But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I don't think the real issue is that people may have to pay for mods. It's more that under the current system, the modmaker gets very little (if any) reward, it really fragments the modding community, and most of the profit goes to Valve and Bethesda.
They royally fucked it up.
Yeah I don't.... Valve is running steam so sure. What the fuck is Bethesda doing? No really, what IS Bethesda doing to earn their share????
Arguably they're providing the original code that the modder is modding. Though why Bethesda would deserve money for mods that fix their broken code is beyond me.
I could see them theoretically deserving a cut in some instances and not in others. It'd really depend on the mod.
I kinda wonder what the reaction would have been, both from Bandai Namco/From Software, and the public at large, if when Dark Souls came out on PC as broken as it was, Durante said "Hey guys I made this neat program called DSfix and it can be yours for the low low price of $9.99".
I don't think this can work for already established free mod communities. Were this not a game with several years of functioning with things the way they have always been, then sure.
This is sort of an example of trying to privatize the profit of things created within the realm of public trust. The appropriate time to implement something like this would be at release of a game. Except you can't because you'd crush creativity.
Valve isn't wrong or evil for trying to find a way to support modders and turn a profit. They're just foolish to try it here and now.
I honestly do think this was the best game to try it on from Valve's perspective; you have a game with significant long-tail exposure and an active modding community. I don't think they would have had a chance of getting any kind of data from putting it on a new game, and they might have actually tanked the game.
The outrage is bigger, but unfortunately as GabeN has said Valve is very data driven, and they're going to get the most and best data by releasing it on a platform with a ton of mods that's old enough they aren't "rocking the boat" by significantly impacting game sales or eliminating the modding community before it can start selling mods. Even the outrage is somewhat usable data from Valve's perspective.
Now from the consumer perspective, yeah, a bunch of mods just got dependency issues due to paywalls and it screwed them over, but Valve wouldn't get anything out of consumers saying "yeah, not gonna bother modding an Elder Scrolls Knockoff if it costs extra money" if they released it on a "fresh" game.
I don't think the real issue is that people may have to pay for mods. It's more that under the current system, the modmaker gets very little (if any) reward, it really fragments the modding community, and most of the profit goes to Valve and Bethesda.
They royally fucked it up.
Yeah I don't.... Valve is running steam so sure. What the fuck is Bethesda doing? No really, what IS Bethesda doing to earn their share????
Arguably they're providing the original code that the modder is modding. Though why Bethesda would deserve money for mods that fix their broken code is beyond me.
I could see them theoretically deserving a cut in some instances and not in others. It'd really depend on the mod.
I kinda wonder what the reaction would have been, both from Bandai Namco/From Software, and the public at large, if when Dark Souls came out on PC as broken as it was, Durante said "Hey guys I made this neat program called DSfix and it can be yours for the low low price of $9.99".
Honestly? Probably just laughter while they waited for someone else to do the same for free.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
We had an apparently very popular modder with several million downloads post just a few pages back that over several years donations were only a couple bucks over several years.
In app market places we see donation versions phasing out because no one pays anything.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
There are very little examples of donations actually working worth a damn.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Patreon seems to be working alright for now, and a large number of patreons offer such limited benefits it's basically a donation. Similarly, Dwarf Fortress runs off donations with miniscule donation rewards. Those are definitely outliers though.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
Valve is not removing donation links from workshop pages.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
Valve is not removing donation links from workshop pages.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I don't think Steam is exploiting modders. For one, they are claiming 30%, not 75%. For another, Bethesda claims in the EULA for the Creation Kit that they are the sole owners of any original works created with the Creation Kit and they can do as they please with anything anyone makes with the Creation Kit. And finally, Bethesda is claiming 45% of anything modders make, which means that's Bethesda that's exploiting modders, not Steam, since Bethesda are not providing the distribution platform for mods, and purchase of Skyrim includes the license for the Creation Kit, which means Bethesda is being paid twice for every mod sold, for content they did not create or distribute or support.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
It is exploitation as these modders are not employees of these companies and are ostensibly participating to earn money and recognition, but it's still much better than keeping them in the dark.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We had an apparently very popular modder with several million downloads post just a few pages back that over several years donations were only a couple bucks over several years.
