While I find myself vehemently disagreeing with the OP Temphage because the language used is ignorant and inflammatory at best and dishonest at worst, he does hit on a interesting point:
Community content does influence long term sales.
Not an unfair statement, I have been well aware for years that I didn't just buy Half-Life because it was a very fun game, but because of all the cool community mods, like say Natural Selection, Day of Defeat, Sven Coop, and Counter-Strike to just name a few. Valve has totally noticed the flood gates they opened with Half-Life and done their best to bank on it and not surprisingly other games have tried to follow suit.
Ok, so if a small lump sum, credits, community accolades, and industry recognition doesn't fully fit the bill, may I suggest an idea? Now, I am not sure how this would work exactly because I am sure lawyers would be involved on some level since it would essentially be a contract, but what about some sort of shares and dividends, to represent minuscule profit sharing? No, not like royalties for everytime a map is played but an incentive to see Unknown Worlds profit on the sales of their game and provide continued support from the mapper for a map as the game updates?
Ugh, not sure if I am saying it right but I hope it makes some sense. Make it like the mappers are tiny micro investors or business partners or employees, maybe? The idea being, the better Unknown Worlds does, the better its community content providers do too?
Oh well, forget it, the Angel investors probably wouldn't sign off on the idea, they gotta get their return on investment too. I just hope the intent of seeing everyone in the community do well comes through in my post.
Yes, adding community-made maps does affect long term sales.
But that doesn't mean that mappers need to be paid in royalties rather than a lump sum. They could, but it's unlikely. Just like how game companies outsource some of their art requirements (like getting companies such as Liquid Development to make a bunch of assets for Fallout 3 and Killzone 2), but pay a flat fee. It's the nature of the business, and people are always available for contract work.
It's often a better business decision to pay a higher lump fee rather than a low one tied to royalties.
<!--quoteo(post=1741524:date=Nov 29 2009, 01:51 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Nov 29 2009, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741524"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's often a better business decision to pay a higher lump fee rather than a low one tied to <b>royalties</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate that, that is why I was trying to suggest something other than a royalty. Shareholders get dividends but only if the business they have a share(s) in profits, I hope I am correct in that assessment seeing as I own no shares in anything. If the incentive is to see Unknown Worlds profit, it would mean that "official" mappers would want to boost sales of the game, doing what they can to make that happen, no different than the Angel investors, I would think. I am just trying to propose a sort of "all for one, one for all" approach, hope that makes some sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1741443:date=Nov 29 2009, 01:11 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Temphage @ Nov 29 2009, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741443"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seeing as how this argument appears to have turned to OPPOSITION of NS2 community mappers getting anything at all, I'll say I still don't get it. As was agreed earlier, Valve throws in community maps and advertises them everywhere, this in turn gets them sales - a not insignificant number of them. When I do a map for Dystopia or NS1, there's no sales, so it's not like I should expect anything. But why should working as a freelance mapper provide no slice of the pie? Do freelance reporters work for free? They're not staff employees, so whenever they sell an article to the New York Times, the editor reviews it, says it's worthy, and throws them a wad of cash.
What Nem0 is talking about is a paid job in the industry - but you don't need any past experience to produce the results of a good map - you simply play the map. Again, this is the difference between a freelance writer and a staff writer - a staff writer is paid more, because they expect consistent results. The freelance writer they don't really know (though assumedly their name gets known) and work with on a per-article basis.
So <i>where the hell is the distinction</i>. Are you saying NS2 isn't a product of love because Flayra has the balls to demand we pay for it? I hope you're warming up uTorrent right now. Why does NS2 deserve a pricetag, but a map they are interested in does not? For that matter, why does KFS deserve to be paid either?
It's safe to say most people love what they do, which is why they do it. Why should that change whether you get paid for your works or not? As the point of UWE paying mappers is a moot one as it's revealed that they will, why such staunch opposition to this? You clearly all hate the ###### out of me because I dare even bring this up, so why not direct your ire at UWE themselves for even DREAMING to do such an unspeakable thing? Clearly they're on board with me on this one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freelance writers don't as far as I know, simply write articles at random and then wave them at publishers and try and get them to buy them off them. It would make more sense if you do a deal to write an article and get paid for it on completion, if for example you have some expertise in the subject of the article.
If you can make money by doing the former, grand, but my point is not that you should morally not make money doing that, my point is that it doesn't seem very likely that you will.
If the NS2 devs come out and say 'we're holding a mapping contest because we want some more maps, the best 3 get included in the next version of NS2 and you get $150 each' then that would be fine, because that's basically like advertising for a job you want done, but simply mapping without any arranged payment or even any hint that your map will be included and then expecting compensation for it is not practical. It's like mowing everyone's lawn and then demanding they pay for it afterwards, who's to say they wanted you to do it in the first place? Or in the context of maps, who's to say your map is good enough to merit payment? It might be good enough to distribute, but that does not mean it's good enough to pay for.
