Server monetization program

[PuFu 4600]

3 hours ago, dragon01 said:

So, what kind of expectation is "reasonable"? If you paid for something, you have every right to expect the person who sold it to you to bend to your will, at least as far as the contract goes. 

nope, you would be buying a product, you wouldn't be buying a bespoke service.

 

Quote

This is exactly what causes paid modding to come crashing down. 

note really no

 

Quote

But if I paid for it, I'd have every right to demand a prompt fix for every bug, timely updates to keep it working with the latest ArmA and quality appropriate to the price I paid. I would have every right to bug them about updates, too. So would everyone who has bought the mod. Such a situation would certainly not be fun for the team, and they wouldn't be able to give any of the usual responses to such behavior, because those people had paid them. "It's done when it's done" doesn't do when you're dealing with paying customers. 

you would be entitled to ask for that mod to be supported, depending on the agreement for the product. same goes for bug fixes and what not

again, you wouldn't be entitled to more content via updates, because you haven't paid for that...

 

[PuFu 4600]

1 hour ago, sancron said:

But if people want to make money with their 3d-Work as example, there are other ways they can be collect some money (cgtrader, etc.).

tbsquid, cgtrader etc are usually markets for a different products - mainly offline renders (vfx, archviz etc) - (rarely game assets mainly because these assets are made bespoke for each individual game, so there is little market there)

 

Quote

But what should be with Donations or Patreon, that Creators can use to collect some money from Fans, that would like to say thankyou.

that doesn't actually work. 

[Killjoyy 170]

I seriously don't see how BI would we want to involve themselves in trying to monitor sells of addons when they can barely monitor their monetization program now. Let that sink in for a bit. Common sense dictates, the market would be a monumental cesspool to try and organize and control. If there was going to be a market of paid addons for arma, BI would have integrated this a long time ago. Would be a train wreck if they tried to do this now.

[Macser 776]

Are there any examples of a community, game related or otherwise, where paid material does work? That co-exists along with open source and free material. Where there is no formal regulation or even standard. And yet somehow continues to exist. Where the material in question relies on the existence of a parent program, rather than being stand alone.

 

You and others frequently allude to the fact it it will be rife with abuses and lead to all sorts of nefarious behaviour. Indicating that you believe this community as a whole is already capable of it. Is that not something to be concerned about in of itself?

 

If that is something separate to you and people who share your point of view, then you obviously belong to a subset of that community. And are therefore decent and honourable in your dealings with others. Why then would it affect you in a negative way, if a lot of modders, within that subset, were to have a choice?

[lawndartleo 109]

PuFu, I don't want to read you wrong but your stance seems to be that as consumers we should accept that we will make one time purchases and should have no expectation of code maintenance by the seller.  Please tell me I am getting your point wrong.

[Guest]

So the guy pay me 25$ for a script and i need to give support until my life remains? Naaah... this is why i never wanted a payd work in the "make script" Arma 3 market.

 

--//--

 

Why the bad break the good? It's because the good is under the bad?

 

A king on the top of a inverted mountain.

 

There can be only one!

 

"I can't live with the fact i'm not the most valuable humam in earth."

[sancron 32]

On 24.2.2017 at 1:07 AM, Macser said:

@sancron

Ok. You're suggesting that your beliefs should be applied to something you had no part in creating? Am I correct? Or misunderstanding you?

 

Why do you assume that a responsible person wouldn't want to support their work? Or couldn't?

 

Why can't a donation system co-exist with a fee based model? What makes them mutually exclusive?

 

I think you missunderstood something i wrote. Donations are okay, but like @kiory wrote before, there are not many people arround that using it maybe.

 

Also when some Modder provide a service for creating some special Mods is also ok. I only mean, that whe don't need already created Mods, which we need to pay for. I make a difference between a Service and a Produkt. If a Mod is already created and someone will sell it. I buy a Product where i also want as customer some warrenty and support, i think that is some thing every customer wants.

 

But when i buy a Service, maybe i go on and ask @kiory to build me some special Mod and pay him some money for this. The Service ends when he finished the Work. So i know what i get, when i invest my Money in a Service. But when i buy a Product and the Modder says, sorry i am not longer intrested to invest my time in Arma, i have maybe a Product what is buggy or gets buggy in the next Arma patch.

