Print

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

[forsaken1111]

at $1 per mod my current build would cost well in excess of $300.

Of course at that price I probably would not be using 99% of the mods. In fact I doubt I'd have paid for any of them.

[nenjin]

I wouldn't even have bothered to buy Skyrim if I new the average mod load would cost 6x what the game does.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I wouldn't even have bothered to buy Skyrim if I new the average mod load would cost 6x what the game does.

exactly.

[ChairmanPoo]

This is once more a case of industry big shots mistaking "number of downloads" for "number of sales they have lost". It's already a mistaken analogy in digital piracy, and when it comes down to the mod scene it becomes downright ridiculous.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Rolan7]

Urist, you're repeating the worst arguments but in a really nice way.

even if everything was priced at a dollar, over time you'd still be paying ludicrous amounts of money if you wanted to get everything

Most mods would probably continue to be free (since making $400 revenue would take too long to be worth it).  Tiny ones were going for much less than a dollar, and only a major overhauls like Wet and Cold would cost more (ignoring joke mods, of course).  This would adjust to meet what people are willing to pay.

Also, it's not a good argument...  "It costs a lot to buy a ton of content" does not mean "It's right to prevent people from charging".

Secondly, again, mods just SHOULDN'T be paid for. That would be like your friend telling you, hey I wrote this really cool song, but I need you to give me five bucks first before I can play it for you. What!?

A typical customer is not every modder's friend.  And even if someone is friends with a modder, or any creator, that doesn't entitle the friend to receive all the creator's work for free.
http://www.twogag.com/archives/2927

also I'm seeing some copyright being thrown around here, let remind everyone that copyright for code is pretty weak, especially if you're working mostly off of a larger game's code.

Hard to enforce, I guess you mean?  I suppose...  It'd essentially be up to Steam to handle copyright claims, since very few people would have the resources or inclination to involve lawyers.  Pointing out a pre-existing copy on the Nexus should be enough.  If not, it'd be a valid criticism of the system.  We won't find out until they try again.

I wouldn't even have bothered to buy Skyrim if I new the average mod load would cost 6x what the game does.

It wouldn't.  Even if it did, that's not an argument.  People spend many times more money on software than they do on Windows itself.  Or consoles.  It's theoretically fine to spend more money on content for a platform than on the platform itself.
But, it wouldn't really happen in this case, due to all the free content and the low amount people are willing to pay.
Also, your existing setup would continue to work fine, without having to rebuy everything.

[Flying Dice]

I think the most amusing part about all the goalpost moving &c. was that it was oriented entirely around anecdotal evidence, probably with the express purpose of trying to get away with No True Scotsman-ing. The actual response from both the modding community and the playerbase was pretty darned clear -- less than half a dozen legitimate mods uploaded under the paid model, and sales on them were so low that Bethesda used those same low sales number as the basis for their claim that it wasn't a cash grab.

For all the talk about capitalism blah blah free market bleh bleh, the money and consumers spoke pretty clearly on this one. Which is good, I suppose, even if it's only tangentially related to the reasons for paygated mods being a bad idea.

I can get a massive collection of free games if I want. Replacing it with an equally massive collection of paid games would be absurdly expensive. Does that make it wrong to charge for games?

Apples and oranges.

I can get a massive collection of hotwheels toys for almost nothing. I can get a massive amount of cars as well, but it would be absurdly expensive. Those are the same thing, right? I mean, they're both wheeled vehicles in roughly the same shapes.

[Frumple]

Also, your existing setup would continue to work fine, without having to rebuy everything.

Until an update breaks it all, anyway. Maybe you'd be able to roll back and sacrifice the support you paid for when you bought the game to avoid future patches to keep your old stuff working?

[Retropunch]

So glad this intense clusterfuck of a system was shut down.

The very fact alone that so many people were against this (and really, it wasn't just a small amount of people being vocal this time - LOADS of people spoke out against it, from devs to consumers) is enough. The idea that something which is by it's nature derivative, and which would have been complete hell to enforce (sorry Roland, but it REALLY would have been!) would have worked for anyone else but the top modders (and at such a ludicrous return rate for those) is beyond belief.

