Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by roshnak

  1. Perhaps I'm missing the point and am going to be just as offtopic as anyone else here, but .. just one thing... the last time I fired a weapon, it WAS painfully loud.

    Oh and yes.. while I'm posting...the sonic cracks. Utter rubbish. Complete waste of time and file space.

    I don't think you are really missing the point. I think that is what DarkWanderer was saying, too.

    The question I have for you is this: Do you think it is a good idea for a video game to cause people physical harm, or even physical discomfort, in the name of realism? Or do you think that it's okay to compromise and make things sound loud, but not uncomfortably loud?

    I also don't really see how this is offtopic. Seems pretty clearly like audio tweaking discussion to me.

  2. 2: In all reality, if this was already attempted by a major company, and failed horribly due to a vast volume of problems, from abuse and theft to rip offs and complexity, and a ton of other issues.. can this really even be truly done "right" at all?

    There have been plenty of successful paid modding systems implemented in other games. A few flight sims do it in what I would consider to be a very bad way, but which seems to be pretty successful. Valve has done it in a number of their own games in very clever ways that make it much more appealing.

    Personally, I can't think of a good way to do it in either Skyrim or Arma.

  3. Not true for me. I use Razer virtual surround with my Samson SR open-back headphones and struggle to hear any directionality or have any sense of a soundstage larger than my headset, whereas with four speakers I have no problem and the soundstage seems much bigger than my room.

    I would guess that whatever HRTF model Razer Surround uses was created with a head model/ear shape that is not compatible with yours.

  4. Completely rewritten being the keyword. If it's completely rewritten then it's only the Source engine in name and nothing else. Through BI developers own admissions we know that a lot of the problem with RV is that the engine is largely undocumented and very very hard to rewrite because of that. RV probably has never been rewritten on the scale that most engines are. Most of what changes through revisions are things that can be "added" for the most part and little of the foundation has changed between revisions. His statement really isn't far off the truth.

    "Refactoring" != low level revisions to the existing code base.

    But it hasn't been completely rewritten or there wouldn't still be Quake code in HL2. But either way, the point was that implying that it would be too hard to make huge changes to RV because it's too old, unlike Source, doesn't make sense if Source is based on an even older engine that underwent huge changes.

    And wouldn't the fact that RV probably hasn't been rewritten on the scale that most engines are be more reason that it needs a huge change, not less?

    Edit: I mean, I guess you could argue that they just need to start from scratch, but that doesn't seem like a great alternative and it's not going to happen, anyway.

  5. Maybe learning to pull down your weapon manually after each shot is easy if you've played Counter Strike for years, but to most people it will be extremely unintuitive.

    Yeah, you're probably right. Using the mouse to control where you're aiming in a first person shooter is totally unintuitive. I know that everyone I've ever played with has started shooting and immediately shouted, "Whoa! Where's my aim going!? I don't know what to do! This is so confusing!"

    Yeah, point taken, i'm getting simillar results with targets @20m, no zoom.

    Zoom decreases dpi, so it's a trade-off.

    Thanks for the vid.

    How much zoom are we talking, here? Just the regular "hold mouse 2" zoom, or are you slapping a magnified optic on your SMGs?

  6. A trained soldier will compensate thru muscle memory --as is, it's like we never fired a gun before.

    Is there some reason that you can't do that?

    Your avatar in game is not a trained soldier, your avatar is you, and whenever possible your abilities in the game should be tied to your skill, not your avatar's skill.

    Edit: It seems like if you think players should have to manually compensate for recoil, then you would think that guns in-game should have an amount of recoil roughly in line with how difficult they should be to control. Your first post made it seem like you agreed with this, but then you say that SMGs shouldn't be that way because the character you're playing in game should be compensating for recoil instead of you?

  7. good luck with that. this engine is 15 years old and has code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code going on. Removing anything implemented early on is impossible without totally breaking everything else because thats the bottom of the stack. You can't knock out the first floor of a building unless you want the whole thing coming down.

    source engine is much newer and doesn't have the disadvantage of being over 15 years old with many things stacked on the pile. PhysX also isn't very deeply rooted in, probably also has limited ability to get to the stuff below it to make it more effective.

    Hasn't there been a bunch of refactoring going on with Arma 3?

    Besides, this whole premise isn't even true. Source has probably been almost completely rewritten, but it is based on an engine older than Arma's.

