I was wondering if someone offi ial could provide a definitive answer on whether an s&box organisation which is making a game (with playfund) can publish a map (with play fund) for use in that game (and any other game that desires to use it).
It isn't clear but if effort has been spent on a generic map (for roleplay), it should be independently monetizable.
I'm referring to the following message: image.png203.15 KB The second scenario is publishing a map that isn't reasonably reusable outside of your own game but that seems pretty scummy.
Yeah, I don't see how this system can exist without heavy moderation by part of Facepunch.
It would require them to check whether maps can work on other games, whether it's being intentionally abused, who uploaded the map, etc...
All would be avoided if maps took from the game's % instead of being an extra, which is how most people would intuitively assume this is how it worked in the first place.
If maps take a % of the game it’s going to heavily discourage game makers from using outside community maps for their games, they are just choosing to lose money.
The second proposed option will also be a problem if maps are blocked from making money if it is on the same org as their game. They get no benefit from doing their own maps while community maps do. If they are free for anyone to use on asset party and aren't super specific to the intended game I don't really see an issue. People can use it for whatever they want. Obviously if it’s something like unusable campaign levels for a game they should not be put in the playfund. That is how it seems to work right now.
I also foresee orgs just getting around these proposed changes by doing an alt org anyway, which will be hard to moderate when s&box gets bigger. So its not really solving the moderation problem.
I think Facepunch made the right call with how it currently is.
You didn't really provide a solution to the problem, your only counter argument is that developers should be rewarded for making a game that relies on community maps while punishing people making and shipping custom maps.
What this current system does is not reward games that rely on community maps, but since there is a limited amount of money in the playfund, it penalizes games that do not, or can't rely on community maps;
2d games, stylised games, games with their own map solution or format, games that do not need a map or that ship their own, counter intuitive for what's meant to be a game engine.
You say option B is bad because it can be abused and requires facepunch moderation, but with the current system, you can still abuse it even worse, and facepunch moderation is still required, just let the market self-regulate by having it take a cut instead of trying to police it, if the creator doesn't think 10-20% is worth for using community maps, they make their own? That doesn't sound bad.
Yea at that point I see no reason for developets not to "Publish" their game's maps for "Everyone to use" and double dip the playfund on anyone playing their games. Unless stated otherwise by Facepunch, but that will require a lot of moderation when option A) takes it into account already.
Facepunch decided maps were important enough to give them their own fund, and it makes sense. Maps give you a lot of different content, and with actiongraph and addons you can make a whole game out of them if you wanted to, or add a lot of content to an existing one.
I can already see the good this system has done. People coming out to make community maps for games like Deathmatch, DXRP, Prophunt, TTT etc. You are trying to imply the fund hurts people that make smaller scale games. I would argue the opposite. For example, someone used two of our maps randomly for a cool game called Observation. They were just able to yoink maps and use them to do what would otherwise need a dedicated level designer to do, and have to split the fund with them anyway. Another coder just yesterday messaged me about using a map we put up for their murder type game they are working on and I told them hell yeah. The solo programmer now has a lot of the art done for him and can focus on doing the game. If he had to do a whole map he would have probably never even tried. I think that is awesome.
You two keep harping that if it is under the same org it is bad, but again, if it is open for anyone to use for any game they want I don't really see the problem. Incentivizing people to put their maps up as content people can use is a boon for the platform and the engine. Also, saying that 2D or stylized games can't have maps is nonsense. Pace is 2D and if a certain artstyle is needed the community mapper can work with the gamemaker. Facepunch has been in the process of trying to make an asset pack for many types of styles anyway, and a lot of Kenney's assets were ported etc.
I get you have to imply we're mappers so we're biased. I can just say the same about you because you don't have any maps that benefit. Perhaps do what GnomeFig has already done with your assets and make some.
Ultimately, we can bicker back and forth, but how this all works and what is deemed valuable is up to Facepunch to decide, not us. If they want to promote community content with it's own dedicated fund that is their decision. We aren't entitled to any money from them and I think how they are doing it is really cool and generous. I'm thankful they value mappers.
