Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Johny

Former Developer
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    124

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Johny

  1. Posted

    First I have to say, even though I don't personaly agree with the approach, that Bohemia have every right to sell their DLC in whatever way they see fit. I understand the system is intended for MP servers where other players may have the DLC. However I play offline single player with AI and the marksman DLC nag screen/popup came up. I don't want this in my game. How can I remove all the DLC in the scenario ? The editor ? Or is there some kind of setting or other approach ?

    I am sorry you find our monetization of DLCs intrusive. Please remember that this way you are actually allowed to play the scenario without having to have the DLC. If the DLCs were sold in the regular way, you would not be able to play the scenario at all.

    In any case, the best way to get rid of the nags is to purchase the DLCs on Steam or our Store.

    • Like 4

  2. Posted

    Currently all the data in Arma 3 is distributed under EULA (https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma3-end-user-license) . If  you take such content like Altis Map and you want to edit it, you would have to debinarize it by using external tools, which would fall under disassembly or reverse-engineering and such use of the data is expressly forbidden by the EULA – whether you publish it or not is irrelevant.
    There might be practical issues with enforcing such provisions when it is done at home and no one knows about it, but that does not mean it is allowed or that it complies with our licenses.
    For editing Arma 3 terrains, you will have to wait for if and when the data is released under more permissive license such as APL-SA (Disclaimer - this is not a promise of such release and it is still something we will have to determine in the future.)

  3. Posted

    AFAIK BI allow this as is under APL-SA license.

    Hey,

    to the best of my knowledge, the Arma 3 terrains have never been released under APL-SA, so that license does not apply.

    The data, which we have released under the APL and similar licenses are available for download here  https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages. Each pack has the correct license (or licenses) marked in its file name and also one copy should be attached to it in the file itself.

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    Hello Pozzer18,

    it seems that you are under a mistaken impression that gamechanging perks as rewards for monetizations in Arma 2 have been allowed. They are not and they have never been allowed. Only voluntary donations are allowed for Arma 2 and current Arma 3 and Dayz monetization rules extended those voluntary donations. So this new system actually gives more legal options to monetize our games and servers. Also a bonus is that it gives us a way to reward people, who do not infringe on the IPs of modders. 

    Of course this would not be effective without enforcement, which is why we stepped our game in that area and are now pursuing monetization infringements with much more zeal than in the the past.

     

     

    Hi there,

     

    Just wanting to ask, these guys are breaking monetization rules aren't they?

     

    http://spectregaming.co.uk/forum/m/34209954/viewthread/24842288-donations

    Thanks, we will take a look.

    The best way to report these communities is to use the "Contact us" form at http://www.bistudio.com/monetization

    • Like 3

  6. Posted

    Hello James,

    can you please share what is the name of your community? We have several cases open. so I am not sure which you are referring to.

     

    In any case:

    Why you, why now? - Most probably your community was reported to us for infringing on Arma 2 and so we investigated it.

     

    But still, sending C&D letters is one of the last resorts, prior we usually try to communicate with the community for weeks, so it is highly unlikely you got served with a C&D letter out of the blue. We have always tried to contact and work the issues in a friendly manner and where possible suggest alternative ways of monetization.

    All we are asking of our communities is to start following the rules. We have not threatened anyone to sue them over past damages and the money they made. 
     
    While I understand that running a server and community costs money, you need to understand there are rules and you need to follow them. There are other ways of rewarding donators (teamspeak priviledges, forum badges, etc.) which you can use without having to sell in-game weapons.
     

    You need to remember that monetization beyond voluntary donations was not allowed in Arma 2 so your argument, that you have been doing so for years, doesn't really help your case. Basically you are hinting that have made 36 000 USD by violating our license (not to mention the law) and that we are the bad ones for not stopping you sooner. 

    • Like 3

  7. Posted

    I am sorry you feel this way. From our perspective we did not stop anything as it has never been allowed to monetize the game (besides the videos and donations).

