Trainz Content Creator Program, now online!
- Thread starter n3vpolsen
- Start date
cascaderailroad
New member
So Bendorsey has 4004 building assets, and GFisher has 164 building assets, and I use all of them on my route ... and I sell my route for $40 ... Who's gonna get paid ? And how are those people gonna get paid ? Or is N3V solely going to reap the profits from the sale of my payware route, that uses all of those freeware assets ... selling the whole shebang as payware ? And I, and those who donated their assets to the DLS, get nuttin' at all ?
John2002 is not gonna like dis' !
John2002 is not gonna like dis' !
Last edited:
Cascaderailroad, how much of the hypothetical route you created to sell for $40 would be your own work?
Let us assume (for the sake of argument) that all the assets you used came from the DLS or were part of the Trainz installation system. So did your creative input consist of sculpting the landscape and perhaps the artistic use of the landscape painter. Of course, you may have got the landscape from DEM data. Either way, N3V and TransDEM provided the tools for you to work with.
You may have had to do some historical research to work out what went where and what it looked like, so your time could have been worth something - but did Google and Wikipedia do all/most of that work? So can you claim that any of that effort is really yours?
I find payware routes to be problematical for the above reasons. I have no problem with payware assets, be it flowers or locomotives, but I would not pay for a route no matter who created it. However, others may or will have different views.
Your point about the creators of the DLS assets you used in your hypothetical route not receiving any payment could possibly be valid if those creators had not agreed to the terms and conditions for uploading their work to the DLS. Even if they were entitled to receive payment, how would you divide up the $40 you are charging? It is possible that you would be required to charge considerably more than $40 for fair recompense to all those creators. Imagine if Bendorsey charged you just 1c for each of his assets that you used.
Let us assume (for the sake of argument) that all the assets you used came from the DLS or were part of the Trainz installation system. So did your creative input consist of sculpting the landscape and perhaps the artistic use of the landscape painter. Of course, you may have got the landscape from DEM data. Either way, N3V and TransDEM provided the tools for you to work with.
You may have had to do some historical research to work out what went where and what it looked like, so your time could have been worth something - but did Google and Wikipedia do all/most of that work? So can you claim that any of that effort is really yours?
I find payware routes to be problematical for the above reasons. I have no problem with payware assets, be it flowers or locomotives, but I would not pay for a route no matter who created it. However, others may or will have different views.
Your point about the creators of the DLS assets you used in your hypothetical route not receiving any payment could possibly be valid if those creators had not agreed to the terms and conditions for uploading their work to the DLS. Even if they were entitled to receive payment, how would you divide up the $40 you are charging? It is possible that you would be required to charge considerably more than $40 for fair recompense to all those creators. Imagine if Bendorsey charged you just 1c for each of his assets that you used.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
So then the EULAs of all of the content creators that say "not allowed to be used in payware routes" would be stomped on, even further removing what little say content creators have left. Sounds like a plan. :n:
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
Unfortunately, it's always been like that. N3V's EULA has always taken precedence over any EULA that the creator specifies if an asset is put on the Download Station.
Read http://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/Download_Station_License_Agreement for details.
Shane
Last edited:
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Except that this is different. This isn't completely N3V, this is a program that allows routes created by users (i.e. Not created by N3V), to be sold. It's essentially an overpriced payware hosting service. The content isn't going to be included in the next version of the game or in an update, that's different. No, this is a whole different ball game, and I, for one, don't like it when a company tries to take advantage of their customers instead of selling the product that they are advertising.
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
It's not much different. N3V do reserve the right to make use of content that's on the Download Station in payware products which is what this is related to. However, it's worth reading the agreement properly using the link in the OP.
Shane
Shane
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Either way it screws the creator like a lightbulb. I'm sorry but I fail to see how it's fair to conpletely change the game and void the creator's wishes in the name of the allmighty dollar. As of now, 100% of the content that N3V can use (because I would hope 3rd party assets are excluded from this) were made under the assumption that aside from being included in the game, their wishes would be honored (with this being one of them). This just sidesteps everything, and to top it off, you can't get your content out of this agreement. Nobody agreed to this, whether you support it or not, and it's come out of nowhere. It's just ridiculous.
And no, it's not the same. It's not N3V made, it's community made, and N3V is selling the content under their name to avoid this kind of issue. Just another instance of them stuffig their pockets instead of fixing the game, and another instance of throwing content creators under the bus.