<!--quoteo(post=1741486:date=Nov 29 2009, 03:26 PM:name=Fortune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fortune @ Nov 29 2009, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best bit about is that it's been confirmed countless time you'll get your 'compensation', why should it matter to you if we don't care about money?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, here's what your problem is. We've already established on the FIRST PAGE that the whole money-for-maps plan may still be on the table. You've already bored me with that fact more than once. Yet you continue to brow-beat the same insipid posts over and over, which tells me that even though they're still going to do it (which was unknown to me at the time I made this thread), you still think it's completely wrong and utterly ridiculous that they ARE doing it, and assumedly would hate anyone who accepted the cash. Are you still stuck in the asinine idea that this is a Source mod?
The best part was when I brought up royalties, or in fact, any lawsuit that has ever happened in the history of forever about people making money off someone else's work, you dismissed it as a 'bad analogy'.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Should we be compensated for going to school? Usually we pay for that kind of education, I don't know about a Steel Mill, but try being a plumber or electrician without the neccessary training.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's talk about bad analogies - a lot of places offer to help pay for education, be it jobs looking for people, foundations seeking investments, or even via government grants.
-Promoting/allowing community map-making helps the developers (with more content and thereby possibly more sales)
-The community <b>wants</b> to create their own maps, and play community-created maps.
Whats the problem here?
Compensation aside (which has been covered plenty of times, WILL be provided), whats wrong with mutal benefit? Just because the developers are getting something out of this as well doesn't make it "evil." Are you saying that the benefit should be exclusive to the community/buyers of the game, and because its not, therefore its bad and immoral?
I seem to remember part of the outrage of MW2 being due the community being UNABLE to make their own maps and content for the game. They were denied this, and went crazy. Seems to make a pretty clear point...
and
<!--quoteo(post=1741574:date=Nov 29 2009, 10:26 PM:name=BigD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BigD @ Nov 29 2009, 10:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Temphage, do you work for a union?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean, UWE doesn't need to release modder's maps to the community. They could remain obscure and poorly played. Most mappers actually aspire to have their maps become popular, not that one day the company will pay them for the map they made. The system is perfectly fair, even in Valve's case, because they go out and ask if the original mapper wants it released. The idea of a developer actually having to even compensate anyone for something built on and designed to work within their technology is a bit absurd, because without the game you have essentially created nothing.
<!--quoteo(post=1741579:date=Nov 29 2009, 10:51 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PSA @ Nov 29 2009, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-Promoting/allowing community map-making helps the developers (with more content and thereby possibly more sales)
-The community <b>wants</b> to create their own maps, and play community-created maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Two facts here:
1) The overwhelming majority of community maps are abysmal. In NS1, the number of non-combat non-siege and actually FINISHED maps was very, very few. Of these few, only a rare handful were worth anything in playing.
2) Community map servers are rarely found and rarely played. This was especially true in NS as you'd just get booted from a server for lack of one, but even with Steam's download-the-map feature, community map servers are rare. In interesting scenario somewhat analogous to this is any game with pay-for maps, be it via expansion pack or map packs. While you may buy the maps, you have to rely on enough people also having it, otherwise you just see the extra maps get voted out of cycle whenever they come up. I was watching a friend playing COD5 and asked him why a certain map was voted out instantly and he responded that it was a pay-for map that nobody had, which defeats the entire point of buying the pack.
A map becoming 'official' means it is distributed to EVERYONE via patch and also has the stamp of approval that it's worth a damn, as 99% of the public doesn't give a crap about wasting time hunting down an obscure map only to find out that all three hives can be sieged from the marine spawn.
That is a hell of a lot more than simply slapping your lousy map up on rapidshare and hoping everyone plays it. They get sales, we get an incentive to make some badass maps. It's win-win, only less one-sided. I've yet to actually hear a compelling argument as to why mappers do NOT deserve fair compensation, or how the NS2 product itself doesn't somehow fall under the same justifications applied to why official mapping should be done free.
Fine, let's say I agree with whatever you're saying 100%. What should change? What do you want done differently? If you were in charge, what would you do right now instead of what is already going on?
<!--quoteo(post=1741586:date=Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fine, let's say I agree with whatever you're saying 100%. What should change? What do you want done differently? If you were in charge, what would you do right now instead of what is already going on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reaffirm the plan?
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".
<!--quoteo(post=1741587:date=Nov 29 2009, 06:13 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Temphage @ Nov 29 2009, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reaffirm the plan?
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So... there we go then. Plan reaffirmed, everyone's happy, thread over. Hooray!
