Print

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

[Sergarr]

Low effort and stolen mods shouldn't make it through.

Spoiler: high quality mod (click to show/hide)

[10ebbor10]

Low effort and stolen mods shouldn't make it through.

Spoiler: high quality mod (click to show/hide)

Yeah, and if you actually bother to check your source and open the workshop, you see that it's not for sale.

It's a pre-approval mod, only upvoted so high because people are on a circlejerk. It won't get in the shop.

[Putnam]

It takes over 20 hours to start some mods, much less determine whether or not they actually work.

Chances are those won't make it into the shop.

Why the hell not? Those are usually some of the best mods around.

[Flying Dice]

Well, you do have 24 hours to get an automatic refund. So sifting through it all for something good is still free. Pay, hate, refund, done. Interdependable mods... just need to have a license agreement.

It takes a lot more than 24 hours for a mod to be considered "Bug Free", even if all that time is spent playing it.

The problems I have with the workshop is as follows:

1.  75% "fee" (And the fact that mods have to make at least $400 to get a payout at all).
2.  No system in place to stop stolen modsFalse
3.  No system in place to limit low-effort mods (Even a filter will do). False
4.  No guarantee that the mod will be patched if an update happens. (Steam's response is, if the modder does nothing it sucks to be you).
5.  24 hour return policy which does nothing to ensure that a mod is compatible. Errors may only become evident days after "purchase."
6.  Not even a minimum guarantee of Quality Assurance. At least developer-produced DLC is expected to have gone through QA. (Early access mods? Really?)False

Half your complaints are false. Mods have to be approved by the community, then by Bethesda, and a filter as well as rating systems exist. Low effort and stolen mods shouldn't make it through. I wonder how you managed to miss the moderation thing really, considering it's on a banner on all the potential paid mod pages.

It takes over 20 hours to start some mods, much less determine whether or not they actually work.

Chances are those won't make it into the shop.

[citation needed]

You're also continuing to ignore the real issues at hand in favor of picking at superficial things related to this blowup specifically.

[Blaze]

Spoiler: high quality mod (click to show/hide)

That's the under review page though, I doubt that'll make it through.
Did the Golden Apple mod make it through?

Well, I can tell you that 1 is more Bethesda's fault than Valve's, because the developer sets how much of a cut they take (I think Valve takes only 30% or something). 2 is just DMCA usage, though the difficulty might come from proving that the mod is stolen in the first place. Hey, welcome to copyright law. The rest are unresolved, and I do agree. Third one could be resolved with the system I proposed, that is charge the paid mod owner a monthly fee for hosting in place of their 30% cut. 4 is a problem that mostly stems from release-once or constantly-update games, which is a problem in and of itself in my opinion (our definition of a "finished game" seems to be sliding further and further back). 5, I do concede to you, because mods can be quite wonky given enough time. I'd at least extend it to a reasonable 30 days, or at least 7. More than 1. 6, again, same thing I proposed for 3.

Honestly, I think this would just work better if Valve charged mods monthly to be paid, instead of taking a cut. Would discourage smaller, not-as-popular mods from going the pay-for route.

1. Why is ValveThesda getting the lion's share for something they did nothing to make? I'll understand if there's a fee for hosting it, but 75%? It doesn't matter who's to blame so long as the modder is getting shafted. And they're claiming to "Support Modders"!
2. Again, why is it the community that has to police the system?
3. The problem is they aren't using the system you proposed, so that's kinda off the point.
4. If mods are broken by no fault on the consumer's end, you typically get a refund; Valve's response is "Not our problem".

Half your complaints are false. Mods have to be approved by the community, then by Bethesda, and a filter as well as rating systems exist. Low effort and stolen mods shouldn't make it through. I wonder how you managed to miss the moderation thing really, considering it's on a banner on all the potential paid mod pages.

1. Again, why does the community have to do the work when ValveThesda gets the money?
2. Define "low effort", I see several single item mods on the approved section.

Unlike other curated games on Steam that allow users to sell their creations, this will be the first game with an open market. It will not be curated by us or Valve.

http://steamcommunity.com/games/Skyrim/announcements/detail/139952470913885583

[10ebbor10]

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/workshoplegalagreement/?appid=72850

Makes it quite clear the produces gets to choose the price of the mod. The big banner on the top of every mod page should also make it obvious that content is under review. They might want to be less involved, but that clearly doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

Funny, though, how things that were major issues a few pages ago suddenly become unimportant once they're debunked.

