However it doesn't force anyone to stop making mods without charging, and it doesn't cut off other methods of bringing in income such as donations.
And when it comes right down to it anyone who is making mods for games and looking at it as anything besides a fun hobby or experience for a portfolio is insane. It takes a good deal of the same skills to make mods as it does to work in the game industry. So why bother modding if you're looking towards it for an income when you could get any number of game engines freely available to make your own thing or join any number of teams looking for talented artists/programmers?
Neither would be an easy path to go but they're way less crazy than taking issue with modding, something that traditionally brings in little to no income at all, STILL not bringing in any real form of income.
I've been reading through this thread and I honestly have no clue why people are taking issue with Valve and Bethesda showing clearly just how much a fools errand modding for money actually is.
25% would be fine if you had extensive support, if Bethesda was giving you anything for that 45% other than an assurance they won't sue. That's not the case though, they're just set up to let money roll in while you do all of the work without any help from them. You're the face of the project and expected to act as developer, tester, and public relations for it. All of that work for the smallest cut of the pie is absolutely bonkers.
You are making two arguments and pretending they are identical, but they're very different.
The argument in this post: A 25% cut is terrible for how much work modders have to do on their individual mod. Sure, that's an argument you can make; we can discuss the importance of quality assurance and support, or how much value Bethesda giving you cheap development software and a large install base has, the value of the Steam marketplace as a platform, or any number of things.
The argument in the previous post: Accepting a 25% cut is stupid and irrational and Valve has set it up so modders are forced to choose to take the stupid and irrational 25% cut. This is absolutely not true; there is nothing forcing any developer to take the cut rather than keep their mod up for free, and there's nothing irrational about taking the only monetization option available if you care about incidental income.
Also, I don't see how this relates to the prisoner's dilemma.
It relates to the prisoner's dilemma because of how Valve approached them. One option was to keep your mod free (staying silent), the other was to go paid (squealing), and they helped you along by saying "these guys have already gone paid, so why don't you as well?" The force Valve is using is mental, it's tricking people who aren't used to making deals like this into signing their rights away. They're put into a situation where they're focused on themselves and their gain--convieniently allowing them to forget about the modding community and how it would react to it--so they're much more likely to bite. I am convinced Valve knew there was no way they could get anyone to go along with the profit split the way it is if they approached the community as a whole which is why they went the seperate and isolate method they did.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited April 2015
I will definitely say that modders going for this deal are showing poor judgement, because if money is going to be charged for this stuff than they absolutely should be getting better than a 25/75 split. Really, it should be completely reversed, with them getting the 75% and Steam and Bethesda splitting the remaining earnings. The current setup is pathetic and insulting towards people who have made some vastly better design choices than actual devs at Bethesda.
And if Valve/Bethesda really was interested in any way whatsoever in handling this in a smart way, they'd opt to pay mod developers (reasonably) for the new content they've made and just make the stuff "official". A lot of these folks have built mods that are head and shoulders above content Bethesda has made; "licensing" content from them would be pretty reasonable and would fit in fine with stuff Valve has already done, without insulting mod makers and mod users alike.
Paying singly for mods and paying the makers a meager fraction of the money charged is some incredibly moronic bullshit to think up, but asking people to, say, buy a $5-$15 "content pass" to access a pile of Bethesda-curated content where the actual content creators get a fair cut and everything is officially supported? That would've actually interested me. Bethesda would be dealing directly with the content makers and rewarding them appropriately, and the consumers would get a system of mods supported by the developers of the actual game.
The bottom line here is that this whole thing is a massive pile of mismanagement and greed, when a bit of attention to consumer and actually benefitting content creators could've made something genuinely beneficial for all parties. Come up with a plan that adds some fucking value, not one that kicks the old system in the balls to squeeze some money out of loyal customers. But this crap? It's exactly the sort of anti-consumer nonsense that Gabe Newell is supposed to be against.
Modders should not make once-free mods now paid. That's just anti-consumer bullshit. You can, stop development on your mod call it finished and start working on another mod that's paid. That's fine by me. But removing content people have enjoyed for money is like holding their game hostage. I feel this is the biggest problem, and this includes outright theft of mods to put them on sale on steam.