    This server monetization gave server owners several options to monetize and improve their donation systems with cosmetic rewards for donators, but at the same time our goal was to make sure everyone in the community may have the same gameplay features regardless of their budget.

  8. Posted

    Anything that affects gameplay is not allowed. 
    The faq link above is a good starting point and also this thread is full of examples and explanations and you may always ask here or use the contact form on the website if you have an example you are unsure of.

  9. Posted

    If there is a server with pay to win perks, then please use the contact us button here http://www.bistudio.com/monetizationand send us more details and we will take steps to make sure the proprietor of the server understands whose perks are not allowed.

    Incidentally that link also features a list of approved server which may use the non-gameplay affecting perks. It is not exactly the honor system you are proposing, but I think it is close.

  11. Posted

    Hello everyone,

    it has been almost half a year since we published the server monetization rules and we have approved a few servers, denied quite a lot more and there has been a significant number of people who just switched to voluntary donations.

    So since there has been a lot of questions and worthwhile feedback in the beginning I would like to ask you for your opinion and notes on the whole thing now, when you had a chance to observe it in real world for some time.

    As always, your feedback is much appreciated!

  13. Posted

    Hey Mickyleitor,

    prior to the workshop support release we have discussed the issue both internally and with Valve. We were quite aware that the original workshop rules were not very modder-friendly, but before steam workshop support was added to Arma 3 (in summer 2013), Valve has changed the original WS policies and integrated everything into the SSA. At that time they have added the following section:

    Notwithstanding the license described in Section 6.A., Valve will only have the right to modify or create derivative works from your Workshop Contribution in the following cases: (a) Valve may make modifications necessary to make your Contribution compatible with Steam and the Workshop functionality or user interface, and (b) Valve or the applicable developer may make modifications to Workshop Contributions that are accepted for in-Application distribution as it deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay.

    Part (b) of this clause does not really apply to Arma 3 workshop, as we are not accepting any workshop contribution for in-app distribution (like TF2 or CSGO do), which leaves Valve with license for derivative works only in situations described in (a). This limits scope of the license and rights assigned to Valve quite a lot.

    With the "App-Specific Terms", I am afraid that those are for amending changing parts section 6B, which does not really help with the licenses assigned to Valve in 6A. Also these terms are also mainly aimed at governing the workshop items monetization.

    Maybe if you could sum up the specific points, which you are worried about, then I could try and help. (feel free to send me an PM.)

  15. Posted

    Yes, mods usually don't have registered copyrights, but you don't need to register a copyright to have IP rights to your works, you get those automatically.

    On the other hand we do have registered copyrights which gives us an advantage of better establishing our IP ownership and thus helps us with takedown proceedings.

    As I said before, I am not going to describe our process regarding the violators. As anyone who has ever tried to do so can confirm that taking stuff down from the internet is hard even without me giving a list of tips and hints on how to make it harder for us.

    About the taxes - we have no authority or right to monitor or audit anyone's tax morale. It is like if I were to ask Apple if they check that everyone selling apps on their app store is paying their income taxe.

  17. Posted · Edited by Johny
    typo

    Hello KBBW123,

    first let me apologize for the time it took us reply to your reply to the removal from the whitelist, we have had some issues with the issue tracking system and your email has fallen through the cracks.

    Second I would like to explain your situation - you were removed from the whitelist because we have received a report from the author of the several of the addons you are using on your website. He stated he did not give you permission and in your reply you did not provide any information which would prove (or even hint) the opposite.

    Without the server monetization permission your server is back to the "only donations" status and as I have explained several times in this thread: donations are gifts without any counter value. While I might personally agree that the squad XML is really a small and insignificant, we still consider it a counter value and and as such we consider it a monetization which requires permission. If you look at it from the players perspective, the XML it not so different from donator hat or uniform and that is just a step from donator car, donator gun or donator tank and bang we are back at the donator shops.

    Feel free to give your donators special status on the forums or your website, but unless you are on the allowed monetizator list you are not allowed to give them anything in game.