I'm not against maps getting playfund, hell I think most other things should especially libraries, not sure where you got that from. I just brought up that the current decision will require a lot of moderating on Facepunch's part, which wouldn't be necessary if either propositions were picked.
If option B) was picked you wouldn't even see a difference in your case and all of your examples, the problem is developers intentionally double dipping with the excuse that their half baked or very specific map is open for everyone to use.
Also from the reacts there seem to be quite a few people lurking the thread, if you want to chime in do it, I think that would spark a better discussion.
I still haven't seen anyone give a good reason why games that do not or cannot use hammer maps should be punished, other than "well just do the same and publish the map", that's what we're here for, to know if that's allowed or not.
It's all content. If you make a game and it's own map, you're doing both the work of the game and the map, so you get the share of both.
If you make a game that uses another map, you get the money for the game and the map maker gets the money for the map.
If you want to get the the map money, then make your own map. If your game requires a specific map made for it then it's up to developers to account for that.
It's really a discretionary thing, it should be clear to yourself if you're doing something you think is abusing the system. We're not really gonna cover every possibility, it's a case by case thing.
The most definitive way of abusing is making your game and map dependent on each other.
Knowing this, we have updated our Micro Mayhem maps to be playable outside Micro Mayhem, set them public, and enabled the play fund on them. I think they could be really fun on TTT, Gibstas, and more :)
Wouldn't it be logical to give creators of models, libraries, sounds, maps, etc. the ability to set a percentage of the earnings from the game in which they will be used. And there won't be any abuse of this system.
Why not just make it so that whatever map is being used takes a percentage of the total revenue of the game? All you are doing is making sure developers design their game around the fact that they can abuse this (and people will abuse this).
We already have a game on the platform that completely bans you if you leave a negative review. We have people uploading copyrighted assets and enabling them under the play fund. It's only going to get worse unless someone steps in and moderates this.
I'm also still perplexed with the decision to not allow people to sell assets on s&box. Unity, Unreal, etc. all have a great marketplace where users sell high-quality content. There is zero incentive for users to produce any high-quality content.
I think that's how it should work. The maps should consume the host game's revenue. I will investigate how I can make that work on the backend when I have some time.
I'm not interested in making an asset store. There's WAY too much admin involved. If the community wants to create one - I won't object, and we could actively support it with official support.
it's cool but the fact that not programmers can sell only maps is quite narrowly focused. maybe something like libraries could support something like this so that it would be possible for not programmers to sell a weapon pack, character system etc
How does a system like this work with game modes that have a large variety of maps made by a variety of orgs. Even DXRP which only has 1 soon to be 2 maps will eventually have dozens of maps some with no connection to the original developer. I doubt this is a solution, and in my opinion concerns to the moderation of fighting double dipping, you realistically don't need to fight every game that double dips, only top games would take measurable amounts of the play fund that is worth making an issue for, so the argument that it would be an insane task to regulate double dipping in my opinion doesn't apply here. Also many maps can be used in a large variety of game modes,
how does one expect to have a system so complex that a developer from a game mode has to divide their play fund amongst a large variety of maps many of which the developer may not have any connection to. This seems more complex than just regulating double dipping amongst top games.
And this also at the end of the day favors coders who only have to gain and takes away from artists who also spend many hours on their work.
Edit:
My personal Idea that would be a compromise is to eliminate double dipping from same orgs I believe it makes sense and keeps it all simple, and leave maps made by separate orgs to have either access to its own play fund or just take from a combined play fund. And if eventually if someone makes a alt org to double dip then there will have to be some administration, but once again realistically only top games would really be making enough to complain about, and at that point there's few enough games where in my opinions it can be regulated.
