge people for the Iron Front content on my server. I could only charge them for the ability to play with me on my server.

 

I say small price because...

 

No one should be able to charge more for a mod than what Arma 3 originally cost without giving something back to BIS. Even if they make a whole new game from Arma 3, they shouldn't be able to make more money off of it without at the very least paying royalties to BIS.

 

Perhaps "small price" doesn't fit for every situation though, because I do believe that mod makers should be allowed to set their own price... This is so that in the case of modders who feel their work has been stolen by servers like LIFE, can charge a higher price to those server (purchases) to help compensate for misdoings. (e.g. $5 for personal use [Playing on modded servers] but $40 if you want to use the mod on a server where you charge or ask for donations.)  - (This would be messy but it is doable.) 

 

In any case, I think that Mod makers who want to charge for add-ons should have to pay a 3% royalty to BIS. 

 

For the rest who do it as a hobby, they're fine to make content and release it to everyone free of charge.

 

Mods made should be partly property of the maker and BIS only, ensuring no server can use their mods in a way that the maker or BIS doesn't approve of.

 

Also, I agree with having one source of payment where purchases and sells can be easily tracked, recorded, and reported. 

[Varanon 892]

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

I would be ok if BIS hand pics well executed mods (or missions) ...

 

Again, you divide modders and server admins. Why ? By your logic, BIS should hand-pick a few servers and allow monetization for them and ONLY for them.

But no, monetization on servers is not due to quality control.

Again, you make a strong distinction between modders and server admins for no reason at all. 

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

Again

Again? I havent even mentioned server owners nor what they should or should not be able to do. I just said i would be ok with authored community DLCs. If that is not a thing, i dont want addon monetization. End of story. Feel free to forge your own narrative though... i'm not going to buy it however.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, Varanon said:

 

Again, you divide modders and server admins. Why ? By your logic, BIS should hand-pick a few servers and allow monetization for them and ONLY for them.

But no, monetization on servers is not due to quality control.

Again, you make a strong distinction between modders and server admins for no reason at all. 

 

while I am probably an exception ( I run a reasonably popular public dedicated server and also tinker with the arma engine ), I think it is fair statistically to differentiate between content creators who spend thousands of hours modding, and the average server owner.

 

The best servers of course merge the two, capable content creator(s) working closely with the server and community. But those are few and far between. In 2017 I can count those servers on two hands. I say 2017 because the arma public server scene has contracted naturally since its peak in 2014, perhaps back then there was a higher number of modders working with servers.

 

tl;dr I think it is okay statistically to make distinction between server admin and modder.

[Varanon 892]

9 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

tl;dr I think it is okay statistically to make distinction between server admin and modder.

 

Statistics doesn't have anything to do with it. Either you allow for both, or for none (preferably for none).  You say you think it's "fair statistically to statistically differentiate between content creators and server owners". While you do not even say what this means (because it makes absolutely no sense), you don't even attempt any explanation for this beyond "I think", which is always rather weak.

So, why do you think that way ? Just because there are more content creators than server owners (there probably are, given the amount of items on the workshop) ? Do you think that will be enough justification for not allowing every content creator to monetize while allowing every server admin ? Give me a break, that would be like saying only politicians should get health care and workers shouldn't because there are many more workers than politicians. 

And on the subject of server admins that also create addons: How many of those addons are released to the public, especially by servers that monetize themselves ? How many of those addons are kept under wraps to promote your own server instead of giving it to the community ? 

 

11 hours ago, x3kj said:

Again? I havent even mentioned server owners nor what they should or should not be able to do. I just said i would be ok with authored community DLCs. If that is not a thing, i dont want addon monetization. End of story. Feel free to forge your own narrative though... i'm not going to buy it however.

 

No, you haven't mentioned server owners. But this discussion is about monetizing servers vs monetizing mods, and asking for restrictions on one while not mentioning the other basically implies that no such restrictions are necessary or wanted for the unmentioned part of the discussion.

 

And in fact, you do the very same thing again. "I don't want addon monetization". In this discussion's context, this means you are obviously ok or indifferent vis-a-vis server monetization. 

 

So again my question: Why do you think that modders shouldn't be able to monetize while server admins actually DO monetize and are allowed to ? 

[Varanon 892]

11 hours ago, squirrel0311 said:

Perhaps "small price" doesn't fit for every situation though, because I do believe that mod makers should be allowed to set their own price... This is so that in the case of modders who feel their work has been stolen by servers like LIFE, can charge a higher price to those server (purchases) to help compensate for misdoings. (e.g. $5 for personal use [Playing on modded servers] but $40 if you want to use the mod on a server where you charge or ask for donations.)  - (This would be messy but it is doable.) 