    Source distantly originates from the GoldSrc engine, itself a heavily modified version of John D. Carmack's Quake engine. Carmack commented on his blog in 2004 that "there are still bits of early Quake code in Half-Life 2".


  8. The description in your sample speaks about a suppressor being used ..? That may explain the lack of a loud gunshot sound and the very quiet tail.

    The suppressor is used to intentionally try to remove the sound of the gunshot from the recording. Since the sound of the bullet crack is what is important, they don't want other stuff interfering with that. The loudness of the gunshot in relation to the bullet crack should be dependent on the distance from the gun and the closeness of the bullet passby. In order for a video including both sounds to be useful, you would have to know the distance that the microphone was from the gun and the distance that the bullet passed by the microphone, at least.

    Although, as I understand it, you should not have trouble hearing both sounds under most circumstances.

    Also, I don't think a suppressor should have any significant effect on the sound of the bullet crack.

  9. So you're telling people what they should be doing then? I have no plans to get into paid modding. Or a donation system. But I sure as hell don't feel I have the right to block someone else, or make them feel guilty for it. Much less threaten them with being shunned.

    If someone is volutarily leaving the community as suggested in the post you quoted, are they being shunned? In GossamerSolid's scenario, wouldn't it be modders who were threatening to leave?

    Also, you should stop accusing people of trying to block modders attempts to get paid. That's not what's happening. People are just voicing their opinions, and GossamerSolid has as much right to say that modders don't deserve to be paid as anyone else has to say that modders do deserve to get paid.

    And if it's not okay for people who are against paid mods to say things that might make people who are for paid mods feel guilty, then how can we have a discussion? That's the same thing as saying that people don't have the right to make others feel guilty for not wanting to pay for mods, which basically everyone on the pro-paid mods side has done repeatedly in this thread.

  10. Lets sum up the ugly side of the truth. Valve very well knows how to make money. It was simply about routing external money to the gaming industry. This is perfectly alright. One part of the target audience - Computer gaming addicts with no/not enough jobs, are dreaming about an alternative income for their lives. They are wrong. It will not pay out. They think they are some kind of self employed. Self employed? ROTFL. After all, IT WILL NOT PAY OUT. My experience. They should sort their own lives out instead of helping big companies to profit. Yes, that means less time for gaming.

    This is a pretty misinformed opinion, dude. The skills involved in many kinds of modding are the same skills used in the industry, and they have nothing to do with playing video games.

  11. I apologize if i'm mistaken, but that appears to me exactly what happens on those other stores. If you sell an plugin or add on on CreativeCrash for example, they take 55% of your sales.

    You're mistaken.

    First of all, they don't take 55% of your sales, they give you 55% of what they sell of your product. You are the licensor. They are the licensee. You are granting them the license to sell your product, and they are paying you a royalty of 55%.

    Second of all, if someone buys a Photoshop plugin from CreativeCrash, 0% of that money goes to Adobe as the creator of Photoshop.

    3.4 Except for the foregoing, there are no other royalties, fees or any other compensation payable by CC Marketplace to Licensor or any third party under this Agreement.

    And in no case is a creator obligated to sell their product through either CreativeCrash or Adobe Exchange. They can sell their product from their own website and not owe anyone else any money at all.

    Furthermore, if you are going to draw parallels to paid content through Steam Workshop, CreativeCrash and Adobe Exchange would be Valve in that scenario -- the distributor or seller of the product. Not Bohemia or ZeniMax or Bethesda.

  12. @roshnak, Adobe does have a store where they sell extensions though, and you can bet your ass they have a revenue cut. They don't disclose how much it is to outsiders, but it's written there in the general terms of the service. I'm not sure how it is for Autodesk, but either way it's a much much smaller customer base, so maybe they just don't care.

    I believe that Adobe's store would be more analogous to Steam in this case: taking a cut for distribution. I can't find anywhere in Adobe's terms of service that says that extension/plugin developers are obligated to give Adobe a percentage of their profits if they don't use Adobe Exchange.

    Also, professional modders absolutely do exist and have existed for years in the flight sim community (and apparently in the train sim community, and maybe others). As far as I am aware, they don't pay a cut to the developers or publishers of the games that they mod for.




    A few examples.

  13. There's not though, just time. If you're using programs like max or photoshop, those are things to just make it easier, but there are free alternatives to both. Parts and materials matter because you would have to purchase those things and that is built into the cost, other companies couldn't rightfully ask for a share of the materials cost of a product, but if it's all digital, there is no material cost, just lots of time and effort. Which I think mod creators should be able to be paid for. Not to mention that by having it on the steam workshop, it is the digital equivalent of storing, transporting, and showcasing your product for you.

