I mean - he could just have all his files in a .txt file then give people who buy his tool a batch file to compile to sqf then into a pbo
#ip_rights_violations
little crown
that just ignores why BI are unhappy with him though i.e. he's profiting from selling a mod. They aren't going to stop just because he makes it harder to actually install/use
vast notch
afaik, he is selling plain text code, its up to the end purchaser to pack it into a pbo
west terrace
They are just unhappy that he has the power to ban users without their having any say in the matter. And it makes battleye their own anticheat look poor too.
carmine folio
i doubth that any anticheat written in sqf is actually a thing
like a real cheat could just change what sqf commands do
vast notch
You can monitor behaviour, like player speed/time/distance, if it's too great then they're probably teleporting or whitelist all allowed vehicles/weapons on a server
amber ibex
@vast notch you also could add ArmA.Studio to that list
or poseidon
dull moon
what about those buildings?
cobalt creek
Mondkalb's, afaik
mint edge
"if the original creator wants I will take down his work"
gets dmca slapped
I fkn hate people
soft egret
Yeah me too. How can people think uploading other peoples work is fine as long as the original owner doesn't complain. Those Idiots deserve to get slapped.
dull moon
sometimes ppl need a high-five... to the head... with a chair made of steel
tender hawk
IP rights defense vigorousness -- it's what keeps your IP from getting M4'd
mint edge
yea you get them quick every time, they slowly stop doing it
prime pewter
If they would lose accessibility to their steam accounts on a second offense it would be better.
fringe snow
I don't seem to understand where the IP violation is, other than the Battlegrounds logo. He doesn't include the mods, it's just a mission
fervent needle
Im gonna go out on a limb here
I think that is the fake Battlegrounds
he even used the all capital name format, this is a tough one
cobalt creek
I guess using our logo would be a violation? I knew, you would be interested in that π
heavy moon
considering its a mission, and lists all the required mods as one should be,. only issue i see without playing the actual mission is using PU''s BG logo, aside form that its not like all the other re-uploads we see on a daily basis
carmine folio
i'd see it more as a tribute
river spear
@carmine folio I like how you can still see parts of the shadow of the "PLAYERUNKNOWNS" text which was cut out
minor sonnet
Yeah I mean all he had to do is use his own logo...
Thats a bit of a derp and a half
God, the way SWS has been lately Im tempted to make prank parody mods
Team up with Milkm8n and just fill them all with his special phallus mods. XD
prime pewter
I am in support of phallus phlooding
proud flicker
Of general topical interest:
https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/207137-is-approved-server-monetizers-an-effective-measure/
proud flicker
I hope the wall of text helps understanding my view clearly. Its a super sensitive topic, so everything needs to be communicated clearly.
grand gorge
Am I seeing this wrong, or is my logic here in order? Do others see the the "Approved Server Monetizers" list also as useless?
@proud flicker agree with your post 100% and you explained your point of view very well
servers should only be approved for monetisation once they submit a mod list which is then approved by the creators responsible. seems fair.
echo orchid
@proud flicker 100% agree with your post
i can tell you from my own experience that a lot of the approved for monetization servers are not really complying with bis rules
i can also tell you there are way more monetized server that don't even bother to apply
because bi has no leverage over them anyways
besides blocking their battleye which they have removed anyways
in short
the monetization rules and guidelines are more of a hoax than anything else
after 1 year of experimenting with it
they simply prolonged it
without any actual feedback
i did start a thread on the subject not long ago, it sort of turned into a different discussion along the way, but my general opinion is that unless you are ready to actually spend plenty of time
to protect your ip
maybe it is better to have a close circle release or none at all
little crown
or if you can't beat them, join them and monetize the content yourself, at least that way you won't be the only one not making money from your work.
or you go entirely the other way and just release it under 'free' license (MIT or GPL + CC) and accept that those who can be bothered will make a little money
spending hundreds of hours working on something which only you get to use? I guess you can do that, but other than being a project to fill your evenings and weekends, what would be the point of it? The thieves aren't going to care that you stop modding or stop releasing your mods, they aren't going to learn any lessons from it, you just deprive the rest of the community of your talents for the sake of a few losers.
echo orchid
@little crown lol for real?
i spend my time the way i want to do it
the journey is more important that the destination
fervent needle
I dont see a solid solution besides an official mediated step in
echo orchid
the journey is more important that the destination
little crown
@echo orchid I didn't say otherwise?
fervent needle
PuFu is right here though - modders dont do what they do because they want to please people.. You cant do that.. You do it because you want to at your pace
little crown
I'm just saying that your protesting by not releasing your mods isn't going to change anything
little crown
unless you're hoping to force BI into action?
echo orchid
but you won't spend your time spanking cunts
if none of the real modders would publish any of their work
wanna bet BI will notice it?
little crown
@echo orchid well you don't have to do that, you could just ignore them. I'm not saying you should, but that's your choice. At the end of the day, they aren't taking anything away from you personally, they are few guys on the fringe and getting upset about their actions just ruins your enjoyment.
echo orchid
making money of my work is not something i am willing to accept
little crown
@echo orchid I doubt that all modders actually care that much. Some people just release their work for others to use however they please (myself included in an non-arma context). In fact the stuff I've done is used commercially all over the world and I don't get a single penny for it, but that's fine for me - I recognise it's not ok for everyone.
anyway, I wish you luck whatever you try. I'm just don't believe you're going to stop people redistributing your work. I mean it's worked out well for the movie and music industry with their armies of lawyers, hasn't it?
echo orchid
@little crown so far it worked pretty fine to be honest
little crown
I wish the world was different, I wish those guys got everything they deserve, but experience tells me different
echo orchid
most of the modders i know do it for themselves
they also have nothing against people using it as they want
as long as they are not making money out of it
the movies and music industry is different
because THEY are making money out of it, releasing it for free on diff channels
make them loose money
also the ones releasing it for free are not really making money out of it
here is completly different: i am not making money out of it
yet, others are
and it is as simple as BI actually giving a fuck and enforcing it
little crown
well that goes to my point earlier, if you're not losing money is it really worth getting so worked up that you effectively quit modding? Like I said, it's your choice, I'll leave it at that.
echo orchid
because BI is making money out of 3rd party people making stuff for their game
you don't really seem to be able to follow
yes, if a 3rd party is making money out of my hard work
yes, then maybe it is time to simply quit modding
little crown
BI haven't been ignoring the issue, or did you miss the flood of workshop takedowns last month? It made a dent, but within a week most of that content was back up again
echo orchid
no i didn't miss it
but that's not even a dent
is an isolated event
and i do understand that they have limited reach on the SW
they have unlimited reach when it comes to monetized servers though
not the same thing
and i can tell you now that if all the old farts that have been modding this game since OFP, getting new content in would simply leave the modding scene, and shut down all their mods, the gap will be one that will get noticed
and there are more people leaving the modding than new people getting into it each year
heavy moon
and with that you bleed knowlege
dull moon
@little crown
the takedowns had nothing to do with BI
modders took and still take actions in their hands
little crown
err, Dwarden issued the takedowns
not all of them, obviously
but a significant number
he was also quite open about it in here and elsewhere, then followed it up with a message to the community in one of the sitreps or an oprep
BI do have the ability to do something about the 'approved' monitized servers, but as others said earlier, they are limited in what they can do about policing those unless they employ someone full time to just do spot checks on all the servers and the associated websites, checking with every mod author whether they gave permission? Once they find and unapprove those servers, if the offenders persist, do they take legal action against them? At some point, the costs and complexity are going to mount to a point where it's simply no longer affordable, even for BI.
that's not to say they couldn't come up with a technical solution, involving signatures being checked against a central server being operated by BI, though that in itself wouldn't come cheap or easy.
fervent needle
Whats cheaper, employing someone or running a service that would check your server once a day at random or at startup
Check if monitized, if yes then check if the mods on the server are allowed by authors - this is where you could have licensing by modders come in π if not then server is flagged
little crown
actually, that reminds me to ask what licenses modders are releasing their work under?
faint nacelle
Complete overhaul of the server system where server mod lists are public and BI can shutdown any server not complying the rules.
prime pewter
^^ yes!
dull moon
@little crown
the license doesnt matter. it's the fact that every author has to be asked first before a server admin puts a mod on a monetised server. and this simple rule is ignored to the fullest
and what @faint nacelle said
undone pier
not publishing any more wont change anything
mods/modders leaving also is irrelevant to BI - they are on the path to Enfusion and new products. it will be a new challange to get a new modding community/following anyway
if at all the only real thing to make BI take this more seriously is a boycott of SW by having a large number of mods taken down for weeks or months (and stopping reuploads by 3rd party ofc)
for the chance to get enough player outcry for media to take notice - only if it threatens BI reputation being the good, nice company to support modders, or even to affect SW/Valve itself (by other communities joining such large scale boycott) there is any chance for BI/Valve to care
that said i cant see this to happen
at the same time there is no simple technical and/or social solution - probably not even a non simple
("solution" in the sense to the high standards some guys here and elsewhere expect to happen - only feasible "solution" are things like to simplify the takedown like OPTiX has done well, or making the upload more cumbersome, etc)
the only other "solution" I can see is to have BI have a monetary stake in it: if they make direct money of mod sales (and its gets BI enough like Valve managed for their products). money will make them care, invest resources and act
these aside the "community" (players and modders) is also partially to blame: if they had supported community based/mades technical solutions like withSIX (leaving aside its issues itself) to have a viable alternative to SW to have actual leverage (non techical like community "standards" or social control like Armaholic were bound to brake down eventually)
little crown
@dull moon The licenses matter if they don't prohibit non commercial use. You can't penalise someone who is just following the terms of the license used by the mod creator.
dull moon
what i ment is, that the rules given by BI say is, that the author has to be asked first at all cost
little crown
most mods do use a license like the Arma ones or CC-BY-NC etc, but hence my question - what are the modders in here, participating in this discussion using
dull moon
we are using a custom license inspired by APL-SA
little crown
no, the FAQ states that you must have proper permission. A license which grants full rights arguably counts as proper permission.
it doesn't say you must ask the author
dull moon
oh right, i got you wrong on that. my apologies
if the license grands permission and cleary states that a request is not necessary it's all fine. but if a license doesn't mention a thing about monetisation a permission has to be requested
little crown
not exactly, a license typically has to state that non-commercial use is NOT permitted, if that's not explicitly stated but the license does give you permission to use the content then commercial use is therefore permitted. That's why it's always advisable to use a pre-existing license as those have been very carefully worded to cover the different scenarios. The tricky thing about licenses is that they cut both ways, you may use one to protect your work, but the third party who accepts your license terms can then hold you to them, it's a legal contract effectively. In some ways you are better protected if you don't release your work under a license, since copyright prevails but that also makes using your mods extremely risky for the end user because you've not granted them permission to do so (by way of a license).
and licenses ususally can't be superceeded by a new license unless the old license grants as much. i.e. if I release something today under a free for all license (MIT etc) then tomorrow change the license to something more restrictive, I can't force anyone who downloaded (and thus agreed to the old license) to honour the terms of the new license with the older version of the work (mod).
