chrisb

Not to worry. I'm still looking forward to it. Great, whichever way it comes. :)

Looks great, nice pics. How much of the interior have you managed to get usable ?

@Fennek put this in the other thread in General Discussion, but it warrants being here too. Its long, but the whole thing is well worth listening too.

+1 That is a conversation that many would learn from and is well worth listening too, the whole conversation.

:cancan: :D

This whole situation stinks.. And its lucky for Pete they had one in Far Cry 3, at least his effluent got processed correctly.

Interesting: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33x0zj/i_make_a_fulltime_living_from_the_steam_workshop/ Its not new really, just needs doing right, probably away from Steam.

Yep, and there is still people within the industry and players outside of it that do want it. It will come, simply a matter of time and them implementing it better. Probably with individual games, possibly away from Steam.

Do you make money, or do you live off donations... Its the same thing, we all need and want to make money. Where are you living in some utopia where everything is free. Of course the developers want a slice, its their game, but if they are in favour of it, who are you to say no! You do understand that money is in gaming everywhere and it is still possibly the largest industry, entertainment wise, out there. This will not make any difference if the other options are left open (donations etc). Its the minority that for some reason are so against someone making a little or a lot from something they enjoy doing. It stinks of the envy and greed of others that don't want to spend, greed of keeping hold of their money and envy because they can't do it themselves, or those that can want to stop others doing it for their own reasons! Works both ways 'greed' remember. The 'I want it for free' mentality, just doesn't register with me. I have enjoyed making money and spending. I don't refuse anyone the opportunity to earn doing something they like doing, if its something people are willing to pay for. O.k. you will say, well donate to them, I do. But they can't make a life commitment around the hope of donations. Stability in life helps people stay happy, knowing you have an income helps you & me. People will pop up and say, they should get a job in the industry, well yes, by making paid for content, they will be in the industry, helping make content better, in many cases.

Yes, we all know what Steam is like. But had they done it in a better way i.e. a vote, then we might have a more precise result. As it is, there is nothing but a panic result. Now that is o.k. however its not about Steam, its the game developers and the players that make content. Steam is a platform, nothing more. If they had a vote and that vote was against (the majority, but the real majority), then fine. Had it gone 'for', they could have let devs decide and given players that would like to be paid, don't forget the other options were there anyway, then those players could maybe have had a chance at turning a love of something, into something more. Mob rule, that's all that was, nothing to do with players in general. BI here show an interest (I think anyway), certainly other games I play the devs have shown an interest in the idea of player made content being introduced, in a paid for format. The possibility is there, just getting over the haters and mob rule mentality.

But that's only your view. I'm just looking at figures. :rolleyes:

I know the last time I looked at the petition they had started on Steam against the idea, it had under 100,000 signature's of 75,000,000 Steam users. (75-80 million). The majority would be if around 40 million objected ! A simple vote would have been better, pop-up in front of all players before going into a game (just the once) 'Yes' or 'No' to paid player made content. More democratic I would have said.

I'll just repeat a post I put on another forum: The minority rules again. But that's the world in general isn't it. It'll return, I have no doubt of that, just time, where and when i.e. which game they decide to do it on next. Give it a year or so. They should consider banning those that down rated games for no reason though, that would at least be some justice, plus of course those haters that abused the mod guys that took part. Because lets face it, down rating a game for no reason, that had nothing to do with it, isn't an opinion, its victimisation. Same as hating on someone you don't even know, simply because they gave it a go. But at least we know who those players that down voted and victimised the content makers were. Probably the ones that spend the most with Steam, that's how shallow these people tend to be. Still, move on and mix in the right company

I'll put my other post in answer to that article here, as well as in the other thread, why do we have so many threads concerning this subject.:confused: -- I think its more down to the abuse he received from objectors to him entering the partnership in the first place. Many of those nutcases that probably use his mods. Tell them they may have to pay and knives come out really quickly. That's a shame really, but it does show people up for who they really are. He didn't deserve any of the abuse he got. Now the players loose out, not because of steam but because of other players. Read more into what happened to him via steam, twitter and elsewhere, its not pleasant. This abuse was not put on him by steam, but other players, too narrow minded to see that he was just giving it a go, testing the water. Sad really, but that's what happens when your back is towards the people you were giving enjoyment to for free, just because he thought he might be able to earn a little from doing something he obviously loved doing. They stab you firmly in the back and abuse you, one minute they want your mod (for free of course) next minute they're writing terrible stuff about you, when they don't even know you. Pretty typical, unfortunately.

