Server monetization program

[kiory 405]

1 hour ago, taro8 said:

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.

No one is down playing that situation, it was a cluster fuck and everyone knows it. 

The fact of the matter is, paid  mods do not have to be a cluster fuck, if BI took things into their own hands, took an active roll, played a part in QA, or at the very least, paid someone for "QA", paid addons would be viable.

It would require work, but anything worth doing costs something, and for christ's sake, don't tell me it's not worth doing, what proof does anyone have that it's not worth doing?

 

[Macser 776]

There is only the Skyrim incident as far as I'm aware. It can be learned from. I just don't believe it's something that can be referred to in isolation. Which sometimes happens.

[taro8 806]

1 hour ago, kiory said:

No one is down playing that situation, it was a cluster fuck and everyone knows it. 

The fact of the matter is, paid  mods do not have to be a cluster fuck, if BI took things into their own hands, took an active roll, played a part in QA, or at the very least, paid someone for "QA", paid addons would be viable.

It would require work, but anything worth doing costs something, and for christ's sake, don't tell me it's not worth doing, what proof does anyone have that it's not worth doing?

 

True, hands on moderation is a key here IMHO.

[Uro 220]

I have been keeping an eye on this thread to see how it develops and I feel it's now turned onto a more constructive path thanks to post authors presenting good well thought out ideas and steering the topic into more of a constructive direction.  With that said there does seem me to be an obvious path to utilise if monetisation were expanded to include monetised community content.

 

First I want to point out the relevance of the Skyrim monetisation situation, whether you agree or disagree with it, its relevance is really quite important. It demonstrated publicly what happens when monetisation is added without any kind of active participation from the Developer.  The game developer, Bethesda, took a back-seat and let the mod-makers tough it out without any kind of QA or scrutiny in place for items added to their platform.  This was never going to end pretty or well on all fronts.  Valve quickly reaslised this and shut it down, which argueably ruined any chances for any other Developers looking to utilise this functionality for their own IP.

 

With that being said, if you look at the way Valve implements community made content into their own IP (CSGO, Team Fortress for example), people submit their content and upon acceptance Valve take an active role in supporting and implementing that content into their games, internal QA/Scrutiny being part of that process.  This weeds out the sub-par content and makes sure that submitted content is available in a game-ready state without risk of IP infringement due to the QA process.

 

For any kind of monetisation the main developer, in this case Bohemia, need to play a central role in any and all processes, they own the original IP upon which content is based and created for.  It doesn't make sense for them not to take an active role, making sure anything made available in this way meets game ready specifications, adheres to any game-updates, does not breach anyone else's IP and is presented properly on the delivery platform, in this case Steam.

 

In an ideal world we would have a "Community created DLC" section on Steam, where monetised mods would sit along-side the regular Workshop content.  This sounds to me like one of the more plausable ways forward that has been touched upon in this thread so far regarding any sort of mod/addon monetisation and the systems already exist within the Steam platform for DLC presentation, purchase, authorisation/activation and delivery as demonstrated by the Workshop.

 

This idea would however require action and active participation from BI, after all it is thier IP that we create our content on and they should be playing a major part in all processes regarding any sort of monetisation.  With this being said it is also community created content that expands the scope of their IP further adding to its original value.

 

If this idea were to get implemented there would need to be a few measures and caveats put in place to prevent abusing the system, such as the following (this list isn't exhaustive but covers some of the bases):

