At a purely materialistic level, it would seem odd that model makers are more parental about their productions that, for example, mission makers. Back in the real world of course, it's plain and obvious.
Mission making may take longer than a model, but there are many more mission makers than there are model makers, partly because mission making is easier because we are given most of the tools straight away. However, there's much more to an addon than the model.
Documentation is not a dirty word.
: TeamSPAFF : PRACS : RKSL : Stella Artois : Creme Eggs : GITS :
![[APS]Gnat's Avatar](image.php?s=da4ab131a43d8597c61a4bba63235569&u=47189&dateline=1323956732 "[APS]Gnat's Avatar")
Sure, but "back in the real world" no ones ever likely to make cash from your hard work on a mission, but after a bunch of hard work on a 3d object some prick may rip it, call it his own, and make nice little cash wad out of it.Originally Posted by Tankbuster
My "hobby" is free for this community, but not for a minute do I consider it "free for the world".
+1
On a related note, I am near to a humble release of my own - a mines/IEDs package. My impression is that BI would like to make a somewhat formal structure for community licenses? Would there be someone within BI management to contact as a liaison regarding beginning to implement such a structure? I'd be very willing to take a step down that road by incorporating a Creative Commons license in my upcoming release.
I think part of that is because mission makers may not be as familiar with IP rights as modelers, partly because it is not as clear cut. If you regard a mission as a "story," there may indeed be some IP rights that attach to it as a creative work. Personally, I'd encourage mission-makers to seriously consider using such a license, also. Otherwise, they could see one of their "stories" appear in a commercial product.Mission making may take longer than a model, but there are many more mission makers than there are model makers, partly because mission making is easier because we are given most of the tools straight away. However, there's much more to an addon than the model.
Last edited by TRexian; Aug 19 2010 at 14:40.
-----------<T>----------
Creator of: JTD_buildingSearch, JTD Ambient Civilian Traffic Module (beta ver. 2) and JTD Mines (ver. 05a).
Righty, it seems I've been, in roughly equal quantities, talking bollocks and misunderstood.
In conversation with a mod maker, I understood that making the model, ie, the basic grey object, was a quick and straightforward process and formed a minor part of the whole addon creation process. However, I misunderstood what said mod maker was telling me and I now appreciate and understand that this part of addon making is rather longer than I thought.
My comments above should be reappraised in light of my now better understanding the creative process better.
Thanks.
hehe
Very mature post!
For me, I kinda have a foot in both worlds - I enjoy making missions, and mods. They are just different. Kinda like the difference between decorating using art, and actually making the art.
But I have to quarrel a bit with this:
Whoever said that has never seen me try to model.... making the model, ie, the basic grey object, was a quick and straightforward process...
What a thread for me to make my first post, being such a volitile topic. But I figured maybe an outside perspective might a bit less subjective.
I'm looking to get back into the modding scene after nearly 4 years out of it, and I returned to my old game, BF2 dare I say. And sure enough, the community really hasn't changed other than to dwindle, due to a lack of support from the makers, and so far no prospects of a new editor.
Then recently a fellow clan member mentioned ArmA and Project Reality. Though Ii had played PR a little years ago, I wasn't really familiar with ArmA. Never gave it a second look because in 2006 I was basically happy with the gameplay of BF2 and really wasn't looking at playing anything else because I had not found a FPS with the game style I liked, and I'm surely not into the "run around with your hair on fire lone wolf" style of some certain games I think we all know.
So, I go take a look at ArmA really for the first time. Right out of the box folks, I stand and applaud your community from what I see so far. Looks very professional and people seem to actually reply to questions with answers rather than some nasty comment about using a search function. Very refreshing. Isn't a forum suppose to be for people helping people and generally interacting on a given topic to make something that anyone can enjoy? I mean seriously, Where else does a person get sincere questions answered if the active people in a forum badger people for bring up old topics and threads? MAYBE they should reorganize their forums, and maybe update tutorials and such. Just a thought.
So I digress, but that is partly why I'm now stepping into the world of ArmA for the first time, and considering it as the game to mod for to replace the Battlefield series.