I think its more down to the abuse he received from objectors to him entering the partnership in the first place. Many of those nutcases that probably use his mods. Tell them they may have to pay and knives come out really quickly. That's a shame really, but it does show people up for who they really are. He didn't deserve any of the abuse he got. Now the players loose out, not because of steam but because of other players. Read more into what happened to him via steam, twitter and elsewhere, its not pleasant. This abuse was not put on him by steam, but other players, too narrow minded to see that he was just giving it a go, testing the water. Sad really, but that's what happens when your back is towards the people you were giving enjoyment to for free, just because he thought he might be able to earn a little from doing something he obviously loved doing. They stab you firmly in the back and abuse you, one minute they want your mod (for free of course) next minute they're writing terrible stuff about you, when they don't even know you. Pretty typical, unfortunately.

I would be interested in knowing why you think it wasn't released. Also I would point out it isn't mine, but that doesn't detract from hearing your reasons as to why. I certainly know why it wasn't released when it first appeared.

Very good post.

I stand corrected, sim/man is only good for groups or AI that don't move (no waypoints). Don't know what I was using last time I had it working for A3, I was sure it was included in sim/man...:confused: Still, medication could have been much higher back then..

I'm not completely up on A3, but if your making your own missions, use the scenario manager or it could be called simulation manager (can't remember). Its just a cache type thing I think. But it will help with AI numbers and you can custom setup distances etc. Just a thought.

Not what I said.. It would have to be monitored. There will be content that breaks and is not possible to put right. Its then for the people monitoring it to decide if there should be a restriction or not placed on that content maker. It would be unfair to punish a maker for content that breaks and can't be put right. But that is also for the buyer to think about. Monitoring how this works will be needed, that is obvious. Its something everyone entering into will have to consider. ---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ---------- Content makers who make things such as mission/campaigns, should think.. How can I keep the player engaged/interested and offer a longer lasting experience. If it can be completed within 24hrs, then its money back and move on. But I can see lots of opportunities for SP content makers to offer some really good content.

