Print

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

[nenjin]

Before yesterday, someone using uncredited mod content w/o permission was guilty of being rude, and not giving credit where it's due at worst.

Today, someone is out money.

I'm sure no one saw this coming.

Thanks Valve. Really appreciate the gamer changer you've introduced here.

[10ebbor10]

Attempting to access any of the pay mods results in a "This item is no longer for sale" for me. All of them. Wet and cold, some of the various swords- none of them actually work. I think Valve may have pulled it.

Same. They're mentioning it on the Skyrim discussion board as well.


I'll be honest, though, after this, I'm probably going to buy my games on GMG or Gog from now on, and activate them on Steam later. I'm not so sure they'll backtrack the next time they try something like this.

Why?

I still don't get the hate Valve gets for doing this.

I mean, is it so horrific Valve offered the option to modders to gain money for their efforts? Nothing persuasive, nothing harmfull, nothing forced. Merely offering an option.

That is not to say there are no arguments against it. The incompatibatility concern and stealing are pretty good points, but it's not like Valve is being unethical about anything. A 75% cut might be a lot, but remember that that is a cut for full access of a distribution service (Valve normally takes 30% for this), the engine, and the intellectual property, as well as benefitting from marketting and other support.

Before yesterday, someone using uncredited mod content w/o permission was guilty of being rude, and not giving credit where it's due at worst.

Today, someone is out money.

They're not out of money if the original creator wasn't intended on selling. Same reason that the lost revenue for piracy isn't actually a thing, since people weren't going to buy it anyway.



Merely an emotional argument involved in people stealing stuff. Not to be discounted, of course.

[Rolan7]

The sucker who bought from the thief is out the money.
However, thieves were already able to "steal" donations...

[Gamerboy4life]

Attempting to access any of the pay mods results in a "This item is no longer for sale" for me. All of them. Wet and cold, some of the various swords- none of them actually work. I think Valve may have pulled it.

Same. They're mentioning it on the Skyrim discussion board as well.


I'll be honest, though, after this, I'm probably going to buy my games on GMG or Gog from now on, and activate them on Steam later. I'm not so sure they'll backtrack the next time they try something like this.

Why?

I still don't get the hate Valve gets for doing this.

I mean, is it so horrific Valve offered the option to modders to gain money for their efforts? Nothing persuasive, nothing harmfull, nothing forced. Merely offering an option.

That is not to say there are no arguments against it. The incompatibatility concern and stealing are pretty good points, but it's not like Valve is being unethical about anything.

Before yesterday, someone using uncredited mod content w/o permission was guilty of being rude, and not giving credit where it's due at worst.

Today, someone is out money.

They're not out of money if the original creator wasn't selling. Same reason that the lost revenue for piracy isn't actually a thing, since people weren't going to buy it anyway.

Merely an emotional argument involved in people stealing stuff.

I'm of the opinion that mods should be free. If you want to donate to the author, then you can, but you shouldn't be restricted to buy a mod to play it.

I'd just be rehashing arguments that many other people have made many other times, such as the fact that the mod creator only gets 25% when donating to them would instead give them 100%. The fact that Valve+Studio are taking over 75% of the cut for someone elses' work is insane, not to mention that a large majority of modders would never see the money due to their 100 USD-something paywall.


And, well, I already spent 40-60 USD on a game, there's no way in hell I'd spend an extra 1-3 USD on a sword, of all things. It's a little insulting. Not to mention I can see this leading to developers tossing out half-broken games, having modders fix it for a tiny sum, and then rolling in their subsequent profits as they get a majority of mod cuts.

I'm not against modders getting paid for this, I'm against the fact that the wrong people are in control of a system like this, and that you'd have to pay for a third party modification that isn't guaranteed to work, not conflict, or otherwise be updated.

[Graknorke]

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.

Did somebody say "100 dollar horse genitals"?
I mean they probably didn't. But it's relevant.

[BoredVirulence]

A small part of me wants to see the crash come. Not because I hold scorn for modders, no, they are wonderful people. Indeed modding is a long tradition of freedom and transparency. I'm a firm believer of free software / open source (don't make me take sides, RMS is insane but has some good points), and a number of recommended code of ethics for developers / software engineers include giving back to the community.

No, I want to see it burn because of Bethesda's lack of respect for their established community. Free modding has been helpful for them in bolstering their community, but its not at all surprising the moment its not so helpful it would be monetized. Free mods were just another reason to buy their games, now that people buy them anyway why not charge. Of course the smart thing would be to try and hire modders as an independent studio to produce DLC's, and remove the tools for modding. But monetizing existing mods is just easier.
[/rant]

The list of gaming companies I respect is rapidly declining. Then again, I haven't kept a close eye on computer gaming though, so I have certainly missed prior transgressions.