In app market places we see donation versions phasing out because no one pays anything.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
There are very little examples of donations actually working worth a damn.
So? Why should that mean modders have zero say in how they want to monetize their product if at all? Steam's system can result in someone's product bringing in several hundred dollars worth of profit but them still not seeing a single cent for their effort.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
It is exploitation as these modders are not employees of these companies and are ostensibly participating to earn money and recognition, but it's still much better than keeping them in the dark.
Okay. But then they were never being exploited like you claimed when they were giving the mods away for free either.
0
Options
TIFunkaliciousKicking back inNebraskaRegistered Userregular
Bethesda getting a cut is like owning property. They can demand whatever they want because you're working on their game. Valve can demand whatever they want because they own the service it's hosted on.
Honestly the best thing that can happen for modders right now is another mod friendly game like cities skylines offering a better deal. And if bethesda doesn't respond by treating their talented modders better I'm not really sympathetic to anyone that doubles down on trying to make a living out of skyrim mods.
If you want a paycheck by the end of 2015 though trying to sell something like an RPG maker game would just be a better time investment
We had an apparently very popular modder with several million downloads post just a few pages back that over several years donations were only a couple bucks over several years.
In app market places we see donation versions phasing out because no one pays anything.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
There are very little examples of donations actually working worth a damn.
So? Why should that mean modders have zero say in how they want to monetize their product if at all? Steam's system can result in someone's product bringing in several hundred dollars worth of profit but them still not seeing a single cent for their effort.
because it's a system that has been proven to work as opposed to a system that pretends it works but doesn't, at least for the purposes of reimbursing modders.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
That was less "people will not donate more than a cent for games" and more "scammers will use us as a cheap way to get Steam accounts that look legitimate/have access to competitions", if I remember correctly.
I also think it's worth questioning whether the current Steam Workshop set-up is going to generate much more money for modders than donations would have. Even when being featured on the front page of Steam, the Shadow Scales armour set has made about $650 for the modder. Exactly how much income is going to be generated when you ignore that period of time where Steam had a giant banner saying "Look at our new feature and then spend money on it"? What about when there's a larger selection of paid mods?
Donations might not make much money for modders, granted... but the Workshop's paywall might not either.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
Uh. Dictating what people can post on your service is pretty common.. Especially in regards to monetizing as valve is often noisily held accountable for anything that shows up on their platform.
If you go through them they can handle refunds or fraud things or whatever. A donation link doesn't have those protections but Steam would still be held accountable because they hosted it.
We had an apparently very popular modder with several million downloads post just a few pages back that over several years donations were only a couple bucks over several years.
In app market places we see donation versions phasing out because no one pays anything.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
There are very little examples of donations actually working worth a damn.
So? Why should that mean modders have zero say in how they want to monetize their product if at all? Steam's system can result in someone's product bringing in several hundred dollars worth of profit but them still not seeing a single cent for their effort.
because it's a system that has been proven to work as opposed to a system that pretends it works but doesn't, at least for the purposes of reimbursing modders.
What's the goal here? To make money for a small number of modders regardless of the effects or to let people create and distribute the content they want?
Cause I care a whole lot more about the latter. And if the first part can happen that's great too. But if it gets in the way of the second part then I have no trouble saying it's not worthwhile as an idea.
Bethesda getting a cut is like owning property. They can demand whatever they want because you're working on their game. Valve can demand whatever they want because they own the service it's hosted on.
Well, this is a grey area. I mean, you could also say that Microsoft can claim a portion of profit of anything developed in Microsoft Word because it's part of the Word application. It has a proprietary file format that (used to) require Word and only Word to read. So it could be said that a Word document was part of the Word application.
Or Microsoft can claim a cut of any program that uses the Windows API to run, which would include anything that uses actual windows in Windows.
This is going to be interesting because I don't know that Bethesda's claim over anything made using the Creation Kit will withstand court challenges, especially as most mods are 100% original content that is then placed on top of the existing game.
Like, K&N sells air filters that are for Mustangs. They only work on Mustangs. They require you own a Mustang in order to use the air filter. They change the performance of the car. But Ford doesn't get a cut of every K&N air filter sold.
