Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

vegeta897

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    696

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by vegeta897

  2. Posted

    I'm not sure why people think BI would intentionally design an island that performs poorly. They had full control over what setting they chose to create the terrain. Performance issues are one of the main complaints from people. Don't you think one of the first things they did was make sure they could pull off dense vegetation with a good framerate? User-made maps with dense vegetation that run poorly are not a real indication of the performance of this map. BI has engine-level control and can tweak all assets to spec so that the island runs well.

  5. Posted

    Well, yes, there are some cases where if an object is just the right size that it is represented by a single pixel in either resolution, then the smaller resolution makes it appear larger. But If an object is say 5 pixels tall in 1080p, then it would be about 6 or 7 pixels tall in 1440p, which gives it a little bit more detail, possibly making it easier to tell what faction, or type of unit, or direction it's facing, etc.

  6. Posted

    Not sure what people are on about with regards to it being harder to see people with a higher resolution. If the FOV is the same, and the physical monitor sizes are the same, an object will appear the same physical size on screen. The difference is how many pixels make up that object. More pixels means more clarity. In a typical shooter with maximum engagement range of a few hundred meters, that doesn't matter. But in Arma, units can be only a few pixels tall in the distance, and they'll be that much more legible if there are more pixels to draw them. While it doesn't necessarily make them easier to spot, it makes it easier to identify them and see what they're doing.

  7. Posted

    That's not exactly a lot of money in 2035 (excepting some serious financial problems or revaluations in the following two decades).

    That's the joke, haha. You've never seen Austin Powers?

    1 million dollars to prevent the destruction of the earth is not a lot of money now either.

  10. Posted

    BIS must have this in the pipeline for its devs. It's just so practical and makes life so much easier when editing. An official version is well overdue IMO.

    An official 3D editor was reported to be planned.

  14. Posted

    I'm pretty sure that if you pick apart the whole legal agreement you'll find clauses that wave their responsiblities and put it all on the modder.

    You're ignoring controversial content that damages IP by causing bad publicity. Even if it gets taken down, the media eats that shit up, and the average Joe doesn't understand enough about mods and games to make the distinction.

  15. Posted

    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.

    I don't see why you wouldn't. When I purchase a game, I don't care how much work was put into it. I care about the value it has. Another developer might put a hell of a lot more work into something that I value far less. I don't see how anything but value should matter when we're talking about paying for something.

    I

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

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

    It's a unique industry. 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.

    Mods on Steam are utilizing Steam's distribution and tools, they're utilizing the engine, assets, and IP to create value. There's also risk that both Valve and the developer or publisher take by officially endorsing mod content.

    while Valve is already sitting on a day's profit of 1000s of dollars off the back of this.

    Not profit, revenue. Do you think it's free to host modded content? Like there are no costs involved in this venture for Valve?

  17. Posted

    I code for a living and depending on the project will be charging either by the hour or for the whole package. It is true that the end product dictates the 'value' of a product, be it digital or tangible. There is one big difference here in my opinion, modders do not WORK for either Valve or whatever game publisher / maker is involved, they create something in their own time because they want to. If Valve / Zenimax or whoever feels entitled to such a large percentage so be it, they will be companies that I avoid like the plague. I don't care what arguments Dean Hall spouts about how the gaming industry works, modding should never become integrated fully into the business side of it which is what is happening here if you ask me.

    I don't see the relevance of them not "working for" any of those companies. In a sense I'd argue that they are, because they are increasing the value of the game, and getting paid for it. They're even entering an agreement with all involved parties when they decide to monetize their work. They're not required to make this decision, but I'm not required to sell web designs to anyone as a freelancer either.

    Modding will never be fully integrated as long as free mods exist. I have no reason to believe they'll ever go away, just as freeware games and software still exist.

  18. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    The way they're dividing this pie right now, the modders get crumbs while putting in most of the work.

    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.

  19. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Sure,if they add that value.Do they?

    Of course you need the base game.But that's just a base game.Unless it gets some expansions,it's lifespan is at an end once played through.Multiplayer might provide some entertainment for a while.But nowhere near the extension that mods and addons bring.And not just extension.But a potentially larger customer base.

    I get that point, but they are still the ones providing the game that value is being added to. The mods aren't providing the entire value for people playing it. The game is still providing the majority of the value, even if people saw no value in the game before the mod. The mod brings out new value in the game in addition to its own value, but the value it brought out was still provided by the developers originally.

    This might just be one of those philosophical debates nobody will ever agree on though, so I won't continue to belabor it.

    Since Dean Hall is the only one I've seen talk about this who actually knows the industry (regardless of what anyone thinks of what he's done), I'm going to quote another post of his that is more food for discussion:

    People are using insane emotional arguments with no context.

    Here are some facts:

    Fact: Many developers do not even get net royalties at all for the games they develop.

    Fact: Revenue split is very rare, and very desirable

    Fact: a 25% revenue split is a much better deal than I get or could ever hope to get with DayZ.

    Fact: Three parties are involved and the creators are getting slightly less than a third

    Fact: TF2 creators get 25%

    The parties to the arrangement are Valve, Bethesda (as the publisher), and the creator. Valve, understandably, probably want to maintain the same arrangements they always get - it's the store split like the apple store. Bethesda have their own costs, and they take the rest of the split - based on the value the IP has and their contributions to tooling, their risks and opportunity cost losses (DLC, etc...). Let us imagine that they are getting something like 30-50% of the transaction.