 

That is the problem which i should see personaly, if we have Paid Mods in the Community.

[Macser 776]

Ok. Maybe you don't want something like that. But maybe some do want access to quality they can't otherwise get. Not just a static asset.  I don't know. The poll as it is, isn't really indicative. I know the against outweighs the fors. But it's a very small number of total votes.

 

All I see is an option. Should modders have the option? That's not an impediment to you, me or anyone else continuing to do what we've always done. If some folks try to sell crap, I don't think it would last long. They'd be lucky to make a few sheckles out of it. And then they're done. No-one's going to touch them again with a ten foot barge pole. And that's without a standard in place.

 

If someone reputable were to try it, you can be sure they'd put as much effort into it as they do now. If not more. You wouldn't be getting a crappy box with a hand drawn normal map and a flat specular. More than likely it would be on a par with official DLC. But we'd still have the choice to pass on it. 

 

I don't know about you, but any of the modders I'm familiar with are not shysters and con artists. They aren't suddenly going to change. And I wouldn't see them any differently should they avail of such an option. But that's just my take on it. And of course that's an assumption we're making. It's as likely the uptake wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread as some of us think. If it ever happens. 

[Guest]

On the company i work, when you ask something to TI, they do it and then ask you to give your ok.

If its ok, so you say "Its ok!" and the end.

 

If you back to then in the next day and say "Sorry, its not ok, i found a problem!" its all to the TI guys to fix it or not, and probably they will not fix it, its another entire process. Another cost. You pay again.

[kiory 405]

9 hours ago, donnovan said:

On the company i work, when you ask something to TI, they do it and then ask you to give your ok.

If its ok, so you say "Its ok!" and the end.

 

If you back to then in the next day and say "Sorry, its not ok, i found a problem!" its all to the TI guys to fix it or not, and probably they will not fix it, its another entire process. Another cost. You pay again.

Fixes and changes are two different things.

 

In a hypothetical sense, if we were getting paid for addons, we WOULD be obligated to fix the problems, free of charge, because, you know, they are problems that arise from things like oversight, or perhaps you just made a mistake.

However, if the community who has purchased said addons WANT changes, then it's at the addon creators discretion to make the changes requested, they aren't obligated to make changes, but like any outlet that sells things, it might be in your best interest to make the changes requested, if it's a couple of people here and there, it's not a big deal, but crank that number to the hundreds, possibly thousands, then that's something to take into consideration.

In a free addon market, no one is obligated to do anything, but still people feel entitled to everything, it's hilarious to watch to be honest.

 

The truth of the matter is, Bohemia Interactive and the Arma series would not be here today if it weren't for addon creators (Hell, that applies to most games with modding capabilities), we add a shit ton of value to their products, they know that, we know that, the only people that don't seem to understand that are the outspoken people here who are against it and view it as utterly evil and wouldn't contribute anything at all.

Other than buying the game and supporting BI, what are you doing to support us? 

Absolutely nothing. War, huh, yea, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

[sancron 32]

10 hours ago, Macser said:

I don't know about you, but any of the modders I'm familiar with are not shysters and con artists. They aren't suddenly going to change. And I wouldn't see them any differently should they avail of such an option. But that's just my take on it. And of course that's an assumption we're making. It's as likely the uptake wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread as some of us think. If it ever happens

 

I won't say all modders are "shysters", i know we have some very talentet and nice Modders arround, but look at Kickstarter Campaigns or Steam Greenlight. There should be enough black Sheeps outside they start something where you think this could be nice. And when they have collect some money they grab the Money and go away.

 

Also look at Skyrim, Valve and Bethesda was try to establish a paid mod System and was only earn Shitstorm for this. Even if there was some Mods which was have the Quality of a Paid DLC like RHS as big Example for Arma. Also what happens when someone take the work of others and sell it. There should already enough morons outside, that just take others work and think that they can do whatever they want and Modders already fight agains. So Modders need also better Support to protect their Work.