And then there's Saleen, which straight up sells modified Mustangs.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
That was less "people will not donate more than a cent for games" and more "scammers will use us as a cheap way to get Steam accounts that look legitimate/have access to competitions", if I remember correctly.
I also think it's worth questioning whether the current Steam Workshop set-up is going to generate much more money for modders than donations would have. Even when being featured on the front page of Steam, the Shadow Scales armour set has made about $650 for the modder. Exactly how much income is going to be generated when you ignore that period of time where Steam had a giant banner saying "Look at our new feature and then spend money on it"? What about when there's a larger selection of paid mods?
Donations might not make much money for modders, granted... but the Workshop's paywall might not either.
then it'll fail, and it should. But that will provide a clear signal that modding will never be a profitable activity
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
Uh. Dictating what people can post on your service is pretty common.. Especially in regards to monetizing as valve is often noisily held accountable for anything that shows up on their platform.
If you go through them they can handle refunds or fraud things or whatever. A donation link doesn't have those protections but Steam would still be held accountable because they hosted it.
Steam won't offer a refund after 24 hours. A person has no recourse if a mod is made non functional the next day.
And that exploitation is standard practice in other areas doesn't really change what it is.
Bethesda getting a cut is like owning property. They can demand whatever they want because you're working on their game. Valve can demand whatever they want because they own the service it's hosted on.
Well, this is a grey area. I mean, you could also say that Microsoft can claim a portion of profit of anything developed in Microsoft Word because it's part of the Word application. It has a proprietary file format that (used to) require Word and only Word to read. So it could be said that a Word document was part of the Word application.
Or Microsoft can claim a cut of any program that uses the Windows API to run, which would include anything that uses actual windows in Windows.
This is going to be interesting because I don't know that Bethesda's claim over anything made using the Creation Kit will withstand court challenges, especially as most mods are 100% original content that is then placed on top of the existing game.
Like, K&N sells air filters that are for Mustangs. They only work on Mustangs. They require you own a Mustang in order to use the air filter. They change the performance of the car. But Ford doesn't get a cut of every K&N air filter sold.
And then there's Saleen, which straight up sells modified Mustangs.
You haven't proven or even shown that this will have any effect on free modding.
It's a lot of hand wringing about empty possibilities while some dude has already made almost $1000 for his hard work in like two days. (Purity mod.)
So, concrete evidence (PS brushes, ms flight dim paid mods, tf2 and dota2, Skyrim) vs ...? Feels?
We live in a society where you can get data pretty easily. Skyrim still second most selling game currently. User numbers have stayed the same or gone up.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
Valve is not removing donation links from workshop pages.
If you like this mod, please give it a thumbs up! If you really love it, you can donate here: {LINK REMOVED}
That was debunked almost immediately. Here is a post explaining why the link may have been removed, along with several examples of mods on the workshop that still have donation links as of me typing this right now.
Please take care to avoid blindly repeating every rumor you hear as if it is proven fact. This topic is already volatile enough without the rampant misinformation about it coloring every debate.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
Uh. Dictating what people can post on your service is pretty common.. Especially in regards to monetizing as valve is often noisily held accountable for anything that shows up on their platform.
If you go through them they can handle refunds or fraud things or whatever. A donation link doesn't have those protections but Steam would still be held accountable because they hosted it.
Steam won't offer a refund after 24 hours. A person has no recourse if a mod is made non functional the next day.
And that exploitation is standard practice in other areas doesn't really change what it is.
So we should do something about it instead of letting it continue as it has all this time.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Bethesda getting a cut is like owning property. They can demand whatever they want because you're working on their game. Valve can demand whatever they want because they own the service it's hosted on.
Well, this is a grey area. I mean, you could also say that Microsoft can claim a portion of profit of anything developed in Microsoft Word because it's part of the Word application. It has a proprietary file format that (used to) require Word and only Word to read. So it could be said that a Word document was part of the Word application.
Or Microsoft can claim a cut of any program that uses the Windows API to run, which would include anything that uses actual windows in Windows.
This is going to be interesting because I don't know that Bethesda's claim over anything made using the Creation Kit will withstand court challenges, especially as most mods are 100% original content that is then placed on top of the existing game.
