Print

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

[Putnam]

Listen. That's all and well, and I gladly shell out for HQ, small-business made products, but you actually have to have a product. Modding. To modify. Modification. You're taking something that already exists and simply changing it. If you put a lot of work into that, I'm sorry if you feel that goes unrewarded, but why would I be under an obligation to pay you for it?

BUT, tell you what. If you want to handcraft a mod to the extent where the only thing that has in common with the base game is the engine. I'll pay for that. You make the textures, meshes, models, etc. etc. I'll pay through the nose for it. It's become its own game. And that's where I draw the line.

EDIt: @Rolan7, yes I would pay for total conversions. Mostly.

Skyrim's engine is a modified Gamebryo engine which was not made by Bethesda. Oblivion uses a procedurally-generated tree algorithm that was not made by Bethesda.

These are both accounted for with licensing costs. If Bethesda takes a large chunk of the mod money, is that not a licensing cost?

EDIT: Also, if it wasn't clear, I was and am against the implementation of paid mods that Valve did a couple years back. That was very bad. I am also against bad arguments.

[Sergarr]

In complete and total honesty, if you wanted to implement a paid mod system, it would be possible to do so in a way which would be constructive rather than destructive. Here's how I'd set it up:

You pay for downloading permission on the platform. Something pretty cheap. Say, $5-10 and you can download as many mods as you want for 30 days. When an author publishes a mod, they are able to associate other members of the platform with the mod as contributors. If a player downloads a mod, the author and all listed contributors are added as recipients to their payment. If the player uninstalls the mod before the end of the time period, they're removed. At the end of the download window, the fee is split evenly between every contributor and author (individuals who contribute to multiple mods receive payment for each). The platform provider, dev, and publisher each receive payment equal to one contributor share. Obviously you need very strong oversight and material motivation to not be a dickhead. Not really a good method for the latter that I can think of, it's the core problem with free markets, greedy shitheads are always waiting in the wings to game the system.

Whilst that seems like a fair way to get money to the content creator, it's absolutely awful (on a Day-1 DLC level) for the player and the community.

If it's a one off cost the player would just end up doing it once after a year or two (there's no reason you'd try it before there were a really decent amount of mods out) - so for about a year, no one is playing mods at all - no feedback for content creators and no real playerbase to test again. You'd get a one off extra sale for people that were realllly interested, but I doubt you could get that many people interested in creating mods with no one playing.

So instead they'd probably do a Monthly subscription and lock mods out with DRM if you didn't pay - you'd therefore end up having to pay a monthly subscription to play mods, meaning if you want to play with any mods you're having to pay constantly. If that's a TC mod or whatever, you're basically unable to play that save until you pay again.

NO NO NO NO.

What's so "no no no no" about it? I've already saw this as a way mods worked in one game - with monthly subscription, yes - and I haven't seen anyone really complain about it.

Embrace the future. It is inevitable.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

@Putnam, You're against bad arguments? When you yourself have just made a terrible one? Right.

Let first address the Gamebryo engine. Do you have any idea how heavily changed that must be? Seriously, Bethesda's been using it since 2002, I assure you, they've made it their own (figuratively speaking, seeing how much work they have put in to it.)

Second, Oh boy, a tree algorithm. Really???

Finally, you defeat yourself! THEY PAY LICENSING COSTS!!! When was the last time modders payed licensing costs to use the TESedit? Again. If you want to put in the amount of work where the only similarity is that you're using the same engine and tools and thus, have to pay a licensing cost, because it's your own thing now. GREAT! I'll pay for it.

EDIT: Also to address some of the other points that have been brought up... do you guys have any idea how expensive payed mods would be? I mean, a monthly subscription to play user-created content is highly unethical. If it wasn't, I guess the costs could be kept down. But price-gouging is certainly the standard in the gamedev industry. If it's subscription per mod, fuck that shit. Paying a thousand dollars lol.

[Putnam]

Finally, you defeat yourself! THEY PAY LICENSING COSTS!!! When was the last time modders payed licensing costs to use the TESedit? Again. If you want to put in the amount of work where the only similarity is that you're using the same engine and tools and thus, have to pay a licensing cost, because it's your own thing now. GREAT! I'll pay for it.

Read my post, maybe??

If Bethesda takes a large chunk of the mod money, is that not a licensing cost?

...which they did. They took a larger chunk than the modders themselves did.

Second, Oh boy, a tree algorithm. Really???

You make the textures, meshes, models, etc. etc. I'll pay through the nose for it. It's become its own game. And that's where I draw the line.

