Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

[lexx 1363]

Yup, pretty much paid mods. Though, honestly, I don't have a big problem with that for as long as the price is fair. As example, 5€ for some uniform retexture is something I would not consider as fair.

Another point would be the quality... and if it really would fit into the game in the end.

[armored_sheep 56]

13 hours ago, haleks said:

 

Would a project involving only new scripts and/or new game modes have a chance to be validated?

Arma Premium DLC protection was not designed to handle scripted features. I would recomend to think about such package that will include at least some key content that can be protected.

[armored_sheep 56]

9 hours ago, PuFu said:

...does the "pitched" content needs to fit in this universe?

No

[armored_sheep 56]

9 hours ago, audiocustoms said:

1) Who will be in charge of the final quality management?

BI will evaluate technical quality and compare the package with already released premium content. 3rd party should be able to define content functionality, so BI can asist with QA.
2) Many items in modifications for the armaverse are actually copyright protected (but everybody looks away). What's with new content that might, or might not be copyright protected (oshkosh, colt, vehicle and firearms trademarks in general...)?

3rd party should be able to acqure licence to all DLC content (sign contracts with contributors and copyright owners).
3) Who will handle legal questions if 3rd party rights beeing violated, either by the creator or the creators rights by others?

BI legal department. 3rd party has to sign contract with BI.

 

[esfumato 75]

I want someone to Announce the Arma 3 Authentic Military Multiplayer Game Mode Third Party DLC for me... Any candidates?

 

Come on! Take my Money!

[chortles 263]

3 hours ago, esfumato said:

I want someone to Announce the Arma 3 Authentic Military Multiplayer Game Mode Third Party DLC for me... Any candidates?

Literally two posts above yours: "Arma Premium DLC protection was not designed to handle scripted features. I would recomend to think about such package that will include at least some key content that can be protected."

@armored_sheep Is that "should include a working in-game prototype delivered as an Arma 3 mod" about proposals actually a "must"?

11 hours ago, Delta Hawk said:

BIS ought to not limit it to just armaverse or the setting of ArmA 3 but what consumers are willing to pay for.

Even before armored_sheep's confirmation, I imagine that Bohemia would already have been on a case-by-case basis weighing "do we believe this will sell" against any pitches.

[Undeceived 392]

Great idea, BIS! And good to know about your continued commitment for the game.

 

My suggestion is that you take CUP into this program.  

[chortles 263]

@Undeceived As someone who contributed to CUP and solicited on its behalf to other modders... no. From the official pitch invitation: "We'll be looking to select and publish new projects, but also existing projects that would be able to scale up in quality/quantity as a result of being published as a premium DLC. However, we'll always insist that any existing free Arma 3 addons and mods remain free. In other words, third-party DLC we publish should never replace something which was previously free." Heck, there's some content whose continued presence in CUP was conditioned on it never being monetized...

[M. Glade 524]

36 minutes ago, Undeceived said:

Great idea, BIS! And good to know about your continued commitment for the game.

 

My suggestion is that you take CUP into this program.  

 

What? CUP is 85% ports from the previous title, ArmA 2. 

 

No offense to them, they're a brilliant team and love em dearly helped me very much on the discord, but Lord Christ if you want A2 weapons you can just buy the previous game. 

[chortles 263]

Relevant to the licensing discussion, apparently even sticking to military designation isn't safe: "Removed all M1151 variants due to licensing issues and replaced them with MAT-V variants."

 

Also, to ensure that the overall third-party DLC discussion has the full breadth of 'replying to what the devs are saying', here's pettka on Reddit:

Quote

A good point indeed. We are primarily gathering feedback now, but we have even discussed possible solutions to this. Just to name a random one, and take this with a pinch of salt (or rather two) - DLCs may possibly be even released on Workshop in addition to the standard distribution. Everyone would be able to download the DLC or give it a try with standard Content Licensing on Workshop (or possibly selected parts, just assets, anything). We are open to see what would be the ideal way, it may be something completely different in the end.

And just to show a bit of reasoning behind the optional part, some of the former DLCs raised concerns about the size of the game on the drive, and some even didn't want to see new content in. We know that quality content may come big, so we would rather want to provide a choice.

 

[esfumato 75]

1 hour ago, chortles said:

Literally two posts above yours: "Arma Premium DLC protection was not designed to handle scripted features. I would recomend to think about such package that will include at least some key content that can be protected."

