test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

Likeness Rights Work Arounds?

24

Comments

  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    True...but again, by signing this EULA you are essentially handing over any right you have to the content. Without the tools they provide...it's just an idea in your head.

    And they determine what the EULA says. If they say we earn something and we sign it, we have a right to something. I fail to see what relevance mentioning the EULA has, when the EULA includes whatever Cryptic wants it to.
    Don't get me wrong, I would love a way to earn CPoints...but it's just not feasible.

    It's completely feasible.
    Heck... let authors choose to put their missions up in the C-Store at some point if they get good enough ratings. 100CP default with the author being able to put a markup on it.

    It's not very much unlike CafePress. To make a wide range of content on CafePress you need to pay a monthly subscription fee--or at least had to back when I used it. That subscription allows you to use their tools to make content that becomes available through their system. And just like STO, CafePress makes a profit on two fronts: subscription fee from the creator, purchase fee from the buyer. And CafePress lets you put a markup on all items so you, the creator, can get something for your effort.

    There's no way that it's right that Cryptic gets to double-dip here, and the authors get nothing. And if your argument amounts to "because we sign the EULA", then none of us should sign it until we have the capacity to get something for our effort.

    I don't know about you, but I don't pay my employer to go into work every day to help my employer make money from others. That's not the way the world works, nor should we accept that as status quo here.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    Seriously?
    I mean... it's bad enough we have to spend $15/month (assuming non-lifetime, anyway) to make content for Cryptic's game... now you want to give them more money to make them better content that will attract more players to make Cryptic more money?

    That sounds like some bad pyramid scheme you're supporting there.

    In business, costs are passed onto the consumer. Likeness Rights costs money that Cryptic doesn't have. $15/mo was never designed to pay for it. Players want content with the TV Series actors so badly that they are willing to pay extra for them.

    Think of the content that the devs could create with an actual Captain Kirk with Shatner's voice. Think of the content players could create with Kirk's image.

    What would bring more players into to the game? The actual James T. Kirk or Jimmy T. Kirk, Jr?
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    If anything Cryptic should pay us for making missions for their game. Maybe a C-Point reward based on similar equations they use to figure out how much experience a mission is worth, plus the average rating given by players.

    Your logic is going the completely wrong way, man....

    You're dreaming. Cryptic pay us?? For content based on rating?

    Do you know how many Rating Cartels would be formed just so people could exploit C-Points from mediocre content?

    Are you serious?? And my logic is wrong? Heh...
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    In business, costs are passed onto the consumer. Likeness Rights costs money that Cryptic doesn't have. $15/mo was never designed to pay for it. Players want content with the TV Series actors so badly that they are willing to pay extra for them.

    Think of the content that the devs could create with an actual Captain Kirk with Shatner's voice. Think of the content players could create with Kirk's image.

    What would bring more players into to the game? The actual James T. Kirk or Jimmy T. Kirk, Jr?

    My argument isn't about likeness rights. It's about the sheer concept of paying Cryptic TWICE to make content for their game that others pay AGAIN to play. That's Cryptic getting paid THREE times by us.
    You're dreaming. Cryptic pay us?? For content based on rating?

    Do you know how many Rating Cartels would be formed just so people could exploit C-Points from mediocre content?

    Are you serious?? And my logic is wrong? Heh...

    Then make the C-Point reward not worth the cost and time spent by Cartels. Or don't make it rating-based. Maybe 1 C-Point per play-through of the content, once it it's approved by the reviewers and available to everyone.

    100 people play your content? 100 C-Points. That's about $1.25 worth of C-Points but it would take "cartels" a long time to play a mission through 100 times. It wouldn't be worth their effort. They couldn't even get $1.25 for the effort since they'd have to beat Cryptic's C-Point prices.

    1cp per playthrough too much? Make it .5cp--still a decent reward, but even less profit motive for the "cartels".
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    My argument isn't about likeness rights. It's about the sheer concept of paying Cryptic TWICE to make content for their game that others pay AGAIN to play. That's Cryptic getting paid THREE times by us.

    Hate to break it to ya, but Cryptic is already doing what you fear. Players wanted the Excelsior and the Neblua...badly.