    Or you may try getting a permission from the mod author.

  18. Posted

    And looking at first server monetization approval we can see that this kind of procedure will be applied widely.

    Could you elaborate? Extreme Pudding Mix are charging for the reserved slots.

    While I understand the legal need/obligation to keep quiet during the first phases of the investigation once you get a successful prosecution or result you NEED to be communicating this.

    You NEED to be seen to take action.

    You NEED to be show the community both "good" and "bad" that the EULA is something they need to respect.

    You NEED to build confidence in the community because there is virtually none.

    we will decide in each individual case when and what we will publish, but I don't want this turned into a witch hunt. (Also I would like to point out that if we publish something and later decide to go to court over the matter, it might damage our chances of success.)

    Your point is clear - you don't trust us to enforce the rules. But at the same time you say we did not enforce them in the past so from that point of view I do not see how us adding a public database with approved servers can make the situation any worse.

  19. Posted

    If a server owner allows donations/purchases to get weapons/vehicles/exp/in-game(server) money faster or such but does not limit those items to just donators/purchasers then is that allowed because they're (those who don't donate/purchase) not blocked from using it but those who do get something in return.

    If that doesn't make sense just think of P2W MMOs and such where you can unlock item A in 10 hours of grinding or buy a booster and unlock item A in say 30 minutes or buy item A and get it instantly.

    This would be a gameplay affecting perk and as such it is not allowed under the new rules. So no P2W.

    It's an interesting topic. At the moment I ask myself how this registering works? Is it just about giving your server address? If so why not implement something like an ingame charging tool into the game itself? If already connected to steam any donation made would be done via steam and could be redirected to the registered accound. This implemented tool could be also used to control if the permission is still valid or what type of things are charged for. Lets say it works like that: A) you get a permission to make some money that is some sort of key stort at the host server and the registration server. B) if a transaction via steam is asked for the tool contacts the registration server and asks for validation of the right to charge.

    Once you do that ... a) make any charging that isn't done without registration illegal. So you can go against anyone that doesnt hold a license.

    b) And if someone has a license and doesnt apply by it just get its licences revoked and can't charge any money via steam without doing it some other illegal way like a)

    Good thing would be that any infringement could be done very quickly without the need of legal actions. There would be a control about money made with the game with service or content provided by servers holder.

    If we and Valve wanted to make some money out of it, then this would be the right way to go about it. It is similar to the workshop monetization you can see with CSGO or recently Chivalry.

    Also it would not stop any one from monetizing outside of the system, so from that respect we would have similarly secure system (granted the control over the approved monetizators would be better), with more legal stuff (just read the part on WS monetization in the Steam Subscriber agreement) and maybe even more work to be done - and I am not mentioning the implementation costs. Also it would depend not only on our willingness to implement, but also on Valve's.

    I guess this all boils down to one question. Are BI willing and able to chase and close down server operators who breach their license?

    When we started to be more active in that regard we realized, that we have the most success with communities, which if given the option would jump to a chance to monetize legally within the rules. Then there were people who we felt could be reformed if given the choice of battling us or following the rules. The third group were people who didn't care, the worst kind. That was one of the reasons we decided to set up these new rules - get the "reformable" out of the way and so clear our hands to focus on the "worst kind".

    But to answer you - yes, we are willing and we are also able, it just not as simple and instant or quick as some make it to be. Especially since there are hundreds of such servers out there.

    But as I hinted before we are looking into some new ways of making life less pleasant for the servers that we are not happy with, which could make things easier.

    I'm still somewhat doubtful this will work, but I will admit you've won me over somewhat in that you are at least trying to solve an issue.

    Well, we ourselves are openly admitting it is a test. A test we fully intend to evaluate. If you check the rules you will see we may infact stop the whole thing when ever we wish should this take an unexpected turn. At the same time we have set the 1 year test period, to give some idea of consistency to the people who would be taking the time and applied.