I should probably add that IANAL (though I doubt any of you were under that impression)
carmine folio
Is it not allowed to sell a map you made in terrain builder?
heavy moon
no, its against the Tools EULA
Section 3 part 4 states you may not:
(iv) Commercially exploit or allow a 3rd party commercially exploit game content you created using the Software, including but not limited to use by military organizations for computer aided training or commercially released game content;
Am I getting sued lol xD some1 paid me like 30$ to make map
grand oyster
If you used BItools then tssk tskk I guess π€
heavy moon
You always will, even if you use mikeros tools, you utilize binarize/arma3.exe to compile your content.
fervent needle
$30, I feel sorry for whatever work went into that
carmine folio
Yea, the RP scene is paying allot of money lol
Ohh you don't even want me to get started with this campfire community
It's owned by idiots
Because a friend of mine cheated on their server they called his mom n stuff
fervent needle
good terrains take months, not $30 lol
dull moon
good enough for RP π
carmine folio
I also edited allot of kelleys islands π΄
fossil basalt
π
dull moon
something raised @fossil basalt 's awareness
prime pewter
steps back slowly
dull moon
graps popcorn, just to be safe
prime pewter
brings beverages and sits next to Lutz
echo orchid
@little crown false
You may, but ONLY if you have proper permission from all of the authors of such mods. Monetizing without it contravenes our licenses.```You donβt have to do anything. Unless you give permission no one is allowed to monetize your creation.
in short you don't need to specify that you do NOT allow monetization
little crown
@echo orchid A license IS permission
the FAQ is correct in that doing nothing (i.e. not releasing under a license) does not grant anyone permission
but a license to use the work, which doesn't contain a non-commercial exclusion to that use, is implicit permission
echo orchid
the only way that will work is if one releases it for commercial use
that's it
i think we are taking about the same thing
even most open source licenses are not commercial viable
i have yet to see any mod released with such a license
undone pier
the list of monitized server is known, isnt it?
one could compare that to the list of overall servers at least
while the bikeys only say when is allowed, and one can resign pbos, there must be also a way to get the list of mods - after all the A3 launcher tells you if you dont have all mods to play for the given server
as its written in c#, one probably can decompile the code to learn how BI does it
merry oasis
I queried that list of servers with a script some time ago - at that time many of them were not responding - so I am not sure how up-to-date the list is
grand oyster
There's def a way to get the list of mods, battlemetrics shows em too, https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/1255222
merry oasis
just gave my script another run:
looks like 2 of them are running RHS - one of those 2 is listed with 0/0 players and is only used to advertise a different server ip (which has RHS addons in its modstring, too, but is not listed as monetized server)
neon crater
Well pufu, the one mentioned wasnt the monetized server. The one that was has sort of like the title "join our other server with rhs" kind of stuff.
atomic light
Hello
This modification uses our files (ArmSTALKER WARZONE 3.0), giving them out for their own. Violate the author rights by using OUR mutants, code and animations.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=951922040&searchtext=deep+zone
PBO Files:
mutants8 - our armst_mutants
char_mut7 - our armst_char_mut3
anim - armst_anim
Also, they uses a ripped model from DayZ:SA. Or everyone can use files from DayZ:SA?
amber eagle
They're also using models from the USM mod. deep zone is a turd nugget mod
atomic light
@amber eagle And what should I do? How to deal with thieves?
amber eagle
You could set their house ablaze and force them to watch all of their life possessions go up in a blaze but people tend to frown on that...so you could file a DMCA with Steam.
heavy moon
you could report them to the email in the channel topic for infringements of BI content, as well as file a dmca claim for your own content on the steam workshop item
carmine folio
not that armstalker isn't guilty of it themself π
oh some metro stuff is in there aswell
https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/186471-can-devs-confirm-armstalker-mod-is-legit-and-can-be-partnered-with/?do=findComment&comment=2953070
neon crater
Im really disappointed with the lack of originality recently
fossil basalt
With regard to STALKER:
GSC has made explicit its position regarding the legal status of mods, including the use of its resources with others games. You can find the original text under the link below. I am attaching a translation, as well.
Mods (modifications) of a computer game can be made by a person who has legally acquired a licensed copy of the game and exclusively for the purpose of its use on the hardware belonging to the person performing the modification or persons to whom the modification was given on non-commercial basis (such as freely over the Internet).
This means that the person who makes a mod for a computer game can use this modification exclusively on non-commercial basis.
The author of the mod retains authorship and exclusive rights on the mod. However, the resources used for development of the given mod belong to another person. As such, the mod does not wholly belong to the author of the modification, who does not have full control over it (such as for commercial use).
Our company allows non-commercial use of mods for our computer games. If you want to use mods developed for our games (such as from the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series) with another game, you have to turn to that game's developers for permission.
leaden sundial
π π that would be nice!
brittle harness
still they are using exile and many other mods stuff
fervent needle
@fossil basalt I don't quite understand that message, they allow use of stalker assets in other games or do they allow use of mods made for their games in other games with permissions?
little crown
@blazing wyvern Err, I wouldn't take that comment by the author of the novel as permission to use textures from the game of the same name. I highly doubt he has the power to grant the use of game assets created by a game studio which just happened to buy the game rights to his novel.
I think he was only addressing the right to use the Metro name and universe within a game. Not assets from Metro 2033. Which is why he only said, "as far as it concerns me", which doesn't include obtaining permissions from 4A/Deep Silver.
tight copper
@fossil basalt Thank you kindly, that was the last bar that withhold the development to port the map to VBS
echo orchid
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=940617538
this shit contains:
TRYK
RH - @blazing wyvern
HLC - @heady frigate
and some others...DMCAed them twice, they finally removed RHS from that pack
btw that server is monetized although not on BI's list
coral torrent
Always the russians π·πΊ XD
amber eagle
Does it have any of my US Military Mod stuff?
echo orchid
@amber eagle what is the prefix?
dusk dew
Fake news. SAD!
amber eagle
So the five stars on my steam workshop is fake news? How about politics stay in politics and we act like adults in the real world?
blazing wyvern
lol they are so uncreative with those names - genesis HA
and i like always they hid the contains so its legit xD
fervent needle
@echo orchid are these yours https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gz05ATYg6k&feature=youtu.be&t=2m49s
the RU ripped units - are they from rhs
tulip nexus
Yeah, we know about them already
fervent needle
ah rgr
echo orchid
@fervent needle the links should be down, the youtube bloke is simply a fucktard
fervent needle
β€ Wasn't going to make an account on their site to hunt but just wanted to offer it up if you didn't know
good to know π
carmine folio
carmine folio
Really didn't try to hide it did they? haha
minor sonnet
wow
Taviana AND desolation redux
oh wait... no they're just describing things terribly wrong
or... 66MB... o_O
hallow lark
Did they just accidentally upload all dependencies?
carmine folio
You can't trust arma 3 workshop size. Pretty sure publisher doesn't call the seperate API call to update the filesize (no clue why its seperate API call)
If you sub to the addon you will see steam trying to download around 3GB
mint edge
"accidentally"
neon crater
Isn't steam supposed to compress the file size down as well?
mint edge
something like that
I think it just has an inaccurate number for larger numbers
Breslin point was like 9gb but steam showed like 300mb or something
so it also helps hide people who reuploads large mods lmao
fossil basalt
"so it also helps hide people who reuploads large mods lmao"
Not really
dull moon
afaik the displayed filesize on the ws shows the size of the compressed file
carmine folio
That mod above is 66mb. Its 3.x gb download
Since it happen to afew addons i uploaded before. Only had the initial filesize on steam workshop page
Pretty sure last i looked pretty sure i saw seperate steam workshop api to update the mod filesize
sinful geode
I uploaded a mod with 25MB text file and the size was 25MB.
Maybe it doesn't compress all files then
The download was only 23kb though
undone pier
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=898912632&searchtext=
Old but Gold Map Pack
Including:
- Aliabad Region
- Thirsk
- Namalsk
- Caribou Frontier
- PR Fata
- PR Afghan Village
- Fallujah
- ToraBora
- Hazar Kot Valley
- A small lighting upgrade```
drowsy sail
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=938212429
TRYK
BP weapons
CBA
ebon ruin
CBA does not allow reuploads ?
blazing wyvern
who does lol
ebon ruin
ace3?
echo orchid
steam agreement doesn't allow re-uploads
ebon ruin
carmine folio
If the license lets you modify and redist changes you can. Steam doesn't ask for than for workshop content.
