PuFu

The monetization thing was intended to legally frame something that has been happening since A2 days at least. The intention was to allow server owners to keep their servers up by providing direct ingame benefits towards their users. Yes, that is commercial avenue for all intents and purposes, the scope was to cover renting/co-location expenses rather than allow profits to be made, because, and i quote "donations is not something that users are willing to make without getting something in return" The main problem here is that the vast majority of monetized communities doesn't function that way. And although this sort of monetization was initially intended as a test run for an year, it has been continued in the same form year after year despite the vocal negative provided feedback. That is not allowed based on monetization policies (https://www.bohemia.net/monetization). The mod user needs to agree to monetization of its owned addons/mods and provide written permission in such cases. What happens is that a lot of the communities that apply for monetization, they are approved for using just vanilla, then later add community made addons into the mix. There is no oversights, and no continuous (or automated monitoring) so reporting such cases comes down to mod owners rather than have BI deal with it, considering it is their own system, and mod creators shouldn't spend their own time enforcing someone's elses rules. I can tell you right now, it's a waste of my free time. I wasn't the one to set the rules, so i shouldn't be the one to enforce those rules to begin with. No modder expects or relies on donations to be honest. That would be foolish to begin with, it's not gonna happen. Sure payed mods is in itself a can of worms, that being said, so is server access and content exclusivity based on payment, but BI seems to acknowledge and actually encourage just half of the issue. I will reiterate - the modding today is getting more complicated and more skill based than it used to be. At least for this franchise, the process for producing (from scratch) quality assets for instance is precisely the same (if not more advanced in some cases) as official developers are using to produce official content for the game to begin with. The result in the long term is gonna be one - there will be less and less bespoke quality content being produced for free, because a. why would come from a job and spend his time and earned money on yet another job. b. why would some produce and release content when just so some random BoB hosting a patato server can make a profit out of that content, despite the set rules in place - the alternative being to self-police and report / C&D/ DMCA , which takes a ton of that free time (i have been doing it for the past 5 years now) That is how DCS is doing it to some degree.

And that stands true for every other mod/mission out there (monetized servers excluded). Sure some people go ahead and say that they are willing to donate, but that hardly ever happens from my personal experience, considering these products are free to begin with, and with prohibited commercial gains (opposed to servers running A3). Even large team based projects with even larger exposure, 6+ years and tens of thousands of accumulated work hours, with monthly pipeline server costs, tool subscriptions costs etc are not receiving these sort of donations. I think in 6 years dev time, RHS has received 2 donations - one of 5$ and one of 100$ (KOTH monetized servers related). Considering just the monthly servers costs is 150EU, not pitching in individual artists software subscriptions (substance, adobe, modo/zbrush/max etc), and without counting any of the hours invested in this, you can understand this is not a viable option to cover fixed costs, much less so to make a profit. What still surprises me, is the fact that a lot of users cannot understand what the real world monetary value of some of the "free content" they are provided with. To put this into perspective, although i don't have a current data on hand atm, but last time i did an estimated a year ago was around 600k IRC (using average freelance industry fees) just for the RHS custom content (excluding BI ported and improved content). Do the math and see the number of sales that would be needed (with the 30 / 35 / 35 formula in mind) to cover that investment - and btw, this is for a mod where total free user downloads are in excess of 1 million. Surely modding is a hobby, but considering increasing skills needed to produce and deliver that content, subscription fees for the tools required to create content on at least the same level as the base game, i not sure how some are surprised by the prices of C-DLCs, and the fact that some modders are using this opportunity as they are

what? it is 100% fair game. Apex for instance is an expansion not a DLC, owners of supporter editions got it for free, despite that edition description stating it covers DLCs, not expansions as well. oh, and btw, as you can see, i own that supporter edition myself.

congrats are in order indeed!

You don't need permission in case you are not modifying RHS content (which seems it isn't the case here). In case you are modifying RHS original content, we do not provide individual permissions outside our EULA, no exceptions - http://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA

i suggest you ask in the scripting suibforums and/or ACE thread

You are 100% free to pitch such a DLC towards Bohemia Interactive. none of the content in these 2 images are not part of A2 assets, all of it is part of RHS, all of it is bespoke content made for A3 btw.

don't use DLC stuff you don't own = no advert regarding that DLC. pretty simple

we don't provide permissions outside our EULA to anyone, no matter of the reasons. in accordance that the ND clause, we can choose to tolerate or not any and all re-textures.

