Print

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

[Sonlirain]

Totalbiscuit released a content patch about the Iron Paywall.

That got downvoted to hell in the first several minutes to the point he actually commented that he's not ok with paying for mods... while he constantly talks about how great paying for mods will be during most of the video.

Well at least the FPS and FoV in steam workshop is not making him nauseous.

Seriously tho 75% is not that preposterous if you think about it the other way.
Modders are like mistletoe on a tree (the game and its dev).
Modders themselves cannot recreate Skyrim. They need the base to work with so obviously they don't deserve to get 100%.

Steam usually takes 30% and i assume it's the case here as well meaning they share the pluder. 25% for the mod make 30% for Valve and 45% for bethesda for making skyrim.

[da_nang]

Apparently /r/modpiracy exists now. Didn't take long.

[Redzephyr01]

This is going to go the same route that DLC did. Need I remind you of Oblivion's horse armor DLC?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

This is going to go the same route that DLC did. Need I remind you of Oblivion's horse armor DLC?

best DLC 10/10. Would horse again.

[Araph]

One other thing to consider is competing mods. Suppose the Unofficial Elder Scrolls patch was monetized. How many seconds do you think it would be before someone starts working on an identical (and free) patch? In 'vital' (ish) cases, the community will regulate itself.

I did a quick search for copyright information, and found something halfway down the FAQ for that particular mod:
http://afkmods.iguanadons.net/index.php?/topic/3581-frequently-asked-questions-about-the-project/
In a nutshell, they assert they have copyright on their bugfixes and don't allow people to edit and release their work.  Apparently people were fixing things that weren't broken, and the original USP team were getting a lot of misleading bug reports from those repackaged releases.

I don't see why a mod author wouldn't be able to enforce copyright on their code, under whichever license they released under.

I might not have said that quite clearly. What I mean is that modders will take note of the bugs fixed and create an entirely new mod that serves the same purpose.

[Frumple]

... y'know, I think what might worry me the most about this development is whether it's going to mean a change in how modding tools are handled or not. Are we going to see those less likely to be bundled into the game? More restrictive EULAs, which include royalty fees and copyright waivers for use built in? Assuming that 75% is at least partially going to the publisher, is this going to incentivise functionally double-dipping on user-created content -- basically charging the mod creator twice (once for the mod tools, once for commercialization) for the privilege of officially commercializing their mod? One of those wait and see things, I guess, but companies being companies it's mildly concerning. We've already seen at least one case (SC2) of what happens to a mod scene when the publisher gets (extra) greedy. It'd be somewhat annoying if that sort of thing kept happening.

[Orange Wizard]

It's Copyright Law Hell.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

It's Copyright Law Hell.

It really is. Unfortunately it can be successfully argued either way, thus if this continues I'm sure we'll eventually see some sort of litigation for or against some impassioned modders.

[Rolan7]

I think TotalBiscuit summed up my position on this pretty well...  Though I'm less optimistic than him, and also I think Steam deserves *some* money for hosting and facilitating.  Just not nearly so much.

Like he said, people deserve to get paid for their work.  Whether they choose to arrange payment, or just offer their work for free, should be up to them.  And this could (possibly) encourage professional mod development.  Well, it literally encourages it, but we'll see what actually happens.

I might not have said that quite clearly. What I mean is that modders will take note of the bugs fixed and create an entirely new mod that serves the same purpose.

That could happen, but it'd involve redoing most of the work.  The patch is 101MB, and fixes about a thousand bugs (based on their bug tracker, which only shows data for one category at a time).

I agree that this will be self-regulating, but recreating the unofficial patches from scratch would be... nontrivial.  And possibly never do as good a job at actually fixing the bugs, even cribbing off their bugtracker.

Though if that particular project starts demanding money, which seems highly unlikely, I bet Bethesda would finally get around to implementing fixes themselves   Hopefully hiring the mod authors or licensing their work.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Again let me state, it's not my position that people should go unpaid for their hard work, but it's not modding. It's game development. now, as previously stated, modding is and should be a hobby for everyone. Donations are cool, but in a sense this is really sucking the fun out of playing mods, and to some extent, making them too. I believe someone else already said modding is NOT game development and if modders want to get in to that they should develop their own IP.

[Orange Wizard]

Eh. I don't oppose paid mods per se, but it's such a tremendous legal grey area that it really can't be a good idea.

[Frumple]

I think Steam deserves *some* money for hosting and facilitating.  Just not nearly so much.

Well, the thing is they are getting money for hosting and facilitating. Already. That's the whole thing that, y'know, they do. They get paid to publish and host games. Entire shtick, right there. Stuff like the workshop is part of the services they provide to incentivise folks to use them over other platforms. Standard value-added junk.

What they're asking isn't that, it's to get paid extra for a service they were already providing and getting paid to provide. Hrm. Or I guess asking to get paid extra for the service of facilitating commercial modding. Muscling in on paypal or patreon or whatev' in the field of donating to creators. Which is actually an angle I hadn't considered, this as a sort of power-grab by steam, attempting to lay claim to the cash available in the field of user-made content creation. Makes me wonder if that was part of the decision making process...

E: Though thinking of it that way, it makes me kinda' confused why they didn't just frame it that way, as facilitating donations. That would have had a hell of a lot less PR backlash, and it's obvious they're already working that angle with the 0+ price option.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Where's the petition at?

[SealyStar]

Another issue: The cost of the mods is such that it would only take a few for the total mod cost to surpass that of the game and official DLC. In fact, the relative value for a lot of mods under this system is downright terrible.

[Putnam]

...To be fair, quite a few mods (spellmaking in skyrim, wheels of lull off the top of my head) are easily just as good as dawnguard.

It's honestly a tough question. I disapprove of forcing people to pay if they want to play your mod wholeheartedly, though.