[nenjin]

Well just read the Nexus' position on all this, and I can't tell if I'm feeling more reassured, or pessimistic.

Still, I expect the next big Bethesda game announcement isn't too far away. Either that or the sale of Skyrim has finally tapered off to the point they need something going.

[TempAcc]

Hopefuly fallout 4 will have better mechanics rather then being both a subpar fps and a subpar rpg at the same time :v
I did enjoy new vegas with all dlc + a few key mods though, altough mojave wasn't nearly as interesting as the capital wasteland, in regards to exploration at least.

on topic: but yes, while there are some minor positive outlooks for something like this, it just opens up a whole pandora's box of legal problems. Plus it'll remove one of the great assets of PC games, IE the fact that, even if the developers neglect their game, the community, through their own free will and effort, could pick it up and correct the game's flaws and add new features, keeping the fanbase alive and the interest in the game going (not that this wont happen anymore even with mods being monetized, but it will cause enough problems to maybe dissuade modders from creating stuff). Bethesda is one of the companies that mostly benefit from this.

[nenjin]

I've always felt like, since I started using Steam, that Valve tried to stay mostly neutral in the process of selling games. Greenlight came along and it was like "Well that was a train wreck but I appreciate the gesture to new developers, despite the obvious profit motivation for you." Different things they have done with a business motivation (game sharing, Steam Sale games, etc..) I've always felt like have hit a 50/50 balance of fairness to the consumer and profit for them.

This is the first thing they've done since I started using the service where I feel like the balance is out of whack. Maybe 25% of my feels goes towards "Yeah, rewarding content creators!" The other 75% though is in: giving the lion's share to either themselves or the game owners and willfully sticking their hands into the modding community with the offer of money and changing the dynamic. That's not Neutral.

It's said that as the lifespan of an organization continues, whatever its initial reasons for being, its goals eventually become perpetuating its own existence. And this sort of feels like a means to that end. Valve makes more money and the companies who previously didn't get to make a dime off of player created content are now making an unknown but potentially majority share of. In six months, all the major content providers are going to start investing effort in controlling the modding scene in some way, trying to make a profit from them. When Valve succeeds at something, other people follow suite. This all feels very far removed from something like Greenlight which allowed new things to happen. Paying Modders is really only about making someone money. Which was pretty much unthinkable in the modding scene until now, not just because of the legal issues but because of the principle of the hobby. Person makes a change to a game and shares that change with the community.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Putnam]

Patreon was never a "pay for product" kind of thing and neither was donation.

[Flying Dice]

It wasn't unthinkable though. Valve is not introducing money to the modding community, they're following the people who have made Patreons, who were following the people who asked for donations. This is a new option, though a more traditional publisher/product based one.

Doesn't mean it doesn't screw over just about everyone involved in ways that donations never did. It's not part of a gradual process, it's a paradigm shift, and a rather alarming one given the company that pushed it. This is the sort of shit I'd expect from EA.

[darkpaladin109]

It wasn't unthinkable though. Valve is not introducing money to the modding community, they're following the people who have made Patreons, who were following the people who asked for donations. This is a new option, though a more traditional publisher/product based one.

The mayor difference is that with patreon or other ways of donating money to modders, it was optional, and, at least personally what I'd place as more important, you got to try out the mod before deciding if it was worth donating to.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Honestly, I think the system they should have used was a slider next to subscribe button that, on the mod page, defaults to what the modder would prefer, but could be shot down to free or shot up to double what the mod offer desires, depending on what a person wants to pay.  Probably would have been seen as an easier, more obvious, way to donate.

[nenjin]

Companies can't predict quarterly profits based on donations. I think it's as simple as that. The whole idea of "pay me if you want to" is inimical to business. And that's the difference here.

Now, if a mod author could somehow offer their creation for free, AND have a second page where they set a price they'd like to see, that is effectively a donation system that both Valve and Publishers can profit from. And that can still be true if they offer their mod both on Steam and on the Nexus, one for free, one not. From a modder's perspective, they trade complete freedom and profits from donations, to steadier profits in smaller amounts (potentially.)

But it's basically put all modders in the position of "Do I want to act like a business or not?" And that IS a paradigm shift for the modding community. No one makes a mod going "I wanna get paid!" If they have, it's a gamble to require people to pay for a derivative product.

And now they can, under a formalized system, where multiple other parties get a share of their profit from their labor. They tempting the modding community to come in from the wilds, make a little money and enrich Steam and other owners in the process. It's not a move I appreciate.