Mods and ARMA 3 on the same level as FSX?

Gnat;2516610']-

Brought every BI games' date=' even bought couple copies on the same version!

- Brought all BI's DLC or expansion packs

- Brought 3 copies/versions of FS over the years, never ever purchased any Payware.

I think the BI formula to date has generated a great and creative community.

Don't tell me the ArmA2/OA community addons, missions, terrains etc etc are inadequate .... TONNES of great content.

I vote +100 to leave it well alone. If it ain't broke, don't mess with it.[/quote']

Exactly. Leave it be. If people want to spend tons on dlc content they can just play vbs. With user created payed dlc believe me, by the time most users got Arma3 modded how they like it, you will have spent waaaayyy too much money. Well... people with deeper pockets may not agree. Your average user doesn't want to be opening their wallets everytime they turn around. There will be hundreds upon hundreds of payed dlcs if this happens. Not to mention it would be just another thing to split the community up even more.

At the bare minimum, any addon that's worth a damn will cost money. Which there will be alot of great addons aswell. Anything good costs money right? That's the general concept. Except not with this franchise. We've became glued to this series over the last ~13 years because of the diversity of free mods. And now it just okay to destroy this system? Yeah lets see a barrage of payed DLC and see what happens. It wont end well.

If any of you think the forums are hopping with "arma3 is bad" threads, just wait and see the shit storm that follows if this mess ever comes to be.

FSX has free addons and payware one. Both options live together in harmony. We do not need to be afraid of this. i think that the people that are afraid of that idea do not realize the quality of the addons that could be released by a full blown companies hiring professional artists and developpers.

And then there are the payware addons from 'reputable' studios that use ripped off content- even models from Bohemia interactive. Once you inject money into the equation, bullshit like this is amplified.

So people wants tons and tons of high quality varied content, for free, and with a super engine that makes it work all smooth and with tons of features... and all in a few months... ( just read the rest of the forum )

As far as I remember BI is a small studio, and they are free human beings ( I mean they are not slaves, they work a normal amount of hours, I guess 40 a week, have social life, family, etc. ) so... something fails in this equation...

BTW VBS is working a bit like FSX and I think that gives profits and has a lot of extras and addons made by other studies... check its website

This, this, this.

People have RIDICULOUS expectations for this game. They completely ignore the huge improvements to all core gameplay and movement, and still complain "But there should be more tanks!", I mean, does anyone want quality over quantity in a reasonable scope like I do?

Exactly. Leave it be. If people want to spend tons on dlc content they can just play vbs. With user created payed dlc believe me, by the time most users got Arma3 modded how they like it, you will have spent waaaayyy too much money. Well... people with deeper pockets may not agree. Your average user doesn't want to be opening their wallets everytime they turn around. There will be hundreds upon hundreds of payed dlcs if this happens. Not to mention it would be just another thing to split the community up even more.

At the bare minimum, any addon that's worth a damn will cost money. Which there will be alot of great addons aswell. Anything good costs money right? That's the general concept. Except not with this franchise. We've became glued to this series over the last ~13 years because of the diversity of free mods. And now it just okay to destroy this system? Yeah lets see a barrage of payed DLC and see what happens. It wont end well.

If any of you think the forums are hopping with "arma3 is bad" threads, just wait and see the shit storm that follows if this mess ever comes to be.

Also now they've announced this with nothing set up, you may now get people holding back mods they're working on for a long time until this idea is a reality and in place so they can sell them then rather than releasing them for free earlier. Yeah this is just a bad idea.

Payware, mod DLC and more? Good thing I neither play nor mod ArmA3 alot these days to see any of this madness unfold.

Atleast people didn't have these ideas before.

It's very bad mojo. Just have BIS run their DLCs and stuff like done in the past, contracting some modders work on their own plans (although I'd prefer if they'd finish the game first).

@ Icewindo

you're saying "madness unfold" but paid DLC would not be a new thing to the series. You also don't advance any reason for your skeptical stance.

While i agree that current state is far from bad in this regard (we do have very dedicated modding teams and all that), i think the whole goal would be in upping the stakes in the modding scene, evolve it somehow to a higher stage. An easier access to incentives by general modders could certainly energize the scene: higher quality mods, higher drive to learn modding, higher commitment by modders, etc. If the question is how much more a player would have to pay to access this "upper stage", it is as much how would the general quality of unpaid mods be increased, since there would likely be more modders walking the path to reach for higher standards (paying worthy standards), due to eventual incentives down the line.