Define "low effort", I see several single item mods on the approved section.

Seems to be on par with other microtransaction stuff to me.

[AlleeCat]

I still have major issues. Valve and Bethesda should not be getting 75 friggan percent. Bethesda shouldn't be getting anything. Valve should only be getting a hosting fee of, say 10%, and that's being generous.

[Sergarr]

Define "low effort", I see several single item mods on the approved section.

Seems to be on par with other microtransaction stuff to me.

And that's horrible. We already have too much of that stuff, we don't need that infestation spreading to the modding community.

[Blaze]

Funny, though, how things that were major issues a few pages ago suddenly become unimportant once they're debunked.

So you do agree with these points and that there are in fact major issues that need to be addressed before Valve uses the system?

1.  75% "fee" (And the fact that mods have to make at least $400 to get a payout at all).
4.  No guarantee that the mod will be patched if an update happens. (Steam's response is, if the modder does nothing it sucks to be you).
5.  24 hour return policy which does nothing to ensure that a mod is compatible. Errors may only become evident days after "purchase."

Seems to be on par with other microtransaction stuff to me.

That kinda IS low content isn't it?

[AlleeCat]

1.  75% "fee" (And the fact that mods have to make at least $400 to get a payout at all).

Yea here's another thing. If your mod is $1, this rule means that you have to get 1600 people to pay for your mod in order to get any payout whatsover, and then Valve and Bethesda get $1200

[Bohandas]

So you do agree with these points and that there are in fact major issues that need to be addressed before Valve uses the system?

1.  75% "fee" (And the fact that mods have to make at least $400 to get a payout at all).
4.  No guarantee that the mod will be patched if an update happens. (Steam's response is, if the modder does nothing it sucks to be you).
5.  24 hour return policy which does nothing to ensure that a mod is compatible. Errors may only become evident days after "purchase."

Don't forget the possibility of drawing modders away from sites like Nexus, thereby diminishing those sites while simultaneously making Steam's control over the industry more monopolistic.

And the fact that there seems to be little to say in favor of paid mods that does not come from a place of arrant greed.

[sirvente]

I like how we're entitled for wanting the modding community to stay as it was a week ago. Is this what being a monarchist is like?

[Sergarr]

I like how we're entitled for wanting the modding community to stay as it was a week ago. Is this what being a monarchist is like?

Give those people enough time, and they'll say that we're entitled for using public benches for free. After all, people invested a lot of work into producing, delivering and repairing that bench, how dare we imply that we should be able to sit on it for free!

[Blaze]

I like how we're entitled for wanting the modding community to stay as it was a week ago. Is this what being a monarchist is like?

Ah yes this quote, I like how companies expect us to pay for people for things they didn't make while taking the lion's share, claiming moral superiority (We support modders hurr), and making condescending blanket assumptions about anyone that disagrees.

1. Oh, I never said they should get 75%, but that saying that Valve decided on that number is fallacious.
2. How did mods work before, exactly, when it came to stolen content? Technically, it is the mod owners policing their own mods. If it gets particularly ugly, then yes, Valve needs to rethink their stance. So far though, I don't see any evidence that mod theft will run as rampant as everyone claims.
3. Yeah, I know. Should probably message Valve about it or something, but I suspect their inbox is flooded to death right about now.
4. I understand where you're getting that info from, but it isn't as you describe. Valve's "not our problem" response only applies to mods becoming out-of-date or compatibility issues, where I do agree that Valve needs to take a stronger stance on paid mods actually keeping their stuff up-to-date and functional. Maybe a trial period for paid mods instead of a refund period?

1. I said I don't really care whose fault it is, but this needs to be changed.
2. If we simply wait for abuse, then modders suffer anyway; meanwhile ValveThesda still takes the money and will only lift a finger once the DMCA is sent (If sent at all).
3. GabeN mentioned that he had 3300 messages about this in his inbox once he returned.
4. A trial issue would be great, Skyrim is notorious for mod clashing, and it takes quite some time before it's addressed.

Would you agree with me if I said "The system as it is will have a significant chance of failing badly and should be changed before going into use"?

[sirvente]

Well obviously they have morale superiority. It'd be weird if they felt worse about this then we did.