    Without the C-Store to cover costs, players would have had to wait until Cryptic designed content that required those ships. Since no such content was planned, the C-Store purchases covered the design costs, gave the players what they wanted and made it profitable at the same time.

    Players who made the real money transaction benefit by having the ships unlocked for all their characters. And it made the same ships available for in-game currency as well. (All this improves customer satisfaction, which equals more profit, which allows development efforts to flourish, etc).

    What I and others have proposed about putting content in the C-Store to pay for Likeness Rights requests is no different that what Cryptic already does for Ship requests.

    So, I say again... if Cryptic were to put something in their store to accommodate actor likeness requests I'd definately buy. It would enhance the game immensely. I get nerdgasms just thinking of the episodes Cryptic could design!

    And even if you didn't buy the content it would also open the characters to be used by everyone in The Foundry. A win, win for all.
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    Then make the C-Point reward not worth the cost and time spent by Cartels. Or don't make it rating-based. Maybe 1 C-Point per play-through of the content, once it it's approved by the reviewers and available to everyone.

    100 people play your content? 100 C-Points. That's about $1.25 worth of C-Points but it would take "cartels" a long time to play a mission through 100 times. It wouldn't be worth their effort. They couldn't even get $1.25 for the effort since they'd have to beat Cryptic's C-Point prices.

    1cp per playthrough too much? Make it .5cp--still a decent reward, but even less profit motive for the "cartels".

    I'll admit that having a way to earn C-Points instead of buying C-Points is compelling. I remember earning some by taking a Cryptic Survey which was cool.

    I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would agree with you. But I just don't see them putting work and resources into designing a system that pays us instead of them.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Ok so on the Android front we are ok, because we would be using the likeness of a prop head and Android prop body, which CBS owns the rights too, and not the Brent Spiner likeness . :)
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Hate to break it to ya, but Cryptic is already doing what you fear. Players wanted the Excelsior and the Neblua...badly.

    Without the C-Store to cover costs, players would have had to wait until Cryptic designed content that required those ships. Since no such content was planned, the C-Store purchases covered the design costs, gave the players what they wanted and made it profitable at the same time.

    Players who made the real money transaction benefit by having the ships unlocked for all their characters. And it made the same ships available for in-game currency as well. (All this improves customer satisfaction, which equals more profit, which allows development efforts to flourish, etc).

    I have no problem with fluff being available for more money in the C-Store.

    What I have a problem with is Cryptic benefiting from the presence of the UGC we create, while we don't get any reimbursement for the effort. The idea that authors have to further buy the right to use specific items/characters in the UGC system compounds the problem.

    It's one thing to buy something for the C-Store for yourself... it's another matter to buy something from the C-Store to benefit others and, by extension, Cryptic.

    They'd end up-
    - getting money from the author's subscription
    - getting money for the C-Store purchase (whether or not it's 100% used for likeness rights)
    - getting money from the players who subscribe because of the presence of missions authors have made

    And the authors get nada.
    I'll admit that having a way to earn C-Points instead of buying C-Points is compelling. I remember earning some by taking a Cryptic Survey which was cool.

    I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would agree with you. But I just don't see them putting work and resources into designing a system that pays us instead of them.

    It could actually work out pretty nice, in my larger vision of what the C-Store could be. In a prior topic I suggested that STO "Time Cards" should be C-Point cards, and subscription time can be purchased with C-Points.

    If we had a way to earn C-Points for contributions to the game via UGC, we'd have an avenue to effectively play for free. That is, of course, assuming our missions are good enough to be played often enough to earn ~1400 C-Points in a given month. If that means 2800 characters played your content (at .5cp/playthrough) then frankly... you deserve a free month. For others it may take a while to earn enough, or they'll use them to buy other C-Store content.

    Personally I think that would be an outstanding motivator for people to make quality content. It ends up benefiting them, other players, and Cryptic.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    I have no problem with fluff being available for more money in the C-Store.

    What I have a problem with is Cryptic benefiting from the presence of the UGC we create, while we don't get any reimbursement for the effort. The idea that authors have to further buy the right to use specific items/characters in the UGC system compounds the problem.