But there really is no good reason to repackage content if it's already on steam. Makes end users download more
Also good manners to ask first
ebon ruin
Okay, my understanding was that since bohemia assets like arma 1-2 maps use APL-SA. This means all content based on this must also be shared under the same license, allowing edits etc.
With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) and share (i.e. copy, distribute or transmit)
???
Does that mean that I can copy all cup mods or any other mods that use any assets that use the APL-SA license ?
It's a little bit confusing to me... I'm not a native english speaker
carmine folio
Not all arma licensed data is apl sa
Cups also have there own license for most of there work
ebon ruin
Terrains, terrain objects, playable content and voiceovers are usually released under APL-SA or TOPL-SA, as it's in Bohemia Interactive's interest to keep further modifications of this data free to adapt.
But the weapons/assets are APL
APL means they don't have to be shared under the same license, but means it can only be used in arma only
carmine folio
Read the license you don't need to redist as apl
ebon ruin
Pretty much if you share it, you must indicate that you modified license material and that it's under the APL license. But if you have a different license and somone uses your things, they have rights over their creation
carmine folio
You are not required to release it as apl
ebon ruin
Yes
But you have to indicate that the content in your content is modified content licensed under apl?
So you can be like you can't edit this, but this is an edited version of content created by bohemia interactive under APL license https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma-public-license
Am I getting it yet?
carmine folio
Sounds roughly ok, I am on phone. People will still re-upload your content regardless what you say
ebon ruin
Yes, it does not matter to me, unless they would take something I make and then license it and say my copyright now you must remove your original creation
That's all I want to avoid
Anything else does not hurt me as mods etc. are non commercial anyway
carmine folio
You don't to license the content. Still protected by copyright
But if your worried look at how cups unit weapons vehicles are done
ebon ruin
I went throug theri stuff and was just wondering how it all worked, because they did not create all the assets themselves, but only modified it. But it all makes sense now
Also important part is to protect the content creator from use of their creations
By this I am reffering to the islamic state mod
soft egret
CBA and ACE allow reuploads. But yeah.. Steam agreement disallows every reupload (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#6) Β§6D
fossil basalt
^
ebon ruin
that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).
What meakes the content originally created? Doesn't that mean that if a model is created by bohemia and used in a mod, it is originally created by bohemia?
Or does it mean that the content is the pbo package or the mod package?
fossil basalt
Yes, but Bohemia gives written permission to make derivative works. (to answer the first part)
ebon ruin
So reuploads of content which is not created by you is allowed
ebon ruin
content which is originally created by you or if others contributed you have to right to submit such Workshop contribution on behalf of the others who contributed.
fossil basalt
For example: If you wanted to improve on the A2 sample assets that BI have provided, you may, and may upload them to SW. However, someone cannot edit your improvement of said mod and then reupload it because they do not have your permission.
Simply, every party must raise their hand and say "I do". No " I do", no upload.
ebon ruin
Ahh, with respect to content to which others contributed besides you by you and the other contributors
This sentence was a little confusing, but I take it means that every party must say I do
minor sonnet
TL;DR
ebon ruin
You may only upload content to the steam workshop, if you are the original creator or if you have the respect of all parties involved in the creation of the content.
carmine folio
@soft egret @fossil basalt
Note some licenses give you permission and others to modify & redist changes
This would cover reuploading to workshop content with GPL + APL-SA etc.
Because the license gives people rights to alter + redist changes & for endusers to have the same rights.
They don't need to ask for permission because you have already given it to them in the license.
People should just not use APL-SA / GPL if they don't want people to re-upload content. (It pretty much goes against the reason for those licenses)
dusk dew
@carmine folio Does the workshop EULA not strictly mention ownership?
minor sonnet
Yeah see thats what I never understood. I understand why people feel the way they do, but if you share your work under those license terms, you cant really say "Well they need to get my permission regardless" and/or "well only those I deem worthy to use my content will be allowed to use it" or "no life mods".
dusk dew
(as IIRC, it goes down the path of giving Valve itself rights)
carmine folio
Valve now has limitations on what it can do with workshop content.
minor sonnet
As much as it pisses me off when people abuse the hard work others have put into something, or use it in the most slicky slimey ways for financial gain, its the system that is broken. If its broken, and you cant fix it, and no one else is going to fix it.. then dont use it.
Which goes into why I was saying we should just get together and pull all our mods until someone does something about it, but that probably wouldnt accomplish anything either.
carmine folio
just pick the right license for the right job, or don't bother to license it & use copyright to protect your work.
Please don't bring monitization into this, as that is a different thing altogether.
minor sonnet
Oh gotcha
dull moon
it's pretty simple:
no matter what the license is, use your brain and common sense... if you want to do something, no matter what, ASK FIRST...
found a kickass rifle mod but not the textures you like? - do not repack it with you textures and reupload it. ask the original creator if you can use his original textures as a base for a retexture mod, pack you mod and set a dependency...
you like the CUP BRDM but don't want to use the CUP mods for one vehicle? - don't rip that shit apart... read the splendid tutorials by Alwaren on how to port it from A2 data pack to A3 all by yourself, ask the CUP guys if you can use their model.cfg and vehicle configs and keep working from there...
commnication (and the tone to this communication!) is the key part to it. if you ask nicely (and offer something in return, like the new texture for example) almost everybody is willing to help out
carmine folio
You will notice i always mention its good to ask first, when this convo comes up every few months.
I just point this crap out, so people pick the right license.
Better to know now than to find out down the road and it bites you in the ass.
Ripping CUPS content (not counting core/maps) and uploading to Steam, would break the CUPs license etc
Weapon Mods etc, always better to just ask author to add hidden selections etc
But if you notice stuff like A2 Offical Terrains, even on the biki they state the reason for APL-SA, "as it's in Bohemia Interactive's interest to keep further modifications of this data free to adapt".
There are also afew people that add extra conditions that restrict usage, despite those licenses prohibiting them from doing so. (But that is a different thing altogether).
GPL/APL-SA is nice for when people go MIA, means someone could take over if needed to make updates etc
But if you want to restrict who can upload to steam, you really should pick a different license imo
sinful geode
How often the Crawler updates the workshop entries?
Found four re-uploads of my mod, but 2 of them were already gone.
echo orchid
@river spear ^
yeah found the same yesterday i am sure some stuff wasn't working as it should
echo orchid
my case RHS
the crawler finds stuff that was removed
and not new stuff that was added
sinful geode
river spear
@echo orchid @sinful geode It's updating properly now again, give it an hour
518 items to go
river spear
Should be OK now again
sinful geode
π π
echo orchid
@river spear cheers man, working as intended
drowsy sail
echo orchid
@drowsy sail reuploaded what?
drowsy sail
Blocked earlier mod. You can check the content, Im sure, they didnt remove anything from there
gaunt geode
river spear
@dull moon How did you generate that list?
dull moon
hmmmm.... π
somebody made a kickass tool, can't recall his name tho... wanna give me a hint? π
fossil basalt
Shounka says it all....
river spear
@dull moon I dont remember giving it out in this format so I guessed the list came from somewhere else π
dull moon
it's from the crawler
ancient bane
hi, its ok to change open addons, rip 3dmodels, and then approved my tonic base mission into a monetizations erver
?
soft egret
sure
fervent needle
only on tuesdays
sinful geode
Damn. I have bobsled classes on tuesdays. No sweet lifer money for me then.
fossil basalt
@Quickskill#2849 Just is cace sarcasm isn't your native language, the above can be read as "Absolutely Not!"
dull moon
apparently valve wrote a butthurt lifer thet got DMCAd to pay me 350 to get unbaned
note how my name is written
π
those dickheads come up with new shit every day
bronze oasis
Scamming in what way?
dull moon
send chris 350 and your item will be unbaned#
bronze oasis
lol
soft egret
@dull moon See #general_chat_arma 4 hours ago
Wait.. That's the exact same picture :u
dull moon
right, didn't know taro posted it already π
tulip nexus
their reaction in the CUP discord was the most childish thing I've ever seen
seriously, fuck Lifers
soft egret
But when Taro posted it it was about CUP. And now it is about your content? Didn't know you were doing CUP stuff :x
You CUP guys should be more verbal about stuff π So that People like me don't get confused
edgy dew
I'm just reading up on this
Fuck a Duck then Fuck a CUP
This is almost as good as watching the White House right now.
fossil basalt
They earned their bans.
little crown
so what CUP assets were they using?
fossil basalt
Unknown, but they were caught repacking/reuploading them in their own mod.
dull moon
parts of CUP Weapons
edgy dew
"I am allowed to unpack the PBOs, [to] see how the stuff is made and learn how to make or port your own Addons.", therefore "I'll just unpack the weapons and rename then to my name Aaron_Weapons"
That's what that one guy said.
Solid reasoning.
fossil basalt
...for an idiot
dull moon
it's still cup and he get's my foot up his ass
blazing wyvern
he learned how to unpack , rename , pack and reupload - what a good boy lol
gleaming fable
posting for no reason
fossil basalt
@gleaming fable then you can delete it
gleaming fable
I could, but I wanna promote anonymity π
fossil basalt
I could remove it as well, but it begins with banning you.
soft egret
If you want to post something completly offtopic go ahead and do that in #offtopic_arma
fossil basalt
keen trout
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956293682 contains a boat load of other mods, pbo files are renamed to avoid being spotted, including cba_a3, x-cam stuff, niarms, vsm, lots of islands etc
neon crater
@keen trout what the hell lol. I also thought you could repackage cba if you redistribute it with the same license
soft egret
@neon crater http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#6 Β§6D
neon crater
@soft egret so whats the point of distributing content with a license? Since steam has opened the floodgates to your content.
neon crater
Gotcha. Yes i did skim it
carmine folio
It technically says you either the author or have the rights to submit it to workshop on behalf of the author (in the brackets). Which you can debate if the license that allows you to redist & make changes covers that (imo it does).