• Registration Fee  -  This could be one time fee or annual fee payable by the content author(s) to BI - this would go some way to initially covering BI's time used in producing a contract, licencing, publishing and also the time spent on screening the Community DLC to make sure all parts are up to game-ready specification and expected standards as well as monitoring that they adhere to updates in the base game and don't infringe on anyone elses IP.  It would also weed out infringing content from the word go, going some way to ensuring only original content is available as community content DLC.
• Agreement  -  Authors sign an agreement with BI to fully support their DLC for the lifetime of the game or until such a time as it is no longer practical to do so after which the mod would become, for example: a lite version available on the regular Worksop (People who had purchased the full version, would keep that version, after all they paid for it).  Also factoring in losing any retained payments for breaches of agreement would ensure compliance, as mentioned in the next point.
• Author Payment  -  Payment for purchases would be based on a retainer system (monthly/quarterly/biannually), this would ensure that people dont just submit content, take the money and run as well as provide assurances to people who have purchased any content that it will continue to be updated for game compatability.  This retainer would remain in situ as part of the agreement between the authors and BI to ensure longevity and full support of the DLC for the lifetime of the game.
• Mod Value  -  Dependent on the features, scope and size of the mod (With this I don't just mean visible content, code based content can create a vastly expanded game experience as well).  With that being said I wouldn't recommend nor want to see any value put onto a mod that breaches the current official DLC/Expansions' price ceiling, perhaps using a tiered system where DLC's are priced by scope/size. This is probably a decision best left to BI themselves to discuss and liase with the community regarding any sort of valuation of content.
• Developer share/costs  -  Valve/Steam would get their share (which imo was far too much in the Skyrim situation and would need reviewed), it is their platform that enables you to market and make available for purchase content, as well as all the backend content & user valiation features amongst others. BI would set their share of each purchase, which would go towards supporting the operating costs of the Community DLC system.  The remainder would go to the content creator(s).  The structure of this is on par I feel since both Valve and BI openly support modding, by enabling Community DLC to be a "thing" they are entitled to their shares for enabling and supporting a system that rewards users for content that expands the content and scope of their IP, in this case the Arma franchise and the Steam platform.
• DLC/Mod protection  -  Community DLC items would be available through Steam and Arma's current DLC, Workshop and Store systems, this combined with existing Steam account validation/authorisation to only give access to those who had purchased the DLC.  The system would need to expand it's reach to encompass anything made purchasable as Community DLC possibly also adding in some sort of EBO file format style protection in addition to the above would go some way towards this.

Out of all of these the most labour intensive part is going to be the QA/scrutinisation of content.  This would be done by BI initially and later could be expanded to make use of registered authors who are already part of the monetisation scheme.  These people would already be vetted by the registration system and this would give BI a pool of people to aid reviewing submissions, perhaps as part of a contractual obligation within the registration agreement.

By opening up this concept to a small number of authors initially to see how it fares and how the system performs overall would be beneficial from a starting point, where any changes if required could be put in place.

 

These ideas are all part of a vision if monetisation were to be expanded outside of servers as per the current situation.  Each part would obviously need expanded upon, with T+C's drawn up, EULA's changed etc, also bear in mind trying to keep the process as streamlined as possible.  This also serves to highlight how difficult implementing something like this could be in the wider scope of things regarding IP, Copyright, Legality etc.

 

I expect some of you will uttely hate this concept and baulk suggestion of such a system, but remember, this is only an idea and the ball would need to be picked up by Bohemia and Valve for it to even happen.

 

Ultimately the however, the situation regarding modding and monetisation in Arma as it stands just now is far from ideal and could ultimately be quite dangerous to modding in general, as could the monetisation of content, but idly standing by letting the status quo continue is not good for it either.

I am not trying to paint anything as the golden egg here, but we have to cover all bases and discuss their viability in an ongoing process in a constructive manner.  Simply saying something will not work without bringing valid reasoning or being unwilling to discuss the possibility of any ideas brought to the table, whether your are for or against them, in an open-minded fashion will hamper any reasonable discussion and serves only to stifle debate on this topic.

   

[Delta Hawk 1829]

Heads up, Studio Wildcard, creators of Ark: Survival, is introducing a monetization program for the game with a twist.  Modders do not sell their mods, instead Wildcard will pay 15 selected modders $4,000 a month to work on their mods.  Each month Wildcard will evaluate their mods (which, I'm assuming includes to ensure no illegal content is being used) and continue paying them if they make the cut.

 

It'll be interested to see how this works out.  Ark is a very interesting game...in fact, one of the two games I know of that has a "walk on decks" feature.  I'll be watching this.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Delta Hawk
spelling

[lawndartleo 109]

Interesting take but seems more akin to a 3rd party developer under contract than public modding. Noth that I think this is a bad idea, rather it shows some desire on the part of the developer to expand their games content while still maintaining significant control.  In short, they are hired until they are fired.

[Hatchet_AS 201]

As much as I would like to see BIS to be involved in a 'heavy' QA scenario, I understand that this is not as easily realized as they or we would like it to be. The logistical piece for them as a business could easily be quite profound. Just think about it for a minute, if BIS were to open up monetization of mods ... just what and how would one define the 'standards'? It's pretty asy to apply some very generic baseline standards similar to MANW, where content must be an original contribution and the like. However verification of these things, especially in 'mass' is not as straightforward as you might think. Thus far BIS has been mostly dependent upon the community to police things. And as I mentioned originally this seems like the best option to me as well, because it removes one of the larger, if not the largest logistical piece for them. However, it does in fact make it somewhat of a 'free for all' scenario in submissions. But I don't really see how they could cleanly manage an in depth QA process right now. Which is not to say application of other requirements couldn't help in this aspect.