 

In any case, I think that Mod makers who want to charge for add-ons should have to pay a 3% royalty to BIS. 

 

Ok, small price... you are aware that some servers charge an arm and a leg for their services. We've looked into a lot of servers that were monetizing CUP illegally, and I was taken aback by the amount of money they charge. I've seen servers that literally sell VIP access for 50 to 100 Dollar PER MONTH. If you do the math, that's MUCH MORE than what Arma 3 cost in the first place. So again, there are no upper limits for server monetization in place, so what argument do you want to bring forward to determine that modders have to have an upper limit on payments while server admins are free to charge whatever they want ? 

Regarding royalty payments: Yet again, server admins do not pay any royalty to BIS, but you think that modders should ? Any arguments that support that ? Because I get the idea that most of you who oppose paid mods base your opinions on "feelings".

The current system put in place by BI is unfair, in all and any aspect, towards modders, who have to pay for their servers, too (CUP pays about 50 Euro per month for servers), for their software (Photoshop costs 10 Euro per month, 3ds MAX costs 200 $ per month, much more than a game server), for their licenses (if you want to, for example, buy models off Turbo Squid), and spent a lot of time on their stuff. OTOH, servers can ask any, even ridiculous amounts of money for their service, and some even use mods to add value to their servers.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds like a dumb question, but who here can NOT see the injustice in this ? 

[I'mJimFuckingSterlingSon 10]

Hi,

 

No i do not agree with kids charging other kids for money, i have seen so many servers that promote the option to become subscriber just so you can spawn with better gear. I salute those that say fuck off to that, the groups that do buy in are imo sad little kids trying to get an edge on others. We should all oppose this. It is also a reason why admins on servers always run around fully decked out with best snipers/launchers/uniform/headgear

 

No server monitizing, no mod monitizing, you can earn eternal glory by bringing out a good mod or become a respectable server admin/community.

People who aknowledge your work will perhaps donate to you, most wont, Nobody ever asked you to set up a server or script a mod, thats all on you so the arguement that it costs time and effort is meaningless to the user.

 

All i see is a way for players to get an edge on others, and in gamemodes like wasteland and exile this is definate no no to me. 

 

Other side, us users can decide to skip servers that monotize or hide gear behind a paywall. i know i do. 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by I'mJimFuckingSterlingSon

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, Varanon said:

you don't even attempt any explanation for this beyond "I think", which is always rather weak.

 

Quote

Because I get the idea that most of you who oppose paid mods base your opinions on "feelings".

 

not allowed to think ...

 

not allowed to feel ...

 

gg

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Of course the situation as it is is unfair, that is bc there is no fair and reasonable solution which doesn't also carry a lot of risk for BI.

[MeFirst 1]

Note that I am a member of 3 Commando Brigade, but I am not related to our modding team and this is just my personal view on this.

 

I am not strictly against monetization, but the biggest issue for me when people earn money based on the work of other people. Especially if the creators of the content want to share their content for free. So I don't really mind it when servers have "premium slots" and they charge money for it. Nobody is forced to play on these servers and spend money. It is much different when they use third party content and they earn money over that. I am no lawyer, but to me this is at least morally wrong and so I wish that BI could support the actual modding community here. If you give out your content for free and other people abuse it to earn a profit.

[dscha 147]

33 minutes ago, MeFirst said:

I am not strictly against monetization, but the biggest issue for me when people earn money based on the work of other people. Especially if the creators of the content want to share their content for free. So I don't really mind it when servers have "premium slots" and they charge money for it. Nobody is forced to play on these servers and spend money.

 

As long as they don't have ANY kind of Content, created by others.

Otherwise it would be the same Clusterf**k, as we have right now. They pay to play on a Server, that uses Content made by others.

[MrSanchez 243]

Imho,

 

Best case scenario: (Promotion of) monetization stops completely.

 

A bit worse, but to ease some pain: Monetized servers not allowed to run any mods whatsoever

 

Still worse but a nice idea: Find a way to please both server owner and mod makers.

According to BIS' FAQ about running mods on monetized servers:  You may, but ONLY if you have proper permission from all of the authors of such mods. Monetizing without it contravenes our licenses.

This would imply that the mod makers have power, if a mod maker says no, then it's done deal, no monetization of his mod. Doesn't work that way in practice though.

So many servers, so little control.

 

BIS doesn't allow mod makers to charge server owners for the usage of their mods on monetized servers, nor are they allowed to demand a share of the monetization revenue. Mod makers are only allowed to say yes or no towards a server owner asking for monetization permission, that is, if they ask in the first place.