But in the case you linked i doubt he bothered to ask anyone & sure there is some license that doesn't allow for modification/redist
Plus really no need to repackage alot of addons, just makes endusers download more
neon crater
@carmine folio i am not the one repackaging content. I was just curious after the post about cba being renamed above
carmine folio
Shrugs chances are if he is renaming stuff there is some other crap in there. So it will prob get pulled by someone regardless
soft egret
I'd say if you have verbal confirmation that you are allowed to upload it it's fine. But even if the license allows. You have the rights do do stuff with the code yeah. But you are not the Author nor are you allowed to upload it on behalf of the author.
carmine folio
It tech says the " right to submit " which the opensource license / aplsa license would give you imo.
But it kinda defeats the purpose of opensource licenses + aplsa.
For example APL-SA licensed/sample files the reason BI gave in biki for license, they wanted to see people on each other work & keep it free to modify etc
IMO should just pick another license that isn't opensource / aplsa if you want to prevent people uploading to workshop.
They are really the wrong license to restrict people redist / modifying the content. Plus it avoids this debate entirely :)
Still a dick move to not ask permission though (even though i argue you don't need to)
mint edge
Left side image was found inside of the Misery mod for stalker cop
Right side image is the ak74 texture from arma 2
Β―_(γ)_/Β― idk
seems too identical to just have been unwraped the same way
neon crater
Afaik the a2 content is available for editing
neon crater
Oh. This misery thing is a game? Ive heard of something similar in mod form. My bad!
mint edge
misery is a modification for Stalker Call of Pripyat
im looking for more identical textures
99% sure BI does not allow their content to be used in other games
neon crater
Yep, nothing leaves their platform
mint edge
yea then im convinced this mod has stolen BIs content
Left is again from the STALKER mod, right is the arma 2 texture
Saiga12k from arma 2
aswell
grand gorge
damn, that's a shame. misery mod is/was a pretty good mod.
blazing wyvern
wow , they must have been desperate to use arma models lol
soft egret
Or they both used the same source or company to make these models for them
fervent needle
Were arma 2 weapons sourced though? I know arma 2 had sourced vehicles etc but arma 2?
soft egret
Maybe they used the same modelling software.. and as the Models are so Similear the UV layout became very similear
soft egret
I dunno. :u I like misery ^^
echo orchid
that shows that you have 0 experience in modelling
the chance of having the exact same UV layout is nil
edgy dew
It was a joke TM
soft egret
Auto layout tools?
echo orchid
lol again
edgy dew
Stop!
soft egret
Also that I don't have experience with putting textures onto Models has nothing to do with my experience in Modelling
soft egret
Texturing?
edgy dew
Have you disproved dialetheism yet, Dedmen?
echo orchid
these days a 3d artist = models + textures
grand oyster
π
soft egret
I Model at work. But we never need Textures.. Because that doesn't matter anyway for 3D Prints
echo orchid
there isn't a separate job for texture artists
question = do you model using nurb based software
or polygon based
because last time i did a job where i had to do very accurate 3d prints for jewlery, it was using nurb based rather than polygon software
soft egret
Polygon based mostly. Modeling directly is not my Job though. I just sometimes do it when we need stuff to test
echo orchid
that confirms what i said earlier regarding experience
in any case, it seems that these meshes are direct A2 ports
and @pliant oar should be notified
carmine folio
π©
tender hawk
For anyone wondering why modders have a vested interest in Workshop DMCA: https://forums.bistudio.com/forums/topic/205715-star-wars-mod-what-is-going-on/?do=findComment&comment=3203278
pliant oar
if you run into content stolen from our games used anywhere where it should not be (or isn't allowed) then report it to infringements@bistudio.com at max drop me into cc
mint edge
I sent a support message on the on the official website however I can go there when I return home aswell
grand oyster
Is crazy mike really crazy?
stark silo
can confirm
grand oyster
π
Can someone kindly point out some resources for A2 to A3 porting? I want to upload the A2 Harrier to the SW but I'm not sure of the licensing permitting me
stark silo
all the apl/apl-sa data is allowed to be uploaded on the arma 3 steam workshop. Well it can be uploaded anywhere as long as it is directly mean for Arma and only Arma.
At least that is what I understand from asking the same question a while ago.
grand oyster
Okay awesome, I thought I'd double check just in case
carmine folio
You be fine uploading the arma sample/licensed data & ported stuff to steam workshop etc
Just remember the terrain objects etc are APL-SA, not sure if the carrier is APL or APL-SA to be honest
tender hawk
By any chance are you looking to do a simple direct Harrier port from Bohemia's A2 data to A3, no leaning on or borrowing from CUP or anyone else?
grand oyster
Straight from Arma 2, I've not delved into anyones configs nor copy pasted from anyones. I'm too afraid to go stomping on toes
mint edge
directly copying pieces of another's config is ehh not sure however it would be for the best not to, you CAN however copy a config from an arma 3 plane and work off of that, but vehicles are a bit tricker then most other porting of things, to make sure all is correct
aplsa mods probably can take their config and edit it for yourself but any other license is most likely a no as usually they don't contain redistributing rights with them
I would just take an a3 config and make it work then tweak things in it for you specific plane
grand oyster
Yeah I did have a brief look at using an A3 plane config but it still sorta flies over my head, using the defualt A2 one I've managed to get the plane to work, got a3 veh weapons which work on it too
modern flicker
Just to confirm something, would BIS ever tell a server owner who reported them?
because there's quite a lot of drama going on on a server that me and my friends play on, and lots of people got perma banned supposedly because they have proof that they reported the server to BIS
grand gorge
i would think BI would never do that, it'd be a privacy violation in my eyes at least
and make people less likely to report servers in future, which wouldn't help anybody
i'm guessing you're playing on a life server and the admins are 12 year old kids, probably
edgy dew
...
modern flicker
it's not as much an age thing thoug as it is a national thing
fossil basalt
I'd have to agree with oneoh on that one.
modern flicker
it's a spanish server
edgy dew
Getting angry at someone who reported you is pointless. You were reported for a reason.
modern flicker
sorry if anybody here is spanish, but in my experience they tend to be a bit more liberal with the "We aren't hurting BIS so its OK" logic
mint edge
if only people actually read rules an Eula's they'd realize it's pretty simple ok what you can do and not do
grand oyster
what!? I heard eulas are the things you just ignore and sweep under the rug??
grand gorge
I think 16?
LOL
dull moon
so you remember those fucktards that tried to fuck me and CUP over with this fake email i posted?
here they are again, but this time they made their homework. well, some of it. no CUP this time, but a lot more...
involved are:
@lunar sentinel
@proud flicker
Massi
@carmine folio
xCAM
@blazing wyvern
@heady frigate
@serene loom
not sure about the MELB mod? @echo orchid
Here is a complete file list:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7szfaHIJkpjZndPbTNqbmswVjg/view?usp=sharing
and the mod
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1094566978
i suggest the slow and painful way:
one files a DMCA, then we wait until this mod is reuploaded and the next files his DMCA, and so on
veeery slowly and painful π
echo orchid
@dull moon - i'll see what sykocrazy has to say about it
carmine folio
how am i involved in this ? I think you miswrote my name, you probably meant @soft egret
echo orchid
i suggest everyone fills a dmca
dull moon
@carmine folio
yes, i'm sorry
lel...
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=497660133
longe time no see such butthurt
and thx PuPu
heavy moon
From Valve/Steams perspective the more active dmca claims on a particular upload the more weight they collectively carry, the sooner an item will get removed and the user/uploader will get multiple copyright strikes on their account. With all of this in effect they are more likely to be banned form uploading entirely.
Of note, just because something that contains your content may already have a DMCA notification on the workshop item, you should not ignore the fact it contains your content. The DMCA claim on any item will be from a different author only disputing their content, not yours. So while their claim may be effective, you are doing nothing to assert your rights over your content contained within the workshop item unless you also file a DMCA notice on the item in relation to your content.
carmine folio
Wow, funniest thing I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh Chris.
dull moon
it's monday, everybody needs a laugh at mondays ^^
carmine folio
Just be careful with all 4 of those lawyers on you. π
minor sonnet
Wooooow..
mint edge
I'm positive he's trolling he can't be that ignorant to the legal system and what a license is
echo orchid
@dull moon bahhhhahhhahahah
see, there is a reason why public access to discord is such a bad idea in the first place
echo orchid
still a bad idea
people think are entitled to getting a response
also, that they are entitled to get some arguments
where is my middle finger button?
π anyways, back to DMCA, i have a bit of a list myself to get through
carmine folio
π here
echo orchid
button, not emoticon
carmine folio
hehe
echo orchid
yeah well, can always create a macro π my G keys are empty and waiting that
carmine folio
I have them too, I just mapped ctrl + x/c/v to them, but I still use them anyway π
mint edge
flash:wave2:For my Lord and my God DMCA
nova snow
And this is how a person who doesn't read licenses and EULAs looks like:
https://i.gyazo.com/b8e6e003426ec40996bf89913bb90dc8.png
carmine folio
Most people don't read EULA ever. (Highly doubt one person here has read ever EULA & EULA that got updated from start to end, for all the software on there computer)
But most licenses have a short simple version so no excuse there.
(And they generally have something saying you can't add additional terms that restrcit rights given in the license)
So when you see something is GPL2+ you basically know what it means
echo orchid
@Mickyleitor#5674 buaahahhha
fucking twats
lol, here in france....i stopped there
who gives a fuck about france laws, eu laws concerning ip rights supersedes em
plus steam agreement superseeds that because valve is based in us
mint edge
the internet lets us see just how many ignorant people are out there
echo orchid
i'd rather have un-see that at times
pliant oar
sometimes is fun take various EULAs and push them thru https://www.brightfort.com/eulalyzer.html the results are laughing under table on the floor and crying by shocking sadness
fossil basalt
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=974762691&searchtext=CDEEKS ?