But this also hurts game modes that use a large variety of maps. Game modes like TTT which have a large variety of maps made by three thieves, which grand total can be argued have had more time spent than the game mode itself should not be punished just because the maps are published by the same org. This will actively favor towards games that use one map and will hurt a large variety of games that dont rely on just one map. I think the only case where game and map playfund is combined is where the game has one map and will always has one map as it can be argued that that map is purely apart of the game and cannot be used anywhere else.
I see your point, but you got to understand that the current system still is hurting artists. Massively so since some of us in a sense earn nothing at all compared to coders and community mappers. And the mappers won't be hurt by this, the games using your maps earning more than they should ( imo ) will.
Custom art games have to consider artists out of their cut right now, if they Get X players they earn £100, split between artists and coers. So in that same vein, community map games logically should too. Instead of a community map games get X players and earn £100 for themselves, and mappers still get their fair cut separately.
So you probably don't realise how unfair it is right now custom game art artists are getting shafted, and coders making games relying on community maps are getting a bigger payout, that a chunk of that should go towards mappers and games with custom art. ( exactly what you said, the game has less work than the maps, why is it earning so much? a large chunk of that should be dedicated towards the mappers instead
It's been extremely obvious to me, I'm sure it can be balanced out much better with this new system, because it might affect community mappers I don't think is a fair argument, when other artists are not getting any cut consideration at all in theory.
tbh the argument it favours coders i completely disagree with, since its forcing coders using your maps to pay you from their earnings in a sense as they are using your art for their games. ( in the same way games with dedicated artists are forced to take from their cut to pay artists ) if anything the current system has obviously favoured CODERS using other peoples community maps, and actively took away from mappers, dedi-art game coders, dedi-art game artists. ( especially artists like me, the work ive put in has accounted to £0 on top of the games earnings to keep for myself )
( also games relying on switching between many many maps, meaning each mapper earns less from that game is fair, if i made only 1 of the 10 maps for a game used, i would earn less too, it makes sense. Other games that only use your map will still give you a higher payout for using your map more too, thankfully community maps are used by many many games in theory so it shouldn't be a problem )
Game A generates $100 while being played on Map A, Map A gets 10% of that
Game A generates $100 more while being played on Map B, Map B gets 10% of that
Game A generates $100 more while being played on Map C, Map C gets 10% of that
etc...
It's not
Game A can be played with Map A,B,C,D,E,F,G
Game A generates $100, Map A takes 10% of that, Map B takes 10% of that, etc... leaving nothing for the game
Like people think, you won't lose more money because you use more maps, whatever map is being played by players gets a % from the generated playfund.
Regardless of the system chosen, the mappers will make the same amount of money, and if you worry about developers being greedy and making their own map to not give others a share, the same happened already with the older system where DXRP made its own map to get that extra playfund regardless of community maps. In fact the original thread was asking if THAT was allowed, not if community maps should get a %.
Well regarding Ubre just describes sounds like basically the same system except it goes through the gamemode dev first and gets distributed through out the maps, which to me is probably a decent solution.
Regarding Notgaylien, eventually maps will probably need little configuration besides entity’s, such as for dxrp the only reason the map selection is limited, is that there is not many map options, and right now there needs to be custom doors and glass put through scene. So eventually maps will become their own thing and not just an asset to a specific game. And looking at Garry’s mod as reference maps are often not make for a specific game and is usually just played with other games. This type of system makes the map overly reliant on the game. I understand s&box isn’t Garry’s Mod, but I think besides the fact that games are games now and not just game modes, the way maps work will probably be the same.
Also regarding artists that do not make maps getting shafted, that’s just makes more sense, as unless it’s a reuseable asset like props, in which if you want to make money off of in my opinion you should probably just sell on a marketplace, and if it’s not then that means it is fully reliant on the core game or map, and in this case it would make sense to derive from the playfund.