Oblivion is not its own game, as it did not make the textures, meshes, models, etc. etc. for trees, by this logic.

[Retropunch]

What's so "no no no no" about it? I've already saw this as a way mods worked in one game - with monthly subscription, yes - and I haven't seen anyone really complain about it.

Embrace the future. It is inevitable.

Everything is so no no no about it - I honestly can't describe the amount of hatred I have towards this idea. What game was it that had mods as a monthly subscription? I'm not talking about a game with a monthly subscription that supports mods, I'm talking about a game that has a monthly fee to keep mods running on top of buying the base game.

Sorry, forgot to mention. Free updates to anything you still had installed when the time ran up, forever.

Like I said though, still shit and terrible compared to free modding, but worlds better than what they tried.

That doesn't help the base problem that if it was a one off purchase (where you could keep the mods updated afterwards) the vast majority of people would want to wait till all the good mods have come out - I'm not going to pay £5 a month just to hope good mods come out that month.

That'd mean that anyone who thought they were going to make money, would have to wait months/years until enough mods came into the ecosystem for it to be worth anyone buying in - if that ever happened, they'd only get one months worth of pay, split between them and a hundred other mods that everyone crash downloaded in case they ever wanted to play them in the future.

Skyrim's engine is a modified Gamebryo engine which was not made by Bethesda. Oblivion uses a procedurally-generated tree algorithm that was not made by Bethesda.

Whilst Urist is getting a bit heated, it's pretty clear there is a division, which he pointed out - if they make a TC/alter it to the point that it becomes it's own game, then I think EVERYONE agrees that's different from a mod(ification). The problem with paid mods has always been that the majority of mods are basically just modifying what is mostly someone else's work (textures, models, story, etc), not just the base engine.

It also brings up the question of what if I want to create a mod using a part of another mod? Do I have to pay the first modder, or just the publisher?  Where do I draw the line? Companies have legal departments to deal with that, modders do not, so it'll become a free for all.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Finally, you defeat yourself! THEY PAY LICENSING COSTS!!! When was the last time modders payed licensing costs to use the TESedit? Again. If you want to put in the amount of work where the only similarity is that you're using the same engine and tools and thus, have to pay a licensing cost, because it's your own thing now. GREAT! I'll pay for it.

Read my post, maybe??

If Bethesda takes a large chunk of the mod money, is that not a licensing cost?

...which they did. They took a larger chunk than the modders themselves did.

Second, Oh boy, a tree algorithm. Really???

You make the textures, meshes, models, etc. etc. I'll pay through the nose for it. It's become its own game. And that's where I draw the line.

Oblivion is not its own game, as it did not make the textures, meshes, models, etc. etc. for trees, by this logic.

First. I will say that on the majority of these topics, you're just splitting hairs.

Second. Okay, if Beth is going to take a bunch of money from modders as a form of licensing costs, cool, but that creates a new problem. You basically turn mods in to really bad DLC. Which, I'm not gonna pay for anyways, because now it's not up to an even higher standard. I'm not gonna pay DLC cost for generally sub-par content. Then you may say, ah, but you said you would pay for total conversions. Which is still true, and yet... I get the feeling that this model will only hurt the larger projects... assuming they can no longer accept donations?

@Retropunch, ya, lol, a little heated. I shall cool myself.

[Sergarr]

What's so "no no no no" about it? I've already saw this as a way mods worked in one game - with monthly subscription, yes - and I haven't seen anyone really complain about it.

Embrace the future. It is inevitable.

Everything is so no no no about it - I honestly can't describe the amount of hatred I have towards this idea. What game was it that had mods as a monthly subscription? I'm not talking about a game with a monthly subscription that supports mods, I'm talking about a game that has a monthly fee to keep mods running on top of buying the base game.

It's a Russian Free2Play MMORPG, "Allods online" as it is called. They're pretty cheap, though. For example, one of the often-used mods for it, called "NewTarget3DPvP", was bought, according to statistics on an "official fan-site" which doubles as a selling store for these things, more than 4 thousand times, and costs about 44 cents per two months.

There's still plenty of mods that don't cost anything, but they're quite inferior in capabilities to the ones that do.

[da_nang]

-snip-

What's so "no no no no" about it? I've already saw this as a way mods worked in one game - with monthly subscription, yes - and I haven't seen anyone really complain about it.

Embrace the future. It is inevitable.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be using such an egregious system and not just from a cost standpoint.