Run your crawler over this one if you haven't already. Apparently he removed RHS's stuff after receiving a DMCA/warning, but refused to remove anyone else's stuff.
river spear
4500 files jesus
neon crater
Did the person even make their own signatures or was it a direct copy? Lol
dull moon
own signature? this would require some sort if thinking
i've never seen a reup with new signatures
neon crater
π€·
jade tartan
Still has not been addressed yet. This mod is using ripped and retextured assets from DayZ standalone
namely pants and jacket seen in the pictures
which are a retex of the DayZ Police jacket and cargo pants
The mod author also has a history of ripping stuff from other games it seems
heavy moon
use email address in the topic to report it to BI
carmine folio
26k subscribers for ripped content. Geez
blazing wyvern
they dont care if its ripped as long they can use it
soft egret
@Zhivets#3877
"For various reasons , all screenshots with non - CSW and CPE items have been deleted , so please do not ask any questions about mod in screenshots , we won't answer you and delete your comment , please understand. We are apologize for the inconvenience."
π
heavy moon
captain kickass, king of the rips
their other mods have stuff ripped straight out of bf series of games
heavy moon
they have a rip of hitman content thats been marked incompatible aswell
blazing wyvern
some other content is from CSS custom models but he didnt even list proper credits to them ...
heavy moon
yeah
blazing wyvern
he tries to bypass the SW with google drive links
and gives you a option to download the source files for MOD authors to research
i will download that and check that shit out lol
heavy moon
yeah most illegitimate workshop items I find usually resort to using google drive as an "alternative" download,. basically offering their own mirror for ripped content,. you can submit dmca take-downs to google drive,. although the process isnt as streamlined as with steam.
blazing wyvern
ye
Who sent the DMCA οΌ Please contact me , If this MOD has your stuff , please tell me , and i will delete it . thanks that would be pretty much all of it lol
Thanks BI to opened up a new category for my Mods , It's called "incompatible items" . no reason, no reply email , well down !!!!!!!
i am still suprised that this guy still exists
neon crater
What we need next: Google drive crawler? π
heavy moon
theoretically you could scrape all the workshop pages for google drive links, download the g-drive content automatically and scan the contents.
why crawl the entire of google when these people provide you with the links already right?
blazing wyvern
yup
neon crater
hahaha. was only joking
fossil basalt
πΏ
heavy moon
piracy is a serious offence,. I dont really think its a joking matter.
neon crater
No no, now. You're mis reading me. I was joking about - > Google Drive Crawler
As you have already said, not necessary.
heavy moon
yeah I realised what you were joking about,. but just incase someone is skimming through the chat, they will maybe realise what they are doing is wrong.
neon crater
π
heavy moon
@fossil basalt too early for popcorn π
fossil basalt
Yeah, was actually having a poo..
blazing wyvern
π¬ π© β’
fossil basalt
Popcorn sounded nicer
neon crater
π
fossil basalt
More proof that I'm not a robot
mint edge
I just don't fkn get why he spends his time working on stuff he KNOWS will be taken down and he'll get reprimanded
blows my mind
I've seen the mods he makes out of the stolen models and it's not terrible quality, poor guy just needs to get models legit ffs
ppl are crazy
echo orchid
poor guy just needs to get models legit ffs
the only way to get models legit is to make it yourself or buy it
@mint edge
game assets don't float about
free for the taking
mint edge
exactly what im saying?
hallow frigate
@echo orchid you cant even buy them. BI took mods down because owner was selling it / its content
echo orchid
you don't follow
you can buy game assets
as in meshes (3d models) made specifically for games
instead of ripping em in any case which is theft
dull moon
you can buy game assets
from legit sites o/c, not some russian rip sites π
or you can pay someone to create you a model
hallow frigate
Yea, aslong as you only buy the model/track or whatever else in general. However, once you adjusted it to work for ArmA (made the configs, etc.), you can't sell it. Atleast this is what I get from a Quote by Placebo
Despite our efforts to make the information clearly available as to what is acceptable and not acceptable in the use of our content and the means by which people can elicit voluntary donations etc. (see this thread) It's sad to find out that someone in the community has for months been blatantly demanding donations before granting permission to use content or to distribute the bikey for online usage.
And thats what I don't get. If I make models and I sell it over an external site - it's all fine. If you make the models and adjust it to directly work with arma then it's not okay?
dull moon
that i don't know for sure, but i think this falls under illegal mod monetisation
well, if you use tools that are not using BI technology one might be allowed to sell gameready content for A3. but afaik there is no way to exclude tools from BI 100%
soft egret
You can't sell Mods.. But you can sell the source files you used to make the Mod.
Atleast until the point where you used BI tools
Afaik there is a 3dsMax plugin.. or was one that could export as p3d.
dull moon
but the binarisation still needs BI technology, right?
soft egret
no
Armake can also do that
also after you binarize your model it's no longer a source file so why would anyone buy that
carmine folio
Is armake up to the point of beening able to binzarize p3d models etc?
soft egret
Yes
river spear
Time to sell mods bois
mint edge
you cant use bis tools in any way and be allowed to sell them in a commercial manner
should be it i think
correct me
cant gain money from models that have been touched by the god-bohmeian hands, only before you open and use/edit/import the models to any bi tool
soft egret
true
echo orchid
@hallow frigate - i can very well write the configs as i am only using a text editor, not by tools
i can do anything i want as long as i do not touch any of BI tools (as in prep it for import) and sell anything else but the p3d itself
@Dedmen#0689 that max p3d exporter (which i have also contributed to) is provided for non-commercial arma work
afaik that stands true for the existing alwaren's blender plug-in
but that is not what i was talking about\
because none of these ripped models
are ripped directly to .p3d anyways
amber eagle
I wish BIS would form some kind of legal agreement with reputable modders for use of advance file encryption so we can just avoid most of this drama and grief.
carmine folio
It will just be broken like it was before.
Plus it will make it harder for people to detect ripped content if its an unoffical EPO.
Really dislike EPO/Obfuscation for content with sqf code, as makes it harder to see what the addon does, or needs customization / modification to work with some missions / addons.
Valve/BI just need to sort some form of revoking permission to upload content for repeat offenders.
Like the 3 strike rules you see for some ISPs etc, ban uploading to steam for a month.
If they keep at it, just revoke completely etc
little crown
I'm not convinced that encryption will be so easy to break if implemented correctly, plus the majority of content theft is casual - by which I mean it's done by people who simply aren't going to go to great lengths to extract the files, they are largely unaware that it's even wrong, they just think they are making things more convenient for users of their server or mission
and if they are encrypted, then it becomes a lot harder for anyone to argue that they didn't know they were breaking the rules and the punishments can be much stricter as a result. The same way trespassing vs breaking and entering carry very different legal consequences.
fossil basalt
I second the 3 strikes rule.
amber eagle
"reputable" modders. Even on an invitation bases.
And with some sort of process for BIS investigating alleged IP violations since they would have the decryption software
Any violation of said agreement could lead to legal action, including being sued and termination of use of encryption tools
And the software could be made to where a new key would be needed every month so if someone violated the agreement BIS could simply not issue a new encryption key
And this would solve majority of the pain and suffering a lot of modders go through
fossil basalt
Sounds good on paper, but what cost would they incur?
How many man hours per week, the total cost of employing that person, etc.
amber eagle
At what cost? Lets ask this question, how much content hasn't been released by modders because of these issues?
I know I haven't release a lot of content because of IP violations and I'm sure there's more modders in similar situations. With software like that I would feel better releasing more content and I'm sure other modders would too, which would generate more interest in the game engine
Which will lead to more revenue for BIS
minor sonnet
BI dont really care about that, not as far as investing man hours into anything mod related. They see modding as a bonus, they know community mods draw sales, and they sure like advertising them in their sitreps, but they cant rely on mods for sales, so they barely pay attention to distribution etc...
Which, if they would set up some way to include community mods into a business model, well..
fossil basalt
Possibly. But. how many more Mustangs have Ford sold due to the aftermarket company Kenne-Bell's superchargers? Ford does not make nor install them, an aftermarket company does. Do you think Ford base their yearly sales on aftermarket parts makers? I know its not exactly the same thing, but its the easiest analogy I could think of on short notice π
(In response to Tim)
amber eagle
Fair analogy, but you have to admit that ArmA wouldn't be where it's at without the modding community and it would be in BIS's best interests to protect that aspect
fossil basalt
True. And I do belive that modders should be afforded some sort of protection with BI's help.
amber eagle
Also, mods do have a lot of impact on sales of ArmA. Just look at what DayZ did for ArmA. Yes, it was a mod created by a developer, but it greatly increased sales
carmine folio
Encryption has been broken before for awhile people could make EPO files, regardless the engine needs to decrypt stuff so it is in memory at some point. What will prob happen is people will just hook in the arma binary to decrypt the crap.
EBO files removes the ability for steam workshop crawlers / average person to check for ripped content.
Deciding who can & cant use EBOs, is just gonna be a nightmare
Not to mention EBO couldn't be used on APL/APL-SA cause it would break the license.
You just need an actual penalty for people that re-upload content.
Atm there really isn't any, thus the idea of 3 strike rule
fossil basalt
No arguement on that particular example Tim.
amber eagle
I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that BIS should partner with modders but some cooperation, agreements and protection could potentially help ArmA, especially as we reach that apex of modding difficulty
fossil basalt
My recommendation is that in addition to the 3 strikes rule, a few "trusted mod makers" should be added to the steam moderation team to flag things as incompatible (not ban).
minor sonnet
From what Ive seen, BI like to keep the modding community outside, they love to see what we do with their games, and they provide some things to produce work, but the business wants their employees to stay inside and not mingle with the common folk. Cant afford the risk of relying on unpaid, non contracted scrubs as an investment. If they could and they would... we would at least have working tools updated to run on operating systems from this century.