 

And i know how hard and long it can takes to made a Mod, personally i was start using Blender to create simple Assets for Arma. And it's a hard approach when there are limited informations that help somebody to made it right (i know that there are many tutorials on YouTube but some special Topics are hard to find). And if a Modder is familiar and make great Mods, spend his free Time for this, they should get some appreciation for his work and respectful handling with his rights on his work. And when there is money involved, there are also some illegal activity which will follow (What also exist alrady on free Mods by people using other Content to gain Money). And Modder need to fight even harder to protect their riights.

 

Correct me please if i see this wrong.

[kiory 405]

6 hours ago, sancron said:

Also look at Skyrim, Valve and Bethesda was try to establish a paid mod System and was only earn Shitstorm for this. Even if there was some Mods which was have the Quality of a Paid DLC like RHS as big Example for Arma. Also what happens when someone take the work of others and sell it. There should already enough morons outside, that just take others work and think that they can do whatever they want and Modders already fight agains. So Modders need also better Support to protect their Work.

This is the only thing I want to correct. Valve and Bethesda made a bad move and they both accepted that, but they both also believe that addon creators need to be compensated, regardless of what other people think, and we're talking about million/billion dollar corporations here, who want to compensate the people who add value to their games/systems, if they think so, why are they wrong? How does it make sense to say that they are wrong, even though they are saying there's a bug in the system and want to compensate us?

 

If anyone knows, it's them. And yea, before anyone say's it,  I know they want to line their own coffers as well, but that's a moot point, that's how business works, grow up.

If addons are being sold on an asset store, then they have a seal of approval, however minuscule, we would actually have better rights being able to monetize addons than having everything free, because free is a grey area, and everything is up for grabs (according to cunts on the internet who don't actually give a fuck, tell me I'm wrong), I knew this from the start, which is why I released all my addons as open source from the beginning, it would've only been stolen to begin with. With being able to make money, selling our addons in an official capacity, who in their right mind would steal DLC from an official source? Who would waste their time fucking us over, stealing our assets and claiming it as their own.

As I see it, people will steal, cheat, beg and goad in a free system, you put something in the way like monetezation, and lot of those problems go away. It does present other problems and I do not deny that in the slightest, but those are problems that could be overcome easier than thieving and lying, and the general scumbaggery I've seen in this community.

Money gives something value, as of right now, addons are free, so technically they have no value (which is absolute bullshit), but they are valuable to us and they've even added value to Arma 3, ten fold, and I'm probably not even exaggerating here, it could potentially be more, only BI know those figures.

[taro8 806]

 

3 hours ago, kiory said:

As I see it, people will steal, cheat, beg and goad in a free system, you put something in the way like monetezation, and lot of those problems go away. It does present other problems and I do not deny that in the slightest, but those are problems that could be overcome easier than thieving and lying, and the general scumbaggery I've seen in this community.

 

Oh boy you are wrong. If money is on the table it only makes things worse. All the 14yo and other dickheads will think that they can take the old mods, cut them up and sell apart. Or take some shitty CoD ripped gun model, do a hackjob to get it into arma and then sell it.

 

Just look at steam greenlight or the kickstarter. Some succeeded, but overwhelming majority of the products are complete shit AND PEOPLE PAY FOR IT REGARDLESS. Just look at the unity asset flips in the greenlight section.

[kiory 405]

1 hour ago, taro8 said:

 

 

Oh boy you are wrong. If money is on the table it only makes things worse. All the 14yo and other dickheads will think that they can take the old mods, cut them up and sell apart. Or take some shitty CoD ripped gun model, do a hackjob to get it into arma and then sell it.

 

Just look at steam greenlight or the kickstarter. Some succeeded, but overwhelming majority of the products are complete shit AND PEOPLE PAY FOR IT REGARDLESS. Just look at the unity asset flips in the greenlight section.

I see you have chosen to ignore everything I've said in the past, you only picked out what sentences suits your arguments.

First of all, what makes you think any sort of system put in place will be as bad as Greenlight? Why do you think Valve are abandoning that system? Greenlight is/was a platform for selling indie games, not addons, it's on a FAR bigger scale than what BI and addon creators would have to deal with.