    Some don't consider the C-Store ship's fluff since they have special abilities. And the people who wanted them in the first place consider them important to their gaming experience. Just like many players don't consider UGC to be "real missions" since they are not professionally made by the game developer.

    I never said anything about authors "having to buy rights to use specific characters" in UGC. What I discussed would obtain Likeness Rights for STO in general, and it would do so on a volunteer basis. If you object to how it's being done you simply don't have to participate. But you'll still be able to use a TV Actor in your story once the rights are procured.
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    It's one thing to buy something for the C-Store for yourself... it's another matter to buy something from the C-Store to benefit others and, by extension, Cryptic.

    Oh good grief... it's completely voluntary. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy anything for others. You don't have buy a Patrick Stewart episode just like you don't have to buy a ship from the C-Store.

    Those who do buy help Cryptic pay for costs that are not covered by the regular subscription fee. Those who do not buy can still benefit from what was developed for the game. I don't see what's so offensive about it.

    And lets hope no tries to sell you something with the proceeds going to benefit Cancer Research. How horrid would that be for you? :rolleyes:
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    They'd end up-
    - getting money from the author's subscription
    - getting money for the C-Store purchase (whether or not it's 100% used for likeness rights)
    - getting money from the players who subscribe because of the presence of missions authors have made

    And the authors get nada.

    Umm yes, Atari is running a business. Everything they do is FOR PROFIT. Everything they do MUST BE PAID FOR. $15/mo will not pay for all the Actor Likenesses & VO's that players want. It's why STO doesn't have much of either in it currently (you know this).

    Sorry, but I just flat out disagree with you about author compensation. This is a game. Why would Foundry Authors get anything in a game beyond Fun, Accolades, and Recognition via ratings?

    By signing the EULA you agree that Atari has full rights and control over any content that you make. This is THE SAME with or without TV Series Actors that you could use (or not use) in your mission.

    If you're not ok with Atari owning something you write and benefiting from it then you should not participate in UGC period when it's released. The whole business reason behind The Foundry is to increase sales.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    It could actually work out pretty nice, in my larger vision of what the C-Store could be. In a prior topic I suggested that STO "Time Cards" should be C-Point cards, and subscription time can be purchased with C-Points.

    If we had a way to earn C-Points for contributions to the game via UGC, we'd have an avenue to effectively play for free. That is, of course, assuming our missions are good enough to be played often enough to earn ~1400 C-Points in a given month. If that means 2800 characters played your content (at .5cp/playthrough) then frankly... you deserve a free month. For others it may take a while to earn enough, or they'll use them to buy other C-Store content.

    Personally I think that would be an outstanding motivator for people to make quality content. It ends up benefiting them, other players, and Cryptic.

    I'm sure many would like this, but at this point I'm thinking it has nothing to do with Likeness Rights and should be in a different Foundry Thread.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    And lets hope no tries to sell you something with the proceeds going to benefit Cancer Research. How horrid would that be for you? :rolleyes:

    That you find my point even remotely comparable to that only demonstrates that you don't understand my point at all. If I buy something with the proceeds going to some cause, at least I get something from the transaction.

    All that we, as authors, would get from your idea, would be the capacity to put known characters into our stories with the ultimate benefit going to those who play our content. So why would we be the ones footing the bill and not them?

    If you really want a way to pay for for likeness rights then players should be able to pay extra for "Premium UGC" which then gives them access to any UGC missions that feature known characters. Authors would be able to use likenesses at their discretion but, if they do, the content gets flagged as Premium. The burden of payment should be on those who play the content--not those who make the content. Do you think Cryptic paid for Michael Dorn's likeness out of their own pockets? No. They passed that cost onto us. We, the content players, paid for it.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    When I want to edit a photo that I will later show my friends (at no cost), I still have to pay Adoboe for my license of Photoshop. Is that unfair? Why do I have to pay for the work?

    When paying for STO and using UGC, you are paying Cryptic for providing a way to express yourself.
    Your mere presence in this game is not just good for Cryptic because you pay a subscription fee, but because you add to the "MM" aspect of their MMORPG, making it possible for people to experience the game together. The less players there are interested in a particularly "MM" aspect of the game (Fleet Action, PvP, STFs, roleplaying), the less succesful the game will be. Because those people t hat are still in find the MM activities empty and will be unsatisfied.