Like, K&N sells air filters that are for Mustangs. They only work on Mustangs. They require you own a Mustang in order to use the air filter. They change the performance of the car. But Ford doesn't get a cut of every K&N air filter sold.
And then there's Saleen, which straight up sells modified Mustangs.
Car analogies.
We've come full circle.
Well, in this case I'm not sure it's invalid. This has nothing to do with lack of scarcity, but is about modding an existing product. I suppose the notion that software is licensed can change the relationship, and all right, but then that means that modders have no rights, and neither do users, and owners of that license can do and say anything they like, up to and including denying you use of the license you paid for, with no recourse.
You haven't proven or even shown that this will have any effect on free modding.
It's a lot of hand wringing about empty possibilities while some dude has already made almost $1000 for his hard work in like two days. (Purity mod.)
So, concrete evidence (PS brushes, ms flight dim paid mods, tf2 and dota2, Skyrim) vs ...? Feels?
We live in a society where you can get data pretty easily. Skyrim still second most selling game currently. User numbers have stayed the same or gone up.
Doom and gloom.
So his mod has generated roughly four thousand dollars? Why out of that does he only deserve a thousand? Seems to unfairly devalue his work.
You haven't proven or even shown that this will have any effect on free modding.
It's a lot of hand wringing about empty possibilities while some dude has already made almost $1000 for his hard work in like two days. (Purity mod.)
So, concrete evidence (PS brushes, ms flight dim paid mods, tf2 and dota2, Skyrim) vs ...? Feels?
We live in a society where you can get data pretty easily. Skyrim still second most selling game currently. User numbers have stayed the same or gone up.
Doom and gloom.
As has been stated several times, modders on the nexus who are against paid modding have been taking down their mods because they don't want them ripped off and sold on the workshop.
Pretty sure that qualifies as "having an effect on free modding".
Now, you're perfectly free to argue that they're being petulant children who are taking their ball and going home, and we can argue the points of that, but the free modding scene has been affected.
Presumably not well in general because RPGMaker is a very limited platform even for RPGs. Most probably fail, some get critical acclaim (Mortis Ghost's OFF, Super Columbine RPG) and a rare one makes it big (Charles Barkley's Shut Up And Jam Gaiden). So like most creative outputs really.
But we've been exploiting the modders who really want to make games.
This sentiment seems ridiculous to me. If I look at the work of an artist who freely posts things online, am I exploiting the artist in any way?
Depends, is the artist trying to make a career off publicity, like doing webcomics for instance? Does the artist depend on community feedback to improve their art, and are you giving a true appraisal or only refrigerator magnet support? If the artist makes a kickstarter, can they depend on you to be there? Will you buy their art book, get it signed at an art con, and go to their art gallery? Do you really mind the ads on the splash page or the skippable intro video?
You are supporting more artists than you'd think, monetarily or otherwise, by on face "free" offerings. How are we supporting modders?
Literally the same way you suggest that it's okay for visual artists.
Aw, come on, you know freelance software designers have less cultural and capital support in building careers out of free labor than artists. Especially in the realm of video games.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have the same method of support as every other freelance creator. It is not exploitation when they give their work away freely.
It is exploitation when a middle man for that work demands a 75% cut if the creator does try to profit off of it.
Well we tried donation and that didn't work. That is still entirely unrestricted, but nobody's kidding themselves. That's why most app programmers put ads in their crap, cause we don't really consume them like we do art, where we usually remember who the creator was for some reason and attribution is mega important.
I mean, it's all exploitation. When you reference the theme of a famous artist in your own work, you can claim it as your own because everyone recognizes the validity of creative license in that context. That's one of the last barriers between games and art, btw. So Valve and Bethesda will get a cut because licensing is licensing, but even before then, they were getting a cut. A 100% cut of the price of a game just so you could play somebody's mod. And that's fine for hobbyists; really none of it is exploitation if the modder doesn't need the money or recognition.
But some do, and this way is at least better than previous.
Who said donations didn't work? Valve, the company that is now demanding a 75% cut of all profits made from mods and removing donation links? I have to say I don't particularly believe that.
Meanwhile plenty of modders who needed the money or recognition are pulling their mods because Valve's system does not help them at all. Which brings us back to it's a good idea but terribly implemented.