    However, I think part of the reason your community doesn't seem on board with this is really with the encouragement of microtransactions and the plague of servers which exist to make a profit rather than foster communities, and the fact that most of us are doubtful about the system. This whole thing is a minefield better avoided by just stopping monetization and allowing donations instead. Yes, people do appreciate donors and want to reward them. What about a donator wall on the briefing screen, or a sign with their names in-base? It just sounds like guys who want to encourage people spending have been petitioning you for this.

    I do see your point and understand the worries. To be honest I think that the microtransactions we are allowing actually promote fostering the community. People cannot sell anything that affects gameplay, so server operators need to think of way to engage community and get them to want cosmetic perks in order to get the money.

    More importantly, is a mod whose author is silent on the issue of monetization up for grabs or does permission need to be expressly given for it to happen? (basically, what is the base value for permissions) How far can the modder control the level of monetization? Can they for example specify that the work is available to be used on for servers with paywalls, but not as rewards for donators?

    For approval we require express permission of the author and we will ask for it if there is a dispute. But if author is not disputing the permission, then how can we know he did not give it.

    On your other questions - BI is not a law firm and cannot give legal advice so once more following is my personal opinion:

    Author may set up any restrictions he sees fit (as long as he respects the licenses of the tools and works he is basing his work on). Also IMO in IP law what is not expressly allowed is forbidden. If you find a random software on the internet without any accompanying license or permission from the author then you cannot just say it is a public domain because it has no license. It is the other way around - you cannot even use it, let alone for commercial purpose.

    What about mods that have been stolen from their authors, had minor changes (if at all) made to them and then released under a separate name? Based on your example, all I would technically need to do is to simply rip the assets out of a few mods whose owners are no longer active in arma, change the names or authors or configs, repackage it as "Badguy's Altis Life Pack" and charge players who wish to use the items. No one could prove I didn't come up with those assets, players on the server could care less, I make money, legit servers lose.

    Well you can see how it might be problematic to prove someone is using stolen work. But since we are taking away the monetization approval, we do not have to prove anything, it is enough we deem the server operator not to be acting in the best interests of the community. And at that point the burden of proof is on the server operator, who should prove it is his work if he wants to continue monetizing.

    What about weapons? Since weapons do affect gameplay, they should not be allowed to be monetized.

    If you sell weapons to people, then it affects the gameplay and is not allowed. But if you sell a "golden weapons upgrade" and it means that everytime user picks up the weapon he gets its golden variant of the same weapon, which has same specs but looks "cooler", then that would fit within the bounds of cosmetic items.

    However, do the new rules allow for weapon mods to be run in a server that offers hats for donators?

    If you are approved and have a permission from the weapons-mod author and hats-mod author then it is OK.

    Of course if there is a tank hidden in the hat, then that would be a problem :D

    To your last post I will say, that we are giving the option to monetize. We are not saying everyone must do it. We are not taking the monetization lightly - that is why we decided to limit the monetization to cosmetics and server access, which should set reasonable bounds for the exploitation you are speaking about.

  20. Posted

    If that's the case, how can we expect that the interests of modders, who I suspect will almost unanimously refuse to allow monetization of their work, will be enforced under your guidelines? If the makers of KOTH, Life and Wasteland, or AGM and AIATP said they wouldn't allow monetization, could you police the servers infringing on their behalf, especially since there will always be servers popping up who won't be bothered to sign up under your approval?

    I will try to illustrate on an example:

    Mr. Modder creates the Addon, which he releases under a license which forbids anyone from hosting it on their server.

    Mr.Badguy hosts a server with Addon (which is against the Addon license), but he hosts it without any monetization or any infringing on BI's rights. Modder is angry and tries to get BI to help, but BI unfortunately cannot help as it is an IP battle between Modder and Badguy.