I don't have a problem with free mods going paid. Mod Counter Strike was a thing long after paid Counter Strike was released. Removing the download link for a free mod should be a thing that developers can do.
The problem is more the whole automatic updating system built into Steam lets developers delete their free mod off the hard drive of people who have it installed.
There is nothing wrong with free mods going paid.
There is everything wrong with denying access to someone's already downloaded content in order to get them to buy the paid version. Hence I said if you want your mod to go paid, you halt development of it, make a new paid version and update the paid version. That way the consumer doesn't get locked out and held for ransom.
When counter strike went paid, nothing stopped people from playing the mod for years and years, same thing with Day of Defeat and other Half Life mods, the original mods before they became individual games still functioned.
25% would be fine if you had extensive support, if Bethesda was giving you anything for that 45% other than an assurance they won't sue. That's not the case though, they're just set up to let money roll in while you do all of the work without any help from them. You're the face of the project and expected to act as developer, tester, and public relations for it. All of that work for the smallest cut of the pie is absolutely bonkers.
You are making two arguments and pretending they are identical, but they're very different.
The argument in this post: A 25% cut is terrible for how much work modders have to do on their individual mod. Sure, that's an argument you can make; we can discuss the importance of quality assurance and support, or how much value Bethesda giving you cheap development software and a large install base has, the value of the Steam marketplace as a platform, or any number of things.
The argument in the previous post: Accepting a 25% cut is stupid and irrational and Valve has set it up so modders are forced to choose to take the stupid and irrational 25% cut. This is absolutely not true; there is nothing forcing any developer to take the cut rather than keep their mod up for free, and there's nothing irrational about taking the only monetization option available if you care about incidental income.
Also, I don't see how this relates to the prisoner's dilemma.
It relates to the prisoner's dilemma because of how Valve approached them. One option was to keep your mod free (staying silent), the other was to go paid (squealing), and they helped you along by saying "these guys have already gone paid, so why don't you as well?" The force Valve is using is mental, it's tricking people who aren't used to making deals like this into signing their rights away. They're put into a situation where they're focused on themselves and their gain--convieniently allowing them to forget about the modding community and how it would react to it--so they're much more likely to bite. I am convinced Valve knew there was no way they could get anyone to go along with the profit split the way it is if they approached the community as a whole which is why they went the seperate and isolate method they did.
The prisoner's dilemma is very specific and has nothing to do with your example. But it is fun!
In short: The prisoner's dilemma is a situation where you have two separate actors who can both choose option A (silence) or option B (defect). No matter what the other person does, Option B is better for an individual. However, both people picking Option A is better for both of them than picking Option B. The dilemma is that, in the absence of other incentives, an individual gets the best EV out of picking Option B, but the group gets the best EV out of picking option A.
I do agree that Valve probably did not approach a roundtable of developers and say "hey, we want all of you to sell your mods for a total 25% cut" because there's absolutely no reason for that kind of crosstalk in any business negotiation, but it is not nearly as evil as you are making it out to be, nor does it have anything to do with Game Theory.
I don't even play on PC, but I can tell this seems like a super shitty idea that will be super easy to abuse.
That said, I'm not going to boycott the next Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Half Life 3 over one shitty business decision. But I won't hold it against others if
they do.
There’s a lot of craziness about paid mods, a lot of people who don’t know how they feel. It’s probably no big suprise that I’m all for it. I sold a mod once and everyone was angry that it was happening, until it happened and they got a much better product than they’d have gotten when it was released for free, then they seemed to calm down a bit.
...
There are still free mods
A lot of the craziness seems to come from the thought that no-one will ever release their mods for free. That makes no sense.
Some stuff won’t be worth charging for. Some people won’t want paying for their stuff. If a mod takes 10 seconds to make and someone wants to charge $10 for it then they won’t sell any copies because it’s not worth it. This is how the market balances itself. They’ll either have to lower their price or make it worth the price.
...
People will upload stolen stuff
I’ve said it a million times – If “people are assholes on the internet” was a reason not to do something then we’d never do anything
Stuff is going to happen. There was a time where they’d almost completely stopped making PC games because of piracy. Should we really let the fact that sometimes people are assholes dictate what we do? Or should we just deal with it when it happens?
...
Who is winning
...
So obviously Valve and Game Devs are the biggest winners right now. That’s the wrong way around in my opinion. The modders should be getting the majority share of the revenue from this – that just seems like common sense.