we don’t do that

you seem new around here... we don't make our plans public, so not sure what you refer to. There is a new RHS release each Tuesday 04.00 GMT

for everything related to structures and buildings, i suggest you have a look over multimaterials

I am talking about current console generation. No, i never had an xbox, had a PS2 at some point, now have a PS4. No offense but you keep coming back to a game that was made in 2005-2006. The target and market has grossly changed this then. If every single game out there presents yourself with this aiming aids, pretty sure it's going to be a requirement. Again, i don't play any sort of FPS shooters on consoles because a. i cannot use thumbs to aim correctly. b. all the games in that department that interest me are available on PC just as well. The console controllers are superior over mouse and keyboards in certain areas, and decent in others. shooters are not meant to be played with thumbs btw each with its own i assume, but i though we were talking about vanilla arma, not modded arma I honestly don't think the AI in A3 is any worse than it is in A2

on release, maybe, today, no way. I couldn't go back to A2 robotic movement no matter what (not that A3 is quite there yet, but miles better by comparison).

It's also a matter of consumer numbers - they could take a business decision (speculating now anyways, not saying that it will happen) to target a pretty different market. I honestly think, considering the gap in terms of what is available for that particular market (the consoles) and the lack of competition outside of the generic shooters of all kinds, that they should make that move. Not really sure what trade-off you are talking about here though. There isn't a single title on consoles i have seen where there isn't some sort of assist. Even things like BF, COD etc have this sort of system in place (you aim, there is small soft snap area when over target, and then help tracking the target). Not sure how vigor handles it since that is xbox exclusive title. I love RDR2 singleplayer, the multiplayer parts is rubbish all things considered. But then again, in current day and age, most games are expected to have some sort of multiplayer scene so one can play with or against his friends.

you didn't read what i wrote. I personally 100% agree that they should make a move into the consoles with their flagship product. I doubt anyone would properly disagree, especially if such a move would not influence a possible PC release negatively (and btw, a more ergonomic and simplified control scheme for A3 main controls (infantry and shooting) would be a good thing in itself) what i don't agree with is this topic's pompous title "we need ArmA3 on consoles" - that is bullshit, you don't need a video game to begin with, you want A3 on consoles for whatever reason (and yes, i also own a PS4 pro, i have no shooters on minus some destiny thing i got for free via PS4 plus thing, most game i have on are 3rd person action/adventure ones, i have no "simulation" of any sort - the only ones worth playing are, maybe, some of the driving ones. I personally cannot aim much with a controller, and i hate with a passion the auto-aims and magnet types aim assists systems in game)

i said this before - BI is a business, and it is obvious that they have understood the existing market opportunity for consoles. I am saying that ideally they would just need to make a single game and port it across (and that is obviously not possible), make something that works out of the box on consoles - they will sort of fuck over everyone on PC, or make 2 games, one being a variant of the first (that means a lot more dev time on it), which simplified control schemes, with some simplified mechanics and some features watered down or removed

still, things today are a ton more powerful in terms of what the editor can do. It would still need to have a ton more prefab stuff to get it to work without any init input It isn't about consoles not being able to handle mods, but the system to get these mods in and loading. And there is no way that is possible without some sort of curated system from BI themselves (also not possible for PS4, due to the way Sony has it setup)

there is no testosterone (bar some of retarded comments, but that is expected) or any PC master race thing going on (PC master race). But you need to understand a few things a. what makes ArmA what it is, it is not its mechanics or pre-built mission templates - but its sandbox nature, being able to turn it into anything you like, being moddable and being able to create your own scenarios. b. by definition, simulations means being able to interact and control a number of things. I am not saying that you cannot have a more serious type of game on consoles, or that these are not capable of handling these types of games. c. if a next iteration of this franchise is ever made, it better have the same sort of systems in place making it a sandbox just like previous ones were. What most of you don't seem to get is that it isn't as easy as make a proper game for PC, and then make a variation of the first that works the same but still different, and then lacks the very things that make ArmA such a unique and long lasting video game

it wasn't changed, it was never differently I actually asked BI to provide me the model, so i can make interior for it and send it back to them, and they said no (that was 3-4 years ago). The only other option is to make a new model ourselves, but is such a low priority

(almost) everyone craving for something close to mil-sim has a PC.

countermeasures (chaff/flares) systems don't work like that

grief indeed...

i actually considered that when i did the texture, it is a bit more stupid to setup in SP than i thought . It would overlay on any 3rd party textures as well, yes. Might give that a try. The only downside was in regardins to normals map that i have on top of some of these "stickers"