    This does not answer my question. Let me rephrase my question:

    We are talking about whether or not a game publisher or developer deserves to take a percentage of the sales for a product made for their game.

    Every time someone says, "That's not how it works for [cars/phones/some physical good]," you respond with something about how they aren't comparable because of materials costs and transportation.

    Your assertion, then, is that because modders don't have to pay for materials, they should have to give a cut of their sales to the game dev/publisher, but since a company has to buy the plastic to make an iPhone case, they shouldn't have to pay Apple.

    WHY? What is it about needing to pay for materials that makes a company not have the right to demand a portion of the sales for products designed solely to enhance or modify their products? Or, rather, what is it about lacking the requirement to purchase materials that obligates you to pay a percentage of your profit to the company who made the product that you're creating aftermarket parts/content for. This double standard doesn't make any sense.

    Those script and extension creators are the same thing as most old/normal mods, they are doing it for free, but it would be nice if there was a system in place that allowed people to buy them. Quixel doesn't require photoshop to function at all, you can still use it without photoshop, that's the key difference I think you're missing. If it required it to do anything at all, they'd be making money off of photoshop indirectly, and then yes, Adobe should take a cut. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a deal worked out with Adobe for their nDo tool.

    No. The scripts and extensions for Max and Photoshop are not all free. There are tons of scripts and extensions for 3DS Max and Photoshop that cost money.

    I also don't think you know what Quixel is. Quixel is not a product. The Quixel Suite is a collection of products, one of which is NDO, which does require Photoshop to work.

    I don't know where you got the idea that any of these people are paying a percentage of their sales to the companies who sell the product that they created plugins for, but I have never seen any evidence that this is the case. It's simply not how things work. There's no conceivable reason that things should work that way.

    "Gee, thanks for making this addon for my product that makes it better and potentially brings me more customers and money. Now pay me a percentage of your sales."

  14. It doesn't really exist outside of software, because otherwise you'd have a cost of parts & materials, along with whatever else that costs money in the real world, transportation, marketing, etc.

    Again, what difference does the cost of parts and materials make? Or transportation? Who cares? There is a cost to produce mod content as well. You have to (in theory) purchase programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop, tools and extensions for those programs, potentially training materials, etc.

    I don't understand how the costs associated with creating a product have any bearing on whether or not the creator of that product should owe money to another company whose product his or hers interfaces with.

    In fact, the cost of materials thing brings up another example: Programs like 3DS Max and Photoshop have tons of extensions and scripts created by third parties and available for purchase. These are about as directly analogous to mods as you can get. The programs in question created the market for said extensions and the extensions directly add to the functionality or content for those programs. Quixel doesn't have to give a portion of all its sales to Adobe because nDo requires Photoshop to function. People writing scripts and tools for Max don't have to give Autodesk a portion of their sales.

    It's not insane, it's just the truth. If there is no base game + community + mod support already in place before mod creators do anything, there is no mod to be played/sold, it's not really much more complicated than that.

    What's insane is thinking that entitles developers or publishers to a cut of modders profits. It doesn't.

    Creating a market or a need or desire for a product or type of product doesn't give you the right to a share of the profit of everyone who caters to the market you created.

  15. This is the main problem with equating Mod content to other products or content; not only wouldn't it exist if the base game didn't exist and offer at least some support for mods, but no one would be around to play or purchase any of the mods if there wasn't a decently sized community who bought and enjoyed the game.

    I truly hope this line of thinking never spreads outside the tech world, because it is insane.

  16. It's a unique industry.

    It's really not.

    Creating and selling a mod distributed on Steam is not the same thing at all as creating some aftermarket part for a car. You are ignoring a whole hell of a lot of differences if you think that's a valid comparison.

    Do you think that payware content for flight simulators is a valid comparison? Because I can't find anything that suggests that Microsoft, Xicat Interactive (X-Plane's publisher), or Laminar Research (X-Plane's developer) take a cut of addon sales. And I personally consider flightsim payware to be the worst case scenario for paid third party content.

    Edit: I should say that this has nothing to do with distribution. Just the "value added" argument. Obviously it makes sense for a distributor to take a percentage of sales, but, even then, 75% is absurd.