    Now take the same situation, but this time Badguy is monetizing on his server with Addon. Badguy has a permission from BI to monetize the server, but does not have permission from Modder to monetize or even use Addon(which he lied about when he sent his application). Modder reports him to BI. BI takes away the monetization permission, but Badguy keeps on monetizing. At that point he is infringing on the BI rights and BI can act and stop him. Not because he is infringing on Modders copyrights, but because he infringes on BI copyrights.

    You are right that there will always be servers popping up who wont bother to register. This gets the approved ones in one spot for everyone to review and report on and thus helps make more time to focus on the people who monetize without approval.

    Dean Hall seems to think you can:

    https://twitter.com/rocket2guns/status/340009788576518144

    If youtuber is making money off video, then your agreement states:

    2. BOHEMIA INTERACTIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AGAINST A (“THE WORK“).

    IN THAT CASE (“THE APPLICANT“) AGREES TO REMOVE THE (“THE WORK“) IN QUESTION AS SOON AS

    POSSIBLE (NO LONGER THAN 60 DAYS PERIOD).

    That's for applicants who want to monetise videos with you.

    So are you saying you can remove $$$ YT videos if they go through your system, but if someone makes money off videos they upload without your consent, then you have no power?

    Why would anyone sign the agreement in the first place?

    We can take away permission to monetize the YT video if we wish to, then youtube should takee down the video or stop the monetization of it.

    Youtube does not allow monetization of copyrighted content without permission. If he does not have it and still was able to get the monetization up we have every right and power to take it down.

    If you compose a music and some steals it and puts it into his homemade video and starts to monetize, then we have no right to take it down.

    Btw the info you are referring to is a bit outdated - this is up to date: http://www.bistudio.com/community/game-content-usage-rules/monetization-youtube

    It really doesn't seem like Bohemia thought this one through very well... On the one hand, you are saying you can now protect 3rd party content creators from abusive server owners. On the other, you are empowering abusive server owners to become "legitimate" server owners who can profit off of the work of 3rd party content creators...

    There are always going to be abusive server owners, but the legitimate server owner is no longer someone hidden in the depths of the internet - getting approved and listed on the website should invite certain amount of spotlight.

    It should also show that people make money of their own or properly licensed content legally.

    Further, you are acting like you are doing content creators a favor by giving them a *choice* that they already have (who they authorize to use their work). It is a false choice, as I suspect forcing content creators into such an agreement would not have much of a legal footing.

    No, we are not giving them a choice - they just have it. Just like every author has the right to decide whom to and how he licenses the work. The only news is that they may extend their licenses to this monetization.

    I apologize, but I don't understand the part the "false choice" part, can you elaborate a bit?

    Here, is a much simpler and more equitable solution that uses the framework you have set up. Instead of going for-profit, allow server owners to *only* receive voluntary donations (that means, no "donation" in exchange for content). If a server owner does receive donations, it must be under those terms and they must apply, and be on your "approved" list. Meaning... they have to have permission from any and all authors of the IP that they use. If they are found to violate those terms by profiteering, or using mods without permission, you will remove them (as you now claim you will do under the new terms).

    It accomplishes one of the end-goals you claim you are seeking (being empowered to protect 3rd party content creators from profiteering or abusive server owners who do not respect their IP). It also actually would empower content creators if you don't commercialize it. And, it also helps deal with the grey areas that currently exist with regards to pseudo-donations.

    Just clear up what a "donation" actually is, and remove the profiteering aspect, and I think you would find the community to (at least) be more agreeable to these new terms.

    There are people who share your opinion, on the other hand there are people who wanted to give stuff like a special in-game status or clothing to their donor but were not permitted to do so.

    Do I think that this will get every content thief to repent? No, but I believe it will give a chance to make a few bucks to the few honest ones and maybe reform a few of the less-than-honest ones.

    On top of that we will get contact and server details of a few less-bright "bad guys", which might help us get rid of them.

    But as stated in the rules, it is still a test.

  21. Posted

    I don't see how mod makers are going to agree to this in any large numbers. I anticipate that a lot of very popular servers are going to find themselves faced with the daunting task of writing all their own code from scratch. Undoubtedly, there will be some who "borrow" code from existing mods in order to accomplish this task, and that will create a whole other issue where accusations are levied but no one can really prove anything.