It’s obvious that Valve and the game developer need to make money here too, enough to cover costs at least – but it’s the modder’s work that is making the money. I don’t know whose choice that is though, but it feels like someone is being a greedy asshole. This is something that will get better with time.
"We should just deal with it as it happens" doesn't hold much water when Valve's support is demonstrably worthless. And that's being generous.
As for the mantra of "well just don't buy it then, there are still free mods, man": as said before at length, free mods are being taken offline because of this. This isn't speculation; it's already happened, and is continuing to happen. Customers and modders who don't want anything to do with paid mods are still in a worse situation than before.
"We should just deal with it as it happens" doesn't hold much water when Valve's support is demonstrably worthless. And that's being generous.
As for the mantra of "well just don't buy it then, there are still free mods, man": as said before at length, free mods are being taken offline because of this. This isn't speculation; it's already happened, and is continuing to happen. Customers and modders who don't want anything to do with paid mods are still in a worse situation than before.
How are modders who don't want anything to do with this in a worse situation?
"We should just deal with it as it happens" doesn't hold much water when Valve's support is demonstrably worthless. And that's being generous.
As for the mantra of "well just don't buy it then, there are still free mods, man": as said before at length, free mods are being taken offline because of this. This isn't speculation; it's already happened, and is continuing to happen. Customers and modders who don't want anything to do with paid mods are still in a worse situation than before.
How are modders who don't want anything to do with this in a worse situation?
Less mods being available means that you cannot build mods off of other mods; if a modder removes a free mod that manages or allows other mods to function, then those mods are also now unable to function (or at least, new users cannot make them work).
There's also the obvious case of mods that are free being stuck because they are dependent on a now-paid mod, though some modders have only released updated versions as paid mods.
"We should just deal with it as it happens" doesn't hold much water when Valve's support is demonstrably worthless. And that's being generous.
As for the mantra of "well just don't buy it then, there are still free mods, man": as said before at length, free mods are being taken offline because of this. This isn't speculation; it's already happened, and is continuing to happen. Customers and modders who don't want anything to do with paid mods are still in a worse situation than before.
How are modders who don't want anything to do with this in a worse situation?
Less mods being available means that you cannot build mods off of other mods; if a modder removes a free mod that manages or allows other mods to function, then those mods are also now unable to function (or at least, new users cannot make them work).
There's also the obvious case of mods that are free being stuck because they are dependent on a now-paid mod, though some modders have only released updated versions as paid mods.
So not so much modders that don't want to have anything to do with this, but modders who don't want to or can't release stand-alone mods?
Because otherwise that seems like a customer's problem, not a modder's problem.
The whole business side of this sounds awful for modders (as in it's a bad deal and people probably shouldn't take it), but man, I'm not going to think it's a bad thing in principle that modders can sell their mods. That's just crazy talk.
And if their cut was actually fair and sane the same thing would happen as far as their being less free mods.
So is the complaint about paid mods existing as a thing at all, or that this implementation of it is poorly handled from a business end? Because if it's the former that's a pretty selfish stance to take.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
The no support thing I can understand, the 75% cut on its own I can't
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.
The no support thing I can understand, the 75% cut on its own I can't
The simple answer is "because that's the way it's always been"; content creators for both TF2 and DOTA 2 only receive 25% of the sales from their items.
Valve must be scratching their heads that this has suddenly become an issue.
The no support thing I can understand, the 75% cut on its own I can't
The simple answer is "because that's the way it's always been"; content creators for both TF2 and DOTA 2 only receive 25% of the sales from their items.
Valve must be scratching their heads that this has suddenly become an issue.
Content that's added to the TF2/Dota2/CS:GO storefronts is all vetted by Valve to actually function before they add it to the game, but neither Valve nor Bethesda do any vetting of the mods on Skyrim's Steam workshop. And if a mod doesn't work, you only have 24 hours to demand a refund, so if - for example - a mod breaks your save, and you don't notice until you go to load your save a day or two later, you're SOL.
That, and a number of very prominent free mods that many other mods were dependent on are now going to be paid mods, which could to create all kinds of unforeseen compatibility problems. Wet & Cold is already on the paid Steam workshop, and SkyUI - a mod that hundreds if not thousands of other mods are dependent on - will be joining it.