 

For example, the thought of having to purchase 'a modders license' for monetization doesn't actually sound all that unreasonable to me as a business person. 99% of the time in business, there is an investment before there is any type reward/profit to be made. This as noted by Uro would also likely prevent some of the stupidity associated with these things. Additionally, while a 'contract/agreement' would be nice, I think that's an unlikely scenario. And that is simply because, in the international environment much of that would be mostly unenforceable. And frankly I don't know many companies that enjoy getting into legalities on regular basis anyway. So while I think it is reasonable to have 'standards' relating to baseline functionality (ie.. it doesn't crash the default game, or melt computers), anything beyond that is likely wishful thinking. Granted I'd like to think the good guys in mod making would be more than happy to provide continual support for their wares, if for no other reason than it makes keeping the revenue stream viable. But BIS has little control over whether someone makes something, and that person meets some unfortunate demise. There is nothing to enforce there, and again even if there was, the legal cost and logistics of such ventures probably not worth it.

 

Now, another aspect of this that is rather complicated and would put BIS in an awkward position is pricing. How does one determine the value of a mod? How do you say this item is worth more than that item? How do you place value on a gamemode or finite scripts that produce gameplay value? This is a highly subjective arena. And could create all kinds of grief for BIS if they did anything more than placed flat pricing for x, y, z mod types. Which is about the only scenario I could see being functional if they wanted to address that themselves. It is arguable whether or not leaving that to the modder is more functional. Thusly the end user/purchaser would be the judge of whether or not 'something is worth it'. Would this lead to potential stupidity/? Yes, stupid seemingly abounds these days. But ultimately, neither BIS or a modder is responsible for what someone does with their own money.

 

And speaking on the money topic, while I know Steam sounds like a great way to go with these things. That is also more complicated than it may seem to some. As Steam also has legal standards and requirements. I'm not sure that something like this would be functional in that environment, although it would seem ideal. Firstly, Steam gets a fairly large cut of the pie. And while this is somewhat reasonable considering they manage the point of sale and distribution ... it's still a big cut. Secondly, and this is between Steam and BIS and transfers to the modders is the issue of infringements. That may or may not require an involved QA process for BIS. And as mentioned at the beginning of this post, that is not a simple logistical piece (BIS is short on up-to-speed people in general. there are only so many resources currently.). So that maybe a bridge too far simply due to lack of resources. And again, why I think the community would have to be the gatekeepers here. Additionally anything involving monetary penalization of things is also probably a bridge too far, as that is cost benefit scenario. I don't really see that happening. Which not to say they couldn't limit how monies are paid, whether that be for ease of back office management or as a tool to ensure modder oversight.

 

Anyway, I'm all for it for the reasons I stated originally. But I'm very aware of the many hurdles and pitfalls BIS would be facing in actually doing this. And to that extent, I can totally understand why a more 'hands off' approach would be easier to manage. I could list quite a few more aspects of this that are not as easily sorted as we would hope or some might assume, but this covers most of the larger stuff. 

 

Another thought here in thinking about what can be done to make this a more manageable scenario for BIS, is that they could make it a business-to-business system. Wherein those submitting would have to be viable entities themselves. This would help in the legalities, and provide a route for more concise/extensive 'agreements and/or viable contracts'. It would however also alienate some of the younger guys and those without the ability to establish themselves as a business entity. That being said, the producers in the community I think for the most part could sort this. Most are not kids these days as it were. And that on it's face could ensure a great deal of QA.

Splash over.

 

 

 

[target_practice 163]

Before I say anything I should stress that, unlike many other people on this thread, I have very little modding experience and have never released any work, so I'll be speaking from the perspective of an end user. (I'll also confess that I skimmed over the rest of the thread, and so I may be repeating some things people have already said).

 

When a modder decides they want to make a mod, they do so with the understanding that they are investing their own time into making something which has no guarantee of ever earning them money.

Just because someone puts time and effort into something, does not make them automatically eligible for payment, and does not mean that anyone should be obliged to offer it.

However, I nonetheless still firmly believe that modders deserve to be compensated.

This is especially true for a modder who is in the situation where their mod is integral to many groups, clans and players, and that their failure to maintain it would be great letdown to all of them.

In an ideal world, optional donations would be adequate for this.

However it has been consistently shown that this isn't enough as only a very small minority of a mod's users will actually donate to its author.