Mod monetization will:

• inevitably create a segregated modding community of haves and have-nots, whether it's due to financial reasons, principles or mod dependencies. We were already seeing this during the Skyrim paid mods fiasco on both sides. Free modders sectioning off their mods from paid-for mods and paid-for modders reinventing the wheel to avoid free mod dependencies (or just any mod dependencies) like how companies tend to avoid "toxic" GNU GPL licensed software. Less collaboration already.
• create a horde of legal issues and product expectation (this isn't just a knife skin, but large mods with complex dependencies. We expect the product to work out of the box, but good luck when a mod update breaks everything.)
• incite even more jealousy when the haves flaunt their pricy, flashy mod setup despite playing the same game (if the point of the system isn't to increase the quality of mods then system has no reason to exist. Cue more segregation of "low-quality freeloaders" and "paid-for high-quality Master Race".)
• lock down the platform even more. I hate the Workshop as it has done exactly that. TES mods managed to survive off of Steam because of existing infrastructure, but newer games seem to only have their mods on Steam or behind locked gates already.

I'm sure there are other issues but these are the first ones off the top of my head without going into the revenue split.

[Retropunch]

It's a Russian Free2Play MMORPG, "Allods online" as it is called. They're pretty cheap, though. For example, one of the often-used mods for it, called "NewTarget3DPvP", was bought, according to statistics on an "official fan-site" which doubles as a selling store for these things, more than 4 thousand times, and costs about 44 cents per two months.

There's still plenty of mods that don't cost anything, but they're quite inferior in capabilities to the ones that do.

That's not really a very reasonable comparison in any way. That's basically a microtransaction for a MMORPG, which is (sadly) standard practice. You're talking about pretty minor adjustments (basically aimbots and other client side adjustments) and I'm sure if you stop using it after 2 months, you'll be able to continue your game as usual without the addition.

It's not nearly in the same league as something like Skyrim, where you have to pay AAA price for the base game, and then you're paying a set amount on top of that to be able to keep playing your save game.

[Sergarr]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

[Retropunch]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

That's not in debate at all. They definitely do cost way too much, and game companies are turning more and more greedy by the year.

It's just that you can't compare a F2P MMORPG with a few microtransactions to a AAA game with heavily dependant single player mods. Paid modding just doesn't work for so, so many reasons - the only way it can work is with the 'trusted developer' model, but that's basically just paid for DLC - which we already have.

I hate that, but it's probably where we'll end up - XCOM did that in a way with the Long War guys (although it was free) but I can imagine others will get approached to help squeeze more money from the customer.

[forsaken1111]

as much as I enjoyed it, I would not have paid for Long War 1/2 personally

[Sergarr]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

That's not in debate at all. They definitely do cost way too much, and game companies are turning more and more greedy by the year.

Where's the proof that games cost too much? I've made an actual argument, and you just said "that's not in debate". It's not how arguments work, you know.

It's just that you can't compare a F2P MMORPG with a few microtransactions to a AAA game with heavily dependant single player mods. Paid modding just doesn't work for so, so many reasons - the only way it can work is with the 'trusted developer' model, but that's basically just paid for DLC - which we already have.

It's just a matter of tradition. Steam is in position to change that tradition, and they know it, and they will win. After all, if you boycott Steam, where will you get your newest video game fix, huh?

I hate that, but it's probably where we'll end up - XCOM did that in a way with the Long War guys (although it was free) but I can imagine others will get approached to help squeeze more money from the customer.

Yes. This is the future. It is inevitable. The best you can do is accept it as a new normal, as to not get anxious about it, since it's not like you can do anything to change it.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I'd argue that AAA games already cost waaaay too low than they should. The price has stayed on $60 for two decades, while if you follow up the inflation, it should've been risen by a factor of two or three already. Basically, this discrepancy between the rising real costs and the fixed returns is why the companies are so desperate for all these ways to effectively increase the financial return without breaking the video game's holy cow of "AAA game costs $60 and not a single dollar more".

I would argue that AAA games have been overpriced for two decades, and the price is now just matching levels that are appropriate to inflation.

[Jopax]

Sure you can Sergarr, you can not buy the mods. You don't need to boycott all of Steam to show your dislike of a single feature, boycott that single feature instead.

On the whole, I'm not that big of a mod person myself, they're cool from time to time but usually too much hassle for me to bother with the really big ones. While I support stuff like donating and patreon to support the modders in some way, forcing payments in order for steam to get even more money (that they then won't use in any sensible fashion like say quality control) is disgusting.

If they really wanted for modders to get compensated for their work properly they'd have a pre-download window where they would be able to place whatever links to whatever outside funding site they use. That way they're not forcing anyone to pay but are instead higlighting that if you enjoy this and want to see more of it, you can shoot some cash to the modder in question.