    UGC is just another form of this. But that doesn't mean just because Cryptic profits from it that you are hosed.
    Some people enjoy PvP. Others enjoy exploration missions. And some players will like crafting their own missions. The ability to share these with others is a form of reward and satisfaction they gain, just like a PvP player might gain satisfiction from winning a match or topping the damage scores. If you see UGC as work and not as part of the game experience, then it's not for you.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    So... back on track, let's say I want to time travel to the TNG era in my UGC. What happens if I make a random bald white guy, and name him Picard? Since it doesn't look like Patrick Stewart, no likeness rights issue, correct? I'm just using the name, not the look.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    dstahl wrote: »
    As others have pointed out - the CBS related terms of use we are proposing are very similar to what they recently posted on the CafePress fan made merch site.

    Here is a link to those rules.
    http://www.cafepress.com/cp/popup/index.aspx?page=fan_merch_rules_startrek

    My understanding is that you can mention characters in dialog, missions, etc, but that you will need to stray away from trying to represent those characters/actors likeness in game.

    As an example - the STO team has to get specific approval anytime we use an actor's likeness in game and they have rights of refusal in most cases to say they don't like it and we have to pull it.

    The way the cafe press rules read we can't even use Star Trek ships or the words Star and Trek...god I hate CBS and Paramount so much...
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Felderburg wrote: »
    So... back on track, let's say I want to time travel to the TNG era in my UGC. What happens if I make a random bald white guy, and name him Picard? Since it doesn't look like Patrick Stewart, no likeness rights issue, correct? I'm just using the name, not the look.

    Wrong. The character would clearly be Picard, wouldn't it? How can you say that a bald white guy doesn't resemble (look like) Patrick Stewart? I'd bet that very thing will be expressly prohibited. Unless I completely miss my guess, those actors are entitled to residuals from the use of their likeness and that's why it's verboten. Anything even close is too close.

    Now, you want a grey area... what if you made a young white guy with a full head of hair and call him a younger Jean-Luc Picard, time traveling back to when he was just a Lieutenant? It would not clearly resemble Patrick Stewart; would it be allowed? We'll need clarification on things like that.

    Most likely, Jean-Luc and others will be put on the 'do-not-use' list just to make it simple and unambiguous.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Hravik wrote:
    Some people enjoy PvP. Others enjoy exploration missions. And some players will like crafting their own missions. The ability to share these with others is a form of reward and satisfaction they gain, just like a PvP player might gain satisfiction from winning a match or topping the damage scores. If you see UGC as work and not as part of the game experience, then it's not for you.

    Exactly...I see it as an enormous opportunity to tell stories than others can enjoy, not as work I should get paid for.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Exactly...I see it as an enormous opportunity to tell stories than others can enjoy, not as work I should get paid for.

    And you're a-okay with Cryptic getting paid for it instead?
    Because they're getting paid for the content that's in the game, whether it's made by them or by you. It's a-okay in my book if the content we make free-of-charge can be played free-of-charge, but that's not the case. Someone is profiting from it. And if someone else is profiting it from it, the author should get some form of payment, too.

    And it would be fine if Cryptic were a not-for-profit organization that we're all volunteering for, but they're not. Making missions for STO can't be chalked up as community service like volunteering your time at a local community theatre or soup kitchen. Your work is helping to pad the wallets of Cryptic employees.

    Your motive for making content is irrelevant. Someone else shouldn't profit from your work if you don't.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    Your motive for making content is irrelevant. Someone else shouldn't profit from your work if you don't.
    My motive for making content is relevant.

    Someone else shouldn't profit from your work if you don't want them to. It's perfectly ok for someone else to profit from my work if I'm ok with it.

    Personally I enjoyed making missions in CoH/V's Mission Architect, and I'm really going to enjoy making missions for STO's Foundry. And I'm ok with Cryptic making a profit from the time and effort that I put into creating missions in the Foundry.

    If you're not ok with Cryptic profiting from your work then simply don't use the Foundry to create missions.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    That you find my point even remotely comparable to that only demonstrates that you don't understand my point at all. If I buy something with the proceeds going to some cause, at least I get something from the transaction.

