Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

It is the death of modding as we know it.

Using that logic, indie games should've died off two years ago. But places like itch.io (that support both paid and free games) are thriving.

prediction:

What you will ultimately see here will be something like this:

Valve says to Bethesda: "Hey, stop offering the modding tools for free. We have the biggest percentage of your modding community, and we are willing to pay you for exclusive rights to redistribute your modding toolkits."

Bethesda says "Oh, more money? OK. Let's make a deal."

Valve and bethesda make the deal, Valve becomes THE endpoint for getting the modding toolset, making it a content creation/publishing gatekeeper.
Valve then complains mightily about 3rd party modding toolkits outside their control, due to "lost opportunities" that these toolkits represent. Uses the nuclear legal option, or asks Bethesda to introduce some kind of digital signature checking, and then pulls a DMCA anticircumvention mcguffin on the remaining free modding community centers.

Over time, Valve offers "premiere" tools to mod makers that pay them extra for the priviledge. These tools are better than the free ones encumbered by valve's draconian IP redistribution restrictions, and bigger players pay for that advantage-- pushing small time makers out of the market.

At that point, the modding community as we currently know and undertand it would be truly dead.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Using that logic, indie games should've died off two years ago. But places like itch.io (that support both paid and free games) are thriving.

I'm not familiar enough with the indie scene to be able to talk about this well.
But it seems one difference in particular stands out- mod creators have to deal with a giant of a third party, the original developers. They own a big copyright hammer and the keys to enforce their will both aggressively or passively, and their will is revenue.
So you've got the for-money modders in the corner with the devs, and the problem arises when they directly compete with free content creators- say you've got a big, beautiful overhaul that you want to charge 5$ for. The Devs love you, as it brings in a lot of revenue.
Free content creator comes along and makes a free, slightly toned-down version of it.
What will the devs do when the free version peels away a big chunk of that revenue they were getting?
They'll try to clamp down on it.
How will the community feel?

It isn't a good recipe.

[Rolan7]

The main problem is that mods have zero quality control and the modder has zero responsibility to make sure the mod actually works with the current version.

Also the legal shitstorm that can happen when junior starts "downloading" mods when your card is in the system. Then there's the copyright issue.

Tempted to replace "mod" with triple-A studio there, though that'd be exaggerating the issue unnecessarily...

But the truth is that there are tons of barely-tested shovelware and never-to-be-finished alphas on Steam.  Not to mention all the older games which simply don't work.  It's possible to get refunds from Steam, at least for the ones that don't work at all...

And the same is true here, if I heard Totalbiscuit correctly.  There's a money-back guarantee on the mods (3 days I think?).  So if someone doesn't update their mod to work properly, they won't get any new sales, and they'll get downvoted to hell.

I don't think I'd buy a mod from someone unless they'd already proven a commitment to making sure their mods work properly.  Which isn't a catch-22, since they can still offer the mods for free to build up a reputation.  Steam makes it incredibly easy to see what other users think before you buy.

Don't buy Air Control or a crappy mod...  And if you do, request a refund.

[wierd]

Sorry Rolan, I'm with Grizzly on this one.  The MOMENT that one of these big players drops the big check for exclusivity rights, the show is over. No free content that isn't illegal.

No, a 3rd party does not have the right to demand things from other content creators, due to "lost opportunities". (Which is EXACTLY what GrizzlyAdams describes happening.)

[Frumple]

... no, they do have the right to demand that, especially if that other content creator is using material from that said party. This is especially true for mods, which are explicitly derivative work, generally created under some sort of license and using huge swaths of someone (mostly the third party in question) else's code.

They don't have the right to enforce that people do business with them afterwards, but they can make whatever demands they please.

[AlleeCat]

I dunno about you, but I'm looking forward to paying $100 for horse genitals. [/sarcasm]

[wierd]

... no, they do have the right to demand that, especially if that other content creator is using material from that said party. This is especially true for mods, which are explicitly derivative work, generally created under some sort of license and using huge swaths of someone (mostly the third party in question) else's code.

They don't have the right to enforce that people do business with them afterwards, but they can make whatever demands they please.

In the circumstance that Grizzly mentioned, there is a "Complete overhaul" mod.  Meaning, All art assets ARE REPLACED BY THE MODDER. The first one to do this, charges 5$ for the mod. The devs love it, because they get to get in on some of that extra cash.

ANOTHER modder does the SAME EXACT THING-- REPLACES *ALL* of the art assets-- and offers it for free.