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
Uh. Dictating what people can post on your service is pretty common.. Especially in regards to monetizing as valve is often noisily held accountable for anything that shows up on their platform.
If you go through them they can handle refunds or fraud things or whatever. A donation link doesn't have those protections but Steam would still be held accountable because they hosted it.
Steam won't offer a refund after 24 hours. A person has no recourse if a mod is made non functional the next day.
And that exploitation is standard practice in other areas doesn't really change what it is.
So we should do something about it instead of letting it continue as it has all this time.
Yep. Which I've said. Without making unnecessary and frankly hyperbolic claims that taking something freely offered is exploitation.
Posts
Comments made in this thread by an actual modder. No real success stories of modders subsisting on donations. And let me know if valve orders Nexus to take down its donation links.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Valve took down the links people had on the Steam pages. That isn't anything but exploitative behavior. And a modder not being able to make a living off of mods doesn't mean they were unsuccessful. It more likely means that a person can't easily make a living off of making mods. Which is the same for a million other freelance jobs focused on creation.
I kinda wonder what the reaction would have been, both from Bandai Namco/From Software, and the public at large, if when Dark Souls came out on PC as broken as it was, Durante said "Hey guys I made this neat program called DSfix and it can be yours for the low low price of $9.99".
This is sort of an example of trying to privatize the profit of things created within the realm of public trust. The appropriate time to implement something like this would be at release of a game. Except you can't because you'd crush creativity.
Valve isn't wrong or evil for trying to find a way to support modders and turn a profit. They're just foolish to try it here and now.
The outrage is bigger, but unfortunately as GabeN has said Valve is very data driven, and they're going to get the most and best data by releasing it on a platform with a ton of mods that's old enough they aren't "rocking the boat" by significantly impacting game sales or eliminating the modding community before it can start selling mods. Even the outrage is somewhat usable data from Valve's perspective.
Now from the consumer perspective, yeah, a bunch of mods just got dependency issues due to paywalls and it screwed them over, but Valve wouldn't get anything out of consumers saying "yeah, not gonna bother modding an Elder Scrolls Knockoff if it costs extra money" if they released it on a "fresh" game.
Honestly? Probably just laughter while they waited for someone else to do the same for free.
I mean, I know about that, and there are instances of forums which explicitly do not allow their use for personal advertisements. But if Valve makes an injunction against the Nexus donation system they're crossing the line.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And if Valve demands a 75% cut and refuses to allow people to advertise more direct ways to give them money it's still exploiting the modders. Something you claim to be against.
In app market places we see donation versions phasing out because no one pays anything.
We see humble bundle having to make set tiers because out of the millions of bundles they try to let people donate to charity and developers through, people would pay .01, then $1 when they were forced, now whatever tier they want.
There are very little examples of donations actually working worth a damn.
They have a direct way; it's called Nexus. Valve, or whoever Valve is acting in agreement with, has the right to clearly establish the terms of its free advertisement hosting. This is similar to the restrictions of self-advertisement on these forums as well.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes they are.
Is that the case? The OP states otherwise.
Yes, Steam is within their rights to exploit modders. That doesn't change what it is.
It is exploitation as these modders are not employees of these companies and are ostensibly participating to earn money and recognition, but it's still much better than keeping them in the dark.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So? Why should that mean modders have zero say in how they want to monetize their product if at all? Steam's system can result in someone's product bringing in several hundred dollars worth of profit but them still not seeing a single cent for their effort.
Okay. But then they were never being exploited like you claimed when they were giving the mods away for free either.
Honestly the best thing that can happen for modders right now is another mod friendly game like cities skylines offering a better deal. And if bethesda doesn't respond by treating their talented modders better I'm not really sympathetic to anyone that doubles down on trying to make a living out of skyrim mods.
If you want a paycheck by the end of 2015 though trying to sell something like an RPG maker game would just be a better time investment
because it's a system that has been proven to work as opposed to a system that pretends it works but doesn't, at least for the purposes of reimbursing modders.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That was less "people will not donate more than a cent for games" and more "scammers will use us as a cheap way to get Steam accounts that look legitimate/have access to competitions", if I remember correctly.