 

You can always add some assets, some flags, some berets, some t-shirts, uniforms, or whatever that is needed for the game mode.

 

But arma 3, needs a good Military Multiplayer Game Mode.

No money, No experience, No character Development, Just several teams, teamplay, winning-loosing. Something that allows to use every asset available and allows you to use all the potential that the game have.

 

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

 

On the rest of the topic, I copy My opinion from other thread.

Also, I have to say that most of the Third Party DLC's that are worth buying, are the Famous Mods that are already available. For me.

 

ACE3, Advanced Combat Environment

Removing all those horrible Menus I'm in with more realism into arma 3.

 

CUP, Community Upgrade Project

Even since the alpha of Arma 3 people wanted to port the terrains and campaigns to arma 3, So if they manage to solve the issues like the water ponds, and update the content and textures I gladly would buy this. Arma 2 and previous correctly ported. Also... Bring back the CTI game mode to arma 3.

 

Red Hammer Studios

FFAA Fuerzas Armadas

Unsung Vietnam

And many more...

 

Quote

We'll be looking to select and publish new projects, but also existing projects that would be able to scale up in quality/quantity as a result of being published as a premium DLC. However, we'll always insist that any existing free Arma 3 addons and mods remain free. In other words, third-party DLC we publish should never replace something which was previously free.

 

To this, Lets say ACE MOD version 1.0 is free and remain free at steam workshop. But ACE DLC version 2.0 is paid content... for me no problem at all, you can choose.

 

Quote

Lastly, we know from experience how difficult it can be to bring a project to completion. With that in mind, we currently anticipate that probably only a few third-party premium DLC packs will get published each year. Our intention is to ensure a steady flow of exciting new Arma 3 content over the next few years, while also making sure not to clutter the game with an excessive amount of premium DLC.

 

To this, If I am not forced to download and update this content... who cares if there are hundred of third party DLC's each year, I will buy update the ones I want or any at all.

[M. Glade 524]

16 minutes ago, esfumato said:

 

You can always add some assets, some flags, some berets, some t-shirts, uniforms, or whatever that is needed for the game mode.

 

But arma 3, needs a good Military Multiplayer Game Mode.

No money, No experience, No character Development, Just several teams, teamplay, winning-loosing. Something that allows to use every asset available and allows you to use all the potential that the game have.

 

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

 

On the rest of the topic, I copy My opinion from other thread.

Also, I have to say that most of the Third Party DLC's that are worth buying, are the Famous Mods that are already available. For me.

 

ACE3, Advanced Combat Environment

Removing all those horrible Menus I'm in with more realism into arma 3.

 

CUP, Community Upgrade Project

Even since the alpha of Arma 3 people wanted to port the terrains and campaigns to arma 3, So if they manage to solve the issues like the water ponds, and update the content and textures I gladly would buy this. Arma 2 and previous correctly ported. Also... Bring back the CTI game mode to arma 3.

 

Red Hammer Studios

FFAA Fuerzas Armadas

Unsung Vietnam

And many more...

 

 

To this, Lets say ACE MOD version 1.0 is free and remain free at steam workshop. But ACE DLC version 2.0 is paid content... for me no problem at all, you can choose.

 

 

To this, If I am not forced to download and update this content... who cares if there are hundred of third party DLC's each year, I will buy update the ones I want or any at all.

 

Some "assets" like berets, "some" retextured tshirts won't cut it, mind you BI will be looking for a business partner not someone who can open photoshop and drag a paa into texview. You can't put a script in a mod, it runs server side meaning hosts will have to manually add it. So what are you paying for, a script or some quote quote assets?

 

If famous community building mods are already available like ACE, CUP (which like I said previously, are just ports with some features which, I'm sorry, if BI wanted to they could do themselves and already have on some) and RHS without cost, why would updates have a pricetag? And when you said there can be 100s of DLCs, do you really think BIS has the time to sign 100s of contracts and support 100s of developers? The bigger the team, the bigger the risk of leaks, and due to the anonymity and nationless nature of the gaming industry expect to see "leaked" variants on the Steam Workshop (this isn't free anymore, NDAs are signed and people will quit their jobs to focus on this, legal action WILL have to be taken at some point when problems arise) which even now has almost no takedown support for mod makers another reason why I personally would resist uploading anything onto there as expressed by many members of our community. I'm sorry mate but put some thought in before you recommend something like this. 