    It demonstrates perfectly that you are not willing to give anything extra for something that would help the game and others immensely. Cryptic simply does not have the cash to handle likeness rights requests. If you don't want to help with the cause then you simply don't participate.

    And if you want to get paid for your work you should go sell your trek story as a novel. The whole purpose of playing this game is to have fun. The whole purpose of developing the game is to make a profit... deal with it. If you can't swallow that we'll never reach an understanding.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Personally I enjoyed making missions in CoH/V's Mission Architect, and I'm really going to enjoy making missions for STO's Foundry. And I'm ok with Cryptic making a profit from the time and effort that I put into creating missions in the Foundry.

    Well, congratulations. You're validating Cryptic's belief that they can use its playerbase to fill their game with content and fill their wallets with subscription money with little-to-no cost of their own.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    The whole purpose of developing the game is to make a profit... deal with it.

    You're absolutely correct. And now we have an active hand in developing the game. So where's our profit?
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    You're absolutely correct. And now we have an active hand in developing the game. So where's our profit?

    We're not developing the game. We're re-using already developed maps and assets and putting dialog to it FOR FUN because IT'S A GAME.

    We're here to make Cryptic money if you didn't know already. That was before UGC and that is after UGC.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    We're not developing the game. We're re-using already developed maps and assets and putting dialog to it FOR FUN because IT'S A GAME.

    And as time passes the tools we have will come closer and closer to being able to create exactly what Cryptic's level designers create. They don't create maps and assets, either--the artists do. All they do is exactly what we'll be doing: putting the blocks together to make playable missions.
    We're here to make Cryptic money if you didn't know already. That was before UGC and that is after UGC.

    We make money for Cryptic, but never have we made content for Cryptic to make money on. They're giving us some of the power of creation that they have so we can put content in their game so they can make money on the presence of that content. And it sickens me that so many people are taking the lashing and saying, "Thank you, sir. May I please have another?"
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    You're absolutely correct. And now we have an active hand in developing the game. So where's our profit?

    This is a good point to make.

    How would you see a payment scheme work? Real money or C-Points?

    How about offering the option for players to sell their content through the C-Store?


    It's safe to assume that there's been some thought about monetizing UGC, so we can expect to see additional scenery and map tilesets available on the C-Store. So for someone to be able to create diverse content, they will need to make an investment.

    Why shouldn't they get something back for it, if they so choose?
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    And as time passes the tools we have will come closer and closer to being able to create exactly what Cryptic's level designers create. They don't create maps and assets, either--the artists do. All they do is exactly what we'll be doing: putting the blocks together to make playable missions.

    Look at it this way: the missions Cryptic makes are tied into the overarching STO storyline. Since we're not part of their writing staff, we can't make those missions. Anything we do is just for fun, making stuff up, non-official, non-canon stories.

    Or look at it this way: You buy a Dungeons and Dragons rule book, you buy some miniatures, and you make a game up for your friends to play through. Should Wizards of the Coast pay you money? Or should you pay them for giving you the tools to make said games/stories? Given that the latter is actually the case, and is exactly what is happening with UGC, I don't see why the payment structure should be any different.

    Furthermore, Cryptic is providing a server to hold the UGC and method of publishing/distributing it. They should be paid for that.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Felderburg wrote: »
    Or look at it this way: You buy a Dungeons and Dragons rule book, you buy some miniatures, and you make a game up for your friends to play through. Should Wizards of the Coast pay you money? Or should you pay them for giving you the tools to make said games/stories. Given that the latter is actually the case, and is exactly what is happening with UGC, I don't see why the payment structure should be any different.

    Poor analogy.

    WotC licenced the d20 ruleset so that anyone could sell supplementary content based on it.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    And as time passes the tools we have will come closer and closer to being able to create exactly what Cryptic's level designers create. They don't create maps and assets, either--the artists do. All they do is exactly what we'll be doing: putting the blocks together to make playable missions.

    Nope! Cryptic has already said on a few occasions that UGC will never replace the professional content they design by hand.