I also think it's worth questioning whether the current Steam Workshop set-up is going to generate much more money for modders than donations would have. Even when being featured on the front page of Steam, the Shadow Scales armour set has made about $650 for the modder. Exactly how much income is going to be generated when you ignore that period of time where Steam had a giant banner saying "Look at our new feature and then spend money on it"? What about when there's a larger selection of paid mods?
Donations might not make much money for modders, granted... but the Workshop's paywall might not either.
Uh. Dictating what people can post on your service is pretty common.. Especially in regards to monetizing as valve is often noisily held accountable for anything that shows up on their platform.
If you go through them they can handle refunds or fraud things or whatever. A donation link doesn't have those protections but Steam would still be held accountable because they hosted it.
What's the goal here? To make money for a small number of modders regardless of the effects or to let people create and distribute the content they want?
Cause I care a whole lot more about the latter. And if the first part can happen that's great too. But if it gets in the way of the second part then I have no trouble saying it's not worthwhile as an idea.
Additionally, claiming Bethesda brings no value to modders is a bit disingenuous.
I still don't know why the min payout is so high though; transaction fees can't be so extreme they couldn't soak payouts at 25 bucks of something.
Well, this is a grey area. I mean, you could also say that Microsoft can claim a portion of profit of anything developed in Microsoft Word because it's part of the Word application. It has a proprietary file format that (used to) require Word and only Word to read. So it could be said that a Word document was part of the Word application.
Or Microsoft can claim a cut of any program that uses the Windows API to run, which would include anything that uses actual windows in Windows.
This is going to be interesting because I don't know that Bethesda's claim over anything made using the Creation Kit will withstand court challenges, especially as most mods are 100% original content that is then placed on top of the existing game.
Like, K&N sells air filters that are for Mustangs. They only work on Mustangs. They require you own a Mustang in order to use the air filter. They change the performance of the car. But Ford doesn't get a cut of every K&N air filter sold.
And then there's Saleen, which straight up sells modified Mustangs.
I mean, I don't know how steam's costs go, but I imagine one 9.99 bundle is easier to deal with than ten .99 horse armors.
then it'll fail, and it should. But that will provide a clear signal that modding will never be a profitable activity
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Steam won't offer a refund after 24 hours. A person has no recourse if a mod is made non functional the next day.
And that exploitation is standard practice in other areas doesn't really change what it is.
Car analogies.
We've come full circle.
It's a lot of hand wringing about empty possibilities while some dude has already made almost $1000 for his hard work in like two days. (Purity mod.)
So, concrete evidence (PS brushes, ms flight dim paid mods, tf2 and dota2, Skyrim) vs ...? Feels?
We live in a society where you can get data pretty easily. Skyrim still second most selling game currently. User numbers have stayed the same or gone up.
Doom and gloom.
Please take care to avoid blindly repeating every rumor you hear as if it is proven fact. This topic is already volatile enough without the rampant misinformation about it coloring every debate.
So we should do something about it instead of letting it continue as it has all this time.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, in this case I'm not sure it's invalid. This has nothing to do with lack of scarcity, but is about modding an existing product. I suppose the notion that software is licensed can change the relationship, and all right, but then that means that modders have no rights, and neither do users, and owners of that license can do and say anything they like, up to and including denying you use of the license you paid for, with no recourse.
And we know that's not the case.
So his mod has generated roughly four thousand dollars? Why out of that does he only deserve a thousand? Seems to unfairly devalue his work.
As has been stated several times, modders on the nexus who are against paid modding have been taking down their mods because they don't want them ripped off and sold on the workshop.
Pretty sure that qualifies as "having an effect on free modding".
Now, you're perfectly free to argue that they're being petulant children who are taking their ball and going home, and we can argue the points of that, but the free modding scene has been affected.
Presumably not well in general because RPGMaker is a very limited platform even for RPGs. Most probably fail, some get critical acclaim (Mortis Ghost's OFF, Super Columbine RPG) and a rare one makes it big (Charles Barkley's Shut Up And Jam Gaiden). So like most creative outputs really.
Yep. Which I've said. Without making unnecessary and frankly hyperbolic claims that taking something freely offered is exploitation.