Overall, I don't like this pro-business shift. It's always the people who benefited the most that continue to take the most, and also with this change, we'll see the modders who do it as a hobby or for fun be slowly replaced by more corporate-type modders who do it for a business and a brand.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Your entire post just reads like "I refuse to spend any time reading people's coherent and sound arguments against this because I've already decided it's good". And of course throw in the needlessly reductive (and false) idea that everyone who takes issue with this just doesn't want to spend money.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Language is alright if you use it. You refer to the modder and only the modder and then state them. Them would refer to the modder then unless you want us to make a whole bunch of assumptions. You're being antagonistic.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Your entire post just reads like "I refuse to spend any time reading people's coherent and sound arguments against this because I've already decided it's good". And of course throw in the needlessly reductive (and false) idea that everyone who takes issue with this just doesn't want to spend money.
Or everything they've stated has no actual backing. In a data driven society, lack of data makes any issues a non-point. There is plenty of data to support the concept. Again, such things as paid mods exist in every successful product. Photoshop, Sims, Second Life, TF2, dota2, MSflight, No one has brought up any that doesn't. I've asked repeatedly and no one has delivered, instead appealing to emotion and what ifs. If that's all you have to base your stance on, then you'll get bulldozed by progress. That's how the world works.
Apologies, I was seeking some actual fact or economics based responses, which I was not getting. Apparently I am just having a different conversation then most here are trying to have.
Like the purity weather mod? I think it's amazing. The modder did a great job and made sure it will run even on minimal spec rigs without any glaring incompatibility.
I happily gave them 2.99 and I don't even play Skyrim anymore.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Language is alright if you use it. You refer to the modder and only the modder and then state them. Them would refer to the modder then unless you want us to make a whole bunch of assumptions. You're being antagonistic.
The initial response was also based on an assumption. The mod is sold in a shop, if I am buying from a shop, it is actually the default that I am giving the money to the shop. I am not buying from Jill at the register. I am giving the money to the shop at which I am, well, shopping. What happens to the money after that isn't much under my control. So the initial post was simply trying to be snarky about the fact that I stated I spent my money on a system I support. The entire 2.99 went into the system. 75% of it didn't vanish. I am supporting the entire concept.
Hence, yes, I gave them 2.99. Because I am paying all involved, because I am supporting the system.
Or everything they've stated has no actual backing.
This is the first time a large, open access modding community built around a specific game has had that game's developer and the company responsible for digitally distributing it allow them to place their mods behind a paywall easily and without any clear oversight or quality control. If people hesitant about this move have had to resort to what-ifs and potential scenarios, it's because there is no precedent here.
So today's Jimquisition talks about this (after the first couple minutes), and I pretty much agree with most of what he says. It's a decent summation of why some people who dislike this idea feel the way they do at least.
I really have no problem with the concept of paid mods and I don't think it's a terrible idea going forward. But I do think the concept of paid mods will reduce the collaborative nature of mod communities and reduce the number of viable, creative, and unique mods as a result.
As for the current situation, I am not a fan of what was a working, vibrant community being essentially broken by the introduction of paid mods.
It's hard to imagine any reimbursement scenario that wouldn't have this initial turmoil
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.
It's hard to imagine any reimbursement scenario that wouldn't have this initial turmoil
I think if it was introduced with Fallout 4/Elder Scrolls 6 it would have had significantly less gnashing of teeth because no mods would have yet been developed for those games. There would not have been a community to break, just the introduction of a new community that would be the status quo going forward.
It's hard to imagine any reimbursement scenario that wouldn't have this initial turmoil
I think if it was introduced with Fallout 4/Elder Scrolls 6 it would have had significantly less gnashing of teeth because no mods would have yet been developed for those games. There would not have been a community to break, just the introduction of a new community that would be the status quo going forward.
Yeah. As much as I don't believe this will ever be a "good thing" for these games or the mod community in general, it certainly could have been less bad.
Like, by launching it with Fallout 4, and making it clear that the profit sharing percentages have an actual purpose, like say, having Bethesda actually do something to support the mods as they update the games (maybe by offering up beta patches to modders so they can work on updates), and the overall structure of the mod workshop and guarantees around it not basically boil down to "Well, you figure it out", which is what their (Valve's) policies boil down to.