    They have teams of environment artists that hand design the maps and assets... Just look at the wonders they did with featured episodes. Never seen or experienced before... Once assets like that are developed, then and only then are they added to UGC for us to add our stories.

    To many, the new professionally designed content and fresh experiences are why they are paying $15/mo. Many have no desire to even read our "player stories" because re-used stuff is not compelling to them.
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    We make money for Cryptic, but never have we made content for Cryptic to make money on. They're giving us some of the power of creation that they have so we can put content in their game so they can make money on the presence of that content. And it sickens me that so many people are taking the lashing and saying, "Thank you, sir. May I please have another?"

    Don't you dare make any missions for UGC then. You won't get paid for it. You've actually paid Cryptic just so you could write a story. Better cut your losses now and just play the missions instead of writing them. That way we can all move on and you don't have to feel sick.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Poor analogy.

    WotC licenced the d20 ruleset so that anyone could sell supplementary content based on it.

    Alright, fine. If Cryptic licenses their UGC tools, there might be a point to make. But the immediate analogy, buying rulebooks and any other materials, and making a game using them, still stands.

    Or look at Spore. Does EA pay you to create animals? No, that's part of the game. Just like UGC is part of STO.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    To expect to be paid for UGC is like expecting to be paid by the owners of FanFiction.net for writing a FF.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Felderburg wrote: »
    If Cryptic licenses their UGC tools, there might be a point to make.

    Closest thing we've got to a UGC tool license is the EULA that we're agreeing to.

    As I may or may not have seen it, I cannot comment; but the CBS side of the EULA may very well be similar to the Cafepress EULA.

    Which allows people to profit from creations based on the Star Trek IP.

    And while we're comparing Apples to Oranges, what about the iOS App Store? That allows developers who license the tools to either give away their content or sell it on an approved market.

    It's certainly worthy of debate. Would people pay extra on the C-Store for player-written episodes? Probably not.

    Would they pay for something written by the likes of Peter David or the Reese-Stevenses?
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    You're absolutely correct. And now we have an active hand in developing the game. So where's our profit?
    My profit will be fun. I enjoy writing stories and creating missions. I've GM'ed many different RPG's for decades now, this is no different.

    Look, Cryptic isn't enslaving the player base to make evil moneys for them. <Insert Evil Laugh Here>

    Cryptic is giving the player base what they've asked for. Players have repeatedly asked for a UGC system and Cryptic is giving it to us. So now a company that listens to their paying customers and gives them what they want is a bad thing? Are you serious?

    Sure it will benefit Cryptic by bringing and keeping more players to STO. It will also benefit us. The more money Cryptic makes the more resources they'll have to improve STO, and the longer STO will survive. That benefits everyone, even you.

    If you're so darn scared that Cryptic might make a dime from your effort in the EVIL UGC, then don't use it. Problem solved.
  • Options
    Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    This is a good point to make.

    How would you see a payment scheme work? Real money or C-Points?

    How about offering the option for players to sell their content through the C-Store?


    It's safe to assume that there's been some thought about monetizing UGC, so we can expect to see additional scenery and map tilesets available on the C-Store. So for someone to be able to create diverse content, they will need to make an investment.

    Why shouldn't they get something back for it, if they so choose?

    Hehe... I've proposed a couple ideas.. either in this thread or some other.

    I'll be the first to admit that us getting cash money isn't practical. You'd have to deal with taxes and different tax laws for different countries, etc., etc. So C-Points seem the closest thing that's practical that doesn't actually cost Cryptic out-of-pocket money.

    I got down to two proposals:

    The first follows a CafePress model. We can put our missions up on the C-Store and set a price in C-Points that, when the mission is purchased by someone, go to the author. Maybe Cryptic can take a percentage for facilitating the transaction. If Cryptic doesn't want everyone putting everything on the C-Store, maybe have it only be an option if a mission gets a certain rating and/or number of playthroughs.

    The second one is more direct and simple. Based perhaps on the average amount of time it takes to complete a mission, a value is placed upon each completion.. say from .1 to .5cp. For every playthrough of the mission, the author gets that many C-Points.

    The devil is in the details, but those are the general ideas. In either case, quality missions earn a reward for the author.
Sign In or Register to comment.