Secondly, what makes you think that 14 year old kids aren't already doing that? It does happen, you just need to know where to look, you know all those servers you have to pay money to gain entry?.... yea...

At least monetizing our addons would give us some protection against that, some rights to take action, and free addons still have rights, if the addon creator has chosen to go that route. Of course, it all boils down to whether the community/addon creators have the goodness in their hearts to see said addons, and let the original content creator that the scumbags are violating their rights, stealing their work and passing it off as their own.

Let me let you in on something, the community won't do that, by in large they don't really care what goes on in the background, save a very low amount of decent people.

 

[taro8 806]

3 hours ago, kiory said:

I see you have chosen to ignore everything I've said in the past, you only picked out what sentences suits your arguments.

First of all, what makes you think any sort of system put in place will be as bad as Greenlight? Why do you think Valve are abandoning that system? Greenlight is/was a platform for selling indie games, not addons, it's on a FAR bigger scale than what BI and addon creators would have to deal with.

Secondly, what makes you think that 14 year old kids aren't already doing that? It does happen, you just need to know where to look, you know all those servers you have to pay money to gain entry?.... yea...

At least monetizing our addons would give us some protection against that, some rights to take action, and free addons still have rights, if the addon creator has chosen to go that route. Of course, it all boils down to whether the community/addon creators have the goodness in their hearts to see said addons, and let the original content creator that the scumbags are violating their rights, stealing their work and passing it off as their own.

Let me let you in on something, the community won't do that, by in large they don't really care what goes on in the background, save a very low amount of decent people.

 

What kind of protection do you expect? It is already well established that stealing someone's addons is a no-no, yet people do that, despite the fact all is free (why take credit for someone else's work then?). CUP has licence with forbids monetization, yet some dipshits still set up servers with CUP stuff as "donation rewards", despite the fact they cannot do that, yet often BI have to step in and axe the whole thing.

 

All of this is happening even if there is no real money in mods. When greedy dickwads will smell gold in them hills things will turn into shit fast. I don't want to browse mods section and have it look like a mobile game where everything extra has a price tag attached no matter how shitty the mod is.

 

Why turn mods into micro transactions?

 

Also notice the issues for BIS: what about mods like Operation Trebuchet? They wont be able to monetize despite massive amount of work thy put into that. Why? They use the Halo IP and if money is involved the right holders HAVE to take action if someone is infringing on their rights, otherwise they risk others following and not being able to get them into court. There was a great mod in the making for the Skyrim based on Lord of the Rings, but the right holders issued a DMCA. It was years before paid modding was a thing for Skyrim.

 

Modding was, is and, hopefully will be, a grey area. This means we can get away with quite a lot of bullshit and copyright infringement, since mods aren't sold as a product. Imagine if Microsoft stepped in and axed the OpTre because they learned about paid modding in Arma. They won't care if mod is monetised, for them OpTre can be put on sale any time, better to play safe, just DMCA and protect their IP, .

 

Also BIS would have to do some hands on moderation with always means more costs. What if some company decides to sue because of IP infringement? Who will they sue? BIS? Modder? Moderators for letting the mod in?

 

We have a pretty decent thing going, don't rock the boat in the name of measly couple of bucks. Is that how much you are willing to sell out the whole thing for?

[kiory 405]

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

What kind of protection do you expect? It is already well established that stealing someone's addons is a no-no, yet people do that, despite the fact all is free (why take credit for someone else's work then?). CUP has licence with forbids monetization, yet some dipshits still set up servers with CUP stuff as "donation rewards", despite the fact they cannot do that, yet often BI have to step in and axe the whole thing.

 

IP protection, being able to invest in copywriting, money for solicitors , etc.

 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

All of this is happening even if there is no real money in mods. When greedy dickwads will smell gold in them hills things will turn into shit fast. I don't want to browse mods section and have it look like a mobile game where everything extra has a price tag attached no matter how shitty the mod is.

 

Again, you have clearly ignored everything I've said in the past, I proposed a licensing system, which you'd pay per annum even just for the privilege of selling DLC, that would filter out most of the jackasses trying to fuck the system, you'd still have your free mods, but then you'd have "premium" dlc made by addon makers who are serious about it.