I see this possibility, of course, very dependent on actual implementation, with the potential in providing an upwards pressure on many pillars of the community.

I don't think we can fairly look at "paid user-made content" per se as a negative goal (if this was true by principle no business would actually exist). It is ultimately the implementation of the idea that may actually destroy the goal (and mind you, already existing positives with it - there is associated risk), or on the other hand, serve well all interested parties to a better off reality.

The only way to facilitate success in achieving the goal is by naming the parties and collecting input from each on how the goal may be beneficial to each, and also what are the conditions under which it may at worse case remain neutral. To allow for this to happen, prejudices and/or real negative experiences towards the main goal must inform the discussion instead of killing the goal itself straight off the bat. I tried to collect some of this more general input here (check Synthesis at bottom of OP), you may see there are many different concerns, but i would risk that none of them can't be addressed consequently. I also tried to enumerate the parties involved: Player and end-users / Authors / Clans and groups / Server Admins / Community Websites / Bohemia / Steam. We should not fear but rationaly take the challenge head-on towards finding the best compromise between these complex relationships.

Re the OP of this thread itself:

the technical side of enabling FSX level modding (FSX which i know well despite dusting a bit by now), while the RV4 engine not being as specialized towards Flight Simming, is already quite versatile in regards to the usual FSX Gadgets (Terrains - check* / Standalone Monitors/HUDS - check / External interfacing for weather/traffic/etc applications - check / Virtual cockpits as detailed interiors - check / etc).

*check means finalized mods or proofs of concept exist or engine hooks/technology is there. I do think there would still be a long way before we could reach FSX modding standards, we are indeed missing incentives to facilitate that.

@ Icewindo

you're saying "madness unfold" but paid DLC would not be a new thing to the series.

No. There has never been official, user made content being sold on a large scale. Maybe 1 or two mods over the last 13 years? Like iron front or w/e. Which idk if that can be considered a mod even.

If you want to open your wallet every time you turn around so badly, for payed DLC, then just buy and play VBS... but please don't support destroying what we already have had for ~13 years. There's no good that can come from this in regards to the community. Some people will make money for a small time, before the game implodes and there's no one left. Before everyone either goes back to Arma2 or simply goes off to another franchise entirely. I for one wouldn't even consider playing these games if i didn't have access to all of the free good mods.

No. There has never been official, user made content being sold on a large scale. Maybe 1 or two mods over the last 13 years? Like iron front or w/e. Which idk if that can be considered a mod even.

You're missing the point... while paid user-made content never existed, many paid DLCs have been released. I am trying to show that the act of paying for content (which most skeptics seem to be concerned with) has successful precedents regardles of it's author origin (Bohemia or community modders). But it is also important to note that we have no details about the implementation of the goal and the question "Who actually is paying for paid mods? Bohemia itself or players?" stands. I wouldn't speculate around this until Bohemia presents the idea and its details.

In other words, if the issue is solely about paying for extended content made by community modders, the formulation would be: "I only accept that under the condition that the funding of such paid content is not left over to the player" (Do note the slight unwarranted entitlement though, benefiting of someone's work but not willing to contribute in it's compensation, even considering the present state of affairs - modders freely spoiling us players)

If you want to open your wallet every time you turn around so badly, for payed DLC, then just buy and play VBS... but please don't support destroying what we already have had for ~13 years. There's no good that can come from this in regards to the community. Some people will make money for a small time, before the game implodes and there's no one left. Before everyone either goes back to Arma2 or simply goes off to another franchise entirely. I for one wouldn't even consider playing these games if i didn't have access to all of the free good mods.

You're just jumping into conclusions in regards to my stance here, the sole 2 suggestions i made elsewhere are at odds with your assertion, and it is a stretch concluding that from what i said in this thread. Then you assume any possible implementation of the goal will undoubtfully destroy "what we had for ~13 years" presenting not even one reason to conclude that. It looks to me that you have already made up your mind, while making no effort to allow us in understanding why is that so.

... you assume any possible implementation of the goal will undoubtfully destroy "what we had for ~13 years" presenting not even one reason to conclude that. It looks to me that you have already made up your mind, while making no effort to allow us in understanding why is that so.