  17. It's not about the work, it's about value. Work doesn't matter to the end user, they are paying for the value of playing the modded game. When you look at it in terms of value, it makes more sense. What is the value distribution of playing a modded game? There is no way the mod makes up for more than half of what you're playing. 25% sounds quite reasonable to me.

    It doesn't take "work" to generate 1000 CD keys for a game, but you aren't paying for the work, you're paying for the value of the CD key. Digital content is tricky like that. It's not comparable to physical goods.

    I don't see how digital content is that tricky. I also don't see why you would look at it in terms of value. Frankly, your value distribution argument would only make sense if mods were included in the price of the game, which they wouldn't be under a monetized system. They're aftermarket products.

    Have you taken a look at Sniperwolf's example? Here:

    Let's draw a comparison, if I make a specific aftermarket parts for a, let's say Corvette, and sell them to Corvette owners, do you think Chevrolet would need to take 75% of every sale because I'm making parts that fit their car? The part can't fit any other car, so without the car my parts are nothing.

    Should BI give Microsoft 75% of their sales because Arma runs on Windows?

    Can you think of any other industry in which this would be an acceptable business model?

    Edit: This is a pretty good example of why I think it's naive to suggest that the "market will balance itself out." People accept all kinds of dumb stuff in the video game industry that they don't seem to accept anywhere else.

  18. I just don't understand the logic some people are putting forward.As if modding is some kind of humanitarian effort. Or that it's somehow sacred and should be unsullied by the evils of money.Can anyone tell me where that comes from?Or why it applies to modding?

    Is it because it has entertainment value?That it's not something practical?Like a saucepan?People pay for films and music.Some of which they may only see or listen to on occasion.Far less than their favourite collection of addons and mods.

    If I had to guess, I would say that the logic is this: Money makes things vastly more complicated. People would rather that things stay uncomplicated.

    If there's a problem with functionality or quality I could understand.That's reasonable.That's sensible.

    These are indeed important issues. Especially given that the Valve and the Steam Workshop's stance is apparently, "If something is broken, please ask nicely and maybe someone will fix but also maybe not."

    But saying you would never pay for something just because it was made by a modder,makes no sense to me.

    Have there been more than two or three people who have said anything even close to this, though?

  19. Excuse me? We are talking about monetisation of user content by modders in this topic here if you haven't noticed. If you have no knowledge of user content creation maybe go complain somewhere else about company pricing strategies

    I never said that I have no knowledge of content creation. I have enough knowledge and experience to know how much work is involved. However, the amount of work involved has no bearing on the effectivenes of splitting up a package and selling it in smaller parts as a sales strategy.

    Then why do you mention it at all? We are talking about modders. Nobody else.

    I didn't mention it. Tonci87 expressed concern that it might happen and you said that it didn't make any sense. I merely pointed out that it not only makes sense, it actually happens.

    Again, you're being way too defensive. Maybe stop assuming that everyone is attacking you or the idea of monetizing user generated content.

  20. Except this is a flea market, and not the wallstreet stock market

    This has nothing to do with stock markets. This is a basic selling technique that is used all over the place. See ruebe's post for more info.

    Have you considered that such big packs don#t fall from the sky? They are created over months and years with thousands of man hours until they become that big. And you have no idea how much work it is to create that, otherwise you would be talking differently.

    What does the amount of work that goes into creating a mod pack have to do with this discussion, and why would my knowledge of that work have any impact on my discussion of relatively well-known pricing strategies?

    How dare you BIS, to offer DLC seperately for a total higher price then the complete pack, boo, hisss, they are literally worse then hitler... jeez. :j:

    I didn't state that this selling tactic was a good or bad thing, and I certainly didn't imply that anyone doing it was in any way evil or comparable to Hitler. It's just the way the modern marketplace works. You're being overly defensive.

    Edit: Just be be clear: I am not saying that all or even any modders would do this stuff. I am merely saying that not only does it make sense, it is not uncommon.

  21. Why do you think splitting a big mod into multiple parts would allow you sell it for more? Doesnt make any sense.

    Of course it makes sense. Companies do it all the time. For example, instead of selling a big mod pack for $10, you sell Side A Pack for $6 and Side B Pack for $6, increasing its total price from $10 to $12. Or you sell a uniform pack, a weapon pack, a light vehicle pack, an armor pack, a fixed wing pack, and a helicopter pack each for $2.50, increasing its total price from $10 to $15.