Also saying it doesn’t favor coders is just false, this puts more money in the coders pay fund, and the coders can possibly choose how much the maps get. As well as helping out artists who don’t make maps, but games still take a large amount more money then maps anyways, so I don’t see why it needs anymore
Also what’s the difference if the game has a map made by the same org it sounds like they will be collecting the same making of money if it’s giving out percentages of the game, they are just keeping that money, same idea of technically double dipping
I think there’s been a misunderstanding of my viewpoint. Let me make what im saying more clear, its similar to ubre but imo more fair.
My Proposed Solution
One playfund pool, Games take from this, and a percentage (e.g., 50%) of a game's earnings goes to community maps. ( i argue game makers shouldn't be able to set the %, they will just set it low otherwise, maybe a lower fixed 40% limit you can increase higher if you are generous )
Example:
A game earns £100, with 50% (£50) going to maps.
Total playtime: 60 minutes, with 10 maps used.
Map earnings are based on how long they’re played. For example:
One map played for 30 minutes gets £25.
Shorter maps earn less.
If only one map is used, it earns the full £50.
Good maps that are played longer earn more, get their far cut for driving longer gameplay.
Low-quality maps that players switch off quickly earn less, a good map wont have this issue, same as a good game actually getting players.
Alternative "Solutions"
No playfund for maps from the same game dev organization: This unfairly penalizes mappers and takes away their earnings for no good reason in my eyes, just because people can take advantage of it, why punish mappers?
Redirecting some mapper playfund to games none reliant on community maps: This takes away from mappers and is counterproductive imo.
The real issue is games profiting from community maps without giving mappers a fair cut. Right now, Facepunch is essentially covering what game creators should be paying mappers.
Other "Solutions" Some argue this would discourage games relying on community maps. However:
Devs who cant map maps can easily make a game using them, and start earning money they wouldn't make otherwise. ( trust me if people can avoid paying out of pocket for art, they will )
Devs avoiding maps can earn 100%—but they’ll need to pay for custom art anyway, which is worse than technically paying artist only if you earn anything like the above.
This system would incentivize quality maps, provide fair compensation for mappers, ensure games with dedicated art also receive fair earnings and will make double dipping basically impossible.
I’m confused what removing the map playfund changes though.
If map fund is combined into game fun then developers previously double dipping will make roughly the same as that previous cut going to the map will not just be going to the game as well.
From what I read the system your suggesting sounds like it will have the same outcome, as the current system, I do think allowing developers to raise or lower the portion of the map gets of the play fund is good, but paying through the gamemode sounds like it will eventually get complicated when you have game with dozens of maps, and those same maps are getting played on dozens of games.
No it completely eliminated double dipping being possible in the way it is now.. im not sure where you see its possible to still double dip.
Currently > game earns £100 from game playfund > map ( that shouldnt be seperate ) earns £50 from map playfund
this solution > game earns £140 from mixed playfund ( bigger pool since its mixed ) > map ( that shouldnt be seperate ) takes £70 away from games earnings > now games final earnings is £70, maps earnings are £70
it just means double dipping wont happen, instead you just needlessly move around earnings.
Also the issue with map playfund is that it means facepunch is paying out extra to mappers, when instead the money imo should be coming out of the game creators earnings. and coders are earning less when relying on your maps.
if they didnt use your maps, either they gotta spend time making their own, or pay money to have someone make one for them. so in that vein them using community maps is a shortcut to avoid wasting money on art, because facepunch is paying it for them because of how the playfund pools are set up.
Why not just let the map decide his share and who can use them ?
I create a gamemode A, I want the map M. I send a share request : "I give you x% of my revenue and i use your map like that (...)" and the map creator accept or say no.
Time to come back to this topic. What if you had 2 maps loaded?
edited:
Dxrp the most popular game. Uses 2 maps at the same time.image.png7.12 KBAnd Three Thieves earns now 2x the amount because of this method. (I will not say this is malicious but really STRANGE)
I think that's how it should work. The maps should consume the host game's revenue. I will investigate how I can make that work on the backend when I have some time.
I'm not interested in making an asset store. There's WAY too much admin involved. If the community wants to create one - I won't object, and we could actively support it with official support.