And no, it's not the same. It's not N3V made, it's community made, and N3V is selling the content under their name to avoid this kind of issue. Just another instance of them stuffig their pockets instead of fixing the game, and another instance of throwing content creators under the bus.
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
Perhaps, although I've only had chance to partially read the agreement on the link at the top so far.
It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same method as what's been used in the past though.
Shane
It wouldn't surprise me if it's the same method as what's been used in the past though.
Shane
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
It's different because in this case anybody can make a route and sell it, and not only do they get money, but the content creator who made the content that the person placed on that route gets absolutely no say whatsoever in that matter. In the past, N3V or N3V associates would make routes to be included in the sim, as included content, not payware. N3V made the money off of the transaction, and the EULA was fine and dandy. Now, N3V is essentially endorsing the breaking of individual content creator's EULAs, and it can be completely fine because N3V makes an outrageous commission off of it.
There are many things wrong with this: the aforementioned abandoning of the content creator's wishes, the fact that the person giving N3V the route to sell pay out of pocket in the event of a refund, the fact that N3V is once again more concerned about stuffing their pockets than selling the game that was advertised in the first place, I could go on all day...
There are many things wrong with this: the aforementioned abandoning of the content creator's wishes, the fact that the person giving N3V the route to sell pay out of pocket in the event of a refund, the fact that N3V is once again more concerned about stuffing their pockets than selling the game that was advertised in the first place, I could go on all day...
Last edited:
@Jacksonbarno, I can see where those that have the statement "not allowed to be used in payware routes" in their creations could be upset. And the difficulty of identifying those specific items in a long list of dependencies is not an excuse although a few might slip in accidentally.
Me, I never added that statement to any of my uploads and don't know why I would want to. Seems to me that getting more of my items used is the object of sharing. If those that buy a payware route then discover and use my objects too, so much the better.
Me, I never added that statement to any of my uploads and don't know why I would want to. Seems to me that getting more of my items used is the object of sharing. If those that buy a payware route then discover and use my objects too, so much the better.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Well the icing on the cake for me is that you can't opt out of anything because N3V doesn't let people remove their content from the DLS. So on top of all of that, whether we like it or not, we're forced into this deal without any kind of agreement or anything... Extremely shady in my book, especially when there isn't any talk about fixing the game that they're supposed to be sold for.
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
They are in the process of fixing the game - that's what they are dealing with in the Trainz Dev forum if you read through the posts in there.
Shane
... except for that agreement you agreed with before uploading to the DLS that clearly states "they" are allowed to do this?
Last edited:
Your missing one important point, firstly any one who wanted to make money out of Trainz will already be doing it, secondly, submitting a route does not mean it will ever be good enough to be accepted anyway, thirdly if you start making money, you need in the UK at least to register as a business for Tax and Vat purposes which will put 99% of people off anyway.
cascaderailroad
New member
When you uploaded your assets to the DLS, you gave N3V digital signature rights to do what ever they wish with your assets, including selling them as included in a payware package, or route ... in essence you donated them to N3V, for them to do what ever they wish with them ... correct me if I am wrong
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Except that in this case N3V isn't making the package, only selling it. That's a whole different ball game.
I know that they have that "Trainz Dev" effort going, but the fact that they're already concerned about making money before the game is even close to being ready is worrying.
I don't hve a problem with amyone making money off of Trainz, I just have a problem when they do it by violating the wishes of the very content creators that make Trainz what it is today. Even i some routes aren't accepted, you are still attempting to sell something that isn't legal to sell in the first place (oin off of the collective EULAs that set standards for this game).
I know that they have that "Trainz Dev" effort going, but the fact that they're already concerned about making money before the game is even close to being ready is worrying.
I don't hve a problem with amyone making money off of Trainz, I just have a problem when they do it by violating the wishes of the very content creators that make Trainz what it is today. Even i some routes aren't accepted, you are still attempting to sell something that isn't legal to sell in the first place (oin off of the collective EULAs that set standards for this game).
May I suggest putting your money where your mouth is and joining the program? I will be all too glad to purchase your content and requesting a full refund once I've had my fun with it.
Look at all the rich-man snobbishness overflowing from this post.
How do you come to that conclusion? Wild speculation or is there some logical step I'm not seeing?
Hyperbole and exaggeration can be interesting and even fun if done for comic effect but what is this supposed to be?
Similar threads
- Locked