    I wonder if Bohemia would be willing to give their game away for free and allow other people to sell access to it (commission free)? Of course not. But, that is basically what they are requiring modders to do (of course, you can all say "NO", and I encourage you to. Hopefully, the loss in active player numbers, new purchasers, etc will begin to finally hit them where it hurts... in their pocket book.)

    Not only does Bohemia want you to work for free, but they also want you to give it away for free so that *other* people can make money off it (Bohemia included, of course).

    (The only, and I mean, only, thing that seems somewhat positive out of this, is that the language is worded in such a way that Bohemia reserves the right to actually lift a finger to shut down a server using a modder's work without their permission).

    We are not trying to force these rules on anyone. If you do not wish for people to use your content in this way, then you are not required to give that permission. You can release it in the same way you did before.

    Since this is going a bit in circles, I will try to sum up situation and what we are trying to achieve with this.

    People have been stealing other people's work for ages. And I have said this a few times already - BI has no way/right to enforce 3rd party IP rights - we cannot even take down a youtube video on your behalf.

    Also there have been people monetizating servers. Contrary to popular belief here, we have been taking action against them.

    But it is a never-ending strugle and the results are often limited and we had no way to influence people to get permission before using other peoples work. So this is where these monetization rules came in - We are maiking it clear that the donations are voluntary without ANY counter value - period. Everyone who wishes to monetize, has to register and get approved. Applicants have to give us contact details, server addresses, monetization rules and personal guaranties that they are not stealing other people's work. Now people have an incentive to follow the rules and monetize properly without fearing us coming after them.

    How this:

    "Limiting access to only paying players is allowed"

    Match with this:

    "Accepting donations is allowed, but to avoid any doubts: not providing donations must not prevent anyone from accessing the content"

    For donations you don't need approval, but donations are just donations - voluntary, no counter value. Limiting access to donators only is monetization and requires approval.

    I am sorry, but I do not need BIS approval to limit the access in my server to only paying players. The server is mine.

    The point is, if I can limit the access to my server, I can limit also the access for those who do not donate.

    Unless I am looking at this in a wrong way, I am not following it.

    While the hardware might be yours, the Arma 3 Server application is not. It is provided to you on a license, which limits the commercial usage.

    If I am going to ask for donations I have to keep my server open to public?

    Is that what is being said?

    No, you may ask for the donations and keep server closed, but you cannot limit access only to the donators, because then you would be charging for access and for that you need to apply for approval.

    So I cant give administration or moderation positions or some other previlege like prioritisation in access to those who contribute to pay the server bills, through donations?
    WOW, it's ok charging for items and block server access because of it, but it's not ok to give privileged access to those who help paying the bills. Just WOW.

    Charging for items is NOT OK - you need to ask for approval.

    Thanks to these new rules, after you get approved, you are OK to give a privileged access to people who pay. If you were doing so before, you were doing so illegally.

    Hello,

    I have question about this system and how you will consider the team member who pay for a server ?

    If in my public server, I make restriction to acces at weapon and vehicles (ex: only slot pilot can have access to plane or heli ) but I make all my team member access to all things without restriction, it's forbidden ? Worst in my mission i create restriction access to some vehicle or script to my team member only, it's forbidden ? Team Member are donor or not ? and if it's not how you make distinction between a team member and donor ?

    What is something will break gameplay in coop mission ? in RPG, PvP ok i see but in PvE mission...

    If you would be selling "Team member" package, which would make anyone who purchases a team member with access to special vehicles, then you are selling game affecting items/features and that is NOT allowed.

    If you charge everyone for access to the server and out of the paying people there are few, who are your friends and you call them team members and you give them special guns/ pilot seats etc., then it is OK (provided you register and get approved).

    Basically there must not be any relation between money paid and game affecting perks. Does this help?