 

Of course, this is a complex issue so there is no 'best' way to handle this, however I quite strongly feel that adopting a scheme of full monetisation is the worst possible solution.

 

As several people have pointed out already, modding communities almost always tend to be very good environments where members share information, cooperate, and help others get into modding.

As soon as mods become paid, all of these practices evaporate as modders and their mods are no longer mutually beneficial elements of a community, but are now competing developers with competing products.

In many modding communities, including Arma's, many modders cooperate to allow for compatibility and integration between their different mods.

In a paid mods environment, the only scenarios where this would occur is where there is an explicit financial benefit to doing this.

In any other case, why would you want to make your mod A compatible with mod B so users can make use of B's feature X, when you could intentionally break compatibility between A and B and implement your own version of feature X to drive the sales of your own mod?

In such a situation, all inexperienced modders with their smaller mods would be crushed under the weight of experienced mod teams developing complex, established mods.

Thus, it is only the major mods and the game's developer that benefit from such a system.

 

Even an alternative model where only approved mods can be sold for money has problems.

In this case, it would still probably be the more established mods that win out; because even if the small mods are still used simply for the fact that they are free; the paywall in front of the established mods (that would likely be mods depended upon by large parts of the community, such as TFAR, ACRE, ACE, RHS etc etc) would likely split the community between the ones who are willing to pay, and the ones who are unwilling or simply unable to fork out the cash to buy them.

 

When it comes to compensating modders, a model similar to that being adopted by ARK's developers would probably be the most ideal.

In this scheme, modders who are responsible for mods that see widespread usage (such as those mentioned above) would be eligible for payment by BIS for their continued maintenance and standard of quality of their mods.

Although one can argue that modders are providing a 'product' to users, I personally believe that they are in reality providing a service to the game's developer.

It's not hard to find examples of people saying that they wouldn't have bought or be playing a game if it wasn't for mod Y, and so these modders are providing a service by boosting the sales of a developer's game.

Because of this it should really be the developer who pays the modder, and not the end user.

 

I recognise that this is hardly a perfect solution either, as some modders may still try to snuff the competition in an attempt to secure themselves payment from the developer, and that some modders who are not included in the scheme may in fact be putting more effort in than those who are.

Despite these flaws, I believe it will still allow largely the same environment as unpaid modding to exist, as there would be significantly less incentive to directly interfere with other modders than in a mod-marketplace, and all modders have the potential to be included based upon their work.

In short, it would allow modders to be compensated for their time and effort while the absence of a paywall would still allow the community at large to benefit from mods.

 

With modding, you can't have your cake and eat it; someone is going to lose in some way. But as far as I can see, the model described above is probably one where people lose the least.

 

Well, that's simply my opinion on the matter anyway.

 

EDIT: For anyone who wonders, on the subject of server monetisation, I am in agreement with the 'all or nothing' view held by many other people on the thread.

[kiory 405]

3 hours ago, target_practice said:

When it comes to compensating modders, a model similar to that being adopted by ARK's developers would probably be the most ideal.

In this scheme, modders who are responsible for mods that see widespread usage (such as those mentioned above) would be eligible for payment by BIS for their continued maintenance and standard of quality of their mods.

Although one can argue that modders are providing a 'product' to users, I personally believe that they are in reality providing a service to the game's developer.

It's not hard to find examples of people saying that they wouldn't have bought or be playing a game if it wasn't for mod Y, and so these modders are providing a service by boosting the sales of a developer's game.

Because of this it should really be the developer who pays the modder, and not the end user.

 

I recognise that this is hardly a perfect solution either, as some modders may still try to snuff the competition in an attempt to secure themselves payment from the developer, and that some modders who are not included in the scheme may in fact be putting more effort in than those who are.

Despite these flaws, I believe it will still allow largely the same environment as unpaid modding to exist, as there would be significantly less incentive to directly interfere with other modders than in a mod-marketplace, and all modders have the potential to be included based upon their work.

In short, it would allow modders to be compensated for their time and effort while the absence of a paywall would still allow the community at large to benefit from mods.

Uhh, well, what happens when BI then sell it as DLC?

That's what's gonna happen with ARK, the best mods will be sold, as DLC.

I don't think BI would just give us money and be done with it, that's a loss for them, even with as much as revenue modders have generated for them, they're a business and would probably see it as a loss, so that wouldn't work.

There has to be a pay wall for this to work for BI. :P

[target_practice 163]

41 minutes ago, kiory said:

Uhh, well, what happens when BI then sell it as DLC?