<!--quoteo(post=1741578:date=Nov 29 2009, 10:49 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Temphage @ Nov 29 2009, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See, here's what your problem is. We've already established on the FIRST PAGE that the whole money-for-maps plan may still be on the table. You've already bored me with that fact more than once. Yet you continue to brow-beat the same insipid posts over and over, which tells me that even though they're still going to do it (which was unknown to me at the time I made this thread), you still think it's completely wrong and utterly ridiculous that they ARE doing it, and assumedly would hate anyone who accepted the cash. Are you still stuck in the asinine idea that this is a Source mod?
The best part was when I brought up royalties, or in fact, any lawsuit that has ever happened in the history of forever about people making money off someone else's work, you dismissed it as a 'bad analogy'. Let's talk about bad analogies - a lot of places offer to help pay for education, be it jobs looking for people, foundations seeking investments, or even via government grants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And where exactly did I say 'it's completely wrong and utterly ridiculous that they ARE doing it' and 'would hate anyone who accepted the cash'? Hey guess what! I didn't. You can argue my points but don't make them up.
Speaking of points, I repeat myself over and over in the hopes that you'll actually <i>listen</i> to what I'm saying, which from the above post is obviously not the case, you seem to dismiss the majority of posts on here and rage about a stream of changing topics that it's hard to grasp what you're actually trying to argue. You go from how game companies 'exploit' community mappers, which was pointed out to you multiple times, was not the case. You then carry on about comparing artists rights in the music industry to level designers which just isn't quite the same at all (Hint: Music artists can stand to make or lose millions with a career choice, level designers are a cog in the machine and usually work in an office based team). Throw in disagreeing to everyone, as well as making up things entirely in some cases and we have your thread.
Oh and my analogy was bad? Well I'm glad you pointed out that criticism so I can address it. You're right in that the industry giants do not offer to help pay for education, BUT some release their tools for free, for non commercial/educational use, which means you can learn for free and not splash out a few thousand. Epic did this recently with the UDK. I've also heard of some studios sporting their own education/work experience. Oh and I think government grants could apply to the game design courses in college/university depending on your situation. But really modding/level design/prop making can usually be done for free thanks to a handful of gaming companies aiming to revitalise the industry. Free education... kinda sounds like school right? Or okay, how about you need some money and education, ah well that's just the same as having a job and going to college.
And for the record, I hope you make an amazing map which UWE gives you a few thousand for ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1741587:date=Nov 29 2009, 11:13 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Temphage @ Nov 29 2009, 11:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reaffirm the plan?
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Temphage - "Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".
Could you provide some quotations on who actually presented that argument?
I've got to say, you're beat. Give it up.
I'm not trying to be abusive but you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this argument. You sound like someone that is too vain to admit that he is wrong. I still have yet to read you conceding to anything with the possible exception of the "UWE will actually pay for the maps" point. It's okay. You started with a pretty decent point that made a lot of people think. Now the community that you are saying is being taken advantage of is telling you that no one is being cheated but you don't seem to be listening.
This kinda reminds me of a lot of arguments I've had with my girlfreind. I know I'm beat.....but for some reason I don't realize it until we're both frustrated and tired...
BadMouthIt ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titlJoin Date: 2004-05-21Member: 28815Members
I think Temphage's argument is that mappers should be compensated fairly, when the game company uses community made maps. So I think the crux of the issue here is what constitutes "fairness"? To be able to decide on this issue, the relationship between the mapper and the game company must be looked at. In the current situation, Temphage is talking about companies taking maps from the community mappers, instead of having a few level designers to make maps by themselves. For the community mappers, they are not contracted by the gaming company in any way and they have no obligation to make maps for the company. Anything they produce of their own initiative, and it can be said that most mappers, when creating a map, did not create the map to be sold. So when the game company sees that map doing well, is well designed and is popular, or for whatever reason just likes it, and wants to acquire it, should the mapper be compensated?
My answer would be yes, and it is generally the case in most situations in present day where community mappers are compensated for their maps to be used in the official game. The reasoning behind this is that I believe the maps to be part of intellectual property, and that the mapper is selling off those intellectual property rights. While the mapper did not create the tools that allowed him to create the maps, he did create the map itself, which the tool creator could not have done, or at least, could not have done to the same standard. To take an analogy, it would be ridiculous to say that a writer using a pen does not own the work he writes, simply because he did not create the pen. And that the written piece of work should belong to the creator of the pen.
There are arguments that the writer bought the pen and thus, he owns the rights of whatever the pen creates. So let's take another scenario, where the pen is given away for free, or is lent to the writer. Would it make the outcome any different? I don't think so, since the creator of the pen simply created the tool, and not the written work itself. It would be a different case, however, if the creator had given or lent the pen to the writer, with the intention that the writer creates a written piece of work for him.