One reason to conclude that? How about we'd have to pay for any good addon or mod released? Is that a good enough reason for me to think it would destroy what we have had here for ~13 years? There will be alot of great addons and mods. By the time a person has Arma3 modded how they like, the average joe without deep pockets, that plays Arma 3, will have spent too much money. They may aswell be playing a VBS title if they don't mind shelling out money for so many DLCs. Also, Official DLCs are different, as there wont be 9000 of them. There will be an official DLC once in a blue moon. Which is to be expected in any game in any case. Have you looked at the payed user made content for other games on steam? There's boatloads for each (select) game... just as many as there are free mods in this community, except you have to pay.

Only under certain conditions would this personally be acceptable for me:

BIS officially screens any payed content for quality control. The user made DLC would have to be large & give us updates for free. No small DLCs. Those should always be free. Unless it's something like a top tier weapons pack (looks @ robert hammer). As said, It would have to be of a substantial quality... no bugs, no errors, no glitches, no wonky shit. Also, NO MISSIONS as DLC.

You're missing the point... while paid user-made content never existed, many paid DLCs have been released. I am trying to show that the act of paying for content (which most skeptics seem to be concerned with) has successful precedents regardles of it's author origin (Bohemia or community modders). But it is also important to note that we have no details about the implementation of the goal and the question "Who actually is paying for paid mods? Bohemia itself or players?" stands. I wouldn't speculate around this until Bohemia presents the idea and its details.

@ Pac Man

I can't guess those reasons you now mention before you actually do it:

"How about we'd have to pay for any good addon or mod released?"

Substitute "good" for "quality" and still there is nothing allowing us to conclude that at this point in time.

"And by the time a person has Arma3 modded how they like the average joe without deep pockets, will have spent too much money."

Again assuming the funding will undoubtfully be laid on the player.

"They may aswell be playing a VBS title if they don't mind shelling out money for so many DLCs."

Again assuming this goal will turn Arma 3 into a VBS clone in regards to the money involved.

All of the above are valid Concerns and Fears that translate to:

"Acceptable only under the Condition that addons remain free to the player"

Mitigating Solutions* for the above:

1. Paid DLC / Free "Lite" DLC versions (tested).

2. Bohemia sponsors paid mods (tested)

3. Bohemia hosts a contest, modders receive prizes (untested in this context)

4. Community "kickstarts" the mod (untested)

5. Can you imagine another one?

"Also, Official DLCs are different, as there wont be 9000 of them. There will be an official DLC once in a blue moon."

Again assuming there would be "9000 of them" otherwise.

Again a valid Concern / Fear that translates to:

"Acceptable only under the Condition that paid addons won't increase to unreasonable quantities"

Mitigating Solutions* for the above:

1. Pre-screening (curating) mods to be paid for approval (untested)

2. Community selection process (untested)

3. Mods released in Mod Packs (untested)

4. Can you imagine another one?

*Solutions should be seen as compromises considering the condition originating from concerns, instead of all or nothing approaches.

Of course valid concerns, you'll find many more in this thread. These specifically are already there. I think we should put our effort not in bashing the idea from the get go.

If Bohemia is testing the waters of such an idea is because it intends to implement it, i believe we'll do them and ourselves a better service laying out our concerns > conditions > possible solutions in order for Bohemia better design it's implementation plan. Anything else is just noise to Bohemia and may well signify opportunities lost for everyone.

Yeah something along those lines. I just don't want it to turn into a free for all. Where the opportunist leeches would swarm in and flood the market with shitty DLCs. On the other hand it would encourage some of the reluctant so called "pros" to come out of the woodwork again. Which would be great aslong as they put their heart & soul into the project, just as if they were making it for free. Because if you're making an addon for the game for free, you generally love to do it. You generally want to make everything top notch to show what you're capable of. You have something to prove in other words. Where as a really "talented Pro", who may be burntout on the game / making addons, or where as "the love is lost" in this area, would see it as a quick way to throw a sub-par (by their standards) mod together just to generate more income.

The thought of inexperienced modders flooding the market with add ons that are not worth paying doesn't concern me. YouTube, reviews and community suggestions are all things that can be used to find quality work. I think the real reason So many are against this is the thought of really talented individuals switching from free to pay... I'd like to hear what the modders think about all this

The thought of inexperienced modders flooding the market with add ons that are not worth paying doesn't concern me. YouTube, reviews and community suggestions are all things that can be used to find quality work. I think the real reason So many are against this is the thought of really talented individuals switching from free to pay... I'd like to hear what the modders think about all this

...If that were the intended new direction (and I have not seen a single thing to indicate that it is) then I'd be generally against the idea, for me at least. I make addons that I want to see, and they work in the way i think they should work. If I accept money for that addon, suddenly I'm under a (self-inflicted) obligation to make it how the payees want it. I wouldn't wish for that.