And even then the server owner could just sneakily run the mod anyway because the chances of being found out are very slim and it's not like BIS is going to check on you either.

There's uncertainty for server owners too: Even if a mod maker would demand a share of the revenue all sneakybeaky under the table, what guarantee does the server owner have that the mod maker isn't just going to "revoke" permission afterwards?

 

In the end however, the server owners are the ones profiting  from this uncontrolled/unchecked mess that is called 'monetization', at the expense of mod makers.

(I don't think there's many content creators that like seeing others making money off of their creation, while they themselves receive nothing).

 

To put it in a bit of a childish manner: If I can't make money off of my creation, others shouldn't be able to make money off of my creation either. (All or nothing)

 

Find a way to govern monetization better (which is difficult, yes) or remove it entirely.

 

 

TLDR;

My initial opinion about monetization is that it's bad completely. No good. Money poisons communities.

However, if BIS is absolutely 150% certain they want monetization, they should find a way to create a fair balance between server owner <> mod makers.

 

Kind regards,

Sanchez

[taro8 806]

Again I would like to remind everybody about Skyrim paid modding fiasco. We can't have paid modding without the whole thing turning into total clusterfuck in a blink of an eye. The daisy chaining of mods and so on is a big part of that. Imagine if CBA charged money for their stuff without any free alternative. Now imagine a reverse scenario: CBA  does not allow any kind of monetization for addons that use it.

 

Modding community is only being held together by goodwill and chewed gum. The moment you introduce money to it it turns to shit with people not sharing info and such, it stops being a community and becomes marketplace with cutthroat competition. If you get money into modding you can just take the modding community out in the back and shoot it right there and then, will save a LOT of drama.

[bad benson 1733]

i generally agree that paying for addons is more problematic/harder to get right than server slot subscription. and i'd prefer to not make mods about money.

 

but i feel there's a big issue with server monetization that is directly linked to mods. sure there are probably a few successful monetized vanilla servers out there. but let's be honest, the big chunk of monetized servers is using mods (looking at you dayz clones). at that's where it gets problematic. i generally, with my own stuff, mostly just want people to be able to use it anywhere so they can enjoy it without hassle.

 

but it still rubs me the wrong way that there are servers out there having for example climbing as an advertised feature and then indirectly making money off of it that way eventhough the usage of the mod itself is not behind a paywall. having certain features on your server absolutely will influence the decision of people to pay for a slot. and with arma, no offense BIS, the game would be dead without all the free content created by enthusiasts.

 

it's just a the truth.

it just doesn't feel right. it's a little bit like with streaming services and musical artists. no one would use streaming platforms wihout the actual music. but still those companies get fucken rich as fuck using other people's stuff to make people use their service while the artists get a tiny cut. and yes muscial artists are finding other ways to make money but the truth is that they're getting ripped off.

 

i still don't think the solution is to monetize everything. i'd rather have it removed overall. people will make money off of retards either way. why legititimize them and thus backstabbing modders just minding their own business?

 

to me there is a big difference between making no money and making no money but knowing others are making money with what i make for free.

[x3kj 1247]

7 hours ago, Varanon said:

But this discussion is about monetizing servers vs monetizing mods, and asking for restrictions on one while not mentioning the other basically implies that no such restrictions are necessary or wanted for the unmentioned part of the discussion.

 

And in fact, you do the very same thing again. "I don't want addon monetization". In this discussion's context, this means you are obviously ok or indifferent vis-a-vis server monetization. 

 

So again my question: Why do you think that modders shouldn't be able to monetize while server admins actually DO monetize and are allowed to ? 

And here you come again with your "again" and try to forge your own narrative out of what i said. I dont want server monetization. If it stays, addons need to be monetizable as well. Thats what i said. Quit trying to twist my words and also the things i didnt say.

38 minutes ago, bad benson said:

to me there is a big difference between making no money and making no money but knowing others are making money with what i make for free.

hit the nail on the head.

 

2 hours ago, MrSanchez said:

Mod makers are only allowed to say yes or no towards a server owner asking for monetization permission, that is, if they ask in the first place.

And they even have to jump through extra hoops to find and stop those people that use their stuff regardless. If you are lucky you made a totally unique model that is plain obvious to whom it belongs. If not, you made a script that enhances gameplay in a sublte way. Unless players on one of the many servers point it out to you, or you check every server, you are unlikely to find out monetary abuse cases. And since those servers have paywalls you have to pay before you can even check it out. Plus they usually repackage your stuff and obfuscate the content.