Bringing it back to the present case, there is clearly no intention of the gaming companies that the community mappers should create maps for them. They have sold/given out/lent out the tools to community mappers and whatever the mappers create is of their own skill and effort. So the maps definitely belongs to the mappers. Thus, should the game company wish to acquire a map from a community mapper, and release it with an official version/patch of the game, the mapper ought to be paid for his intellectual property.
So what would be "fair" compensation? I do no think that fair compensation is a percentage of game sales boosted by the inclusion of new maps. The reasoning behind this is because the game company did not contract the mapper to create a map. The creation of the map is "past". One cannot expect to say "I created something something for fun, and now that it is created, I expect to be paid for it, even if nobody asked for it". I look at maps as intellectual property, instead of actual products themselves, and usually, when one buys intellectual property rights, one usually purchases it with a one-shot payment. Of course, there are cases where sellers of intellectual property do sell their intellectual property off at a percentage of total sales. But would this application be feasible in the gaming industry concerning community mappers? Definitely not, as it would put too much financial pressure on the gaming company. So a good compromise would be a one shot payment to the mapper, to ask for the rights to use the map. Also, the mapper would benefit in reputation and though it may not be a financial benefit, it would be a practical benefit and that should not be overlooked.
Considering another situation where the mapper creates a map, and intends to sell if off, but has no contractual ties with the game company. I don't think the situation would be any different simply because there is no contractual relationship. It is very much like the situation in a marketplace, where hawkers create items with the intention of selling them, but prospective buyers are not obliged to buy simply because they have looked at the item. Furthermore, it would be difficult to differentiate between people who genuinely created the map with the intention of selling it, and the people who created a map as a hobby or for fun, and then claimed the intention of selling it.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the issue on if the game company inserts a clause in their map making tool, saying that all maps created would be of their property, and that they do not need to compensate mappers for it. If this happens, I would think that the maps should still belong to the community mappers. Such a clause is insanely unfair to the mappers since it allows for over-reaching claims by the game company. I sincerely doubt anybody would uphold such a clause, for the reasons I have stated above.
I would also like to invite Temphage to give an answer as to what he considers "fair" compensation, keeping in mind that it should be fair to both the mappers, and the game companies.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You go from how game companies 'exploit' community mappers, which was pointed out to you multiple times, was not the case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree, but then this argument would turn into a general one about worker's unions, fair pay and the structural inequalities of todays economy. And since the majority of active posters on this forum seems to be part of the american right I'll just leave it be.
Oh hell I can't just leave it be.. the parts of the labour market are not equal, and thus any argument about "supply and demand" on that market is pretty moot. It's like someone telling you you have to pay to breathe, and if you don't you get suffocated. The demand is high, so they should be allowed to ask what they want, right? Or perhaps not.
That's not to say the gaming companies themselves are to blame, or the individuals running the gaming companies. The system works the way it does at the moment, and we all have to get on living despite it. It's still a ###### situation though.
<!--quoteo(post=1741640:date=Nov 30 2009, 12:41 AM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BadMouth @ Nov 30 2009, 12:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741640"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are arguments that the writer bought the pen and thus, he owns the rights of whatever the pen creates. So let's take another scenario, where the pen is given away for free, or is lent to the writer. Would it make the outcome any different? I don't think so, since the creator of the pen simply created the tool, and not the written work itself. It would be a different case, however, if the creator had given or lent the pen to the writer, with the intention that the writer creates a written piece of work for him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And what about the case where the company insists that you not use the pen unless you're willing to give the rights to whatever you create with it? They don't have the intention that you create for them, but anything you do create with that pen, they can then use as their own. Can a writer agree to those terms, use the pen, and then decide they don't want to let the pen maker use their writing? Personally, I don't think so.
Honestly I'm not sure why it seems I'm the only one keeping this thread alive, I don't post in 12 hours and it gets as many replies in that time. So I'll continue the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1741159:date=Nov 28 2009, 08:01 AM:name=Fortune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fortune @ Nov 28 2009, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't get a paid position without being 'exploited' first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Despite you insisting you've repeated your point over and over, I had to go back three pages of flamebaiting to find this gem, Fortune.
So basically your "point" is that mappers should be expected to sacrifice to get ahead.
Great. Thanks. Well shared. By having your map in the game, you get your fame, I get my fortune. <b>Maybe I assumed too much when I thought that was implicit</b>. So why, pray tell, do I keep having to read your posts declaring that I "don't get your point"?