About ArmA, it looks great from what I've seen in the photo thread. And there seems to be decent info in the forums too. The solutions found in the forums reflects what the community is like. Better answers means more people actually care about doing things right as reflected in this very thread.
Having BA in Digital Animation/Multimedia(modeler/texture artist, though I think I should have focused on level design instead), I can fully relate to the thread topic. And as I have read this thread, the moral of the story has slowly evolved down to one certain fact; If BI wants to protect their assets, they must maintain control over the entire situation. Once you toss stuff out there on the internet, it's very tough to keep it close to the vest, that's just an unfortunate fact. So what do we do?
For BI, it seems to me that like one person said, get closer control of modders and manage them closer. They also must acknowledge that they can't release stuff and keep it all protected fully. Some will get out at times, so the thing would be to not try to block the implementation of said assets, but rather implement a restrictive process of those assets operating on a given server. Sitting at home using stolen assets in a single player has it's limits. People want to game online with friends, and that is where those assets will be used most, in multiplayer mods.
So the protection I think should be focused on the end use side, and not as much on the development side. Coders figure things out. That's what they do fortunately. If they didn't, none of us would enjoy video games. Just block the use of a given mod from running on servers that are BI-approved servers. If the mod passes a kind of BI inspection, then it can be released by the approved mod team to be placed on approved BI servers.
Ultimately, BI and other game companies need to ask themselves just how serious they want to be about allowing mods, maps, and custom content to be used with their base game structure. I think a company must be either fully commtted, or fully out of modding completely.
An approval process in some way will have to exist to begin to get things under some kind of content use control. Having license documentation is only part of it. You must exercise that license for it to mean anything. That goes for anyone that creates original content of any type. That in my opinion is the burden of being original.
That happens here too, just because we are friendlier here doesn't mean we go through the trouble to dig up what has been written a thousand times before, or write it down again, just because someone can't be bothered to search for it himself
About the last 4 paragraphs, when BIS first released tools for modeling in OFP, they only gave it to people that showed talent, and sent them a certificate of sorts with an access code to use it. They did control access more closely before, but I'm not sure there are that many good ways to do it again. It wasn't until they stopped the limited distribution, and opened the program up to everyone, that the modding of OFP really took off in a massive way. Any kind of access control would mostly trouble new addonmakers, it wouldn't stop thieves.
Welcome to our little corner of the world. Thanks for the comments.
No, sorry, I have to disagree.
There are many reasons this is not the "BIS Success Formula", especially because it flys in the face of how large OFP and ArmA grew (and grows!) from a Indi developer, with a huge fanbased free addons community.
..... and it would create Elitism.
Hate, Hate, Hate those who lock themselves away, pretend they are the leaders and hord any new knowledge.
The Open community formula (as seen in these forums), is open for all to start an addon or a mod, open to start a server, open to help others.
No strings attached.
No, I think BIS truely proved you can run down the middle of that.
Sure, its not all roses, but to date (7+ years !! ) its worked well.
I hear ya. I don't advocate elitism for sure. openness is a good thing as it really does take a team effort to get things done. But at the same time, restricting the use of something could be construed as a form of elitism. But in this case it's just protecting property rights and thus restrictions and limitations are warranted. The key is in how you exercise those restrictions.Hate, Hate, Hate those who lock themselves away, pretend they are the leaders and hord any new knowledge.
The Open community formula (as seen in these forums), is open for all to start an addon or a mod, open to start a server, open to help others.
No strings attached.
The more open your front door is, the greater the chance of a fly getting in.
#1 sounds like a concept of some greedy managers/beancounters to grab ideas and to keep this content "out of sight" from public mp until its announced as paid Boosterpack/DLC/...
#2 sounds like console marketing - community made content is very restricted or not allowed to make + use by developers/publishers.
#3 sounds like BIS has to burn time & money - only to "approve" the work and the changes made by modders/scripters.
A fly, Sir, may sting a stately horse and make him wince; but, one is but an insect, and the other is a horse still. (Samuel Johnson)
HOME 
Reply With Quote