 

When it comes to ports, I myself would be interested for something revisited like the Malden map DLC, its terrific and everyone loves it not because its a 1:1 port from the previous Malden but is re-imagined and contains new buildings and enhanced terrain. That is something I'd pay for, not for something that should be free contained in a previous title. If you want to buy something that is already released, why don't you click the donate button on their websites? 

[Undeceived 392]

1 hour ago, chortles said:

@Undeceived As someone who contributed to CUP and solicited on its behalf to other modders... no. From the official pitch invitation: "We'll be looking to select and publish new projects, but also existing projects that would be able to scale up in quality/quantity as a result of being published as a premium DLC. However, we'll always insist that any existing free Arma 3 addons and mods remain free. In other words, third-party DLC we publish should never replace something which was previously free." Heck, there's some content whose continued presence in CUP was conditioned on it never being monetized...

 

Ok, I can understand that. Would love to see previous assets officially in Arma 3 though. I love CUP that much that I'd happily pay for it, but of course there are probably many internal obstacles in the way.

[esfumato 75]

18 minutes ago, M. Glade said:

 

Some "assets" like berets, "some" retextured tshirts won't cut it, mind you BI will be looking for a business partner not someone who can open photoshop and drag a paa into texview. You can't put a script in a mod, it runs server side meaning hosts will have to manually add it. So what are you paying for, a script or some quote quote assets?

Really I don't care at all, It is a shame that Arma 3 have no Military Multiplayer Game mode that allows you use all the situations and the potential that the game have. There are no MP game modes out there. For me is something worth buying. That is what I am saying.

The way that someone manage to do it... it's not important.

Please, is a shame that the most played game mode is "Life" and the most played military game mode is King of the Hill for the love of god...

 

Quote

If famous community building mods are already available like ACE, CUP (which like I said previously, are just ports with some features which, I'm sorry, if BI wanted to they could do themselves and already have on some) and RHS without cost, why would updates have a pricetag?

 

You missundestood what i was trying to say. Is not that you pay to add to ACE vesion 1.0 the payed DLC ACE version 2.0.

 

I mean that you completely stop ACE MOD free version development and Release a payed version with more and beter polished features. So you can still have acces to the free mod version or buy the DLC that it is supposed to be better, and worth your time of development.

 

Quote

And when you said there can be 100s of DLCs, do you really think BIS has the time to sign 100s of contracts and support 100s of developers? The bigger the team, the bigger the risk of leaks, and due to the anonymity and nationless nature of the gaming industry expect to see "leaked" variants on the Steam Workshop (this isn't free anymore, NDAs are signed and people will quit their jobs to focus on this, legal action WILL have to be taken at some point when problems arise) which even now has almost no takedown support for mod makers another reason why I personally would resist uploading anything onto there as expressed by many members of our community. I'm sorry mate but put some thought in before you recommend something like this.

 

Look the community. I think that the people with the habilities and the know how to do good stuff in Arma  3 Engine are at most 1000 persons? Do  you think that really is possible to have that overwhelming amount of Third Party DLC's? I just did an exagerated statement to make clear that there is no reason to cut the production of third party dlcs development. There are going to be really few anyway.

 

Why are you thinking that people will leak their stuff instead of releasing it and making profit from it?  If someone decides to harm his work... who cares? worst for them. Not my problem at all.

 

Quote

When it comes to ports, I myself would be interested for something revisited like the Malden map DLC, its terrific and everyone loves it not because its a 1:1 port from the previous Malden but is re-imagined and contains new buildings and enhanced terrain. That is something I'd pay for, not for something that should be free contained in a previous title. If you want to buy something that is already released, why don't you click the donate button on their websites? 

 

In a previous title nothing is free, you have to buy the game no matter how old is it.

 

And, I also think the same, The old terrains and assets of previous games would need a huge update, and that is why I am saying that using the Third Party DLC system is a good way to encourage people to work on them. Look there is people doing it for free already! and just today several persons have said they would pay for it...

[dragon01 902]

Well... I suppose it's a nice experiment, but at the same time I think little will come of it. The "should not replace something which is already free" clause might be the killer. From what I've seen, the DLC protection system is meant for assets and missions. From my experience with ArmA3 modding, quality assets can be in dev for years. It sometimes seems that outside major projects, asset mods end up abandoned more often than not. I guess this would open doors to quality campaigns using professional VA, at least but you don't see many of those, either. A project of any kind that actually gets far enough ahead to potentially start talking with BIS about monetization seems to be a rare bird.