The only possible aspect of contention with that statement I could imagine is that you do object to the 'getting paid' part. Yet you say that's not true. So what exactly do I "not get" about this? I haven't argued at all that getting your map in a tiny indy game by a completely unheard of developer <i>may</i> catapult your career to a six-figure salary and nine Ferraris in the garage and a trophy wife on each arm or whatever it is you think it's going to do. Every gaming nerd has a pipe dream about being paid to play games at some point or another. This whole thread started entirely about UWE making money off the intellectual works of another. It was revealed that two years ago Flayra said that wouldn't happen. So in every other industry, you're entitled fair compensation for this. Flayra agrees. Valve agrees. A handful of sane people in here agree. You CLAIM you agree that money is nice.
So what exactly are we arguing about? The fame has ALWAYS been implicit, and I don't consider it fair compensation. Did you know that Mikhail Kalashnikov never saw a dollar off the AK series? Would you say it's 'fair' that the AK patent was the property of the state and he should be happy he got the fame of his name on it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also like to invite Temphage to give an answer as to what he considers "fair" compensation, keeping in mind that it should be fair to both the mappers, and the game companies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can only assume such a ridiculous request is nothing but a troll, because you cannot <i>seriously</i> expect me to have an answer to a question when I can't even tell you how many preorders of NS2 have been sold, much less any of the other economics at work here. And I doubt UWE is going to give up any of that information.
<!--quoteo(post=1741633:date=Nov 30 2009, 06:07 AM:name=Cohrek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cohrek @ Nov 30 2009, 06:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valve started out by making free mods. Yet, look at them now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Valve's flagship product was Half-Life, and was founded by two employees at Microsoft. Where exactly can you show me where Valve started off by doing charity? How many poor hungry immigrant stories do you hear start off with "Well Grandpa had the clothes on his back and a dollar in his pocket, and he made it big by digging holes for three years for free."?
u can argue that its a big marketing gimmick to make more sales and improve the life of the game. But at least its not the same as other games that cost u 100 bucks (eg mw2) and then they make u pay for more maps which they have already pre made.
In this case u pay only like 30 bucks for 5 maps. that is MORE than generous in my opinion. And on top of that you get compensated for making a good map, and the devs arnt going to solely depend on the community after the game is released. They plan on releasing much much more after that.
This is a small team of developers. I dont think its fair to compare them to other big time developers who are always profit hungry. This is probably the only bunch that actually listen to its customers.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
This thread is now going round in circles with a number of you either unable or unwilling to do anything other than being insulting, accusatory and aggressive.
It strikes me that this topic has reached the limit of its usefulness. Locked.
Comments
Community content does influence long term sales.
Not an unfair statement, I have been well aware for years that I didn't just buy Half-Life because it was a very fun game, but because of all the cool community mods, like say Natural Selection, Day of Defeat, Sven Coop, and Counter-Strike to just name a few. Valve has totally noticed the flood gates they opened with Half-Life and done their best to bank on it and not surprisingly other games have tried to follow suit.
Ok, so if a small lump sum, credits, community accolades, and industry recognition doesn't fully fit the bill, may I suggest an idea? Now, I am not sure how this would work exactly because I am sure lawyers would be involved on some level since it would essentially be a contract, but what about some sort of shares and dividends, to represent minuscule profit sharing? No, not like royalties for everytime a map is played but an incentive to see Unknown Worlds profit on the sales of their game and provide continued support from the mapper for a map as the game updates?
Ugh, not sure if I am saying it right but I hope it makes some sense. Make it like the mappers are tiny micro investors or business partners or employees, maybe? The idea being, the better Unknown Worlds does, the better its community content providers do too?
Oh well, forget it, the Angel investors probably wouldn't sign off on the idea, they gotta get their return on investment too. I just hope the intent of seeing everyone in the community do well comes through in my post.
But that doesn't mean that mappers need to be paid in royalties rather than a lump sum. They could, but it's unlikely. Just like how game companies outsource some of their art requirements (like getting companies such as Liquid Development to make a bunch of assets for Fallout 3 and Killzone 2), but pay a flat fee. It's the nature of the business, and people are always available for contract work.
It's often a better business decision to pay a higher lump fee rather than a low one tied to royalties.
I appreciate that, that is why I was trying to suggest something other than a royalty. Shareholders get dividends but only if the business they have a share(s) in profits, I hope I am correct in that assessment seeing as I own no shares in anything. If the incentive is to see Unknown Worlds profit, it would mean that "official" mappers would want to boost sales of the game, doing what they can to make that happen, no different than the Angel investors, I would think. I am just trying to propose a sort of "all for one, one for all" approach, hope that makes some sense.
What Nem0 is talking about is a paid job in the industry - but you don't need any past experience to produce the results of a good map - you simply play the map. Again, this is the difference between a freelance writer and a staff writer - a staff writer is paid more, because they expect consistent results. The freelance writer they don't really know (though assumedly their name gets known) and work with on a per-article basis.