  22. Posted

    Pre-Info : Didn't read the whole Thread

    Example:

    How will you react, when somebody is reporting a server, who is using (for example) some of my Scripts (isn't there something like intellectual property?), running a Pay2Play and/or a Donation store, but the rest is from someone else who made it free for monetizing?

    What will happen: Change the name of the script, write the own name on it, free to go. You can't track that back...

    Monetizators need to have a permission for all 3rd party work, not just part.

    If they change the script name, rewrite it, etc. then it might be rather hard to prove you are the author. On the other hand we can take away the approval to monetize on a suspicion.

  23. Posted

    Well this seems to be a one year test. If things go shit well only option is not allow monetizing.

    I think the only option to allow monetizing is either your server runs only your made content so things don't really need approval or if there's something that is someone else work (scripts, mission, mods whatever) then you need permission to use it.

    Instead make a store to sell mods or scripts or something similar now the profit goes to the server owner that can grab any previous mod and earn money with others works.

    No one may use or monetize any of your mods or content without your permission. If that is happening, then you should report them on the monetization website so that we may investigate and if necessary take them down. We don't want such people to take advantage of these rules.

    This in no way limits you as a copyright holder from taking other steps to protect your IP.

    Also I would like to point out that every applicant has to declare that he has all necessary permissions from content creators and no application is approved automatically. I realize people might lie, but that is what the report button is for.

  25. Posted · Edited by Johny
    Donations clarification

    Got one (last/more) question:

    If a person is accepting donations (for his work which might be based on some other works) and by a strange coincidence is also owning a Arma3 server, do that person needs to go through the application for approval process for his server even if it is not strictly speaking monetization (since nothing is traded)?

    Accepting donations was allowed and you are free to do so without approval process. But donations are voluntary gifts without expectations of any counter value.

    So donation is OK. For donations where you give rewards to donators, you need to apply. Giving gameplay affecting gifts to donators is not allowed even under the new rules.

    EDIT: To be a bit more clear - We do not consider donations without any counter value to be commercial use. But if you are using 3rd party work on your donations, you should make sure the author does not prevent his work to be used to raise donations. Also to be absolutely clear - we cannot and would not assign anyone any rights or licenses over 3rd party work.

    I do not see the difference between a reseller of your work ( vehicles, weapons, uniforms, vests, map... ) and between a person who is blocking all of this content ( Pay me if you wan't to connect on my server... ).

    That mean, i need to pay for a content i've already buy with the game? Just imagine an custom mission like Altis Life where you need to pay your access to the gamemode?

    You are paying for the access to the server.

    If the mod is publicly available, or if you create your own or use the content which was distributed with the game your free to host your own server.

    Or your may connect to any of the official Arma 3 servers we provide.

    However, are you going to do something against servers profiting from donation reward ( locked content like vehicles, weapons... if you do not donate or buy it on the " donator shop " ) ?

    To reiterate - Game play affecting donator shop are not allowed, so are donator shops without approval or registrations. If you get something in return, it is a sale not a donation.

    Once the first dust settles on these monetization rules and everyone is given reasonable time to adjust their ways, we will focus our attentions on the rules violators.

    I have regrouped more than a dozen of illegal server with informations like links, reasons, owner, contact email... and I sent this list at BIS and I had no answer.

    http://arma-france.com/illegal-servers/

    [/b] system.

    We have some of these servers (not all) on our watch list. I will investigate why your message did not get to the appropriate people.

    As I said above - now everyone has a chance to change their ways or face the consequences.

    If people are monetizing a server, this probably constitutes "Commercial Use". In this regard, it would rule out use of any mods that restrict Commercial Use - including BIS own APL content.

    As long as the people otherwise follow the licenses, we are OK with our licensed data packages from https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages being used for the server monetization according to the http://www.bistudio.com/monetization rules.

    By the way, I hope I am not missing any important issues raised here, but if you feel I did or you have some questions specific to your community or situation, please feel free to send me an email to monetization@bistudio.com. Thanks

×