That's what's gonna happen with ARK, the best mods will be sold, as DLC.

They won't, hence 'similar'.

But even if they do, that's not actually such a bad model.

 

42 minutes ago, kiory said:

I don't think BI would just give us money and be done with it, that's a loss for them, even with as much as revenue modders have generated for them, they're a business and would probably see it as a loss, so that wouldn't work.

There has to be a pay wall for this to work for BI. :P

Well quite frankly I can't see it ever working as user-paid mods.

 

The closest current example to such that I can think of right now is Garry's mod; the modding there is completely unregulated and many people sell mods.

Having owned Garry's mod for around 7 years, I can say with absolute confidence that the modding 'community' there is the most rancid and hostile I have ever seen.

Modders and server owners alike engage in theft, sabotage and blackmail against eachother.

 

I'm not saying that will happen if paid mods come to Arma, but it serves as a good example of what can happen when money becomes involved.

[kiory 405]

1 minute ago, target_practice said:

The closest current example to such that I can think of right now is Garry's mod; the modding there is completely unregulated and many people sell mods.

Having owned Garry's mod for around 7 years, I can say with absolute confidence that the modding 'community' there is the most rancid and hostile I have ever seen.

Modders and server owners alike engage in theft, sabotage and blackmail against eachother.

 

Oh, so you basically mean how the Arma modding scene has been, for years, without money, OK I gotcha.

[target_practice 163]

1 minute ago, kiory said:

 

Oh, so you basically mean how the Arma modding scene has been, for years, without money, OK I gotcha.

If I implied such then I apologies for my lack of clarity.

Arma's modding scene has not to my knowledge involved money to the degree of Gmod.

[ProfTournesol 956]

4 minutes ago, kiory said:

 

Oh, so you basically mean how the Arma modding scene has been, for years, without money, OK I gotcha.

 

What ?

[kiory 405]

3 minutes ago, target_practice said:

If I implied such then I apologies for my lack of clarity.

Arma's modding scene has not to my knowledge involved money to the degree of Gmod.

Not quite as bad, but I've seen a looooooooot a shady shit in my day, and I've only been around for 4 years, some people been here much longer.

 

What I'm saying is, thievery, backstabbery, blackmail and sabotage have all been present within this community without money being a motivator.

[ProfTournesol 956]

3 minutes ago, kiory said:

Not quite as bad, but I've seen a looooooooot a shady shit in my day, and I've only been around for 4 years, some people been here much longer.

 

Before people thought of monetizing their work, the community was very nice and helpful. The fact that you pop up in the community at the time people (like you) started to think modding should gave them money doesn't mean that it was like this before.

[target_practice 163]

4 minutes ago, kiory said:

Not quite as bad, but I've seen a looooooooot a shady shit in my day, and I've only been around for 4 years, some people been here much longer.

And thus, you prove my point.

If unethical practices are already employed in an officially un-monetized modding scene, imagine what would happen if it became monetized?

[kiory 405]

2 minutes ago, ProfTournesol said:

 

Before people thought of monetizing their work, the community was very nice and helpful. The fact that you pop up in the community at the time people (like you) started to think modding should gave them money doesn't mean that it was like this before.

Piss off, I've done my time, I've helped a shit ton of people, a fair amount of people use my mods, just like yours I'd imagine. I never got into modding Arma for money, but I no longer mod Arma because it's not financially viable, I've been here longer you than you think.
 

 

4 minutes ago, target_practice said:

And thus, you prove my point.

If unethical practices are already employed in an officially un-monetized modding scene, imagine what would happen if it became monetized?

Read up, I added another line of text.
 

[target_practice 163]

5 minutes ago, kiory said:

Read up, I added another line of text.

 

It appears to me you are implying that since extortionate practices are already (allegedly) taking place, paid mods might as well be intoduced?

If your house was burning down, would you try to put out the fire, or help it burn faster?

 

[kiory 405]

15 minutes ago, target_practice said:

 

It appears to me you are implying that since extortionate practices are already (allegedly) taking place, paid mods might as well be intoduced?

If your house was burning down, would you try to put out the fire, or help it burn faster?

 

Allegedly? 

Anyway, no, that's not what I was implying.

We've already established that BI's intervention would be required to avoid a shitstorm (you yourself said you glossed over most of what was said in the thread, that's on you), you think I'd want a repeat of GMod? Fuck no, I hate that community.

I say yes, you say no, let's leave it at that.