So <i>where the hell is the distinction</i>. Are you saying NS2 isn't a product of love because Flayra has the balls to demand we pay for it? I hope you're warming up uTorrent right now. Why does NS2 deserve a pricetag, but a map they are interested in does not? For that matter, why does KFS deserve to be paid either?
It's safe to say most people love what they do, which is why they do it. Why should that change whether you get paid for your works or not? As the point of UWE paying mappers is a moot one as it's revealed that they will, why such staunch opposition to this? You clearly all hate the ###### out of me because I dare even bring this up, so why not direct your ire at UWE themselves for even DREAMING to do such an unspeakable thing? Clearly they're on board with me on this one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freelance writers don't as far as I know, simply write articles at random and then wave them at publishers and try and get them to buy them off them. It would make more sense if you do a deal to write an article and get paid for it on completion, if for example you have some expertise in the subject of the article.
If you can make money by doing the former, grand, but my point is not that you should morally not make money doing that, my point is that it doesn't seem very likely that you will.
If the NS2 devs come out and say 'we're holding a mapping contest because we want some more maps, the best 3 get included in the next version of NS2 and you get $150 each' then that would be fine, because that's basically like advertising for a job you want done, but simply mapping without any arranged payment or even any hint that your map will be included and then expecting compensation for it is not practical. It's like mowing everyone's lawn and then demanding they pay for it afterwards, who's to say they wanted you to do it in the first place? Or in the context of maps, who's to say your map is good enough to merit payment? It might be good enough to distribute, but that does not mean it's good enough to pay for.
See, here's what your problem is. We've already established on the FIRST PAGE that the whole money-for-maps plan may still be on the table. You've already bored me with that fact more than once. Yet you continue to brow-beat the same insipid posts over and over, which tells me that even though they're still going to do it (which was unknown to me at the time I made this thread), you still think it's completely wrong and utterly ridiculous that they ARE doing it, and assumedly would hate anyone who accepted the cash. Are you still stuck in the asinine idea that this is a Source mod?
The best part was when I brought up royalties, or in fact, any lawsuit that has ever happened in the history of forever about people making money off someone else's work, you dismissed it as a 'bad analogy'.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Should we be compensated for going to school? Usually we pay for that kind of education, I don't know about a Steel Mill, but try being a plumber or electrician without the neccessary training.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's talk about bad analogies - a lot of places offer to help pay for education, be it jobs looking for people, foundations seeking investments, or even via government grants.
-Promoting/allowing community map-making helps the developers (with more content and thereby possibly more sales)
-The community <b>wants</b> to create their own maps, and play community-created maps.
Whats the problem here?
Compensation aside (which has been covered plenty of times, WILL be provided), whats wrong with mutal benefit? Just because the developers are getting something out of this as well doesn't make it "evil." Are you saying that the benefit should be exclusive to the community/buyers of the game, and because its not, therefore its bad and immoral?
I seem to remember part of the outrage of MW2 being due the community being UNABLE to make their own maps and content for the game. They were denied this, and went crazy. Seems to make a pretty clear point...
and
<!--quoteo(post=1741574:date=Nov 29 2009, 10:26 PM:name=BigD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BigD @ Nov 29 2009, 10:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Temphage, do you work for a union?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
-The community <b>wants</b> to create their own maps, and play community-created maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two facts here:
1) The overwhelming majority of community maps are abysmal. In NS1, the number of non-combat non-siege and actually FINISHED maps was very, very few. Of these few, only a rare handful were worth anything in playing.
2) Community map servers are rarely found and rarely played. This was especially true in NS as you'd just get booted from a server for lack of one, but even with Steam's download-the-map feature, community map servers are rare. In interesting scenario somewhat analogous to this is any game with pay-for maps, be it via expansion pack or map packs. While you may buy the maps, you have to rely on enough people also having it, otherwise you just see the extra maps get voted out of cycle whenever they come up. I was watching a friend playing COD5 and asked him why a certain map was voted out instantly and he responded that it was a pay-for map that nobody had, which defeats the entire point of buying the pack.
A map becoming 'official' means it is distributed to EVERYONE via patch and also has the stamp of approval that it's worth a damn, as 99% of the public doesn't give a crap about wasting time hunting down an obscure map only to find out that all three hives can be sieged from the marine spawn.
That is a hell of a lot more than simply slapping your lousy map up on rapidshare and hoping everyone plays it. They get sales, we get an incentive to make some badass maps. It's win-win, only less one-sided. I've yet to actually hear a compelling argument as to why mappers do NOT deserve fair compensation, or how the NS2 product itself doesn't somehow fall under the same justifications applied to why official mapping should be done free.
Reaffirm the plan?
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... there we go then. Plan reaffirmed, everyone's happy, thread over. Hooray!
The best part was when I brought up royalties, or in fact, any lawsuit that has ever happened in the history of forever about people making money off someone else's work, you dismissed it as a 'bad analogy'.