Introducing it with a new game, especially with the antagonistic response some significant parts of the vocal minority have (the Reddit hivemind that only cares about getting mods for free), would have been better for the consumer and modding community but far worse for Valve and Bethesda. Bethesda risks losing out on a ton of sales of their new game over the launch of their modding platform (whereas this incident may be forgotten or lessened by that time), and Valve gets far lower quality data that's confounded by the fact their system could affect the install base and modding community. Plus, Valve can't launch the platform and idea at the same time with mods for sale and announce paid mods at the launch of the game, because then people would bitch about day 1 DLC and modders getting special access.
As much as it might hurt the current Skyrim modding community, I think the choice of game (if not the implementation) was pretty much correct given Bethesda wants to see if the model can make revenue and Valve wants to get as much data as possible; getting less data and potentially tanking actual game sales goes against that.
It's hard to imagine any reimbursement scenario that wouldn't have this initial turmoil
I think if it was introduced with Fallout 4/Elder Scrolls 6 it would have had significantly less gnashing of teeth because no mods would have yet been developed for those games. There would not have been a community to break, just the introduction of a new community that would be the status quo going forward.
Yeah. As much as I don't believe this will ever be a "good thing" for these games or the mod community in general, it certainly could have been less bad.
Like, by launching it with Fallout 4, and making it clear that the profit sharing percentages have an actual purpose, like say, having Bethesda actually do something to support the mods as they update the games (maybe by offering up beta patches to modders so they can work on updates), and the overall structure of the mod workshop and guarantees around it not basically boil down to "Well, you figure it out", which is what their (Valve's) policies boil down to.
I think a lot of the problems with discussing the current issue stems from the fact that Valve's/Bethesda's/Some Modders' actions in creating the Mod Marketplace conflated two issues into one big issue and those two issues should really be decided and considered separately because an answer on one does not guarantee an answer on the other:
Issue 1: Should there be paid mods? Yes/No/Maybe and why?
Issue 2: Should a paid mod system be applied to a current modding community when a paid system did not exist before? Yes/No/Maybe and why?
On issue 1 I think the answer is maybe, leaning towards yes as certain issues are addressed. On issue 2 I believe the answer is no because of the disastrous effects we are seeing on the current modding community.
Introducing it with a new game, especially with the antagonistic response some significant parts of the vocal minority have (the Reddit hivemind that only cares about getting mods for free), would have been better for the consumer and modding community but far worse for Valve and Bethesda. Bethesda risks losing out on a ton of sales of their new game over the launch of their modding platform (whereas this incident may be forgotten or lessened by that time), and Valve gets far lower quality data that's confounded by the fact their system could affect the install base and modding community. Plus, Valve can't launch the platform and idea at the same time with mods for sale and announce paid mods at the launch of the game, because then people would bitch about day 1 DLC and modders getting special access.
As much as it might hurt the current Skyrim modding community, I think the choice of game (if not the implementation) was pretty much correct given Bethesda wants to see if the model can make revenue and Valve wants to get as much data as possible; getting less data and potentially tanking actual game sales goes against that.
I almost never believe anybody when they say they'll "never purchase a game again" for X reason. People are fickle, fickle creatures that enjoy the path of least resistance unless the reason for resistance is a deeply held belief/disagreement. "Free mods forever" does not strike me as one of those deeply held beliefs/disagreements.
I think it would have been worse for the modding community. Skyrim is sunsetting, and a lot of these issues will crop up at any implementation. It's hard to get the first few mods out, and complicating that with these collaborative and legal issues will make it hard enough to get off the ground.
Paladin on
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.
Introducing it with a new game, especially with the antagonistic response some significant parts of the vocal minority have (the Reddit hivemind that only cares about getting mods for free), would have been better for the consumer and modding community but far worse for Valve and Bethesda. Bethesda risks losing out on a ton of sales of their new game over the launch of their modding platform (whereas this incident may be forgotten or lessened by that time), and Valve gets far lower quality data that's confounded by the fact their system could affect the install base and modding community. Plus, Valve can't launch the platform and idea at the same time with mods for sale and announce paid mods at the launch of the game, because then people would bitch about day 1 DLC and modders getting special access.
