Print

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

[ChairmanPoo]

Once again I think the solution is punish companies that engage in DRM, DLC bloat (specially day 1), and the like.  If you pay nonetheless because you "can't live without Skyrim/Starcraft/Simcity" no matter how shitty the conditions are, then they've already won.

[da_nang]

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.

No kidding. 100+ mods? That's $200+, thank you very much.

EDIT:

If you pay nonetheless because you "can't live without Skyrim/Starcraft/Simcity" no matter how shitty the conditions are, then they've already won.

Until the sails are hoisted... Yarr...

[acetech09]

So, let's see if I understand the general disdain for this system.

A modder, who spends their own time to write their own mod has to follow your mandate that they release their mod for free, because you don't want to pay for it?

On top of that, there's this expectation that a mod developer/mod user can use a well-established marketplace, payment system, hosted on someone else's servers and developed on other people's time - and be entitled to use it for free? Sure, the charge for using the system might be steep, (75% of revenue plus whatever % valve got for initial game sale), but that's capitalism for you - Valve has a legal obligation to maximize profits for the shareholders. If you don't want to give money to valve, you don't have to pay them.

Are people concerned that they'll have access to less good content because developers can now start charging for mods, when previously they were free? Either A) Paid mods won't be popular, and it will be more profitable to host a free, popular mod and receive lots of donations (how I'm perceiving this to eventually settle). or B) Paid mods will become popular due to their perceived value. If we're worried that the latter happens, then again - it's a free market. People that assign more value to commodities are the ones to get access to said commodities.

[Araph]

Valve has a legal obligation to maximize profits for the shareholders.

I think Valve is actually privately owned, but I agree with what you're saying.

[Eagle_eye]

People that assign more value to commodities are the ones to get access to said commodities.

For things that are actually limited in supply, that might make sense. But the cost of a download is so absurdly low that data may as well be infinitely abundant. Putting a price tag on mods will reduce the number of people who have access to them, not simply change which particular individuals receive a set amount of stuff.

And in all likelihood, it won't increase the number of quality mods being made. The vast majority of mods that later become hits don't instantly become super popular as soon as they're published. On the contrary, they spend a fair amount of time with downloads in three to four digits. The amount of money the vast majority of mod authors are going to see from this without an enormous investment of time and effort on their part is minuscule, and it's pretty well established that small monetary rewards actually harm performance in skill-related tasks.

[Putnam]

So, let's see if I understand the general disdain for this system.

A modder, who spends their own time to write their own mod has to follow your mandate that they release their mod for free, because you don't want to pay for it?

Yes.

Also, there's quite a lot of precedence on mods being things that are free.

[wierd]

So, let's see if I understand the general disdain for this system.

A modder, who spends their own time to write their own mod has to follow your mandate that they release their mod for free, because you don't want to pay for it?

Yes.

Also, there's quite a lot of precedence on mods being things that are free.

I think that both of those interpretations are wrong-headed.

Does the modder have the right to charge money? Sure he does.  What he does not have the right to, is to have people want to use his mod.

Not free? Sorry-- could be this century's Mona Lisa-- wont buy.

Does the modder want the rush of having people download and use their mod? Or does the modder want money?  To me, THAT's the choice, since the public will decide weather to pay the modder or not regardless. That's not up to the modder.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

People that assign more value to commodities are the ones to get access to said commodities.

For things that are actually limited in supply, that might make sense. But the cost of a download is so absurdly low that data may as well be infinitely abundant. Putting a price tag on mods will reduce the number of people who have access to them, not simply change which particular individuals receive a set amount of stuff.

And in all likelihood, it won't increase the number of quality mods being made. The vast majority of mods that later become hits don't instantly become super popular as soon as they're published. On the contrary, they spend a fair amount of time with downloads in three to four digits. The amount of money the vast majority of mod authors are going to see from this without an enormous investment of time and effort on their part is minuscule, and it's pretty well established that small monetary rewards actually harm performance in skill-related tasks.

Honestly, this might actually stop mods from getting all that large, as people are less likely to be willing to experiment on content.  Would also kill off youtube shows that show off mods in most cases, as the price per week could rise to the point where it is cost-inefficient to make the videos (at least in terms of start-ups, that is.  Established ones probably have the views to take the hit.).

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Forgetting the hornet's nest that is copyright and DRM-ified mods/devs trying to secure as much of that sweet sweet mod cash as they can,
(by supporting paid mod makers more, or even licensing them, etc), this is driving a massive wedge between modders and the communities that spawned them. What was an endeavor that was fueled by a love for the game and possibly rewarded by charitable fans via a donation system will become a job driven by profit and 'fair recompense'.

It is the death of modding as we know it.

[acetech09]

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.

[wierd]

Welcome to normal market capture by early stage oligopolies.

Usual progression:

Public commons -> Gatekeepers and rent seekers pop up -> (free) public access diminishes -> rentseekers and gatekeepers complain about "lost opportunities", draconian enforcement happens -> barriers to entry prohibit new public commons works from entering market due to draconian enforcement -> Oligopoly control complete


I would be more "ok" with people charging for mods, if there was an enforced rule against complaining about "Lost opportunities" later.  That's always been a problem with markets like this, moving from a public good infrastructure to a paid infrastructure. You see it EVERYWHERE with copyright, which is the poster child for this. "OMG, I could TOTALLY have made XYZ% more profits if it werent for those meddling kids! Big bad government, make them PAY!" etc.

As I mentioned earlier, it is the modder's perogative if they want to charge for their work-- but that ends at my control over my wallet. They dont get to say "Hey, we COULD have made more money IF--" , because ultimately the one in control of that money is *ME*, the purchaser.  The established cartel like industry that will ultimately dominate from the lack of that kind of basic protection gets around that little problem by being the only game in town.  I want the choice to be able to offer for free, and the choice to consume the free offering to remain on the table.

[Rolan7]

Except hard-working, creative developers aren't commons.  They aren't free grass for everyone to walk their animals around on.  They certainly deserve the right to ask for money if they choose, and if they think it's a good idea.  In most cases?  Probably isn't a good idea.

[Frumple]

I want the choice to be able to offer for free, and the choice to consume the free offering to remain on the table.

Which is still on the table, at least for the time being.

To the extent that was ever actually a thing. Which it never was for mods for commercial games -- both the choice to offer and the choice to consume user-created has always been bundled into the price of the game (barring piracy, anyway). Which is one of the reasons charging for more rubs people wrong, really. People have already paid into the system that's been established by literal decades of precedence, and change, especially change that has a noted track record of poisoning the proverbial well, thus far, is obviously going to be resisted.

It'll be interesting to see how things go, really...

[da_nang]

Forgetting the hornet's nest that is copyright and DRM-ified mods/devs trying to secure as much of that sweet sweet mod cash as they can,
(by supporting paid mod makers more, or even licensing them, etc), this is driving a massive wedge between modders and the communities that spawned them. What was an endeavor that was fueled by a love for the game and possibly rewarded by charitable fans via a donation system will become a job driven by profit and 'fair recompense'.

It is the death of modding as we know it.

The Iron Paywall is here. Let's hope we can tear it down.

[majikero]

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.