You might not want to, but you don't speak for everyone.
 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

Why turn mods into micro transactions?

 

To support your local and favourite addon creators, perhaps?

 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

Also notice the issues for BIS: what about mods like Operation Trebuchet? They wont be able to monetize despite massive amount of work thy put into that. Why? They use the Halo IP and if money is involved the right holders HAVE to take action if someone is infringing on their rights, otherwise they risk others following and not being able to get them into court. There was a great mod in the making for the Skyrim based on Lord of the Rings, but the right holders issued a DMCA. It was years before paid modding was a thing for Skyrim.

 

That's the path they take, if they want to create a mod that's infringing copyright, that is their prerogative, of course they won't be entitled to anything. Hell, I don't even know if they have permission to use the owners IP at this point, which would either be Bungie, or 343 studios, I have no idea anymore.
 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

Modding was, is and, hopefully will be, a grey area. This means we can get away with quite a lot of bullshit and copyright infringement, since mods aren't sold as a product. Imagine if Microsoft stepped in and axed the OpTre because they learned about paid modding in Arma. They won't care if mod is monetised, for them OpTre can be put on sale any time, better to play safe, just DMCA and protect their IP, .

I'm pretty sure if the right people caught wind of it, it would get DMCA'd anyway, they have every right to protect their IP.

 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

Also BIS would have to do some hands on moderation with always means more costs. What if some company decides to sue because of IP infringement? Who will they sue? BIS? Modder? Moderators for letting the mod in?

Anything worth doing costs money, you may not understand this, but modding actually comes with a cost too, time, electric and heating costs, food, keeping a roof over your head, people sacrifice a lot when modding, but that's easily overlooked when you don't think about it.

 

7 hours ago, taro8 said:

We have a pretty decent thing going, don't rock the boat in the name of measly couple of bucks. Is that how much you are willing to sell out the whole thing for?

 

Ah, the old "selling out" spiel. 

First of all, we don't have a pretty decent thing going, when you reach a certain notoriety, people will bitch, moan and demand from you, that's how they show their appreciation, not with support, but with demands, and they don't even pay for the privilege. If you want to live in your little bubble and pretend everything is honky dory, that's fine, but don't spout bullshit about people selling out.

Also, I'm sorry, I had absolutely no idea you could transcribe many possible futures, how do you know it'll only come to a few measly bucks? 

That's an incredible talent, you'd make a lot of money with it, oh wait.... making money is bad, never mind.

Anyway, that very little amount of money would put food in my belly, keep a roof over my head and allow me to pay my bills, I fucking love Arma and I love creating for it, I'd quit everything just to come back, but it's not financially viable, and the big shame is that I have some really bloody cool ideas for addons, not to toot my own horn (well maybe a little bit), but I'm the sort of person who can make shit happen.

[Macser 776]

I still don't get this idea of "selling out". What exactly does that mean? Doing things for free does not qualify a person as being inherently good or honourable. Just as putting a price on something isn't inherently evil or dishonourable. 

 

I know people who turned hobbies into something they earn a supplementary income from. They get don't any crap from people in the same field. Same with Blender addon authors who sell their work. Despite the fact it's an open source environment, they happily co-exist with others who release their work for free. And even have their respect. Largely due to them maintaining high standards. 

 

One other point that keeps cropping up, which I also don't understand. If people are so dead set against the idea of monetisation, why would they be browsing a page hosting paid mods and addons at all?  Surely it's nonsensical to complain about there being a ton of stuff to wade through, if you've clearly no intention of buying any of it.

 

And why would those same people frequent servers using paid mods or addons? If the number of people against the idea is so great, then surely there'd be enough servers being set up using freely available content. And wouldn't it then follow that there'd be more of them?

 

One of the main problems with Bethesda from, my view point, was their condition divesting themselves of curation.  It showed a lack of understanding of the community they were trying to leverage. I think that would be a basic foundation of any system. Where the company has the back of the community and involves themselves in some level of vetting.