However, I don't speak for others, only myself :)

If I accept money for that addon, suddenly I'm under a (self-inflicted) obligation to make it how the payees want it. I wouldn't wish for that.

That's the whole point.

We will have the addons that we had now ( the ones that people do and share freely for fun ), plus the "pro" ones for those who want more quality paying for it ( obviously the "pro" modders will have to bend to users requests if they want to sell ).

Which mean more options to choose for the customers. What are your fears? That some addons that are real good and now available for free will turn to payed?

Well, if they are that good... Don't their creators deserve a reward? ( would you work for free? )

If they're not, why even care? if they have no sells the creator may turn it to free again.

That system will promote good work, and ensure more quality addons.

@ Icewindo

you're saying "madness unfold" but paid DLC would not be a new thing to the series. You also don't advance any reason for your skeptical stance.

Sorry, I don't have time to read "textwalls" these days so I'll shorten your quote - this is not ment in an offensive way - but purely out of practical reasons.

Paid DLC is not a new thing, sure. Where do you get the assumption that did I say otherwise?

Just have BIS run their DLCs and stuff like done in the past, contracting some modders work on their own plans (although I'd prefer if they'd finish the game first).

----

As for the madness, it's pretty simple. Once you start having "professional", paid modding teams there'll be a split in the community, even more than the split we allready have (new modders not able to catch up because of the complexity of arma3 modding compared to OFP, "undocumented features", splitted WIKI information,...) .

There'll be less tutorials and example files from paid groups or even amateur modders striving to make their own paid mod since sharing is not so much caring anymore but giving away resources for free and raising your compeditors knowledge. Whenever money is involved as direct as in that, people will get greedy and bad things will happen. I'd be in the same boat and not releasing any sample files / tutorials anymore plus removing any example stuff or tutorials that I've allready released.

Why shouldn't I, when people have the chance to exploit these commercially?

Also unpaid modders will be reluctant to release any mods, holding them back until at one point he gets to be a paid modder. Why should he "work for free" when others get paid for their stuff.

"Nah this will never happen, people won't be like that!"

"People" allready don't care bout IP rights concerning YT licenses, e.g. people monetize hundreds of videos of a mod that I supplied models for, but never gave a permission to the YT users or was asked for one. Greed has been, is and will always be greater than altruism.

There's a saying here in Germany we have and it applies to this whole situation: "Bei Geld hört die Freundschaft auf" (Money breaks friendship). And with the end of friendship, these forums will be alot of fun and the day I leave them...

That's the whole point.

We will have the addons that we had now ( the ones that people do and share freely for fun ), plus the "pro" ones for those who want more quality paying for it ( obviously the "pro" modders will have to bend to users requests if they want to sell ).

Which mean more options to choose for the customers. What are your fears? That some addons that are real good and now available for free will turn to payed?

I'm affraid it wouldn't work so simple as that. We wouldn't all of the sudden have quality addons. We already have that. What you would have are a bunch of modders who would be reluctant to share anything unless it's payed for. Not to mention an even bigger split in community.

As for the madness, it's pretty simple. Once you start having "professional", paid modding teams there'll be a split in the community, even more than the split we allready have (new modders not able to catch up because of the complexity of arma3 modding compared to OFP, "undocumented features", splitted WIKI information,...) .

There'll be less tutorials and example files from paid groups or even amateur modders striving to make their own paid mod since sharing is not so much caring anymore but giving away resources for free and raising your compeditors knowledge. Whenever money is involved as direct as in that, people will get greedy and bad things will happen. I'd be in the same boat and not releasing any sample files / tutorials anymore plus removing any example stuff or tutorials that I've allready released.

I aswell would remove work that I've posted... tutorials on how to make uis etc. It's been a fine system over the last ~13 years. Why mess with it? Aside from the old saying "all good things must come to an end", but why help it along?

What you would have are a bunch of modders who would be reluctant to share anything unless it's payed for. Not to mention an even bigger split in community.

You say this as if it was bad that a creator of a piece of work want to be payed for it. As far as I know we all like to be payed/rewarded for our work. Isn't it a bit selfish to force others to create things for your entertainment for free?

I mean if someone offers his work for free, awesome! But if he believes he deserves a payment, its perfectly right IMO.