Is EPO different or do you mean EBO?
carmine folio
sorry typo π (fixed)
minor sonnet
Kk
Also, mods do have a lot of impact on sales of ArmA. Just look at what DayZ did for ArmA. Yes, it was a mod created by a developer, but it greatly increased sales and thats why they pulled in Rocket, made a business plan out of it and made a standalone game.
amber eagle
Kind of leads to another issue, the portion of the modding community that is producing content is shrinking, at least it seems to me. One reason could be contributed to IP violations.
minor sonnet
They would have to make some sort of platform for modders to be verified to be included into their business plan for them to be able to invest anything into the modding scene.
amber eagle
They would. I think for a lot of reputable modders this should be fairly easy.
minor sonnet
@amber eagle Oh no doubt, but a lot of it is frustration with what Mikero calls "moving the goal posts" and then you have newer games, and then you have game engines that are practically easier to deal with than Arma modding lol.
amber eagle
Now...you're getting into the potential death of the modding community.
BIS needs to be proactive in addressing these issues in order to maintain the modding community. In fact, it's very possible other game companies will seek out modders to create additional content for their games.
minor sonnet
Trust me, if you see it they see it, and theyre a business, they have things planned. Theyll be moving away from a3 to anything enfusion related.
Hopefully in the future things will be more organized with modding, but.. if anything I think things will be more restricted tbh
fossil basalt
Quite possibly. As of now, there isnt much "middle ground".
minor sonnet
In fact, I wouldnt surprised if there wasnt any modding with whatever they make, I think they probably see it as more trouble than its worth.
With future games I mean.
tender hawk
Bohemia's DayZ team has made some claims regarding modding support
minor sonnet
I think A3 was moddable simply because it was from the beginning and we're basically working with the same game engine.
Yeah I dont know.. Im just basing my opinions on what Ive seen thus far.
nova drift
It really isn't worth the trouble of making mod content, even if you do manage to make a mod popular all you do is just increase your workload.
minor sonnet
Spoken from the man himself
nova drift
And when it comes down to it you are the last person in the line for making a living off your own content.
That said I know it must be in BI's interest to keep their employees, if external content creators had a decent way to make a living they may find it hard to find people for their own projects.
minor sonnet
And when you throw all those things into a blender with recent thieving etc, its no wonder people are jumping ship or just throwing their hands up.
nova drift
Add the drama and it makes for a hostile environment that takes more than it gives.
amber eagle
Honestly in the future I can see a video game company being subscription base and paying modders a decent fee to create content that keeps players paying the subscription
Having modders create content could benefit video game companies in all honesty
minor sonnet
All I do is make terrain, and with everything Ive seen its even made me apathetic, I cant imagine people doing full scale mods. You guys are goddamned champs to keep going the way you do, and it is inspiring btw.
tender hawk
Theyll be moving away from a3 to anything enfusion related. This is key, will that be well received by modders or one moving-the-goalposts too many?
nova drift
I am down to learn a new engine, but we need documentation first.
amber eagle
If by "moving the goal post" you mean the quality standard is being raise that's a whole problem on it's own. To make a decent quality mod or even addon people have to devote a lot of time and effort, including financially. Soon, probably within the next 5 years, that goal post will be beyond what anybody is willing to do as a hobby. Compounded with IP violations and other issues the modding community may die off, and with it, one of the biggest selling points of ArmA.
minor sonnet
I think by moving goal posts we mean BI constantly changing things that screw up our mods
amber eagle
oh
amber eagle
lol poor Feint. I feel for him.
So "moving the goal post" is another problem along with the difficulty curve, IP violations and other issues
minor sonnet
Some things are just minor changes, others are like the lighting update that scared a bunch of people away
Or rather, rage quit
fossil basalt
One thing I've noticed over the years (since 2001) is that far too many people are interested in making their mods popular or making money from Patreon or YT monetisation. What happened to making things because they were cool, as a personal hobby and not as a business?
(with notable exceptions)
minor sonnet
Because this new world cant value anything that doesnt have a price tag on it.
dull moon
β
nova drift
5 years modding Arma and two very successful mods all made as a Hobby, I think I do love Arma.
minor sonnet
I think its safe to say if we didnt love modding arma we'd be long gone lol. I enjoy the hell out making terrain. To do it just to make money?.. Id focus on a real job first
nova drift
When that hobby mod gets popular and starts to demand more time that you can give what are your options as a modder?
minor sonnet
But if something else comes around thats modable like Arma and actually has working tools, and is easier to deal with, well..
amber eagle
@fossil basalt It's nice to get paid for your work, but at this point that's just a bonus. I still think a lot of people do it for the joy. A problem I foresee in the future is with as difficult as it's getting to create something high quality people will need to devote more time and effort into it.
Which may mean modding would be a full time job
It's not so much as a want, but a necessity in order to create high quality content.
nova drift
I don't think I am off base, as Server Admins already have monetization privileges it seems only logical that the next step would be to allow content creators at least similar rights.
minor sonnet
Absolutely
But that would require work from BI
Needs to be some sort of subscription system etc. Otherwise its futile
amber eagle
To be honest I've thought about setting up a patreon account and sticking donate buttons on my steam workshop items and forum signature for the longest time but ultimately decide not to.
I don't think monetizing addons is a good idea, and in fact it will probably do more damage than good, but I do think the BIS doing something to protect IP would be beneficial
minor sonnet
Well donations are fine
Theres nothing really slimey about taking donations
Some people actually realize time=money and/or want you to stay motivated.
Lesson I learned when I was young, if someone offers you something, you take it
I've thought about setting up a patreon as well, however you really need to set up goals or Rewards and that can be a little tricky
fossil basalt
You make a valid point Tim, but you know, for as nice and HQ as RHS stuff is, I still prefer CUP
Β―_(γ)_/Β―
amber eagle
Shhh! Don't let anybody hear you say that lol That's quantity vs quality. I like CUP too. Too many people hate on CUP but it's actually pretty awesome
willow star
Also RHS has their own damage balance, so you have to avoid mixing vanilla stuff with RHS
With CUP there are no such worries and you can mix it with vanilla or other mods without any worries
amber eagle
I wish there was a wasteland server that had CUP
I'll have to look for one this weekend
minor sonnet
Btw sorry for ranting, bad day at work, finding an escape XD I really wish they could come up with some kind of monotization for mods, even if only to reduce the drama and poo flinging.
grand oyster
I like CUP stuff except their helicopters, using the MELB or Apache I'd rather go RHS or vanilla
keen trout
I wonder what would had happened if steam had launched paid items in workshop for a game other than the already old skyrim
grand oyster
Immediate disapproval by thousands demanding free mods
I personally prefer seeing the workshop with free content unless you can specifically filter the paid mods to show/hide
dull moon
@grand oyster
what's wrong with the melb?
grand oyster
I dislike the CUP MELB/AH6M ( I think it's the name) as I feel it's more of a bitch to fly vs the RHS one and looks a little less appealing
little crown
I was about to make a comment about the CUP stuff naturally not looking as good because of them being ports from older games in the series, but I'm afraid I might hurt some feelings
Chris might take it personal, and demand #350 damages for libelling CUP
hallow lark
Could always get 4 lawyers to defend yourself.
atomic plaza
@fossil basalt Because there wasn't any way to make money before.... It's not like olden mod developers didn't want to make money, they just didn't have ability via YT and Patreon
hallow lark
Not that redux would utilize this being an open source mod, but do you think a subscription service for server side only would draw as much protest as simply allowing full paid for mods the players had to pay for? Could offset part of the costs of BI having to run and manage mod distribution.
fervent needle
You mean like subscription to run the mods on your server or players to join?
fervent needle
Thats not a bad idea but the implementation of it is something that would be the troubled part
It would more have to be authorized server exe
And not starting or not appearing on lists if not approved
hallow lark
Yeah, dont see an easy solution that is not cost prohibitive or useless.
carmine folio
BI manage / run mod distribution ? Kinda curious what you think BI does
Valve does most of the heavy lifting
BI prob has afew hours a week devoted to looking at emails/reports about monitzation infringements
If you are just thinking of ways for addon creators to make money off thier work.
Then its steam workshop paid content (free low quality + high paid quality), with using percentage cut to pay for people to review content before allowed upload. Addon creators get money a month back dataed, incase its someone elses content
Also allows time for users to ask for refund etc
(Although sure lots of people hate the above idea)
But i really think some of the mod markers, are abit strict. For example no fund raising & naming a town after a player etc, ingame product placement etc.
hallow lark
Think the confusion was that i was talking about fixing the current system, which i was not. I was talking about a future mod distribution system that gives full control to BI. The current system run by valve does not.
Could have been more clear
carmine folio
The only thing wrong with current system, is there is no negative results for people that get content dcma alot.
BI isn't going todo mod distribution, way to much bandwidth costs.
Remember alot of time there isn't much bandwidth demands till an update is pushed for a large addon, like CUPs etc
Suddenly the entire player base is downloading the latest update etc
They would have to be completely insane to even attempt it, when Valve got the bandwidth & servers already in place.
BI already has the rights (and the ability) to remove any Arma3 Workshop Content they like (they don't need a reason).
But valve prob doesn't have a system in place for BI to blacklist a user from uploading for a particular game, or BI doesn't have money to waste on manhours to protect other peoples IP.
Also remember Arma3 is pretty much not getting developed anymore i.e nothing major anyways.
It took a year to get updated lighting biki documentation for terrain people
BI is basically focused on Day-SA new engine development, which will then prob be used for Arma4 (assuming it goes ahead etc).
hallow lark
The discussion started going towards arma 4. There will probably not be any active policing of mods outside mod makers filing dmca requests, or Bi taking down illicit mods unless there is some form of compensation for the party tasked with policing.