I am 100% behind donations, and even valve/companies taking a cut of those (although legally it's very difficult for them), but this was just a terrible idea.

Props to Steam for taking it down though - a lot of companies would have dug their heels in just due to pride.

[nenjin]

People spend many times more money on software than they do on Windows itself.

And Skryim isn't an operating system, what's your point?

Even if it did, that's not an argument.

Oh really? The fact that Bethesda games are highly moddable for free isn't one of the biggest drivers of their long term sales? Are you really sure you want to make that argument?

[Rolan7]

People spend many times more money on software than they do on Windows itself.

And Skryim isn't an operating system, what's your point?

I was responding to the "argument" that paying more for mods than for Skyrim itself would be inherently bad.  Yet there are many platforms which cost much less than the typical amount of content which runs on them or modifies them.

Even if it did, that's not an argument.

Oh really? The fact that Bethesda games are highly moddable for free isn't one of the biggest drivers of their long terms sales? Are you really sure you want to make that argument?

No, and I didn't.  Find someone to actually argue with.

Also, your existing setup would continue to work fine, without having to rebuy everything.

Until an update breaks it all, anyway. Maybe you'd be able to roll back and sacrifice the support you paid for when you bought the game to avoid future patches to keep your old stuff working?

Skyrim was last patched in March 2013.  If they released a new patch which broke mod compatibility, forcing people to buy the mods to update properly, you'd have a point.

And I think it reflects well on Bethesda that people expect support for so long.  Even if they have essentially outsourced all the patching to fans.

[Bauglir]

Oh really? The fact that Bethesda games are highly moddable for free isn't one of the biggest drivers of their long term sales? Are you really sure you want to make that argument?

To be fair, that is a very different argument. Trashing their business model is an ethical issue only insofar as it impacts their employees and shareholders. I do think that's a compelling practical argument, but let's not confuse what we're talking about here.

[Arbinire]

@Weird,

Just wanted to thank you for the work you put into modding Morrowind for Xbox.  Xbox soft-modding specifically to mod Morrowind is what drew me into modding in the first place.  I remember the hardest part was finding that copy of Splinter Cell and hitting up pawn shop after pawn shop to find a copy

[nenjin]

Yet there are many platforms which cost much less than the typical amount of content which runs on them or modifies them.

Such as? And keep it to games. Don't tell me what Adobe Photoshop plugins cost, because that's not what we're talking about.

To make my feelings clear: unmodded Bethesda games are beautiful, dull games that have dry humped the same ideas for a decade now. They are not worth playing without mods to add the details that don't make them samey, 40 hour snooze fests. So yeah, I do believe that free modding is an integral part of what gets me to buy them.

[Flying Dice]

I'm not, of course, suggesting that Bethesda RPGs aren't steaming piles of shit without comprehensive mod support, but...

there's a pretty clear split in sales by platform for both Fallout 3 and Skyrim. ~14% of Skyrim sales were on PC, ~17% of FO3 sales were on PC.

Granted, the modding community is crucial among PC players, but they've always gotten a lot more from console plebs, and the cost of materials for physical copies is largely offset by lower base PC prices combined with regular sales on online distribution platforms.

Also, your existing setup would continue to work fine, without having to rebuy everything.

Until an update breaks it all, anyway. Maybe you'd be able to roll back and sacrifice the support you paid for when you bought the game to avoid future patches to keep your old stuff working?

Skyrim was last patched in March 2013.  If they released a new patch which broke mod compatibility, forcing people to buy the mods to update properly, you'd have a point.

And I think it reflects well on Bethesda that people expect support for so long.  Even if they have essentially outsourced all the patching to fans.

Not just game updates. I've had mod updates which broke other mods, mod updates which broke themselves, &c. Also, the rollout of updates when crucial tools and mods update and everything dependent on them updates. Or, in this scenario, when mods or tools that other mods rely on stop being updated and are pulled from free distribution sites -- that doesn't break things, but it means that if you fuck up your files you'll never use it again, and mods which rely on it will never improve in the relevant areas.