[bad benson 1733]

20 hours ago, kiory said:

Money gives something value, as of right now, addons are free, so technically they have no value (which is absolute bullshit), but they are valuable to us and they've even added value to Arma 3, ten fold, and I'm probably not even exaggerating here, it could potentially be more, only BI know those figures.

 

sad but true. giving people something for free will only make them think it has no value. or atleast make them act like it. since it must have some value to them as they downloaded it in the first place.

 

i've got so much praise in my steam page comments (way way less than entitled crying lol...but i choose to focus on the praise to keep my sanity ) along the lines of "this should be part of the game by default" but, so far, the fantasy of everyone or atleast many dropping one dollar as a donation and thus it adding up to something meaningful has not come true at all. much to learn from kickstarters. don't just give people things. just talk something you haven't made yet (or never will) up like it's the revolution of everything that came before. THAT is how you collect money!

 

again. i don't expect donations and i don't want to rely on it, but it's the truth of how people are. and that damn well includes myself. that is the reason why models like patreon exist. to make people actually commit more. people aren't grateful by nature especially not to someone they aren't even face to face with. the product is the only connection. hence the weird phenomenon of people paying streamers just for sitting there. some call it friend simulator. inclines people way more since they get a human and live reaction.

 

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

 

i personally wouldn't want to pay for any mod unless it's something ground breaking and innovative that actually makes me want to play arma more. no matter how awesome a weapon or vehicle is modelled. i can't see myself buying any. no matter the price. already having trouble getting my buddies to download free mods haha.

i have donated to a few people but not much since i'm broke as fuck most of the time. i could absolutely see myself doing that more depending on my finances though but i know that that is not the norm by any stretch.

 

so one of my personal reasons to oppose this is that i'm still somewhat of a player myself. and i'm not sure if that applies to everyone seeing an opportunity here. there's a difference between "hey let's all pay eachother" and "i could get paid here for what i did for free, grew frustrated with and want to turn into a job now". i'd probably see this differently, if i wouldn't have a glimmer of hope left that i can somehow turn this clunky outdated game into just the thing i wanna play it's so sad lol

 

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

i agree mostly that money added to the equation won't make stealing more prevelant and i feel that is put forth as the main thing way too much. i also feel that wanting to get paid is not morally bad at all. i just wonder if it's a mutual thing. pay and get paid. or just get paid.

 

what is a way more real thing that i have witnessed a lot around the time of the MANW contest is lack of cooperation, forming of enclosed groups and generally very "tactical" behavior instead of "oh you need this? sure go ahead, since i released it for free anyways". i also remember features getting cut from projects to get the best cost benefit ratio. so maybe for smaller art asset addons quality could rise with money invovled. for the more indepth complex things you need a crazy passionate fuck wasting his whole night because he can't help himself. could be wrong though.

 

THESE are the things people should actually be worried about in my opinion.

i pm a lot of people about their projects giving input and offering help (people probably getting weirded out not knowing i'm just weirdly enthusiastic ). i sure as hell won't do that, if this turns into a market place. not the end of the world. but just saying. it changes behavior...for sure.

 

this WILL happen because that is the nature of conducting business. good or bad in terms of morale aside. i can totally see how for example modellers are seeing a huge opportunity here since it is a pretty great business model to pump out a new weapon every other month or week. for coders things are way way more complicated, in terms of cost benefit and also in terms of IP ownership. something to consider.

 

but i feel that should this all ever come to fruition these things should be laid out in detail and discussed and analysed brutally honest, if we want vetting that can make this good. if everyone focusses only on their side it might actually turn into a shit show.

[kiory 405]

The only reason I don't help people out much these days is because I just don't have time, I'm going through a transitional period right now so I have time to make posts here and see how this thing evolves, clearly I'm for it and that's not a popular opinion, but I hate to see it demonized the way it is though.

I can't speak for everyone who creates any sort of addons, but I know for me, I'd still help people, probably invest time into making some legit tutorials for what I know, I've said that before, that would create an equal playing field and opens up more content for consumers.

 

I'm also interested to know how much people think these addons would actually cost, because the way I see it, it wouldn't cost much at all, ranging from something like 50 pence to like £8 for the larger addons.

Are you all saying you wouldn't pay 50 pence for a brand spanking new rifle with a few different skins? 