[bad benson 1733]

Quote

What I'm saying is, thievery, backstabbery, blackmail and sabotage have all been present within this community without money being a motivator.

 

don't get me wrong. there are dicks in every part of life and so are in this community. but in terms of the life and dayz clone communities, where the very large majority of this happens, money was indeed always a factor. it was just done through shady donation practices and other means. they also care way more about being the most visited server, which is not bad on its own, but with possible money earned it becomes "interesting".

then beginning of 2015 the server monetization rules got added and made things even worse by legitimising all that. A3Life was not only about taking other people's work without permission (dick move). they made a shit load of money with that work (borderline crime).

 

every person i have met and helped that was involved with life mods in some shape or form told me about this weird competition they have for having the biggest player base. i never got it until i visited their sites and saw their donation shops and perks and all that stuff. also the whole business of selling anti hack systems is solely related to dayZ and life servers. saying there was/is no money involved is not true at all.

 

sure we had the occasional ripped model pop up back in the day before all that but the way it is now came through dayZ and life, which got popular the way it is through dayZ because streamers got to know it when looking for what else arma has to offer. there was a life mod/mission even going back to arma 1 (maybe further?) but more eyes on it more goblins crawling out of their holes.

 

if you are saying 4 years then you are missing 10 years of the whole picture. this is no competition about who was here the longest, not at all. i just want it to be known that it WAS different. and i was only active as a player and not in the forums back in ofp. so my view only goes back to arma 1. and even then...

 

from these older days there is a lot of core people and smaller groups that have been there for ages just doing their thing NOT constantly trying to fuck eachother over. no nostalgia, just facts.

 

the reason some life mod people come to these forums starting their first post with clarifying that they aren't assholes is all of the above.

 

i also believe there is a misconception. just because not everyone is friends and super nice all the time doesn't mean it's not a functioning community. let's not forget that the main goal here is to share work and knowledge when it comes to modding. me and everyone who ever made something more complex or anything at all did that with the help of everyone who came before.

that's the real value.

without that there wouldn't be this giant pool of mods. just going to discord or the editing section of these very forums will illustrate that. you will have both, noob bashing and fast providing of clear answers. the latter is the reason things get done at an exponentially faster rate the former why people will use google and the wiki the next time .

it's like a hive mind, like fucken ants. anything standing in the way of that is bad imho.

 

i think that the friendship part of hte community is more happening in the actual gameplay portion.

 

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

 

i actually feel the Ark model sounds pretty good. pay people and push quality and keep it free for players. at least it's how i understood it.

[Alexis_74 0]

Theme is closed?

[Uro 220]

On 14/03/2017 at 11:06 AM, Alexis_74 said:

Theme is closed?

 

I dont think it is closed by a long shot. 

 

This issue will continue to be prevalent to Arma and modifying Arma until a decision or method is divulged by BI on the future of modding and monetisation in regards to content creators.

 

Currently it stands as this:

• Server operators can monetise anything they want provided they have permission(or not) from mod authors and are on BI's "monetised servers list".
• Content authors only have one option: to release their content freely with no thought towards recompense and have to live with the fact that server operators can profit from their work under the watchful eye of BI.

BI have a community of helpful, creative people making endless content for THEIR GAME for FREE and they don't even bat an eyelid when a highly contentious topic arises(this one) about "monetisation" and how out of balance it is in Arma.

 

Modifying Arma at the end of the day sells hundreds of thousands more copies of the game on BI's behalf than would happen with just the base game.  The same can be said for thier previous title, Arma 2.  Sure it had a large milsim following, but without the well known and highly publicised modification DayZMod, would BI have sold half as many copies of that game in its' later life as it did?

 

So BI wins and so do server operators, content authors lose, every time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being creative, but something severely stinks with the current setup and unless something is done to rectify it this community will continue to bleed content authors until there is nothing left due to the way they are unfairly penalised, whether intended or not.

[kiory 405]

On 4/8/2017 at 11:51 PM, Uro said:

Currently it stands as this:

• Server operators can monetise anything they want provided they have permission(or not) from mod authors and are on BI's "monetised servers list".

As far as I know, they can't monetize anything that gives players access to exlusive content that would give them an edge or change the game in any significant way, such as a unique uniform or weapon. What they can do is introduce new weapons, vehicles, uniforms etc, and then sell skins etc, anything new added needs to be available to everyone on the server, as far as I understood it.

 

Whether this policy has changed over time, I have no idea, it's all ass backwards if you ask me.

[Alexis_74 0]

BIS Staff will pay attention to this?