Hence the suggestion on monetization providing a monetary source to justify the expense.
carmine folio
You are assuming you will be able to host arma4 server privately.
hallow lark
At this point i have no reason to suspect otherwise. I base my discussion on the past two iterations of the arma franchise.
But this whole conversation is assumption anyway considering we do not have much information regarding arma 4.
grand oyster
If you couldn't host an Arma 4 server yourself I imagine it'd drive some people away, it'd definitely put me off a little as I enjoy hosting and learning and helping others with theirs
echo orchid
@carmine folio
BI already has the rights (and the ability) to remove any Arma3 Workshop Content they like (they don't need a reason).
false
carmine folio
It's in workshop argeement
Why bi was able to the workshop cleanup weeks ago. When people did report instead of filing dcmas
echo orchid
the so called clean-up
was actually a lot of DMCAs from BI
BI has not actual removal control
from steam
only steam moderation can remove stuff from SW
carmine folio
Ahh NM re read dcma
Only valve has right to remove
Abit odd would thought game developers would had same right
echo orchid
none have such rights\
so it isn't just BI being treated differently\
also, on addon makers making money (or wanting to make money) today vs 2001
the entire process of making an addon today
is 10 times more complicated than it used to be
in 2001
in short today the process of making any asset
is 100% the same as working in an AAA studio
most addon makers also spend quite a bit of money on the same software is used today in the video game industry, which is quite a sum at the end of each month
so it is only natural that most would want to have a return on investment
little crown
actually, the cleanup wasn't BI filing DCMAs, they simply flagged all those workshop items as 'incompatible' with the game which meant they were still in the workshop but not visible to anyone
Can BI even file DCMAs for other people's work?
fossil basalt
Only the author can file a DMCA iirc.
echo orchid
false
DMCA can be filled by representative of the author as well
and by representative i don't actually mean legal representative in this case
little crown
but an appointed representative. Just not someone who decides with no basis that they represent the author and they know the author's wishes
hence why Dwarden didn't file DCMAs for all that stuff, he had no list of who had and who didn't have permission from all the authors. He basically moderated those from the workshop and asked the uploader to show that they did have permission (which some of them did and they were unmoderated)
echo orchid
yeah of course, just saying that it isn't only the author that can fill DMCAs
although it is easier
fossil basalt
Thanks for the clarification.
minor sonnet
Yep, that makes things a little less fuzzy
mint edge
all in all its a bad situation all around
lol
on a side note is there any way to view any support tickets i send to BI on their site? i had sent a ticket concerning stolen arma assets used in a different game awhile ago, recieved the auto confirmation email but havent seen anything since, past tickets had been answered by what i assume was a person who read it however it hasn't happened yet and this was maybe 2 weeks ago
echo orchid
@mint edge how did you send it?
mint edge
support ticket
contact form
looking at monetization screen which also has a contact button
echo orchid
send it via e-mail
echo orchid
well, i always received a reply on all emails that i sent
nova snow
Is it possible having more than 900 entries reuploaded by this guy?
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1100171217
For sure, inmediatly DMCA'ed without warning (he has been warned into his comment but It seems he deleted it) because it's the second time the guy upload the same modpack.
dull moon
this just means that contents of his item is also avaliable in 900+ other items
nova snow
Yeah, in fact my question was rhetorical... I'm just complaining about that kind of retard..
carmine folio
It just means that 964 of his 1001 (3.7% original) files are found elsewhere on the workshop π
nova snow
@dull moon Easy, just writting all DMCA'ed items into a notepad and periodically visiting it π π
river spear
@dull moon I can make the crawler page spit out a ready to be copy-pasted text which you can use to take down the item
It can contain a list of items that you are the respective owner of or which you are authorized to represent
fossil basalt
Can you tell what date it was uploaded? Like "the offending content was uploaded 52 days ago" or similar?
To fend off the "it was an accident excuse"
dull moon
that's not a problem. valve just wants a short explanation and a link to the original content. but for proof guidence a text header for the text file that one can export from an item that contains a list of all files would be nice. a text header containing information to the item what the text file is from
Item Name:
Workshop URL:
User ID:
Date of file export:
Date of first upload:
Date of last changed:
@fossil basalt yes I can
fossil basalt
The more ammo one has the better (in this situation)
pliant oar
i do wonder, how often happens that someone uploads (to workshop) exactly same data (1:1) for what was before banned/DMCAed
compact merlin
@pliant oar Because there is no penalties for reuplouding of restricted content.
If talk about CIS community life servers segment: since arma 3 alpha all of them created only a few retextures. 99.8% of modpack is stolen content.
Even if someone send a report they simply reupload modpack back to WS or go underground to arma 3 sync or custom launchers.
And the worst part of this story is that no one even wants to try make unique content, because after a week all servers will simply steal this.
The only way to survive in this community - hide a lot of backdoors or hidden bugs in a mod files.
grand gorge
The only way to survive in this community - hide a lot of backdoors or hidden bugs in a mod files.
@compact merlin what? why would you do this?
compact merlin
@grand gorge For example, i created a vehicle mod. After a week other servers simply ctrl+c, ctrl+v this .pbo and sell this vehicle.
What can i do to prevent this? For example put there a animated (source clock hour) brick in geometry lod, which extends and make imposible to drive this car from 2 a.m. to 2 p.m. and servers with different time will have troubles or write a script, which nukes map at 5 p.m. if server name is different from mine
Otherwise fighting with them in legal way is similar to fighting with windmills
grand gorge
but BI have a system to report servers for improper monetisation, why can't you just use that rather than breaking your own mod on purpose?
compact merlin
Because reupload stolen mod back to WS is simple as fuck. Or to A3 Sync, or to launcher.
If BI shutdowns BE - they simply buy a new key. Usualy it costs a much less then income from seling this stolen content.
pliant oar
@compact merlin hence why i asked because that would mean Valve has not even simple hash db+check on those already DMCAed banned items
compact merlin
It looks like there is no such incidents with other games. But in Arma is simpler to set a presumption of guilt by default and create some kind of pre-moderation and separate accounts with good reputation
pliant oar
there are many theft incidents in other games ... don't be naive thinking it's just Arma problem
carmine folio
Relatively easy to alter a pbo to bybass a hash check. i.e Unpacking pbo & repacking with/without timestamps (would prob work most of the time)
I doubt valve does a hash check, since it might cause issues when someone has permission to use someone elses assets in another workshop addon.
dull moon
@pliant oar
i do wonder, how often happens that someone uploads (to workshop) exactly same data (1:1) for what was before banned/DMCAed
i got some candidates who are close to their 3rd DMCA strike for reuploading the exact same content.
and valve doesn't even check the reported item. at least it feels like. i think they simply remove the reported item, send the user a DMCA letter and wait for a counter claim. if no counter claim is filed, the item stays removed
and since our crawler gods have reenabled the function to search for file names and not just hash matches, i got some work for today. filing 100+ DMCAs for resigned and repacked content that didn't pop up earlier
let's see how many of those are repeat offenders
nova snow
Someone have realized when Crawler detects reuploaded content but when manually downloading it then no such file is found? It happens to me 2 times :/
dull moon
this might happen if they updated the item before the crawler ran a new circle
but at least you got proof (when you downloaded the file list) that they actually had your content uploaded at that time before
and the crawler proof guiding might not stand a law suit, but that is what the datalogging from valve is for
if it comes down to that
but that won't happen, because they actually did violate the steam eula at one point and there fore are guilty and dumb if they move to court for that
river spear
@nova snow The crawler gets its information directly from Steam
Steam passes a summary of files to it, so if the crawler finds a match (by hash) the item definitely contained some things
dull moon
But like i said, this is not realtime. Once the item content changed after a cycle run it won't show the changes. One would need to wait time X for a new index run of the crawler db
keen trout
@river spear may I ask which API feeds the list of files? π
nova snow
I'm not sure about that, I think it search for the historical data of the item as well, meaning if even the user has deleted those .pbo, crawler will keep warning because it keeps checking all information of the data, incluiding obsoleted and past version(?).
As a proof, check for http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=820994401 item (mine), and see the "The Crazy Tigers - Extension" item, It says there are two .pbo uploaded, and it says the same item! (ffaa_rapel.pbo), which it's supposed to be wrong (there is no way to have the same file in the same folder). Manually downloading the item to found where "ffaa_rapel.pbo" is and no success finding it ..
river spear
@nova snow The crawler currently keeps all versions of workshop items in the database
I will change that back to only the current version, mainly because indexing history data produces a lot of data
nova snow
Good π
compact merlin
DayZ SA server with "stalker" mods and keylogger in their launcher
https://vk.com/adt_68
https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/91fd7359998b56384031845e2a1478fbab6adb547142cc15e906ca1a3d5d51f1/analysis/
fickle ivy
@pliant oar theft in other games yes, but are there many other games that allow monetization of servers? I would think that it's the monetization that amplifies this 'hoarder' and "me against them" mentality - because they can easily make money on the back of other peoples work.
grand gorge
I feel like that's the wrong way to look at it....people monetise servers in all sorts of games and mods. BI are trying to legitimise this for select servers. they're not necessarily encouraging or enabling it (people would do it anyway) but they are setting a kind of precedent by attempting to do it in a fair way.
are there many other games that allow monetization of servers?
you could also ask "are there any other games whose developers have a passing interest in supporting modders' IP rights?"
fickle ivy
one has nothing to do with the other. Many monetized servers on BI's list had used stolen shit for a long time in the past. When contacted they said "is it your mod? No? Ok I will ask them if they own it legitemately" "ok they said it's legit, so its not our problem"
pliant oar
@fickle ivy Many monetized servers on BI's list had used stolen there email to report those to ... the process to vet that takes time ...