As much as it might hurt the current Skyrim modding community, I think the choice of game (if not the implementation) was pretty much correct given Bethesda wants to see if the model can make revenue and Valve wants to get as much data as possible; getting less data and potentially tanking actual game sales goes against that.
I almost never believe anybody when they say they'll "never purchase a game again" for X reason. People are fickle, fickle creatures that enjoy the path of least resistance unless the reason for resistance is a deeply held belief/disagreement. "Free mods forever" does not strike me as one of those deeply held beliefs/disagreements.
Pretty certain we've had people in this very thread saying that.
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited April 2015
Heh, hopefully these modders remember to declare their sales on next year's taxes. :razz:
I'm pretty much in line with Jim Sterling's thoughts.
Pro modders making money, cause holy crap some of them are totally worth spending money on.
Not too cool with the implementation & with what is almost certain to be a monopoly.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
The implementation should be decent when windjammers gets a sequel
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.
I really have no problem with the concept of paid mods and I don't think it's a terrible idea going forward. But I do think the concept of paid mods will reduce the collaborative nature of mod communities and reduce the number of viable, creative, and unique mods as a result.
We have no idea what the long term damage or benefit this will bring. Right now everything is a mess but its really too soon to make predictions on the future here.
I do believe a lot of the issues we are seeing now are going to sort themselves out. At the end of this tunnel we might be better for this.
The implementation should be decent when windjammers gets a sequel
The... the arcade volleyball game?
Yes, also when Silent Hills comes out
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.
Posts
However it doesn't force anyone to stop making mods without charging, and it doesn't cut off other methods of bringing in income such as donations.
And when it comes right down to it anyone who is making mods for games and looking at it as anything besides a fun hobby or experience for a portfolio is insane. It takes a good deal of the same skills to make mods as it does to work in the game industry. So why bother modding if you're looking towards it for an income when you could get any number of game engines freely available to make your own thing or join any number of teams looking for talented artists/programmers?
Neither would be an easy path to go but they're way less crazy than taking issue with modding, something that traditionally brings in little to no income at all, STILL not bringing in any real form of income.
I've been reading through this thread and I honestly have no clue why people are taking issue with Valve and Bethesda showing clearly just how much a fools errand modding for money actually is.
It relates to the prisoner's dilemma because of how Valve approached them. One option was to keep your mod free (staying silent), the other was to go paid (squealing), and they helped you along by saying "these guys have already gone paid, so why don't you as well?" The force Valve is using is mental, it's tricking people who aren't used to making deals like this into signing their rights away. They're put into a situation where they're focused on themselves and their gain--convieniently allowing them to forget about the modding community and how it would react to it--so they're much more likely to bite. I am convinced Valve knew there was no way they could get anyone to go along with the profit split the way it is if they approached the community as a whole which is why they went the seperate and isolate method they did.
And if Valve/Bethesda really was interested in any way whatsoever in handling this in a smart way, they'd opt to pay mod developers (reasonably) for the new content they've made and just make the stuff "official". A lot of these folks have built mods that are head and shoulders above content Bethesda has made; "licensing" content from them would be pretty reasonable and would fit in fine with stuff Valve has already done, without insulting mod makers and mod users alike.
Paying singly for mods and paying the makers a meager fraction of the money charged is some incredibly moronic bullshit to think up, but asking people to, say, buy a $5-$15 "content pass" to access a pile of Bethesda-curated content where the actual content creators get a fair cut and everything is officially supported? That would've actually interested me. Bethesda would be dealing directly with the content makers and rewarding them appropriately, and the consumers would get a system of mods supported by the developers of the actual game.
The bottom line here is that this whole thing is a massive pile of mismanagement and greed, when a bit of attention to consumer and actually benefitting content creators could've made something genuinely beneficial for all parties. Come up with a plan that adds some fucking value, not one that kicks the old system in the balls to squeeze some money out of loyal customers. But this crap? It's exactly the sort of anti-consumer nonsense that Gabe Newell is supposed to be against.
There is nothing wrong with free mods going paid.
There is everything wrong with denying access to someone's already downloaded content in order to get them to buy the paid version. Hence I said if you want your mod to go paid, you halt development of it, make a new paid version and update the paid version. That way the consumer doesn't get locked out and held for ransom.