I don't see what kind of split are you talking about. I mean would be as it is now, if you don't have the addon/mod, you can't play the same mission/server. For example if you don't have the Majoris wonderful PLA addon you can't play missions that use it. Simple.

Sorry, I don't have time to read "textwalls" these days so I'll shorten your quote - this is not ment in an offensive way - but purely out of practical reasons.

None taken, i tend to be expansive when writing so that my ideas remain well connected to anyone reading. People tend to read "diagonaly" too, but it is there for anyone to read back if doubts arise.

Paid DLC is not a new thing, sure. Where do you get the assumption that did I say otherwise?

It appeared to me that was your underlying concern. There being money involved. Sory the misunderstanding.

As for the madness, it's pretty simple. Once you start having "professional", paid modding teams there'll be a split in the community, even more than the split we allready have (new modders not able to catch up because of the complexity of arma3 modding compared to OFP, "undocumented features", splitted WIKI information,...).

There'll be less tutorials and example files from paid groups or even amateur modders striving to make their own paid mod since sharing is not so much caring anymore but giving away resources for free and raising your compeditors knowledge. Whenever money is involved as direct as in that, people will get greedy and bad things will happen. I'd be in the same boat and not releasing any sample files / tutorials anymore plus removing any example stuff or tutorials that I've allready released.

"Madness" is a very loose and loaded word to describe this. I think you'r taking such possibilities for absolute certainties. Let's see:

Concerns:

- Decrease in documentation availability (by option of competing modders)

- Increased risk of modders spliting into different knowledge levels (already happens)

Corresponding Condition would be: Not letting documentation decrease and/or improve the current stratification of modders expertise.

Mitigating Solutions:

1. Make sure such paid mods remain open-source

2. Full DLC / Lite DLC, one closed the other open

3. Provide much needed official organized/cohese documentation on the engine

4. Making public well tested modding workflows (for each different type of mod)

5. Can you imagine another?

"Nah this will never happen, people won't be like that!"

"People" allready don't care bout IP rights concerning YT licenses, e.g. people monetize hundreds of videos of a mod that I supplied models for, but never gave a permission to the YT users or was asked for one. Greed has been, is and will always be greater than altruism.

Again such possibilities being taken for absolute certainties.

Concerns:

- Risk of licensing issues and IP disputes increasing/exacerbating

- Risk of loosing friendly atmosphere and cooperation

This is a very good point! But note that the distinguishing factor between the current state and the eventual future state is all but related with the enforcement of licensing already used by modders. What i mean is that friendship is hardly at stake mostly because a modder might as well not care of having it's licensing respected, since there is nothing to gain but the "moral" benefit of authorship. Could you consider that this value for some modders might be more important than the monetary one? Could you consider that right now this is an existing problem for those modders? Please don't allow to classify as "friendly" a relation only tolerated and accepted because there is no means to enforce the legitimate will of one element on that relationship (the modder will on the license misuser).

Condition being: As long as licensing and its enforcement is clarified.

Mitigating Solutions:

1. Passively enforce Licensing (basically as it is, mods are used by the community, this self-screening allows to identify abuses to an extent)

2. Actively enforce Licensing (Paid addons being reported for license abuses - Steam allows for this despite to a suboptimal extent)

3. Definition of an IP dispute resolution process (it also serves to dissuade abusers, and lays some mind rest to a fearing modder)

3. Recommend/Require modders of paid addons to opt for known/"safe" licensing models (ie. Creative Commons) Which make clear what is considered abuse from friendly usage.

4. Recommend/Require modders of paid addons to opt for open-source to maintain the cooperation alive

5. Closing the source of key parts of code to remove the possibility of abuse, or drastically diminish it

6. Can you imagine another?

Note how the some solutions might address multiple concerns by themselves. I actually think there is even the oportunity to improve the current state of affairs, specially given the approaching Steamworks dealings, if such type of measures (clarifying licensing and IP issues) are to be implemented. Consider that IP (moral authorship) issues already on the table, regardless of material/monetary issues which may arise. Who's to say what is more important to the affected modder/mission creator?

There's a saying here in Germany we have and it applies to this whole situation: "Bei Geld hört die Freundschaft auf" (Money breaks friendship). And with the end of friendship, these forums will be alot of fun and the day I leave them...

"Nunca foi um bom amigo quem por pouco quebrou a amizade" (Never your true friend was he who brakes friendship for so little)

I'm kinda with Ice on this. The incentive to create is not as strong when others around you are making bank from it, not to mention a plethora of other things.. I prefer the donation route which if I'm not mistaken nobody has asked because it is against the rules to ask for money for an addon yes? Or was that a sales thing.