@grand gorge the amount of IP theft and abuse of $ before monetizing rules wasn't lower nor higher ... it was always there ... it just went visible in era of 'equipment hoarding' gamemodes and similar
fickle ivy
as i said, thats the response i got in the past so i drew my conclusions and stopped wasting my time with this bs
grand gorge
the amount of IP theft and abuse of $ before monetizing rules wasn't lower nor higher ... it was always there ...
I figured as much. I feel like the whole situation is amplified in the arma scene because of the wide demographic - many of us are modders ourselves and have a vested interest in IP rights, but there's even more who don't know what a DMCA even is or why "their" workshop upload is getting hit with one.
fossil basalt
The fuel that fans the flames are those who just " dont care"
minor sonnet
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1101021600 <-- straight up says on description that it's a forza 3 rip
derp
mint edge
why is there like arabic in the "cant look at this model" disclaimer hes got going lmao
glacial atlas
@minor sonnet i've seen a lot of ports of content from one game to another
so I really don't see the issue here
like reuploading someone else's mod i get
mint edge
if the game in question does not allow porting then you cant port it to arma
dull moon
so I really don't see the issue here```
just because many do it doesn't make it rightif the source game allows cross ports, then it's ok. otherwise, like CM mentioned, it's just bullshit
@glacial atlas
glacial atlas
this is forza motorsport 3 we're talking here
dull moon
so? is it allowed or not?
mint edge
if there is no written permission from the developers of the game
then it is a definite NO and it is illegal
mint edge
well all the life assholes port forza vehicles so id like to assume they have it written somewhere that this is allowed
but idk its unlikely
glacial atlas
i didn't know there was such a crossover between forza players and arma players
mint edge
theres not
people steal assets wherever they can because internet
odds are alot of them dont even own the game and just find the meshes and textures on some sketchy hack website
or some shit
dull moon
β
thorn gate
There's a certain genre of Arma players (cough) who want more civilian content regardless of where it comes from, and racing games tend to have an ample supply of civilian vehicles.
dull moon
they have all the tools and tutorials they need to create kick ass civilian content WITHOUT stealing and ripping other stuff apart...
just sayin'
minor sonnet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Horizon_3
I'm fairly certain if Microsoft Studios and/or the developers caught whiff of all the goddamned stealing from their games fromt he Arma community they'd go after BI. So then, what happens then?
And these shit heads that do it don't give a rats ass what happens to BI or Arma or the modding community
dull moon
i don't think that other major publisher/creators will go after BI directly. i guess they will go for the violator himself
also this would have almost no impact on the legit modding community imo
minor sonnet
Really? I mean if it was just an isolated case and the content blew up and everyone was using it maybe. But I've seen probably at least a dozen different "mods" where people have ported Forza Horizon 3 content.
dull moon
it's better to sue 50 dipshits for let's assume 25.000 each then one company for 100.000 -> profit ;)
(fictional numbers tho)
one of the reasons the music industry goes for the individual, not the distributing sites
soft egret
@dull moon they have all the tools and tutorials they need to create kick ass civilian content WITHOUT stealing and ripping other stuff apart
Was that kickass in there an accident? π
He as alot of other cars that look kinda dope too. And according to comments he used to redistribute them as ebo's
glacial atlas
why would microsoft chase a company for a 3rd party's content
that doesn't make legal sense afaik
inform me
echo orchid
@glacial atlas are you on drugs?
[5:52 AM] Greensnack: so I really don't see the issue here
[5:53 AM] Greensnack: like reuploading someone else's mod i get```or just ignorant?
cold pasture
Keep it civil, compas.
BTW, IANAL but I do understand that in certain jurisdictions there is a requirement for IP holders to make regular and reasonable efforts to go after transgressors in order to maintain their control of IP. Otherwise, future defences can be undermined.
grand gorge
isn't that just for trademark law? you can't undermine someone's ownership of their own IP.
cold pasture
Can't recall. I just remember it being an issue that was flagged to me at work once.
You may well be right @grand gorge
little crown
that only applies to trademarks, not copyright
the difference being that someone can independently come up with the same name/logo for their business and be using it without knowingly infringing on your trademark. Therefore it's unreasonable to come to them 10 years after they've built their business around that branding and demand compensation or that they change their brand. However it's not possible for someone to unknowingly use your music/text/artwork etc
dull moon
@soft egret
not related to the modder
cold pasture
Thanks for the clarification @little crown
minor sonnet
why would microsoft chase a company for a 3rd party's content I'd imagine if they were informed about the revenue that some life servers were pulling in using their content they'd be interested in getting involved. $$$
pliant oar
why would they bother with BI when they could by that logic sue Valve for Gmod mods using MS content, right ?
mint edge
logic wins again
amber eagle
I gotta say though at least ArmA's life communities aren't as bad as gmod. Gmod is a cesspool of talentless scumbags.
oops, did I say that out loud?
dull moon
@amber eagle
think again...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7szfaHIJkpjRWZveWtMSDhzZXc/view?usp=sharing
minor sonnet
@pliant oar I'd imagine it would be more lucrative if they went after individuals whose accounts were claiming to be the "authors"
I mean if the RIAA could do it.. =p
Actually going after individuals via steam account would probably be way more accurate than phishing for ips.
Probably not using the correct terminology there..
amber eagle
@dull moon Are you saying people reuploaded your mod 47 times? Is that from the crawler?
minor sonnet
Thats probably after theyd already filed dozens of dcmas and had them pulled down, Id wager.
The same people will just repeatedly upload them.
dull moon
@amber eagle
jup
and as far as i can see they are all lake or life modpacks
to give you a rough idea, i got an average of round about 25-35 takedowns a month
and this is sad.... very sad
amber eagle
What is your mod?
dull moon
CUP
amber eagle
All this makes me not want to continue releasing mods
lol
CUP is popular
Can you all please update the M16A2s? lol
dull moon
it is indeed (and to be fair it's not just mine, it's the effort of many ^^)
what about them?
amber eagle
They could use an update like what the SAWs got
amber eagle
textures atleast, model possibly
dull moon
you got models and textures?
if somebody contributes/donates models then yes, otherwise you'd have to wait ^^
but this is not the place for this topic
amber eagle
I know. We'll talk later. Maybe I can atleast redo the textures for you all.
dull moon
we'd be happy. are you on the cup discord?
amber eagle
Yea, I'll jump over there
echo orchid
someone other than cup is doing an m16a2 as well π
i mean from scratch π
but wrong channel my bad
mint edge
off topic i bought one for 30 bucks to do lmao
better then trying to steal one or use the dated a2 models
keen trout
for #350 someone could probably make one!
ornate maple
lol meta
neon crater
@keen trout Only 16, I'm not a kid
dull moon
Was that a #350 reference?
little crown
Pay me #350 and I'll tell you
keen trout
π
proud flicker
Someone mentioned an M16A2 for #350? I'd offer mine. π
dull moon
well, we never talked about what "#" is ;)
i'd say pesos ^^
little crown
not waffles?
proud flicker
Does anyone know how aggressive EA is about their CnC IP? The idea of making a CnC mod (Tiberium universe) is more and more appealing to me.
dull moon
the gamemode itself is not protected afaik looking at all the other strategy games using it. are you asking because of models?
blazing wyvern
As a EA they are agressive with the IPs but i am not sure about C&C which they ruined
technically you could "clone" it
dull moon
isn't the arma mobile game app thingy the same as C&C...? sort of?
proud flicker
Not asking about RTS concept, but specifically the universe styling and story.
soft egret
Considering OpenRA. They seem to not be that aggressive
blazing wyvern
disney and lucas are different beasts , same with nintendo too
proud flicker
Any of the big media groups (MGM too) will definitely jump on you, but in this case it's a different video game company. Also, as long as there is no ripped content it would be basically "fan art".
dull moon
true... call it "reign&rush" ^^
keen trout
EA shut down a CnC VR RTS game a few months ago
blazing wyvern
fan made?
proud flicker
Oh damn. Thanks for that info.
blazing wyvern
well that might have been that guy wanted a VR game and sell it
while we are unable to authorize your request to distribute a remake VR version of our Red Alert 2 game, regardless of whether it is commercial. is interesting
soft egret
You could just ask the OpenRA guys. I'm sure they have info on that
keen trout
If they haven't changed it since last time I looked they contain no assets at all, it's just an engine
they import all assets from the free C&C/RA games on Origin or from your bought copy of the supported games
all PRs with contains assets etc is rejected
there were a lot of discussion regarding something with Tiberium Sun or RA2 in regards to that
but I can't remember what
so OpenRA just mostly just a game engine mimicking the different C&C games behaviour
soft egret
Their client downloads the assets automatically from an external server. I don't know who owns that though
But they have a inbuilt mechanism to download assets even if you don't own the game
jade tartan
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1105440101 Deep Zone is back on the workshop. For those of you that don't know this mod was released a while back but got taken down quickly because it includes ripped assets from DayZ and several other games
amber eagle
oh goodie, who will get to DMCA it first?
I'm so excited, I can't wait until I get home!
dull moon
the content list to said mod
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7szfaHIJkpjekR6bUVEci14WUE/view?usp=sharing
who is jsrs beside LJ?
hallow lark
Contains KA stuff. lol. TFR, JSRS, HLC, MOCAP, ZEE Identity pack, Enhanced Movement, CBA, Bnae's Arsenal, Ares mod achilles expansion, A2C,
You beat me to it.
amber eagle
I'm sure the psgt is my stuff
pr pasgt
or* pasgt
Time to dust off my pre-written DCMA notice...though honestly it's not that dusty
mint edge
that deep zone mod is 5.5gb wtf...
dull moon
that's nothing... the biggest pack i had to take down was almost 30gig
grand oyster
coughs http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=974762691
Still got same as before I'm pretty sure although some details have changed