Let's talk about bad analogies - a lot of places offer to help pay for education, be it jobs looking for people, foundations seeking investments, or even via government grants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And where exactly did I say 'it's completely wrong and utterly ridiculous that they ARE doing it' and 'would hate anyone who accepted the cash'? Hey guess what! I didn't. You can argue my points but don't make them up.
Speaking of points, I repeat myself over and over in the hopes that you'll actually <i>listen</i> to what I'm saying, which from the above post is obviously not the case, you seem to dismiss the majority of posts on here and rage about a stream of changing topics that it's hard to grasp what you're actually trying to argue. You go from how game companies 'exploit' community mappers, which was pointed out to you multiple times, was not the case. You then carry on about comparing artists rights in the music industry to level designers which just isn't quite the same at all (Hint: Music artists can stand to make or lose millions with a career choice, level designers are a cog in the machine and usually work in an office based team). Throw in disagreeing to everyone, as well as making up things entirely in some cases and we have your thread.
Oh and my analogy was bad? Well I'm glad you pointed out that criticism so I can address it.
You're right in that the industry giants do not offer to help pay for education, BUT some release their tools for free, for non commercial/educational use, which means you can learn for free and not splash out a few thousand. Epic did this recently with the UDK. I've also heard of some studios sporting their own education/work experience. Oh and I think government grants could apply to the game design courses in college/university depending on your situation. But really modding/level design/prop making can usually be done for free thanks to a handful of gaming companies aiming to revitalise the industry. Free education... kinda sounds like school right? Or okay, how about you need some money and education, ah well that's just the same as having a job and going to college.
And for the record, I hope you make an amazing map which UWE gives you a few thousand for ;)
Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't let dux hear you say that aloud.
"Maybe you didn't notice but the last 5 pages of this thread hasn't been about "will mappers get paid" so much as it's been about "mappers don't deserve to be paid".
Could you provide some quotations on who actually presented that argument?
I've got to say, you're beat. Give it up.
I'm not trying to be abusive but you're not doing yourself any favors by continuing this argument. You sound like someone that is too vain to admit that he is wrong. I still have yet to read you conceding to anything with the possible exception of the "UWE will actually pay for the maps" point. It's okay. You started with a pretty decent point that made a lot of people think. Now the community that you are saying is being taken advantage of is telling you that no one is being cheated but you don't seem to be listening.
This kinda reminds me of a lot of arguments I've had with my girlfreind. I know I'm beat.....but for some reason I don't realize it until we're both frustrated and tired...
Also, some people make maps for fun.
I don't see the problem.
My answer would be yes, and it is generally the case in most situations in present day where community mappers are compensated for their maps to be used in the official game. The reasoning behind this is that I believe the maps to be part of intellectual property, and that the mapper is selling off those intellectual property rights. While the mapper did not create the tools that allowed him to create the maps, he did create the map itself, which the tool creator could not have done, or at least, could not have done to the same standard. To take an analogy, it would be ridiculous to say that a writer using a pen does not own the work he writes, simply because he did not create the pen. And that the written piece of work should belong to the creator of the pen.
There are arguments that the writer bought the pen and thus, he owns the rights of whatever the pen creates. So let's take another scenario, where the pen is given away for free, or is lent to the writer. Would it make the outcome any different? I don't think so, since the creator of the pen simply created the tool, and not the written work itself. It would be a different case, however, if the creator had given or lent the pen to the writer, with the intention that the writer creates a written piece of work for him.
Bringing it back to the present case, there is clearly no intention of the gaming companies that the community mappers should create maps for them. They have sold/given out/lent out the tools to community mappers and whatever the mappers create is of their own skill and effort. So the maps definitely belongs to the mappers. Thus, should the game company wish to acquire a map from a community mapper, and release it with an official version/patch of the game, the mapper ought to be paid for his intellectual property.
So what would be "fair" compensation? I do no think that fair compensation is a percentage of game sales boosted by the inclusion of new maps. The reasoning behind this is because the game company did not contract the mapper to create a map. The creation of the map is "past". One cannot expect to say "I created something something for fun, and now that it is created, I expect to be paid for it, even if nobody asked for it". I look at maps as intellectual property, instead of actual products themselves, and usually, when one buys intellectual property rights, one usually purchases it with a one-shot payment. Of course, there are cases where sellers of intellectual property do sell their intellectual property off at a percentage of total sales. But would this application be feasible in the gaming industry concerning community mappers? Definitely not, as it would put too much financial pressure on the gaming company. So a good compromise would be a one shot payment to the mapper, to ask for the rights to use the map. Also, the mapper would benefit in reputation and though it may not be a financial benefit, it would be a practical benefit and that should not be overlooked.