    Elder Scrolls has to be one of the main blockbuster IP's in the industry. It is like GTA, it's incredibly valuable. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game, using their tools, assets, IP, distribution - I would not get a 25% revenue split (I would get less). If we want professional modding, which is what this is, then people cannot apply emotional arguments - they need to apply business arguments. Therefore the split needs to be considered based on value.

    Valve provide a huge amount of value in their "service" to developers. This includes dealing with fraud, the payment gateway, marketing, the steam software, the CDN/distribution, etc... Considering the cut PayPal takes for a lot less - they aren't too bad. This needs to be considered independent of the publishers cut.

    Stop making emotional arguments. If you want professional modding, you are talking about BUSINESS and you need to make BUSINESS arguments. It is not about fairness it is about VALUE.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/dayz-creator-weighs-in-on-paid-skyrim-mods-your-turn-rockstar/

  20. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Except you wouldn't making a standalone derivative game that includes everything your Skyrim. You're making an addon to Skyrim, that requires a copy of Skyrim (which has steam integration by default, so you can bet Valve are taking their share there too). Zenimax has already made the money from their work before you even started making anything.

    If I may be frank, Dean Hall's thoughts are outright hypocrisy from the man who put ArmA.2 at the top of bestsellers lists for a good few months. Those custom hexpat SUVs BIS have driving around probably weren't a gift from fans :rolleyes:

    But mods add value to the game. The game's own price is a price for the vanilla value. If a mod increases that value, wouldn't it make sense that what you pay the developers follows?

    I probably shouldn't have even mentioned that it was a quote from Dean Hall, because I knew someone would try to make some kind of remark like that. I posted it for the points he made. Who made those points is entirely irrelevant. I don't care if you think he's a hypocrite, we're not arguing about the integrity of Dean Hall here. It's only proper to cite who I'm quoting though.

    And considering the base product is sold on Steam, Valve takes a cut from extra sales and the game dev takes a cut from extra sales. This is basically double dipping.

    How much value does any Arma title have without the mods? How much value does Oblivion or Skyrim have without mods? They'd be fucking weekend titles you rented and returned.

    Again with the self-victimizing. If you bought Arma with the expectation that its price would be justified by free mods, that is a decision you made. Nobody guaranteed you mods. They guaranteed you mod support, and you made the decision to trust that there would be enough mods to make the game worth your money. Luckily there will still be plenty of free mods out there alongside premium ones. People will still have the power to decide whether the price of the game plus the price of the mods they want is worth the value. Just as they decided if the price of the game with any free mods was worth it. Stop making arguments that perpetuate this concept of consumers being incapable of spending responsibly. That is literally the attitude that makes bad things happen. If we can demonstrate to businesses that we won't give our money to things we don't support, we won't have to ask them to stop. They'll have to stop on their own or fail.

  21. Posted

    Dean Hall's thoughts on the 75% revenue split:

    A 25/75 split for a derivative work is actually very good. If I approached Bethesda to make a derivative game from Skyrim using their assets, engine, tooling, and the Skyrim IP - I would not get a 25% cut on revenue.

    In fact, getting a cut on revenue is very rare. Many developers make games and do not get cuts on revenue, the publishers take that. They might get a cut on profit (after publisher has recouped all costs sometimes up to 130%).

    If you want to mix hobbies and business, you need to accept that business is not about fairness, it is about value. You need to negotiate from the value you are providing, not what you think is "fair". It is about your negotiating position.

    The vast amount of the "value" in a mod for skyrim comes from the fact is is a mod of skyrim. That means, the vast amount of the split goes to skyrim.

    I think he makes a good point. A mod on its own is not worth anything. The majority of what you are playing is still the game, not the mod. So anything less than 50% of the revenue going to the developer would actually not make much sense. The reason this system works is that for bigger mods that constitute a larger portion of the player experience, they can carry a larger price tag. Still the same revenue split, but you're making more money with a higher price tag. And people can accept a higher price tag because it's a more substantial mod.

  22. Posted

    That applies to every game. If things are changed by the devs, reliant things can break. I dont see how arma is special in this case. If money is in the equation, the modder responsible has an incentive to actually fix the problem. Because no fix-> broken -> users will be pissed -> no more sells. If its free, and the modder has no reason to go back, if he isnt actively working on the thing anymore.

    This is the thing that seems to be going over everybody's heads. The market balances itself out because the people are the only ones who have power here. Putting a price on your mod isn't power. The guy who makes the choice to pay that price has the power. Don't trust that a modder will keep his mod updated? Don't pay him. The same way you wouldn't pay for a game that you don't think will deliver the experience you're after. I'm sure none of us would have purchased Arma 3 in early access if it was being made by some random developer we never heard of. But we trusted that BI would deliver a great experience as they always have.

    http://garry.tv/2015/04/24/paying-for-mods/

  23. Posted

    Correct, modders don't deserve payment for a product delivered. They want to accept donations, that's fine, but I've yet to see a mod here that deserves to be a paid product.

    I have seen mods that deserve to be paid products. Opinions, isn't it funny how they work? You get to choose what you deem worthy of your money! Wow!

    This community is full of cry babies

    Sure is...

  24. Posted

    Monetizing mods is a terrible idea, in this community especially.

    If you feel like you deserve to get paid, go get a job in the industry.

    So it's a terrible idea because you don't want to pay for mods? Because you think no modders deserve payment?

    Lucky for you, you won't have to buy anything if you don't want. Unlucky for you, you cannot decide for other people whether they think they deserve money for their work or not. It's insulting that you even think you can make this call for anyone but yourself.

×