And then there are the payware addons from 'reputable' studios that use ripped off content- even models from Bohemia interactive. Once you inject money into the equation, bullshit like this is amplified.

Gee I wonder who you're talking about.

On the flip side if someone does that here there will actually be some form of justice, of that'll be the day I get an infraction too..

Also we're just talking models, gets much deeper than that when we get into scripts and configs since those are a MASSIVE part of modding in this community.

How about co dependancy, someone makes map but uses buildings or structures of some sort created by another person.

How often does someone make an addon that doesn't use something from another persons addon or formula, or outside help in some way? Can anyone really say they 100% made their own addon without borrowing ANYTHING from anyone else?

yup. ice got it right imho. not because i know for certain what exactly everyone will do but simply by looking at why i personally mod and why it's fun to me and everyone else i know who does it. i'm not in this to fulfill my failed dreams to be a paid game dev. it's just for me and for the fun of it. curiousity. the simple question: "can i pull this off?". it might be a bit high of a word but it's like with art. there's a natural drive. no incentive needed. that's the whole beauty of it, for me at least.

sure you could always say "but money is nice!" and "this deserves to be paid". but that's beside the point in my personal opinion.

for me the beauty of some addons is how they matured over long periods of time and how you can feel that a lot of thought and time has been put into them and how they are often a very personal vision of something (unlike commercial games that are "produced" under different circumstances like deadlines and "quality standards"). i might be a total idealist/hippie on this one but i think money would take the "magic" away.

as a "customer" i'd rather have something that was made from blood and tears and with a lot of care and sacrifice than something that has been pushed to meet a standard.

we had a nice talk on the arma model makers channel on skype the other day. and we kinda agreed that the best part is sharing your toys with close friends and being the guy who delivers the toys for your buddies. the whole release thing is more of an after thought. i realize i'm probably a bit "out there" but i thought i'd share my views ;) tired from a long day of work. so sorry if it's hard to read.

@Bad Benson

Another important side of things... no doubt. How many of the current modders would keep to provide their mods for free just out of their love for modding and altruism? How many would keep modding just for fun of learning and sharing?

Not that anyone such modder would be supposedly forced to sell their mods. Not that anyone choosing to sell their mods would necessarily be forced to adopt a different attitude towards it's dedication, as far as love for modding goes.

This will be, of course, all on a voluntary basis. Those modders ambitioning more than simple self-gratification, already condition their current dedication to current available gratifications, the change of scenario would mostly address these. I don't actually see the big risk of those remaining changing their attitute (that is if they are trully in love with modding) just because of this idea being implemented. Than again it would be a shame if they would vanish.

Examples from FSX modding comunity:

- World of AI (collective effort) - Freelly providing both AI airplanes models + skins (reduced lod) plus airline schedules as a traffic database for a demanding pilot which wants full skys and properly simulate ATC contacts and approach procedures. Absolute MUST in FSX.

- The TileProxy Project (by cbuchner) - Freelly provides realtime texture generation based on real satellite maps up to 30cm/pixel resolution. Another absolute MUST if nothing else for bush flying less directed at Heavy pilots.

- VATSIM Supported software for Pilots and Controllers (FSInn/Squakbox) - Freely providing a full network for ATC simulation. These are REAL up-to-date flight procedures followed to the minimal detail.

- Assorted freelly provided navigation maps/aids/databases / realtime/visual representation of weather / etc mods.

You go into this and you simply can't miss the "magic".

And then there are the payware addons from 'reputable' studios that use ripped off content- even models from Bohemia interactive. Once you inject money into the equation, bullshit like this is amplified.

It's funny how the turns of event came to be. I rememberer commenting on my willingness to charge people for addon's few months ago. Didn't took long before Fufu and you came up at me lol. Not taking this as offensive tho, just pointing it as funny that everything went south so suddenly. So what is your general take on this? are you ok with it or it's kinda bother you in a way?

If community members consider themselves mainly as customers, there is some kind of logic to make them pay for addons...

Everyone seems to be avoiding the unspoken about source material.

Two extremes, iOS apps where all content is scrutinised before it can be saleable, or GTA mods where all sorts of ripped shit is thrown up.

Or you have this community where we've to the most part kept blatant rips of copyright material at bay, but no so restrictive that a few google images (for textures etc) are let slide.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.