Considering another situation where the mapper creates a map, and intends to sell if off, but has no contractual ties with the game company. I don't think the situation would be any different simply because there is no contractual relationship. It is very much like the situation in a marketplace, where hawkers create items with the intention of selling them, but prospective buyers are not obliged to buy simply because they have looked at the item. Furthermore, it would be difficult to differentiate between people who genuinely created the map with the intention of selling it, and the people who created a map as a hobby or for fun, and then claimed the intention of selling it.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the issue on if the game company inserts a clause in their map making tool, saying that all maps created would be of their property, and that they do not need to compensate mappers for it. If this happens, I would think that the maps should still belong to the community mappers. Such a clause is insanely unfair to the mappers since it allows for over-reaching claims by the game company. I sincerely doubt anybody would uphold such a clause, for the reasons I have stated above.
I would also like to invite Temphage to give an answer as to what he considers "fair" compensation, keeping in mind that it should be fair to both the mappers, and the game companies.
I would disagree, but then this argument would turn into a general one about worker's unions, fair pay and the structural inequalities of todays economy. And since the majority of active posters on this forum seems to be part of the american right I'll just leave it be.
Oh hell I can't just leave it be.. the parts of the labour market are not equal, and thus any argument about "supply and demand" on that market is pretty moot. It's like someone telling you you have to pay to breathe, and if you don't you get suffocated. The demand is high, so they should be allowed to ask what they want, right? Or perhaps not.
That's not to say the gaming companies themselves are to blame, or the individuals running the gaming companies. The system works the way it does at the moment, and we all have to get on living despite it. It's still a ###### situation though.
And what about the case where the company insists that you not use the pen unless you're willing to give the rights to whatever you create with it? They don't have the intention that you create for them, but anything you do create with that pen, they can then use as their own. Can a writer agree to those terms, use the pen, and then decide they don't want to let the pen maker use their writing? Personally, I don't think so.
<!--quoteo(post=1741159:date=Nov 28 2009, 08:01 AM:name=Fortune)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fortune @ Nov 28 2009, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't get a paid position without being 'exploited' first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite you insisting you've repeated your point over and over, I had to go back three pages of flamebaiting to find this gem, Fortune.
So basically your "point" is that mappers should be expected to sacrifice to get ahead.
Great. Thanks. Well shared. By having your map in the game, you get your fame, I get my fortune. <b>Maybe I assumed too much when I thought that was implicit</b>. So why, pray tell, do I keep having to read your posts declaring that I "don't get your point"?
The only possible aspect of contention with that statement I could imagine is that you do object to the 'getting paid' part. Yet you say that's not true. So what exactly do I "not get" about this? I haven't argued at all that getting your map in a tiny indy game by a completely unheard of developer <i>may</i> catapult your career to a six-figure salary and nine Ferraris in the garage and a trophy wife on each arm or whatever it is you think it's going to do. Every gaming nerd has a pipe dream about being paid to play games at some point or another. This whole thread started entirely about UWE making money off the intellectual works of another. It was revealed that two years ago Flayra said that wouldn't happen. So in every other industry, you're entitled fair compensation for this. Flayra agrees. Valve agrees. A handful of sane people in here agree. You CLAIM you agree that money is nice.
So what exactly are we arguing about? The fame has ALWAYS been implicit, and I don't consider it fair compensation. Did you know that Mikhail Kalashnikov never saw a dollar off the AK series? Would you say it's 'fair' that the AK patent was the property of the state and he should be happy he got the fame of his name on it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would also like to invite Temphage to give an answer as to what he considers "fair" compensation, keeping in mind that it should be fair to both the mappers, and the game companies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can only assume such a ridiculous request is nothing but a troll, because you cannot <i>seriously</i> expect me to have an answer to a question when I can't even tell you how many preorders of NS2 have been sold, much less any of the other economics at work here. And I doubt UWE is going to give up any of that information.
<!--quoteo(post=1741633:date=Nov 30 2009, 06:07 AM:name=Cohrek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cohrek @ Nov 30 2009, 06:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1741633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valve started out by making free mods. Yet, look at them now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve's flagship product was Half-Life, and was founded by two employees at Microsoft. Where exactly can you show me where Valve started off by doing charity? How many poor hungry immigrant stories do you hear start off with "Well Grandpa had the clothes on his back and a dollar in his pocket, and he made it big by digging holes for three years for free."?
In this case u pay only like 30 bucks for 5 maps. that is MORE than generous in my opinion. And on top of that you get compensated for making a good map, and the devs arnt going to solely depend on the community after the game is released. They plan on releasing much much more after that.
This is a small team of developers. I dont think its fair to compare them to other big time developers who are always profit hungry. This is probably the only bunch that actually listen to its customers.
It strikes me that this topic has reached the limit of its usefulness. Locked.