When counter strike went paid, nothing stopped people from playing the mod for years and years, same thing with Day of Defeat and other Half Life mods, the original mods before they became individual games still functioned.
The prisoner's dilemma is very specific and has nothing to do with your example. But it is fun!
In short: The prisoner's dilemma is a situation where you have two separate actors who can both choose option A (silence) or option B (defect). No matter what the other person does, Option B is better for an individual. However, both people picking Option A is better for both of them than picking Option B. The dilemma is that, in the absence of other incentives, an individual gets the best EV out of picking Option B, but the group gets the best EV out of picking option A.
I do agree that Valve probably did not approach a roundtable of developers and say "hey, we want all of you to sell your mods for a total 25% cut" because there's absolutely no reason for that kind of crosstalk in any business negotiation, but it is not nearly as evil as you are making it out to be, nor does it have anything to do with Game Theory.
That said, I'm not going to boycott the next Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Half Life 3 over one shitty business decision. But I won't hold it against others if
they do.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
http://garry.tv/2015/04/24/paying-for-mods/
Some choice quotes:
More at the link above.
As for the mantra of "well just don't buy it then, there are still free mods, man": as said before at length, free mods are being taken offline because of this. This isn't speculation; it's already happened, and is continuing to happen. Customers and modders who don't want anything to do with paid mods are still in a worse situation than before.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
How are modders who don't want anything to do with this in a worse situation?
Less mods being available means that you cannot build mods off of other mods; if a modder removes a free mod that manages or allows other mods to function, then those mods are also now unable to function (or at least, new users cannot make them work).
There's also the obvious case of mods that are free being stuck because they are dependent on a now-paid mod, though some modders have only released updated versions as paid mods.
So not so much modders that don't want to have anything to do with this, but modders who don't want to or can't release stand-alone mods?
Because otherwise that seems like a customer's problem, not a modder's problem.
The whole business side of this sounds awful for modders (as in it's a bad deal and people probably shouldn't take it), but man, I'm not going to think it's a bad thing in principle that modders can sell their mods. That's just crazy talk.
And if their cut was actually fair and sane the same thing would happen as far as their being less free mods.
So is the complaint about paid mods existing as a thing at all, or that this implementation of it is poorly handled from a business end? Because if it's the former that's a pretty selfish stance to take.
No, you didn't. You gave them 75 cents, the same amount to Valve, and the rest went to Bethesda.
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.
The simple answer is "because that's the way it's always been"; content creators for both TF2 and DOTA 2 only receive 25% of the sales from their items.
Valve must be scratching their heads that this has suddenly become an issue.
Don't want to set a precedent you'll later regret.
Content that's added to the TF2/Dota2/CS:GO storefronts is all vetted by Valve to actually function before they add it to the game, but neither Valve nor Bethesda do any vetting of the mods on Skyrim's Steam workshop. And if a mod doesn't work, you only have 24 hours to demand a refund, so if - for example - a mod breaks your save, and you don't notice until you go to load your save a day or two later, you're SOL.
That, and a number of very prominent free mods that many other mods were dependent on are now going to be paid mods, which could to create all kinds of unforeseen compatibility problems. Wet & Cold is already on the paid Steam workshop, and SkyUI - a mod that hundreds if not thousands of other mods are dependent on - will be joining it.
Hence them. Not him. Not 'the modder'.
Them. As in plural. As in I put 2.99 into Steam and my magic disco fairywords suddenly materialized in my library.
Language is pretty alright if you use it properly.
Purity also at $1080 in profit. Bet the dude is totally regretting ever getting into this horribly abusive and exploitive relationship. I bet they killed his cat, too, just to prove a point.
Serious talk, no one has made any valid arguments as to anything but 'I don't want to spend money.'
In regards to the cut: As you're signing up for the whole thing (Do it yourself, its educational.) it explicitly states the initial 30% cut from Valve and everything after that is decided by the publisher. Bethesda decided the final 25% split (Actually a 65/35 cut which is fair in a 'Working off of someone elses work' cut, but who wants to be reasonable and actually think about such trivial things.)
If free authors have been pulling their mods off of Nexus, that's a shame, but entirely their choice. If any of the other paywall modding communities (Hello Sims, Second Life, etc.) prove anything, its that over the long term people get over themselves. So if we're going to make wildly unsupported claims based on nothing, I'll throw mine in the ring and say they'll get over it once the dust settles.