Christ, I've had people commission me for models for muuuuuch more, it's not a huge ask, is it?

 

[PuFu 4600]

45 minutes ago, bad benson said:

1. sad but true. giving people something for free will only make them think it has no value. or atleast make them act like it. since it must have some value to them as they downloaded it in the first place.

 

2. i agree mostly that money added to the equation won't make stealing more prevelant and i feel that is put forth as the main thing way too much. i also feel that wanting to get paid is not morally bad at all. i just wonder if it's a mutual thing. pay and get paid. or just get paid.

 

3. what is a way more real thing that i have witnessed a lot around the time of the MANW contest is lack of cooperation, forming of enclosed groups and generally very "tactical" behavior instead of "oh you need this? sure go ahead, since i released it for free anyways". i also remember features getting cut from projects to get the best cost benefit ratio. so maybe for smaller art asset addons quality could rise with money invovled. for the more indepth complex things you need a crazy passionate fuck wasting his whole night because he can't help himself. could be wrong though.

 

1. if you put real man hours value to most mods here, even at 50% of the market rates, you end up in excess of hundred of thousands of dollars per year. Most people are not aware of the amount of time, money and knowhow required to make the simplest things as a mod these days...hence the "add this or that" thing going on. 

2. i think that there are mods out there that have issues with IPs, yes. There are quite a few others that don't (original content from A to Z). Where is the problem? I don't get people trying to port other IPs when they could create their own instead (startreck, halo, star wars etc are good examples). Same goes for using someone else's work, be it content, texture or IP...

 

On 2/25/2017 at 0:51 AM, Macser said:

If that is something separate to you and people who share your point of view, then you obviously belong to a subset of that community. And are therefore decent and honourable in your dealings with others. Why then would it affect you in a negative way, if a lot of modders, within that subset, were to have a choice?

to be perfectly honest, there are more and more people selling/making content for a buck these days...so it already happens, but currently is in the shadow part of things...

I can assure you if the EULA for O2 would be differently, things like this would be right in the open? Is it bad? Doubt it, the market always self-regulates itself...

 

On 2/26/2017 at 1:39 AM, lawndartleo said:

PuFu, I don't want to read you wrong but your stance seems to be that as consumers we should accept that we will make one time purchases and should have no expectation of code maintenance by the seller.  Please tell me I am getting your point wrong.

You did read me wrong yes. When you make a purchase, there is a contract of sorts in the mix. I said that you should expect a bug-free product that is supported for as long as possible (it is also only in the interest of the seller as well). What you shouldn't expect is new content and features to that product being delivered. Current example being RHS in which we add more content and features which each new release, besides fixing bugs and polishing stuff further.

 

In short, if you would be buying a humvee pack, you should expect it to be supported and updated if needed in relation to BIS updates, but shouldn't expect to transform itself into a NATO land vehicle pack for whatever reasons, nor would allow you to ask for more humvees than the ones that have been initially provided (unless you would be paying a subscription fee - which in turn makes a product into a service).

 

16 hours ago, taro8 said:

1. Oh boy you are wrong. If money is on the table it only makes things worse. All the 14yo and other dickheads will think that they can take the old mods, cut them up and sell apart. Or take some shitty CoD ripped gun model, do a hackjob to get it into arma and then sell it.

 

2. Just look at steam greenlight or the kickstarter. Some succeeded, but overwhelming majority of the products are complete shit AND PEOPLE PAY FOR IT REGARDLESS. Just look at the unity asset flips in the greenlight section.

1. the market self-regulates. also, just so you know, these 14yo dipshits (and older of course) are already doing it...besides, most addon makers around here do know how to protect their own IP rights...

2. you are confusing things. both greenlight and kickstarted are getting money for things that don't really exists. So in a way, you are paying (pre-ordering) for an idea, not for a product. A lot of people also pre-order games, which, i personally don't do, besides BI games and recently escape from tarkov.

 

[bad benson 1733]

55 minutes ago, kiory said:

Are you all saying you wouldn't pay 50 pence for a brand spanking new rifle with a few different skins?