The creator of the first mod, which has nothing to do with the second mod *AT ALL* has no real power to demand any such thing, and neither does the 1st party game maker, who's art assets have been completely replaced.  The mod in and of itself does not contain any of their IP. Further, if 3rd party toolsets are used, even the EULA loophole they MIGHT be able to use is removed.

so-- BZZZT, try again.

[Frumple]

uh, wierd. Games consist of significantly more than the art assets.

[wierd]

The mod maker is not distributing the game, frumple. They are distributing a binary package containing assets for use by a game, which may or may not be used in that game (EG, I might borrow a truly free asset for use in some other project), depending on how the mod is licensed.

The game maker may introduce EULA requirements for intellectual property licenensure for use of their mod toolsets, but those dont apply when those tools are not used to make the package.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

In case it hasn't been mentioned yet, here's a clip from /v/ involving the copyright issue.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

they truly understand nothing about modding communities in general and how many assets are shared between people
raising a limited number of those people to a pay grade above "free" is just asking for literally anyone that was ever involved in modding that game to dmca them
not to mention all the requisite and framework mods that are going to pull support to the modders that sold out and how badly its going to split the modding community in general
OR the use of mods based on existing, separate ips like final fantasy swords, anime waifus, etc
there are going to be an unfathomable fuckload of ip owners crashing down on them with requests to remove their shit from the workshop because of how they worked the eula and how it implies that they own all content they distribute through the workshop in order to skirt tax complications

this shit is probably a fucking nightmare for them right now, even without all the negative press

Existing IPs are pretty easy to handle- just say no to the modders trying to make a profit from them.
But inter-mod cooperation is going to implode.

[SealyStar]

/v/ and the gaming subreddits are going nuts. Valve's kicked the hornet's nest of gamer outrage and I can't wait for the stinging to begin. Even the professional Steam shills at PCMR have gone off the deep end.

Can we also have a discussion about how and why the "games media" is painting this as a good thing and decrying "gamer entitlement" á la ME3? While there are a lot of reasons to detest them, this particular one is quite puzzling; I literally can't think of any reason to support this besides being literally paid off by Valve.

[wierd]

Quite right-- I, Yours truly, am literally an example of what is mentioned here.

Does your mod use custom fonts in Skyrim, Oblivion, or Morrowind?

If so, then your mod uses my work. No-- It uses my work. It does.  Seriously.  Myself and another person under the alias of ManaUser created the original reverse engineering research into the font format that those games use, and together we created the first public documentation of the image asset format and binary table structure used.

I could put the hammer on all those projects in a heartbeat if I so wished.  I don't, as I did that work for the benefit of the greater mod community, as at the time there was simply no way to replace the fonts present in those games.  Now there is, and as a consequence of that generosity, there are many font packages that can be dropped in.  I call that a win for everyone.

(I even have public attribution of such credit.)
(and here is where we did the actual work.)

This was when the NetImmerse engine was "brand new", when morrowind was an AAA title. All we had from Bethesda at the time was the construction set, the 3ds max 8 plugin, and the DDS converter.  That was all.

EVERYTHING ELSE we had to make ourselves.  Argent made MWEdit, a replacement for the construction set, and the antecedent for the later open source modding toolsets for Fallout, Oblivion, Skyrim, and pals. Faron made the Enchanted editor with insights from Argent, which was a very high-powered ESP and ESS file editor.  Myself and ManaUser created the original font editing/creation software and file format documentation. The NIFLA (NetImmerse File Liberation Association) group exhaustively documented the netimmerse NIF format, which enabled mod making tools for the plethora of NetImmerse engine games that came later, including open and free file converters to-from NIF format.

The community was able to grow on those contributions BECAUSE we donated our work publicly without demanding money.

[alway]

Oh no this is terrible, now instead of either facing a decision to make no money or receive a cease and desist, people can choose to try making money. Seriously, that's all this is: a pre-negotiated licensing agreement open to the public. Oh no, modders will have to actually make use of license docs! Oh wait they already do that if they want to be taken seriously and not sued. Tantrum in a teacup.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Selling mods was never OK.
They were always free, that was the culture.


Valve is removing patreon/donation links from mod pages.

[Propman]

The bad bit is that it's only 25% profit in steambucks (as opposed to a direct donation), meaning the average joe isn't going to be making top dollar even if he attempts to put up the whole kichen sink for sale. The horrible bit is thieves stealing mods and selling them on workshop for money. Even though more intelligent people will continue download things off site, the very thought that plagiarizers can make money by in essence putting up a paywall for free content against the will of their original creators doesn't sit right with me, and I doubt Valve is willing to put the effort to prevent people from copying mods off of obscure third party sites, or even relativley reknowned ones like Nexus for the matter.