Your entire post just reads like "I refuse to spend any time reading people's coherent and sound arguments against this because I've already decided it's good". And of course throw in the needlessly reductive (and false) idea that everyone who takes issue with this just doesn't want to spend money.
Language is alright if you use it. You refer to the modder and only the modder and then state them. Them would refer to the modder then unless you want us to make a whole bunch of assumptions. You're being antagonistic.
Or everything they've stated has no actual backing. In a data driven society, lack of data makes any issues a non-point. There is plenty of data to support the concept. Again, such things as paid mods exist in every successful product. Photoshop, Sims, Second Life, TF2, dota2, MSflight, No one has brought up any that doesn't. I've asked repeatedly and no one has delivered, instead appealing to emotion and what ifs. If that's all you have to base your stance on, then you'll get bulldozed by progress. That's how the world works.
Apologies, I was seeking some actual fact or economics based responses, which I was not getting. Apparently I am just having a different conversation then most here are trying to have.
Also $1087.
The initial response was also based on an assumption. The mod is sold in a shop, if I am buying from a shop, it is actually the default that I am giving the money to the shop. I am not buying from Jill at the register. I am giving the money to the shop at which I am, well, shopping. What happens to the money after that isn't much under my control. So the initial post was simply trying to be snarky about the fact that I stated I spent my money on a system I support. The entire 2.99 went into the system. 75% of it didn't vanish. I am supporting the entire concept.
Hence, yes, I gave them 2.99. Because I am paying all involved, because I am supporting the system.
This is the first time a large, open access modding community built around a specific game has had that game's developer and the company responsible for digitally distributing it allow them to place their mods behind a paywall easily and without any clear oversight or quality control. If people hesitant about this move have had to resort to what-ifs and potential scenarios, it's because there is no precedent here.
As for the current situation, I am not a fan of what was a working, vibrant community being essentially broken by the introduction of paid mods.
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.
I think if it was introduced with Fallout 4/Elder Scrolls 6 it would have had significantly less gnashing of teeth because no mods would have yet been developed for those games. There would not have been a community to break, just the introduction of a new community that would be the status quo going forward.
Yeah. As much as I don't believe this will ever be a "good thing" for these games or the mod community in general, it certainly could have been less bad.
Like, by launching it with Fallout 4, and making it clear that the profit sharing percentages have an actual purpose, like say, having Bethesda actually do something to support the mods as they update the games (maybe by offering up beta patches to modders so they can work on updates), and the overall structure of the mod workshop and guarantees around it not basically boil down to "Well, you figure it out", which is what their (Valve's) policies boil down to.
As much as it might hurt the current Skyrim modding community, I think the choice of game (if not the implementation) was pretty much correct given Bethesda wants to see if the model can make revenue and Valve wants to get as much data as possible; getting less data and potentially tanking actual game sales goes against that.
I think a lot of the problems with discussing the current issue stems from the fact that Valve's/Bethesda's/Some Modders' actions in creating the Mod Marketplace conflated two issues into one big issue and those two issues should really be decided and considered separately because an answer on one does not guarantee an answer on the other:
On issue 1 I think the answer is maybe, leaning towards yes as certain issues are addressed. On issue 2 I believe the answer is no because of the disastrous effects we are seeing on the current modding community.
I almost never believe anybody when they say they'll "never purchase a game again" for X reason. People are fickle, fickle creatures that enjoy the path of least resistance unless the reason for resistance is a deeply held belief/disagreement. "Free mods forever" does not strike me as one of those deeply held beliefs/disagreements.
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.
The louder people are about boycotting, the more they want to play the game. Game publishers know this.
Pretty certain we've had people in this very thread saying that.
I'm pretty much in line with Jim Sterling's thoughts.
Pro modders making money, cause holy crap some of them are totally worth spending money on.
Not too cool with the implementation & with what is almost certain to be a monopoly.
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.
The... the arcade volleyball game?
We have no idea what the long term damage or benefit this will bring. Right now everything is a mess but its really too soon to make predictions on the future here.
I do believe a lot of the issues we are seeing now are going to sort themselves out. At the end of this tunnel we might be better for this.
Yes, also when Silent Hills comes out
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.