 

tbh man. probably not. but that's just because i have no need for it. not trying to speak for anyone else at all though. so no objections to a cost model like that at all, just not something i'd ever buy. i love a well crafted model in arma but i already don't download free single weapon addons. makes MP a nightmare. which is a large issue on it's own. and putting a price on stuff surely won't help that. which again speaks to my player vs author vs player/author interest distinction when it comes to this. i always advocate for evveryone being able to use everything. never liked total conversions like "life" locking stuff down.

 

i think maybe if cosmetic stuff would be auto downloaded and visible to everyone without them needing it, i would think different. like tf2 hats. that would be great.

 

if anything i currently use CUP because of the terrains and civilian vehicles included and to keep things simple (all in one). which brings it back to my point about keeping it fair for everyone. there is a giant effort behind CUP (hard to do it justice here but i know it requires insane amounts of work). BUT. it's mostly or a lot of config work and it's ported BIS assets. so how are these guys compensated? since we are making this about supporting the nice guy next door that makes what you use.

 

that's kind of what i was hinting at. generally why keep modellers  from selling cosmetics? yea i agree. but part of this discussion is making things fair compared to now where only servers can benefit. so i feel it's not easy to include everyone. this is not just about weapon models and skins is what i'm saying.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

http://www.pcgamer.com/ark-survival-evolved-developer-will-pay-modders-4000-per-month-to-complete-their-mods/

[Hatchet_AS 201]

I'll skip the debate part for now. Those that know me, know I side with Monetizing it all.

 

For me it is simply that I believe the artists/coders should have the ability to be rewarded for what they do. You will never stop the thieves, you'll never be able to keep up with it all. But that does not mean it's an unmanageable scenario. If nothing else, the opportunity for artists who often spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars and man hours of their own ... can recoup some of that in doing for everyone else, is worthwhile to me.

 

Does that potentially lead to mass influx of crap in the mix, sure it does (for the record, already tons of crap..). But I think it's very much up to the community to help regulate/sort that. And I would have thought this community amongst them all, could actually do it. At the same time though, the good guys (people who know what they doing, who do things properly, provide quality assets), have additional motivation and reason to do what they do. And who benefits from that? Everyone. Unless your argument is 'you deserve everything for free'. Don't ask me how I feel about that.

 

Anyway, poll is fairly disheartening from my position. Kind of curious how many are actually on dev side of things. 

 

Perhaps time to rethink deployment of current projects. As doing for ArmA is a clusterfook to begin with ... and it'll be stolen anyway. Probably better just selling assets elsewhere. I like most I know, don't have any expectations of getting rich off this stuff anyway. Donations never worked, never will. I'd just assume let them sit somewhere and recoup my own investment over time I think. Certainly less pressure/demand that way at the end of the day.

 

Thanks for the post/poll Pufu, was needed and helps me understand where the community here roughly stands.

 

Shot out.

 

 

**Edit**
For the record (forgot i had the RHS tag in the signature), this has zero to do with any affiliation with any group. Just my personal thoughts, and unlike Pufu, I voted yes on all 3 questions. Cheers!

[Macser 776]

It's not that surprising. If people are given the option between getting free stuff and paying, you know how it's going to pan out. It is what it is. The thing that's bothered me so far is that giving someone a choice is viewed as being so reprehensible. Which is unusual to me, as we will always have the option to say, "no thanks", and go back to what ever we were doing.

 

There's a lot of fear and anger out there. Not something I fully understand given that there's no real frame of reference to date. Other than the worst possible example most of us are familiar with.

 

@HeroesandvillainsOS

It'll be interesting to see how that develops. 

 

 

[taro8 806]

Having a hands on moderation by BIS for the monetized mods is actually pretty good idea. Some kind of official seal of approval with lets the mod maker monetize the mod that has been positivity verified by BIS (ie. works, no IP infringement or any issues with permissions, drama and such). Such system would be best as a starting point as it would weed out any nasties trying to make a quick buck. It could be made a bit more liberal as the time progressed.

 

Such system for servers would also be a pretty decent solution.

 

Also, stop downplaying the Skyrim paid modding dumpster fire, it was a total failure, but not taking lessons out of that is just stupid.