 

There's also another big question: ArmA4. I doubt paid mods will be allowed for it from the start. I don't think that making a mod paid for A3 and free for A4 would be allowed. Unless BIS confirms otherwise, mod teams that want to look forward might be better off avoiding paid content.

[M. Glade 524]

22 minutes ago, esfumato said:

Really I don't care at all, It is a shame that Arma 3 have no Military Multiplayer Game mode that allows you use all the situations and the potential that the game have. There are no MP game modes out there. For me is something worth buying. That is what I am saying.

The way that someone manage to do it... it's not important.

 

It seems like you cater your posts to your own leisure-only opinion , not that of hard working developers and content creators who like I said, will make a living from this system.

 

23 minutes ago, esfumato said:

Please, is a shame that the most played game mode is "Life" and the most played military game mode is King of the Hill for the love of god...

 

And the player base of those life communities? People under the age of 16, no shouldn't be playing this game in the first place. Maybe you should look around the forums just a little, see how many military sim communities are out there. They come from YouTube personalities because it seems fun, not die hard BI fans like us who bother to contribute to this forum. 

 

26 minutes ago, esfumato said:

Why are you thinking that people will leak their stuff instead of releasing it and making profit from it?  If someone decides to harm his work... who cares? worst for them. Not my problem at all.

 

Yes it is your problem, you're saying you want DLCs of extremely large expansions with numerous developers and people working on it, 1 leak of a build and you might aswell wipe it off the DLC page because by dawn it'll be infested on the Steam Workshop (which you probably don't understand how bad it is for people who do develop in their free time). This also takes immense load on BIS, they have to deal with this then and take development time away from the next title (you're paying for a BI-affiliated DLC right). 

 

 

[dragon01 902]

I really don't think large teams will go the DLC route. First of all, they can't monetize any content already released for free. They could release a "premium pack" with new content, but not only would it quickly be uploaded to Steam Workshop (and taking down unauthorized uploads is a chore, even for authors with official Workshop releases), but also mean that they would have to provide support expected of a paid product. You know all those "entitled" people in big mod threads? Well, if money goes on the table, they would actually be entitled to the thing they paid for, and every way in which those people get told off would go out of the window, because again, paying customers. I don't think most mod makers would too keen on that kind of commitment.

[M. Glade 524]

8 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

I really don't think large teams will go the DLC route. First of all, they can't monetize any content already released for free. They could release a "premium pack" with new content, but not only would it quickly be uploaded to Steam Workshop (and taking down unauthorized uploads is a chore, even for authors with official Workshop releases), but also mean that they would have to provide support expected of a paid product. You know all those "entitled" people in big mod threads? Well, if money goes on the table, they would actually be entitled to the thing they paid for, and every way in which those people get told off would go out of the window, because again, paying customers. I don't think most mod makers would too keen on that kind of commitment.

 

Exactly my point! And to continue, if one of the modification developers go MIA or becomes a tad lazy, whos going to eat up the blame and release information to the public on what will happen to the mods which BIS now endorse? These anomalies don't help, and those who shout for feature requests no longer can't be turned a blind eye upon and will have to be taken into account.

 

This creates another problem, paperwork and paperwork. Will every single person associated to a certain mod have to sign non-disclosure agreements, submit legal identification to BI, submit home/contact addresses and bank information for payments? If thats the case, I can assure you even if talented creators have a vested interest, this will turn those who can't submit such information off to the whole idea and will continue releasing things without pay (this crushes some peoples dreams to say the least). Why paperwork? For the exact problem that Steam Workshop creates (having the ability to battle for your rights when your content is stolen). 

[lexx 1363]

but not only would it quickly be uploaded to Steam Workshop (and taking down unauthorized uploads is a chore, even for authors with official Workshop releases)

Nobody does that with the other DLCs, though.

 

 

I am actually wondering how feasible it would be to go this route. You'll have to spend a serious amount of time on the addon, not just to actually create it, but also to bugtest and bugfix it, etc. You can't get away with tiny inconsistencies, everything has to be as perfect as possible. So with that in mind... the monetary return should make it worth it. Do we have any numbers from other services? Bethesda's Creation Club? Hats for Team Fortress 2, etc? Just to take my Callsign Minotaur campaign as an example-- I would have to make at least 2k to 3k in return to break even. Should be more to make it actually worth the additional stress (doubt people would quit their day jobs over this). Remember, quality VA and such costs serious money.

[dragon01 902]

1 minute ago, lexx said:

Nobody does that with the other DLCs, though.