Paid for content: A few things I agree with concerning the Steam WS player made content charging scheme, that is to be ‘possibly’ introduced to this series at some stage. 1/ 24 hours money back if your not satisfied with the content. Plenty of time to know if that content is or isn’t for you. The argument that some may have, that they might pay then not play with the content, isn’t valid. Pay when you want to start to use it i.e. there and then. Then your not buying it and loosing your money back offer. Be prepared to play with the content for some hours, that way you'll get a better idea of whether or not your going to keep it. Look at reviews, YT, forums etc. Also of course you could try it, get your money back, then wait a little and try again later if your not completely sure. 2/ It gives content makers money for their work, only to those that want to charge. This doesn’t mean everyone will, but I have a feeling that once introduced and used for some time, most content makers will see the advantage of extra earnings. Plus players may start seeing more consistent quality in content. 3/ The idea it remains optional and will have other choices i.e. donate, or, pay whatever you think it deserves. Although donations don’t really work and players deciding what it is worth, will only annoy and cause arguments later between users and content makers (possibly). But the general idea is fine for now, I would say.:rolleyes: _ Things I would look at if I were paying and/or charging for content. 1/ (to look at first) If your going to supply content. The personal tax implications, although not hard to find out, worth checking through first. 2/ (sort of don’t agree, but see why this is, as it is) 75% to Steam/game devs to split. This in itself is not too surprising, considering the pull the Steam platform has i.e. you could put your mod on another site and sell 100 downloads, put on Steam that’s likely to be many hundreds more. So in that respect I understand Steam have content makers over a barrel. But it could be a lucrative barrel even at 25%. But in general its on the steep side, but I understand why. 3/ A cap on prices for content and a sensible scale to get to that cap. Plus no sales or offers, so for instance content is not put into the usual Steam mad sales etc. That way, players are not tempted to impulse buy, then not be able to get their money back if they're not happy with the content. However players that do impulse buy, only have themselves to blame if things go wrong. However. This obviously would be down to Steam and/or the game devs to work out. But I don’t think player made content should be treated the same way as professionally made games, in that respect. 4/ Quality control and support after the content is provided, at least for a set time. Game developers breaking content (not intentionally), by updates to the game or whatever. Content makers would have to accept that they will have to support their paid for content. If they don't, the content should be removed if broken and/or a restriction on further content by that maker should be enforced. However I think players should understand that they are paying for content that may not work for the lifetime of the game and in some cases may have a very limited lifetime. Players should do some research before buying. 'AI' content would be an example of content that will/might break quite easily. If however you trust the content maker to support his/her work, then its your choice. But buy with your eye’s open. But content and its makers, should be monitored either by Steam or the game developers. _ Overall I support mod makers charging if they want too. I see why some don’t want to pay for content, or the principle they see i.e. a precedent having been set many years ago that player made content is free for games like Arma here. But that is not changing ‘yet’. Content makers can decide to still make it for free. Others can choose a donate button. But you still have to allow those that want to charge to charge, there isn’t a genuine argument against this really, because the other options are still available. _ Players paying for content: I see this as personal choice, no one is forcing anything on anyone here. The option should be explored and introduced if the game developers agree. This isn’t or shouldn’t be left upto Steam to decide. Steam should simply act as the platform provider. As said, players should buy with their eye's open after checking out the content first. You do have a 24hr timeline to accept the content or not. _ It will split communities !! Why would it do that, simply by the makers of content wanting to get some financial reward, whereas others can still operate as before. There is no real reason I can see, why this will break up communities. I don’t think it will, there are games that have this already and are very strong. In-fact it could have the opposite effect. Whereas content makers improve their work to compete with others. This should/will lead to better quality in some content. I have not read any reasonable argument explaining why it will break up communities. But whatever I say will not convince those that don’t want convincing. It would be the same as someone trying to convince me, that its wrong for content to be paid for if that maker so wishes. Just won’t happen. But that’s how I feel on the subject. But it is only my view, non of us will make much difference in the end, if they are going to introduce it, they will. Just get used to the idea. ;) Edit: A footnote to this should be considered, sites such as AH, they provide a good service that should be supported. How this is done, is for the game developers to decide. Once introduced into Steam, sites like AH may well disappear if this is not done fairly. So that is a thing to consider, but it is for the game developers to decide. AH and sites like that, should have the same options applied, its for them & the devs to work out how that will go forward.

I have also had problems in the past. I don't use the mod now. But I'm sure it was related to being mixed with other mods. Are you running any other mods ? Have you tried it with just the vanilla game ? :)

This is an example: After todays announcement by LJ that JSRS is stopping for now because of the issues he states in his thread (now closed). I don't use this mod, but I have in the past. Now £1 to buy, if this was up for sale, per download. £1 for a mod that many couldn't play without (so they say). I'm sure if you think about it no one would mind paying £1. Lets say after all the bites out of that £1 ie. BI & Steam that LJ gets just .40p. On AH its been downloaded 17128 times, that would be £6851.20 for LJ. I don't know his situation but read the thread comment he made. Who's to say that £1 for that mod is not worth it. I apologies to LJ for the example, I don't use the mod. But its an example that is relevant to this topic. _ BI do it properly now and lets help these modders. They need to earn if their mods are taking so much out of them, why not enable them to earn doing something they love doing. :mad:

BI may be thinking straight for a change. Just get all parties together and get it done. ;)

Its quite possible that we've all been spoilt with this series. Because it can be used for so many various scenarios, there seems to be a very high expectation (which is good), for any new game to deliver something very different, but just as immersive. Not sure we'll see that in a game of this type. Unless of course Blackfoot sticks with its current mind-set for Ground Branch and provided they ever release it. Then perhaps we may have our CQB game to add into our collection to cover/fill the gap this series lacks a little on. Edit: & when I say this series, I'm talking about Arma.