That's because they're relatively few and they're very high profile. The uploader (nevermind the uploads) wouldn't last five seconds on Steam, and there could even be legal action taken. I don't think it'd work that well for 3rd party DLCs. Even if the exact same sorts of failsafes are added to the 3rd part content, lower profile and greater quantity (assuming it happens) would make them more vulnerable to piracy.

[stburr91 1002]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Well... I suppose it's a nice experiment, but at the same time I think little will come of it. The "should not replace something which is already free" clause might be the killer. From what I've seen, the DLC protection system is meant for assets and missions. From my experience with ArmA3 modding, quality assets can be in dev for years. It sometimes seems that outside major projects, asset mods end up abandoned more often than not. I guess this would open doors to quality campaigns using professional VA, at least but you don't see many of those, either. A project of any kind that actually gets far enough ahead to potentially start talking with BIS about monetization seems to be a rare bird.

 

There's also another big question: ArmA4. I doubt paid mods will be allowed for it from the start. I don't think that making a mod paid for A3 and free for A4 would be allowed. Unless BIS confirms otherwise, mod teams that want to look forward might be better off avoiding paid content.

 

I asked if they will accept submissions for campaigns, maybe I missed it, but the question was not answered.

 

46 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

I really don't think large teams will go the DLC route. First of all, they can't monetize any content already released for free. They could release a "premium pack" with new content, but not only would it quickly be uploaded to Steam Workshop (and taking down unauthorized uploads is a chore, even for authors with official Workshop releases), but also mean that they would have to provide support expected of a paid product. You know all those "entitled" people in big mod threads? Well, if money goes on the table, they would actually be entitled to the thing they paid for, and every way in which those people get told off would go out of the window, because again, paying customers. I don't think most mod makers would too keen on that kind of commitment.

 

 

You bring up a good point, these new DLC releases not only need to generate enough to money to make the development worth it, but also generate enough revenue to justify the 3rd party developer to provide continued support after release.

 

 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

I think we can all agree though, God forbid any 'Life' mod gets turned in a premium DLC. That would be the worst thing to ever come out of Arma. 

[POLPOX 778]

I want accept the desicion whatever it is better or worth.

Still, I can't see what contents will be a Third-Party DLC. Maybe it took a lot of time - or until the moment of the first Third-Party DLC release - to understand.

 

Quote

third-party DLC we publish should never replace something which was previously free.

Huh? I thought Arma 3 Jets was created re-using assets from MODs. How about that? They replace F/A-18X Black Wasp with F/A-181 Black Wasp II isn't it?

Quote

third-party premium DLC would always be an optional installation.

This is pretty sad for me. Using/testing assets from DLCs before purchase is a good criterion to decide to buy it.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:26 AM, lexx said:

 

 

Nobody does that with the other DLCs, though.

 

 

I am actually wondering how feasible it would be to go this route. You'll have to spend a serious amount of time on the addon, not just to actually create it, but also to bugtest and bugfix it, etc. You can't get away with tiny inconsistencies, everything has to be as perfect as possible. So with that in mind... the monetary return should make it worth it. Do we have any numbers from other services? Bethesda's Creation Club? Hats for Team Fortress 2, etc? Just to take my Callsign Minotaur campaign as an example-- I would have to make at least 2k to 3k in return to break even. Should be more to make it actually worth the additional stress (doubt people would quit their day jobs over this). Remember, quality VA and such costs serious money.

 

this proposal is primarily for 3D artists & shiny toy creators, maybe with a basic showcase scenario as well. not so much for other modders. think Jets DLC except maybe a bit smaller (minus the carrier + some of the props). I believe that is the sort of thing they're exploring.

 

im interested to see how this turns out. I can see it being successful if the projects are reasonably large and have a $3-5 pricetag.

 

I wish BIS all the best on this one

[lexx 1363]

4 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

this proposal is primarily for 3D artists & shiny toy creators, maybe with a basic showcase scenario as well. not so much for other modders. think Jets DLC except maybe a bit smaller (minus the carrier + some of the props). I believe that is the sort of thing they're exploring.

 

Possible, but then I don't see plenty folks using them. Imagine one of these premium third-party DLCs would be a specific tank. Now you buy that tank... and then you can't use it anywhere. Not in multiplayer, because it would require everyone to own it as well. Not in singleplayer, because it requires folks to make missions with it. Its use will be quite limited in the end, just as it is with such mods right now... and right now you don't even have to pay money for them.